Rosa Lichtenstein
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB, thanks for that.Now, I have in my library all 50 volumes of the MECW (and I spent a couple of hours last night checking every reference to Dietzgen's name as listed in the name index). These volumes also reproduce all of Marx and Engels's correspondence. There is nothing in that correspondence (with Kugelmann) that has Marx saying of Dietzgen's work that it "contains much that is excellent". What he had to say is as I reported it in my last few replies to you.Now, Ollman quotes the Selected Correspondence (a copy of which I do not have), but it is odd that the complete works has no such entry. I hesitate to suggest that Ollman has made a mistake here, but until someone can check the Selected Correspondence, there isn't much else to say.However, in order to make sure I am not attributing to Marx ideas he did not hold, I am now checking all of Marx's letters to Kugelmann, since it is quite clear that the MECW name index is incomplete: it omits some of Marx's references to Dietzgen (e.g., it omits mention of Dietzgen in Marx's letter to Kugelmann, 12/12/1868, volume 43, p.184; there Marx merely talks about Dietzgen's working class credentials "His biography is not quite what I had thought. But I always had a feeling that he was 'not a worker like Eccarius'.") I'll get back to you when I have finished this checking, where I will respond to the other things you say.
mcolome1:"In reality was Engels who called him the 'workingman philosopher, and it was written on his essay on Feuerbach. And Marx was the one who said 'Here is our philosopher and it was written on a report on the first international on Prague. On the 25th anniversary of his death Lenin spoke favorable about him"Thanks for that, but Engels's opinion is hardly relevant to what Marx thought about Dietzgen (and we now know what that was — see his comments in my last post).I have already covered the allegation that Marx called Dietzgen "our philosopher" — see my last two replies to ALB on page 12.And sure, Lenin spoke favourably of Dietzgen at times; at other times he criticised him severely. But, as with Engels, Lenin's opinion isn't relevant to what Marx thought of Dietzgen, either.
mcolome1:"The only person who had a low view about Dietzgen was Lenin. Marx called him the workers' philosopher, his under-estimation come from the same Leninists, even more, some of them have said that Plekhanov was the creator of the concept of dialectical materialism and it wasn't him, it was Dietzgen. George Plekhanov wrote about him and asked socialists to study his works"Did you not read these comments by Marx?"My view is that J Dietzgen would do best if he condensed all his ideas into 2 printed sheets and had them printed in his name as a tanner. If he publishes them at the intended length, he will make a fool of himself because of the lack of dialectical development and the running in circles.""You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one."[References in my last post.]And I note you failed to reference where Marx called Dietzgen:"the workers' philosopher". Was that an oversight?"his under-estimation come from the same Leninists, even more, some of them have said that Plekhanov was the creator of the concept of dialectical materialism and it wasn't him, it was Dietzgen. George Plekhanov wrote about him and asked socialists to study his works"As a Leninist myself, I have, believe it or not, a very low opinion of Lenin as a philosopher, and nearly as low an opinion of Plekhanov and Engels — all three had uncritically appropriated far too many ideas from ruling-class hacks (such as Heraclitus, Plotinus, Spinoza and Hegel).But, all three were geniuses compared to Dietzgen.Marx was right: "the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one."And thanks for the link; I read that blog article several years ago, and it merely confirmed my opinion that Dietzgen was a rather feeble philosopher. Marx saw through him pretty quickly.
Ok, here are the only detailed comments I could find in the Collected Works (there are many more brief mentions of Dietzgen, but most are only passing remarks — such as 'received letter from…', etc.):Marx to Kugelmann 07/12/1867: "Engels rightly observes that the autodidactic philosophy — pursued by workers themselves — has made great progress in this tanner, when compared with the cobbler Jakob Böhme, ditto that none but the 'German' worker is capable of such cerebral production." [MECW 42, p.497.]Marx to Engels 04/10/1868: "My view is that J Dietzgen would do best if he condensed all his ideas into 2 printed sheets and had them printed in his name as a tanner. If he publishes them at the intended length, he will make a fool of himself because of the lack of dialectical development and the running in circles." [MECW 43, p.121.]Marx to Kugelmann 07/12/1867: "Engels rightly observes that the autodidactic philosophy — pursued by workers themselves — has made great progress in this tanner, when compared with the cobbler Jakob Böhme, ditto that none but the 'German' worker is capable of such cerebral production." [MECW 42, p.497.]Marx to Engels 05/01/1882: "You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one." [MECW 46, p.172.][Unfortunately, these letters are not yet on-line.]In view of what he wrote to Engels, Marx's comments to Kugelmann can be seen in a different light: Marx had a very low opinion of Dietzgen's 'philosophical' work (which mirrors my own view of it).This makes my earlier guess (that Marx was being slightly facetious, or was ribbing the man, when he called Dietzgen 'our philosopher' — that is, if he said it) correct, I think.
