Skip to Content

Rosa Lichenstein and Anti-Dialectics?

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
jondwhite
jondwhite's picture
Offline
Joined: 19/12/2011
Rosa Lichenstein and Anti-Dialectics?

Is there anything in Rosa Lichenstein and Anti-Dialectics?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/

DJP
DJP's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2010

'Dialectical-Materialism' of the kind that used to be spread by the 'communist' parties is a sham and a fraud, its no wonder people are suspicious of it.

The same can be said for Rosa Lichenstein and her crusade.

If you want to know about dialectics read Dietzgen, it's a shame he has pretty much dropped off the radar.

As a review in the October 1998 Standard put it "dialectics means that, in analyzing the world and society, you start from the basis that nothing has an independent, separate existence of its own but is an inter-related and interdependent part of some greater whole (ultimately the whole universe) which is in a process of constant change."

This holistic view has pretty much been incorporated into mainstream science these days, so nothing particularly controversial there.

The controversial aspect is the notion of 'contradiction' There's a review of Pannekoek's 'Lenin as Philosopher' which deals with this here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1187...

So there is something in what Lichenstein is saying but she just gets lost in long and boring rants and hasn't really studying her subject well enough.

alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

An article on Dietzgen by Adam Buick published in Radical Philosophy 1975

 

http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/01/joseph-dietzgen-wor...

 

And another related article from 1918 issue of Western Clarion

 

http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/12/proletarian-logic.html

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

jondwhite
jondwhite's picture
Offline
Joined: 19/12/2011

Apart from the critique of communism as empirically falsified, was Popper right that dialectics is bunkum?

ALB
Online
Joined: 22/06/2011

Personally I think Hegel is a load of mumbo-jumbo. I've started to try and read him 3 or 4 times but gave up each time because his language is virtually incomprehensible. The only book of his I read to the end is his Philosophy of History but that wasn't actually written by him but by one of his students based on notes they took of his lectures. If I remember rightly it's idealist even religious nonsense. We don't have to like Hegel just because that was the intellectual background in Germany at the time Marx and Engels became communists and from which they emerged.

As to dialectics, that depends on what you mean. If what is meant is that it is some force working in nature (as Engels sometimes gave the impression), then that's wrong. If you mean that it is a way of trying to understand phenomenon we experience in nature, that's another matter.

jondwhite
jondwhite's picture
Offline
Joined: 19/12/2011

Does dialectics stand in contrast to positivism? Wikipedia suggests Karl Popper was a critic of positivism. Can you be a positivist and agree with the WSM?

ALB
Online
Joined: 22/06/2011

jondwhite wrote:
Can you be a positivist and agree with the WSM?
Why not? Positivism is a form of materialism and most people are in practice "positivists" without realising it, ie they base their actions and ideas on what they have experienced or learned from other people's experience. It wasn't for nothing that Dietzgen called his main work The Positive Outcome of Philosophy. Personally, I think A J Ayer's (who was a Logical Positivist) Language, Truth and Logic (1936) does a brilliant demolition job on metaphysics and religion. I remember a member who spoke at Hyde Park who refused to use the word "God" but said G-O-D instead on the grounds that the word "God" was meaningless as it referred to nothing. Pure Logical Positivism.

The only "philosophical" criterion for being a member of the WSM is to be a materialist, who rejects all religion. So, any materialist, whether dialectical or positivist or behaviourist or empiricist or rationalist or secularist or humanist or whatever, is welcome. At least that's the practice. It's only those who are non-materialists (as judged by their attitide to religion) who are ineligible to join.

alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011
Q: How many Hegelians does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: Two, of course. One stands at one end of the room and argues that it isn't dark; the other stands across from him and says that true light is impossible. This dialectic creates a synthesis when the bulb gets screwed in. (Explanation : Hegel and Marx use a logical procedure called dialectics to seek answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions. Shortened it is "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". Thus 'no light' and 'no dark' can arrive at a middle ground through logical examination 'it's dark but it can be made light'.)

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

DJP
DJP's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2010

alanjjohnstone wrote:
(Explanation : Hegel and Marx use a logical procedure called dialectics to seek

answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions.

In all seriousness though the Marxian dialectic has less to do with seeking "answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions" and more to do with how the whole relates to its parts.

Hegelian dialectics and Marxian dialectics are different beasts and those who say that you have to read Hegel to understand Marx are probably only demonstrating that they've been duped by Lenin.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 19/03/2012

Ok, JohnDWhite, you have posted an old address. The correct one is now:

 

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

 

DJP:

 

"'Dialectical-Materialism' of the kind that used to be spread by the 'communist' parties is a sham and a fraud, its no wonder people are suspicious of it. The same can be said for Rosa Lichtenstein and her crusade"

 

Well, that is a far easier accusation to make than to prove. My site is in fact devoted to debunking all forms of dialectics that have descended with or without modification from Hegel, upside down or 'the right way up'.

 

"If you want to know about dialectics read Dietzgen, it's a shame he has pretty much dropped off the radar."

 

In fact, Dietzgen's rather poor, a priori speculations are far easier to refute than are those of Engels and Plekhanov. But we can discuss this further the moment you post something -- anything -- of his that is worthy of merit.

 

And by a priori speculation I mean assertions like this:

 

"As a review in the October 1998 Standard put it 'dialectics means that, in analyzing the world and society, you start from the basis that nothing has an independent, separate existence of its own but is an inter-related and interdependent part of some greater whole (ultimately the whole universe) which is in a process of constant change.'"

 

Not only is there no proof of this, there couldn't be. For example, how is it possible for everything to be 'inter-related' when there are vast regions of space and time that are, and always will be, inaccessible to us? On this, look up 'light cone' using Google -- for example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

 

Indeed, I have shown this idea up for what it is, here (i.e., it's a left-over from mystical Hermeticism -- Hegel was a Hermetic mystic):

 

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2011_01.htm

 

"So there is something in what Lichtenstein is saying but she just gets lost in long and boring rants and hasn't really studying her subject well enough."

 

I am used to fans of the dialectic substituting personal abuse for contrary argument and/or evidence, but if my work is 'boring', then Dietzgen will positively put you to sleep for good.

 

And what, may I ask, is your proof that I haven't studied this topic "well enough"?

 

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

'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

AlanJ:

 

"Q: How many Hegelians does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: Two, of course. One stands at one end of the room and argues that it isn't dark; the other stands across from him and says that true light is impossible. This dialectic creates a synthesis when the bulb gets screwed in. (Explanation : Hegel and Marx use a logical procedure called dialectics to seek answers to seemingly mutual exclusive positions. Shortened it is "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". Thus 'no light' and 'no dark' can arrive at a middle ground through logical examination 'it's dark but it can be made light'.)"

 

The correct answer is, of course, "None at all, the light bulb changes itself."

 

But, Debs is seriously wide of the mark here. "Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis" is in fact Kant and Fichte's method, not Hegel's. Marx toyed with it in some of his early work, but it is arguable he is also lampooning it.

 

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Thesis_Anti-Thesis_Synthesis.htm

 

Moreover, for there to be a dialectical change here, light would have to 'struggle' with darkness. Has anyone ever witnessed this?

 

Can light 'struggle' with the absence of light?

 

[I do not know why the software here has made the last couple of lines bold; I have tried to remove it, but I can't seem to be able to do so!]

 

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

'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<

Login or register to post comments