[LBird]

DJP, further to our discussion of Ollman, some considerations upon dialectics and critical realism.One of the main principles of Critical Realism is that when components are combined in a certain way they might form a new ‘structure’, and this structure might then produce ‘emergent properties’.Of fundamental importance for our understanding is to realise that these ‘emergent properties’ are not located in the components themselves. The ‘emergent properties’ do not exist prior to the building of the structure, so they are by definition historical properties. If the structure collapses, the ‘emergent properties’ are lost, and they now do not exist. They are not present in the wreckage of the structure, within the components, even if all the individual components of the structure remain intact. ‘Emergent properties’ are not parcelled out at a lower level: without the specific relationships, of which the structure consists, they are not in existence. They are relational properties. I will give some examples of this later, if any comrades require them, for understanding. Please ask.My purpose of outlining Critical Realism is to allow us to compare it with a part of Engels’ version of ‘dialectics’.If we look closely at one of Engels’ examples of ‘the transformation of quantity into quality’, we find it is nothing of the sort.

Engels, Anti-Duhring, wrote:

In conclusion we shall call one more witness for the transformation of quantity into quality, namely — Napoleon. He describes the combat between the French cavalry, who were bad riders but disciplined, and the Mamelukes, who were undoubtedly the best horsemen of their time for single combat, but lacked discipline, as follows:“Two Mamelukes were undoubtedly more than a match for three Frenchmen; 100 Mamelukes were equal to 100 Frenchmen; 300 Frenchmen could generally beat 300 Mamelukes, and 1,000 Frenchmen invariably defeated 1,500 Mamelukes.”Just as with Marx a definite, though varying, minimum sum of exchange-values was necessary to make possible its transformation into capital, so with Napoleon a detachment of cavalry had to be of a definite minimum number in order to make it possible for the force of discipline, embodied in closed order and planned utilisation, to manifest itself and rise superior even to greater numbers of irregular cavalry, in spite of the latter being better mounted, more dexterous horsemen and fighters, and at least as brave as the former.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch10.htmIn fact, what Engels is describing here is not a ‘dialectical transformation of quantity into quality’, but ‘emergence of properties from a new structure’.The mere quantitative addition of ‘Frenchmen’ would not achieve the ‘transformations’ which are described. It is quite clear that even 10,000 Frenchmen, stood as individuals and not in any specific structural relationships, would be defeated by only 1,000 Mamelukes.It is not mere quantitative accretion that produces qualitative change, but the specific structuring of more Frenchmen into an Army. An army is not mere numbers, but specialisation of roles, co-ordination, equipment, training, sub-structures, etc., a structuring which produces properties that don’t exist at the individual level, abilities, efficiencies, ideas, morale, esprit d’corps, a unit that acts as one under a commander. The French Revolutionary armies under Napoleon won battle after battle because their new structures were better than those of the armies opposing them. This was nothing to do with merely increased numbers, as ‘dialectics’ would suggest, but the emergence of new structural properties, as ‘critical realism’ would suggest.Engels’ essentially passive ‘transformation of quantity into quality’ leaves out the human, creative element, which Marx stressed in his Theses On Feuerbach:

Marx wrote:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmCritical Realism depends upon active humans, whereas Engels’ Dialectics ignores the active restructuring by humans of nature and consciousness, in favour of passive contemplation of natural development.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

This lends some credence, I think, to my suggestion that 'dialectics' would best be seen as Marx's early attempt to employ what we now would call 'critical realism'.

In the book isn't Ollman at least partially in agreement with this?

Well, he devotes chapter 10 to it, but I have my differences with him about 'dialectics' and 'critical realism'.Plus, more worringly,

Bertell Ollman, p. 158, wrote:

Socialism's sudden loss of credibility as a viable alternative to capitalism, however, a loss largely due to the collapse of the Sovier Union…

Anyone who thinks that the Soviet Union was any sort of 'socialism' casts doubt on their own philosophical method. If his version of 'dialectics' can't tell him that workers were exploited by the S.U., what use is it?

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, when scientists misconstrue the rules they use to understand the world as fundamental truths about it, they are indulging in metaphysics. And this isn't surprising, since they too had been educated to believe that this is what they should be doing.Hence, it isn't just Marxists who have been bamboozled in this way.

[my bold]But… have all 'Marxists been bamboozled in this way'?

Anton Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htmIsn't Pannekoek here contrasting supposed "scientists' fundamental truths" with Historical Materialism?That is, he wasn't 'bamboozled'. Isn't this method (HM) the one we should encourage Communist scientists to adopt?

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, naturally, I don't think that Leninism is the problem. But, we are just going to have to disgree over that one, since, as I have said, I haven't come here to discuss Leninism with anti-Leninists.

