[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, this published source takes precendence over that unpublished letter you quoted.

All this stuff about published and unpublished letters and dismissing what you don't agree with as Marx joking is worthy of the best Leninist dialectians.In any event, the famous 1873 Postface to the Second German edition of Capital you keep relying on shows a certain respect for Hegel (describing him as a "that mighty thinker" and "the first to present its [the dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". Of course Marx didn't agree with Hegel's "Idealism" and Capital is indeed a Hegelian-Idealism-free zone. But whoever said it wasn't?

[ALB]

Fair enough, but I'd say that Dietzgen's "dialectical materialism" is another example of non-Hegelian dialectics and he never was a Hegelian in his younger days. It has nothing to do with Plekhanov/Lenin version as explained by Anton Panneloek in Lenin As Philosopher.

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

I have never doubted that 'dialectics' was important for Marx,

Thanks for conceding this point. So what do you think he meant by it? What does non-Hegelian dialectics look like?

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

it is settled: Marx's mature work was indeed a Hegel-free zone.

You keep on asserting this but this is a question of historical fact and the facts show that, although he profoundly disagreed with Hegel's idealism and christianity and abandoned the flowery Young Hegelian language of his university and post-graduate and early socialist days, Marx still retained a soft spot for Hegel. Not that this makes any difference either way. Your case against "diamat" (and "philosophy" in general) is not weakened in any way by this. As you yourself have said,

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

My arguments stand or fall on their own merit, and do not depend for their validity on how many people I upset in the meantime.

And irrespective of what Marx may or may not have thought or any other appeal to authority.  As it happens, you do have a good case against "diamat".

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

the very worst books ever to have been written by a leading socialist

A short list has been drawn up for this prize. The following books have been retained (in the category of those calling themselves Marxists):Lenin, The State and RevolutionTrotsky, Terrorism and CommunismStalin, Principles of LeninismThe jury is still out. The winner will be announced in due course

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

ALB:

Quote:

Do you think it is possible to understand Marx's Capital without first having mastered Hegel's Logic? Hopefully, the answer will be "no", but what if it's "yes"?

Not even Marx made this claim about his own work;

True but Lenin did. As quoted by Dunayevskaya:

Quote:

“it is impossible completely to grasp Marx’s Capital . . . if you have not studied through and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic.”

I don't know if someone can track down the exacxt source of Lenin's (preposterous) claim here.

[ALB]

mcolome1 wrote:

We have Killman who  is a dialectician but he does not approve Lenin transitional society

Is this Andrew Kliman? If so, it looks, DJP, that you'll have to ask him an additional question, i.e. Do you think it is possible to understand Marx's Capital without first having mastered Hegel's Logic? Hopefully, the answer will be "no", but what if it's "yes"?

[ALB]

Just emailed Professor Joffee a link to this article (the same one kohara sent Post-Crash Economics):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/economics/economists-not-planetHe should like the title "Economists: Not on this Planet".

[ALB]

mcolome1 wrote:

Some of her writting on economic are acceptable

Agreed, especially these two:www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1944/revision.htmhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1946/statecap.htmThe second is a classic, early analysis of  the (state) capitalist nature of the Russian economy, citing Russian sources. Far better than Tony Cliff's.

[ALB]

That reminds me. There's Paul Mattick's cruelly honest criticism of Dunayevskaya's Hegelian Leninism that was published in the Western Socialist (journal of our companion party in the US and Canada) in 1958:http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1958/dunayevskaya.htm

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

So, the key here is that non-dialecticians 'separate', whilst dialecticians 'interconnect'.This is to argue that non-dialecticians don't recognise structures, while dialecticians do.This is simply untrue.Everyone (researchers and analysers) recognise structures.This issue is: "what constitutes a particular 'structure'?".The definition of a 'structure' depends upon the theory being employed.This is true for non-dialecticians and dialecticians.

Actually I agree that when it comes to actual research I can't see that there would be any difference between what "non-dialectic" and "dialectic" researchers do and was going to say so, but didn't. Perhaps I should have done. The only difference would be in what they say or think they are doing (if they bother, that is, about this).

[ALB]

I'm not necessarily defending what Ollman wrote, only that I don't think your charge of "jibberish" is fair. I can't imagine that he thinks that it is possible to understand the "whole" (all past, present and continuing phenomena). That would be nonsense. I don't think he would deny either than selection is involved (or that you can't select the whole). Or that the part or parts appear from the whole without human selection.As I understand it, he's making a different point: that those he calls "non-dialectical" don't recognise that the whole is a single indivisible whole but see it as a collection of separate parts. So, they built up the whole from its parts while those he calls "dialectical" see the parts as just that: interconnected parts of the whole which can only be distinguished in the mind. Which I thought you agree with too.I don't really know why we are arguing about this.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'm not sure what this has got to do with DJP's quote, ALB. It's logical nonsense. Read it again.

I think it's just badly expressed. Perhaps he should have used the word "analysis" rather than "research".  That would have made it clear he's talking about basic assumptions not actual research work.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

This is jibberish

More over the top and baby and bathwater stuff ! Can't you see the difference betwen the orthodox academic approach which seeks to built up the external world from the sensations of an individual sitting in their study (eg Bertrand Russell) and the opposite approach which starts with assuming that the whole world of observable happenings is all that exists and trying to break it down into smaller parts so as to better understand it, ie. build up v break down?.

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Anti-Duhring is one of the very worst books ever to have been written by a leading socialist

On the contrary, the third section later published as the pamphlet Socialism Utopian and Scientific is  a brilliant and perhaps the best introduction to socialist theory. If anyone is going to read just one writing by Marx or Engels this pamphlet should be it.I can see why you don't like the first part on philosophy (but then you wouldn't have liked it no matter what he wrote), but this is another case of you throwing out the baby with the bathwater, indeed with the bath.

[ALB]

Apparently Paxman himself did not vote at a recent election (but then instantly regretted it) said to be the last general election:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818743Good for him but, as he himself recognises, it would have been better to go to the polling station and write "None of the Above", as Brand's friend's 15-year old son told Brand too. Best, of course, would have been to write "World Socialism".

[Author]

Posts