LBird, what's your theory on dialectics?

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
lem_
LBird, what's your theory on dialectics?
Printer-friendly version

you have, IMHO clearly, decided that more conventional forms of logic can't show us anything. at a mimimum, that logical rules aren't strictly true but can be rationally denied or contradicted if you so wish.

so what's your alternative, can you explain?

LBird
Dialectics asks 'for whom?'

'Dialectics' comes from the Classical Greek 'dialego', meaning 'talk through' or 'discuss' ('dia' - through, 'lego' - I talk).

Any form of dialectics must declare the subject in the relationship, which is the conscious 'discusser'.

For Marx (and Pannekoek, Bogdanov, etc.), the subject was not a passive contemplator, but an active, productive, social, subject - ie. humanity (not an 'individual' or a small elite).

Because in class societies the opposed classes have differing interests, and thus purposes and ideas, the classes are different subjects, and so create different 'realities'.

With dialectics, because of its relational claims about 'subject-object' interaction, one can't talk of either subject or object without specifying its relational partner.

So, an 'object' can only be an 'object-for' some creative subject. This leads us, with Marx, to the notion of 'reality-for', 'fact-for', 'true-for', 'objective-for', etc. Marx talks of 'nature for us', his 'organic nature'.

For Marx et al, humans are the creators of their object, and this creation of objects is the realm of 'dialectics'. This is close to the ideas created in bourgeois academia, a hundred years later, of the 'theory-ladenness of facts', that all so-called 'facts' must be situated within the relationship of their creation.

Any comrade with any political awareness can immediately see that if 'facts are socially-created', then we can use a socio-historical method (as advised by Marx) to determine when and by whom those 'facts' are created. For example, the socio-historic creation of either helio-centric or geo-centric universes.

The bourgeoisie are, of course, aghast at this revolutionary method, because they claim, like all ruling classes, to have the key to universal, eternal, TRUE knowledge. They must eternalise their rule, so that at philosophical source they can insist that the 'facts' of their creation are simply 'facts', and thus can't be changed.

For revolutionaries, however, a socio-historical method, which situates human creativity at the centre of their scientific method, the focus on human labour as the creative force, undermines the so-called 'objective science' of the bourgeoisie, which they installed with their rule since c. 1660, with the setting up of the Royal Society, a deeply ideological institution. This was done in part as a reaction to ideas about 'democratic science', which had an aim of building a better world for all, which was common talk amongst the radicals of the English Revolution 1642-60. In contrast, the counterrevolutionaries wanted to pretend that 'science' was about producing 'Truth', and not a 'better world for all'.

Long story short: dialectics implies the concept of 'social objectivity', where 'facts' are 'facts-for' a human creator. And as the creator, we can change 'reality-for-us', Marx's 'organic nature'. Human social theory and practice creates our world.

Engels didn't understand dialectics, and thought that it existed in a 'nature' outside of human creative consciousness, and so removed creative social labour from scientific and epistemological considerations, thus undoing Marx's fundamental work.

We workers are still living with the political consequences of this mistake by Engels. It's called Leninism, and is fundamentally a bourgeois theory suited to elites, and not to the democratic, revolutionary, class conscious, active proletariat.

Fred
LBird wrote:. Engels didn't

LBird wrote:
. Engels didn't understand dialectics, and thought that it existed in a 'nature' outside of human creative consciousness, and so removed creative social labour from scientific and epistemological considerations, thus undoing Marx's fundamental work.

So Engels won in the end. 

lem_
same old repeitions

what does it mean to be actively rather than passively discussing something?

i'm guessing that if you're passively discussing you can't change the facts through your discussion ?

same old mantra.

for me a passive discussion is when you ignore the facts [quietism?], or think you can change them through what you say rather than your actions [voluntarism?]. the fact that you keep repeating that marx agrees with you, when you've nowhere gone any lengths to show that, doesn't make it true.

lem_
PS you should provide

PS you should provide references for everything you're putting in quotes :-(