This page might take
several seconds to load because of the many YouTube videos embedded
in it.
Unfortunately, Internet Explorer 11 will no longer play these videos. As far as I can tell, they play as intended in other Browsers.
However, if you have
Privacy Badger [PB] installed, they won't play in Google Chrome unless you
disable PB for this site.
[Having said that,
I have just discovered that they play in IE11 if you have
upgraded to Windows 10! It looks like the problem is with Windows 7 and earlier
versions of that operating system.]
If you are using IE 10, 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 add this site (anti-dialectics.co.uk). Microsoft's browser,
Edge, automatically
renders these links compatible; Windows 10 does likewise.
However, if you are using Windows 10, IE11 and Edge unfortunately appear to colour these links
somewhat erratically. They are meant to be mid-blue, but those two browsers
render them intermittently light blue, yellow, purple and red!
Firefox and Chrome reproduce them correctly.
Finally, several browsers also appear
to underline
these links erratically. Many are underscored boldly in black, others more
lightly in blue! They are all meant to be the latter.
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
thirty-five years ago.
The
difference between
Dialectical Materialism [DM] and HM, as I see it, is explained
here.
This particular Essay is intended to
motivate the ideas presented in the rest of the site, particularly those found
in Essays Three Parts
One
to Five, and Twelve Parts
One to Six, where the most controversial
allegation advanced below (i.e., that Marxist dialecticians have bought into a
ruling-class view of the world) will be explained and substantiated.
[That particular argument is summarised
here,
here, and
here.]
In connection with the above, it is
worth pointing out that phrases like "ruling-class theory", "ruling-class view
of reality", "ruling-class ideology" (etc.) used in this Essay and at this site
(in connection with Traditional Philosophy and DM) aren't meant to imply
that all or even most members of various ruling-classes actually invented these
ways of thinking or of seeing the world (although some of them did -- for
example,
Heraclitus,
Plato,
Cicero,
and
Marcus Aurelius).
They are intended to highlight theories (or "ruling ideas") that are conducive to, or which rationalise the
interests of the various ruling-classes history has inflicted on humanity, whoever invents them.
Up until
recently this dogmatic approach to knowledge had almost invariably been promoted by thinkers who
either relied on ruling-class patronage, or who, in one capacity or another, helped run
the system
for the elite.**
However, this will become the
central topic of Parts Two and Three of Essay Twelve (when they are published); until then, the reader is
directed
here,
here, and
here for
more
details.
[**Exactly
how this applies to DM will be explained later on in this Essay -- see also,
here
and here.
In addition to the three links in the previous paragraph, I have summarised the
argument (but this time aimed at absolute beginners!),
here.]
It is also worth emphasising that my
objection to DM isn't that it has reproduced key areas of ruling-class ideology,
but that it makes absolutely no sense. That serious allegation will be fully
substantiated in
Essays
Three through Thirteen at this site.
~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~
One of the problems with the material
presented below is that, even though I have included literally hundreds of
quotations substantiating the allegation that despite what they say
DM-theorists have imposed their ideas on the world, DM-apologist often argue that these are just "passing remarks",
have been "taken out of context", or
that they are merely "hypothetical".
First of all: the question whether or
not they are "hypothetical" has been neutralised below (mainly, but not
exclusively,
here and
here).
Second: had I included every dogmatic
passage found in the DM-classics (as well as in 'lesser' DM-books and articles)
this Essay would have been many hundreds of thousands of words longer than it
already is. In order to confirm that this isn't just lazy hyperbole, I have
now added an
Appendix to
this Essay where I have posted some of this additional material. Indeed, and to that end, I have also
added a score or more examples of the
a priori, dogmatic theses to be found in
just the first half of Engels's Anti-Dühring
[AD]. This batch of new material is over 5000 words long, confirming my
estimation that Engels was a Dialectical Dogmatist to rank among the best. More
material will be added from other DM-classics over the next few years.
So, these aren't just "passing
remarks".
Moreover, as readers can easily check,
they
are incontext, too. [On that, see
here.]
Indeed, when asked to supply, or explain, the 'missing context', DM-critics have so far failed to respond. E-mail
me if you think you can
help them out!
It
is also important to point out that in what follows the truth or falsehood of the
dogmatic passages I have quoted from the DM-literature isn't the point at issue,
merely whether or not DM-theorists are consistent in their assurances not to
have imposed their ideas on the facts. Why that
is an important question in itself will also be explained.
Of course, in other Essays posted at
this site (especially in Essays Three Part One through Thirteen Part Three), the
actual truth or falsehood of DM-theses will become the issue. In
fact, we will discover that DM-theses are far too vague
and confused
for anyone to be able to say whether or not they are true. They don't make it
that far!
It is also worth adding that a good 40% of
the case
against DM has been relegated to the
End Notes.
This has been done to allow the main body of the Essay to flow a little more
smoothly. This means that if readers want fully to appreciate my criticism of DM, they will need to consult this additional material. In many cases,
in the End Notes, I have qualified my
comments (often adding greater detail and additional supporting evidence); I
have also raised objections (some obvious, many not -- and some that will have
perhaps occurred to the reader) to my own arguments, which I have then answered.
I have further explained why this tactic has
been adopted in
Essay One.
If readers skip this material, then my answers to any
objections they might have will be missed, as will this extra evidence,
qualifications and
argument.
Since I have been
debating this theory with comrades for well over 25 years, I have heard all the
objections there are! [I have linked to many of the more recent on-line debates here.]
~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~
This project began as a lengthy
criticism of John Rees's book The Algebra of Revolution (but it has now
moved way beyond that initial objective), so it is with this work that I begin.
I do so in order to show that he, too, is quite happy to appropriate an ancient,
ruling-class tradition -- i.e., one of imposing a philosophical theory
on nature and society. I next extend my criticism to the works of the
dialectical classicists themselves (Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao,
etc.), and then move on to literally dozens of secondary dialectical works that
have been published over the last century or so in order to substantiate fully
the allegation that they're all it: foisting their dogmatic theses on the
world.
In
Appendix One I aim to show that open and
honest mystics from across the planet not only impose their ideas on reality
in like manner,
they also accept a set of doctrines that is difficult to distinguish from those
of their DM-cousins -- namely, that: (1) Everything is inter-connected, (2)
Everything is a unity of opposites, (3) Change and development are the result of
the inter-play/'struggle' between these opposites/'contradictions', and (4)
Change is a universal phenomenon.
In
Appendix Two, I have started to post yet more
passages from the DM-classics that further confirm the above allegations. In
Appendix Three, I have added dozens of passages
from across the Internet to the same end, and in
Appendix Four, I concentrate on
the work of The Daddy of Dialectics:
Gerry Healy.
~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~
Throughout this Essay, readers
will find me regularly asking the following rhetorical question: "How could
theorist A, B or C possibly know X, Y or Z (where "X", "Y", and "Z"
represent certain specific DM-theses)?"
The answer is pretty clear in each case:
they couldn't possibly know these things by any conceivable means, which
implies they must have been imposed on nature.
This question is asked continually in
order to underline the fact that dialecticians
en masse promulgate theses that cannot possibly be, or have been,
substantiated by any conceivable body of evidence, no matter how large --
since these doctrines are held to be true for all of space and time.
So,
just like the more open and honest mystics
listed in Appendix
One -- who derived their ideas, not from a scientific study of
nature, but from each other, or from the deeper recesses of their own
fantasy world -- the theses Marxist Dialecticians have imposed on
the universe were appropriated, again, not from a scientific study of the world,
but from that Mystic Extraordinaire, Hegel, or the work of earlier mystics -- for example,
Heraclitus and
Spinoza.
Exactly why all DM-theorists do
this will also be revealed below, but in more detail in Essay Nine Parts
One and
Two.
What Marx said of the 'Critical Critics' in The Holy Family could very
well be said of DM-theorists in general, and with equal justification:
"[D]espite all its
invectives against dogmatism, it condemns itself to dogmatism...faded, widowed
Hegelian philosophy which paints and adorns its body, shrivelled into the
most repulsive abstraction...." [Marx
and Engels (1975a), p.20. Italic emphasis in the original.]
Hard to believe?
Then read on...
~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~
Some
readers might wonder why I have quoted extensively from a wide variety of
DM-sources throughout these Essays. In fact, a good 10-20% of the material in
many of them (and that percentage is much higher in this Essay) is comprised of just such
quotations. Apologies
are, therefore, owed in advance for the length and
extremely repetitive nature of most of these quoted DM-passages. The
reason for their inclusion is that long experience has taught me that
Dialectical Marxists simply refuse to accept that their own classicists
-- Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao
(alongside countless 'lesser' DM-theorists) -- actually say the things
attributed to them. That isespecially so when they are faced with the absurd consequences that
follow from their words. Almost without exceptionthey maintain this
incredulity until they are shown chapter and verse
and in extensive detail. In debate with them, when I quote only one or two passages in
support of what I allege they simply brush them off as a "outliers"
or as "untypical". Indeed, in the
absence ofdozens of proof texts drawn from many such sources they tend to regard anything that a
particular theorist had to say -- regardless of whether the latter is one of the
aforementioned classicists -- as either "far too crude",
"unrepresentative" or even(!) unreliable. Failing that, they
often complain that their words have been "taken out of context".
Many in fact object since -- surprising and sad though
this is to say --, they are largely ignorant of their own theory or they
simply haven't read the DM-literature with due care --,or at all!
The only way to counter such attempts to deflect, reject and deny is to quote
DM-material frequentlyandat length.
In addition,
because of the highly sectarianand partisan nature of Dialectical Marxism,
I find I have to quote a
wide range of DM-texts from across the entire spectrum.
Trotskyists object if I quote Stalin
or Mao; Maoists and Stalinists complain if I reference Trotsky -- or even
if I cite "Brezhnev era revisionists".
Non-Leninist Marxists will bemoan the fact that I haven't confined my remarks
to what Marx or Hegel had to say, advising me to ignore the confused or even
"simplistic" ideas expressed by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao
and Trotsky! This often means I have
to quote the lot!
That itself has had the
benefit of showing how much and to what extent they all agree with one another
in the end!
Several others have complained about the number
of links I have added to these Essays because they say it makes them very
difficult to read. Of course, DM-supporters can hardly lodge that complaint
since they believe everything is interconnected, and that must surely apply even to
Essays that attempt to debunk that
very idea. However, to those who find such links do make these Essays
difficult to read I say this: ignore them -- unless you want to access
further supporting evidence and argument for a particular point, or a certain
topic fires your interest.
Others wonder why I have linked to familiar
subjects and issues that are part of common knowledge (such as the names of
recent Presidents of the
USA, UK Prime Ministers, the names of rivers and mountains, the titles of
popular films, or certain words
that are in common usage). I have done so for the following reason: my Essays
are read all over the world and by people from all 'walks of life', so I can't
assume that topics which are part of common knowledge in 'the west' are equally
well-known across the planet -- or, indeed, by those who haven't had the benefit
of the sort of education that is generally available in the 'advanced economies',
or any at
all. Many of my readers also struggle with English, so any help I can give them
I will continue to provide.
Finally on this specific topic, several of the aforementioned links
connect to
web-pages that regularly change their
URLs, or which vanish from the
Internet altogether. While I try to update them when it becomes apparent
that they have changed or have disappeared I can't possibly keep on top of
this all the time. I would greatly appreciate it, therefore, if readers
informed me
of any dead links they happen to notice.
In general, links to Haloscan
no longer seem to work, so readers needn't tell me about them! Links to RevForum,
RevLeft, Socialist Unity and The North Star also appear to have died.
I have also linked
to Woods and Grant's book, Reason in Revolt, numerous times in this Essay,
but the link I used now only takes the reader to parts of the second edition
instead of the entire book, as used to be the case. However, anyone who wants to
access a complete version of that edition can now do so
here. I haven't changed the scores of links to the old
site that I have inserted in what follows since they used to take the reader to
specific chapters of that book, but that faculty is now no longer available.
~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~
Finally, as of September 2024 this Essay is just over
154,000 words long, a significant proportion of which consists of hundreds of
quotations (and that number is no exaggeration, either!) from
the DM-classics and 'lesser' DM-works. A much shorter summary of
some of its main ideas can be accessed
here.
The material below
does not represent my final view of any of the issues raised; it is merely 'work
in progress'.
Anyone using these links must remember that they will be skipping past
supporting argument and evidence set out in earlier sections.
If
your Firewall/Browser has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl"
key at the same time or these and the other links here won't work!
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!
For
over two thousand years Traditional Philosophers have been playing on themselves
and their readers what can only be described as a series of
complex verbal tricks. Since Ancient Greek times, metaphysicians have
occupied themselves with deriving their
a priori theories solely from the meaning of a narrow range of
specially-selected and suitably-doctored words. These 'philosophical gems' were
skilfully polished and then peddled to the rest of humanity dressed-up as
'profound truths' about 'fundamental aspects of reality',
peremptorily imposed on nature, almost invariably without the benefit of a
single supporting experiment.01
In
fact, Traditional Theorists went even further. These acts of linguistic
legerdemain
'enabled' them to uncover seemingly endless
Super-Truths
in the comfort of their own heads, concocting theories they claimed revealed the
underlying,
essential nature of existence, valid for all of space and time.
Unsurprisingly, discursive magic of this order of magnitude conveniently
reflected contemporaneous ruling-class forms-of-thought, chief among which was -- and
still is -- the belief that
reality is rational.
Clearly, the claim that reality is rational has to be imposed on nature.
It can't be read from it since nature isn't Mind. Plainly, theorists find
it much
easier to 'justify' and rationalise the imposition of a hierarchical, oppressive and grossly
unequal class system on the majority if they can succeed in persuading them that the 'law-like' order of the natural world perfectly reflects, and
is reflected in turn by, the social order from which their patrons just so happen
to benefit, the fundamental tenets of which none may
legitimately question.
Material reality may not be rational, but it is certainly rational for
ruling-class hacks to claim it is.
Even
before the first Marxist Dialecticians put pen to misuse they found themselves
surrounded on all sides by ideas drawn from an ancient, hostile ruling-class philosophical tradition.
Clearly, this meant that they faced serious problems, one of which was that if they copied
Traditional Philosophers and
imposed their ideas on nature, they could be accused
of constructing just another form of Idealism. On the other hand, if they
didn't do this, they wouldn't have a 'philosophical theory' of their own to
lend weight to their claim that they alone understand the aforementioned
'fundamental aspects of
reality' and hence the motivating forces of social development. That would have the knock-on effect of
undermining their right to lead the revolution. Confronted thus by
Traditional Thought-forms (which they had no hand in creating, but which they
were only too happy to appropriate, DM-theorists found there was no easy way
out of this minefield -- or, at least, none that prevented their theory from
sliding remorselessly into yet another form of Idealism.
This
isn't to argue that dialecticians weren't aware of the Idealism implicit in
Traditional Philosophy -- indeed, as George Novack pointed out:
"A consistent materialism cannot
proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason,
intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source.
Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon
evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in
practice...." [Novack (1965), p.17. Bold emphasis added.]
This
echoed Lenin's views:
"The derivation of necessity, causality, law,
etc., from thought is idealism." [Lenin
(1972), p.192.]
On
the contrary, their excuse for disregarding or downplaying the pernicious
influence of Traditional Thought on their own ideas was that the
materialist flip they say they have inflicted on
Hegel's
system (putting it 'back on its feet') was capable of transforming
theoretical dirt into philosophical gold.
However, as we are about to see, flip or no flip, their own
thought is thoroughly traditional: it is (a) dogmatic, (b) a priori, and
(c) expressed in jargon lifted straight from The Philosophers' Phrase Book. While
few DM-theorists will deny that Traditional Philosophy itself is predominantly
Idealist,
not one of them has failed to emulate, and then elaborate upon, its
dogmatic approach to
a priori
knowledge.
Despite this, dialecticians still insist that their theory
hasn't been imposed on nature, simply read from it.1
Because of this they insist they can not only deflect, they can neutralise the
above allegations.
And yet, it is far from clear how any
theory could be read from nature -- at least, not
unambiguously. Not only have countless inconsistent theories been 'inferred
from reality', the idea itself trades on the misleading metaphor that the world
a book, or is book-like, and hence that on it, or in it, there have been inscribed countless secrets
just waiting for humanity to stumble across.
Of
course, if it were true that the universe had such 'messages' encoded into it,
that would imply that it was indeed the product of Mind, and ultimately perhaps
that it was just One Big Idea (in development, perhaps). As the record clearly
shows, Traditional Philosophers found it difficult to resist just such an
inference. That fact is, of course, well-known. Less widely appreciated are the class forces that
have encouraged Idealist conclusions like this, even among Marxist
Dialecticians.
[The latter will be explored in more detail in other Essays posted at this site
-- particularly Nine Parts One and
Two, Twelve Parts
One to Seven (summary
here), and Fourteen Part One (summary
here).]
As
will soon become apparent, for all their claims to be radical, when it
comes to Philosophy
DM-theorists are
surprisinglyconservative -- and universally incapable of
seeing this even after it has been pointed out to them!
[An
excellent example of this, and one that has
been highly influential
on how DM-theorists receive and then respond to such criticism has been posted
here.]
At a
rhetorical level, philosophical conservatism like this has been camouflaged behind what at first sight
appears to be a series of disarmingly modest disclaimers,
which are then promptly flouted.
The
quotations given below (and in
Note 1) show that DM-theorists are keen to
deny that their system is wholly, or even partially,
a priori, or that it has been dogmatically imposed on
the world, not read from it. However, the way that dialecticians themselves
phrase their theories contradicts these seemingly modest-looking denials,
revealing the oppositeto be the case.
This
inadvertent dialectical inversion -- whereby what DM-theorists say
about what they do is the reverse of what they do
with what they say -- neatly mirrors the distortion to which Traditional
Philosophy has subjected ordinary language over the last two millennia (outlined in Essay
Three Parts
One and
Two, and in Essay Twelve Part
One), a point underlined by Marx himself:
"The
philosophers have only to dissolve their
language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to
recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to
realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their
own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx
and Engels (1970), p.118. Bold emphasis alone added.]
However, unlike
dialecticians, Traditional Metaphysicians were quite open and honest about what
they were doing; indeed, they brazenly imposed their a priori theories on
reality and hung the consequences.
But,
because dialecticians have a novel -- but nonetheless defective -- view of both
Metaphysics and FL (on that, see
here and
here), they are oblivious of the
fact that they are just as eager as Traditional Theorists have ever been to
impose their theory on the world, and equally blind to the fact that in so-doing
they are aping the
alienated thought-forms of their class enemy, whose society they seek to abolish.
Naturally, this means that their 'radical' guns were spiked beforethey were even loaded; with such weapons, is it any wonder that DM-theorists
fire nothing but philosophical blanks?
[FL = Formal Logic.]
DM is
a conservative theory precisely because its adherents have imported, and
then adopted, the
distorted methods,
a priori
thought-forms, theories and meaningless jargon they found in Traditional Philosophy.
For many, the
above accusations might seem far easier to make than they are to substantiate.
In fact, the reverse is the case, as we are about to discover...
Given
the fact that DM-theorists see contradictions everywhere, one would be forgiven
for thinking that they would welcome a few more to add to the list. However, if
the past is anything to go by, it is a
safe bet that dialecticians won't be too happy with the many that
will be brought to their attention in the Essays posted at this site --
especially if the majority of these contradictions show that their theory is not
so much consistently inconsistent, as fatally so.
Dialecticians claim that even though their theory/method has been derived from Hegel's
system of Absolute
Idealism, the materialist flip they say they have imposed on it means that DM
isn't the least bit Idealist, it is thoroughly materialist, having been refined
and tested in practice for over 150 years.
That is, of course, what the official
brochure tells us.
The
claim that abstract concepts underlie our knowledge of the world has obvious
Idealist implications (on this, see below, and Essay Three Parts
One and
Two) -- implications that an
aspiring
materialist has a pressing need to avoid, if not deny. The question is: How do
DM-theorists manage to do this?
[TAR = The Algebra Of Revolution,
i.e., Rees (1998).]
For
one, John Rees argues that human knowledge grows because it has:
"[Brought] to it a framework composed of
our past experiences; what we have learned of others' experience, both in the
present and in the past; and of our later reflections on and theories about this
experience…. Concepts and theories are necessary to interpret the world." [Rees
(1998), p.63.]
These
observations form part of a criticism of Hegel's belief that:
"[A]ll real knowledge of the world is
theoretical knowledge… [and] the development of knowledge primarily depends on
the further elaboration of concepts." [Ibid., p.63.]
However, Rees then argues that it would be a mistake for us to try to:
"[D]educe directly particular events
from general rules or to assume that general laws can be directly inferred from
specific, empirical observations." [Ibid., p.107.]
But,
this further requires us to:
"[M]ake an abstraction from the
inessential and accidental features of reality to grasp more clearly its key
features." [Ibid., p.110.]
Rees
also points out that the danger here is that this might reintroduce Hegel's own
errors, luring Marxists into a familiar Idealist trap. This can be avoided by
ensuring that:
"Testing
by facts or by practice…is…found in
each step of the analysis." [Ibid., p.113; quoting Lenin (1961), p.318 --
but not p.320, as Rees
suggests.]
In
that case:
"Constant empirical work is...essential
to renew both the concrete analyses and the dialectical concepts that are
generalized from these analyses." [Ibid., p.110.]
Moreover, general concepts can't be seen as:
"[A] substitute for the difficult
empirical task of tracing the development of real contradictions, not as a
suprahistorical master key whose only advantage is to turn up when no real
historical knowledge is available." [Ibid., p.9.]
Later, in a discussion of Trotsky's views on
DM, Rees reminded his
readers that Trotsky himself warned that the
dialectic isn't:
"'[A] magic master-key for all
questions.' The dialectic is not a calculator into which it is possible to punch
the problem and allow it to compute the solution. This would be an idealist
method. A materialist dialectic must grow from a patient, empirical
examination of the facts and not be imposed on them…." [Ibid., p.271;
mis-quoting
Trotsky (1973), p.233. Quotation marks
altered to conform with the
conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphases in the original.]
Even
though the metaphor of the garden has now replaced that of the book,
it is clear that Rees accepts the standard line that DM mustn't be
imposed on nature, but should be derived from a scientific study of it -- adding
that not only should it be checked at every stage, it must be thoroughly tested
in practice.
The question is: Does
this succeed in avoiding the Idealist trap mentioned earlier? Even more to the
point: Is this an accurate picture of what DM-theorists actually do, as
opposed to what they merely say they do?
Indeed, is it even an accurate account of what Rees himself does?
Clearly not, for just two lines later Rees added this revealing aside:
"A dialectical method is only possible
because reality itself is dialectically structured." [Ibid., p.271.]
But,
this is quite remarkable! One minute we are being soothed with reassuring words
that DM
mustn't be imposed on reality, but derived from it; the very next we are told
that reality itselfis dialectically structured!
But, how on earth could
Rees possibly know this? Clearly, unless DM had
already been imposed on reality, he couldn't know that
it is dialectically structured. What is the point of stressing that DM
mustn't be imposed on reality -- but simply read from it -- if nature
is already dialectically structured? There seems to be no point. In fact, it would be as pointless as insisting
that we shouldn't impose greenness on grass, or oddness on the number three. And
yet, what else could Rees's claim amount to except an imposition onto reality of
something we were told should only emerge as a result of a "patient
empirical examination of the facts"?1a
Plainly, the most
that could legitimately be claimed here is that up to now the available
evidence supports a dialectical view of reality. It shouldn't be that this
widely touted 'cautious approach' is only possible because "reality
itself is dialectically structured." If that were the case, caution could
be thrown to the wind.
Of
course, it could be objected here that Rees's conclusion is quite reasonable
since it is based on a careful consideration of the available scientific
evidence.
But,
Rees's claim goes much further than this; he asserts that "reality itself" (that
is, not just a
part of it, or even most of it, nor yet that of which we currently
have some knowledge, but the entire universe, at
every level, for all of time -- i.e., reality itself) is
dialectically structured.
Even
if we took into account all the available evidence (which evidence isn't
conducive to DM, anyway, as we shall see in other Essays posted at this site),
the inference that "reality itself" is dialectically structured goes way beyond
this. As seems plain, the claim that realityitself is
dialectically structured could only ever amount to a reading into nature
something that might not be there. And, it certainly isn't justified on the basis
of the meagre and threadbare
evidence dialecticians have so far scraped-together.
This
is all the more so if we take into account the fact that DM-theorists also claim
that human knowledge is not only
partial and relative,
it will only ever remain in this state. In fact, since DM-theorists believe
that the pursuit of knowledge is an
infinite quest, and that the gap
between Absolute and current, or relative, knowledge will
always be infinite, humanity
will only be in a position to agree with dialecticians about "reality itself" at
the end of an "infinite" epistemological quest. It is plain, I take
it, that Rees hasn't yet completed such a task, nor is he ever likely to
do so -- and
neither is humanity --, so the conclusion that realty itself is
dialectically structured can't form part of human knowledge, now or ever.
Which
means it must have been imposed on reality.
Again, it might be
objected that Rees's claim is in fact a working hypothesis which has so
far been reasonably well-confirmed. However, as we will see, this isn't how he
actually frames his ideas, nor is it the way that other DM-theorists have
presented their ideas over the last 150 years. As this Essay unfolds, it will
become abundantly clear that dialecticians adopt a thoroughly traditional
approach to Philosophy, deriving a priori
theses from laughably thin evidence, or even none at all, which they then happily impose on nature.1b
Impertinent claims like these are, as it turns out, quite easy to substantiate.
Plainly, this isn't a reassuring way for Rees to demonstrate the "careful" application of
the "dialectical method" -- which is aimed at, let us recall, persuading the
rest of us that DM isn't just another form of Idealism.
However, as we have just seen, Rees's justification for the correct
application of DM to reality is that reality is in fact 'dialectically
structured'. That is, he appeals to the alleged fact that reality is as he says
it is in order to account for the applicability of the dialectical method to it:
"A dialectical method is only possible
because reality itself is dialectically structured." [Ibid., p.271.]
But
if, as we were told, this is indeed an example of the
cautious approach to knowledge (necessary, once more, to avoid accusations of
Idealism), the direction of justification should proceed the
other way. It would surely go something like this: "Because the dialectical
method is so successful, we may conclude that those parts of nature and society
to which it has so far been applied are dialectically structured." By no stretch
of the imagination should we conclude that the method works because
"reality itself" is dialectical. That inference isn't cautious, it is dogmatic.
Now,
the fact that Rees puts the point this way round strongly suggests that the
legendary dialectical spin that DM-theorists are supposed to have
inflicted on Hegel's system (putting it "back on its feet") was perhaps less
successful than we have been led to believe -- either that, or Hegel's system
remains Idealist in forward and reverse gear, 'the right way up' or upside down.
If
so, this might be enough to show that DM isn't a materialist doctrine after all,
but an example of upside-down
Absolute Idealism.
But,
is it enough?
The
rest of this Essay, and several others posted at this site, will answer that
question -- greatly strengthening this suspicion.
At
this point, it might be objected that DM has in fact been
tested in practice, which fact alone confirms that reality is
dialectically structured. It also proves that DM isn't remotely Idealist.
Or, so it could be alleged.
Unfortunately, however, not only has practice failed to confirm DM, the exact
opposite is in fact the case. [Detailed substantiation for that controversial
allegation can be found in Essay Ten Part One.]
If the evidence of the last hundred and forty years is anything to go by,
it is clear that dialectics has been tested in practice and has so far been
disproved. Indeed, history has delivered an almost unambiguously negative
verdict.
Sad
though it is to say, revolutionary socialism and success are almost total
strangers. In that case, it would be unwise of DM-theorists to continue
to appeal to practice as a test of their theory, or, indeed, of its materialist
credentials.
But, even if this
weren't the case, a thousand years of revolutionary practice wouldn't be
sufficient to show that "reality itself" is dialectically structured. At
best, it would merely confirm that human history might be. It should
hardly need pointing out that the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 in no way
confirms that the outer fringes of the Galaxy are dialectical, or that every
photon in the entire universe is now, and will always be, powered by its
"internal contradictions".1c
Again, in response to this, it could be argued that the above passage from
TAR is atypical, or that it doesn't really represent its author's
considered views, or that it doesn't imply what the above alleges of it, or even
that Rees is neither a leading nor a typical DM-theorist, etc., etc. But, as we
are about to see, not only is this set of rejoinders wrong in particular (in
that this passage does indeed reflect Rees's view), it is incorrect in general.
It
is typical of DM authors to talk this way;
they all do it, all the time!
In
fact, Rees endorses this a priori and dogmatic view of "reality":
"Lenin's worry is that previous
explanations of dialectics have simply shown that reality forms a totality and
that things which are assumed to be opposites are in reality connected with one
another. But they have not stressed that reality is a
contradictory totality or that it is the mutually antagonistic relationship
between the parts of the totality which are the motor force of its change and
development." [Rees (1998), p.186. Bold emphasis added.]
[Rees
nowhere objects to Lenin's dogmatic views.]
How
Rees knows this to be the case concerning reality itself (and,
contrary to what we are told, previous dialecticians hadn't
shown that
"reality forms a totality", they simply
pinched this idea from previous generations of mystics who also imposed
it on nature) -- how he know this, he annoyingly kept to himself. Even so, he, too, was quite happy to
foist it on the facts, despite having quoted Trotsky as follows:
"'[The dialectic isn't a] magic master
key for all questions.' The dialectic is not a calculator into which it is
possible to punch the problem and allow it to compute the solution. This would
be an idealist method. A materialist dialectic must grow from a patient,
empirical examination of the facts and not be imposed on them…."
[Ibid., p.271; mis-quoting
Trotsky (1973), p.233. Quotation marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphases in the original;
bold emphasis added.]
Rees's comments are in fact part of a long tradition; DM-theorists regularly
impose their a priori theories on nature, just like the Traditional
Thinkers from whom they inherited this Idealist method.
Lenin
admitted as much when he said:
"The theory of socialism,
however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories
elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by
intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific
socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois
intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of
Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the
working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the
development of thought among
the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." [Lenin
(1947), pp.31-32. Bold emphases added.]
