Dialectical materialism vs Marx's original concepts

Ah okay, and I'll check out Sayer. Fair enough, but I think if you don't treat it as THE book on dialectic, it's actually quite a good read because it's accessible and familiarizes you with 'how communists think'. In my own experience, viewing stuff like private property as a social relation with all the strings attached was a completely alien way of looking at it and it took me quite a while to grasp the importance. Incidentally it also shaped my opinion that 'the dialectical method' (if one wants to call it that or even acknowledge the existence of such a formulaic approach) can only be applied to the social realm (which I guess puts me at odds with Engels for example). Or at least a mutual contradiction within a unity is not conceivable to me as some kind of metaphysical abstraction but can only occur in a relation involving humans.

BTW, I'll take your suggestion to heart. Ban LBird for trolling.

While I think we have a similar attitude when it comes to dialectics, I have to ask why you're concerned with creating another version of it? If you think dialectics doesn't add up, why even bother to keep it, or some of it, in your version ("proletarian dialectic" I think you called it)?

This is just curiosity. I'm aware it doesn't add much to the debate (not that there is much of a debate anymore).

Well, I haven't set out to 'create another version of dialectics', I would just like to be able to explain dialectics to other people, and I can't do that without having a 'version' I really understand, first.

As I've said from the start of my enquiries into dialectics, on other threads, I think that there must be something salvageable from dialectics. So, it's more that I don't think the explanations offered here 'add up' to a meaningful explanation.

'My version', as you call it, was merely an attempt to kick-start a comradely discussion, a 'first cut' of suggestions, based upon my critical reading of Ollman. If I have a longer aim, it is to participate in a collective production of a 'LibCom version', which I think is required to fill the void in understanding dialectics, which is still being filled by Uncle Joe's account, which is often recommended even by posters on LibCom.

Isn't that why we're all here?

Well, it convinces me it's worth continuing some form of discussion, so thanks for that, at least. It seems a shame that we can't seem to progress to a debate, rather than just name-calling.

But, there you go...

You mean, the IMWA, and the abandonment thereof given the conflicts within it, including those with the anarchists? Ummh.... not to put too fine a point on it. That was the first International, not the Second.

Dialectics, shmialectics; History, shmistory. Right?

LBird:

You have critically read Ollman? So then why pretend you don't understand the "concepts" of dialectics. Why pretend you don't recognize the categories use value and exchange value?

You made a critical reading? So why not present your critique? You are taking the piss, just as everyone recognizes. Or is it that you are some kind of idiot/savant, oscillating between the two states, at one and the same time "critically" assessing a professor's explanation of dialectics but unable to understand the practical categories that form the basis for your own assessment?

You're going to have a coronary, perhaps even a dialetical coronary, mate. Why not just stick to:

All this from the person who had never even thought that there might be a relationship between dialectics and democracy.

Funny that, isn't it? I have heard, though, that priests don't do democracy.

In fact, why just 'ban'? Why not 'burn'.

Yeah, I know, it's all my fault, it's my ego. That's funny, aswell - whenever someone on these boards disagrees with me, it's always 'my ego', my personal problems.

That's very revealing, actually. I criticise ideas, but the holders of those ideas always criticise me.

Saves them having to think, I suppose.

Homework for S. Artesian: 'dialectics and democracy'. Clearly a new topic.

Omen, comic please. Comrade Appleton has a sibling.

Yet another meaningful post from a priest of dialectics. Comics are just about your level of explanation, mate. You'll be saying 'poo', next.

Having said that, is there a dialectical relationship between 'food' and 'poo'? Perhaps this could be a promising line of enquiry.

Hmmm... on second thoughts, 'exchange value' and, err, 'use-value' of ... no, it's simply too much...

You know how I know you're a troll? Because I'm the "dialectics is bullshit/dialectics is trivial" guy around here (see: this thread), yet you insist on calling me a "priest of dialectics".

This thread:

If you now maintain it's 'bullshit', how come then it was apparently 'a manner of presentation'?

More 'dialectical' wizardry, perhaps, Father?

Amen.

