Dialectics

302 posts / 0 new
Last post
S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 8 2012 12:18
Quote:
Yeah, which makes one wonder most 'dialecticians' explanations seem to be 'religious, mystical and magical', rather than explained properly for all to admire.

Would you include Marx among those dialecticians? Would you include his discussions on the results of the production process? His essays on absolute and relative surplus value in the Economic Manuscripts? The Grundrisse?

References would be helpful.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 12:40

LB:

Quote:
But 'prose' is essential when talking to most humans - politics works in the 'prose' world, not the 'mathematical' world. To suppose the latter is superior is to separate humans into two groups - as I'm a Communist, I don't do this.

Well, I did not apply this word to political theory, since you specifically asked about science.

And I did note that 'prose' (not to be confused with prose!) does not have to contain any philosophy, even if it often does.

Quote:
To suppose the latter is superior is to separate humans into two groups

Er... We do this all the time; what do you think the point of a class analysis is?

Quote:
Yeah, the ruling ideas are, but there are other classes' ideas. Surely that's what this site is all about?

Sure, but it's quite apparent that boss-class ideas dominate even this forum. They re-surface, for instance, in all the a priori dogmatic philosophy that is posted here.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 12:42

SA:

Quote:
Well, since we are all historical materialists here [almost all, not sure where Syndicalistcat stands, but then again, who cares?] let's ask a question having to do with history, materialism, and the extirpation of Hegel.

If Marx "extirpated" Hegel "sometime between the Grundrisse and the publication of volume 1" and extirpating Hegel means freeing Marx's critique of capitalism from the mystifying chains of dialectic:

--what sections, assertions, critiques in the Grundrisse are in conflict with sections assertions critiques contained in volume 1?

--what elements of the Grundrisse are in fact not a critical inquiry into capital, but in reality an accommodation to capital?

--where is the Grundrisse incorrect in its critique of capital, and where does volume 1 correct that flaw?

Speaking for myself, I'd be happy to answer your questions when you have answered the many I asked you at RevLeft, which you just ignored.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Mar 8 2012 12:51
S. Artesian wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, which makes one wonder most 'dialecticians' explanations seem to be 'religious, mystical and magical', rather than explained properly for all to admire.

Would you include Marx among those dialecticians? Would you include his discussions on the results of the production process? His essays on absolute and relative surplus value in the Economic Manuscripts? The Grundrisse?

References would be helpful.

Yeah, I would include Marx. References? Capital, Volume 1, chapters 1-3.

Isn't this where we all came in, mate?

Generations of workers (and highly educated academics) have struggled to make sense of it all. So do I. So do many others on this site.

I'd like to understand, but no matter how many times I, and many others across the world, ask for an explanation, we get: 'Read Hegel!', 'Read Capital', etc. etc.

But if we don't understand 'dialectics', how can we understand these works?

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Mar 8 2012 12:58
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Well, I did not apply this word to political theory, since you specifically asked about science.

Isn't science a political activity? I think it is.

RL wrote:
Er... We do this all the time; what do you think the point of a class analysis is?

Ah, my mistake. I thought you'd realise I meant a philosophical separation of the human race into those who have the capacity to 'understand' and those who don't. Y'know, 'who guards the guards?' stuff.

RL wrote:
Sure, but it's quite apparent that boss-class ideas dominate even this forum. They re-surface, for instance, in all the a priori dogmatic philosophy that is posted here.

Isn't this a political opinion, based on political philosophy?

I think they appear, but do not 'dominate', and I think that all science is based on a priori theory, as per Lakatos' ideas.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 13:00

LB:

Quote:
But if we don't understand 'dialectics', how can we understand these works?

I have been studying this subject now for nigh on thirty years, and I have yet to encounter anyone who does -- including SA, here

He can't even explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, for goodness sake!

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 13:07

LB:

Quote:
Isn't science a political activity? I think it is.

Ok, but I didn't know this earlier -- so, now my comments apply there, too.

Quote:
I thought you'd realise I meant a philosophical separation of the human race into those who have the capacity to 'understand' and those who don't. Y'know, 'who guards the guards?' stuff.

Fair enough.

Now, with the best will in the world, unless they had an adavanced degree in mathematics and/or physics, the average person just isn't going to understand, say, high energy physics.

