Why I Began This Project
Readers need to make note of the fact that this Essay does not represent my final view on any of the issues raised. It is merely 'work in progress'.
Quick Links
(1) The Background
(2) Introduction
(5) Notes
(6) References
Abbreviations Used At This Site
Background To These Essays
This work began life in July 1998 as an unpublished review of John Rees's book The Algebra of Revolution (henceforth, TAR), which then developed into a full-blown project aimed at completely undermining the influence of Dialectical Materialism [DM], and dialectics in general, on Marxist Philosophy.
However, a brief outline of the relevant parts of the author's biography might help readers appreciate the motivation, length and tone of the Essays posted here.
I studied for a BA Honours in Philosophy at The University of XXXX in the late-1970s, then for a PhD in the early 1980s (and then for a Mathematics degree). After I became involved in revolutionary politics in the early 1980s, I decided to write at some point a thorough-going refutation of DM, having come to appreciate the pernicious influence this doctrine has had on revolutionary socialism over the last 130 years. The publication of John Rees's book in 1998 provided the final impetus I needed.
My political views had swung sharply to the left much earlier; this occurred as a result of the very minor part I played in the UK postal workers' strike of 1971 -- I had at that time been a postal worker since 1969. This put me in direct sympathy with the left of the Labour Party (as it then was). Several years later, at The University of XXXX, I was introduced to Marxist Humanism by one of my tutors. This teacher was a truly remarkable man who had the rare gift of being able to explain Marxism in simple, everyday language, expressing Historical Materialism [HM] in eminently comprehensible and ordinary terms -- free of the usual Hegelian jargon and Hermetic obscurities.
However, from the beginning I was put off Marxism by the philosophical and logical confusion I encountered when reading books and articles on DM, a theory I thought unworthy of acceptance by anyone who possessed a working brain and genuine materialist sympathies.
My antipathy toward the tradition from which DM has emerged was greatly increased by the training I received in Analytic Philosophy at The University of XXXX, at the hands of a group of first-rate Philosophers and Logicians (most of whom were prominent Wittgensteinians and/or Fregeans). All this ensured that I would never take DM seriously. And I haven't since.
The election of Margaret Thatcher and the increasingly bitter class struggle this heralded in the UK in the early 1980s drove my opinions further to the left. However, while studying for my PhD on Wittgenstein, I happened to read Gerry Cohen's book, Karl Marx's Theory Of History. From then on my opinion of Marxist Philosophy changed dramatically, for even though I did not agree with Cohen's account of HM, or his politics, I now saw that there was no need to accept the mystical doctrines found in DM if I wanted to be a revolutionary. Hence, a year or so after the defeat of the National Union of Miners in 1985, I joined Party YYYY, since they seemed to me to be the most sincerely revolutionary and least sectarian group in the UK. In addition, and to their credit, they did not appear to be lost in the sort of dialectical mist that engulfed other supposedly revolutionary groups. [Gerry Healy's now defunct WRP comes to mind here.]
Unfortunately, almost as soon as I joined this party, the leadership did an about-face and suddenly discovered a new-found liking for DM, and articles expounding Engels's confused philosophical ideas began to appear in their publications. Although I now think I understand why this happened, at the time this turn of events was thoroughly dismaying. I could not understand why Marxists I had come to respect for the clarity of their political, historical and economic analyses had suddenly grown fond of Dialectical Mysticism.
As things turned out, I was soon able to witness at first-hand the baleful effect that DM and DL [Dialectical Logic] has had on revolutionary politics -- in this case, on local party activists in XXXX. Several of the latter (in the run up to the defeat of the Poll Tax, and the under direction of the party leadership) began to behave in a most uncharacteristic and aggressive manner, especially toward less 'active' comrades. To be sure, any revolutionary group requires commitment from its members, but there are ways of motivating people that do not involve treating them merely as means to a particular end.
These activists now declared that (among other things) 'dialectical' thinking meant there were no fixed or rigid principles in revolutionary politics -- not even, one presumes, the belief that the emancipation of the working-class is the act of the working-class (although, somewhat inconsistently, not one of them drew that conclusion). Everything it seemed had now to be bent toward the 'concrete' practical exigencies of the class struggle. Abstract ideas were ruled-out of court -- except, of course, for that abstract idea. Only the concrete mattered, even if no one could say what that was without using yet more abstractions.
In practice, this novel turn to the 'concrete' meant that several long-standing members of the party were harangued until they either abandoned revolutionary activity altogether, or they adapted to the "new mood" (as the wider political milieu in the UK was then called by Party YYYY).
In the latter eventuality, it meant that they had to conform to a suicidally increased rate of activity geared around the fight against the Poll Tax, whether or not they or their families suffered as a consequence. At meetings, one by one, comrades were subjected to a series of grossly unfair public hectoring sessions (in a small way reminiscent of the sort of things that went on in the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" -- minus the physical violence). These were conducted with no little vehemence by several party 'attack dogs' (working as a sort of 'political tag team') until the 'victims' either buckled under the strain, or gave up and left the party.
'Dialectical' arguments of remarkable inconsistency were used to 'justify' every convoluted change of emphasis, and counter every objection (declaring them one and all "abstract"), no matter how reasonable these might otherwise have seemed. Comrades who were normally quite level-headed became almost monomaniacal in their zeal to search out and re-educate those who were not quite 100% with the program. [For some reason these comrades left me alone, probably because I was highly active at the time, and perhaps because I knew a little philosophy, and could defend myself.]
In the end, as is evident from the record, the Poll Tax was defeated by strategies other than those advocated by this particular party, and the "new mood" melted away nearly as fast as most of the older comrades did -- and, as fate would have it, about as quickly as many of the new members the party had managed to recruit at the time. I do not think that the local party in XXXX has recovered from this period of "applied dialectics" (from what I can tell it is about a half to a third of its former size, and thus nowhere nearly as effective), and I have no reason to believe that the national body has managed to avoid a similar fate.
So, for nearly fifteen years now, Party YYYY has been a fraction of its former size. Coupled with other splits that have occurred since, this probably explains why it has not been able to capitalise significantly on the widespread radicalisation brought about by the international Anti-Globalisation movement, the US/UK invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (despite the prominent role it has played in the Stop the War Coalition), the weakness of the 'official left' in the UK, and the fight to defend pensions (etc.).
This party used to hold two large annual gatherings a year; it is now down to one -- the second of which used to last a whole week, but is now (in 2007) projected to stretch over five days (with two of these being half days). The recent (2007) split in Respect has further reduced its size and influence.
Incidentally, I now know that similar (but far worse) things have gone on in other revolutionary groups; the disintegration of the WRP, for example, and the Militant Tendency -- that link is in reply to this -- , reveals that this sort of thing is alarmingly widespread, and has gone on for generations. Anyone familiar with the history of Trotskyism either side of the Atlantic, and elsewhere, over the last 60 years will know that this is not just a UK phenomenon. Indeed, it is now a stereotypical feature of Trotskyism, which, in many eyes, makes the whole tradition a standing joke.