Explaining what dialectics is supposed to do (or "actually does", according to those that are fond of dialectics) does not mean that the person who provided the explanation agrees with the said explanation.

Heart's in great shape, but thanks for the concern. Head's not bad either. Unlike yours which is firmly stuck ..........

Care to answer the question; what is it about the utility of produced objects, or the exchangeability of such objects that you find mystifying?

Bet not. That's how I know you're a waste of time.

Out of here.

Artesian

I think your calls for banning LBIrd just speaks badly of you.

Whether or not LBird is an idiot, it seems rather clear to me that he's not a troll in the sense that he's coherently attempting to argue a position rather than posting baloney to wind people up.

The default abuse level towards people "you guys" disagree with has been far too high lately. I don't care how intelligent you might be. This tone isn't going stop the people you disagree with posting angry rants, in fact I suspect it would increase what you imagine as "trolling" (even it's just people who as worked-up as you).

I generally admire Artesian's writing and thinking quite a bit but, hey guy, don't be fucking asshole. Please.

Any real revolutionary movement will have to speak to idiots with some amount of respect because they rather common in our country. Shouldn't that be influencing our default tone a little bit?

That'd be fair enough if he was being honest but LBird is quite clearly not, to the point where he is pretending he doesn't understand what the terms "use value" and "exchange value" mean without being in possession of some magical dialectical Rosetta stone.

Seriously, it is ridiculous to think you know how honest or not someone is by a few posts on a forum.

I may be a basement dwelling neck-beard but in the few times I've ventured from my basement, I've learned that much about human behavior.

Judging from post 36, I think his "pretending" was just a sort of socratic irony. It's not that he doesn't understand the terms - he probably does have a basic understanding - but thinks they're so wrapped up in dialectics (the very thing to be explained) that he doesn't want to assume anything about them. I don't think that's a bad route to take, though I do think he ignored attempts to engage him on those terms. For example, in that same post he stops S. Artesian short even though his post (35) could have been a decent starting point. But perhaps rather than focussing on his supposed ignorance, someone could just think of another example?

jura- thank you loads for your responses, I will have a proper read and mull over them soon. You seem to be one of the few who's been mostly committed to writing informative posts, rather than pick the easier task of slating LBird.

I'm not saying he's honest or dishonest in general, I'm saying he is behaving dishonestly on this thread by pretending not to understand the terms use value and exchange value, terms that make sense even if you think a dialectic is race of alien genocidal robots with local accents.

RedHughs wrote:

LBird is undoubtedly an idiot.

It seems rather clear to me that he is far from attempting to argue a position. Where is it? What is manifest is a faux ignorance of concepts and an apparently endless iteration of the same question. LBird seems more than willing to engage in abuse or piss taking but strangely is exempt from your approbations.

speaking as someone who has been subject to your splenetic outbursts and has had his "right" to post on this site questioned I find your indignation at "abuse levels" a bit rich

Seriously apologize if there is anything that could be construed as a questioning your right to post here.

I definitely disagreed with how you wanted to steer the Lenin thread and I think mentioning your SWP membership at that point would have been good "full disclosure".

But where I have I said you shouldn't be able to post? If some evening I got so full of piss-and-vinegar that I said that, I apologize. Obviously, there's a bit of gulf between our viewpoints but I expect that in many people.

Is it OK now to ask for civility? Or did my faux paux mean we must all name-call in perpetuity. If so, then I really apologize.

RedHughs, the issue is that the way LBird has behaved in this thread is a repeat pattern. It's happened several times (I think in at least three separate threads on dialectics and/or abstract labour). Several people have actually engaged with him seriously before, but get fed up for precisely the reasons people list in this thread. Fuck, if Revol knew how often this crap has happened with LBird... but considering that he's already sussed him out means that he's got (as usual) a pretty decent and working bs detector.

Geezus Keerist can't you tell a joke when you read one? The guy, giving his narcissism full rein, invites people to stump for his banning. OK, so I respond by saying "Don't mind if I do." Do I have to put little smiley faces around the post to make it clear to you? Never have done that, and I never will.

As for being a fucking asshole, no guarantees against. Flattery will get you nowhere.

