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