Sad though it is to say, Trotskyism's one major area of success has been to split more times that a schizophrenic amoeba, which is, of course, one reason why it has been such a long-term failure. Believe it or not, comrades will bemoan this in one breath, but in the next refuse to accept that their core theory (dialectics) has anything whatsoever to do with it! They will not even consider the possibility, not even as a partial cause of our side's 150 year long tendency to fragment. [Why this is so is explained here.]
[Anyone who doubts this should check the response I received here, here and here, for merely suggesting this as one possibility. But this is a regular, almost stereotypical reaction.]
Stalinism and Maoism are far less fragmentary, but this is only because these traditions have a record of imprisoning, torturing and/or killing those who stray too far from the path of righteousness --, as opposed to merely expelling them. [One wonders therefore what would happen if Trotskyists ever managed to secure real power.]
And this is the movement that is supposed to herald a new era for humanity?
This series of events set off a train of thought. As is apparent to anyone with unblinkered eyes, Dialectical Marxism [DIM] is the most unsuccessful major political movement in human history -- bar none. Given its bold aims, its totalising theory and the fact that it is supposed to represent the aspirations of the vast bulk of humanity, the opposite should in fact be the case. But it isn't. [As noted above, the record of Trotskyism is, if anything, even worse; in fact, it is disgraceful.]
[Of course, these observations are somewhat less true of academic Marxism, a hardy perennial that largely took-off in the 1960s, and is still going strong -- but, alas, to nowhere in particular.
In fact, the political effectiveness of this current has been conspicuous by its total absence -- which is an odd sort of thing to have to say of those comrades in Universities and Colleges around the world who spare no effort in reminding us that truth is tested in practice (or praxis, to use the buzz-word). "Practice" here seems to mean (for these comrades) attending seminars, endlessly discussing things on internet mailing lists, and writing obscure articles and books that not a single worker will ever see --, except perhaps in the print room before being shipped.
Ironically, just as the richest of Christian Churches in the world can 'justify' the brazenly luxurious life-stile of Cardinals and Bishops while claiming to represent someone who lived in absolute poverty, and who condemned wealth, so such comrades can claim to be furthering the "world-view of the proletariat" with theories and jargon that few without a PhD can comprehend.]
Although at the time I had no way of proving it, these local events suggested that an allegiance to DM might have helped create this wider, but suitably ironic "unity of opposites": the long-term failure of a movement that should be hugely successful.
The thought then occurred to me that perhaps this paradoxical situation -- wherein a political movement that avowedly represents the interests of the overwhelming majority of human beings is ignored by all but a few -- was linked in some way to the contradictory theory at its heart: DM.
Perhaps this was part of the reason why all revolutionary groups remain small, fragmentary, and lack significant influence? Indeed, could dialectics be related to the unprincipled (if not manipulatively instrumental) way that DM-fans treat, use or abuse one another?
Consider, too, the ease with which former 'friends' and 'comrades' soon descended into lying, spreading gossip, fabrication and smears in the recent collapse of UK-Respect. A good place to see much of this is at the Socialist Unity website -- named such because it (unwittingly) records the exact opposite tendency, one presumes. Much of its space is now devoted to highlighting every negative factoid of dubious provenance it can lay its hands on to rubbish a prominent UK revolutionary party and its 'leaders'.
[See also the acrimony and personal vitriol expressed the recent (Summer 2007) split in the US Communist League, and the even more recent feud (February 2008) in the Maoist RCP-US. A similar, dialectically-fuelled bust-up is currently underway (2007/08) in the US wing of the ICFI. One thing is for certain, we can expect much more of the same before we finally ruin the planet by our studied idiocy.]
Furthermore, could it be that dialectics was connected with the tendency almost all revolutionary groups have (or display) of wanting to substitute themselves for the working-class --, or, at least, of excusing the substitution of other forces for it, be they Red Army tanks, Maoist guerrillas, radicalised students, or 'sympathetic/progressive' nationalist leaders? Was this theory used to justify and/or rationalise all manner of opportunistic and cynical twists and turns (some of them taking place overnight) -- like those we saw enacted in the CPSU and the CCP in the 1920s and 1930s, which helped destroy several revolutions, dismantle and dissipate workers' struggles, and assist in the deaths of millions of proletarians (in and around WW2, and since)?
[As we will see, the answer is a resounding "Yes!" And we wonder why workers still distrust us!]
It seemed to me that researching these and related questions might also help me explain why revolutionary socialism has been so depressively unsuccessful for so long. If there are no fixed principles (according to the fixed principle that there aren't any), then it's not the least bit surprising that comrades treat one another -- and are treated in return -- in an unprincipled and manipulative way.
In that case, isn't DM just another aspect of the "muck of ages" that Marx claimed humanity had to cast aside if a socialist society is to be created?
Maybe not; but shouldn't it be?
Monumental lack of success (lasting now for over one hundred and forty years -- which means that this is not just an ephemeral feature of the movement) sits rather awkwardly with the emphasis dialecticians place on practice as a test of truth. Despite a history of almost complete failure, DM-theorists still declare Marxism a success! This they say is because it has been "tested in practice", and has to this day not been found wanting.
Now, to non-dialecticians, denials like this look uncomfortably like the refusal to admit to any damage made famous by the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail; no matter what body part he lost, he still claimed he was winning.
[Anyone who has tried to persuade any of DM-faithful that DIM has been an abject failure might as well try to convince them that Marx himself was made of cream cheese, for all the progress they will make. In fact, the attempt will not even register --, so deep in the sand has the dialectical head been inserted.]
[DIM = Dialectical Marxism/Marxist, depending on context.]
An irrational compulsion to see the world as other than it really is, is something Marxists quite rightly lay at the door of their class-enemies. But, it now looks like this character defect has come home to roost, and is nesting securely in each dialectical skull.
[As we will see, in Essay Nine Part Two, both of these phenomena have the same material cause.]
This suggested to me that DM might actually insulate militant minds from material reality, and that this might be part of its appeal: the capacity to work as an 'opiate'.
Indeed, the radically perverse nature of dialectics might help convince otherwise alert comrades that even if what they can see with their own eyes actually contradicts the abstract idea (it certainly isn't concrete!) that Marxism has been tested successfully in practice, this disparity can be discounted since 'Materialist Dialectics' also teaches that appearances 'contradict' reality. In that case, incongruities of this order of magnitude are only to be expected -- and, remarkably, this merely serves to further confirm the theory!
Hence, no material fact (no matter how obvious or damning) is allowed to count against the fixed idea that DIM has been, and still is, eminently successful.
This is perhaps one unchanging idea over which the infamous Heraclitean flux has no jurisdiction.
Anyone who doubts this need only read the neurotically up-beat reports one constantly finds in most revolutionary papers, and on the vast majority of Marxist websites (with few notable exceptions): everything is coming up roses, all the time. Major set-backs are largely ignored, and the smallest success is hyped out of all proportion, and hailed as if it were of cosmic significance.
Hence, when a couple of dozen hard-boiled, leather-necked, brick-faced Bolsheviks gather together in some god-forsaken hotel in the suburbs, we are regaled with the glad tidings that this marks a significant advance for the world proletariat. Except, of course, no one bothered to tell all four billion of them, and they happily returned that complement by staying away in their hundreds of millions. A month later, and what do we find? This 'party of the working-class' has split, with one half expelling the other, or vice versa --, and as if to rub it in, even that is hailed as a major advance for the toiling masses!