"The history of philosophy and the
history of social science show with perfect clarity that there is nothing
resembling 'sectarianism' in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound,
petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away from the high road of
the development of world civilisation. On the contrary, the genius of Marx
consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised
by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and
immediate
continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of
philosophy, political economy and socialism.
"The
Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and
harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with
any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is
the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth
century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and
French socialism." [Lenin,
Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism. Bold emphases alone
added.]
Of
course, the influence of earlier thinkers isn't something dialecticians deny,
but it is no less clear they have failed to appreciate its significance.
[However, in Essay Nine Parts
One and
Two, Lenin's claims about
sectarianism will be shown to be wildly inaccurate.]
Nevertheless, the fact that Rees's claim wasn't a mere slip of the
keyboard can be seen from several other things he says:
"Totality refers to the insistence
that the various seemingly separate elements of which the world is composed are
in fact related to one another." [Rees (1998), p.5. Emphasis added.]
Again, how is it possible for Rees to insist on something while claiming
that he isn't actually imposing it on nature?
Of course, he and others might
choose to believe such things -- and they could even claim support for such
beliefs from the available evidence --
but, as should seem obvious, an "insistence" of this sort could only ever be
justified if the pretence that dialectics hasn't been imposed on reality has
been quietly dropped.
And,
there is more:
"[The] natural and social world [form] a
single totality developing over time as a result of…internal contradictions….
[N]ature is an interconnected system that developed for millions of years before
humans." [Ibid., pp.285-86.]
But,
how could Rees possibly know that the natural and social world forms a
single Totality, as opposed to its being, say, two
Totalities, or ten thousand Totalities --, or maybe even no Totality at all? And how could he
possibly know that everything is interconnected, contradictory and
changing all the time? Or even that development is always and everywhere the
result of "internal contradictions"?
To be
sure, he could claim to know this if DM had surreptitiously been imposed on nature, but that is
the only way he could 'know' this.
[What
little evidence and/or argument DM-apologists have offered in support of
such hyper-bold claims will be examined in Essays
Five,
Seven, Eight
Parts One and
Two, and Eleven Parts
One and
Two.]
And,
as if this weren't enough, Rees has several more things he sought to impose on reality:
"…[A] dialectical approach…presupposes
the parts and the whole are not reducible to each other. The parts and the whole
mutually condition, or mediate, each other." [Ibid., p.7.]
"In a dialectical system, the entire
nature of the part is determined by its relationships with the other parts and
so with the whole. The part makes the whole, and the whole makes the parts…. In
this analysis, it is not just the case that the whole is more than the sum of
the parts but also that the parts become more than they are individually by
being part of a whole…. [F]or dialectical materialists the whole is more than
the simple sum of its parts." [Rees (1998), pp.5, 77.]
But,
is a presupposition any different from an imposition? And, where
is all the "patiently collected" evidence that confirms that every single atom
in the entire universe "mediates", and is "mediated" in return by, everything
else -- or, indeed, by every other atom? How could Rees possibly know, for example,
that the whole "mediates" each and every part? Once more, he may perhaps
surmise this from
the available evidence (which he failed to produce anyway), but these hyper-bold
claims can't form part of current knowledge; and if DM-epistemology is our
guide, they
never will.
Indeed, it isn't easy to see how anyone could possibly confirm that, say, a
humble carrot in your shopping is, or isn't, 'mediated' by
Galaxy
M100, or even
Galaxy
NGC1365, and vice versa. And what sort of spooky influence is a
'mediation', anyway? What evidence would anyone be
looking for in order to confirm that these ill-defined 'influences'
(these "mediacies") actually exist? Is there any way to detect, let alone
study, these strange, if not spooky, 'effects'? How could the latter possibly register on
scientific instruments? And yet, if the existence and nature of such 'effects'
aren't capable of being confirmed (and if no one was able to say what their
confirmation would
even look like), we only have Hegel's word that they actually
exist.
Of
course, this helps explain why Rees found he had to impose such things on
nature.
It is
no good replying that the above theory (about 'mediation') follows from an
abstract theory (or any theory), since that would merely confirm the
allegation that DM is Idealist, after all. Here is Lenin again:
"The derivation of necessity, causality, law,
etc., from thought is idealism." [Lenin
(1972), p.192.]
And
how does Rees know that every single whole that has ever existed in the
entire history of the universe up until now, or will ever exist, is more than the sum of its parts?
Or, that the entire nature of any part is determined by its relation to the
other parts and to the whole?
Naturally, this introduces factors connected with the elusive DM-"Totality". As
we will see in Essay Eleven Parts One
and
Two (where it will be shown
that the above claims aren't even factually correct), the "Totality" is an
impenetrable mystery -- even to dialecticians themselves!
[The
argument Rees actually uses to counter objections like this (i.e., his argument
based on an analysis of 'friendship' (pp.109-10)), will be examined in detail in
Essay Three Part Four.]
More
to the point: How does Rees know that wholes
aren't reducible to their parts? Can he say with total confidence that not
one single whole (in the many thousands of millennia to come) will
never be reduced to its parts? If he does so attest -- and in advance
of the evidence -- how is that different from imposing this thesis on
reality?
Nevertheless, Rees is the one who wants to reduce all change to "internal
contradictions" -- which, for all the world, look like they are the
'logical atoms' of DM.
[Those who doubt that assertion should consult this
this Essay, and then perhaps think again.]
In
fact, Rees's only apparent objection to reductionism isn't that there is
a mountain of evidence demanding its rejection, but that it would lead to something
Hegel called a "bad infinity" (or, in a more recent
translation of his 'Logic', a "spurious infinity" --
Hegel (1999), pp.137, 139):
"Hegel described this kind of account as
'bad infinity', because it postulated an endless series of causes and effects
regressing to 'who knows where?' The defect of all such approaches is that they
leave the ultimate cause of events outside the events they describe. The cause
is external to the system. A dialectical approach seeks to find the cause of
change within the system. And if the explanation of change lies within the
system, it cannot be conceived on the model of linear cause and effect, because
this will simply reproduce the problem we are trying to solve. If change is
internally generated, it must be a result of contradiction, of instability and
development as inherent properties of the system itself." [Rees (1998), p.7. Quotation
marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
But,
why should we accept Hegel's view? Hegel wasn't a scientist. The record fails
to show he carried out any experiments. But, perhaps in
compensation for this failing, he arguably holds the world record for the number
of theses foisted onto nature by one human being in a single lifetime.
He is not, therefore, a terribly good witness for the defence.
Naturally, Hegel had his own Idealist reasons for rejecting such infinities, but
is there any material
evidence that "bad infinities" are quite as evil as he and Rees seem to
think? If there is, they both unwisely kept it to themselves.
This
suggests that Rees accepted this rather odd Hegelian
caveat for
Idealist reasons himself -- that is, he rejected such infinities as "bad" even though that conclusion wasn't based on evidence
of any sort -- and despite his earlier claim that that
particular requirement wasn't an optional extra.
Clearly then, Rees seems quite happy to foist these Hegelian fancies on reality.
In
addition, how could Rees possibly know that there isn't in fact
an endless series of causes and effects responsible for any and all change in
the natural world? Or that change
can't be externally-induced -- or even that all change is
driven by "internal contradictions"? For all he knows, there could be parts of
the universe where dialectics just doesn't apply. It might fail to apply at the
centre of the earth, or it mightn't have worked only for a few years during the
Permian age,
or before humanity evolved. Indeed, it might have ceased to work on the other side of the
Crab
Nebula, or, nearer to home, on earth in a million years time. How could Rees rule out
any of these and countless other possibilities?
Of
course, Rees and other DM-theorists do have an argument (but no actual
evidence) in favour of this idea:
"A
dialectical approach seeks to find the cause of change within the system.... If
change is internally generated, it must be a result of contradictions, of
instability, and development as inherent properties of the system itself."
[Ibid., p.7.]
I will examine this argument in detail in
Essay Eight Parts One and
Two, so readers are directed
there for more details. But, it is sufficient to note here that this is a
theoretical argument, and subject to George Novack and Lenin's strictures:
"A consistent materialism cannot
proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason,
intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source.
Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon
evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in
practice...." [Novack (1965), p.17. Bold emphasis added.]
"The derivation of necessity, causality, law,
etc., from thought is idealism." [Lenin
(1972), p.192.]
So,
when faced with objections like those above, dialecticians often reach for this Hegelian
idea: all change
occurs because of "internal contradictions", as a result of the
universal existence of UOs --, arguing that if all change is indeed a result of
this,
then there is no way that DM couldn't have applied at all times and
places -- for example, in the
Permian, at the centre of the earth, or on the other side of the universe,
etc.
[UO = Unity of Opposites.]
But,
and once again, that response merely confirms the main thesis if this Essay: that DM-fans are
quite happy to impose their abstract schemas on reality, even when there is no
conceivable way that such things could be confirmed.
Now,
should any reader be tempted to argue along similar lines, that will only serve
to confirm a claim
made earlier in this Essay:
As
will soon become apparent, for all their claims to be radical, when it
comes to Philosophy
DM-theorists are
surprisinglyconservative -- and universally incapable of
seeing this even after it has been pointed out to them... At a
rhetorical level, philosophical conservatism like this has been camouflaged behind what at first sight
appears to be a series of disarmingly modest disclaimers,
which are then promptly flouted.
Indeed, as is the case with other traditionalists, DM-fans slip into a priori
dogmatic mode impressively quickly.
[We
will see, too, in Essays Five through Eight Part Two,
these DM-principles don't even work closer to home, with respect to such mundane
things as a bag of sugar or even cats moving about on or off mats, let alone in distant
regions of space and time.]
Now,
Rees might wish to believe such things, but if dialectics can only grow
from a "patient" examination of the evidence (etc.), it is quite clear that he
can't know them to be true, given the present (or, indeed, any foreseeable) state of
knowledge.
In fact, as it turns out,
he will never know any of them; not only do "internal contradictions"
fail to explain change,
they
can't
possibly do so. Quite the reverse, in fact; as is surprisingly easy to demonstrate, the
idea that change can only arise from "internal contradictions" is itself
inconsistent with other DM-theses, and with what we already know
about nature and society.2
There
are several more suspiciously Idealist passages like this in TAR; here is another:
"If nature forms a totality, which it
must unless we depart from materialism completely and become believers in the
supernatural, and if this totality develops, as evolutionary theory
indicates, then are we not
obliged to picture this as self-development powered by internal
contradiction?" [Rees (1998), p.78. Bold emphasis added.]
Once
more, Rees's only argument in favour of the idea that nature forms a "totality"
seems to be that to deny it would leave room for the supernatural. But,
that isn't evidence. He certainly wouldn't accept a converse argument
for the existence of God on the lines that to deny it would create a
materialist 'bad infinity' (in that it would leave the physical world
unaccounted for on purely rational
grounds -- which is what Hegel and other theists have argued), a belief
that is likewise supported by no evidence whatsoever. In that case, and once
again, Rees's claim certainly looks like an imposition. [The word
"obliged" is a further give-away.]
But,
what if evidence turned up one day to show that there are indeed things that
exist beyond this universe, which either are or aren't causally dependent upon
it? If so, dialecticians like Rees are just going to have to come to terms with
it; but they can only rule that possibility out
now by imposing their current theory on nature (that imposition perhaps
justified, or not, by several more a priori, Idealist 'arguments' lifted
from Hegel, but plainly not based on "patiently" collected evidence).
Rees also claims that
alternative approaches depart from materialism; indeed they stand in danger of
lapsing into theism. But, as we will see, DM-theorists' own understanding of
what counts as matter actually allows place for the existence of 'God'.
Hence, if "carefully" collected evidence one day turned up showing that 'God'
does indeed exist, what could dialecticians like Rees say? Given their own
defective understanding of the nature of the material world (on this, see Essay
Thirteen Part One), and their weak
gesture at the acceptance of evidence-based science, dialecticians could
only rule that possibility out now by imposing DM on reality, once
more.3
Finally, in a recent article in Socialist Review, Rees endorsed Engels's
'First Law' -- 'the transformation of quantity into quality' -- unreservedly. So, on the basis of just one example
(the hardy perennial: water freezing and/or boiling) he was happy to assert the
following:
"Indeed this is a feature of many
different sorts of change, even in the natural world. Water that rises in
temperature by one degree at a time shows no dramatic change until it reaches
boiling point when it 'suddenly' becomes steam. At that point its whole nature
is transformed from being a liquid into a vapour.
"Lower the temperature of water by a
single degree at a time and again there is no dramatic change until it reaches
freezing point, when it is transformed from a liquid into a solid -- ice.
"Dialecticians call this process the transformation of quantity into quality.
Slow, gradual changes that do not add up to a transformation in the nature of a
thing suddenly reach a tipping point when the whole nature of the thing is
transformed into something new." [Rees
(2008), p.24. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted
at this site.]
From
where Rees "suddenly leaps" to this conclusion:
"This is why Marx described the dialectic as 'an
abomination to the bourgeoisie' and why Lenin said of this method that it 'alone
furnishes the key to "self-movement" of everything existing; it alone
furnishes the key to "leaps", to the "break in continuity"...to the destruction
of the old and the emergence of the new'". [Ibid. Bold emphasis added. Quotation
marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
So,
here we have yet more
a priori dogmatism -- based on little or no evidence -- as we will see in
general in Essay Seven Part
One.
And,
careful readers will no doubt notice that while Rees tells us in one breath that
DM isn't a "master key", in
the very next he quotes Lenin to
the effect that dialectics alone furnishes the key to the movement of
"everything existing"!
What else could that be but a
"master key" if it unlocks the entire universe?
The
imposition of DM-theses on nature isn't just an aberration of modern-day
dialecticians. Every DM-classicist has indulged extensively in the sport. For
example, it can be found right throughout Engels's writings.
True-to-form he begins by telling us the following:
"Finally, for me there could be no
question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of
discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels
(1976), p.13. Bold emphasis added. Several more quotations along similar
lines from Engels and others can be found in
Note 1.]
Also
true-to-form, he then proceeds to do the exact opposite.
For
instance, in his classic text, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and
Dialectics of Nature, he had
this to say (which is where Rees derived this idea -- but, note, not from a
scientific analysis of nature):
"Dialectics…prevails throughout
nature…. [T]he motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere
in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites…determines
the life of nature." [Engels (1954),
p.211. Bold emphases added.]
But, how could Engels
possibly have known all this? How could he have known that
nature doesn't operate "metaphysically", say, in distant regions of space
and time, way beyond the edge of the known Universe of his day? Indeed, how
could he have been quitesosure that, for example, there are
no
changeless objects anywhere in the entire universe?4
How could he have been so certain that the "life of
nature" is the result of a "conflict of opposites" -- or that some
processes, in the whole of reality, for all of time, weren't, or aren't, governed by
non-dialectical factors? Where is his "carefully collected evidence" about every
object and event in the whole of nature, past, present and future?5
Notice that Engels didn't say that "all the evidence so far collected"
in
his day supported these contentions, or that "those parts of the world of which
the scientists" of his day were aware behave in the way he indicated. He simply
referred to nature tout court, without qualification (i.e., "throughout
nature" and "everywhere in nature"). In line with other DM-theorists, Engels
signally failed to inform his readers of the whereabouts of the large finite
body
of "careful observations" upon which these wild generalisations had been based.
To be
sure, he did say that
nature itself confirms DM, but that looks more like a manifesto claim, or a
promissory note, than a
summary of the evidence -- especially if the evidence he actually bothered to
produce is watery thin and doesn't in fact support his ideas -- as we
will see in several other Essays (especially
here).
Engels didn't just stop there; he made equally bold statements about other
fundamental aspects of nature:
"Motion is the
mode of existence of matter.
Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be….
Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter.
Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself; as
the older philosophy (Descartes)
expressed it, the quantity of motion existing in the world is always the same.
Motion therefore cannot be created; it can only be transmitted….
"A motionless state of matter therefore
proves to be one of the most empty and nonsensical of ideas…." [Engels (1976),
p.74. Bold emphases alone added.]
"But precisely therein lay the true
significance and the revolutionary character of the Hegelian philosophy (to
which, as the close of the whole movement since Kant, we must here confine
ourselves), that it once and for all dealt the death blow to the finality of all
products of human thought and action. Truth, the cognition of which is the
business of philosophy, was in the hands of Hegel no longer an aggregate of
finished dogmatic statements, which, once discovered, had merely to be learned
by heart. Truth lay now in the process of cognition itself, in the long
historical development of science, which mounts from lower to ever higher levels
of knowledge without ever reaching, by discovering so-called absolute truth, a
point at which it can proceed no further, where it would have nothing more to do
than to fold its hands and gaze with wonder at the absolute truth to which it
had attained. And what holds good for the realm of philosophical knowledge holds
good also for that of every other kind of knowledge and also for practical
action. Just as knowledge is unable to reach a complete conclusion in a perfect,
ideal condition of humanity, so is history unable to do so; a perfect society, a
perfect 'state', are things which can only exist in imagination. On the
contrary, all successive historical systems are only transitory stages in the
endless course of development of human society from the lower to the higher.
Each stage is necessary, and therefore justified for the time and conditions to
which it owes its origin. But in the face of new, higher conditions which
gradually develop in its own womb, it loses vitality and justification. It must
give way to a higher stage which will also in its turn decay and perish. Just as
the bourgeoisie by large-scale industry, competition, and the world market
dissolves in practice all stable time-honoured institutions, so this dialectical
philosophy dissolves all conceptions of final, absolute truth and of absolute
states of humanity corresponding to it. For it [dialectical philosophy], nothing
is final, absolute, sacred.It reveals the transitory character of everything
and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process
of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the
higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere
reflection of this process in the thinking brain. It has, of course, also a
conservative side; it recognizes that definite stages of knowledge and society
are justified for their time and circumstances; but only so far. The
conservatism of this mode of outlook is relative; its revolutionary character is
absolute -- the only absolute dialectical philosophy admits." [Engels
(1888), pp.587-88. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform
with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typo corrected. Parentheses in
the original.]
"[T]he revolutionary side of
Hegelian philosophy was again taken up and at the same time freed from the
idealist trimmings which with Hegel had prevented its consistent execution.
The great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of
readymade things, but as a complex of processes, in which the
things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the
concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing
away, in which, in spite of all seeming accidentally and of all temporary
retrogression, a progressive development asserts itself in the end -- this
great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly
permeated ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever
contradicted."
[Ibid., p.609. Bold emphases
alone added.]
"Dialectics as the science of
universal
interconnection….
"The law of the transformation of
quantity into quality and vice versa…[operates] in nature, in a manner fixed for
each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the
quantitative addition or quantitative subtraction of matter or motion….
"Hence, it is impossible to alter
the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion…. In
this form, therefore, Hegel's mysterious principle appears not only quite
rational but even rather obvious.
"Motion in the most general sense,
conceived as
the mode of existence, the inherent attribute of matter, comprehends all
changes and processes occurring in the universe….
"Dialectics, so called objective
dialectics,
prevails throughout nature…. [M]otion through opposites which asserts
itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of
the opposites…determines the life of nature….
"The whole theory of gravity rests on
saying that attraction is the essence of matter. This is necessarily false.
Where there is attraction, it must be complemented by repulsion. Hence
already Hegel was quite right in saying that the essence of matter is
attraction and repulsion….
"The visible system of stars, the solar
system, terrestrial masses, molecules and atoms, and finally ether particles,
form each of them [a definite group]. It does not alter the case that
intermediate links can be found between the separate groups…. These intermediate
links prove only that there are no leaps in nature, precisely because nature
is composed entirely of leaps." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 63, 69, 211, 244,
271. Bold emphases added.]
Once
more, Engels forgot to say how he knew all these things were true. For
example, how could he possibly have known that:
"Never anywhere has there been
matter without motion, nor can there be…. Matter without motion is just
as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable
and indestructible as matter itself…." [Engels (1976),
p.74. Bold emphasis added.]
Neither matter without motion nor motion without matter is inconceivable,
contrary to what Engels says. [That allegation is substantiated in Essays
Five and Twelve Part One.] In
fact, the contrary doctrine that matter is naturally motionless was imposed on nature by
Aristotle;
Engels's
obverse imposition is no less unimpressive, and no less Idealist.
Observant readers will no doubt have noted that even while Engels was extolling
the alleged fact that "philosophy...was
in the hands of Hegel no longer an aggregate of
finished dogmatic statements..." he also added -- in the very same paragraph
-- his own dogmatic statement about the "transitory character of everything and
in everything; nothing can endure before [dialectical philosophy] except the
uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy
from the lower to the higher."
Consider another passage, this time taken from a
letter written by Engels:
"The identity of thinking and being, to
use Hegelian language, everywhere coincides with your example of the circle and
the polygon. Or the two of them, the concept of a thing and its reality, run
side by side like two asymptotes, always approaching each other but never
meeting. This difference between the two is the very difference which prevents
the concept from being directly and immediately reality and reality from being
immediately its own concept. Because a concept has the essential nature of the
concept and does not therefore prima facie directly coincide with
reality, from which it had to be abstracted in the first place, it is
nevertheless more than a fiction, unless you declare that all the results of
thought are fictions because reality corresponds to them only very circuitously,
and even then approaching it only asymptotically…. In other words, the unity of
concept and phenomenon manifests itself as an essentially infinite process, and
that is what it is, in this case as in all others." [Engels to Schmidt
(12/03/1895), in Marx and Engels (1975b), pp.457-58, and Marx and Engels (2004),
pp.463-64.]
There
are several puzzling things about this quotation (some of which will have to be left
until later), but how could Engels possibly have known
that concepts and things interrelate in the way he alleges? In fact, if he were
right, in order for him to conclude what he does about "things" (concerning which
concepts he admits the knowledge available in his -- and, indeed, any other -- day never
coincides), he must have extrapolated way beyond the state of knowledge in the
late late-19th
century, and which lies way beyond
any conceivable stateof knowledge, as the next passage quoted below
reveals.
Worse
still: if things never "coincide" with their own concepts, then on
that basis
alone Engels couldn't possibly have known that even this much was
the case. Plainly, if he did know this, then at least one concept
-- namely the one Engels was using here -- would in fact have coincided with its
object!
Clearly, such semi-divine confidence in the nature of concepts, and what they do
or do not coincide with, could only have arisen from the following: (i) Engels's imposition of this a priori thesis on the facts; (ii) The
a priori,
Idealist principles Engels admits he borrowed from Hegel -- but, not from
(iii) Examining the 'book' of nature, or (iv) Collecting evidence, either
"patiently" or impatiently.
As should now seem
reasonably clear,
if reality is permanently and forever beyond our grasp, according to Engels, then anything that
could be said
about 'it' must, of necessity, be
imposed on 'it' (that is, if we insist on depicting things in such an
odd way).6
The next passage from
Engels only serves to underline that point:
"'Fundamentally, we can know only the
infinite.' In fact all real exhaustive knowledge consists solely in raising
the individual thing in thought from individuality into particularity and from
this into universality, in seeking and establishing the infinite in the finite,
the eternal in the transitory…. All true knowledge of nature is knowledge of
the eternal, the infinite, and essentially absolute…. The cognition of
the infinite…can only take place in an infinite asymptotic progress."
[Engels (1954),
pp.234-35.
Bold emphasis alone added; paragraphs merged.]
But, if no concept
ever matches reality fully, how could Engels have known so much about
it?
How could he possibly know that"All true knowledge of
nature is knowledge of the eternal, the infinite", or that it is "essentially
absolute..."? Either he was in possession of such absolute knowledge already
when he wrote this (which would have meant, once again, that at least one
concept will have matched reality, namely this one), or he was himself infinitely wrong!
Of
course, we already know the answer to that question: Engels thought he could impose
these dogmas on reality because that is exactly what Hegel did, and it is exactly
what Traditional Philosophers have always done. He simply copied them.
However, no doubt the infinite (or even unbelievably large finite) body of
evidence that Engels meant to include in Dialectics of Nature, which
would have been necessary to justify these quasi-theological assertions will turn up one day.
There
is a passage similar to that quoted above from Engels in Lenin's Notebooks:
"Cognition is the eternal,
endless approximation of thought to the object. The reflection of
nature in man's thought must be understood not 'lifelessly,' not 'abstractly,'
not devoid of movement, not
without contradictions, but in the eternal process of movement,
the arising of contradictions and their solution."
[Lenin
(1961), p.195.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the
conventions adopted at this site.
Italic emphases in the original.]
Once
more, how on earth could Lenin possibly have known any of this for a fact?
Clearly, there is no way he could have known this process is endless.
Plainly, if what Lenin actually said were
correct, the claim to know this could only itself have been based on the
successful completion of an endless process. Whatever else we might think of Lenin, he was not, I take it, an
eternal being.
Certainly, no amount of evidence could show that
Lenin's ambitious claim was true, or even approximately true. No finite
body of data, no matter how large, would even so much as roughly approximates to an
infinite amount required by the above claim.
Not
only is the non-existent end this quotation postulates buried 'somewhere
in the future' (and hence beyond the reach of confirmation), if
the length of time between now and 'then' is itself endless, the search for the
missing evidence which supports the claim that this process is endless
must be endless, too! Either Lenin reached the end, or he was just
grandstanding.
Here
are several more 'cautious' claims Lenin advanced incautiously:
"Dialectics requires an all-round
consideration of relationships in their concrete development…. Dialectical logic
demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should
be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)….
"[D]ialectical logic holds that 'truth
is
always concrete, never abstract', as the late Plekhanov liked to say
after Hegel." [Lenin (1921),
pp.90, 93. Bold emphases added.]
"Flexibility, applied objectively,
i.e., reflecting the all-sidedness of the material process and its unity, is
dialectics, is the correct reflection of the eternal development of the world."
[Lenin (1961),
p.110. Bold emphasis added.]
"Thought proceeding from the concrete to
the abstract -– provided it is correct (NB)… -- does not get away from
the truth but comes closer to it. The abstraction of matter, the law
of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in short all
scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more
deeply, truly and completely." [Ibid.,
p.171. Emphases in the original.]
"Knowledge
is the reflection of nature by man. But this is not simple, not an immediate,
not a complete reflection, but the process of a series of abstractions, the
formation and development of concepts, laws, etc., and these concepts, laws,
etc., (thought, science = 'the logical Idea') embrace conditionally,
approximately, the universal, law-governed character of eternally moving and
developing nature.... Man cannot comprehend = reflect = mirror nature as
a whole, in its completeness, its 'immediate totality,' he can only
eternally come closer to this, creating abstractions, concepts, laws, a
scientific picture of the world...." [Ibid.,
p.182. Bold emphases alone added.]
"The totality of all sides of the
phenomenon of reality and their (reciprocal) relations -– that is what
truth is composed of. The relations (= transitions = contradictions) of notions
= the main content of logic, by which these concepts (and their
relations, transitions, contradictions) are shown as reflections of the
objective world. The dialectic of things produces the dialectic of
ideas, and notvice versa." [Ibid.,
p.196. Emphases in the original.]
"Logical concepts are subjective so long
as they remain 'abstract,' in their abstract form, but at the same time they
express the Thing-in-themselves. Nature is both concrete and
abstract, both
phenomenon and essence, both moment and relation. Human
concepts are subjective in their abstractness, separateness, but objective as a
whole, in the process, in the sum-total, in the tendency, in the source."
[Ibid.,
p.208. Emphases in the original. In each case, quotation marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
And
here is another revealing passage:
"Nowadays, the ideas of development…as
formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of Hegel…[encompass a process] that
seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a
higher basis ('negation of negation'), a development, so to speak, in spirals,
not in a straight line; -- a development by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions; --
'breaks in continuity'; the transformation of quantity into quality; -- the
inner impulses to development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the
various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given
phenomenon, or within a given society; -- the interdependence and the closest,indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon…, a
connection that provides a uniform, law-governed, universal process of
motion -– such are some of the features of dialectics as a richer (than the
ordinary) doctrine of development." [Lenin (1914),
pp.12-13.
Bold emphases alone added.]
But,
once again, how could Lenin possibly have known any of these things? How,
for instance, could he have been quite so sure that "[T]he dialectic of things
produces the dialectic of ideas", and not the other way round -- or perhaps
a bit of both (rejecting here, of course, the "either or of understanding" on
'sound' Hegelian lines)? He might have chosen to assume the validity of
these and other things he asserted so confidently, but there could be no body of evidence large enough to
justify the sorts of claims Lenin makes in the above passages, which he seems
quite happy to foist on nature, anyway.
And,
why "require" or "demand" something if science is supposed to be based on
evidence? Scientists don't normally require certain things of nature. When was
the last time they "required" that copper conducted electricity, "demanded" that
dogs are mammals, or "insisted" that the heart is a pump?
But
worse: How could Lenin possiblyhave known that dialectics reflected the "eternal development of the
world"?
From whom did he receive the stone
tablets upon which these semi-divine pronouncements had been carved?
Even
though Lenin inconsistently claimed both that "truth is always concrete never
abstract", and that scientific abstractions are also somehow
more true (or, indeed, which allow truth to be approached more fully), just like
Engels he omitted the "carefully collected" evidence that confirmed either of
these universal theses -- which evidence would have been unhelpful anyway since
it would have been concrete, and hence less
scientifically true, if Lenin were correct.
And,
it is little use arguing that scientific evidence is both abstract and
concrete, for that claim itself is abstract, and hence can't be true (since, according
to Lenin, truth is always concrete, never abstract -- not a bit of both):
"[D]ialectical logic holds that 'truth'
is
always concrete, never abstract, as the late Plekhanov liked to say
after Hegel." [Lenin (1921),
p.93. Bold emphases added.]
"One of the basic principles of dialectics is
that there is no such thing as abstract truth, truth is always concrete....""
[Lenin (1976),
p.276.]
Moreover, the principles Lenin used to derive these conclusions are not just
dogmatic (how, for example, Lenin knew that truth is never abstract and is
always concrete, he annoyingly kept to himself), they are somewhat
dubious in themselves. In light of the above assertion that "truth is always
concrete never abstract" -- or, "there is no such thing as abstract truth,
truth is always concrete" --, and since those claims are themselves non-concrete
abstractions, Lenin's
principles can't therefore be true!
