Rosa Lichtenstein
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
YMS, quoting the Posface:
Quote: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.Once again, I covered this in post #196, on page 20:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/do-we-need-dialectic?page=19#comment-9475
YMS:
Quote:It's not an unreasonable rule of thumb, a published work can be presumed to be more carefully worded. However, where there is a lack of clarity in the published works, private corresponendence can provide supplementary evidence (or can be used to show how the published version was arrived at). In this case, the private work might well say cover slightly different ground.I agree, but where the unpublished source contradicts the published source, the latter must take precedence.
ALB:
Quote:In any event, the famous 1873 Postface to the Second German edition ofCapital you keep relying on shows a certain respect for Hegel (describing himas a "that mighty thinker" and "the first to present its [the dialectic's]general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". Of courseMarx didn't agree with Hegel's "Idealism" and Capital is indeed aHegelian-Idealism-free zone. But whoever said it wasn't?He didn't actually say this — you have left out a few rather significant phrases.Anyway, I have covered this point already, in Post #196, on page 20, in answer to DJP:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/do-we-need-dialectic?page=19#comment-9475
LB:
Quote:Sounds a bit like 'Does not compute', Rosa!Well, unless you can explain how and why this is a proof, it doesn't 'compute' even for you.
Quote:Or, you hold to the theory that you don't!I think you have confused a challenge, made by me to you, with a 'theory'.
YMS:
Quote:1) I'm not sure that published sources should always take precedence over unpublished, except in assessing what the author's public position was (as in discussion of the question of 'Dictatorship of the proletariat' which pretty much only occurs in letters). In this case we're looking at what Charlie might have actually thunked about Hegel and his relationship to his methodology. Thuswise, we can, like good historians take a look at Freddie's letter of 1891:Ok, but I am not saying that unpublsihed material should be ignored, ony that when an author publishes something, it has plainly been the result of considered thought. Letters aren't subject to such careful vetting.But what of your example?
Quote:as in discussion of the question of 'Dictatorship of the proletariat' which pretty much only occurs in letters).But, this isn't at all the same, since what Marx and/or Engels might have said in letters about this topic does not contradict (as far as I am aware) what they said in published work.This isn't so with all the unpublished letters comrades have quoted — they do seem to contradict the summary Marx published in the Postface.Now, if comrades want to consider such letters as taking precedence, fine. But, in that case they will be ignoring what Marx actually published, and that can't be wise, and for the reasons I noted above.Anyway these letters fail to support the view that many comrades have asserted of them. For example, the one you quoted:
Quote:He knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.So, after everything Hegelian has been removed, the husk that remains is 'the basic form' of the dialectic.And what is that form? Well, Marx told us in the Postface — i.e., the summary I have referred to many times, the one that has had everything Hegelian excised, and yet it is still 'the dialectic method', according to Marx.Or are you going to ignore what he said in the Postface?So, you see that letter offers you no support, even if you consider it takes precedence.Oddly enough, you then quote Engels:
Quote:If you just compare the development of the commodity into capital in Marx with the development from Being to Essence in Hegel, you will get quite a good parallel for the concrete development which results from facts; there you have the abstract construction, in which the most brilliant ideas and often very important transmutations, like that of quality into quantity and vice versa, are reduced to the apparent self-development of one concept from another – one could have manufactured a dozen more of the same kind.How that helps us decide what Marx thought isn't too clear.
Quote:2) The letter was still written after Capital was published, and so does shed some light on Charlie's thinking about it.Indeed, as I noted in my earlier reply to you; but see my comment about this letter, above.
Quote:Dialectical method. Indeed.As I have pointed out many times in this thread, the question isn't whether or not Marx used a 'dialectical method', but what he meant by this phrase.Well, we needn't speculate, since he told us — in that summary — and it contains not one atom of Hegel, but he still called it 'my method' and 'the dialectic method'.So, according to Marx –, not me, Marx –, his 'method' — 'the dialectic method' he used — contains not one atom of Hegel, as I have alleged all along.
LB: an iterpretative rule is a rule we use to interpret something — a body of text, an observation, an hypothesis…So, when, for example, Newton tells us that the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the applied force, he isn't stating a fact (otherwise it could be false, but if that were so, its falsehood would change the meaning of 'force', and it would thus be about something other than the subject of his Second Law!), but proposing/establishing an interpretative rule that can be used to study acceleration, among other things.We then use this rule to interpret/understand the world around us.Same with my suggested rule (which isn't mine, anyway; it is used in the Arts all the time) that published work takes precedence over unpublished material when it comes to ascertaining an author's views.No one has to accept this rule, but I'd like to see good reason why it should be rejected/ignored.