ALB:"I thought you said somewhere that you were or had been in some Trotskyist organisation (SWP, I think) and jumped to the conclusion that you were an orthodox one. My apologies but what, then, is your case against "abstract propaganda" for socialism?"The SWP are, or were, a Trotskyist organisation; I was a member for a few years twenty or more years ago. As far as I know, they have never advocated, or argued for, transitional demands. I have nothing against 'abstract propaganda' for socialism, provided that it isn't all — or the only thing –, that an organisation engages in.And thank you for the Dietzgen reference. There are two things I would say about this: 1) Secondary reports about what Marx did or didn't think about Joseph Dietzgen in no way count as reliable evidence about what he thought about philosophy, especially when they contradict what Marx himself wrote about it. 2) Even if we were to believe Dietzgen's son, Marx's use of 'our philosopher' should be viewed as a non-serious, almost facetious use of that phrase. Unless we were there, there is no way of deciding now whether Marx meant it seriously, or was merely ribbing Dietzgen.And I maintain that Marx wasn't interested in epistemology — or, rather, there is no evience that he was.I am currently in the process of checking Marx's comments about Dietzgen; I'll get back to you when I have finished.
LB:"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."I'd like to see the proof that any/every method has a theory behind it."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."Not all theories contain axioms; I think you are confusing formal theories with theories in general.
ALB:"I never said that Marx had a positive attitude to philosophy in general "I never said you did; my point was that the very last things Marx wrote about philosophy were negative, and after the late 1840s there are no postive (or even neutral) things he had to say about this discipline.ALB:"(In fact I said the opposite) nor would I deny that when Marx talks about ruling ideas he includes philosophy of all kinds in this. My point was narrower: that by "die Philosophen" in your quotes he was talking about post-Hegel German philosophers of which he'd once been one."Indeed, but in view of the other points I made in my last post, it is quite obvious that the things he said about philosophy weren't just about German Philosophy.ALB:"It is surely significant that in the passage where he writes of this he speaks of "thinkers", "producers of ideas" rather than "philosophers". Surely to make it clear he was referring to a wider group than he referred elsewhere to as "die Philosphen", a group that includes theologists, theorists of law or history or literature and ideologists of all kind as well as philosophers, German or otherwise."I agree, but this wider group will include philosophers, too.ALB:"I would add, though, that in assimilating "producers of ideas" and "philosphers" and then rejecting philosophy you would also seem to be rejecting all theorising, even by socialists. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or, more worryingly, denying the utility of arguing the case for socialism with fellow workers, not even in simple, everyday language (preferring to lead them down the path of "transitional demands" instead as a way of making them learn)."No, I don't reject scientific theory, as I have pointed out before.However, I'm not sure why you mentioned 'transitional demands' — I have never argued in their favour, whatever other Trotskyists might have maintained.