But, as often happens, when scientists try to explain such areas of their work, amatuer metaphysics creeps in.

Quote:
Isn't this a political opinion, based on political philosophy?

I have no problem with political theory. If you want to call it a 'philosophy', that will just create confusion.

Quote:
I think they appear, but do not 'dominate', and I think that all science is based on a priori theory, as per Lakatos' ideas.

They do indeed dominate. We can perhaps discuss this another time.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 8 2012 16:54
Quote:
Apparently it's too much to expect you to accept responsibility for your own statements.

your excuse for not noting that i talked about different ways to interpret hist mat. and when i interpret it in the way that i suggest is more plausible, it ends up being not what most Marxists think it is...including you.

Quote:
As for history being a social product.... that's a tautology perhaps now, it certainly was not accepted as a social product when Marx (not to mention Hegel).

if it's a tautology it always was trivially true. because history is the actual series of social events, which are made up of human actions, which humans create.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 8 2012 17:20

R68:

Quote:
There is no understanding dialectics in the abstract, people who bang on about dialectics in such a manner are usually muppets trying bluff it.

In that case, I am sure you'll be only too happy to explain it to us in the 'concrete', as it were.

Quote:
If you read even the Communist Manifesto you can pick up on the dialectical method at work.

Read it many, many times, but I fail to see the 'dialectics' in it. Perhaps you have in your possession a rare, limited edition the rest of us have never seen?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 9 2012 02:52
syndicalistcat wrote:
Quote:
Apparently it's too much to expect you to accept responsibility for your own statements.

your excuse for not noting that i talked about different ways to interpret hist mat. and when i interpret it in the way that i suggest is more plausible, it ends up being not what most Marxists think it is...including you.

Quote:
As for history being a social product.... that's a tautology perhaps now, it certainly was not accepted as a social product when Marx (not to mention Hegel).

if it's a tautology it always was trivially true. because history is the actual series of social events, which are made up of human actions, which humans create.

It's not an excuse. I was responding to what you wrote. I wrote my reply well before you posted your backstepping, but lost it when my computer OS crashed. Got a different computer and posted the reply. Tough business when you open your mouth at put both feet into it, but you said what you said.

As for tautology and history-- no, history was not recognized as a social product when Marx was writing; capital was not recognized as a specific, historical organization of labor that was not the "culmination" of human progress.

Clearly, Rosa has never read volume 1-- just look at her confusion over use and exchange value in the other thread on dialectics, and just as clearly you know very little about historical materialism.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 9 2012 03:03

L Bird:

Quote:
Yeah, which makes one wonder most 'dialecticians' explanations seem to be 'religious, mystical and magical', rather than explained properly for all to admire

.

L Bird 2:

Quote:
Yeah, I would include Marx. References? Capital, Volume 1, chapters 1-3.

So, where Rosa claims Marx extirpated Hegel in Volume 1, and since these 3 chapters are critical to everything that follows in Marx's critique [and are the result themselves of numerous drafts, iterations, explorations on value... in as much as Marx derives capital that is to say the social relation of production of capital from the production of value, then either these three chapters are mystical, magical, religious [and corrupted to the marrow by Hegelianism], or they're not.

So the task that befalls you Rosa, [and not me] is to show our comrade how these first three chapters in fact are the death knell for the Hegelian dialectic and are not at all an exposition of the generation of categories that exist in an opposition inherent in their singular identity as a commodity.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 9 2012 03:59
Quote:
It's not an excuse. I was responding to what you wrote. I wrote my reply well before you posted your backstepping,

when I said i rejected it I was thinking of the common interpretation. what you call backstepping was clarification. but you'd prefer an insulting description because it fits with your dogmatism.

A plausible hist mat would have to be non-deterministic and non-reductionistic. It's for those who would defend hist mat to show that it satisfies these criteria.

Even if i were to reject hist mat, you're wrong if you think it would not be possible to describe what capital does.

Quote:
history was not recognized as a social product when Marx was writing

you mean people didn't believe people made their own actions? as a statement in English what you stated was a tautology.

but you're just kicking up dust since you don't want to consider what i actually said about hist mat or Hegel.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 9 2012 05:13
Quote:
but you're just kicking up dust since you don't want to consider what i actually said about hist mat or Hegel.

