In response to the Negation of Negation thread, I'd like to pose the question if
"the Law of the unity of opposites" is indeed the only law of Dialectics. According so some interpretations of Mao's writings, Mao considered the Unity of opposites not just the key to Dialectics, but to understanding all the laws of the physical universe.

Unity of opposites?

I believe its called inter-penetration of opposites.

Whatever it's called, it makes not one nanogram of sense.

To reduce dialectical materialism to such a simple law(s) is nothing but empty abstractions. What Rosa appears to be rebelling against is the tendency to objectify and idealize history. The subject of these theories ceases to be humanity, but become either abstract entities such as laws of history or entities such as means of production. At best we end up with Althusser's structuralism, at worst - vulgar materialism (Feuerbarch).

Rosa statement that Marx moved away from Hegel his entire life ignores the mountain of evidence which proves that Marx merely righted Hegel's dialectics (man has "found in the fantastic reality of heaven where he sought a supernatural being, only his own reflection).

Dialectical Logic
marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essayint.htm

One of them best example is found here:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch02.htm#p140
Compare this quote from Marx's preparatory notes for Capital:
And try to understand it without reading Hegel's "The Science of Logic" [specifically his work on Being]:
marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_81

For Hegel the determinations as moments of Being are: Quality-Quantity-Measure
Now compare this with Marx's "Transformation of the commodity into exchange value; money" as quoted above.
Product - Commodity - Exchange Value (money)
For Marx, they are merely moments of Capital "that do not in the least depend either on our will or on our consciousness." [Ilyenkov]

Sorry for the rambling but Rosa's personal crusade must be stripped of its veil of mysticism and shown for what it truly is, revisionism. For a thorough introduction to Dialectical Logic I recommend Evald Ilyenkov's "Dialectical Logic found here: marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essayint.htm

I cannot post complete links which is why I resorted to merely pasting the links themselves in my post. I feel that they are essential to it.

UnhappyC:

What 'mountains'? More like 'mole hills'!

And dialectical 'logic' does not work, at any level.

Proof? Try this for size:

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

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...96&postcount=7

The above relates to Mao's 'theory', but it also applies to Engels's, Hegel's, Plekhanov's and Lenin's versions, too.

And this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...mmitted_01.htm

Oh, please, not Ilyenkov's confused book? Do me a favour!

You need to tackle my actual arguments, and resist the tempatation merely to repeat tired old dialectical cliches.

What 'mysticism'? I note you did not say (mainly because there isn't any!).

And Marx was a 'revisionist', too; that is the essence of a scientific view of reality -- to question received 'wisdom'. The way you talk, Marxism is just a set of eternal dogmas.

Where on earth did you get that odd idea from?

What I am 'rebelling' against is a 'theory' that makes not one ounce of sense, and which has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

I would like mathematical concepts to strictly be applied to where we can do so, not only at a theoretical level. Look at the What is certain? thread and see what I wrote about that there... Basically only at a (possibly sub-) atomic scale, where each entity is equal to another:

I don't know too much about dialectical materialism (don't think I do, anyway) but I do know that if the universe doesn't extend into infinity microscopically, then it has buildingblocks. This would then mean that all matter in the universe consists of the same thing (points). Then necessarily it would mean that the organization of those points is what creates the universe as we see it.

Anyways, this means it is the point (the number one) that is of greatest essence, if one feels the need to weigh it that way... Of course two is also a number, so is three, five, etc. But every pair (contradictions, if you will), and every number, ultimately consists of ones.

I'd be interested in seeing some practical examples of how exactly the law of contradictions not only is one of many (as I have hinted above), but is the key to the understanding of the universe.

UnhappyC, the ambiguity of Hegel's dialectical law, as I understand it, can be expressed in very simply terms. I will admit to passing through Hegel rather quickly many years ago so I won't have an understanding as thorough as your own, or even Rosa's. However, I might be able to produce a very easy example which demonstrates how this dialectic is vague at best, or simply not true at worst.

