[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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
rosa, charles, sorry for geting involved in this talk. just one remark: rosa says class struggle will go on. how can she say that if she rejects the concept of dialectic. since it is dilectic itself that reveals itself in the class strugle and if she says class struggle will go on then she in fact relies on the concept of dilectic. if she rejects dilectics and nonetheless says class struggle will go on then she in fact rejects to analyse why class struggle will go on. the claim that it will somehow go on is not sufficient for s scietific point of view and to secure that the enemy is defeated. best, dogan.. ___ 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] Reporter for LCR's Rouge: Morales is going in the direction of satisfying popular demands
IV Online magazine : IVP375 - February 2006 Bolivia The Morales government http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/auteur.php3?id_auteur=371 Herve do Alto Following the victory of Evo Morales and the MAS Herve Do Alto sends us his first impressions of the new MAS government. On the morrow of his triple inauguration - before the indigenous peoples of America at the Inca temple of Tiahuanaco; in the Congress building where he officially became President of the Bolivian Republic; then in the historic Plaza San Francisco where he swore allegiance before the social movements - Evo Morales presented his governmental cabinet on January 23rd in La Paz. http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/IMG/jpg/Moraleshats.jpg The announcement of the MAS government certainly invalidated many prognoses: whereas some people were expecting Morales and Garcia Linera to show signs of moderation to the United States and to the multinationals who are present in Bolivia, it was finally a government equal to the hopes of the popular movements that was designated, during a ceremony which saw many ministers accepting their new appointment with clenched fist raised, as a sign of the pursuit of the struggle against imperialism and for social justice. This government was described as radical by the right-wing press, and as bringing hope by the left press. Obviously, the first salient characteristic of this cabinet is the massive presence of leaders of social movements. This is the case, for example, of the trade unionist Santiago Galvez, who was made Minister of Labour, of the leader of the Federation of Neighbourhood Committees (FEJUVE), Abel Mamani, appointed Minister of Water, and of Walter Villaroel, co-operative miner, who is now Minister of Mines. Some appointments even surpassed people's wildest hopes: this was the case with the appointment of Casimira Rodriguez, leader of the Union of Women Cleaners, to the Ministry of Justice. Finally, we should take note of the fact that it is the radical trade unionist Hugo Salvatierra, openly hated by some big landowners of the Santa Cruz region, who is at the head of the Ministry of Rural Development Some of these appointments have given rise to some discontent, often due to the divisions that affect the social sectors from which the new ministers come, as in the case of Villaroel, who is contested by the miners of the state sector. Nevertheless, the predominant feeling is that this government is representative of the working people of Bolivia. To such an extent that even the secretary of the Bolivian Workers' Coinfederation (COB), Jaime Solares, despite his constant criticism of the MAS, expressed his satisfaction that Galvez was in the government. The so-called political ministries have mostly been given to men and women in whom Morales has confidence: the Minister of the Presidency (Prime Minister) is the sociologist Juan Ramon Quintana, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the Aymara indigenist David Choquehuanca, while the Ministry of the Interior is headed by the MAS ex-senator, Alicia Munoz, the vice-ministry in charge of the coca question being given to Felipe Caceres, a cocalero from Chapare. The same goes for the main economic portfolio, the Ministry of Planning, of which the Keynesian Carlos Villegas is in charge. Some ministerial appointments have nevertheless had people wondering, such as that of the businessman from Santa Cruz, Salvador Ric, appointed Minister...of Public Services, who is suspected of representing the cruceno private sector, but who has however been involved in the MAS for several years. The Minister of Defence, Walker San Miguel, proposed by an electoral ally of the MAS, the Movement Without Fear (MSM) is on the other hand openly contested by many social leaders: his collaboration in the process of capitalization (privatization) implemented by former president Sanchez de Lozada, who was driven out of Bolivia during the October 2003 events, is an established fact. Was this just a casting error? The radical profile of the rest of the government makes it a plausible hypothesis, even though for the moment, despite the criticisms, Morales has decided to keep him in his cabinet. Over and above the names of the ministers, it is interesting to see that the first positions of the MAS on the hot dossiers augur an unyielding attitude towards both the United States and the multinationals. Andres Soliz Rada, who is in charge of the key Ministry of Hydrocarbons, and who was for along time opposed to the MAS, which he reproached with not advocating a genuine nationalization of gas, has announced that there will be an audit of all the oil companies which are present in Bolivia. He has already succeeded in making the Spanish company Repsol back down, by forcing it to admit that it had committed fraud by putting on the New York Stock Exchange gas reserves that in fact belong to the Bolivian state. Another point of contention is the invitation for tenders
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
