Two questions, really.
1) Do you, the RL community, think its important?
2)Do you, the RL community, think its necessary?

Under this premise, I should state what I already know, so that I don't get linked to other websites that tell me what I already know.
I have read the T+A=S, but I'm not sure if simplifying it to this is really advisable.

In conversation with a Marxist-Lenisnist (M-L), I quickly discovered that after asking the M-L to show if dialectical materialism was necessary, real, and useful, that because I disagreed with the M-L, that we SIMPLY couldn't have an arguement because I didn't "believe" in dialectics. I think the M-L was turning into the pope, telling me that I couldnt argue against God without having a belief in God first. After asking me what I know, and deviating from the original question to try and use a logical fallacy (asking what sources I was using to get this 'interesting information' so the M-L could attack them) the M-L then decended into a circluar arguement that because we think, there must be dialectics, and because of dialectics, we must think.

Understandably, I was confused. So, to RL I turn.

I understand the basics, I've read Redstar2000's paper on dialectial materialism, and have read other sites on the topic too. I would like more than that hilarious explaination that because "the fact of the sun being held together by gravity which opposes the force of its nuclear reactions is an example of unity of opposites" (The M-L's own words) that therefore dialectics are true and useful! I can find this conclusion with more than just dialectics. All scientific findings and all other progress has been made completely abstract of dialectics - all things that have apparently been founded in dialectics can be shown through logic, empirical or scientific method.

I am sure that I will be bombarded with replies here, I look forward to it.

Cheers.
Pandii.

We the RevLeft community don't have an opinion on anything. The community is too broad to have an opinion (beyond I guess fuck capitalism).

That said, if you look through philosophy you will find some peoples opinion on DM.

Most people I think, if they know anything about it, think that DM is a pile of shit. But it hardly ever comes up outside of philosophy, so it doesn't really matter.

To find out if DM does matter, you could look through various other threads to look for references. You won't find many.

Pandii, this 'theory' has been trashed here so many times, I have lost count.

Your allusion to 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' is interesting, since this way of viewing even Hegel's systyem was debunked at Rev Left a few months ago, here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292097892

Now, I have been subjecting this 'theory' to sustained, comprehensive and withering attack (from a Marxist angle) at my site now for over a year, in the most detailed critique it has ever received, anywhere, by anyone.

In order to assist comrades who are not experts in Philosophy, I have summarised my main objections here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm

Finally, I have listed links to RL threads where this has been debated over the last year or so, here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

Many people do have objections and problems in regard to Dialectical Materialism. Despite this, I think that dialectics is very important and is really the foundation of Marxism. Materialist Dialectics is basically the marxist method of studying nature and history. Historical Materialism, one of the foundations of Marxism, is based on materialist dialectics applied to the study of history. I think that Lenin was right in that Dialectical Materialism was one of the foundations of Marxism, along with Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. I do not see how you can scrap Dialectical Materialism, because you would be scrapping the Marxist method.

For further reading on Dialectical Materialism, check out these links.
An Introduction To Dialectical Materialism
ABC of Materialist Dialectics
Reason in Revolt
Dialectics of Nature
The German Ideology
Materialism and Epirio-Criticism

A good reason to scrap the Marxist method then ...

I don't have a link, but redstar2000 demonstrated that you don't need dialectical materialism to do *any*thing. If a theory makes sense without dialectical materialism, then you don't need it. He argued that if you do strip the crap from Marxism, that you do get a workable theory anyway.

I'm sure someone will find the link for me.

Thankyou for that RedL, but I have devoted all the main ideas (and the vast majority of the more minor ones) found in the works and links you listed (many of which merely repeat the same empty phrases, year in year out) to systematic and comprehensive refutation in my Essays.

Materialist dialectics is not necessary for Marxism -- Marx, for one, was unaware of it.

And, since truth is tested in practice, and Dialectical Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that materialist dialectics has been refuted by history.

And, since truth is tested in practice, and Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that Marxism has been refuted by history.

On this issue it is very clear that the 'RL' community dont have a shared view. There are minority views both ways and a majority that dont engage with this issue. That tells its own story.

To answer your questions:

1) It is important to a full understanding of Marxism, it is not important to beginning to be an effective communist

2) It was historically necessary: without his critical assimilation of Hegel, Marx could not have conceived his theories and revolutionary movements would be 'a head shorter', as Engels once put it. It is probably not necessary at this moment of weakness in the history of communism.

There is no agreement on all this, which is all that is very clear. Somewhat bizarrely, there are some critics of philosophy and of this theory who want to argue in the abstract, philosophically, that such abstractions are unnecessary or even meaningless while there are some supporters of the validity of such abstractions, probably myself among them, uninclined to defend dialectics as a philosophy or as a systematic set of abstractions, while believing it legitimate and believing its importance can be reflected in political practice.


Wanna dive into that pool of confusion ? Feel Free.

Hop:

Nice try Hop, but only Dialectical Marxism has ever been tried out in practice, so only it has been refuted by events.

Neverthelss, I welcome your agreement that this test at least shows that something has indeed been refuted.

You now only need to think this idea through, and you will soon be concluding, alongside us materialists, that this mystical 'version' of Marxism, at least, has been dumped into the trash can of history, where it always belonged.

Gil:

Well, you can only claim this because you have never examined the other side of the argument.

Indeed, I challenge you to say what an 'abstraction' actually is, without using meaningless jargon to do so, and without having to nominalise general terms, so that they become the names of abstract particulars, destroying their generality (a syntactical error commited by the ancient Greeks (and medieval logicians), and copied by all subsequent theorists, including Hegel).

