The Politics Of Metaphysics
Dialectical Materialism: An Alien-Class 'Theory'
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'.
This Essay is just under 44,000 words long; a summary of its main ideas can be found here.
Quick Links
Anyone using these links must remember that they will be skipping past supporting argument and evidence set out in earlier sections:
(1) The Main Thesis Of This Site Seems Impossible To Believe
(b) Unwitting Dupes
(2) Substitutionism
(a) Are Revolutionaries Robots?
(3) Alien Ideas -- Introduced From 'The Outside'
(4) Dialectics: A Deep Mystery Even To Marxists
(a) Have You Read And Fully Understood The Whole Of Hegel's Logic?
(5) A Mystery To Workers, Too?
(6) Historical Materialism Different
(a) The Vernacular: Obstacle Or Resource?
(7) Marx And Dialectical Materialism -- 1
(8) Marx And Dialectical Materialism -- 11
(a) Is Dialectical Materialism The Same As Historical Materialism?
(10) Notes
(11) References
Abbreviations Used At This Site
In this Essay, I hope to examine the political implications of the analysis of Metaphysics and DM advanced in Essay Twelve (summary here).
[DM = Dialectical Materialism; HM = Historical Materialism; DIM = Dialectical Marxism.]
Part One will show that, unlike HM, DM cannot form a theoretical basis for the "world-view" of the working class, and that it has to be imposed on the few workers Dialectical Marxism has attracted to its ranks over the years --, 'against the grain' (as it were) of their materialist good sense.
Part Two will examine the role that dialectics plays, and has played, in addressing and satisfying the contingent psychological needs of prominent Marxists. In addition, it will also show how Hegel's influence has helped corrupt our movement from top to bottom (fomenting splits and sectarian in-fighting), revealing too why DM has had such a narcoleptic effect on militant minds.
In short, it will be shown that DM has played a key role in making DIM synonymous with political and theoretical impotency --, which, naturally, helps explain its long-term failure.
In Essay Twelve it was argued that Metaphysics (in ancient Greece) received its most formative influence from ambient ruling-class priorities and interests. In subsequent Modes of Production, traditional metaphysicians have, directly or indirectly, fed-off and served the power of the State, rationalising class division as either 'natural' or god-ordained.
While, for example, Theology has always served as a theoretical expression of alienated religious consciousness (among other things), in its different forms Metaphysics has helped systematise and legitimate ruling-class ideology, linking the authority of the State to the 'natural order'. Indeed, Metaphysics has invariably been dressed-up as a Super-Scientific theory, which supposedly uncovers the fundamental principles governing the universe, revealing its underlying rational structure --, and one which, un-coincidentally, often mirrors local class relations. Behind the velvet glove of Metaphysics lies the ideologically-mailed fist of class domination, its necessary truths dimly reflecting -- but often justifying, sometimes mystifying --, the iron rule of the State. [This argument is summarised here.]
As Marx and Engels noted:
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65.]
It has also been argued that it was largely through Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Plekhanov (courtesy of Hegel) that dialecticians succeeded in importing such alien-class concepts into revolutionary politics.
Admittedly, this controversial view faces seemingly insurmountable obstacles, not the least of which is its apparent incapacity to explain how it is even remotely conceivable that the above revolutionaries (and others) could possibly have adopted and disseminated ideas that represent the theoretical interests of the class enemy. On the face of it, it is totally unbelievable that class fighters such as these, comrades of the very highest calibre, could have accepted a theory that supposedly represents the worst form of ideological compromise imaginable.
Not only that, it could be argued that revolutionary theory has been refined in struggle for over one hundred and fifty years by the very best theorists and activists in the Marxist tradition. Had there been the slightest hint of contamination from any form of ruling-class ideology this would have emerged long ago, becoming apparent perhaps in a series of disastrous theoretical, strategic and tactical blunders, or in major compromises and accommodations with the class enemy.
It is thus inconceivable that revolutionaries (not to mention countless thousands of militants and socialist workers) -- many of whom are/were prepared to give their lives in furtherance of the class struggle -- would or could have adopted ideas derived from the class they abhor, totally vitiating their long-term political aims, and life's work.
Furthermore, it might well be wondered how revolutionary classics (such as Marx's Das Kapital, Marx and Engels's The Communist Manifesto, Engels's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Lenin's What Is To Be Done? and State and Revolution, Trotsky's The Permanent Revolution and The History of the Russian Revolution, Luxembourg's The Mass Strike -- along with countless others) could have been written by comrades who have been portrayed in these Essays as little more than undercover propagandists for the ruling-class.
Nevertheless, the contention made here is -- in all seriousness -- that the above comrades, in so far as they entertained a theory based on concepts drawn from Hegel, succeeded in introducing into the revolutionary movement a world-view that constituted a major theoretical compromise with the class enemy.
Indeed, and in answer to one of the objections rehearsed above, this is part of the reason why Marxism has witnessed disaster after disaster, retreat after retreat, and defeat after defeat, for the last 100 years or so. If practice tells us anything, it tells us that practice has refuted dialectics, and that Dialectical Marxism is not a synonym for success. [More on this in Essay Ten Part One.]
Furthermore, this also reveals why DIM has been about as effective as religious belief has always been at fostering and hardening sectarianism. Far from presenting a glowing beacon to mankind, DIM has become an object lesson in failure and a byword for corruption and evil.