So,
the thesis that all truth is concrete -- since it is an abstraction --
can't itself be true, just as the claim that all scientific abstractions reflect
nature more deeply and "truly", can't be true, either --
because it isn't concrete!
At
this point, we might be tempted to console ourselves with the thought that, at
least here, Engels's (comment from
earlier) is correct: there is no way that the thesis that "truth is always
concrete never abstract" will ever coincide with reality, and hence will ever be
judged true itself. Paradoxically, too, if this dialectical dogma ever does
turn out to be true, it would be false on that basis, since we would then
have at least one truth (namely this one) that isn't concrete, but manifestly abstract.
Nevertheless, could there be a body of "patiently" gathered
evidence large
enough to confirm Lenin's claim that all objects are self-developing?
[Perhaps that is all to the good given the next point.]
But,
if all objects and processes in nature do in fact influence one another, and
everything in reality is interconnected, then it seems that nothing in the
DM-universe could be self-developing.
Clearly, Lenin's incautious
atomism here -- which sees everything as developmentally autonomous,
with each object as an isolated, self-propelled unit -- contradicts (rather
fittingly, one feels) his other belief that all things are interconnected.
If all objects are indeed inter-related
then surely they could only develop if they were influenced by (and influenced
in return) other objects and processes external to themselves. On that
basis, it wouldn't be true to say that all objects self-develop.
[Doubters should take a look at this object,
which clearly didn't "self-develop".]
On
the other hand, if objects are 'self-developing', they can't be
interconnected in any meaningful sense.
Perhaps then it is just as well that there is no evidence that
all (or even any) objects in reality are "self-developing". To be sure,
DM-theorists need to pray to the 'dialectical deity' that it never turns up,
either, or they can kiss goodbye to their interconnected "Totality"
dogma.
[These controversial observations and their problematic ramifications form the
main topic of Essays Eight
Part One and Eleven Parts
One and
Two.]
Be
this as it may, is it really all that inconceivable that in the entire
universe, over many aeons of time, there might be (or might have been, or
might one day be) a
single object that doesn't (or didn't, or won't) undergo self-development?
How could Lenin rule that possibility out? Again, as seems plain, he could only
do so if that thesis itself had been imposed on nature, perhaps by "requiring"
-- nay, "demanding" -- that
all objects undergo self-development.
Once
more: Where is the "careful" empirical work that justifies all this "demanding",
all this "insisting" and "requiring" --, not to mention the shed loads of data
that would be needed to justify the many other universal a priori claims
Lenin made about reality (listed above and below) -- something we were told had to be
undertaken by materialists if they were to avoid being branded Idealists?
And
why do we find no dialecticians "requiring" -- nay, "demanding" -- of Lenin
(or his latter-day epigones) that he/they produce this evidence, or withdraw
such claims?
Alas,
Lenin's a priori litany continues:
"1. the objectivity
of consideration (not examples, not divergencies (sic), but the
Thing-in-itself). 2. the entire totality of the manifold relations of
this thing to others. 3. the development of this thing, (phenomenon,
respectively), its own movement, its own life. 4. the internally
contradictory tendencies (and sides)
in this thing. 5. the thing (phenomenon, etc.) as the sum and unity of
opposites. 6. the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites,
contradictory strivings, etc. 7. the union of analysis and synthesis -- the
break-down of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8. the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but
general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, process, etc.) is connected with
every other. 9. not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions
of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into
its opposite?]. 10. the endless process of the discovery of new
sides, relations, etc. 11. the endless process of the deepening of man's
knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to
essence and from less profound to more profound essence. 12. from
co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal
dependence to another, deeper, more general form. 13. the repetition at a higher
stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and 14. the apparent
return to the old (negation of the negation). 15. the struggle of content with
form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the
content. 16. the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa....
"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites.
This embodies the essence of dialectics...." [Lenin (1961),
pp.221-22.
Bold emphases alone added. Formatting modified to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site.]
"The splitting of the whole and the
cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the
'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic
features) of dialectics….
"The identity of opposites…is the
recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies
inallphenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the
knowledge ofall processes of the world in their 'self-movement,'in
their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a
unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This]
alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing….
"The unity…of opposites is conditional,
temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites isabsolute, just as development and motion areabsolute….
"To begin with what is the simplest,
most ordinary, common, etc., [sic] with any proposition...: [like]
John is a man…. Here we already have dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognized):
the
individual is the universal…. Consequently, the opposites (the
individual is opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists
only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in
the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or
another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the
essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the
individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal,
etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other
kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes), etc.
Here already we have the elements, the germs of the concept of necessity,
of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and
the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say John is a man…we
disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence
from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other….
"Thus in any proposition we
can (and must) disclose as a 'nucleus' ('cell') the germs of all the
elements of dialectics, and thereby show that dialectics is a property of all
human knowledge in general." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58, 359-60.
Bold emphases
alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at
this site.]
Lest
we are tempted to search back through the archives to find the countless
container-loads of missing evidence Lenin had "carefully" marshalled in
support of these dramatic claims, a consideration of the next passage will at
least relieve us of that onerous task. Here, at last, Lenin is disarmingly
honest about where he derived these dogmatic generalisations:
"Hegel brilliantly
divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature)
in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more
popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the
alternation, reciprocal dependence of all
notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions
of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel
brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat
constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without
exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain
connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.
Italic
emphases in the original. First bold
emphasis alone added.]
Lenin
is quite open about the origin of his ideas in these private
notebooks: dialectics derives its 'evidential' support -- not from a
"patient empirical examination of the facts" -- but from studying Hegel! As far as
evidence goes that is it!That's all there is! The search for evidence
begins and ends with dialecticians leafing through Hegel's Logic. That is
the extent of the 'evidence' Lenin offered in support of his assertions about
"all notions" without exception, about "all phenomena and processes in nature",
and about nature's "eternal development", etc., etc.
As
the rest of this Essay (and other Essays posted here) will show, this cavalier
approach to the 'science of dialectics' is shared by every other DM-theorist.
Admittedly, Lenin did add the following comment (however, on this see
here):
"The correctness of this aspect of the
content of dialectics must be tested by the history of science." [Ibid.,
p.357.]
Many
other dialecticians make similar claims, or at least pay lip-service to them (for
example, this one).
However, as has been noted several times already, the other things they say
flatly contradict this seemingly modest admission. The theses Lenin and others
advance go way beyond the available evidence -- and way beyond any conceivable
body of evidence. In fact, they transcend the listing of mereexamples.
Who says so? Lenin, that is who. [See below.]
Lenin also claimed that human knowledge will only ever be
partial and incomplete:
"…[the] basis of philosophical materialism
and the distinction between metaphysical materialism and dialectical
materialism. The recognition of immutable elements…and so forth, is not
materialism, but metaphysical, i.e., anti-dialectical, materialism….
Dialectical materialism insists on the approximate, relative character of every
scientific theory of the structure of matter and its properties; it insists
on the absence of absolute boundaries in nature, on the transformation of moving
matter from one state into another." [Lenin (1972),
p.312.
Bold emphasis added. Several more DM-passages that say the same sort of thing
have been posted
here.]
However, neither Lenin nor the most
pedanticallythorough and determined 'dialectical sleuth' will ever be in
a position to justify the sweeping a priori claims we find DM-theorists
like Lenin regularly making -- for example, those about the "eternal development
of the world".
How could anything in the entire
history of science (past, present, and future) confirm something as sweeping as
that?
[UO = Unity of Opposites.]
Moreover, Lenin himself admitted as much in the
very next few sentences:
"This aspect of dialectics…usually
receives inadequate attention: the identity of opposites is taken as the sum
total of
examples…and not as a law of cognition (and
as a law of the objective world)." [Ibid.,
p.357. Bold emphasis alone added.]
So it
seems that
the need to provide evidence is a distraction, one
that dedicated dialecticians should rightly eschew. In this particular case, the
thesis that UOs exist everywhere in nature and society, and which govern every
single instance of change right across the universe, for all of time, since it
expresses a "law of cognition", a "law of the objective world", and
it is these "laws" that legitimise and justify the imposition of dialectical dogma on nature. Indeed, here is
Herbert Marcuse endorsing this a priori approach to knowledge:
"The doctrine of Essence seeks to
liberate knowledge from the worship of 'observable facts' and from the
scientific common sense that imposes this worship.... The real field of
knowledge is not the given fact about things as they are, but the critical
evaluation of them as a prelude to passing beyond their given form. Knowledge
deals with appearances in order to get beyond them. 'Everything, it is said, has
an essence, that is, things really are not what they immediately show
themselves. There is therefore something more to be done than merely rove from
one quality to another and merely to advance from one qualitative to
quantitative, and vice versa: there is a permanence in things, and that
permanent is in the first instance their Essence.' The knowledge that
appearance and essence do not jibe is the beginning of truth. The mark of
dialectical thinking is the ability to distinguish the essential from the
apparent process of reality and to grasp their relation." [Marcuse (1973),
pp.145-46. Marcuse is here quoting
Hegel (1975), p.163,
§112. Minor typo corrected.
Bold emphasis added.]
'Observable facts' just get in the way of these dogmatists!
George Orwell had a few thoughts about this:
Figure One: 'Unity Of
Opposites' -- The Party And
'The Dialectic'
Are Right Even When They Are Wrong
[We
will see that DM-fans like Mao, C L R James and David DeGrood make similar points,
here and
here.]
Anyway, as we will
also see (here
and here),
this "law of cognition" is in fact no law at all, since it is based on a
series of logical blunders committed by Hegel.
Nevertheless, in the next few sections of his Notebooks Lenin went on to describe this particular DM-theory
-- the universal existence of UOs -- in the
following terms:
"The identity of opposites…is the
recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies
in all
phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all
processes of the world in their 'self-movement,' in their spontaneous
development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of
opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone
furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing…." [Ibid.,
pp.357-58. Bold emphasis alone added.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
Now,
the uncommitted reader might be forgiven for thinking that the claim (recorded
earlier, repeated below) that DM doesn't provide its adepts with a "master-key"
for the interpretation of everything in the universe -- to which maxim all
aspiring dialecticians at least pay lip-service
-- has here been rescinded by Lenin. In this passage Lenin describes the
struggle of opposites as "the key to the self-movement of everything existing"
(and, note, it isn't a key, it is the key). This "everything" must
surely have included the countless facts and theories that were way beyond the science of
his day -- or, indeed, way beyond contemporary andany conceivable future
state of scientific knowledge. If this principle covers "everything
existing", it must surely encompass, say, the behaviour of elementary particles
at the outermost fringes of space and time, far beyond anything humanity
could ever encounter,
and much else besides.
Compare Lenin's words with what John Rees had earlier pointed out:
"Trotsky warns against seeing the
dialectic as a 'magic master
key for all questions'. The dialectic is not a calculator into which it is possible to punch the
problem and allow it to compute the solution. This would be an idealist method.
A materialist dialectic must grow from a patient, empirical examination
of the facts and not be imposed on them…." [Rees (1998), p.271; mis-quoting
Trotsky (1973), p.233.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.
Bold emphasis added.]
But,
we have just seen Lenin inform us that a belief in the universal existence of
UOs is indeed "the key" to understanding everything in existence, flatly
contradicting what Rees (and Trotsky) had said. If it unlocks "everything
existing", it must be a master key. So, if Lenin is right,
it is perfectly clear why the need to provide evidence is a
distraction; the a priori approach to knowledge that DM-theorists
have inherited from Traditional Philosophy means that evidence is not only
unnecessary, it is to be avoided wherever possible!6a
As
these two authors note:
"Empirical,
contingent
truths have always struck
philosophers as being, in some sense, ultimately unintelligible. It is not that
none can be known with certainty…; nor is it that some cannot be explained….
Rather is it that all explanation of empirical truths rests ultimately on brute
contingency -- that is how the world is! Where science comes to rest in
explaining empirical facts varies from epoch to epoch, but it is in the nature
of empirical explanation that it will hit the bedrock of contingency somewhere,
e.g., in atomic theory in the nineteenth century or in
quantum mechanics
today. One feature that
explains philosophers' fascination with
truths of Reason
is that they seem, in a
deep sense, to be fully intelligible. To understand a necessary proposition is
to see why things must be so, it is to gain an insight into the nature of
things and to apprehend not only how things are, but also why they cannot be
otherwise. It is striking how pervasive visual metaphors are in philosophical
discussions of these issues. We see the universal in the particular (by
Aristotelian intuitive induction); by the Light of Reason we see the essential
relations of
Simple Natures; mathematical truths are
apprehended by Intellectual Intuition, or by
a priori insight. Yet instead of examining the use of these arresting
pictures or metaphors to determine their aptness as pictures, we build
upon them mythological structures.
"We think of necessary
propositions as being
true or false, as objective and independent of our minds or will. We
conceive of them as being about various entities, about numbers even
about extraordinary numbers that the mind seems barely able to grasp…, or about
universals, such as colours, shapes, tones; or about logical entities, such as
the truth-functions or (in Frege's
case) the truth-values. We naturally think of necessary propositions as
describing the features of these entities, their essential characteristics.
So we take mathematical propositions to describe mathematical objects…. Hence
investigation into the domain of necessary propositions is conceived as a
process of discovery. Empirical scientists make discoveries about the
empirical domain, uncovering contingent truths; metaphysicians, logicians and
mathematicians appear to make discoveries of necessary truths about a
supra-empirical domain (a 'third
realm'). Mathematics seems to be the 'natural history of
mathematical objects' [Wittgenstein
(1978), p.137], 'the physics of numbers' [Wittgenstein (1976), p.138; however
these authors record this erroneously as p.139 -- RL] or the 'mineralogy of
numbers' [Wittgenstein (1978), p.229]. The mathematician, e.g.,
Pascal,
admires the beauty of a theorem as though it were a kind of crystal.
Numbers seem to him to have wonderful properties; it is as if he were
confronting a beautiful natural phenomenon [Wittgenstein (1998), p.47; again,
these authors have recorded this erroneously as p.41 -- RL]. Logic seems to
investigate the laws governing logical objects…. Metaphysics looks as if it is a
description of the essential structure of the world. Hence we think that a
reality corresponds to our (true) necessary propositions. Our logic is
correct because it corresponds to the laws of logic….
"In our eagerness to ensure
the objectivity of truths of reason, their sempiternality
and mind-independence, we slowly but surely transform them into truths that are
no less 'brutish' than empirical, contingent truths. Why must red exclude
being green? To be told that this is the essential nature of red and green
merely reiterates the brutish necessity. A proof in arithmetic or geometry seems
to provide an explanation, but ultimately the structure of proofs rests on
axioms. Their truth is held to be self-evident, something we apprehend by
means of our faculty of intuition; we must simply see that they are
necessarily true…. We may analyse such ultimate truths into their constituent
'indefinables'. Yet if 'the discussion of indefinables…is the endeavour to see
clearly, and to make others see clearly, the entities concerned, in order that
the mind may have that kind of acquaintance with them which it has with redness
or the taste of a pineapple' [Russell
(1937), p.xv (this links to a PDF); again these authors record this erroneously as p.v;
although in the edition to which I have linked, it is p.xliii -- RL], then the
mere intellectual vision does not penetrate the logical or metaphysical
that to the why or wherefore…. For if we construe necessary
propositions as truths about logical, mathematical or metaphysical entities
which describe their essential properties, then, of course, the final products
of our analyses will be as impenetrable to reason as the final products of
physical theorising, such as
Planck's constant."
[Baker and Hacker (1988), pp.273-75. Referencing conventions in the original
have been altered to conform with those adopted at this site. Links added.]
A
thought underlined by this author, too:
"Already
with
Fichte
the idea of
the unity of the sciences, of system, was connected with that of finding a
reliable starting-point in certainty on which knowledge could be based. Thinkers
from
Kant
onwards were quite convinced that the kind of knowledge which came from
experience was not reliable. Empirical knowledge could be subject to error,
incomplete, or superseded by further observation or experiment. It would be
foolish, therefore, to base the whole of knowledge on something which had been
established only empirically. The kind of knowledge which Kant and his followers
believed to be the most secure was a priori knowledge, the kind embodied in the
laws of Nature. These had been formulated without every occurrence of the
Natural phenomenon in question being observed, so they did not summarise
empirical information, and yet they held good by necessity for every case; these
laws were truly universal in their application." [White (1996), p.29. Bold
emphasis added.]
This
approach to 'knowledge' is an expression of an ancient tradition -- which long predates Kant and Fichte
-- that DM-fans have
bought into. No wonder they see no problem with all this a priori
thesis-mongering.
Clearly, in the minds of many dialecticians, the acceptance of an
evidence-based science is a sop to 'crude materialism' -- or even worse,
it is a compromise with -- shock horror! --'empiricism' and 'positivism'!
It is to abandon the 'doctrine of essence'.
In
fact, whenever I demand of dialecticians evidence to justify their a priori
theses, they accuse me of being an "empiricist", or a "positivist" -- or, they
engage in
special pleading, arguing that their theory doesn't need evidential support,
despite what George Novack argued (quoted earlier):
"A consistent materialism cannot
proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason,
intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source.
Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon
evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in
practice...." [Novack (1965), p.17. Bold emphasis added.]
Such
special
pleading is, of course, an indirect admission that the above allegations are
indeed correct -- that is, that DM-theses are dogmatic, a priori, and have
been imposed on those 'unreliable' facts.
In
stark contrast, however, opponents of DM are given a hard time if they
don't or can't supply any -- or any adequate -- evidence in support of their criticisms of
dialectics. In that case, the demand that evidence be produced in support
of some theory or other can't itself be sufficient to brand the one demanding it an "empiricist" -- since dialecticians demand this of their opponents. It
must be as follows: "Any critic who has the temerity to hold dialecticians to
account and demand that they be consistent with the boast that their
theory hasn't been foisted on nature, but has been derived from the evidence,
is bang out of order." In that case, the DM-expletives "empiricist" and
"positivist" must be synonymous with "yet another annoying critic who can't see that
there is no contradiction between the claim that dialectics hasn't been imposed
on nature and actually imposing dialectics on nature".
Contrast this with Marx's attitude (expressed in the German Ideology):
"The premises from which we begin are
not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can
only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity
and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find
already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can
thus be verified in a purely empirical way....
"The fact is, therefore, that definite
individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these
definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each
separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and
speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with
production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of
the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may
appear in their own or other people's imagination, but as they really are; i.e.
as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite
material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will." [Marx
and Engels (1970), pp.42, 46-47. Bold emphases added.]
Was
Marx an 'empiricist' for appealing to empirical evidence? Was Engels an
'empiricist' when he wrote this?
"We all agree that in every field of
science, in natural and historical science, one must proceed from the given
facts, in natural science therefore from the various material forms of
motion of matter; that therefore in theoretical natural science too the
interconnections are not to be built into the facts but to be discovered in
them, and when discovered to be verified as far as possible by experiment."
[Engels (1954),p.47. Bold emphases alone added.]
So, when we look more closely at the way that dialecticians express their
ideas, we find they aren't in fact based on evidence but are based on
"objective" laws, on "laws of cognition", on "dialectical logic", on "axioms"
(as Trotsky himself admitted, recorded below), on assorted
"insistences", "demands" and "requirements".
Hence, the request for evidence is downright dialectically demeaning; small wonder then
that DM-fans take umbrage when it is requested.
In
this way, therefore, we see Hegel's Idealism -- even when it has allegedly been
put 'the right way up' -- has taken over. Indeed, rather like the
capitalist system will tend to re-assert itself if it hasn't been totally eradicated, this
ruling-class,
a priori theory will do the same. Boss-class thought-forms can't be reformed,
any more than it is possible to reform this rotten system in order to turn it into a
socialist society.
Plainly, therefore, DM
is "objective" for believers since
their world is ultimately
Ideal, its logical form having been constructed in thought by Hegel and his
mystical forbears long before any evidence was available. DM-theorists
have in their possession an Ideal Master Key, which means they can unlock
the secrets concerning the "eternal development of the world". Hence, the
materialist aims of these erstwhile negators of ruling-class thought are
themselves negated; they end up adopting the traditional thought-forms of the
class enemy, the "ruling ideas", as Marx and Engels pointed out:
"The
ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class
which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling
intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its
disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so
that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of
mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than
the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant
material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make
the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The
individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness,
and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and
determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do
this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as
producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of
their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch." [Marx and
Engels (1970), pp.64-65, quoted from
here.
Bold emphases added.]
"[D]espite all its
invectives against dogmatism, it condemns itself to dogmatism...faded, widowed
Hegelian philosophy which paints and adorns its body, shrivelled into the
most repulsive abstraction...." [Marx
and Engels (1975a), p.20. Italic emphasis in the original.]
"The mistake lies in the fact
that these laws are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not
deduced from them. This is the source of the whole forced and often outrageous
treatment; the universe, willy-nilly, is made out to be arranged in accordance
with a system of thought which itself is only the product of a definite
stage of evolution of human thought." [Engels
(1954), p.62. Bold emphasis added.]
"We all agree that in every field of
science, in natural and historical science, one must proceed from the given
facts, in natural science therefore from the various material forms of
motion of matter; that therefore in theoretical natural science too the
interconnections are not to be built into the facts but to be discovered in
them, and when discovered to be verified as far as possible by experiment.
"Just as little can it be a question of
maintaining the dogmatic content of the Hegelian system as it was preached by
the Berlin Hegelians of the older and younger line." [Ibid.,
p.47. Bold emphasis alone added.]
"In this way, however, the whole dogmatic content of the Hegelian system is
declared to be absolute truth, in contradiction to his dialectical method, which
dissolves all dogmatism...." [Engels
(1888), p.589. Bold emphasis added.]
Reformism, therefore,
isn't any less misguided in Philosophy than it is in Politics.6b
It now seems perfectly
clear that we have indeed found the Dialectical Master
Key --, a key that opens the "doors
of perception" and cognition, and which explains why so few
dialecticians ever bother to provide adequate -- or sometimes any(!) --, evidence in support of their universal,
omni-temporal theses, and why they react with genuine surprise
when they are required to do so.6c
In
this respect, Lenin's approach mirrors that of other prominent dialecticians.
Indeed, we find Bukharin asserting the following:
"There are two possible ways of
regarding
everything in nature and in society; in the eyes of some everything is
constantly at rest, immutable…. To others, however, it appears that there is
nothing unchanging in nature or in society…. This second point of view is called
the dynamic point of view…; the former point of view is called static.
Which is the correct position?... Even a hasty glance at nature will at
once convince us that there is nothingimmutable
about it….
"Evidently…there is nothing
immutableand rigid in theuniverse…. Matter in motion: such is the stuff of
this world…. This dynamic point of view is also called the dialectic
point of view….
"The world being in constant
motion, we must consider phenomena in their mutual relations, and not as
isolated cases. All portions of the universe are actually related to each
other and exert an influence on each other…. All things in the universe are
connected with an indissoluble bond; nothing exists as an isolated object,
independent of its surroundings….
"In
the first place, therefore, the dialectic method of interpretation demands
that all phenomena be considered in their indissoluble relations; in the second
place, that they be considered in their state of motion….
"Since everything in the world is in
a state of change, and indissolubly connected with everything else,
we
must draw the necessary conclusions for the social sciences….
"The basis of all things is
therefore the
law of change, the law of constant motion. Two philosophers
particularly (the ancient Heraclitus and the modern Hegel…) formulated this law
of change, but they did not stop there. They also set up the question of the
manner in which the process operates. The answer they discovered was that
changes are produced by constant internal contradictions, internal struggle.
Thus, Heraclitus declared: 'Conflict is the mother of all happenings,' while
Hegel said: 'Contradiction is the power that moves things.'
"There is no doubt of the correctness of
this law. A moment's thought will convince the reader. For, if there were
no conflict, no clash of forces, the world would be in a condition of unchanging
stable equilibrium, i.e., complete and absolute permanence, a state of rest
precluding all motion…. As we alreadyknow that all things change, all
things are 'in flux', it is certain that such an absolute state of rest
cannot possibly exist. We must therefore reject a condition in which
there is no 'contradiction between opposing and colliding forces' no disturbance
of equilibrium, but only an absolute immutability….
"In other words, theworld
consists of forces, acting many ways, opposing each other. These forces are
balanced for a moment in exceptional cases only. We then have a state of 'rest',
i.e., their actual 'conflict' is concealed. But if we change only one of these
forces, immediately the 'internal contradictions' will be revealed, equilibrium
will be disturbed, and if a new equilibrium is again established, it will be on
a new basis, i.e., with a new combination of forces, etc. It follows that the
'conflict,' the 'contradiction,' i.e., the antagonism of forces acting in
various directions, determines the motion of the system….
"Hegel speaks of a transition of
quantity into quality….
"The transformation of quantity into
quality is one of the fundamental laws in the motion of matter; it may be
traced at
every step both in nature and society…." [Bukharin (1925), pp.63-67,
72-74, 80. Bold emphases added.]
Here is yet another dialectician -- albeit one heavily criticised by Lenin, but
not for his dogmatism -- happily 'deriving' DM-theses from a few hastily
constructed 'thought experiments' and a priori
theories of earlier Idealists.
In
this regard, it is worth noting that Bukharin attributes the invention of the
so-called "law of change" to
Heraclitus,
a theorist who happened on that particular idea without the benefit of too much
supporting evidence -- since he lived at a time when little was known about the universe, let alone about the vanishingly small region he inhabited.
Indeed, Heraclitus's hyper-bold claim was based on what he thought was true
about the possibilities of stepping into the same river! Naturally, this
didn't stop him from pontificating about all of reality, for all of time
--, when for example he declared that "everything flows" -- just like his
latter-day DM-progeny.
Admittedly, Bukharin did make a half-baked attempt to provide his
readers with a few pages of 'evidence' in support of his claim that these
laws operate
everywhere, for
all of time (ibid., pp.67-71 --, which he, too, "demands"
should apply to all phenomena). But, most of the 'data' he offered in
support was secondary and
tertiary, copied from other
DM-sources (or, of course, from Hegel). If this wasn't quite so serious,
Bukharin's
superficial gesture at providing adequate proof to back up these universal assertions would be a joke. For example, how could
he possibly have
known that "all portions of the universe" are interrelated?
In
fact, his supporting evidence looks thinner than George W Bush's excuse for
invading Iraq.
Small wonder then that I have branded this cavalier approach to evidence,
Mickey Mouse Science.
All that Bukharin offered his
bemused readers by way of support for that particular claim (i.e., that all
parts of the universe are interconnected) was the following extremely brief
thought experiment:
"I am now writing on paper with a pen. I
thus impart pressures to the table; the table presses on the earth, calling
forth a number of further changes. I move my hand, vibrate as I breathe, and
these motions pass on in slight impulses ending Lord knows where. The
fact that these may be but small changes does not change the essential nature of
the matter. All things in the universe are connected with an indissoluble
bond…." [Ibid., p.66. Bold emphases added.]
Those
who are tempted to conclude that this 'argument' is sufficient to
establish the above theses about everything in the entire universe, for all time
(underpinned, no doubt, by means of yet another prayer to the "Lord"), should
now perhaps consult a dictionary and remind themselves what the words "evidence" and
"sufficient" mean, and then maybe think again.
Indeed, even if we were to be extremely charitable to Bukharin here, and count
this charade as evidence, the very best it might show is that some things
in the universe might be connected, but how it shows they are inter-connected
Bukharin annoyingly kept to himself.
[For
example, how is the typing of this word -- "anti-dialectics" -- now
inter-connected with the
Battle
of Actium? Someone might object that these aren't the sorts of things that
the theory supposes are inter-connected, but that is the problem. No one
knows what this theory does imply. On that, see Essay Eleven
Part One.]
In addition,
Bukharin argued that with respect to change there are only two
choices before us: (i) The view that nothing changes at all, and (ii) The view
that all things change all the time. But, he failed to consider a third option
(thus excluding it): that (iii) Some things change while others do not. An
acceptance of the possibility of a third alternative would at least have the merit of
undermining Bukharin's own un-dialectical use of the "either-or of
understanding, and commonsense" in order to rule out the excluded middle --
i.e., either
(i) or (ii).
"Instead of speaking by the
maxim of Excluded Middle (which is the maxim of abstract understanding) we
should rather say: Everything is opposite.Neither in heaven nor in
Earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an
abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is
concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things will
then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being, and what
they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the
same time the base: in other words, its only being consists in its relation to
its other. Hence also the acid is not something that persists quietly in the
contrast: it is always in effort to realise what it potentially is." [Hegel
(1975), p.174;
Essence as Ground of Existence,
§119.
Bold emphasis added. The serious problems this dogmatic and a priori
diktat creates for Hegel, which he nowhere tries to justify, are detailed
here.]
"To the
metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be
considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of
investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely
irreconcilable antitheses. 'His communication is "yea, yea; nay, nay"; for
whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.' For him a thing either exists or
does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else.
Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another, cause and effect stand in
a rigid antithesis one to the other.
"At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is
that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable
fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful
adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the
metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and even necessary as it is in a
number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular
object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it
becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In
the contemplation of individual things it forgets the connection between them;
in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of
that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood
for the trees." [Engels
(1976), p.26. Bold emphasis added.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
"For a stage in the outlook
on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all
opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical
method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no
hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which
bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises
also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is
the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage.
Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical
categories retain their validity." [Engels
(1954), pp.212-13.
Bold emphasis added.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
"…[the] basis of philosophical materialism
and the distinction between metaphysical materialism and dialectical
materialism. The recognition of immutable elements…and so forth, is not
materialism, but metaphysical, i.e., anti-dialectical, materialism….
Dialectical materialism insists on the approximate, relative character of every
scientific theory of the structure of matter and its properties; it insists
on the absence of absolute boundaries in nature, on the transformation of moving
matter from one state into another." [Lenin (1972),
p.312.
Bold emphasis added.]
Even
so, on what basis could Bukharin have been quite sosure that there is
absolutely nothing changeless in the entire universe, for all of time? Had he
completed a thorough check of the outer fringes of the Galaxy, and beyond, before he concluded
this? Surely, the rational thing to do here would be to wait for the
development of scientific knowledge, not
lay down hard-and-fast, immutable laws about a mutable universe. Of course,
Bukharin wasn't to know that scientists would one day conclude that there are
indeed such changeless objects in nature, or that there are countless
trillions of them in every microgram of matter.