When I was first apprised of this web site, I read a few chapters, but did not make it to the text quoted My initial impression was that the author was a victim of an extremely sectarian milieu and had to go through quite an ordeal digging herself out of it. The marks of this sectarianism are all over the web site including its statement of purpose. Furthermore, the problem in Marxism can't be the heritage of Hegel, as in fact the propagandists of diamat knew little of Hegel. Presumably here we are talking about the dialectics of nature lifted from Hegel's naturphilosophie, and specifically the concept of contradiction as applied to nature. As I've argued for well over a decade, there's a lot of sloppy thinking in this department. I was curious as to how one would handle the wave-particle duality, but Rosa's treatment of the problem is not 100% clear to me, though I understand the paradox she presents. In classical dialectical terms, the issue would be the relation between subjective and objective dialectics. From Engels on, their immediate unity has been assumed in most standard presentations. Soviet philosophers debated these issues among themselves starting in the 1950s and divided into opposing schools. These debates were not incorporated into popular textbooks, but some of the embarrassing arguments of the Stalin era disappeared. (You can get a flavor of the latter from John Somerville's horrid book on the subject.) By the '60s, whatever their differences, most Soviet philosophers would agree that contradictions must be removed from scientific theories. The Trotskyist movement was just as bad, perhaps even worse, and in party contexts, never improved at all, though various Trotskyist intellectuals functioning in academia were in a position to develop more intelligent ideas. But there is a submerged tendency of criticism as well. In an obscure document written by CLR James at the time of the 1940 split, James stated that Trotsky did more damage to the dialectic in 10 weeks than Eastman et al had done in 10 years. Circa 1943, Jean van Heijenoort argued pseudonymously with Novack and others about the conflation of subjective and objective dialectics. There is of course a huge segment of the Marxist tradition that is Hegelian while abjuring the dialectics of nature, i.e. standard diamat. And there are many who have used the term 'dialectical materialism', e.g. James and Horkheimer, who meant nothing at all related to standard diamat. It is not clear from the following passage how physicists have actually removed the contradictions in quantum mechanics, or for that matter, between quantum theory and relativity. And how has the principle of complementarity been resolved? At 01:27 PM 3/1/2006 +, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
This is an odd comment! The class struggle is not dependent on the 'dialectic', an idealist notion Hegel pinched from Hermetic philosophers. We do not need this mystical theory to provide a scientific account of history. In fact, it gets in the way, since it is incomprehensible. Anyway, the objection confuses our abiluity to comprehend the class struggle with it actually continuing despite us. After all, the class struggle pre-dated Hegel RL - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science rosa, charles, sorry for geting involved in this talk. just one remark: rosa says class struggle will go on. how can she say that if she rejects the concept of dialectic. since it is dilectic itself that reveals itself in the class strugle and if she says class struggle will go on then she in fact relies on the concept of dilectic. if she rejects dilectics and nonetheless says class struggle will go on then she in fact rejects to analyse why class struggle will go on. the claim that it will somehow go on is not sufficient for s scietific point of view and to secure that the enemy is defeated. best, dogan.. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Ralph, As far as my comments on wave-particle duality were concerened, I was of course not trying to resolve this paradox (how could I? I am not a physicist!). I was merely pointing out that given the thesis that all of reality is contradictory, dialecticians should advise physicists to stop trying to resolve this paradox, since they have an a priori solution to it. In that case Physics can only advance by ignoring this advice. In the Essay from which this is taken I give much more detail, but since you have skim-read what i have posted, you missed it. [I did try to tell Charles that this is why I have posted all this stuff -- to stop me having to keep making these points!] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm In Note 14, near the bottom of the page (and in the main body of the Essay linked to this note). And I only posted this in my last e-mail to Charles to show him that my ideas are original, they are not hackneyed objections to DM (or 90% of them are not!). RL - Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science When I was first apprised of this web site, I read a few chapters, but did not make it to the text quoted My initial impression was that the author was a victim of an extremely sectarian milieu and had to go through quite an ordeal digging herself out of it. The marks of this sectarianism are all over the web site including its statement of purpose. Furthermore, the problem in Marxism can't be the heritage of Hegel, as in fact the propagandists of diamat knew little of Hegel. Presumably here we are talking about the dialectics of nature lifted from Hegel's naturphilosophie, and specifically the concept of contradiction as applied to nature. As I've argued for well over a decade, there's a lot of sloppy thinking in this department. I was curious as to how one would handle the wave-particle duality, but Rosa's treatment of the problem is not 100% clear to me, though I understand the paradox she presents. In classical dialectical terms, the issue would be the relation between subjective and objective dialectics. From Engels on, their immediate unity has been assumed in most standard presentations. Soviet philosophers debated these issues among themselves starting in the 1950s and divided into opposing schools. These debates were not incorporated into popular textbooks, but some of the embarrassing arguments of the Stalin era disappeared. (You can get a flavor of the latter from John Somerville's horrid book on the subject.) By the '60s, whatever their differences, most Soviet philosophers would agree that contradictions must be removed from scientific theories. The Trotskyist movement was just as bad, perhaps even worse, and in party contexts, never improved at all, though various Trotskyist intellectuals functioning in academia were in a position to develop more intelligent ideas. But there is a submerged tendency of criticism as well. In an obscure document written by CLR James at the time of the 1940 split, James stated that Trotsky did more damage to the dialectic in 10 weeks than Eastman et al had done in 10 years. Circa 1943, Jean van Heijenoort argued pseudonymously with Novack and others about the conflation of subjective and objective dialectics. There is of course a huge segment of the Marxist tradition that is Hegelian while abjuring the dialectics of nature, i.e. standard diamat. And there are many who have used the term 'dialectical materialism', e.g. James and Horkheimer, who meant nothing at all related to standard diamat. It is not clear from the following passage how physicists have actually removed the contradictions in quantum mechanics, or for that matter, between quantum theory and relativity. And how has the principle of complementarity been resolved? At 01:27 PM 3/1/2006 +, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
