RevLeft
Go Back   RevLeft > General > Philosophy
Register Blogs FAQ Members List RevLeft Groups Chat Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Philosophy Philosophise with fellow RevLeft members on varied topics such as existence, the human condition, or philosophy itself.

Forum Led by: Dean

Donation Goal
Goal amount for this month: 100 USD, Received: 0 USD (0%)
Donate Now
Do you like RevLeft? Help keeping RevLeft alive and donate to cover the increasing running charges!
Donation History

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 6th June 2008, 01:39
Hyacinth's Avatar
Hyacinth Hyacinth is offline
Revolutionary
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 612
Rep Power: 10
Reputation: 439
Hyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really nice
Default

Also, Rosa, I’m curious. What is your opinion of Ernest Mandel’s parametric determinism?
  #22  
Old 6th June 2008, 02:29
trivas7's Avatar
trivas7 trivas7 is offline
Sama merdo malnova
Restricted
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Regno de Granda Fenviko
Posts: 2,065
Rep Power: 0
Reputation: -98
trivas7 is a reactionary
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRC-UTE View Post
I would say that it's not necessary. You don't have to be schooled in dialectics to utilise it's ideas.
I disagree. How can you use effectively what you don't understand?
__________________
Ultimately, Utopia is an idea -- vajrakrishna
  #23  
Old 6th June 2008, 02:45
Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
Rosa Lichtenstein Rosa Lichtenstein is offline
Committed User
Committed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posts: 14,479
Rep Power: 30
Reputation: 1167
Rosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profound
Default

Hyacinth:

Quote:
Also, Rosa, I’m curious. What is your opinion of Ernest Mandel’s parametric determinism?
I have never actually come across it.

Callinicos's book: "Making History". Ignore the chapter on 'Agency'; it is hopeless.
__________________
Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it -- Max Eastman.

Enroll on the Dialectics Detox Program: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Basic Introductory Essay: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Also check out: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
  #24  
Old 6th June 2008, 10:45
Bob The Builder's Avatar
Bob The Builder Bob The Builder is offline
Yes we can!
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,981
Rep Power: 29
Reputation: 2174
Bob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellectBob The Builder A fundamentally profound intellect
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
I’ll put it in plain language: the way people live determines how and what they think. (Of course, Marx, I think, was exercising some poetic licence here, it isn’t quite that simple, there is a feedback loo[p] between social existence and how and what people think, since the latter tends to reinforce the former; it should most properly said that historical materialism gives priority to material conditions of people’s livelihood.)

This is central to historical materialism since it is a rejection of historical idealism, that history is determined by what people think, and that history can be shaped simply by changing people’s minds.
Bold added and text edited for clarity.

This "feedback loop" - the mediating relation between past, present and future, structure and agency, material conditions of life and our consciousness of them - this is what we mean by dialectical. I'm all for escaping the convoluted and mysterious language of Hegelianism and speculative philosophy if it helps us to clarify the 'rational kernel' of Marx's usage of the dialectic; and 'feedback loop' is perhaps a candidate. However, feedback loops tend to be self-sustaining whereas a dialectical spiral represents a process of mutual development between two or more interrelated aspects of social reality.

Nevertheless, your need to state a feedback loop indicates, for me, why historical materialism requires such a conceptual tool: it helps us to avoid mono-causal models of history and social life.

__________________
"Modern economics – the system of free trade based on Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations – reveals itself to be that same hypocrisy, inconsistency and immorality which now confront free humanity in every sphere." - Fred Engels, Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, 1843

"There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin


  #25  
Old 6th June 2008, 11:52
Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin is offline
Alea iacta es
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,635
Tendency: Anti-Zionists
Blog Entries: 2
Latest Blog Entry: Rise of The Iranian People
Rep Power: hidden
Reputation: hidden
Led Zeppelin has disabled reputation
Send a message via AIM to Led Zeppelin Send a message via MSN to Led Zeppelin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Richter View Post
Furthermore, stuff like Maslow's hierarchy of needs - which BADLY needs to be integrated into Marxist analysis in the First World countries (you, know, actualization and what not)
First of all, why are so obsessed with Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It's not correct and it's flawed at its basis.

