Rosa Lichtenstein
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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."
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.
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.
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').
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
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.
Vin:"I don't think laughing is restricted to people with low IQs What Tim said about you and LBird was funny. So I laughed. If that reveals a lack of knowledge and intellegence, well that's new to me."Fair enough!
TK: "Has anyone ever seen L Bird and Rosa Lichtenstein in the same room together?Could it be that they are…"Still struggling with the word "relevant", I see.
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?
YMS — we went over much of this back in 2013, as I have already pointed out to you. Do we really have to go over it all again?Seems so.1) "I've noticed in letters, Engels writes to Marx about dialectic, there is no evidence of a rebuttal from Marx, from what I can see. Also, the comments come in the form that read, to me at least, as if they presuppose a shared understanding."In fact, Marx made it quite clear what he meant by 'the dialectic method' in a summary he added to the Postface to the second edition — a summary Engels not only saw, he ensured it was re-published in subsequent editions — I posted it several times back in 2013, and again earlier in this thread. You seem to want to ignore it, as you and others did back then, too.Why is that?As you have also had pointed out to you many times, this was the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx published and endorsed in his entire life. What is more, it contains not one atom of Hegel (upside down, or 'the right way up'), and yet Marx (not me, Marx) called it 'the dialectic method' and 'my method'.As I have also pointed out, I begin with this statement by Marx about what his method and 'the dialectic method' amounted to, and I interpret everything else in that light — until, that is, you, or someone else, can come up with another summary of 'the dialectic method', written, published or endorsed by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to the passage published in the Postface (i.e .,1873 or after), that informs us that he accepted or agreed with Engels's view of 'the dialectic'.Now, I put this to you over three years ago, so you have had ample time to locate this missing summary. Why have you not spent your time more wisely?But, what about your claim that Marx didn't reject, rebut or refute Engels's comments? Well, we will have to take each letter on its own merits, and note the date when it was written (I also pointed this out to you in 2013; why do I have to make this point yet again?). If it was written before 1873, when the Postface was published/written, then it manifestly can't represent Marx's latest or more considered views (as they were clearly expressed in the Postface), and hence it can't be relevant to the matter in hand.This brings us to the first letter you quoted:2) "At the Museum, where I did nothing but glance through catalogues, I also discovered that Dühring is a great philosopher. For he has written a Natural Dialectic against Hegel's "unnatural" one. Hence these tears. The gentlemen in Germany (all except the theological reactionaries) think Hegel's dialectic is a "dead horse." Feuerbach has much to answer for in this respect."This was written in 1868, so, as I have pointed out many times, it isn't relevant.3) The second letter you quote was also written in1868, so it, too, is irrelevant.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.]So, can you please stop quoting letters written before 1873? You will only be wasting your time, and mine.
And Vin's high quality, intellectually sound response convinces me that the SPGB has some first rate minds about which it can rightly be proud.I am clearly out of my depth, here.
TK:"I've obviously hit a nerve there, haven't I. Perhaps it's a nerve that's been hit before. It seems to me (which is why I use the traditional working class tactic of taking the piss) that you (and L Bird) take yourselves just a little too seriously."In other words I was right when I posted this comment:"So, other than abuse, you dont have anything useful to add."Still nothing worthwhile from you, then.And, for your information, I am a worker, and up until recently I was a trade union rep (unpaid)."Perhaps I can put it another way. When you are being evicted from your home, when you are about to lose you job, when you are faced with the news that you will probably have to work until you are in your seventies before you can afford to even think about retirement, when you lie awake worried about debts, when you cannot make the bills balance at the end of the month, in short when capitalism is shitting all over you. Philosophy , the dialectic, epistemology, etc. are not the topics that fill your mind."I struggle to see what this has got to do with anything I have posted here. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of "relevant"? However, I'm an anti-philosopher and regard epistemolgy as a bogus disciplne. It might be a good idea to check your facts before you shoot your mouth off in future, sunshine."The traditional Trotskyist/Leninist approach of producing long winded tracts about angels on pin heads, designed to do nothing but bolster the egos of the authors, does nothing but obscure the real Socialist task, that is putting forward the case for a Socialist transformation of society."I suppose you think Das Kapital is also a "long winded tract about angels on pin heads, designed to do nothing but bolster the ego of the author"?"If the hot air, you and your fellow Trotskyist obscurantists, put into discussing arcane disputes from the past, could be used effectively in communicating the urgent need to change the social system which is destroying our planet, killing our children and blighting the lives of millions of humans, then perhaps we would be closer to achieving that goal."Again: what is it with you abstract propagandists? Are you totally incapable of remaining on-topic?"You mistake lack of interest in what you are saying, with lack of knowledge of the subject matter. I have the former, but not the latter. However if it makes me ignorant, to view your petty self esteem building activities as contemptuous (I mean calling yourself Rosa Lichtenstein, no signs of bigging yourself up there, is there), I plead ignorance, glorious, glorious ignorance."And, if I may say so, you are particularly good at displaying your ignorance in public, too."All due disrespect? I take your disrespect as a badge of honour."What was that again about 'ignorance is bliss'?