As is usually the case, you really didn't say anything. You spoke in generalities and the generalities lack meaningful content.

That's not an insult btw, just a fair evaluation; just as pointing out how ignorant Rosa is of Marx's analysis of value isn't an insult, just a fact.

The issue about historical materialism isn't the "base-superstructure" claptrap. It's about the organization of labor time, the disposition of labor time, and through which mediations that disposition is manifested.

We could say it's all about class struggle and we can, as Marx said, "dispense with all this shit," and we can point out and examine in the concrete those struggles and the material background for those struggles in the relations between city and countryside, in land, labor, and landed labor.

Marx's critique is a practical activity. It demonstrates how the reproduction of an economy is first and foremost, the reproduction of those social relations, those classes that in their activity, whether as producers, or aggrandizers, must recreate each other in order to exist themselves. See for example The 18th Brumaire etc, or Marx's essays in his Economic Manuscripts on absolute and relative surplus value, the proposed companion volume to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Econony.

.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:46

SA:

Quote:
So, where Rosa claims Marx extirpated Hegel in Volume 1, and since these 3 chapters are critical to everything that follows in Marx's critique [and are the result themselves of numerous drafts, iterations, explorations on value... in as much as Marx derives capital that is to say the social relation of production of capital from the production of value, then either these three chapters are mystical, magical, religious [and corrupted to the marrow by Hegelianism], or they're not.

So the task that befalls you Rosa, [and not me] is to show our comrade how these first three chapters in fact are the death knell for the Hegelian dialectic and are not at all an exposition of the generation of categories that exist in an opposition inherent in their singular identity as a commodity.

You will need to translate this into a comprehensible form of English if I am to do what you seem to be saying here.

Upon doing that, I'll be happy to do what you seem to be saying when you have answered the many questions I asked you at RevLeft which you just ignored.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 05:51

SA:

Quote:
That's not an insult btw, just a fair evaluation; just as pointing out how ignorant Rosa is of Marx's analysis of value isn't an insult, just a fact.

In fact, your 'theory' implies that objects have a use value only if someone or other thinks about them!

So, if my rejection of this odd idea amounts to 'ignorance', then I am happy to admit to complete nescience.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 9 2012 12:03

I answered all your questions, numerous times on Revleft and elsewhere. You don't agree or accept the answers. That's fine. You can't engage with the answers? That's your personal problem. But the answers were provided.

As for your task with L Bird, here it is in plain old anti-King's English:

Quote:
So the task that befalls you Rosa, [and not me] is to show our comrade how these first three chapters in fact are the death knell for the Hegelian dialectic

Have at it....or avoid helping a comrade.....

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 9 2012 19:41

SA:

Quote:
I answered all your questions, numerous times on Revleft and elsewhere. You don't agree or accept the answers. That's fine. You can't engage with the answers? That's your personal problem. But the answers were provided.

Not so, you just (1) retreated into a "Don't feed the trolls" sulk, (2) confined yourself to posting remarks about my allegedly low level of intelligence, (3) repeatedly asserted with no proof at all that I hadn't read Das Kapital (even though I had to remind you what Marx had actually said in that book about 'contradictions', which you admitted you had forgotten about) or (4) Tried to divert attention.

For example, I repeatedly asked you for your rationale for calling conflicts in capitalism 'contradictions'. All you could do was, in effect, admit you were merely aping tradition -- after I had shown that there is no good reason to call them this, especially after I had demonstrated that Hegel's derivation of this term was flawed from beginning to end. Since you know no logic, you couldn't respond to that, and then hid behind the above personal attacks on me or engaged in diverse diversionary tactics.

A pattern of behaviour you have largely repeated here (and at RedMarx).

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 10 2012 00:17

Distort the record any way you want.... everyone is free to read the exchanges on the revleft website.

The questions were answered, and I repeatedly explained why the antagonisms in capitalism were contradictory antagonisms.

Your supposed "proof" that Hegel's derivation was flawed is as ridiculous as your claim that antiques have exchange value but no use value.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 10 2012 01:43

False 'Trioll ' accuser -- or is it, hypocritical warner of others not to feed the 'trolls'...(?):

Quote:
Distort the record any way you want.... everyone is free to read the exchanges on the revleft website.

