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This work began life in July 1998 as an unpublished review of John Rees's book The Algebra of Revolution (henceforth, TAR), which then developed into a full-blown project aimed at completely undermining the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 at this site.
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 later 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.).
My guess that there was a disappointingly low level of recruitment during this period has now been confirmed by this document, and now this. [These two have been indirectly confirmed by this response written by a leading member, and this, by another.] However, this document says its registered membership in 2008 is over 6000. There is no way to confirm this, but it is inconsistent with other evidence. On that see here.
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 and 2008) 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 than a schizophrenic amoeba on speed, 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 now a regular, almost knee-jerk reaction.]
Stalinism and Maoism are far less fragmentary, but that 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-style of Cardinals and Bishops while claiming to represent a man who lived in absolute poverty, and who condemned wealth, so these academic comrades can claim to be furthering the "world-view of the proletariat" with theories and jargon that few without a PhD can hope to comprehend.
Although at the time I had no way of proving it, these local events suggested that an allegiance to DM might have something to so with this wider, but suitably ironic "unity of opposites", namely: the long-term failure of a movement that should in fact 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 these Disciples of the Dialectic tend to treat, use or abuse one another?
Witness, 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 the Socialist Unity website -- so named, presumably, because it (unwittingly) records the exact opposite tendency. 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, and as history shows, we can expect much more of the same before we finally allow the ruling-class to ruin the planet by our studied idiocy.]
Other questions automatically posed themselves: Could it be that dialectics is 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 these forces Red Army tanks, Maoist guerrillas, Central Committees, radicalised students, or 'sympathetic/progressive' nationalist leaders? indeed, Is this theory used to justify and/or rationalise all manner of opportunistic and cynical twists and turns (some of these taking place almost overnight) -- like those we saw enacted in the CPSU and the CCP in the 1920s and 1930s --, which have 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 here, the answer here is a resounding "Yes!" And then we wonder why workers still distrust us!]
It seemed to me that researching these and related questions might also help explain why revolutionary socialism has been so depressively unsuccessful for so long. Indeed, 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 constantly 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 resemble (a little too uncomfortably) 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 this joker lost, he still claimed he was winning.
In fact, anyone who has tried to persuade any of 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 collective 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 causes.]
This suggested to me that DM might actually insulate militant minds from material reality, and that this might be part of its appeal: its capacity to work as an 'opiate' while numbing the critical faculties.
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 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 only a 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!
[This is an excellent recent example of this phenomenon.]
Self-deception of this order of magnitude is clearly pathological.
[Check out the rabid optimism that now (in 2007 and early 2008) 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 to a meeting 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 was a fan of dialectics (but significant sections were); in fact 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. 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. That message is 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 merely an 'appearance'), and cling to the comforting (theoretical) 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 its true nature has been pointed out to them) suggests that something has gone badly wrong inside these Hermetically compromised craniums.
Dialectical Myopia is in fact movement-wide; it afflicts Maoists and Stalinists, Orthodox Trotskyists and Libertarian Communists, un-orthodox Trotskyists and academic Marxists alike. In fact, deep sectarian divisions have not succeeded in dividing 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) -- 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 intensity actually prevents its dialectical victims from facing up to the long-term problems confronting Marxism.
For sure, 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. That theory 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 -- or someday soon).
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 or more of the following: (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; (c) Practice is not a reliable test of truth; or (d) All of the above.
If this brief characterisation is at all accurate, it would seem reasonable to suppose that DM possesses other noxious side-effects, which adepts might prefer not to confront, or which they can be expected to try to invert in like manner.
Perhaps 'Materialist Dialectics' has helped intensify the following: 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 so, 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, here and here) -- I have linked to summaries since the latter two have not yet been published.]
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 has been 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 guess that from examining the inflated view they have of their own self-importance. As far as they are concerned, social forces have by-passed any and all involvement in the formation of their ideas.
[The accusation that this is "crude reductionism" is defused here.]
In that case, it must be a sheer coincidence that DM shares most of its core theses with the belief-systems 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.
Indeed, is it not possible to argue that the historical forces which originally helped shape class society -- and which also gave birth to the ideas of those who still benefit from it --, have also had something to do with this glaring antinomy?
Furthermore, 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 and/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 these 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 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, Afghanistan and Lebanon in 2003-08), 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 even looked like they are poised 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. Indeed, if DM-fans want to be consistent with their own belief in universal contradiction, they must continue to preach unity, but practice division -- as they manifestly do.
And we can expect them to continue sanctifying this failed strategy with the use of quasi-religious rationalisations -- such as the defence of "orthodoxy", "tradition" and doctrinal "purity" --, 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 mainly 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, supposedly 'contradictory' motion, Lenin and the nature of matter, and the alleged limitations of both 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. Later, I will be examining the nature of science, language, cognition, and 'mind', as these relate to the issues under discussion.
However, the first serious 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 written on these topics -- far from it, the opposite is in fact the case --, it's because what has been published 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 that my attempts to rephrase their theory are unsatisfactory, are invited to correct any 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 might possibly be anything remotely wrong with their theory. In fact, what I said 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 DIM-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 or abused --, their motives questioned, and spurious allegations invented (on these, see below, here and here). Awkward facts and arguments are just ignored. Either that, or critics like me 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 also often issued concerning the serious consequences of anyone questioning Holy Dialectical Writ --, along the lines that such foolishness will lead those who indulge in this 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! Except they can apply the same point to us Trotskyists!] 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 also quite apart from the countless thousands who have been put off Marxism for life because of the sort of dialectical antics I have exposed here.
In that case, dialectics is not super-glued to a firm or permanent commitment to revolutionary politics, nor is it eternally linked to its successful prosecution (and that allegation 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 these Essays from such benighted and bigoted souls.]
This tactic is standard practice; one could almost now call it a cliché. [A perusal of internet sites where I have 'debated' DM with assorted dialecticians from all wings of Marxism will amply confirm this seemingly cynical indictment. I have listed most of these 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 surreptitious enemies of Marxism --, then they can be misrepresented, vilified, 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 their 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.
