Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form)
Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method and approach, requires propositions to be explained on the basis of the Hegelian form. The tendency is to claim principles - Marx method, rather than a convincing argument. For instance the negation of the negation - as a principle, can be applied to any society process and a negation proven: socialism negates capitalism. The problem becomes this: what is being negated is not described in its history, environment, interactive processes, salient features and underlying processes. One ought to strive to present a proposition in its totality rather than arbitrarily breaking into history with ready made concepts and formula. Or state that for specific purposes of an article their stating point is rather arbitrary. Does socialism negate capitalism and in turn communism negate socialism? How does socialism negate the bourgeois mode of production, which as a mode of production is predicated upon a historically specific configuration of the instruments of production; a certain degree of development of wealth and the form of wealth; a certain degree of development of the property form and the value form? In describing the rise to universality of bourgeois production, is the negation of manufacture by industrial production (cooperation) primary? Or is the negation of the feudal superstructure by the capitalist superstructure primary? Or is the entire matter of property relations primary? It is one thing to admit that all of the above is interrelated and interactive. The problem is the tendency to reach a conclusion first and then arrange the principles of dialectic to justify ones proposition. On a scale of history is it sensible, to speak of most of human society as being a lived experience of no property relations or primitive communism. Thesis: no property relations. At a certain stage of development of the material power of production property relations appear. Anti-thesis: property. At yet another future stage of development of production, property relations in all its forms is overcome or sublated: synthesis. Or the classless society of primitive communism; then the emergence of classes (with the property relations within) and finally the dissolution of classes. Is this gigantic process to be understood as the negation of the negation? Or has this model become increasingly antiquated? Negation can be applied at any mentally isolated space-time coordinate (point) or growth (stage, phase,) in any process at any point. One can declare that any point in time is by definition a negation of a previous preceding point and sequence of/in time. When capitalism negated feudalism, there is a point in this process of sublation (new quality formulation and its quantitative growth), where society cannot be return to feudalism. That is, a qualitative determination emerges where society cannot be returned to the period of manufacture and industrialization re-negated or proletarians de-evolved back into serfs. If negation, rather than sublation, blocks the return of the quality called capitalism to the quality called feudalism, what allowed socialism in the USSR to be returned to capitalism? The same inquiry can be made into the concept of contradiction, quantity and quality - (as concepts of self movement), mutual penetration of opposites and so on. The below example of the passing of quantity into quality quotes Marx as stating: The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases only where the maaximum sum advanced for production greatly exceeds the maximum of the middle ages. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of the law discovered by Hegel (in his Logic), that merely quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes. _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch11.htm) Does this prove, with reasonable sensibility (information provided to form a working hypothesis) that quantity passes into quality? The quote above, by itself tells no one anything about the social process whereby a certain accumulation of money become capital and then this capital becomes personified as capitalists. Without the preceding three sentences how is one to know that Marx describes real changes in the environment of this money making it possible to leap into a new quality called full capitalist. Money does not get bigger and on the basis of bigness becomes a new quality. Adding money to money, no matter what the resulting magnitude, cannot make one a capitalist without a complex of preexisting specific conditions. Arbitrarily breaking into a process at any point in the process movement (logic), can be used to prove virtually any result. Here is a presentation of
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form)
It would be more accurate, in view of what is being criticized, to say that marxism-Leninism bears a commonality with theology, though there too it would be more accurate to substitute metaphysics for theology. It is well known that Marx held a dim view of metaphysical Hegelian reasoning, exhibited in his late and early work (such as THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY). One quote from Marx about a dialectical law taken out of context does not make Marx a purveyor of dialectical materialism as we know it, as your presentation effectively shows. Indeed, the way that Marxism-Leninism was institutionalized and taught, it was turned into this sort of vacuous metaphysical position that can be arbitrarily mapped onto any given phenomenon. This, however, was not Marx's practice. And Engels, while writing some confused passages on the dialectic, did not nevertheless set his musings on dialectics of nature in stone, though Marxism was soon frozen into a system. Lenin too, though in part guilty for establishing these regrettable precedents, was also cautious in deploying dialectical notions to nature in a detailed, positive fashion; rather, he was engaged in critique of positivism, as was Engels engaged in critique of the bad philosophy of his time. Most of Soviet philosophy, to the extent that it was useful, was in critique of bourgeois philosophy; positively, it contributed thematically to psychology, but the myriad textbooks of diamat mandated for widespread instruction did a great deal of harm. -Original Message- From: waistli...