Dialectical Materialism

[likesfish]

yes nobody sane or with any respect tries to justify the nazis
which can't be said for marxists
The Question still stands why every marxist state has been a disaster

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Oh noes won't somebody think of the poets

lol.

 

[TremulousTetra]

But, I accept that, at least to begin with, our aims are the same i.e. the rejection of capitalism; and that, more importantly, even though our methods may differ, our motives are essentially the same.

< you would think that that would be the commonsense position of most people on here, unfortunately not. So well done you for being one of the few to acknowledge the truth.

BUT having said that, would you not acknowledge it is always good practice to start with the end in mind? To have some idea of what your objective is, and how you get there?

Actually, I wouldn't. I think it's possible to reject the status quo, workout having to set a blueprint for the future. Whilst I can see that capitalism fails the working class here and now, I don't presume to tell them what system they should adopt in future; that will vary from time to time, and depending upon location and the prevailing ideology.

why? What is the objective? Why is it important revolutionaries forget the lessons of history? Okay, you might not want to say, “I order you to adopt a classless society”, but why can you not suggest one? In fact, why can you not campaign and fight for a classless society, and give the working class the option of joining you in that fight?

 

[Athos]

< you would think that that would be the commonsense position of most people on here, unfortunately not. So well done you for being one of the few to acknowledge the truth.

why? What is the objective? Why is it important revolutionaries forget the lessons of history? Okay, you might not want to say, “I order you to adopt a classless society”, but why can you not suggest one? In fact, why can you not campaign and fight for a classless society, and give the working class the option of joining you in that fight?

I am happy to fight for a society which isn't based on class. And I hope the working class will fight for the same. Where we diverge is when we turn our minds to what that society might look like. I don't presume to know all the details, and have no desire to bind the workers of the future to any particular blueprint. That said, I know what I wouldn't like to see - a state. And that goes for a workers' state as much as it does for capitalist one. To my mind, a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. And history shows us that so-called workers' states very quickly descend into brutally oppressive regimes.
The tens of millions killed and oppressed in Russia, China and Cuba on the name of Marxism puts me off.

 

[dennisr]

I am happy to fight for a society which isn't based on class. And I hope the working class will fight for the same. Where we diverge is when we turn our minds to what that society might look like. I don't presume to know all the details, and have no desire to bind the workers of the future to any particular blueprint. That said, I know what I wouldn't like to see - a state.

You, me and marx agree on that then

And that goes for a workers' state as much as it does for capitalist one.

What you seem to really disagree with marxists about is how we get from A to B - how we get to that classless society. Marxists argue that one cannot simply, formally 'abolish the state apparatus' overnight and it disappears. Its an idealistic, utopian ideal but not a practical one. Your difference seems to be over the question of how one abolishes that state.

To my mind, a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship.

the term - dictatorship - has changed greatly in its usage use since Marx wrote it down. It meant (to qoute from wiki): 'In Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat denotes the transitional socialist state between the capitalist class society and the classless communist society. During the transition, the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The term dictatorship normally refers to the Classical Roman dictatura concept — republican and constitutional with absolute power, while Marx's dictatorship of proletariat is revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".'

It is intended to mean the temporary period following the fall of capitalism characterized by a struggle to achieve a classless, stateless and moneyless communist society.

And history shows us that so-called workers' states very quickly descend into brutally oppressive regimes. The tens of millions killed and oppressed in Russia, China and Cuba on the name of Marxism puts me off.

History shows that folk will constantly strive to improve their lot - you can either put forward practical solutions that folk can take up or stand on the sidelines complaining about not going the way you wanted it to.

The history of the Russian Revolution shows the limits of a revolutionary wave in an economically and socially backward country when that revolution becomes isolated because of the failure of the revolutionary movement, despite its spread for a period, in more economically advanced countries. It shows the failure of the possibility of "socialism in one country". It shows the horror of bureaucracy - of the policemen of food queues becoming the new elites by wiping out a generation of revolutionists.

