In my reading of Ms. Lichtenstein's essays, I see no interesting and new ideas being presented. In fact, it is more like a bourgeois academic criticism of dialectical materialism and resurrecting the old lines of thought prevailing before the emergence of Marxism - plus, she uses contemporary language.

First point:

The entirety of Ms. Lichtenstein's essays presents no significant practical value to the proletarian movement. Its so-called "demolition" of dialectical materialism didn't at all demolish dialectical materialist thought, even at the philosophical level. While Ms. Lichtenstein went into very small details in her vain attempt to contradict "DM," she was unable to shake the very foundations of dialectics.

Her tactic in those essays seems to be "atack-and-attack" throughout all of it. But did she present any alternative? None. And she went into those very small details at great length and compassion just for the sake of attacking it, vainly, even if she wasn't able to prove anything. While the most pressing issues of the day were left untouched.

As for me, I should be more interested in that work of her if she'd concentrated in the DM's analysis of the social, economic and political aspects.

If in her essays she have dealt with the most practical aspect of DM, like for example Marx's analysis in Das Kapital or his and Engels' and Lenin's analysis of the capitalist mode of production, which are very dialectic and materialist and that which puts Dialectical Materialism into practice, that I think would be most interesting. But I doubt if she will do that. She will cover herself in using very technical terms and languages just to impress her readers and get them to believe in her thoughts.

Or how could the proletariat win the revolution or what will they do to end the capitalist exploitation and oppression and finally liberate themselves from these? None was said about this. Her principle is "attack dialectics and attack it through just for the sake of it."

As for now, I won't get into details yet since I haven't finish reading the essays (even if I'm only pushing myself hard to read them due to my lack of interest, and as I sbegin to read, my drive to read them becomes slower and slower ). But, just for the sake of my promised responses, I'll finish it. I'll make follow-up comments as soon as I am done reading her essays.

I replied to your objection in this post.

I think the "alternative" to "dialectics" is strongly implied if not directly stated in Rosa's essays: ordinary scientific reasoning.

Consider an ordinary auto mechanic faced with the problem of an engine that refuses to start. Does s/he stop to "dialectically analyze" the "contradiction" between open valves and closed valves or the "unity of opposites" between pistons constantly "in motion" or the "negation of the negation" in engines that run and don't run???

Of course not!

S/he knows from practical experience what the causes are of engines that won't start...from simple problems that are quick and easy to repair to really complex problems that involve major engine work that will take many days to accomplish. S/he uses the proper tools and instruments to investigate the material causes of why the engine won't start, discovers the causes, and then repairs them appropriately.

All this without giving a thought to "dialectics".

Why can't we apply this "common sense" attitude towards problems of revolution?

We know from historical experience that some strategies don't work at all and other strategies will work only in specific historical circumstances.

Why not use that experience in a straight-forward manner to guide our practice?

Thus it makes sense to be a Maoist in the Philippines because of material conditions similar to those of pre-revolutionary China.

It's quite possible that it makes sense to "imitate Lenin" in a place like Turkey or even Iran...because of material conditions similar to those of pre-revolutionary Russia.

It looks more and more like social democracy is working in Venezuela...a "tropical Sweden" c.1930 or so.

You don't need "dialectics" to figure out this sort of thing...any more than you need it to instantly grasp that all the old "left" strategies are completely irrelevant to material conditions in the "old" capitalist countries.

Granted, we have not yet discovered what will work in the "old" capitalist countries...a very serious "gap" in revolutionary theory.

But what is to be gained by losing ourselves in a "dialectical" fog? The way to begin the job of filling that "gap" is to look at those few examples of some kind of proletarian rebelliousness in the "old" capitalist countries and try to figure out why they happened and how they could be encouraged to happen again on a wider scale.

When you get right down to it, learning from practical experience is the real "master key" to understanding social reality or anything else.

Yes, theory is important -- not least because it saves us enormous amounts of time and energy.