Indeed, 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, or 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 in defence of their mystical mantras.
However, one thing is clear: dialecticians are creatures of tradition; it is their strongest instinct. 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...?"
Perhaps such comrades have forgotten that science is predicated on radical questioning of this sort. Had they lived centuries ago, one can almost imagine them 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?"
And even when this point 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 for this 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 (otherwise, why 'clarify' them?).2
However, one noteworthy consequence of this reactive stance is that DM has remained trapped in a theoretical time-warp, one 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 semi-permanent stasis.2a Clearly, this moribund state of affairs is preferable to one that might suggest this doctrine is 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 exclusively doing 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 (albeit with new clothes put on the decaying corpse).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, "the right way up") has thus been cemented in place; the abstract now set in concrete.5
Another consequence of this backward-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 wallow in such blissful nescience (as many are). Since the vast majority DM-fans are almost totally ignorant of logic (ancient or modern), not only are they not incapable of spotting for themselves the serious logical blunders Hegel committed (summary here), 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, 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 to know more.
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 almost out-of-hand 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 in this way 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 largely 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. For example, this would involve cases where, say, the word "contradiction" is used in the analysis of Capitalism; also where comrades employ this word almost indiscriminately to describe anything and everything in Capitalism (as a "contradiction") -- but when they are asked to explain what this word could possibly mean in such contexts, they either refuse to do so, or simply cannot. Indeed, supporters of this site (including myself) have sent numerous letters to Socialist Worker and other publications and websites, asking them to explain why they keep using this word, all without a response. [On the indiscriminate use of this word, see here, here, here, and here, and my attempts to elicit a response, for instance, here, here, here, and here.]
This is not to say that I accept the validity of any dialectical jargon which 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, I have largely targeted DM.6
Throughout this work HM has been distinguished from DM. To some, this might seem an entirely bogus distinction. However, 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, when communicating with workers active revolutionaries employ ideas drawn exclusively from HM. The best papers on the revolutionary left, for instance, 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 here, 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 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. Core DM-theses have been examined in unprecedented detail, most of them 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 and/or movements in history, DIM is perhaps the least successful.8a 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.8b
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, what 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 entirely 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 more 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 extraordinary length of each Essay is partly the result DM's holistic character itself, 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 easily writings dwarf my own. I have, however, attempted to summarise my main criticisms of DM 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, genuine knock-down arguments in Philosophy are exceedingly rare and hard to find. 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 include 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 in fact published on the Internet when they were only half-complete. In that case, over the years I will be adding extensive detail and new material as I factor in the notes I have made on the many DM-works I have consulted, but which have not yet been referenced, or fully referenced. In most cases, each Essay will end up approximately twice the length it is now. I expect to be working on this project for at least another ten years (i.e., from 2008).
However, since most DM-texts 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 in fact turned out to be exceedingly repetitive. Indeed, 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.
[The reason why dialecticians are so neurotically repetitive will be explored in Essay Nine Part Two, as will the ideological significance of this semi-parrot-like behaviour --, a serious character-defect, it seems, DM-fans 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, post- 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 Stalinist, Maoist, Libertarian Marxist, and Trotskyist applications of 'Materialist Dialectics' to class society, as far as a commitment to DM (i.e., with reference to change in nature) is concerned, all four are virtually indistinguishable. Here one and all are 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 -- Lukacs, 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". I'd post Wikipedia link to Lukacs, but the lettering it uses prevents such links form working.]
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 credentials, Trotskyists do not have even so much as single 'Trotskyist' state (former or otherwise) on which they can impose their very own Shibboleth.
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 its basic ideas, and repeat them endlessly), which are then put to studiously 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 the Platonic 'deity' has surely 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 I criticise the use of the word "objective" (when it is employed metaphysically), 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 started 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, theses and articles from around the world. which would otherwise have been virtually impossible before. In addition, the Internet has also allowed me to link to sites (but, particularly the truly excellent on-line Encyclopedia, Wikipedia) where many of the ideas and technical terms I have used are clarified or expanded upon. This is especially useful for those reading my work who are who are new to this debate, or who are not familiar with specific topics or terms-of-art. On top of that, it has been possible to communicate with other Marxists who have serious doubts about DM, and thus to air critical remarks on several discussion boards, 'debating' dialectics with those still held in its thrall. Finally, it has also allowed comrades from all over the world to read my work (thus giving it a far wider circulation than would have been possible had it been published in book form), and hence for some of them 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 on discussion boards 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 response has revolved around the safe but pointless regurgitation of 'Holy DM-Writ' (i.e., the quotation of selected passages from the 'classics'), or retailing the same tired old formulae -- 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 our ideological forebears dumped on us. To be sure, the level of incapacity demonstrated in this respect by such comrades 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 I have posted in response.13
[FL = Formal Logic.]
This strongly supports the prediction made earlier that such 'true-believers' will never abandon the faith -- whatever dire consequences this holds out for our movement. In common with many other failed theories that humanity has had to endure, it seems that the older generation of dialecticians will have to pass-away first before this miserable doctrine is flushed out of Marxism for good.
Of course, this might never happen, and newer generations of comrades intent on initiating this long-overdue amputation might fail to emerge from the shadows. 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 regressive 'theory'.
"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." [Communist Manifesto.]
If this does indeed happen, the revolutionary movement will surely have been poisoned by the contradictory theory at its heart as much as it will have been crushed by the enemy at the gate.
In fact, if one of the core theses aired at this site is correct, then this cancerous doctrine has been shaped by ideological forms-of-thought 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). In that case, this alien theory has been imported into revolutionary socialism by non-working class theorists who were far more impressed with the thought-forms they found in traditional thought than their veneer of philosophical radicalism might otherwise have suggested.
However, because of its pernicious influence, these alien-class concepts -- which had been imported into our movement 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 a result of the fact that this dogma has been ossified as part of the 'Marxist Tradition', and partly because its acolytes are blithely unaware if the link between this doctrine and our long-term failure, as noted above.
