[Marxism-Thaxis] dialectical materialism/activist materialism

2009-01-14 Thread Charles Brown
Re: M-TH: Re: dialectical materialism/activist materialism
Chris Burford
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 04:27:44 -0700

At 09:09 13/08/99 -0400, Jim Farmelant wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:41:21 GMT J.WALKER, ILL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Why should we, as socialists or Marxists, adopt such a perspective?
 In what way does it contribute to the struggle for socialism?
 Lew

Lew,

The importance of dialectical materialism to the struggle for 
socialism is in my opinion twofold. 

Although Jim F's comments are, as always, reasoned, he places the burden of
proof on dialectical materialism. This is odd when conventional science has
been unable to produce a unified field theory, to know where 90% of the
matter is in the universe, and, according to a recent article in New
Scientist, has just begun to question whether the speed of light really has
always been constant.


But a pitfall in these debate is that those of us who see no reason why the
burden of proof should be on dialectical materialism, may be misrepresented
as dogmatic and reductionist in how dialectical materialism is applied. 

Many of Jim F's individual points I can agree with.


Jim F to John Walker:

 It sounds like you
are saying that a science of society or history cannot be credible
unless it is somehow also a science or philosophy of the natural
world.  But I would think that it should be sufficient that a putative
science of society be able to provide cogent explanations of social
phenomena in order to be credible.  The first business of a
credible social science ought to be the explanation of phenomena
like the rise and fall of modes of production, the courses of class
struggles, the importance of ideologies like religion or nationalism,
the functions of law etc.  It is not in any sense mandataory that
such a science should also explain the phenomena of subatomic
particles or provide us with an account of the origins and destiny
of the universe. 


In practice this is true. We do not demand of ourselves or of others that
ideas must fit perfectly together before we take action. The socialist
movement pre-dates the marxist movement. But - the over-arching connection
is that just as marxists see social processes, class conflict, change,
revolution in terms of the working out of whole systems, so there is a link
with such a systems approach to the non-human and the inanimate world. 

Marx wrote of men as a variety of animals. Humanity is not an isolated
idealised separate category in marxism. Nor does a marxist approach assume
that Life is such an idealised category separate from inanimate forms of
organisation.

I agree that simplistic reductionist analogies from inaminate science do
not prove the historical inevitability of socialism. (eg the fact that
Soviet Science put a human in space before the US, does not prove that the
Soviet economy would outperform the US in the production of commodities).
However the defence of the basic scientific-ness of marxism has been a core
feature of marxism. It accounts for much of the pungency of the writings of
Marx and Engels. And I would argue that a feature of science is the ability
to integrate each reasonable scientific advance with the previous body of
reasonable scientific advances. (Even though that sometimes requires a
paradigm shift.)

Therefore it is not trivial, nor is it reductionist, nor is it dogmatic, to
argue that in the great body of the inanimate sciences, advances are
occuring that require science to look at things as systems, composed of
inter-related and often contrasting forces, which shift and change and are
interconnected with one another. A systems approach would be the simplest
way of expressing this. 

It includes advances in the mathematics of chaos theory that demonstrate
how simple systems may produce patterns apparently roughly regular most of
the time, which may flip into a phase of quite different patterns, or
become continuously turbulent. Complexity theory has modelled the processes
whereby emergent properties may appear from out of the interaction of
numerous less complex systems such that the whole is indeed greater than
the parts.


Jim F:

It seems to me that you are trying to collapse historical
 materialism into dialectical materialism. Well as we say in the States,
 that dog won't hunt.

I am not sure what the implications of collapse are here, but certainly
in philosophical terms historical materialism is a subset of dialectical
materialism. It is not necessary to believe in the wider set in order to
believe in the subset. But it is surprising if there has to be a block
about this. 