In the above quote, the "scientific representation of thought in those necessary moments" says to me that every and all instances of decision involve and follow the form of the triad- thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That is to say that the material conditions in the world are in conflict with each other and develop new, different material conditions due to this stress. I certainly don't see how that is possible with inert, inanimate material. Rather than understanding "change" as the necessary consequence of conflicting material relations (and they don't "conflict"....this is an anthropomorphic concept), perhaps it is easier to think of it as simply forces interacting...none of which are "struggling" with one another.

If you accept this view, we can move on to see how the dialectic applies to conscious thinking. I mentioned above these "instances of decision". Here one might say that the dialectic is evident in the logic used during a decision made by someone who is affected by external conditions in the environment. When a person makes a decision to act, that decision, that specific choice of action, cannot be thought of as necessary, but contingent. For example, John is broke. Thesis. John decides he needs money. Antithesis. John sells his father's golf clubs to the kid next door. Synthesis. Now, are we really to say that his choice was necessary and that this "dialectical contradiction" is what caused John to decide to sell the clubs? We certainly can, but it is a post hoc explanation of causes. What I mean here is that if John decided to do something else, rather than sell the clubs, we would have to say that his alternative choice of action was determined by the same dialectical conflict which, if fate had it otherwise, would cause him to sell the clubs. It cannot be both. I mean, the "dialectical contradiction" which caused John's actions cannot determine both results to happen, unless the dialectic is schizophrenic.

My point here is that the dialectical description of change, concerning how and why people make decisions, is a post hoc ambiguity which works only after the fact.

Therefore, the "scientific representation of thoughts" in "this instance" cannot be attributed to such dialectical rules of change. There is indeed a scientific explanation for everything (if there isn't, there cannot be knowledge about that which cannot be expressed in scientific terms.....philosophers, mystics, theologists, etc., never seem to understand that), but to delineate human activity to specific results, specific choices, is literally impossible in advance.

This is the ambiguity of the dialectical rule when applies to human behavior.

At best one can say "oh boy...John is broke and he's gonna do something to get some cash".....but never can we know in advance. If we cannot know what he will do, but know he will do something, we are suspended in a kind of dialectical limbo....where we wait for him to act so that we can declare, post hoc, "see! I told you Hegel was right!"

Other than that, I think the dialectic is relevant for describing physical, chemical, and mechanical operations and behaviors. When hydrogen and oxygen combine and make water, it isn't because they are conflicting or struggling, but simply because that is what happens. If "dialectical" is a fancy way of saying "this and that make this", then I'll take it.

The very terms "conflict" and "struggle" have anthropomorphic relevancy only. Inanimate matter experiences no such things.

...oh and if I'm not understanding the point of the quote I argued against, I apologize in advance. I do that often. I tend to jump in over my head.

What did Marx mean by these quotes?
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_06_27.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_11_07.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_06_27.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_06_22.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_07_14.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_05_31.htm
I fail to see how one can dismiss these quotes as unessential.
I will address the subsequent replies later on.

I am sorry Dystisis, but I understood not one sentence of your post.

What are you trying to say?

----------------------------
Kronos, welcome back, but you are far too accommodating with this pernicious and thoroughly confused thought-form -- 'dialectics'.

Check this out:

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

UnhappyC:

Well, we needn't speculate, for he added a summary of his method to the introduction to Das Kapital:

So, Marx's 'method', his version of 'dialectics', contains not one ounce of Hegel; no 'unities of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'contradictions', no 'Totality'.

In that case, the 'rational kernel' has Hegel completely removed!

Now, you might not like this, but I suggest you pick a fight with Marx, not me, for that is his method, and published right at the start of his most important piece of work -- not in an obscure letter.

And of the few occurences of such terms in Das Kapital, Marx says he was merely 'coquetting' with them.

