Why I Like Dialectics

Because as this Anti-Dialectical Lenninst/Trotskyist posted on her web site (and emailed me a link):

Anyone new to Marxism soon encounters 'dialectics', a strange mixture of Mickey Mouse Science, Hermetic Philosophy and Stoneage Logic.

This site is aimed at those Marxists who, like me, want to rid our movement of this mystical theory.

Please note that nothing written in my Essays is intended to undermine Historical Materialism, a theory I fully accept.

Hermetic philosophy well I plead guilty to that. Dialectics and dialectical materialism (which originated not with Marx but Joseph Dietzgen) is what we keep of Marx. Certainly not his authoritarian realpoitik that he applied to the International Working Mens Association and that with the aid of Engels ultimately resulted in the dead end of German Social Democracy. That authoritarian Marxism ended in the failure of Lenin and Trotsky's Bolshevik Revolution to produce anything more than state monopoly capitalism in Russia.

But calling it Mickey Mouse science? Stone age logic? Really. And Ms. Anti-Dialectics will replace it with what? Not historical materialism as she claims but rather dull old 'English' materialism.

Dialectics is the basis of all philosophy starting with Heraclitus, hardly stone age, more post-Iron Age.

Heraclitus was a contemporary of Pythagoras, Lao-tzu, Confucius, and Siddhartha, the Buddha; some say that the term "philosophy", love of wisdom, was first introduced by Pythagoras, who lived from approximately 580 BCE to 500 BCE.

Heraclitus had an influence much broader than could be expected from his tiny corpus of sayings. Plato accepted his concept that matter was in endless change, but took this in an anti-materialist way to prove that there must be a better world of unchanging ideas. The Stoics, who were pantheists and materialists, regarded Heraclitus as a precursor. For his emphasis on development through the conflict of opposites, Marx and Engels viewed him as a harbinger of dialectical materialism.

And to toss it out like the proverbial baby with the bath water is to deny that it is the basis of Marxism and Historical Materialism, beginning with Marx's PhD thesis on the philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus

Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy

Our true believer in Marxism without Marx (dialectics) has much in common with her counterpart the other true believer;

Hegel and Marx became very different because Hegel follows Plato and thus distinguishes an absolute thing-in-itself (God) from all relativistic things-in-themselves in the universe. On the other hand, Marx follows Heraclitus and the godless philosophy of relativism. Since Marx is without a god who can unify all opposites, I do not know how Marx can use dialectical thinking to identify the unchanging opposites.

Because for Marx commodity production was the unification of opposites capitalism is not just about accumulating wealth it is the social relation that changes production from use value to commodity production. Which means workers become transformed into consumers as well as producers of capital.

Marx's Concept of Money: The God of Commodities

While our Anti-dialectical Lenninst/Trotskyist claims that dialectics is a problem for Marxism she seems to have misread Lenin the Marxist Philosopher;

Lenin sharply criticises Hegel’s idealism and the mysticism of his ideas. But Lenin also reveals the significance of Hegelian dialectics and points out the necessity for evaluating it from a materialist standpoint. “Hegel’s logic,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “cannot be applied in its given form, it cannot be taken as given. One must s e p a r a t e o u t from it the logical (epistemological) nuances, after purifying them from Ideenmystik. . .” (p. 266). In summarising Hegel’s writings, Lenin formulates a series of highly important propositions on the essence of materialist dialectics.

The brilliant article “On the Question of Dialectics,” written in 1915, is related to Lenin’s summary of Hegel’s works. Though small in size, this article is a crystallisation of unsurpassed depth and richness of thought of all the important and essential elements in materialist dialectics.

Lenin’s résumés of Lassalle’s The Philosophy of Heraclitus the Obscure of Ephesus, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Feuerbach’s Exposition, Analysis and Critique of the Philosophy of Leibnitz trace the historical preparation of materialist dialectics. Lenin examines the history of philosophy from Heraclitus and Democritus to Marx and Engels, and presents a profound Marxist evaluation of the work of outstanding thinkers. He reveals the progressive contribution which they made to the development of philosophical thought, and at the same time, discloses the historical limitations of their views.

It may be presumed that the preparatory material of Notebooks on Philosophy is evidence of Lenin’s intention to write a special work on materialist dialectics, a task which he had no opportunity to fulfil. Although the material in Philosophical Notebooks does not constitute a complete work written by Lenin for publication, it is an important contribution to the development of dialectical materialism. The study of the great ideological content of Philosophical Notebooks is of tremendous importance for a thorough grasp of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the theoretical foundation of scientific communism.

And when it comes to Trotskyism she is at odds with those who hold the banner of the old man high.

Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science

By Alan Woods and Ted Grant

This book, by Ted Grant and Alan Woods published in 1995 coinciding with Engels’ centenary, defends the validity of the philosophical writings of Marx and Engels using the most important scientific discoveries of the twentieth century as a proof. With a foreword by Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened.