If you look at my "hierarchy of needs" it will be different from your "hierarchy of needs", it is a deterministic inane theory:

Quote:
While Maslow's theory was regarded as an improvement over previous theories of personality and motivation, it had its detractors. For example, in their extensive review of research that is dependent on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Bridgewell [3] found little evidence for the ranking of needs that Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.
As for "actualization", there's already a philosophy which covers that; existentialism.

I don't believe that anyone who is anti-dialectics on this forum actually understands it, if they did then I'm sure they would have came to the same conclusion as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. on the matter; that it is more of a useful tool than the formal metaphysical mode of thought of "ordinary understanding" which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes.

The most modern "form" of dialectics (with a defense of it) can be found in the works of Sarte and Zizek, in Critique of Dialectical Reason and The Parallax View, respectively.
  #26  
Old 6th June 2008, 11:55
Raúl Duke's Avatar
Raúl Duke Raúl Duke is offline
Gonzo Anarchist
Committed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Florida or Puerto Rico
Organisation: Sympathizer of: NYMAA, RAAN, IWW
Posts: 2,483
Latest Blog Entry: Someone's post on the state
Rep Power: 17
Reputation: 1092
Raúl Duke is profoundRaúl Duke is profoundRaúl Duke is profoundRaúl Duke is profoundRaúl Duke is profoundRaúl Duke is profoundRaúl Duke is profoundRaúl Duke is profound
Default

Quote:
In dyna-mat, the "totality" is limited to more rational relationships, such as the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present.

Case in point: the relationships between the relative lack of class struggle during the formation of the SPD in Germany (the excitement over German unification under Prussian control) and the relative lack of class struggle today.
Hmm...I seen people make such analysis and still call it Historical Materialism...

Quote:
It has been argued that the theoretical framework of Sociobiology explains certain facts better than does Historical Materialism.
I checked the link and it only uses a sociobiology journal article (which I can't access). It's the same rubbish with evolutionary psychologists, amongst themselves they think they are right (although they do have influence) and can say their theory is the best in their own journals, yet still face hard and convincing criticisms from others in the more wider world.

Quote:
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Why would Marxism need it? How will it take part of Marxism/dyna-mat?

This project sounds interesting but you'll probably need to do lots of research/write a book/etc to support this new theory.
__________________
"My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay

"if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm
  #27  
Old 6th June 2008, 12:06
Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
Rosa Lichtenstein Rosa Lichtenstein is offline
Committed User
Committed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posts: 14,479
Rep Power: 30
Reputation: 1167
Rosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profound
Default

CZ:

Quote:
This "feedback loop" - the mediating relation between past, present and future, structure and agency, material conditions of life and our consciousness of them - this is what we mean by dialectical. I'm all for escaping the convoluted and mysterious language of Hegelianism and speculative philosophy if it helps us to clarify the 'rational kernel' of Marx's usage of the dialectic; and 'feedback loop' is perhaps a candidate. However, feedback loops tend to be self-sustaining whereas a dialectical spiral represents a process of mutual development between two or more interrelated aspects of social reality.
All you have done is take perfectly ordinary words, and attach the obscure term 'dialectical' to them -- which is a trick that is no more convincing than that tried out by Christian mystics, who like to attach the equally obscure term 'divine' to similar words.

This would not be quite so bad if a single one of you could explain this 'theory' or make it work; but as I have shown here many times, it cannot even explain change!

Moreover, if this were a successful theory, it is us materialists who would be on the defensive -- the way you lot talk, you'd think dialectics was the most wonderful and successful theory since sliced Aristotle.