Even worse, the vast majority of comrades feel they can ignore the ruling-class source of this theory (even while inconsistently chiding me for my alleged reliance on 'bourgeois' logic), in the fond belief they are in fact defending a radial tradition when they are actually defending a 'modern' version of an ancient Hermetic belief-system. [More on this in Essay Fourteen Part One (summary here).]
However, our movement is slowly dying, and not only is this alien theory partly responsible, it prevents anything from being done about it because it helps convince comrades that nothing need be done about it. An ironic unity of opposites by any standards.
DIM thus contains the seeds of its own demise: (1) Its core theory (DM) helps fragment Marxism and (2) it convinces comrades that DIM is success incarnate.
All, the while the actual "gravediggers of Capitalism" (i.e., workers) have shown they want nothing to do with it.
That fact, too, is buried deep in the same sand dunes that provide refuge for the collective 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).
Despite this, anyone reading my work will find that most of the content of my Essays is entirely original to me. Where I have borrowed from others, I have generally acknowledged that fact.
Of course, comrades who have made this accusation have been challenged to reveal where these allegedly "plagiarised" ideas have appeared before; to date, not 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 at that link --, and again, here) even tried to claim I had not written these Essays! Who he supposes the real author to be he mysteriously kept to himself.
Others have begun to claim that I quote the dialectical classics "out of context" (for example, here and here), but when they are asked to explain the 'right context', oddly enough they go rather quiet. In many places, in fact, I endeavour to quote the entire context (for example, here), but even where I do not, it is difficult to defend Engels from the charge of out-right inconsistency, for example, when he tells us in one breath:
"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels (1976), p.13. Bold emphasis added.]
And then in the next he says things like this:
"Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be…. Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself; as the older philosophy (Descartes) expressed it, the quantity of motion existing in the world is always the same. Motion therefore cannot be created; it can only be transmitted….
"A motionless state of matter therefore proves to be one of the most empty and nonsensical of ideas…." [Engels (1976), p.74. Bold emphases added.]
[There are dozens pages of this sort of a priori dogmatics in Engels work alone; these have been collated here.]
Do we need much of context to appreciate this glaring inconsistency (especially since it is the traditional way that Philosophy has been practiced for well over two thousand years -- one that all dialecticians copy, as will be demonstrated in Essay Two)?
Beleaguered dialecticians have also 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 me and my work, copying hackneyed errors off one another, without actually having read a single one of my Essays. A particularly good recent example of this syndrome can be found here.
To be sure, no one has to read a single word I write, but then those who 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", once more, even while they pass judgement on its content in total ignorance. [They even refuse to read the shorter summaries I have written for them!]
If I write short articles, they are branded "superficial"; if I write long and detailed Essays, they are too long, or are "tedious and boring". In fact, dialecticians already "know the truth" --, and it has "set them free"; i.e., "free" from having to read anything that might disturb their Hermetic slumber.
Another recent ploy is to argue that while I might have examined the ideas of dialecticians A, B and C, I should have examined instead the work of X, Y and Z. Then another comrade will complain that while I might have examined the ideas of A, B and X, I should have concentrated on C, D, and Z! Another will advise I confine my attention to A, D, and W, and so on.
Trotskyists complain if I quote Stalin and Mao's writings; Maoists and Stalinists moan if I do likewise with Trotsky's; non-Leninist Marxists will bemoan the fact that I have not confined my comments to Hegel and Marx, advising me to ignore the confused thought of Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky.
Of course, because these comrades have not read my work, none of them know that I have in fact looked at A, B, C, D,.., W, X, Y and Z's work (along with Marx and Hegel's). Indeed, since most of the material dialecticians produce is highly repetitive, quite often, to look at A's work is in fact to look at almost everyone else's!
However, the most common complaint on the Internet from academic (or quasi-academic) Marxists is that I have ignored theorists such as Lukacs, Adorno, Habermas, Zizek, Ollman, and the like. In fact, I have explained why I have done this (for example, here). Several of these HCD-theorists will be addressed anyway in later stages of this work. [Parts of Ollman's work, for example, have already been examined.]
1. Apart from those listed in Note 01, above, the most common reactions to my work (from comrades who have 'debated' this with me on the internet, or elsewhere) are the following:
(1) An expression of total incredulity that there are genuine Marxists who would even think to question this dearly beloved doctrine, or who claim (as I do) that Philosophy in its entirety is a bogus discipline. This is then often accompanied with a parallel inference that I am therefore not a Marxist -- even though the available evidence suggests that Marx himself abandoned the "dialectic" (in its traditionally understood form), and even though he, too, rejected Philosophy.
Naturally, the above would mean that being a Marxist is merely a matter of definition (and a rather narrow one at that: i.e., "Only those who do not question tradition are genuine Marxists") --, and, incidentally, one that ignores Lenin's advice that no theory is sacrosanct, or above criticism.
(2) A rapid retreat to the claim that dialectics is not "a royal road to truth", but is merely a "method" (these comrades not noticing that this concession completely undermines its 'objectivity').
(3) The posting of several long (or short) quotations from the DM-classics, often of tenuous relevance.
(4) Page after page of bluster, abuse and misrepresentation.
Naturally, twenty-five years of having to endure this would make anyone (other than a 'saint') rather tetchy, if not somewhat aggressive in return.
[Indeed, from here the reader will see that my forthright response to their attacks on me is something DM-fans cannot take. Sure, they can lie about and abuse me, but Rosa must take it lying down, and be all sweetness and light in return.]
(5) Posing the bemused question: What other concepts are there that could possibly account for change?
However, the apparent obviousness of the reply that these comrades hope to elicit (viz.: "You are right, there are none, so dialectics must be correct…") is itself plainly a consequence of the conceptual desert DM has created inside each dialectical skull. As will soon become apparent from reading the Essays posted at this site (for example, this one), there are in fact countless words and phrases in both the vernacular and the sciences that allow changes of every conceivable sort and complexity to be depicted (and this explained) in limitless detail. Indeed, ordinary words do this far better than the lifeless and obscure jargon Hegel invented. Moreover, every single one of these everyday terms can be appropriated with ease for use in HM. In fact, the best revolutionary papers already do this. They have to if they want to sell copies to workers!