And we cannot just put this down to the malign influence of bourgeois propaganda; time after time we have scored more own goals than is good for us, presenting the capitalist media with abundant ammunition to use against our side.
Moreover, and in addition, this shameful record is one reason why DIMs cling on to dialectics so fervently (despite the fact that it has been comprehensively refuted by history): it allows them to re-interpret the long-term failure of Marxism as a success in disguise, and then ignore it.
Indeed, those who accept a theory that tells them that "appearances contradict essence/reality" are going to find it easy to re-interpret each failure as just such a hidden success (since whatever happens the NON is guaranteed to turn things around eventually) -- and this then allows them to conclude that only those who do not "understand dialectics" will reason otherwise.
[NON = Negation of the Negation; DIM = Dialectical Marxism/Marxist.]
Given such a rosy view of things, not only does every such failure have a silver lining, there is in fact only the silver lining!
Dialectics thus prevents the serious problems our movement faces from ever being addressed, which guarantees they will keep on recurring. It does this by encouraging those whose brains it has colonised into concluding that 'materialist dialectics' has been tested in practice and has emerged a resounding success --, the exact opposite of the truth.
And that is why, to the DM-faithful, the allegations made in this and other Essays posted at this site will seem so preposterous -- providing sufficient grounds for them to be ignored and never read --, or, failing that, for them to be to misrepresented and/or vilified.
Of course, those lost in sweet reverie are going to resist attempts to slap some materialist good sense into them.
Nevertheless, comrades, may I invite you back to the desert of the real?
No, don't turn over and go back to sleep!
|
Heads Out Of The Sand, Comrades; Dialectical Marxism Sucks! |
Having said that, it needs stressing right away that it is not being maintained here that leading revolutionaries adopted ruling-class ideas knowingly, duplicitously or willingly. What is being alleged is that these comrades did this unwittingly. Exactly how and why this happened will be revealed in Part Two.
However, in order to provide an adequate answer to the seemingly insurmountable objections outlined above, we must take a slight detour; strange as it might seem, we need to consider "substitutionism".
It is an odd fact (but it is a fact nonetheless) that the ideological roots of substitutionist thinking have received scant attention from revolutionaries. In his otherwise excellent essay on Trotsky's views on this phenomenon, Tony Cliff does not even mention the ideological roots of substitutionist thinking. The closest he gets to doing so is the following:
"The fact that the working class needs a party or parties is in itself a proof of the cleavages in the working class. The more backward culturally, the weaker the organisation and self-administration of the workers generally, the greater will be the intellectual cleavage between the class and its Marxist party. From this unevenness in the working class flows the great danger of an autonomous development of the party and its machine till it becomes, instead of the servant of the class, its master. This unevenness is a main source of the danger of 'substitutionism'....
"Men make history, and if these men organised in a party have a greater impact on history than their relative number warrants, nevertheless they alone do not make history and, for better or worse, they alone are not the cause of their greater specific weight, neither of the general history of the class nor even of themselves in this class. In the final analysis, the only weapons to fight the 'substitutionism' of the revolutionary party for the class, and hence the transformation of the former into a conservative force, is the activity of the class itself, and its pressure not only against its social enemy, but also against its own agent, its party....
"Because the working class is far from being monolithic, and because the path to socialism is uncharted, wide differences of strategy and tactics can and should exist in the revolutionary party. The alternative is the bureaucratised party or the sect with its 'leader'. Here one cannot but regret Trotsky's sweeping statement that 'any serious factional fight in a party is always in the final analysis a reflection of the class struggle'. [Trotsky (1971), p.77.] This verges on a vulgar materialist interpretation of human thought as growing directly out of material conditions! What class pressures separated Lenin from Luxemburg, or Trotsky from Lenin (1903-17), or what change in class pressures can one see in Plekhanov's zigzags: with Lenin in 1903, against him in 1903, against him in 1905, with him again (and at last breaking, it is true, with Lenin and with the revolutionary movement and joining the class enemy)? Can the differences in the theory of imperialism between Lenin and Luxemburg be derived from an analysis of their position in class society? Scientific socialism must live and thrive on controversy. And scientists who start off with the same basic assumptions, and then use the same method of analysis, do differ in all fields of research." [Cliff (1960), pp.126-30. Here, I have used the version reprinted in Cliff (2001). Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted here.]
It is almost as if the party were run by automata, or by individuals who had no class-origins themselves, no philosophical baggage that they brought with them into the movement.
But, to suggest that the above stalwarts were human beings, who might just have had alien-class ideas already installed in their brains by their upbringing or class background, and who react just like others to defeat and demoralisation (by looking for some sort of consolation, some sort of explanation to allay the cognitive dissonance that such set-backs must have created in their minds) is by no means "vulgar"; it is to take Marx seriously when he said:
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." [Marx (1859), p.181. A copy is available here.]
Naturally, one must deal with the beliefs of fellow human beings with some sensitivity, but revolutionaries like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky were not beamed down to the earth from a passing space ship, nor were they born fully-formed, with all their radical beliefs pre-installed.
However, when we find 99.9% of all avowed Marxists, from Leninists to Trotskyists, Maoists to Stalinists, Libertarian Communists to non-Orthodox Trotskyists sharing the same dialectical doctrines, derived from a ruling-class hack like Hegel, that alone is prima facie evidence that "social being" might very well be at work here, as Marx indicated, determining the collective dialectical consciousness of generations of Marxists. [More on this in Part Two.]
