Marx and dialectic

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"Well I'd disagree such letters are inadmissible, certainly, the published afterword to Capital is a strong source (indeed, there isn't much in those letters I quoted that seems at variance with the afterword, "1) I didn't say they were inadmissable, but that they were irrelveant to the matter at hand — which is: can an unpublished source coutermand a published source? Which is a point you allowed anyway.2) "Marx acknowldges in the afterword "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." (my emphasis added).  It s valid to look at the works of Marx passim for legitimate inferences we can make, in how he worked, etc."Again, we covered this passge back in 2013 (in reply to DJP). Here is what I posted then:"Marx is right, the mystification which 'the dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands" doesn't indeed prevent him from being "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner"; what does prevent him is the fact that Hegel wasn't the first. He wasn't the first since others had beaten him to it, as Marx knew full well. For example, Plotinus, Proclus, John Scotus Eriugena, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas Cusanus, Jakob Boehme (to name just six) beat Hegel to it. Moreover, the 'rational' form of the dialectic (as Marx had come to understand it) had been developed before, too, in the work of Aristotle, Kant and the Scottish Historical School (of Ferguson, Millar, Robertson, Smith, Hume and Steuart) — all of whom influenced Kant and Hegel (and Marx). Hegel ruined it all by mystifying it."Hence, to put Hegel back on his feet is to see how empty his head really is; the 'rational kernel' had already been laid down by Aristotle, Kant and the Scottish School — which is why Marx quoted a summary of 'the dialectic method' that was completely free of Hegel's baleful influence."So, 'proof text' two goes off to meet its maker."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/do-we-need-dialectic?page=19#comment-9475Again, as I noted in my last post, I have adopted the above interpretative stance since I begin with the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, and go from there. You don't. "do tell about Auntie Duhring (and Charlie's foreword to Socialism Utopian etc.).  I'll agree, argument from silence isn't strong, but it is valid."What exactly do you want me to tell you?Anyway, you need to find that missing passage I also metioned in my last post.

---

[Young Master Smeet]

In discussing what Marx thought about dialectic, it is significant that he expressed the opinion of Hegel "being the first to present [dialectic] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" being aware, no doubt of those's other works on the subject, he must have had some basis/reason for exprssing that opinion (however wrong it may be).

Rosa Monaco wrote:

4) "And, of course, we can take some legitimate inference that some of Engels' writings on dialectic were published in Marx' lifetime."Which writings did you have in mind? Anti-Dühring? [If so, I have an answer to that, too.]

I'd be interested to hear that answer. (Marx' preface to Socialism Utopian and Scientific is 1880, and does not mention nor rebutt the sections on dialectics in that text — that does not imply complete agreement, but it is at least suggestive)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"In discussing what Marx thought about dialectic, it is significant that he expressed the opinion of Hegel "being the first to present [dialectic] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" being aware, no doubt of those's other works on the subject, he must have had some basis/reason for exprssing that opinion (however wrong it may be)."Of course, Marx didn't say what you allege of him, he said this:"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." Since I have already responded to this passage, I see no reaosn to resile from what I argued in my last post. You need to address what I said, not post a bowdlerised quote from Marx."I'd be interested to hear that answer. (Marx' preface to Socialism Utopian and Scientific is 1880, and does not mention nor rebutt the sections on dialectics in that text — that does not imply complete agreement, but it is at least suggestive)."Here is part of what I have posted at my site on this:

