Do We Need the Dialectic?
- This topic has 438 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
L Bird:"Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you?"The point was: the label doesn't matter, the content does. And if that content is just a reprise of ruling-class ideology, you can count me out."Surely you want to influence (and indeed help) comrades to come to some understanding of, errm… 're-digging the Suez canal', but if the terms are so flexible and unrelated to the matter in hand, why not use 'philosophy' just as much as 'historical materialism'?"Here is what I wrote about this in that Interview:S: 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 movement, 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. 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 can't have remained the same for thousands of years, across different modes of production; this 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: 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. 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. 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' philosophers should behave. 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)). These comrades rarely if ever stop and think how it is that they can so effortlessly derive fundamental theses, true for all of space and time, about 'Being', 'consciousness', 'subjectivity', 'essence', etc., etc., from a handful of words/concepts, all in the comfort of their own heads. Indeed, it seems quite natural and uncontroversial to do this. Well, as Marx noted, the ideas of the ruling-class always rule. This 'allowed' the founders of dialectical materialism to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order and this new theory, which 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 aren't going to relinquish the pre-eminent position that adherence to this theory bestows on them — they are the High Priests of the Revolution, and are determined to remain that way…. If I were an Idealist, I'd harbour illusions that my work could make some difference; that is, I'd be under the illusion that Dialectical Marxists could be argued out of their adherence to this creed. But, as a Historical Materialist, I know that only social change will bring to an end the conditions (and the consequent alienation) that motivates the vast majority of comrades into looking at the world in the traditional manner I outlined earlier. Since fundamental social change can only come about through the revolutionary activity of workers themselves, Dialectical Marxists of every stripe are going to need the proletariat to 'save them from themselves'. I stand no chance — I might as well be speaking Klingon to the cat!EndSo, I don't expect the majority to agree with me; in fact, just as soon as they did, I'd instantly know I had gone wrong somewhere.I'm not trying to change comrades' opinions, since I know I can't in the main do that. The majority have had boss-class ideas forced down their throats from childhood onwards. If per impossible I could change their ideas, that would be tantamount to admitting that the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, or have stopped ruling. Until workers get rid of that class, those who are into philosophy and 'dialectics' are just going to have to suffer from the consequences of their own misguided theories.Finally, I only engage on forums like this to sharpen my own ideas. I expect to be disbelieved by the vast majority, if not all, of you.And bless you, you lot haven't disappointed me!
The only ones who are claiming that Marx was a Hegelian through all his life are the Marxist-Humanists, and the followers of Raya Dunayeskaya.I think he was more influenced by Feuerbach than by Hegel, and he abandoned his Hegelian idealism after he became a socialist. I don't think he was the most idealist of the materialist philosophers, and I don't think that Lenin became a Hegelian after 1914 when he wrote Imperialism and the State and the Revolution. I think in many occasions dialectic is just a mystique conception, but we can not do like Bernstein who abandoned dialectic in order to become a supporter of the ruling class
mcolome1:"I think in many occasions dialectic is just a mystique conception, but we can not do like Bernstein who abandoned dialectic in order to become a supporter of the ruling class"But, the vast majority of those who accept 'the dialectic' you would probably count as anti-Marxist, or as non-Marxists — namely the Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists and Maoists.So, adherence to 'the dialectic' doesn't automatically guarantee one hasn't abandoned Marxism — in fact, the opposite seems to be the case.The only way around that objection is to claim that everyone else misuses or does not 'understand' 'the dialectic', but there is no objective way of deciding what is or isn't the 'correct' way to apply/'understand' it (or, indeed, if there is any correct way to do this) — especially since it can be, and has been used to prove anything you like and its opposite (often by the very same dialectician, in the same book, article or even speech!) — since it glories in 'contradiction'.
RL, Nobody here has defended "diamat". In fact, I think we would agree with your criticism of it. The trouble is that you are arguing not just against it, but also against all "philosophy" (idealism, materialism, positivism, even logical positivism, etc). That's what you've been challenged on here, not on criticising Leninist/Stalinist/Trotskyist/Maoist "dialectal materialism".
Morgenstern:"I think I just found the violence inherent in the system."Good of you to take the blame.
