Dialectical Materialism -- The Tedious, Scriptural Version
If you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or later), you might find some of the links I have used won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select 'Compatibility View Settings' and then add this site (anti-dialectics.co.uk). I have as yet no idea how Microsoft's new browser, Edge, will handle these links.
As is the case with all my work, nothing here should be read as an attack either on Historical Materialism [HM] -- a scientific theory I fully accept --, or, indeed, on revolutionary socialism. I remain as committed to the self-emancipation of the working class and the dictatorship of the proletariat as I was when I first became a revolutionary nearly thirty years ago.
The difference between Dialectical Materialism [DM] and HM, as I see it, is explained here.
If your Firewall/Browser has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these links won't work, anyway!
I have adjusted the font size used at this site to ensure that even those with impaired vision can read what I have to say. However, if the text is still either too big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!
Summary Of My Main Objections To Dialectical Materialism
Abbreviations Used At This Site
Return To The Main Index Page
Ira Gollobin's book, Dialectical Materialism. Its Laws, Categories And Practice, has just landed on my desk. [This was originally written in 2007.]
Had I known how detailed this book turned out to be, I would have obtained a copy much earlier, but those on sale on the Internet were rather pricey -- that is, up until a week or so ago.
Nevertheless, I now have a copy of the book that many say is the best available on this subject.
That judgement is, I think, partially correct. The only other books that come close are Bukharin's Philosophical Arabesques, and Woods and Grant's Reason in Revolt [RIRE].
Even so, my initial response was one of genuine disappointment since the book makes all the usual mistakes and rehearses the same timeworn mantras and clichés, except it does so at much greater length. It deals with few if any of the countless problems that confront Dialectical Materialism [DM], many of which have been aired at this site (especially here).
However, the 'section' on Analytic Philosophy -- the dominant Anglophone Philosophy of the last hundred years -- is a joke (it is two pages long!), and the book pointedly fails to tackle the serious logical problems Hegel bequeathed to those who look to him for inspiration. This is no surprise; Gollobin shows no sign he has read a single logic book written since 1830; and then only one before then, which was seriously mis-titled, "Logic", and written by an incompetent Christian and Hermetic mystic called "Hegel".
[Correction on edit: having now checked more thoroughly, Gollobin does list two books devoted to modern logic in his bibliography: (i) Cohen and Nagel's introductory text, and (ii) the far more substantial Introduction to Logic by Alfred Tarski. However, Gollobin doesn't seem to have put either of them to much use, and their presence looks merely ornamental. Indeed, Gollobin repeats the same egregious errors that other DM-fans commit in this area (pp.106, 402-06), and he continually quotes the amateurish ruminations of Jean Piaget (!!) as if he were an authority on logic. Piaget wasn't a logician, but, just like other dialecticians, he confused logic with 'the laws of thought'. If logic were the science of what went on in people's heads, if it concerned itself with 'the laws of thought', logicians would busy themselves with brain scans, surveys, and psychometric tests. They certainly wouldn't bother with all those useless theorems and proofs. [On this, see my comments posted over at Wikipedia.] Gollobin even quotes Lenin as an authority on logic! Now, Lenin was certainly a great revolutionary, but it is quite clear from his writings that he knew as much about logic as George W Bush about High Energy Physics. One might wonder why Gollobin didn't refer his readers to the thoughts of Edward Lear or Enid Blyton, too, and be done with it!]
The vast bulk of Gollobin's book thus reads like a tedious and lengthy version of Baghavan's amateurish attempt to defend this failed theory. Just like Baghavan, Gollobin's scriptural approach to philosophical and scientific truth means that the mere quotation of a favoured someone's opinion (such as Piaget's, or even better, Lenin's and Mao's) is all the proof he needs. This quasi-theological method is further aggravated by Gollobin's annoying habit of throwing countless undigested examples at the reader -- contrary argument and evidence is studiously ignored --, all of which makes his book read like a slightly less breathless, far less sarcastic or bombastic version of Woods and Grant's monumental contribution to Dialectical Mysticism, RIRE.
[Except: Gollobin uses dialectics to 'justify' the existence of that terror state -- sometimes known as "The People's Republic of China" --, even while RIRE uses the very same 'theory'/'method' to rubbish all forms of Stalinism/Maoism.]
Clearly, this mis-begotten 'theory' can be used to excuse and/or condemn anything a given author likes or dislikes -- and its opposite. [Proof here.]
This means that Bukharin's book is still the best available defence and explication of this revivified Dialectal Mummy and clear echo of Hermetic Mysticism.
However, the dismissal of such a serious and carefully written work as this -- to be sure, in about the same space it takes Gollobin to rubbish Analytic Philosophy! -- would be grossly unfair. Hence, over the next few years I will be adding specific comments about its content to the relevant published Essays at the main site. [These have now been added to Essays Two and Seven; readers can use the search pane in their browsers to find them.]
My view of the book might, of course, alter as I study it more carefully; but, on the other hand, long experience has taught me that the opposite is far more likely to be the case. My impatience with works like this tends to grow as I witness yet another intelligent comrade trying to defend this tangled morass of confusion, just as I tend to get angry with 'scientists' who try to sell us Creationism and/or Christian Fundamentalism.
Baghavan, R. (1987), An Introduction To The Philosophy Of Marxism (Socialist Platform).
Bukharin, N. (2005), Philosophical Arabesques (Monthly Review Press).
Gollobin, I. (1986), Dialectical Materialism. Its Laws, Categories And Practice (Petras Press).
Woods, A., and Grant, T. (1995), Reason In Revolt. Marxism And Modern Science (Wellred Publications).
Return To The Main Index
Back to The Top
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2017
Hits Since 05/04/07: