Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
In answer to Lew's pragmatic plea, >'So now we can be told the relevance of dialectical materialism ...' John writes: >The relevance is that it is all >scientifically correct regardless of the revolutionary needs of the >toiling masses. As if that science does not present us with constantly changing relations, and therefore ever a new complex of relations to reflect upon and within. >It is because the theory is correct that it can be >relevant to the revolutionary struggle As if the enduring dynamic mutual constitution of theory and practice was not also basic to Marx's thought. >Also, if you accept Marx's authorship and argument in his preface to >'A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy' then >consciousness is determined not by human society or by humans own >ideas but is fundamentally the result of changes in the material >world surrounding the conscious being; therefore a theory of that >material world has to be incorporated into (and is relevant to) >Marx's overall theory if its foundation are not to be revealed to have >been build on thin air. But if our consciousness is the RESULT of all material, it is logically the result of the big bang itself , isn't it? Isn't that the sort of mechanist claim Engels himself took trouble to repudiate? Consciousness is itself part of history, John, and if you want human action in your philosophy, you have at least to delimit the nature of determination - say, where the physical (from big bang to internet) provides a scope within which human action occurs, in which consciousness has the capacity dialectically to interact with what you call the material world. >The bourgeoisie which clings to it nice safe scientific view that the >universe is static ... Can't think of a scientist who holds this position, actually, John. >and hence their cosy economic system could be >equally static ... I reckon economics is probably the only science which houses practitioners who base their world view on stasis and equilibrium, don't you? >Some (just like Canute) are aware of the scientific truth and either >accept the inevitability of their economic decline or like Marx, >Engles et al are won over by rational argument and proper science to >the side of the agent for such a change, the proletariat. Still can't see an 'agent' in your philosophy, John. So I'll side with Chris on Gramsci (even if that leaves his dialectical materialist view problematic from my reading of the bloke - doesn't Gramsci's 'philosophy of praxis' rather deny structural determinism by positing that it is practice that constitutes the social - that the dialectic is all about the relationship between structure and *agency*?) Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked again, 'So now we can be told the relevance of dialectical materialism ...' You clearly haven't got the point of my differentiation between radical agitational politics and scientific socialism. From the point of view of utopian socialism then you are absolutely right in being sceptical of the relevance of dialectical materialism to the immediate needs of a revolutionary struggle. All that is relevant is simple straight forward propaganda which stirs the masses into action and will offer hope for a better society. That's relatively straight forward and there are a whole host of political movements (left, right, green, anarchist...) who can offer their own varieties. If that is where your political sympathies lie then good luck to you (as luck is about all that holds these movements up). This position would rule out most of the works of Marx which are in their great lumbering form hardly the stuff of political propaganda. Grundrissa, most of the 4 volumes of capital, Marx early philosophical works, etc. are not really relevant to the everyday struggle of the masses and those few who do read them are probably already quite settled in their opinion on and activity in the revolutionary movement. The relevance is that it is all scientifically correct regardless of the revolutionary needs of the toiling masses. The revolutionary struggle does not of itself make a theory correct. It is because the theory is correct that it can be relevant to the revolutionary struggle it has analysed as the key to historical change. I am not and never have been just a 'socialist', I am not interested in radicalism and agitation for its own sake. What I am is a convinced adherent of scientific socialism as a rational, coherent and all encompassing analysis of the society in which I live. That has to include not only the social world of human society but of all the aspects of the universe. (Incidentally, I am also skeptical of moral appeals for communism). Also, if you accept Marx's authorship and argument in his preface to 'A Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy' then consciousness is determined not by human society or by humans own ideas but is fundamentally the result of changes in the material world surrounding the conscious being; therefore a theory of that material world has to be incorporated into (and is relevant to) Marx's overall theory if its foundation are not to be revealed to have been build on thin air. Finally Lew concluded with a little bit of medieval history: 'The followers of Canute thought that he had an insight into the way nature worked and could use that knowledge to change nature for their benefit. Canute stood on the sea shore to prove to his followers that he could not stop the tide and had no special powers. A fact of nature indeed.' Exactly, the point is they were scientifically wrong! The bourgeoisie which clings to it nice safe scientific view that the universe is static and hence their cosy economic system could be equally static (regardless of the hopeful protestations of the pugnacious lefties) runs scared of the idea that everything is subject to change and the tide of history is unstoppable. They use science to change nature for the benifit of capitalism. Some (just like Canute) are aware of the scientific truth and either accept the inevitability of their economic decline or like Marx, Engles et al are won over by rational argument and proper science to the side of the agent for such a change, the proletariat. (But just to make sure I am not misunderstood, I am NOT therefore arguing that dialectical materialism is relevant because it has the spin off of convincing a handful of rational individuals of the necessity of revolution). I am afraid that is as relevant an answer as I can manage, anyone else got a better or more succinct reply to Lew's scepticism? John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
At 09:42 14/12/99 GMT, you wrote: >Chris, > >As I work in the university library I have tried to find some of the >papers of Schorlemmer but I have not suceeded in locating anything of >interest. I have looked through all his published works in English >but do not know enough about chenistry to spot the interesting bits. >All the biographies are in German from the commemorations in the GDR, >but I do not read German. > >As the geatest communist in Germany as Marx and Engels described him >it is a pity there is not more on him especially in Britain where he >lived all his adult life and who was so significant in Organic >Chemistry (in fact the world's first professor of the subject). He >really did come to communism because of the its scientific >rationale. > >What is the 2000 page document you are referring to? What other >information on him do you have? I would greatly appreciate more >information on him? > >Regards, > >John In July 1998 there was some correspondence about this on Marxism-and-Sciences, a list which essentially withered after its transfer to Emory, despite occasional postings from Charles Brown. [My view is it has to move, or the issues have to be pursued on a list like this - but that is another question.] One correspondent responded to an appeal to get further information about Marx's unpublished manuscripts because he lived in Manchester and there was reference to 2000 pages of manuscripts by Schorlemmer. Shortly after saying that he had emailed the man in charge of manuscripts, he announced with an exclamation mark that he had found the Schorlemmer manuscripts in the rare books section of the John Rylands Library. We heard no more. Perhaps he is still there! Please report back. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Chris, As I work in the university library I have tried to find some of the papers of Schorlemmer but I have not suceeded in locating anything of interest. I have looked through all his published works in English but do not know enough about chenistry to spot the interesting bits. All the biographies are in German from the commemorations in the GDR, but I do not read German. As the geatest communist in Germany as Marx and Engels described him it is a pity there is not more on him especially in Britain where he lived all his adult life and who was so significant in Organic Chemistry (in fact the world's first professor of the subject). He really did come to communism because of the its scientific rationale. What is the 2000 page document you are referring to? What other information on him do you have? I would greatly appreciate more information on him? Regards, John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
At 12:07 13/12/99 GMT, John Walker wrote: >Here are a few more quotes from Marx OWN writings on dialectics >existing in nature: Bravo!! If you are in Manchester have you been able to inspect in the rare books section of the John Rylands University Library for the 2000 page documents of the chemist Schorlemmer who was a friend of Marx and Engels. They might just possibly contain some reference to the two, or show some attempts at the application of dialectics. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J.WALKER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >To ask, 'What is the relevance of dialectical materialism to the class >struggle?' demonstrates the very problem. Their commitment to the >class struggle is not in doubt but it misses entirely the whole point >of Marxism's solution to the class struggle. So now we can be told the relevance of dialectical materialism ... >Marx understood that limits cannot be placed on science. One cannot >have a theory of gravity which does not apply universally and at all >times, Well, this is a bold statement. For a start, Marx can be read as arguing for the historical specificity and social construction of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge. Second, I believe there are circumstances in which the theory of gravity does not apply universally (e.g. the big bang, black holes). This recent discovery only shows how science itself develops and is subject to revolutionary change. Even if this is false, it is a non sequitur to argue ... >so one cannot have a materialist theory based on dialectic >which applies to society and nothing else. Of course you can. In fact it is a rational presupposition - it is up to the fans of a dialectic of nature to justify their larger claim. And I'm still waiting. >Marx argument for >dialectics being a description of the way history (natural and social) >operates was precisely to avoid Utopian Socialism diverting the masses >and to prove that the bourgeois would be subject to these same laws. To say that nature develops dialectically may not be saying anything meaningful. Some months ago when this subject came up on this list we (not me!) got involved in an arcane discussion of whether dog turds and pebbles develop dialectically. The point being - so what? What new insights are provided, what new knowledge is gained by such an approach? >Like King Canute, no matter what they did the tide would eventually >turn against them and wash them away. That was just a fact of nature. The followers of Canute thought that he had an insight into the way nature worked and could use that knowledge to change nature for their benefit. Canute stood on the sea shore to prove to his followers that he could not stop the tide and had no special powers. A fact of nature indeed. -- Lew --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
>>> Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/10/99 05:29PM >>> Of course they produced a lot of work together. But it would take a very extreme contortion to see them as always speaking with one voice. They were two separate human beings with their own strengths and weaknesses, and different interests. CB: What were Marx's weaknesses ? --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
The following is more demonstration of dialectics as process of natural history : Reason and Revolt: Marxism and Science by Alan Woods and Ted Grant online @ http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~zac/maindex.htm CB ( >>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/13/99 09:00AM >>> You've convinced me, John! I'm off to buy up big on E-Bay and Amazon - that should keep me in lager and tabs whilst I observe the natural transformation of capitalism into its one and only immanent other from my verandah. Bugger decades of penury in the reading room, eh? Cheers, Rob. >Hi, > >>From what I've read it I think that Marx just presumes that the >dialective pervades both the physical natural world and its subset the >human social world. He had read the ancient writers as we know from >his dissertation (a work I haven't read, yet) and they certainly >thought that the dialectic was the vitalising force of the universe. >Everything was indeed in a state of flux before, including and despite >human society. If Marx steeped in this tradition was to object to this >assumption he would have had to make quite a strong case that his >personal theory was just a unique example of the action of the >dialectic which did not exist otherwise. As he did not do this it hard >to prove he objected to the evidence Engels and other were trying to >analyse to see if Marx's theory was truely scientific or merely yet >another example of an accidental discovery by some new genius to >manufacture 'as perfect a system of society as possible'. That is, >another form of Utopian Socialism. > >Here are a few more quotes from Marx OWN writings on dialectics >existing in nature: > > 'All that exists, all that lives on land and under the water, > exists and lives only by some kind of movement. Thus the movement > of history produces social relations...' (The Poverty of > Philosophy) > > In his postscript to Das Kapital he explains how he 'treats the > social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws > not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, > but rather, on the contary, determining that will, consciousness > and intelligence' (Postface to the Second Edition of Das Kapital) > > 'In