Dialectics

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Oct 16 2011 16:04

Jura

I don't agree with Engels' interpretation because 1) I don't think Marx is describing "simple commodity production" because Marx never uses that phrase 2) Engels' interpretation is essentially ahistorical, arguing IMO that value has a transhistorical existence, with previous societies giving rise to forms of value that in turn exist as a homunculus to the full-blown expression of value production with industrial capitalism.

Just doesn't work that way. That objects become commodities, were exchanged as commodities priority to the triumph of capitalism is obvious, and not the point. Marx separately discusses how such exchanges occur at the periphery of societies, where they come into contact with other societies.

But Marx's analysis of the manifestations of value in Capital is an explication of the qualities of that value that must be, can be derived only from the organization of labor-power itself as a value; the organization of labor as value-producing.

I think that is the core of Marx's discussion in the next section, section 4, on the fetishism of commodities. He states:

Quote:
Political economy has indeed analysed, however incompletely, value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour time by the magnitude of that value (1).

And the footnote leads us to another brilliant discussion of the inability of economists to apprehend the social conditions underpinning value:

Quote:
The value form of the product of labour is not only the most abstract, but is also the most universal form, taken by the product in bourgeois production, and stamps that production as a particular species of social production, and thereby gives it its special historical character. If then we treat this mode of production as one eternally fixed by nature for every state of society, we necessarily overlook that which is the differentia specifica of the value-form, and consequently of the commodity-form, and of its further developments, money-form, capital-form, &c.
jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Oct 16 2011 16:36

Well, Engels' fundamental argument in favor of "simple commodity production" is that Marx's dialectical method is "logico-historical", i.e. that it in a simplified form reproduces real history. Engels, BTW, is in no way ahistorical, as you seem to imply. He does not say value is transhistorical, existing throughout the whole history of mankind. He says the law of value applies wherever there is commodity production, which is a definite, albeit a very long, historical period. It's still wrong, of course, for both historical and theoretical reasons, but it's not ahistorical.

In case of the analysis of the value-form, Engels' would say that the dialectic by which the elementary form develops up to the general (or money) form is a real, historical one: from barter to monetary exchange. In other words, Marx's dialectical argument which stresses the "defects" of the elementary and expanded forms of value is viewed as a conceptual copy of a real historical process.

I asked you those questions above because I see no meaningful way of viewing Marx's dialectic (in the analysis of the form of value; let's restrict us to that for now) as "historical" without falling to the Engelsian trap of "simple commodity production". To me, there is no history in the analysis of the form of value. It's a purely "systematic" argument focused on the structure of a commodity-capitalist economy that (contra Proudhon, Bray, Gray etc.) proves the necessity of a general equivalent in such an economy. And a dialectical argument at that, as it is driven by the contradiction of use-value and value.

So, I agree with your last post. However, I'm still curious about how Marx's dialectic is historical – specifically, in the example of the analysis of the form of value.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Oct 16 2011 17:15

Actually, Engels does argue for a transhistorical, or super-historical existence of value, and value production:

Quote:
In a word: the Marxian law of value holds generally, as far as economic laws are valid at all, for the whole period of simple commodity production — that is, up to the time when the latter suffers a modification through the appearance of the capitalist form of production. Up to that time, prices gravitate towards the values fixed according to the Marxian law and oscillate around those values, so that the more fully simple commodity production develops, the more the average prices over long periods uninterrupted by external violent disturbances coincide with values within a negligible margin.

Thus, the Marxian law of value has general economic validity for a period lasting from the beginning of exchange, which transforms products into commodities, down to the 15th century of the present era. But the exchange of commodities dates from a time before all written history — which in Egypt goes back to at least 2500 B.C., and perhaps 5000 B.C., and in Babylon to 4000 B.C., perhaps to 6000 B.C.; thus, the law of value has prevailed during a period of from five to seven thousand years.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htm#law

I think that makes it basically ahistorical or transhistorical, something that is way outside the specific social relations of production that make labor-power a value, which Marx is tracing back to its "genetic root" by examining the "single cell" of industrial capitalism, the commodity, that is to say the process of production of industrial commodities.