Go on, I double dog dare you.

i feel some attachment to DM mainly because some of my favorite writers use it.

but it looks more like they conceived their theories first and then they ornamented them with dialectical mysticism...
at the end though,i think they are unnecessary, they may look "pretty" on paper (saying stuff like negation sounds cool, i use that kind of vocabulary all the time in highschool essays and it works!) but for me is not anything more than aesthetic appeal.

Marmot:

Many comrades feel the same as you, but attachment to tradition is the last thing us Marxists should appeal to, especially when it is possible to show that this theory is radically confused from beginning to end -- and (as I claim) has helped make Dialectical Marxism a shining example of failure.

And, I am at a loss as to what the 'aesthetic' appeal of these mystical ideas can be, except they fulfil a need in us brought on by alienation, in a way similar to that which induces religious belief (and religious art, etc.).

We can hardly help humanity escape from its illusions if we cling onto those we have made for ourselves.

Rosa, your wit is darling.

Rosa:

How are we measuring success here? Before even a non-dialectical marxism can head a revolutionary workers movement, we need such a movement. A theory (no matter how non-dialectical or otherwise) cannot summon such a movement from thin air.

When hundreds and thousands of workers have been plunged into revolutionary activity, marxists has been successful in leading and organizing the movement.

Again, when those movements have subsided or been defeated, or when the revolution has taken on a form unintended, the failure cannot simply be laid at the foot of a theory (yes, I know theories don't have feet, even though they can run to thousands of pages). The concrete material relations, not their reflection in the human mind, are decisive.

Moreover, because Marxist theory is not a blueprint for action, it cannot be blamed when wrong actions are taken.

Rosa, you've already made a distinction between Lenin the political theorist, which you approve of, and Lenin the philosopher, who you do not. What you've not done is demonstrate a positive connection between Lenin's espousal of the dialectic and his political activity. Any attempt on your part to demonstrate such a connection would force you to re-evaluate Lenin the politician and tactician - because a wrong theory (one which you argue is badly wrong) cannot lead to true practice.

Except accidentally.

Z:

Well, you give me your criterion of success, and we will see.

Mine is quite plain: abject failure almost everywhere one looks -- Trotskyism has more splits in it than a thousand earthquakes. As the working class gets bigger, the impact of Dialectical Marxism on it dwindles constantly.

By any ordinary standards, Dialectical Marxism is an abject failure: this is how I put it in that Introductory Essay:

Now, if you can spot any rays of hope that I have missed, I'd be interested to see them.

Apart from 1917 (which has now been reversed), all of these have failed, or have run into the sand.

Well then, how has this 'theory' ever been tested if whatever happens (i.e., after 140 years of failure), the theory survives unscathed?

At some point, surely this theory has to stand up to reality; I merely point out that it has, and history has refuted it.

Now, I do this not to make an academic point, or to attack Marxism, but because I want our movement to be a success.

But what I see is dialecticians refusing to look reality in the face, and using this theory to protect that theory, failing to note the deleterious effect it has had on Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism (see below), blaming anything and everything else for these failures, and even then asserting that this theory has been tested in practice and is a glowing success!!

[This shows that dialectics is not held on to for rational reasons; it is protected come what may, just like religious belief -- and no wonder, it arose from the same sort of alienated conditions]

Radical dislocation from reality of this order of magnitude is pathological.

It is preventing the scientific development of Marxism.

All this is on top of the fact that this theory is wall-to-wall b*llocks, so no wonder it has failed us for so long.

Not so. This theory screws with Marxist heads when the movement is in retreat (that is why they turn to it in periods of downturn, as the biographies of all the leading DM-fans show).

In upturns, when the materialist input from the working class is sufficient to make the idealism in Dialectical Marxism no longer fit (or have any impact), the movement then achieves some success.

That is why, for example, you will find precious little dialectics spouted by militants at the working class on strike, or on marches or during insurrections.

It just does not fit with their materialism.

But, when the struggle dies down, the 'god-seekers' come out of the woodwork, and this theory is used to ill-effect.

Now, I hope to post the evidence substantiating this set of assertions in the near future, but I have been prevented by my present circumstances (I am in temporary accommodation right now, and will be moving in about 10 days -- most of my books and papers are in storage, so I cannot access them, but I hope to have this published by mid- to late-April).

In the meantime, here is a summary of what I hope to show:

This was published here a few months ago (links etc. omitted):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm

----------------------

Added later; that Essay has now been published here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

it is "appealing" in the same way poetry is appealing--most poetry is subtle, it doensnt delivers the message in an outright way.

and as i said before, i think DM is pretty much worthless. however in papers i sometimes use words like "negation" when i simply refer to things happening against the status quo--i dont use the theory of DM itself.

a lot of worthless philosophy is aesthetically appealing. that is why jorge luis borges said once that philosophy is "good fiction", referring to how philosophy sounds "cool" but also referring how it is mostly meaningless.

Marmot:

You think!

Pretty wierd scansion, and metre, and the content is a bit iffy too.

But, much of religious stuff is 'aesthetically appealing' to some, since it fills a gap that alienatiion creates. But, would that make you want to help with an appeal to renovate a Cathedral?

DM is just the same.

Which is why it has become part of the ruling ideas....

I personally think that dialetical is a just a load of shit that can be done without.

Thankyou to everyone who relpied, Rosa, you are an eternal fountain of wonderful information and I will read as much as I can in the up and coming weeks.

Cheers.
Pandii.

PS. DIALECTICS = useless verbose crud.

Please use the search function, we've had a ton of threads on this subject in this forum, Philosophy, and Theory.

DM
DM
DM
DM