This is quite apart from the embarrassing fact that dialectics itself cannot explain change!
(6) A casting of the usual slurs e.g., "anti-Marxist", "positivist", "sophist", "logic-chopper", "naïve realist", "revisionist", "eclectic", "relativist", "post modernist", "bourgeois stooge", "pedant", "absolutist", "elitist", "empiricist", and so on.
Naturally, when such comrades are described as "mystics" in return, they complain about "name-calling". Once more, they are allowed to dish it out (but not very well), but they cannot take it.
(7) The attribution to me of ideas I do not hold, and which could not reasonably have been inferred from anything I have said or written -- e.g., that I am a "postmodernist" (which I am not), an "empiricist" (same comment), a "Popperian" (I am in fact an anti-Popperian), that I am a "sceptic" (and this, just because I challenge accepted dogma, when Marx himself said he doubted all things and Lenin declared that all knowledge is provisional), that I am an "anti-realist" (when I am in fact neither a realist nor an anti-realist --, I am indeed a "nothing-at-all-ist" with respect to philosophical theory -- this must not be confused with Nihilism!), that I am a "reformist" (when I am the opposite), or that I am a "revisionist" (when Lenin enjoined us all to question accepted theory).
Once more, these are often advanced by comrades who have not read a single one of my Essays (but this does not prevent them from being experts in this area, or from making things up about me), or they have merely skim-read parts of my work. Naturally, they would be the first to complain if anyone else did this with the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. [This is just one of the latest examples.]
Indeed, Engels himself waxed indignant with Dühring over precisely this point:
"In connection with Herr Dühring's examination of the Darwin case, we have already got to know his habit, 'in the interests of complete truth' and because of his "duty to the public which is free from the bonds of the guilds", of quoting incorrectly. It becomes more and more evident that this habit is an inner necessity of the philosophy of reality, and it is certainly a very 'summary treatment'. Not to mention the fact that Herr Dühring further makes Marx speak of any kind of 'advance' whatsoever, whereas Marx only refers to an advance made in the form of raw materials, instruments of labour, and wages; and that in doing this Herr Dühring succeeds in making Marx speak pure nonsense. And then he has the cheek to describe as comic the nonsense which he himself has fabricated. Just as he built up a Darwin of his own fantasy in order to try out his strength against him, so here he builds up a fantastic Marx. 'Historical depiction in the grand style', indeed!" [Engels (1976), p.159. Bold emphases added Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted here.]
Dühring is not allowed to do this, but apparently it's OK for dialecticians to do it to my work!
(8) The rejection of "bourgeois logic" (i.e., modern Fregean and post-Fregean logic).
This is the oddest response, since such comrades invariably know no logic at all (and in many cases, not even Aristotelian logic!), even while they have uncritically swallowed the 'logic' found in Hegel -- who, as we all know, was a fully paid-up member of the working-class, and not the least bit bourgeois!
So, for such comrades, it is lack of knowledge that makes each and every one of them expert logicians -- a nice 'dialectical contradiction' if ever there was one. [Many even moan when this is pointed out to them; here is a good example.] Plainly, too, that would make George W Bush a leading theoretical Physicist and the late Ronald Reagan a towering authority on brain surgery.
Furthermore, all this is often garnished with stereotypical, ill-informed and erroneous comments maligning Wittgenstein as a "bourgeois" apologist, or as a mystic, or both -- as if Hegel himself were squeaky clean in this regard!
[On that particular issue, see the Additional Essay posted here.]
Of course, on can be a perfectly good revolutionary socialist and know no logic at all, but if comrades are going to pontificate about MFL (or even AFL) they ought to at least learn some first.
(9) Of late, dialectically-desperate comrades have adopted a new tactic when the ridiculous nature of their core belief system has been exposed:
(a) They deny that the dialectical classics say the things that I allege of them, or,
(b) They try to argue that the odd things found in the Classical Dialectical Grimoire are not to be taken literally (they are merely "metaphorical", or "whimsical"), or,
(c) They claim that Engels, Trotsky, or Lenin, etc. is not an authority on the subject. [Yes, they are that desperate!]
This they maintain even in the face of the quotations themselves (recent examples of this ploy can be found here, here and here), and despite the fact that it has been pointed out to them that similar tactics were adopted by Christians when confronted with modern science (i.e., these open mystics claim that the Book Of Genesis, for instance, is "metaphorical").
Who exactly is the authority in matters dialectical they mysteriously refuse to reveal (even when asked).
So, DM-fans, it seems, will say anything, try any dodge, invent and lie, twist and turn beyond even the knotted pretzel stage, rather than question the theory that history has already refuted.
[A good recent example of this can be found in the twisted logic and frenetic special-pleading found here (in the posts of one "Gilhyle").]
Figure Three: Dialectical 'Reasoning' -- After It Has Been Straightened-Out!
Political 'spin doctors' look recklessly open and honest in comparison.
Finally, dialectically-distracted comrades more often than not either refuse to respond to the vast majority of my criticisms of their embattled theory, or they just ignore them. In fact, this is worryingly reminiscent of the desperate response given under cross examination by William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor in the infamous "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Tennessee, 1926, summarised for us in this book review:
"But there is also an embarrassing side to Bryan: the 'great commoner' was a Bible-banging fundamentalist. When officials in Dayton, Tennessee decided to roast John Scopes for teaching evolution in 1925, they called in the ageing Bryan to prosecute. The week-long trial became a national sensation and reached its climax when the defence attorney, Clarence Darrow, called Bryan to the stand and eviscerated his Biblical verities. 'Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still?' Darrow asked sarcastically. 'Do you believe a whale swallowed Jonah? Will you tell us the exact date of the great flood?' Bryan tried to swat away the swarm of contradictions. 'I do not think about things I don't think about,' he said. The New York Times called it an 'absurdly pathetic performance', reducing a famous American to the 'butt of a crowd's rude laughter'. This paunchy, sweaty figure went down as an icon of the cranky right. Today, most Americans encounter the Scopes trial and Bryan himself in a play called Inherit the Wind. I once played the role of Bryan and the director kept saying: 'More pompous Morone. Make him more pompous.'"[James Morone, London Review of Books, 21/02/08.]