So if Engels' argument isn't transhistorical, then I think we have a disagreement on what Marx, IMO, means by history; wheat he iss explicating in his "extraction" of the "rational kernel" of Hegel's dialectic. That kernel, that meaning is the specific determinant of the social condition of labor, which is the conflict between property ownership and the social labor, or to combine the facets into one expression, the conflict embodied in the organizing principle of labor.

The value production supposed by Engels with his "simple commodity production" assumes production for value as that organizing principle when no such principle exists. What is traded, exchanged as commodities in the "pre-history" of capitalism is surplus product and not surplus value. Accumulation is not accumulation for the expanded reproduction of the capital, for enlarging the exchange of the means of production existing as private property with labor power organized as wage-labor.

Here's the link to the thread where we hashed this out in regards to abstract labor vs. concrete labor.

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/abstract-labor-vs-concrete-labor-06042011?page=1

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Oct 16 2011 19:41

"Transhistorical" means "applying to all of history" (as opposed to "historically specific"). That at least is the common usage of the term in marxist theory (see e.g. Derek Sayer; Wikipedia confirms this as well). Thus, for example, the production of use-values (concrete labor) is a transhistorical phenomenon. Production of values, of course, is not.

Not even according to Engels: for him, the law of value spans "a period of from five to seven thousand years". That's a definite historical period. Human societies have existed far longer than for the last "five to seven thousand years". Hence, it's incorrect to say that Engels' concept of value is transhistorical (at least in the usual sense of the word). Sure, Engels is still wrong, but not because he conceives of value "transhistorically", but because:

1. projects the law of value, which is a law historically specific to capitalism, onto pre-capitalist societies (thus absurdly extending the historical bounds of the law of value from centuries to millenia), and

2. thinks that the original law of value is somehow "modified" in capitalist conditions (this is tied, of course, to the relationship between value and production price, which Engels mistakenly treats as a historical relationship).

All this is secondary, though. I would still be interested in your explanation on the supposed "historicity" of the dialectic in the analysis of the form of value. If you could address that, that would be great.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Oct 16 2011 20:01

The historicity of Marx's dialectic is not in "measuring" the evolution of value from one organization of labor to another.

My view is that Marx recognizes in Hegel an attempt to provide a history, a narrative so to speak, of human beings making themselves at home in the world. Because Hegel is a philosopher writing when he did, at the emergence of capitalism as "world-historical" force, that history is necessarily an alienated history, which presents itself as a history of consciousness coming to self-consciousness.

Marx extracts the rational kernel, turns the dialectic right side up in his analysis where human beings make themselves at home in the world through their practical activity, through their appropriation of nature in the labor-process.

That appropriation of nature through labor is simultaneously the social appropriation of the labor process, so that the relation to nature, to the material world, to Feuerbach so to speak, is subsumed in the relation of human beings to the products of labor, and the form in which those products are reproduced.

All those elements of dialectics that appear then as elements, components, facets of Hegel's logic, and of his exposition of the movement of consciousness, are found, are grounded in this social relation between labor and the conditions of laboring. Conflict, antagonism, contradiction, determinate being, negation, etc. all are produced and reproduced in that core condition of human activity.

So to explore the human condition is to explore its social conditions, and that is to explore the conditions of its reproduction by the labor process.

That reproduction is the driver of history. History is not some abstraction that contains or assigns a purpose, a telos, for human beings. But the human labor process contains a purpose, a telos,-- the reproduction of the social relations circumscribing that labor-- which comes into conflict with those very same social relations.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Oct 16 2011 20:14

Thank you for the reply. I agree with a lot of what you said, and have come across similar interpretations of the Hegel-Marx relationship before. However, I find this conception of the dialectic too general and not very helpful in illuminating the structure of Capital and the workings of Marx's method. (Hence my constant urging to discuss section 3 of Ch1 which I consider as a very clear example of what I call "dialectics" – a specific method of presenting an analysis.)

