>>> Ralph Dumain <rdum...@autodidactproject.org> 01/19/2009 12:15 PM
>>>
It would be more accurate, in view of what is being criticized, to say
that marxism-Leninism bears a commonality with theology, though there
too it would be more accurate to substitute "metaphysics" for
"theology".

^^^
CB: This is a tired claim that I have refuted with argument often. 
Science has rigor, which anti-communists purposely confuse with
"theology" all the time.  This is  stupid, worn out, long disproven
nonsense 


^^^^^

^^

 It is well known that Marx held a dim view of metaphysical Hegelian
reasoning, exhibited in his late and early work (such as THE POVERTY OF
PHILOSOPHY).
^^
CB: Which he wrote with Engels,  so of course Engels had a "dim" view
of metaphysical reasoning.  So, the nonsense below about Engels being
confused about philosophy just means you are confused, not Engels..as
usual around here.

^^^

 One quote from Marx about a dialectical law taken out of context does
not make Marx a purveyor of dialectical materialism as we know it, as
your presentation effectively shows.

^^^
CB: Yes it does. One such quote is sufficient. You are wrong about
that. In clear language and sufficiently to establish the large point,
Marx shows you dead wrong.

Anyway, there are lots of quotes from Marx and Engels showing that Marx
invented dialectical materialism

^^^^^^^

Indeed, the way that Marxism-Leninism was institutionalized and taught,
it was turned into this sort of vacuous metaphysical position that can
be arbitrarily mapped onto any given phenomenon.

^^^
CB: Horse shit.

^^^
  This, however, was not Marx's practice.
  And Engels, while writing some confused passages on the dialectic,
did not nevertheless set his musings on dialectics of nature in stone,
though Marxism was soon frozen into a system. 

^^
CB: The fact that you don't realize that Engels is not confused, and is
articulating the same ideas as Marx demonstrates that you do not
understand Marx, fundamentally.

^^^
Lenin too, though in part guilty for establishing these regrettable
precedents,

^^
CB: Lenin established precedents we thank him for and do not regret in
the least, unless we are confused about what Marxism, as per Marx , is.

^^^^
 was also cautious in deploying dialectical notions to nature in a
detailed, positive fashion; rather, he was engaged in critique of
positivism, as was Engels engaged in critique of the bad philosophy of
his time. Most of Soviet philosophy, to the extent that it was useful,
was in critique of bourgeois philosophy; positively, it contributed
thematically to psychology, but the myriad textbooks of diamat mandated
for widespread instruction did a great deal of harm.

^^^
CB: No they did a whole lot of good. You're the one doing "harm" , if
any is being done, by making false statements about the quality of
Soviet philosphy texts.



-----Original Message-----
>From: waistli...@aol.com 
>Sent: Jan 19, 2009 8:59 AM
>To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu 
>Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law
(Hegelian       form)
>
>Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method
and  
>approach, requires propositions to be explained on the basis of the
Hegelian  
>form. The tendency is to claim "principles" - Marx method, rather than
a  
>convincing argument. For instance the "negation of the negation" - as
a  
>"principle," can be applied to any society process and a "negation"
proven:  "socialism 
>negates capitalism." 
> 
>The problem becomes this: what is being "negated" is not  described in
its 
>history, environment, interactive processes, salient features  and
underlying 
>processes. One ought to strive to present a proposition in  its
totality rather 
>than arbitrarily breaking into history with ready made  concepts and
formula. 
>Or state that for specific purposes of an article their  stating point
is 
>rather arbitrary. 
> 
>Does socialism negate capitalism and in turn communism negate
socialism?  How 
>does socialism negate the bourgeois mode of production, which as a
mode of  
>production is predicated upon a historically specific configuration of
the  
>instruments of production; a certain degree of development of wealth
and the  
>form of wealth; a certain degree of development of the property form
and the  
>value form? 
> 
>In describing the rise to universality of bourgeois production, is the
 
