@nti-dialectics Made Easy -- Thread Two - Page 3

KC · #41 11th March 2009, 14:45

Quote:

"and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him."

It's pretty funny/pitiful that in all of Rosa's posts, it always comes down to one single word that Marx said in once instance throughout his entire body of work.

That's telling.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #42 11th March 2009, 16:29

KC:

Quote:

It's pretty funny/pitiful that in all of Rosa's posts, it always comes down to one single word that Marx said in once instance throughout his entire body of work.

He saw fit to publish this comment, and it is consistent with the description he gave of 'his method':

Quote:

"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:*

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

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. There is thus no 'rational core' to the 'dialectic' as you mystics would have us believe.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #43 11th March 2009, 16:41

BTB:

Quote:

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

I have, but you refuse too look.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...tm#CaseStudies

[Anyone wanting to access this link fully will need to copy and paste it into their address bar since the anonymiser RevLeft uses ignores '#' sub-links. And if you copy this link, you will need to remove the anonymiser wording at the front. Otherwise, just use the 'Quick Links' at the top of the page to jump to Section (7) 'Case Studies'.]

Quote:

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.

Even so, he endorsed as 'his method' a summary that had every trace of Hegel removed; moreover, he showed his contempt for the 'dialectic', as you mystics understand it, by 'coquetting' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon in a few places in Das Kapital. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Quote:

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?

You have had this explained to you before, and in detail. Check this out again:

Quotes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

Argument:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24

Full argument here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...Explain-Change

[Again, anyone wanting to access this link fully will need to copy and paste it into their address bar since the anonymiser RevLeft uses ignores '#' sub-links. Or. once more, use the 'Quick Links' at the top of the page to jump to Section (B1) 'Why Dialectics Cannot Explain Change'.]

Quote:

Yes you do. You reject the theory that capitalism is riven by irresolvable contradictions which its own laws of motion produce and intensify

In that case, Marx also rejected his own theory, since even he did not think that capitalism was "riven by irresolvable contradictions" -- a term that not even you can explain.

So, I am happy to agree with Marx and reject this unworkable 'theory' too.

Quote:

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.

Perhaps that is also why Marx said "I am no Marxist", because of irrational and emotive dogmatists like you.

Quote:

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

I will if you will call yourself 'class traitor' and 'naive ruling-class dupe'.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #44 11th March 2009, 16:48

JR:

Quote:

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").

Look, I am not against theory as such, but that which has been developed by non-workers is guilty until proved innocent.

And I am not convinced that the DOP was an entirely non-working class development.

KC · #45 11th March 2009, 17:19

Rosa, I understand your argument - I've read it on here countless times as you constantly spew it all over the forum. It's an argument that is based on an extreme warping of facts and meaning to the point of absurdity; it really is comical the acrobats you go through attempting to justify your nonsense.

In the end it comes down to your claim that Marx's use of one word in one instance is explicit proof of your wild assertions. However, to any reasonable person it's quite obvious that your argument is shown as absurd simply because of that fact.

But go on writing your hundred-thousand word essays and chasing those windmills if you so desire. In the end it doesn't really matter because your argument is a joke. Perhaps you will get some to coquette with it for a time, but that is inevitable for any assertion.

*Bob The Builder* · #46 11th March 2009, 17:33

Rosa:

Quote:

In that case, Marx also rejected his own theory, since even he did not think that capitalism was "riven by irresolvable contradictions"

Marx:

Quote:

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1867-c1/p3.htm

Rosa Lichtenstein · #47 11th March 2009, 17:36

KC:

Quote:

Rosa, I understand your argument - I've read it on here countless times as you constantly spew it all over the forum. It's an argument that is based on an extreme warping of facts and meaning to the point of absurdity; it really is comical the acrobats you go through attempting to justify your nonsense.

1) I have to repeat it since knuckle-headed comrades like you refuse to face up to what Marx actually said.

2) What 'facts' have I distorted?

Quote:

In the end it comes down to your claim that Marx's use of one word in one instance is explicit proof of your wild assertions. However, to any reasonable person it's quite obvious that your argument is shown as absurd simply because of that fact.

No, it is based on Marx's own summary of 'his method', along with other details you can find here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

[In Note 16.]

Quote:

But go on writing your hundred-thousand word essays and chasing those windmills if you so desire. In the end it doesn't really matter because your argument is a joke. Perhaps you will get some to coquette with it for a time, but that is inevitable for any assertion.

I can just imagine a Philistine like you arguing in and around 1875 as follows:

Quote:

Yes, Herr Marx, go on writing your million word books...