Of course, this not to suggest that substitutionism has not been discussed at length by Marxists, far from it; but the response so far has often been defensive, uncharacteristically piecemeal and vaguely apologetic. [Cliff's article being Exhibit A in this regard.]
Now, in Cliff's case, and with respect to the revolutionary party itself, substitutionism seems to have been portrayed as merely a latent disposition, one that is of little consequence or danger when the wider movement is healthy and on the advance, but which poses a considerable threat when it is weak, in retreat or in its death throws. Hence, substitutionism is depicted in terms that make it look almost inevitable, given the 'right' sort of circumstances.
Indeed, Cliff all but suggests that the party will naturally gravitate in this direction unless it is stopped by an assertive working class.
But, in view of the fact that Marxist parties these days tend to be small (or if large --, as they are in some 'third world' countries --, they openly rely on a passive working class, as election-fodder), this can only mean that, if Cliff is correct, every Marxist party is actively substitutionist!
Are Revolutionaries Just Robots?
Naturally, this does not mean that theorists have failed to consider other aspects or causes of substitutionism, or that different explanations of it do not exist. What is undeniable, though, is that little systematic thought has been devoted either to the internal features of the phenomenon or to its ideological roots --, that is, to the theoretical background that provides it with some sort of rationale.
Indeed, even less thought has been devoted to the material, social or philosophical source of substitutionist ideology.
It is undeniable that substitutionism must have an ideological background if it is to have any effect on human beings -- as opposed to, say, simply 'motivating' automata --; but exactly how it achieves this is never examined.
To be sure, our understanding of the relationship between the revolutionary class and the Party has changed considerably over the last 150 years, yet the specific details of the theoretical (let alone the practical) relationship between the two have remained somewhat imprecise and sketchy all the while. Naturally, this is because few are happy to admit that a serious problem exists in this area, even though this question has presented the movement with intractable difficulties at important historical junctures (for example in Soviet Russia, after 1917 and the subsequent Civil War, with the virtual destruction of the Russian proletariat).
Nevertheless, since the above relationship is central to the success or failure of Marxism --, and in view of the fact that DIM has witnessed long-term failure --, this can only mean that there is something profoundly wrong with our movement, either with our ideas, or with both.
It thus more than hints that our relationship with the working-class is not all it should be.
However, it is not my intention to address that particular problem in this Essay. [This was partially dealt with in Essay Ten.] My aim here will be strictly limited to the connection that is alleged (by me) to exist between important ideological aspects of substitutionism and DM itself.
Clearly, the solution of the former can only benefit from a resolution of the latter.
Alien Ideas -- Introduced From 'The Outside'
In his book Marxism And The Party, John Molyneux attempted to reconcile Marx's claim that the "emancipation of the working class" is the sole "act of the working class" with Lenin's belief that:
"Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside the economic struggle, from outside the sphere of the relations between workers and employers." [Lenin (1947), p.78. Quoted in Molyneux (1978), p.45. Italic emphases in the original.]1
I do not wish to take issue with Molyneux's resolution of this apparent but much discussed problem. What is of concern here is that, whatever dialectical relation there in fact exists between workers and the party, it is clear that Molyneux concedes the idea that workers of themselves cannot develop a "revolutionary consciousness", or, at least, one that is even and/or fully-formed -- a fact which is undisputed by most Leninists anyway.
[Of course, as Draper argued many years ago, this is a caricature of Lenin, but the point is that this 'received' view has motivated most Leninists since. More recently, Lars Lih has pushed this idea to its limit (cf., Lih (2005)). More on this later.]
Hence, on this 'received' view, there is a clear need for intervention by the Party to bring revolutionary ideas to workers. To be sure, not only must such a Party learn from workers and their struggles, it must have among its ranks revolutionary proletarians themselves (i.e., "advanced" sections of the working class). Indeed, the structure of the Party should be as democratic as the exigencies of the class struggle permit. Granted, too, that even though this Party is "of the working class" it still separate from it, that it represents its "memory" and remains a "tribune" for the oppressed (etc., etc.).2
Despite this, a paradox remains: even though the Party's strategy and tactics have been derived from a series of long-term interventions in workers' struggles, its philosophical ideas plainly originated elsewhere.
To be sure, in TAR, John Rees argued that dialectical concepts have arisen partly out of a theoretical analysis of the growth of Capitalism, partly out of an engagement with the long-term resistance mounted by workers -- among other things --, and partly out of the interplay between the two. However, when these concepts are examined (as they will be below), it is clear that this picture of revolutionary theory is far from accurate; in fact it is about as inaccurate as anything could be.
Not only is it impossible to believe that DM-concepts could have been cobbled-together in this way, it is equally impossible to believe they could have been developed by workers themselves. Nor could they have been derived from an interaction between the Party and workers -- nor even from a scientific analysis either of the natural world or of Capitalism -- nor yet from any practice engaged in by Marxists.
The significance of these observations is as easily missed as their importance has so far been ignored.3
[TAR = The Algebra Of Revolution; i.e., Rees (1998).]