Self-deception of this order of magnitude is surely pathological.
[Check out the rabid optimism that now abounds in Respect, and in Respect Renewal (the 'breakaway' party), especially here (even the cake that was served was "marvellous"!) --, and this after another split! 300 or so turn up 150 years after the Communist Manifesto was published and that is something to shout from the rooftops!
Single-celled organisms learn faster, it seems.
Of course, not everyone involved in this split is a fan of dialectics, but the social/class origin and nature of the vast majority of those involved is the key issue, here, for it is in this petty-bourgeois soil that sectarianism grows. However, this is analysed in more detail in Essay Nine Part Two.]
A one hundred and fifty year mismatch between theory and observation of this order of magnitude would normally scupper an honest theory -- i.e., a scientific theory -- but not 'Materialist Dialectics'. Because of the latter, the message delivered to the dialectical brain by the senses may now be inverted so that it becomes its opposite. It is thus re-processed and transformed into its obverse: a powerful confirmation of the theory that instructs believers to expect just such discrepancies, just such contradictions. Theorists who proudly proclaim their materialist credentials can now 'safely' ignore material reality (since the latter is a merely an 'appearance'), and cling to the comforting idea that the tide of history is with them.
The fact that most dialecticians buy into this rosy view of reality (and cling on to it even after this has been pointed out to them) suggests that something has gone badly wrong inside their Hermetically compromised heads.
Dialectical Myopia is movement-wide; it afflicts Maoists and Stalinists, Orthodox Trotskyists and Libertarian Communists, un-orthodox Trotskyists and academic Marxists alike. In fact, sectarian division has not divided opinion in this one area: while every other tendency is an abject failure and are traitors to the cause, members of each individual tradition/party, in contrast, judge themselves to be success incarnate.
In a world governed by topsy-turvy logic like this -- ideologically inverted as in a lens (to paraphrase Marx and Engels) -- fantasy replaces fact, and wish-fulfilment replaces material reality.
The near universal and long-term rejection of DIM by almost every section of the working-class can thus be flipped upside down to become the source of its strongest support! If workers disdain Marxism, then the theory that inverted this material fact -- transforming it into the contrary idea that workers do not really do this (since they are blinded by "false consciousness", or have been 'bought-off' by super-profits) -- at one stroke becomes both cause and consequence of the failure of revolutionary politics to "seize the masses". This is because hard-core fantasy of this level of intensity actually prevents these dialectical victims from facing up to the long-term problems confronting Marxism.
If there are no problems with the core theory, then plainly none need be addressed.
So, the theory that helps keep Marxism unbelievably unsuccessful is the very same theory that tells those in its thrall that the opposite is the case, and that nothing need be done about it, even while it insulates the militant mind from recalcitrant reality that clearly says different.
This means that the DM-inspired negators of material reality can now safely ignore the fact that reality universally negates their theory. The latter has now been rotated through 180 degrees in order to conform to the idea that whatever happens will always be a victory for socialism (if at least in the long term).
This is a contradiction of such prodigious proportions that only those who "understand" dialectics are properly able to "grasp" it.
Ironically enough, for a theory ostensively created by hard-nosed Bolsheviks, the Ideal now stands proudly on its feet, the material world having been unceremoniously up-ended. But, if anything and everything that happens in nature and society can be made to agree with this 'theory', if decades of defeats, set-backs, splits and disasters count for nothing, how can it be argued that practice is a test of truth? What exactly is being tested if reality is so easily ignored? If DM can't fail whatever happens, why bother with such an empty charade?
The short answer is, of course, that practice has never been used to test the truth of DIM (despite what the brochure says). Had it been, there would be no DM-supporters left to query that very allegation, since all would have seen it for what it is -- failure writ large, refuting a theory writ small --, and given up.
If one hundred and fifty years of defeat, retreat and disaster are anything to go by, we can safely conclude one of three things: (a) If practice is a criterion of truth, DIM stands refuted; (b) If practice is a criterion of truth, it has not yet been applied to DIM itself; or (c) Practice is not a reliable test of truth.
If this brief characterisation is at all accurate, it would seem reasonable to suppose that DM has other noxious side-effects that adepts might prefer not to confront, or which they will try to invert in like manner.
Perhaps 'Materialist Dialectics' has helped intensify the mean-spirited intolerance almost invariably shown by comrades of one group toward those of any and all others, the sectarian in-fighting over minor theoretical differences (in the interpretation of this or that vanishingly small dialectical thesis), the cult of personality, the substitutionist tendencies displayed by almost all professional revolutionaries?
Maybe, too, DM is linked to the anti-democratic promulgation of dogmatic theses by cabal-like "central committees", the casuistical rationalisation of dictatorial internal party structures, the inconsistent tactical manoeuvring based on the adoption of openly contradictory 'principles' (as proof, no doubt, that the dialectic is working through this or that tiny sect -- on the sound dialectical basis that if nature is contradictory, the party and its tactics must be, too), the megalomaniacal idea that a handful of militants gathered together in a flat in Camden is authorised to issue demands on behalf of the "international proletariat", the irrational devotion to quasi-mystical theses -- involving, among other things, a belief in the 'infinite', a commitment to the idea that nature is a unified whole where everything is interconnected, the brazenly animistic notion that the universe is in what can only be described as an endless 'argument' with itself (evidenced by the alleged fact that there exist real "contradictions" in nature and society), and finally the tendency practically all dialecticians have for quoting Holy Writ to answer any and all objections (and this from comrades who are otherwise rightly proud of their independence of mind).
All of these, and more, can be attributed to an acceptance of the "dialectic"; and they will be in what follows. The presence of these faults is hardly surprising given the fact that the philosophical principles underlying DM can be traced back to the ideas of ancient and early modern Mystics, whose theories mirrored well-known ruling-class forms-of-thought.
[The above allegations are substantiated in the following Essays: Nine Parts One and Two, Twelve and Fourteen (summaries here and here) -- the latter two have not been published yet.]
The unity, self-discipline and grass-roots democracy that the class war progressively forces onto workers stands in stark relief to the petty sectarian divisiveness found in all known revolutionary parties. Amazingly, comrades can still be found who will argue that while, on the one hand, workers must organise collectively to defend themselves, on the other, that voting to expel this or that faction from that or this party will advance the cause of the working class!
The fact that dialecticians cannot even see the incongruity here speaks volumes in itself. Of course, such splits are often connected with the drive to maintain doctrinal 'purity' (or unity in action), but that implicates dialectics all the more, for it is only because the DM-classics are treated biblically that the notion of doctrinal purity makes sense to begin with. Indeed, just like the Bible, the fathomless obscurity of Hegel's Logic works admirably well in this regard --, all this, of course, simply compounded by the lesser DM-works that have fed off of it in the meantime.