AJB:"RL, Nobody here has defended "diamat". In fact, I think we would agree with your criticism of it. The trouble is that you are arguing not just against it, but also against all "philosophy" (idealism, materialism, positivism, even logical positivism, etc). That's what you've been challenged on here, not on criticising Leninist/Stalinist/Trotskyist/Maoist "dialectal materialism"."I never said anyone had. When I refer to 'dialectical materialism', I am referring to the entire gamut of views that have been associated with this 'theory'. Hence, my criticsims apply to the ideas of those who post here who defend it (in howsover a nuanced form that is), just as they apply to the others you mention.And sure, I am arguing against all of philosophy since it represents the most abstract form of ruling-class ideology (and I include in that all forms of philosophical materialism).As I said, I don't expect to win anyone here to my views. I think you (plural) have had ruling-class ideas forced down your throats since childhhood, and you clearly think that a dogmatic and a priori way to theorise is quite natural, and the only way that 'legitimate' philosophy should be practiced — that is, that fundamental truths about reality can be derived from thought alone, and can then be imposed on the universe dogmatically.Here is why that approach delivers only incoherent non-sense:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm
I think you come to conclusions too quickly. I don't even think that Leninists ( Which include Stalinists, Trostskyist and Maoists ) are dialectician or materialists, and I do not consider Lenin as a philosopher, and if he was a philosopher, he just advocated bourgoise materialism. He was a vulgar materialistI do not consider them as anti-Marxists, because I do not think that Marx created a political current named Marxism, and he did not consider himself as a Marxist, I think they are anti-socialists, and anti-working class. Socialism could have been in a much better stand without the Leninists and without the Soviet Union, the world never knew, and does not even know now what socialism is, and we spent more times explaining what is not socialism instead of what socialism should be PS There are some groups like the Marxist-Hummanists who consider that the Leninists and Engels are anti-dialecticians, and that they have used dialectic in the wrong way
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:L Bird:"Well, yeah, you could call it 're-digging the Suez canal', but why would you?"The point was: the label doesn't matter, the content does. And if that content is just a reprise of ruling-class ideology, you can count me out.But if the 'content' is just 'ruling class ideology', you can count us all out, can't you?Surely we're all trying to get at what 'content' is suitable for Communists, whatever the 'label', as you say?
RL wrote:Here is what I wrote about this in that Interview…Yes, I think I agree with your arguments against DiaMat – what I'm interested is the Communist content of your views/philosophy/Suez Canal digging. You've already won us over on DiaMat.
RL wrote:So, I don't expect the majority to agree with me; in fact, just as soon as they did, I'd instantly know I had gone wrong somewhere.I'm not trying to change comrades' opinions, since I know I can't in the main do that.I find this a strange claim for a Communist to make – surely 'a majority' is precisely what we aim to come to agreement with us Communists? The latter part reads like the protestations of an elitist: 'the majority are always wrong, and that is the guiding thread of my philosophy'.Why don't you think you can't change comrades' opinions? Isn't that, in itself, a ruling class idea?
RL wrote:If per impossible I could change their ideas, that would be tantamount to admitting that the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, or have stopped ruling. Until workers get rid of that class, those who are into philosophy and 'dialectics' are just going to have to suffer from the consequences of their own misguided theories.Well, the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, do they?There are always oppositional ideas, even if at times only held by a tiny minority. Surely part of 'getting rid of the ruling class' is also changing workers' ideas – a role for Communists, as part of the process of revolution? Of course, education alone can't do it, but it's part of it.As for 'dialecticians suffering the consequences of their misguided ideas', isn't that why many of us agree with you?
RL wrote:Finally, I only engage on forums like this to sharpen my own ideas. I expect to be disbelieved by the vast majority, if not all, of you.But perhaps a majority here actually agree with you – that will become clearer as the discussion advances. But to expect to be always in a minority (of one?) is to be too dismissive of the ability of other workers, like yourself, who try to understand this world of ours.
RL wrote:And bless you, you lot haven't disappointed me!This is uncalled for, given that at least some have openly said they agree with your views on dialectics, and does your argument no favours.In fact, if pushed, I'd say it smacks of Leninist philosophical elitism.I, for one, am not a Leninist. If you are, that's fine, but then we can start to unpack your views, if they don't seem to be related to those expressed by the majority here.
mcolome1:"I think you come to conclusions too quickly. I don't even think that Leninists ( Which include Stalinists, Trostskyist and Maoists ) are dialectician or materialists, and I do not consider Lenin as a philosopher, and if he was a philosopher, he just advocated bourgoise materialism. He was a vulgar materialist"Well, they'd say the same of you, which is why I said there is no objective way to tell if, or who, has ever applied/'understood' the 'dialectic' 'correctly'.In fact, as is quite easy to show, 'the dialectic' is far too confused for it to be applied at all by anyone, let alone 'understood'.