I don't know how you construct your web pages, but I am unable to fully access this page using Internet Explorer. My computer keeps freezing up. After numerous attempts I have been able to get to the beginning of note 18. Yet I can access presumably much larger size files on other sites. I don't know what the problem is here. I see no purpose served by the blue border on the left side of the page. It seems you are using MS Front Page. Perhaps the HMTL code needs to be streamlined. When I use Dreamweaver it strips out all of the crap Microsoft puts in. On the other hand, I am easily able to access the whole page using Opera, although I'm having a problem with the Magritte graphic. A few quick notes on the content. (1) The battle being waged here pertains to the natural sciences (and mathematics) and hence there is a direct conflict between dialectical conceptions and scientific knowledge. In other words, a war of hard-science perspectives. That so much energy invested in Marxism should be devoted to a subject matter having little to do _directly_ with Marxism's subject matter itself is a curious historical phenomenon, and to a large extent an unfortunate one. However, Engels' first interventions, as later marxists', were often motivated not by the need to create a positive ontology but to oppose obfuscations produced by the bourgeois world, i.e. as critique. This is very important. (2) The flaws in all the anecdotal uses of dialectical 'logic' are customarily predicated on these implicit fallacies: (a) logical abstractions are conflated with physical processes (also: subjective and objective dialectics are conflated): logical ''laws are conflated with physical laws; (b) 'lawfulness' implies universal application rather than partial approaches to the abstract characterization of selected phenomena. This also enhances the confusion surrounding 'unity of opposites'--dialectical contradiction or disequilibrium between opposing forces. And confusing causal determination with logical description. (3) A prominent feature of the argument is the alleged inconsistency between the need to remove contradictions in theories and the assertion that (physical) reality is contradictory. (John Rees is taken as an example, ostensibly a more serious example because of his failed attempts at qualification. Various Trot hacks such as Woods and Grant are also cited.) However, there is an interesting and yet unresolved question here, as the issue of contradiction involves limit cases: the limits of our knowledge in various areas at given points in time, the limitations and nature of basic concepts, totalities, the infinitely small, the infinitely large. (See note 14.) (4) The argument that dialectical attributions can not possibly be empirical is reminiscent of the logical empiricism of Philipp Frank, who would place such concerns in the realm of metaphysics. (5) The application of dialectical notions to the nature of capitalism is similarly ridiculed, based on ridiculous examples. However, the theory of value, or the nature of the relation between the forces and relations of production are not taken up here. (6) The partial acceptance or rejection of Engels' ideas (e.g. by 'dialectical biology' is not adequately explained). A key aspect of Engels' appeal is here overlooked, that dialectical materialism is also a form of emergent materialism. (7) I was the one who dug out Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels on mathematics and made it available to others. The range of evaluation of Marxist mathematicians to Marx's mathematical mss is rather odd. Dirk Struik seems to have been purely descriptive, while Paulus Gerdes makes extravagant claims for Marx, and Raya Dunayskaya's disciples are clearly out of their minds. In general, a peculiar deference for Marx (and sometimes Engels) is maintained, even by people who don't sanction certain conceptual abuses. At 02:55 PM 3/1/2006 +, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: Ralph, As far as my comments on wave-particle duality were concerened, I was of course not trying to resolve this paradox (how could I? I am not a physicist!). I was merely pointing out that given the thesis that all of reality is contradictory, dialecticians should advise physicists to stop trying to resolve this paradox, since they have an a priori solution to it. In that case Physics can only advance by ignoring this advice. In the Essay from which this is taken I give much more detail, but since you have skim-read what i have posted, you missed it. [I did try to tell Charles that this is why I have posted all this stuff -- to stop me having to keep making these points!] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm In Note 14, near the bottom of the page (and in the main body of the Essay linked to this note). And I only posted this in my last e-mail to Charles to show him that my ideas are original, they are not
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
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 +, 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Ralph, Thanks for the comments. I am sorry you cannot access the pages on my site. I do not know why that is. As to your specific points: 1) I wasn't sure what you were asking me here, or the relevance of the point you were making. I note in the introductory page that I am limiting myself to classical dialectical materialism, so you would expect me to concentrate on Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky (as well as on lesser figures, like Woods and Grant, whose book is being widely touted on the Internet as the best on offer on this topic (!!)). 2) Again, I wasn't sure if you were agreeing with me or not here. 3) Same comment. 4) Ditto. 5) Is this directed at me? Again you are not clear. 6) Emergent materialism: yes I am aware of this and (as I point out) this is dealt with in Essay Eleven, which has not been posted yet. I can make no sense of emergentism in any guise at all. I see is as yet more a priori superscience. 