As is pointed out in
Note4,
each proton, for example, is estimated to have a lifespan of 1032
years (it may turn out to be entirely changeless since that estimate was only
advanced to make it accord with the
Standard
Model and the
BBT).
Apparently, electrons and photons are, if anything, even more awkwardly un-dialectical.
[BBT = Big Bang Theory.]
Clearly, the scientific thing to do here isn't to issue dialectical
"demands", "insistences", "requirements", or caveats that nature
must conform with this or that a priori law or precept -- imposing a
specific structure on a recalcitrant world --, but to study nature and
draw conclusions from it.
Turning to another DM-classicist, Trotsky; his comments on the universal
applicability of DM (beyond all available, or even conceivable,
evidence) are equally unambiguous, equally dogmatic. Consider the following:
"[A]ll bodies change uninterruptedly
in size, weight, colour etc. They are never equal to themselves…. [T]he
axiom 'A' is equal to 'A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does
not change, that is, if it does not exist…. For concepts there also exists
'tolerance' which is established not by formal logic…, but by the
dialectical logic issuing from the axiom that everything is always changing….
Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into
quality, development through contradiction, conflict and form, interruption of
continuity, change of possibility into inevitability, etc…." [Trotsky
(1971),
pp.64-66. Bold emphases added.]
"Every individual is a
dialectician to some extent or other, in most cases, unconsciously. A
housewife knows that a certain amount of salt flavours soup agreeably, but that
added salt makes the soup unpalatable. Consequently, an illiterate peasant woman
guides herself in cooking soup by the Hegelian law of the transformation of
quantity into quality…. Even animals arrive at their practical
conclusions…on the basis of the Hegelian dialectic. Thus a fox is aware
that quadrupeds and birds are nutritious and tasty…. When the same fox, however,
encounters the first animal which exceeds it in size, for example, a wolf, it
quickly concludes that quantity passes into quality, and turns to flee.
Clearly, the legs of a fox are equipped with Hegelian tendencies, even if
not fully conscious ones. All this demonstrates, in passing, that our methods of
thought, both formal logic and the dialectic, are not arbitrary constructions of
our reason but
rather expressions of the actual inter-relationships in nature itself. In
this sense the universe is permeated with 'unconscious' dialectics." [Ibid.,
pp.106-07. Bold emphases added.]
"It must be recognized that the
fundamental law of dialectics is the conversion of quantity into quality, for it
gives [us] the
general formula of all evolutionary processes -– of nature as well as of
society.
"…The principle of the transformation
of quantity into quality has universal significance, insofar as we view the
entire universe -- without any exception -- as a product of formation and
transformation….
"In these abstract formulas we have the
most general laws (forms) of motion, change, the transformation of the stars of
the heaven, of the earth, nature and human society.
"…Dialectics is the logic of
development. It examines the world -- completely without exception
-– not as a result of creation, of a sudden beginning, the realisation of a
plan, but as a result of motion, of transformation. Everything that is became
the way it is as a result of lawlike development." [Trotsky (1986), pp.88,
90, 96. Bold emphases added.]
Once
again, how could Trotsky possibly have known all this? Was he really able
to read the minds of peasant women and foxes?
As we
found was the case with Lenin's unlimited access to the otherwise restricted
regions of the 'Divine' knowledge of 'Being', these questions needn't detain us
for long here, either; Trotsky provided the answer. His conclusions were based -- not on
evidence --, but on the "axiom" that "everything is always changing".
But,
from which noted scientist did Trotsky obtain these amazing ideas? Wonder no
more:
"Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into
quality, development through contradiction, conflict and form, interruption of
continuity, change of possibility into inevitability, etc…." [Trotsky
(1971),
pp.64-66. Bold emphasis added.]
Of course, Hegel "established" no such thing;
he either asserted the above 'laws' dogmatically, or he appealed to his
own brand of impromptu Mickey
Mouse Science in support -- for example, 'substantiating' the 'law' of
the change of 'quantity into quality', applicable everywhere and
for all of time, by an appeal to water freezing(!):
"It is said, natura non facit saltum [there are no leaps in nature]; and
ordinary thinking when it has to grasp a coming-to-be or a ceasing-to-be, fancies it has done so by representing it as a gradual emergence or disappearance. But we have seen that the alterations of being in general are not only the transition of one magnitude into another,
but a transition from quality into quantity and vice versa, a becoming-other which is an interruption of gradualness and the production of something qualitatively different from the reality which preceded it. Water, in cooling, does not gradually harden as if it thickened like porridge, gradually solidifying until it reached the consistency of ice; it suddenly solidifies, all at once. It can remain quite fluid even at freezing point if it is standing undisturbed, and then a slight shock will bring it into the solid state."
[Hegel
(1999), p.370, §776. Bold emphases alone added.]
Can
anyone imagine, say, Darwin attempting to substantiate his theory by appealing
to just one example of variation or natural selection, in only one species?
Of
course,
if something is an axiom, supporting evidence ("patiently" collected or
otherwise) would be irrelevant. Only a hopelessly confused mathematician, for example,
would seek empirical evidence to justify the axiom that "a + b = b + a".
[Anyway, as we will discover in Essays Seven Part One (here),
and Nine Part One (here),
Trotsky's 'argument' (i.e., the one involving peasant women and foxes, etc.) is
so full of holes, it could well serve as a colander.]
Again, just like Lenin, Trotsky was open and honest about where he obtained these "laws";
they weren't derived from careful work done in a laboratory, nor were they based
on tests carried out in the field, nor yet on surveys of workers'
attitudes and the views of peasant women -- or even on the 'beliefs' of
foxes --, they were lifted from Hegel's Logic. And, as far as can be
ascertained, Hegel did no experiments, either -- on peasants, soup or
foxes. And we already know where Hegel obtained most of his ideas: from
the writings and speculations of
Hermetic mystics and religious
fanatics who littered the Germany of his day and earlier centuries.
This
sordid history will exposed in Essay Fourteen Part One (summary
here).
Not
to be outdone, other DM-classicists have joined the dogmatic dialectical
chorus-line. Here is Plekhanov:
"According to Hegel, dialectics is
the principle of all life…. [M]an has two qualities: first being alive,
and secondly of also being mortal. But on closer examination it turns out that
life itself bears in itself the germ of death, and that in general
any phenomenon is contradictory, in the sense that it develops out
of itself the elements which, sooner or later, will put an end to its existence
and will transform it into its opposite. Everything flows, everything changes;
and there is no force capable of holding back this constant flux, or arresting
its eternal movement. There is no force capable of resisting the dialectics of
phenomena….
"At a particular moment a moving body is
at a particular spot, but at the same time it is outside it as well because, if
it were only in that spot, it would, at least for that moment, become
motionless.
Every motion is a dialectical process, a living contradiction, and as
there is not a single phenomenon of nature in explaining which we do not have in
the long run to appeal to motion, we have to agree with Hegel, who said that
dialectics is the soul of any scientific cognition. And this applies not
only to cognition of nature….
"And so every phenomenon,
by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or
later, but
inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite….
"When you apply the dialectical method
to the study of phenomena, you need to remember that forms change
eternally in consequence of the 'higher development of their content….'
"In the words of Engels, Hegel's merit
consists in the fact that he was the first to regard all phenomena from
the point of view of their development, from the point of view of their origin
and destruction….
"[M]odern science confirms at every step
the idea expressed with such genius by Hegel, that quantity passes into
quality….
"[I]t will be understood without
difficulty by anyone who is in the least capable of dialectical
thinking...[that]
quantitative changes, accumulating gradually, lead in the end to
changes of quality, and that these changes of quality represent leaps,
interruptions in gradualness…. That's how all Nature acts…."
[Plekhanov
(1956), pp.74-77, 88, 163. Bold
emphases alone added. (Unfortunately,
the Index page for the copy
of this book over at
The Marxist Internet Archive has no link to the
second half of Chapter Five, but it can be accessed directly
here. I have informed the editors of this error.
Added June 2015: they have
now corrected it!)]
"Hegel goes on to show by a
number of examples how often leaps take place in Nature and in history….
"This dialectical view of Hegel's
as to the inevitability of leaps in the process of
development
was adopted in full by Marx and Engels….
"Thus [Engels] indicated that the
transition from one form of energy to another cannot take place otherwise
than by means of a leap…. Generally, speaking, he found that the
rights of
dialectical thinking are confirmed by the dialectical properties of being….
"Herzen was right in saying that
Hegel's
philosophy…was a genuine algebra of revolution….
"[W]e may say that this dialectic was
the first to supply a method necessary and competent to solve the problem of the rational causes of all that exists….
"The motion of matter lies at the root
of all natural phenomena. But motion is a contradiction. It should be
judged in a dialectical manner…. Only the motion of matter is eternal, and
matter itself is indestructible substance….
"'All is flux, nothing is
stationary,' said the ancient thinker from Ephesus. The combinations we call
objects are in a state of constant and more or less rapid change….
In as much as they change and cease to exist as such, we must address
ourselves to the logic of contradiction….
"…[M]otion does not only make objects…,
it is constantly changing them.
It is for this reason that the logic of motion (the 'logic of
contradiction') never relinquishes its rights over the objects created by motion….
"With Hegel, thinking progresses in
consequence of the uncovering and resolution of the contradictions
inclosed (sic) in
concepts. According to our doctrine…the contradictions embodied in
concepts are merely reflections, translations into the language of thought,
of those contradictions that are embodied in phenomena owing to the
contradictory nature of their common basis, i.e., motion….
"…[T]he overwhelming majority of
phenomena that come within the compass of the natural and the social sciences
are among 'objects' of this kind…[:ones in which there is a coincidence of
opposites]. Diametrically opposite phenomena are united in the simplest
globule of protoplasm, and the life of the most undeveloped society….
"But this 'logic of
contradiction,' which, as we have seen, is the reflection in the human brain of
the eternal process of movement..." [Plekhanov
(1908), pp.35-38, 92-100. Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered
to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Unfortunately, the last
six paragraphs above appear in the Appendix to Plekhanov (1908), which hasn't
been reproduced at The Marxist Internet Archive with the rest of the book. Nor
do they appear in Plekhanov's Selected Works -- i.e, Plekhanov (1976). They can,
however, be found
here, under the title Dialectic and Logic. As far as I can determine,
in print and in English, they only appear in the Lawrence & Wishart edition.
The notes to that edition tell us the following: "This appendix is an extract
from Plekhanov's preface to Engels's Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of
Classical German Philosophy. These notes on dialectic and logic were
included in the German edition of the book in accordance with Plekhanov's wish."
(Ibid., p.110, Note 98.)]
"We know that Hegel called his method
dialectical; why did he do so?
"In his
Phänomenologie des Geistes he compares human life with dialogue, in the
sense that under the pressure of experience our views gradually change, as
happens to the opinions of disputants participating in a discussion of a
profound intellectual nature. Comparing the course of development of
consciousness with the progress of such a discussion, Hegel designated it by the
word dialectics, or dialectical motion. This word had already been used
by Plato, but it was Hegel who gave it its especially profound and important
meaning. To Hegel, dialectics is the soul of all scientific knowledge. It is of
extraordinary importance to comprehend its nature. It is the principle of all
motion, of all life, of all that occurs in reality. According to Hegel, the
finite is not only limited from without, but by virtue of its own nature it
negates itself and passes into its own opposite. All that exists can be taken as
an example to explain the nature of dialectics. Everything is fluid,
everything changes, everything passes away. Hegel compares the power of
dialectics with divine omnipotence. Dialectics is that universal
irresistible force which nothing can withstand. At the same time dialectics
makes itself felt in each separate phenomenon of each separate sphere of life.
Take motion. At a given moment, a body in motion is at a given point, but at the
very same moment it is also beyond that point too, since if it remained only
at the given point it would be motionless. All motion is a living
contradiction; all motion is a dialectical process. But the whole life of
nature is motion; so that in the study of nature it is absolutely essential to
adopt the dialectical viewpoint. Hegel sharply condemns those naturalists
who forget this. But the main reproach he addresses to them is that in their
classifications they put a wide and impassable gulf between things which in fact
pass into one another in obedience to the irresistible force of the law of
dialectical motion. The subsequent triumph of transformism in biology
clearly demonstrated that this reproach had a quite sound theoretical basis.
Exactly the same is being demonstrated by the remarkable discoveries in
chemistry which are proceeding before our very eyes....
"The following, however, should be
noted. Hegel's viewpoint was that of development. But development may be
understood variously. Even now there are naturalists who reiterate with an air
of importance: 'Nature does not make leaps.' Sociologists, too, frequently say:
'Social development is accomplished through slow, gradual changes.' Hegel, on
the contrary, affirmed that just as in nature so also in history, leaps are
inevitable...." [Plekhanov (1917),
pp.601-02. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at
this site. Bold emphases alone added.]
[In
fact, if all of Plekhanov's dogmatic and a priori
assertions had been included in this Essay, it would be several of thousand
words longer still. Some of them will be added to the Appendix at a later
date.]
True-to-form, Plekhanov disarms the reader with the usual claim that his theses
have merely been derived from nature, not read into it:
"Hegel's logic is not at all the
creation of pure thought; it is the outcome of anticipatory abstraction from
nature.... In Hegel's dialectic, almost everything is derived from experience,
so that were experience to take away from dialectic all that the latter had
borrowed from it, dialectics would be reduced to penury." [Plekhanov (1908),
p.95.]
Perhaps Plekhanov had in mind the 'cautious' observations Hegel recorded during
his exhaustive study of heaven and earth with a magic telescope and an
enchanted microscope --,
maybe the following:
"Everything is opposite.
Neither in heaven nor in Earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is
there anywhere such an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains.
Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The
finitude of things will then lie in the want of correspondence between their
immediate being, and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the
acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words, its only being
consists in its relation to its other. Hence also the acid is not something that
persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realise what it
potentially is." [Hegel (1975), p.174;
Essence as Ground of Existence, §119.
Bold emphasis added.]
Of
course, exactly how Hegel derived all of this from 'experience' both he and
Plekhanov left shrouded in mystery -- and there it remains to this day.
[Hegel's comments
have been reduced to the absurdities they clearly imply
here,
here and
here.]
Nevertheless, whatever it was that Hegel did or didn't achieve, Plekhanov
then proceeded to do the exact opposite
of what he attributes to that hyper-imaginative Idealist, extrapolating DM
way beyond the limited confines of the watery thin evidence he offered in support,
imposing this doctrine on reality like a seasoned pro. How, for example, could
he possibly have known this?
"And so every phenomenon,
by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or
later, but
inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite." [Ibid.]
Every phenomena? From the beginning of time to the 'last judgement',
everywhere in the entire universe? In fact, and to spoil the dialectical fun, we
will see in Essay Seven Part Three,
the above, if true, would actually make change impossible.
Beyond admitting that he lifted many of his ideas from Hegel and Heraclitus, how
Plekhanov knew that motion is eternal, that
no force could hold back change, or that "all that exists" has a
"rational cause", he took to his grave. After all, what else could a "dialectic
[that is] the first to supply a method necessary and competent to solve the
problem of the rational causes of all that exists" be but the Master
Key that unlocks the secret to everything in reality -- ahem..., which we
were assured the dialectic isn't?
Stalin isn't widely known for his theoretical sophistication (that is,
if we ignore the few remaining Stalin-'groupies' who congregate in and around the various hardcore
Communist parties the world over -- or, more often,
on the Internet --
many of whom are even now trying to
rehabilitate this
monster), a serious defect he more than made up for in other ways, such as
imposing his will (or, rather, imposing the collective will of the 'soviet' bureaucracy) on the former USSR, foisting DM on nature and society in like manner (and, as we will
see
here, the latter weren't
unconnected).
However, as we have discovered with others, Stalin denies he is a dogmatist, and
then proceeds to be one:
"Marxism is the science of the laws governing the development of nature and
society, the science of the revolution of the oppressed and exploited masses,
the science of the victory of socialism in all countries, the science of
building communist society. As a science, Marxism cannot stand still, it
develops and is perfected. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by
new experience, new knowledge -- consequently some of its formulas and
conclusions cannot but change in the course of time, cannot but be replaced by
new formulas and conclusions, corresponding to the new historical tusks. Marxism
does not recognize invariable conclusions and formulas, obligatory for all
epochs and periods.
Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism.
[Quoted from
here; bold emphasis added.]
And
this is him doing it:
"Dialectical materialism is the world
outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party....
"The dialectical method therefore holds
that
no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself....; and that,
vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its
inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by
surrounding phenomena.
"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics
holds that
nature is not in a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability,
but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and
development....
"The dialectical method therefore
requires
that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their
interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their
movement and change....
"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics
holds that
internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature,
for they all have their negative and positive sides...; and that the
struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new,
between that which is dying away and that which is being born..., constitutes
the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the
transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes....
"If there are no isolated phenomena
in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent,
then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history
must be evaluated not from the standpoint of 'eternal justice'....
"Contrary to idealism..., Marxist
philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully knowable,
that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is
authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and that there
are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things which are
as yet not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of
science and practice." [Stalin (1976b), pp.835-46. Bold emphases added.]
And
this is from an unpublished and unfinished article, Anarchism or Socialism?
"It
is said that social life is in continual motion and development. And that is
true: life must not be regarded as something immutable and static; it never
remains at one level, it is in eternal motion, in an eternal process of
destruction and creation. Therefore, life always contains the new and the
old, the growing and
the dying, the
revolutionary and the counter-revolutionary.
"The dialectical method
tells us that we must regard life as it actually is. We have seen that life
is in continual motion; consequently, we must regard life in its motion and ask:
Where is life going? We have seen that life presents a picture of constant
destruction and creation; consequently, we must examine life in its process of
destruction
and creation and ask: What is being destroyed and what is being created in
life?...
"Hence arose the well-known dialectical proposition: all that which really
exists, i.e., all that which grows day by day is rational, and all that which
decays day by day is irrational and, consequently, cannot avoid defeat....
"Similar processes take
place in nature. The history of science shows that the dialectical method is a
truly scientific method: from astronomy to sociology, in every field we find
confirmation of the idea that nothing is eternal in the universe,
everything changes, everything develops. Consequently, everything in nature must
be regarded from the point of view of movement, development.
And this means that the spirit of dialectics permeates the whole of present-day
science.
"Dialectics
tells us that nothing in the world is eternal, everything in the world is
transient and mutable; nature changes, society changes, habits and customs
change, conceptions of justice change, truth itself changes -- that is why
dialectics regards everything critically; that is why it denies the existence of
a once-and-for-all established truth....
From its
standpoint the world is something eternal and immutable....
"The Anarchists are, of
course, at liberty to note or ignore these facts, they may even ignore the sand
on the sandy seashore -- they have every right to do that. But why drag in the
dialectical method, which, unlike anarchism, does not look at life with its eyes
shut, which has its finger on the pulse of life and openly says: since life changes and
is in motion, every phenomenon of life has two trends: a positive and a negative;
the first we must defend, the second we must reject....
"Everything
in the world changes, everything in life develops...."
[Quoted from here.
Bold emphases alone added.]
I
can't find anywhere in Stalin's writings where he says that DM mustn't be
imposed on nature (although that would seem to classify anyone doing it as a
dogmatist), but it is quite clear from the above that he did it anyway. I doubt that anyone lived long enough to challenge him on this,
even if they had the courage to do so.
How, for instance, could Stalin possibly know that there are no
things in the world which are unknowable? This is reminiscent of some
rather odd things that
Dietzgen said; Stalin perhaps copied that idea
from him.
Hence, it seems that 'Uncle Joe', 'The Great Teacher', was as traditional and dogmatic in his approach
to Philosophy as, say,
Bonaventure was
-- only the former was far more dangerous, of course.
Another of the dialectical 'giants', Mao Tse-Tung, was no less traditional,
no less dogmatic, no less repetitive. Again, true-to-form, Mao began by noting how
undogmatic he
proposed to be:
"The criticism to which the idealism of
the
Deborin
school has been subjected in Soviet philosophical circles in recent years has
aroused great interest among us. Deborin's idealism has exerted a very bad
influence in the Chinese Communist Party, and it cannot be said that the
dogmatist thinking in our Party is unrelated to the approach of that school.
Our present study of philosophy should therefore have the eradication of
dogmatist thinking as its main objective." [Mao (1937),
p.311. Bold emphasis and link added. See also
here.]
On
the opening page of his other major theoretical work, On Practice, the editors added
these thoughts (which must have been met with Mao's approval):
"There used to be a number of comrades in our
Party who were dogmatists and who for a long period rejected the experience of
the Chinese revolution, denying the truth that 'Marxism is not a dogma but a
guide to action' and overawing people with words and phrases from Marxist works,
torn out of context. There were also a number of comrades who were empiricists
and who for a long period restricted themselves to their own fragmentary
experience and did not understand the importance of theory for revolutionary
practice or see the revolution as a whole, but worked blindly though
industriously. The erroneous ideas of these two types of comrades, and
particularly of the dogmatists, caused enormous losses to the Chinese revolution
during 1931-34, and yet the dogmatists cloaking themselves as Marxists, confused
a great many comrades. 'On Practice' was written in order to expose the
subjectivist errors of dogmatism and empiricism in the Party, and especially the
error of dogmatism, from the standpoint of the Marxist theory of knowledge.
It was entitled 'On Practice' because its stress was on exposing the dogmatist
kind of subjectivism, which belittles practice. The ideas contained in this
essay were presented by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in a lecture at the Anti-Japanese
Military and Political College in Yenan." [Mao
(1964c), p.295.
Bold emphasis added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site.]
But,
Mao promptly ruined everything by arguing as follows:
"The reason the dogmatist and empiricist
comrades in China have made mistakes lies precisely in their subjectivist,
one-sided and superficial way of looking at things. To be one-sided and
superficial is at the same time to be subjective. For all objective things
are actually interconnected and are governed by inner laws, but instead of
undertaking the task of reflecting things as they really are some people only
look at things one-sidedly or superficially and who know neither their
interconnections nor their inner laws, and so their method is subjectivist."
[Mao (1937),
p.324. Bold emphasis added.]
And yet, where is Mao's proof (empirical or
otherwise) that all "objective things are actually interconnected and are
governed by inner laws"? As I noted earlier:
As
will soon become apparent, for all their claims to be radical, when it
comes to Philosophy
DM-theorists are
surprisinglyconservative -- and universally incapable of
seeing this even after it has been pointed out to them... At a
rhetorical level, philosophical conservatism like this has been camouflaged behind what at first sight
appears to be a series of disarmingly modest disclaimers,
which are then promptly flouted.
Even
while he was accusing others of "dogmatism", Mao was quite happy to
impose -- in
the very same paragraph! -- some dogmatic ideas of his own,
And,
there is more:
"The law of contradiction in things,
that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist
dialectics....
"As opposed to the metaphysical world
outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to
understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its
relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be
seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in
its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The
fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it
lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal
contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....
"The universality or absoluteness of
contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in
the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the
process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from
beginning to end....
"...There is nothing that does not
contain contradictions; without contradiction nothing would exist....
"Thus it is already clear that
contradiction exists universally and is in all processes, whether in the
simple or in the complex forms of motion, whether in objective phenomena or
ideological phenomena....
"...Contradiction is universal and
absolute, it is present in the process of the development of all things and
permeates every process from beginning to end...." [Ibid.,
pp.311-18. Bold emphases added.]
I
have cut short this selection of quotations from Mao since I fear that if I continue, my
sanity will suffer irreversible damage, to say nothing of the mental health of
the brave souls who have made
it this far. But, similarly repetitive, dogmatic, and baseless assertions litter
the rest of Mao (1937).
[Mao's bogus distinction between 'primary' and secondary' contradictions will be
examined in Essay Nine Part
Two.]
Mao
continues, in full dogmatic overdrive, happy to assert things he couldn't
possibly have known were true:
"First, it is necessary to apply the
Marxist-Leninist law of the unity of opposites to the study of socialist
society. The law of contradiction in all things, i.e., the law of the unity
of opposites, is a fundamental law of materialist dialectics. It operates
everywhere, whether in the natural world, in human society, or in the human
thought.
"The opposites in a contradiction
both unite and struggle with each other, and it is this that forces things to
move and change. Socialist society is no exception. In socialist society
there are two kinds of social contradictions, namely, the contradictions among
the people and those between ourselves and the enemy. These two kinds of
contradictions are entirely different in their essence, and the methods for
handling them should be different, too. Their correct handling will result in
the increasing consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the
further strengthening and development of socialist society.
"Many people acknowledge the law of
the unity of opposites but are unable to apply it in studying and handling
questions in socialist society. They refuse to admit that there are
contradictions in socialist society -- that there are not only
contradictions between ourselves and the enemy but also contradictions among the
people -- and they do not know how to distinguish between these two kinds of
social contradictions and how to handle them correctly, and are therefore unable
to deal correctly with the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat." [Mao
(1964b), quoted
from
here.
Bold emphases added.]
"Marxist philosophy holds
that the law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe.
This law operates universally, whether in the natural world, in human society,
or in man's thinking. Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once
unity and struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change.
Contradictions exist everywhere, but their nature differs in accordance with
the different nature of different things. In any given thing, the unity of
opposites is conditional, temporary and transitory, and hence relative, whereas
the struggle of opposites is absolute. Lenin gave a very clear exposition of
this law. It has come to be understood by a growing number of people in our
country." [Mao
(1977b), pp.392-93. Bold emphases added.]
"We should draw a lesson here: Don’t be
misled by false appearances. Some of our comrades are easily misled by them.
There is contradiction between appearance and essence in everything. It is
by analyzing and studying the appearance of a thing that people come to know its
essence. Hence the need for science. Otherwise, if one could get at the essence
of a thing by intuition, what would be the use of science? What would be the use
of study? Study is called for precisely because there is contradiction between
appearance and essence. There is a difference, though, between the appearance
and the false appearance of a thing, because the latter is false. Hence we draw
the lesson: Try as far as possible not to be misled by false appearances." [Mao
(1977c), pp.165-66. Bold emphasis added.]
[If
I can summon up the will, I will add more of the same to Appendix Two.]
Here,
too, is Mao in a brief article about DM:
"The second fundamental principle of dialectical materialism lies
in its theory of movement (or theory of development). This means the recognition
that
movement is the form of the existence of matter, an inherent attribute of matter,
a manifestation of the multiplicity of matter. This is the principle of the
development of the world. The combination of the principle of the development of
the world with the principle of the unity of the world, set forth above,
constitutes the whole of the world view of dialectical materialism.
The world is nothing else but the material world in a process of unlimited
development…"
['Dialectical
Materialism' (1938). Bold emphases added.]
As
can be seen from these and other passages quoted in this Essay, dialecticians
more than make up for the lack of evidence supporting their cosmically-bold assertions by the number of times they feel compelled to repeat them.
Moreover, as was the case
with Stalin, I can find no evidence in Mao's writings where he says DM mustn't
be imposed on nature (however, as noted above, Mao does attempt to castigate
dogmatism; on that, see also Note 6d), but if he believed in
scientific practice (which he elsewhere says he did; e.g.,
p.296
of Mao (1964a)), then the convoy of trucks containing the mountains of
"carefully collected evidence" that would be needed to justify the above
semi-divine pronouncements must have been mislaid somewhere. During
the
Long March, perhaps?6d
Given
the unprecedented adulation the last two Dialectical Gurus (Mao
and Stalin) receive from
their respective groupies, the 'depth' of their analyses poses its own quirky sort of
'internal contradiction': how can such dross be regarded by so
many as genuine philosophical gold?
As we
will see in Essay Nine
Part Two, that conundrum may be
answered (a) By considering something Marx once said about Alchemy, (b) From something he also said about the reasons so many human beings turn to religion --
and, of course, (c) By recalling the
substitutionist and opportunistic protocols of Soviet and Chinese Realpolitik.
The
above dialecticians were, after all, merely slotting themselves into an ancient tradition,
one that was happy to concoct dogmatic theses about fundamental aspects of
'Being', based on little more than an
idiosyncratic use of language.
However, Marxist dialecticians might unique in this respect because of their open
disavowal of a priori dogmatism
-- even if they then promptly proceeded to do the exact opposite. But, in this they were
also following
in Hegel's footsteps. First of all, in his Shorter Logic, we
encounter the by-now-familiar self-effacing modesty:
"We can assume nothing and assert
nothing dogmatically." [Hegel (1975),
p.3, §1.]
[Surprising as this might seem to those who can read, Hegel commentators can
still be found who will tell you with a straight face that he did indeed begin
with 'no presuppositions' -- a bit like DM-fans who will also tell you that the DM-classics
really are dogma-free zones..., honest.]
But
then, on the very same page, we find this 'non-dogmatic' statement:
"God and God only is the Truth." [Ibid.]
Followed a few pages later by yet more 'non-dogmatic' dogma (a 'unity of
opposites', perhaps?):
"...we must presuppose
intelligence enough to know, not only that God is actual, that He is the supreme
actuality, that He alone is truly actual...." [Ibid.,
p.9, §6. Bold emphasis added.]
From
this, the only conclusion possible is that in the minds of the aforementioned
commentators and Hegel-freaks -- who are themselves quite used to swallowing at
least one Hegel-inspired contradiction per minute --, that when Hegel tells us
in black and white that he is actually presupposing something that
obviously means he isn't.
The
rest of this Hegel-tome and others are a veritable dumping-ground for lorry
loads of a priori,
dogmatic pronouncements, sufficient to win an Oscar if this were a film
and awards were given for serial obfuscation. Brave readers are genuinely spoilt for choice.
[Apologies for the mixed metaphors!]
Here are
just a few
examples:
"This immediate knowledge, consists in
knowing that the Infinite, the Eternal, the God which is in our Idea, really is:
or, it asserts that in our consciousness there is immediately and inseparably
bound up with this idea the certainty of its actual being." [Ibid.,
p.99, §64. Bold emphasis added.]