natural science is shown the correctness of the law discovered > by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitive > differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualative > disinctions. The molecular theory of modern chemistry ... rests on > no other law.' (Das Kapital, chapter 11) > > 'The weakness of the abstract materialism of natural science, a > materialism which excludes the historical process, are immediately > evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions expressed by > its spokesman whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own > speciality.' (Das Kapital, chapter 15) > > 'The law Hegel discovered, of purely quantative changes turning > into qualative changes, as holding good alike in history and > natural science' (letter to Engels, 22.6.1867) > > 'Darwin's book is very important and serves me well as a basis in > natural science for the class struggle in history. One has to put > up with the crude English method of development' (letter to Lassale > 16.1.1861) Clearly it is the English metaphysics which is its > failure and presumably he hoped it would be recast with German > dialectics. A year earlier he said the same thing to Engels, ' this > is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our > view.' > > No matter how much one pretends that Marx believed that human > thought was somehow beyond nature and therefore human society could > have a dialectical history whereas nature was purely static or > metaphysically evolutionary, he actually says: > > 'It is impossible to seperate thought from matter that thinks. > Matter is the subject of all changes.' (The Holy Family) > >This is far from an exhausive survey and there are many more refences >which do not as easily transfer in to breif quotes. I think that the >Postface is the clearest example of the rise of interest in the issue >and Marx's implied position that his theory was equally applicable to >natural science, though clearly much more work had to be done on the >subject. > >Are all these works just frauds? >Did the evil Engels, in his meglomaniacical grasp for fame and fortune >on the back of poor old Marx, slip all these quotes in to stengthen >his own perverted argument? Is there a secret, yet-to-be published >manuscript by Marx which will reveal his true position? Perhaps, 'My >Theories are Inapplicable to Natural Science.' ! > >Please do explain I would love to know. > >John Walker > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Hi again, IMO comrades - who are outraged at the economic system they find themselves in; who are morally offended by the massive poverty which sits unpleasantly next to the exclusivity of the great wealth of society - are drawn to Marxism as one amongst a number of possible solutions to this state-of-affairs. It has the added advantage that it flatters their intelligence with its claims to scientific rigour but it is perhaps sheer chance that they chose Marxism rather that anarchism, Fabianism, more vague forms of socialism or even of a paternal liberalism. Marx and Engels were not convinced by this bleeding heart socialism or the politics of disgruntled opposition which were based largely on sentimental and emotional ties rather than on the rational scientific examination of all the elements of society and the *understanding* of necessity of change. These comrades seem to think that we should not put Marx's theories up to general scientific assessment for fear they would be found wanting in the light of modern science and hence the cosy ideology they have found - to satisfy their hatred of the evil of capitalism - would be lost (or would be relegated to the level of all the other brands of 'socialism' they could equally have chosen.) To ask, 'What is the relevance of dialectical materialism to the class struggle?' demonstrates the very problem. Their commitment to the class struggle is not in doubt but it misses entirely the whole point of Marxism's solution to the class struggle. Just as the soldier in a war may be a brilliant fighter but need have no idea what he or she is fighting for. On the basis of the immediate needs of the class struggle on could ditch much of the works of Marx as irrelevant. Why does Marx include all that dull history on the origins of money, of machinery, or various forms of labour, etc.? Why does the whole debate on anthropology interest him so much? Why write an enormous work on incorrect theories of surplus value? Surely the rallying call of the Communist Manifesto is enough? Surely Das Kapital could be severely edited into a more manageable form (what's the point of volume 2 anyhow?!?) ? This reasoning (and it does have some logic) highlight precisely what differentiates Marxism from other form of agitational left politics and misunderstands the specific historical context under which Marx and Engels were working. Marx's personal economic material conditions were not such that they would, in themselves, effect his consciousness in a revolutionary way. He was a philosophy student from a well-to-do family who in his exploration of the way history developed and how societies were constituted lead him to a scientific theory to explain more clearly human social development. That theory was not limited - like Utopian Socialism - to mere supposition and wishful thinking, but was solid and needed to be able to withstand investigation by any other scientist. Marx understood that limits cannot be placed on science. One cannot have a theory of gravity which does not apply universally and at all times, so one cannot have a materialist theory based on dialectic which applies to society and nothing else. Marx argument for dialectics being a description of the way history (natural and social) operates was precisely to avoid Utopian Socialism diverting the masses and to prove that the bourgeois would be subject to these same laws. Like King Canute, no matter what they did the tide would eventually turn against them and wash them away. That was just a fact of nature. John --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Good one , John, You have found even more examples than we did last time,directly from Marx, directly of Marx expressing the opinion that dialectics has validity not only in human history but in natural history. Maybe Marx was wrong, but those who are arguing the other side should say that they disagree with Marx as well as us. CB >>> "J.WALKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/13/99 07:07AM >>> Hi, >From what I've read it I think that Marx just presumes that the dialective pervades both the physical natural world and its subset the human social world. He had read the ancient writers as we know from his dissertation (a work I haven't read, yet) and they certainly thought that the dialectic was the vitalising force of the universe. Everything was indeed in a state of flux before, including and despite human society. If Marx steeped in this tradition was to object to this assumption he would have had to make quite a strong case that his personal theory was just a unique example of the action of the dialectic which did not exist otherwise. As he did not do this it hard to prove he objected to the evidence Engels and other were trying to analyse to see if Marx's theory was truely scientific or merely yet another example of an accidental discovery by some new genius to manufacture 'as perfect a system of