7) I was not aware you had made Heijenoort available. However, I was aware of this essay of his years ago when his Collected Essays came out. Thanks again! RL - Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science I don't know how you construct your web pages, but I am unable to fully access this page using Internet Explorer. My computer keeps freezing up. After numerous attempts I have been able to get to the beginning of note 18. Yet I can access presumably much larger size files on other sites. I don't know what the problem is here. I see no purpose served by the blue border on the left side of the page. It seems you are using MS Front Page. Perhaps the HMTL code needs to be streamlined. When I use Dreamweaver it strips out all of the crap Microsoft puts in. On the other hand, I am easily able to access the whole page using Opera, although I'm having a problem with the Magritte graphic. A few quick notes on the content. (1) The battle being waged here pertains to the natural sciences (and mathematics) and hence there is a direct conflict between dialectical conceptions and scientific knowledge. In other words, a war of hard-science perspectives. That so much energy invested in Marxism should be devoted to a subject matter having little to do _directly_ with Marxism's subject matter itself is a curious historical phenomenon, and to a large extent an unfortunate one. However, Engels' first interventions, as later marxists', were often motivated not by the need to create a positive ontology but to oppose obfuscations produced by the bourgeois world, i.e. as critique. This is very important. (2) The flaws in all the anecdotal uses of dialectical 'logic' are customarily predicated on these implicit fallacies: (a) logical abstractions are conflated with physical processes (also: subjective and objective dialectics are conflated): logical ''laws are conflated with physical laws; (b) 'lawfulness' implies universal application rather than partial approaches to the abstract characterization of selected phenomena. This also enhances the confusion surrounding 'unity of opposites'--dialectical contradiction or disequilibrium between opposing forces. And confusing causal determination with logical description. (3) A prominent feature of the argument is the alleged inconsistency between the need to remove contradictions in theories and the assertion that (physical) reality is contradictory. (John Rees is taken as an example, ostensibly a more serious example because of his failed attempts at qualification. Various Trot hacks such as Woods and Grant are also cited.) However, there is an interesting and yet unresolved question here, as the issue of contradiction involves limit cases: the limits of our knowledge in various areas at given points in time, the limitations and nature of basic concepts, totalities, the infinitely small, the infinitely large. (See note 14.) (4) The argument that dialectical attributions can not possibly be empirical is reminiscent of the logical empiricism of Philipp Frank, who would place such concerns in the realm of metaphysics. (5) The application of dialectical notions to the nature of capitalism is similarly ridiculed, based on ridiculous examples. However, the theory of value, or the nature of the relation between the forces and relations of production are not taken up here. (6) The partial acceptance or rejection of Engels' ideas (e.g. by 'dialectical biology' is not adequately explained). A key aspect of Engels' appeal is here overlooked, that dialectical materialism is also a form of emergent materialism. (7) I was the one who dug out Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels on mathematics and made it available to others. The range of evaluation of Marxist mathematicians to Marx's mathematical
[Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Rosa Lichtenstein 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 CB; What do you find naïve in Engel's views ? ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Well, I was a proto-Marxist long before I became a Trotskyist, and I was put off Marxism by the dialectical gobbledygook I encountered in books written by communists, and academic Marxists. It was neither good Philsophy, nor bad science. And the logic was a joke. So, I think you are reading what I have said selectively. 1) Who are most Marxists? Well, that depends on how you categorise Marxist themselves. For example, if I were to put a sectarian hat on, and think like a communist (i.e., a reconstructed Stalinist), I might say no Maoist is a Marxist (and vice versa if I were a Maoist). If I were a Spartacist, I would say no one was, except a few hundred of my sad comrades. I do not mind if you take that opening statement with a pinch of salt; nothing much hangs on it. 2) What does this say about the class nature of _all_ their ideas? Well, once again you are raising questions I answer in other essays. I regard all of traditional philosophy (and hence all of dialectics) as examples of ruling-class ideology. Why? Read the summary of Essay Twelve. The full account will be posted later. Once again: but now in capitals: I HAVE POSTED ALL THIS STUFF TO FORESTALL THIS SORT OF OFF-THE-CUFF-QUESTIONING. Naturally, as I have said to Charles, you don't have to read all my material, but cross-questioning me about things I have already covered is a bit like stopping at what Marx wrote in 1843 and questioning his economic theory. Not that I am equating myself with Marx, but you get the point? 3) As a causal explanation, this is silly. Well it would be if it were, but it isn't. It is an opening, controversial statement to draw the reader in. When Essay Nine is finally published, you will get the causal details (although, as you are no doubt fully aware, causal explanations in the social sciences are not of the 'billiard ball' type). You can read an outline in my summary to Essay Nine (already posted). What you are doing is pulling isolated passages out of the introductory material, and because it is impossible to condense a whole essay into one line, you are picking holes in what I assert. This is about as sensible as pulling a single sentence out of, say, Feuerbach, and pulling it apart, ignoring all the qualifying statements he makes, and his supporting arguments. Now we can all do this; it's called a hatchet job. If that is how you are going to read my essays, I think I would prefer you not to. 4) This is bad reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong, but as someone who reckons we can learn something from Hegel, the all time bad arguer, this is a bit rich. Again, a hatchet job. So, in response. here's mine: Dumain: At most, the finger points to the bogus claims of dialecticians. RL: Says who? And who's finger? And what bogus claims? And which dialecticians? And who says they are bogus? And bogus in what respect? And why at most and not at least? Fair? No. So, no more hatchet jobs please. 5) But there is no real logic in this argument. And precious little in yours. Do you not recognise rhetoric when you see it? Did not Marx sometimes use this device? 6) Already an indication of hermetic sectarianism. Sorry, too obscure. 7) The constant use of the word 'comrade' throughout this text is nauseating. Well you have got a weak stomach. I expressly said this material was aimed at active Marxists, and whatever else you get up to in your spare time, we *active* Marxists call each other comrade. So, if you do not like it, I don't really care. 8) And if this is the sort of abuse you are going to aim at me, then I am not really interested in anything you have to say: Sectarian bullshit. Don't bother replying, I won't. Stay in your cul-de-sac, comrade RL - Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
