Skip to Content

Marx and dialectic

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 19/03/2012

mcolomei:

"The world working class must enroll on a detox programme  from the bourgeois ideology, and they can find that detox  programme with the World Socialist Movement."

I'm sorry, but that is off-topic.

----------------------------------------

'The emanicaption of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.'

Enroll on a dialectics detox programme here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm<

mcolome1
Offline
Joined: 04/11/2011

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

mcolomei:

"The world working class must enroll on a detox programme  from the bourgeois ideology, and they can find that detox  programme with the World Socialist Movement."

I'm sorry, but that is off-topic.

----------------------------------------

I thnik everybody around here is off topic because the original post was Marx and pgbilosophy and it was changed to a topic that we covered several months ago, and you are repeating the same argumentation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 19/03/2012

mcolome1:

"I think everybody around here is off topic because the original post was Marx and philosophy and it was changed to a topic that we covered several months ago, and you are repeating the same argumentation."

May I suggest you take that up with the moderators?

Until then, it's off-topic.

----------------------------------------
 

'The emanicaption of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.'

Enroll on a dialectics detox programme here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm<

Young Master Smeet
Online
Joined: 15/11/2011

*sigh*

"The crapping in the flower bed by the cat, by no means prevents him from being ginger."

"The descruction which running shoes suffer from the boy, by no means prevents him from being first in the race."

"The pulverising which flour suffers in Bob’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to put bread on the table".

So, for those of us who dabble in English: what colour is the cat?  What position in the race did rhe boy finish?  Who put bread on the table first?

So, we are taking Marx' own words here, and he is giving Hegel credit for being first to present dialectic in " its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner." Not originating or designing it, but being the first to give the first general, conscious comprehensive analysis of it. That, presumably, must challenge your 'Hegel free zone' theses: in actuality, what he is saying is Hegel was the first to be wrong, and in being wrong deserves the credit ofbeing corrected (there is wrong and wrong).

Engels' reading of AD to Marx is beside the point (hence why discussing it at length is a straw man): Marx doesn't have to have read the thing in detail to be aware of the general contents (or have heard/read the whole text).  The only, and substantive point, is that a text wrotten by his close collaborator for decades, and good friend, was published, he provided a preface, and has produced no discernable comment public of otehrwise which contests the contents of that book.  Adding a preface to a book is endorsement of sorts.

We can't say that Marx agreed with every word of Engels', but we can say he didn't care enough to comment.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 19/03/2012

YMS:

"'The crapping in the flower bed by the cat, by no means prevents him from being ginger.'

"'The destruction which running shoes suffer from the boy, by no means prevents him from being first in the race.'

"'The pulverising which flour suffers in Bob’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to put bread on the table'.

"So, for those of us who dabble in English: what colour is the cat?  What position in the race did the boy finish?  Who put bread on the table first?"

In each case, do you have an earlier statement by the owner of that cat, the organiser of the race, or Bob's mum, that throws into doubt your putative inferences?

No.

But, we do have a summary published and endorsed by Marx that contains no trace of Hegel whatsoever, which he nevertheless calls "the dialectic method". That salient fact alters the interpretation of anything Marx subsequently says about "the dialectic method", or even about Hegel's alleged invention of certain forms of it.

As I have noted many times, you fail to notice this or take account of it. So, you keep posting irrelevant comments (like those above).

Here is the point again, for you to ignore once more:

"I have 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."

Nothing you have so far posted addresses these significant facts.

The above testifies to the fact that you serially ignore them, as does this:

"So, we are taking Marx' own words here, and he is giving Hegel credit for being first to present dialectic in " its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner." Not originating or designing it, but being the first to give the first general, conscious comprehensive analysis of it. That, presumably, must challenge your 'Hegel free zone' theses: in actuality, what he is saying is Hegel was the first to be wrong, and in being wrong deserves the credit of being corrected (there is wrong and wrong)."

You see, you don't begin with that summary -- you ignore Marx's own description of his method, "the dialectic method" -- and you try to read into these contentious words:

"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."

An interpretation that contradicts (fittingly one feels) Marx's own declaration that the Hegel-free summary he published represents his method -- which he (not me, he) calls "the dialectic method".

YMS:

"Engels' reading of AD to Marx is beside the point (hence why discussing it at length is a straw man): Marx doesn't have to have read the thing in detail to be aware of the general contents (or have heard/read the whole text).  The only, and substantive point, is that a text written by his close collaborator for decades, and good friend, was published, he provided a preface, and has produced no discernable comment public of otherwise which contests the contents of that book.  Adding a preface to a book is endorsement of sorts"

Already answered, twice.

Move on...

[But we both know you won't. So, I will just have to make the same points again, and again, and...]

-----------------------------------------

'The emanicaption of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.'

Enroll on a dialectics detox programme here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm<

Young Master Smeet
Online
Joined: 15/11/2011

The summary of the dialectic is within the same text, and so what we are looking at here is how to interpret the text as a whole, and this sentence is within it.

Let's take Bob the baker.  Let us suppose that a long passage about putting bread on the table preceded, with no word about Bob within that long paragraph.  Let us further suppose the author includes mentions about their method of putting bread on the table, and how they do it in the completely opposite way to Bob, and then says:

"'The pulverising which flour suffers in Bob’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to put bread on the table'.

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

mcolome1:

"I think everybody around here is off topic because the original post was Marx and philosophy and it was changed to a topic that we covered several months ago, and you are repeating the same argumentation."

May I suggest you take that up with the moderators?

Until then, it's off-topic.

----------------------------------------
 

Typical bloody Trotskyist, taking power undemocratically, and then ordering everyone aroound, it's like Kronstadt all over again!!!!!


Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 19/03/2012

TK:

"Typical bloody Trotskyist, taking power undemocratically, and then ordering everyone aroound, it's like Kronstadt all over again!!!!!"

Isn't it time for your medication?

--------------------------------

'The emanicaption of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.'

Enroll on a dialectics detox programme here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm<

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 19/03/2012

YMS (and we take yet another spin across the flatlands of irrelevance):

"The summary of the dialectic is within the same text, and so what we are looking at here is how to interpret the text as a whole, and this sentence is within it.

"Let's take Bob the baker.  Let us suppose that a long passage about putting bread on the table preceded, with no word about Bob within that long paragraph.  Let us further suppose the author includes mentions about their method of putting bread on the table, and how they do it in the completely opposite way to Bob, and then says:

"'The pulverising which flour suffers in Bob’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to put bread on the table'."

Let's suppose we find a text by the master baker that implies that Bob isn't a baker after all -- and the bread is really flavoured plastic.

Any more fiction for me to bat out of the park with my own fiction?

[With fiction, one can invent anything one likes. Give us your best shot...]

Not so with Marx's own declaration concerning what he meant by 'the dialectic method' -- can't make that up -- which summary you still seem to want to ignore.

Odd that...

---------------------------------

'The emanicaption of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.'

Enroll on a dialectics detox programme here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm<

Young Master Smeet
Online
Joined: 15/11/2011

That would by no means prevent Bob from having been the first to put (plastic) bread on the table.

So, whatever Marx' dialectic, and the form it took, he did consider Hegel "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.", albeit mystified and in a method different from that which Marx applied.  This is what the German afterword tells us.

Login or register to post comments