In my experience, the vast majority of DM-fans "do not think about things they don't think about", either.
2. As is the case with those committed to the doctrines advanced in that other 'Holy' book, The Bible, to the dialectical faithful it seems that only heretics would want either to change or to add to the content of the DM-canon.
While dialecticians certainly give some thought to their ideas and endeavour to debate them amongst themselves, but internal dialogue is heavily constrained by other organisational and psychological factors outlined at this site (for example in Essay Nine Part Two).
However, this does help explain why all DM-writings are extremely repetitive, why all dialecticians use almost exactly the same phrases and reasoning (which often simply amount to lengthy paraphrases of Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin or Mao), and why their ideas range over a very restricted set of concepts.
For instance, the vast majority of DM-fans illustrate Engels's 'Three Laws' with the same examples (boiling water, balding heads, plants negating seeds, Mendeleyev's Table, North/South poles of magnets and, of course, those pesky Mamelukes), despite the fact that it is relatively easy to show that these 'Laws' fail to work even here. In addition we are told by one and all of the "limitations" of FL (and by comrades who cannot even get Aristotle right!), that "internal contradictions" lie behind every example change in the entire universe (and in the same breath that these comrades swear blind that they do not "impose" dialectics on nature!). These hardy perennials are wheeled-out year after year as if they were cutting edge science, and not the Mickey Mouse Science they demonstrably are.
It also helps explain why DM-fans will not confront ideas they cannot handle, or simply pretend they do not exist. Such 'difficulties' are often just flatly rejected, with no reasons given (other than they are incompatible with the edicts found in the dialectical Holy Books -- the constant response of this comrade being an excellent example). This is perhaps the most frequent reaction to my work. [It certainly motivates the vast majority of those implicated here.] Failing that, spurious reasons are given why dialectics 'has not been 'disproved' by my attacks. [Two excellent (recent and published) examples of this sort of response to my criticisms can be found here and here.]
This reminds me of the reaction of the Christian Fundamentalist in Inherit the Wind (a fictionalised account of the notorious Scopes Trial in Tennessee in 1925). When put on the stand and asked where Cain got his wife, this character refused to answer, indicating that he did not worry about such trivial details, his faith was in the Bible. When asked about the ages of rocks, he responded he was more interested in the Rock of Ages. He just refused to use the dormant organ lodged between his ears. He even went as far as to declare that he "did not think about things he didn't think about..."!
DM-fans react in more-or-less the same way to the many problems their theory faces, highlighted in my Essays. For example, when confronted in 'debate' with the fact that not all changes in 'quality' are sudden (or proceed in "leaps", to use the buzzword) -- for example, melting metal, glass, plastic, butter, toffee and chocolate -- DM-fans either ignore these exceptions, or brush them aside (for no stated reason). This was indeed the response of one of the leading figures in the CPGB, who seems to think it a minor point that every metal in the universe disobeys this part of Engels's 'Law'. When asked to define the length of a dialectical "node", without fail they all go very quiet, or distract attention from this topic. [More on that here, here, and here.]
Anyone who still doubts all this should consult: (1) the numerous passages reproduced in the Essays posted at this site; (2) the material churned-out by any randomly selected DM-theorist; and (3) the many discussion boards and Marxist sites that have sprung up on the Internet (for example, as noted above: here).
[However, with regard to option (2), readers should consult the comment at the end of Note 11, below.]
2a. Some might be tempted to question this hyperbole, arguing that 'Materialist Dialectics' is a living, changing theory. Sure, there have been changes in the theory, but when examined, these amount either to elaborations on the eternal truths laid down by Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin, or they have prompted accusations of "Revisionism!" from guardians of the dialectical flame. [This is issue is discussed in more detail in several later Essays, in particular Essay Thirteen Part One. See also Note 5 below.]
Academic Marxism is, of course, a different matter, but since this Dialectical Dead End is irrelevant to revolutionary socialism, I have largely left it out of account.
3. In general, it is not easy for dialecticians to appreciate this point, even after it has been pointed out to them -- in fact, it is nigh on impossible for them to do so. This is partly related to (1) the a priori style of reasoning found in all DM-texts, and (2) the fact that, after 2500 years of traditional Philosophy (where this approach is de rigueur), it has become part of the 'philosophical furniture', as it were. In fact, this style of argument has been around for so long, no one notices it or recognises it for what it is. A priori dogmatics thus seems quite normal and natural to most dialecticians and traditional theorists. In this way, the ideas of the ruling-class, and the a priori methods employed by their "prize fighters" to defend them, have been imported into Marxist thought --, and no one bats an eye!
Quite the reverse in fact; ruling-class forms-of-thought find some of their stoutest defenders among dialecticians. [And this is relatively easy to explain in view of the class origins of the vast majority of such comrades.] A recent example can be found here (more specifically here, and the ensuing discussion), and here. A more pernicious set of examples can be found here, here and here.
As far as (1) is concerned, while DM-advocates never tire of telling us that they do not impose their ideas on nature (and that DM is not a "master key" to reality), this is not what actually happens. [This is demonstrated in Essay Two.]
For instance, DM-apologists do not usually regard Lenin's philosophical work as an example of a priori reasoning; on the contrary, they see it as a genuine contribution to science, or at least to revolutionary theory.
But, this is despite the fact that Lenin did not even attempt to marshal any supporting evidence for the claims he so confidently advanced (in, say, his Philosophical Notebooks [PN]), and in spite of the fact that he asserted the truth of numerous universal, all-embracing theses, which he declared were applicable to all of reality for all of time (in relation to which no amount of evidence would have been sufficient).