I find this a very odd standpoint for you to take, Rosa, since you are actively strengthening us anti-Leninists! We can but thank you, anyway!More fundamentally, though, I disagree with your idea that thought can't be applied 'aprioristically'. I think that this is exactly what science does, when humans employ an aprioristic theory to select (what they consider relevant, according to the theory) from the 'object'. This selection from the object (an 'abstraction') is then used to build a hypothesis which clearly then must be tested empirically: ie. the unity of theory and practice.Since I think that this method covers both Marx and the latest (and later!) bourgeois philosophers of science, I would think that discussing just where these 'aprioristic theories of science' originate would be of great value for workers. I suspect that we'll soon uncover the bullshitters.Can't we tempt you to indulge us?

[LBird]

Just been having another look at Bertell Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method, and on page 60 he has a sub-heading named The Solution Lies in the Process of Abstraction, and on reading this once more it seems clear that another (and indeed now better) term for Marx's 'abstraction' would be 'selection'. This places the 'active' human at the heart of the scientific process, as Marx tried to do in his Theses on Feuerbach.Then, we only need to ask ourselves 'what are the parameters of 'abstraction/selection' from the 'real concrete'. These parameters are given, of course, by the theory that we employ, as modern philosophers of science (and Einstein) argue.This lends some credence, I think, to my suggestion that 'dialectics' would best be seen as Marx's early attempt to employ what we now would call 'critical realism'. That is, every time Marx then wrote 'dialectic', that we now read 'critical realism'. This would place Marx 150 years ahead of the development of bourgeois thinking on science, an advance that was unfortunately (and disastrously) thrown away by Engels' muddled and amateurish 'philosophical' work.To stress again, this focus on an active humanity is all a world away from Engels' 'dialectic in nature' and Lenin's 'dialectical materialism'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Where exactly is it that dialectics has been "so influential"? I'd love to know, everyone I try to start discussing it with at the bus-stop just looks at me funny and runs away!

Well, DJP, it's 'been so influential' enough that SPGB posters here keep mentioning it!

LOL.Who bought this up anyway?But seriously my interest is because I think Marx has something useful to say about the present moment, and in various postfaces, prefaces and footnotes he describes the method he used to construct this work as "dialectical". Now what Marx meant by this, and how this is different from what other people have meant by it is, to me at least, a useful and practical question since I hope the answer will help me in my own work.It is also interesting to compare Marx to others who would not have described their methods as "dialectical". So for example; Do you think it would have been possible to write Capital using the methods based on linguistic analysis that Wittenstien used? What use are the methods of analytic philosophy for creating a critical social theory like the one constructed in Capital?

I'll have to come back to your important points later, DJP, time permitting.This is precisely the area that I've tried to raise discussion. I think that it's possible to regard Marx as a 'critical realist', and to argue that his use of the term 'dialectic' was an early attempt to describe 'critical realism'.Of course, we'd have to discuss, compare and contrast all these methods: Marx's dialectical, linguistic analysis, analytical philosophy, and critical realism. I think we'd need Rosa for 2 and 3, because I for one know nothing about Wittgenstein.

DJP wrote:

This is where my interests in "dialectic" lie, not in trying to uncover some mystic driving force that controls the universe.

Ditto, comrade.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whilst any comrades think that there is anything to dialectics, we have to confront and discuss it, because it has been so influential and damaging for the proletariat.

Where exactly is it that dialectics has been "so influential"? I'd love to know, everyone I try to start discussing it with at the bus-stop just looks at me funny and runs away!

Well, DJP, it's 'been so influential' enough that SPGB posters here keep mentioning it!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Dialecticians' pretend to have access to an unmediated 'structure'. That is why Leninists favour 'dialectics'. They can claim to have access to a special method, which is not accessible to the class, so they have a more profound consciousness.

Yes but we are not Leninists (except for RL) or "dialecticians" either. Now Marx did have a method that he refered to as "dialectic" if we want to we could discuss what he meant by this and how his method is different from others e.g Wittgenstein.But I don't think the outcome of the world revolution depends on what we come up with!

Once again, why would any Communist then stress 'dialectical method'?Perhaps 'dialectics' is a mystification intended to prevent proletarian revolution?There's one thesis that has some evidential basis!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Actually I agree that when it comes to actual research I can't see that there would be any difference between what "non-dialectic" and "dialectic" researchers do and was going to say so, but didn't. Perhaps I should have done. The only difference would be in what they say or think they are doing (if they bother, that is, about this).