L Bird:"I find this a strange claim for a Communist to make – surely 'a majority' is precisely what we aim to come to agreement with us Communists? The latter part reads like the protestations of an elitist: 'the majority are always wrong, and that is the guiding thread of my philosophy'."If the, shall we say, 'urge' or propensity to philosophise arises from the same, or from similar social conditions as those that prompt others to look to religion, then, no, only social change will put a stop to it. I stand no chance.But what about this:"The latter part reads like the protestations of an elitist: 'the majority are always wrong, and that is the guiding thread of my philosophy'."But, the opposite of the above would amount to a rejection of Marx's claim that the ruling ideas are always those or the ruling-class. If that makes me an elitist, then so was Marx.But, in fact, the opposite of that is the case: what I have to say is in fact staring us in the face (based on what Marx told us about the need to return to ordinary language –, and as I interpret him through the eyes of Wittgenstein) — an adherence to ordinary language blows all of philosophy apart. Ordinary language is the language you use every day, the language created as a result of the collective labour of the working class, it is the enemy of elitism (which is why the majority of philosophers and theorists denigrate it and also depreciate 'commonsense', and have been doing so at least since Plato's day). Now, since anyone can understand it, it automatically lends itself to those who take Marx's advice; it is available to all, hence it is anti-elitist.What prevents comrades from doing so are all those ruling ideas they have been forced fed with since they were toddlers."Well, the ideas of the ruling class don't always rule, do they?"Er, yes they do.But you have a response to this:"There are always oppositional ideas, even if at times only held by a tiny minority. Surely part of 'getting rid of the ruling class' is also changing workers' ideas – a role for Communists, as part of the process of revolution? Of course, education alone can't do it, but it's part of it."These have invariably constituted a new set of ruling ideas ready to take over at the next change in class relations (for example, those we find in the early modern philosophy of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Descartes…). But despite the differences, they express the same core ruling ideology; that remains in place while other (more superficial) ideas change — that is: fundamental truths about 'being', 'mind', 'consciousness', 'truth', 'knowledge', 'time', 'space', etc., can be ascertained by thought alone. This ruling idea has dominated (in the 'West') since Anaximander's day, right down to today. [In an earlier post I explained why this is so. A similar process has taken place in 'the East'.] It is the ruling intellectual force, and still dominates philosophy, large swathes of science (for example, much of modern physics), mathematics, theology, large parts of economics, sociology, psychology and cognitive science, — as well as Marxist theory in general, and of every stripe.Moreover, workers change their ideas in struggle; propaganda has very little effect, which is probably why your party does so badly, and has done so for so long (I am assuming, of course, that you belong to the SPGB)."As for 'dialecticians suffering the consequences of their misguided ideas', isn't that why many of us agree with you?"Not really; you all disagree with me over the much more fundamental ideas I have developed about philosophy in general (how many will agree with much I have posted above?). Sure, you disagree with the Diamat crowd, etc., (and you did this long before any of you had even heard about me); but, then again, you have your own philosophical opiates to depend on — it's just a different brand from theirs."This is uncalled for, given that at least some have openly said they agree with your views on dialectics, and does your argument no favours. In fact, if pushed, I'd say it smacks of Leninist philosophical elitism."See my responses above.Even so, how many here would completely agree with me about philosophy in general; that it is just ruling-class hot air (and in that I include philosophical materialism, and all the stuff one reads here about 'brain work', and 'sensation', etc.)?Very few, if any.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:But, in fact, the opposite of that is the case: what I have to say is in fact staring us in the face (based on what Marx told us about the need to return to ordinary language –, and as I interpret him through the eyes of Wittgenstein) — an adherence to ordinary language blows all of philosophy apart. Ordinary language is the language you use every day, the language created as a result of the collective labour of the working class, it is the enemy of elitism (which is why the majority of philosophers and theorists denigrate it and also depreciate 'commonsense', and have been doing so at least since Plato's day)..Oh, I'm beginning to see where you are coming from. Is this, then, your point of view:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_language_philosophyIf so, why isn't it too a ruling class idea? After all, didn't it originate and was/is propagated by professors in Oxford and Cambridge?I tried to read Wittgenstein once. If that's ordinary language (even the title was in Latin), give me philosophy !
