[LBird]

ALB wrote:

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).

Yeah, I agree about actual research, so, just why do 'dialecticians' bother so much to stress their 'method'?Why do members of the SPGB feel the need to mention 'dialectics', even if they already agree that it's the same as 'non-dialectics'?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

This thing about dialectic is just a wasting of time. There is nothing for us as socialists and for the working class  in the field of dialectic, it is like reading the Bible. A pastor can spend several hours talking about one verse, and the dialectician can spend one day talking about one particular phrase, everything is in the realm of the mind, that is what the phenomenology is all  about

Whilst I agree that "there is nothing for us as socialists and for the working class in the field of dialectic, it is like reading the Bible", I don't think that it's a 'waste of time' to confront Engels' detour from Marx's views (or even to question whether Marx, too, had been infected with 19th century positivism), because Dialectical Materialism provides the basis for Leninism, in my opinion.Whilst any comrades think that there is anything to dialectics, we have to confront and discuss it, because it has been so influential and damaging for the proletariat.The class must determine its own ideas, not party philosphers wielding a special method which we don't understand.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

The main problem with those organization is not the dialectic method, the main problem is the Leninist method. And the claim that they have abandoned Marxism because they are or were dialectician it is not true either, Leninism is a reactionary and reformist trend which will never conduct human beings to a socialist society

In my opinion, mcolome1, you're underestimating the link between 'Leninism' (theory and method) and 'dialectics'.Of course, the root of the problem is Engels, who provided the so-called 'Marxist' philosophical nonsense that Lenin built upon, and then employed for a different purpose.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Karl Marx was a critical and humanist materialist. His materialist conception was  different to Engels and Lenin.

I totally agree.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

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…

[my bold]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. In fact, those two categories are false.'Dialecticians' pretend to have access to an unmediated 'structure'. That is why Leninists favour 'dialectics'. They can claim to have access to a special method, which is not accessible to the class, so they have a more profound consciousness.The more I've discussed this over the years, the clearer it has become to me about the link between mystical 'dialectics', which seem to be so difficult to understand, and Leninist party organisation and Leninist theories of class consciousness.No-one can explain 'dialectics', comrades, and the simple reason is that 'dialectics is bullshit'. The Leninists employ 'dialectics' like the Catholic church employ 'grace'.Only the Party and Priesthood understand its mysterious workings.

ALB wrote:

I don't really know why we are arguing about this.

Perhaps what I've written above gives some clue as to why I keep arguing about this issue.

[LBird]

For comrades who aren't familiar with the issue of 'selection', for humans (ie. historians and scientists):

E H Carr wrote:

"Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. This is, after all, not very abstruse. It is what is already done by the intelligent undergraduate who, when recommended to read a work by that great scholar Jones of St. Jude's, goes round to a friend at St. Jude's to ask what sort of chap Jones is, and what bees he has in his bonnet. When you read a work of history, always listen out for the buzzing. If you can detect none, either you are tone deaf or your historian is a dull dog. The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_History%3F

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

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.

Well, let’s replace ‘research’ with ‘analysis’:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Bertell Ollman wrote:

Unlike non-dialectical analysis, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical analysis begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and then proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding of the whole from which one has begun.

[my bold]This is jibberish, DJP.One can't start with the 'whole', because that is the entire universe. One must select, as Carr shows in What is History?If one starts with 'as much of it as one understands', that's not the 'whole'. Thus, it must be a 'small part', just as for non-dialectics.Analysers must apriori define what they consider to be 'the system' (which must be itself a selection from the universe) which is to be examined, which is, logically, 'starting with some small part', just as for non-dialectics.Theory determines the 'system', 'as much as one understands', 'the part' to be examined, 'where it fits' into the system and 'how it functions'.There is no difference between non-dialectical and supposed dialectical analysis. To argue otherwise is go against the whole of 20th century philosophy of science, and is to mislead the class. It's just analysis. It's based upon theory. Theory determines selection parameters. Theory determines the validity of results.Rocks don't discuss. Humans are at the centre of analysis. Humans are social beings. We've done this already on the Pannekoek thread.

No, Ollman’s argument is still ‘jibberish’, in a logical sense. It’s to do with ‘wholes’ and ‘parts’, ie. who determines what is a ‘whole’ and what is a ‘part’. If one wants to argue that the ‘part’ appears from the ‘whole’, without human selection of both ‘part’ and ‘whole’, one is claiming to be inductive. Carr’s What is History? nails this as nonsense. You’ve read the fisher/fishing/fish analogy, ALB.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

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?.

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

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Bertell Ollman wrote:

Unlike non-dialectical research, where one starts with some small part and through establishing its connections to other such parts tries to reconstruct the larger whole, dialectical research begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and then proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding of the whole from which one has begun.

[my bold]This is jibberish, DJP.One can't start with the 'whole', because that is the entire universe. One must select, as Carr shows in What is History?If one starts with 'as much of it as one understands', that's not the 'whole'. Thus, it must be a 'small part', just as for non-dialectics.Researchers must apriori define what they consider to be 'the system' (which must be itself a selection from the universe) which is to be examined, which is, logically, 'starting with some small part', just as for non-dialectics.Theory determines the 'system', 'as much as one understands', 'the part' to be examined, 'where it fits' into the system and 'how it functions'.There is no difference between non-dialectical and supposed dialectical research. To argue otherwise is go against the whole of 20th century philosophy of science, and is to mislead the class. It's just research. It's based upon theory. Theory determines selection parameters. Theory determines the validity of results.Rocks don't discuss. Humans are at the centre of research. Humans are social beings. We've done this already on the Pannekoek thread.

