[DJP]

SPGB wrote:

Dialectics means EvolutionAt the time when Marx was preparing to write his analysis of capitalism, the word "evolution" was not current as an expression covering the process of the development of world capitalism. Although many thinkers recognised that certain changes occurred in nature and history, they had not yet grasped the fact that the process was universal, complementary and unified. They used the expression, "development hypo-thesis," to describe the growth of one form into an-other, within one species. The change from one species into another had not yet been recognised and was to become part of a larger outlook, the evolutionary one.It is significant from this point of view that the word "evolution" does not appear anywhere in the Communist Manifesto, the outlook of which is now recognised as evolutionary. Evolution as an expression covering the comprehensive developmental point of view became recognised with the appearance of Darwin's Origin of Species, in which was proclaimed the theory of organic evolution. This book appeared in 1859, the same year in which Marx's Critique of Political Economy appeared, and by that time Marx had written most of the manuscript that eventually appeared under the title "Capital." Thus most of Marx's important works were either published or in manuscript form before the word "evolution" had become current as the expression of all that is bound up with the process of universal, progressive and unending change, including the mechanism that accomplishes the changes.To the advanced thinkers of Marx's day, "dialectics" signified the science of the process by which change occurred. Since then, dialectical has been replaced by evolutionary and the older word is largely forgotten by all but the out-of-date philosophers living among cobwebs, and the advocates of that modem monstrosity, Russian "Communism." Each scientist is, and must be, an evolutionist in his own field of research, and is therefore, to that extent, a materialist. It is only when he leaves his field, particularly when he looks at society and religion, that he is likely to abandon science and enter the realms of fantasy. The weight of society and traditions, in these particular directions, is heavier than in others because here a scientific outlook is a danger to the existing social arrangements.What Marx and Engels meant by dialectics was made clear in the latter's book, Anti-Duhring, written with the assistance of Marx. In this 'book Engels, when referring to the negation of the negation, and having instanced the growth of a grain of barley to a crop-bearing plant, etc., says: "If I say that all these processes constitute the negation of the negation, I embrace them all under this one law of progress and leave the distinctive features of each special process without particular notice. The dialectic is, as a matter of fact, nothing but the science of the universal laws of motion and evolution in nature, human society and thought." (Landmarks of Scientific Socialism – Anti-Duhring. Kerr edition 1907. p. 173).He further says about modern materialism: "It is in a special sense no philosophy but a single concept of the universe which has to prove and realise itself, not in a science of sciences apart, but in actual science."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialism

The pamphlet then goes on to critise the confused "dialecticians" of the type that Rosa is very correct in critising.

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, in the sense that Marx took Hegel seriously, Das Kapital is indeed a Hegel-free zone.

Karl Marx wrote:

 Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his “Logic”), that merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes.[emphasis mine]

You can give whatever rambling answer you like but the evidence is here. And there's more but I can't be bothered…BTW If you really think that any amount of money or commodities can function as capital please let me know and I'll send you 10p and a half a box of nails. You can report back to us all once you have grown a business empire.I have some sympathy for what you are trying to do. I am certainly very suspicious of those who think that Marx should be read through the prism of Hegel.But I read that one of the reasons you started your project was that those high in the party heirarchy where using terminology from "dialectics" to hoodwink lower party minions into doing there bidding. In that case the problem is more one of hierarchical / leninist party models then of "dialectics" per se. I think you have been avoiding the real issue all along…

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, I re-iterate what I said earlier: Das Kapital is a Hegel-free zone.

Karl Marx in Capital Volume 1 wrote:

The guilds of the middle ages therefore tried to prevent by force the transformation of the master of a trade into a capitalist, by limiting the number of labourers that could be employed by one master within a very small maximum. The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases only where the minimum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the maximum of the middle ages. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his “Logic”), that merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm

Doh!

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

. So, Marx's engagement with Hegel taught him to ignore Hegel completely.

That appears to be false

Karl Marx wrote:

What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel’s Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_01_16.htm

[DJP]

If one thing can be seen from these quotes it's that  Marx himself thought that we needed the dialectic.That said there's dialectics and there's dialectics. I'm definitely not a fan of Hegelian gobbledygook either.

[DJP]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Perhaps designated areas for each branch. This may result in input from members unable to attend meetings and their opinions could be taken into account  at the next ‘physical’ branch meeting.

See http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/groupsThough the take up has not been great…

[DJP]

Yes that has been the plan all along. Just need to put more time aside to work on the website again…

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

Brand mentions revolution without specifying what he means.  He also talks of not voting, increasing taxation and much else besides. "Everybody's (sic) talking about it" simply because he's a self-seeking publicist and 'celebrity' whose words and actions are guaranteed to be seized upon by a fickle and gullible public.  Unlike Ken Loach, Brand's a fly-by-night and we should distance ourselves from him; that's the lesson. 

Hear, hear!Brand's commentary is full of so many vagarities that pretty much anything can be read into them.If criticism of capitalism is back on the agenda, and it seems it is, it is not because of the actions of pop stars or celebrities but because it strikes a chord with the realities of daily existence, and if the New Statesman chose the clown Brand to speak on the serious subject of social transformation it is not because he is some champion of the field but because they know he has a following and will sell papers.It serves the establishment very well that this issue is put into the mouths of such clowns.

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

(to take your example: in neuroscience and cognitive science, Cartesisn ideas are still dominant).

Triple LOL. You'll be hard pressed to find any serious "substance dualists" these days, you're at least 50 years behind the times!

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Why is "Philosophy is useless" philosphical? You negelected to demonstrate this point.And even if it were, why is "Philosophy useless" self-negating? Something could still be true but remain useless; for example: The 456,667th mouse born in Japan since 1734 is brown. That could be true. But is it any use? It might be some use, but it doesn't have to be (which is all I need). And it could be false, and still useless. Either way, it could be useless while also being either true or false.

LOL. You're doing philosophy again. I thought that stuff was useless and 100% nonsense.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

I see you have to be (or are supposed to be) a student to join in, but have we any members who are students of economics? Probably not, as economics these days seems to be a branch of business studies. Not like in the olden days (i.e. the 1980s and before).

Yes I'm an undergrad PPE student. I'll check it out..

[DJP]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, no, we don't need a philosophical theory  (or, indeed,  DM); HM (a scientific theory) is quite enough.

Historical Materialism is dialectical in that it refers to change and dynamic processes.I don't think the distintion between philosophical and scientific theories is a clear cut as you would wish it to be. For example there is a vast amount of cross-over in neuroscience and philosophy of mind.

[DJP]

What "Rosa", rather amusingly doesn't seem to notice is that "philosophy is a useless discipline" is itself a philosophical statement and a self-negating one at that. But don't take my word for it, everything I say is false.

[DJP]

admice wrote:

I assume you mean CLASS consciousness?

Yes that and more to. How people see themselves and their place in the world.

[DJP]

FWIW here's a short extract from an SPGB pamphlet on dialectical materialismhttp://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/dialectical-materialism-spgb-1974

[Author]

Posts