[ALB]

twc wrote:

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

I was responding to ALB’s use of the word ‘phenomenalist ’, not commenting on what Marx had said

ALB’s conflation adequately demonstrates how little the SPGB ever cared for Hegel and dialectics.

I have already confessed to not having read Hegel. Actually I tell I lie. I have read his Philosophy of History but that was relatively easy to read as it wasn't written by him but by one of his followers from notes his students had taken.As to the Phänomenologie des Geistes, this seems to be, as I thought, more a work of theology than philosophy with the "Spirit" being god. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenology_of_Spirit . I can't see what interest such mumbo-jumbo can have for socialists.The reason I have doubts that Marx was referring to this work when he wrote:

Quote:

Marx to Engels 05/01/1882:  “You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has ‘progressed’ and ‘safely’ arrived at Phänomenologie.  I regard the case as an incurable one.” [MECW 46, p.172.]

is why would he accuse Dietzgen of having arrived at the views in Hegel's work when his criticism of Dietzgen had been that he hadn't studied Hegel?I suggest it makes much more sense to infer that Marx was referring to "phenomenalism",  Phänomenologie being the German word for this. I could be wrong because I don't know if it was current in this sense in German in 1882 when Marx wrote, but Dietzgen's views could be understood as falling into this category.Actually, I was going to ask RL what they thought Marx meant by Phänomenologie in this quote, but deleted it as an unnecessary complication. Maybe I should have. It would also be helpful to know what Marx wrote in the original German and why the translators put the word in italics (if this was done in Moscow or East Berlin that would be significant) and to see what Dietzgen wrote in his letter to Marx (if it survives).

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

ALB:

Quote:

The other thing you need to explain is why Marx (in the year before his death) described Dietzgen as a "phenomenalist":

I'm sorry, but why do I need to 'explain' this?

The argument has been over why Marx didn't think much of Dietzgen. You have argued that Marx was criticising him because he was a Hegelian while the evidence is the other way round: that Marx was criticising him for not having taken Hegel into account, as confirmed by him calling him a "phenomenalist".

Rosa Lichtenstei wrote:

I have nowhere said Dietzgen was an Hegelian, only that he had been influenced by Hegel.

That's what we are saying here about Marx ! Not that he was a Hegelian but that he was influenced by him (for good or ill). Anybody who went to a German university in the 1840s would have been. Not that that is any reason for us to be.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Dietzgen is merely offering his readers a different take on this perennial ideology

That's criticising him for being a "philosopher" rather than for being Hegelian, part of your general criticism of all philosophy and philosophers. In fact, as this is your position I don't understand why you single out "dialectical materialism" for criticism when in fact your campaign is not just against it, but against all philosophy.To be consistent, you should be advertising a philosphy detox programme at the end of your emails.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I take the omission  to mention the SPGB as deliberate

Maybe, but they do know about us and our analysis of Russia as capitalism, as can be seen from the following exchange of emails. Following a talk by one of our members (on Menshevism) at their summer school in August 2012 we proposed a debate on "which way forward for the working class?". They preferred something more theoretical and less of a public meeting: Here's an extract from an email we received on 17 September:

Quote:

We discuss this over the weekend and are generally happy with the idea of
further discussion. As I explained, I did not attend the meeting the
feedback from some of those who did was that they felt that SPGB comrades
did not really properly engage with the actually positions of our
organisation. Indeed, few comrades thought that your comrades did not seem
to have read much about us at all. Perhaps this is simply because we are
beginning the exchange between our two groups. However, we think that any
subsequent discussions should be informed by some background readings from
the two groups.
 A debate on the nature of the USSR would be of interest. It would help the debate if SPGB comrades who attend could study some of our published material on the subject. For instance:* Weekly Worker, 332, 333, 334 335 – the series on the ideas of Tony Cliff, including his theory of state capitalism.* We have a section on our website on 'Stalinism' that will give you a flavour of our take on the nature of Stalinist Russia – http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/categories/democracy-state/stalinism?recent_start=20

When we start to get concrete re: dates etc I will refer you to more
material your comrades could find useful including the major series by Jack
Conrad, 'Origins of bureaucratic socialism'. If you could also provide a
reading list for our comrades that would be great.