In what follows, I aim to show that while workers are capable of developing ideas consonant with HM (which enables them to connect with revolutionary theory and practice systematised by the revolutionary party), they cannot form from their own experience -- as a matter of fact or of logic -- any notion whatsoever of concepts drawn exclusively from DM, or from Hegel.
Indeed, it will be shown that such concepts lie way beyond the experience that any human beings whatsoever could conceivably form -- and that caveat includes dialecticians.
It will be argued, therefore, that workers have had to have this alien-class ideology imposed on them. DM has to be substituted into workers' heads by outside influence, and this has to be done against their materialist inclinations. In fact, DM has to replace many of the ideas that workers might already have formed which could have helped them understand not only Marxism, but how to transform their own lives by acting for themselves and in their own interests. In short, it will be argued that DM not only cripples workers' comprehension of Marxism, it hinders their self-activity, fatally compromising their capacity to create a socialist society for themselves.
Even worse: it will be maintained that not only does DM put workers off Marxism (because it is incomprehensible), it fosters splits and sectarianism in 'their' Party, encouraging a climate of unreasonableness and systematic personal corruption in and among revolutionaries (for analogous reasons). Worse, it allows DIMs to rationalise their own forms of substitutionism.
Plainly, this in no way makes the antics of revolutionaries appealing to workers.
Furthermore, it will also be shown that despite claims made to the contrary, revolutionaries themselves could not possibly employ -- or have employed -- dialectical concepts either in their own day-to-day activity, or during revolutionary upheavals (such as 1917). [On that, see here.]
This is because it is impossible to use incomprehensible concepts, and since no one (not Engels, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not Plekhanov -- nor anyone else) is capable of understanding dialectics, it cannot feature, nor could it have featured in the practical activity of the Party, despite what we are constantly told. Again, this is not because dialectics is too difficult to grasp, it is because its theses are either non-sensical or are far too confused for anyone to understand their implications, and thus act upon them.
Hence, it will be concluded that the concepts found in DM could not have been developed out of -- or in response to -- the class struggle (by any stretch of the imagination), by anyone, ever. In that case, whatever else DM-theses are, they are neither historical nor materialist concepts.
Furthermore, it will also be argued that one of the side-effects of this alien theory is that it chains workers to a passive ideology -- one that makes them the objects of theory and not the subjects of history. In connection with this it will be maintained that DM encourages in workers a servile notion of themselves as the playthings of mysterious metaphysical forces that neither they nor anyone else understands -- nor ever will, nor ever could understand --, but which they find they have to accept because it forms an integral part of a philosophical tradition they had no part in building.4
Strange as it may seem, traditional DIM-activity has either (1) inadvertently contributed to the theoretical passivity of any workers it has attracted to its ranks, or (2) it has helped -- directly or indirectly -- put them off Marxism altogether by attempting to fill their heads with incomprehensible jargon they find they just have to accept, but which no one may question.
The irony is that this enslaves workers' minds because it forms part of a promise that only if these alien concepts are adopted will they be capable of freeing themselves from the slavery of Capitalism!
Plainly, that unity of opposites has not worked to the benefit of our movement.
Now, all this is quite remarkable -- not just because it represents another dialectical inversion -- but because no one seems to have spotted it before.
Nevertheless, if all this is correct, it is in fact the self-activity of workers that DM-theorists have turned on its head, not Hegel.
To that end, workers have had to be ideologically knocked off their feet, their material ideas inverted and obscured.
This topsy-turvy approach to revolutionary theory is just one more reason for our side's revolutionary impotence.
DM thus encapsulates, not the "rational core" inside a mystical shell, but the rotten core of a mystical shambles.
In stark contrast, HM provides workers with an analysis of the course of history and of the vital part they must play in overthrowing their own exploiters and oppressors -- and one that connects directly with their own material experience.
Hence, it does not need to be substituted into their heads, simply introduced to them -- and, as we will see, not from the outside, either.
In comparison once more, DM stands out as an anachronism: an atavistic throw-back to ideas that have motivated ruling-class theorists for thousands of years. In bringing this to workers, revolutionaries have inadvertently substituted obscure metaphysical theses for clear materialist concepts, and imposed on workers (and themselves) a theory that they not only do not understand, no one understands, or could understand.
Serious doubts have been raised throughout this site about the philosophical provenance of the concepts found in DM; however, its actual historical origins are not in any doubt. The long and sordid trail is there for all to see (and exposed for those who want to see in Essay Fourteen (summary here)).
This does not need inverting; it just needs airing: DM was developed out of the most all-embracing version of AIDS ever invented -- a theory situated in an age-old tradition of philosophical and mystical thought that stretches back into ancient Greece and Egypt -- and arguably beyond that to the origins of class society itself.5
This means that DM has had to be brought to workers from the "outside", from traditions and ways of thinking that are inimical to their interests and foreign to their materialist view of the world --, which concepts too lie beyond anybody's grasp (let alone theirs), and which are alien both to their experience and to their language.
[AIDS = Absolute Idealism.]
Oddly enough, these claims are nearly as easy to substantiate as they are to make; the rest of this Essay is aimed at showing this is not just an empty boast.
DM: A Deep Mystery Even To Marxists
It could be objected to the above that while many scientific theories lie way beyond the grasp of the majority -- given the poor education they receive in class society -- that does not automatically brand them as inimical to their interests. Most of modern science transcends ordinary experience; since this presents no problems for scientists, it presents none for DM. So, the fact that workers do not understand dialectics (if they don't) does not imply that it represents alien-class interests. Or so it could be maintained.