But theory that doesn't rest on real world practical experience is...well, generally useless. Occasionally, a really bright individual might hazard a theoretical "shot in the dark" that, by sheer chance, actually hits the target.

But relying on that sort of thing is just plain foolish.

And that's what "dialectics" does! In the last analysis, it's no more intellectually respectable or practically useful than fortune-telling.

And given some of the things that I've seen in "left" politics, it's rather difficult to avoid the conclusion that "dialecticians" should properly be regarded as no more than political "phone psychics"...opportunistic hustlers fleecing the gullible.

Not exactly "revolutionary", eh?

Red Che, as I predicted, you dialecticians cannot come to terms with the fact that your 'theory' is not just bogus, it is an affront to the workers' movement.

So, you try to deflect attention onto my alleged failings.

Fine, but it was all expected.

I have seen this many times over in the last twenty years or so.

As apostles of change, you do not alter much. And as believers in change through internal contradiction, you dismiss the ones I have introduced from inside the movement.

So, you are all a walking disproof of your own ideas.

I do not expect to convince you dialectical clones, as I indicated in my Introductory Essay.

It is no matter to me if you continue to believe this 'theory', or not. My aim is not to try to cure you, but to expose the theoretical fraud you adhere to.

If you wish to remain in the swamp, that is your affair. But do you really think that anyone thrown into doubt about DM by my arguments is going to be helped by your dialectical sulk? Your response, and those of other dialectical comrades, is actually helping me, just as, say, the irrational response to Galileo helped him, 400 years ago

On the contrary my aim is to try to prevent the further spread of this crazy doctrine; if I can put just one young comrade off dialectics, the last eight and a half years of hard work on this project will have been worth it.

A few of your, shall we say, 'fibs':

Yes, Historical Materialism.

I thought you could read.

It has none. That is why I do not mention any.

You assert that dialectics has some connection with the emancipation of the working class.

But they have already delivered their message. They are not interested in your sort of mysticism. Please do not expect me to try to help you bamboozle them any more. It is enough if you dialecticians do this all on your own.

The larger the working class, the less influence you Dialectical Druggies have on them. This is one material fact that shows I am right.

You can't hear them, nor can you appreciate this point, since your head is deep in the Sahara.

And the way you dialectical mystics are going, your influence can only get less with time.

That's OK too, since it will leave room for us genuine materialists to assist the class in its own self-emancipation.

Since you do not say what these are, I suspect you are just reading from a script, having copied this empty claim from other attempts to defend DM. It clearly saves you the trouble of having to respond. A well-tried DM-tactic.

However, and on the contrary, I raise issues never before aired, anywhere. Prove that wrong; go on, I dare you.

To take one example: just find me one instance from the past or the present where an anti-dialectician has posed the 'Dialecticians' Dilemma', posted elsewhere on this board. It is original to me. And I bet you cannot answer it.

To take a few more: who precisely has raised the issues I do from Modern Logic, and shown how dialecticians have fabricated a straw man in this area? Or shown that modern logic (and ancient logic) can cope with change? Or, shown in detail how Engels's three laws do not work. Or, demonstrated in detail not only how motion is not contradictory, but how Zeno's paradoxes make no sense. Or shown, again in detail, how Hegel and Lenin's attack on the Law of Identity back-fires. Or shown that Lenin cannot account for the objectivity of human knowledge? Or shown how and why abstraction has crippled dialectics? Or show how and why metaphysics arose, and how it has hobbled the minds of great revolutionaries? Or shown how Marx and Engels’s comments on differential calculus do not work. Or that wholes are not greater than their parts?

Which of these ideas pre-dated Engels? Which has been advanced before, and by whom?

My ideas may or may not be right -- time will tell. But they are almost all completely original to me.

Prove otherwise, I challenge you.

I note, however, you are totally incapable of defending your ideas.

At least we have established that.

I therefore recommend that you keep your head in the sand, comrade; it not only suits you and your dialectical mates, it leaves the field open to us genuine materialists.

Preserve your responses. I have many things to refute in your essays. Just wait till I've finished reading and examining them.

I can't wait.

If they are as convincing as other things you have described in such terms, I think I can put my feet up.

Just be sure to note the "dialectal contradiction" of such an action! :P

Amusing, I am sorry you have lost me here.

What contradiction is this? A literal one, a metaphorical one, or just a jokey sort of one?

Your smiley suggests the latter, but I still do not see it.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

I would appreciate if you could write a "simplified" version of your critique. Because English isn't my first language and I have trouble understanding your essays.

Vox, I must apologise if my use of English is too difficult for you.

I have been writing this stuff now for over eight years, six of the last have been devoted to making the difficult ideas I refer to accessible. This material has been written and re-written well over fifty times (no exaggeration).

My guiding thought throughout has been; "If an ordinary worker cannot understand this, re-write it!"

Now I do not think I will ever achieve that level of clarity, but I do try. So, I apologise once again for failing to do so, and for failing you!

In my defence, however, you need to remember that I am challenging ideas that have fooled some of the greatest minds in human history -- for my attack is not just against dialectics, but against all traditional philosophy (of which dialectics is just a rather poor relation), which I identify as a major branch of ruling-class ideology. So I am dealing with some very complex and deep problems, ones that are not easy to sum up in a few sentences.

The level of confusion that has developed in this area of human thought is so great that I have to set the stage for every argument in great detail, or risk my attack failing.

Many of the 'laws' and principles of dialectics seem so obvious to comrades because these 'laws' trade on errors that other theorists (outside Marxism) have been making for centuries -- these are very deep errors, and are based on several fundamental mistakes over the meaning of words.

Now, put like that, no one would accept this approach, so I have to dissect each problem to reveal the deep errors involved, thus removing their 'magic' and the grip it has on comrades.

Once you see that all of Philosophy (including dialectics) is based on little more than verbal trickery, it loses its hold. Until then, because these notions are based on language, and not on scientific facts, they are impossible to correct, except in the way I am trying.

Now this is not easy to do, which is why it has held sway for so long, and why these 'ruling ideas' have ruled for thousands of years.

I claim no originality here; I base my ideas on those of Marx (in the German Ideology, etc.) and on the method of dissolving philosophical 'problems' developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein just over 50 years ago.

However, I have tried to summarise my ideas here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm

You might find these of some help. If not, I am not really sure what I can do to assist you any further.

I was "pulling your leg".

Ah, a dialectical joke that was funny and not funny all at once.

No Problem! I understand the need of "complicated" language when dealing with complicated matters.

I think that one of the biggest problems with Socialism is that the greatest Socialist thinkers use pretty advanced language...and that makes their ideas hard to grasp for common people (to whom the ideology is made for).

But the real problem is that i'm Swedish and that your essays are written in English

Do you mind if I ask you some kind of "simple" questions about your theories?

No problem!

You will notice, however, that I avoid using technicalities wherever I can, and I certainly avoid the obscure language you find in much left-wing philosophy.

I'll send you the questions as PM's Ok?

As promised, here is the continuation of my series of responses to Ms. Lichtenstein’s essays.

Second point:

In her Essay 2, Ms. Lichtenstein started by saying this:

It can already be clearly seen here that Ms. Lichtenstein wants to obscure several issues.
And going through the rest of her Essay 2, she really obscured more the issue being presented here: that whether DM imposes idea on nature.

Mao, in his Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?, said:

Mao further explained:

In this first process, man gathers data from the material world. It is during this process that man make “ideas”, this means man’s brain processes the data collected through our five senses and produces “ideas.”

Mao went on to say:

And further, he says:

It can now be said that ideas are simply those that are in the minds of man. That it cannot independently exist from the material world. And further, those ideas are not imposed on nature. That man gathers ideas simply because man can think. That one thinks and rationalizes so that one would know what s/he can or cannot do. And to know it, one must have “ideas.” Man is not a tree without brains. Man is a thinking being. So you can’t take away ideas from a man.

Marxism have already explained that ideas are simply a reflection from the material world and processed by human brain. Unlike what the idealists think that ideas are superior and that ideas determine the correctness of man’s actions.

Now, in Ms. Lichtenstein’s arguments that DM imposes ideas on nature. She is simply wrong. As clearly seen in the explanations of Comrade Mao, it is practice that determines the correctness of man’s actions, not ideas. That man only gathers them (ideas) from the material world so that man can know what s/he can do. And that “ideas,” alone, cannot exist independently, much less could it be imposed on nature.

I will continue on examining her essays, this is all for now. I’ll get back as soon as I have ascertained the rest of those quotes she copied there in Essay 2. I’m still looking for that one regarding John Reese. Ms. Rosa, don’t be so in a hurry. Like what I said, I’m only reading your essays bit by bit because I don’t have that luxury of time to read your essays.

Well Red Che, if this is a sign of things to come, I think I will enter you for a prize in fiction:

"It can already be clearly seen here that Ms. Lichtenstein wants to obscure several issues.
And going through the rest of her Essay 2, she really obscured more the issue being presented here: that whether DM imposes idea on nature."

The Essay you lifted that sentence from is well over 20,000 words long, 75% of which is taken up with quotations from almost every branch of dialectical materialism, and highly representative (I would have quoted Mao too, if I had wanted that essay to be even longer!), all of which was aimed at proving that this is what you DM-fans do: you impose your theses on nature just like traditional thinkers.

You need to address that, rather than bluster on about 'obscuring' the issues (which issues - I set the agenda in that essay: to show that you lot do not do what you say -- how can i cloud it if I quote you all against yourselves?).

Then you quote Mao:

"They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment."

But he just assumes this; where's his proof? More a priori foistings, Red Che. Thanks, we can add this to the list.

But I specifically tackled this response in that essay. You need to show where my argument goes wrong, instead of ignoring it.

Can you?

If your past form is anything to go by, I think not.

The rest of your 'response' consists of more quotes from the god-man Mao, but they do not address anything I said.

That is all you DM-fans can do, isn't it: reel off more passages from the 'scriptures'?

Not an original thought in your heads.

How can this have been derived from what mao says?


"Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be…. Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself…." [Engels (1976), p.74. Bold emphases added.]

Or this:

"'Fundamentally, we can know only the infinite.' In fact all real exhaustive knowledge consists solely in raising the individual thing in thought from individuality into particularity and from this into universality, in seeking and establishing the infinite in the finite, the eternal in the transitory…. All true knowledge of nature is knowledge of the eternal, the infinite, and essentially absolute…. The cognition of the infinite…can only take place in an infinite asymptotic progress." [Engels (1954), pp.233-35.]

Or this:


"Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development…. Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)….

"[D]ialectical logic holds that 'truth' is always concrete, never abstract, as the late Plekhanov liked to say after Hegel." [Lenin (1921), pp.90, 93. Bold emphasis added.]


Or this:

"Flexibility, applied objectively, i.e., reflecting the all-sidedness of the material process and its unity, is dialectics, is the correct reflection of the eternal development of the world." [Lenin (1961), p.110. Bold emphasis added.]

Or this gem:

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [E]ach thing (phenomenon, process, etc.)…is connected with every other…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute….

"To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common, etc., [sic] with any proposition...: [like] John is a man…. Here we already have dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognized): the individual is the universal…. Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes), etc. Here already we have the elements, the germs of the concept of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say John is a man…we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other….

"Thus in any proposition we can (and must) disclose as a ‘nucleus’ (‘cell’) the germs of all the elements of dialectics, and thereby show that dialectics is a property of all human knowledge in general." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58, 359-60.]