But, alas for you dialectical day-dreamers, the situation is the exact opposite. Indeed, one struggles to think of another major political/philosophical theory that is quite so abysmally unsuccessful.

You'd think that you DM-fans would get the message: your 'theory' has already been refuted by history, long before I or Hyacinth were ever thought of.

But, that is where this 'theory' comes into its own, for it convinces it initiates of the exact opposite, since one of the core theses of dialectics is that appearances contradict underlying reality -- hence you never learn from history, you just re-process it so that it conforms to your ideal expectations -- thus providing you lot with badly needed consolation.

No wonder we call dialectics the opiate of petty-bourgeois elements in Marxism. No wonder you cling on to it like the religious cling on to their dogmas.

But, no, in a world where you lot tell us that everything is interconnected, the only two things in the entire universe that are not inter-linked are the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory, 'materialist' dialectics.

You just couldn't make this stuff up...
__________________
Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it -- Max Eastman.

Enroll on the Dialectics Detox Program: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Basic Introductory Essay: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Also check out: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
  #28  
Old 6th June 2008, 12:12
Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
Rosa Lichtenstein Rosa Lichtenstein is offline
Committed User
Committed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posts: 14,479
Rep Power: 30
Reputation: 1167
Rosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profound
Default

LZ:

Quote:
I don't believe that anyone who is anti-dialectics on this forum actually understands it, if they did then I'm sure they would have came to the same conclusion as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky etc. on the matter; that it is more of a useful tool than the formal metaphysical mode of thought of "ordinary understanding" which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes.
This is a tired old and hackneyed claim made about those of us who are sceptical of this mystical theory, but it is also one that each Marxist sect makes about all the rest (evidence at my site, in Essay Nine Part Two). So we can take this with a pinch of non-dialectical salt.

But, even if that were not so, we would all be in good company, since no one 'understands' this 'theory' -- not Engels, not Plekhanov, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not...

Or if they did, they kept that secret extremely well hidden.
__________________
Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it -- Max Eastman.

Enroll on the Dialectics Detox Program: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Basic Introductory Essay: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Also check out: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
  #29  
Old 6th June 2008, 12:25
Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin is offline
Alea iacta es
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,635
Tendency: Anti-Zionists
Blog Entries: 2
Latest Blog Entry: Rise of The Iranian People
Rep Power: hidden
Reputation: hidden
Led Zeppelin has disabled reputation
Send a message via AIM to Led Zeppelin Send a message via MSN to Led Zeppelin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
This is a tired old and hackneyed claim made about those of us who are sceptical of this mystical theory, but it is also one that each Marxist sect makes about all the rest (evidence at my site, in Essay Nine Part Two). So we can take this with a pinch of non-dialectical salt.
Well I've never used "dialectics" as a way to attack any other ideological tendency or party, that is just inane, and the people who do it only do so because they are petty sectarians.

Quote:
But, even if that were not so, we would all be in good company, since no one 'understands' this 'theory' -- not Engels, not Plekhanov, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not...

Or if they did, they kept that secret extremely well hidden.
Didn't you say somewhere that Trotsky understood it better than Lenin?

Also, why do you only criticize and attempt to refute the "old" dialecticians but not the modern ones such as Sartre or Zizek?

The most modern "form" of dialectics (with a defense of it) can be found in the works of Sarte and Zizek, in Critique of Dialectical Reason and The Parallax View, respectively.

Have you read them? Will you attempt to refute them?
  #30  
Old 6th June 2008, 13:44
Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
Rosa Lichtenstein Rosa Lichtenstein is offline
Committed User
Committed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posts: 14,479
Rep Power: 30
Reputation: 1167
Rosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profound
Default

LZ:

Quote:
Well I've never used "dialectics" as a way to attack any other ideological tendency or party, that is just inane, and the people who do it only do so because they are petty sectarians.
You are one in a million then.

Quote:
Didn't you say somewhere that Trotsky understood it better than Lenin?
Not me, sorry.