However, with respect to understanding genuine scientific theories, only an inadequate education and insufficient leisure time stands in the way of ordinary individuals. With regard to DM, on the other hand, things are completely different. We have seen on numerous occasions that even DM-classicists find it impossible to explain DM's core ideas to one another (let alone to workers) -- or anyone else, for that matter -- in a comprehensible form. Not only have we witnessed DM-theses repeatedly collapse into incoherence at the slightest encouragement, we have also seen how impenetrably vague and equivocal they are. In fact, even now, well over one hundred and twenty years since Engels, Dietzgen and Plekhanov first invented DM, none of its core ideas have been explicated in anything other than terminally obscure terms.6
Indeed, DM-theses remain in the same confused state that DM-classicists originally left them. From the beginning, dialecticians have relied largely on merely repeating, generation after generation, the same vague notions and confused ideas they inherited from Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin -- the dialectical needle stuck well and truly in that Ideal groove.
Hence, what we find in DM-writings are the same erroneous assertions made about FL (which is repeatedly conflated with Aristotelian Syllogistic), the same confused references to the LOI, the LEM, the LOC and change, the same repetition of vague reformulations of Engels's "three laws of Dialectics",7 the same appeal to an epistemology that is as implausible as it is impracticable, the same unimaginative examples repackaged as if they were either brand new or relevant (e.g., those involving water and steam, Mendeleyev's table, John's manhood, a character from a French novel (Molière's Monsieur Jourdain) discovering he has been speaking prose all his life, plants negating seeds, Mamelukes out-fighting French soldiers (or otherwise), "yea, yea", and "nay, nay" (this one is highly popular), and so on, ad nauseam). In tandem with all this we encounter the same old bluster, hand waving, sweeping generalisations, snide remarks and diversionary tactics whenever DM encounters any serious criticism.8 DM, the erstwhile philosophy of change, has remained stuck in a 19th century time-warp; little sign here of the Heraclitean Flux.
[LOI = Law Of Identity; LEM = Law of Excluded Middle; LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction.]
It is pertinent to ask, therefore: How is it possible for DM to be "brought to workers" (as a part of revolutionary theory) if even its best theorists appear to be incapable of bringing it to themselves after over 120 years of trying?
Well: Have You Read And Fully Understood The Whole Of Hegel's Logic?
The alarming facts upon which the above allegations supervene are thrown into even starker relief by Lenin's surprising and oft-quoted remark that not a single Marxist up until his day -- which must have included Engels, Dietzgen, Kautsky, Luxemburg, and Plekhanov -- actually understood Marx's Capital, since none of them had fully mastered Hegel's Logic!
"It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!" [Lenin (1961), p.180. Bold emphases added.]9
Clearly, Lenin's aside raises serious questions of its own. If professional revolutionaries find Hegel's work impossibly difficult to comprehend (few in my experience bother to consult much of what Hegel wrote, let alone attempt to study the entire Logic -- but, which Logic (there were in fact two!),9a is it credible that workers themselves can understand the whole of his Logic fully? In which case -- if Lenin is correct --, what chance is there that anyone (revolutionary or worker) will ever make head or tail of Marx's Capital?10
Even worse, Lenin's comments suggest that only a tiny fraction (if that!) of revolutionaries have ever fully understood Marxism (or, at least Capital). Lenin is quite clear: only those Marxists who have "thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic" (emphasis added) can claim to comprehend Capital; short of that they can't. Again, how many revolutionaries have thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic (let alone read it) since Lenin's day? Even professional philosophers find that work daunting, and of those who claim to understand it, the presumption must be that that is an empty boast until they succeed in explaining it clearly to the rest of us.11
Nevertheless, a far more serious and damaging question is the following: How would it be possible to decide if anyone has ever actually understood all of Hegel's Logic?
Plainly, we can't enquire of Hegel what the correct interpretation of his work is. Even Lenin himself failed to provide us with a comprehensive (or comprehensible) account of all of Hegel's Logic. And, as we know with regard to the interpretation of that other (but far less) obscure book -- The Bible --, it is always open for someone to claim that their interpretation is the correct one, while all the rest aren't, with no empirically viable way of deciding between them.
Of course, as we will see, this is precisely what allows revolutionary sectarians to impose their own brand orthodoxy on their corner of the militant market.12
Indeed, buried in here somewhere is one of the main reasons for the ideological sectarianism that appears to be endemic in revolutionary Marxism; the Logic is to DM as The Bible is to Theology. In both of these books, a 'correct' interpretation functions as a test of orthodoxy; their use is both a source of mystification and a guarantor of righteousness.
Moreover, it is relatively easy to demonstrate that this helps DIMs find whatever post hoc rationalisation they require to 'justify' inconsistent, undemocratic tactical manoeuvring -- and/or counter-revolutionary activity -- as the need arises. Furthermore, as is the case with other sacred texts -- where priests, theologians and assorted 'holy men' claim exclusive interpretive rights --, in DIM only a few self-selected Dialectical Magi can 'rightly' claim to 'understand' the Logic (and thus "dialectics", and thus Marxism), even if they find it impossible to prove this by explaining it clearly to anyone this side of the Kuiper Belt.