Indeed, and I can supply them with the links (which less partisan Libcommers will notice you haven't done -- wonder why... roll eyes ).

I have listed most of them here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

[Several more available on request.]

Quote:
The questions were answered, and I repeatedly explained why the antagonisms in capitalism were contradictory antagonisms.

And yet you failed to (1) Provide a rationale for the use of this Hegelian word/concept (upside down or the 'right way up'), or (2) Show where my demolition of Hegel's derivation of this concept/word goes wrong. [I can post the link if you like. smile ]

And we are still waiting... roll eyes

[Or if you think you have, please post the link.]

Quote:
Your supposed "proof" that Hegel's derivation was flawed is as ridiculous as your claim that antiques have exchange value but no use value.

In that case, you will be able to demonstrate to the good folks here exactly where my demolition goes wrong, won't you? If it's as 'ridiculous' as my antique chair example is, it should be easy for one as proficient as you plainly are to bat out of the park.

Or, is this yet another diversionary tactic we have come to associate with you?

We'll soon see, won't we, when you fail to substatiate the above.

[And you couldn't even show where my antique chair counter-example went wrong, either! laugh out loud ]

[Side Note to neutral observers: SA here knows no logic, so he's in no position to show where my argument went wrong. Even so, he should be awarded an advanced degree in bluster and evasion. Just watch how he responds to this post -- which he will later deny having done, as he has done above with respect to my earlier allegations. The words 'Leopard', 'change' and 'spots' oddly come to mind, here...]

No worries, I have added this link to my ever expanding dossier of SA-foul-ups. smile

-------------------------

Added on edit:

In fact, here are a few:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-political-t118934/index.html

Plenty more available on request. smile

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 10 2012 02:20

OK here's the essence of Rosa's argument:

The definition of a contradiction is-- two statements/assertions that cannot both be true.

Since Hegel's argues that the contradictions are both true and both false at the same time, they cannot be contradictions.

That's really how simple, and simple-minded, Rosa's "logic" is.

Of course, the critical categories of Hegel, and Marx, that are omitted from this "logic" is that of becoming; transformation; mediation

So: In Marx's work, labor under capitalism is both "free labor," -- that is to say dispossessed, detached, sale-able labor, and at the same time is not-free labor-- it is labor that is compelled to present itself for sale, that must necessarily exchange itself for a wage in order to reproduce itself as wage-labor, an thus reproducing the class of wage-laborers, and the class of purchasers of wage-labor-- the capitalists. There, for Marx, is the unity in antagonism, of capital and wage labor: each creates the other, each opposes the other, and this is a result of the social process by which labor, and the laborer, is "free"-- unbound, unowned-- and possessing none of the means of production.

What is the "mediation" by which free and unfree are organized, composed, "united"?-- it is in the property relations; in the ownership of the means of production by the capitalists.

So labor is both free and unfree; free and compelled.

Capitalist accumulation is the source, of the expansion of value; and at the same time it is the source for the non-expansion, the contraction of value. It is, it becomes both "A" and "not-A"

Increased, expanded, and intensified exploitation of wage-labor is the source for increased profitability in capitalist production. Increased, expanded, intensified exploitation of wage labor is the source for declining profitability in production. A and not-A again, from the same source, the same exact process; one becomes the other, both exist as moments in reproduction.

That's kind of why Marx referred to capital as "contradiction in motion."

And I hope this helps L Bird understand the Marx's dialectic.

I don't think anything will ever help Rosa understand value.

I think it's a great idea to use the links Rosa has provided--read it for yourself and decide of Rosa's arguments aren't simply sophistry, evasion, distortion.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 10 2012 05:43
Quote:
So: In Marx's work, labor under capitalism is both "free labor," -- that is to say dispossessed, detached, sale-able labor, and at the same time is not-free labor-- it is labor that is compelled to present itself for sale, that must necessarily exchange itself for a wage in order to reproduce itself as wage-labor, an thus reproducing the class of wage-laborers, and the class of purchasers of wage-labor-- the capitalists. There, for Marx, is the unity in antagonism, of capital and wage labor: each creates the other, each opposes the other, and this is a result of the social process by which labor, and the laborer, is "free"-- unbound, unowned-- and possessing none of the means of production.