The class origin of professional and semi-professional revolutionaries -- coupled with the ideologically-compromised theory they espouse -- helps account for the radical mis-match between the genuine political/economic concerns of the working-class and the irrelevant philosophical ideas spouted by such self-appointed 'class-warriors' and 'tribunes' of the people.
The differential effect on workers and revolutionaries of either or both of these is instructive: while the class war drives the former together, it forces the latter apart.
This needs explaining --, and so it will be in Essay Nine Parts One and Two.
If, as a result of the action of well-known economic and social forces, working people have had to unite to defend themselves, then maybe the all too easy fragmentation witnessed in our 'movement' can similarly be explained as the result of other, less well-appreciated social and ideological forces -- those inherent perhaps in the class origin (and current class position) of prominent comrades. As Marx noted:
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
Social being might indeed determine the ideological predilections of such leading socialists, none of whom were beamed down to this planet as fully-formed rebels. As members of the human race, dialecticians are surely not above the material pressures that shape the rest of us; but you would never be able to conclude that from examining their inflated view of their own self-importance. As far as they are concerned, social forces by-passed any and all involvement in the formation of their ideas.
[The allegation that this is a "crude reductionist" explanation is defused here.]
Hence, it must be a sheer coincidence that DM shares most of its core theses with those of practically every mystic who ever walked the earth --, who, as bad luck would have it, also occupied an analogous class position and thus had a commensurate need for consolation.
It is also surely 'coincidental' that DIM shares with every mystical belief system the same propensity to fragment and split.
Surely it is possible to argue that the historical forces that originally helped shape class society -- and which also gave birth to the ideas of those who still benefit from it --, have had something to do with this glaring antinomy?
Indeed, if it could be shown that DM was derived from, and belongs to, an ancient and divisive philosophical tradition, which developed alongside and nurtured class conflict (as indeed it can), that might help explain why DIM has witnessed little other than fragmentation, sectarian division, and thus unremitting failure almost from its inception. If DM is indeed part of a theoretical tradition that owes its life to ruling-class patterns-of-thought, its tendency to foment, or exacerbate division will thus have a materialist explanation.
Is this then the historical and ideological source of the deeply engrained sectarian and substitutionist thinking in our movement?
It certainly is.
Even better, I am able to show that it is.
It thus became clear to me that if the above un-comradely vices were to be eradicated from our movement, this malignant tumour (DM) will have to be completely excised from Marxism.
Of course, this is not to suggest that dialectics is the only reason for the persistent failure of Marxist ideas to "seize the masses", but it certainly helps explain why revolutionary groups tend to be permanently tiny, persistently factional, malignantly suspicious, religiously sectarian, routinely authoritarian, studiously insular, worryingly substitutionist, monumentally unsuccessful, consistently inconsistent and profoundly unreasonable.
In fact, and on the contrary, if such vices had in fact led to success, that is what would need explaining!
----------oOo----------
I raised some of these issues at a national gathering of Party YYYY in London in July 1990. The reception I received from one large meeting I addressed suggested two things. First, that there were many comrades in and around that party (at that time) who thought like me but had no focus for their views; second, that the party leadership would resist any attempt to undermine their collective commitment to the sacred Dialectical Mantra.
For personal (not political) reasons I let my membership of this party lapse in the early 1990s, and although I have been active around several issues since (for example, in connection with the big demonstrations in support of the NUM in the early 1990s and those in opposition to US/UK/Israeli aggression in Iraq and Lebanon in 2003-07), my links with Party YYYY have been merely formal since. However, it is important to add that I still have no political differences with this party (other than those that involve 'Materialist Dialectics').
Nevertheless, in 1998 John Rees published TAR. This awoke me from my non-dogmatic slumbers, motivating me to write a detailed response, since his book symbolised for me much that was wrong with Marxist Philosophy. Despite its obvious strengths (not the least of which is its clear commitment to the revolutionary transformation of society), TAR is a stark reminder that the very best of socialists (like John) can have their thinking seriously clouded by dialectical mud.
And yet TAR is not the worst offender in this regard; in fact, it is an unorthodox DM-text. 'Orthodox' dialecticians will, I am sure, abhor it. They will accuse it of this or that heinous crime against dialectics: that it is a "revisionist" tract; that it is too "concrete"; that it is not "concrete" enough; that it is too "abstract"; that it is not "abstract" enough; that it underplays theoretical issues and is thus superficial (I have already seen that one on the Internet); that it is too theoretical; that it takes a "subjectivist" view of this or that; that it takes an "objectivist" view of that or this; that it is "eclectic"; that it is not "all-rounded", but too "one-sided"; that it is the work of a "sophist"; that it is far too "empiricist"; that it is not empirical enough; that it is a "rehash" (this is a popular word among the DM-faithful) of such and such, or so and so; that is it little more than "warmed-over" (another popular dialectical buzzword, too) reformism, or X-,Y-, and Z-ism; that it is Idealist, "authoritarian" and or "elitist"; that it is "positivist"; that it ignores "materialist dialectics"(!); that it fails to consider "systematic dialectics"; that it is "workerist"; that it forgets that "matter precedes motion" (or is it the other way round?), etc., etc.
In fact, TAR will be dismissed simply because that is how the 'orthodox' respond to practically anything and everything that they themselves have not written.
Sectarianism like this can be found in all religions, as is well known; but copying it has done Marxism few favours. Revolutionaries cannot tap into the religious alienation that guarantees the oppressed will often turn to Bishops, Priests and Imams for guidance.
Nevertheless, the universally sectarian stance adopted by most dialectically-oriented revolutionaries (toward one another) suggests that as far as party size goes, small is not just beautiful, it is as inevitable as it is desirable: the smaller the party, the easier it is to control.
Hence, despite all the effort that has gone into "building the party" over the last seventy or eighty years, few tendencies can boast membership levels that rise much above the risible. Not one has ever "seized the masses" (at least, in the last fifty years or so), nor have any looked as if they are likely to so much as lightly hug them.
But, why change such an unsuccessful strategy? Why indeed would anyone (who assents to the idea that reality is in constant flux) want to do such a crazy thing?
Change that close to home? Are you mad?!
Ironically, once again, it seems that this is one abstract principle to which the orthodox fondly adhere -- nay, stoutly defend.
But, dialecticians are supposed to be inconsistent; it is written into their contract. In line with this, if DM-fans want to be consistent with their own belief in universal contradiction, they must continue to preach unity, but practice division.
And we can expect them to continue sanctifying this failed strategy with the use of quasi-religious rationalisations -- such as defending "orthodoxy", "tradition" and doctrinal "purity" --, and rejecting "Revisionism" (even though Lenin argued that all theories need constant revision!)
However, if Marxism is to provide the ideas, strategy and organisation necessary for a successful working-class revolution (as I believe it can), and if I am right about the negative impact DM has had on our movement, then the future of the human race depends on just this theoretical struggle.
That is how important this issue is.
We have no choice, therefore; we cannot allow DM one day finally to come to stand for Dead Marxism.
Comrades, you have nothing to lose but your small and steadily shrinking pond!