ALB:"I still say, RL, that you are on to a loser in trying to argue that Wittgenstein meant something different by "philosophy" than the Logical Positivists and the Ordinary Language Philosophers. All of them were concerned with analysing the meaning of everyday language and eliminating most of what traditional philosophy had studied as "metaphysics". Anyway, you have conceded that Wittgenstein did philosophy and was a philosopher, even if a sort of anti-philosophy philosopher."Sure, he might have meant it the same way, but there is no evidence that he did (at least you present none), and plenty that suggests he didn't. Check out the long version of my article:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/was_wittgenstein_a_leftist.htmBut, let us suppose you are right, I certainly mean this word differently. Where Wittgenstein might have trod softy, I use hobnail boots."Anyway, you have conceded that Wittgenstein did philosophy and was a philosopher, even if a sort of anti-philosophy philosopher."Well, would you accept the following from, say, a critic of your politics?"Anyway, you are a capitalist, even if a sort of anti-capitalist capitalist."I rather think you'd reject that description of your politics. Same with Wittgenstein (and me) about philosophy.ALB:"You are on to a loser too is trying to argue that by "the philosophers" Marx meant more than the German "critical critics" that he'd once been associated with himself and that the quotes you have given about him saying they were quasi-religious, ought to come down to earth, were only concerned with discussing and changing ideas, etc, etc don't refer to them. Engels actually says so in his preface to his Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. Referring to what was later to be published (after his death) as The German Ideology, he wrote:!"Well, Engels had his own axe to grind, so what he had to say many years later is hardly relevant to what Marx meant in the 1840s — and this is especially so since there aren't any (nor can you find any) positive comments made by Marx about philosophy after the late 1840s — you can check, I did.Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, Marx said this in the German Ideology:"The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch…."[Bold added.]Once more, you will no doubt notice that Marx tells us that the ruling-class "rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age", which means that what he had to say about philosophy didn't just apply to German Philosophers, but to all philosophers.Or, do you think that when he said:"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it…,"[Bold added.]he didn't actually mean "in every epoch" but only in the Germany of the 18th and 19th centuries?Now, Marx could be wrong (but see my reply to L Bird on this), but if we want to know what he meant by "philosophy" the above comments are surely relevant.So, of course, much of what he had to say about philosophy did apply to the German conditions, but, as I asked you in an earlier post: Do you think that the theories of, say, Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Boethius, John Scotus Eriugena, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Ockham, Buridan, Suarez, Cusanus, Berkeley, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Wolfe (and countless others), weren't part of speculative metaphysics?So, even if you are right about Marx, his comments in the German Ideology must also apply to theorists like the above — and, I'd argue, since the 'British Materialists' also engaged in speculative metaphysics, they apply to them, too.ALB:"But this discussion about the meaning of philosophy is a bit of a side-show. More important are the differences over Leninism and its political tactics and practice, as an ideology of state capitalism, arising from the meaning of the ruling ideas being those of the ruling class and how to deal with this."Sure, but that is for another time, and a different thread.
mcolome1:"The discoveries made by Lewis Morgan forced Marx and Engels to redefine their definition about class and ideology, therefore it was not in every epoch, they exist only in class society"That is, of course, implied by the phrase: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas…." If there is no ruling-class, then their ideas can't rule — and there was no ruling-class in pre-class society.So, they didn't have to revise their ideas on this score — but, if you think differently, let's see the passage where one or other of them say what you allege of them.
YMS:"I could do Quantum mechanics in one minute. Probably."Go on then…"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."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'd have thought that a genius like you would know this."I'm sorry if you feel you've wasted thirty years of your life."No, just the few minutes here 'debating' with you.
Young Master Smeet, quoting me:"I'm OK with the classical definition of 'dialectic' (connected with argument), although I prefer to avoid it since it creates confusion when I say such things; what I am not Ok with is the metaphysical version of the dialectic many of you seem to have accepted."Sure, I am Ok with the classical defintion, but that doesn't mean I accept it as a viable technique, or one I'd use even if it were viable.YMS:"Now, accepting the dialectical approach described by Schopenhauer means accepting that knowledge is contingent and emergent as part of an ongoing process, which is precisely what the "metaphysical" approach says in it's entirety. Rosa Lichtenstein may have spent 30 years of study on this, but I've spent five minutes in my coffee break this morning, and I get that. This post contains everything you need to know about dialectic. All else is detail."And thank you for putting the world to rights in all of five minutes; I can see you are a profound thinker and more than a match for me (and Schopenhauer, who spent much more than five minutes on what he had to say).In fact, you remind me of the character from Spinal Tap who reckoned he was a great guitarist: "I could play Stairway to Heaven on my guitar when I was just 21 and Jimmy Page didn't write it until he was 27. I think that says a lot".What next, Quantum Mechanics in five minutes, too?