What is the "mediation" by which free and unfree are organized, composed, "united"?-- it is in the property relations; in the ownership of the means of production by the capitalists.

So labor is both free and unfree; free and compelled.

but it's not true that labor is free under capitalism. for Marx, and indeed in working class common sense, labor is forced labor under capitalism workers are forced to seek out jobs from the employers due to their not having their own means of life. the capitalists have a class monopoly over the means of production, the means of life.

to be forced to do X implies that there are dire consequences if you don't agree to do X. if we suppose that maria, who is a single mother and is about to be put out on the street, excepts some miserable minimum wage job, we can say, and she would say, she was forced to do so. and thus she was unfree. capitalism is in fact a system of forced labor. and in fact this is one of the reasons it is a system of exploitation for Marx.

now, it is true that workers are not chattels, not owned as slaves are. they lack that particular restraint on their freedom. so they are free in that respect yet not free in regard to working for the capitalists.

but there is no contradiction here, and those who want to say "workers are both free and unfree" are engaging in sophistry...and that's the sort of bullshit Hegel engaged in.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Mar 10 2012 07:09
S.Artesian wrote:
And I hope this helps L Bird understand the Marx's dialectic.

Well, I'm still trying to follow both you and Rosa on both threads!

But a question:

S.Artesian wrote:
So labor is both free and unfree; free and compelled.

I see this as a true statement, but not because of 'contradictions', I think.

I see it as embodying two perspectives, or 'class' views of reality. For the bourgeoisie, 'labour is free'; for the proletariat, 'labour is unfree'. There is a contradiction, I suppose, but that is in human minds. Thus, I would say the 'contradiction' is an epistemological contradiction.

syndicalistcat wrote:
but there is no contradiction here, and those who want to say "workers are both free and unfree" are engaging in sophistry...and that's the sort of bullshit Hegel engaged in.

And I have sympathy for syncat's views, here.

Surely any 'contradiction' is in class perspectives, not in any Hegelian 'reality'.

Am I making any sense?

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 10 2012 07:17

SA:

Quote:
The definition of a contradiction is-- two statements/assertions that cannot both be true.

Bad start!

No, that's not my definition. I even put you right at RevLeft about this!

Here is a workable definition we can start with:

"A contradiction in its simplest form is the conjunction of a proposition with its negation."

Quote:
Since Hegel's argues that the contradictions are both true and both false at the same time, they cannot be contradictions.

I'm sure Hegel didn't argue this, but I certainly haven't.

[At RevLeft, I accused you of making stuff up. Looks like you have begun again, here!]

Quote:
That's really how simple, and simple-minded, Rosa's "logic" is.

Since it's not my 'logic' (or if it is, you will no doubt be happy to post the links proving that it is -- watch out for the deafening silence on that one comrades!), this shows once again what a liar you are.

Quote:
So: In Marx's work, labor under capitalism is both "free labor," -- that is to say dispossessed, detached, sale-able labor, and at the same time is not-free labor-- it is labor that is compelled to present itself for sale, that must necessarily exchange itself for a wage in order to reproduce itself as wage-labor, an thus reproducing the class of wage-laborers, and the class of purchasers of wage-labor-- the capitalists. There, for Marx, is the unity in antagonism, of capital and wage labor: each creates the other, each opposes the other, and this is a result of the social process by which labor, and the laborer, is "free"-- unbound, unowned-- and possessing none of the means of production.

What is the "mediation" by which free and unfree are organized, composed, "united"?-- it is in the property relations; in the ownership of the means of production by the capitalists.

So labor is both free and unfree; free and compelled.

Capitalist accumulation is the source, of the expansion of value; and at the same time it is the source for the non-expansion, the contraction of value. It is, it becomes both "A" and "not-A"

Increased, expanded, and intensified exploitation of wage-labor is the source for increased profitability in capitalist production. Increased, expanded, intensified exploitation of wage labor is the source for declining profitability in production. A and not-A again, from the same source, the same exact process; one becomes the other, both exist as moments in reproduction.

But, 'A and not A' isn't a contradiction until we know what interpretation is to be put on those "A"s.

[Here's a clue: they have to be clauses or indicative sentences.]

So, your 'contradiction' here would be:

"Increased, expanded, and intensified exploitation of wage-labor is the source for increased profitability in capitalist production and it isn't."