We take considerable pride from the fact that, to date, no-one has found serious fault with the science of the book. And every new discovery of science serves to confirm the statement of Engels that "in the last analysis, Nature works dialectically." We take advantage of this occasion to refer to some of these developments.

For your erudition I provide this biography of Heraclitus and his writings.

CHAPTER III. HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS

Life of Herakleitos His Book The Fragments The Doxographical Tradition The Discovery of Herakleitos The One and the Many Fire Flux The Upward and Downward Path Measure for Measure Man

Sleeping and Waking Life and Death The Day and the Year The Great Year Did Herakleitos Teach a General Conflagration? Strife and "Harmony" Correlation of Opposites The Wise Theology Ethics of Herakleitos

SEE:

The Dialectics of War

Dialectics, Nature and Science

Kabbalistic Kommunism

Left Communism and Trotskyism

IWD: Raya Dunayevskaya

Engels Was Right

Dialectics of Extinction

(r)Evolutionary Theory

Dialectical Science-JBS Haldane

Dialectical Anthropology-AP Alexeev

For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
religion, anti-dialectics, historical materialism, Marx, Engels,
philosophy, Marx, Marxism, Spinoza,
dialectics, dialectical materialism, Philosophers, materialism, Heraclitus, Marx, Joseph Dietzgen Lenin, Hegel,

The Dialectics of War

Hegelian dialectics influenced Clausewitz as much as Marx. Both used his historiography as the basis of their analysis.

Clausewitz after 9/11

The Prussian master's brilliant analytical method in On War provides richer insights into the contemporary wars against terrorism than anything his glib critics have come up with.
by James Woudhuysen

Clausewitz thought of war in a framework that included his formula, but went way beyond it. That framework, known as the trinity, is usefully re-translated in Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century by Christopher Bassford, editor of the Clausewitz Home Page (4). In Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century, Bassford has Clausewitz, in the famous final section of chapter one of book one of On War, keeping his theory ‘floating among’ three ‘tendencies’, as ‘among three points of attraction’. The three tendencies from which war is composed are:

1. the blind natural force of primordial violence, hatred and enmity
2. the play of chance and probability, within which the creative spirit is free to roam
3. the element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to pure reason.

Bassford’s direct translation of Clausewitz goes on: ‘The first of these three aspects concerns more the people; the second, more the commander and his army; the third, more the government.’

This passage is vital. Andreas Herberg-Rothe treats his formula’s nuances – war as both a continuation of politics and as involving other means – with the careful thought they deserve in the prologue to Clausewitz’s Puzzle . But Clausewitz revisionists do not stop their vulgarisation of the man with his formula. No: Clausewitz revisionists reveal a much wider crisis in bourgeois thought about war.

Clausewitz’s dialectical method

Clausewitz’s method in relation to military affairs will always remain relevant because of his grasp of the importance of polar opposites, and of change, to the totality of interactions that comprise war. Thus Clausewitz both hated and admired Napoleon. His famous concept of friction defined it as ‘the force that makes the apparently easy so difficult’ . As the British historian Michael Howard likewise pointed out in 1983, Clausewitzian dialectics embraced the relations between means and ends; moral factors and physical forces; historical knowledge and critical judgments made in the field; absolute, or ideal, war and real war; attack and defence, and tactics and strategy . In their different books, Herberg-Rothe and Beatrice Heuser fret, as Germans tend to, that Clausewitzian theory inevitably leads to militarism à la Adolf. But they make an even bigger mistake, again in the manner of modern Germans, when they dismiss the way in which Clausewitz’s theory is underpinned by the dialectical philosophy of Georg Hegel (1770-1831).

In his admirable opening chapter to Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century, ‘Clausewitz and the dialectics of war’, Hew Strachan points out that the vitality and longevity of On War derive ‘in large part from its refusal to embrace fixed conclusions’. In this chapter too, and in the editors’ joint introduction, a long-needed counter-attack is mounted on Mary Kaldor. Back in 1999, her New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era used the Yugoslav conflicts of the 1990s, as well as war in Rwanda, to distinguish between ‘old’ wars, involving nation states and political motives, and ‘new’ ones, which also involved organised crime and large-scale violations of human rights. In Strachan and Herberg-Rothe’s indictment, then, New and Old Wars turned Clausewitz into ‘not the analyst of war, but the representative fall guy for “old wars”’.

What the critics themselves miss out is that Clausewitz, like Marx, pretended to be neither an encyclopaedist nor a Nostradamus. Both men, rather, encouraged people to think carefully, creatively and self-critically about laws of motion, whether they pertained to capital or to war. Indeed Marx himself, so often written off as an economic determinist, had this to say about ‘economics’ and war. War, Marx wrote in his economic notebooks, ‘developed earlier than peace; the way in which certain economic relations such as wage labour, machinery etc develop earlier, owing to war and in the armies etc, than in the interior of bourgeois society. The relation of productive forces and the relations of exchange also especially vivid in the army.’