In the Essays posted here I have focused on core DM-theses, among which are the following: the nebulous Totality and the "mediated" relation between whole and part, universal flux, 'determinism' versus 'freedom', the three so-called "Laws of Dialectics" ("the transformation of quantity into quality", the "interpenetration of opposites" (involving "change through internal contradiction"), the "negation of the negation"), the nature of abstraction, 'contradictory' motion, and the alleged limitations of Formal Logic and the 'Law of Identity'.
In addition, I also examine the class-compromised origin of the ideas dialecticians have imported into Marxism -- alongside issues connected with the deleterious effect these have had on our movement --, and later, the nature of science, language and 'mind', as these relate to the issues under discussion.
However, the first difficulty that faces any aspiring critic is that it is virtually impossible to determine what the above theses actually amount to, especially if reliance is placed solely on what dialecticians themselves say about them. This is not because little has been published on these topics -- far from it, the opposite is in fact the case --, it's because what has been written is hopelessly vague, mind-numbingly repetitive, alarmingly superficial, and profoundly confused --, if not totally incomprehensible (as this series of Essays aims to demonstrate).
This has meant that in every single case it has been necessary for me to clarify key DM-theses before criticism can even begin. Of course, in attempting to do this I am fully aware that I might well have misrepresented this or that DM-thesis. If that is the case, then any DM-supporters reading this, who find my attempts to rephrase their theory unsatisfactory, are invited to correct the errors they find, and say clearly -- and for the first time ever -- what the central doctrines of DM actually amount to.
Unfortunately, there is little prospect that this will ever take place -- if it is left to DM-theorists themselves to do it. This is so for at least two reasons:
[1] DIMs appear to be incapable even of entertaining the idea that there could possibly be anything remotely wrong with their theory. In fact, what I say above (i.e., that it is impossible to determine with any clarity what DM actually amounts to) will meet with immediate incomprehension from all concerned.
However, anyone who reads my Essays will soon see why I said this.
Nevertheless, there are good reasons for such long-term DM-complacency; these are examined in Essay Nine Part Two. But, whatever the cause, this closed mind-set seriously affects the way that criticisms are already handled: invariably detractors are misrepresented, misquoted, ridiculed and abused --, their motives questioned, and allegations invented. Awkward facts and arguments are just ignored. Either that, or critics are dismissed as latter-day reincarnations of Peter Struve, Max Eastman or James Burnham (which is, of course, the dialectical equivalent of guilt by association).01
Dire warnings are often issued concerning the serious consequences of anyone questioning Holy Dialectical Writ --, along the lines that such foolishness will lead those who indulge away from the true faith, it having been forgotten by Trotskyists (at least) that far more of those they count as counter-revolutionaries accept the dialectical gospel than do revolutionaries, namely, Stalinists and Maoists. [The latter comrades, of course, will just have to ignore that comment!] Just as one and all will fail to notice that Plekhanov, a DM-theorist par excellence, was a Menshevik (as were both of the Axelrods); even Max Shachtman was a dialectician after he split with Trotsky.
Moreover, in academia, Systematic Dialectics (DM's vastly more sophisticated, but completely useless, distant cousin) is itself one of the mainsprings of non-revolutionary Marxism. [The above link is to an automatically downloadable RTF document.]
This is quite apart from the countless thousands put off Marxism for life because of the dialectical antics exposed here.
In that case, dialectics is neither super-glued to a commitment to revolutionary politics, nor to its successful prosecution (and that includes 1917). Indeed, since DIM is itself a stranger to success, and has played an active part in more than its own fair share of failed revolutions, not only are its adherents in no position to point any fingers, they have no legitimate fingers to point!
[Despite this, dialectical comrades will be the last ones to see this, so we are likely to witness the same ignorant, knee-jerk dismissal of this project from such benighted souls.]
This tactic is standard practice; one could almost call it a cliché. [A perusal of internet sites where I have 'debated' DM with assorted dialecticians will amply confirm this seemingly cynical indictment; for example, here.]
One reason for this reflex response is the assumption that because DM is unassailably true (despite Lenin having said that no theory is final), any criticism of it can only arise from the suspect ideological/political motives -- or, indeed, the personal failings -- of its opponents. Thus, if detractors are branded from the start as insincere or duplicitous (even if there is no evidence to suggest this) -- or, perhaps, as enemies of Marxism --, they can be misrepresented, vilified or abused, and thus ignored. Naturally, this is about as sensible as ignoring the signs of cancer, and then attacking anyone who diagnoses its presence or warns of its consequences.
Unquestionably, these particular theoretical waters have been well-and-truly muddied by the detritus stirred up by ideological currents that are openly inimical to revolutionary socialism. Marxists are right to be ever wary of the underhand tactics of the class enemy. However, this reactive stance has meant that revolutionaries have been forced onto the defensive time and again; over the years they have adopted a siege-like mentality. So, from inside these circled wagons there are only two ways to shoot: in or out. This 'friend or foe' approach to theory has meant that critics (even if they turn out to be comrades who are committed to HM -- as I am) will never be given a fair hearing (or any at all) for fear that this might aid and abet the class enemy. Even though this state of semi-permanent paranoia is understandable (given the above considerations), it only serves to perpetuate the myth that DM is without fault and above criticism -- and therefore obviously true.1
Naturally, an impregnable redoubt like this can only be secured at the cost of making Marxism itself unscientific. There is no science that is above error or beyond revision. Indeed, there is none that refuses to take criticism.
In light of what Lenin himself said about the approximate nature of knowledge, Leninists should be the first to see this point. The fact that in general they are not, do not, cannot, and will not, suggests that for them DM is neither approximate nor scientific. It has indeed become a dogma requiring continuous acts of faith -- and thus defended with the same level irrationality displayed by genuine 'god'-botherers.
However, one thing is clear: dialecticians are creatures of tradition; it is their strongest instinct. Indeed, if the reader checks these links, they will see that almost every DM-fan with whom I have 'debated' this topic makes practically the same point: "Who are you, Rosa Lichtenstein, to question the likes of Engels/Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin/Mao...?"
Such comrades forget that science is predicated on just such radical questioning. Had they lived centuries ago, one can almost imagine these comrades arguing: "Who are you, Galileo, to question the Church and Aristotle?"; "Who are you, Hegel, to question Kant?"; "Who are you, Feuerbach, to question Hegel"; "Who are you, Herr Marx, to question Ricardo?"
Even when this is put to them, it sails right over their heads, so compromised have their critical faculties become. Small wonder then that in Essay Nine Part Two I liken them to religious obscurantists.
[2] The second reason is not unconnected with the first: DM-supporters invariably regard any attempt to examine dialectics critically as an attack on Marxism itself -- even where (as here, once more) this is not the case. This defensive posture has evidently been prompted by the suspicion that any clarification of their theory -- i.e., one that advances beyond yet another paraphrase of the 'classics' -- might nurture the untoward idea that the dogmas enshrined therein are less than perfect.2
However, one noteworthy consequence of this stance is that DM has remained trapped in a theoretical time-warp, now lasting well over a hundred years. An almost permanent doctrinal ossification has descended upon this theory. To its supporters, who --, despite their eagle-eyed capacity to spot change everywhere else --, have failed to notice this, this state of affairs clearly being preferable to one that might suggest their ideas are defective in some way. A theory steeped in formalin, it seems, cannot rot any further, but it is still dead for all that.