I know some forums have an ignore function, I'd definitely appreciate it for threads like this where LBird's 'talk to me, answer me' stuff occurs in a way that has a really bad effect on the development of the thread. I don't post all that much on the theoretical threads (or at al, really) but have found many of the contributions helpful.

It is nothing personal. I just think some of the discussions on here could develop in a more interesting and useful way to all concerned, without this happening every time a thread on some theoretical topic (dialectics, theories of value, etc) comes up.

Railyon, just in case you didn't know, there are two chapters of Derek Sayer’s The Violence of Abstraction at Marxists.org here. He discusses Ollman in the chapter I linked. I’ve only read these two chapters myself as the book is out of print and I haven’t tried getting an interlibrary loan for it yet.

He thinks there is a “proletarian dialectic” within “social relations” that can be understood independent of Marx. That’s fine, but I think he misunderstood what I was talking about in my post. Incidentally, and after seeing how this thread is going, I’d sort of revise what I wrote in my post on the first page. If someone wants to “read Marx first” or “just read Marx on my own” to understand his method of presentation in Capital or anything else, then that’s fine, but I think a lot of people, including myself on reflection, who are either new or lost reading Marx can feel it can be incredibly useful to have discussions and read writers on Marx just as much as reading Marx himself.

Anyway, as far as his position… is it possible to talk about “dialectic” independent of Marx? Sure, someone can do that – obviously classical Greek philosophers were among the first -- but then it depends on what someone is talking about. If someone is talking about some sort of ontology that exists in empirical reality, then, sure, someone can do that independent of Marx. Heraclitus or Hegel did just that without reading Marx or threads on libcom. If someone wants to apply an “abstract, ready-made system of logic” to capitalism or political economy like Lassalle intended to, then sure someone’s free to do that as well independent of Marx. Or even if someone wants to talk about a “proletarian dialectic” within “social relations.” But to understand dialectic as formulated or discussed in Marx’s writings – a method of presentation? An ontology of internal relations for looking at everything? Breaking bricks? -- you can either 1) limit yourself to discussions/texts by people about dialectic in Marx’s writings, not read Marx, and therefore not get as much understanding out of it, 2) limit yourself to just reading Marx or reading Marx first and probably still not get as much understanding out of it, or 3) what I personally think is the best route: confront discussions, guides, interpretations and the like with your own reading and read them alongside Marx. But I hope it is crystal clear that, however one understands it, dialectic in Marx’s writings cannot be understood independent of Marx.

I'm pretty happy with the understanding I've gotten from jura's posts for now. I'd like to part with this though...

"What's 'capsolistic'? It's new to me. Can anyone give me a basic outline?"

Responses: you'll never understand capsolistic independent of Marx. Or: the capsolistic method is demonstrated in Marx's writings, just read them and it'll make itself known. Or: capsolistic is bullshit and unimportant, forget about it!

Infuriating...

I'm afraid you misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't criticizing LBird at all and was trying to explain the miscommunication.

Hah sorry, I just grabbed the last bulk of text with repeated use of 'dialectic' and switched the word to try to bring you all down to my level of ignorance. I'm not attributing the example responses to you either. (Also, I'm not even commenting on their truthfulness, just that they were exasperating as responses to that question.)

It's no problem. Again, I wasn't criticizing anyone (Lbird or anyone else) personally -- mostly I was just saying that the subject being discussed is defined and understood in very different ways by different people, and it's important to distinguish that from trying to orient ourselves in general terms with the crux of what we think Marx is saying. I think if this was made clear to everyone in the beginning then there wouldn't have been a miscommunication and hostility and would have made this thread perhaps more useful, especially to the original poster (though I liked the posts by jura and Railyon).

to change the subject slightly, I quite like the critical realist take on social theory. Roy Bhaskar has (modestly) argued that "the dialectic" was what Marx had recourse to due to the absence of developed realist positions in his time. A bloke called Hans Ehrbar has written some Annotations to Capital that supposedly remove Hegelianisms and give a realist rendering of the arguments.

Anyone familiar with it? If anyone fancies a look it is online here