Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,555
    Rep Power
    16

    Default Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

    So I am writing on paternalism, as some of you know, and I am incorporating a touch of Marx to give my essay some flavor. I am looking at societies as emerging from the self-interest of individuals. After reading Nozrick, and reflecting on my own views, I came to a conclusion. From wikipedia,

    • The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
    • The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition.
    • The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.

    State of nature. Thesis insists on A. Antithesis insists on B. Compromise is not possible because there are no common truths. Thesis is eliminated by force.

    You could say the synthesis still occurs, but that would be false because there is no new proposition, is there? Doesn't add up to me.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    8,052
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The infamous triad has little if nothing to do with Marx/Marxism.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Indeed, KC; I have debunked this myth here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...95&postcount=7

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:

    KC

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor View Post
    So I am writing on paternalism, as some of you know, and I am incorporating a touch of Marx to give my essay some flavor. I am looking at societies as emerging from the self-interest of individuals. After reading Nozrick, and reflecting on my own views, I came to a conclusion. From wikipedia,

    • The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
    • The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition.
    • The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.

    State of nature. Thesis insists on A. Antithesis insists on B. Compromise is not possible because there are no common truths. Thesis is eliminated by force.

    You could say the synthesis still occurs, but that would be false because there is no new proposition, is there? Doesn't add up to me.
    Could you give one example expect the class struggle related one?

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,555
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulk sheep View Post
    Could you give one example expect the class struggle related one?
    Three people want to do something on Saturday. Two of them want to go to the movies, and the third wants to go to a circus. They opposing force, circus guy, ends up going to the movies. Their ideas opposing ideas didn't combine in any relevant way that I can see.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,688
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    You are conceiving the stances merely as stances, and from that perspective a dialectical method is useless. It is only if you are interested in why the different people took their differing stances and how that origin of their positions is related to the outcome, that the thesis/antithesis/synthesis methodology - crude as it is - becomes relevant.

    Thus imagine that the three people involved are a man his son and his grandson. Let us say that the man and his grandson vote for the movies and the son votes for the circus - but agrees to go to the movies. Now, we have a significant totality which can be analysed.

    What you have done is to present an example in which the basis of totalisation is unarticulated. Without a totality to understand, then dialectics is irrelevant and its particular concept of opposition is also irrelevant.

    But your example is just that - an example. In the real world, the three people have some relationship or other. It is a particular movie and a particular circus. THere is a time, date, weather, financial considerations etc - all potential factors in the totalisation of the situation. Thus your example never exists and is persuasive only because the totality is merely the sum of the parts considered separately.
    "Dixi et salvavi animam meam" - quoted by Marx
    "Things rarely work out well if one aims at 'moderation'..." - Engels
    "By and by we heare newes of shipwrack in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a Rock." Sir Philip Sydney
    "The most to be hoped for by groups who claim to belong to the Marxist succession (...) is for them to serve as a hyphen between past and future....nothing can be held sacred – everything is called into question. Only after having been put through such a crucible could socialism conceivably re-emerge as a viable doctrine and plan of action." - Van Heijenoort

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Gil:

    But your example is just that - an example. In the real world, the three people have some relationship or other. It is a particular movie and a particular circus. THere is a time, date, weather, financial considerations etc - all potential factors in the totalisation of the situation. Thus your example never exists and is persuasive only because the totality is merely the sum of the parts considered separately.
    How can this be a 'totality' (unless you are using this word in a rather odd, and as yet unexplained, way)? Moreover, since everything in the entire universe is 'interconnected', this cannot be a sealed unit. In that case, those party to this decision must have been influenced by the movement of a few molecules on the other side of the universe.

    As I have written in Essay Eleven Part Two:

    It could also be argued that even if the entire nature of each part is determined by its relation to other parts and to the whole, that does not mean that all such influences are of equal significance. In that case, parts that are separated by billions of light years, say, -- or which are not relevantly related to one another -- would have vanishingly small effects on each other, which because of that could safely be ignored. Hence, objects on the outer fringes of the visible universe can for all intents and purposes be ignored -- or, to take another example, the changes to certain parts of an organism (such as to its hair or nails) will have no effect on the rest of that organism (which point might seem to defuse a few of the objections made here).

    Now, this would be an effective response had it been made by anyone other than a DM-fan. This is because dialecticians hold that these 'influences' are not external and/or causal, but are "internal" and dialectical-logical. In that case, remoteness has no effect on this type of inter-relation, as it operates between part and part, whole and part or whole and whole.

