>>> 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