Is there anything in Rosa Lichenstein and Anti-Dialectics?
Before using this forum please read our posting guidelines and rules.
Is there anything in Rosa Lichenstein and Anti-Dialectics?
'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.
An article on Dietzgen by Adam Buick published in Radical Philosophy 1975
And another related article from 1918 issue of Western Clarion
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.
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.
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.
Ok, JohnDWhite, you have posted an old address. The correct one is now:
"'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:
"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"?
"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.
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!]