Quote:
The most modern "form" of dialectics (with a defense of it) can be found in the works of Sarte and Zizek, in Critique of Dialectical Reason and The Parallax View, respectively.

Have you read them? Will you attempt to refute them?
I have read this material, and much else besides (e.g., Tony Smith, Chris Arthur, Bertell Ollman, Robert Albritton, Jurgen Habermas, Adorno...).

They all indulge in a priori dogmatics, imposing their ideas on nature and society, just like Hegel did, and just as traditional philosophers have always done.

I will be criticising some of them in a later essay.

When I say no one understands dialectics, I am not just picking on dialecticians -- no one understands traditional philosophy either (dialectics being a rather poor cousin here), since traditional philosophy is nothing other than the systematic capitulation to the misuse of language. Hence, it cannot makes sense, and neither can dialectics.

I have a long general argument to that effect here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm

This is summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[I am about to re-write that summary, since it is not as clear as I'd like it to be.]
__________________
Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it -- Max Eastman.

Enroll on the Dialectics Detox Program: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Basic Introductory Essay: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Also check out: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
  #31  
Old 6th June 2008, 13:48
Die Neue Zeit's Avatar
Die Neue Zeit Die Neue Zeit is offline
Social-Proletocrat
Committed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
Organisation: Sympathizer of the CPGB, CL/WPA, IWCA, and SP-USA
Posts: 7,645
Blog Entries: 11
Rep Power: 24
Reputation: 1304
Die Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Die Neue Zeit
Default

I have a feeling that a few of the off-topic posts in this thread should be moved to the "Scrapping Dialectics" thread.
__________________
REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM:

(1) SURMOUNTS REDUCTIONISM, revisionism, and sectarianism; (2) Has, as its minimum goal, the revolutionary MERGER OF MARXISM AND THE WORKER-CLASS MOVEMENT; and (3) Has, as its revolutionary goal, the social-abolitionist rule of the working class - SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY!

"You have to be a KAUTSKYAN on the question of organizing in "Educate, Agitate, Organize!" as opposed to "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate!" to get to the point of having a mass workers' party which can possibly pose the question of power." (Mike Macnair)
  #32  
Old 6th June 2008, 14:02
Die Neue Zeit's Avatar
Die Neue Zeit Die Neue Zeit is offline
Social-Proletocrat
Committed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
Organisation: Sympathizer of the CPGB, CL/WPA, IWCA, and SP-USA
Posts: 7,645
Blog Entries: 11
Rep Power: 24
Reputation: 1304
Die Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Die Neue Zeit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Zero View Post
Bold added and text edited for clarity.

This "feedback loop" - the mediating relation between past, present and future, structure and agency, material conditions of life and our consciousness of them - this is what we mean by dialectical. I'm all for escaping the convoluted and mysterious language of Hegelianism and speculative philosophy if it helps us to clarify the 'rational kernel' of Marx's usage of the dialectic; and 'feedback loop' is perhaps a candidate. However, feedback loops tend to be self-sustaining whereas a dialectical spiral represents a process of mutual development between two or more interrelated aspects of social reality.
The problem with the "dialectical spiral" is that, in the case of four or more aspects, there is no possibility for direct, dynamic interaction inside the "perimeter" known as the "dialectical spiral." In the case of four aspects forming a quadrilateral interaction, this direct, dynamic interaction which I am referring to is diagonal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin View Post
First of all, why are so obsessed with Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It's not correct and it's flawed at its basis.

If you look at my "hierarchy of needs" it will be different from your "hierarchy of needs", it is a deterministic inane theory:

As for "actualization", there's already a philosophy which covers that; existentialism.
There were further developments of that hierarchy, per the wiki.

The point of incorporating this is that there is good reason to trigger revolution in the First World countries, where the alleged "labour aristocracy" exists (no, I don't subscribe to Lenin's LA crap, except to the extent where he was referring to his historical equivalent of modern pro-athlete "celebrities," actor "celebrities," etc.).