The history of failed revolutions since then shows the utter failure of Stalinism (and, I guess, its 'dominance' and hold over others for a wee while) - it has little to do with Marxism except in rhetoric and propaganda (although the causes of these distorted revolutions was real enough the failure of capitalist solutions). Just as real democracy has little to do with capitalism (which also and equally wrongly kills millions) except in rhetoric and propaganda.

Working people will still struggle to improve their lot as a class - you can call their goals what ever you want to (and I agree - ready made blueprints are a joke - folk will decide that themselves through the process of 'doing') - communism, socialism, anarchism, freedom, whatever. But its a mistake to equate a vicious regimes fig-leaves to the actual content of marxist ideas.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I am happy to fight for a society which isn't based on class. And I hope the working class will fight for the same. Where we diverge is when we turn our minds to what that society might look like. I don't presume to know all the details, and have no desire to bind the workers of the future to any particular blueprint. That said, I know what I wouldn't like to see - a state. And that goes for a workers' state as much as it does for capitalist one. To my mind, a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. And history shows us that so-called workers' states very quickly descend into brutally oppressive regimes.
The tens of millions killed and oppressed in Russia, China and Cuba on the name of Marxism puts me off.

all very good points, well made. But let's not jump the gun, please just let me examine a bit more what you are saying.
In fact scratch that,, let's just deal with a couple of misunderstanding you have of my position [former member of the SWP].

The SWP always argues that there is no point in discussing the details of what a communist society will be like. Beyond the fact it will be classless, democratic, antiracist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist etc etc, and most of all stateless.
Now I know there is a lot more discussion we could have about those topics, the state etc. But before we get into the same old same old arguments, I would just prefer to understand your position, and more importantly your motivation for that position.

Please go back to my earlier questions, and please answer them with regard to why you wouldn't be so presumptuous. Are you just being polite, or is there a tactical reason?


BTW. I think I know what you're going to say, but I would rather you put it in your own words. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You, me and marx agree on that then



What you seem to really disagree with marxists about is how we get from A to B - how we get to that classless society. Marxists argue that one cannot simply, formally 'abolish the state apparatus' overnight and it disappears. Its an idealistic, utopian ideal but not a practical one. Your difference seems to be over the question of how one abolishes that state.



the term - dictatorship - has changed greatly in its usage use since Marx wrote it down. It meant (to qoute from wiki: 'In Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat denotes the transitional socialist state between the capitalist class society and the classless communist society. During the transition, the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] The term dictatorship normally refers to the Classical Roman dictatura concept — republican and constitutional with absolute power, while Marx's dictatorship of proletariat is revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.'

It is intended to mean he temporary period following the fall of capitalism characterized by a struggle to achieve a classless, stateless and moneyless communist society.



History shows that folk will constantly strive to improve their lot - you can either put forward practical solutions that folk can take up or stand on the sidelines complaining about not going the way you wanted it to.

The history of the Russian Revolution shows the limits of a revolutionary wave in an economically and socially backward country when that revolution becomes isolated because of the failure of the revolutionary movement, despite its spread for a period, in more economically advanced countries. It shows the failure of the possibility of "socialism in one country". It shows the horror of bureaucracy - of the policemen of food queues becoming the new elites by wiping out a generation of revolutionists.

The history of failed revolutions since then shows the utter failure of Stalinism - it has little to do with Marxism except in rhetoric and propaganda. Just as real democracy has little to do with capitalism (which also and equally wrongly kills millions) except in rhetoric and propaganda.

Working people will still struggle to improve their lot as a class - you can call their goals what ever you want to (and I agree - ready made blueprints are a joke - folk will decide that themselves through the process of 'doing') - communism, socialism, anarchism, freedom, whatever. But its a mistake to equate a vicious regimes fig-leaves to the actual content of marxist ideas.

damn you! I wanted to talk about anarchism for a change. ;-)

 

[dennisr]

all very good points, well made. But let's not jump the gun, please just let me examine a bit more what you are saying.

Why don't you reply to the questions raised then rather than endless flim-flam about 'points of view' ? - its not an academic exercise.