"Pure
Being makes the beginning: because it is on the one hand pure thought,
and on the other immediacy itself, simple and indeterminate; and the first
beginning cannot be mediated by anything, or be further determined.
"All doubts and admonitions, which might
be brought against beginning the science with abstract empty being, will
disappear if we only perceive what a beginning naturally implies. It is possible
to define being as 'I = I', as 'Absolute Indifference' or Identity, and so on.
Where it is felt necessary to begin either with what is absolutely certain, i.e.
certainty of oneself, or with a definition or intuition of the absolute truth,
these and other forms of the kind may be looked on as if they must be the first.
But each of these forms contains a mediation, and hence cannot be the real
first: for all mediation implies advance made from a first on to a second, and
proceeding from something different. If I = I, or even the intellectual
intuition, are really taken to mean no more than the first, they are in this
mere immediacy identical with being: while conversely, pure being, if abstract
no longer, but including in it mediation, is pure thought or intuition.
"If we enunciate Being as a predicate of
the Absolute, we get the first definition of the latter. The Absolute is Being.
This is (in thought) the absolutely initial definition, the most abstract and
stinted. It is the definition given by the
Eleatics, but at the same
time is also the well-known definition of God as the sum of all realities. It
means, in short, that we are to set aside that limitation which is in every
reality, so that God shall be only the real in all reality, the superlatively
real. Or, if we reject reality, as implying a reflection, we get a more
immediate or unreflected statement of the same thing, when
Jacobi says that
the God of
Spinoza
is the
principium of being in all existence." [Ibid.,
pp.124-25,
§114.
Bold emphases added.]
"Self-relation in Essence is the form of
Identity or of reflection-into-self, which has here taken the place of the
immediacy of Being. They are both the same abstraction -- self-relation.
"The unintelligence of sense, to take
everything limited and finite for Being, passes into the obstinacy of
understanding, which views the finite as self-identical, not inherently
self-contradictory.
"This identity, as it descended from
Being, appears in the first place only charged with the characteristics of
Being, and referred to Being as to something external. This external Being, if
taken in separation from the true Being (of Essence), is called the
Unessential. But that turns out to be a mistake. Because Essence is
Being-in-self, it is essential only to the extent that it has in itself its
negative, i.e. reference to another, or mediation. Consequently, it has the
unessential as its own proper seeming (reflection) in itself. But in seeming or
mediation there is distinction involved: and since what is distinguished (as
distinguished from identity out of which it arises, and in which it is not, or
lies as seeming) receives itself the form of identity, the semblance is still
not in the mode of Being, or of self-related immediacy.
"The sphere of Essence thus turns out to
be a still imperfect combination of immediacy and mediation. In it every term is
expressly invested with the character of self-relatedness, while yet at the same
time one is forced beyond it. It has Being -- reflected being, a being in which
another shows, and which shows in another. And so it is also the sphere in which
the contradiction, still implicit in the sphere of Being, is made explicit.
"As this one
notion is the common principle underlying all logic, there appear in the
development of Essence the same attributes or terms as in the development of
Being, but in reflex form. Instead of Being and Nought we have now the forms of
Positive and Negative; the former at first as Identity corresponding to pure and
uncontrasted Being, the latter developed (showing in itself) as Difference. So
also, we have Being represented by the Ground of determinate Being: which shows
itself, when reflected upon the Ground, as Existence." [Ibid.,
pp.165-66, §114.
Bold emphases added.]
"Instead of speaking by the maxim of
Excluded Middle (which is the maxim of abstract understanding) we should rather
say: Everything is opposite.Neither in heaven nor in Earth, neither
in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an abstract
'either-or' as the understanding maintains.Whatever exists is concrete,
with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things will then
lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being, and what they
essentially are....
"Contradiction is the very moving
principle of the world: and it is ridiculous to say that contradiction is
unthinkable. The only thing correct in that statement is that contradiction is
not the end of the matter, but cancels itself. But contradiction, when
cancelled, does not leave abstract identity; for that is itself only one side of
the contrariety. The proximate result of opposition (when realised as
contradiction) is the Ground, which contains identity as well as difference
superseded and deposited to elements in the completer notion." [Ibid.,
p.174, §119.
Bold emphases and links added.I have used the on-line versions above.]
"Everything is grounded in this unity of
identity and non-identity, of one and another, of sameness and distinction, of
affirmation and negation. The absolute is essentially dialectical. Dialectic is
the essence of Being or Being as essence. Essence is the sufficient
ground of all that seems to be non-absolute or finite. A is non-A: The
Absolute maintains itself in that which seems to escape it." [Hegel (1959),
p.120. Bold emphases alone added.]
There
is page
after page after page of this stuff, and there is even more of it in the
Science of Logic!Unsurprisingly, one will search long and hard
and to no avail for any attempt to prove these hyper-bold assertions -- other than
a set of equally obscure
'derivations' from another set of a priori
assertions, supported by what is little more than innovative word-magic) -- and
precious little evidence offered in support, in
Hegel's entire corpus.
While
the above Marxist dialecticians could easily have
dogmatised for their country -- if that too were an Olympic event --, Hegel
(or, indeed, many of his many epigones) would surely be first-in-line should the need
arise for someone to represent
the Earth in any future Inter-Planetary Dogmathon, and expect to win Gold every
time.
[With
Heidegger,
Spinoza and a gaggle of French 'Philosophers' on the subs bench, just in case.]
Indiscriminate
thesis-mongering like this is the norm
not the exception in the writings of the DM-classicists. Not surprisingly, this
dialectically-inspired disregard for "careful empirical work" has been copied ad nauseam
in the work of 'secondary' DM-theorists, despite their own (by-now-familiar)
vociferous claims to the contrary.
In the following
sub-sections I have posted a representative selection of equally dogmatic
statements published by scores of 'lesser' DM-clones (drawn from different
wings of Marxism, and across the Internet). These theorists all promote a
theory that purports to inform us of
fundamental truths about reality, valid for all of space and time, which
lie way beyond confirmation by any conceivable body of evidence. In doing so
they are clearly oblivious of the glaring inconsistency between their claim that
DM
hasn't been imposed on reality and their
attempt to do just that.
Apologies must of course be given in advance for two things: (i) The length of
many of these quotations, and (ii) Their extremely repetitive
nature.
The
first of the above is unfortunately a necessary evil in order to bury
once-and-for-all the belief that DM-theorists do not try to impose their ideas
on reality (or they did so only in the past, when supporting evidence was less
abundant, implying they have 'wised up' of late). It is also necessary, since DM-fans who have actually bothered to
read the material presented earlier (taken from the DM-classics) still refuse to accept that these passages
are in any way representative -- or even that they are the least bit dogmatic! So, the only
way to prove to them that they are indeed representative is to quote them
extensively.
Even then, DM-fans often respond with the "You have taken them out of
context!" defence. Now, if anyone can show
which passages quoted below have been taken 'out of context', I'll be happy
to acknowledge that fact and will apologise profusely.
The
second point will be employed
later on at this site in an endeavour reveal the real nature and purpose
of DM-ideology, which exposé itself partly depends on the fact that DM is not
only traditional in form, it is dogmatic, highly
repetitive andhas become completely ritualised.
An
exhaustive posting of examples of this a priori pattern-of-thought, culled
from every DM-text that even I possess, would easily run into many
hundreds of pages, all saying practically the same thing.
That this is no exaggeration may easily be confirmed by anyone who reads on, or has access to
the many textbooks and articles on DM produced over the last hundred or so years
(in hard copy, or now on the Internet) by its acolytes -- and, of course,
plenty of
Prozac.
Finally, and once more, whether or not the following theorists are, or
were, correct
in what they have to say isn't the issue here, merely their consistency:
Do they or do they not impose their
ideas on nature?
Of
course, the validity of what they actually say will be questioned in
other Essays posted at this site (for example,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here), but, naturally, that is a
separate issue.
"Scientific socialists apply the
inductive method. They stick to facts. They live in the real world and not
in the spiritualist regions of scholasticism....
"Indeed, where we have to deal with
concrete phenomena, or, as it were, with palpable things, the method of
materialism has long since reigned supremely (sic). Yet, it needed more than
practical success: it needed the theoretical working-out in all its details in
order to completely rout its enemy, the scholastic speculation or deduction....
"Scientific 'laws' are deductions
drawn by human thinking from empiric material...." [Dietzgen (1906a),
pp.81-84. Bold emphases added.]
So
much for the by-now-familiar disarming modesty. However, the
mailed metaphysical fist hidden inside the self-effacing velvet glove soon
emerges to pound the non-dialectical table:
"Nothing more is meant by these
deductions than this: the world is a unity, that is, there is only one world….
"...[R]eason makes of all existence
one order. To enroll (sic) under this order
all the phenomena of the world as different species, is to follow nature.
Because the intellect can do this, because it divides everything into orders and
species, into subjects and predicates so that finally only one order remains,
only one subject, Being or the Given Premises of which mind and body, reason,
fancy, matter, force, etc., are predicates or species -- because of that there
cannot possibly remain in the world any impassable gulf. Everything must
reduce itself to a theoretical harmony, to one system....
"I should like to make the reader
understand what the professors, so far as I know them, have not yet understood,
viz., that our intellect is a dialectical instrument, and instrument which
reconciles all opposites. The intellect creates unity by means of the variety
and comprehends the difference in the equality. Hegel made it clear long ago
that there is no either-or, but as well as...." [Ibid., pp.246-48. Bold
emphases added.]
Exactly how Dietzgen "deduced" all this from "empiric material" he forgot
to say, but the reader should note that even while he was helpfully upgrading
our non-dialectical minds with words of wisdom empirically copied
from Hegel's
Logic (i.e., to the effect that there is no "either-or") he neglected to
apply the rules he found there to his own non-empiric musings. Plainly,
if there is "no either-or", then the world must be botha unity and not a
unity (not the one or the other), just as it must also be true that "the
intellect", as a "dialectical instrument",
both reconciles and does not reconcile all opposites (not the one or
the other).
Dietzgen clearly failed to notice, too, that material reality (captured in and
by the
conventions expressed in ordinary language) resists the imposition of Idealist
nostrums like these; any attempt to do so soon backfires. In this case, it
becomes clear that neither Dietzgen nor any other dialectician is
free to reject the LEM while wishing to assert something determinate about
anything whatsoever -- even
about that 'law' itself.
[Why
that is so will be explained in Essay Nine
Part One.]
So,
even Dietzgen had to ignore
Hegel to make his point!
"Before Philosophy could enter the
innermost of the mind-function, it had to be shown by the practical achievements
of natural science how the mental instrument of man possesses the hitherto
doubted faculty of illuminating the innermost of Nature. The physicists do not
close their eyes to the fact that there are many unknown worlds. Still
some of them have yet to learn that the Unknown, too, is not so
totally unknown and mysterious.
Even the most unknown world and the most mysterious things are together
with the known places and objects of one and the same category, namely, of
the universal union of Nature. Owing to the conception of the Universe
virtually existing, as a kind of innate idea, in the human mind, the
latter knows a priori that all things, the heavenly bodies included, exist in
the Universe, and are of universal and common nature...." [Ibid., pp.267-68.
Bold emphases added.]
It
should perhaps have occurred to Dietzgen's 'empiric' mind that if there are
indeed "unknown worlds" then humanity can have no
knowledge of them. How, therefore, such bold conclusions about these "worlds"
could be drawn in advance of such knowledge only those who are
similarly adrift in this cloying Dialectical Mist will be able to tell us. But,
even they might stumble when it comes to explaining to those who are not
quite so lost just how such 'knowns' can be derived with confidence from all
those 'unknowns'. Still more might they wonder how Dietzgen's earlier rejection
of 'scholasticism' squares with his new-found liking for a priori
impostures like these.
The
incoherent ramblings of the ex-US Secretary of Defence,
Donald
Rumsfeld, about "known
unknowns", come to mind at this point:
"As you know, there are known knowns. There are things that we know we know. We
also know that there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know that there are
some things that we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones
we don't know we don't know." [Quoted from
Dilip Hiro,
Secrets and Lies. The True History of the Iraq War, p.163, who was citing
the UK
Guardian, 03/05/2003. A video of this
odd interview/press conference can be accessed
here,
and
here
is a report of a recently de-classified Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) document
that shows just what Rumsfeld did know.]
When
card-carrying members of the ruling-class come up with prize 'thoughts' like
this we generally know how to respond. However, when dialecticians utter the
same inanities, some of us nod approvingly at their 'profundity'.
But,
from where did such epistemological gems originate? Dietzgen is keen to tell
us (while still doing his faux Rumsfeld impersonation):
"How then do we know that behind the
phenomena of Nature, behind the relative truths, there is a universal,
absolute Nature which does not reveal itself completely to man?....
"It is innate; it is given to
us with consciousness. The consciousness of man is the knowledge of his
personality as part of the human species, of mankind, and of the Universe. To
know is to form pictures in the consciousness that they are pictures of things
which all, both the pictures and the things, possess a general mother
from which they have issued and to which they will return. The mother is the
absolute truth;
she is perfectly true and yet mystical in a natural way, that is, she
is the inexhaustible source of knowledge and consequently never entirely to
be comprehended.
"All that is known in and of the world
is, however, true and exact, only a known truth, therefore a modified
truth, a modus or part of truth. When I say that the consciousness of the
endless,
absolute truth is innate in us, is one and the only knowledge a priori,
I am confirmed in my statement also by the experience of this innate
consciousness...." [Dietzgen (1906a), pp.283-84. Italic emphases in the
original; bold emphases added.]
So,
the laws of Dietzgen's version of 'Rumsfeldian superscience' still follow from
experience --, except it is from the inner experience of "innate consciousness".
On that basis, presumably, we could conclude, if we were so minded, that Saddam
Hussein did possess Weapons of Mass Destruction, despite the absence of
'empiric evidence' to that effect. Indeed, we
could if we based this convenient piece of 'knowledge' on an 'inner
intuition', and because of that proceeded to support the imperialist invasion of
Iraq as a result. Who could object? Well, only those who doubt the existence of
"unknown unknowns", perhaps?
[Readers familiar the history of
Mother-Nature worship and
Hermetic Philosophy will no doubt recognize the
provenance of much of Dietzgen's ruminations, especially those highlighted in
bold. (It might be worth finding out if Rumsfeld ever read Dietzgen, or even the
Hermetic
Kybalion. Since the latter was (possibly?)
written by three
Masons, this is in fact highly likely!)]
The
promulgation of a priori dogma continues:
"...[T]he world is not made up of fixed
classes, but is a fluid unity, the Absolute incarnate, which develops
eternally, and is only classified by the human mind for purposes of forming
intelligent conceptions." [Ibid., p.322. Bold emphasis added.]
"The universe is in every place and at
any time itself new or present for the first time. It arises and passes away,
passes and arises under our very hands. Nothing remains the same, only the
infinite change is constant, and even the change varies. Every particle of time
and space brings new changes. It is true that the materialist believes in
the permanency, eternity and indestructibility of matter. He teaches us that not
the smallest particle of matter has even been lost in the world, that matter
simply changes its forms eternally, but that its nature last indestructibly
through all eternity." [Dietzgen (1984), p.37. Bold emphases added.]
But,
how could Dietzgen possibly have known that "The world...develops eternally",
that it is "the Absolute incarnate"? Or, that "Nothing remains the same" and
that "only...infinite change is constant"? Or, even that "Not the smallest
particle of matter has ever been lost to the world"? Of course, he couldn't
possibly have known any this on the basis of the science of his day, and we
still can't say we know any of this today! We can certainly hypothesise that some of
these things might be the case, but there is no way we can possibly know
that these things are true of every region of space and time -- nor are we
ever likely to know this.
In
fact, and true-to-form, Dietzgen derived ideas like these, not from science, but from the dogmatic theses promulgated by Traditional Philosophers.
There
are many more dogmatic passages like the above in Dietzgen's rambling, almost
aimless work. For example, the following:
"Consciousness, as the Latin root word
indicates, is the knowledge of being in existence. It is a form, or a quality,
of existence which differs from other forms of being in that it is aware of its
existence. Quality cannot be explained, but must be experienced. We know by
experience that consciousness includes along with the knowledge of being in
existence the difference and contradiction between subject and object, thinking
and being, between form and content, between phenomenon and essential thing,
between attribute and substance, between the general and the concrete. This
innate contradiction explains the various terms applied to consciousness,
such as the organ of abstraction, the faculty of generalization or unification,
or in contradistinction thereto the faculty of differentiation. For
consciousness generalises differences and differentiates generalities.
Contradiction is innate in consciousness, and its nature is so contradictory
that it is at the same time a differentiating, a generalising, and an
understanding nature. Consciousness generalises contradiction. It recognizes
that all nature, all being, lives in contradictions, that everything is what it
is only in cooperation with its opposite. Just as visible things are not visible
without the faulty of sight, and vice versa the faculty of sight cannot see
anything but what is visible, so contradiction must be recognized as something
general which pervades all thought and being. The science of understanding,
by generalizing contradiction, solves all concrete contradictions." [Ibid.,
pp.32-33. Bold emphases added.]
Dietzgen, of course, offers no evidence (or even argument!) in support of this
example of 'innovative' a
priori psychology (which suggests we all have a little man/woman in our
heads to do all this 'processing' for us -- on this, see Essay Thirteen
Part Three), except, perhaps, he read it all in Hegel, or some other
Traditional Theorist.
And
there is more of this a priori psycho-babble, admixed with no little
dogmatic pseudo-science -- check this out:
"In the universe which constitutes the
object of science and the faculty of reason, both force and matter are
unseparated. In the world of sense perceptions force is matter and matter is
force. 'Force cannot be seen.' Oh yes! Seeing itself is pure force.
Seeing is as much an effect of its object as an effect of the eye, and this
double effect and other effects are forces. We do not see the things
themselves, but their effects on our eyes. We see their forces. And force cannot
alone be seen, it can also be heard, smelled, tasted, felt....
"It is just as true to say that we feel
matter and not its force as it is to say that we feel force and not matter.
Indeed,
both are inseparable from the object, as we have already remarked. But by
means of the faculty of thought we separate from the simultaneously and
successively occurring phenomena the general and the concrete. For instance, we
abstract the general concept of sight from the various phenomena of our sight
and distinguish it by the name of power of vision from the concrete objects, or
substances, of our eyes....
"The world of sense perceptions is made
known to us only by our consciousness, but consciousness is conditioned on the
world of sense perceptions. Nature is infinitely united or infinitely
separated, according to whether we regard it from the standpoint of
consciousness as an unconditional unit or from the standpoint of sense
perceptions and as unconditional multiplicity.... The abstract matter is force,
the concrete force is matter....
"True there is no force without
matter, no matter without force. Forceless matter and matter without force are
nonentities." [Ibid., pp.82-85. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
Naturally, this leaves Dietzgen in the
same predicament as
Lenin, who, with only 'images' to light his way as he confessed, had no way of knowing if
there were in fact any 'objects' for him to 'image', and hence no proof
that the 'outside world' even existed.
[Not
that I doubt it does exist; but given Dietzgen's epistemology, there is no way
he could prove it exists. (On that, follow the above link.)]
If, according to
Dietzgen, we 'see' only the effects of objects on our eyes, and not the objects
that supposedly cause them, how do we know we even have eyes, let alone
that there is anything 'out there' that supposedly affects them? Indeed, if we don't
"see the things themselves, but their effects on our eyes", then we must have a
second set of eyes in our heads to do this extra 'seeing'. If not, what then
does this extra 'seeing'? If something else does this extra 'seeing' (an
'inner eye', for want of a better term), is it subject to the same limitations?
Can this mysterious 'inner eye' 'see' for itself? Or, does it, too, need help?
If it does need assistance to 'see', then there must be an 'even inner
eye' to do the 'seeing'..., and so on. If not, and this 'inner eye' can
'see' for 'itself', then why
can't our ordinary eyes do that for themselves, too?
Then
there is this gem:
"Everything is large, everything is small, everything extended through space and
time, everything cause and everything effect, everything a whole and everything
a part, because everything is the essence of everything, because everything is
contained in the all, everything related, everything connected, everything
interdependent. The conception of all as the absolute, the content of which
consists of innumerable relativities, the concept of the all as the universal
truth which reflects many phenomena, that is the basis of the science of the
understanding." [Dietzgen (1906b), p.417.]
While
Dietzgen had no way of knowing whether or not any of these
dogmatic musingswere true, he clearly had no problem
asserting them as if they were well established fact -- just as Traditional
Philosophers have always done (except for them, they weren't mere
facts that could be false, they were 'necessarily true', and so couldn't
be false -- they were, in effect, Super-facts).
Exactly why Marx thought so highly of him is, therefore, a complete
mystery!
Having said that, this comment (which appears in a letter from Marx to
Engels, dated 05/01/1882) suggests he was beginning to wise-up toward the end of his
life:
"You will see from the enclosed letter
from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely'
arrived at
Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one." [MECW46, p.172. Link added.]
Abram
Deborin was the 'leader' of the 'Hegelianisers' in the
fSU in the mid-, to
late-1920s, but whose work had been severely
criticised by Lenin. After Stalin had settled the dispute between the
'Mechanists' and the 'Deborinites' in 1931 -- by anathematising both --,
Deborin kept a low profile until his death in 1963.
[Further details about this rather
sordid period in Soviet Thought can be found in
Bakhurst (1991), Graham (1971), Joravsky (1961), Kolakowski (1981), Wetter
(1958).]
Despite this, and just like the other Dialectical Dogmatists quoted in this Essay,
Deborin was quite happy to impose his theory on the world:
"The
dialectic teaches us that the unity of being and non-being is becoming. In
concrete materialistic terms this means that the basis of everything is matter
in a state of constant development. Thus changes are real and concrete, and,
on the other hand, what is real and concrete is changeable. The subject of the
process is absolutely real being, the 'substantive All' as opposed to the
phenomenalistic Nothing.... The contradiction between quality-less, unchanging
substance of the metaphysicians on the one hand, and, on the other, the
subjective and changing states that are supposed to exclude the reality of
substance, is resolved by dialectical materialism in the sense that
substance, matter, is in a perpetual state of motion and change, that qualities
or states have objective significance and that matter is the cause and the
foundation, the 'subject' of qualitative changes and states." [Introduction
to the Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism, 4th ed., 1925, pp.226-27;
quoted in Kolakowski (1981), p.67. Bold emphases added.]
As we
have seen, this is typical of DM-theorists (be they 'orthodox', maverick --
i.e., a "Revisionist!" -- or 'Hegelian'); DM-theses are simply asserted with little or
no attempt (in the above case, no attempt at all) to establish their
validity. We are just supposed to accept them as if they had been delivered from
On High, carved on Stone Tablets, as Cosmic Verities true for all of
space and time.
In a
similarly dogmatic vein, David Hayden-Guest opined as follows:
"Here it is the great service of
Hegel to have conceived history as exhibiting a process of development….
"Dialectical materialism appears at
first sight to be a return to the original Greek view of the world from
which philosophy started. And, indeed, like this Greek materialism, it sees
the world as a single interconnected whole in endless motion….
"The 'dialectical laws of motion'…are
the most general laws possible….
"The second dialectical law, that
of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the
essentially
contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that
these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in
stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to
the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a
hundred years ago….
"[F]rom the standpoint of the
developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows
from the conflict of the opposite.
"The Law of the Negation of the
Negation…. This law states one of the most characteristic features of
evolutionary process in
all fields -– that development takes place in a kind of spiral, one change
negating a given state of affairs and a succeeding change, which negated the
first, re-establishing (in a more developed form, or 'on a higher plane'…) some
essential feature of the original state of affairs….
"This law of dialectical process is like
the others in that it cannot be arbitrarily 'foisted' on Nature or
history. It cannot be used as a substitute for empirical facts, or used
to 'predict' things without a concrete study of the facts in question….
"Everything is not only part of
the great
world process but is itself essentially in process….
"Development is always the result of
internal conflict as well as of external relations, themselves including
conflict. It can only be explained and rationally grasped to the extent
that the internal contradictions of the thing have been investigated….
"Every 'thing' is itself vastly
complicated, made up of innumerable sides and aspects, related in various ways
to every other thing." [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32, 38, 40, 42, 45. Bold
emphases added.]
Careful readers will no doubt notice that while Guest makes the usual,
self-effacing
claim that DM hasn't been imposed on reality, he then proceeds to do just that.
Exactly how he knew that reality was "essentially" contradictory, for
instance, he forgot to inform his bemused readers.
The
quasi-Stalinist, but latter-day Buddhist,
Edward Conze
put things similarly:
"Scientific method is not a body of
ready-made statements which can be learnt by heart. It gives no mystical
formulae from which we can easily deduce reality without the trouble of
examining the facts…[it is not] a reverential pondering over quotations….
"Scientific method demands that
we should study things in their inter-relation with one another….
"…Each thing stands in some relation
to everything else in the world. It is thus fully understood only if its
relations are known. Therefore it has been said to know one thing completely
is to know everything….
"The philosopher sums up -–
Everything is inter-related with everything else….
"That everything should be
studied in its development and changing forms is the demand of the second
rule of scientific method….
"Everything in this world is
subject to
perpetual change…. Everything in the world once had a beginning; and
there is no part of the universe that will not perish….
"The scientific method demands
that the
world should be studied as a complex of processes and events
and not as a complex of ready-made things....
"The third law or rule of scientific
method is that opposites are always united, that they are in
unity…." [Conze (1944), pp.11, 14-15, 25-26, 35. Bold emphases added; italic
emphases in the original.]
Once
more, the puzzled reader will doubtless wonder where all the evidence supporting
these brave assertions has gone in the intervening years. Into the 'unknown'
perhaps? They will similarly wonder what became of these sensible caveats:
"Scientific method is not a body of
ready-made statements which can be learnt by heart. It gives no mystical
formulae from which we can easily deduce reality without the trouble of
examining the facts…[it is not] a reverential pondering over quotations…."
[Ibid.]
However, in a rare moment of honesty, Conze admitted:
"I know of no general reason why
opposites
always must be united. The study of scientific method has not yet advanced
to give us a proof of this kind…. The reader must be warned against using the
law as a mystical formula…." [Ibid., p.36. Emphasis in the original.]
Nevertheless, this eminently reasonable plea hasn't stopped dialecticians ever
since using this "mystical formula" as just such a talisman. Sad though it is to
report, but in Conze's case this
caveat represented a false dawn, for on the very same page we
find the following:
"The negative electrical pole…cannot
exist
without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This
'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things
and events." [Ibid., pp.35-36. Bold emphasis alone added.]
How
this comrade knew that negative poles can't exist apart from
positive poles he kept to himself. That is even though physicists have known for
nearly a century that
electrical monopoles might very well exist in their countless trillions. It
is perhaps a good job that few, if any, actually read Conze's dogmatic
pronouncement.
Be
this as it may, Physicists are still looking for the famed
magnetic monopole (and seem to have
found it), foolishly
having paid no attention to those who would impose dialectics on nature. Of
course, if the poles of a magnet were logically linked, as dialecticians
appear to believe, then Physicists wouldn't even have tried to look for
this monopole -- any more than they would attempt to find Longitude 360
degrees North (no, that isn't a misprint!), a field goal in chess, or
offside in tennis (nor are these).
Video One: Magnetic Monopoles
-- Invented By The CIA?
Update May 2009:
As noted above, scientists now claim to have found this elusive 'particle':
"They seem magical: magnets, every
child's favourite science toy. Two otherwise ordinary lumps of metal draw
inexorably closer, finally locking together with a satisfying snap. Yet turn one
of them round and they show an entirely different, repulsive face: try as you
might to make them, never the twain shall meet. If magnets seem rather bipolar, that's
because they are. Every magnet has two poles, a north and a south. Like poles
repel, unlike poles attract. No magnet breaks the two-pole rule -- not the
humblest bar magnet, not the huge dynamo at the heart of our planet. Split a
magnet in two, and each half sprouts the pole it lost. It seems that poles
without their twins -- magnetic 'monopoles' -- simply do not exist.
"That hasn't stopped physicists hunting.
For decades they have ransacked everything from moon rock and cosmic rays to
ocean-floor sludge to find them. There is a simple reason for this quixotic
quest. Our best explanations of how the universe hangs together demand that
magnetic monopoles exist. If they are not plain to see, they must be hiding. Now, at last, we have might have spied
them out. The first convincing evidence for their existence has popped up in an
unexpected quarter. They are not exactly the monopoles of physics lore, but they
could provide us with essential clues as to how those legendary beasts behave.
"So what attracts physicists to
monopoles? Several things. First, there's symmetry -- a purely aesthetic
consideration, true, but one that for many physicists reveals a theory's true
worth. For over a century, we have known that magnetism and electricity are two
faces of one force: electromagnetism. Electric fields beget magnetic fields and
vice versa. Accordingly, the classical picture of
electromagnetism, formulated in the late 19th century, is pretty much
symmetrical in its treatment of electricity and magnetism. But although positive
and negative electric charges can separate and move freely in electric fields,
magnetic 'charge' remains bound up in pairs of north and south poles that cancel
each other out. 'No monopoles' is another way of saying that there is no such
thing as a freely moving magnetic charge.
"In 1931,
this puzzling asymmetry caught the attention of the pioneering
quantum
physicist
Paul Dirac. He pointed out that quantum theory did not deny the possibility
of monopoles; on the contrary, they could be quite useful. His calculations
showed that monopoles existing anywhere in the universe would explain why
electric charge always comes in the same bite-size chunks, or quanta. Even so,
monopoles were little more than a curiosity, and the lack of any obvious
examples nearby dampened the enthusiasm for the chase. That all changed in the
1960s with the wide acceptance of the big bang theory -- the idea that the
universe began in a fireball governed by a single force that has since
splintered into the fundamental forces we see today. The great ambition of
physics became to construct a theory that would
reunite these forces.
"There are many different
approaches to this goal, and almost all have an odd feature in common: they say
that chunks of magnetic charge must have been created in the very first fraction
of a nanosecond of the universe's existence. Some theories, like Dirac's
original idea, suggest these monopoles are very massive, with a mass around 1016
times that of a proton. Other approaches suggest more modest beasts with a mass
only a few thousand times the mass of the proton. But all predict they should be
there.
