Charles, thanks for those comments.
I absolutely agree, much anti-dialectic stuff is hackneyed to high heaven.
As to my claim that my ideas are largely original to me, you will have to
check for yourself. What can I say...?
"You know. Like that Lenin is using a metaphysical concept when he analyzes
"John is a man." That's not exactly a new criticism."
Ah, but if you check the line I take, you will see I do develop it in new
ways (along neo-Fregean lines -- if you know of anyone else who has done
this, I will be gob-smacked!). And where have you come across this before
(posted at Revolutionary Left a few weeks ago)?
"Comrades might like to think about this (taken from my site):
The quandary facing dialecticians we might call the "Dialecticians' Dilemma"
[DD]. The DD arises from the uncontroversial observation that if reality is
fundamentally contradictory then any true theory should reflect this
supposed state of affairs. However, and this is the problem, in order to do
this such a theory must contain contradictions itself or it would not be an
accurate reflection of nature. But, if the development of science is
predicated either on the removal of contradictions from theories, or on the
replacement of older theories with less contradictory ones, as DM-theorists
contend, then science could not advance toward a 'truer' account of the
world. This is because scientific theories would then reflect reality less
accurately, having had all (or most) of their contradictions removed.
[DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
Conversely, if a true theory aims to reflect contradictions in nature more
accurately (which it must do if the latter is contradictory) then scientists
should not attempt to remove contradictions from -- or try to resolve them
in or between -- theories. Clearly, on that score, science could not
advance, since there would be no reason to replace a contradictory theory
with a less contradictory one. Indeed, if DM were correct, scientific
theories should become more contradictory -- not less -- as they approached
more closely the truth about 'contradictory' reality. That, of course, would
mean that scientific theory in general would become more defective with
time!
Again, if science developed as a result of the removal of contradictions
then a fully true theory should have had all (or most) of them removed.
Science ought then to reflect (in the limit) the fact that reality contains
no contradictions!
[It is worth noting here that critics of DM have already arrived at that
conclusion, and they arrived there without an ounce of dialectics to slow
them down.]
However, according to DM, scientific theories should rightly be replaced by
ones that depict reality as fundamentally contradictory, this despite the
fact that scientists will have removed every (or nearly every) contradiction
in order to have reached that point, if DM were correct. On the other hand,
if scientists failed to remove contradictions (or, if they refused to
replace an older theory with a newer, less contradictory one), so that their
theories reflected the contradictory nature of reality more accurately, they
would then have no good reason to reject any theory no matter how
inconsistent it was.
Whichever way this rusty old DM-banger is driven, the 'dialectical' view of
scientific progress and contradictions hits a very material brick wall in
the shape of the DD each time.
Dialecticians have thus so far failed to distinguish contradictions that are
the mere artefacts of a defective theory from those that supposedly reflect
'objective' features of the world. But, how might these be distinguished in
DM-terms? How is it possible to tell if a contradiction is an accurate
reflection of reality or if it is a consequence of a faulty theory, if all
of reality (including scientific theory) is contradictory? Practice is of no
help here since that takes place in the phenomenal world, which is riddled
with contradictions, according to DM, and as such must be contradictory
itself!
For example, DM-theorists generally argue that the wave-particle duality of
light confirms the thesis that nature is fundamentally dialectical; in this
case, light is supposed to be a UO of wave and particle. Precisely how they
are a unity (i.e., how it could be true that matter is fundamentally
particulate and fundamentally non-particulate all at once) is of course left
eminently obscure -- and how this helps account for the material world is
even less perspicuous. This alleged UO does nothing to explain change --
unless we are supposed to accept the idea that light being a particle
changes it into a wave, and vice versa. But what is the point of that? What
role does this particular 'contradiction' play in either DM or Physics? At
best it seems to be merely ornamental.
[UO = Unity of Opposites.]