society as possible'. That is, another form of Utopian Socialism. Here are a few more quotes from Marx OWN writings on dialectics existing in nature: 'All that exists, all that lives on land and under the water, exists and lives only by some kind of movement. Thus the movement of history produces social relations...' (The Poverty of Philosophy) In his postscript to Das Kapital he explains how he 'treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence' (Postface to the Second Edition of Das Kapital) 'In natural science is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitive differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualative disinctions. The molecular theory of modern chemistry ... rests on no other law.' (Das Kapital, chapter 11) 'The weakness of the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism which excludes the historical process, are immediately evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions expressed by its spokesman whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality.' (Das Kapital, chapter 15) 'The law Hegel discovered, of purely quantative changes turning into qualative changes, as holding good alike in history and natural science' (letter to Engels, 22.6.1867) 'Darwin's book is very important and serves me well as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history. One has to put up with the crude English method of development' (letter to Lassale 16.1.1861) Clearly it is the English metaphysics which is its failure and presumably he hoped it would be recast with German dialectics. A year earlier he said the same thing to Engels, ' this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.' No matter how much one pretends that Marx believed that human thought was somehow beyond nature and therefore human society could have a dialectical history whereas nature was purely static or metaphysically evolutionary, he actually says: 'It is impossible to seperate thought from matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes.' (The Holy Family) This is far from an exhausive survey and there are many more refences which do not as easily transfer in to breif quotes. I think that the Postface is the clearest example of the rise of interest in the issue and Marx's implied position that his theory was equally applicable to natural science, though clearly much more work had to be done on the subject. Are all these works just frauds? Did the evil Engels, in his meglomaniacical grasp for fame and fortune on the back of poor old Marx, slip all these quotes in to stengthen his own perverted argument? Is there a secret, yet-to-be published manuscript by Marx which will reveal his true position? Perhaps, 'My Theories are Inapplicable to Natural Science.' ! Please do explain I would love to know. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
You've convinced me, John! I'm off to buy up big on E-Bay and Amazon - that should keep me in lager and tabs whilst I observe the natural transformation of capitalism into its one and only immanent other from my verandah. Bugger decades of penury in the reading room, eh? Cheers, Rob. >Hi, > >>From what I've read it I think that Marx just presumes that the >dialective pervades both the physical natural world and its subset the >human social world. He had read the ancient writers as we know from >his dissertation (a work I haven't read, yet) and they certainly >thought that the dialectic was the vitalising force of the universe. >Everything was indeed in a state of flux before, including and despite >human society. If Marx steeped in this tradition was to object to this >assumption he would have had to make quite a strong case that his >personal theory was just a unique example of the action of the >dialectic which did not exist otherwise. As he did not do this it hard >to prove he objected to the evidence Engels and other were trying to >analyse to see if Marx's theory was truely scientific or merely yet >another example of an accidental discovery by some new genius to >manufacture 'as perfect a system of society as possible'. That is, >another form of Utopian Socialism. > >Here are a few more quotes from Marx OWN writings on dialectics >existing in nature: > > 'All that exists, all that lives on land and under the water, > exists and lives only by some kind of movement. Thus the movement > of history produces social relations...' (The Poverty of > Philosophy) > > In his postscript to Das Kapital he explains how he 'treats the > social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws > not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, > but rather, on the contary, determining that will, consciousness > and intelligence' (Postface to the Second Edition of Das Kapital) > > 'In natural science is shown the correctness of the law discovered > by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitive > differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualative > disinctions. The molecular theory of modern chemistry ... rests on > no other law.' (Das Kapital, chapter 11) > > 'The weakness of the abstract materialism of natural science, a > materialism which excludes the historical process, are immediately > evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions expressed by > its spokesman whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own > speciality.' (Das Kapital, chapter 15) > > 'The law Hegel discovered, of purely quantative changes turning > into qualative changes, as holding good alike in history and > natural science' (letter to Engels, 22.6.1867) > > 'Darwin's book is very important and serves me well as a basis in > natural science for the class struggle in history. One has to put > up with the crude English method of development' (letter to Lassale > 16.1.1861) Clearly it is the English metaphysics which is its > failure and presumably he hoped it would be recast with German > dialectics. A year earlier he said the same thing to Engels, ' this > is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our > view.' > > No matter how much one pretends that Marx believed that human > thought was somehow beyond nature and therefore human society could > have a dialectical history whereas nature was purely static or > metaphysically evolutionary, he actually says: > > 'It is impossible to seperate thought from matter that thinks. > Matter is the subject of all changes.' (The Holy Family) > >This is far from an exhausive survey and there are many more refences >which do not as easily transfer in to breif quotes. I think that the >Postface is the clearest example of the rise of interest in the issue >and Marx's implied position that his theory was equally applicable to >natural science, though clearly much more work had to be done on the >subject. > >Are all these works just frauds? >Did the evil Engels, in his meglomaniacical grasp for fame and fortune >on the back of poor old Marx, slip all these quotes in to stengthen >his own perverted argument? Is there a secret, yet-to-be published >manuscript by Marx which will reveal his true position? Perhaps, 'My >Theories are Inapplicable to Natural Science.' ! > >Please do explain I would love to know. > >John Walker > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Hi, >From what I've read it I think that Marx just presumes that the dialective pervades both the physical natural world and its subset the human social world. He had