Or more fully:

"Increased, expanded, and intensified exploitation of wage-labor is the source for increased profitability in capitalist production and increased, expanded, and intensified exploitation of wage-labor isn't the source for increased profitability in capitalist production."

But that's not the 'contradiction' you posted. In fact, it's nothing like it.

Your 'contradiction' is more like 'A and B', and not 'A and not A'!

[I did say your incapacity with logic would catch up with you. And I told you this two years ago. Looks like you have been using your time unwisely in the meantime! sad ]

So, we are still waiting for you to explain why what you say is a contradiction -- as I predicted.

Quote:
I don't think anything will ever help Rosa understand value.

In that case, it looks like I'm in good company if your 'explanation' above is anything to go by.

Quote:
I think it's a great idea to use the links Rosa has provided--read it for yourself and decide of Rosa's arguments aren't simply sophistry, evasion, distortion.

So you say, but you ignore what Marx himself said about the 'dialectic method' -- hence, you are the evasive one here, not me.

And I provided those links to show that you hadn't answered my questions; and here we see again you haven't -- you 'answered' a figment of your own imagination.

Comrades can find a summary of my demolition of key parts of Hegel's 'Logic' here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 10 2012 12:08
syndicalistcat wrote:
Quote:
So: In Marx's work, labor under capitalism is both "free labor," -- that is to say dispossessed, detached, sale-able labor, and at the same time is not-free labor-- it is labor that is compelled to present itself for sale, that must necessarily exchange itself for a wage in order to reproduce itself as wage-labor, an thus reproducing the class of wage-laborers, and the class of purchasers of wage-labor-- the capitalists. There, for Marx, is the unity in antagonism, of capital and wage labor: each creates the other, each opposes the other, and this is a result of the social process by which labor, and the laborer, is "free"-- unbound, unowned-- and possessing none of the means of production.

What is the "mediation" by which free and unfree are organized, composed, "united"?-- it is in the property relations; in the ownership of the means of production by the capitalists.

So labor is both free and unfree; free and compelled.

but it's not true that labor is free under capitalism. for Marx, and indeed in working class common sense, labor is forced labor under capitalism workers are forced to seek out jobs from the employers due to their not having their own means of life. the capitalists have a class monopoly over the means of production, the means of life.

to be forced to do X implies that there are dire consequences if you don't agree to do X. if we suppose that maria, who is a single mother and is about to be put out on the street, excepts some miserable minimum wage job, we can say, and she would say, she was forced to do so. and thus she was unfree. capitalism is in fact a system of forced labor. and in fact this is one of the reasons it is a system of exploitation for Marx.

now, it is true that workers are not chattels, not owned as slaves are. they lack that particular restraint on their freedom. so they are free in that respect yet not free in regard to working for the capitalists.

but there is no contradiction here, and those who want to say "workers are both free and unfree" are engaging in sophistry...and that's the sort of bullshit Hegel engaged in.

You really should read Marx who argues, and shows, that free labor is essential to the value production becoming the dominant mode of production-- free as opposed to enslaved, bound.

That's the distinguishing feature of modern capitalism, which of course doesn't prevent it from incorporating enslaved labor into its network.

Free labor is the basis for the transformation of the working day from its division as periods of necessary labor and surplus labor and to the periods of necessary labor-time, and surplus labor-time. Free labor is how surplus product becomes surplus value.

It is not sophistry at all to point out the substantive, critical differences in modes of production; that the creation of free labor required a revolutionary transformation of the old order. Would you call the US Civil War "sophistry"? The French Revolution sophistry? The creation of the English working class or the Russian Revolution sophistry.

In collapsing, as you do, specific organizations of social labor into a single category of unfree you essentially abolish all distinctions in the mode of production.....and all class analysis.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 10 2012 12:38

Marx's usage of contradiction, antagonism, following Hegel's is as I have described it. As stated many times before, it's not to Rosa's liking. Doesn't matter.

The expression of the conflicts as contradicting each other-- i.e. exploitation of wage labor is the source for the expansion of capital, exploitation of wage labor is the source for the contraction of capital, the fact that they have a single, unitary origin in the appropriation of social labor is exactly what Marx develops in his critique of capital.

He has, in this matter, truly extracted the rational kernel from Hegel, relocating the process from one of "mind" or spirit, to one of the social labor organization.