How can any of this be derived from 'images in the brain' derived from experience?


"I will continue on examining her essays, this is all for now..."

Do me a favour, Red Che -- don't bother. You might as well confine your 'examination' of my essays to the back of bus tickets for all the care and attentiuon you pay to what I say.

Just who do you think you are kidding? Do you honestly thnk that anyone thrown into doubt by my arguments is going to have their minds put at rest by your irrelevant quotations from Mao?

The problem is: I think you do.

Head still stuck in the Gobi desert comrade? You are just making a fool of yourself.

Well, I'm not aspiring to be one of those Great Philosophers, actually. And I don't have that halluciantion that I change the minds of your followers, if there were any. It's just that I want to respond to your essays. And I want to expose the hypocrisies in those essays of yours. Unfortunately, I don't have that much time since I have more important things to do.

But I'll do it still, exposing your hypocrisy, that is. This would take a bit long, however.

Red Che, don't bother. I am not interested in you quoting more holy dialectical scripture at me.

That seems to be your only tactic. In fact, it is your only tactic.

In fact, since I have been reading this stuff for well over twenty-five years, and have had to study it line by line for my work, it would be very cruel of you to quote any more back at me.

If you want to stay in your benighted state, happy with your simple dialectical faith, that's fine.

Both myself and the vast majority of the working class are not listening to this mystical rubbish.

You (and other DM-fans) have yet to wake up to this fact.

So turn over, and go back to sleep.

I am sorry I disturbed you.

Third point:

Ms. Rosa falsely and maliciously stated that:

Ms. Lichtenstein is quite tricky in her usage of words here.

She instantly imposed that Absolute Idealism is Dialectics without the reader noticing it. And worse, she claims that Marxism is derived from Hegel. So, in this sense, she was successful in the imposition of her other thoughts and effectively ignoring the points which Marx clearly differentiated in his dialectical materialism as opposed to Hegel's dialectical idealism.

Marx stated that: "My dialectics is different with Hegel's, in fact, it is its direct opposite."

Here, Marx makes the distinction of his dialectics in opposition to Hegel's dialectics. Hegel's is Idealist. It is not rooted from material objects. Fundamentally, Hegel's dialectics is Idealist, that which he says everything is just a product of idea. While Marx's dialectics, his philosophy, is materialist.

Ms. Lichtenstein, obviously wants to confuse the readers. She is contradicting two concepts which aren't actually contradictory.

It is Idealism that contradicts Materialism, while on the other aspect, Metaphysics contradicts Dialectics.

It must be made clear that Metaphysics suggests that every particular object is independently existing and does not have relationship with other things. While Dialectics contradicts this thought which states that matters are related to each other and that this relationship produces contradiction that brings about changes.

While the two other contradicting philosophies were materialism and idealism. Idealism asserts that ideas come first and it is decisive in the development of things. While Materialism puts forward the thought that material objects come first and it is the decisive factor in development.

Marx clearly establishes that both dialectics and materialism were correct and that makes it the philosophy of Marxism.

So, we can see here that Ms. Lichtenstein was attacking not just Dialectical Materialism but Marxism itself. That what she wants us to do is not to think at all. That we just let everything evolve "peacefully" and "harmoniously" without us doing anything because, in her mind, it just alters nature. As if things themselves were not contradicting and producing new objects.

I'll continue again next time. This will be all for now.

More holy scripture:

"Marx stated that: "My dialectics is different with Hegel's, in fact, it is its direct opposite.""

I specifically left Marx out, so why you are quoting him, I do not know.

But even if it were relevant, how would this show that DM-fans do not impose their ideas on nature?

All the evidence is in my essay. It is no matter to me if you ignore it -- I predicted you would.

"I'll continue again next time. This will be all for now..."

Why bother. Just cut and paste the same stuff you have been posting. It will be just as irrelevant.

Add another star to your 'three-star fool label' -- for that is what you are.