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Quote:

The damage made  to socialism-communism by Leninism and Leninist is deeper and more transcendence than  dialectic, even more, at the present time we spend more time trying to explain what is not socialism, instead of what socialism should be, and with them socialism has not advanced one day

 Well, I agree that Dialectical Marxists of every stripe have damaged Marxism, but I don't think it is down to the fact that some of these claimed to be Leninists (since most of them abandoned Leninism soon after he died — e.g., the Stalinists and the Maoists). However, I haven't come here to debate this, so I will say no more about it.

 It's unfortunate that you 'haven't come here to discuss this', Rosa, since I think that there is an intimate connection between Leninist politics and dialectical materialism. In my opinion, the idea that there should be party, that knows better than the class what the class itself needs, requires a mysterious method that ordinary workers can't understand. Dialectical Materialism is that mysterious method, and is employed by all Leninist parties, and their epigones the Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc., etc. This opinion of mine means that I can't understand your adherence to Leninism, given your rejection of DiaMat. Surely you should be looking to Marxist strands that reject the dialectic? After all, you yourself have done a great deal to strengthen those elements.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

So in a few sentences, in words of few syllables, what will i answer the next time the mention of dialects comes up that will be an immediate, effective put-down that cannot produce any sort of dialectical come-back?

I know your appeal was directed at Rosa, ajj, but I'd suggest, to anyone who mentions 'dialectical materialism', that you reply:'Rocks do not discuss'.And a little explanation for them if they look confused and seem prepared to listen:'Dialectic' means 'through talking' or 'through discussion', and this can clearly only happen with the emergence of human consciousness. The notion that 'nature' itself (preceding natural human consciousness) is 'dialectical', as posited by Engels, is literally meaningless.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

My take on the title question of this thread "Do we need the Dialectic?". No we don't need dialectics at all. Does the case for socialism rest on dialectics? No. So if no what practical use is it? It can sometimes be used to present an idea in a certain way to make more sense to a like minded individual, but it's main use is just for intellectual masturbation. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Yeah, I've also come to this conclusion, after years (decades?) of trying to understand 'dialectics'. Although I'd long thought that the concept of 'dialectics in nature' was suspect, and more recently have come to understand that it's complete nonsense, I've always tried to keep an open mind about 'dialectics' in the sense of 'to present an idea in a certain way to make more sense to a like minded individual', but even here I've never come across an explanation that makes any 'sense', never mind 'more sense'.What's worse, whenever I've asked critical questions about 'dialectics', I've always been subjected to personal attacks. It's as if 'dialecticians' can't bear their 'religion' to be even tentatively questioned by one who is unsure, never mind openly scorned by well-read critics.Yep, I think I'm now, finally, of the opinion that 'it's main use is just for intellectual masturbation'. It's just a shame that I've been an uncomprehending party to such wanking, so wasteful for workers, for so long.Onano-Dia-Mat. Just say 'No!', comrades!

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, my aim is to try and influence Marxists (even though I know that I won't succeed), and since the vast majority of the latter have accepted 'dialectics' in some form or another, I naturally address that.

I think you underestimate your 'influence' Rosa, even if only in the sense of 'reinforcement' for those who've tentatively come to the same opinion as you, though independently, by other routes.You've provided a great resource for those Marxists who do try to argue against 'dialectics', especially in the form of 'dialectical materialism'.Having said that, though, I think that some of your opinions (I nearly said 'your philosophical approaches'  ) are wide of the mark…

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

This is why I object to the term primitive communism. For me the quote marks are in the wrong place, better would be primitive 'communism'. As what is meant by communism is not a society based on 'to each according their abilities to each according their need'. Primitive communism may have been a classless society but it was far from a society of abundance.

admice wrote:

i agree the 2 communisms are not the same.

I think that the notion of a return to some form of Communism is just a Hegelian leftover. That is, Hegel's notion of matter separating itself from spirit (geist) and history being the process of the estrangement from, and the reconciliation back to, of matter and spirit.So, spirit becomes whole again, back to its natural state. Thus, 'primitive communism' is returned to through modern communism, having go through the estrangement of material property.I agree with Ed, though. If we were to follow this schema, it would be better to name it 'primitive classlessness', because it wasn't a society based on 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.I think it's better to regard Communism as potentially the highest point of human development so far. Its main similarity to hunter-gatherer society is in its lack of an exploitative class structure.Mere lack of class exploitation does not equal Communism. Communism must include democratic methods of human organisation, including the historically learnt liberal values of respect for individuals, minority opinion, freedom of speech, etc.; democracy is not simple 'majoritarianism', as some of those same property-owning liberals allege.

[LBird]

Regarding youtube videos and politics, my favourite from The Simpsons, 'worker and parasite':http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR7m-4Vc3MUCrusty as critical philosopher!

[Author]

Posts