 

[dennisr]

damn you! I wanted to talk about anarchism for a change. ;-)

You can - I repeat - It is not an academic exercise. Anarchism is not an idea that occurs in a vacuam. Ideas are an attempt to deal with (respond to, understand, explain and hopefully find solutions to problems that exist in...) the living world around you

(plus the simple point is made - to clear up a misunderstanding about marxism - the aim is the same as that of anarchism - abolition of the state)

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why don't you reply to the questions raised then rather than endless flim-flam about 'points of view' ? O its not an academic exercise.

because talking about workers states, and detailed plans for communism, is not discussing his motivation for objection to 'leadership' or 'vanguardism', and what he intends to put in its place.

Anyway, I did answer them points when I said scratch that. I just didn't go into detail. Because basically, though I agree with everything you have just said, it isn't particularly new to this forum is it? We have had that discussion 1000 times already. I am much more interested in his methodology/logic than mine.

Credit to the guy, he seems decent and honest and wanting to discuss things fraternally. Somewhat of a rarity on u75.

 

[belboid]

Credit to the guy, he seems decent and honest and wanting to discuss things fraternally. Somewhat of a rarity on u75.

certainly not things that could be said about you

 

[dennisr]

because talking about workers states, and detailed plans for communism, is not discussing his motivation for objection to 'leadership' or 'vanguardism', and what he intends to put in its place.

Anyway, I did answer them points when I said scratch that. I just didn't go into detail. Because basically, though I agree with everything you have just said, it isn't particularly new to this forum is it? We have had that discussion 1000 times already. I am much more interested in his methodology/logic than mine.

Credit to the guy, he seems decent and honest and wanting to discuss things fraternally. Somewhat of a rarity on u75.

questions of 'vanguardism' and 'leadership' come out of the simple question HOW.

you just sound like a patronising know-it-all mate (that last few sentences... jezeus wept)

 

[TremulousTetra]

You can - I repeat - It is not an academic exercise. Anarchism is not an idea that occurs in a vacuam. Ideas are an attempt to deal with (respond to, understand, explain and hopefully find solutions to problems that exist in...) the living world around you

(plus the simple point is made - to clear up a misunderstanding about marxism - the aim is the same as that of anarchism - abolition of the state)

The SWP always argues that there is no point in discussing the details of what a communist society will be like. Beyond the fact it will be classless, democratic, antiracist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist etc etc, and most of all stateless.

so all I am asking is that we discussed that, instead of regurgitating old u75 topics.


Anyway sorry if I have pissed you. I did put the Smiley's in, I wasn't being serious.

 

[TremulousTetra]

questions of 'vanguardism' and 'leadership' come out of the simple question HOW.

you just sound like a patronising know-it-all mate (that last few sentences... Aezeus wept)

Okay, thank you for correcting my posting style. lol

 

[dennisr]

Anyway sorry if I have pissed you. I did put the Smiley's in, I wasn't being serious.

You haven't - its fine. (I'm very happy-go-lucky - belboid is the grumpy fella

 

[TremulousTetra]

I am happy to fight for a society which isn't based on class. And I hope the working class will fight for the same. Where we diverge is when we turn our minds to what that society might look like. I don't presume to know all the details, and have no desire to bind the workers of the future to any particular blueprint. That said, I know what I wouldn't like to see - a state. And that goes for a workers' state as much as it does for capitalist one. To my mind, a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. And history shows us that so-called workers' states very quickly descend into brutally oppressive regimes.
The tens of millions killed and oppressed in Russia, China and Cuba on the name of Marxism puts me off.

rephrase for the benefit of Dennis.

Our aims are the same. How do you think we get there. And why do you prefer them over other tactics?

 

[likesfish]

so you need a global revoultion or a large enough industrialised states or states the EU for example to go overall at once otherwise the whole thing ends in horror

 

[Athos]

You, me and marx agree on that then



What you seem to really disagree with marxists about is how we get from A to B - how we get to that classless society. Marxists argue that one cannot simply, formally 'abolish the state apparatus' overnight and it disappears. Its an idealistic, utopian ideal but not a practical one. Your difference seems to be over the question of how one abolishes that state.



the term - dictatorship - has changed greatly in its usage use since Marx wrote it down. It meant (to qoute from wiki): 'In Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat denotes the transitional socialist state between the capitalist class society and the classless communist society. During the transition, the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The term dictatorship normally refers to the Classical Roman dictatura concept &mdash; republican and constitutional with absolute power, while Marx's dictatorship of proletariat is revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports, i.e. the &ldquo;dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".'