    To give an analogy: suppose that NN (who lives in New York) has a husband who unfortunately dies. This would have an immediate effect on the logical/legal status of NN whether her late partner was in New Jersey or in Tokyo at the time of his death. Distance would be irrelevant in this case. To be sure, the news of the bereavement might take longer to reach the widow if her partner had passed away in East Asia, but that has nothing to do with the logical/legal point being made. Plainly, separation-distance does not mean that widowhood is governed by some sort of inverse square law, so that if the said partner were twice as far away when he died, NN would now be only one quarter of the widow she would have been had he passed away in her arms.

    Consider another example: suppose that the committee which controls the standards encapsulated in SI units were to alter the definition of a metre from 100 to 120 centimetres. If so, the length of a metre in distant galaxies, billions of light years away, would immediately change. There is no inverse square law at work here, either --, so the length of this (new) metre would not decrease with the square of the distance.

    [The effects of Special Relativity do not enter into this, since it is assumed in this example that it is we who do the measuring, not distant aliens travelling at a greater relative velocity (to us), nor on our perception of their measuring devices. Sure, there might be a Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction involved here, but that will be detected by units that do not so alter -- for if they did, the said contraction would be undetectable. And, howsoever these remote distances are measured, any change made to our definitions will have an immediate effect on whatever we determine those remote distances to be. The bottom line here is that no one imagines that the length of a metre rod is a function of separation distance, whatever else affects it.]

    Hence, the system-wide implications of the adoption of "internal relations" (which makes a crazy sort of sense in Hegel's mystical Whole), cannot be defused by pretending that they are really external relations in disguise, subject to inverse square laws, and the like.

    It could be objected that dialecticians have built "relative interconnectedness" into their theory, which shows that the above comments are misguided.

    Sure, they might say that this is what they have done, but until they can show how a logical link is capable of varying -- or decreasing with distance, say, -- their words will remain empty.

    Once more, but with respect to a different example: consider the Prime Meridian that passes through Greenwich in South East London -- all other lines of longitude are unquestionably 'internally'-related to this Meridian (but I would wish to express this differently). But no one supposes that longitude 180 degrees West, say, is slightly less of a longitude than 179 degrees West, or that 5 degrees East is more of a longitude than 10 degrees East.

    Furthermore, using an 'internal relation' that DM-fans themselves employ: suppose that capitalist C(1) goes on a trip across the globe, but all the while remains the owner of her company back in Paris, France, say. In that case, would she be any less of a capitalist with each mile she travels from her home country? Are the relations of production and ownership separation-sensitive? Would her employees be more, or less, workers as a result?

    Of course, no one imagines that class or economic relations can be reduced to the links between their 'parts' taken severally (if we are ever told by DM-fans what these parts are!), but it is nevertheless the case that C(1) will rightly be classified as a capitalist by her legal connection with items that are interconnected by the relations of production and ownership. In that case, distance will not affect those relations, nor her, nor her employees. Taken severally or collectively, these are not governed by inverse square laws.

    It could be objected that as a matter of fact inverse square laws do operate in nature, and that because of the force of gravity, for example, distant objects have a negligible effect on one another.

    But, the "internal relations" in DM are not like the force of gravity -- which is manifestly an external cause --, so it cannot be used in such an "internalist" way.

    Once more, it could be argued that "internal relations" are unlike the logical relations outlined above (concerning the goings on between married partners, varying metric lengths and peripatetic capitalists); so, the above comments are irrelevant.

    To be sure, the nature of the interconnections postulated by dialecticians is eminently obscure (as we discovered in Part One of this Essay, and as we will see in Essay Three Part Three), but that is precisely the problem. Until we are told what these are, not even DM-fans will know if, or even how, their commitment to "internal relations" affects these assumed drop-off rates.
    This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence at all that the 'internal relations' that DM-fans fantasise about do in fact exist (nor could there be).

    More details here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011%2002.htm

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    324
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    For example, in what I consider one of the best chapters in Capital:
    Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labor and the external conditions of labor belong to private individuals. But according as these private individuals are laborers or not laborers, private property has a different character. The numberless shades, that it at first sight presents, correspond to the intermediate stages lying between these two extremes.

    The private property of the laborer in his means of production is the foundation of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or both; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the development of social production and of the free individuality of the laborer himself. Of course, this petty mode of production exists also under slavery, serfdom, and other states of dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, it attains its adequate classical form, only where the laborer is the private owner of his own means of labor set in action by himself: the peasant of the land which he cultivates, the artisan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso.