"Suddenly
monopoles assumed a new significance. Not only would the detection of magnetic
monopoles be a major boost for 'grand unified' theories of how the universe
began, but finding the mass of a monopole would help distinguish which of those
theories were on the right track. 'The search has a low chance of paying off,
but a very high importance if it did,' says Steven Weinberg of the University of
Texas at Austin, who won
the Nobel prize for physics in 1979 for his work
on force unification.
"Sheldon
Glashow
of Harvard University, who also took a share of the 1979 prize, took
the monopole idea a stage further. That same year, he suggested that beefy,
Dirac-type monopoles might also be the answer to one of cosmology's most
important unsolved problems: they might be the identity of the unseen dark
matter that is thought to make up most of the universe and to have formed the
structures that led to galaxies. Physicists thus had a wealth of reasons
to believe that these 'cosmic' monopoles must exist somewhere. But where?
Besides the odd tantalising glimpse, no experiment has yet produced convincing
evidence of their existence (see
Race for the pole').
"There are reasons to believe they never
shall. According to the inflationary theory of the universe's origin, which has
gained wide currency since the 1980s, the cosmos expanded enormously fast just
after the big bang. This expansion should have carried most, if not all, of the
monopoles created in the first instants of the universe to a patch of the cosmos
so distant that they, and information about them, will probably never reach us.
Game over?
Perhaps
not, if the latest research is anything to go by. Monopoles might have been
under our noses for a while, in a strange type of solid known as spin ice. When
this material was reported in 1997 by physicists Mark Harris of the University
of Oxford, Steve Bramwell of University College London and their colleagues (Physical
Review Letters, vol. 79, p 2554),
monopole searches were not high on the agenda. The researchers were looking at
something else entirely -- an odd property of certain solids known as magnetic
frustration....
"'Suddenly, there was a community of physicists who became monopole hunters,'
says Peter Holdsworth of the École Normale Supérieure in Lyon, France, one of
the people bitten by the bug. Together with his colleague Ludovic Jaubert, he
has produced independent confirmation of the monopole idea. In a paper published
last month (Nature
Physics, vol 5, p 258),
the pair revisit an experiment reported in 2004 by a group led by Peter Schiffer
at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Schiffer's team had shown
that when a magnetic field was applied to spin ice at low temperatures and then
removed, the spins were surprisingly slow to revert to their original state (Physical
Review B, vol. 64, p 064414).
Jaubert and Holdsworth calculated that monopoles explain this perfectly: at low
temperatures, monopoles do not have enough energy to move freely, and so make
the magnetic response of the entire system sluggish by just the amount the
experiments had found.
"It seems the elusive monopoles have
been pinned down at last. But Blas Cabrera, who looked for monopoles in cosmic
rays passing through his laboratory at Stanford University in the 1980s, sounds
a note of caution. The monopoles discovered in spin ice are rather different
beasts from those he and others were looking for. For a start, they are some
8000 times less magnetic and are free to move only within the spin ice, not to
roam the wider universe. So they are not really analogous to electric charges,
and it doesn't look as if they are going to solve the dark matter problem.
"Do they count at all? Quite possibly.
When Dirac dreamed up his cosmic monopoles, he imagined a vacuum as the lowest
possible energy state that free space could assume. Monopoles then represented a
higher-energy 'excitation' of a vacuum, in much the same way that the low-energy
two-in, two-out spin-ice state is excited to create monopoles. The new research
even borrows elements of Dirac's description of free-space monopoles -- such as
the invisible 'strings' he envisaged between pairs of poles that have separated.
The similarities mean that the interactions of spin-ice monopoles could provide
a way to learn about cosmic monopoles by proxy -- for example, how they might
have interacted in the early universe.
"'Quite apart from that, the more
down-to-earth monopoles might turn out to be practically useful', says
Tchernyshyov. Most computer memories store information magnetically, and the
ability to use magnetic rather than electric charges to read and write bits to
and from those stores could have great advantages in speed and flexibility.
What's more, the three-dimensional configuration of spin ice might allow for
memories of much higher density than is currently possible.
"That's for the future. For Holdsworth,
the mere fact that we have found monopoles somewhere -- anywhere -- is reason
enough to make a song and dance about them. 'These might not be exactly the
monopoles that Dirac dreamed of, but that doesn't mean they're not remarkable.'"
[Reich
(2009), pp.28-31. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site. See also
here.
Several paragraphs merged.]
Even
more worrying for dialecticians hooked on a priori
dogma is this recent comment:
"We have
moved a step closer to finding cosmic monopoles -- magnetic poles without their
opposite. Two experiments using strange stuff called spin ice have provided the
best evidence yet that
monopoles
really are out there.
Nearly 80 years ago, physicist Paul
Dirac said it must be possible for magnetic north and south poles to exist
separately. But despite decades of searching, not one has been found. Last year,
researchers demonstrated that certain states of the crystalline material spin
ice would create monopoles that rove about the crystal (New
Scientist, 9 May, p 28). They would be seen as disturbances moving
through the spins of atoms within the crystal.
"Now two
separate groups claim to have spotted just that. Tom Fennell and his colleagues
at the Laue-Langevin Institute in Grenoble, France, recorded the disturbances
when they fired a beam of neutrons at a spin ice crystal to see how it affected
the neutrons' energy (Science,
DOI: 10.1126/science.1177582).
Meanwhile, Jonathan Morris of the Helmholtz Centre for Materials and Energy in
Berlin, Germany, and his colleagues watched how atoms within the crystals fell
into alignment along trails through the lattice. These trails are known as
'Dirac strings', because Dirac predicted that cosmic monopoles would have just
such a connection between them (Science,
DOI: 10.1126/science.1178868).
"'To my mind there's now no question: we
have overwhelming evidence that these things are real,' says Steve Bramwell of
University College London." [New
Scientist, 203, 2725, 12/09/2009, p.17). Quotation marks altered
to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]
Update 30/01/2014:
And, now we read yet more 'reactionary' news from the BBC:
"Elusive
magnetic 'monopole' seen in quantum system
"If
you break a magnet in two, you don't get a
north half and a south half -- you get two
new magnets, each with two poles.
'Monopoles' were
famously predicted to exist
by physicist Paul Dirac in 1931 -- but they
have remained elusive. Now scientists have
engineered a synthetic monopole in a quantum
system for the first time, allowing its
mysterious properties to be explored. They
describe their breakthrough
in Nature journal.
"'Detecting a natural magnetic monopole
would be a revolutionary event comparable to
the discovery of the electron,' wrote the
team from Aalto University, Finland, and
Amherst College, US, in their paper. '[Our
work] provides conclusive and long-awaited
experimental evidence of the existence of
Dirac monopoles. It provides an
unprecedented opportunity to observe and
manipulate these quantum mechanical entities
in a controlled environment.'
"The
discovery of magnetic monopoles has been
long-awaited as they can help to explain
various physical phenomena. Researchers have
hunted for them since Paul Dirac first
theorised their quantum-mechanical
characteristics in 1931. He demonstrated
that if even a single monopole exists, then
all electrical charge must come in discrete
packets -- which has indeed been
demonstrated.
"To
observe and test them in the lab, scientists
engineered a quantum system -- the magnetic
field of a cloud of
rubidium
atoms in an unusual state of
matter known as a
Bose-Einstein condensate.
Using direct imaging, they detected a
distinct signature of the Dirac monopole --
known as a 'Dirac
string'. The
researchers note that -- while other teams
have
previously made analogues of monopoles
--, their demonstration is the first in a
quantum system which can be tested by
experiment.
"'This creation of a Dirac monopole is a
beautiful demonstration of quantum
simulation,' said Lindsay LeBlanc, of the
University of Alberta, a physicist not
involved in the study. Although these
results offer only an analogy to a magnetic
monopole, their compatibility with theory
reinforces the expectation that this
particle will be detected experimentally. As
Dirac said in 1931: "Under these
circumstances one would be surprised if
Nature had made no use of it".'" [Quoted
from
here; accessed 31/01/2014. Quotation
marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site. Some links added;
several paragraphs merged.]
As
well as this:
"Researchers
have discovered a magnetic equivalent to electricity: single magnetic charges
that can behave and interact like electrical ones.
By Jason Palmer, Science and technology
reporter, BBC News.
"The work is the first to make use of
the magnetic monopoles that exist in special crystals known as
spin ice.
Writing in Nature..., a team showed that monopoles gather to form a
'magnetic current' like electricity. The phenomenon, dubbed 'magnetricity',
could be used in magnetic storage or in computing. Magnetic monopoles were first predicted
to exist over a century ago, as a perfect analogue to electric charges. Although
there are protons and electrons with net positive and negative electric charges,
there were no particles in existence which carry magnetic charges. Rather, every
magnet has a 'north' and 'south' pole.
"Current
event
"In September this year, two research
groups independently reported the existence of monopoles -- 'particles' which
carry an overall magnetic charge. But they exist only in the spin ice crystals.
These crystals are made up of pyramids of charged atoms, or ions, arranged in
such a way that when cooled to exceptionally low temperatures, the materials
show tiny, discrete packets of magnetic charge. Now one of those teams has gone on to
show that these 'quasi-particles' of magnetic charge can move together, forming
a magnetic current just like the electric current formed by moving electrons.
"They did so by using sub-atomic
particles called
muons, created
at the Science and Technology Facilities Council's (STFC) ISIS
neutron
and
muon source near Oxford. The muons decay millionths of a second after their
production into other sub-atomic particles. But the direction in which these
resulting particles fly off is an indicator of the magnetic field in a tiny
region around the muons. The team, led by Stephen Bramwell, from
the London Centre for Nanotechnology, implanted these muons into spin ice to
demonstrate how the magnetic monopoles moved around. They showed that when the
spin ice was placed in a magnetic field, the monopoles piled up on one side --
just like electrons would pile up when placed in an electric field.
"Professor Bramwell told BBC News that
the development is unlikely to catch on as a means of providing energy, not
least because the particles travel only inside spin ices. 'We're not going to be seeing a
magnetic light bulb or anything like that,' he said.
But by engineering different spin ice
materials to modify the ways monopoles move through them, the materials might in
future be used in 'magnetic memory' storage devices or in
spintronics -- a field which could boost future computing power." [Quoted
from
here. Accessed 09/09/2012. Bold emphases in the original. Quotations marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs
merged. Links added. Several paragraphs merged.]
Nevertheless, Conze's obvious good sense forced its way to the surface once
more, leading him to make the following confession:
"I have had some 'dialecticians' assure
me that they did not know what the structure of the atom would turn out to be,
but they had not the shadow of doubt that it would be found to be 'dialectical'.
This is not the language of science, but of religion…. We should beware
of putting the dialectical method on the same level with the revelations of God.
There is nothing ultimate about scientific theories…. Too frequently do we
petrify the science of yesterday into the dogma of tomorrow. Science demands an
elastic and critical spirit." [Conze (1944), p.36. Bold emphasis added.]
This
passage should be required reading for all Dialectical Dogmatists (but
check out comrade
Thalheimer below, whom Conze
might well have had in mind).
Not
that it will do much good, for on the
same page we find Conze himself arguing once again:
"Both attraction and repulsion
are
necessary properties of matter. Each attraction in one place is
necessarily compensated for by a corresponding repulsion in another place…."
[Ibid., p.36. Bold emphases added; italic emphases in the original.]
Conze's non-standard meander through the wastelands of dialectical dogma
is instructive enough -- witness how, when his own theses are immediately
contradicted, they turn into a series of more cautious antitheses, which are
then contradicted right back again to become dogmatic theses once more. Hence,
and true-to-form, he back sasses all the way in this passage:
"A material contradiction means that
one concrete process contains two mutually incompatible and exclusive, but
nevertheless equally essential and indispensable parts or aspects….
"In some cases we can observe that a
thing moves and destroys itself. This is the case with radium and uranium….
Since [their] disintegration is not due to external causes, but to the
constitution of radium itself, we would assume the presence of a
contradiction in radium. At the moment, however, we are incapable of pointing
out what that contradiction is….
"We find clearer examples in…[Biology].
Engels pointed out that a living being is atany given moment the same and
yet another…. Its life consists in that it simultaneously performs two
contradictory processes, breaks down and builds itself up again…." [Ibid.,
p.52. Bold emphases alone added.]
Conze
is clearly an odd mixture of regulation-issue-dialectical-dogmatism on
the one hand, and
recklessly un-dialectical-reasonableness on the other, with the former often
dominating over the latter. That is itself a consequence of the
aprioristic
tradition that has shaped all of Western Philosophy (since the Ancient Greeks
invented it in the 'West) imposing itself on him. So, as part of that tradition,
Conze naturally felt he didn't need to say precisely how he knew
that contradictions were capable of causing change or how they might
power living cells. Simply quoting Engels or Hegel was sufficient, apparently.
So much for this, then:
"Scientific method is not a body of
ready-made statements which can be learnt by heart. It gives no mystical
formulae from which we can easily deduce reality without the trouble of
examining the facts…[it isn't] a reverential pondering over quotations…."
[Ibid. Bold emphasis added.]
Clearly, in the Mystical Madhouse which is DM, it is!
Moving on; here are the thoughts of comrade Thalheimer, recorded -- it has to be
said -- in one of the best, if not the most intelligent, introductions to DM there is (no
sarcasm intended!), speaking on this occasion with all the ex cathedra
authority 'Being' has conferred on those who sit atop The Holy Mountain on the
edge of the universe, all of 'reality' laid out before them, the location of
which
Empyrean Throne
is known only to Dialectical Mystics:
"The most general and the most inclusive
fundamental law of dialectics from which all others are deduced is the law of
permeation of opposites. This law has a two-fold meaning: first, that all
things, all processes, all concepts merge in the last analysis into an absolute
unity, or, in other words, that there are no opposites, no differences which
cannot ultimately be comprehended into a unity. Second, and just as
unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different
and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as
the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single
thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and
its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of
infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest
contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of
infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human
mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited
differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present
in reality." [Thalheimer (1936),
p.161. Bold emphases added.]
At
first sight it might look like Thalheimer is foisting DM onto nature, but
readers shouldn't be mislead: he is doing precisely that!
There
then follows a few pages of anecdotal 'evidence' (of the usual
Mickey Mouse quality) offered up in 'support' of these universal pronouncements,
most of which will be reviewed in Essay
Seven -- followed by this
dogmatic
'deduction':
"Or take the smallest components of
matter: two electrons which form part of the atomic system can never be
absolutely identical. We can say this with certainty even though we are
not yet in a position to know anything about the individual peculiarity of
electrons.... This is based on the proposition of the permeation of
opposites, the proposition which says that the identity of things is just as
unlimited as their difference. The capacity of the mind infinitely to
equate things as well as to differentiate and oppose, corresponds to the
infinite identity and difference of things in nature.... We have previously
shown that being and non-being exist simultaneously in becoming, that they
constitute identical elements of becoming...." [Ibid.,
pp.167-68. Bold emphases
added.]
The evidence comrade Thalheimer quotes in support of these
hyper-bold claims would be
considered a joke if this were hard science, but dialectics is perhaps
the softest science there is (even
Creationists provide more and better evidence in support of their whacko
beliefs!) -- a melted marshmallow sort of science, where a few
paragraphs, or maybe pages, of superficial, anecdotal evidence, secondary and
tertiary 'data' 'allow' its adepts to
predict what must be true, in this case, of every electron in the entire
universe, for all of time.
[As
we will see in
Essay Six,
there is now good reason to disagree with Thalheimer about the "individual
peculiarity" of all
electrons.]
However, Thalheimer had a sure-fire method of proof (and one he borrowed from
Hegel, surprisingly enough), which meant supporting evidence was irrelevant:
"This law of the permeation of opposites
will probably be new to you, something to which you have probably not given
thought. Upon closer examination you will discover that you cannot utter a
single meaningful sentence which does not comprehend this proposition.... Let us
take a rather common sentence: 'The lion is a beast of prey.' A thing, A, the
lion is equated with a thing B. At the same time a distinction is made between A
and B. So far as the lion is a beast of prey, it is equated with all beasts of
that kind. At the same time, in the same sentence, it is distinguished from the
kind. It is impossible to utter a sentence which will not contain the formula, A
equals B. All meaningful sentences have a form which is conditioned by the
permeation of opposites. This contradiction [is] contained in every meaningful
sentence, the equation and at the same time differentiation between subject and
predicate...." [Ibid.,
pp.168-69.
Bold emphasis added.]
We
shall meet this rather odd 'argument' again in Essay Three
Part One, where it will be identified as an important, if not one of the
most important,
'intellectual' sources of Hegel's 'dialectics', and hence of DM, itself. We will discover
there how a
grammatical dodge (which is never
justified) 'allows' dialecticians to turn a simple "is" of predication into
an "is" of identity, creating a spurious 'contradiction' out of which
much of 'dialectics' has since slithered. In that case, DM has arisen, not from a
scientific study of nature -- or from the experience of individuals, or even
the revolutionary party, nor yet from revolutionary practice -- but from
word-juggling with the verb "to be"!
This
'impressive' example of the 'scientific method' was invented, so far as we know, by
that arch-Idealist,
Parmenides, who, it seems, had serious problems with other participles of the same
diminutive verb.
From
this egregious verbal trick there evolved the subsequent, almost neurotic, fascination with
"Being", an obsession which has gripped most of Western Philosophy
since -- Hegel
and
Heidegger being its most notorious, recent victims -- i.e.,
Parmenides's misunderstanding of a
present tense participle of the verb "to be"!
Can
you imagine any thegenuine sciences basing itself solely on a misconstrued participle
of any verb, let alone the verb "to be"?
Two thousand five hundred years of wasted effort thanks to a misconstrued
verb!
[How
and why this 'confusion' arose, and was later adopted by DM-theorists, will be
the subject of Essays Three Parts
One and
Two, Eight
Part Three, Twelve and Fourteen
-- a brief outline of this argument can be found
here.]
Suffice it to say that even though comrade Thalheimer was clearly highly
intelligent, it is difficult to understand how ordinary sentences like,
"Thalheimer writes well" slipped his mind, which by no stretch of the imagination is of the form
"A = B" -- and neither is "Thalheimer failed to make his case", or "Thalheimer
ignored this example" (where the reference of "this" is clear), nor even "Thalheimer, following Hegel, misconstrued the
'is' of predication with the 'is' of identity". Or, for that matter, many
of the sentences that appear in his own book! Like:
"Thales tried to
give a natural explanation of this." (p.67)
"He (Anaximander)
lived somewhat after Thales." (p.71)
"He (Heraclitus)
lived about five hundred years before Christ." (p.72)
"Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great...." (p.86).
This
isn't to say that several of the above sentences can't be
forced into this dialectical boot -- as in:
T1: Thalheimer is someone who failed to
make his case.
Even then, there would be
obvious problems interpreting this as:
T2: Thalheimer is
identical with someone who has failed to make his case.
But,
exactly
who is this person with whom Thalheimer is supposed to be identical? That is
quite apart from the fact that T1 and T2 possess different implications. T2 could be
true if this were the case:
T2a: Thalheimer is identical
with George W Bush.
That
isn't the case with T1.
[And
don't even ask what the highlighted "is" in T2 means! Given this
theory it can only mean that T2 must become: "Thalheimer
is identical with identical with someone who
has failed to make his case" as the highlighted "is" is
in T2 replaced with
what it allegedly means, "is identical with". And, with respect to that
sentence, too, awkward question would similarly arise over this new highlighted
"is", and so on.]
Just
try doing the same 'dialectical switch' with the following:
T3: Someone told Thalheimer his watch
was broken.
Or
this:
T4: Anyone who reads Thalheimer's book
knows someone who hasn't read anything written by those who take Hegel
seriously.
The
subject/predicate form, upon which Thalheimer (and Hegel) relied, is almost
totally exclusive to the
Indo-European family of languages, and even then it
captures only a tiny
fraction of the meaningful indicative sentences that can be formed in
that family. The fact that Thalheimer thought he could derive such universal
truths from the peculiarities of a specific language group alone
(and then fail to spot the significance of the additional fact that he also thought
he could get away with doing this from such simple and unrepresentative
examples) further supports the case presented in these Essays that DM is just
another form of LIE -- i.e., it is an attempt to derive universal
truths from discourse alone.
[Concerning
the connection between Indo-European Grammar and the subject-predicate form, see
Kahn (2003), pp.1-2; although Kahn takes a different view of its implications.
This is a link that
Nietzsche also noticed (Nietzsche (1997),
pp.20-21), and it also appears in the so-called
Sapir-Whorf thesis -- although the validity or
otherwise of that theory has no impact on the point been made in this
Essay.]
[LIE =
Linguistic Idealism. That term is explained
here.]
Thalheimer must have used countless sentences every day that gave the lie to his
theory; exactly why he and every other dialectician ignore the language of everyday life will be exposed in Essay Nine Parts
One and
Two, and Essay Twelve (summary
here).
Thalheimer continues in the same vein for another fifteen pages or so. Here are
a few examples:
"So far we have discussed the most general and most fundamental law of
dialectics, namely, the law of the permeation of opposites, or the law of polar
unity. We shall now take up the second main proposition of dialectics, the law
of the negation of the negation, or the law of development through opposites.
This is the most general law of the process of thought. I will first state the
law itself and support it with examples, and then I will show on what it is
based and how it is related to the first law of the permeation of opposites.
There is already a presentiment of this law in the oldest Chinese philosophy, in
the of Transformations, as well as in Lao-tse and his disciples -- and
likewise in the oldest Greek philosophy, especially in Heraclitus. Not until
Hegel, however, was this law developed.
"This
law applies to all motion and changes of things, to real things as well as to
their images in our minds, i.e., concepts. It states first of all that
things and concepts move, change, and develop; all things are processes. All
fixity of individual things is only relative, limited; their motion, change, or
development is absolute, unlimited. For the world as a whole absolute motion and
absolute rest coincide. The proof [sic] of this part of the proposition,
namely, that all things are in flux, we have already given in our discussion of
Heraclitus." [Ibid.,
pp.170-71. Bold emphases added.]
Clearly, Thalheimer has an odd idea of the nature of proof; he seems to think it
has something to do with uncritically accepting the dogmatic ideas of previous
mystics and Idealists!
He
continues:
"The law of the negation of the negation has a special sense beyond the mere
proposition that all things are processes and change. It also states something
about the most general form of these changes, motions, or developments. It
states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes
place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing.
"Conceptually the actual movement of things appears as a negation. In other
words, negation is the most general way in which motion or change of things is
represented in the mind. This is the first stage of this process. The negation
of a thing from which the change proceeds, however, is in turn subject to the
law of the transformation of things into their opposites. The negation is itself
negated. Thus we speak of the negation of the negation." [Ibid.,
p.171. Bold emphases added.]
Thalheimer presents no evidence whatsoever that human beings think in the way he
suggests, but, hey, that must mean it is a 'well established law' because that
non-scientist, Hegel, says it is. Sorted!
"We now ask, where does the law of the
negation of the negation come from? What is its relation to the first main
proposition of the permeation of opposites? Obviously, it is related directly to
the law of the permeation of opposites. It is the permeation of opposites as a
process, a process in time, in sequence. The permeation of opposites as a
process results in the law of the negation of the negation or the law of
development through opposites. The first main proposition, the law of the
permeation of opposites, represents the most general relations of things from
the point of view of structure or static being. The second proposition of the
negation of the negation represents the relation of things as a process, i.e.,
dynamically. These two propositions are so related that they hold true for
every process, for everything at the same time and to the same extent. The two
propositions permeate each other; they form a coherent whole. The first gives a
cross-section of the world, the second a longitudinal section." [Ibid.,
pp.179-80. Bold emphasis added. Minor typo corrected in the on-line version
compared with the published version. I have notified the editors over at the
Marxist Internet Archive.]
But,
how could Thalheimer possibly know that these 'laws' applied to everything "at
the same time and to the same extent"? Of course, he couldn't, but that didn't
stop him from imposing this dogma on nature.
We
turn now to consider the thoughts of a comrade who was an intellectual and
political enemy of Stalinism:
George
Novack. Oddly enough, and despite what he had elsewhere
said about dogmatism (quoted again below), instead of opposing it he emulated it, laying down the law like any other born-again apriorist:
"The
unified process of development is the universality of the dialectic, which
maintains that everything is linked together and interactive, in continuous
motion and change, and that this change is the outcome of the conflict of
opposing forces within nature as well as everything to be found in it."
[Quoted in Green Left, 20/10/1993. I owe this reference to Petersen
(1994), p.156.]
"Everything in motion is continually
bringing forth this contradiction of being in two different places at the same
time, and also overcoming this contradiction by proceeding from one place to
the next…. A moving thing is both here and there
simultaneously. Otherwise it is not in motion but at rest….
"Nothing is permanent. Reality is
never resting, ever changeable, always in flux. This unquestionable
universal process forms the foundation of the theory [of dialectical
materialism]…. According to the theory of Marxism,
everything comes into being as a result of material causes, develops through
successive phases, and finally perishes….
"Dialectics is the logic of movement, of
evolution, of change. Reality is too full of contradictions, too elusive, too
manifold, too mutable to be snared in any single form or formula. Each
particular phase of reality has its own laws…. These laws…have to be discovered
by direct investigation of the concrete whole, they cannot be excogitated by
the mind alone before material reality is analysed. Moreover, all reality
is constantly changing, disclosing ever new aspects…. If reality is ever changing,
concrete, full of novelty, fluent as a river, torn by oppositional forces, then
dialectics…must share the same characteristics….
"Nature cannot be unreasonable or
reason contrary to nature. Everything that exists must have a necessary and
sufficient reason for existence…. The material base of this law lies in
the actual
interdependence of all things in their reciprocal interactions…. If
everything that exists has a necessary and sufficient reason for existence,
that means it had to come into being. It was pushed into existence and forced
its way into existence by natural necessity…. Reality, rationality and
necessity are intimately associated at all times….
"If everything actual is necessarily
rational, this means that every item of the real world has a sufficient reason
for existing and must find a rational explanation…. But this is not the whole and final
truth about things…. The real truth about things is that they not only
exist, persist, but they also develop and pass away. This passing away of
things…is expressed in logical terminology by the term 'negation'. The whole
truth about things can be expressed only if we take into account this opposite
and negative aspect….
"All things are limited and changing….
In logical terms, they not only affirm themselves. They likewise negate
themselves and are negated by other things…. Such a movement of things and of
thought is called dialectical movement…. From this dialectical essence of
reality
Hegel drew the conclusion that constitutes an indispensable part of his
famous aphorism: All that is rational is real…. [M]ovement…from unreality into reality
and then back again into unreality, constitutes the essence, the inner
movement behind all appearance….
"Everything generates within itself
that force which leads to its negation, its passing away into some other and
higher form of being…. This dialectical activity is
universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace.
'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of
consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be
viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead
of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and
this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the
finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate
or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia,
p.120)." [Novack (1971), pp.41, 43, 51, 70-71, 78-80, 84-87, 94-95; quoting
Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.
Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]
Novack's book is literally bursting at the seams with dogmatic pronouncements like this, practically all
of which he supports -- not with data or evidence --, but with
quotations from Hegel and other assorted DM-luminaries! As far as this
aspect of Novack's work is concerned, DM might just as well stand for "Dogmatic
Materialism".
"[D]ialectical materialism deals with the entire universe and its logic
holds good for all the constituent sectors of reality which enter into human
experience: nature, society and thought. The laws of dialectics, which have
arisen out of the investigation of the universal processes of becoming and modes
of being, apply to all phenomena. Although each level of being has its
own specific laws, these merge with general laws covering all spheres of
existence and development, which constitute the content and shape the method
of materialist dialectics." [Novack (1978), p.232. It is important to note that
although this was a report of what three other Marxists had to say (in a
debate), it is clear that Novack agreed with them. It is also interesting to
note that these other three Marxists were communists, not Trotskyists like
Novack. The 'wooden and lifeless' dialectic promulgated by communists was
apparently vibrant and spritely enough for Novack to agree with it. I return to
consider this odd fact about DM-fans right across every strand of Marxism (that
they largely agree about DM, 'wooden and lifeless' or not), in Essay Nine Part
Two. See also Essay Four Part One,
here.]
"Dialectical materialism admits no such barriers to its field of operations. It
has a universal character. It takes all reality for its province.
The materialist dialectics applies to all phenomena from the most distant
nebulae and the most remote time to man's most intimate feelings and elevated
thoughts."
[Quoted from
here. Bold emphasis added.]
Admittedly, Novack says that DM has arisen out of the study of nature, but he
adds that it applies to "the entire universe...[and] all phenomena" and its laws
apply to "all spheres of existence and development", which were, plainly, beyond
the reach of the sciences of his day, let alone ours.
Compare the above with Novack's very own warning about dogmatism:
"A consistent materialism cannot
proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason,
intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source.
Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon
evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in
practice...." [Novack (1965), p.17. Bold emphasis added. He even adds
"[DM]...is not imposed a priori or willfully (sic) on nature..." {Novack (1978),
p.241.}]
In
view of the above, he should perhaps have said this:
"A consistent materialism can
and must proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason,
intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source.
Idealisms may do this, too." [Ibid., misquoted.]
Two other
OTs not to be outdone in this respect are Woods and Grant
[henceforth, W&G], in
Reason In Revolt [RIRE] -- some of the page references I have cited might
have changed slightly in the second edition.
First, they soften the reader up with the
usual disarming banter:
"Hegel was forced to impose a schema
upon nature and society, in flat contradiction to the dialectical method itself,
which demands that we derive the laws of a given phenomenon from a scrupulously
objective study of the subject matter…[and which should not be]…arbitrarily foisted on history…." [Woods and Grant (1995),
pp.43-44. Bold emphases added.]
[OT = Orthodox Trotskyist.]
Then,
over the next few pages (and, indeed, throughout the rest of their book) they
reveal their true (and thoroughly traditional) colours:
"Dialectics…sets out from the axiom
that everything is in a constant state of change and flux….
"The fundamental proposition of
dialectics is
that everything is in a constant process of change, motion and development.
Even when it appears to us that nothing is happening, in reality, matter is
always changing….
"Everything is in a constant state of
motion, from neutrinos to super-clusters….
