Rosa Lichtenstein
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
L Bird:
Quote: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.I agree, but I'd go further, and argue that there is an intimate connection between all forms of socialism and ruling-class forms-of-thought — as I pointed out in my Interview (slightly edited): [Comrades will find some of the links I have used won't work properly if you are using Internet Explorer 10, unless you switch to 'Compatibilty View', in the Tools Menu).]
Quote:Q: Why do you think that dialectical materialists refuse to abandon dialectical materialism?R.L.: I think there are at least three main reasons, all of which are, ironically, inter-related. The first is rather complex (I hasten to add that I am going to simplify greatly here!): The vast majority of those who have led the Marxist and Socialist movements, or who have helped shape its core ideas, weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the Classics, the Bible, and Philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there lies a 'hidden world', accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us. This way of viewing 'reality' was concocted by ideologues of the ruling-class (in the 'west' back in Ancient Greece). They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways. The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it's not only fraught with danger, it's costly and it stifles innovation (among other things). Another way is to win over the majority, or, at least, a significant section of 'opinion formers' (i.e., bureaucrats, judges, bishops, 'intellectuals', philosophers, teachers, administrators, editors, etc.) to the view that the present order either: (1) Works for their benefit, (2) Defends 'civilised values', (3) Is ordained of the 'gods', or (4) Is 'natural' and so can’t be fought against, reformed or negotiated with. Hence, a 'world-view' that rationalises or 'justifies' one or more of the above is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling "in the same old way". While the content of ruling-class thought may have altered with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth (about this 'hidden world') can be ascertained by thought alone, and therefore can be imposed on reality dogmatically and aprioristically. Some might object that the above forms-of-thought can't have remained the same for thousands of years, across different modes of production, since this idea runs counter to core ideas in Historical Materialism. But, we don't argue the same for religious belief. Marx put no time stamp on the remarks he made about religion. They applied in Ancient Babylon and Egypt, just as they did in China and India, and Greece and Rome, in the Middle Ages and they have done so right across the planet ever since. The same is true of the core thought-forms found throughout traditional Philosophy, East and West — that there is indeed an invisible world, accessible to thought alone –, especially given the comments Marx made about Philosophy itself:Quote:Feuerbach's great achievement is…[t]he 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…. [1844 Paris Manuscripts. Bold added.]Because of their petty-bourgeois and/or non-working class origin — and as a result of their socialisation and the 'superior' education they have generally received in bourgeois society — the vast majority of those who have led our movement have had "ruling ideas", or ruling-class forms-of-thought, forced down their throats almost from day one. [Or, if these individuals were workers (or quasi-workers, like Dietzgen), they soon learnt to accommodate to the ruling-ideas that had already colonised the workers' movement.] So, the non-worker founders of our movement — who had been educated from an early age to believe there was just such a 'hidden world' lying behind 'appearances', and which governs everything — when they became revolutionaries, looked for a priori, 'logical, principles relating to this abstract world that told them that change was inevitable, and was thus part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of that ruling-class Christian and Hermetic mystic, Hegel (and/or other boss-class theorists). The dialectical classicists were thus happy to impose their theory on the world (upside down or the 'right way up') since that is how they had been taught 'genuine' philosophy should proceed. You can see comrades (and others) regularly doing this sort of thing right across the Internet on various discussion boards and blogs, (and, indeed, in books and articles on 'dialectics' or Marxist Philosophy; in fact, many examples can be found at this site (i.e, The North Star) — added on edit: and here, at the SPGB discussion board). These comrades rarely if ever stop and think how it is possible that they can so effortlessly derive fundamental theses, true for all of space and time, about 'Being', 'consciousness', 'subjectivity', 'essence', 'sensation', 'knowledge', etc., etc., from a handful of words/concepts, all in the comfort of their own heads. In fact, it seems quite natural and uncontroversial for them to do this. Indeed, this is one of the abiding ideas of the ruling-class — and, as Marx noted, their ideas always rule. This 'allowed' the founders of dialectical materialism (and other forms of 'Marxist Philosophy') to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order and this new theory — whose profound truths workers, alas, couldn't quite grasp because of their dependence on ordinary language, 'formal thinking', and the 'banalities of commonsense'. In