@aol.com Sent: Jan 19, 2009 8:59 AM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form) Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method and approach, requires propositions to be explained on the basis of the Hegelian form. The tendency is to claim principles - Marx method, rather than a convincing argument. For instance the negation of the negation - as a principle, can be applied to any society process and a negation proven: socialism negates capitalism. The problem becomes this: what is being negated is not described in its history, environment, interactive processes, salient features and underlying processes. One ought to strive to present a proposition in its totality rather than arbitrarily breaking into history with ready made concepts and formula. Or state that for specific purposes of an article their stating point is rather arbitrary. Does socialism negate capitalism and in turn communism negate socialism? How does socialism negate the bourgeois mode of production, which as a mode of production is predicated upon a historically specific configuration of the instruments of production; a certain degree of development of wealth and the form of wealth; a certain degree of development of the property form and the value form? In describing the rise to universality of bourgeois production, is the negation of manufacture by industrial production (cooperation) primary? Or is the negation of the feudal superstructure by the capitalist superstructure primary? Or is the entire matter of property relations primary? It is one thing to admit that all of the above is interrelated and interactive. The problem is the tendency to reach a conclusion first and then arrange the principles of dialectic to justify ones proposition. On a scale of history is it sensible, to speak of most of human society as being a lived experience of no property relations or primitive communism. Thesis: no property relations. At a certain stage of development of the material power of production property relations appear. Anti-thesis: property. At yet another future stage of development of production, property relations in all its forms is overcome or sublated: synthesis. Or the classless society of primitive communism; then the emergence of classes (with the property relations within) and finally the dissolution of classes. Is this gigantic process to be understood as the negation of the negation? Or has this model become increasingly antiquated? Negation can be applied at any mentally isolated space-time coordinate (point) or growth (stage, phase,) in any process at any point. One can declare that any point in time is by definition a negation of a previous preceding point and sequence of/in time. When capitalism negated feudalism, there is a point in this process of sublation (new quality formulation and its quantitative growth), where society cannot be return to feudalism. That is, a qualitative determination emerges where society cannot be returned to the period of manufacture and industrialization re-negated or proletarians de-evolved back into serfs. If negation, rather than sublation, blocks the return of the quality called capitalism to the quality called feudalism, what allowed socialism
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form)
Indeed, the way that Marxism-Leninism was institutionalized and taught, it was turned into this sort of vacuous metaphysical position that can be arbitrarily mapped onto any given phenomenon. This, however, was not Marx's practice. And Engels, while writing some confused passages on the dialectic, did not nevertheless set his musings on dialectics of nature in stone, though Marxism was soon frozen into a system. Lenin too, though in part guilty for establishing these regrettable precedents, was also cautious in deploying dialectical notions to nature in a detailed, positive fashion; rather, he was engaged in critique of positivism, as was Engels engaged in critique of the bad philosophy of his time. Most of Soviet philosophy, to the extent that it was useful, was in critique of bourgeois philosophy; positively, it contributed thematically to psychology, but the myriad textbooks of diamat mandated for widespread instruction did a great deal of harm. Reply Seems to me we are on the same page, same paragraph and same sentence. I am not sure if there was a different way to try and teach Marx approach in 1930s Soviet Union - 1939. A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy (1939) is extremely political and contains a number of historical limitations. Yet, it introduced millions to Marx method. The result was dogmatism. Dogmatism or a lack of creativity is pretty much the inevitable consequence of trying to teach science - any science, to a mass of more than less illiterate folks. The Soviets face this really tough task. With assimilation of more knowledge one does not have to remain dogmatic. The harm of Textbook in the hands of anyone today is taking this exposition to be the final word on method. The Hegelian form of dialectics - as I understand things, and Engels exposition based on this form, is old hat. But, Engels desire was to teach the workers and create the legacy of Marx. I of course claim no new form of presentation, although every time I hear quantity becomes quality or quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes, as an explanation for anything, I now-a-days, cringe. There are some pretty complex problems concerning the principles of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. The tendency to make struggle absolute and rising and falling as dominating in the formula unity and struggle of opposites; and then . . . THEN, make unity conditional or to conceive struggle as flow and unity as stability or relative is fraught with controversy. And contrary to modes of non-European thinking and conceptualization, where a political and social environment demanding conformity, approaches unity different. I agree that exploration of the properties of emergence - raised to a level of generalizations, is useful and in urgent need. This will in turn create its own problems. I have convinced myself a long time ago that all philosophy is by definition a form of insanity; an extreme breach between knowing and doing or alienation. Who but an insane man, horribly alienated from nature, can conceive the impossible like, If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it create a sound? I think therefore I am. What insanity. WL. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62) ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law(Hegelian form)