What do you find naïve in Engel's views? Everything he wrote about science, mathematics and philosophy, although the word naive was a little too mild. I should have said rubbish. His other stuff I admire greatly. RL Comment Was Engels writings concerning science, mathematics and philosophy, naive when they were written and in relationship to the literature of the 1850s, 1860s, 1870-1890s? For me his greatest philosophic gem was his statement that materialism must change its form with every epoch making discovery. Waistline ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Ralph, As I have said, I am not interested in anything you have to say. End of correspondence. ___ 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] People's History of Science
Rosa Lichtenstein ^ 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. ^ CB; Does what you say logically follow from your premise statement ? It may be that there are contradictions in scientific theories that are not accurate reflections of the contradictions in reality. So, it is only those contradictions that have to be removed, and what remains in the theories would be the accurate contradictions. ^ This is because scientific theories would then reflect reality less accurately, having had all (or most) of their contradictions removed. CB: Or only the wrong contradictions. The true contradictions remain. ^ [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. CB: It could be that they should remove some contradictions in theories and leave other ones in. 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! ^ CB; See above ^ 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. ^ CB; This does not necessarily follow. See above. ^ Science ought then to reflect (in the limit) the fact that reality contains no contradictions! CB: Then there's the problem that reality does contain contradictions. So, science ought to reflect this fact. ^^^ [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.] ^ CB: However , this is a wrong conclusion. ^ 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. ^ CB: Where do you get that DM holds that science should remove all contradictions from scientific theories ? ^^ 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. CB: Theories would be rejected based upon not corresponding to objective reality. ^ 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. CB: See above. 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! CB; Why does the contradictoriness of practice prevent it from being a test of the correspondence of a theory with reality ? ^^ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Given time constraints, I can only look in designated places for specific pieces of information, esp. as I am not a comrade. The introduction to the argument however is revealing of several aspects of your orientation: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2001.htm (1) exposure to Trotskyist sectarianism, (2) background in mathematics, (3) training in analytical philosophy, (4) dismissal of other theoretical work as politically inefficacious 'academic Marxism.' Out of this comes the provincial reasoning: 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 directly connected with 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? Had dialectics got anything to do with the unprincipled (if not manipulatively instrumental) way that DM-acolytes treat, use or abuse one another? Was dialectics connected with the tendency almost all revolutionary groups display of trying to substitute themselves for the working-class? Note also these remarks: No attempt will be made here to defend HM; it will be taken as read. Hence, any non-Marxists reading this work would be well advised to go no further. This essay is 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. and: As far as (4) is concerned, those who are unfamiliar with Analytic Philosophy might find the overall style of these essays somewhat disconcerting. Nevertheless, the analytic method produces clear results. Anyone who takes exception to this way of doing Philosophy can simply log off. Here's another telling passage: Some readers will be surprised to find little or no discussion or analysis of Academic Marxism at this site --, particularly those aspects influenced by Lukács, Sartre, Althusser, Derrida, the 'Frankfurt School', and other 'Continental Philosophers'. This is partly because (mercifully) revolutionary politics has so far largely been unaffected by this current (whatever deleterious effects it might have had on the minds of otherwise alert comrades), and partly because I can make no sense of much of what passes for theory in this genre. Indeed, most of the work in this tradition strikes me as a systematic exercise in the production of aimless jargon and impenetrable prose -- and then more of the same just to 'explain' that. This theoretical quagmire contains ideas and concepts that are about as comprehensible and transparent as theological tracts on the nature of, say, the Trinity. It is in effect a sort of 'woollier-than-thou' approach to philosophy. Hume's bonfire is sorely needed. This is just provincial and ignorant. As is the bald statement that all philosophy is ruling-class, however else one might criticize it. These essays have been written from a certain perspective within Analytic Philosophy, and since most DM-authors lack a 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. Sad. 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 moment that I have succeeded everywhere in achieving that level of clarity, but all of this material has been written and re-written well over fifty times, and with that aim in mind. 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 that objective. Indeed, in this regard, I am happy to be judged by them alone. Asinine. At 06:16 PM 3/1/2006 +, rosa lichtenstein wrote: Well, I was a proto-Marxist long before I became a Trotskyist, and I was put off Marxism by the dialectical gobbledygook I encountered in books written by communists, and academic Marxists. It was neither good Philsophy, nor bad science. And the logic was a joke. So, I think you are reading what I have said selectively. 1) Who are most Marxists? Well, that depends on how you categorise Marxist themselves. For example, if I were to put a sectarian hat on, and think like a communist (i.e., a reconstructed Stalinist), I might say no Maoist is a Marxist (and vice versa if I were a Maoist). If I were a Spartacist, I would