This can be seen, too, when Lenin claimed, for instance, that dialectics reflected the "eternal development of the world". [PN, p.110.] He even went on to contradict the usual DM-claim that dialectics is not a master-key that unlocks a cosmic door to a priori knowledge:
"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing…." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58. Bold emphasis added.]
Of course, these are the sort of things that only a deity could possibly know.
In fact, as noted earlier, dialecticians can still be found who will read the following passage from Engels and not notice (or even deny!) that it is an excellent example of a priori dogmatics:
"Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be…. Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself…." [Engels (1976), p.74. Bold emphases added.]
A few pages later he even said this:
"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Ibid., p.13. Bold emphasis added.]
So, Engels, too, was oblivious of what he was doing.
Nor will they view the following from Trotsky in this light:
"[A]ll bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour etc. They are never equal to themselves…. [T]he axiom 'A' is equal to 'A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist…. For concepts there also exists 'tolerance' which is established not by formal logic…, but by the dialectical logic issuing from the axiom that everything is always changing…. Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into quality, development through contradiction, conflict and form, interruption of continuity, change of possibility into inevitability, etc…." [Trotsky (1971), pp.64-66. Bold emphases added.]
There are countless examples of this sort of thing in the Dialectical Classics, and in the writings of lesser DM-luminaries.
Many of these doctrines were in fact dreamt up my mystics (like Heraclitus --, indeed, he managed to derive a universal thesis from a "thought experiment" about stepping into a river!) before there was any evidence to speak of, so these Theses cannot have been summaries of the evidence. Worse still, what little evidence DM-theorists have offered in support of their universalist claims turns out not to do so anyway (as my Essays show).
If Lenin's philosophical dogmatism is now contrasted with his other more tempered claims (i.e., those where he insists that science is only ever partially true, and always revisable), the above dialectical hyperbole soon begins to look far less edifying.
Hence, it is difficult to see how Lenin, for one, could possibly have asserted with such confidence the universal and omnitemporal validity of the usual DM-theses while at the same time maintaining the belief that DM has not been dogmatically imposed on reality -- and while holding on to the idea that knowledge in general is only ever partial and relative.
Of course, it could be objected that revision does not mean abandonment of the past, and that scientific advance builds on previous generations. Maybe so (but the picture is far more complex than this -- which theme will be explored in a later Essay), and yet the truth is that if anyone tries to argue with the faithful that 'Materialist Dialectics' should be so much as revised in line with Lenin's own advice, even with respect to the minutest of details, they risk being assailed with perhaps the strongest word in the DM-arsenal of abuse: "Revisionist!", and the Unholy Inquisition will be on their case.
Dialecticians clearly pay lip-service to Lenin's modest claims; what he said applies to everyone else, not them --, and to every other theory, not theirs.
In fact, no amount of evidence could substantiate the sort of universal claims Lenin, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky repeatedly made, about all of reality for all of time.
In this regard, it's instructive to contrast this dogmatic attitude with, say, the much more measured and genuinely scientific approach found in Darwin's careful, empirically-based classic, On The Origin Of Species.
Admittedly, PN was not meant for publication, but this quasi-theological aspect of dialectics appears in most published DM-texts, as Essay Two reveals.
More recently, this a priori style of thought is especially to be found in the dialectical musings of Gerry Healy, CLR James, and Raya Dunayevskaya. Among HCD fans of 'Systematic Dialectics' (i.e., Tony Smith, Chris Arthur, Bertell Ollman, etc.) it is plainly mandatory.
In fact, it is impossible to find a single DM-text that does not slip into a priori Dogmatics.
[Option (2) above is dissected in detail in Essay Twelve Part One.]
3a. Gollobin's recent book is a long, detailed and excellent example of this approach to Holy Writ. RIRE is another first-rate example of this spruced-up cadaver.
4. Again, experience on the Internet suggests that not only are DM-acolytes impervious to argument, they are living disproof of their claim that everything in reality is always changing: they never do, and apparently never will. It looks as if a whole generation of DM-apologists might have to die out before fresh theoretical air is allowed into Marxism.
5. As noted above, the accusation that DM has not changed significantly in over a hundred years will be substantiated in Essay Thirteen Part One.
This claim is often contested by DM-apologists who appeal to examples drawn from the development of Marxist social, political and economic theory. However, since the above allegation is directed solely at DM, not HM, that response is itself beside the point.
Another aspect of the defensive stance adopted by dialecticians is the fact that few of them fail to point out that hostile critics of Marxism always seem to attack "the dialectic". This then allows DM-fans to brand such detractors as "bourgeois apologists", which in turn means that whatever the latter say can safely be ignored (as, 'plainly', ideological).
[This is the DM-equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church's old Index of Forbidden Books.]
However, it has surely escaped such comrades' attention that the reason the dialectic is attacked by friend and foe alike is that it is by far and away the weakest and most lamentably feeble aspect of traditional Marxist Philosophy. Far from it being an "abomination" to the bourgeoisie (even though the State Capitalist rulers of Eastern Europe, the former USSR, Maoist China and North Korea are, or were, rather fond of it), the dialectic has in fact proved to be an abomination for revolutionary socialism.
So, our enemies attack dialectics precisely because they have found our Achilles Heel.
Whereas, revolutionaries like me attack it for the opposite reason: to rid Marxism of its Achilles Heel.
To be sure, Trotsky tried to respond to this argument along the following lines:
"Anyone acquainted with the history of the struggles of tendencies within workers' parties knows that desertions to the camp of opportunism and even to the camp of bourgeois reaction began not infrequently with rejection of the dialectic. Petty-bourgeois intellectuals consider the dialectic the most vulnerable point in Marxism and at the same time they take advantage of the fact that it is much more difficult for workers to verify differences on the philosophical than on the political plane. This long known fact is backed by all the evidence of experience." [Trotsky (1971), p.94.]
Of course, this works both ways, for if is difficult for workers to verify such "differences", then that surely allows others to manipulate workers with ideas they do not understand, or cannot check (i.e., those found in dialectics itself).
