[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is jibberish

More over the top and baby and bathwater stuff ! Can't you see the difference betwen the orthodox academic approach which seeks to built up the external world from the sensations of an individual sitting in their study (eg Bertrand Russell) and the opposite approach which starts with assuming that the whole world of observable happenings is all that exists and trying to break it down into smaller parts so as to better understand it, ie. build up v break down?.

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

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Bertell Ollman wrote:

Unlike non-dialectical research, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical research 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.Researchers 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 research. To argue otherwise is go against the whole of 20th century philosophy of science, and is to mislead the class. It's just research. 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 research. Humans are social beings. We've done this already on the Pannekoek thread.

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Quote:

The damage made  to socialism-communism by Leninism and Leninist is deeper and more transcendence than  dialectic, even more, at the present time we spend more time trying to explain what is not socialism, instead of what socialism should be, and with them socialism has not advanced one day

 Well, I agree that Dialectical Marxists of every stripe have damaged Marxism, but I don't think it is down to the fact that some of these claimed to be Leninists (since most of them abandoned Leninism soon after he died — e.g., the Stalinists and the Maoists). However, I haven't come here to debate this, so I will say no more about it.

 It's unfortunate that you 'haven't come here to discuss this', Rosa, since I think that there is an intimate connection between Leninist politics and dialectical materialism. In my opinion, the idea that there should be party, that knows better than the class what the class itself needs, requires a mysterious method that ordinary workers can't understand. Dialectical Materialism is that mysterious method, and is employed by all Leninist parties, and their epigones the Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc., etc. This opinion of mine means that I can't understand your adherence to Leninism, given your rejection of DiaMat. Surely you should be looking to Marxist strands that reject the dialectic? After all, you yourself have done a great deal to strengthen those elements.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So in a few sentences, in words of few syllables, what will i answer the next time the mention of dialects comes up that will be an immediate, effective put-down that cannot produce any sort of dialectical come-back?

I know your appeal was directed at Rosa, ajj, but I'd suggest, to anyone who mentions 'dialectical materialism', that you reply:'Rocks do not discuss'.And a little explanation for them if they look confused and seem prepared to listen:'Dialectic' means 'through talking' or 'through discussion', and this can clearly only happen with the emergence of human consciousness. The notion that 'nature' itself (preceding natural human consciousness) is 'dialectical', as posited by Engels, is literally meaningless.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

My take on the title question of this thread "Do we need the Dialectic?". No we don't need dialectics at all. Does the case for socialism rest on dialectics? No. So if no what practical use is it? It can sometimes be used to present an idea in a certain way to make more sense to a like minded individual, but it's main use is just for intellectual masturbation. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Yeah, I've also come to this conclusion, after years (decades?) of trying to understand 'dialectics'. Although I'd long thought that the concept of 'dialectics in nature' was suspect, and more recently have come to understand that it's complete nonsense, I've always tried to keep an open mind about 'dialectics' in the sense of 'to present an idea in a certain way to make more sense to a like minded individual', but even here I've never come across an explanation that makes any 'sense', never mind 'more sense'.What's worse, whenever I've asked critical questions about 'dialectics', I've always been subjected to personal attacks. It's as if 'dialecticians' can't bear their 'religion' to be even tentatively questioned by one who is unsure, never mind openly scorned by well-read critics.Yep, I think I'm now, finally, of the opinion that 'it's main use is just for intellectual masturbation'. It's just a shame that I've been an uncomprehending party to such wanking, so wasteful for workers, for so long.Onano-Dia-Mat. Just say 'No!', comrades!

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, my aim is to try and influence Marxists (even though I know that I won't succeed), and since the vast majority of the latter have accepted 'dialectics' in some form or another, I naturally address that.

I think you underestimate your 'influence' Rosa, even if only in the sense of 'reinforcement' for those who've tentatively come to the same opinion as you, though independently, by other routes.You've provided a great resource for those Marxists who do try to argue against 'dialectics', especially in the form of 'dialectical materialism'.Having said that, though, I think that some of your opinions (I nearly said 'your philosophical approaches'  ) are wide of the mark…

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

This is why I object to the term primitive communism. For me the quote marks are in the wrong place, better would be primitive 'communism'. As what is meant by communism is not a society based on 'to each according their abilities to each according their need'. Primitive communism may have been a classless society but it was far from a society of abundance.

admice wrote:

i agree the 2 communisms are not the same.

I think that the notion of a return to some form of Communism is just a Hegelian leftover. That is, Hegel's notion of matter separating itself from spirit (geist) and history being the process of the estrangement from, and the reconciliation back to, of matter and spirit.So, spirit becomes whole again, back to its natural state. Thus, 'primitive communism' is returned to through modern communism, having go through the estrangement of material property.I agree with Ed, though. If we were to follow this schema, it would be better to name it 'primitive classlessness', because it wasn't a society based on 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.I think it's better to regard Communism as potentially the highest point of human development so far. Its main similarity to hunter-gatherer society is in its lack of an exploitative class structure.Mere lack of class exploitation does not equal Communism. Communism must include democratic methods of human organisation, including the historically learnt liberal values of respect for individuals, minority opinion, freedom of speech, etc.; democracy is not simple 'majoritarianism', as some of those same property-owning liberals allege.