Yeah, I agree about actual research, so, just why do 'dialecticians' bother so much to stress their 'method'?Why do members of the SPGB feel the need to mention 'dialectics', even if they already agree that it's the same as 'non-dialectics'?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

This thing about dialectic is just a wasting of time. There is nothing for us as socialists and for the working class  in the field of dialectic, it is like reading the Bible. A pastor can spend several hours talking about one verse, and the dialectician can spend one day talking about one particular phrase, everything is in the realm of the mind, that is what the phenomenology is all  about

Whilst I agree that "there is nothing for us as socialists and for the working class in the field of dialectic, it is like reading the Bible", I don't think that it's a 'waste of time' to confront Engels' detour from Marx's views (or even to question whether Marx, too, had been infected with 19th century positivism), because Dialectical Materialism provides the basis for Leninism, in my opinion.Whilst any comrades think that there is anything to dialectics, we have to confront and discuss it, because it has been so influential and damaging for the proletariat.The class must determine its own ideas, not party philosphers wielding a special method which we don't understand.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

The main problem with those organization is not the dialectic method, the main problem is the Leninist method. And the claim that they have abandoned Marxism because they are or were dialectician it is not true either, Leninism is a reactionary and reformist trend which will never conduct human beings to a socialist society

In my opinion, mcolome1, you're underestimating the link between 'Leninism' (theory and method) and 'dialectics'.Of course, the root of the problem is Engels, who provided the so-called 'Marxist' philosophical nonsense that Lenin built upon, and then employed for a different purpose.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Karl Marx was a critical and humanist materialist. His materialist conception was  different to Engels and Lenin.

I totally agree.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

As I understand it, he's making a different point: that those he calls "non-dialectical" don't recognise that the whole is a single indivisible whole but see it as a collection of separate parts. So, they built up the whole from its parts while those he calls "dialectical" see the parts as just that: interconnected parts of the whole…

[my bold]So, the key here is that non-dialecticians 'separate', whilst dialecticians 'interconnect'.This is to argue that non-dialecticians don't recognise structures, while dialecticians do.This is simply untrue.Everyone (researchers and analysers) recognise structures.This issue is: "what constitutes a particular 'structure'?".The definition of a 'structure' depends upon the theory being employed.This is true for non-dialecticians and dialecticians. In fact, those two categories are false.'Dialecticians' pretend to have access to an unmediated 'structure'. That is why Leninists favour 'dialectics'. They can claim to have access to a special method, which is not accessible to the class, so they have a more profound consciousness.The more I've discussed this over the years, the clearer it has become to me about the link between mystical 'dialectics', which seem to be so difficult to understand, and Leninist party organisation and Leninist theories of class consciousness.No-one can explain 'dialectics', comrades, and the simple reason is that 'dialectics is bullshit'. The Leninists employ 'dialectics' like the Catholic church employ 'grace'.Only the Party and Priesthood understand its mysterious workings.

ALB wrote:

I don't really know why we are arguing about this.

Perhaps what I've written above gives some clue as to why I keep arguing about this issue.

[LBird]

For comrades who aren't familiar with the issue of 'selection', for humans (ie. historians and scientists):

E H Carr wrote:

"Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. This is, after all, not very abstruse. It is what is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read a work by that great scholar Jones of St. Jude's, goes round to a friend at St. Jude's to ask what sort of chap Jones is, and what bees he has in his bonnet. When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog. The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_History%3F

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm not sure what this has got to do with DJP's quote, ALB. It's logical nonsense. Read it again.

I think it's just badly expressed. Perhaps he should have used the word "analysis" rather than "research". That would have made it clear he's talking about basic assumptions not actual research work.

Well, let’s replace ‘research’ with ‘analysis’:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Bertell Ollman wrote:

Unlike non-dialectical analysis, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical analysis begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and then proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding of the whole from which one has begun.

[my bold]This is jibberish, DJP.One can't start with the 'whole', because that is the entire universe. One must select, as Carr shows in What is History?If one starts with 'as much of it as one understands', that's not the 'whole'. Thus, it must be a 'small part', just as for non-dialectics.Analysers must apriori define what they consider to be 'the system' (which must be itself a selection from the universe) which is to be examined, which is, logically, 'starting with some small part', just as for non-dialectics.Theory determines the 'system', 'as much as one understands', 'the part' to be examined, 'where it fits' into the system and 'how it functions'.There is no difference between non-dialectical and supposed dialectical analysis. To argue otherwise is go against the whole of 20th century philosophy of science, and is to mislead the class. It's just analysis. It's based upon theory. Theory determines selection parameters. Theory determines the validity of results.Rocks don't discuss. Humans are at the centre of analysis. Humans are social beings. We've done this already on the Pannekoek thread.

No, Ollman’s argument is still ‘jibberish’, in a logical sense. It’s to do with ‘wholes’ and ‘parts’, ie. who determines what is a ‘whole’ and what is a ‘part’. If one wants to argue that the ‘part’ appears from the ‘whole’, without human selection of both ‘part’ and ‘whole’, one is claiming to be inductive. Carr’s What is History? nails this as nonsense. You’ve read the fisher/fishing/fish analogy, ALB.

[Author]

Posts