However, as the Essays posted at this site show, there are no good reasons to cling on to such lamentably weak DM-theses, even though there are easily identifiable psychological reasons why they are and have been.
And far from it being the case that only workers find it hard to defend (or even to understand) this 'theory', so that they can detect such "differences", DM-theorists themselves have shown that they too do not understand their own theory (as these Essays demonstrate). This is not because it is a difficult theory to grasp; it is because it relies on incomprehensible Hegelian jargon.
Hence, the conclusion is inescapable: petty-bourgeois revolutionaries maintain their commitment to this mystical doctrine for contingent psychological reasons, and for no other. [More about this in Essay Nine Parts One and Two.]
[The "What about 1917?" defence is neutralised here.]
The class origin of comrades like Trotsky works against them, as well. After all, they too are not above (i.e., exempt from) Marx's declaration that:
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." [Marx (1970), p.21.]
[The "Ah, but that's just crude reductionism!" defence is defused here.]
5a. Those who object to my reliance on such 'bourgeois thinkers' should read this and then think again.
There is a notable exception to this rule; one comrade has openly declared on the internet that he is learning logic so that he can answer my criticisms.
[This can be found here, along with my reply, here (and in subsequent posts on the same page). In fact the Maoists at this site were considerably more comradely toward me that most fellow Trotskyists have been!]
6. Some readers will be surprised to find little or no discussion or analysis of Academic Marxism at this site --, particularly the work of theorists like Lukács, Sartre, Althusser, Derrida, Zizek, the 'Frankfurt School' -- or, that of other 'Continental Philosophers' --, or, indeed, much that passes for "Systematic Dialectics".
This is because:
(1) Most of their work relates to issues connected with HM.
(2) So far (and mercifully!), revolutionary socialism has largely been unaffected by this current (whatever deleterious effects it might have had on the minds of otherwise alert comrades), and
(3) I can make little sense of much that passes for 'theory' in this genre.
Indeed, most of the work that has emerged from this tradition strikes me as little more than an exercise in the systematic production of aimless prose, impenetrable jargon, and then more of the same just to 'explain' the last batch. This theoretical quagmire contains ideas and concepts that are about as comprehensible and transparent as tortuous theological tracts on the nature of, say, the Incarnation of Christ. It is in effect a sort of 'woollier-than-thou' approach to Philosophy.
Hume's bonfire has never been more sorely missed.
Marx likened Philosophy to masturbation (or rather he said that it stood to science as masturbation does to sexual love); well the above thinkers appear for all the world to be engaged in their own collective 'circle-jerk', which is probably why their influence on the class struggle has been close to zero, and will no doubt approach zero asymptotically as their writings become more prolix over time --, and the working-class increases in size.
There is little chance, therefore, that such theorists will fertilise anything other than the ground.
Having said that, much of what is concluded in Essay Twelve (i.e., about the class origins of metaphysical/philosophical thought) also applies to this insular body of 'theory' and to those who churn it out. [A summary can be found here.]
7. These Essays have been written from a certain perspective within Analytic Philosophy (and, it is worth adding, a minority and unpopular viewpoint at that). However, since most DM-addicts lack any sort of background in this genre (which failing is not unconnected with, but is significantly compounded by, a general ignorance of Modern Formal Logic [MFL]), many of the points made here have had to be pitched at a very basic level. Professional Philosophers will find much here, therefore, that will irritate them. That, however, is their problem. As has already been noted, this site is not aimed at them.
In addition, I have endeavoured to write much of this material with the following thought in mind: "If this or that passage is not accessible to ordinary working people, re-write it!" Now, I do not think for one second that I have succeeded everywhere in achieving that level of clarity or directness, but most of the material at this site has been written and re-written well over fifty times (no exaggeration), and with that sole aim in mind. This process will continue indefinitely. Naturally, it is for members of the target audience (i.e., working people, should they ever read these Essays!) to decide if I have succeeded or failed in achieving my stated objective.
Indeed, and in this regard, I am happy to be judged by them alone.
Even though the content of this work has been greatly influenced by the work of Frege and Wittgenstein, it strives to remain consistent with HM. This will strike some readers as an impossible (if not pointless) task; this misapprehension will also be addressed later on at this site. [On that, see here.]
8. Not much chance of that, though! In fact, up to now, after 25 years, I can count the number of comrades who have engaged fairly with me (that is, without them descending into abuse, fabrications or slander) on the fingers of a severely mutilated hand.
It is worth recalling that according to the 'theory' under review here, no theoretical progress can be made except through internally-generated contradictions -- i.e., in this case, those contradictions conjured up by someone inside the movement, one presumes. Once again, that is why these Essays should be welcomed by the DM-faithful --, but it is also why they won't.
The problem with dialecticians is that they do not (or perhaps cannot) recognize the glaring contradictions in their own theory (or they brush them aside with what I have elsewhere called the "Nixon defence").
As far as change is concerned, this can only mean that either their theory can't develop (that is, according to their own theory of change it can't if it has no 'internal contradictions'), or that if they refuse to examine the contradictions I have found, their theory of change must be defective, since that can only mean that such 'internal contradictions' do not in fact change anything.
But, if their theory of change is wrong, then they can safely ignore any contradictions I point out, including this one!
Of course, if DM cannot change (presumably this will be because, for the first time in history, human beings have invented a theory with no internal contradictions), that implies it is absolutely true, and Lenin's claim that all knowledge is relative and incomplete is itself mistaken!
Whichever way we turn here, core DM-theses take a sizeable hit.
In that case, DM-theorists should welcome the many contradictions I have found in their theory, even if only to save it from such easy refutation!
Unfortunately, however, that particular option will sink their theory even faster!
[This rather nice dilemma is tweaked some more here, and here.]
8a. Of course, that depends on how "successful" is defined. Unfortunately, however, on any reasonable understanding of this word, this allegation (i.e., that of all the major political ideologies and/or movements in history, DIM is perhaps the least successful) turns out to be true. In that, see Essay Ten Part One.