It also suggests that one's approach to the subset may not be truly
dialectical. One may for example not see also the temporary unity between
the bourgeoisies and the proletariat under the capitalist mode of
production, but only see the opposition, thereby adopting the position of a
radical utopian socialist, ready to slip into cynicism and despair about
the disappointing qualities of the 

[Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectical Materialism

2008-03-10 Thread Charles Brown

Haines Brown 


--http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/024942.html--

At the risk of furthering a side thread, allow me to reply to Carrol
briefly.

 Carrol writes: may I suggest that dialectics not be invoked befrore
 the 6000th word, at a minimum, of your document.

 Why? It seems to me that dialectical materialism is a far more
 dodgy term than dialectic. Whatever one's understanding
 dialectics, I doubt that they should be invoked in ordinary
 conversation/writing on particular topics. As a rule of thumb may I
 suggest that dialectics not be invoked befrore the 6000th word, at a
 minimum, of your document.

Well, to some extent I agree. If the term is not being used
effectively, but only serves to add a politically correct tone to
otherwise empty verbiage, then that is bad style, a put-off, and best
avoided. 

Now, I wasn't sure what dodgy meant, and so had to look it up. There
are two meanings that roughly are a) risky, b) deceptive. I don't
think you quite meant either. I'll assume you meant something like
vague or empty.

Let's recall the meaning of dialectics. the application of logical
principles to discursive reasoning. Usually it means discussion by
dialogue as a method of scientific investigation. Etc. The term
dialectics has to do with _epistemology_; it refers to statements
about how we teach or learn the truth. Dialectical materialism, on the
other hand, is an _ontological_ statement about the nature of things,
the way the world works independently of us.

If this distinction holds water, dialectics and dialectical
materialism are completely unrelated terms. On the other hand, if it
does not hold water, then at least dialectical materialism would
seem to be a specification of the more general category of
dialectics and, unlike dialectics, one that emerged at a particular
time and place. Either way, dialects is a broader, more variable and
therefore vaguer term than dialectical materialism.

However, I have the feeling your objection is to the concept itself,
not the use of the term, and if so it would be more productive to
approach the issue directly. The overuse of jargon should be avoided,
but is a common a practice hardly worth of your attack unless it was
not this to which you object, but the concept to which the jargon
points. 

To me, to say in the present environment that we should look at things
dialectically is shorthand for saying that should be looking at them
in terms of dialectical materialism. This is not a Hegelian discussion
group. Such a recommendation is, in my mind, certainly valid, for, as
I pointed out before, it amounts to the suggestion that we view things
as processes (as a relation of causal powers and empirical
constraints) and we also understand how development depends on the
opposite process: the emergence of new potentials is necessarily tied
to the emergence of new needs. Because this is a technical mouthful,
it begs for appropriate jargon.

I offer this example of the use of the jargon just in case I've
misunderstood your objection and you need a target to shoot at.

Haines Brown



___
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] Dialectical materialism

2008-03-06 Thread Charles Brown
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/024894.html

Haines Brown
Thu Mar 6 14:31:28 MST 2008 

Previous message: [Marxism] The Obama Bubble - Black Agenda Report 
Next message: [Marxism] China Labor Watch: Dongguan Fuan Textile Mill
Laying off Thousands of Workers 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 



Undoubtedly people have often had a foggy notion of dialectical
_materialism_ (please, not dialectics), but that doesn't meant they
understand when they confront a dialectical world, and the importance
of pointing that fact out. Love makes the world go 'round, but I'd
nevertheless have a hard time defining it.

Dialectical materialism comes down to two points: a) everything is a
process, and b) emergent processes are driven by dissipative 
processes.

It is trickier to define process, but I'd suggest that it is the
combination of the two aspects of all things: a) a causal relation or
potency, and b) a set of empirical qualities that constraint that
causal power. This not only defines process, but implies a
probabilistic causality.

A probabilistic causality is when empirical constraints define the
probability distribution of the possible outcomes of a process.

Finally, the dependence of an emergent process on a dissipative
process is simply a way to put the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In
Marx it is, however, the dependence of development, in the sense of
the rise of novelty, on the movement of the environment toward a more
probable state. Economic production is one example.

