Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:"I cannot answer the writer better than by aid of a few extracts from his own criticism, which may interest some of my readers to whom the Russian original is inaccessible."After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on…" [Bold added.]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htmIt is at that point that Marx adds the summary of 'the dialectic method' — in the very next paragraph.
Marx' next paragraph is:
Marx wrote:Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?Which is a continuation of correcting the misapprehensions of the Russian writer as to his method. Where Marx does describe his dialectic is a subsequent paragraph
Marx wrote:My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.He then procedes to the famous line:
Quote:With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.You'd have to do serious violence to the text to rid it of any meaning that there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic.
Then why did Marx say
Marx wrote:"The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner."In the same, short, afterword. It's a curious thing to do, don' t you think. I mean,t he passage is one ext, shouldn't it be interpreted as a whole?
That would by no means prevent Bob from having been the first to put (plastic) bread on the table.So, whatever Marx' dialectic, and the form it took, he did consider Hegel "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.", albeit mystified and in a method different from that which Marx applied. This is what the German afterword tells us.
https://apnews.com/0630f8b819754b2297505f33045d7f85/Fierce-battles-leave-hospital-in-Iraqi-city-of-Mosul-gutted?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=APThe desctiption of a battle to take a hospital
Quote:The hospital basement had been transformed into an IS bunker. Dozens of mattresses filled rooms, ammunition and body armor lined hallways and Islamic religious texts were piled atop shelves. There was no evidence to suggest the complex was being used as a hospital to treat civilians at the time of the attack: medical records viewed by an AP team at the scene were dated more than a year ago.Coalition spokesman U.S. Army Col. John Dorrian said it was "clear" the hospital was being used by IS as a headquarters and was no longer being used as a facility to treat civilians."If the enemy is going to use facilities like (hospitals) as a storage place for weapons or as an operations headquarters, we will strike those kinds of facilities," Dorrian said, adding that the practice is consistent with the laws of armed conflict.Compare with the same stories coming out of Alleppo….
The summary of the dialectic is within the same text, and so what we are looking at here is how to interpret the text as a whole, and this sentence is within it.Let's take Bob the baker. Let us suppose that a long passage about putting bread on the table preceded, with no word about Bob within that long paragraph. Let us further suppose the author includes mentions about their method of putting bread on the table, and how they do it in the completely opposite way to Bob, and then says:"'The pulverising which flour suffers in Bob’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to put bread on the table'.
Socialism would be worldwide, with no nation states, no borders, and the common ownership of the whole Earth by the whole of humanity. Disputes about ideas and values would besettled solely by debate.
*sigh*"The crapping in the flower bed by the cat, by no means prevents him from being ginger.""The descruction which running shoes suffer from the boy, by no means prevents him from being first in the race.""The pulverising which flour suffers in Bob’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to put bread on the table".So, for those of us who dabble in English: what colour is the cat? What position in the race did rhe boy finish? Who put bread on the table first?So, we are taking Marx' own words here, and he is giving Hegel credit for being first to present dialectic in " its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner." Not originating or designing it, but being the first to give the first general, conscious comprehensive analysis of it. That, presumably, must challenge your 'Hegel free zone' theses: in actuality, what he is saying is Hegel was the first to be wrong, and in being wrong deserves the credit ofbeing corrected (there is wrong and wrong).Engels' reading of AD to Marx is beside the point (hence why discussing it at length is a straw man): Marx doesn't have to have read the thing in detail to be aware of the general contents (or have heard/read the whole text). The only, and substantive point, is that a text wrotten by his close collaborator for decades, and good friend, was published, he provided a preface, and has produced no discernable comment public of otehrwise which contests the contents of that book. Adding a preface to a book is endorsement of sorts.We can't say that Marx agreed with every word of Engels', but we can say he didn't care enough to comment.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:"The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner."The highlighted words only formed the basis of an argument you yourself developed, that Hegel was not the first (etc.). However, being a little it Gricean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle) we can look at Marx' own words in relation to the principle of relation, why would he say that unless he was affirming that Hegel was (etc.). he would not have brought the matter up.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Already covered, many times.Not covered once, a straw man about how long it takes to read a text aloud has been erected, nothing said about the preface, etc.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Again, you can only get away with that if you ignore 1) Marx's own words about 'the dialectic method', and 2) the words in bold above.The words in bold do not change the meaning, Marx is ascribing to Hegel that he was " the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" and that his mjystifications should not detract from that.
Editting a text to leave out the bit you're not talking about is not bowdlerisation: I did not alter or seek to alter the meaning.Marx was aware of AD and did not produce any texts commenting nor rebutting, and it was the work of someone he had worked closely with, on intellectual matters for decades. Further, he produced a preface to Socialism, bad and the Ugly, so its reasonable to infer he was at least generally aware of its contents. That is all we can say, and all we need to say.Now, you argued, forcefully an cogently, that Hegel was not the "the first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" . That is a noble assersion, but it doesn't change the fact that the quote from Marx has Hegel "being the first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner."I'm afraid you didn't deal with distancing, but danced around a very narrow pinhead.