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Oct 17 2011 00:59

I certainly understand that, and I agree Marx is giving "a lesson in dialectics" in his explication of the value relations. No doubt about it. Sort of the "dialectic within the dialectic" instructional example.... but BUT what is it Marx says at the end of the proposed volume 3? Something like... "with class struggle, we can dispense with all this shit."

Now I don't think that makes the analysis in volumes 1,2,3, irrelevant, and I don't think Marx is expressing an "anti-intellectualism" here, but I do think is saying that all of this [the previous "shit"] focuses itself on the actual relations of production, the actual struggle between classes.

That's what I'm trying to emphasize. Value could not be explained if it didn't exist as a conflict, a contradiction between labor and the conditions of labor.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Oct 17 2011 06:43
S. Artesian wrote:
My view is that Marx recognizes in Hegel an attempt to provide a history, a narrative so to speak, of human beings making themselves at home in the world. Because Hegel is a philosopher writing when he did, at the emergence of capitalism as "world-historical" force, that history is necessarily an alienated history, which presents itself as a history of consciousness coming to self-consciousness.

Marx extracts the rational kernel, turns the dialectic right side up in his analysis where human beings make themselves at home in the world through their practical activity, through their appropriation of nature in the labor-process.

That appropriation of nature through labor is simultaneously the social appropriation of the labor process, so that the relation to nature, to the material world, to Feuerbach so to speak, is subsumed in the relation of human beings to the products of labor, and the form in which those products are reproduced...

So to explore the human condition is to explore its social conditions, and that is to explore the conditions of its reproduction by the labor process.

That reproduction is the driver of history. History is not some abstraction that contains or assigns a purpose, a telos, for human beings. But the human labor process contains a purpose, a telos,-- the reproduction of the social relations circumscribing that labor-- which comes into conflict with those very same social relations.

S. Artesian, (almost?) everything that you've written above seems, to me, to be in harmony with my 'outline of a dialectical method', which I posted earlier.

The only thing, once again, that seems to be missing, in comparison with my outline, is a statement on how those 'social relations' that you rightly emphasise are brought into line with the proletarian self-consciousness of its central role in human production and appropriation of nature.

That is, 'how' do 'human beings make themselves at home in the world through their practical activity'?

It seems to me that a 'social process' can only be democratic, if this process is to be under the control of all humans. Marx makes it very clear that society can't be divided into two parts: those 'conscious of the process' and those who remain 'unconscious'.

If we're all to be 'conscious' of Communism, that means 'democratic methods', to determine the will of humanity.

Is there a reason why most discussions of the 'dialectical method' don't seem to stress the centrality of 'democracy'?

The only reason I can think of is that those who in the past have stressed 'dialectics' have been Stalinists, who believe that there should be a separation between 'party' and 'class'. This is, too, tied up in the myth of the 'dialectic in nature', a 'Nature' that obviously can't talk for itself and so requires 'translators' who 'translate' for the 'masses', whether a 'party' or 'scientists'.

I don't share that elitist view, and I think that the working class itself must make the revolution and introduce Communism.

Hence, the central role for 'democracy' within my 'outline of a dialectical method'.

Is it an oversight on your part, S. Artesian? I know jura has been very frank (which I admire) about their rejection of 'democracy' within Communism, but I can't envisage a Communism without it. jura would have to make clear to me just 'who' would be defining 'science' and its 'method', if not the self-conscious democratic proletariat.

Thanks again to both of you for helping to clarify my own thoughts.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Oct 17 2011 15:29

Not an oversight, but a conscious omission as I haven't really thought through the issue of "democracy" being inherent to "dialectic."