LB:
Quote:But… 'rules' come from humans, not the planet Rule.I agree, whatever made you think I didn't?I'm sorry I have 'lost' you. I did put this at the top of my most important essay:
Quote:Second, this has been one of the most difficult Essays to write, since (1) It tackles issues that have sailed right over the heads of some of the greatest minds in history, and (2) It far from easy to expose the core weaknesses of Traditional Philosophy in everyday language, even though, after well over fifty re-writes, I think I have largely managed to do this.I hasten to add, though, that I claim no particular originality for what follows (except, perhaps its highly simplified mode of presentation and its political re-orientation); much of it has in fact been derived from Wittgenstein's work, and, less importantly, from that of other Wittgensteinians.http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htmI do try to make my ideas accessible, so I have re-written most of my essays over fifty times (no exaggeration!) in order to make them more accessible, since it is part of my approach that if I can't explain myself clearly then not even I understand what I am trying to say!
Quote:My proof?You are a human.The only disproof is to admit you're a Turing Test!I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is a proof that I have a philosophical theory.
LB:
Quote:But Wittgenstein's sense is apriori to this is discussion.No, it is also a rule.
Quote:And what if the rest of us are "using "philosophy"/"philosopher" above (in all our posts) in humanity's old sense of that word"?I'm sorry, but what does that mean?
Quote:You'll eventually isolate yourself from comrades if you insist on using an apriori theory that separates you from them, in terms of understanding.I think I said earlier that even if I were the only person on the planet who thought this way, that wouldn't worry me in the least. [If I didn't, I'm saying it now.]In fact, just as soon as my ideas gained a sizebale 'following', I'd instantly know I had gone wrong somewhere. After all the ideas of the ruling-class always rule, and they will continue to do so until we get a workers' state.
Quote:Understanding is always social, not individual [more apriori theory from me, I'm afraid!]No, you are in fact invoking a linguistic rule, and one I happen to agree with.
LB:
Quote:Well, in my opinion, Rosa, you do have an apriori theory!Well, I'd like t see your proof — bald assertion doesn't quite cut it.
LB:
Quote:Isn't this apriori theory, the belief that 'published trumps unpublished'?It's an assertion, not the revealed truth, Rosa!In fact it's an interpretative rule, not an assumption, an assertion, or even a theory — and so it can't be true or false, since rules can only be useful or useless, practical or impractical, obeyed or disobeyed.Recall, I am not against scientific theory, just philosophical theory — you can find a brief explanation why, here:http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=52413&sid=abc212ee470cdda86d744246d944014f&start=40But, I did go through this in an earlier post (and in reply to you).
DJP:
Quote:Well that's all well and good but the evidence suggests that if you're going to be consistent you're going to have to add Marx to the list to.If it can be shown, as opposed to it merely being asserted, that he had a philosophy, sure — but I deny he had one, and I'd like to see the proof to the contrary.
Quote:Well you may think that but hasn't it been shown that every theory has to rest on a certain set of unquestionable a priori assumptions?I don't have a philosophical theory, though — however, if it can be shown, as opposed to it being merely asserted again, that I do, I will disown it immediately, and apologise profusely.
Quote:Hence why the "linguistic turn" has been in somewhat of a retreat in recent decades.(1) You mustn't assume that my work has anything to do with much that was part of 'the lingusitic turn'.(2) Moreover, the version of 'linguistic philosophy' that forms the core of my work depends on no a priori assumptions, and I defy you to show otherwise.(3) There are/were political and ideological reasons why linguistic philosophers retreated from their earlier anti-metaphysical stance, and the genre went into steep decline about 35 years ago.(4) It is worth adding, that I am using "philosophy"/"philosopher" above (in points (2) and (3)) in Wittgenstein's new sense of that word.More on that here:http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10792
YMS. quoting a letter of Marx's:
Quote:He knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.As I have pointed out several times, when it comes to deciding what an author believes, published sources take precedence over unpublished material, especially if the latter were written before the former.So, thanks for the quoted letter, YMS, but as you can see it was written in 1868, over four years before the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital — where Marx took care to include the only summary of 'the dialectic method' he published and endorsed in his entire life. In this summary, there is no trace of Hegel whatsoever, and yet he still calls it 'my method' and 'the dialectic method'.So, this published source takes precendence over that unpublished letter you quoted.Das Kapital is still a Hegel-free zone.Look, to save comrades keep dredging up various letters Marx wrote: I am aware of all of them, but none of them can countermand the above published source. So, you can stop quoting them.