read the ancient writers as we know from his dissertation (a work I haven't read, yet) and they certainly thought that the dialectic was the vitalising force of the universe. Everything was indeed in a state of flux before, including and despite human society. If Marx steeped in this tradition was to object to this assumption he would have had to make quite a strong case that his personal theory was just a unique example of the action of the dialectic which did not exist otherwise. As he did not do this it hard to prove he objected to the evidence Engels and other were trying to analyse to see if Marx's theory was truely scientific or merely yet another example of an accidental discovery by some new genius to manufacture 'as perfect a system of society as possible'. That is, another form of Utopian Socialism. Here are a few more quotes from Marx OWN writings on dialectics existing in nature: 'All that exists, all that lives on land and under the water, exists and lives only by some kind of movement. Thus the movement of history produces social relations...' (The Poverty of Philosophy) In his postscript to Das Kapital he explains how he 'treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence' (Postface to the Second Edition of Das Kapital) 'In natural science is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel, in his Logic, that at a certain point merely quantitive differences pass over by a dialectical inversion into qualative disinctions. The molecular theory of modern chemistry ... rests on no other law.' (Das Kapital, chapter 11) 'The weakness of the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism which excludes the historical process, are immediately evident from the abstract and ideological conceptions expressed by its spokesman whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality.' (Das Kapital, chapter 15) 'The law Hegel discovered, of purely quantative changes turning into qualative changes, as holding good alike in history and natural science' (letter to Engels, 22.6.1867) 'Darwin's book is very important and serves me well as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history. One has to put up with the crude English method of development' (letter to Lassale 16.1.1861) Clearly it is the English metaphysics which is its failure and presumably he hoped it would be recast with German dialectics. A year earlier he said the same thing to Engels, ' this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.' No matter how much one pretends that Marx believed that human thought was somehow beyond nature and therefore human society could have a dialectical history whereas nature was purely static or metaphysically evolutionary, he actually says: 'It is impossible to seperate thought from matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes.' (The Holy Family) This is far from an exhausive survey and there are many more refences which do not as easily transfer in to breif quotes. I think that the Postface is the clearest example of the rise of interest in the issue and Marx's implied position that his theory was equally applicable to natural science, though clearly much more work had to be done on the subject. Are all these works just frauds? Did the evil Engels, in his meglomaniacical grasp for fame and fortune on the back of poor old Marx, slip all these quotes in to stengthen his own perverted argument? Is there a secret, yet-to-be published manuscript by Marx which will reveal his true position? Perhaps, 'My Theories are Inapplicable to Natural Science.' ! Please do explain I would love to know. John Walker --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Charles: Yes, but after Marx was dead, it would have been superstitous to defer >to him as the leading thinker. Marx wouldn't have wanted Engels to stand mute >because Marx was dead. What would have happened to the last three volumes of >Capital ? As to joint work, do you think that Marx didn't notice that Engels's >name was on _The Communist Manifesto_. That's because Engels' name was not on the original Manifesto. Marx alone was commissioned to write the Manifesto and it was published by the German Communist League without any reference to Marx or Engels. It is only with Engels' "authorised" English translation of 1888 (5 years after Marx's death) that Engels' name appears as co-author. >It takes an extreme contortion not to see that Marx's correspondence and much >other work is literally dripping with evidence that he considered his work to be >joint with Engels's. Of course they produced a lot of work together. But it would take a very extreme contortion to see them as always speaking with one voice. They were two separate human beings with their own strengths and weaknesses, and different interests. Historical accuracy apart, the crucial issue remains one of relevance. -- Lew --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
At 16:04 10/12/99 GMT, Russ wrote: > >Lew writes: > >>Whether Engels turned this materialist methodology into a metaphysics >>(as I believe) or not, the issue now is one of political practice. In >>what way does "dialectical materialism" contribute to the struggle for >>socialism? > >It hinders the struggle by turning Marx into a metaphysician. Eh? Let's take an example. This morning "Science" announces that a group of researchers believe they have found the approximately 300 genes that are indispensible for life in a bacterium. They now plan to assemble these genes artificially and see if they have created life. This is a fine example of dialectical materialism, dialectical because everything is connected to everything else, and because quantitative changes lead to qualitative ones at certain times. The researchers have proposed a debate because churches are disturbed. The bad reason why churches are disturbed is because they have an idealist view of the sanctity of Life which separates it from the material universe. The good reason why the churches are disturbed is that they represent conservative alarm at the developments of science and technology and a strong feeling that these must be brought under social control. This challenges the private ownership of the means of production. Only a dialectical materialist approach to this latest scientific discovery can help progressive working people take a relevant political stand. >Off on my travels and I await the explanations, hope all is resolved on my >return. >(fat chance) > >Russ Damn. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Lew writes: >Whether Engels turned this materialist methodology into a metaphysics >(as I believe) or not, the issue now is one of political practice. In >what way does "dialectical materialism" contribute to the struggle for >socialism? It hinders the struggle by turning Marx into a metaphysician. >Until and unless an explanation is forthcoming the only >sensible position is the atheist one of unbelief. Indeed. > >In short, the explanation has to be a better one than the testament of >faith - "It's what Marx believed" - as if that clinched the argument. Off on my travels and I await the explanations, hope all is resolved on my return. (fat chance) Russ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
G'day Charles,
>It takes an extreme contortion not to see that Marx's correspondence and
>much >other work is literally dripping with evidence that he considered
>his work to >be joint with Engels's.
The two consciously disagreed about many things, Charles! From the
personal (lovers and bereavement), to the economic (capitalists on
differential depreciation rates), to how best to write certain arguments
and what those arguments were for. It's in their letters. Friends
disagree more than others, I reckon ('coz friendship allows it more,
especially in polite boojie Victorian circles). And those letters also
show that Marx was economically dependent on Engels. Shannon disagreed
with Weaver (rightly), but out came their seminal (and consequently
damaging) theory of human communication anyway. Gilbert and Sullivan
didn't talk to each other at all but worked on some notable joint projects
(not all of which culminated in pieces both liked, by any means). Einstein
and Oppenheimer disagreed on the limits of gravitational collapse.
Einstein used his theory of relativity to show that systems could not
collapse all the way to the point where light itself could not resist the
consequent gravitational attraction. Oppenheimer used the same to show
that they could. In short, I don't reckon this line takes you far.
>But of course, nobody here has refuted the direct quote I gave of Marx
>>espousing dialectics of natural science.
Natural science is a reflection on a necessarily sensuously engaged cosmos.
Part and parcel of such a process might be wondering whether all change was
a function of contradictory unities etc, and then deciding it might not be.
>Charles: As Engels formulates it, dialectics is the principle of atheism.
>If you don't think nature is dialectical , then you believe in the
>equivalent of God, because it would mean you think there is something in
>nature that is unchanging and eternal, and that would be the same as God.
What? This only makes sense if you conflate 'change' and 'dialectic'.
You're presuming the conclusion you want and making of it the premise your
argument needs (I'm sure there's a neat Latin term for this, but I don't
know it). That change occurs without humanity in the mix is self-evident
(else the processes that brought our species here can not be entertained),
but you're setting yourself the job of establishing that these unconscious
processes were, in themselves, dialectical. I reckon that you're positing
the god - for you don't make sense unless the dialectic sits on that
divinely eternal throne!
Cheers,
Rob.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
>>> Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/09/99 04:03PM >>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J.WALKER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Also when Engels wrote (and presumeably while he was writing) >Anti-During - as a manifesto of their joint position within the >German Socialist Workers Party - we would have to believe he neither >read it or knew what it contained (we do know Marx had a copy.) It is >hard to prove he read it (harder to prove he didn't!), The story, according to Engels, is that he read the entire manuscript to Marx. This was an odd thing to say - Marx could read, and his health was good at this time. Also Engels' comment about "our joint position" was also made after Marx's death. Engels never made such a presumptuous comment while Marx was alive and, in fact, he was careful to defer to Marx as the leading thinker. Charles: Yes, but after Marx was dead, it would have been superstitous to defer to him as the leading thinker. Marx wouldn't have wanted Engels to stand mute because Marx was dead. What would have happened to the last three volumes of Capital ? As to joint work, do you think that Marx didn't notice that Engels's name was on _The Communist Manifesto_. It takes an extreme contortion not to see that Marx's correspondence and much other work is literally dripping with evidence that he considered his work to be joint with Engels's. ( The plausible conclusion by Terrell Carver in a number of books is that, after Marx died, there was an enormous explosion of interest in Marx's work. Engels became busy and famous as a populariser of Marx's work, and in the process added his own gloss, and sometimes to Marx's detriment, e.g. with the dialectic. Charles: The reasoning here is premissed on the false idea that Engels wasn't working full blast and contributing his own "glosses" when Marx was alive. But of course, nobody here has refuted the direct quote I gave of Marx espousing dialectics of natural science. Whether Engels turned this materialist methodology into a metaphysics (as I believe) or not, the issue now is one of political practice. In what way does "dialectical materialism" contribute to the struggle for socialism? Until and unless an explanation is forthcoming the only sensible position is the atheist one of unbelief. (( Charles: As Engels formulates it, dialectics is the principle of atheism. If you don't think nature is dialectical , then you believe in the equivalent of God, because it would mean you think there is something in nature that is unchanging and eternal, and that would be the same as God. In short, the explanation has to be a better one than the testament of faith - "It's what Marx believed" - as if that clinched the argument. ((( Charles: As I said to Russ the last time, there are two levels of argument: what did Marx believe, and what is true about nature. None of you have adduced any evidence refuting the evidence I put on the list showing what Marx believed , so at this point a materialist would say Marx agreed with us. As to what the universe is really like, show us some evidence to support your claim. Of course, if you find something that never changes, you will have discovered God. CB --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J.WALKER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Also when Engels wrote (and presumeably while he was writing) >Anti-During - as a manifesto of their joint position within the >German Socialist Workers Party - we would have to believe he neither >read it or knew what it contained (we do know Marx had a copy.) It is >hard to prove he read it (harder to prove he didn't!), The story, according to Engels, is that he read the entire manuscript to Marx. This was an odd thing to say - Marx could read, and his health was good at this time. Also Engels' comment about "our joint position" was also made after Marx's death. Engels never made such a presumptuous comment while Marx was alive and, in fact, he was careful to defer to Marx as the leading thinker. The plausible conclusion by Terrell Carver in a number of books is that, after Marx died, there was an enormous explosion of interest in Marx's work. Engels became busy and famous as a populariser of Marx's work, and in the process added his own gloss, and sometimes to Marx's detriment, e.g. with the dialectic. Whether Engels turned this materialist methodology into a metaphysics (as I believe) or not, the issue now is one of political practice. In what way does "dialectical materialism" contribute to the struggle for socialism? Until and unless an explanation is forthcoming the only sensible position is the atheist one of unbelief. In short, the explanation has to be a better one than the testament of faith - "It's what Marx believed" - as if that clinched the argument. -- Lew --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Dear all Just been of for a few days (using up the sick leave!) and your all back to Dialectical Materialism. It clear must be a significant issue. I haven't read all the messages but Chris' substantial reply of 7/12/99 (23:24) seemed to sum up my position most clearly. It is NOT possible to suggest that Marx denied the existence of dialectics operating in nature. It is possible to suggest that he did not think that dialectical materialism existed except as an analogy to social life, but that is difficult. Engels clearly did think dialectics operated in nature as did their joint advisor and close friend, Karl Schorlemmer (Jollymeier, who worked in the building across the road from me here.) If Marx did agree then he is unlikely to have gone out of his way to proclaim it as he was busy with other tasks and had left Engels to deal with the issue. If he was opposed then the heated arguments this would of caused (as can be seen by its reappearence even on this list) would certainly have been recorded somewhere in the correspondence. Instead, on 22 June 1867, we find him saying: 'Hegel's discovery - the law of merely quantitive changes turning into qualiative changes - [holds] good alike in history and natural science.' How do you explain this? Is he scared of upsetting his two friends, is he intimidated by their scientific knowledge or had he forgot that 'only the former can be found in the works of Marx' Also when Engels wrote (and presumeably while he was writing) Anti-During - as a manifesto of their joint position within the German Socialist Workers Party - we would have to believe he neither read it or knew what it contained (we do know Marx had a copy.) It is hard to prove he read it (harder to prove he didn't!), he did provide a chapter and provided the preface to the abbreviated French edition, Socialism Utopian and Scientific, descibing Engels as 'one of the most eminent representatives of contemorary socialism'. He did know that it would include much on the sciences in general and he would have known the sort of theories it was attacking. So was Marx stupid, neglegent or had he given up caring about this important issue. Hardly a good way to ask someone to write a defence of your position within the communist movement who you disagreed so fundamentally. So Simon et al, your 'Hero' Marx looks less and less like the Great Man you need to cling to for fear of Leninism - or worst still Engelsianism! - if he did oppose dialectical materialism but was too shy to say so. Regards, John (An Engelsianist Leninist) --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
I have been holding back from this debate because it was very thoroughly thrashed out to the point of exhaustion previously. Lots of examples were gathered of Marx's dialectical attitude to the natural world. The biggest example of Marx's dialectics in Capital, particularly volume 1, itself. I would suggest that anyone who reads it and does not accept from page 1 that for Marx iron, paper, diamonds, dozens of watches, yards of linen and tons of iron, all have a dialectical nature - is doomed ideologically to corrupt themselves and others. I confess I find the anti-dm position as baffling and as incredible as Andrew Austin (formerly of this list) used to denounce the dm supporters. That does not help to convince of course, but I simply do not understand what mixture of prejudice, misunderstanding, or possibly fear of ridicule, leads to such an entrenched attitude. It seems to me that in essence those who restrict marxism to historical materialism are making profound errors about the role of conciousness in life, and have a sort of vitalist view of human activity, in distinction to the rest of the animal kingdom and the universe. It is as if Marx begins and ends with the following proposition from the Manifesto which the anti-dm group read as purely a conscious political process: "Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." Now this passage is clearly a core example of historical materialism. But those who are opposed to dm, I suggest are forced to read this to refer only to conscious political movements. However Marx and Engels are clear that politics and other features of the superstructure are only partially independent and coherent. Ultimately they are reflections in consciousness of the material economic base. Marx's marginal notes on Wagner make clear that for Marx, humanity is an animal species and there is a continuous development from animal to man. Now the anti-dm group would presumably say there are qualitative changes on the way. But I would say not in this fundamental respect: that large aspects of human social life process is non-conscious. Similarly I suggest that Marx's comments on animals and men, are quote open to the new understanding that animals too are sentient beings. Now is this just a diversionary argument about consciousness? I suspect not. Because if the anti dm group say dialectics are restricted to the human world, they must be saying that dialectics consist of only *conscious* oppositions, eg of serf against landowner, proletarian against capitalist. But just because we consciously use dialectics to analyse the world does not mean that the contradictory nature of the world is restricted to human activity which is conscious. So I would ask the anti-dm critics to say why dialectics are manifested in the human world and not in the animal and inanimate world, if they do not argue it is to do with conscious processes. Yet Marx's political economy clearly deals repeatedly with processes that are at best often only semi-conscious. What possible motive could Marx have for finding dialectics in human society but not in the structure of aliphatic carbon molecules?? What the dispute is not about is treating Engels' schema as a dogma. Not even Stalin did that. I have to assume that the passion of the anti-dm group is in a belief that they must save marxism from loony Hegelianism. I on the contrary believe that if we are to use marxism in the renewed fight against capital we must go to the core ideas of marxism, the citadels of the law of value and dialectical materialism, and then we must apply them again non-dogmatically to the external world. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
>>> "The World Socialist movement (via The Socialist Party of Great Britain)" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/05/99 07:34PM >>> Dear all, > >Towards this, I suggest a debate on the real issue behind all of this - > >historical materialism vs dialectical materialism. > > Only the former can be found in Marx's writings. > > > > Only the former can be found in Marx's writings by some. > > > CB OK, Charles, start the ball rolling. Find it. Charles: The ball has already been rolling on this on this list, and the score is 200 for our side, your side 0. See below: Yes, Chris, the direct quotes from Marx supporting our (I assume I can say we agree on this) position are mounting up. It seems to be about 10 to 0 by my count. Here's another one. In the Chapter entitled "Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value" page 309 of International. "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." If that doesn't prove our case, I don't know what would. This is Marx (not Engels) using the general term "natural science" (in general) and saying one of the three laws that Andy likes to mock applies to "natural science". Charles Brown --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
Not willing to go along with you and Russ. The dialectical materialist concept originates with Marx. Engels knew him better than you and Russ. CB >>> "The World Socialist movement (via The Socialist Party of Great Britain)" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/05/99 05:57PM >>> Dear Russ, This was something I thought I would have to demonstrate after hours of painstaking argument, given the state of play here re Leninism. Maybe if i rephrased the question, to be absolutely clear: if you go along with Russ and myself, and assert that Marx never used the "dialectical materialism" concept, are people prepared to stick with Marx or deny him in favour of Lenin and Engels? Simon -- > > > >Towards this, I suggest a debate on the real issue behind all of this - > >historical materialism vs dialectical materialism. > > Only the former can be found in Marx's writings. > > Russ > > __ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
>>Russ, > > >If you don't mind, can you give me a brief explanation of the difference >between the two? > >Thanks > >Pete Hi Pete, Okey doke. This is an old hot chestnut for Thaxians and one that sharply divides us! Raymond Williams summarises it nicely: 'Historical materialism refers to human activity, dialectical materialism to universal process' _Keywords_ p200 See also Bhaskar in Bottomore (ed) _A Dictionary of Marxist Thought_ and _Dialectics, the Pulse of Freedon_. But when Hugh gobs: >Because the really sick thing about what Simon and Russ are saying >is the >implication that they are totally against the spirit of >Marx's thought. >This is just so much nonsense. His implication is indeed nonsense. Marx takes a dialectical approach to his subject, he does not postulate the existence of dialectical process independent of this human engagement. >Now if any of you cleverclogs's can show me a single quote in which >Engels >or Lenin or Trotsky claim that dialectical materialism is a >finished body >of philosophical doctrine, or that their own >contributions to its first >steps are more than just that, then we >might have a discussion. '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 their substance but differ in their expression.' Engels _Essay on Feuerbach_ Can there be unfinished laws? Russ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
G'day Simon, Thaxis had a pretty good go at the 'materialist conception of history' interpretation question a little while back - which may explain the paucity of responses to this question. Not surprisingly, some of us defended the necessary social basis of HM and some didn't. But those who didn't (amongst whom yours truly was not numbered) saw their defence of diamat as Leninist, Engelsist AND Marxist. So, if you do manage to kick-start a thread here, it'd probably be about how Marxist Lenin was - which is rather a round-about way (and potentially no way at all) to get to the philosophical guts of the HM v DM issue. So why not tell us exactly what you see as wrong with the DM case - either as philosophy in general or guide to practice in particular? That way, you give us something more productive upon which to chew. Waddya reckon? Cheers, Rob. >Dear Russ, > > This was something I thought I would have to demonstrate after hours of >painstaking argument, given the state of play here re Leninism. Maybe if i >rephrased the question, to be absolutely clear: if you go along with Russ >and myself, and assert that Marx never used the "dialectical materialism" >concept, are people prepared to stick with Marx or deny him in favour of >Lenin and Engels? > >Simon > >-- >> >> >> >Towards this, I suggest a debate on the real issue behind all of this - >> >historical materialism vs dialectical materialism. >> >> Only the former can be found in Marx's writings. >> >> Russ >> >> __ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> >> >> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- >> > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
>>> "r.i.p" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/02/99 11:56AM >>> >Towards this, I suggest a debate on the real issue behind all of this - >historical materialism vs dialectical materialism. Only the former can be found in Marx's writings. Only the former can be found in Marx's writings by some. CB --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Historical vs Dialectical materialism.
>Towards this, I suggest a debate on the real issue behind all of this - >historical materialism vs dialectical materialism. Only the former can be found in Marx's writings. Russ __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