While all these matters are subject to debate, of course, they are
today quite familiar concepts in the sciences. There is no need to
accuse Marx and Marxists of using fashionable words as if their words
did not in fact capture an important chunk of reality, and a chunk of
reality that could well be understood in scientific terms. For
example, we all know a process when we see it, but few would have the
temerity to define it except in empiricist (static) terms.

Haines Brown   

  



___
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] Dialectical materialism

2006-01-18 Thread Charles Brown

I thought similarly. What about Bhakar , before he became idealist ? Is that
the way to spell it ? I was on a list. It sounded like sort of dialectical
materialism to me, but the people interested in it didn't cop to that. There
were a whole lot of people interested in it.

CB

Ralph Dumain 
Encyclopedia entries like these can always be improved upon.  There is one 
paragraph in this one which puzzles me.  See below.  Examples would have 
helped.  Of course there have been philosophers interested in dialectical 
materialism as an ontology independent of its political marxist 
ramifications.  Some of these were not explicit marxists; others were 
sympathetic; some were Marxists; some were dialectical materialists, some 
not.  I can't think of anyone offhand who declared himself a dialectical 
materialist without being a Marxist.  But you never know.  The reader, 
though, can't get much sense out of this paragraph without further
explanation.

At 06:06 PM 1/17/2006 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Dialectical materialism

Jump to: navigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#column-one
While dialectical materialism has been traditionally associated almost
exclusively with Marxism, some claim that the philosophy is applicable to a
non-Marxist worldview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview  as well.
There is nothing in either the concept of dialectic as elaborated by Hegel
or in materialism itself which requires Marxism. However, because Marxism
is
essentially free of traditional theological influences, it is particularly
well-suited to dialectical materialism, and a comparable political system
based on the philosophy has not yet emerged.



___
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] Dialectical materialism (materialist dialectic)

2006-01-18 Thread Charles Brown
Jim Farmelant : 
As far as I can tell the term dialectical materialism was first
coined by the German worker Josef Dietzgen, who had independently
arrived at political and philosophical views that were akin
to those of Marx and Engels.  Plekhanov is usually credited
as having been responsible for popularizing the term
around 1890 as a designation for the philosophical
outlook that was attributed to Marx and Engels.  So
I think the part of the article that ascribes the term to
Plekhanov ought to be cleaned up, although that
seems to be a mistake that one can find in lots
of respectable books.


CB: I believe Engels does use materialist dialectics. I can look it up
easily enough. It's in _Ludwig Feuerbach_. Here it is.




And this _materialist dialectic_  (emphasis added -CB), which for years has
been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough,
discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel,
by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen. (2)

^^^
CB: I believe materialist dialectic is Engels' formulation. The above is
in the larger paragraph copied below.



Hegel was not simply put aside. On the contrary, a start was made from his
revolutionary side, described above, from the dialectical method. But in its
Hegelian form, this method was unusable. According to Hegel, dialectics is
the self-development of the concept. The absolute concept does not only
exist - unknown where - from eternity, it is also the actual living soul of
the whole existing world. It develops into itself through all the
preliminary stages which are treated at length in the Logic and which are
all included in it. Then it alienates itself by changing into nature,
where, unconscious of itself, disguised as a natural necessity, it goes
through a new development and finally returns as man's consciousness of
himself. This self-consciousness then elaborates itself again in history in
the crude form until finally the absolute concept again comes to itself
completely in the Hegelian philosophy. According to Hegel, therefore, the
dialectical development apparent in nature and history - that is, the causal
interconnection of the progressive movement from the lower to the higher,
which asserts itself through all zigzag movements and temporary
retrogression - is only a copy [Abklatsch] of the self-movement of the
concept going on from eternity, no one knows where, but at all events
independently of any thinking human brain. This ideological perversion had
to be done away with. We again took a materialistic view of the thoughts in
our heads, regarding them as images [Abbilder] of real things instead of
regarding real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute
concept. Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws
of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of
laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so
far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also
up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves
unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless
series of seeming accidents. Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became
merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and
thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head,
on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist
dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest
weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also,
independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen.
(2)

Dietzgen lived in St. Petersburg for a while. Bertell Ollman essays Dietzgen
in _Alienation_ and Dietzgen lived in the U.S. ! In New York and Chicago !
He lived in Chicago in the May Day era.