This means that, beyond certain trivialities, DM has not advanced theoretically in the last 80 or 90 years. That is how "vibrant" DM is; indeed, Tutankhamen looks rather nimble in comparison.
This backward-facing stance (unique, except perhaps for a somewhat similar orientation found in Fundamentalist Christian Theology) helps explain why Lenin, for example, imagined he could advance dialectics by retrieving ideas he discovered in Hegel, ones written over ninety years earlier still!3
It is instructive to contrast this approach with the way that genuine science develops. It is difficult to imagine someone like, say, Niels Bohr referring back to the ideas of Newton, copying them out and commenting on them in detail -- and doing practically nothing else -- in his endeavour to advance Physics. Difficult, perhaps; but it would be impossible to believe that scientists since Bohr's day would be happy doing only the same. Yet this is how DM-theorists conduct themselves; TAR is just a recent example of this conservative mind-set, one that is happy to regurgitate the truths handed down from the dialectical-prophets.3a
Ironically, therefore, the theory that posits change everywhere else can find no place for it at home. As already noted -- perhaps fittingly --, this situation is not likely to change.4 Hence, DM -- the erstwhile theory of universal mutability -- is living disproof of its own commitment to it; DM contains theses that have remained virtually frozen solid for over a hundred years. Hegel's system (albeit, 'upside down') has thus been cemented in place; the abstract now set in concrete.5
Another consequence of this backwards-facing and doctrinaire stance is that the majority of dialecticians are almost totally ignorant of developments in modern Logic and Western/Analytic Philosophy (having branded these as 'bourgeois' and ideological).
This means, of course, that anyone not quite so educationally-crippled, who tries 'debating' with DM-acolytes, will find that they are doubly handicapped.
First of all, they will face accusations of being a "bourgeois apologist" (or, of being one of their "dupes"/"stooges"), or branded as an "elitist" (a favourite term used by OTs and ultra-lefts) for having bothered to acquaint themselves with modern thought. This is, of course, as rational a criticism of modern Logic and Philosophy as that advanced by Creationists against Darwinism; in fact less so, since Marxists should know better.
[OT = Orthodox Trotskyist.]
Second, it is virtually impossible to help correct the thought of comrades who are steeped in logical error if they are unaware of the extent of their ignorance, still less is it any use trying to correct others who are happy to continue to wallow in it (as many are). Since the vast majority DM-fans are almost totally ignorant of logic (ancient or modern), not only can they not spot for themselves the serious logical blunders Hegel committed (summary here), they find they cannot follow any explanation as to how and why these occurred.
Twenty-five years experience 'debating' with DM-fans has taught me that the majority are quite happy to remain almost totally ignorant of Logic and Analytic Philosophy, but that has not stopped them pontificating about both. This is yet another trait they share with Creationists.
In that case, many of the criticisms advanced here will sail right over most dialectical heads. In order to minimise this possibility, I have endeavoured to present the ideas and methods I have learnt from modern Analytic Philosophy in as accessible a form as possible --, even at the risk of being accused of over-simplification.
In these Essays, therefore, I am not addressing academics, but comrades who have fallen badly behind, and who are thus unaware of the advances made in the above disciplines.5a
In addition, I have also linked to other sites --, and have cited books and articles --, where these ideas are developed in more detail, or with greater sophistication, for those who want such things.
Nevertheless, for all their avowed love of "contradictions", DM-theorists do not like to be contradicted -- especially "internally", as it were, by a comrade. In fact, they reject all such attempts -- which is rather odd given their commitment to the belief that progress can only occur in this way, through contradiction!
So, here is a nice conundrum: if all progress and change does indeed result from "internal contradictions", then the pages that follow, which uncover the many that lie at the heart of dialectics, should be warmly welcomed by the DM-faithful. Indeed, if improvement and development can come about in no other way, then these Essays ought to be well-received by those committed to 'dialectical' change.
The fact that they won't be welcomed should therefore count as one of the opening 'contradictions' exposed at this site: DM stands refuted as much by its own unwillingness to be contradicted (internally or externally) as it is by the fact that this situation is not likely to change.
------------------------oOo------------------------
It is worth emphasising at the start that unless otherwise stated, I have confined my remarks here to the so-called "Dialectics of Nature"; the extrapolation of 'dialectics' into areas governed by HM has been almost totally ignored -- except, that is, where it involves issues relevant to my demolition of DM itself, or where (in my view) the use of dialectical concepts/jargon fatally undermines the credibility of HM. This is not to say that I accept the validity of any of the dialectical terminology that has found its way into HM (i.e., to form 'Materialist Dialectics'); the opposite is in fact the case. However, since the point of these Essays is to stem the flow of poison at its source, DM alone has been targeted.6
Throughout this work HM has been distanced from DM. To some, this might seem an entirely bogus distinction; but no Marxist of any intelligence would use slogans drawn exclusively from DM to agitate workers. Consider for example the following: "The Law of Identity is true only within certain limits and the struggle against the occupation of Iraq!" Or "Change in quantity leads to change in quality (and vice versa) and the campaign to keep hospital HH open!" Or even, "Being is at the same time identical with but different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved by Becoming, and the fight against the BNP!"
Slogans like these would be employed by militants of uncommon stupidity and legendary ineffectiveness. In contrast, active revolutionaries employ ideas drawn exclusively from HM to communicate with workers. The best papers on the revolutionary left, for instance, already use ordinary material language, coupled with concepts drawn from HM, to agitate and propagandise; rarely do they employ DM-phraseology to that end. Only deeply sectarian 'revolutionary' papers of exemplary unpopularity and impressive lack of impact use jargon lifted from dialectics to educate and agitate workers. Newsline, the paper of the old WRP, was a notable example of this, hence its irrelevance and terminal decline.
So, the distinction drawn here is made in practice every day by militants. The present work merely systematises it. [Objections to this argument are considered in detail in Essay Nine, Part One. See also here.]
In these Essays, no attempt will be made to defend HM; it will be taken as read. Hence, any non-Marxists reading this would be well-advised to go no further. These Essays are not addressed to them.
Should any professional Philosophers stray onto this site, they will find that in many places the material here only scratches the surface of the philosophical issues raised, as noted above. In a site such as this, which is not aimed at professional philosophers, unnecessary detail/pedantry would be inappropriate. However, in each of my Essays, I reference numerous books and academic articles that develop or substantiate topics that have only been touched upon.7
Several other features of these Essays will strike the reader as rather odd: (1) Their almost exclusively negative, if not unremittingly hostile, tone; (2) their quasi-dialectical structure (where the word "dialectical" is to be understood in its older, classical sense); (3) the total absence of any alternative philosophical theses; (4) their length; and finally, (5) their analytic, if not relentless style.
The first two of these are not unrelated. Although I have endeavoured to construct as comprehensive a case against DM as I am capable of producing, I have also sought to raise objections to my own criticisms at almost every stage. While this strategy has been adopted to test my ideas to the limit, it has also been of some use in trying to make DM comprehensible.