Read Marx, not Rosa.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 10 2012 16:50

SA:

Quote:
Marx's usage of contradiction, antagonism, following Hegel's is as I have described it. As stated many times before, it's not to Rosa's liking. Doesn't matter.

The expression of the conflicts as contradicting each other-- i.e. exploitation of wage labor is the source for the expansion of capital, exploitation of wage labor is the source for the contraction of capital, the fact that they have a single, unitary origin in the appropriation of social labor is exactly what Marx develops in his critique of capital

Well, given the additional, but not insignificant fact that Marx himself, not me, tells us he was merely 'coquetting' with this term in Das Kapital, I think we can take this 'reply' of yours with a bucket of salt.

But, even supposing, per impossible, that you are right, that still fails to tell us why you, or Marx, chose to use just this word (i.e., 'contradiction'). What possible reason is there other than you/he derived it from Hegel?

But, I have shown that Hegel's use of that term is as bogus as an $11 bill.

You have yet to address that argument, just as I predicted.

So, as I indicated, tradition is your only reason.

You certainly can't justify your use of 'contradiction', here.

So, that means I was right when I said earlier that you haven't answered this question: Other than your desire to copy Marx, why use this word to describe such conflicts? Surely 'conflict' is OK on its own. Why call them 'contradictions'?

And no wonder you can't. Given the additional fact that the conceptual resources at your disposal are threadbare indeed -- since you unwisely look to that Logical incompetent Hegel for advice -- you have only yourself to blame for painting yourself into this corner.

And, again as predicted, you have failed to show where I argued as you lyingly claimed in your last but one post.

[True to form you'll be denying you even said this in a later thread, just as you will also claim to have responded effectively to my request to justify this odd use of 'contradiction', when the examples you gave are not even remotely like contradictions!]

Quote:
He has, in this matter, truly extracted the rational kernel from Hegel, relocating the process from one of "mind" or spirit, to one of the social labor organization.

And yet, as Marx himself pointed out, 'the dialectic method' contains no trace of Hegel, and hence no 'contradictions'.

Quote:
Read Marx, not Rosa.

Advice you'd do well to take yourself, especially the summary of the 'dialectic method' Marx published in the Afterword, which blows your mystical version out of the water.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 10 2012 17:30

This:

Quote:
Marx, chose to use just this word (i.e., 'contradiction'). What possible reason is there other than you/he derived it from Hegel?

Exactly. So much for your claim that Marx extirpated Hegel in the first vol of Capital.

The issue is one of historical accuracy, as I stated earlier. Marx derived it from Hegel; from his study of Hegel; Marx employed the word, not as a word to be used facetiously, but as a category for critique.

You have claimed that some time between the Grundrisse written in 1857 and the publication of vol 1 in 1867, Marx extirpated Hegel and developed a method of analysis, a critique not derived from the categories and processes described by Hegel.

Yet nowhere in his Economic Manuscripts, including all the iterations, and proposed additions for volume 1 is there a trace, a single comment, note by Marx stating he has broken with the categories, the process of critique as described by Hegel.

Marx certainly does say he has criticized the mystifying side of Hegel's work, which, in plain human language means that Marx finds a non-mystifying side in Hegel.

Moreover, nowhere can you show a substantive conflict between the results of Marx's critique of capital, either in the analysis or the conclusions Marx reaches, "pre" and "post" this so-called extirpation.

Now I've answered your questions-- incorrectly in your view, which is fine. So the challenge is still before you, to answer the questions posed regarding this supposed extirpation that supposedly occurred between 1857-1867. Where is there substantive evidence within Marx's analysis of any such change? Go ahead an answer. Incorrect answers are welcome, so don't be shy. After all, anybody who can argue antiques have exchange value but no use value shouldn't be afraid of

Your pat answer is "oh Marx was only fooling around with those Hegelian methodology" of "he was playing a joke." Marx never says that-- he says he flirted with certain terminology, phrases peculiar to Hegel in the chapter on value. If you read the original German, or the translation of the original chapter in the 1st Edition, of the chapter on value, it is clear he means the phrase "determinate being" that he used, and which has disappeared in subsequent editions.

