Do We Need the Dialectic?
- This topic has 439 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB:"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"."You could be right, but when I began to work on these ideas I was first of all guided by this famous quotation from Marx:" "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…." [The German Ideology. Bold added.]You will no doubt notice that Marx tells us that the ruling class do this "in the whole range" and that they "rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age".Of course, they exercise "control at the same time over the means of mental production", that is they very often employ others to do the thinking for them, and to manage the dissemination of these ideas.Now, this must include traditional philosophy (what perhaps you call "speculative metaphysics", and I'd not disagree with that).The problem now is to decide where "speculative metaphysics" breaks off and where an 'acceptable philosophy' might begin.So, would you count the following as speculative metaphysicians: Parmenides, Plato, Proclus, Plotinus, Boethius, John Scotus Eriugena, Anselm, Duns Scotus, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Jean Buridan, Ockham, Suarez, Descartes, Berkeley, Spinoza, and Leibniz? [Of course there are many more I could name.]If so, then the distinction you draw between German "speculative metaphysics" and the theories of the above is unsustainable, and Marx's comments will apply to them too — especially since he said the above about the ruling-class controlling ideas "in the whole range" and that they rule also as thinkers (which, in the case of Heraclitus, Plato, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, was literally true).The next question is, which theorists do you include in the 'British materialists"? I think I know who you might mean, but their materialism was metaphysical and speculative too. So, we must include them, as well.In which case, I can see no reason not to extend what Marx had to say to cover all of philosophy, especially in view of the next point I wish to make.You quote Marx to this effect (I will only reproduce one of your quotations for reasons of space):"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."But, this comes from an earlier work than the ones I quoted (as well as the passage from the German Ideology about "ruling ideas"). Now, after the late 1840s there are no positive comments about philosophy in Marx's entire work (and that includes his letters — and I checked all fifty volumes of the Collected Works a year or so ago). So, and once again, I maintain that when he said the following in the German Ideology:"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…"this was in fact his farewell to this ruling-class discipline. You half admit this yourself when you say:"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…."And with that went philosophy, too.
Simon:"But then, as we've always maintained, Trotskyists merely represent capital against the capitalists, state capitalism. Wittgensteinian or no."Thanks for that sectarian jibe at the end; you will notice I refrain from such uncomradely quips. It might be a good idea if you tried to do the same.What about the rest of what you said? Well, I read through it several times but could see nothing relevant to what I had argued.Did I miss something?
It's hardly uncomradely if you're not my comrade. So yes, you did miss the point about how by taking up a "commonsensical" stance you are actually representing the ruling ideas of capital, because the whole point about ruling ideas is that they are the ones that you hold uncritically, take at face value. In representing capital you are on the wrong side of the class struggle, even if you wish to battle certain groups of capitalists. You want to purify those ruling ideas and make them *work*. The ideology of the civil servant. The world as it presents itself is all that there is – now if we could just rid it of capitalists who distort capital for their private ends, it will be as good as it can be. The End. Its hardly "all that is solid melts into air". Not, of course, that this happens to all civil servants. Naming no names
Simon:"It's hardly uncomradely if you're not my comrade."In that case, may I thank you for behaving toward me just like the Stalinists and Maoists do?"So yes, you did miss the point about how by taking up a "commonsensical" stance you are actually representing the ruling ideas of capital, because the whole point about ruling ideas is that they are the ones that you hold uncritically, take at face value. In representing capital you are on the wrong side of the class struggle, even if you wish to battle certain groups of capitalists. You want to purify those ruling ideas and make them *work*. The ideology of the civil servant. The world as it presents itself is all that there is – now if we could just rid it of capitalists who distort capital for their private ends, it will be as good as it can be. The End."And where is your evidence that I have adopted a 'commonsensical' stance?All I have in fact done is take Marx's advice:"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…." [The German Ideology.]You would do well to take it , too.
So, you're saying that your words are the language of the actual world? Really, I couldn't make it up. The best and brightest of the Wittgenstein-Trotskyist movement, a self-confessed naive realist. As DJP remarked in posts passim, I believe.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:L Bird:"Rosa, doesn't all this discussion just depend upon how we define 'philosophy'? If it's taken as a 'love of wisdom', I can't see a problem. If it's taken as 'speculative ideas in the service of the contemporary ruling class', then I'm with you!"The problem with that is that speculative metaphysicians also 'love wisdom'But, I can see no 'wisdom' coming from philsophers, can you? Sure, they might have come up with a few trite maxims that contained good advice, but we can get that from the religious, too — as well as from a good novel, and, indeed, from poetry!And what is wrong with Historical Materialism providing us with 'wisdom'?Yeah, I agree that 'wisdom' can come from novels or poetry, indeed, from any art form; and I also think that Historical Materialism can cover all these, too, so I'm with you there!And, on the whole, I think I line up with ALB's reply to you:
ALB wrote: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).If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers.
