Within the the context of building a "revolutionary" commie political
party, however, I would argue "dialectics" plays another role.

"rab" <rogeralanblackwell at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bb577966-1dc9-4b1c-8769-d4c149d0077a at (no spam) d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...



It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused. It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction. Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

So what's peoples opinion here concerning Rosa Lichtenstein's
Anti-dialectics website at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm
She argues that dialectics is unnecessary to Marxism and indeed has
been harmful to it. She rejects dialectics whether in the form of
orthodox materialism or in the more heterodox varieties of
Western Marxism (i.e. Gramsci, Lukacs, Sartre, Horkheimer etc.)

Jim F.

"John Holmes" <jholmes at (no spam) OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.64.0807020914160.24449 at (no spam) conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...


On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Jim F. wrote:



The British biologist J.B.S. Haldane claimed that much
of his research was inspired by dialectical materialism.
See Helena Sheehan's discussion of this at:
http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/haldane.htm

Wasn't Haldane an orthodox Stalinist?

Very much so for a long time, at least up
to the time that he left the CPGB over
Lysenkoism and other matters.

"rab" <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bb577966-1dc9-4b1c-8769-d4c149d0077a at (no spam) d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...



It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused. It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction. Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

So what's peoples opinion here concerning Rosa Lichtenstein's
Anti-dialectics website at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm
She argues that dialectics is unnecessary to Marxism and indeed has
been harmful to it. She rejects dialectics whether in the form of
orthodox materialism or in the more heterodox varieties of
Western Marxism (i.e. Gramsci, Lukacs, Sartre, Horkheimer etc.)

Jim F.

On 2 Jul, 03:13, "Jim F." <m... at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:





"rab" <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bb577966-1dc9-4b1c-8769-d4c149d0077a at (no spam) d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused.  It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction.  Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

So what's peoples opinion here concerning Rosa Lichtenstein's
Anti-dialectics website at:  http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm
She argues that dialectics is unnecessary to Marxism and indeed has
been harmful to it.  She rejects dialectics whether in the form of
orthodox materialism or in the more heterodox varieties of
Western Marxism (i.e. Gramsci, Lukacs, Sartre, Horkheimer etc.)

Jim F.

Lots of people have been 'opposed to dialectics' since the time of
Marx and Engels.  However, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all saw
dialectical materialism as central to their world outlook.  So why is
just another anti-dialectician worth reading?

On Jul 7, 5:26 am, rab <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:



On 2 Jul, 03:13, "Jim F." <m... at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:

"rab" <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bb577966-1dc9-4b1c-8769-d4c149d0077a at (no spam) d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused. It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction. Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

So what's peoples opinion here concerning Rosa Lichtenstein's
Anti-dialectics website at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm
She argues that dialectics is unnecessary to Marxism and indeed has
been harmful to it. She rejects dialectics whether in the form of
orthodox materialism or in the more heterodox varieties of
Western Marxism (i.e. Gramsci, Lukacs, Sartre, Horkheimer etc.)

Jim F.

Lots of people have been 'opposed to dialectics' since the time of
Marx and Engels. However, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all saw
dialectical materialism as central to their world outlook. So why is
just another anti-dialectician worth reading?

To attack it. How often is there an entry point to arguing dialectics
within the Anglo-American left?

srd

A Workers League guy once told me years ago that dialectics is summed
by the critique of formal logic's "A=A"  OK, but A does equal A-at any
particular point in time.

The question for me is what background do any of these characters have
that makes them experts on physics and the philosophy of science?
advanced degrees in physics, chemistry or biology? peer reviewed
articles? etc. etc. It just seems that they are spouting forth their
own lay, albiet somewhat educated opinions in the manner of creation
science experts. As far as "In Defense of Marxism", I recall that
excellent work which to my recollection dealt with the nature of the
Soviet Union, not vulgar expositions of philosophy. It seems to me
that as is sometimes said about the law, these individuals "know just
enough to be dangerous" meaning to give a scientific rationalization
to their views that can sound somewhat convincing-and mystical-to the
uninitiated.

Engels and Trotsky were great political leaders, not scientists,
although they, particularly the latter, were influenced by Darwin and
developments in science which they sought to popularize and defend,
drawing certain inferences to social history from these conclusons.

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused.  It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction.  Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

Yes, educated lay critics don't need to know science in order to postulate
certain conclusions, but only up to the point of the extent of our
knowledge of this material, otherwise we come across like pretentious
ignoramuses, not to the same extent as the creationists obviously. The
error I see, that is basic to the creationists is a form of logic-"starting
from the universal" which basically argues back from a conclusion which is
completely backward and Ptolemaic. We first look at the facts and then see
where they lead etc and of course intuition can play a role.

I know its politically incorrect around here, but as someone who has
no particular interest
in philosophy (and why should I v. myriad other topics?), the
empiricism and pragmatism of James ("a new word for an old way of
thinking") and Bergson (whom I stumbled onto on Wikipedia) is what I
feel an affinity with, the ranting of political ideologues against
them for years, only having reinforced that view.  It also seems
congruent with the methodology of the scientific method which doesn't
start from preconcieved conclusions.  The hazards of these type of
"marxist" incursions into philosophy by semi-scientifically literate
ideologues was most dramatically illustrated by the career of TD
Lysenko and "marxist" botany. Obviously the emperor with no clothes is
going to feel threatened by empiricism.