which case, dialecticians and other left-orientated philosophers aren't going to relinquish the pre-eminent position that adherence to this theory bestows on them (in their own eyes) — they are the High Priests of the Revolution, and are determined to stay that way. The second reason is a bit more down-to-earth, so to speak: Because Dialectical and other forms of Marxism have been such spectacular and long-term failures, Marxists have had to convince themselves that (a) This isn't really so, that the opposite is in fact the case, or that (b) This is only a temporary state of affairs. In view of the additional fact that they also hold that truth is tested in practice, they are forced to adopt one or both of (a) and (b), otherwise they'd be forced to conclude that history had in fact refuted their theory. Now, because dialectics and traditional approaches to philosophy teach that appearances are "contradicted" by underlying "essences", or they do not conform to them, it is able to occupy a unique role in this regard, motivating and/or rationalising (a) and/or (b), above. So, although things might appear to be going wrong, these invisible underlying 'essences' — that only those who 'understand' dialectics or philosophy seem able to perceive, ascertain or comprehend — tell them the opposite. Alas, this prevents these theorists from addressing the serious theoretical problems that afflict all forms of Marxist Socialism. That is, if they even so much as acknowledge there are any problems! Part of the difficulty is that they don't! All the while all forms of Marxism sink slowly into oblivion and self-inflicted irrelevance. The philosophical equivalence of fiddling while Rome burns. I mentioned earlier that Marx thought that "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought" (a comment Marxist philosophers studiously ignore). However, just like role that religion assumes in the lives of those who look to Bishops and Imams for guidance, dialectics and philosophy in general provide those held in their thrall with much needed consolation in the face of the alienating affects of long-term failure, convincing them that everything is in fact fine with their core theory, or that things will change for the better — one day. This then 'allows' these comrades to ignore the long-term failure of all forms of Marxism, rationalising it as a mere "appearance" and hence either false or illusory. So, confronted with 150 years of defeats, debacles and disasters, and in the face of their own belief that truth is tested in practice, revolutionaries almost invariably respond with a "Well that doesn't prove dialectics and philosophy are wrong!" Again, just like the religious, who can survey all the 'evil' in the world and still see it as an expression of the 'Love of God' — who will make all things well in the end –-, those who look to philosophy can survey the last 150 years and still see the 'Logic of History' moving their way, and that all will be well in the end, too. This means that the theory that prevents them from facing reality expresses the very same set of ideas that stops them from examining it, inviting yet another generation of failure by masking these facts. So, dialecticians and Marxist philosophers aren't going to abandon this valuable source of consolation, and will continue clinging to it like drunks to lampposts. The third reason is also connected with the other two: As is the case with the Bible, which provides believers with ample excuses to accuse everyone else of not 'understanding' the 'Will of God', Marxist philosophy in general, with its sacred texts, provides its acolytes with equally obscure ideas that 'allow' them to claim that other theorists — even if they are Marxists (but who belong to a different party or tendency) — either do not 'understand' dialectics/Marxist philosophy, or they ignore and 'misuse' it. Only they can fully comprehend such esoteric 'truths'. This then 'allows' these 'true believers' to anathematise and castigate other comrades as anti-Marxist. In short, it puts in the hands of inveterate sectarians (of which all forms of Marxism have had more than their fair share) an almost infinitely pliable, ideological weapon capable of proving almost anything at all and its opposite — simply because it glories in contradiction. Abandoning this theory would therefore deprive our 'leaders' (and many of our theorists) of a very powerful ideological weapon, which helps them control the movement by, oddly enough, keeping it small, and thus easier to control. So, despite the fact that we have witnessed over 150 years of comrades devoting themselves to 'building the party'/'movement', very few can boast membership rolls that rise much above the risible. Hence, the only thing that all forms of Marxism seem to be expert at is falling out among themselves, and splitting! This explains the apposite nature of the Monty Python sketch about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (etc.), which everyone knows and quotes. Its clichéd status reveals a truth that has sunk deep into the collective public mind: Marxism is now a standing joke.
LB:
Quote: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.Again, I agree, but that point can be generalised and extended to all those (in vanguard parties or otherwise) who think they can ascertain such profound truths in the comfort of their own heads. Vanguard parties merely compound the problem, they don't create it.
Quote: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.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.