---

Some of those who defend the traditional view of the relationship bewtween Marx and Engels point to Engels's claim that he had read Anti-Dühring to Marx, and that Marx even contributed a chapter to that book, proving that Marx endorsed every single word. "I must note in passing that inasmuch as the mode of outlook expounded in this book was founded and developed in far greater measure by Marx, and only to an insignificant degree by myself, it was self-understood between us that this exposition of mine should not be issued without his knowledge. I read the whole manuscript to him before it was printed, and the tenth chapter of the part on economics…was written by Marx but unfortunately had to be shortened somewhat by me for purely external reasons. As a matter of fact, we had always been accustomed to help each other out in special subjects." [Engels (1976), pp.8-9. Bold emphasis added.] But, if Engels did read this to Marx (a claim, it is worth noting, he only made after Marx's death), that would surely have taken at least two days to complete. I have based the above conclusion on the following calculations: I estimate AD is slightly under 130,000 words long. In the version I have, the Peking Edition, there are approximately 300 words per page. If we omit the Prefaces and the Notes, there are just over 430 pages; so 430 x 300 = 129,000. Now, I have timed myself reading one page of that Edition, and, doing this fairly rapidly, it took me 1 minute 50 seconds to complete. Reading non-stop, the entire book would take approximately 13 hours 10 minutes to finish. If we add a ten minute break every hour (for toilet or smoke breaks — Engels was a smoker, and would have been slowed down by puffing away on several cigars — or coughing regularly and/or stopping to light another — but no time for discussion, drinks, food or sleep), then the manuscript would take 15 hours 20 minutes to read. When I slowed down slightly, that added twenty seconds per page — and thus 2 hours 20 minutes to the total — bringing the time to 17 hours 40 minutes. If we now allow for an eight-hour day, and a couple of hours for food breaks every eight hours, etc., then that would add at least 4 more hours to the total — now at just under 22 hours –, or, two-and-half days (for that eight-hour day) — of Engels banging on, and on… [Incidentally, if we omit the Prefaces and the Notes, there are 293 pages in the MECW edition (Volume 25), with approximately 450 words per page — 293 x 450 = 131,850 words. One page took me 2 minutes 30 seconds to read (fairly rapidly) and 2 minute 45 seconds (reading slightly slower). The first timing would mean that the book could be read (non-stop) in just over 12 hours 10 minutes; the second in 13 hours 25 minutes. So the two approximations agree reasonably closely.] Can you imagine it! One wonders how often the rapidly ageing Marx must have nodded off, not fully realising the nature of what it was that some would later claim he accepted! But, why read it to Marx? Were his eyes and his brain failing him? Moreover, if Marx contributed a chapter (which he did), why didn't Engels simply ask him to read the proofs? And, it is rather odd that Engels never claimed this of any of his other published work — that he had read it to Marx. [DM = Dialectical Materialism/Materialist, depending on context.] Furthermore, AD contains several sections on mathematics (which few, other than die-hard-DM-fans — who apparently know little about mathematics –, will now defend). Unlike Marx, Engels was neither competent nor knowledgeable in mathematics (as is relatively easy to show — on that see here and here — added on edit: links omitted). If we insist that Marx agreed with every single line read to him from AD, then we are also forced to conclude that Marx, too, was an incompetent mathematician. Are DM-fans who are competent in this area — the opinions of those who aren't are surely irrelevant in this respect — are they prepared to admit this? If not, then the claim that Marx had this book read to him, and that he agreed with every word, can't be sustained. In which case, if that particular idea is abandoned, a major plank in the claim that Marx and Engels saw eye-to-eye about DM, and, indeed everything else, will have to be abandoned. If Marx didn't agree with these 'mathematical' passages, but said nothing about them in his letters to Engels, or anywhere else, then Marx's almost total silence about other DM-ideas that Engels was cooking-up in AD (and in several letters) takes on an entirely new light. Taken from here: http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm 

---

 The above comments also apply to any Prefaces Marx also wrote. Concerning Engels as an incompetent mathematician, check this out: http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Heijenoort.htm 

---

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Alsace wrote:

If we insist that Marx agreed with every single line read to him from AD, then we are also forced to conclude that Marx, too, was an incompetent mathematician.

Quite cheerfully…But, the point isn't that marx read the whole book, but was aware of it, and there is no visible sign of any distinancing.  Further, Marx did provide a preface to Socialism Utopian & Etc.  There is no requirement to prove marx approved very word, merely to note from silence either he wasn't fussed either way, didn't think any disagreements were worth a candle, etc.Anyway, I reject any notion I bowdlerised Marx:"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."The only rational reading of the whole quote is that Marx considered Hegel to be the frist to present dialectic in a comprehensive and consious manner.  Now, you can disagree with Marx, fair enough.  But there is no scope for denying the plain reading of that sentence.

[Anonymous]

I wonder of how many people's in this forum have read the works of hegel instead of second hand opinion. To understand hegel we must read himIt reminds me of something that Adam Buick told me several years ago that knowledge on feuerbach was a second hand opinion and he was right that motivated to read him directly from his workI read all the works of hegel with the Marxist humanists and several years I came to the same conclusion as clr James; there is nothing for us on hegel including dialectic. CLR James was rightMarx is not three components as Lenin said. We must understand the whole body of ideas because they changed their ideas many times, even more they were proto bolshevik and proto menshevik. Marx was influenced by hegel and feuerbach but he rejected dialectic and idealism and he was not the most idealist of the materialist philosopher or the opposite as raya wrote and he did no combine idealism and materialism

[Anonymous]

Marx studied mathematic in order to understand economical statistic. At the beginning the economist was engels and he always knew more about nature sciences than marx