Morgenstern (who has, wisely, given up arguing, and is merely content to post personal attacks):"Could I suggest that all here google "Rosa Lichtenstein" in order to inform their future debate? Or, as seems increasingly likely, Ross Lichtenstein. The Steve Wallis exchange was quite illuminating. Of course, it's a little humiliating for our forum that (s)he has come here when their fortunes had sunk so low."Oh dear, yet another wally who has Googled Socialist Steve's comments!You do know that this comrade has serious psychiatirc problems, don't you (and has tried to commit suicide)?You can tell that not all is right with him by the way he interpreted a comment of mine about the "alien-class" ideas of the ruling-class — he thinks that this means I think the ruling-class is a caste of shape-shifing lizards!And who is this 'Ross' person?
Morgenstern:"Second young Master Smeet."I see. Little Sir Echo has no original thoughts of his own, eh?
mcolome1:"This is only a classroom discussion, nothing else. A show of who knows more, or who knows less. In this world we need workers with class consciousness and political knowledge in order to overthrow this stupid economical system"In which there is no place for dialectics. Agreed!
ALB:"You say that, but later on your give a series of quotes from him which form the basis of Ordinary Language Philosophy,"Like Marx, he certainly advocated a return to ordinary language, but he was at no time part of the Ordinary Language Philosphers (who were largely situated at Oxford), and his work is nothing like theirs. Some of them did learn from him but the influence went only one-way.ALB:"I have now. Very interesting. I hadn't realised before he was such a fellow traveller of the Russian state capitalist regime. Nor that he converted to Roman Catholicism even if on his deathbed (enough to damn anyone in my eyes). But I notice that you describe him as a "philosopher" and even use his flirting with Hegelian language as evidence for him being a leftwinger !"Yes, and he is to be criticised for that, too. No one is perfect.[You can console yourself with the thought that I am a militant atheist.]I also added this comment to the longer version of that article:"One of the difficulties with trying to prove to revolutionaries/socialists that someone is 'of the left' is that the bar has already been set rather high; even worse, it is set at different heights by different comrades. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of the sectarian approach to 'orthodoxy' we often encounter on the far-left: a pharisaical requirement for doctrinal purity placed on all those who are, or claim to be, Marxists appears to be an inherent character trait of this corner of the radical market. "Hence, if comrade C is, for instance, a Trotskyist, then, concerning individual P, unless it can be shown to C that P is a member of the very same Tendency or Party as C, he/she is unlikely to accept any amount of evidence purporting to show that P is 'of the left' (or, what is far more likely, of 'the genuine left'). The same is true, mutatis mutandis, if C is a Stalinist, Maoist, or Libertarian Communist — or, indeed, hails from some other wing of the countless options on offer in revolutionary and far-left politics. Hence, the material presented above is unlikely to convince any who are like comrade C."So, and with all due respect, I do hope you will drop your sectarian approach to orthodoxy, even if only for a short while, and only here.Wittgenstein is on record saying (and you must have seen this in that article) that he'd lose all sympathy with the Stalinist regime if class distinctions returned. He didn't live long enough to see that they had. So, his heart was in the right place, even if his head wasn't (that is, as far as politics was concerned).And, yes, I did use the word 'philosopher' to describe him — but, then again, I meant 'philosophy' in his sense of the word:"One might say that the subject we are dealing with is one of the heirs of the subject which used to be called 'philosophy.'" [Blue and Brown Books, p.28.]You see, in a short article, I can't take on too many controversial topics, or go into too much detail; my sole aim there was to counter the idea that he was a conservative mystic (and I had been commissioned by the editors to do just this). In my longer essays, I point out that Wittgenstein was employing a different sense of the word 'philosophy' — whose task now was to unravel the confusions we get into when we try to do Traditional Philosophy."The correct method of philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said…, and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person — he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy — this method would be the only correct one." [Tractatus, p.153.]ALB:"Since you obviously have some sympathy for Ordinary Language Philosophy (acquitting it of the charge of being a part of ruling class ideology) you might be interested in this book written by a member of the SPGB in his work capacity:"Yes, I am familiar with Keith's work.