Dietzgen is:
2) See Das Wesen der menschlichen Kopfarbeit, dargestellt von einem
Handarbeiter [The Nature of Human Brainwork, Described by a Manual Worker].
Hamburg, Meissner.


Joseph Dietzgen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Joseph DietzgenJoseph Dietzgen (December 1828 - 1888) was a socialist and
marxist philosopher.

He was born in Blankenberg near Siegburg, Germany. He was, like his father,
a tanner by profession. Entirely self-educated, he developed the notion of
dialectical materialism independently from Marx and Engels. Ludwig
Feuerbach's works had a great influence on his early theories.

He spent some time in the U.S. from 1849 to 1851 and again from 1859 to
1861. From 1864 to 1868, he lived in St. Petersburg, where he was headmaster
in the state tannery. Back in Germany, he met Marx in 1869. In 1881, he ran
for the elections of the German Reichstag (the parliament), but emigrated in
1884 to New York City. He moved to Chicago two years later, where he 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectical materialism

2006-01-18 Thread Ralph Dumain
If we're talking about Roy Bhaskar, I always thought his early version of 
critical realism was essentially a more explicit articulation of the 
implications of dialectical materialism, and I used to say so on their 
listserv, but I don't remember anyone copping to it.  One problem in this 
intellectual subculture was the Bhaskarian propensity for neologisms and 
the excessive devotion of Bhaskarians which in the end, I think, made them 
irrational.  Some of the group followed Bhaskar down the road of 
obscurantism, some not.


At 09:09 AM 1/18/2006 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:


I thought similarly. What about Bhakar , before he became idealist ? Is that
the way to spell it ? I was on a list. It sounded like sort of dialectical
materialism to me, but the people interested in it didn't cop to that. There
were a whole lot of people interested in it.

CB

Ralph Dumain
Encyclopedia entries like these can always be improved upon.  There is one
paragraph in this one which puzzles me.  See below.  Examples would have
helped.  Of course there have been philosophers interested in dialectical
materialism as an ontology independent of its political marxist
ramifications.  Some of these were not explicit marxists; others were
sympathetic; some were Marxists; some were dialectical materialists, some
not.  I can't think of anyone offhand who declared himself a dialectical
materialist without being a Marxist.  But you never know.  The reader,
though, can't get much sense out of this paragraph without further
explanation.



___
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] Dialectical materialism

2006-01-17 Thread Charles Brown

Dialectical materialism




Jump to: navigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#column-one , search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#searchInput 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mergefrom.gif 
It has been suggested that Marxist philosophy of nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy_of_nature  be merged
into this article or section. (Discuss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialectical_materialism )

Dialectical materialism is the philosophical basis of Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism  as defined by later Communists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist  and their Parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_party  (sometimes called orthodox
Marxism). As the name signals, it is an outgrowth of both Hegel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel 's dialectics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic  and Ludwig Feuerbach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbach 's and Karl Marx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx 's philosophical materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism , and is most directly traced to
Marx's fellow thinker, Friedrich Engels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels . It uses the concepts of
thesis, antithesis and synthesis to explain the growth and development of
human history.

Some Marxist theorists, critical of dialectical materialism, have called for
a reassessment of the place of Engels' work Dialectics of Nature in the
Marxist canon. They note that the term dialectical materialism originates
with Russian theorist Georgi Plekhanov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Plekhanov  and that Marx preferred the
term the materialist conception of history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism , which was later
shortened to historical materialism by Engels. This, they argue, limits
his method within a specifically human, sociological context, distinguishing
it from a universalizing theory. And apart from the historical materialists,
other thinkers in Marxist philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy  have had recourse to the
original texts of Marx and Engels and have created other Marxist
philosophical projects and concepts which are alternatives, and sometimes
rivals, to the often-Party-sponsored ideas of diamat (an abbreviation for
dialectical materialism).

