[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".

[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.

[Author]

Posts