Ralph Dumain rdum...@autodidactproject.org 01/19/2009 12:15 PM It would be more accurate, in view of what is being criticized, to say that marxism-Leninism bears a commonality with theology, though there too it would be more accurate to substitute metaphysics for theology. ^^^ CB: This is a tired claim that I have refuted with argument often. Science has rigor, which anti-communists purposely confuse with theology all the time. This is stupid, worn out, long disproven nonsense ^ ^^ It is well known that Marx held a dim view of metaphysical Hegelian reasoning, exhibited in his late and early work (such as THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY). ^^ CB: Which he wrote with Engels, so of course Engels had a dim view of metaphysical reasoning. So, the nonsense below about Engels being confused about philosophy just means you are confused, not Engels..as usual around here. ^^^ One quote from Marx about a dialectical law taken out of context does not make Marx a purveyor of dialectical materialism as we know it, as your presentation effectively shows. ^^^ CB: Yes it does. One such quote is sufficient. You are wrong about that. In clear language and sufficiently to establish the large point, Marx shows you dead wrong. Anyway, there are lots of quotes from Marx and Engels showing that Marx invented dialectical materialism ^^^ Indeed, the way that Marxism-Leninism was institutionalized and taught, it was turned into this sort of vacuous metaphysical position that can be arbitrarily mapped onto any given phenomenon. ^^^ CB: Horse shit. ^^^ This, however, was not Marx's practice. And Engels, while writing some confused passages on the dialectic, did not nevertheless set his musings on dialectics of nature in stone, though Marxism was soon frozen into a system. ^^ CB: The fact that you don't realize that Engels is not confused, and is articulating the same ideas as Marx demonstrates that you do not understand Marx, fundamentally. ^^^ Lenin too, though in part guilty for establishing these regrettable precedents, ^^ CB: Lenin established precedents we thank him for and do not regret in the least, unless we are confused about what Marxism, as per Marx , is. was also cautious in deploying dialectical notions to nature in a detailed, positive fashion; rather, he was engaged in critique of positivism, as was Engels engaged in critique of the bad philosophy of his time. Most of Soviet philosophy, to the extent that it was useful, was in critique of bourgeois philosophy; positively, it contributed thematically to psychology, but the myriad textbooks of diamat mandated for widespread instruction did a great deal of harm. ^^^ CB: No they did a whole lot of good. You're the one doing harm , if any is being done, by making false statements about the quality of Soviet philosphy texts. -Original Message- From: waistli...@aol.com Sent: Jan 19, 2009 8:59 AM To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law (Hegelian form) Marxism still shares a commonality with theology. Claiming Marx method and approach, requires propositions to be explained on the basis of the Hegelian form. The tendency is to claim principles - Marx method, rather than a convincing argument. For instance the negation of the negation - as a principle, can be applied to any society process and a negation proven: socialism negates capitalism. The problem becomes this: what is being negated is not described in its history, environment, interactive processes, salient features and underlying processes. One ought to strive to present a proposition in its totality rather than arbitrarily breaking into history with ready made concepts and formula. Or state that for specific purposes of an article their stating point is rather arbitrary. Does socialism negate capitalism and in turn communism negate socialism? How does socialism negate the bourgeois mode of production, which as a mode of production is predicated upon a historically specific configuration of the instruments of production; a certain degree of development of wealth and the form of wealth; a certain degree of development of the property form and the value form? In describing the rise to universality of bourgeois production, is the negation of manufacture by industrial production (cooperation) primary? Or is the negation of the feudal superstructure by the capitalist superstructure primary? Or is the entire matter of property relations primary? It is one thing to admit that all of the above is interrelated and interactive. The problem is the tendency to reach a conclusion first and then arrange the principles of dialectic to justify ones proposition. On a scale of history is it sensible, to speak of most of human society as being a lived experience of no property relations or primitive communism. Thesis: no property relations. At a certain stage
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marx refers to a dialectical law(Hegelian form)
It would be more accurate, in view of what is being criticized, to say that marxism-Leninism bears a commonality with theology, though there too it would be more accurate to substitute metaphysics for theology. ^^^ CB: This is a tired claim that I have refuted with argument often. Science has rigor, which anti-communists purposely confuse with theology all the time. This is stupid, worn out, long disproven nonsense Reply I see. Comrades are anti-communist by implication. Is Ralph anti-communist? I do not consider myself anti-communist, although apparently you do. Anyone that declares themselves a Marxists is basically within the trend of Marxism. What Marxism - not Marx method, has in common with Theology is the quoting of scripture (Marx writings) to prove a conclusion rather than presenting a convincing argument, with perhaps data and information. The problem is not codification of dialectics, but the application as the saying goes. There are actual real problems - some historical, that arose the moment Marx name was christened with an ism. There is of course the Hegelian form itself. Simply because one believes that quantitative change leads to qualitative change, as some frozen absolute category does not make it true no matter how many times it is quoted as a refutation. Thanks for the convincing discourse. WL. **Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's capital.(http://www.aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom0027) ___ 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
