[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

supports your view of the relation between Marx and Hegel.

I don't know what you think "our" view of this is. You seem to think that we are claiming that Marx was a devoted follower of Hegel to his dying day. Nobody  here has said that. The difference is minimal. You say there is not an atom of Hegel in Marx's 1873 Postface. We say there's maybe a couple. So this really is an argument about how many atoms can dance on a pinhead. And it doesn't make any difference who is right. You'll remain a Leninist and we'll remain socialists.In fact I can't think what you are trying to achieve here, apart from publishing your own. writings (and comparing yourself to Copernicus). None of us here accept Leninist "diamat'. So you are preaching to the converted on this point. You're actually weakening your case with your obsessive dogmatism.

[ALB]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

This isn't so with all the unpublished letters comrades have quoted — they do seem to contradict the summary Marx published in the Postface.

Another concession to the facts. They certainly do "seem" to contradict your argument (that Marx completely abandoned and contradicted Hegel), but they don't contradict what he wrote in the 1873 Postface. They help explain it: that Marx wasn't a full-blooded Hegelian but that he took something from him and was prepared to recognise this. A bit like you with regard to Wittgenstein and linguistic philosophy.

[ALB]

Here's Rosa Luxemburg's take on co-operatives, from her pamphlet Reform or Revolution:

Quote:

Co-operatives – especially co-operatives in the field of production constitute a hybrid form in the midst of capitalism. They can be described as small units of socialised production within capitalist exchange.But in capitalist economy exchanges dominate production. As a result of competition, the complete domination of the process of production by the interests of capital – that is, pitiless exploitation – becomes a condition for the survival of each enterprise. The domination of capital over the process of production expresses itself in the following ways. Labour is intensified. The work day is lengthened or shortened, according to the situation of the market. And, depending on the requirements of the market, labour is either employed or thrown back into the street. In other words, use is made of all methods that enable an enterprise to stand up against its competitors in the market. The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur – a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.

[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.

[Author]

Posts