This being so, few among the rank-and-file will feel confident (or foolish) enough to question the theoretical deliverances made on their behalf by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Mandel, Healy, Pablo, Grant, Avakian -- or whoever.13
Another analogy (drawn once more with the numinous) springs to mind here: there would be little point in anyone complaining that the pronouncements and tactical zigzags mentioned above were "inconsistent" in themselves or with whatever passed for orthodoxy just 24 hours earlier; that would only show that the said complainer had failed to "understand dialectics". Consistency is no more to be expected of dialecticians than it is of Doctors of Divinity, and in this case perhaps less so. The Deity and The Dialectic move in mysterious and contradictory ways; the Divine Mind is no less baffling than is DM. This makes DM a handy ideological cover for our 'leaders' in justifying anything they like -- for saying one thing one day, the exact opposite the next. Which is, of course, why they are loathe to abandon this 'theory'.14
Few scientists would be foolish enough to make similar claims for any of the classics of science -- not even of Darwin's Origin or Newton's Principia --, i.e., that only if the latter were studied from end to end, and thoroughly understood, could an aspiring researcher/student claim to comprehend modern science. One guesses that only a minority of scientists have actually read all or most of the classics in their field, but that fact does not materially affect their work.15
Now, even though revolutionary theory is different from other scientific disciplines, that does not mean that incomprehensible philosophical texts must be treated in such a theological way, with every word regarded as required reading, and every syllable understood, before initiation can begin. And yet, Lenin's aside indicates that this is exactly how Hegel's Logic should be viewed by the DM-faithful: only the correct understanding of this intractably obscure work -- in its entirety -- is sufficient to allow novice socialists to proceed to the next level, and try to understand Marx's classic, and before they too can presume to spread the Good News.
Of course, this is all rather puzzling since Marx himself never claimed this of his own work.16
DM: Beyond A Worker's Ken?
It was asserted above that DM is unconnected with workers' experience. But, this seems to contradict the following of Trotsky's observations:
"[A] worker who has gone through the school of class struggle gains from his own experience an inclination toward dialectical thinking…. Every worker knows that it is impossible to make two completely equal objects…. Every individual is a dialectician to some extent or other, in most cases, unconsciously. A housewife knows that a certain amount of salt flavours soup agreeably, but that added salt makes the soup unpalatable. Consequently, an illiterate peasant woman guides herself in cooking soup by the Hegelian law of the transformation of quantity into quality…. Even animals arrive at their practical conclusions…on the basis of the Hegelian dialectic. Thus a fox is aware that quadrupeds and birds are nutritious and tasty…. When the same fox, however, encounters the first animal which exceeds it in size, for example, a wolf, it quickly concludes that quantity passes into quality, and turns to flee. Clearly, the legs of a fox are equipped with Hegelian tendencies, even if not fully conscious ones. All this demonstrates, in passing, that our methods of thought, both formal logic and the dialectic, are not arbitrary constructions of our reason but rather expressions of the actual inter-relationships in nature itself. In this sense the universe is permeated with ‘unconscious’ dialectics." [Trotsky (1971), pp.58, 65, 106-07. Bold emphases added.]17
One of the more incriminating parts of the above passage is Trotsky's assertion that human beings obey the laws of dialectics for the most part "unconsciously", and that the actual law they observe is the "Hegelian law" -- not (note!) its alleged materialist inversion --, i.e., the full-blooded version derived from AIDS.18
[AIDS = Absolute Idealism.]
Trotsky thus claimed that workers "obey" DM-laws "unconsciously" ("in most cases"). To be sure, if workers are themselves largely unaware of these 'laws', then, ex hypothesi, they would need to be informed of them from the outside, since it is not possible to learn about them from their own experience. Hence, it is important for DIMs to show that workers can form a rudimentary grasp of dialectics, which seems to be why Trotsky argued this way.
To that end, it could be argued that workers might become aware of these 'laws' to some extent when they encounter them as part of their day-to-day activity. Indeed, it could even be maintained that while most workers do not always think dialectically, certain advanced sections of the proletariat might gain a limited dialectical view of the world because of their experience of the class struggle.
In that case, there appear to be several alternatives Trotsky might have had in mind in connection with such workers (or with human beings in general). Consider therefore the following:
[1] Some might gain a vague or rudimentary grasp of DM as a result of their experiences in the class struggle.
[2] Some might gain a vague or rudimentary grasp of DM as a result of their practical activity in the labour process.
[3] Others might gain a vague or rudimentary grasp of DM as a result of their reflection on their own unconscious compliance with dialectical laws.
[4] Still others might gain a vague or rudimentary grasp of DM as a result of reading Hegel, and/or the DM-classics.
While Trotsky might have assented to [1], [2] and [3], he certainly would not have disagreed with [4]. Nevertheless, his general point seems to be that workers (and human beings in general) could attain a vague or rudimentary grasp of DM, and that they could comprehend certain aspects of change, the concrete inapplicability of the LOI, the truth perhaps even of the 'three laws of dialectics', the need to appeal to the "Totality" and universal inter-connectedness in an attempt to account for the many changes there are in nature and/or society (etc.), as a result of their general life experiences.
I shall consider each of these in turn, beginning however with [2].