>"negation" of manufacture by industrial production (cooperation)
primary? Or is  
>the negation of the feudal superstructure by the capitalist
superstructure  
>primary? Or is the entire matter of property relations primary? It is
one thing  
>to admit that all of the above is interrelated and interactive. The
problem is  
>the tendency to reach a conclusion first and then "arrange" the
"principles" 
>of  dialectic to justify ones proposition. 
> 
>On a scale of history is it sensible, to speak of most of human
society as  
>being a lived experience of no property relations or primitive
communism.  
>Thesis: no property relations. At a certain stage of development of
the material  
>power of production property relations appear. Anti-thesis: property.
At yet  
>another future stage of development of production, property relations
in all 
>its  forms is overcome or sublated: synthesis. Or the classless
society of 
>primitive  communism; then the emergence of classes (with the property
relations 
>within)  and finally the dissolution of classes. Is this gigantic
process to be 
> understood as the "negation of the negation?" 
> 
>Or has this model become increasingly antiquated?  
> 
>"Negation" can be applied at any mentally isolated space-time 
coordinate 
>(point) or growth (stage, phase,) in any process at any point. 
> 
>One can declare that any point in time is by definition a negation of
a  
>previous preceding point and sequence of/in time. When capitalism
"negated"  
>feudalism, there is a point in this process of sublation (new quality 
formulation 
>and its quantitative growth), where society cannot be return to 
feudalism. 
>That is, a qualitative determination emerges where society cannot be 
returned 
>to the period of manufacture and industrialization re-negated or 
proletarians 
>de-evolved back into serfs. If negation, rather than  sublation,
blocks the 
>return of the quality called "capitalism" to the  quality called
"feudalism," 
>what allowed socialism in the USSR to be returned to  capitalism? 
> 
>The same inquiry can be made into the concept of contradiction,
quantity  and 
>quality - (as concepts of self movement), mutual penetration of
opposites  
>and so on. The below example of the passing of quantity into quality
quotes Marx 
> as stating: 
> 
>"The possessor of money or commodities actually  turns into a 
capitalist in 
>such cases only where the maaximum sum advanced for production 
greatly 
>exceeds the maximum of  the middle ages. Here, as in natural  science,
is shown  the 
>correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his  "Logic"),  that
merely 
>quantitative differences beyond a certain point  pass  into
qualitative 
>changes."
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm_ 
>(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm)  
> 
>
>Does this "prove," with reasonable sensibility (information provided
to  form 
>a working hypothesis) that quantity passes into quality? The quote
above,  by 
>itself tells no one anything about the social process whereby a
certain  
>accumulation of money become capital and then this capital becomes
personified  as 
>capitalists. 
> 
>Without the preceding three sentences how is one to know that Marx 
describes 
>real changes in the environment of this money making it possible to 
"leap" 
>into a new quality called "full capitalist." Money does not get bigger
 and on 
>the basis of bigness becomes a new quality. Adding money to money, no 
matter 
>what the resulting magnitude, cannot make one a capitalist without a 
complex 
>of preexisting specific conditions. Arbitrarily breaking into a
process  at 
>any point in the process movement (logic), can be used to prove
virtually any  
>result. Here is a presentation of the quote in question with the
preceding 
>three  sentences. 
> 
>"Of course he (capitalist Ed.) can, like his labourer, take to work 
himself, 
>participate directly in the process of production, but he is then only
 a 
>hybrid between capitalist and labourer, a “small master.” A
certain stage of  
>capitalist production necessitates that the capitalist be able to
devote the  
>whole of the time during which he functions as a capitalist, i.e., as 

>personified capital, to the appropriation and therefore control of the
labour of  
>others, and to the selling of the products of this labour.[4] The
guilds of the  
>middle ages therefore tried to prevent by force the transformation of
the master 
> of a trade into a capitalist, by limiting the number of labourers
that could 
>be  employed by one master within a very small maximum. The possessor
of 
>money or  commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases
only where 
>the  minimum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the maximum
of the 
>middle  ages. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of
the law  
>discovered by Hegel (in his “Logic”), that merely quantitative
differences  
>beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes.[5] " (end) 
> 
>Quantity does not become quality on the basis of something within a
process  
>"growing bigger." Every quantitative determination is by definition a 

>description of an existing real quality. Even a casual reading of the
above  
>paragraph makes it clear that an entire process is being described.
The  development - 
>expansion, of the material power of production and division of  labor
are 
>factors that make it possible for our hybrid capitalist to discard - 
sublate, 
>that making him a hybrid and become a "full capitalist." An increase
in  money 
>alone is not sufficient. No magnitude of money can allow one to become
a  
>capitalist without a development that allows the individual to
separate  themselves 
>from active laboring besides "their workers." Or, another process 
must 
>unfold allowing one to be cast as exclusively owner of capital or 
commodities. 
> 
>Here is what Marx states in the very next sentence following what has
been  
>quoted so far. (The sentecnes are broken down and numbered for fast
reading.) 
> 
>1). "The minimum of the sum of value 
>2). that the individual possessor  of money or commodities must
command, in 
>order to metamorphose himself into a  capitalist, 
>3). changes with the different stages of development of  capitalist 
>production, 
>4). and is at given stages different in different  spheres of
production, 
>according to their special and technical conditions.  
>5). Certain spheres of production demand, even at the very outset of 

>capitalist production, 
>6). a minimum of capital that is not as yet found in  the hands of
single 
>individuals." 
> 
>Marx abstract logic contains material determinates (markers): "the 
different 
>stages of development of capitalist production," or what I understand 
to be 
>boundaries (quantitative boundaries) in the quality called capitalism;
as  it 
>is interactive with a certain quantitative boundary in the quality
that is  
>manufacture becoming industry; changes in the form of wealth; the
growth of  
>value and exchange and changing ideas in the head of individuals and
society. 
> 
>Quantity does not become quality as an abstraction, or rather, this  
>presentation is no longer sufficient to a society advanced from
mechanical  logic, 
>industrial time frames and concepts. Nor does quantity/quality become 