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=29



If historical materialism can be summed up by the axiom "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness," then dynamic materialism can be summed up by the axiom "Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it."

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDarko View Post
Hmm...I seen people make such analysis and still call it Historical Materialism...
I was merely using an example of the "totality" relationship between a past dynamic and a present dynamic (past-present dynamic). HM does NOT work when dealing with present-present dynamics, and dialectics doesn't take into account the "inside the perimeter" interactions that I mentioned above.

Quote:
I checked the link and it only uses a sociobiology journal article (which I can't access). It's the same rubbish with evolutionary psychologists, amongst themselves they think they are right (although they do have influence) and can say their theory is the best in their own journals, yet still face hard and convincing criticisms from others in the more wider world.
So far, sociobiology has no problems if applied to non-humans. With us, of course, political ramifications come about.

Quote:
This project sounds interesting but you'll probably need to do lots of research/write a book/etc to support this new theory.
Reformulating political theory is one thing... reformulating philosophy is an even bigger challenge.
__________________
REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM:

(1) SURMOUNTS REDUCTIONISM, revisionism, and sectarianism; (2) Has, as its minimum goal, the revolutionary MERGER OF MARXISM AND THE WORKER-CLASS MOVEMENT; and (3) Has, as its revolutionary goal, the social-abolitionist rule of the working class - SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY!

"You have to be a KAUTSKYAN on the question of organizing in "Educate, Agitate, Organize!" as opposed to "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate!" to get to the point of having a mass workers' party which can possibly pose the question of power." (Mike Macnair)
  #33  
Old 6th June 2008, 17:08
PRC-UTE's Avatar
PRC-UTE PRC-UTE is offline
2 much craic for 1 man
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Commie Under Nazi Thought
Organisation: Irish Republican Socialist Party
Posts: 4,056
Blog Entries: 4
Latest Blog Entry: 'John didn't kill himself'
Rep Power: 26
Reputation: 1528
PRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond reputePRC-UTE has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
Well, I’ll agree with you that historical materialism and dialectical materialism (sic) are distinct ideas (in as much as the confused ramblings that passes for dialectics can be called an “idea”).

But my alarm bells start ringing when you talk about combining the two. Since, as you well know, I consider dialectics to be nonsense, I fail to see how combining dialectical materialism and historical materialism would result in an improvement of the latter.

Perhaps you can state what features of dialectical materialism you consider useful, and explain as well how these features would improve historical materialism.
The problem with this is your starting point: the two ideas are not seperate, and were not until they became the official ideology of the Communist movement. Marx did not even coin or use the term "dialectical materialism", he merely applied a dialectical critique (motion, change as a restult of inner contradictions for example) to materialism.
__________________
'...the proletariat, not wishing to be treated as a canaille, needs its courage, its self-esteem, its pride, and its sense of independence more than its bread.' Marx
...★
★...★
........★....★
..........★..★ Starry Plough Magazine

'From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage workers' - Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Stop Killer Coke
  #34  
Old 6th June 2008, 20:32
MarxSchmarx's Avatar
MarxSchmarx MarxSchmarx is offline
Rabble
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: My parents' garage.
Organisation: My business union :(
Posts: 2,084
Blog Entries: 47
Latest Blog Entry: Merged threads
Rep Power: 15
Reputation: 952
MarxSchmarx has a brilliant futureMarxSchmarx has a brilliant futureMarxSchmarx has a brilliant futureMarxSchmarx has a brilliant futureMarxSchmarx has a brilliant futureMarxSchmarx has a brilliant futureMarxSchmarx has a brilliant futureMarxSchmarx has a brilliant future
Default