ALB;"If so, why isn't it too a ruling class idea? After all, didn't it originate and was/is propagated by professors in Oxford and Cambridge?"Well, my work has nothing to do with Ordinary Language Philosophy. And, despite what you might have been told, neither has Wittgenstein's.But let us suppose it had. Even then, it would avoid being a part of ruling-class ideology for the simple reason that ordinary language is the product of the collective labour of countless generations of working people (individuals who interface with the material world and with one another on a daily basis, providing us with the best possible resource for helping us understand the world and how to change it), and the theses of Traditional Philosophy can't be expressed if one sticks to the protocols of the vernacular (which cuts off at the knees this abstract form of boss-class ideology).That is, of course, why traditional theorists found they have had to denigrate the vernacular ever since Plato was a lad — and why they have had to invent obscure jargon in which to concoct their increasingly baroque theories; they simply can't do this in ordinary language. Which is also, I imagine, why Marx said the following (soon before waving 'goodbye' to this useless thought-form):"The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life."ALB:"I tried to read Wittgenstein once. If that's ordinary language (even the title was in Latin), give me philosophy !"That was obviously the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that you read (the German version in fact had a German title), which was published in the early 1920s.You plainly didn't read my article on Wittgenstein, otherwise you would have seen that he moved away from this austere view of discourse, and toward an orientation on ordinary language in the 1930s and 1940s after long discussions with his Marxist friends. The result was his Philosophical Investigations (published in 1953, soon after he died). Here are a few of things he said (which, I think, re-iterate quite well what Marx was trying to tell us in the passage I quoted above):"One might say that the subject we are dealing with is one of the heirs of the subject which used to be called 'philosophy.'""When philosophers use a word — 'knowledge', 'being', 'object', 'I', 'proposition/sentence', 'name', — and try to grasp the essence of the thing, one must always ask oneself: is the word ever actually used this way in the language in which it is at home? "What we do is to bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use." "When I speak about language…, I must speak the language of every day." "It is wrong to say that in philosophy we consider an ideal language as opposed to our ordinary one. For it makes it appear as though we thought we could improve on ordinary language. But ordinary language is all right." "The language used by philosophers is already deformed, as though by shoes that are too tight." "Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical…. Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical with the beautiful.) "All philosophy is a critique of language…. It was Russell who performed the service of showing that the apparent logical form of a proposition need not be its real one." You can read more about this here: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/was_wittgenstein_a_leftist.htmOr, the shorter version here:http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10792Or, indeed, my attempt to use his ideas to show that all philosophical theories are incoherent non-sense:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:But, the opposite of the above would amount to a rejection of Marx's claim that the ruling ideas are always those or the ruling-class. If that makes me an elitist, then so was Marx.[my bold]Errr… no, it would amount to regarding Marx's words as often totally one-sided and rhetorical, and would amount to realising that you're taking his words at simple face value.Marx wasn't a god. We can argue with his words. We can change his words, to those that we think fit better with his intended meaning, given the whole body of his work. So, when he says that 'the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class', to modify it to fit with reality. Clearly, 'ruling ideas' are not always 'those of the ruling class'. Most of the time, yes; the vast majority of the time, yes; almost always, yes. But 'common sense' tells us that Marx was employing political rhetoric during the 19th century to stress what had never been acknowledged until then: we workers are under constant ideological pressure to see the world from the viewpoint of the ruling class. There are also oppositional, minority, hidden, ideas in the exploited classes. We have to cultivate them. That view is more in keeping with what Marx meant to say.So, I'd say that Marx wasn't an elitist, but just a bad writer when it came to explaining his ideas clearly. There's something to his ideas, but we have to dig and interpret and rephrase (and, simply, ditch some).But, although I don't think Marx was an elitist…
RL wrote:Moreover, workers change their ideas in struggle; propaganda has very little effect…This is a philosophical assumption, and one I don't share.Workers don't simply change their ideas in struggle; in fact, often, 'in struggle', they continue to employ ideas that they've previously learnt, to their own detriment. There is no truth in the philosophical assertion that you make, that struggle alone changes ideas.I think that to argue so is an elitist position. It's used by Leninists to justify them providing 'new ideas' for workers who are struggling and so to hijack the 'struggle'.But… 'propaganda' alone, too, 'has very little effect', as you say.We have to merge the two: propaganda, education, organisation, struggle, wider prop., ed. and org., more struggle, etc., a process which allows workers to develop themselves and their ideas, to allow workers to become the 'ruling class' with their own 'ruling ideas' which increasingly confront the existing but now failing 'ruling class ideas'.The class must develop itself: which is what we're all trying to do.
RL wrote:Not really; you all disagree with me over the much more fundamental ideas I have developed about philosophy in general (how many will agree with much I have posted above?). Sure, you disagree with the Diamat crowd, etc., (and you did this long before any of you had even heard about me); but, then again, you have your own philosophical opiates to depend on — it's just a different brand from theirs.[my bold]But this reads like the words of an elitist. 'We' use narcotics, whilst 'you', presumably don't.How come only you are able to overcome philosophy and 'ruling class ideas'?
RL wrote:Even so, how many here would completely agree with me about philosophy in general; that it is just ruling-class hot air (and in that I include philosophical materialism, and all the stuff one reads here about 'brain work', and 'sensation', etc.)?Very few, if any.Well, I agree with you about DiaMat, but don't agree with your elitist rejection of workers' ability to philosophise (or, to adopt your common sense language, 'dig the Suez Canal').You clearly have a philosophy, but either you don't recognise it, or wish to hide it.Given the hard work that you've already done which benefits workers, I'm still not sure which of the above applies. I hope that it's the former, and you join in helping to explain the world to workers, like all of us, and yourself, rather than denigrate your class.
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. It's all quite a page turner on the Internet. Thanks Ross. Simon W.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.