To that end, the reader will find that many issues have been raised here for the first time ever, anywhere. Core DM-theses have been examined in unprecedented detail, most from a completely novel angle. It is a sad reflection of the mental paralysis induced in those who -- in Max Eastman's words -- "suffer from dialectics", that such key ideas have escaped detailed attention for over a hundred years, but it is nonetheless accurate for all that.
Even if it should turn out that this project is misconceived in some way, it succeeds in breaking entirely new ground, as readers will soon discover. In fact, should DM-supporters engage fairly with the content of this site -- even if they remain of the same opinion by the end --, they will find that their own ideas will emerge strengthened because of the entirely novel challenges advanced in this work.8
As was alleged earlier, it is the opinion of the present author that DM has contributed in its own not insignificant way to DIM's spectacular lack of success. It is an alarming fact that of all the major political ideologies/movements in history, DIM is perhaps the least successful. The role that DM has played in helping to engineer this disastrous state of affairs partly accounts for the persistently negative (if not openly hostile) tone adopted here.
If revolutionaries genuinely wish to change the world by assisting in a successful working-class revolution (and I certainly count myself among those who do), then the sooner this alien-class ideology (DM) is excised the better.
In that case, if the main ideas presented here are correct, then it is clear that DM has helped cripple the revolutionary movement almost from the beginning. Because of that, those who insist on clinging to this regressive doctrine (for whatever reason) risk extending this abysmal record of failure into this new century.
Unfortunately, it is far from clear whether either the planet or humanity can take another hundred years of Capitalism. Indeed, one more protracted cycle of DM-induced failure could mean that even fewer workers will take Marxism seriously --, or, which amounts roughly to the same thing, live to tell the tale in anything remotely resembling a civilised society.
Items (3) and (5) in the above list are rather different, though. From time to time readers will find themselves asking the following question of the author: "Well, what's your theory then?" No alternative philosophical theory will be advanced here (or anywhere else for that matter). This tactic has not been adopted out of cussedness -- or even out of diffidence --, but because it is an important part of the Wittgensteinian method (employed here) not to advance philosophical theories. Wittgenstein's approach means that no philosophical theory makes any sense. Why this is so will be considered at length in Essay Twelve Part One. [Objections to the use of his ideas are neutralised here.]
As far as (5) is concerned, those who are unfamiliar with Analytic Philosophy might find the overall style of these Essays somewhat disconcerting, if not totally deflationary. Nevertheless, the analytic method produces clear results. Anyone who takes exception to this way of doing Philosophy (or who is happy to leave their head in the sand) can simply log off this site now. I have no wish to wake you up.
Figure One: Dialectical Alertness
Item (4) also needs explaining. The length of these Essays has been determined by two factors: the nature of DM itself and the attitude of its supporters.
All of the major -- and the vast majority of the minor -- DM-theses have been subjected to extensive criticism in this work; because of DM's totalising approach to knowledge it can be vanquished in no other way. Had a single topic been left with only superficial injuries -- and not fatally wounded -- its supporters might easily have imagined it could be revived. Had even one of DM's theoretical strands been left intact -- because of the alleged interconnections that exist between each and every one of its parts -- the temptation would have been to conclude that if one element is viable, the rest must be, too. Hence, the length of each Essay is partly the result DM's holistic character and partly because few of its supporters have ever bothered to analyse this theory to any great extent -- certainly not in the detail found here.
Those who still think these Essays too long, should compare them with the work of, say, Marx, whose writings dwarf my own. I have, however, attempted to summarise my main criticisms in three Essays of decreasing length and complexity, here, here and here.
Finally, even though many of the arguments presented in these Essays are in my view definitive, it is nevertheless true that genuine knock-down arguments in Philosophy are exceedingly rare. In that case, readers will have to make up their own minds as to whether or not I am alone in judging them this way.9
------------------------oOo------------------------
In researching the material published here, I have endeavoured to consult as many DM-texts as is physically possible; these have included all the DM-classics, the vast majority of the more important secondary works, and countless minor and subsidiary books and articles.
For reasons explained on the opening page, these Essays were published when they were only half-complete. In that case, over the years I will be adding vast amounts of detail as I factor in the notes I have made on the many DM-works I have consulted, but which have not yet been referenced. In most cases, each Essay will end up approximately twice the length that it is now. I expect to be working on this project for another ten years (from 2007).
However, since most DM-authors simply repeat almost verbatim what the classics have to say (quoting and paraphrasing Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin or Trotsky endlessly, using the very same ideas, phrases and words) -- with little attempt to clarify or amplify their content --, much of this research has turned out to be exceedingly repetitive. In fact, on many occasions it felt as if the same book or article was being read over and over again. That, of course, is one of the problems with DM.
Even so, the real reason why dialecticians are so neurotically repetitive will be explored in Essay Nine Part Two, as will the ideological significance of this parrot-like behaviour --, a serious character-defect, it seems, they have failed to notice in themselves.
Despite this, my lack of Russian (in which language most of the secondary literature on DM has been written) has prevented me from consulting Stalinist and pre-Stalinist works, except where these have been translated into English.10 Although Trotskyists would want to argue that the "lifeless and wooden" dialectic found in Stalinist texts contrasts unfavourably with their own 'vibrant strain', an examination of both traditions reveals a rather different story. While there certainly are detectable differences between Stalinists, Maoists. Libertarian Marxists, and Trotskyists in their application of 'Materialist Dialectics' to class society, as far as a commitment to DM (i.e., dialectics applied to nature) is concerned, all four are virtually indistinguishable. At least here they are indeed genetic and somatic quintuplets, philosophically joined at the head.
[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist.]
Those who doubt this easily confirmed fact will find it substantiated in Essay Two and in Essay Nine Part Two.11 And, if truth be told, some STDs (Russian and/or Chinese) display a far more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of "the dialectic" than do many OTs -- Ilyenkov and Oizerman come to mind here. [Another is Alexander Spirkin's analysis of the Part/Whole relation, outlined here; yet another is Yurkovets's discussion of "quality".]
Of course, this helped DM to become the official State Dogma in many of the former 'Marxist' states; but it is no less of a dogma among OTs, too. And yet, because of their even less successful revolutionary CV, Trotskyists do not have even so much as single 'Trotskyist' state (former or otherwise) on which they can impose their very own Shibboleths.
As far as can be ascertained, in this respect, that is the only relevant difference.
Another preliminary point worth making is this: the reader will find no overall summary of DM in these Essays. While DM-texts are quoted where necessary (sometimes at length), and are analysed in painstaking detail, I have made no effort to outline the general content of this theory (except, very briefly, here). Had that been attempted it would have served no purpose and would probably have been counter-productive.
It would have served no purpose because there are countless summaries of DM available to those who want yet another -- all of which read very much the same anyway.
It would have been counter-productive, too, since, as these pages show, there is no settled interpretation of DM among its acolytes. They all disagree with one another over minutiae (even though they all give lip-service to the basic ideas, and repeat them endlessly), which are then put to impressively sectarian misuse. Hence, one more attempt to summarise DM would surely have failed.