Since you can't respond to my argument, you, like so many other dialectical mystics here and elsewhere, have to resort to abuse to protect your source of opiates:

Quote:

The founders of this quasi-religion weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was this hidden world that governed everything, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history had predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for them, which meant they were their 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could thus legitimately substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand, since the masses were too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why DM is a world-view.

It is also why dialecticians cling on to this theory like grim death (and become very emotional (and abusive!) when it is attacked by yours truly), since it provides them with a source of consolation that, despite outward appearances to the contrary, and because this hidden world tells them that dialectical Marxism will one day be a success, everything is in fact peachy, and nothing in the core theory needs changing -- in spite of the fact that that core theory says everything changes! Hence, it is ossified into a dogma, and imposed on reality. A rather nice unity of opposites for you to ponder.

So, this 'theory' insulates the militant mind from the facts.

In that case:

Dialectics is the sigh of the depressed dialectician, the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the party. The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #48 11th March 2009, 17:41

Thanks for that quote BTB, but we already know that Marx was merely 'coquetting' with this word in Das Kapital.

And no wonder, if dialectics were true, then change would be impossible.

I note yet again that you keep dodging this fatal defect in your mystical 'theory'.

And we all now know why...

Hyacinth · #49 11th March 2009, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Hargreaves

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.

I'd like to see some evidence to back that up; I know of no prominent historical Marxists who have ever committed the sin of being too positivistic, or technological determinists (Cohen being an exception). The Stalinists certainly weren't either, nor was Lenin: the Soviet Union repudiated efforts on the part of some, Alexander Bogdanov among them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogdanov) to reject dialectics and adopt a positivistic attitude toward Marxism, which would have been a positive development (no pun intended).

You seem to think that it is somehow mistaken to try to make historical materialism a science, this is where we part ways; it is precisely because it is not scientific enough, because it retains dialectics, that it has proven to be such a miserable failure, and has been misused by everyone, left and right, to "prove" just about any thesis that they find politically convenient at the moment. This is not science, it isn't even philosophy, it is sophistry.

As well, you seem to imply that science has no 'capacity for self-criticism'; science, if anything, does subject its own hypotheses and theories to criticism, and leaves everything open to refutation. Progress in science is made precisely when old theories are subject to criticism, new ones puth forth to better explain a phenomenon, and the old eventually abandoned. This is not to say that scientists can't be dogmatic, of course they can, and it isn't a perfect method, but it is the best we have, and its results speak for themselves: we've gone to the Moon because of science, I cannot think of any achievements of dialectics that parallel this, in fact, I cannot think of any achievements of dialectics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Hargreaves

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

The "laws" of dialectics are an oxymoron? So Engels didn't know what he was talking about when he called them laws? If you're dissenting with Engels, I'd be quite happy with this. I [also] think that he slips into nonsense when he tries to dabble in philosophy. But if so, then what of dialectics is it that you wish to maintain? Clearly you don't think dialectics is (though correct me if I'm wrong) something that is applicable to all of nature, pace Engels and Hegel, then what makes history special such that dialectics is applicable to it? And what is it that you mean by dialectics if you reject its various "laws"?

Hyacinth · #50 11th March 2009, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob The Builder

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.

The claim that I make is that any instance of Hegelian terminology left over in the latter Marx can be substituted salva veritate with either technical terminology borrowed from science, or ordinary language. If this is so, then there is no dialectical content in the thought of the latter Marx. Now, I've given you examples from Marx with an explanation of how the supposed dialectical terminology is to be interpreted in a non-dialectical fashion (in fact, I didn't do any exegesis, Marx tells us how the term is to be read, a reading which isn't dialectical).

What I would like to know, and I'm honestly curious here, of substance is lost on the non-dialectical reading of Marx which I, and others, have puth forth? As well as, what do you mean by 'dialectics'? I ask not to be pedantic, but because I honestly don't know, the term is thrown around so many times by different people to mean slightly different things, it is hard to keep track of who means what by it.

Hyacinth · #51 11th March 2009, 19:28

An addendum:
The so-called dialectical materialists, following Engels, thought that you required dialectics to explain change, both in history as well as in the world. Plain old ordinary materialism was thought inadequate to account for change anywhere. They were mistaken; we do not need dialectics to account for change in nature; science, and ordinary language, do a fine job of accounting for it. That being said, some dialecticians seem to have retreated to a more moderate position: dialectics isn’t required to explain change in nature, we can do that through other means, but it is required to explain change in history. This thesis of historical exceptionalism, that history is somehow special and different from the other subject matters such that it required dialectical explanations when other subjects do not, is what needs defending. It is easy to see why the original dialectical materialists [mistakenly] thought dialectics necessary to account for historical change, as it was merely a consequence of their thinking that it was necessary to explain change in general. So unless a contemporary dialectician is prepared to hold onto the untenable thesis that change cannot be explained except through dialectics, they need to give us a reason to suppose that it is necessary for historical change.

