Dialectical Materialism

[Knotted]

Well you and butchers both seem to disregard anybody that hasn't read the works of Marx, talking about the ideas of Marx. I freely admit I really struggled with the ancient language of Marx, Engels Lenin, and to a lesser extent Trotsky. I found it really alienating. And found it a barrier to understanding the complex ideas that were being discussed. . You acknowledge yourself that reading Marx and Engels on this topic, can be confusing, of ‘limited’ value.

Firstly I didn't say reading it was of limited value. If you want to understand their point of view you should read them. As it happens Engels wrote on this exact topic of eternal truths. You should read this if you think Marxist philosophy is about eternal truths. Engels is a pretty clear writer (unlike Marx), I don't think I could explain his view any more clearly than he has already stated it.

I have found it much easier to be ‘spoonfed’ the ideas of Marx by reading, listening to, and talking to people like Duncan Hallas, Tony Cliff, John Molineaux, John Rees, Chris Harman, Alex Callinicos, and many others from the international socialist tradition. From that I can definitely say you are contradicting their description/rendition of dialectical materialism.

Is my description contradicting their description or is it that I am disagreeing with aspects of dialectical materialism?

Have you read the book by John Rees, The Algebra of Revolution? Have you read his article from the ISJ in 1989? [Actually, if you get the chance, read the whole ISJ. As the articles on the French revolution etc, marry beautifully with what John Rees wrote.] Even on my website, there are speeches by several people who have all read Marx possibly more than you and butchers, who give a completely different rendition of dialectical materialism. One that is coherent and makes sense of his works, I and all the above believe. Why? I believe, because rather than looking for “explicit” statements of Marx and Engels philosophy and methodology from Marx and Engels, they engage with the whole body of the works. I do not disagree with any of that. After reading plenty of Marxism, “what is interesting to see is how Marx reasoned”, and I believe that methodology, the reasoning is dialectical materialism. “Marx's methodology isn’t separable from his work.” IMO..

I haven't read anything from the SWP on Marxist philosophy. To be honest the SWP don't interest me.

I haven't given a rendition of dialectical materialism. I've explained what I see of value in it and what I think is wrong-headed about it. I haven't explained it from scratch.

However; but
the history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle. History, the dynamic of society, the evolution of society from Hunter gatherers to capitalism, is driven by the contradiction in class interests, the contradiction in the relationship between classes in every mode of production that has ever been.

Well interestingly the Communist Manifesto doesn't talk about contradictions. It talks about for instance "constant opposition" between "freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman". This I feel is clearer than talking about contradictions. I don't need dialectical language and to honest most of the time neither did Marx and Engels.

More explicitly, if you read such as the ragged trousered philanthropist, or conditions of the English working class, you can recognise unfettered capitalism will reduce the ability of the working class even to reproduce. In places like the ‘Third’ World, we can see the circumstances of the ragged trousered philanthropist exist today. But even in places like the ‘First’ World, the threat to destroy our environment, threatens to destroy us all. IF unfettered, the system that relies upon profit/wealth production, systemically destroys the wealth producers, the workers it needs to produce wealth, there is an obvious and massive contradiction between the ideology and aims of capitalism, and what it can actually achieve. It is the self destructive tendencies of class society, and in this case capitalism, that brings about revolt, revolution, and is the driving force to change in society. [However, the same self-destructive tendencies of class society, don't always lead to revolution, they can lead to common ruin of the contending classes, regression too. It's dialectical again] the contradictions are the driving force for the dynamic, history.

Why do contradictions give you a dynamic? I know the answer to this question - it's to do with Zeno's paradoxes. But, as I say, I reject this idea that motion is contradictory. That doesn't mean I reject a dynamic or a driving force for history.

I don't think I'm really understanding the points you are making in the above two quotes. The statement, “only one thing is permanent, change”, isn’t a contradiction, it is a tautology, isn’t it. To state the truth that everything you can think of is in the constant process of change, completely undermines the philosophers who think they have discovered some sort of profound eternal truth”doesn't it?

I don't see why exactly... In anycase that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

My point was to do with what Engels wrote in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific about the difference between dialectics and metaphysics. I think this is useful. I recognise the type of "metaphysician" that Engels is talking about. We often use quite ordinary loose language as if we are talking in very exact scientific terms. So (to give Engels' example) an animal is either dead or alive because we might think we have a very clear idea of what dead and alive are and we might say there is something essentially live about the living and something essentially dead about the dead. But really we only have practical idea of what dead and alive are and close inspection means we would have draw an arbitrary line somewhere. Dialectics doesn't merely recognise the world as being dynamical but rather deals with our temptations of pushing things into rigid categories.