It is intended to mean the temporary period following the fall of capitalism characterized by a struggle to achieve a classless, stateless and moneyless communist society.



History shows that folk will constantly strive to improve their lot - you can either put forward practical solutions that folk can take up or stand on the sidelines complaining about not going the way you wanted it to.

The history of the Russian Revolution shows the limits of a revolutionary wave in an economically and socially backward country when that revolution becomes isolated because of the failure of the revolutionary movement, despite its spread for a period, in more economically advanced countries. It shows the failure of the possibility of "socialism in one country". It shows the horror of bureaucracy - of the policemen of food queues becoming the new elites by wiping out a generation of revolutionists.

The history of failed revolutions since then shows the utter failure of Stalinism (and, I guess, its 'dominance' and hold over others for a wee while) - it has little to do with Marxism except in rhetoric and propaganda (although the causes of these distorted revolutions was real enough the failure of capitalist solutions). Just as real democracy has little to do with capitalism (which also and equally wrongly kills millions) except in rhetoric and propaganda.

Working people will still struggle to improve their lot as a class - you can call their goals what ever you want to (and I agree - ready made blueprints are a joke - folk will decide that themselves through the process of 'doing') - communism, socialism, anarchism, freedom, whatever. But its a mistake to equate a vicious regimes fig-leaves to the actual content of marxist ideas.

I understand that the ultimate goal of Marxists is the abolition of the state (which is why I said above that our motives are essentially the same). However, the lesson of history is that states and those who control them never relinquish power voluntarily. In my opinion, it will be as hard to get rid of a so-called workers' state as it would to get rid of a capitalist one. So the practical consequence of the two stage process is to make things twice as hard. Not to mention the horrors in the interim.

 

[Athos]

all very good points, well made. But let's not jump the gun, please just let me examine a bit more what you are saying.
In fact scratch that,, let's just deal with a couple of misunderstanding you have of my position [former member of the SWP].

The SWP always argues that there is no point in discussing the details of what a communist society will be like. Beyond the fact it will be classless, democratic, antiracist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist etc etc, and most of all stateless.
Now I know there is a lot more discussion we could have about those topics, the state etc. But before we get into the same old same old arguments, I would just prefer to understand your position, and more importantly your motivation for that position.

Please go back to my earlier questions, and please answer them with regard to why you wouldn't be so presumptuous. Are you just being polite, or is there a tactical reason?


BTW. I think I know what you're going to say, but I would rather you put it in your own words. Perhaps I am wrong.

It's neither politeness nor tactics; it's an idealogical matter - I think the idea of people controlling other people is wrong. Always and everywhere.

 

[Athos]

rephrase for the benefit of Dennis.

Our aims are the same. How do you think we get there. And why do you prefer them over other tactics?

I'd like to get there in one step instead of two. I see no value, and, indeed, a great danger in replacing one state with another (even temporarily).

The reasons I favor this approach are ideological - I reject the oppression inherent in states; and pragmatic - history shows us that even revolutions which set out with the intention to move towards a stateless society not only fail to do so, but are also worse than that which they replaced.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's neither politeness nor tactics; it's an idealogical matter - I think the idea of people controlling other people is wrong. Always and everywhere.

lol, Got to admit, I wasn't expecting that.
Wrong? Why is it wrong? Morally?

You would object to an architect 'controlling' the people who build a skyscraper?

 

[Athos]

lol, Got to admit, I wasn't expecting that.
Wrong? Why is it wrong? Morally?

You would object to an architect 'controlling' the people who build a skyscraper?

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.

 

[Knotted]

Yeah, yeah. But that isn't were hegel STARTED from. He started from, there is nothing you can think of, that is not, in a process of change. One thing is permenant, change. Is this not true?