And the challenge is still before you-- L Bird believes the first 3 chapters of volume 1 are "mystical, magical, religious" analysis, examples of Hegelian of obfuscation.

If Marx extirpated Hegel, then explain to L Bird how these chapters are not demonstrations of "Hegelian dialectic."

I'd also like to ask syndicalistcat if in fact he agrees with RL that Marx extirpated Hegel in his publication of volume 1, or if Marx remains a "partisan" so to speak of Hegel's dialectic in his critique of capital.

You can think Hegel is bullshit. That's not the issue. The issue is if Marx ever thought Hegel was bullshit. Clearly, from his correspondence, his notebooks, and his writings subsequent to vol 1, he did not think that.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Mar 10 2012 17:54

SA:

Quote:
Exactly. So much for your claim that Marx extirpated Hegel in the first vol of Capital.

In your haste to throw anything you can, good, bad or bogus, at me you missed this comment:

Quote:
Well, given the additional, but not insignificant fact that Marx himself, not me, tells us he was merely 'coquetting' with this term in Das Kapital, I think we can take this 'reply' of yours with a bucket of salt.

But, even supposing, per impossible, that you are right, that still fails to tell us why you, or Marx, chose to use just this word (i.e., 'contradiction'). What possible reason is there other than you/he derived it from Hegel?

Bold added, but that won't guarantee you won't have another attack of selective blindnees, will it? roll eyes

So, and once again, your only reason for using this word is that you think Marx used it in Das Kapital.

The rest of what you say does not address this point, so it's irrelevant.

Except, perhaps for this:

Quote:
You can think Hegel is bullshit. That's not the issue. The issue is if Marx ever thought Hegel was bullshit. Clearly, from his correspondence, his notebooks, and his writings subsequent to vol 1, he did not think that.

1) Where have I used the word 'bull*hit'? Yet more invention.

2) Are you committed to the view that had Hegel died in childhood, Marx would still have used this word?

If so, then Marx can't be using the 'rational kernel' of Hegel's work, since he must have derived this use of 'contradiction' from somewhere else.

But, where? You unwisely failed to say.

If not, then Hegel's screw up is relevant. If, his derivation of this word (even if put back 'on its feet') is defective, as indeed I have shown, then so is yours, and (if Marx used it in the same way), so is Marx's.

But, let us suppose you are right, and Hegel's derivation of this word is irrelevant, what other justification is there for using 'contradiction' in this way?

So, we still await your justification for calling such conflicts 'contradictions'.

Up to now, all you can appeal to is tradition.

Hence, when I said this is one question you haven't answered (even though you kick up clouds of dust to disguise that fact), I was right.

You can easily shut me up by telling us what your justification is for using 'contradiction' this odd way -- other than yet another appeal to tradition, that is.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Mar 10 2012 20:23

Your refusal to engage with the substantive questions regarding your primary assertion that Marx extirpated Hegel sometime between 1857 and 1867 stand as its own critique of that assertion.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Mar 10 2012 21:20
Quote:
In collapsing, as you do, specific organizations of social labor into a single category of unfree you essentially abolish all distinctions in the mode of production.....and all class analysis.

this is a blatant non-sequitur. where do i "collapse specific organizations of social labor [whatever the fuck that means] into a single category unfree"?

what I claim is that labor under capitalism is unfree. that's because being forced to put one's capacities at the disposal of the employers is a form of unfreedom. a further aspect to this unfreedom is that capital establishes managerial regimes to control workers in their work, to ensure diligent labor, organize the labor process & deploy technical innovations to increase output per worker hour. this involves more forms of unfreedom, the denial of self-management or self-direction in work, and the supressing of the development of a worker's human potential.

now, workers within capitalism are legally free to leave one employer and seek out another -- in Marx's era this was the ideology of "free labor", as in the slogans of the Republican Party during the Civil War. if someone is freed from slavery or if they get out a jail, we can they are "free"...free in respect of the particular form of unfreedom they were formerly subject to. this is consistent with being unfree in other respects.

there can be no free labor, full stop, short of working class liberation from the class system.

Moreover, being forced to put oneself under the control of bosses, forced to put one's working abilities to their command, is part of why workers are exploited, and this is something Marx also would say. See for example Nancy Holmstrom's analysis of Marx on exploitation where forced labor is one of the conditions for exploitation.