Rosa Alsace wrote:If we insist that Marx agreed with every single line read to him from AD, then we are also forced to conclude that Marx, too, was an incompetent mathematician.Quite cheerfully…But, the point isn't that marx read the whole book, but was aware of it, and there is no visible sign of any distinancing. Further, Marx did provide a preface to Socialism Utopian & Etc. There is no requirement to prove marx approved very word, merely to note from silence either he wasn't fussed either way, didn't think any disagreements were worth a candle, etc.Anyway, I reject any notion I bowdlerised Marx:"The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner."The only rational reading of the whole quote is that Marx considered Hegel to be the frist to present dialectic in a comprehensive and consious manner. Now, you can disagree with Marx, fair enough. But there is no scope for denying the plain reading of that sentence.
In discussing what Marx thought about dialectic, it is significant that he expressed the opinion of Hegel "being the first to present [dialectic] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" being aware, no doubt of those's other works on the subject, he must have had some basis/reason for exprssing that opinion (however wrong it may be).
Rosa Monaco wrote:4) "And, of course, we can take some legitimate inference that some of Engels' writings on dialectic were published in Marx' lifetime."Which writings did you have in mind? Anti-Dühring? [If so, I have an answer to that, too.]I'd be interested to hear that answer. (Marx' preface to Socialism Utopian and Scientific is 1880, and does not mention nor rebutt the sections on dialectics in that text — that does not imply complete agreement, but it is at least suggestive)
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:If it was written before 1873, when the Postface was published/written, then it manifestly can't represent Marx's latest or more considered views (as they were clearly expressed in the Postface), and hence it can't be relevant to the matter in hand.Well I'd disagree such letters are inadmissible, certainly, the published afterword to Capital is a strong source (indeed, there isn't much in those letters I quoted that seems at variance with the afterword, Marx acknowldges in the afterword "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner." (my emphasis added). It s valid to look at the works of Marx passim for legitimate inferences we can make, in how he worked, etc.Anyway, do tell about Auntie Duhring (and Charlie's foreword to Socialism Utopian etc.). I'll agree, argument from silence isn't strong, but it is valid.
LBird wrote:Yes, and I've explained why, and what he means in relation to Hegel, in very small words, just for you, time and time again.After that explanation, which says that 'Marx called himself a materialist', I've got no idea why you ignorantly persist in thinking that you parroting 'But Marx called himself a materialist' is some sort of intellectual rebuttal of what I've said.I'm going to leave it to Rosa L to take on the considerable burden of trying to explain anything to the SPGB, because I'm tired of talking to cloth ears.And I'm going to keep parroting it at you, because, Humpty, words mean what they mean, Marx did not qualify it 'in relation to Hegel' he repeatedly described himself as a materialist, at least once in public, her certainly never said 'idealist-materialist'. If he had meant 'not an idealist' he would have said so. Given in the German preface he disowned his coquetting with Hegelian phraseology, we do have to call into question some of that earlier philosophy.I'm afraid it is a rebuttal to qhat you have said, and a strong one: Marx was a self professed (unqualified) materialist, who also believed in disinterested scientific method.
I agree with Rosa that published works are to be preferred, but we can read a little deeper than that. I've noticed in letters, Engels writes to Marx about dialectic, there is no evidence of a rebuttal from Marx, from what I can see. Also, the comments come in the form that read, to me at least, as if they presuppose a shared undrstanding.But, there are letters from Marx also:
Marx wrote:At the Museum, where I did nothing but glance through catalogues, I also discovered that Dühring is a great philosopher. For he has written a Natural Dialectic against Hegel's "unnatural" one. Hence these tears. The gentlemen in Germany (all except the theological reactionaries) think Hegel's dialectic is a "dead horse." Feuerbach has much to answer for in this respect.Ambiguous and open to inerpretation, but a legitimate reading is one of of scorn for those who see a dead horse.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_01_11-abs.htm
Marx wrote:He knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist. Hegel's dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after it has been stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm"Basic form of all dialectic" is pretty hard for Rosa to explain away, in the light of the preface from the German edition of Capital, previously cited. Also, one for Lbird, Marx again describing himself as a materialist.And, of course, we can take some legitimate inference that some of Engels' writigns on dialectic were published in Marx' lifetime.I stress, I'm not a fan of dialectic per se, and a lot of mystifying rubbish has been written, but still.
Wow, what we need is Lbird to join this thread and we could watch the charge of the hobby horse cavalry.Appropriately enough, the same passage is antidote to both:"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."So, Marx, in his own unambiguous published words, has a dialectic method.Short version: he looked at things in thir relationships and how they develop.