"Contradiction is an essential
feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is
the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law
which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of
opposites….
"The law of the transformation of
quantity into quality has an extremely wide range of applications, from the
smallest particles of matter at the subatomic level to the largest phenomena
known to man.
"Positive is meaningless without
negative. They are necessarily inseparable. Hegel long ago explained that
'pure being' (devoid of all contradiction) is the same as pure nothing….
Everything in the real world contains positive and negative, being and not
being, because everything is in a constant state of movement and change….
"Moreover, everything is in permanent
relation with other things. Even over vast distances, we are affected
by light, radiation, gravity. Undetected by our senses, there is a process of
interaction, which causes a continual series of changes….
"This universal phenomenon of the
unity of oppositesis, in reality the motor-force of all motion and
development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction,
is only possible
as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the
heart of all forms of matter." [Ibid., pp.43-47,
65-68.
Bold emphases added.]
"Men and women clearly distinguish
between past and future. A sense of time is, however, not unique to humans or
even animals. Organisms often have a kind of 'internal clock,' like plants which
turn one way during the day and another at night.
Time is an objective expression of the changing state of matter. This is
revealed even by the way we talk about it. It is common to say that time
'flows.' In fact, only material fluids can flow. The very choice of metaphor
shows that time is inseparable from matter. It is not only a subjective
thing. It is the way we express an actual process that exists in the physical
world. Time is thus just an expression of the fact that all matter exists in
a state of constant change. It is the destiny and necessity of all material
things to change into something other than what they are. 'Everything that
exists deserves to perish.'... [Here quoting
Engels (1888), p.587.]
"Time and movement are inseparable
concepts. They are essential to all life and all knowledge of the world,
including every manifestation of thought and imagination. Measurement, the
corner-stone of all science, would be impossible without time and space. Music
and dance are based upon time. Art itself attempts to convey a sense of time and
movement, which are present not just in representations of physical energy, but
in design. The colours, shapes and lines of a painting guide the eye across the
surface in a particular rhythm and tempo. This is what gives rise to the
particular mood, idea and emotion conveyed by the work of art. Timelessness is a
word that is often used to describe works of art, but really expresses the
opposite of what is intended. We cannot conceive of the absence of time,
since time is present in everything.
"There is a difference between time and
space. Space can also express change, as change of position. Matter exists and
moves through space. But the number of ways that this can occur is infinite:
forward, backward, up or down, to any degree. Movement in space is reversible.
Movement in time is irreversible. They are two different (and indeed
contradictory) ways of expressing the same fundamental property of matter --
change. This is the only Absolute that exists.
"Space is the 'otherness' of matter,
to use Hegel's terminology, whereas time is the process whereby matter (and
energy, which is the same thing) constantly changes into something other than
what it is. Time -- 'the fire in which we are all consumed' -- is commonly seen
as a destructive agent. But it is equally the expression of a permanent
process of self-creation, whereby matter is constantly transformed into and
endless number of forms. This process can be seen quite clearly in
non-organic matter, above all at the subatomic level." [Ibid.,
pp.141-42. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the
conventions adopted at this site.]
"Dialectics teaches one to look beyond
the immediate, to penetrate beyond the appearance of stability and calm, and to
see the seething contradictions and ceaseless movement that lies beneath the
surface. We are imbued with the idea of constant change, and that sooner or
later everything changes into its opposite. The capitalist system, together
with its values, morality, politics and what sometimes passes for philosophy, is
not something eternal, which has no beginning and no end. In fact, it is a very
recent phenomenon with a turbulent past, a shaky present, and no future at all.
This, of course, is something the system's defenders find impossible to
contemplate. So much the worse for them!" [Preface to the second
Spanish Edition of RIRE; quoted from
here. Bold emphasis added.]
"Dialectics teaches us to
study things in motion, not statically; in their life, not in their death.
Every development is rooted in earlier stages, and in turn is the embryo and
starting point of new developments -- a never-ending web of relations that
reinforce and perpetuate each other. Hegel already developed this idea in his
Logic and other works. Dialectics teaches us to study things and processes
in all their interconnections. This is important as a methodology in areas
such as animal morphology. It is not possible to modify one part of the anatomy
without producing changes in all the others. Here too there is a dialectical
relationship....
"Dialectical materialism
allows us to study reality, not as a series of dry, unconnected, senseless
events or 'facts', but as a dynamic process, driven by its internal
contradictions, ever changing and with an infinitely rich content." [Alan
Woods, Introduction to the e-book edition of RIRE, May 2015; taken from
here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this
site; bold emphases added.]
The
above passages represent but a fraction of the scores that
could have been quoted from RIRE; indeed, if every dogmatic, a
priori
paragraph had been reproduced from that work alone, this Essay would have
been several thousand words longer still.
As is
now becoming boringly familiar, these two comrades failed to reveal how they
obtained the "axiom" that everything is in a constant state of change, how they
knew that motion arises only from contradictions, or which
"scrupulous" examination of the evidence supports the view that contradictions
are an "essential
feature of all being".
Moreover, they forgot to tell their readers what the
negative and
positive internal aspects of electrons and photons are --, if, as they
claim, everything is made of opposites, positive and negative.
These opposites can't be protons and/or positrons, nor yet antiphotons (although it is
controversial whether there are any antiphotons), since these are external
to electrons and photons. The same question can be posed in relation to
quarks,
geodesics,
Branes, and much else besides.
[This
touches on a serious equivocation exposed elsewhere at this site:
DM-fans vacillate between a logical and a spatial
interpretation of "internal opposite" -- W&G included.]
Of
course, there are those who think that positrons are really electrons travelling
'backwards in time' (although it isn't too clear what "travelling" might mean in
such an odd context), or who think they are "self-opposites". But,
even if such enigmatic talk were correct (or made much sense), it lends no
support to DM since such opposites don't 'struggle' with one another and then
turn into one another, as we are
assured they must by the
Dialectical Classics. Such talk is no more 'dialectical' than would be the
words of someone who regarded forwards as the 'self-opposite' of backwards
(forgetting, perhaps, sideways).
Indeed, there are more than enough dialecticians who dote on this stuff; their 'arguments'
will be demolished in Essays Seven
Part
One and Eight Parts One,
Two, and Three.
Now,
it is entirely possible that W&G (temporarily) forgot what the word
"foisted" meant when they declared the following:
"Hegel was forced to impose a schema
upon nature and society, in flat contradiction to the dialectical method itself,
which demands that we derive the laws of a given phenomenon from a scrupulously
objective study of the subject matter…[and which should not be]…arbitrarily
foisted on history…." [Ibid.,
p.43.]
To be fair to these two, they do spend a significant proportion of their
book trying desperately to show that dialectical principles apply
throughout
nature and society, appealing to examples drawn from everyday life and the
sciences, quoting prominent researchers and theorists in support. Nevertheless,
and to be brutally honest, their zeal and methodology uncomfortably resemble the
same approach found in
books and articles written by Fundamentalist Christians in their no less
desperate attempt to 'prove' the Bible is not only correct, but scientifically
accurate. In the end, all these two have to offer is page after page of
selective quotations, carefully chosen examples, tediously repetitive sarcasm (mostly aimed at
FL, 'commonsense' and 'formal thinking'), compounded by acres of distortion and special-pleading. The 'evidence'
that Woods and
Grant offer their readers is presented in a populist format (no problem with
that -- if it doesn't distort the material itself); they quote no original
research or primary data. In fact, their book is
impressionistic, superficial and situated in the
marshmallow soft
Mickey Mouse world
of 'dialectical science', mentioned earlier.
[FL = Formal Logic.]
Many
of the examples W&G use are highly fanciful (in general, those they lifted from Engels and Hegel), others perhaps less so. Several of
the latter will be discussed in Essays
Four and
Seven, where the highly repetitive,
ill-informed and fanciful comments they make about FL have been exposed for
the fibs they are. [No
exaggeration, but in relation to FL, RIRE contains easily the worst
examples of fabrication I have yet seen in DM-texts; this is something a
supporter of this site raised with one of the authors
over ten years ago. He promised to correct some of them in the
second edition. Added in 2008: several have been corrected,
but not all.]
Reason in Revolt?
More like Reason in Remission!
Even
so, a thousand-volume Encyclopaedia wouldn't contain enough evidence to justify
the intergalactically over-ambitious "foistings" and declarations on behalf of
all "being" promulgated by these two.
[Many of the above dogmatic pronouncements have since been repeated
here (but co-authored by Woods and Sewell). Their many errors will also be exposed in Essay Seven Part Two, when it is
published. Several of them have already been outlined
here.]
Here is
another recent example of disarming modesty followed by the by-now-familiar
a priori imposition on nature and society:
"It has been said many times that the method of Marxism is to first study the
facts of a subject, and then to draw out its processes and its connections. This
describes not only the method of Marxism but also the method of science (and
Marxism is a science) -- not to impose an arbitrary idea, but to study a
subject from all angles and to find and generalise the underlying processes that
are taking place. Then to use that theoretical insight as a guide to action, to
learn from further experience, and to refine and develop the theory as a guide
to further action....
"Modern
theoretical physics overwhelmingly emphasises deduction as the way to develop
ideas about the universe, deriving predictions from more general ideas. But
there is also another approach, philosophical induction, in which ideas and
generalisations are derived from observations. Scientists, and Marxists, in
reality use both approaches to learn about the world, from data to ideas and
from ideas to data, working in both directions, simultaneously. First data (but
according to an idea, a hypothesis to test, a direction to look), from which
more ideas, then more tests, more ideas, and so on. This is induction and
deduction, simultaneously, in parallel and in sequence -- a union and
interpenetration of opposites, out of which comes the growth and development of
scientific ideas." [Harry
Nielsen, a Woods and Grant fellow-traveller. Bold emphasis added.]
On
another page at the same site, Nielsen had this to say:
"That the quantity of matter and motion is conserved in any process is a
central and fundamental part of our knowledge of the physical world. And if
matter and motion exist now then they always have and always will exist --
not simply to the last syllable of recorded time but both before and beyond that
time, whether recorded or not. For human beings to understand the
abstraction infinity is difficult when it is so far outside of our experience
and seems to have little practical meaning. Yet the existence now of matter and
energy is the clearest evidence we have that they have always existed and
always will. If we start with the physics that we know, then we have to
conclude that the universe has no beginning, has no end, and that time is
infinite.
"But the universe is not static.
Everywhere, at all scales, from the very small to the very large, there is
change, motion and development. Galaxies, clusters of galaxies, evolve and
change. Stars and planets are born, grow and die...." [Harry
Nielsen. Bold emphases added.]
But, these universal and
infinitary conclusions can't follow from what little evidenceeven
modern Physics has amassed, let alone from the tiny sub-set of which Nielsen
is aware. How could he possibly know that time is infinite, for example?
Or, that universe will never end? And, how can the following be extrapolated
beyond anything we do currently know, or could possibly know in the
future:
"And if matter and motion exist now then they always have and always will exist
-- not simply to the last syllable of recorded time but both before and beyond
that time, whether recorded or not"? [Ibid.]
Is Nielsen a minor deity of some sort?
It is little point replying that scientists do this sort of thing all
the time, since they don't shoot themselves in the foot by first saying they
will never impose their ideas on nature (in a manner similar to DM-theorists). And, except when
they pass metaphysical-sort-of-opinions in their popular work, scientists tend
to omit references to "eternity" and "infinity", nor
do they speculate about matter existing "beyond...time".
[Recall that the truth or falsity of DM-theses isn't at issue here (even
though it will be in later Essays). The main point of this Essay is to
(i) Expose the glaring inconsistency between the claims made by dialecticians not to
have imposed their ideas on nature and the fact that they then proceed to
do just that, and (ii) Suggest they do this because it is thoroughly
traditional to do it.]
Finally, in connection
with the first of the above quotations, it is worth noting that Nielsen's
assertion that the use of deduction and induction is a "union
and interpenetration of opposites", is itself an a priori imposition onto
logic of something that is manifestly not the case.
Deductive logic
has no opposite (in any clear sense of that word); it just has different
branches. And,
inductive logic is merely a rather loose form of reasoning, mainly concerning
regularities and probabilities.
The
late
Gerry Healy
was certainly no stranger to the
aprioristic tradition; in fact, if anything, he was TheDaddy
of Dogmatic Dialectics:
"Dialectical Materialists get to know
the world initially through a process of Cognition. It affects the sensory
organs, producing sensation in the form of indeterminate mental images.
"As forms of the motion and change of
the external world, these images are processed as concepts of phenomena. Upon
negation their dissolution from the positive sensation into their abstract
negative, they are negated again as the nature of semblance into positive
semblance which is the theory of knowledge of a human being. During this
interpenetration process, the images as thought forms are analysed through the
science of thought and reason which is Dialectical Logic….
"…Thus, the everlasting material
properties of thought in Dialectical Logic in self-relation between subject and
object, coincide materially with the theory of knowledge….
"The category of 'Appearance' exists
initially in the theory of knowledge as negative self-mediation. It is the
movement of antithesis apprehended in its unity before Negative semblance
interpenetrates Positive semblance, thus activating the theory of knowledge and
Appearance as a category. Law as a category is reflection of Appearance
into identity
with itself….
"…The 'whole' must be seen as an
inner force which will strive to manifest itself in external reality as
essence
which must appear. Real 'wholes' must have elements bound together
by the interaction of 'parts' and 'whole'. Since the 'parts' and 'whole' are
constantly changing, the 'whole' as such can never be a sum total of its
'parts'. It is instead the sum total and unity of opposites in constant change,
which are simultaneously not only single 'wholes' but many 'wholes'. Thus
'wholes' change into 'parts' and 'parts'into 'wholes'." [Healy
(1982), pp.1-3, 57-58. Bold emphases in the original; italic emphases
added. Recall that these articles originally appeared in Newsline, the
daily paper of the old
WRP!]
"In his book 'In Defence of Marxism'
Trotsky emphasised that Hegel in 'Logic' 'established a series of laws', amongst
them 'development through contradiction'....
"We reproduce for the benefit of the
anti-Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky brigade the following quotations on
contradiction....
[There then follows a series of
quotations from Lenin, but no data. That should put this 'brigade' in their
place! -- RL]
"Contradiction, therefore, cannot be
regarded as an 'empty word form' or a 'subjective' external impression, because
it is contained within the very essence of all material objects and
processes. It is the dialectical unity of external and internal contradiction.
Thus the infinite self-movement of matter is contradictory.
"...The development of Contradiction
in the essence of objects manifests itself as IDENTITY of the infinite
source of sensation in the external world." [Healy (1990), pp.7-8. Emphases and
capitalisation in the original. Parts of this booklet can be found
here.]
It
is, therefore, remarkable that Healy managed to achieve so much in his life,
having surely spent most of it examining every atom of matter in the entire
universe, as well as every single human mind on the planet, in order to confirm these
startling results about nature and thought. How he was passed over for a Nobel Prize is
beyond comprehension.
Readers will no doubt note how Healy 'derives' more than his fair share of
universalist conclusions -- not from nature --, but from Lenin and Trotsky's
quotations of, or references to, Hegel! The fact that he proceeds as if this were the most
natural thing in the world indicates how deep traditional thought-forms had
seeped into his ultra-sectarian brain. This is no accident; the connection
between (a) (i) Healy's sectarianism, (ii) the
personality cult erected around him, and (iii) his bullying tactics,
as well as (b) the
ruling-class ideas that dominate the thought of dialectical dinosaurs like him
--, in this case clearly compounded by the impenetrably obscure theories he had
been gestating for many years -- will be established in Essay
Nine Part Two.
Exhibit B for the Prosecution:
"The IDENTITY of the objective source of
our sensation in the 'external world' is a quantitative infinite,
law-governed process of dialectical nature, human society (the class struggle)
and thought.
"Its self-related negation into
qualitative
finite DIFFERENCE in Subjective thought as a 'particular' or 'part' is the
interpenetration of opposites (Object into subject). The 'antithesis' is the
unity of negative infinity (IDENTITY) into finite (DIFFERENCE) and is a
negative with a positive image, which as a result of the first negation contains
contradiction. The 'antithesis' whose unity of negative and positive is the
essence of 'something' whose source is in the external world.
"...OTHER to OTHER is infinity to
infinity or IDENTITY to IDENTITY, with self-related Qualitative finite
Difference omitted, or incorporated into an eclectic 'unity.'
"'Speculative thought' is prepared to
consider the 'infinite' as a 'Unity' with the finite but ignores their
inseparable self-related connection.
"....As a new unity of opposites
consisting of a variety of 'parts' builds up, 'the regressive, rearward
confirmation of the beginning' 'and its progressive further determination
coincide and are the same'. A new 'whole' consisting of the new parts as a unity
of opposites is ready to appear in the form of 'Essence-in-Existence'. [Ibid.,
pp.18-20. Emphasis and capitalisation in the original.]
This represents only a tiny fraction of the dogmatic and a
priori passages in Healy's work; once more, if every such passage of his and
those of his epigones had been quoted, this
Essay would have been a good 25% longer still. [On this, see Appendix Four.]
[It
can only be hoped that there is a 'next life', and that it affords the
indominatible Healy sufficient time to try to scrape together enough evidence to
prove that "negative infinity" is indeed "IDENTITY" -- with or without the use
of capital letters.]
I
have been unable to find a clear statement in Healy's writings that he felt there was any need to gather evidence in support of truly
impressive
Dialectical-Superscience like this,but because he was a Mega-OT,
it is reasonably certain that he must at least have paid lip-service to this
minimally scientific ideal at some point, especially in view of Trotsky's
gesture
in that direction. Be this as it may, Healy's devotion to the scientific method
(aimed perhaps at confirming the radically 'innovative super-psychology' presented in the
above quotation) unfortunately stretched only as far as his leafing through Hegel's
Logic, Engels's AD and DN, and Lenin's PN and MEC.
[PN = Philosophical Notebooks
(i.e, Lenin (1961));
MEC =
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (i.e., Lenin (1972)); AD = Anti-Dühring
(i.e., Engels (1976)); DN = Dialectics of
Nature (i.e., Engels (1954)); OT = Orthodox Trotskyist.]
No
doubt, he did this extremely "carefully".
Nevertheless, after dozens of pages of quotations from Lenin, Engels and
Trotsky, Healy did add this comment:
"The pragmatic eclecticist preselects
abstract quotations from Marxist and transforms them into dogma." [Ibid., p.61.]
Moreover, in an introduction to Lenin's PN, Cliff Slaughter (Healy's side-kick
until the two fell out over Healy's abuse of female comrades -- more on this in
Essay Nine Part Two) -- had this
to say (and he certainly wouldn't have published it without Healy's approval):
"Lenin lays great stress on Hegel's
insistence that Dialectics is not a master-key; a sort of set of magic
numbers by which all secrets will be revealed. It is wrong to think of
dialectical logic as something that is complete in itself and then 'applied' to
particular examples. It is not a model of interpretation to be learned,then
fitted on to reality from the outside; the task is rather to uncover the law
of development of the reality itself." [Cliff Slaughter, quoted from
here. Bold emphasis added. This
passage first appeared in Labour Review (the monthly theoretical magazine
of the old
WRP) in the early 1960s, which was
subsequently reprinted in a pamphlet Slaughter wrote about Lenin's
PN -- i.e., Slaughter
(1963), p.10.]
Apparently, just as he failed to notice Healy's long-term sex abuse, Slaughter
also failed to spot Healy, Lenin and Trotsky's dogmatic apriorism.
Update: A year or so after writing the above, I discovered this comment of Healy's:
"Great care has to be taken not to
impose any abstract thought interpretations upon the external world. Its
independent properties must be allowed to build up in the mind and not have some
premature abstract thought imposed on these, concealed and unknown
properties.... Training
and using our senses properly means to avoid imposing thought images on the
external world." [Healy, quoted in North (1991), pp.89-90. Bold
emphases added. Paragraphs merged.]
As we
can now see, Healy was clearlyjoking when he cam out with those words.
In
his 1951 article, 'On the Dialectical Method', we find Bordiga giving lip-service
to the usual, seemingly modest disclaimers we have come to expect from
DM-theorists:
"It is necessary to reject any idealist
assumptions, as well as any pretence to discover in the minds of men (or in
the mind of the author of the 'system') irrevocable rules that have precedence
over research in any field." [Quoted from
here. Minor typo corrected. Quotation marks altered to conform with the
conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis added.]
In
other words, the dialectic must not be imposed on the facts. So far, so good...
The
sincerity of Bordiga's disclaimer can be judged from the fact that in the
sentences surrounding the above passage (and, indeed, in the very same paragraph!)
we read the following:
"It is therefore necessary, above all,
for Marxist militants to get to know the value of the dialectic. The
dialectic asserts that the same laws apply to both the presentation of the
natural and the historical processes.... It means recognizing, in the causal
order, the fact that the material and physical conditions for the life of man
and of society continuously determine and modify the way man thinks and feels.
But it also means seeing, in the action of groups of men in similar material
conditions, forces that influence the social situation and change it. This is
the real meaning of Marx’s determinism." [Ibid.
Bold emphases added.]
So, in the very same paragraph as
Bordiga
asserts that dialecticians shouldn't put their ideas above any field of research
(i.e., they shouldn't be foisted on nature and society), he proceeds to do
the exact opposite.
Indeed, later in the same article we
find these rather dogmatic ideas imposed on the facts:
"Dialectics means connection, or
relation. Just as there is a relation between one thing and another, between one
event and another in the real world, so too is there a relation between the
(more or less imperfect) reflections of this real world in our thought, and
between the formulations that we employ to describe it and to store and to
practically enjoy the fruits of the knowledge that we have thereby acquired. As
a result, our way of explaining, reasoning, deducing and deriving conclusions,
can be guided and ordered by certain rules, corresponding to the appropriate
interpretation of reality. Such rules comprise the logic that guides the forms
of reasoning; and in a wider sense they comprise the dialectic that serves as a
method for connecting them with the scientific truths we have acquired....
"The dialectical method is different
from the scientific method. The latter, the stubborn legacy of the old fashioned
way of formulating thought, derived from religious concepts based on dogmatic
revelation, presents the concepts of things as immutable, absolute, eternal,
founded on a few first principles, alien to one another and having a kind of
independent life. For the dialectical method,
not only is everything in
motion, but in motion all things reciprocally influence each other, and this
also goes for their concepts, or the reflections of these things in our minds,
which are 'connected and united' (among themselves). Metaphysics proceeds by
way of antinomy, that is, by absolute terms that are opposed to one another.
These opposed terms can never mix or touch, nor can anything new emerge from
their unity that is not reduced to the simple affirmation of the presence of one
and the absence of the other and vice versa." [Ibid. Quotation marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis added.]
This is a bit rich. One minute, the
scientific method is criticised for its:
"legacy [in] the old fashioned way of
formulating thought, derived from religious concepts based on dogmatic
revelation, presents the concepts of things as immutable, absolute, eternal...."
[Ibid.]
"[N]ot only is everything in motion, but
in motion all things reciprocally influence each other, and this also goes for
their concepts, or the reflections of these things in our minds, which are
'connected and united' (among themselves)...." [Ibid.]
As
Glenn Magee notes:
"Another parallel between
Hermeticismand Hegel is the doctrine of internal relations. For the Hermeticists, the
cosmos is not a loosely connected, or to use Hegelian language, externally
related set of particulars. Rather, everything in the cosmos is internally
related, bound up with everything else.... This principle is most clearly
expressed in the so-called Emerald
Tabletof
Hermes Trismegistus, which begins with the famous lines 'As above, so
below.'
This maxim became the central tenet of Western occultism, for it laid the
basis for a doctrine of the unity of the cosmos through sympathies and
correspondences between its various levels. The most important implication of
this doctrine is the idea that man is the microcosm, in which the whole of the
macrocosm is reflected.
"...The universe is an internally related whole pervaded by cosmic energies."
[Magee (2008),p.13.
Bold emphases added.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
Once
more: how does Bordiga know that
everything is interconnected and in motion? Some things might be; indeed, most
things might be. But all? He can't possibly know this, but he is quite happy to
impose it on nature.
He continues:
"To provide an example, in the natural
sciences stasis is counterposed to motion: there can be no conciliation between
these two things; by virtue of the formal principle of contradiction, that which
is at rest does not move, and that which is moving is not at rest. But the
Eleatic School
under
Zeno
had already exposed the fraud of such a distinction that seems so
certain: the arrow in motion, while it passes one point of its trajectory,
remains at that point, and therefore is not moving. The ship is moving with
respect to the shore, while for the passenger walking on the ship this is not
the case: the latter is motionless with respect to the shore, and is therefore
not moving. These so-called sophisms were demonstrations of the possibilities of
reconciling opposites: stasis and motion; only by breaking down motion into many
elements composed of points of time and space would it be possible for
infinitesimal mathematics and modern physics not blinded by the metaphysical
method to resolve the problems of non-rectilinear and non-uniform motion. Today
motion and stasis are considered to be relative terms, and neither absolute
movement nor absolute stasis has any meaning." [Ibid.
Links added.]
But, the Eleatics were idealists, and
Bordiga has already told us to "reject any idealist assumptions". Moreover, the
'contradictory' nature of motion can't be confirmed by observation, experiment
or any method known to the sciences (as we will discover in
Essay Five).
[Some might object that this idea
follows from a
mathematical analysis of motion, and hence from one of the methods used
by scientists. However, as I have also demonstrated in the above Essay, that isn't so. Readers are
directed there for more details.]
So, what is the above comment doing here?
The answer is quite plain: Bordiga
didn't obtain this peculiar idea from the sciences but from the a priori,
dogmatic theories invented by Idealists like Zeno and Hegel -- which fact
Bordiga acknowledges, anyway:
"The introduction of the dialectic can
nonetheless be understood in two very different ways. First enunciated by the
most brilliant cosmological schools of Greek philosophy as a method to acquire
knowledge of nature that did not depend on aprioristic prejudices...."
[Ibid.]
From this it is reasonably clear that
Bordiga has a rather odd understanding of "aprioristic" thought, since that is precisely
what Zeno's ideas exhibited, as did those that
Heraclitus dreamt up.
[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; OT =
Orthodox Trotskyist.]
Inconsistent ruminations like these aren't confined to OT-gurus, or, indeed,
OT-groupies. Generations of STDs have shown that they, too, are quite capable of
matching anything the former have ever tried to "foist" on nature, as
anyone foolish enough to trawl through their writings can well attest (indeed,
as we saw earlier). Here are
some of the thoughts of comrade Cornforth (prefaced, of course, by the familiar
modest-looking disclaimers):
"Our party philosophy, then, has a right
to lay claim to truth. For it is the only philosophy which is based on a
standpoint which demands that we should always seek to understand things just
as they are…without disguises and without fantasy….
"Marxism, therefore, seeks to base
our ideas of things on nothing but the actual investigation of them, arising
from and tested by experience and practice. It does not invent a 'system' as
previous philosophers have done, and then try to make everything fit into it….
Surprising as this might seem to some,
Cornforth then proceeded to do the opposite:
"Nothing exists or can exist in
splendid isolation, separate from its conditions of existence, independent from
its relationships with other things…. When things enter into such
relationships that they become parts of a whole, the whole cannot be regarded
as nothing more than the sum total of the parts…. [W]hile it may be said
that the whole is determined by the parts it may equally be said that the parts
are determined by the whole….
"Dialectical materialism understands the
world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes,
in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and
passing away.
"Dialectical materialism considers
that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of
matter, so that
there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter….
"Dialectical materialism understands the
motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe….
"Dialectical materialism considers
that…things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate
individual units,
but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be
understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and
interconnection….
"Dialectical materialism considers
the universe, not as static, not as unchanging, but as in a continual process of
development. It considers this development, not as a smooth, continuous and
unbroken process, but as a process…interrupted by breaks in continuity, by the
sudden leap from one state to another. And it seeks for the explanation, the
driving force, of this universal movement…within material processes themselves
-– in the inner contradictions, the opposite conflicting tendencies, which
are in operating in every process in nature and society….
"When we think of the properties of
things, their relationships, their modes of action and interaction, the
processes into which they enter, then we find that, generally speaking, all
these properties, relationships, interactions and processes divide into
fundamental opposites….
"As Hegel put it: 'In opposition,
the different is not confronted by any other, but by its other' (Encyclopaedia
of Philosophical Sciences: Logic, section 119)….
"The dialectical method demands
first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always in
their interconnections with other things….
"The employment of the Marxist
dialectical method does not mean that we apply a pre-conceived scheme and try
to make everything fit into it. No, it means that we study things as they
really are, in their interconnection and movement….
"All change has a quantitative aspect….
But quantitative change cannot go on indefinitely. At a certain point it
always leads to qualitative change; and at that critical point (or 'nodal
point', as Hegel called it) the qualitative change takes place relatively
suddenly, by a leap, as it were….
"Thus we see that quantitative changes
are transformed at a certain point into qualitative changes…. This is a
universal feature of development….
"The general conclusion [is] that
whenever a process of development takes place, with the transformation in it of
quantitative changes into qualitative changes, there is always present in
it the struggle of opposites –- of opposite tendencies, opposite forces within
the things and processes concerned….
"This struggle is not external and
accidental….
The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from
the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not
independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or
aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the
basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….
"Movement and change result from causes
inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions….
"Contradiction is a universal feature
of all processes….
"The importance of the [developmental]
conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly
expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes
place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal
law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90,
95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and
160, respectively. Bold emphases
added.]
In
view of the above, it might be worth asking: How is it possible for someone not to have imposed a theory on reality
-- as a "pre-conceived scheme" -- with everything made to "fit into it", as
Cornforth says --, if, in fact, they have done just that?
Despite the usual preliminary gestures at theoretical
modesty, Cornforth, in true form, is soon telling us that change is "not
external and accidental…[it] is internal and necessary," that "contradiction is
a universal feature of all processes," and that "all development takes place
through the working out of contradictions," which is "a necessary universal
law….", without once informing the reader from where he obtained this
information (other than copying it from Hegel, Engels and Lenin, of course). But, could
there be a body of evidence large enough to show that
anything in nature is necessary? Especially when Engels had written the
following:
Which
body of evidence is capable of
demonstrating that "all development" is the result of 'internal contradictions'?