DJP, earlier:
Quote:And there's more but I can't be bothered…So, you can be 'bothered', especially now that I have shown that your last 'proof text' was a dud.But, what about the latest batch of 'proof texts'?As I noted earlier, I have had these 'proof texts' thrown at me a hundred times, just as I also pointed out that I begin with the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, and it contains not one atom of Hegel — and yet Marx, not me, Marx still calls it 'the dialectic method'.Well, what of these 'proof texts' (all of which I covered in that Essay to which I linked)?Taking each in turn:
Quote:My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.Well, one can't get more "opposite" to Hegel than to excise him completely from one's work, and we know Marx did that because of the summary he published a few paragraphs earlier in the same Postface, which contains no trace of Hegel whatsoever, but which Marx still calls "my method" and "the dialectic method". So, 'proof text' number one bites the dust.What about 'proof text' two?
Quote:The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. 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. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.Attentive readers will no doubt have noticed that Marx puts his 'avowal' of Hegel in the past tense — "avowed". And there was good reason for this, since his views had changed. How do we know they had? Well, the only summary of 'the dialectic method' that Marx published and endorsed in his entire life contains no Hegel at all — which summary would be an odd thing for Marx to endorse when it omits all mention of Hegel or Hegel's method, that is, if he were still 'avowing' his debt to Hegel, don't you think?And this view of Marx's opinion is underlined by his admission that the very best he could do with Hegelian jargon was to 'coquette' with it, 'here and there', in his book. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?But, what of Marx calling Hegel "a mighty thinker"?Well, one can call someone a "mighty thinker" but still disagree with what they say. For example, I think Plato was a "mighty thinker" but I reject 99.99% of what he wrote.And yet there is this famous passage at the end of 'proof text' two:
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. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.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.But what of this?
Quote:In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.Of course, it is up for grabs what Marx meant by 'the rational form of the dialectic' — or, it is until we recall what I have written above: the 'rational form of the dialectic' isn't to be found in Hegel, but in the work of the others I have referenced and in the only summary of that method Marx published and endorsed in his entire life, from which every trace of Hegel (upside down or 'the right way up') had been excised.So, 'proof text' three can now be sent off to the crematorium.Send no flowers…[As I also noted before: none of these 'proof texts' establishes what traditionalists think they do — especially if we begin with that summary Marx added to the Postface to the second edition, which I have mentioned far too many times already.]DJP:
Quote:Marx was no Hegelian but RL's claim that Marx did not hold Hegel in high regard and ignored him in his later work is again shown to be pure BS.As we can now see, it is DJP who is the BS-er here.And, thanks for the Ollman material, but since he too has ignored what Marx himself had to say about 'his method' and 'the dialectic method', we can take what Ollman wrote with a lorry load of salt.Incidentally, I have taken Ollman's a priori dogmatics apart here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2003_02.htm#Ollmans-Traditionalism%5BIf you are using Internet Explorer 10, the above link won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu).]So, are there any more 'proof texts' you'd like me to shoot down in flames?
mcolome1:
Quote:The important issue is to not question dialectic, because many peoples have already done that including the right wingers, the important issue is to break away from Leninism, Bolshevism, reformism, state capitalism, leftism, and the vanguard party concept.Unfortunately, 'the dialectic' is accepted by all wings of Marxsim, including those you rail against. As I pointed out in my Interview:
Quote:Q: What do you make of the argument that the reason why James Burnham became a reactionary conservative was his rejection of the dialectic? It is obvious you would reject it, but what do you think the actual issues were with Burnham? R.L.: The odd thing is that if you are a Trotskyist, the vast majority of dialecticians are in fact (for you) anti-Marxists or are counter-revolutionaries, namely the Stalinists and the Maoists. On the other hand, if you are a Stalinist, the vast majority of dialecticians are in fact (for you) anti-Marxists or are counter-revolutionaries, namely the Maoists and the Trotskyists. Alternatively, if you are a Maoist, the vast majority of dialecticians are in fact (for you) anti-Marxists or are counter-revolutionaries, namely the Stalinists and the Trotskyists. The same is true if you are a Left Communist or even an anti-Leninist Marxist. Hence, an adherence to dialectical materialism (or 'materialist dialectics') is no guarantee that you will always remain on the 'straight and narrow'. In fact, the vast majority of Dialectical Marxists 'fall by the wayside' (according to those not in the specific party or tendency making this judgement), even while remaining faithful to it in their own eyes! A nice 'unity of opposites' for your readers to ponder. Of course, the counter-argument is that all these other groups/theorists 'mis-apply' the dialectic, or they don't 'understand' it — but, they all say that of one another! In fact, there is no objective way of deciding if and when 'the dialectic' has been, or can ever be, applied 'correctly'. Indeed, if truth is tested in practice, the weight of evidence (from the history of all wings of Dialectical Marxism) delivers a very uncomplimentary verdict in this regard. They'd be the very epitome of success if their application of 'the dialectic' were correct….http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10789 I have had arguments like this with members of every shade of Trotskyism you care to name, Leninists and Stalinists of every stripe, Maoists and Libertarian Marxists, Left Communists, and many others besides, and they all make the point you have made — except they point their fingers at everyone else, and say things like 'Those Trotskyists/Leninists/Maoists/Stalinists… have misused/misapplied/failed to 'understand the 'dialectic'…." So, according to all these Marxists, there are far more of those who have abandoned Marxism/Socialism who are in fact dialecticians (in their own eyes) than there are those who aren't. Quite apart from the fact that 'the dialectic' makes not one ounce of sense, the moral of this is that those who claim to be, and wish to remain Marxists should abandon 'the dialectic', since the vast majority of those who have actually abandoned Marxism are/were dialecticians.