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"But, the point isn't that marx read the whole book, but was aware of it, and there is no visible sign of any distinancing.  Further, Marx did provide a preface to Socialism Utopian & Etc.  There is no requirement to prove marx approved very word, merely to note from silence either he wasn't fussed either way, didn't think any disagreements were worth a candle, etc."1) I am 'aware' of Mein Kampf, but I have never read a word of it. Sure Marx was 'aware' of AD, but so what?2) I covered the 'distancing' point in my last response to you. You really must learn to address what I have argued as opposed merely to repeat a point I have already answered.3) If you now admit that "there is no requirement to prove marx approved very word" then there is no evidence he approved the 'dialectics' in AD, either. Quite the reverse in fact — in view of the summary he added to the Postface which contained no trace of Hegel (or DM) whatsoever, but which he still called 'the dialectic method'."Anyway, I reject any notion I bowdlerised Marx"You did in your last reply to me; this, again, is what you posted:"In discussing what Marx thought about dialectic, it is significant that he expressed the opinion of Hegel "being the first to present [dialectic] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" being aware, no doubt of those's other works on the subject, he must have had some basis/reason for exprssing that opinion (however wrong it may be)."Post #47."The only rational reading of the whole quote is that Marx considered Hegel to be the frist to present dialectic in a comprehensive and consious manner.  Now, you can disagree with Marx, fair enough.  But there is no scope for denying the plain reading of that sentence."Again, and for the third time, I have already covered this. Once more: you need to address what I argued, and not merely repeat an unsupported assertion (that ignores what Marx himself told us about 'the dialectic method').

---

[Young Master Smeet]

Editting a text to leave out the bit you're not talking about is not bowdlerisation: I did not alter or seek to alter the meaning.Marx was aware of AD and did not produce any texts commenting nor rebutting, and it was the work of someone he had worked closely with, on intellectual matters for decades.  Further, he produced a preface to Socialism, bad and the Ugly, so its reasonable to infer he was at least generally aware of its contents.  That is all we can say, and all we need to say.Now, you argued, forcefully an cogently, that Hegel was not the "the first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" .  That is a noble assersion, but it doesn't change the fact that the quote from Marx has Hegel "being the first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner."I'm afraid you didn't deal with distancing, but danced around a very narrow pinhead.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"Editting a text to leave out the bit you're not talking about is not bowdlerisation: I did not alter or seek to alter the meaning."Well, it was bowdlerised since it ommitted these words (and you do it again, below):"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." The highlighted words were central to my reply to you. Your argument that the words "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" mirror words in an earlier letter only succeeds if you omit the highlighted words above.Oh dear (is this a remake of Groundhog Day?):"Marx was aware of AD and did not produce any texts commenting nor rebutting, and it was the work of someone he had worked closely with, on intellectual matters for decades.  Further, he produced a preface to Socialism, bad and the Ugly, so its reasonable to infer he was at least generally aware of its contents.  That is all we can say, and all we need to say."Already covered, many times.Move on, for goodness sake."Now, you argued, forcefully an cogently, that Hegel was not the "'he first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner'.  That is a noble assersion, but it doesn't change the fact that the quote from Marx has Hegel 'being the first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.'Oh dear, squared! Again, you can only get away with that if you ignore 1) Marx's own words about 'the dialectic method', and 2) the words in bold above."I'm afraid you didn't deal with distancing, but danced around a very narrow pinhead."You need to answer my argument, not merely label it, or me.Am I speaking a different languaage to you? It seems I must, since plain and simple English appears to sail over your head — especially when I keep asking you to address what I say.I address everything you say.

---

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Lichtenstein 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."

The highlighted words only formed the basis of an argument you yourself developed, that Hegel was not the first (etc.).  However, being a little it Gricean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle) we can look at Marx' own words in relation to the principle of relation, why would he say that unless he was affirming that Hegel was (etc.).  he would not have brought the matter up.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Already covered, many times.

Not covered once, a straw man about how long it takes to read a text aloud has been erected, nothing said about the preface, etc.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Again, you can only get away with that if you ignore 1) Marx's own words about 'the dialectic method', and 2) the words in bold above.

The words in bold do not change the meaning, Marx is ascribing to Hegel that he was " the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" and that his mjystifications should not detract from that. 

[rodmanlewis]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Rodmanlewis:"This sounds like the Trotskyist argument that you need great minds to lead the masses to socialism."And where exactly did Trotsky (or any prominent Trotskyist) argue this?

---

See:http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/cpl/index.htmlFrom Trotsky's "The Class, The Party and the Leadership"“The vital mainspring in this process is the party, just as the vital mainspring in the mechanism of the party is its leadership. The role and the responsibility of the leadership in a revolutionary epoch is colossal.”