Although war generally grows out of the dull relations of peaceful political economy, Marx knew that it could have its own effect precisely on those relations. Clausewitz, as Strachan’s book reminds us, was invigorated by the ideas of the German Enlightenment; he ‘knew full well that policy can expand war as well as limit it’. For both men, the dialectical relations of society were the key thing. No picking of holes, or told-you-so reference to posthumous events, can take away from the insights that still follow from applying their method.

The COMPLETE translation by
Colonel J.J. Graham
published by N. Trübner,
London, 1873

Posted to the web by

SEE:

Dialectics, Nature and Science

Commodity Fetish a Definition

Libertarian Dialectics

A Philosophical Dilemma

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
war, Marx, Philosophers, dialectics, Clausewitz, German Enlightement, Python, Phiosophers, theorires of war,Marx, world spirit, Hegel

The War On Atheism

Here is a biased survey on Atheism and Morality conducted by Reginald Bibby of the University of Lethbridge.

A new Canadian survey has found that believers are more likely than atheists to place a higher value on love, patience and friendship, in findings the researcher says could be a warning that Canadians need a religious basis to retain civility in society.

About the only claim that holds any 'value' is this one;

In the survey findings, there was only a five percentage-point difference between how theists and atheists valued honesty. But of all the categories, honesty is the value that is least connected to broad emotions such as love and compassion. In other words, someone can be honest and brutal.

I stand by that, being a Saggitarian and an ENTJ, I am often brutally honest.

The assertion made by the article that 'atheists' are less compassionate and moral than Christians misses the point. Those Canadians he interviewed are not necessarily atheists, per se, rather they are Canadians who do not profess a belief in God or organized religion. That is an unbelief, while atheism, and its derivatives; Marxism and Anarchism are counter beliefs, and in all cases rely upon classical liberalism as the basis of morality.

But in the realm of forgiveness, which is a core value of many major religions, particularly Christianity, the difference - 32 percentage points - is stark.

"That's a pretty explicit value within a large number of religious communities," said Prof. Bibby.

"Look at the culture as a whole and ask yourself: to what extent do we value forgiveness against themes like zero-tolerance? We don't talk very much about what we're going to do for people who fall through the cracks. So I think forgiveness is pretty foreign to a lot of people if they're not involved in religious groups."

Heck even Satanism has a moral code. Though it is not one of forgiveness. It is modeled on Ayn Rands morality.

In a consumer capitalist culture based on the values of ; I'm Ok Your Ok, the Me Generation and I Got Mine Jack 'unbelief' in God reflects a consumer choice. And the morality of the individual is then shaped by the society they exist in. In the era of Enron, Chainsaw Jack Welch, and other criminal capitalist enterprises, where Business Schools are having to 'teach' morality to budding business types, it is no surprise to find that Bibby's findings are what they are. Which is actually what Bibby is saying , despite the National Posts spin on the survey, that 'godless' capitalism has no values.

After all seeing that the culture is one of consumer capitalism, then this is more a condemnation of that then atheism or its political and philosophical offshoots.

But there is a war on Atheism currently in vogue amongst the Christian Right, and this just gives ammunition to the side which has conducted wars, pogroms and mass genocide, and continues with oppression, exploitation and mindless discrimination to excuse themselves as being 'good' people, with 'values'.

He said people who are believers are encouraged ­- whether by a desire to please God, or because of a fear of God - to adopt these values

To please or to fear the ultimate cosmic boss, to accept 'his' values, is not as humanistic as it appears. It is the morality of the slave. And thus is reflected in the social schizophrenia that creates the need for God, Priests, Bosses, Cops, Social Workers, etc, the whole kit and caboodle of authority ( a hold over of aristocracy within capitalism).

While Christians on the right claim that we need less human rights and more folks taking responsibility for their actions, they always seem to lovingly accept them folks who break the social or moral code, if they accept Jesus into their hearts.

The enlightened individual sees morality as a social construction; one of mutual agreement and sees no difference between human rights and responsibilities. Thus with the rise of Freemasonry and its child The Rights Of Man a new 'godless' revolutionary morality evolved and created secular society; Liberty, Equality,Fraternity.

Immoral Capitalism has truncated Liberty from Equality and Fraternity. That is the ultimate truth in Bibby's survey.

Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready.

History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom.

When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.

Hegel, Philosophy of Right (1820), "Preface"

SEE:

Islamicists and Evangelical Christians

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
religion, enlightenment, Lucifer, Prometheus, Christianity, Fuerbach, Marx, Engels, Rothbard, libertarian, Christians, Bakunin, Satanism, Freemasonry, values, morality, Reginald Bibby, social-conservatives,
phiosophy, Marx, Marxism, Spinoza, Negri, Ayn Rand,
Hume, Kant, Philosophers, Spinoza, Phiosophers, survey, Marx, Canada, Hegel,
Christopher Hitchens, Christianity, God, atheist, contrarian,
Fundamentalists, Christians, Deism, Deists,