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 dayWell, 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.
AJ:
Quote: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?"Depends on who they are what they say. I have listed a few glaring weaknesses DM-fans struggle to come to grips with (in fact they almost invariably just ignore them, a bit like Christians ignore the many examples of 'evil'/lack of design in nature), here:http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?927-Some-questions-for-Rosa&p=12397&viewfull=1#post12397http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?927-Some-questions-for-Rosa&p=12413&viewfull=1#post12413However, since I largely argue with fellow Leninists about this, I'm not too sure the above will help you.
Quote:Come on, Rosa, dish the dirt. What party, what party leaders, what bidding?As I noted in an earlier post, you can find the details here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2001.htm
mcolome1:
Quote:This is how Marxist Humanists and Hegelian have explained what Marx called his dialectic method on the preface of Capital:Thanks for that, but you will no doubt notice that I challenged these a priori dogmatists to defend their ideas (in the comments section at the bottom of the page), which they found they couldn't do. The discussion was halted by the fact that they were rebuilding the site at the time, and so it continued here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Jurriaans_Folly.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/jurriaan_throws_his_toys_out_of.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/replies.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/replies_to_two_critics.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/yet_more_replies.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/weak_responses_from_kosloff_and_mage.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/mr_b_up_to_his_old_tricks.htmAnd via e-mail, where one well-known Marxist Professor of Economics called me an 'evil person' who should 'eat sh*t and die' simply because I had the temerity to question this theory, and point out that he couldn't actually explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' was. He has recently repeated this on a web page (the one that published my Interview and my Essay on Wittgenstein), but his post was deleted because of the violent and abusive language he used.I explain why dialecticians are like this, here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm#1917
twc:
Quote:ALB’s conflation adequately demonstrates how little the SPGB ever cared for Hegel and dialectics.Take that up with them, not me; I'm not a member, nor have I ever been.
Quote:Do you consider this intrusion of Hegel’s “quantity passing into quality” as:Marx seriously [even if misguidedly] acknowledging HegelMarx incautiously coquetting with Hegelian terminologyMarx ironically mocking HegelEngels’s misguided editorial interference in Marx’s original textMarx fondly slipping Hegel into Capital in defiance of Engels’s prior warnings.As I have pointed out several times, this is in fact a misapplication of Hegel's 'law', so either you believe Marx was an imbecile, or he was still 'coquetting'. Take your pick.
Quote:Rosa, direct your hostility, where it belongs, against the originator of the materialist dialectics of nature, one Karl Heinrich Marx.Not so; that was down to Engels and Plekhanov (with some help from Dietzgen).
DJP:
Quote:The pamphlet then goes on to criticise the confused "dialecticians" of the type that Rosa is very correct in critising.You forgot to mention I also destructively criticise material like this:
Quote:What Marx and Engels meant by dialectics was made clear in the latter's book, Anti-Duhring, written with the assistance of Marx. In this 'book Engels, when referring to the negation of the negation, and having instanced the growth of a grain of barley to a crop-bearing plant, etc., says: "If I say that all these processes constitute the negation of the negation, I embrace them all under this one law of progress and leave the distinctive features of each special process without particular notice. The dialectic is, as a matter of fact, nothing but the science of the universal laws of motion and evolution in nature, human society and thought." (Landmarks of Scientific Socialism – Anti-Duhring. Kerr edition 1907. p. 173).Anti-Duhring is one of the very worst books ever to have been written by a leading socialist; I take it apart here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htmI also reject the idea that it represents Marx's view — details supplied on request.