Charles Xavier · #52 11th March 2009, 20:30

Rosa is completely confused, when we point out that how Dialectics works, Rosa says "We don't need a theory to explain that" yet proceeds not to explain why or refute the dialectic.

Rosa you have wasted a good portion of your life being completely ignorant of what Dialectics means, Dialectic means change arising from contradictions, opposites collide and something new comes out of it.

Class Conflict is what progresses humanity forward.

I boil water, heat + water = steam, the water doesnt just adsorb the heat, it turns into another state, into a gas.

If I fight with my boss, either my job gets worse or better. It doesn't stay the same. It turns into something new, boundaries expand or they retract.

*maldoror* · #53 11th March 2009, 20:45

"
I boil water, heat + water = steam, the water doesnt just adsorb the heat, it turns into another state, into a gas."

jesus, this is the worst abuse of scientific terminology. i can equally claim that there is no qualitative change because it is still water molecules.i woulds be however, wrong for saying that because the word "change" differs of meaning depending the context/language games. you canr just say dialectics "treat change" because the nature of that word is different when applied to chemistry than to sociology. its the old problem of apples and oranges

Rosa Lichtenstein · #54 12th March 2009, 02:10

TA II:

Quote:

Rosa is completely confused, when we point out that how Dialectics works, Rosa says "We don't need a theory to explain that" yet proceeds not to explain why or refute the dialectic.

Where do I say "We don't need a theory to explain that"? What I do say is that we do not need a philosophical theory, a scientific one will do --, and even if we did need a philosophical theory, dialectics is so piss poor, it would even fail to make the bottom of the reserve list of likely or viable candidates.

Quote:

Rosa you have wasted a good portion of your life being completely ignorant of what Dialectics means, Dialectic means change arising from contradictions, opposites collide and something new comes out of it.

I am well aware of all this. I have read, studied and made detailed notes on more books and articles on this whacko 'theory' of yours than you have had hot dinners. I have asked you repeatedly to show where I go wrong, and all you do is repeat the same tired old nostrums. No surprise there, then.

Quote:

Class Conflict is what progresses humanity forward.

Where have I denied that?

Quote:

I boil water, heat + water = steam, the water doesnt just adsorb the heat, it turns into another state, into a gas.

Water as ice, liquid or gas is still H20, so there has been no change in quality here, as defined by Hegel:

Quote:

"Quality is, in the first place, the character identical with being: so identical that a thing ceases to be what it is, if it loses its quality. Quantity, on the contrary, is the character external to being, and does not affect the being at all. Thus, e.g. a house remains what it is, whether it be greater or smaller; and red remains red, whether it be brighter or darker." [Hegel (1975) Shorter Logic, p.124, §85.]

or by the Marxist Internet Archive:

Quote:

"Quality is an aspect of something by which it is what it is and not something else and reflects that which is stable amidst variation. Quantity is an aspect of something which may change (become more or less) without the thing thereby becoming something else.

"Thus, if something changes to an extent that it is no longer the same kind of thing, this is a 'qualitative change', whereas a change in something by which it still the same thing, though more or less, bigger or smaller, is a 'quantitative change'.

"In Hegel's Logic, Quality is the first division of Being, when the world is just one thing after another, so to speak, while Quantity is the second division, where perception has progressed to the point of recognising what is stable within the ups and downs of things. The third and final stage, Measure, the unity of quality and quantity, denotes the knowledge of just when quantitative change becomes qualitative change."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ry.htm#quality

So, even your example does not work, since here we have quantitative change with no qualitative change.

Of course, if you mean something else by 'quality' then what is it?

We have in fact been over this several times here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-mat...588/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-q...709/index.html

and in each case, you mystics failed to win the argument.

Quote:

If I fight with my boss, either my job gets worse or better. It doesn't stay the same. It turns into something new, boundaries expand or they retract.

But, according to the dialectical prophets, if you struggle with your boss, you must also change into him/her!

Here is what I have posted on this in another thread:

Quote:

Dialecticians seem to be unclear whether objects and processes change (1) because of their internal opposites, or whether they (2) change into these opposites as a result of their "struggle" with them, or indeed whether they (3) also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change.