Wez:1) "I can see it would be pointless in continuing a debate with you Ms. Lichtenstein as you are contemptuous of any ideas you don't agree with."I humbly accept your abject capitulation.2) "This forum is a strange place. I've been informed here that Marx was not a materialist and now that he was not a philosopher – it's like a parallel universe."It's all the same to me if you ignore what Marx himself said about philosophy.3) "I still believe that without Kant and Hegel there would be no Marx and that politics is a synthesis of economics, history, science and philosophy."Assertion isn't proof. Even a smattering of Philosophy 101 should have taught you that.4) "I take my leave of you before the moderator gets me."I'm sure there will be an unbelieveably badly attended farewell party held on your behalf.
Wez:"We started out by talking about Marx and philosophy and now we've been switched to Marx and dialectic. My post about bolshevism was a response to Ms Licthenstein's website which suggests they had something to offer in that original debate. She asked me why the compartentalising of intellectual Endeavour was 'so heinous'. I just think that specialisms sometimes mask the truth that a wider multi disciplined approach can reveal. Such a division of intellectual labour always strikes me as rather 'bourgeois' and unhelpful – Ollman has interesting thoughts on this – courtesy of a dialectical approach. Why, Ms Licthenstein, do you have such contempt for philosophy? Surely it's just one of a number of approaches to life's challenges?"The moderators switched the title.1) So, you admit that your comments about Bolshevism were off-topic. Let's see if you can remain on topic from now on.2) I fail to see anything in your reply that tells me why specialisms are so heinous, except, they somehow 'mask the truth that a wider multi disciplined approach can reveal.' But that is no argument against specialism, merely that it needs augmenting from time to time.But what about reversing what you said: "multi disciplined approaches sometimes mask the truth revealed by specialists"?They both need each other. What's wrong with that?So, the next time you need to see a speicalist in hospital, just tell her that you don't need her specialist knowledge, a multi-disciplinary expert in ancient Chinese pottery and its relation to the demise of Feudalism in Europe and Cosmic Inflation will do nicely, thank you very much.3) "Ollman has interesting thoughts on this – courtesy of a dialectical approach."Ah, I see, a specialist in that useless discipline, 'dialectics', tells us that such specialisms are 'bourgeois', eh? That makes sense.4) "Why, Ms Licthenstein, do you have such contempt for philosophy? Surely it's just one of a number of approaches to life's challenges?"Because, as is relatively easy to show, it is incoherent non-sense:http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htmAnd that is quite apart from the fact that Marx had this to say about it:"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…." [Bold added.]"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." [Bold added.]"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…" [Bold added.]You can find the exact references to Marx's work, and more details, in Section 3a), here:http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/was_wittgenstein_a_leftist.htm
YMS, quoting Marx:"'My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite.'"So, Marx, in his own unambiguous published words, has a dialectic method.""Short version: he looked at things in their relationships and how they develop."We covered these points, and this quote, in that thread back in 2013:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/do-we-need-dialectic?page=2Where I pointed out that if we begin with Marx's own descriptipon of his method (which you lot systematically ignore — so much for your Marxism!) — the only summary of 'the dialectic method' he published and endorsed in his entire life — which I have quoted yet again for you in an earlier reply in this thread, then his other comments about 'the dialectic' take on an entirely differet aspect.In that summary, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found, upside down or 'the right way up', and yet Marx still calls this 'the dialectic method' (note, not part of, or one aspect of, 'the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method'), and 'my method'. So, Marx's 'method' is a Hegel-free zone ('upside down or the right way up').In which case, it isn't possible to have a method that is more opposite to Hegel's than one that has excised his influence root-and-branch.How do we know? Well, that summary tells us this, for it is totally bereft of Hegelian concepts, and yet Marx still called it 'the dialectic method'.But, what about this?"Short version: he looked at things in their relationships and how they develop."Perhaps he did, but if he did he didn't need 'dialectics' as it has been handed down to us via Engels; indeed, if we needed a theory that 'looked at things in their relationships and how they develop" 'dialectics' (as Engels interpreted this word) wouldnt make the bottom of the reserve list of viable candidates. It is far too vague and confused.