DJP:
Quote:You can give whatever rambling answer you like but the evidence is here.In that case, you must think Marx an imbecile since he manifestly misapplied this 'law'; an increase in the quantity of money, no matter how large it becomes, can't become capital. Only a change in its use (allied with a change in the Mode of Production) can do that. Call that response 'rambling' if you like, but you have no answer to it — that is, other than adhere to an interpretation that means Marx didn't understand Historical Materialism!
Quote:And there's more but I can't be bothered.Yes, I've seen all this 'evidence' and it fails to establish what you would like it to establish, so no wonder you 'can't be bothered'.
Quote:BTW If you really think that any amount of money or commodities can function as capital please let me know and I'll send you 10p and a half a box of nails. You can report back to us all once you have grown a business empire.That is the exact opposite of what I asserted. But, yes, 10p can become capital if it used to buy shares in a bear market, at rock bottom prices. It can also serve as variable capital for an employer who pays starvation wages.
Quote:I have some sympathy for what you are trying to do. I am certainly very suspicious of those who think that Marx should be read through the prism of Hegel.But I read that one of the reasons you started your project was that those high in the party heirarchy where using terminology from "dialectics" to hoodwink lower party minions into doing there bidding. In that case the problem is more one of hierarchical / leninist party models then of "dialectics" per se. I think you have been avoiding the real issue all along…There are many other reasons I set my face aganst this theory other than that. So, no, I have not been 'avoiding' any issues at all.You can read my resons here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2001.htm
twc, thanks for that, but I was responding to ALB's use of the word 'phenomenalist', not commenting on what Marx had said when I posted this comment:
Quote:Anyway, it depends on what you mean by ‘Phenomenalism ’ — there are far more varieties than even Wikipedia acknowledges.
DJP, thanks for the quotation from Das Kapital which supposedly uses an idea drawn from Hegel.Whenever I debate this topic with comrades, a series of passages from Marx's writings (published and unpublished) are thrown at me, this particular one leading the pack. Here is how I replied to it when it was first lobbed in my general direction a few years ago over at RevLeft (before they banned me for being too good at opposing their Hermeticist musings):
Quote:Values (it is assumed that these are "exchange values") do not become Capital by mere quantitative increment. It requires the presence of a Capitalist Mode of Production (and thus a change in the Relations of Production), or a different use of that money, for this to be so. The capitalists concerned have to do something with these exchange values. So, the mere increase of exchange values doesn't automatically "pass over" into a qualitative change and become Capital. These values have to be invested, and that too isn't automatic (in certain circumstances, they could be consumed). So, what we have here is a change in quality passing over into another change in quality! Quantity has nothing to do with it. The same quantity of money could be used as Capital or fail to be so used. It requires a change in its quality (its use, or its social context) to effect such a development….Over the last twenty-five years or so, in my trawl through the Dialectical Dustbowl, I have yet to encounter a single dialectician who has pointed out that the above application of Hegel's 'Law' by Marx contains a serious error!So, £x/$y (or their equivalent) owned by a Medieval Lord in, say, Eleventh Century France, couldn't become Capital no matter how large this pot of money had become, whereas £w/$z in Nineteenth Century Manchester, even though it might be less than the £x/$y pounds held by that Lord (allowing for inflation, etc.), would be Capital if employed in certain ways. It isn't the quantity that is important here but the Mode of Production and the use to which the money is put, that are.Furthermore, it is worth asking: How does this money actually "develop"? In what way can it "develop"? Sure, money can be saved and/or accumulated, but how does a £1/$1 coin "develop" if its owner saves or accumulates more of the same? Even if we redefine "save" and "accumulate" to mean "develop" (protecting this 'law' by yet another terminological dodge, thus imposing it on the facts), not all money will "develop" in this way. What if all the money was stolen or had been expropriated from, or by, another non-capitalist? What if it was obtained (all at once) by selling land, slaves, works of art, political or other favours, etc? Where is the "development" here? But, such money could still operate as Capital, howsoever it was acquired, depending on its use and the Mode of Production in which this takes place.Of course, this isn't to deny that there were Capitalists (or nascent Capitalists) in pre-Capitalist Europe; but whatever money they had, its nature as Capital wasn't determined by its quantity, but by the use to which it was put. This is also true in the period of transition between Feudalism and Capitalism (before the Capitalist Mode of Production was apparent/dominant); it is the use to which money is put that decides whether or not it is Capital, not its quantity.In which case, this represents an egregious mis-application of Hegel's 'Law' — by Marx himself! Now, either we believe Marx was a complete imbecile (in that he committed this crass error, and failed even to understand Historical Materialism!), or we conclude he was still "coquetting" with Hegelian jargon. [Again, these days we'd use 'scare quotes' in such circumstances, or we'd simply refrain from using such language altogether.][Please note that if you are using Internet Explorer 10, you might find the above link won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu).]So, in the sense that Marx took Hegel seriously, Das Kapital is indeed a Hegel-free zone.