But, you might be tempted to say that Marx called Hegel a 'mighty thinker'; well, I think Plato is a 'mighty thinker', but I disagree with 100% of what he says. Same with Marx -- according to the implication of his own words.

But, you promised 'mountains' of evidence!

As I said, it looks more like a 'mole hill', and even then, it fails to support your case.

Many are from before he wrote Das Kapital -- so whatever happened to Marx's thought between, say, 1858, and writing his masterpiece, he clearly moved away from Hegel, to such an extent that he merely wished to 'coquette' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon.

I go further, and ditch the lot.

Anyway one of your quotes is from Engels, not Marx!

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_07_14.htm

I do not doubt Engels was taken in by this gobbledygook, for he was a philosophical incompetent.

Except we know that it's not true, because later, inthe same article which you accord such priority, Marx goes on to argue:

So logically, if Marx's method is a dialectic (as you admit he claims) it must contain, at least, the general form of Hegel's exposition - which could possibly amount to a couple of ounces of Hegel (you know, given the total weight of a tome like Das Kapital ).

CZ, quoting Marx:

And yet, and once more, we need not speculate, for Marx himself tells us that he was content merely to 'coquette' with Hegel's 'mighty' contribution, in this regard.

And, you will note that the relative pronoun "its" refers back to 'the mystification which diialectic suffers in Hegel's hands', which Marx calls its 'general form' --and which Marx was keen to ditch.

So, no wonder he merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon, and appealed to a summary of 'his method' that contained not one atom of Hegel.

Actually, out of seven quotes, three of them are post-publication of Vol One and two of them were written during the writing of the said masterpiece.

Rosa, this really is a game that you cannot win. Nowhere does Marx disavow his debt to Hegel never mind repudiate him. Even after the first volume of Kapital is published he continues to describe his method as a 'dialectic'. Nowhere does he state that he dumped Hegel in favour of Aristotle when he composed Kapital (another of your hypotheses).

The only textual evidence you present is supported by your own idiosyncratic interpretation and one which can be challenged. I'd argue (taking the Afterword as a whole, rather than isolating one paragraph from its relation to its fellows, sans your method) that the reason Marx places such premium on this particular review is precisely because it contains no Hegelian jargon which serves Marx's purpose of refuting those reviewers who accuse him of simple-mindedly superimposing unwieldy Hegelian idealism onto the subject of political economy. Marx quotes it with favour in order to distance himself from the idealism of Hegel (and the attendent charge of metaphysics), not from the proposition that material social reality can be grasped dialectically. This is an assertion which, as far as the archive tells us, he held onto 'til his death.

In my reading the 'it' refers to the dialectic, not the mysticism. And whilst it would be difficult for us to prove my interpretation over yours, mine at least corresponds to his later statements.

CZ:

Depends which edition of volume one you are talking about, but even so, they are all covered by the remarks he made in that published work, as we have discussed before.

But, and once more, to save you and me speculating, Marx very kindly added a summary of 'his method', his verson of the 'dialectic':

So, yet again, here Marx calls this summary 'his method', in which not one microgram of Hegel is to be found.

And, as if to rub it in, Marx told us that he was merely 'coquetting' with Hegel's 'mighty' contribution to thought -- hardly a ringing endorsement.

Not so, we have Marx's own words -- not mine, not James Burnham's, not Peter Struve's -- that his method contains not one atom of Hegel.

Now, you say that Marx quoted this to distance himself from Hegel's idealism, but that is your interpretation.

Marx, on the other hand, calls this summary, 'his method' -- and it contains no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unities of opposites' -- everything that later dialecticians foisted on Marx is absent from this summary of 'his method'.

And the few bits of jargon that appear in Das Kapital itself --, well, as we know, Marx merely 'coquetted' with them.

So, the weight of evidence is against you, as you have had pointed out to you many times.

Well, as you say, you can't prove that; until you can, we will have to refer to that long summary of 'his method' as cast iron proof that Hegel was expunged from Das Kapital.

