LH, I notice you help yourself to the word 'contradiction' without explaining what this word means in such contexts, or how it is of any use at all in explaining change.

Moreover:

And us genuine materialists could point a few fingers at you mystics, and accuse you of being a little too keen to preserve the Hermetic purity of the divine vision Hegel bequeathed to you ('upside down' or the 'right way up').

But, in the end, what use is such flowery language?

BTB:

See, even you didn't need a theory to tell you this. Nor does Marxism.

And you are still ignoring the fatal defect I keep bringing to your attention.

I suspect we all know why...

I largely agree, yes. But - in keeping with the spirit of my last post - I don't think we can call Cohen's effort "an abject failure". It is without doubt a work of genius and a classic of Marxist literature.

I think we can say that the version of historical materialism he sets out has too much of a bent toward technological determinism (I don't really see much wrong with functionalism tbh) because of the analytic, "rational choice" style of his reasoning. I don't really see how such a development could have been avoided using the particular tools avaliable. The work shows precisely the "Promethean" element in Marxism which Adorno and Horkheimer were so anxious to avoid when they wrote Dialectic of Enlightenment

Those arguing against the above thesis would also have to explain away G.A. Cohen's recent turn to Rawlsian egalitarianism as, not simply a natural progression, but some kind of radical paradigmic shift, akin to some kind of senile madness or loss of nerve on his part. That isn't a task I would like to take on, personally

LH:

It is in fact a result of the fact that his version of 'Analytic Marxism' had too little Marx in it, and not enough Analytic Philosophy.

Well, I could go into some vast explanation, but to be honest I think what I said is already fairly clear. I appreciate the way of "doing philosophy" you are schooled in, such as whenever you hear a new word you immediately want it defined, but I would say you could glean much of the meaning simply from the way the word is actually being used

Do you realise you sound just like Ayn Rand when you go one about "mystics"? Sheesh. It's such an incredibly lazy insult, since it could be applied to just about anyone with whom one disagreed.

And your status as a "genuine materialist" has to be established by argument. Since the materialism we are all united around is historical materialism (that we need to study people's "material lives" to discover what drives history), I don't see how a philosophy inspired by a particular way of doing language analysis is necessarily more "materialist" than philosophy inspired by Kant and Hegel. The dichotomy between materialism and idealism is vastly overrated, imho

That doesn't really explain away my comment, which was that the commitment to the techniques of analytic (politcal) philosophy was the cause of his turn to liberal egalitarianism. What would you offer as an alternative - that Cohen turned to Rawls because he got bored with Marx after a lifetime of being a Marxist, or because he got wet feet in his old age, or what?

No, obviously it was none of these things, but was more to do with the fact that Cohen didn't think Marx up to the task (thus explaining why Analytic Marxism had "too little Marx in it")

A quick quote from the 2000 preface of Karl Marx's Theory of History:

(bold text is mine)

What would you have to say against G.A. Cohen's own words?

And... don't you think Cohen's views above kind-of sum up your own general outlook, Rosa?

LH:

As mud.

Where did I ask for a definition?

[You are beginning to invent again, just like you did in that thread at the Political Crossfire forum.]

What I said was this:

We already have countless words in ordinary language that can be used to explain change, and in far greater detail and with far greater precision than that provided by the jargon invented by ruling class theorists like Hegel. [Which can't account for change anyway.]


She also used the word 'the', as you do. What does that prove? You are an 'Objectivist'? Hardly. Same with me.

Anyway, you lot sound just like Zen Buddhists, Hermeticists, Neo-Platonists and a host of other mystics. We can name call all day if you want.

[And, materialists like me were calling you Hermeticists 'mystics' way before Ayn Rand was inflicted on humanity.]

The reason I use the phrase 'genuine materialist' is that it describes a frame of mind that opposes the ruling-class forms-of-thought that have colonised the brains of the vast majority of Marxists -- briefly described in the Essay extract at the beginning of this thread.

In short, unlike you mystics, we do not rely on a priori dogmatics to reveal 'hidden truths' to us (which are unavailable to the sciences) -- that is, theses derived from thought alone -- as if there were a world anterior to the material world, accessible to thought alone (and 'thought' derived from ruling-class hacks like Hegel) which these dogmas somehow 'reflect'.

But, you have had all this explained to you before.

No more than your attempt 'explained' the answer to this:

And I am not offering an 'alternative' since, as I have told you countless times before, I reject all philosophical theories as self-important hot air (and that includes the ideas of Rawls, Nozick...)

Again, as I have told you, I am only interested in destroying ideas (ruling-class ideas), stopping any more posion seeping into Marxism, not in constructing an alternative theory.

So, the only thing I would say to Cohen is that he is a class traitor -- and if that is unaccepotable to you, I think you are just going to have to be brave about it.

Now, I have told you this many times, but if it takes another six month long thread for the message to sink in, so be it.

Not even close.

Once more, you are judging me without having read my work, when, in contrast, you judge Cohen after having read his.

Hardly fair.

I'm quite happy with the way in which you're using the term 'contradiction', if it is just meant as a technical term that is to stand as a shorthand for something like "inherent instability of capitalism arising out of the mutually exclusive interests of the competing classes existing under capitalism", then fine. But then there is nothing dialectical, in the Hegelian sense, about such "contradictions". What you seem to be doing, correctly, is jettisoning the Hegelian concepts altogether, but retaining the Hegelian terminology. If I'm mistaken about this, please correct me, and tell me what is dialectical about such "contradictions". If I'm not mistaken, then why cling to the expression "contradiction" when it carries with it all the historical baggage of Hegelianism, and all its various incarnations in the guise of Marxism?

I can indeed.

Apart from the use of the term "contradiction" to mean "the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production", a non-dialectical meaning (unless you'd care to explain to me what any of what Marx is talking about has to do with the 'law of opposites', the 'law of negation', the 'law of transformation', I fail to see how dialectics is at all relevant to the above formulation of historical materialism), Marx refrains from employing any Hegelian concepts or Hegelian terms.

"The bearer of science [not class consciousness or even revolutionary consciousness] is not the [ordinary or activist] proletariat but the [...] intelligentsia." (Karl Kautsky)

JR:

And that, of course, is part of the problem:

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2002.htm

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

Well put, Hyacinth, except the word 'contradiction' when it is imported into Marxism allows comrades to argue for any thesis they like and its opposite, on the grounds that if reality is 'contradictory' then so must be Marxist theory and tactics.

The result has been that dialectically-distracted comrades have used this word to argue for all manner of opportunist tactics and doctrines, among which are the following:

1) That idea that socialism can and cannot be built in one country (Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists);

2) The claim that more democracy means less democracy, the centralisation of power, the cessation and forcible suppression of inner party discussion (Stalinists and Maoists -- I am sure us Trots would argue along the same lines after the revolution; one only has to look at how quickly they all frown upon or suppress inner party discussion now!);

3) The simultaneous respecting and flouting of the rights of national minorities (Stalinists);

4) The doctrine that the social democratic parties of Europe were 'social fascists' one minute, the next that they were to be incorporated into a 'Popular Front' (Stalinists) -- the Maoists argued along the same lines with respect to the Goumindang;

5) That the fascists/Nazis were sworn enemies one minute, the next that they were allies against the 'west', the next (after Hitler invaded 'Holy Russia') that they were sworn enemies again (Stalinists) -- Trotsky used 'dialectics' to defend the invasion of Finland, so we have nothing to be proud of either!;

6) That the 'western' imperialist powers were sworn enemies one minute, but the next that they were allies against Nazi aggression, and then later that they were the enemies of the 'peace-loving' peoples of the world (Stalinists);

7) That the former USSR/communist countries of E Europe and elsewhere are (a) workers's states, (b) degenerated workers states, (c) deformed workers' states, and/or (d) state capitalist regimes (everyone);

8) That forces other than the working class are capable of leading successfully a socialist revolution, and that these forces can substitute themselves for the working class. Such forces include (a) Red army tanks, (b) guerrilla armies, (c) nationalist forces/leaders, (d) enough representatives elected to bourgeois parliaments, (e) sympathetic anti-imperialist parties, (f) students... (everyone).

And that is part of the reason why I oppose the incorporation of this word into Marxism in any shape or form.

More details here:

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

Hyacinth: All you are doing here is following Rosa in arguing that when Marx referred to his work as dialectical that either he was making a joke or didn't understand his own work.

My concern isn't with debunking the Hegelian content of Marx's work - he does that himself. My concern is to take seriously his claim that his view of history in general and capitalism in specific is dialectical and to try and understand what he meant by that.

Why should we jettison the term when it is only a problem for philosophers like Rosa? Particularly given that, as LH points out above, the concept of structural contradiction gives us a level of understanding which employing other words such as "conflict" does not.

Outside the labyrinthine reasoning of her logic training, Rosa's main objection seems to be this:

Besides this being an unsupported assertion - who argues that Marxism is itself contradictory? - on the same reasoning, given that the "dictatorship of the proletariat", "socialism", "communism" and "Marxism" itself have been used to support all manner of unpleasantness, we should perhaps abandon these terms too.

While we're at it, let's abandon all phrases, terms and concepts which have been tainted by opportunism. But, then what would we be left with?

By the way, "the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production" is dialectical in the sense that they exist in an inter-relationship of mutual development and form a dynamic totality which drives conflict in other areas of social life. Now if this doesn't sound remotely Hegelian, I say, "Good!".

BTB:

And you are just following the traditional line that ignores what Marx actually said.

Except, and once more, you ignore Marx's own abandonment of the word 'contradiction' (i.e., he tells us he was merely 'coquetting' with it), along with all the other Hegelian jargonised phrases (e.g., the 'unity of opposites', the 'negation of the negation', the transformation of 'quantity into quality', etc.), just as you continue ignore the fact that if dialectics were true, change would be impossible.

Only 'unsupported' in that you refuse to read the evidence and argument in support (at the link I provided). In this you are like those appologists of capitalism who say Marx's ideas are 'unsupported' but who refuse to read Das Kapital.

And as far as those other concepts you quote are concerned, their interpratation by comrades has been heavily biased by the importation of words like 'contradiction', so that they are then made to say whatever the one using that word wants them to say (as is easily confirmed by the histortical record, as I noted in my last post --, and in the arguments of many comrades here who defend the things I mentioned).

So, those other concepts you listed can be retained since their misuse can be put down to the influence of dialectics and political expediency alone.

No, just those we have inherited from ruling-class hacks like Hegel.

Had he never lived, or had he the decency to die of typhoid 40 years earlier then he actually did, you would not even be using the word 'contradiction' in this way.

But then why call this a 'contradiction'; that term is Hegelian.

The only reason is, as I have pointed out: you, like the vast majority of comrades, have had your heads filled with the 'ruling ideas' of the boss class, as Marx predicted you lot would. You are all philsophical conservatives, happy to impose your ideas on nature and society (based solely on a defective series of arguments Hegel inflicted on humanity) copying the methods and thought-forms of openly ruling-class theorists over the last 2500 years.

Worse still: you all bury your heads in the sand when the ridiculous consequences of your 'theory' are pointed out to you.

And we now know why you do this: dialectics is your only source of consolation, your opiate. So you cling on to it like grim death and for non-rational reasons, just like the god-botherers of this world who cling on to their fanciful ideas for similar reasons. Dialectical Marxism is such a long-term and abject failure, you need something to convinvre you of the opposite: hence your fondness for the word 'contradiction'. This 'allows' you now to claim that 'appearances' 'contradict' underlying 'essence', which then 'permits' you to ignore what your eyes tell you: Dialecical Marxism is slowly dying.

You certainly can't defend your beliefs, you can't even explain them!

Despite the endless repetition, bluster and insults of the above, Rosa still fails to provide one quotation by a serious Marxist who claims that Marxist theory is itself contradictory. Neither does she tell us where Marx explicitly rejects the notion of social reality being contradictory. And no wonder, because he never did.

Meanwhile she continues to stand in philosophical opposition to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and then arrogantly pronounces that it is they who are infected with ruling class ideas. It would be funny if it wasn't so boring.

Well yes, there is a certain argument that we use words such as "contradiction" to capture certain meanings, without them really having much to do with Hegel and his philosophy. But I don't see the problem with that, really.

Why do we keep using the terminology, when it comes with "the historical baggage of Hegelianism"? That is pretty much the reason we do keep using it. Most of the problems of historical Marxism have come from treating Marxism as a strict materialist science, forgetting its capacity for self-criticism, thereby falling into technological determinism (Stalinism) and positivism. Hegel was reintroduced into Marxism in the West by the New Left "neither Washington nor Moscow!" crowd precisely because of this failure

Obviously, the "laws" of dialectics (an oxymoron) have nothing to do with Hegel, but in fact come from Engels.

BTB:

You wouldn't know, because you still refuse to read the evidence.

And you need to read more carefully what I have said; here it is again, only this time get some new glasses:

And as for this:

We have been over this many times; I did say it might take fifty or so attempts before this sank into your class-compromised skull, so here is yet another.

In Das Kapital, Marx included this summary of "his method":

You will note that Marx calls this the 'dialectic method', and 'his method', but it is also clear that it bears no relation to the sort of dialectics you have had forced down your throat, for in it there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no totality...

So, Marx's method has had Hegel totally extirpated. For Marx, putting Hegel on 'his feet' is to crush his head.

And of the few terms Marx uses of Hegel's in Das Kapital, he tells us this:

So, the 'rational core' of the dialectic has not one atom of Hegel in it, and Marx merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital.

So, far from endorsing the view that society is riven by 'contradictions', Marx used this term non-seriously.

And even if he had used this term seriously, as I keep pointing out to you, and as you keep ignoring, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible.

I note you have once again ignored this fatal defect of the ruling-class theory you have naively swallowed. We both know why.

Ah, now we see the usual fall-back position adopted by generations of mystics like you -- abuse. You can't defend your 'theory' as I said, so you resort to bad-mouthing me, yet again:

1) I nowhere reject Marx's theory,

2) Marx himself told us that the ruling ideas were always those of the ruling class.

3) He also told us that social being determined consciousness, and those who inflicted dialectics on our movement were not workers, but petty bourgeois theorists who derived their ideas from ruling-class hacks.

4) If truth is tested in practice, your 'theory' has been refuted, many times over. The 1917 revolution has been reversed; all four internationals have gone down the pan, and Trotskyism is among the least successful wings of Marxism -- indeed, Respect has just self-destructed (along with the 'Left List), and the SWP is a fraction of the size it was fifteen years ago (and even then it was tiny compared to the German and Italian parties 80 or so years ago).

Dialectical Marxism is an abject and long-term failure, in never ending decline, but, hey, why give up a bad idea? Forward to the next 150 years of going nowhere slowly!

Keep your head in the sand comrade; I am sure everything looks peachy when you are high on dialectical opiates...

LH, I was going to respond to you, but Hyacinth can look after himself.

In my instance (my rebuttal of benhur having nothing to do with dialectics), not quite. Look into the intellectual development of so-called "democratic theory" (a disillusionment with "liberal democracy"), and look into demarchy in particular. "Ordinary workers" did not develop this ideal form for the DOTP at all. Either it was developed by intellectuals from other classes (Kautsky was wrong to say bourgeois intelligentsia), or it was developed by proletarian intellectuals ("theory nuts").

R:Yes, and still you are unable to identify which prominent Marxist has argued that Marxist theory and tactics must be contradictory.

By acknowledging this writer's review, Marx is not excluding anything, so this can hardly constitute an explicit rejection of the concept of contradiction or any other concept come to that.

So if Marxism is correct that society is contradictory, this would provide a condition for preventing social change. Is this what you're arguing? So in your view what are the conditions which make social change possible?
Yes you do. You reject the theory that capitalism is riven by irresolvable contradictions which its own laws of motion produce and intensify.

If you don't agree with this principle position in Marx's analysis of capital, you have no legitimate claim to call yourself a Marxist.

But feel free to call yourself something else. May I suggest 'Irrelevant Wittgensteinian Pantomime Dame'?