Are there actually two of you having a parallel conversation on this board? If so, you're both whacko. If, as seems more likely, you're one person with two sock puppets, well … It sort of compounds itself. i really must write a blog and interview myself on it. That would make me a proper intellectual.
Morgenstern wrote:Are there actually two of you having a parallel conversation on this board? If so, you're both whacko.Am I one of the 'two' that you're referring to?And 'whacko' seems a bit unfair, especially as no-one said anything untoward about your… err… 'ideas' expressed earlier.Perhaps I should leave my co-'sock puppet' to revisit them?
Simon:"So, you're saying that your words are the language of the actual world?"Where did you get that odd idea from?"Really, I couldn't make it up."That's peculiar, since it looks like you just did."The best and brightest of the Wittgenstein-Trotskyist movement, a self-confessed naive realist."Keep it up. With each post you sound more and more like the Stalinists with whom I have debated the usefulness of Philosophy. The only difference is, they are serious, while you are just a joke.
LBird:"And, on the whole, I think I line up with ALB's reply to you:"As is your right (not that you need my permission!) — but, you might like to try to respond to my answer to him, then."If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers."Indeed, I could call it re-digging the Suez canal, but who would that fool, except Simon?
Simon:"Are there actually two of you having a parallel conversation on this board? If so, you're both whacko. If, as seems more likely, you're one person with two sock puppets, well … It sort of compounds itself."Have you got anything uselful to say? Or is that too difficult a question for you?If I type more slowly, will that help?"i really must write a blog and interview myself on it. That would make me a proper intellectual."Me thinks Simon has a whole bag of chips on his shoulder. [That probably explains why he throws so many tanturms.]
First … Sorry, LBird, misread your last post entirely, and drew the wrong conclusions. I think you're quite possibly potty, but I reserve myself the same right, and that's entirely within the spirit of enquiry. Shine on you crazy diamond, and all that. Secondly, to Rosa. As Wogan once said to David Ickes, they're not laughing with you, they're laughing *at* you. When you list all of the Stalinists and Maoists that haven't appreciated your greatness, haven't you thought that maybe they are just the people you shared your ideas with? In other words, the set of people that disagree with you is not just {Maoists and Stalinists}, but, in fact, {everyone}? I'm happy to be in the latter category. But there's a simple way to test this. Don't just listen to us. Find any open group of people who actually bother to think this through, and present your ideas. They will also tell you, if the presentation us anything like the above, that it is a known error called "naive realism". They can't all be Stalinists and Maoists. Can they? Simon W.
Morgenstern wrote:First … Sorry, LBird, misread your last post entirely, and drew the wrong conclusions. I think you're quite possibly potty, but I reserve myself the same right, and that's entirely within the spirit of enquiry. Shine on you crazy diamond, and all that.Thanks for the apology, Morgenstern – my problem is that I'm a sensitive little soul.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:LBird:"If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers."Indeed, I could call it re-digging the Suez canal, but who would that fool, except Simon?Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you? Surely you want to influence (and indeed help) comrades to come to some understanding of, errm… 're-digging the Suez canal', but if the terms are so flexible and unrelated to the matter in hand, why not use 'philosophy' just as much as 'historical materialism'?I mean, you could use all three terms interchangably at various times during a discussion, but wouldn't that just confuse all comrades, rather than just the (alledged) 'fools'?What would be the point?
Simon:"Secondly, to Rosa. As Wogan once said to David Ickes, they're not laughing with you, they're laughing *at* you. When you list all of the Stalinists and Maoists that haven't appreciated your greatness, haven't you thought that maybe they are just the people you shared your ideas with? In other words, the set of people that disagree with you is not just {Maoists and Stalinists}, but, in fact, {everyone}? I'm happy to be in the latter category."I'd be happy to agree with you just as soon as you can show that this is indeed the case. So, off you go, sonny, and make yourself useful for a change: do a survey of a representative sample of the denizens of this planet, and ask them if they agree with you, or me.But, wait, you have this 'deep thought' to share with us:"But there's a simple way to test this. Don't just listen to us. Find any open group of people who actually bother to think this through, and present your ideas. They will also tell you, if the presentation us anything like the above, that it is a known error called "naive realism". They can't all be Stalinists and Maoists. Can they?"Add that to the survey questions, please. I'd love to see the results.And while you are at it, you might like to learn how to string-together an effective reply to what I have to say as opposed to merely labelling me.Or is this all that traditional, boss-class theory has taught you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.