Now, if we put to one side the 'solution' to this puzzle offered by, say,
Superstring Theory, there are still Physicists -- with, it seems, a more
robust commitment to scientific realism than the average dialectician
displays -- who believe that this 'paradox' can be resolved within a realist
picture of nature. Whether they are correct or not need not detain us since
DM-theorists (if consistent) ought to advise these rather rash realists not
to bother trying to solve this riddle. This is because dialectics provides
an a priori solution to it: since nature is fundamentally contradictory
there is in fact no solution --, which paradoxical state of affairs should,
of course, simply be "grasped".
Unfortunately, in that case, if physicists took this advice, Physics could
not advance to a superior view of nature (if one exists) by eliminating this
alleged contradiction. At best this a priori approach to knowledge would
close available options down, forcing scientists to adopt a view of reality
that might not be correct. Fortunately, there is little evidence so far that
Physicists have taken heed of this aspect of dialectics, even if they have
ever heard of it.
Now, only those who disagree with Lenin about the incomplete nature of
science (or, alternatively, who have a rather poor knowledge of the History
of Physics) would risk concluding that contemporary science has a final and
complete picture of reality, at least in this particular case. If so,
Physics could only advance by eliminating this paradox (and hence removing
one of the best examples DM-theorists have that supposedly illustrates the
fundamentally contradictory nature of reality). Only those who want to foist
their ideas on nature will object at this point.
On the other hand, if DM-theorists' advice to scientists is that they should
in general try to replace contradictory theories (such as this one) with
less logically-challenged ones, then they will have to abandon the idea that
nature is fundamentally contradictory -- at least here. This conclusion is
all the more pressing if certain scientists think they have already solved
this problem (David Bohm being one, for example). But, this is just the DD
once again: the DM-inspired belief in the contradictory nature of reality,
coupled with the claim that science only advances by removing contradictions
cannot, it seems, distinguish between contradictions that hold up the
progress of science (and which are therefore artefacts of a defective or
incomplete theory) from those that reveal the essentially 'contradictory'
nature of reality.
Although some (like Plekhanov) have acknowledged the problem, it remains
unresolved to this day. The various ways there might be for DM-theorists to
escape from the hole they have dug themselves into are examined in my thesis
and there shown to fail. [Dialecticians are therefore advised to stop
digging.]"
Read more at:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm";
Now, these comments may be completely misguided or they could be spot on --
either way, they are pretty original, I think.
"CB: Again,there are quite a few people who consider the Soviet Union etc. a
curse. But that's kind of an old debate"
I agree, but I only mentioned it to support my claim that Marxism is to
success what George Dubbya is to peace on earth.
"CB: Yes, I'd attribute that to capitalism's military might, not to their
anti-dialectical whatever."
Well yes, but then I did not attribute it to this either. *Whatever* the
cause, capitalism is huge success (and I know we know the picture is more
complex -- but this is why the 'Marxist version' of the Pragmatic theory of
truth (i.e, "tested in practice, etc) is no use at all). However, if one
accepts practicalities as a test of truth, Capitalism (or rather the
ideologies that rationalise it) must be true.
"CB: Well, there's dialectics, ebb and flow. Developments are not in a
straight line. There was enormous initial success. Now there's a setback.
That's dialectics."
More epicycles....
"CB: Communism is the only thing that has had any success whatsoever in
replacing capitalism. What other alternative has had success?"
Well, Capitalism has replaced communism (in the USSR and E. Europe, and is
replacing it in China -- and N Korea is a basket case, etc etc -- not much
to write home about here!), so that's a pretty big set of failures.
And as to you question about alternatives that have enjoyed any success,
that is my point. We have hit the bottom of the barrel. Hence my claim that
we need to re-think things like the radicals we say we are.
"CB: So you are anti-materialist as well as anti-dialectical?"
Why on earth do you say that? I am a 100%, died in the wool materialist,
unlike the closet idealists who tack the word "dialectical" onto it.
"CB; Basically , I don't want to read something that you don't want to
discuss. If you want to discuss it, I'll read it, otherwise...I mean I'm not
going to read it and then sit in silence contemplating what you have said.
I'm sure you can understand that."