8b. It is worth underlining yet again the fact that I am not blaming all our ills on dialectics, since comrades who read these words still persist in thinking that I am doing this no matter how many times they are told the opposite! What I am doing is claiming that this 'theory' is partly responsible for the long-term failure of DIM. [The extent to which I think that is the case is in fact detailed in Essay Nine Part Two.]
9. Since beginning this work I have discovered several somewhat similar criticisms in Eric Petersen's The Poverty Of Dialectical Materialism, an excellent book I first read in January 2005.
Also in early 2005, I also happened across the work of Denis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth; their invaluable study -- On The Edge: Political Cults Right And Left -- greatly amplifies several of the points made here, about sectarianism, etc.
[It needs adding, though, that I do not concur with everything (or even most of what) Tourish and Wohlforth conclude about the political nature of Leninism.]
A summary of Tourish's ideas can be found here.
10. However, despite the fact that genuine Marxism isn't, DM seems to be alive and well in China (boosted no doubt by its worryingly close affinities with Daoism). Because of that, I have consulted several books on 'Chinese Dialectics', which have been translated into English.
11. That is, of course, why Trotskyist bookshops (like Bookmarks in London) find they can sell works written by STDs [Stalinist Dialecticians].
However, the comments in the main body of this Introduction are not meant to suggest that Trotskyism and Stalinism are literally Siamese twins; far from it. At least as far as a clear commitment to international revolution and the self-activity of the working class are concerned (among many other things!), the two could not be more dissimilar. However, with respect to DM, it is difficult to slip a party card between them.
[This controversial claim will be examined in more detail in Essay Two and in Essay Nine Part Two.]
12. On Internet discussion boards, this has perhaps been one of the hardest messages to get across -- not least because comrades there accept the traditional fable that Marxism in fact needs a 'philosophy' of its own of some sort. Why this is so is a question that is seldom raised. [The few arguments advanced in its favour will be examined in Essay Twelve.]
However, it is often assumed that if I query something 'philosophical' I must therefore accept its opposite (which I never do -- I invariably reject both). We no more need Philosophy than we need Religion, and the ubiquity of both should not fool us into thinking that either or both are inevitable and/or necessary to the human condition.
Indeed, as Essay Twelve points out, in that these parallel but ancient pursuits both appeal to a priori dogmas of various kinds, and rely on the belief that there is a hidden/secret underlying ("rational") structure to reality, accessible to thought alone, it is clear that both are the result of analogous alienated social conditions.
Even more instructive: in Essay Nine Part Two I show that the quasi-religious devotion shown by dialecticians to their own 'world-view' is in fact a result of the same sort of alienation that encourages theological speculation in its other social victims (i.e., the religious). Once cause, two effects.
13. A recent example can be found here (but there are many more).
As noted earlier, the only other 'argumentative ploy' that DM-apologists seem to have to hand (in response to my Essays) is to ignore totally whatever they don't like, or cannot answer. Such comrades appear to know little FL (many indeed proudly and openly boast about this eminently un-flattering defect), but that does not stop them informing the electronic world of its many alleged shortcomings. In this they perhaps stand to MFL rather like the Pope does to the advice he gives to Catholics on marriage and sex. [Except the Pope has the decided edge here; at least he is of the male sex -- so, at a minimum, he knows something about what he says.]
[FL = Formal Logic; MFL = Modern Formal Logic.]
[These comments do not, however, apply to the work of Graham Priest, a highly sophisticated theorist, who is also a master of MFL. Priest's ideas will be criticised in subsequent Essays.]
However, when anti-DM arguments are made so simple that any child can follow them, comrades lambaste their 'banality'. On the other hand, when they are presented in all their complexity, they moan even more loudly, and throw out terms like "elitist", "ivory tower", "pedantry", "semantics", and allege that they are being "talked down to".
Page after page of impenetrable Hegelian 'logic' they happily consume before breakfast; a few pages of tight argument from yours truly and they throw a tantrum.
Cohen, G. (1978), Karl Marx's Theory Of History: A Defence (Oxford University Press).
Engels, F. (1976), Anti-Dühring (Foreign Languages Press).
Gollobin, I. (1986), Dialectical Materialism. Its Laws, Categories And Practice (Petras Press).
Lenin, V. (1961), Philosophical Notebooks, Collected Works Volume 38 (Progress Publishers).
Marx, K. (1970), A Contribution To The Critique Of Political Economy (Progress Publishers).
Petersen, E. (1994), The Poverty Of Dialectical Materialism (Red Door).
Rees, J. (1998), The Algebra Of Revolution (Routledge).
Tourish, D., and Wohlforth, T. (2000), On The Edge. Political Cults Right And Left (M E Sharpe).
Trotsky, L. (1971), In Defense Of Marxism (New Park Publications).
Abbreviations Used At This Site
|
AD:
Anti-Dühring AFL: Aristotelian Formal Logic AIDS: Absolute Idealism BBT: Big Bang Theory CNS : Central Nervous System DL: Dialectical Logic DIM: Dialectical Marxism/Marxist DM: Dialectical Materialism FL: Formal Logic IED = Identity in Difference IO: Interpenetration of Opposites HM: Historical Materialism LEM : Law of Excluded Middle LIE: Linguistic Idealism
|
LOI: Law of Identity MAD: Materialist Dialectics/Dialectician MEC = Materialism and Empirio-criticism MECW = Marx and Engels Collected Works MIST: Maoist Theorist MFL: Modern Formal Logic NON: Negation of the Negation NOT: Non-Orthodox Trotskyist OT: Orthodox Trotskyist OTG: Orthodox Trotskyist Group OTT: Orthodox Trotskyist Theorist QM: Quantum Mechanics Q«Q: Quantity turns into Quality, and vice versa STD: Stalinist Dialectician RIRE: Reason in Revolt (i.e., Woods and Grant, 1995) TAR: The Algebra of Revolution UO: Unity of Opposites
|
Word Count: 19,540
Latest update: 31/05/09
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2009
Hits since March 2007