To recapitulate, Trotsky argued as follows:
"Every worker knows that it is impossible to make two completely equal objects. In the elaboration of a bearing-brass into cone bearings, a certain deviation is allowed for the cones which should not, however, go beyond certain limits…. By observing the norms of tolerance, the cones are considered as being equal. ('A' is equal to 'A')…. Every individual is a dialectician to some extent or other, in most cases, unconsciously." [Ibid., pp.65, 106.]
This passage was analysed in Essay Six as follows:
From this it is clear that Trotsky misconstrued his own version of the LOI! If he had wanted to direct our attention to the lack of identity between two different objects he should have used the following schema:
W1: A is equal to B.
But not:
W2: A is equal to A.
In the quoted passage above, Trotsky referred to the manufacture of "cone bearings" as part of his argument against the unrestricted application of his own simplified version of the LOI. In this, he was clearly interpreting the two "A"'s of W2 as standing for different (even if similar) "cone bearings", that is, he was in fact employing W1. Naturally, this throws into serious doubt Trotsky's ability to spot when something is or is not an instance even of his own garbled version of the LOI.19
[LOI = Law of Identity.]
Some might regard these comments as unfair. Surely, Trotsky's point was to argue that just as cone bearings look very similar (but are nevertheless distinct), these two "A"'s are equally similar but distinguishable (in some way). So, he was right to use W2 -- or so it could be maintained.
This objection has some force -- but not much. This is because Trotsky began with the following assertion:
W3: Every worker knows that it is impossible to make two completely equal objects.
The idea seems to be that workers often (invariably?) realise that the LOI is of limited (or zero) applicability when they make things. However, even if this were correct, Trotsky's main point would be irrelevant; his avowed target had been the LOI ("A is equal to A" --, not "A is equal to B"), since he hoped to show that workers in their practical activity implicitly or explicitly reject that 'law', and that they are aware of its limitations. In order to do this, he advanced the claim that workers in general know that it is impossible to make two objects exactly alike. But, one of his criticisms of the LOI involved the belief that all objects change continually and hence are never equal to themselves. Now, even if we accept Trotsky's version of the LOI, it does not refer to two separate objects being the same; in its classical form (and sometimes in Trotsky's version, too) it is manifestly about an object's relation to itself.
If, on the other hand, Trotsky had written:
W4: Every worker knows that it is impossible to make an object completely equal to itself.
the absurdity of what he was claiming would have been clear to all; no worker (or anyone else for that matter) would form such a crazy idea.
However, in W1, Trotsky's point is completely different; there he was arguing that different objects are not identical, and that workers know this. In this case, he was not saying that any one specific object is not self-identical, but that of any two objects, not only can workers see that they are not the same, they also know they cannot make two that are identical. He did not say that workers are aware that they cannot make one object the same as itself. But, that is precisely what Trotsky needed to show, that no worker believes that one object can be made the same as itself -- that is, that it is impossible to make an item which is self-identical.
Put like this, it is reasonably clear that few workers (if any) would understand such a claim (does anyone understand it?), but, even if they did, no worker would draw such an odd conclusion from their own activity.20
In any case, Trotsky's point (in W3) is not even derivable from his own criticism of the LOI. W3 is not even a DM-thesis! And this is quite independent of whether or not workers conclude all he said they should. As seems clear, it is not relevant to claim that workers are automatic dialecticians because they assent to a banal truth that is not actually part of DM. It is not a DM-thesis that two objects are different -- only that one object is not the same as itself. What was required here was an example taken from DM that workers could assent to before they were talked into accepting it by a fast-talking Dialectical Missionary. What we actually have here is a truism that any card-carrying member of the ruling-class could accept: even George W Bush knows that two apples are not one apple!
Nevertheless, and contrary to what Trotsky said, workers can make countless identical things. Given the fact that certain sub-atomic particles are identical in every respect with every other particle of the same type, any worker can easily 'produce' two or more identical objects. For example, every time anyone throws a light switch countless identical photons stream out of the bulb. And this occurs even if they are unaware of it. Based on Trotsky's argument therefore, this must mean that workers who use the lights are "unconscious" anti-dialecticians!21
Despite this, it could be argued that Trotsky's point is that all workers are aware of change, since they know that the same machines they use, for example, produce seemingly alike but different objects.
If this is what Trotsky meant then it is certainly unexceptionable, but it's not what he said. And even if he had have said it, it would not have distinguished a DM-description of reality from one available to anyone using ordinary language or anyone cognizant of 'bourgeois' science -- or, indeed, anyone with an ounce of dreaded 'commonsense'. Indeed, we can go further: no sane Capitalist believes that all commodities are identical or that things do not change.
In fact, workers themselves are aware of change long before they arrive at their first job. They learn to talk about and understand change as they learn to use ordinary language and gain practical experience in life -- as, indeed, do members of the ruling-class and their ideologues. Hence, workers (at least) do not need to be informed "from the outside" about change -- and neither are they "unconscious" of it. Clearly, a failure to learn about change -- or a lack of awareness of it -- would threaten the survival of any organism so afflicted, let alone that of workers. This means that DM's enlightenment of workers about this type of change would be about as informative as telling them that water is wet, grass is green or that fire burns.
Again, it could be objected that this admission simply confirms that DM is integral to workers' consciousness, after all, since it acknowledges that they are aware of change almost from birth.