Hardcore DM-theorists would have responded to such a summary in the way I have no doubt they have already received TAR: they'd object to practically every single word, syllable and punctuation mark. That is what they do; that's all they do. Dialectical Moaners like this do not change, which is, of course, a suitably ironic punishment that 'Being' has inflicted upon these erstwhile believers in the Heraclitean Flux.
So, despite what Heraclitus said, it is all too easy to step into this same river of abuse and misrepresentation time and again -- especially on the Internet.
------------------------oOo------------------------
Readers also need to make note of the fact that in what follows, if a certain doctrine is criticised, this does not mean that I accept that its alleged contradictory is true. Hence, if, say, the idea that reality is rational is under attack, no one should conclude that I believe that reality is irrational. In fact, in this case, I can make no sense of either attribution. To take another example: if exception is taken to the use of the word "objective" (when applied metaphysically to scientific knowledge of the world), no one should conclude that I am a relativist (which I am not), or that I question the validity of scientific knowledge (which I do not). In fact, I reject this entire way of speaking about 'reality', 'objectivity', and scientific knowledge (for reasons that will be aired later).12
Since this project was begun in July 1998, the Internet has transformed a researcher's capacity to do work at home (and, of course, publicise her/his views). It is now possible to access all of the Marxist classics on-line, and much else besides. In addition, and by this means, I have been able to obtain literally hundreds of obscure books from around the world -- as well as theses and articles that would otherwise have been unobtainable. It has also allowed me to link to sites (but, particularly the truly excellent on-line Encyclopedia, Wikipedia) where many of the ideas and technical points made here are clarified. This is especially useful for those who are new to this debate, or who are not familiar with specific terms-of-art. On top of that, it has been possible to communicate with other Marxists who have serious doubts about DM, and to air critical remarks on several discussion boards, 'debating' dialectics with those still held in its thrall. In addition it has allowed my work to be read right across the planet, and for comrades to e-mail their appreciation of my forthright stance -- or otherwise.
Unfortunately, internet experience has underlined just how resistant the DM-faithful are to having their ideas contradicted; it has also highlighted how unreasonable many of them are -- hence the 'scare' quotes around the word "debate" above. Quite apart from the fact that such comrades seem incapable of reading with any degree of accuracy these Essays (among the few that bother to do so, that is), or the responses posted in reply to their own objections to my ideas, their collective reaction has been highly instructive.
In general, DM-fans have so far oscillated between the twin extremes of abuse and incredulity. For some, their only response has been the safe but pointless regurgitation of 'Holy DM-Writ' (i.e., the quotation of selected passages from the 'classics') -- as if reading the same hackneyed material for the thousandth time will do the trick where the previous nine hundred and ninety-nine had failed. To a man, woman or 'robot', one and all seem unable, unwilling or incapable of arguing in support of the metaphysical theses their ideological forebears dumped on them. To be sure, the level of incapacity demonstrated by such comrades in this area appears to be in direct proportion to their propensity to quote Holy Scripture, and in inverse proportion to their ability to read with any accuracy what has been posted in response.13
[FL = Formal Logic.]
This strongly supports the prediction made earlier that DM-'true-believers' will never abandon the faith -- whatever dire consequences this holds out for our movement. In common with many other failed theories humanity has had to endure, it seems that the older generation of dialecticians will have to die-out before this miserable doctrine is flushed out of Marxism for good.
Of course, that might never happen. Comrades intent on initiating this long-overdue reformation might fail to emerge from the shadows, and the dialectical drains could remain permanently blocked. Indeed, Marx's own assessment that the class struggle could lead to the common ruin of the contending classes may yet come to pass -- assisted in no small measure by his followers' unswerving attachment to this 'theory'. If that does happen, the revolutionary movement will have been poisoned by the contradictory theory at its heart as much as it will have been vanquished by the enemy at the gate.
If one of the core theses aired at this site is correct, then these cancerous internal forces have been shaped by ideological thought-forms concocted long ago by a very visible, external class enemy (the latter, of course, engaged in this 'activity' for their own ends, oblivious of the misbegotten use to which dialecticians would one day put their ideas). Nevertheless, these alien concepts have clearly been imported into revolutionary socialism by theorists who were far more impressed with the thought-forms they found in traditional Thought than the philosophical veneer of radicalism that they present the world might otherwise have suggested.
However, because of the pernicious influence of this mystical doctrine, ideologically alien concepts -- which were imported and then internalised by DM-classicists long before the working-class could provide them with an effective, materialist counter-weight -- are now impeding the scientific development of Marxism.
This is partly because these alien-class concepts have been ossified as part of the 'Marxist Tradition', and partly because they hide from comrades the link between this doctrine and our long-term failure, as noted above.
Furthermore, the vast majority of comrades feel they can just ignore such easily confirmed ruling-class bona fides (while inconsistently chiding the present author for her alleged reliance on 'bourgeois' logic), in the fond belief they are defending a radial tradition, when they are in fact defending an ancient doctrine. [More on this in Essay Fourteen (summary here).]
Fittingly therefore, dialecticians have acted as 'reverse midwives', as it were; with respect to their own contradictory theory, they have guaranteed that the very hour of its birth will also be the hour of its death (to paraphrase Hegel).
Our movement is slowly dying, and not only is this alien theory partly responsible, it prevents anything from being done about it, just as it convinces comrades that nothing need be done about it. An ironic unity of opposites by any standards.
While DIM contains the seeds of its own demise, the actual "gravediggers of Capitalism" (i.e., workers) have shown they want nothing to do with it.
This fact, too, is buried deep in the same sand dunes that provide refuge for many a dialectical brain.
Figure Two: Dialectical 'Clarity' 101
Tragedy and farce all rolled into one.
Another favourite response of late is for dialectically-distracted comrades to claim that these Essays contain "nothing new" (or that they have been "plagiarised"). This is just the latest example (reply here).
However, anyone reading my work will find it exceedingly difficult to show that the vast bulk of my ideas can be found anywhere else; a good 80% of the content of my Essays is original to me [And, where there is a commonality, it has been noted in each Essay.]
I have, of course, challenged such comrades to tell me where these ideas have appeared before; to date, not a one has responded. Either they cannot provide this information, or they simply enjoy being enigmatic. However, I suspect other motives.
One desperate dialectical soul (10th post down --, and again, here) even tried to claim I had not written these Essays! Who he supposed had he mysteriously kept to himself.
Of late, beleaguered dialecticians have begun to claim that they are "too busy" to work their way through these Essays (or respond to them), a convenient excuse that allows them to continue making all manner of baseless assertions about my work, copying hackneyed errors off one another, without actually having read it.
To be sure, no one has to read a single word I write, but then those that refuse to do so should refrain from passing comment on material about which they know nothing. [Perhaps the worst offender in this regard, who posts under the name "Volkov", can be found fabulating away here (and at RevLeft under the name "Axel1917"). This comrade is an 'expert' in all I have ever had to say, even though he has not read a single one of my Essays!]
Another excuse is that my work is far too long/difficult -- something that clearly does not prevent them wading through page after page of Hegel, or studying Das Kapital. Indeed, that too does not stop them dismissing my work as a "rant" (another favourite term), or as a "screed", even as they pass judgement on its content in total ignorance.