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:53:28 -0500 Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Van Heijenoort argues that Engels was backwards with respect to the mathematics of his time, and also narrow-minded and provincial with respect to the history of science (anti-English prejudice) coupled with an uncritical veneration of Marx. Engels was almost a century behind the times in terms of his understanding of the foundations of the calculus. His remarks concerning calculus adhered to the older approaches that were based on infinitesimals rather than on the then recently developed approach based on the theory of limits that people like Cauchy pioneered. I have read people who have said that Marx had a more up to date understanding of that subject than did Engels. Engels also said some silly things about imaginary numbers in his *Dialectics of Nature* as well. On the other hand, Engels seems to have a very good understanding of the natural science of his day. Hilary Putnam used to call Engels the most learned man of the nineteenth century. His essay, The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man, is deservedly revered, despite the fact that Engels cast of his reasoning in Lamarckian terms. Stephen Jay Gould in his book, *Ever Since Darwin*, wrote: Indeed, the nineteenth century produced a brilliant exposé from a source that will no doubt surprise most readers - Frederick Engels. (A bit of reflection should diminish surprise. Engels had a keen interest in the natural sciences and sought to base his general philosophy of dialectical materialism upon a 'positive' foundation. He did not live to complete his 'dialectics of nature', but he included long commentaries on science in such treatises as the Anti-Dühring.) In 1876, Engels wrote an essay entitled, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man. It was published posthumously in 1896 and, unfortunately, had no visible impact upon Western science. Engels considers three essential features of human evolution: speech, a large brain, and upright posture. He argues that the first step must have been a descent from the trees with subsequent evolution to upright posture by our ground-dwelling ancestors. 'These apes when moving on level ground began to drop the habit of using their hands and to adopt a more and more erect gait. This was the decisive step in the transition from ape to man.' Upright posture freed the hand for using tools (labour, in Engels' terminology); increased intelligence and speech came later. However, there are two important circumstantial factors that should not be overlooked: (1) Engels intervened in the context of combatting the superstition and pseudo-science of his own time, including illegitimate metaphysical extrapolations of vulgar evolutionism. As a critic of bourgeois obfuscation, Engels make a great deal of sense. Quite so. Lenin to some extent continued that project in his *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*, especially in chapter 5, where he wrote concerning The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism, polemicizing against scientists and other writers who attempted to use the then recent discoveries in physics to support idealism and theism. Other writers who are not necessarily orthodox Marxists have been concerned with as well. For example, the logical empiricist Philipp Frank took aim at efforts to promulgate metaphysical interpretations of science, in his *Modern Science and It's Philosophy*, and his *Philosophy of Science*. And British philosopher, Susan Stebbing, in her book, *Philosophy and the Physicists*, which took aim at the efforts of physicists, James Jeans and Arthur Eddington to use modern physics (i.e. relativity and quantum mechanics) to support theism, idealist metaphysics, contra-causal free will and so forth. (2) Engels was not particularly _philosophically_ backward, given the dismal state of philosophy in relation to the sciences of the time. His overreliance on Hegel has to do with the deficiency of other philosophical conceptions of science of the time. In many respects Engels was forward-thinking. The problem consists not only in the contradictions of his amateur status, but the deficiencies of the academic world, and finally, the institutionalization of Marxism as a doctrine by the German social democracy. At 01:39 PM 3/1/2006 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you find naïve in Engel's views? Everything he wrote about science, mathematics and philosophy, although the word naive was a little too mild. I should have said rubbish. His other stuff I admire greatly. RL Comment Was Engels writings concerning science, mathematics and philosophy, naive when they were written and in relationship to the literature of the 1850s, 1860s, 1870-1890s? For me his greatest philosophic gem was his statement that materialism must change its form with every epoch making
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
This is all quite so. Marx's knowledge of developments in the calculus was also behind the times, but Van Heijenoort absolves Marx of narrow-minded dogmatism. I still need to acquire a copy of that obscure bulletin containing Van H's arguments against Novack. For some reason, I can't find a copy of his essay The Algebra of Revolution that appeared in NEW INTERNATIONAL, which I once combed pretty thoroughly. As for critiques of Engels and diamat, there's little original left to say. Two sources that immediately come to mind are: James Scanlan, Marxism in the USSR (1985) Richard Norman (good) and Sean Sayers (bad), HEGEL, MARX, AND DIALECTIC. It is quite important to understand the origins of Engels' interest in these philosophical questions in critiques of contemporaneous metaphysical, evolutionary pseudo-science. Historical materialism may well have required some logical discussion in terms of emergent properties as well as its underlying categorial structure, as it does today when confronting the nonsense purveyed by sociobiology. Most of Engels' examples drawn from mathematics and natural science are trivial nonsense; what dialectics is about is the underlying structure of categorial thinking. As for the irrelevance of 'academic Marxism', there are sound historical reasons for what today has become academic, whether from the politically engaged Lukacs and Gramsci or from the politically disengaged (instrumentally) Frankfurt School. Analytical philosophy is ignorant and incompetent with respect to these matters. As it happens, I am now reading an excellent book on the Frankfurt School, which I have added to my bibliography on theory and practice. See Dubiel on my web page: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THEORY AND PRACTICE: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/praxis1.html At 03:28 PM 3/1/2006 -0500, Jim Farmelant wrote: ... Engels was almost a century behind the times in terms of his understanding of the foundations of the calculus. His remarks concerning calculus adhered to the older approaches that were based on infinitesimals rather than on the then recently developed approach based on the theory of limits that people like Cauchy pioneered. I have