Of course, this is something that was underlined in an earlier Essay: that ordinary language contains countless words capable of describing and depicting every sort of change far beyond the limited capacity possessed of technical jargon -- and way in excess of that expressible in the obscure terminology found in Hegel and the writings of his DM-proselytisers. Furthermore, ordinary human beings are highly proficient at recognising change. In fact, our ancestors would have left no progeny behind to ponder this question had they not possessed this capacity and passed it on.
The only point at issue therefore is whether or not we should call this facility a sort of 'dialectical' awareness of the nature of reality. If this is what DM-theorists mean by such a skill, it is worth asking: What happened to the general DM-claim that ordinary language and 'commonsense' are super-glued to a static view of reality? The latter was underlined in TAR itself with the patently false assertion that all that ordinary humans are able to do when they speak about the world is pathetically mutter words like "this" and "that":
"Ordinary language assumes that things and ideas are stable, that they are either 'this' or 'that'…." [Rees (1998), p.45.]22
As was argued in an earlier Essay, it is ordinary language and common sense that lend even to DM-theorists what little facility they have to talk about change -- not the other way round! Again, if this is what Trotsky meant then there would be no problem because it concedes the point (defended here) that ordinary language is all right as it is. It does not need assistance of DIMs in this area.
However, this is almost certainly not what Trotsky meant -- that is, of course, if we could ever tell what he meant by what he said on this score.
In addition, members of the ruling-class and their hangers-on are also aware of these issues (as much as workers are) when they use the vernacular. Even they are able to refer to change -- and, it must be said, in a vastly superior way to dialecticians, if the latter insist on using only the impoverished and severely limited logico-linguistic resources they borrowed from Hegel. That would, of course, make members of the ruling-class superior 'dialecticians', at least in this respect!
Anyway, this is very different from showing that workers are capable of gaining even a hazy grasp of DM from their life experiences. Workers understand change as a result of their interaction with nature and with one another -- and because of the sophistication ordinary language makes available to them, partly by means of which they had been socialised. This does not mean that the rest of DM can be lumped in as a job lot.
This is so for three reasons:
(1) Everyone (not just workers and their families) learns about change in this way -- including the most reactionary and conservative elements in society. Are we to now to say that the latter are "unconscious" dialecticians, too?
(2) Ordinary language is incomparably richer in its capacity to express change, identity, difference, negation, inference, movement, stability, instability, opposition, struggle, development, resistance (etc., etc.), than the obscure jargon found in DM. Indeed, that is why ordinary language is used by most revolutionary papers. In which case, a switch to DM by workers would be detrimental to their ability to think clearly; if they subsequently wanted to comprehend change any better they would have to unlearn DM.
(3) The type of change referred to in DM is change through 'internal contradiction'. Not only is this sort of change incomprehensible (to one and all, as was demonstrated in Essay Eight Parts One and Two -- but more fully here), as we will see below, workers would never think of using such mystical language to depict anything whatsoever.23
It could be argued in response that the labour process in fact teaches workers more about the deeper aspects of change than does ordinary language and 'commonsense', something DM later hooks onto and greatly amplifies.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to assess the validity of this particular claim until it is made clear what these "deeper aspects of change" actually are. And that is by no means easy.
Presumably, these are related to the 'appearance/reality' distinction, the notion that change occurs through 'internal contradiction', the 'mediated nature of the Totality', and so on. But, even if sense could be made of these notions (and we have seen that none has been so far), it is clear that workers could make little of them -- especially if the best minds in the DM-tradition have yet to attain to this blessed state themselves (as earlier Essays have shown).
It's worth remembering that workers are supposed to be able to conclude such things simply from watching items roll off the production line, or from engaging in collective activity, or attending strike meetings (etc.) -- if this interpretation of Trotsky's meaning is correct. But, are we really supposed to believe that as the 1000th Widget for the day is packed into the 100th crate, worker NN thinks to herself: "Well, that's another nail in the coffin of the LOI"? Or: "So, that's what the deeper aspects of change really are"? Or: "How amazing, the Totality has just mediated another 1000 Widgets!" Or even: "Now I understand why Being is at the same time identical with, but different from, Nothing!"?
Naturally, this does not mean that workers do not reflect on their experiences, or learn from them; far from it. But, if 2500 years of philosophical speculation, mountains of obscure Hegel-speak -- coupled with DM-theorists' own best efforts over the last 140 years -- cannot produce a single clear description of "deeper change", never mind other items found in the Dialectical Midden, it's a pretty safe bet that workers can't either. Or even that they could make sense of the question.
Or more significantly: whether there is anything substantive here for anyone to make sense of.
This means, once again, that we find Trotsky's claims are either completely misguided or they are far too vague to evaluate. Hence, it is not credible to suppose that workers can raise themselves up by their conceptual bootstraps in order to gain a DM-understanding of their own experience, howsoever vague, attenuated and rudimentary this attempt is deemed to be.
This is not because workers are incapable of doing this, but because there is as yet nothing here that they can aim toward achieving. DM-theorists have still to provide us with a clear goal for anyone -- let alone workers -- to aim for; they have yet to say what the options before us actually are.
If this is so, then not only must workers have DM imposed on them (since it is alien to their experience), we should also expect them to become confused in the process. This is because they would have to have an incoherent doctrine foisted on them, one which runs counter to their experience and their language, and