Actually, the argument is framed in an entirely sectarian context, based on
the experience of Trotskyism. Some examples from your home page:
(1)
Dialectical Materialism (DM) has been the official philosophy of active
revolutionary socialists for over a hundred years. During that time, the
movement has enjoyed spectacular lack of success. Given that dialecticians
assure us that truth is tested in practice, this can only mean that it has
been tried and found wanting.
However, not only is it difficult for most Marxists to accept this
negative picture of their own 'success', it is even more difficult for
them to blame it so much as partly on the misbegotten theory they have
inherited from Hegel. In fact, it doesn't make the list.
Who are most Marxists? The CPs? The CPs plus the Maoists plus the Trots?
(2)
That there is a close link between the class-origin of the ideas found in
DM and the sectarian nature of revolutionary politics. That helps explain
why Marxist parties tend to be small, divisive, and ineffectual.
Trotskyist parties are all small, divisive, and ineffectual. The CPs,
prior to the 1950s, were comparatively large and powerful. As for class
origins, neither Marx nor Engels nor many of the leading intellectuals who
followed them were proletarians. What does this say about the class nature
of _all_ their ideas? There is, I think, a link between the ideas
propounded by revolutionary ('new class') elites and their social function,
however your characterization of the relationship is poorly expressed.
(3)
I am not blaming Marxism's lack of success solely on the acceptance of
Hermetic ideas lifted from Hegel. What is being claimed is that this is
one of the reasons why revolutionary socialism has become a bye-word for
failure. It is thus alleged that dialectics is part of the reason why
revolutionary parties are in general vanishingly small, neurotically
sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative,
theoretically deferential, and tend toward all forms of substitutionism. . . .
As a causal explanation, this is silly. It might be more accurate to say
that the slippery aspects or usage of DM serve to forestall analysis,
criticism, and accountability. This is especially so in sectarian contexts.
(4)
And yet, dialecticians claim that their theory is the mainspring of
Marxist politics, and that dialectics is the guiding light of all they do;
it is not a peripheral feature of revolutionary socialism. The inescapable
conclusion is, therefore, that practice has shown that their theory has
failed, and failed badly. Because dialecticians claim such a prominent
role for dialectics, the failure of Marxism points directly at Hegel's door.
This is bad reasoning. At most, the finger points to the bogus claims of
dialecticians.
(5)
We have no alternative, therefore; we have to re-think our ideas from
scratch, like the radicals we claim to be.
To that end I propose a suitably radical starting point: the rejection of
the theory that practice has already refuted -- Dialectical Materialism.
Three billion or more workers cannot be wrong. We can't keep blaming our
failure on their "false consciousness".
This is silly reasoning. Apparently the argument is that the advocates of
truth in practice are hoisted by their own petard. But there is no real
logic in this argument.
(6)
Some might wonder how I can count myself as both a Leninist and a
Trotskyist while making such profound criticisms of the ideas that both
Lenin and Trotsky regarded as fundamental to Marxism.
Already an indication of hermetic sectarianism.
(7)
In fact, and on the contrary, a slavish acceptance of everything these
great comrades had to say on dialectics, just because they said it, and
just because the vast majority of comrades think highly of it, would be
tantamount to spitting on their graves.
The constant use of the word 'comrade' throughout this text is
nauseating. Normal people do not use the word 'comrade'. The very word
excludes the vast majority of readers who don't belong to political cults.
(8)
Academic Marxism has almost totally been ignored in what follows. [The
reason for this is explained more fully in Essay One.]
Rightly or wrongly, this site is aimed at impacting on the class struggle
by seeking to influence those who are involved in it. Since active
revolutionaries still accept, to a greater or lesser extent, classical
forms of DM, they alone are being addressed in what follows.
Academic Marxism (mercifully) has had no such impact, or none of note, and
probably never will. Very little attempt has been made therefore to engage
with this theoretical cul-de-sac.
Sectarian bullshit.
At 02:27 PM 3/1/2006 +0000, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Ralph,
You made this assertion a week or so ago, and I denied it. I have never
been subjected to sectarianism (or not any of much note|).
How you worked that out beats me.
And I find you attempt to distance Hegel from the philosophy I am
criticising odd too.
Even so, since I rubbish all philosophical theories (ranging from all the
classical ones you can name right through to Engles's naive views, and
including Hegel's mystical clap trap) as ruling-class a priori
superscience, your superficial skimming of my site is doubly in error.
RL
_______________________________________________
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