Here are a few quotations from a wide selection of theorists to that effect:

Quote:

"If, for instance, the Sophists claimed to be teachers, Socrates by a series of questions forced the Sophist Protagoras to confess that all learning is only recollection. In his more strictly scientific dialogues, Plato employs the dialectical method to show the finitude of all hard and fast terms of understanding. Thus in the Parmenides he deduces the many from the one. In this grand style did Plato treat Dialectic. In modern times it was, more than any other, Kant who resuscitated the name of Dialectic, and restored it to its post of honour. He did it, as we have seen, by working out the Antinomies of the reason. The problem of these Antinomies is no mere subjective piece of work oscillating between one set of grounds and another; it really serves to show that every abstract proposition of understanding, taken precisely as it is given, naturally veers round to its opposite.

"However reluctant Understanding may be to admit the action of Dialectic, we must not suppose that the recognition of its existence is peculiarly confined to the philosopher. It would be truer to say that Dialectic gives expression to a law which is felt in all other grades of consciousness, and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of Dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being stable and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by that Dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than what it is, is forced beyond its own immediate or natural being to turn suddenly into its opposite." [Hegel (1975), pp.117-18.]

"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Ibid., p.174.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... Mutual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., pp.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"...but the theory of Essence is the main thing: the resolution of the abstract contradictions into their own instability, where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone than it is transformed unnoticed into the other, etc." [Engels (1891), p.414.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"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…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing, each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical, -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end.... [Ibid., pp.311-18.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"So far we have discussed the most general and most fundamental law of dialectics, namely, the law of the permeation of opposites, or the law of polar unity. We shall now take up the second main proposition of dialectics, the law of the negation of the negation, or the law of development through opposites. This is the most general law of the process of thought. I will first state the law itself and support it with examples, and then I will show on what it is based and how it is related to the first law of the permeation of opposites. There is already a presentiment of this law in the oldest Chinese philosophy, in the of Transformations, as well as in Lao-tse and his disciples -- and likewise in the oldest Greek philosophy, especially in Heraclitus. Not until Hegel, however, was this law developed.

"This law applies to all motion and changes of things, to real things as well as to their images in our minds, i.e., concepts. It states first of all that things and concepts move, change, and develop; all things are processes. All fixity of individual things is only relative, limited; their motion, change, or development is absolute, unlimited. For the world as a whole absolute motion and absolute rest coincide. The proof of this part of the proposition, namely, that all things are in flux, we have already given in our discussion of Heraclitus.

"The law of the negation of the negation has a special sense beyond the mere proposition that all things are processes and change. It also states something about the most general form of these changes, motions, or developments. It states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing.

"Conceptually the actual movement of things appears as a negation. In other words, negation is the most general way in which motion or change of things is represented in the mind. This is the first stage of this process. The negation of a thing from which the change proceeds, however, is in turn subject to the law of the transformation of things into their opposites." [Ibid., pp.170-71.]

"The second dialectical law, that of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the essentially contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a hundred years ago….

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite." [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

"Movement and change result from causes inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions….

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other....'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels (1891), p.414.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, ex pressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.'" [Rob Sewell, quoted from here. (Link a my site; see below.)]

Bold emphases added.

References and links for all the above can be found at my site, here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm[/QUOTE]

So, have you changed into your boss? If not, then perhaps you do not 'understand dialectics'!

In my next post I will expose just one the fatal weaknesses of this 'theory'.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #55 12th March 2009, 02:12

Ok, here it is:

As we are about to see, this idea -- that there are such things as "dialectical contradictions" and "unities of opposites" (etc.), which cause change -- presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches, if interpreted along the lines expressed in the DM-classics (quoted above).

[Recall that the above quotes show that dialecticians are completely unclear as to whether objects and processes change (1) because of their internal opposites/'contradictions', or whether they (2) change into these opposites as a result of their "struggle" with them, or indeed whether they (3) also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change.]

[DM = Dialectical Materialism/ist; NON = Negation of the Negation; FL = Formal Logic.]

To see this particular fatal defect, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal contradictory opposites" O* and O**, and it thus changes as a result.

[The same problems arise if these are viewed as 'external' contradictions.]

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist then, according to this theory, O* could not change at all, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

Hence, it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it is now said to be what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there, in the present, to make that happen!

So, if object/process A is already composed of a 'dialectical union' of O* and not-O* (interpreting O** now as not-O*), how can O* possibly change into not-O* when not-O* already exists?