[LBird]

Regarding youtube videos and politics, my favourite from The Simpsons, 'worker and parasite':http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7m-4Vc3MUCrusty as critical philosopher!

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

What is needed is a shift of consiousness and understanding, followed by democratic organisation.

This just about sums up my personal belief of what the proletariat's strategy to produce a successful revolution has to be, Vin.The proletariat has to wake up (and to some extent this has to be a personal, individual awakening by workers who are sick of their experience of capitalism) and start asking questions, and following on from this there has to be democratic organisation by workers themselves.To my mind, all that any socialist/communist party can do is to promote the 'wakening-up' and to provide some questions to provoke workers' thought. The proletariat itself has to begin to form its own discussion groups, which will provide the model, method and ideology for democratic workers' organisations.Whilst any form of Leninist ideology has a hold on workers, we're all wasting our time.But the first step is a re-awakening in workers – and we can't make workers do that. We can't even make a worker do that. There has to be something in the experience of capitalism that causes initially some, and then eventually mass, critical thought to emerge, or Marx was wrong.

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Yes I know all this mate but what of the problem of a "reactionary lumpenproletariat"? You don't think this could pose a grave danger at all? I just think the whole thing could be fraught with danger. As you have probably deduced I have very little faith in the working class. Very little faith indeed.

[my bold]Ozymandias, if there is a problem with the 'lumpenproletariat', why should this cause you to have little faith in the 'proletariat'?I know that I've replaced your term 'working class' with 'proletariat', but for us these should be interchangable. If you accept this, then you have to treat the 'lumpen' as a separate class.If you think that it is invalid to replace w.c. with p., could you give your definition of 'working class', especially with reference to  'a reactionary lumpenproletariat'? I suspect that you're using 'working class' as a descriptive category, and also employ 'middle class' in a similar way.For Marxists, many of the so-called 'middle class' are actually proletarians. If this is accepted, why should you not have 'faith' in university-educated workers because thieves and drug-dealers (for example) are a social problem in capitalist society? What is the connection with the lumpen elements that causes you to have 'very little faith indeed' in the best educated, most travelled, least racist, proletariat ever?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"when I say that no worker could possibly understand DM, I do not intend to demean them, since I also claim that no one could possibly understand this theory " Phewwww… am i pleased to read that bit by Rosa. I always thought myself as an ignoramus when dialects is raised…

ajj, all you need to know about 'dialectics' is that it comes from the Ancient Greek 'dia-lego', which literally means 'through-talk' (or 'talk through', or discuss).There can't be a 'dialectic in nature' because the only part of nature that talks and discusses is humanity.Dialectic can only refer to conscious human activity: rocks don't talk, nature 'tells' us nothing unbidden.As to whether it's useful to discuss whether a 'dialectical method' exists which can be used to try to understand nature, I'm not sure. Every time I've tried to get someone to describe this epistemological method to me, they seem to lose their temper because I'm apparently thick or something. It seems to me to have a bit of a religious overtone to it, in that one must have faith in what one is being told, and not ask critical questions (ironically, given 'dia-lego'!) of either the method or the person describing it.Perhaps Rosa can contribute here; they, too, seem to have taken a lot of stick from the 'dialecticians'. I'm not sure if Rosa thinks that there is anything to 'dialectics' in the sense of 'human discussion'.

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.

ALB wrote:

That's actually one of the approaches we used to adopt when speaking at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park on a Sunday.

Errr…. I might have uncovered one of the reasons for the slowness in growth of the SPGB!

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'? 

 This is actually  a good way to introduce the idea of  socialism. It is simple and easily understood; and difficult to argue against.I would accept that in many cases it is simply a matter of semantics.

Don't forget the other half of the couplet, though!If I was a Leninist Dialectical Materialist, I'd simply stress the the 'removal of democracy from politics' is the correct dialectical answer.What with the initial intricacies of 'interpenetrating opposites' and the development of 'quantities into qualities', 'democracy' is the succeeding negation of 'economics and politics', so that it's negation means 'Party Rule' and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.Simples!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 I think the word we are both struggling towards is valid.

Yeah, and 'validity' is a social judgement, and doesn't simply actively emerge from rocks, if we are passive enough and listen carefully.The notion of 'dialectics in nature', as I'm sure you'll agree, is nonsense.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet, in reply to Rosa L, wrote:

I note, though, that you don't provide any refutation for the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on experience reconciling their knowledge through discussion.

Well, it could be argued that that isn't the 'dialectical method'.  It could be argued that it should read:"the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on theory reconciling their knowledge through experience (ie. practice)".

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Theories or propositions can be refuted (since they are both capable of being true), but a method can't (since methods can't be true or false, only useful or useless, practical or impractical.

I don't agree with you here, Rosa. Any method implies a theory behind it, so a method can be refuted, through its theoretical underpinnings.And since theories contain assumptions and axioms, the simple useful/useless or practical/impractical dichotomy would be better expressed as less/more useful or less/more practical. That is, a spectrum which requires judgement after discussion, rather than any obvious acceptance/rejection.

[Author]

Posts