read people who have said that Marx had a more up to date understanding of that subject than did Engels. Engels also said some silly things about imaginary numbers in his *Dialectics of Nature* as well. On the other hand, Engels seems to have a very good understanding of the natural science of his day. Hilary Putnam used to call Engels the most learned man of the nineteenth century. His essay, The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man, is deservedly revered, despite the fact that Engels cast of his reasoning in Lamarckian terms. Stephen Jay Gould in his book, *Ever Since Darwin*, wrote: Indeed, the nineteenth century produced a brilliant exposé from a source that will no doubt surprise most readers - Frederick Engels. (A bit of reflection should diminish surprise. Engels had a keen interest in the natural sciences and sought to base his general philosophy of dialectical materialism upon a 'positive' foundation. He did not live to complete his 'dialectics of nature', but he included long commentaries on science in such treatises as the Anti-Dühring.) In 1876, Engels wrote an essay entitled, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man. It was published posthumously in 1896 and, unfortunately, had no visible impact upon Western science. Engels considers three essential features of human evolution: speech, a large brain, and upright posture. He argues that the first step must have been a descent from the trees with subsequent evolution to upright posture by our ground-dwelling ancestors. 'These apes when moving on level ground began to drop the habit of using their hands and to adopt a more and more erect gait. This was the decisive step in the transition from ape to man.' Upright posture freed the hand for using tools (labour, in Engels' terminology); increased intelligence and speech came later. Quite so. Lenin to some extent continued that project in his *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*, especially in chapter 5, where he wrote concerning The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism, polemicizing against scientists and other writers who attempted to use the then recent discoveries in physics to support idealism and theism. Other writers who are not necessarily orthodox Marxists have been concerned with as well. For example, the logical empiricist Philipp Frank took aim at efforts to promulgate metaphysical interpretations of science, in his *Modern Science and It's Philosophy*, and his *Philosophy of Science*. And British philosopher, Susan Stebbing, in her book, *Philosophy and the Physicists*, which took aim at the efforts of physicists, James Jeans and Arthur Eddington to use modern physics (i.e. relativity and quantum
Re: [marxistphilosophy] Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:01:24 -0500 Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is all quite so. Marx's knowledge of developments in the calculus was also behind the times, but Van Heijenoort absolves Marx of narrow-minded dogmatism. I still need to acquire a copy of that obscure bulletin containing Van H's arguments against Novack. For some reason, I can't find a copy of his essay The Algebra of Revolution that appeared in NEW INTERNATIONAL, which I once combed pretty thoroughly. Isn't this what you are looking for? http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/heijen/works/algebra.htm As for critiques of Engels and diamat, there's little original left ___ 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
Re: [marxistphilosophy] Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Well, shiver me timbers! Didn't realize this was already online. It's a curious essay, given Van H's later evolution. It is characteristic of his dogmatism while he was in the Trotskyist movement. In 1942 he let CLR James have it, in an essay which I think is also online. Van is also not too explicit about the nature of dialectics he defends. He denies it is mysticism, excoriates the Anglo-American philosophical tradition, etc. Of an affirmative nature, here is what he says: The most authentic product so far of the dialectic method, consciously applied, is Capital. The great themes of Hegelian logic are there directly transposedthe mode of exposition itself with its movement from the abstract to the concrete, the development of the categories, the opposition of profound reality to immediate existence, the notion of concrete totality, etc., ideas all of them foreign equally to Cartesian rationalism and Anglo-Saxon empiricism. To those who clamor for a manual of the dialectic, we can boldly reply: Take Capital by Karl Marx. Not too explicit. You will note, however, that there is not one word here about diamat or dialectics of nature, and the Hegelian logic referenced here pertains to Capital, not to mathematics or nature. I don't recall whether Van had anything to say about Hegel once he entered the field of mathematical logic. But then: The first question to pose to those who deny the scientific character of the dialectic is to ask them what they mean by scientific method. They generally forget to define this detail. What the manuals repeat on this subject is more often ethical rules rather than methodological principles. The scientists themselves do not begin dissertating on their methods until they hope to depreciate the value of science by showing its relativity. This movement has been observable for some forty years. If the work of these same scientists is examined, one can say that it is compounded of a melange of common sense, that is, formal logic converted into small change, and the dialectic in a fragmentary and unconscious form. The practice of the dialectic begins precisely where thought truly progresses, and imposes itself more each time the mind goes beyond the immediate data. The great unifying theoriesthe electro-magnetic theory of light, to take one exampleare beautiful works of the dialectic. But the act of eating is far removed from the formulation of the laws of digestion. As an epigraph on all the works of Marx, one could well inscribe: More consciousness! The dialectic is situated precisely in this movement. It enunciates and seeks to systematize the modes of thinking that follow intelligence at its various levels from the time intelligence begins to exercise its rights, that is, to transcend what is presented immediately before it, and in those cases where the mind does not turn upon itself (as in formal logic) but moves forward. But then, nothing explicit about what is dialectical in the theory of electromagnetism. The Russian revolutionist Hertzen called the dialectic the algebra of revolution. It is really much more than that and its value extends to all of human knowledge, of society, of nature. But it is at least that. All of scientific socialism demands it. In subsequent passages it seems that Van follows