I think that the most radical class democracy is essential to the viability of the proletarian revolution, embedded in the notion that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves" but I really haven't thought about the relation of democracy to the actual development and articulation of historical materialism.

I don't think a "self-conscious" proletariat would be "defining" science, as the proletariat by becoming self-conscious is creating the social, and technical, basis for doing away with itself as the proletariat. There would not be, and should not be, a "proletarian" science, anymore than there should be a proletarian music, a proletarian art, a proletarian archeology, etc.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Oct 17 2011 18:00
S. Artesian wrote:
Not an oversight, but a conscious omission as I haven't really thought through the issue of "democracy" being inherent to "dialectic."

No, it seems to be a real oversight by almost all Communists who have been involved in understanding and explaining the 'dialectical method' for other Communists. As you know, it's only recently that I've had more than a cursory knowledge of 'dialectics', mainly because, until this thread progressed, I, like many others it seems, hadn't really had a clue what 'dialectics' was all about. As for most, I presumed it was a mysterious concept, something to do with 'natural processes', unfathomable 'iron laws' and our old mates Freds Hegel and Engels. With a hefty dollop of the difficult bits from Capital.

But, as we all now know, it's just simply about humans!

And given that fact, and that some other Communists clearly knew that fact, it's still a complete mystery to me why the link between the democratic revolutionary proletariat and a democratic revolutionary method hasn't been at the forefront of explanations for Communists.

S. Artesian wrote:
I think that the most radical class democracy is essential to the viability of the proletarian revolution, embedded in the notion that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves" ...

Yeah, it seems to be a no-brainer, doesn't it?

S. Artesian wrote:
...but I really haven't thought about the relation of democracy to the actual development and articulation of historical materialism.

You're clearly not alone - the question is 'why?'. You'd think people bangin' on all the time about 'dialectical interrelationships' would've noticed the fundamental importance of that particular relation, wouldn't you?

As I say, I'm inclined to guess it's to do with the strength of Stalinism, which clearly still has a hold over even sections of the Libertarian Communist movement, if some posters on this thread are to be taken at face value!

S. Artesian wrote:
I don't think a "self-conscious" proletariat would be "defining" science...

Who would be, then?

S. Artesian wrote:
...as the proletariat by becoming self-conscious is creating the social, and technical, basis for doing away with itself as the proletariat.

Ahhh, there's your answer! The same as mine, in fact.

S. Artesian wrote:
There would not be, and should not be, a "proletarian" science, anymore than there should be a proletarian music, a proletarian art, a proletarian archeology, etc.

No, as I said to tastybrain on another thread, I've no time for 'proletkult', and neither even did Trotsky. No-one's getting rid of humanity's progress so far.

Often the term 'proletarian' is being used to describe both the revolutionary class and the whole of humanity after the triumph of Communism. But if one says 'humanity', someone always jumps in then to say that 'humanity at present is divided into classes'. This always seems to cause comment. On a Communist site, it's obvious that the 'proletariat' as a 'class' will abolish itself in the revolutionary process. Or isn't it?

Anyway, let us know how your thinking develops on this 'democratic dialectic method' issue.

Thanks again.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 6 2012 10:11

S Artesian:

Quote:
Marx doesn't conduct a study of dialectics [although he said he wanted to write a brief one], because the historical circumstances, and his own efforts, made abstracting "dialectics" from the social organization of labor, from the content of the history of the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor, if not impossible, then at least an oxymoron.

Except, as you had pointed out to you many times, in the Afterword to the second edition of Das Kapital he published a summary of 'the dialectic method', in which there is no trace of Hegel at all -- no 'contradictions', no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'internal relations' -- indeed, as I have again pointed out in this thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/marxs-dialectic-26012012#comment-471557

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 6 2012 13:35
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
S Artesian:
Quote:
Marx doesn't conduct a study of dialectics [although he said he wanted to write a brief one], because the historical circumstances, and his own efforts, made abstracting "dialectics" from the social organization of labor, from the content of the history of the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor, if not impossible, then at least an oxymoron.