While dialectical materialism has been traditionally associated almost
exclusively with Marxism, some claim that the philosophy is applicable to a
non-Marxist worldview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview  as well.
There is nothing in either the concept of dialectic as elaborated by Hegel
or in materialism itself which requires Marxism. However, because Marxism is
essentially free of traditional theological influences, it is particularly
well-suited to dialectical materialism, and a comparable political system
based on the philosophy has not yet emerged.





Contents

[hide javascript:toggleToc() ]

*   1 Materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Materialism  
*   2 Dialectics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Dialectics  

*   2.1 Laws of dialectics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Laws_of_dialectics  
*   2.2 Quotation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Quotation  

*   3 Selected readings on dialectical materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Selected_readings_on_d
ialectical_materialism  
*   4 See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#See_also  



[edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dialectical_materialismaction=ed
itsection=1 ]


Materialism


In essence, materialism answers the fundamental question of philosophy by
asserting the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes
thought.

Materialism holds that the world is material, that all phenomena in the
universe consist of matter in motion, wherein all things are interdependent
and interconnected and develop in accordance with natural law, that the
world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it, that
thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the
world is in principle knowable.

The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the
human mind, and translated into forms of thought. --Karl Marx, Capital,
Vol. 1. 

[edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dialectical_materialismaction=ed
itsection=2 ]


Dialectics


Dialectics is the science of the most general laws of development of nature,
society, and thought. Its principal features are as follows:

1) The universe is not an accidental mix of things isolated from each other,
but an integral whole, wherein things are mutually interdependent.

2) Nature is in a state of constant motion:

All nature, from the smallest thing to the biggest, from a grain of
sand to the sun, from the protista to 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectical materialism

2006-01-17 Thread Ralph Dumain
Encyclopedia entries like these can always be improved upon.  There is one 
paragraph in this one which puzzles me.  See below.  Examples would have 
helped.  Of course there have been philosophers interested in dialectical 
materialism as an ontology independent of its political marxist 
ramifications.  Some of these were not explicit marxists; others were 
sympathetic; some were Marxists; some were dialectical materialists, some 
not.  I can't think of anyone offhand who declared himself a dialectical 
materialist without being a Marxist.  But you never know.  The reader, 
though, can't get much sense out of this paragraph without further explanation.


At 06:06 PM 1/17/2006 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:

Dialectical materialism

Jump to: navigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#column-one
While dialectical materialism has been traditionally associated almost
exclusively with Marxism, some claim that the philosophy is applicable to a
non-Marxist worldview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview  as well.
There is nothing in either the concept of dialectic as elaborated by Hegel
or in materialism itself which requires Marxism. However, because Marxism is
essentially free of traditional theological influences, it is particularly
well-suited to dialectical materialism, and a comparable political system
based on the philosophy has not yet emerged.



___
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


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectical materialism

2006-01-17 Thread Jim Farmelant


On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:42:49 -0500 Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Encyclopedia entries like these can always be improved upon.  There 
 is one 
 paragraph in this one which puzzles me.  See below.  Examples would 
 have 
 helped.  Of course there have been philosophers interested in 
 dialectical 
 materialism as an ontology independent of its political marxist 
 ramifications.  Some of these were not explicit marxists; others 
 were 
 sympathetic; some were Marxists; some were dialectical materialists, 
 some 
 not.  I can't think of anyone offhand who declared himself a 
 dialectical 
 materialist without being a Marxist.  But you never know.  The 
 reader, 
 though, can't get much sense out of this paragraph without further 
 explanation.

As far as I can tell the term dialectical materialism was first
coined by the German worker Josef Dietzgen, who had independently
arrived at political and philosophical views that were akin
to those of Marx and Engels.  Plekhanov is usually credited
as having been responsible for popularizing the term
around 1890 as a designation for the philosophical
outlook that was attributed to Marx and Engels.  So
I think the part of the article that ascribes the term to
Plekhanov ought to be cleaned up, although that
seems to be a mistake that one can find in lots
of respectable books.