in Trotsky's footsteps. Luckily, he avoids repeating Trotsky's confused banalities, but Van does not bother with any arguments in favor of dialectics of nature, or for that matter, with respect to mathematics or formal logic. A few years later Van argues with other Trots in obscure internal bulletins. In 1948, when he breaks with the Marxist movement, he writes his deprecatory article on Engels. In his 1978 memoir of his tenure as Trotsky's bodyguard, he says nothing about any discussions with Trotsky on the subject, though he notes Trotsky's general dogmatism. The rest is silence. At 04:34 PM 3/1/2006 -0500, Jim Farmelant wrote: On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:01:24 -0500 Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is all quite so. Marx's knowledge of developments in the calculus was also behind the times, but Van Heijenoort absolves Marx of narrow-minded dogmatism. I still need to acquire a copy of that obscure bulletin containing Van H's arguments against Novack. For some reason, I can't find a copy of his essay The Algebra of Revolution that appeared in NEW INTERNATIONAL, which I once combed pretty thoroughly. Isn't this what you are looking for? http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/heijen/works/algebra.htm As for critiques of Engels and diamat, there's little original left ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Apologies, one or two problems crept into the last e-mail after I ran a spell check. Here is the correct version: Charles, This passage was a response to several comrades who held the views I criticise, and it seemed to me it dealt with more general ideas that others held. So it was a targeted passage. You will note, however, the hypothetical form and subjunctive mood of the arguments. I do not therefore assert the things I am criticising. As I am sure you are aware, that is the point of using those linguistic forms. I am surprised you then read what I had to say assertorically. 1) Does what you say logically follow from your premise statement ? This is a very interesting use of 'logically follow', more of that another time perhaps. However, you will note the wording I use which cannot be forced in the direction you want it to go. I say: 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. I do not pass an opinion about accurate or inaccurate contradictions (and not just because the phrase accurate contradiction -- to which you help yourself -- is bizarre in itself), but because the nature of the contradictions themselves is an irrelevance. I am asking about the theories that contain the contradictions (whatever the status of the latter), so my point stands. As far as your substantive claims go, I can see no way round this comment of mine: 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. How could you possibly distinguish these? Much of the rest of what you say founders on this point. 2) CB: Then there's the problem that reality does contain contradictions. So, science ought to reflect this fact. Now that is an a priori assumption you do not justify. And no matter how well-attested the theory, or how well-confirmed it seems, you could not tell whether the theory that 'accurately' reflected contradictions in reality was defective or not. Which is another way of saying, once again: 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. This is of course, quite apart from the odd idea that nature contains something linguistic. You might as well have said: Then there's the problem that reality does contain questions. So, science ought to reflect this fact. Or: Then there's the problem that reality does contain fairy tales. So, science ought to reflect this fact. You seem to have swallowed Hegel's Hermetic fantasies whole. How you can then criticise me for presenting arguments you allege do not follow is something of a puzzle. 3) Where do you get that DM holds that science should remove all contradictions from scientific theories? Well, since I do not say this I do not suppose I will be able to tell you the answer to your invention. In fact, I say: scientists will have removed every (or nearly every) contradiction in order to have reached that point, if DM were correct. Note the use of the bracketed expression. Note also the use of hypotheticals and subjunctives: 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. I am trying out every conceivable possibility. Now I may have missed some out, but it does not help if you misread what I have said. [I was actually responding to an article by Phil Gasper, whom I am sure you have heard of, and another by Paul McGarr, where they implied as much.] You will note in my introductory essay that I point out that DM-fans cannot read. And this has been my experience 'debating' this topic with you Hermeticists for over 20 years (as I told you the other day): none of you can read. At least you are consistent (but shouldn't you be inconsistent??). 4) Why does the contradictoriness of practice prevent it from being a test of the correspondence of a theory with reality? Once again, I deal with this at my site. It is very tedious having to field aimless questions I have already answered. Let's walk you through it one more time: I have posted these Essays on the Internet to prevent my having to do what you are now demanding of me. I do not really care if you totally ignore what I have to say, totally disagree with it, or something in between. But I do mind half-baked questions when I keep telling you to read what I have to say before your trigger-finger twitches into life again. Of course, if you don't want to read my Essays, fine. But no more if these random questions, please. You are like the critics of Marx, who read one sentence
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
As for critiques of Engels and diamat, there's little original left to say. Two sources that immediately come to mind are: James Scanlan, Marxism in the USSR (1985) Richard Norman (good) and Sean Sayers (bad), HEGEL, MARX, AND DIALECTIC. Both excellent. See also: Gustav Wetter, Dialectical Materialism (1958) Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (1972). David Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917-1932 (1961) That's pretty much the standard short bibliography of works in English on the subject of the Soviet Diamat. Norman and Sayers' exchange is a litle off point, not being so closely tied to the Soviet expeience, being pitched at a more abstract level, and coming more out of Maoism. A better book in that vein, coming from a ex-Trot perspective, is Tony Smith, The Logic of Marx's Capital, Replies to Hegelian Criticisms (1990) Must go pick up daughter. But I really think highly of Smith's book, and even Ralph might like it, who knows. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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