>quality/quantity or "quantitative changes" become "qualitative
changes" outside  of the 
>sum total of self movement of a thing and its environment. Stated
another  
>way, something in the environment must change to make it possible to
convert  
>money into capital and our possessor of money must be part of the
environment  
>change(s) that leads to money becoming capital and one becoming
capitalists. In  
>addition, one must acknowledge being faced with yet another concept of

>change:  "emergence theory." 
> 
>Marx introduces into his description of the individual becoming
capitalist,  
>the value concept. Why? "Value" replaces "money and commodities" and
becomes  
>"value and money." Why? 
> 
>""The minimum of the sum of value that the individual possessor of
money or  
>commodities must command, in order to metamorphose himself into a
capitalist,  
>changes . . . ." 
> 
>It is thousands, if not millions of bits of reciprocal actions that
results  
>from a quantitative addition of a specific quality, into an existing
process,  
>(something is added or subtracted or injected), that excites the
change 
>process.  Once the quality called capital is establish and operates on
the basis of 
>its  own self movement "as a law of nature," an increase in the
magnitude of 
>ones  money will in fact allow one to be treated or regarded as a
capitalist, 
>or to  become a capitalist.  In the first and last instance it is not
the 
>increase  in money alone that allows one to become a capitalist or be
regarded as 
>a  capitalist. It is the money in relationship to and interactive with
other  
>qualities in the environment that Marx focuses on. 
> 
>Further, by introducing value into his description, Marx implies not
just  
>"value" but rather, "expanding value," which in turn presupposes
(re)production  
>in an emerged and expanding universe of capitalist commodity
production. This 
> expanding value does not "just happen," on the basis of manipulation

>(expansion)  of price. Two distinct methods of value expansion is
explored by Marx; 
>the  lengthening of the work day and the intensification of the
laboring 
>process,  and/or a combination of both. 
> 
>There is nothing wrong with using Hegelian concepts, especially if
there is  
>prior agreement as to "complex meaning." Marx and Engels challenged
the 
>workers  to be independent and creative in their thinking. Neither
wrote from the  
>standpoint of their form explanations being Alpha and Omega. 
> 
>Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method
and  
>approach, still requires propositions to be explained on the basis of
the  
>Hegelian form. The Hegelian form is itself historical and consequently
limited  in 
>the face of time. 
> 
>WL. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>Yes,  Gerry, 
> 
>This is becoming clearer  and clearer. 
> 
>With all these claims to being  empirical, Andy especially has the 
"ability" 
>to look at Marx's  words and see the exact opposite of what is  right 
there 
>before him. Take the following from  Capital. 
> 
>"The possessor of money or commodities actually  turns into a 
capitalist in 
>such cases only where the maaximum sum advanced for production 
greatly 
>exceeds the maximum of  the middle ages. Here, as in natural  science,
is shown  the 
>correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his  "Logic"),  that
merely 
>quantitative differences beyond a certain point  pass  into
qualitative 
>changes." 
> 
>Andy somehow thinks  this is different than what Engels says.  
Engels' 
>"dialectics of nature" is nothing more than  this type of comment. 
The first page 
>of his notes entitled  "Dialectics of Nature" mentions this  law and
two  
>others. Marx above uses the general category "natural   science". 
> 
>
>Charles 
> 
>
><GerDowning at aol.com> 01/12 3:59 AM >>> 
> 
>
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:28:45 -0500 (EST) Gerald Levy <glevy at  
pratt.edu> 
>writes: If you are really interested in  reading a systematic 
dialectical 
>presentation on nature which is  developed as part of a unity  with an

>investigation of the social  realm, you should read not Marx or 
Engels 
> 
>but Hegel. 
> 
>
>Jerry 
> 
>
>It can be done with nature if one is an idealist.  As a  diverse 
range of 
>thinkers like Lukacs, Adorno, Hook, Colletti, Sartre,  G.A.  Cohen and
many 
>others have pointed out  diamat smuggles  the  Hegelian God into its
concept of 
>matter.  Hence, it  scientific  pretentions, its claim to offer an
alternative 
>to metaphysics  is quite  unfounded. Diamat is itself a metaphysics,
is itself 
>a theology. 
> 
>Jim Farmelant 
> 
>Gerry D: 
> 
>It should be noted that none of the above were  practical 
revolutionaries, 
>none engaged in the class struggle in order to  change  reality, all
regarded 
>Marxism as academic debate which had no  relation to  the practical
necessities 
>of the oppressed. Even   Sartre's political  activities consisted in
joining 
>and resigning  but never leading. So  unsurprisingly they had an
IDEALIST, 
>DUALIST  approach to Marxism, not the  richness of the MONOIST
materialist  
>dialectic, which is as opposed to  religion and metaphysics as Jim is
to  Marxism. 
> 
>
>Gerry  D 
> 
>**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2
easy 
>steps! 
>(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De

>cemailfooterNO62)
>
>_______________________________________________
>Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
>Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu 
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis 


_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu 
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to