The assertion that dialectics is somehow central to Marxism, and by extension that you cannot have Marxism without dialectics, is thrown around from time to time. I have never been exactly clear on what exactly would be lost (apart from confusion) if dialectics were to be scrapped? What is it that Marxism would fail to be able to explain? Why would it no longer be Marxism?

Would a proponent of dialectics care to explain this?

Not much, comrade.

"Double-duth" dialectics jargon cannot CONNECT with the workers' movement (again, merger formula).

Now, if some dialectician here wishes to prove me wrong, then let that person illustrate the "dialectics" behind "peace, land, and bread."

Excellent point. I would actually add this to my set of questions: even setting aside the theoretical aspects of dialectics (which I think nonsense), what exactly is suppose to be its practical impact on the communist movement?

you would the lose the understanding that all things are permanently changing and that the character of something can never be established by studying the thing itself, but by observing its role as part of and in relation to a permanently developing whole, and udnerstanding the way in which the relation of the whole to that thing define the qualities of that thing, which then act back on the whole, etc.

Zurdito, all of what you just said could have been said in two words instead of one lengthy, quasi-legalese sentence: avoiding reductionism.

What would be lost is the entirety of Marxism qua philosophy -- historical materialism which interprets history scientifically. Without a worldview -- historical materialism -- and a methodology -- dialectics -- there's nothing to explain and nothing by which to explain anything.

"Avoiding reductionism" doesn't constitute a philosophy.

the truth woul d b e lost.

Care to back that up?

Z:

Not so; not only can we explain change in ordinary language far better than in dialectics, dialectics itself cannot explain change, as I demonstrated here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...57&postcount=2

So, by scrapping dialectics, we would lose nothing except a theory that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

And good riddance...

That’s downright idealism. What you’re saying amounts to asserting that the world, somehow, depends on dialectics for its existence.

The world, which is presumably what we’re trying to explain, is still there no matter what methodology you choose. For example, if your pet theory denied gravity, I don’t think you’d be able to jump off a skyscraper (without a parachute) and hope to survive. The world is indifferent to your theories.

Quite right. I would challenge any dialectician to offer a meaningful dialectical statement (if such a thing exists) which cannot be translated into ordinary language. Anything dialectics can do, ordinary language can be better.

Not all philosophy is idealist.

It's man who is trying to explain the world; it's man who needs a philosophy to change it.

So all you're saying here is that you're not a Marxist -- which is predicated on dialectical materialism. Fine with me.

No "peace, land, and bread" dialectician-takers so far...

Maybe, but it is a challenge for those claiming to be revolutionary Marxists, and reductionism can present itself in a whole manner of forms: binary thinking, traditional schematism, turning necessities into virtues, spontaneism, organizational fetishism, etc.

I never claimed that all philosophy was idealist; I stated that dialectics is idealist.

Hardly. In order to effectively change anything you likely need, at least some, understanding of what you’re trying to change. Not any philosophy will do, especially not ones that are either false, and certainly not those that don’t even qualify for the relatively high position of being able to be false, i.e. those that are nonsense.

I think that if we were to completely lose the social connotation for the dialectical movement, we would lose a lot of what makes marxism a really analytical system. But I think that we should be able to look at the rest of marxism as it exists analytically, and I don't think dialectics really has much to offer.

You’ve made a claim, that Marxism is predicated on dialectical materialism, without backing it up. That is what is at question here. If this is so, please show us some central component of Marxism that either a) cannot be rephrased into ordinary language, or b) isn’t nonsense that we should abandon.

Sorry, could you elaborate? I’m afraid I’m not following you. (I’m not even clear on whether you’re opposed to or in support of dialectics).

I'm not opposed to it becasue I don't know what opposing it would entail.

I used to think that it was a neat idea, but I was always kind've uncertain, there awas always something missing. Then I realized that it was describign nothing more than serious inquiry, within the framework of a specific dynamic. I think it is therefore needlessly restrictive, and in many cases pretty empty.

Like I pointed out before, I am not really in support of it, because it seems pretty useless. But I think the terminology, and the relevence it has in society, is positive in that it grants a more inquisitive air to what it means to be a marxist.