Not really.

This is the eternal truth that young Marx and Hegel grasped hold of, everything, literally everything you can think of in the material and philosophical world, is in a permanent process of change. Not only that, but there was a logic to this change. Maybe not one you can use to predict the future, but one you can use to understand why we are here, capitalism. A logic which lays bare the fact that the history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle.

How would you arive at that conclusion from the starting point that everything changes?

We don't have to guess about Engels' (at least) attitude to eternal philosophical truths. There's a chapter on it in Anti-Duhring. You should try reading it.

the logic of Marx and Engels is not the “idea that our thoughts are a reflection of what we see”. [[and not that the idea that what we see is a reflection of our thoughts. Hegel.]] But that there is a dialectical relationship between the thoughts and the material world.

Perhaps. What strikes me about Marx and especially Engels is this use of subjective logical categories such as "contradiction" to describe objective processes. There is nothing contradictory about class struggle. The bourgoisie and the proletariat may be in irrconcilable conflict but until they contradict each other's statements they are not in contradiction. I put this odd usage of logical categories down to Engels' belief that we derive our understanding from the world. I don't think our thoughts correspond to the world in such a manner. Our thoughts apply to the world rather than corresponding to it.

Marx suggested that Labour, was the essence of human nature. It is the process of his labour, that distinguishes him from all other animals. For in that process, thoughts do not merely reflect the material world, thoughts engage with it, and change the material world.

, In his famous example, bee’s do not think about their honeycombs, and come up with a better design. They carry on the relentlessly producing the same honeycomb, way of living, until there is some genetic transformation.

Humans on the other hand, have constantly change their environment, and as they have changed their environment, it has changed the way they have thought about the world. There is not a passive reflection, there is a dynamic interaction.


[I will come back to the rest of what you have said later, if you are still interested.]

BTW.At least you flesh out what you believe dialectical materialism is, and what your criticisms are. Thanks for that. That's all I was interested in.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

I don't think other anarchists on here such as butcers, violent Panda, etc would accept that. It would be interesting to know if any anarchists do.

I'm in a bit of a rush today, I'll come back to it later in the week. Thanks.

 

[Athos]

I don't think other anarchists on here such as butcers, violent Panda, etc would accept that. It would be interesting to know if any anarchists do.

I'm in a bit of a rush today, I'll come back to it later in the week. Thanks.

I look forward to your more substantive response, when you have had more time to consider what I said. In the meantime, I'd make three points in reply to your 'holding' post:

First, I don't know what Butchers and Violent Panda think; why don't you ask them?

Secondly, with no disrespect to them, it doesn't really matter what they think, does it? Either what I say makes sense, or it doesn't, no matter who subscribes to it. (Though I admit that I am curious as to what I've said that you don't think any other anarchists could subscribe to.)

Thirdly, part of the beauty of anarchism is that it's a relatively broad church; typically, anarchists don't try to dictate to other anarchists what they must think. With respect to you, that's not something the SWP are famed for. They seem bound by dogma, and intolerant of any deviation from it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Credit to the guy, he seems decent and honest and wanting to discuss things fraternally. Somewhat of a rarity on u75.

certainly not things that could be said about you[/QUOTE]God you a mard twunt! Get a life.Or at least stop being a hypocrite.

DONT both attempting to address me again cuntchops. You may be as pleased with yourself as you like and think you've 'won' some point. But you can only think that because you are a stupid little shit with all the insight of a lump of cheese. And its plain to everyone other than MC5 ()and probably even him, he just patronsies) that you are a backsliding tosser without any integrity whatsoever.

PS. Yes you were right, more pathetic than threatening.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

To be possibly pedantic, they never used the term dialectical materialism. That was Dietzgen. Later Plekhanov stitched together a philosophy of dialectical materialism out of Marx and Engels writings with reference to Hegel.

What is what you would call the dialectical materialism of Marx? There is very little written explicitly describing a philosophy. There's Engels Anti-Duhring and Ludwig Feuerbach...