Except, as you had pointed out to you many times, in the Afterword to the second edition of Das Kapital he published a summary of 'the dialectic method', in which there is no trace of Hegel at all -- no 'contradictions', no 'unity of opposites', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'internal relations' -- indeed, as I have again pointed out in this thread:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/marxs-dialectic-26012012#comment-471557

Except Rosa is wrong, because Marx demonstrates all those facets of "dialectics"-- contradiction, unity of opposites, negation, quantity into quality,-- repeatedly in his analysis of value, in his exposition on surplus value, in his essays on results of the process of production, in volumes 1,2,3, in his contributions to the critique of political economy-- as he demonstrates that capital, in its modern organization, is not but a particular social relation of production, a organized unity and conflict of labor and the conditions of labor.

That Rosa can't ever discuss anything regarding Marx's actual analysis of capital, but must confine herself to an afterward to the second {German} edition says all we need to say about her knowledge of Marx's work.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 6 2012 13:43

SA:

Quote:
Except Rosa is wrong, because Marx demonstrates all those facets of "dialectics"-- contradiction, unity of opposites, negation, quantity into quality,-- repeatedly in his analysis of value, in his exposition on surplus value, in his essays on results of the process of production, in volumes 1,2,3, in his contributions to the critique of political economy-- as he demonstrates that capital, in its modern organization, is not but a particular social relation of production, a organized unity and conflict of labor and the conditions of labor.

Ah, but Marx tells us he was merely 'coquetting' with Hegelian jargon.

You keep forgetting (rather conveniently, too) that salient fact.

Quote:
That Rosa can't ever discuss anything regarding Marx's actual analysis of capital, but must confine herself to an afterward to the second {German} edition says all we need to say about her knowledge of Marx's work.

Well, and once again: if you can find a passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneously with or subsequent to Das Kapital, let's see it.

[Cut to nervous fidgetting and deafening silence from SA...]

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Mar 6 2012 14:44
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Well, and once again: if you can find a passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneously with or subsequent to Das Kapital, let's see it.
Marx in Capital, Vol. I wrote:
The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases only where the minimum 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

I am very far from accepting the traditional dialectical-materialist strawman that you are arguing against (and I would say that the above passage can be plausibly interpreted without recourse to ontological Engelsism, albeit in a problematic way), but your positions clearly do not correspond to elementary textual evidence nor to contemporary research into Marx's writings related to the publishing of the MEGA. Marx's use of Hegelian categories is much more than conquetting and is of profound importance to questions of theory construction.

Mind you, I am not at all interested in debating a cut-and-paste graphoman. Please do not bother responding to this post. Apparently you were banned from RevLeft and I hope the same fate awaits you here.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 6 2012 16:37

Jura:

Quote:
I am very far from accepting the traditional dialectical-materialist strawman that you are arguing against (and I would say that the above passage can be plausibly interpreted without recourse to ontological Engelsism, albeit in a problematic way), but your positions clearly do not correspond to elementary textual evidence nor to contemporary research into Marx's writings related to the publishing of the MEGA. Marx's use of Hegelian categories is much more than conquetting and is of profound importance to questions of theory construction.

It's not a 'strawman' if practically everyone agrees that Marx was using some form of Hegel's method (upside down or the 'right way up'), in howsoever attenuated or nuanced a form that was, in Das Kapital, and it is that tradition I wish to undermine. Too bad you can't defend it.

Quote:
but your positions clearly do not correspond to elementary textual evidence nor to contemporary research into Marx's writings related to the publishing of the MEGA. Marx's use of Hegelian categories is much more than conquetting and is of profound importance to questions of theory construction

In that case, I'm sure you can quote us some of this 'research', or reference it for us.

However, this 'research', just like comrade Artesian here, plainly ignores the only summary of the 'dialectic method' Marx published in his entire life, in which there is no trace of Hegel or his confused 'categories'.