We replied on 24 September:

Quote:

While we have no objection to a meeting at which we explore each other's
view on the nature of Russian society during the USSR period, what we had
in mind was something aimed more at the general public, or at least at the
general "left" public rather than just the members of our respective
parties.
 So, is it not possible to do both? A "specialist" meeting on USSR society (for which we could offer the meeting room at our premises in Clapham) and a meeting on current events, to be held, for instance, in Conway Hall in central London.In the meantime, below is a reading list about our position on the Russian Revolution and Russian society.Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/notes-mans-social-nature-and-capitalist-role-bolshevismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/russian-revolution-and-bolshevik-dictatorship-and-labour-theory-valueUSSR society and economy:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/eastern-europe-collapse-kremlins-empire (especially chapter 2)http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/russia-1917-1967-socialist-analysis (especially chapter 7)Nature of class society and ruling class:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1981/no-917-january-1981/private-property-and-class-possessionhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1981/no-918-february-1981/are-managers-really-control-part-two

Despite two further emails from us nothing came of either proposal. A comrade had warned us that the "CPGB" had a reputation for wriggling out of public debates with other organisations.In any event, if they read the material we recommended they should be au fait with our position on Russia. But perhaps they consider Tony Cliff as an easier target since he thought Russia became state capitalist only in 1928 (the year of Trotsky's exile).

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

I can detect Hegel's baleful influence on Dietzgen in that book.

Well, I can't. Can you give an example or two?The other thing you need to explain is why Marx (in the year before his death) described Dietzgen as a "phenomenalist":

Quote:

Marx to Engels 05/01/1882: "You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one." [MECW 46, p.172.]

It's hard to imagine anything less Hegelian than phenomenalism.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Dietzgen is an a priori dogmatist of the worst possible kind, confusing garbled a priori psychology with the theory of knowledge (among many other things).

That may well be true but it still doesn't make him a Hegelian. After all, this could be said of many non-Hegelians.

[ALB]

Of course we wouldn't support him, especially as he's not even standing for anarcho-communism but on a simple "bash the rich" programme. Here's one of his posters:Having said that, he's still a sympathetic guy with a sense of humour. Other anarchists hate him for doing things like this. By participating in an election he has of course committed the worst crime in the anarchists' book.The Socialist Party member mentioned in the report is the person who expresses concern for free speech in view of the police tactic which could be used to prevent other meetings.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

What is the connection with the lumpen elements that causes you to have 'very little faith indeed' in the best educated, most travelled, least racist, proletariat ever?

I agree that this is an accurate description of the modern working class in the broadest sense (all those obliged by economic necessity to sell their working skills for a wage or a salary). If it wasn't we might as well join the conspiracy theorists at the wailing wall, lamenting but doing nothing about it.As to the term "lumpenproletariat", when we had a discussion here and at our annual conference on last year's riots I thought there was general agreement that this was not a term socialists should apply to a section of the working class.

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

twc, thanks for those quotations; taking each in turn:1) I didn't quote the first one since it didn't seem to me to add anything obvious to what we know about Marx's opinion of Dietzgen. But, I assume you included it here because of this passage:"It is bad luck for him that it is precisely Hegel that he has not studied."Except, it is quite clear that Dietzgen had studied Hegel.But, let us assume Marx was right; even then, it isn't too clear what he meant by this. For example, I am glad I have studied Hegel since it has shown me how not to do philosophy. I'm assuming Marx meant it that way, too.How do I know? Well, the only summary of 'the dialectic method' that Marx published and endorsed in his entire life contains not one atom of Hegel, and yet Marx (not me, Marx) calls it 'the dialectic method' (not 'a dialectic method', nor yet 'part of the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method'), and "my method". So, Marx's engagement with Hegel taught him to ignore Hegel completely.Hence, Marx was lamenting the fact that Dietzgen hadn't done the same.

You've got the wrong end of the stick again.Presumably the manuscript that Marx was discussing was that later published by Dietzgen as The Nature of Human Brainwork. Anyone reading this will see that it shows no influence of Hegel's thinking at all. It is essentially Kant's theory without the mysterious "thing-in-itself" that Kant argued lay behind the world of appearances (phenomena). According to Dietzgen, there is nothing behind this world; it is the world. As he put it,

Quote:

Phenomena or appearances appear – voilà tout.

Hence Marx's reference in one of the quotes you found to Dietzgen progressing backwards to "Phänomenologie".To an objective observer, it is clear that Marx is criticising Dietzgen for not having read Hegel. I don't think Dietzgen did and that of course is to his credit (as you have pointed out, to really understand Hegel you have to be a christian).I don't think that Dietzgen would have got the concept of "dialectics" from Hegel either. After all, Kant wrote about it too, In fact that's who Hegel got it from, but giving it a quite different meaning.If only you knew it, Dietzgen as a non-Hegelian is on your side.This is all getting a bit esoteric. SPGB will soon stand for Socialist Philosophers of Great Britain !