I am quite intrigued - what insight/explanation does dynamical materialism generate that cannot be provided by, say, conventional social and natural science or philosophy? That is, is there some phenomena that can't be accounted for by conventional science or modern philosophy?
__________________
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
  #35  
Old 7th June 2008, 00:44
Die Neue Zeit's Avatar
Die Neue Zeit Die Neue Zeit is offline
Social-Proletocrat
Committed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
Organisation: Sympathizer of the CPGB, CL/WPA, IWCA, and SP-USA
Posts: 7,645
Blog Entries: 11
Rep Power: 24
Reputation: 1304
Die Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Die Neue Zeit
Default

^^^ Comrade, I think it's too much of a hassle to scurry in the conventional sciences and philosophy without noticing a discernable link between the various elements in those conventions.

I am merely suggesting that we who profess to be "Marxists" get past BOTH dialectical and historical materialism onto something that isn't reductionist, something that can incorporate aspects of the conventional sciences and philosophy while still acknowledging that there is no "complete, integral world-outlook" (the very first reductionism that I attacked in my WIP).

For example, take the merger formulas that I keep harping about. Some histomat analysis can explain them, and some diamat philosophy can explain them, but we still don't have a complete picture of all the dynamics associated with the merger formulas (ie, those dynamics that are neither historical nor dialectical).
__________________
REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM:

(1) SURMOUNTS REDUCTIONISM, revisionism, and sectarianism; (2) Has, as its minimum goal, the revolutionary MERGER OF MARXISM AND THE WORKER-CLASS MOVEMENT; and (3) Has, as its revolutionary goal, the social-abolitionist rule of the working class - SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY!

"You have to be a KAUTSKYAN on the question of organizing in "Educate, Agitate, Organize!" as opposed to "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate!" to get to the point of having a mass workers' party which can possibly pose the question of power." (Mike Macnair)
  #36  
Old 7th June 2008, 06:33
Hyacinth's Avatar
Hyacinth Hyacinth is offline
Revolutionary
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 612
Rep Power: 10
Reputation: 439
Hyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really niceHyacinth is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx View Post
I am quite intrigued - what insight/explanation does dynamical materialism generate that cannot be provided by, say, conventional social and natural science or philosophy? That is, is there some phenomena that can't be accounted for by conventional science or modern philosophy?
Excellent question! I would very much like to hear dialecticians answer it; they made the assertion that dialectical materialism adds “motion, change, etc.” to materialism? How is materialism, and contemporary science, incapable of accounting for change such that we need dialectical materialism?
  #37  
Old 7th June 2008, 14:20
Die Neue Zeit's Avatar
Die Neue Zeit Die Neue Zeit is offline
Social-Proletocrat
Committed User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
Organisation: Sympathizer of the CPGB, CL/WPA, IWCA, and SP-USA
Posts: 7,645
Blog Entries: 11
Rep Power: 24
Reputation: 1304
Die Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond reputeDie Neue Zeit has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to Die Neue Zeit
Default

^^^ Comrade, the comrade MS was talking about dyna-mat (in other words, his question was meant for me, specifically), not dia-mat.
__________________
REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM:

(1) SURMOUNTS REDUCTIONISM, revisionism, and sectarianism; (2) Has, as its minimum goal, the revolutionary MERGER OF MARXISM AND THE WORKER-CLASS MOVEMENT; and (3) Has, as its revolutionary goal, the social-abolitionist rule of the working class - SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY!