My further point was that the various bits about the laws of dialectics and the loose use of the word "contradiction" are not helpful in achieving this critique of metaphysics.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Jesus wept, no one but you wants to talk about the frigging swp

Your wrong.

Couldn't have put it better myself

[/QUOTE]
I wasn't going to respond to that post by Athos, but 39 highlighted it again, and every sentence of it is wrong. However, as you say, nobody wants to discuss the SWP so let's not bother.

You have produced many bollocks contributions to this thread, why don't you produce one outlining YOUR critique of dialectical materialism, which rarely goes beyond, dialectical materialism is poo"? Go for it, enlighten me with your great wisdom.

I don't think you will, and we both know why.

PS. I havn't responded to the rest of your twotish posts in this thread, and will NOT be responding to any more, unless you can say something interesting about dialectical materialism, or anarchism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Couldn't have put it better myself

Yes, morally wrong.

If the architect and the builders are working together, voluntarily and as equals, then I wouldn't consider the builders working to the architects plans to amount to control, as there is no element of coercion.

If, however, the builders were forced by fear of starvation to work for an architect who steals the surplus value of their labour, which is what happens under capitalism, then I would characterize that as control.

Similarly, if these builders were forced to work by the state, under threat of an even more severe punishment, as happened with Stalin's slave labour, then I would characterize that as control, too.

What is important is the nature of the relationship, not the activity undertaken. I think your example demonstrates the classic misunderstanding of anarchism: the idea that it is inconsistent with organisation. It is not; it is inconsistent with the compulsion which arises from the violence inherent in both capitalism and the nature of states.

Hey look, there is never a good discussion on here about anarchism. Would you like to take the posts out of this thread about dialectical materialism, and put it in one about “Anarchism, Organisation and Leadership?”?

Look, just to be honest with you, I'm not pretending I want to become an anarchist, but that doesn't stop me being interested in what you all have to say about your views.



PS. There is ironicly another interesting thread, dialectically moving from a discussion of the SWP, to that of anarchist ‘vanguardism’. 'sw on the bus'

 

[Athos]

Not really comparing like with like are you? We cannot really compare anarchism, to the SWP. You could compare anarchism to Marxism, and there are probably more flavours of Marxism, than there are of anarchism. Marxism, has an even broader church than anarchism, no?
Likewise, there could be some sects in anarchism, with a much narrower spectrum than the SWP. As just one example, it has members I know of who have been amongst the Labour Party, and members who have been anarchists, in its leadership and rank-and-file.

Not really. I don't think Anarchism is as riven by sectarianism as Marxism. Largely because, typically, its adherents aren't as doctrinaire as Marxists, and are focused more on action than discussion.

 

[Athos]

Hey look, there is never a good discussion on here about anarchism. Would you like to take the posts out of this thread about dialectical materialism, and put it in one about “Anarchism, Organisation and Leadership?”?

Look, just to be honest with you, I'm not pretending I want to become an anarchist, but that doesn't stop me being interested in what you all have to say about your views.

If you start such a thread, iId be happy to contribute (for what that's worth).

 

[TremulousTetra]

Not really. I don't think Anarchism is as riven by sectarianism as Marxism. Largely because, typically, its adherents aren't as doctrinaire as Marxists, and are focused more on action than discussion.

Come on now, you must understand the point, you cannot realistically compare an entire political movement, to one political party. You must understand you are not comparing like with like.

Of course anarchism is a broader church than the SWP. There is even anarcho-capitalists, isn't there?

Not really an important point, side issue, but it doesn't really bode well for an interesting discussion.

 

[Athos]

Come on now, you must understand the point, you cannot realistically compare an entire political movement, to one political party. You must understand you are not comparing like with like.

Of course anarchism is a broader church than the SWP. There is even anarcho-capitalists, isn't there?

Not really an important point, side issue, but it doesn't really bode well for an interesting discussion.

Read the post you quoted: I compared anarchism to Marxism, not to one party.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Read the post you quoted: I compared anarchism to Marxism, not to one party.

Yes, I accept I made a mistake just to answer your comment, without making reference to the context http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...aterialism?p=11330729&viewfull=1#post11330729
in their you do compere anarchism, to the SWP. However it is a pedantic point about the use of language, and of little interest to anybody. Sorry for the confusion.

I do intend to start that thread, just because I would find interesting no more no less. If you have more pressing political things in the real world to deal with, then you are absolutely right in the point you made earlier. This chitchat about academic questions, is not as important as your action in the real world.

[Having said that, theory and practice should go hand-in-hand. There should be some theoretical analysis of the efficacy of your actions IMHO.]

 

[Athos]

I'll keep an eye out for it. And I agree that there needs to be some thought given to aims, strategy and tactics. To my mind, though, that's quite different to examining the fine detail of highly philosophical theories.