Yes of course! I merely indicated that I had put this on the internet to
prevent me having to go into lengthy detail defending my ideas with comrades
who had not read what I have posted. I certainly did not intend to imply
that if you read my essays, I would not discuss them subsequent to that.
That would be being both arrogant and stupid.
I need to know where my arguments do not work (if they don't, that is), so
that I can beef them up.
RL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'" <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
rosa lichtenstein
Charles,
I did not thank you for that reference in order to initiate a debate, but
becasues I was genuinely grateful. And we have been through this before.
[I
forgot that whatever replies I made to you would go across the e-mail
list,
so no wonder you thought I wanted a debate.]
As I said to you in an earlier e-mail, the reason I have posted all this
material on the web is to save me having to make the same points over and
over. Now, you can read my Essays, or just ignore them. That is up to you.
But, I try not to debate this stuff with dialecticians, since I am sick of
making the same points that I have been making with comrades who accept
this
doctrine now for over 25 years. And you lot all say the same things. I can
almost put the words in your mouth for you.
^^^^^^
CB: Yes, I can see your frustration. On the other hand, you can imagine
that
a lot of the anti-dialectical stuff you say is the same or similar to a
lot
of anti-dialectical stuff I have been reading for the last 25 years. Or do
you think you have some new anti-dialectical ideas ? Maybe you could
highlight what you think to be the original and never seen before
anti-dialectical stuff in your essays. Otherwise , it sort of the same
thing
but in reverse for me.
You know. Like that Lenin is using a metaphysical concept when he analyzes
"John is a man." That's not exactly a new criticism.
^^^^^
In contrast, there is precious little in my Essays that is not original to
me, whether it is right or wrong.
However, I do not recognise the political disaster area called 'communism'
as a success, not since at least 1924, or thereabouts.
In fact, it has been a curse on Marxism, for reasons I will let you guess.
^^^^^
CB: Again,there are quite a few people who consider the Soviet Union etc.
a
curse. But that's kind of an old debate.
^^^^^
As a Trotskyist (and one associated with the UK/SWP -- although they would
disown my anti-dialectical ideas), you would hardly expect any other
judgement.
"No non-dialectical theories have come anywhere near the level of success
that dialectical materialism has."
Well I rather think bourgeois ideology in general is more successful,
especially if dialectical materialism apes its thought-forms (you can find
evidence for this at my site). Practically 100% of the planet is governed
by
their market, their fragmentary 'democracy', their oligarchic system --
now
largely aped by most communist parties.
^^^^^
CB: Yes, I'd attribute that to capitalism's military might, not to their
anti-dialectical whatever.
^^^^^^^
If truth were tested in practice we'd all be bourgeois, as indeed
communist
parties have become over the years. If that is a success, then the word
has
changed its meaning since last I looked.
^^^^^
CB: Well, there's dialectics, ebb and flow. Developments are not in a
straight line. There was enormous initial success. Now there's a setback.
That's dialectics.
^^^^^^
If you still think communism can be chalked up as a success, that is your
affair, but it will mean that we are so far apart politically that
successful communication between us will be impossible.
^^^^
CB: Communism is the only thing that has had any success whatsoever in
replacing capitalism. What other alternative has had success ?
^^^^^
However, my criticisms of dialectical materialism are independent of
whether
or not communism/Marxism has been a success or not (I merely use that
tag-line as a controversial clutcher), since I do not accept practice as a
criterion of truth -- I just use it to embarrass those who do. Why this is
so is also explained at my site.
^^^^
CB: So you are anti-materialist as well as anti-dialectical ?
^^^^^
Dialectics does not hold up as a theory, whatever disasters (or otherwise)
it has helped inflict on Marxism.
I have made my case for this (or at least one third of it so far) at my
site. As I say, you can read what I have to say, or ignore it.
I am sure the class-struggle will proceed the same whatever you decide to
do.
RL
^^^^^
CB; Basically , I don't want to read something that you don't want to
discuss. If you want to discuss it, I'll read it, otherwise...I mean I'm
not
going to read it and then sit in silence contemplating what you have said.
I'm sure you can understand that.
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