 
 At 06:06 PM 1/17/2006 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
 Dialectical materialism
 
 Jump to: navigation
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#column-one
 While dialectical materialism has been traditionally associated 
 almost
 exclusively with Marxism, some claim that the philosophy is 
 applicable to a
 non-Marxist worldview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview  as 
 well.
 There is nothing in either the concept of dialectic as elaborated 
 by Hegel
 or in materialism itself which requires Marxism. However, because 
 Marxism is
 essentially free of traditional theological influences, it is 
 particularly
 well-suited to dialectical materialism, and a comparable political 
 system
 based on the philosophy has not yet emerged.
 
 
 ___
 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


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectical materialism

2006-01-17 Thread Waistline2
Here is the fun part. Marx is quoted as stating: 

Merely quantitative differences, beyond a certain point, pass into
qualitative changes. --Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1. 

This is translated as number two of the three laws of dialectics. 

The three laws of dialectics are:

*The law of the unity and conflict of opposites; 
*The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative
changes; 
*The law of the negation of the negation. 


Notice the difference. LOOK CLOSE. .

Marx: 
1). Merely quantitative differences, 
2). beyond a certain point, 
3). pass into qualitative changes. 

This is morphed into the concept of 

The law of the passage of QUANTITATIVE CHANGES into qualitative
changes; 

Marx quantitative difference - (not quantitative changes), is pregnant with 
meaning. The word quantitative + difference embody a quality or a concept of 
quality, which is the meaning of difference because difference is a 
relationship or measure of one thing against and in contradistinction to 
another 
thing. This is the most basic meaning of the word quality. 

(T)he passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes should be 
corrected to read the passage of merely quantitative differences into 
qualitative changes.  

Such a correction means we have at least acknowledged the concept of 
emergence or emergent properties and their quantitative addition to an existing 
process, (as being at least related to the meaning of quantitative difference) 
and 
on this basis the process, as it had existed, undergoes qualitative change or 
restructuring. 

That is why I continue to raise objection to the endless repeating that 
quantitative changes pass to qualitative changes.  

This is old hat. Twenty-five years or so later it is down right boring.

Waistline  

___
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


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectical materialism - What!

2006-01-17 Thread Waistline2
I wrote, for about the twentieth time over the past four years, in response 
to by dear friend and Comrade CB: 

It is not accurate to say that quantity or quantitative change turns into 
qualitative change and quality turns into quantity because this expresses only 
a perceptual understanding of the approach and method of Marx and Engels. 

Change is not a simple shift in the balance of forces or the simple increase 
or decrease of the old. While contradiction is the basis for growth and 
development, antagonism is the basis for destruction and the rise of something 
new 
in society. More of the same thing or a quantitative increase in the dimensions 
of however the material factors or production are organized will never lead 
to a qualitative change in the productive forces. A quantitative increase in 
industrial application can never lead to a qualitative leap or a new quality of 
productive forces different from industrial implements. Quantity does not 
simply pass over to quality on its own in society - never. 

The quantitative introduction of a new quality (a quality antagonistic to the 
process of production, as it had existed) begins the leap or transition to a 
new qualitative state of development of production. The new quality develops 
quantitatively and, through a step-by-step process, disrupts and destroys 
whatever previously held the process of production together, as a system of 
reproduction. 

Quantitative differences pass into qualitative change. Still one has to 
explain or explore the emergence of that which is the different quantitative 
addition or difference. I do not clim this is the last word in Marxism or even 
a 
fact or right for that matter.

I do asert that what I have written - again, makes more common sense that 
repeating a thousand times quantitative change turns into qualitative change. 

By common sense I mean the sense that is more than less common to our society 
as it begins its passage from the industrial epoch and industrial modes of 
logic. 

Waistline 

___
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