Marx and dialectic
- This topic has 105 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
mcolome1:"The Vanguard Party concept indicates that workers by themselves are only able to fight for economism. Nobody needs a great mind in order to become a professional cadres, and I never read that from Lenin or from Trotsky or Stalin, even more, Lenin indicated that the vanguard party concept was only a temporary measure applicable to Russia"As Lars Lih has shown (in extensive detail), this is a caricature of Lenin's view of the vanguard party.https://www.haymarketbooks.org/search?q=Lenin-RediscoveredThe above book isn't available on-line, but this is (it's an article called "The myth of 'Lenin's Concept of the Party'", by Hal Draper), which makes similar poits:https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htmNow, this subject is off-topic, and the moderator has already warned us about this, so I will stop responding to such posts except to poiint out they are off-topic, from here on in.
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.
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
*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.
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…]
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.
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!!!!!
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'.
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?
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.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: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?
Another Trotskyist rouse, label all dissent as mental illness, we'll all be off to the gulag!
Tim Kilgallon wrote: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!!!!!
2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: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?
1st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: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?
Another Trotskyist rouse, label all dissent as mental illness, we'll all be off to the gulag!
3rd and final warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
YMS:"That would by no means prevent Bob from having been the first to put (plastic) bread on the table."Recently published work of an investigative journalist, working for the SPGB, shows that there was no Bob. He was in fact called Woodruff Durfendorfer, a mmber of the Tory Party, who invented the story in order to derail a thread at their discussion Forum. So, there was no Bob, no bread, no plastic, and no 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."Unfortunately, Marx scuppered this interpretation of his words by including a summary which, even though it is a Hegel-free zone, he still called 'the dialectic method'. This, of course, prevents Hegel being "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner", since, as that summary shows, Hegel didn't present it in any form at all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.