    This mode of production pre-supposes parcelling of the soil and scattering of the other means of production. As it excludes the concentration of these means of production, so also it excludes co-operation, division of labor within each separate process of production, the control over, and the productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development of the social productive powers. It is compatible only with a system of production, and a society, moving within narrow and more or less primitive bounds. To perpetuate it would be, as Pecqueur rightly says, “to decree universal mediocrity".

    At a certain stage of development, it brings forth the material agencies for its own dissolution. From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society; but the old social organization fetters them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualized and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labor, this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to the history of capital.

    It comprises a series of forcible methods, of which we have passed in review only those that have been epoch-making as methods of the primitive accumulation of capital. The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious.

    Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent laboring-individual with the conditions of his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labor of others, i.e., on wage-labor. As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are turned into proletarians, their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labor and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many laborers.

    This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the co-operative form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labor, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself.

    The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.

    The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.

    The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labor, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialized production, into socialized property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...67-c1/ch32.htm

    Clearly the language had some influence on him, clearly it had some effect on his understanding of the world and the way it operates.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Invariance For This Useful Post:


  11. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    But, as I have shown, Marx derived this bowdlerised Kantian/Fichtean schema (it's certainly not Hegelian) from Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus. So, this aspect of Das Kapital, at least, cannot represent the alleged 'rational core' of Hegel's system:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...95&postcount=7

    Of course, this is quite apart from the fact that we also know, because Marx told us, that he was merely 'coquetting' with obscure Hegelian phrases like 'the negation of the negation' in Das Kapital. If so, we cannot take his use of obscure jargon like this at all seriously.

    And, this is not the least bit surprsing, since, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=76

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=77

    Finally, even if Marx were serious here, and dialectics could explain change, the above passages would suggest that Marx believed that Capitalism was one huge argument, and its development was powered by thought!

    Hence, it is best either to regard these passages as non-serious, or ignore them as we disregard the mystical aspects of Newton's work.

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,688
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    VInnie you are quite right historically - Marx began the use of hegelian terminology by using it quite extensively in Volume One. Duhring picked up on this and charged Marxh with Hegelian schematism - Marx asked Engels to respond on his behalf; Engels responded to the effect that the use of the terminology did not mean that Marx was schematic in his approach, explaining that an hegelian terminology could be used without being schematic......and the matter went from there.
    "Dixi et salvavi animam meam" - quoted by Marx
    "Things rarely work out well if one aims at 'moderation'..." - Engels
    "By and by we heare newes of shipwrack in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a Rock." Sir Philip Sydney
    "The most to be hoped for by groups who claim to belong to the Marxist succession (...) is for them to serve as a hyphen between past and future....nothing can be held sacred – everything is called into question. Only after having been put through such a crucible could socialism conceivably re-emerge as a viable doctrine and plan of action." - Van Heijenoort

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to gilhyle For This Useful Post:


  14. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Gil:

    Marx began the use of hegelian terminology by using it quite extensively in Volume One. Duhring picked up on this and charged Marxh with Hegelian schematism - Marx asked Engels to respond on his behalf; Engels responded to the effect that the use of the terminology did not mean that Marx was schematic in his approach, explaining that an hegelian terminology could be used without being schematic......and the matter went from there.
    Alas for you, as we have shown here many times, Marx (not little old me) told us he was merely 'coquetting' with this obscure jargon in Das Kapital.

    But, if you need telling another thousand times before this sinks in, I am just the gal to do it...

  15. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,688
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    And you need telling a thousand times that you misunderstand the verb 'to coquette'
    "Dixi et salvavi animam meam" - quoted by Marx
    "Things rarely work out well if one aims at 'moderation'..." - Engels
    "By and by we heare newes of shipwrack in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a Rock." Sir Philip Sydney
    "The most to be hoped for by groups who claim to belong to the Marxist succession (...) is for them to serve as a hyphen between past and future....nothing can be held sacred – everything is called into question. Only after having been put through such a crucible could socialism conceivably re-emerge as a viable doctrine and plan of action." - Van Heijenoort

  16. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Gil:

    And you need telling a thousand times that you misunderstand the verb 'to coquette'
    Well, you certainly can't help me out; the last time you tried, you failed miserably.

    Still, 999 more of your failures to go...

  17. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,555
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Gil:



    Well, you certainly can't help me out; the last time you tried, you failed miserably.