You argue as if you think I inserted this summary into the Afterword!

Quote:
Mind you, I am not at all interested in debating a cut-and-paste graphoman. Please do not bother responding to this post.

No chance.

And as far as 'cut and paste' goes, what else am I supposed to do; communicate by telepathy?

Or, copy you and post nothing but baseless and unsupported accusations?

Quote:
Apparently you were banned from RevLeft and I hope the same fate awaits you here.

1) It's nice see that some of you 'libertarians' are just as authoritarian as the mystics over at Revleft are.

2) Those dialectical mystics, who are just as arrogant as you seem to be, and just as incapable of defending their ideas as you plainly are, finally, after 5 years of trying, managed to gain a majority on the Admin team. So, the only way they could 'win' an argument with me was to silence me, which they did nearly a year ago.

Looks like you are keen to learn from them...

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 6 2012 16:41

Now, as far as this passage is concerend:

Quote:
The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a capitalist in such cases only where the minimum 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.

You plainly missed what I have already posted about it. Here it is again:

Quote:
Values (it is assumed that these are "exchange values") do not become capital by mere quantitative increment. It requires the presence of a capitalist mode of production (and thus a change in the relations of production), or a different use of that money, for this to happen. The capitalist concerned has to do something specific with these exchange values. So, the mere increase of exchange values does not automatically "pass over" into a qualitative change and become Capital. They have to be invested, and that too isn't automatic (in certain circumstances, they could be consumed). So, if anything, what we have here is a change in quality passing over into another change in quality! Quantity has nothing to do with it. The same quantity of money could be used as capital or fail to be so used. It requires a change in its quality to effect such a development

So, £x/$y (or their equivalent) owned by a Medieval Lord in the High Middle Ages couldn't become capital, no matter how large this pot of money became, whereas £w/$z in nineteenth century Manchester, even though it might be less than the £x/$y pounds held by that Lord (allowing for inflation, etc.), would be capital if employed in certain ways. It's not the quantity that is important here but the Mode of Production and the use to which the money is put.

[And how does this money actually "develop"? In what way can it "develop"? Sure, money can be saved and/or accumulated, but how does a £1/$1 coin "develop" if its owner saves or accumulates more of the same? Even if we redefine "save" and "accumulate" to mean "develop" (protecting this 'law' by means of a terminological dodge, thus imposing it on the facts), not all money will "develop" in this way. What if all the money was stolen or was expropriated from, or by, another non-capitalist? What if all of it was obtained by selling land, slaves, works of art, political or other favours, etc? Where is the "development" here? But, it can still operate a capital, howsoever it was acquired.]

In which case, this is an egregious mis-application of Hegel's 'Law'. Now, either we believe Marx was an imbecile (in that he made this simple error), or we conclude he was still "coquetting". Take your pick...

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Mar 6 2012 16:46

I am sorry, but I am all for banning trolls who ignore textual evidence (which I've produced above) contradicting their theses. Also, your cranky website and the amount of time you invest in repeating the same arguments suggests that you are a more or less deranged person who thinks they "have it all figured out".

As far as your attempted response to the bit I quoted above is concerned, when Marx says a general statement ("law") made by Hegel is shown ("as in natural science") to be correct, it clearly is more than "coquetting".

FFS, why do I even bother. Please do not call me a "libertarian" smile.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 6 2012 16:51

Jura:

Quote:
I am sorry, but I am all for banning trolls who ignore textual evidence (which I've produced above) contradicting their theses. Also, your cranky website and the amount of time you invest in repeating the same arguments suggests that you are a more or less deranged person who thinks they "have it all figured out".

1) You are the one who ignores the passage Marx saw fit to publish, which he (not me!) calls 'the dialectic method', but which contains not one atom of Hegel

2) I responded to the passage you quoted!

In which case, it rather looks like you are the troll here, my arrogant friend.