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.
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 don't think Marx's methodology is seperable from his work. What is interesting is to see how Marx reasoned. We don't need dialectical formulae to do that. In fact I think it is best approached without preconceptions about what dialectics are etc. Now I've no problem with Marx's methodology and I've no problem with you calling it dialectical materialism if you like, but don't see the formulae as a substitute for reading carefully.

Engels materialist dialetics (as he called it) I'm mostly fine with as well. I think it's best seen as rules of thumb and I find it can be helpful.

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..

However;

Thinking about it, it is any talk of contradictions that I reject in dialectics. It's never really a contradiction, rather a juxtaposition of consistent thoughts which nevertheless appear pyschologically antagonistic.

Is motion contradictory? Is being in one place at one moment and another place at another moment a contradiction? I don't think so. I don't see any value in calling it contradictory.

but

Motion isnt meant to be contradictory, is it? Rather all motion is caused by other contradictions. Also, dialectical contradictions aren't as rigid as aristotelian logic contradictions, or as strong. The contradiction of 'A' is not simply 'Not A.'

There is a direct contradiction between the needs of the ruling and working clsses, for example, that drives the nature of class society. There is the contradiction between the desire of the capitalist to pay workers less (to maximise profits) and the need to pay workers more (so we can buy the shit that is produce).

Perhaps. What strikes me about Marx and especially Engels is this use of subjective logical categories such as "contradiction" to describe objective processes. There is nothing contradictory about class struggle. The bourgoisie and the proletariat may be in irrconcilable conflict but until they contradict each other's statements they are not in contradiction. I put this odd usage of logical categories down to Engels' belief that we derive our understanding from the world. I don't think our thoughts correspond to the world in such a manner. Our thoughts apply to the world rather than corresponding to it.

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. 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.

A philosophy which seeks out eternal truths is anti-Marxist. This is precisely Duhring's philosophy. Engels' dialectics were not an attempt to carve eternal metaphysical truths but were invoked precisely to criticise such a point of view. The philosopher who thinks he has discovered some sort of profound eternal truth has merely glorified his own prejudices.

Dialectics was an attempt to characterise and critique such forms of thinking and instead provide a model of thought that would capture the nature of the world by observing how the world forces us to change our model of thought. So quantities transform into qualities and opposites transform into one another. So the character of materialist dialectics are contingent on what we know of the world and how we assess it open mindedly without the need to simply reproduce our old assumption and prejudices and categories.

Is Darwin's theory of evolution dialectical? The better point to make is that it isn't what Engels called metaphysical in it's central thesis. It does not set out to describe a lizard as simply a lizard that can only ever evolve into another lizard. The biological categories are fluid necessarily fluid.

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?

 

[The39thStep]

I look forward to your more substantive response, when you have had more time to consider what I said. In the meantime, I'd make three points in reply to your 'holding' post:

First, I don't know what Butchers and Violent Panda think; why don't you ask them?

Secondly, with no disrespect to them, it doesn't really matter what they think, does it? Either what I say makes sense, or it doesn't, no matter who subscribes to it. (Though I admit that I am curious as to what I've said that you don't think any other anarchists could subscribe to.)

Thirdly, part of the beauty of anarchism is that it's a relatively broad church; typically, anarchists don't try to dictate to other anarchists what they must think. With respect to you, that's not something the SWP are famed for. They seem bound by dogma, and intolerant of any deviation from it.

Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[TremulousTetra]

I look forward to your more substantive response, when you have had more time to consider what I said. In the meantime, I'd make three points in reply to your 'holding' post:

First, I don't know what Butchers and Violent Panda think; why don't you ask them?

Secondly, with no disrespect to them, it doesn't really matter what they think, does it? Either what I say makes sense, or it doesn't, no matter who subscribes to it. (Though I admit that I am curious as to what I've said that you don't think any other anarchists could subscribe to.)

Thirdly, part of the beauty of anarchism is that it's a relatively broad church; typically, anarchists don't try to dictate to other anarchists what they must think. With respect to you, that's not something the SWP are famed for. They seem bound by dogma, and intolerant of any deviation from it.

Couldn't have put it better myself

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.

 

[butchersapron]

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