"You have to be a KAUTSKYAN on the question of organizing in "Educate, Agitate, Organize!" as opposed to "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate!" to get to the point of having a mass workers' party which can possibly pose the question of power." (Mike Macnair)
  #38  
Old 7th June 2008, 14:36
trivas7's Avatar
trivas7 trivas7 is offline
Sama merdo malnova
Restricted
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Regno de Granda Fenviko
Posts: 2,065
Rep Power: 0
Reputation: -98
trivas7 is a reactionary
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
Excellent question! I would very much like to hear dialecticians answer it; they made the assertion that dialectical materialism adds “motion, change, etc.” to materialism? How is materialism, and contemporary science, incapable of accounting for change such that we need dialectical materialism?
Have you read Jonathan Rees's essay?

http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.mar...-dia.htm#ch5):
__________________
Ultimately, Utopia is an idea -- vajrakrishna
  #39  
Old 7th June 2008, 14:42
Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
Rosa Lichtenstein Rosa Lichtenstein is offline
Committed User
Committed User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greater Manchester, UK
Posts: 14,479
Rep Power: 30
Reputation: 1167
Rosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profoundRosa Lichtenstein is profound
Default

Trivas:

Quote:
Have you read Jonathan Rees's essay?
Have you read my demolition of it (and of Trotsky's appallingly bad logic)?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

And his name is 'John Rees'; can't you get anything right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rees_(UK_politician)
__________________
Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it -- Max Eastman.

Enroll on the Dialectics Detox Program: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Basic Introductory Essay: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Also check out: http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 8th June 2008 at 08:55.
  #40  
Old 8th June 2008, 07:25
Black Light Black Light is offline
Anarchist-Communist
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 0
Reputation: 10
Black Light is on a distinguished road
Default

I have only recently begun my study of Hegel, and I am new to the forums. So what I say should be judged in that light. Nevertheless, one thing in particular interested me and I would like to comment on it.

Jacob Richter writes:

"In dyna-mat, the "totality" is limited to more rational relationships, such as the relationship between a past class struggle and a particular class struggle in the present.

Case in point: the relationships between the relative lack of class struggle during the formation of the SPD in Germany (the excitement over German unification under Prussian control) and the relative lack of class struggle today."

Not that I am necessarily against what you are trying to do here - namely, what I interpret as being essentially an attempt to render dialectics less amorphous and therefore the concepts deduced therefrom easier to hold up to scrutiny and collective debate, changing the name from dialectics to "dynamics" doesn't bother me in particular. But there are some problems here. Namely, you take one assumed similarity between isolated historical circumstances and draw a direct conclusion for modern tactics. In any system of reasoning this would be faulty, no less in dialectical thinking. You abstract a historical tendency from two periods that are isolated, assuming that the reasons for the tendency (in this case, the relative lack of class struggle) are identical without examining any of the specific contingencies which must've been at work to render the lack of class struggle. The two situations are definitively not the same, the optimum for organizational structure may be similar, but simply pointing to an abstract similarity is no way to make that case.

Although, since you were just making a simple example I can give you the benefit of the doubt and presume your case for an SPD-like organization for the present contains much more than you write here.

Furthermore, simply because dialectics insists on a view of "totality" does not mean there is any relationship between utterly abstract items (Napoleon's hair and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel in your example). Totality means that concrete things cannot be analyzed in isolation, but must relate to the whole. Class Struggle is a concrete notion, and therefore has to relate to a Totality, such as History. To take one example of class struggle and compare it with another, while at the same time ignoring the relation which connects them (i.e., History) is a false analysis, and cannot arrive at any concrete truth.

Likewise, while I agree that you are right that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs does need to be incorporated into Marxism, it must be done so as a concrete historical and social phenomenon. That is, we must not take it immediately as it presents itself, but analyze it in relation to the historical milieu in which it can find existence. In other words, we must incorporate it dialectically.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
dynamic, materialism\ \ \, materialism\:

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Materialism The Anarchist Tension Opposing Ideologies 56 15th December 2006 23:57
materialism..... rahul Learning 3 13th September 2005 07:30
dialectical materialism violencia.Proletariat Learning 6 22nd June 2005 09:01
materialism Adamore Philosophy 15 19th February 2004 15:11
dialectical materialism Trashcan 0 1st January 1970 00:00


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Zoints SEO v2.3.0 by Zoints & DxLwebs.com

Che Guevara Shirts, T-shirts, Tshirts, tees, merchandise