But, non-libertarian that I am, I'd never argue for your banning. smile

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 6 2012 16:56

Jura:

Quote:
As far as your attempted response to the bit I quoted above is concerned, when Marx says a general statement ("law") made by Hegel is shown ("as in natural science") to be correct, it clearly is more than "coquetting".

Then you must also believe that he was an idiot, since it's not an application of that 'law', as I demonstrated.

And science does not support this 'law' in any way at all.

Quote:
FFS, why do I even bother.

Perhaps your psychiatrist can help us with that one...

Quote:
Please do not call me a "libertarian"

Stop calling me a 'cut-and-paste graphoman', then

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 6 2012 17:14

Every one of Rosa's "claims" has been refuted numerous times in various discussions on Revleft.

The most critical point to focus upon is that Rosa has literally nothing to say about any one of the categories, explications, critiques, assertions about reproduction, the conflict between means and relations of production which are in fact the demonstrations of the dialectic in content and method.

She's a troll. Nothing more.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 6 2012 17:52

SA:

Quote:
Every one of Rosa's "claims" has been refuted numerous times in various discussions on Revleft.

In which case, you should be able to post the links... er, so that everyone can see what a lame job you (and the other mystics) did over there, too.

If not, I'd be happy to post them. smile

Quote:
The most critical point to focus upon is that Rosa has literally nothing to say about any one of the categories, explications, critiques, assertions about reproduction, the conflict between means and relations of production which are in fact the demonstrations of the dialectic in content and method.

Except that you lot have re-mystified Marx's scientifc analysis of capitalism. Small point, I know, but worth making, eh?

Quote:
She's a troll. Nothing more.

So you say, but you don't seem to be able to substantiate a single allegation.

Must be galling after trying so hard for well over two years, eh?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 7 2012 13:57

If this were a zoo, then the signs would say "Feeding of the troll strictly prohibited."

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 7 2012 14:01

Ok, LBird, I have now completely re-written and simplified that long essay I posted at RevLeft. It is now about 50% of it's original length.

It can be found here:

http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?788-Why-all-Philosophical-Theories-are-Non-Sensical

I don't think it can be shortened any further, and that's for the following reason:

The vast majority of comrades have not been schooled in Analytic Philosophy [AP], but in 'Continental Philosophy', and so they find the more technical aspects of AP rather daunting -- and/or pedantic/'academic'/non-political. And so they dismiss it out-of-hand.

So, I have had to pitch this essay at them to try to explain ideas that will seem, for want of a better word, rather basic to anyone trained in AP. Otherwise the point of what I have to say will either be lost, or it will appear to be rather dogmatic.

However, there are excellent reasons for adopting this approach to traditional philosophy, but they will only be appreciated if I explain myself a little more fully than I would otherwise have done if I were communicating with someone familiar with AP.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 7 2012 14:02

SA:

Quote:
If this were a zoo, then the signs would say "Feeding of the troll strictly prohibited."

So,that passage still hasn't turned up.

Odd that... roll eyes

revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Mar 7 2012 14:04

analytic philosophy is boring as fuck, it is to philosophy what grammar textbooks are to literature.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Mar 7 2012 14:45
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Ok, LBird, I have now completely re-written and simplified that long essay I posted at RevLeft. It is now about 50% of it's original length.

It can be found here:

http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?788-Why-all-Philosophical-Theories-are-Non-Sensical

I don't think it can be shortened any further...

Thanks for that, Rosa.

I've tried to have a read of it, but unfortunately it's all meaningless to me.

That's to say, perhaps it's not meaningless in any absolute sense, but it certainly is to me.

As I suggested before, certainly in a internet context, I think the best way of learning (and, indeed, teaching) is by interaction with others, through asking, receiving, re-formulating and extending questions and answers.