Several alternatives now suggest themselves which might allow dialecticians to dig themselves out of this hermetic hole. Either:

(1) O* 'changes' into not-O*, meaning there would now be two not-O*s where once there was one (unless, of course, one of these not-O*s just vanishes into thin air -- see below); or:

(2) O* does not change, or it disappears. Plainly, O* cannot change into what already exists -- that is, O* cannot change into its opposite, not-O* without there being two of them (see above). But even then, one of these will not be not-O* just a copy of it. In that case, O* either disappears, does not change at all, or changes into something else; or:

(3) Not-O* itself disappears to allow a new (but copy) not-O* to emerge that O* can and does change into. If so, questions would naturally arise as to how the original not-O* could possibly cause O* to change if is has just vanished. Of course, this option merely postpones the evil day, for the same difficulties will afflict the new not-O* that afflicted the old. If it exists in order to allow O* to change, then we are back where we were to begin with.

Anyway, as should seem obvious, among other things already mentioned, alternative (2) plainly means that O* does not in fact change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it. Option (1), on the other hand, has the original not-O* remaining the same (when it was supposed to turn into its own opposite -- O* -- according to the DM-classics), and options (2) and (3) will only work if matter and/or energy can either be destroyed or created from nowhere!

Naturally, these problems will simply re-appear at the next stage as not-O* readies itself to change into whatever it changes into. But, in this case there is an added twist, for there is as yet no not-not-O* in existence to make this happen. This means that the dialectical process will grind to a halt, unless a not-not-O* pops into existence to start things up again.

But what could possibly engineer that?

Indeed, at the very least, this 'theory' of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about in the first place. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere, too. [Gollobin (above) sort of half recognises this without realising either his error or the serious problems this creates.]

But, not-O* cannot have come from O* itself, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the NON) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

[However, on the NON, see below.]

Now, it could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes in fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, on that basis, it could be maintained that the above argument is entirely misguided.

Fortunately, repairs are easy to make: let us now suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal/external opposites" O* and O**, (the latter once again interpreted as not-O*) and it thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows as before: if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O*, and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, how is it possible for O* to change into not-O* when not-O* already exists?

Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*.

[This objection might even incorporate that eminently obscure Hegelian term-of-art: "sublation". More on that presently.]

But, if this were so, while it was happening these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process while that is happening". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective', once more.

But, if we ignore that 'difficulty' for now, and even supposing it were the case that not-O* 'developed' into O* while not-O* 'developed' into O*, and such process were governed by the obscure term "sublation", this alternative will still not work (as we are about to see).

Indeed, developing this option further before it is demolished, it could be argued that Engels had himself anticipated the above objections when he said:

Quote:

"[RL: Negation of the negation is] a very simple process which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand as soon as it is stripped of the veil of mystery in which it was enveloped by the old idealist philosophy and in which it is to the advantage of helpless metaphysicians of Herr Dühring's calibre to keep it enveloped. Let us take a grain of barley. Billions of such grains of barley are milled, boiled and brewed and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions which are normal for it, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the influence of heat and moisture it undergoes a specific change, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold. Species of grain change extremely slowly, and so the barley of today is almost the same as it-was a century ago. But if we take a plastic ornamental plant, for example a dahlia or an orchid, and treat the seed and the plant which grows from it according to the gardener's art, we get as a result of this negation of the negation not only more seeds, but also qualitatively improved seeds, which produce more beautiful flowers, and each repetition of this process, each fresh negation of the negation, enhances this process of perfection. [Engels (1976) Anti-Duhring, pp.172-73.]

"But someone may object: the negation that has taken place in this case is not a real negation: I negate a grain of barley also when I grind it, an insect when I crush it underfoot, or the positive quantity a when I cancel it, and so on. Or I negate the sentence: the rose is a rose, when I say: the rose is not a rose; and what do I get if I then negate this negation and say: but after all the rose is a rose? -- These objections are in fact the chief arguments put forward by the metaphysicians against dialectics, and they are wholly worthy of the narrow-mindedness of this mode of thought. Negation in dialectics does not mean simply saying no, or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any way one likes. Long ago Spinoza said: Omnis determinatio est negatio -- every limitation or determination is at the same time a negation. And further: the kind of negation is here determined, firstly, by the general and, secondly, by the particular nature of the process. I must not only negate, but also sublate the negation. I must therefore so arrange the first negation that the second remains or becomes possible. How? This depends on the particular nature of each individual case. If I grind a grain of barley, or crush an insect, I have carried out the first part of the action, but have made the second part impossible. Every kind of thing therefore has a peculiar way of being negated in such manner that it gives rise to a development, and it is just the same with every kind of conception or idea....

"But it is clear that from a negation of the negation which consists in the childish pastime of alternately writing and cancelling a, or in alternately declaring that a rose is a rose and that it is not a rose, nothing eventuates but the silliness of the person who adopts such a tedious procedure. And yet the metaphysicians try to make us believe that this is the right way to carry out a negation of the negation, if we ever should want to do such a thing. [Ibid., pp.180-81.]