 

[TremulousTetra]

oops!

 

[TremulousTetra]

Firstly I didn't say reading it was of limited value. If you want to understand their point of view you should read them. As it happens Engels wrote on this exact topic of eternal truths. You should read this if you think Marxist philosophy is about eternal truths. Engels is a pretty clear writer (unlike Marx), I don't think I could explain his view any more clearly than he has already stated it.



Is my description contradicting their description or is it that I am disagreeing with aspects of dialectical materialism?



I haven't read anything from the SWP on Marxist philosophy. To be honest the SWP don't interest me.

I haven't given a rendition of dialectical materialism. I've explained what I see of value in it and what I think is wrong-headed about it. I haven't explained it from scratch.


A
Well interestingly the Communist Manifesto doesn't talk about contradictions. It talks about for instance "constant opposition" between "freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman". This I feel is clearer than talking about contradictions. I don't need dialectical language and to honest most of the time neither did Marx and Engels.



Why do contradictions give you a dynamic? I know the answer to this question - it's to do with Zeno's paradoxes. But, as I say, I reject this idea that motion is contradictory. That doesn't mean I reject a dynamic or a driving force for history.



I don't see why exactly... In anycase that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

My point was to do with what Engels wrote in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific about the difference between dialectics and metaphysics. I think this is useful. I recognise the type of "metaphysician" that Engels is talking about. We often use quite ordinary loose language as if we are talking in very exact scientific terms. So (to give Engels' example) an animal is either dead or alive because we might think we have a very clear idea of what dead and alive are and we might say there is something essentially live about the living and something essentially dead about the dead. But really we only have practical idea of what dead and alive are and close inspection means we would have draw an arbitrary line somewhere. Dialectics doesn't merely recognise the world as being dynamical but rather deals with our temptations of pushing things into rigid categories.

My further point was that the various bits about the laws of dialectics and the loose use of the word "contradiction" are not helpful in achieving this critique of metaphysics.

I don't know how, bad use of language, analogies etc, but I have led you to grab completely the wrong end of the stick.

I don't need to read the Engels you were suggesting, but I will do anyhow, because I absolutely do agree with the point you're making. My understanding of dialectical materialism from reading John Rees etc, very crudely, dialectical materialism can be broken into three principles.

The first of these principles, though they could be placed in any order, is exactly what you are saying. There is absolutely nothing eternal, no truths eternal, nothing you can think of is eternal. EVERYTHING you can think of is involved in a process of change. The bourgeoisie are doing this all the time, talking about things as if they are related. So you will get stories in the papers about unemployment, and crime rates as if they are nothing to do with each other. If people think this isn't true, then there is a simple question, name something that is permanent.

The second principle, is that you cannot categorise, and split things up, without first realising EVERYTHING interacts with each other. Everything, no matter how remotely is connected, because everything is part of the whole. A great example of this is the Butterfly effect. Which is as true in politics, as it is in nature.

The third principle, the one you seem to have most antagonism to, is that these parts of the whole, interact with each other in a contradictory fashion, and it is this the motor to the dynamism. I think Belboid covered the point.

Yes you are right, you do not need to talk about contradiction to make sense of class conflict, as in the Communist manifesto. I don't think that is really the point of The Algebra of Revolution.

Personally I would say the best three books I have read that use the Marxist process, lay dialectical materialism bare, are capitalism volume 1, Peter Fryer, Staying Power, a History of Black People in Britain, Chris Harman A People's History of the World.

I know I'm not going to convince you that's okay. That wasn't the point of this thread. I just wanted to see if butchers would put up a proper criticism of dialectical materialism.


Would you explain this to me?
Why do contradictions give you a dynamic? I know the answer to this question - it's to do with Zeno's paradoxes. But, as I say, I reject this idea that motion is contradictory. That doesn't mean I reject a dynamic or a driving force for history.


Just to make the point again, nobody has said motion itself is contradictory. They have said the driving force for motion, is contradiction.
Like I said, see Belboid.

Anyway knotted, thanks very much. Respect.


PS. Honestly mate, I couldn't care less whether you are interested are not in the SWP. I'm certainly not. Haven't BARELY read a publication of there's something like 10 years. I was just explaining, it was they who gave me my understanding of dialectical materialism, not Marx and Engels. Though they did claim obviously, that's where they had got their understanding of dialectical materialism from. Don't ALL modern day Marxist’s claim to be the true heirs? lol
PPS. I did Ask somebody if they had a text file of the ISJ 45. They sent me this. Warning, it is an 8.5 MB pdf.
www.ResistanceMP3.org.uk/the_algebra_of_revolution.pdf