ALB:
Quote:Fair enough, but I'd say that Dietzgen's "dialectical materialism" is another example of non-Hegelian dialectics and he never was a Hegelian in his younger days. It has nothing to do with Plekhanov/Lenin version as explained by Anton Pannekoek in Lenin As Philosopher.Well, I reject all of philosophy as non-sense — not 99.99%, but 100% — and that inlcudes Dietzgen and Pannekoek's versions of it.And here is why:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm
LB:
Quote:If you read again my criticism of Engels, which employs critical realist concepts, perhaps we could then discuss our respective 'a priori' theories?Well, I don't have, nor do I want an a priori theory.I have refrained from discussing Critical Realism since it is off topic to this thread, and it interests me not in the slightest.I have pulled apart one strand of it (at the end of this essay), though:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htmHere is a direct link:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm#Critical-Realism%5BThe page takes a few secods to load, as this essay is over 180,000 words long! Also, if you are using Internet Explorer 10, this link won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibilty View', in the Tools Menu.]
ALB:
Quote:Thanks for conceding this point. So what do you think he meant by it? What does non-Hegelian dialectics look like?I haven't 'conceded' anything. I have maintained this all along, and in my Essays. Here, for example, is my reply to twc on page 15, post #146:
Quote:I have never claimed that Marx didn't use 'the dialectic method' in Das Kapital; the question is: What did he mean by this phrase? Well, we needn't speculate since Marx very kindly told us: in the aforementioned summary of this 'method' no trace of Hegel is to be found. So, Marx's 'method' owes nothing whatsoever to Hegel.In fact, I have to make this very point up front everytime I discuss this topic, since the first thing I am accused of is denying Marx had a 'dialectic method'. Here, for instance, is a recent example of this (taken from August this year):
Quote:First of all it will help if you get my ideas right:1) I have never denied Marx used dialectics in Das Kapital. What I have denied is that he used anything derived from Hegelian dialectics (upside down or 'the right way up') in that work. The very best he could do was to 'coquette' with a few Hegelian terms-of-art in that book, and the summary of the 'dialectic method' he added to the Postface to the second edition (the only summary he published and endorsed in his entire life) suggests that his 'dialectic method' more closely resembles that of Aristotle, Kant and the 'Scottish Historical School' (of Ferguson, Millar, Robertson, Smith, Hume and Stewart).http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?1883-First-Response-To-Anti-Dialectics-Site&p=11311&viewfull=1#post11311So, please get your facts straight.
Quote:So what do you think he meant by it? What does non-Hegelian dialectics look like?It doesn't matter what I think, or what you think, or what Engels or anybody else thinks. When it comes to what Marx believed about 'the dialectic method' it is only relevant to consider what he thought.Fortunately, we needn't speculate, since he very helpfully added a summary of 'the dialectic method' to the Postface to the secind edition of Das Kapital. In that summary not one atom of Hegel is to be found, and yet Marx still calls it 'the dialectic method'.So, if you want to know what "non-Hegelian dialectics" looks like (at least as Marx understood the term), check out that summary.My guess, too, is that it also resembles the 'dialectic method' of Aristotle, Kant, and the Scottish Historical School (of Ferguson, Millar, Roberston, Smith, Hume and Steuart), all of whom were influential on Marx (and Hegel).
Quote:You keep on asserting this but this is a question of historical fact and the facts show that, although he profoundly disagreed with Hegel's idealism and christianity and abandoned the flowery Young Hegelian language of his university and post-graduate and early socialist days, Marx still retained a soft spot for Hegel. Not that this makes any difference either way. Your case against "diamat" (and "philosophy" in general) is not weakened in any way by this. As you yourself have saidThere is no evidence in published sources (after, say, 1873, when the second edition of Das Kapital came out) to back up the idea that Marx had a 'soft spot' for Hegel. In fact, as the Postface to the second edition shows, Das Kapital is indeed a Hegel-free zone.And I'll keep on asserting this until you, or someone else, comes up with a passage, written and published by Marx after January 1873, that summarises 'the dialectic method' in a way that involves anything specifically Hegelian.