Engels's argument seems to be that "dialectical negation" is not the same as ordinary negation in that it is not simple destruction. Dialectical negation "sublates"; that is, it both destroys and preserves, so that something new or 'higher' emerges as a result. Nevertheless, we have already seen here [in the original article, this 'here' links to another argument at my site, as do several of the other 'here's dotted around this post], that Hegel's use of this word (i.e., "sublate") is highly suspect, and we will also see below [again, this 'below' refers to a later section of the essay from which this was extracted] that this 'Law' (i.e., the NON) is even more dubious still (partly because Hegel confused ordinary negation with 'cancelling out', or with destruction, as did Engels).

Well, despite all this, is it the case that the above comments neutralise the argument presented in this part of this post? Is the argument here guilty of the following:

Quote:

"These objections are in fact the chief arguments put forward by the metaphysicians against dialectics, and they are wholly worthy of the narrow-mindedness of this mode of thought." [Ibid.]

To answer this, let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and not-O*, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change/develop into a "sublated" intermediary, but not into not-O* -- incidentally, contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier. O* should, of course, change into not-O*, not into some intermediary.

Putting this minor quibble to one side, too, on this 'revised' view, let us suppose that O* does indeed change into that intermediary. To that end, let us call the latter, "O*(1)" (which can be interpreted as a combination of the old and the new; a 'negation' which also 'preserves'/'sublates').

If so, then O*(1) must remain forever in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*(1) in existence to make it develop any further.

[Recall that on this 'theory', everything (and that must include O*(1)) changes because of a 'struggle' with its opposite.]

So, there must be a not-O*(1) to make O*(1) change further. To be sure, we could try to exempt O*(1) from this essential requirement on an ad hoc basis (arguing, perhaps, that O*(1) changes spontaneously with nothing actually causing it), and yet if we do that, there would seem to be no reason to accept the version of events contained in the DM-classics, which tells us that every thing/process changes because of the operation of opposites (and O*(1) is certainly a thing/process). Furthermore, if we make an exemption here, then the whole point of the exercise would be lost, for if some things do and some things do not change according this dialectical 'Law', we would be left with no way of telling which changes were and which were not subject to it.

[This would also mean that the second 'Law' (discussed here) was not a 'law' either, just like the first.]

This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that such a subjectively applied exemption certificate (issued to O*(1)) would mean that nothing at all could change, for everything in the universe is in the process of change, and is thus already a 'sublated' version of whatever it used to be.

Ignoring this, too, even if O*(1) were to change into not-O*(1) (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems simply reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*(1) already existed to make it happen! But not-O*(1) cannot already exist, for O*(1) has not changed into it yet!

Once more, it could be objected that the dialectical negation of O* to produce not-O* is not ordinary negation, as the above seems to assume.

In that case, let us say that O* turns into its 'sublated' opposite not-O*(s), but if that is to happen, according to the Dialectical Gospels, not-O*(s) must already exist! If so, and yet again, O* cannot turn into not-O*(s), for it already exists! On the other hand, if not-O*(s) does not already exist, then O* cannot change, for O* can only change if it struggles with what it changes into, i.e., not-O*(s).

Once more we hit the same non-dialectical brick wall.

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into a man (his opposite), as the above argues. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists.

Or so it could be claimed.

But, this theory tells us that things/processes change because of a struggle with their opposites, and with what they become. Are we now to assume that John has to struggle with all the individuals that are already men if he is to become a man himself (if we now treat all these other men as John's opposites)? And are we to suppose that John struggles with what he is to become, even before it exists? If not, then the above response is beside the point. And, in view of the fact that John must turn into his opposite, does that mean he has to turn into these other men, or even into one of them? But he must do so if the Dialectical Holy Books are to be believed.

Anyway, according to the DM-worthies quoted above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites taking place in the here-and-now. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

Some might be tempted to reply that this is precisely what adolescence is, and yet, in that case, John-as-boy and John-as-a-man would have to be locked in struggle in the present. [Of course, adolescence cannot struggle with anything, since it is an abstraction.] But, John-as-a-man does not yet exist, and so 'he' cannot struggle with John-as-boy. On the other hand, if John-as-a-man does exist, so that 'he' can struggle with his youthful self, then John-as-boy cannot change into 'him', for John-as-a-man already exists!

To be sure, John's 'opposite' is whatever he will become (if he is allowed to develop naturally), but, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist otherwise John would not need to become him!

Looking at this more concretely, in ten or fifteen years time, John will not become just any man, he will become a particular man. In that case, let us call the man that John becomes "Man-J". But, once again, Man-J must exist now or John cannot change into him (if the DM-worthies quoted earlier are to be believed), for John can only become a man if he is locked in struggle with his own opposite, Man-J. But, if that is so, John cannot become Man-J since Man-J already exists!