I should say, too, that the little I know about analytical philosophy has left a poor impression on me. I've recently again tried to read G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History, but I find it very dry, and for me, void of meaning and thus uninspiring. What I know of Marx's ideas seems to clash with the stance he takes, so I'm inclined to reject his views (at least, the bits even I can understand!).

Sorry if I've wasted your time. Perhaps others will benefit from your work.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 7 2012 15:54

The careful reader will note that while RL huffs and puffs about advancing the "scientific nature of Marxism" she contributes nothing to that advancement-- RL will not and cannot write a word about overproduction [and what Marx meant by that], the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor, Marx's writings on capitalist and pre-capitalist agriculture, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, integration of "non-capitalist" forms of exploitation into "modern capitalist" forms, rent, problems of accumulation, role of production prices, deviations between price and value... not a single offering on a single critical component.

Instead we get nothing but endless repetitions of misconstrued quotes from an afterward to a 2nd edition of Volume 1.

Rosa claims she doesn't have to make that contribution because "others [including Marx] do that." Which tells us all we need to know about what kind of Marxist she is-- she is none. She is a wannabe scholastic.

The passages where Marx demonstrates the dialectic of capitalism were written by Marx in Vols 1,2,3, TSV, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, the Economic Manuscripts 1857-1864, his critique of the Gotha Program, and in his correspondence.

His continued high esteem for Hegel is implicit, and in some cases explicit, in those writings.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 7 2012 16:33

LB:

Ok, sorry I could not help.

However, when I refered to Analytic Philosophy, I did not mean Analytic Marxism, which wasn't analytic enough, and definitely wasn't Marxism.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 7 2012 16:31

SA [still feeding the non-troll I see]

Quote:
The careful reader will note that while RL huffs and puffs about advancing the "scientific nature of Marxism" she contributes nothing to that advancement-- RL will not and cannot write a word about overproduction [and what Marx meant by that], the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor, Marx's writings on capitalist and pre-capitalist agriculture, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, integration of "non-capitalist" forms of exploitation into "modern capitalist" forms, rent, problems of accumulation, role of production prices, deviations between price and value... not a single offering on a single critical component.

Well, demolishing the traditional view of Das Kapital, and ridding it of the mystical guff you'd saddle it with, is a significant advance -- indeed, as important as ridding Newton's system of its mystical accretions.

Too bad you can't deal with my arguments, but have to resort to personal attacks.

Quote:
Instead we get nothing but endless repetitions of misconstrued quotes from an afterward to a 2nd edition of Volume 1.

Rosa claims she doesn't have to make that contribution because "others [including Marx] do that." Which tells us all we need to know about what kind of Marxist she is-- she is none. She is a wannabe scholastic.

Well, it's not my fault if I have to keep reminding you of the summary of 'the dialectic method', which contains no trace of Hegel, approved by Marx (not just me), is it?

Quote:
The passages where Marx demonstrates the dialectic of capitalism were written by Marx in Vols 1,2,3, TSV, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, the Economic Manuscripts 1857-1864, his critique of the Gotha Program, and in his correspondence.

Perhaps you'd like to quote these mythical passages, then?

Oh, sorry, you don't do proof, do you?

Quote:
His continued high esteem for Hegel is implicit, and in some cases explicit, in those writings.

So you say, but you said that about the Afterword until I showed otherwise.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Mar 7 2012 16:49
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Ok, sorry I could not help.

No probs. Thanks anyway for your attempt.

RL wrote:
However, when I refered to Analytic Philosophy, I did not mean Analytic Marxism, which wasn't analytic enough, and definitely wasn't Marxism.

Yeah, I find the problem with anything being 'broken down' into bits for 'analysis' can go too far, and can lose the 'greater' meaning.

After all, a wall broken down into its constituent bricks looses its 'wall-ness' and its emergent properties, and so the bricks, isolated and alone in a pile, tell one nothing about 'walls', but only 'bricks'.

I think that there's also a place for holistic thinking - but clearly really the two go together.

Cheers.