[ALB]

I think CPers like him had got fed up with calling us a sect, but "conventicle" never quite caught on.

[ALB]

There's a collection of footnotes on us here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1198-june-2004/others-have-seen-usI don't think it includes Eric Hobsbawn describing us as "wholly unimportant conventicle" (in chapter 12 of his Labouring Men.

[ALB]

Ozymandias wrote:

I guess you could say the corollary to what I'm saying is just to shut up shop and give up now.

This may not be your view (obviously), but it is a corollary of conspiracy theories about the world being governed by some shadowy all-powerful elite.In one our election campaigns earlier this year someone came up to our stall and eventually said that he was a follower of David Icke (some years previously he'd been in the SWP). We asked him, supposing you are right and the world is governed by an elite centred on the Rothschilds, what can be done about it. He replied nothing. I think this is the position of most New World Order conspiracy theorists. They are content just to denounce their perceived conspiracy, and all its supposed powers and techniques, but not to propose any alternative because as far as they're concerned there isn't.How to refute them and re-assure ourselves that they are wrong? First, they are factually wrong: the world is not governed by some all-powerful elite even though it might appear to be because everybody, including governments, are subjected to the impersonal forces of the world market. Second, we (the people, the working class, whatever) are not completely powerless as the ruling class in each country can't govern and let capitalism run properly without our consent. There are many examples (already given on this thread) of governments which have tried this being overthrown by even non-socialist "people's power".Our task is to help the emergence of a socialist "people's power" movement strong enough to end capitalism and the operation of its market forces and  tosweep away any government or non-governmental conspiracy that might stand in the way.

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Ollman is incorrect, though, in some of what he had to say; it wasn't Marx who used the word "brilliant" in relation to Dietzgen, but Engels — he did so in a letter to Marx, dated 06/11/1868 (MECW 43, pp.152-53)

For the record, Ollmann does not claim that it was Marx that used this word. Re-read the footnote and you'll see he says Engels did.

[ALB]

Thanks for your researches. By the way, I meant to add that I don't think that Marx would have been being "facetious" when he introduced Dietzgen to the delegates at  the Congress of the IWMA in the Hague in 1872 as "our philosopher". At most he may have been being diplomatic, but I see no reason to doubt that he was sincere.

[ALB]

Here's a couple of footnotes to the chapter on  "The Philosophy of Internal Relations" in Berthell Ollman's The Dance of the Dialectic:

Quote:

13.  Marx's enthusiasm for Dietzgen was not unqualified. To Kugclmann. he writes of a "certain confusion and… too frequent repetition" in a manuscript that Dietzgcn had sent him, but he makes it clear that despite this the work "contains much that is. excellent" (1941,80). Since these comments were directed to the manuscript of Dietzgen's work and forwarded to him, it is not unlikely that they affected the published version.14. Engels writes, "And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us, but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by Joseph Dietatgen" (Marx and Engcls 1951,350-51). Engels too was not altogether unambiguous in his estimation of Dictzgen, whose work he, like Marx, first saw in manuscript form. Writing to Marx, Engels complains that Dietzgen's use of the dialectic appears "more in flashes than as a connected whole." "The account of the thing-in-itsclf as a thing made of thought," however, is scored as "brilliant" (Marx and Engels 1941,151).

If accurate these show that Marx was not entirely critical of Dietzgen, but what his final opinion was is irrelevant in one sense as this shows that Marx did retain some interest in "philosophy" after 1845. If Ollman's assumption is correct he even commented to Dietzgen on what he'd written. The reference to "phenomenalism" in one of your quotes shows this too.As I said, I'm not sure what all this shows, either way. 

[ALB]

There's also a couple of articles here, written on the occasion of our centenary:http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2005-anglo-marxism-the-spgb-buick/

[ALB]

Dave wrote:

One other question regarding the development of socialist consciousness within the working class. After many years of being either active or through researching labour history I have come to the conclusion that the idea of false consciouness is probably incorrect to explain why workers have not yet developed a socialist consciousnes.

Here's an article from the Socialist Standard which discusses another criticism of the inadequacy of the "false consciousness" explanation:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1280-april-2011/brief-history-public-relations

[Author]

Posts