    Still, 999 more of your failures to go...
    Harsh, although I looked up the word. It means "to flirt." You can flirt with an idea. You consider its truth for a brief period, generally, and move on with your other pursuits. It often implies nothing significant arose from the consideration, but it doesn't necessarily imply that.

    More importantly, language is used for expressive purposes. It's clear what she meant. Languages changes. There is only a problem when it leads to confusion, which I admit is often. However, it doesn't in this case if you "know" what the word references.

  18. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Dooga:

    It means "to flirt." You can flirt with an idea. You consider its truth for a brief period, generally, and move on with your other pursuits. It often implies nothing significant arose from the consideration, but it doesn't necessarily imply that.
    The full definition is:

    A woman who makes teasing sexual or romantic overtures; a flirt.
    The point is that Gil wants us to read this in a complicated fashion so that it does not mean what the word actually says -- that is, that Marx was not using Hegelian jargon seriously. [These days we'd use 'scare quotes' perhaps.]

    More importantly, language is used for expressive purposes. It's clear what she meant. Languages changes. There is only a problem when it leads to confusion, which I admit is often. However, it doesn't in this case if you "know" what the word references.
    I beg to differ. It is rarely clear what Gil means; in fact, if he/she put bag over his/her head, donned boxing gloves and randomly bashed away at his/her keyboard, she'd make more sense.

  19. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,555
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    My fault, Rosa. I was siding with you, there. I should have clarified that. It was "clear" what you meant. However, I was admitting, for Gil, that the word might be considered as implying that the person didn't commit to the idea. They only flirted with it. Maybe that's also the sense you meant it. Either way, it's analytically a valid use was my main point. The other point was that, perhaps, another word could have been more "precise." However, we can't fault people for lack of precision, necessarily.

    Basically, I was suggesting maybe you are using a less popular usage of the word that could "potentially" lead to confusing in someone who, recognizing the context, assumes something about Marx's belief in what he "flirted with."

  20. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,688
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    And my point has always been this - the word coquette is not self explanatory in this case - one needs to read it in context to understand Marx's use of it; therefore one must read it merely as an addendum to the reading of all the usages of hegelian terminology by Marx in Capital. The word to coquette opens up (and delimits) a range of options which only the careful examination of the actual usage of the hegelian concepts in Volume One will resolve. That, however, is something Rosa will not do.
    "Dixi et salvavi animam meam" - quoted by Marx
    "Things rarely work out well if one aims at 'moderation'..." - Engels
    "By and by we heare newes of shipwrack in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a Rock." Sir Philip Sydney
    "The most to be hoped for by groups who claim to belong to the Marxist succession (...) is for them to serve as a hyphen between past and future....nothing can be held sacred – everything is called into question. Only after having been put through such a crucible could socialism conceivably re-emerge as a viable doctrine and plan of action." - Van Heijenoort

  21. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Gil:

    the word coquette is not self explanatory in this case - one needs to read it in context to understand Marx's use of it; therefore one must read it merely as an addendum to the reading of all the usages of hegelian terminology by Marx in Capital. The word to coquette opens up (and delimits) a range of options which only the careful examination of the actual usage of the hegelian concepts in Volume One will resolve. That, however, is something Rosa will not do.
    Well, we need not speculate, for Marx very helpfully explained this to us. Indeed, he quoted a reviewer thus:

    "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.]
    Once more, 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.

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

    That is hardly a ringing endorsement of this mystical theory...

  22. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    the glorious sod
    Posts
    526
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    I don't see how that quote implies Marx didn't use dialectics.
    "We stand with great emotion before the millions who gave their lives for the world communist movement, the invincible revolutionaries of the heroic proletarian history, before the uprisings of working men and women and poor farmers – the mass creators of history.

    Their example vindicates human existence."

    - from 'Statement of the Central Committee of the KKE (On the 90th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia 1917)'

  23. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Cummanach:

    I don't see how that quote implies Marx didn't use dialectics.
    Read what I said:

    Once more, 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.

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

    That is hardly a ringing endorsement of this mystical theory...

Similar Threads

  1. Communism: The Final Synthesis?
    By Immanuel Kant in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2nd February 2009, 17:04
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 21st February 2008, 05:39
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11th February 2008, 11:22
  4. The antithesis to axiom is...?
    By ComradeRed in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 7th January 2005, 00:48
  5. Pragmatism vs. Dogmatism - My dialectical synthesis
    By Palmares in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28th July 2003, 09:20

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •