[Marxism-Thaxis] dialectical materialism/activist materialism
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
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
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
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)
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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Dialectical materialism
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
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
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
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!
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