R: So your argument is that when he was in the process of writing Kapital he believed he was utilising a dialectic method, as evinced by these two quotes: That after publication of the first edition he wrote:
That later in 1868 he wrote: Then later still, in 1870 he confessed But, suddenly in 1873, Marx endured a complete sea-change, not only in his method, but in his own retrospective understanding of the method he employed in his magnum opus six years earlier. What's more, having had this revelation, he signals it to the world with the words:
This is your version of events?

But something doesn't ring true. This elliptical allusion to such a major shift in his thinking is quite uncharacteristic. You'll agree with me that generally speaking, Marx was renowned for his bluntness, no? So why has his forthrightness suddenly abandoned him - and on such a crucially important issue as a change in his methodology?

This hardly needs to be pointed out, but they are not Marx's own words, they belong to a reviewer. Marx merely indicates that they represent a reasonable approximation of his method - "the dialectical method".

No he doesn't. He writes, "Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method" which is not the same as Marx claiming that the review is a complete summary of his method. But even if Marx thought it was a complete summary of his method, what is it that the reviewer is picturing, according to Marx? Yes, that's right: "what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" As in: Sorry, Rosa, but you need to pull off an inversion of reality of truly Hegelian proportions for that argument to stick .

The very next lines after your quotation: And further down the very same document you quoted
You appears to be stuck in a Feuerbachian natural state i.e., vulgar materialism. Maybe you should [re]read Spinoza's work on Substance.

Marx is not true to himself when in private - He is a different thinker when talking or writing in private?


Oh lordy lord!

It certainly does refer to dialectic and not the mysticism. Only through Rosa's rose coloured glasses can "it" be interpreted as mysticism.

EDIT - I've removed some of my comments since CZ replies were much clearer than mine.

CZ:

Indeed, he did lay traps: for the lot of you have simply ignored the fact that he was 'coquetting' all along. And you have fallen right in it.

The other quotations, I think we have already been over, so I do not know why you are repeating them.

What can I tell you? Marx himself went out of his way to include a summary of 'his method'.

Since you like repetition, here it is again:

'His method', the 'dialectic method' he used (not the one all his supposed 'followers' have used) contains not one atom of Hegel -- no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unities of opposites', no 'Totality'.

Now, there would be no 'trap' here for you if you'd only listen to what Marx is telling you.

Not so, he went through similar rapid changes in the 1840s, some of which he spoke about in letters and published and unpublished writings, others not.

Indeed, but we have Marx's words that this is 'his method'; and he calls it this in spite of the fact that every shred of Hegel has been expunged.

This is no problem for me, but it is a huge headache for you.

Indeed, and according to Marx (i.e., in his own words) it is a picture of 'his method' -- and why would he include a false picture right at the beginning of his most important work?

Your picture has Hegel in it; Marx's (or at least the one he endorsed) does not.

Not so; all I have to do is stick to what Marx actually said, as opposed to what you would like him to have said.

UnhappyC -- you can quote Marx at me all day, it will do you no good.

And we now know what he meant by this, for he very helpfully included a summary of 'his method', his version of 'dialectics':

You will note that 'his method' contains no trace of Hegel -- no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unity of opposites', no 'Totality'.

So, once more, pick a fight with Marx, not me, for destroying your illusions.

Now, where we later find Hegelian jargon, Marx was also quite clear: he was merely 'coquetting' with it.

That's how much respect he had for that logical incompetent, Hegel.

Maybe you should read my work before you make up stuff about me?

No, I am not a Feuerbachian, and Spinoza, too, was a philosophical incompetetent -- only marginally less so than Hegel.

All you can do to defend your case is quote confused mystics at me!

I was studying Spinoza, and rejecting it as wall-to-wall gobbledygook, long before many at RevLeft were alive.

What can I tell you? His published work is a better guide to his thought than private musings, and should rightly be used to interpret those musings. That is what I have done.

You need to address that.

How do you know?

Why do you say this, if Marx's own words support my case, but refute yours?