[This, of course, is simply a more concrete version of the argument outlined above.]

Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100oC (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam? This must be so if the Dialectical Saints are to be believed.

Hence, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens, according to these wise old dialecticians, is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy and turn the gas off!

In fact, let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it, we shall call it "W1", and the steam molecule it turns into "S1". But, if the DM-Worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it! Again, if that is so, where does S1 disappear to if W1 changes into it?

In fact, according to the Dialectical Magi, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1 at the same time as W1 is turning into S1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific 'theory', steam must be turning back into the water you are boiling, and it must do so at the same rate!

One wonders, therefore, how dialectical kettles manage to boil dry.

This must be so, otherwise when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists, or W1 could not change into it -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other alleged examples of DM-change).

It could be objected that the opposite that liquid water turns into is a gas; so the dialectical classicists are correct. However, if we take them at their word, then that gas must 'struggle' with liquid water in the here-and-now if water is to change. But that gas does not yet exist; in which case, water would never boil if this 'theory' were true. But even if it did, it is heat that causes the change not the gas! However we try and slice it, this 'theory' is totally useless -- that is, what little sense can be made of it.

This, of course, does not deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

Alternatively, if DM were true, change would be impossible.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #56 12th March 2009, 02:16

And here is a more down-to earth argument:

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

These dialectical 'rules' imply that cats, for example, change because of a struggle of opposites, and that they change into those opposites.

In which case, a live cat C that changes into dead cat C* must have struggled with that dead cat!

I am sure we have all witnessed such odd scenes...

On the other hand, live cat C cannot change into dead cat C* since dead cat C* already exists! So C cannot die, for to do so it has to change into something that already exists, and this is impossible, even for a cat.

So, dialectical materialism, the 'world view of the proletariat' holds that cats cannot die!

On the other hand, it also holds that cats are continually scrapping with the dead cats that that they will one day turn into.

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

Incidentally, the same result emerges if we consider the intermediate stages in the life and death of cat C (whether or not these are a result of the operation of the NON):

Let us assume that cat C goes through successive stages C(1), C(2), C(3)..., C(n), until at stage C(n+1) it finally pops its clogs.

But, according to the dialectical classics, C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites. They also tell us that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite.

So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it.

But then the same problems emerge, for C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist, and no cat can change, let alone die!

These 'dialectical cats' sure are odd...

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

Now, TA II, where does any of this go wrong?

Up to now, not one single DM-fan has been able to say.

That's why they all ignore it.

Lord Hargreaves · #57 12th March 2009, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyacinth

I'd like to see some evidence to back that up; I know of no prominent historical Marxists who have ever committed the sin of being too positivistic, or technological determinists (Cohen being an exception). The Stalinists certainly weren't either, nor was Lenin: the Soviet Union repudiated efforts on the part of some, Alexander Bogdanov among them [...] to reject dialectics and adopt a positivistic attitude toward Marxism, which would have been a positive development (no pun intended).

Well yeah, I think we are doomed to disagree here. This seems like a debate for another time (and another thread). I think "technological determinism" to be one of the primary sins of Stalinism, originating - I have to say - in an ambiguity in Marx's own writing. The error was to see the transition from capitalism to communism as a linear temporal process, leading to the "periodization" of socialism as a distinct social formation, and the complete abolition of the idea of class conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyacinth

You seem to think that it is somehow mistaken to try to make historical materialism a science, this is where we part ways; it is precisely because it is not scientific enough, because it retains dialectics, that it has proven to be such a miserable failure, and has been misused by everyone, left and right, to "prove" just about any thesis that they find politically convenient at the moment. This is not science, it isn't even philosophy, it is sophistry.

As well, you seem to imply that science has no 'capacity for self-criticism'; science, if anything, does subject its own hypotheses and theories to criticism, and leaves everything open to refutation. Progress in science is made precisely when old theories are subject to criticism, new ones puth forth to better explain a phenomenon, and the old eventually abandoned. This is not to say that scientists can't be dogmatic, of course they can, and it isn't a perfect method, but it is the best we have, and its results speak for themselves: we've gone to the Moon because of science, I cannot think of any achievements of dialectics that parallel this, in fact, I cannot think of any achievements of dialectics.

I'm certainly not one of these postmodernists who thinks all science is implicated in the oppression of humanity, or whatever. That takes an insight and runs off a cliff with it. What I would identify though is the error of scientism, which is the failure to understand the delimits of science and its ultimate reliance for meaning on the Lebenswelt ("life-world"). As Jurgen Habermas defines it, scientism is: "the contention that we can no longer understand science as one form of knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science".

Obviously science allows plenty of room for particular theories to be falsified and replaced by more adequate theories according to the evidence. Indeed, we might say science moves by this very process. But as for self-criticism - that is - questioning the methods of science itself, and the place of science within knowledge generally, I have more fundamental doubts

I don't wish to deny the essence of Stalinism. It didn't go wrong because of the triumph of science over philosophy, it went wrong because of the failure to think tout court; it ended up as terror for its own sake, terror becoming the divine principle of orbit for the whole system. I just think, on critical reflection, we can learn a few lessons on the problem of scientism from the whole experience

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyacinth

The "laws" of dialectics are an oxymoron? So Engels didn't know what he was talking about when he called them laws? If you're dissenting with Engels, I'd be quite happy with this. I [also] think that he slips into nonsense when he tries to dabble in philosophy. But if so, then what of dialectics is it that you wish to maintain? Clearly you don't think dialectics is (though correct me if I'm wrong) something that is applicable to all of nature, pace Engels and Hegel, then what makes history special such that dialectics is applicable to it? And what is it that you mean by dialectics if you reject its various "laws"?

Engels, as far as I can see, tried to formulate independent laws of dialectics completely divorced from Hegel's overall philosophy - that is, Hegel's philosophy as a continuation of Kant's project of subjecting all reason to radical self-criticism, and of showing the falsity of seeing each "moment" of reason (and the world) as independent from its part in the "totality" of Geist. Thus his dialectics doesn't make a lot of sense. Dialectics without Hegel's system is a mistake, or it is simply using old Hegelian words for the sake of familarity or as a "trigger" for remembering other concepts

Why not laws of dialectics? Well, dialectics (read in a kind of Nietzschean vain) begins as a skeptical process, thus codifying it into "laws" seems to forget this spirit, since it smells of - as Rosa keeps on saying - a priori dogmatism. Its like establishing an organized church of atheism, or something

To vindicate Engels I think we have to read his use of "laws" here differently, as his trying to capture the basic ideas in outline for a lay audience that would not be familiar with Hegel and German Idealist philosopy. We should see him as Terrell Carver wishes us to see him (see his book in the Oxford Very Short Introduction series: I'd link you but I can't since I don't have 25 posts yet), that is, as the populizer of Marxism, getting the message out to the workers and the public-at-large. To read him as a high priest of philosophy, or whatever, is to misread him

Charles Xavier · #58 12th March 2009, 20:18

Reading Rosa posts are like reading the work of an juggler that keeps dropping the ball. Combining ideas that are not connected with one another and then in broad strokes saying this is wrong because "how dialectical kettles manage to boil dry." or other such philistine non sense that honestly bare no connection the actual facts. The person who tries to divorce dialectical materialism from historical materialism is also divorcing themselves from reality.

*maldoror* · #59 12th March 2009, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Túpac Amaru II

Reading Rosa posts are like reading the work of an juggler that keeps dropping the ball. Combining ideas that are not connected with one another and then in broad strokes saying this is wrong because "how dialectical kettles manage to boil dry." or other such philistine non sense that honestly bare no connection the actual facts. The person who tries to divorce dialectical materialism from historical materialism is also divorcing themselves from reality.

you should reply to my argument which was pretty good rather than saying i am "divorced from reality". you sound like those dumb people in critical theory departments that abuse quantum mechanics with their mystical nonsense

Rosa Lichtenstein · #60 12th March 2009, 20:46

TA II:

Quote:

Reading Rosa posts are like reading the work of an juggler that keeps dropping the ball. Combining ideas that are not connected with one another and then in broad strokes saying this is wrong because "how dialectical kettles manage to boil dry." or other such philistine non sense that honestly bare no connection the actual facts. The person who tries to divorce dialectical materialism from historical materialism is also divorcing themselves from reality.

In short, you can't show where my argument goes wrong. Have the decency to admit it.

According to the quotations I listed, dialectical kettles not only would never boil dry, they'd never even boil, since, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible.

You need to show where my argument goes wrong, and stop making personal attacks on me to distract attention from your predicament.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
@nti-dialectics Made Easy	Rosa Lichtenstein	Philosophy	506	6th March 2009 22:54
Dialectics made easy	peaccenicked	Philosophy	244	24th October 2007 06:35

The Following User Says Thank You to KC For This Useful Post:
Charles Xavier

The Following User Says Thank You to Bob The Builder For This Useful Post:
Charles Xavier

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to maldoror For This Useful Post:
Bob The Builder, KC