twc:
Quote:Your conflation of phenomenalism with the Phänomenologie des Geistes [the only phenomenology Marx and Engels recognized, and “the true birthplace and secret of the Hegelian philosophy”: Marx, 1844], explains your puzzlement over the intent of Marx's Phänomenologie quote in establishing Dietzgen’s independence of Hegel.Er…, where have I conflated "phenomenalism with the Phänomenologie des Geistes"? May I remind you it was ALB who introduced the word 'phenomenalism' — not me — and I have merely been concerned to deflect what he had to say. How does that equate to a 'conflation'?I have nowhere even so much as mentioned that confused book by Hegel.
L Bird:
Quote: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.In fact, my influence is very limited. Not one single revolutuionary party has modified its stance on Dialectical Materialism at all, let alone as a result of anything I have said. And of those individual Marxists who agree with me, very few have been persuaded by my work; in most cases, they had already been thinking along similar lines.
ALB:
Quote:The argument has been over why Marx didn't think much of Dietzgen. You have argued that Marx was criticising him because he was a Hegelian while the evidence is the other way round: that Marx was criticising him for not having taken Hegel into account, as confirmed by him calling him a "phenomenalist"Where have I argued that "Marx was criticising him because he was a Hegelian"?My criticism of Dietzgen is that he (unwittingly) helped import ruling-class forms-of-thought into the workers' movement.
Quote:That's what we are saying here about Marx ! Not that he was a Hegelian but that he was influenced by him (for good or ill). Anybody who went to a German university in the 1840s would have been. Not that that is any reason for us to be.I have never denied Marx was influenced by Hegel in his early work; my point is that he left all that behind in his mature work.
Quote:That's criticising him for being a "philosopher" rather than for being Hegelian, part of your general criticism of all philosophy and philosophers. In fact, as this is your position I don't understand why you single out "dialectical materialism" for criticism when in fact your campaign is not just against it, but against all philosophy.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. But, if you read some of my essays, I do take up the cudgels against traditional philosophy as such — for example, this one:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm
Quote:To be consistent, you should be advertising a philosophy detox programme at the end of your emails.Perhaps I will.
ALB:
Quote:Can you give an example or two?"I need to re-read the book. But, I don't want to get hung up on this point; so until I do re-read it, I am happy to withdraw this allegation.
Quote:The other thing you need to explain is why Marx (in the year before his death) described Dietzgen as a "phenomenalist":I'm sorry, but why do I need to 'explain' this?
Quote:It's hard to imagine anything less Hegelian than phenomenalism.I'm not saying Dietzgen was consistent or that he wasn't thoroughly confused.Anyway, it depends on what you mean by 'Phenomenalism' — there are far more varieties than even Wikipedia acknowledges.
Quote:That may well be true but it still doesn't make him a Hegelian. After all, this could be said of many non-Hegelians.1) I have nowhere said Dietzgen was an Hegelian, only that he had been influenced by Hegel.2) And you are right, "this could be said of many non-Hegelians"; but then again, the ideas of the ruling-class are in every age the ruling- ideas.Dietzgen is merely offering his readers a different take on this perennial ideology — which I summarised in an earlier post: that is, the belief that fundamental truths about 'being', 'knowledge', 'brainwork', 'sensation', etc., can be derived from thought/language alone, and can thus be imposed on nature and society dogmatically and aprioristically.