[Anonymous]

rodmanlewis wrote:

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Rodmanlewis:"This sounds like the Trotskyist argument that you need great minds to lead the masses to socialism."And where exactly did Trotsky (or any prominent Trotskyist) argue this?

---

See:http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/cpl/index.htmlFrom Trotsky's "The Class, The Party and the Leadership"“The vital mainspring in this process is the party, just as the vital mainspring in the mechanism of the party is its leadership. The role and the responsibility of the leadership in a revolutionary epoch is colossal.”

The Vanguard Party concept indicates  that workers by themselves  are only able to fight for economism. Nobody needs a great mind in order to become a professional cadres, and I never read that from Lenin or from Trotsky or Stalin, even more, Lenin indicated that the vanguard party concept was only a temporary measure applicable to Russia

[Anonymous]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

In fact, Marx abandoned Philosophy root-and-branch by the late 1840s.Proof suppiled on request.

The world working class must enroll on a detox programme  from the bourgeois ideology, and they can find that detox  programme with the World Socialist Movement

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS (looks like we do have to go over this yet again!):"The highlighted words only formed the basis of an argument you yourself developed, that Hegel was not the first (etc.).  However, being a little it Gricean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle) we can look at Marx' own words in relation to the principle of relation, why would he say that unless he was affirming that Hegel was (etc.).  he would not have brought the matter up."1) And you omitted them since they were exactly that (they formed a basis for my argument, which you ignored); they provide a context for what Marx went on to say about Hegel. You are not now suggesting they are irrelevant, are you?2) I have also pointed out, many, many times, that I begin with Marx's own summary of "the dialectic method", which is a Hegel free zone. If he called something that contains no trace of Hegel "the dialectic method" (not "a dialectical method", or "part of, or one aspect of the dialectic method" nor yet "one man's take on the dialectic method", but "the dialectic method") and which by implication represents the rational core of 'dialectics', then it can't be the case that Hegel was "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner." Why call a summary, the only one Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, "the dialectic method" and "my method" if it contained absolutely no input from Hegel.In that light, if you begin with Marx's own words about his method (and not someone else's subsequent recasting of it) my interpretation of this passage is correct:"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."Which was, once more:"To be sure, concerning 'the dialectic', that doesn't prevent Hegel 'from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.' What does prevent him is that Hegel wasn't the first — Aristotle, Kant and the Scottish Historical School beat him to it. [Indeed, they exercised a major influence on Hegel himself; he simply took their ideas and mystified them.] Moreover, Hegel failed to present his readers with a 'comprehensive and conscious' form of 'the dialectic', as that summary Marx added confirms. There, Marx calls that summary (not Hegel's ham-fisted 'dialectic') 'the dialectic method', despite the fact that it is a Hegel-free zone."Now, for some odd reason you don't start from Marx's own description of his method, but from some other view of Marx's method concocted long after he died. Why is that?YMS:"Not covered once, a straw man about how long it takes to read a text aloud has been erected, nothing said about the preface, etc."1) Why is it a 'straw man', when it was specifically directed at examining Engels's claim that he read AD to Marx?You can call it irrelevant, or even misguided, but it can't be a 'straw man' if it was aimed at what Engels alleged.2) And I did cover your main (and only point); here it is again for you to ignore once more — bold added:"Furthermore, AD contains several sections on mathematics (which few, other than die-hard-DM-fans — who apparently know little about mathematics –, will now defend). Unlike Marx, Engels was neither competent nor knowledgeable in mathematics (as is relatively easy to show — on that see here and here — added on edit: links omitted). If we insist that Marx agreed with every single line read to him from AD, then we are also forced to conclude that Marx, too, was an incompetent mathematician. Are DM-fans who are competent in this area — the opinions of those who aren't are surely irrelevant in this respect — are they prepared to admit this? If not, then the claim that Marx had this book read to him, and that he agreed with every word, can't be sustained."In which case, if that particular idea is abandoned, a major plank in the claim that Marx and Engels saw eye-to-eye about DM, and, indeed everything else, will have to be abandoned. If Marx didn't agree with these 'mathematical' passages, but said nothing about them in his letters to Engels, or anywhere else, then Marx's almost total silence about other DM-ideas that Engels was cooking-up in AD (and in several letters) takes on an entirely new light."The "or anywhere else" and the other highlighted words cover your point about that Preface (and AD).YMS:"The words in bold do not change the meaning, Marx is ascribing to Hegel that he was " the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" and that his mystifications should not detract from that."As we can now see (and could see many posts ago, if you actually paid attention) they do in fact change their meaning.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

rodmanlewis, thanks for that, but I fail to see how that passage shows that Trotsky thought  we "need great minds to lead the masses to socialism."

---

[Author]

Posts