Or even, that all change is internally-driven?
What
sort of super-duperlibrary could possibly contain that amount of
evidence? On which tablets were the above cosmic verities to be found?
Those delivered to comrade
Cornforth -- perhaps, by the Archangel Gabriel --, carved in mystic runes on
sapphire tablets by elfin hands?
[The a priori ruminations of a handful
of STDs have been posted
here.]
"He was a big man of captivating charm
who certainly influenced hundreds of undergraduates. He was that rare creature,
a person of truly seminal ideas on a host of subjects, yet one who would never
have exercised the cumulative persistence with detail required to win a Nobel
Prize." [Quoted from
here.]
Although, it has also been said (I
forget by whom) that Bernal was refused this prestigious prize because of his fervent
Communism but because of the fact that
he had
already won the Order of Lenin (although it is a moot point whether he would
have accepted a Nobel Prize even if one had been offered). Be this as it may,
Bernal was without question one of the leading British scientists of the
Twentieth Century.
I won't consider here how Bernal's commitment
to Stalinism compromised his judgement (in relation to such things as the work of
Lysenko --
on this, see Brown (2005)); my concern is to show that when he strayed
from science into areas of Philosophy he was no less dogmatic than the
others we have already met in this Essay.
As usual we begin with a
clichéd gesture toward the need to look for evidence and avoid a reliance on
dogmatic Philosophy:
"The central idea in Dialectical
Materialism is that of transformation. The problem is at the same time: How do
transformation occur and how can we make transformations occur? The approach
to this problem lies not in a philosophical analysis and definition of
transformation, but in an examination of all observable facts in the universe as
they are known to us from various sources, scientific and historical....
"Dialectical Materialism is not a not
a formula to be applied blindly either in the natural or human world. The
facts must first be known and the field of application delimited before it is
possible to say whether such and such a phenomenon exhibits a dialectical
movement or is part of a larger process exhibiting such a movement." [Bernal
(1935), pp.90, 109. Bold emphases added.]
Needless to say, Bernal omits this
evidence -- he doesn't even tell his readers where it can be found, nor does he
even try to summarise it --, but instead spends most of his time looking at what
Philosophers have said about this "problem". Nevertheless, as is the case
with other DM-fans, he is quite happy to impose this theory on nature and
society in abeyance of the facts. Here are just a few examples:
"It was Engels who first attempted to
generalise this materialist inversion of the Hegelian dialectic by showing how
these unions of opposites were not confined to human society, or even to living
things, but occurred at all stages of the organisation of matter. These
oppositions are possessed of critical importance, in that they were forerunners
to the spontaneous processes of real change which go on in the universe. Here
Dialectics was pointing towards the solution of the central philosophical
problem, the problem of the origin of the new....
"The mere static existence of
opposites is, however, only the beginning of dialectic; actually opposites do
not exist statically. None of the qualities mentioned is conceivable except in
the process of movement and transformation. The relations, for instance, of
mass and energy are seen only in the violent transformations of rapidly moving
particles into light, and here again we come to one of the most positive
contributions of Dialectical Materialism -- the equivalence and
inseparability of matter and motion.... The...union of
opposites...removes the necessity for a prime mover in mechanical systems....
"The change of quantity into quality is
a second leading principle of Dialectical Materialism.... To the Dialectical
Materialist...quality, new quality, always appears just at those moments of
transition, when a system undergoing a purely quantitative change breaks down as
a result of its self-engendered contradictions.... Transformations of this
type are found all through the inorganic and organic world...." [Ibid.,
pp.99-106. Bold emphases added.]
In the above, we can see that Bernal
inadvertently acknowledged that it wasn't facts that originally drove
this theory, but Engels's extrapolation from a few trite examples (many of which
he pinched from Hegel) to a set of 'laws' that govern the entire universe for
all of time, thus flouting both his and Engels's disclaimers:
"Dialectical Materialism is not a not a
formula to be applied blindly either in the natural or human world." [Ibid.,
p.109. Bold emphasis added.]
"Finally, for me there could be no
question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of
discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels
(1976), p.13. Bold emphasis added.]
And, far from solving the
'problem of the new', merely asserting that novelty simply 'emerges' at certain
points as a result of an increase in quantity is no explanation at all. We aren't
told how or
why novelty arises (and, as we will discover
here, if DM were true, novelty couldn't arise), we are just told it does.
Better not ask then...
Now,
we turn to what is arguably the best book that has ever been written about
'orthodox' DM as such -- GOD --, which is itself both a rather wordy version of
Baghavan (1987), and an up-market version of Woods and Grant (1995) --
minus the many snide remarks passed about
FL, of course.
Having said that, the author of GOD makes all the usual moves, and mistakes, readily imposing
dialectics on nature while failing to ask of his 'theory' the sorts of questions
raised at this site -- or, indeed, those Gollobin asks about other theories. As far as can be ascertained, Gollobin doesn't even
bother to cover his rear and argue that DM must grow from a patient examination
of the evidence. This is up-front apriorism then, straight out of the
starting blocks!
Update:
However, a few weeks after writing the above I discovered this
comment:
"'Not a single principle of dialectics
can be converted into an abstract schema from which, by purely logical means, it
would be possible to infer the answer to concrete questions. These principles
are a guide to activity and scientific research, not a dogma.'" [Gollobin
(1986), p.409, quoting the Soviet Encyclopedia. Bold emphasis added.]
And
several pages after that GOD even quotes Engels:
"And finally, to me there could be no
question of building the laws of dialectics into nature, but of discovering
them in it and evolving them from it...." [Engels
(1976), p.13, quoted in Gollobin (1986), p.414. Bold emphasis added.]
Without a hint of irony,
GOD then proceeds to
quote a passage from Engels where the latter in fact does the opposite of what he has
just said!
"Nature is the proof of dialectics, and
it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very
rich materials increasing daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort,
nature works dialectically and not metaphysically." [Engels
(1976), p.28, quoted in Gollobin (1986), p.414. Bold emphasis added.]
Hence, it is quite clear that Gollobin is either blind to the fact that Engels
imposed this theory on nature, or he is being deliberately disingenuous. Once
more, how could Engels possibly have known that nature works dialectically --
and not metaphysically, say, in parts of the universe that the scientists of his
day hadn't yet studied (let alone even knew existed)? As should seem clear, he
couldn't possibly have known this, but he was quite happy to "build" this
view into nature, nevertheless
And,
as we are about to see, GOD is no less eager to do the same.
Oddly
enough, much of the 'evidence' that Gollobin lists in support of the many things it
alleges comes from
Piaget (whom he seems to think is an authority on everything),
or from earlier DM-classicists (particularly Engels, Lenin, and Mao), whom he
also quotes in place of scientific evidence -- as if their word
were law -- and it should be added, in direct contradiction to this clear
statement of Mao's:
"Our comrades must understand that we
study Marxism-Leninism not for display, nor because there is any mystery about
it, but solely because it is the science which leads the revolutionary cause of
the proletariat to victory. Even now, there are not a few people who still
regard odd quotations from Marxist-Leninist works as a ready-made panacea which,
once acquired, can easily cure all maladies. These people show childish
ignorance, and we should enlighten them. It is precisely such ignorant people
who take Marxism-Leninism as a religious dogma." [Mao (1965b),
p.42. Bold emphases added.]
Which, in view of the way that 'Mao-Tse-Tung Thought' was parroted by Maoists a
few generations ago,
this isn't all that surprising.
Figure Two:
Incontrovertible Proof That 'Mao-Tse-Tung Thought'
Isn't A Quasi-Religious
Cult/Dogma
GOD
is also in the habit of classifying each DM-thesis as a genuine member of the
"scientific view" of nature and society, failing to note that science is based on hard
evidence, primary data -- and container loads of it, too --, not
on quotationsfromnon-experts, nor yet on those lifted from the dialectical classics.
In
fact, for Gollobin -- just like Baghavan and W&G -- it seems that if
something merely appears to confirm DM, into the pot it goes no
matter where it came from, or how tenuous the support it actually lends the
'theory'.
Nevertheless, it isn't my aim in this Essay to discuss the countless errors GOD
commits (easily far more than there are pages, and only slightly less than
there are paragraphs), but to expose yet again the traditional, a priori
style of reasoning found in GOD, the most faithful of the DM-faithful.
[However, in a later Essay (which will be focussed solely on GOD) I will respond
to many of the things asserted in that work -- until then, see
here.]
Here
are a few of the many dogmatic pronouncements to be found in GOD. With
respect to "sameness and difference", he had this to say:
"No two things are
completely alike, no matter how seemingly identical, whether they are leaves
of a tree, blades of grass, fingerprints, or any other thing. In having and
identity, a thing has a sameness with other things (as well as with itself,
despite all changes, during its lifetime) that stops short of complete identity,
or sameness in all respects. Difference is always present....
"Sameness and difference do
not simply subsist side by side in mere conjunction. They cannot exist apart....
Every affirmation of a thing's features is simultaneously a denial
of its possession of other features."
[Gollobin (1986), pp.92-93. Bold emphases added.]
The
'evidence' (or even argument) that GOD offers in support of these a priori claims
amounts to no more than quoting a few trite examples drawn from nature, coupled with a
quote from
Leibniz
-- which, in fact, merely expresses Leibniz's owndogmatic belief
about identicals and the rationality of 'God'! ['God', not GOD!]
That's it! On that 'basis',
Mickey Mouse DM-'Science'
like this can reveal to us truths about everything in existence, for all
of time.
Unfortunately,
however, for Gollobin, as we have
seen, it looks like scientists have
discovered
countless trillion identicals in every cubic millimetre of matter. [On that,
see
here (this links to a PDF),
here
and
here.]
Returning to the claim made in the second paragraph above:
"Sameness and difference do not simply
subsist side by side in mere conjunction. They cannot exist apart from each
other....
Every affirmation of a thing's features is simultaneously a denial a denial
of its possession of other features." [Ibid. Bold emphasis
added.]
This
is no less dogmatic; from a supposed logical principle, GOD -- following
Hegel -- attempts to derive a universal thesis about "sameness" and
"difference valid everywhere and everywhen.
This
principle (supposedly derived from
Spinoza), which I
will
later call "Spinoza's
Greedy Principle" [SGP], isn't the least bit logical, nor is it at all reliable.
[More on the SGP here
and here.] But, even if it were completely trustworthy, how is this
an example of not "building" dialectics into nature?
And
there is more:
"At the
dawn of bourgeois society, proof of the
heliocentric theory
vitiated the concept of an earth-centred closed universe. Thereafter, Newton's
laws inter-related the movement of celestial bodies;
Mayer
and
Joule
formulated the general principles governing the transformation of kinds of
energy from one form into another;
Mendeleyev discerned a system determining the linkages between chemical
elements, the
periodic
table; Darwin found certain ordered relationships between species; and
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity disclosed certain
basic connections of matter, energy, space and time....
"These scientific advances, and many
more,
demonstrate that all things are connected with others and that nothing exists
completely sealed off, unaffected by other things...." [Ibid., p.95. Bold
emphasis added.]
"Thus the comprehension of
certain connections in a limited sphere is distinct from comprehending, on the
basis of objective data, the generality that everything that exists is
connected with other things....
"[True to form, Gollobin then
quotes a handful of scientific theories, and then pulls the following gem out of
a hat -- RL]...[A]ll things are connected with other things and nothing
exists completely sealed off, unaffected by other things.... During its
existence, a thing always exists by itself and in relation to other things....
Self-likeness, definite identity, always exists only in relation to other
things." [Ibid., pp.94-95. Bold emphases added.]
"All things are in flux....
All objects ceaselessly emit radiations.... Motion is change in general and
pervades all, both objects and their mental images in their ceaselessly coming
into being and passing away.... There is no modicum of matter or moment of its
existence without movement. Motion is the mode of matter's existence.... The
universe is ceaselessly en route....
"Change is universal and
incessant....
"Change and nonchange
(sic) are conjoined at all times in a thing. Far from being inconsistent,
they are inseparable. There is 'stable motion and mobile stability'
(Dietzgen) -- at every instant in a thing's lifetime, change in at lest certain
respects and nonchange in certain others.... Knowledge that a thing, during
its lifetime, ceaselessly changes from within (self-moves (sic)), as well
as from external influences and simultaneously preserves its identity (continues
as a particular entity; does not change) opens the door to other, deeper
comprehensive questions....
"Self-movement derives from a
thing's internal opposites.... A thing contains polar opposites whose
ceaseless conflict is indispensable for its movement and life. A
thing's very general internal source of change is the conflict of its opposites.
And its very general internal source of nonchange -- the preservation of its
identity from birth to death as varying states of the same entity -- is the
inseparability of its opposites. In dialectics a unity and conflict of
opposites is termed a contradiction." [Ibid., pp.99, 100, 103, 107. Bold
emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site.]
Once
again, had every dogmatic passage in GOD been included, this Essay
would have been many thousands of words longer than it already is (no
exaggeration). Hence, I have confined the next selection of examples to a handful
of randomly selected quotations (which have clearly been lifted almost wholesale from Mao; on that see
here):
"Opposites are not only inseparably
conjoined, but at any instant one of the opposites comes to the fore. In their
mutual relations, one opposite plays the principle role and its other the
secondary role." [Ibid., p.120.]
How
does Gollobin know so much about all opposites (he must mean every
single
opposite, or the above would make little sense)? Well, dear reader, you
will
search in vain through GOD looking for the answer to that one. It
seems Gollobin knows this simply because Mao said it.
The
watery thin 'evidence' that GOD offers to illustrate
this thesis -- he can't imagine it will prove it, surely? -- is coloured by several other Mao-isms, which can easily be re-interpreted
so that they, in fact, fail to support Gollobin's dogmatic contentions. But, even if
things were exactly as either GOD, or Mao, opine, the two
examples Gollobin quotes -- in fact they were taken from cellular biology and US
history; cf., p.123 -- would constitute proof of the universal
validity of this thesis only for those sky high on
Mescaline.
But, if Mao (or GOD) has spoken, who are we to quibble?
[Moreover,
since neither Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov nor Lenin mentioned such
contradictions (i.e., the "principle" or "secondary" sort), that must make the author
of GOD -- and Mao -- "Revisionists"!]
"Contradictions not only have very
general features, true for any time or part of the universe (e.g., the
absoluteness of conflict), but also special, particular features...." [Ibid.,
p.131. Bold emphasis added.]
This
passage (ironically) was situated right under the sub-heading: "Scientific Views". Impartial readers
should, I suggest, contact the publishers and ask them if this is a misprint,
or whether the heading should actually read "Unquestioned Dogma".
Does
GOD offer the reader any evidence that contradictions inhabit all of reality,
for all of space and time?
Are you serious?
"Dialectics as a whole, its totality,
comprises two overall parts: the dialectics of the object (the very general
aspects of the universe -- aspects present in nature, society, and thought),
and the dialectics of the subject....
"The dialectics of the object includes
laws and categories present in all processes, in all things -- nature,
society and thought. As regards the presence of these laws and categories,
humans are like the rest of the universe." [Ibid., p.400. Bold emphases
added.]
Dialectical Dogma once
more?
Imposed on the world?
If you were thinking along those lines,
dear reader, you
clearly don't
'understand' dialectics!
"Dialectical materialism as a whole is a
synthesis of syntheses, a peak from which to take an overview of the historic
ascent of consciousness to knowledge of very general aspects of the cosmos,
including consciousness itself. The unity of the world is absolute in that all
things objectively exist...." [Ibid., p.419. Bold emphasis added.]
From
this it seems that GOD has the merit of being both honest and thoroughly
traditional all in one go (in that it openly admits the semi-divine status
of DM).
As we
will see in Essay Eleven Parts
One and
Two, attempts like
this to "build" dialectical theses dogmatically into nature (allegedly on the back of
advances in the sciences) can't succeed. In addition, we shall see that this
dogmatic
approach to knowledge has also been peddled by
countless mystics down the
ages,
who themselves hit upon such ideas long before there was much evidence to
speak of.
However, just like contemporary dialecticians (such as Gollobin), they were
quite happy to "build" this dogma into nature.
So,
GOD is reassuringly dogmatic, full of a priori theses that its
author couldn't possibly know were applicable everywhere, and for all of time -- "reassuring",
that is, only for those intent on aping ruling-class ideology and Traditional
Thought, recklessly importing both into the workers' movement.
But,
GOD has spoken, and its author saw that everything was good...
From
the UK-SWP, this is how Paul McGarr summed things up:
"Nature is historical at every level.
No aspect of nature simply exists: it has a history, it comes into being,
changes and develops, is transformed, and, finally, ceases to exist. Aspects
of nature may appear to be fixed, stable, in a state of equilibrium for a
shorter or longer time, but none is permanently so….
"…Engels was right to see the
interconnectedness of different aspects of nature…. Parts only have a full
meaning in relation to the whole….
"Engels' arguments about quantitative
change giving rise at certain points to qualitative transformations are
generally correct. In every field of science, every aspect of nature, one cannot
but be struck by precisely this process….
"Throughout nature it seems that
things which appear to have any persistence, any stability, for a greater or
shorter time, are the result of a temporary dynamic balance between opposing or
contradictory tendencies. This is as true of simple physical objects like
atoms as of living organisms…." [McGarr (1994),
pp.173-75. Bold emphases added.]
Admittedly, McGarr's comments are far more tentative, nuanced and measured than is
usually the case in DM-circles; his approach is in fact reminiscent of
Conze's, noted earlier. While McGarr stresses the need to
DM against reality, he is just as eager as other dialecticians are to impose
this theory on
reality. Hence, no qualification at all was attached to the following:
"Nature is historical at every level.
No aspect of nature simply exists: it has a history, it comes into being,
changes and develops, is transformed, and, finally, ceases to exist. Aspects
of nature may appear to be fixed, stable, in a state of equilibrium for a
shorter or longer time, but none is permanently so…." [Ibid., p.173. Bold
emphases added.]
At
this point, it is important to stress once again that the
truth or falsehood of any or all of the above assertions isn't being
questioned here -- only the inconsistent way that their use of DM
has been depicted by dialecticians.
However,
as we have
also seen, McGarr's claims about permanence are now believed to be false.
John
Molyneux has been imposing the same dogmatic 'dialectical' theses on nature and
society for more than a generation despite this having been
pointed out to him many times.
In the late 1980s, Molyneux wrote an excellent
short book that explained revolutionary
socialism in simple and easy to understand language -- i.e., Molyneux (1987).
Unfortunately, he also included a brief and
dogmatic section on DM:
"Dialectics is the logic of change, of
evolution, of development. Its starting point is the idea (and the fact) that
everything changes and is involved in an on-going process of coming into being
and ceasing to be....
"Dialectics, however, insists that
nothing is fixed or lasts forever...
"This brings us to the second
fundamental proposition of dialectics. This is that social change occurs
through internal contradiction, through the struggle of opposites....
"A third
proposition of dialectics is that quantitative changes become qualitative
ones." [Molyneux (1987), pp.49-51. Bold emphases added.]
Oddly
enough, despite
the reader being told that everything changes, this theory seems to
remain fixed in permanent stasis in
Parmenidean heaven
-- nearly thirty years later we still find Molyneux trying to sell his readers the same dogmatic ideas
(at his blog and then in his latest book).
First
Molyneux disarms the reader in the time-honoured
fashion:
"Dialectics reflects and expresses the logic of natural and social change but
it
is not a magic key to history. In itself dialectics cannot prove that any
particular change has happened or will happen. Only a dialectical analysis of
the real world can do that. And, like Marxism as a whole, dialectics is not a
dogma but a guide to action." [Quoted from
here.]
But, on the very same Internet page,
he soon dons his dogmatic hat:
"As was said at the very beginning of
this series the starting point of Marxism was not an abstract philosophy but a
determination to change the world and an identification of and with the working
class as the agent of that change. Nevertheless from that point of departure
Marx developed, very rapidly, a coherent philosophical outlook which both built
on all previous philosophy and transcended it. This outlook is usually called
dialectical materialism (though Marx, himself, did not use the term).
"It is materialist in that it asserts
the objective existence of the material world and the priority of matter over
mind, so that, fundamentally, it is the material conditions of life that
shape human consciousness and ideas rather than ideas which determine material
conditions. But it is not at all a mechanical materialism or fatalistic
determinism which treats human history as working like clockwork towards a
predetermined outcome. Rather it is dialectical in that it deals always with
complex interactions and contradictions....
"The philosophical starting point of
dialectics is that
everything, everything in the universe, is moving and changing....
"First, every existing 'thing' or
'state' is both a unity and a conflict of opposites, i.e. it is a temporary
balance or moment of equilibrium between the forces that brought that state into
being and maintain it and the forces that will bring about its dissolution or
transformation. Second, every process of change involves an accumulation of
gradual or quantitative changes within an existing state, which at a certain
point turn into a qualitative change in which the nature of that state is
transformed. Third, in every process of change the 'negative' or
revolutionary force which brings about the change is itself transformed or
'negated' so that a new state, a new unity of opposites, emerges (Engels
called this 'the negation of the negation')." [Ibid.
Bold emphases added.]
We
find similar assertions in his recent book:
"Materialism in philosophy involved
commitment to the following propositions:
"-- The material world
exists.
"-- The material world exists
independently of human consciousness.
"-- Real, if not total and
absolute knowledge of the world is possible.
"-- Human beings are part of
nature, albeit a distinct part.
"-- The material world does
not derive from human thought; human thought derives from the material world....
"Let us start with the question of
change. At the heart of dialectics is the proposition that everything
changes. 'Everything' here refers to everything in the universe from the
totality of the universe itself to the tiniest particle. For a start everything
is in motion, the most basic form of change, but everything is also developing,
altering, evolving, coming into being or passing out of being. [The evidence
is what? -- RL] As Bob Dylan once put it 'Who isn't busy being born, is busy
dying.'...
"...[D]ialectics insists
that nothing lasts forever, and that everything, day by day, second by second,
is involved in a process of constant change.
"If anything (a grain of sand, a
mountain, a tree, a fish, a human, a society) gives the appearance of stability
and permanence it is because it constitutes a particular moment in a longer
process of change. That moment constitutes a particular balance between forces
within it working for and against change -- a unity of opposites...
"No phenomenon or incident...can be
properly understood or analysed in isolation. It is always necessary to see it
in its context and its interrelations....
"'Truth is concrete,' Lenin
(following Hegel) used to say.... Yes every individual event must be related to
the whole but it does not thereby lose its specificity....
"How does one thing become something
else?... In each case a process occurs in which there is a gradual
accumulation of quantitative changes within a given totality up to a point where
there is a sudden or relatively sudden transformation in the nature of the
totality as a whole....
"The transformation of quantitative into
qualitative change...presupposes that the object or given totality which changes
is a unity of opposites -- a (temporary) balance of conflicting forces. This
applies to everything from a single atom...to the US New World Order....
"The
unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional,
temporary, transitional, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive
opposites is absolute, just as motion and development are absolute....[Molyneux is here paraphrasing Lenin's formulation, almost word-for-word --
RL.]
"Dialectics has revolutionary implications because it is based on the fact that
everything changes, and that therefore capitalism is doomed to perish." [Molyneux (2012), pp.32-33; 40-52;
197. Quotation marks altered to conform
with the
conventions adopted at this site; bold emphases added.]
Although Molyneux
gestures in the direction of providing some sort of proof (asserting, for
example, that modern science substantiates sweeping statements like these), what
he actually offers his readers is very thin, watery gruel, of the sort
which amply merits the epithet I have given it elsewhere at this site:
Mickey Mouse Science.
Again, it is
worth reminding readers of the following comment (quoted
from the Preface to this Essay):
Moreover..., in what follows the truth
or falsity of these dogmatic passages is not the main issue..., merely whether
DM-theorists are consistent in their claim not to have imposed them on reality.
However, their truth or falsity will
beat issue in the other Essays posted at this site -- especially
here.
In a
recent book on the work of Marxist Philosopher,
György
Lukács, ex-SWP honcho, Chris Nineham, had this to say:
"Despite the common caricatures of
Marxism, it is precisely not a theory in which thought is entirely dependent on
a pre-existing, separate 'being'. Thought and being are part of a totality, but
a differentiated, dialectical totality. If thought and being were identical, we
would be back to the notion of an automatic, predetermined history." [Nineham
(2010), p.34. Bold emphasis added.]
Unfortunately, Nineham offered his readers neither argument nor evidence in
support of the following:
(i) There is such a thing (or process) as 'being', let alone a disembodied
entity called "thought", (ii) The latter two are related in any way at all, (iii)
There exists something called the "totality" (or even what it actually is!),
nor yet that (iv) '[T]hought' and 'being' form all or part of [the "totality"].
Nevertheless, just like DM-theorists and
Traditional Philosophers, he is happy to assert such things dogmatically.
The above two famous scientists aren't above
imposing DM on nature, either:
"What characterises the dialectical
world, in all its aspects, as we have described it is that it is constantly in
motion. Constants become variables, causes become effects, and systems
develop, destroying the conditions that gave rise to them. Even elements that
appear to be stable are in a dynamic equilibrium of forces that can suddenly
become unbalanced, as when a grey lump of metal of a critical size becomes a
fireball brighter than a thousand suns....
"This appearance of opposing forces has
given rise to the most debated and difficult, yet the most central, concept in
dialectical thought, the principle of contradiction.... For us, contradiction
is not only epistemic and political, but ontological in the broadest sense.
Contradictions between forces are everywhere in nature, not only in human
social institutions.... [O]pposing forces lie at the basis of the evolving
physical and biological world. Things change because of the action of
opposing forces on them, and things are the way they are because of the
temporary balance of opposing forces.... The dialectical view insists that
persistence and equilibrium are not the natural state of things but require
explanation, which must be sought in the actions of the opposing forces....
"The opposing forces are seen as
contradictory in the sense that each taken separately would have opposite
effects, and their joint action may be different from the results of either
acting alone.... However, the principle that all things are internally
heterogeneous directs our attention to the opposing processes at work within
the object.... Thus systems are either
self-negating (state A leads to some state not-A) or depend for their
persistence on self-negating processes.
"We see contradiction first of all as
self-negation. From this perspective it is not too different from logical
contradiction. In formal logic process is usually replaced by static
set-structural relations, and the dynamic of 'A leads to B' is replaced by 'A
implies B'. But all real reasoning is takes place in time, and the classical
logical paradoxes can be seen as A leads to not-A leads to A, and so on.... As against the alienated world view
that objects are isolated until proven otherwise, for us the simplest
assumption is that things are connected...." [Levins and Lewontin (1985),
pp.279-87. Bold emphases alone added. Spelling modified to conform with UK
English; several paragraphs merged.]
As usual, these two make a gesture of
sorts at
providing supporting evidence, but the level of sophistication and
detail they offer their readers would result in an "F grade" had it been reproduced in a paper
submitted by one of their undergraduate students, let alone a postgraduate
researcher. I have rightly called this amateurish approach to proof,
Mickey Mouse Science. DM-fans
en masse indulge in it.
Levins and Lewontin also have the gall
to quote Engels:
"Finally, for me there could be no
question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering
them in it and developing them from it." [Engels
(1976), p.13. Quoted in Levins and Lewontin (1995), p.279. However, these
two mistakenly attribute this passage to Engels's Dialectics of Nature.]
And yet they tell us on the very next
page:
"The dialectical view insists
that persistence and equilibrium are not the natural state of things but require
explanation, which must be sought in the actions of the opposing
forces...." [Levins and Lewontin, op cit., p.280. Bold added.]
Naturally, a "must" and an "insistence" differ from an "imposition" in name
alone.
The
other things they say in the section of their book devoted to feedback systems
in living organisms (not quoted) have been dealt with in Essay Seven Part One (here
and here),
where their status as 'dialectical' systems or processes has been shown to be no
less misguided (which means, of course, that this idea has been imposed
on nature, too). We have also seen in Essay Eight
Part Two that there is no way that opposing forces can be interpreted as
'dialectical contradictions' (even if we knew what the latter were!).
Finally, what these two have to say about
FL would result in
them being failed even from the introductory class to Logic 101. [More
on this in Essay Four
Part One.]
I
have also highlighted Richard Levins's 'errors of logic' (which originally
appeared in an e-mail exchange we had),
here.
Comrade Button is clearly a Dogma-Meister of the first order, having caught this
serious malady, it seems, from his guru, Gerry Healy:
"All that exists, all that is in
being, can be divided into two categories, the objective material world, and the
world of thought. The question then arises, how do these two things, these
two sides of the totality of Being, relate to each other? In general, there are
only two possible answers to this question, and from the very beginning
philosophers have been divided into two opposing camps, depending on which of
these they took to be correct.
"These two opposing points of view are
materialism, which holds that the objective material world, (matter), exists
independently of man, and that human thought, consciousness, is a reflection of
it, and idealism, which holds that human consciousness exists independently of
the objective material world, and all that apparently exists is somehow a
creation of thought. The battle between these two diametrically opposed
points of view rages to this day. The reason for this antagonism is that each of
the two philosophies represents, or serves, a particular class
interest. Idealism serves the interests of the capitalist ruling class, while
materialism serves the interest of the working class. Marxism is a materialist
philosophy....
"Since materialism is the practice of
allowing the external world of matter to determine thought, and since matter
is in constant motion, then it follows that to be truly materialistic
thought must correctly reflect this motion. We have explained that Marxism is
materialism, but it is materialism of a particular kind, materialism guided by
dialectical logic, or dialectical materialism. The dialectical method
proceeds by grasping everything in relation to its own opposite, how these
opposites relate, and how the conflict between them causes them to change and
develop.
"All progress takes place through the
unity, conflict, interpenetration, and transformation of opposites.
"We must weigh each word carefully. What
precisely is meant by unity? A study of the nature of matter shows that all
the matter in the universe is inter-connected in one way or another, no matter
how distantly, and a material thing which is in direct connection with another
thing has an effect on that with which it is connected and is in turn affected
by it. This is all that it meant by 'opposites' in this context. Any two
things may come into proximity or physical contact, but for any scientific
consideration what is important is how the two things relate, and to grasp this
we must consider the two things in their motion and change, and how, through
this motion and change, they affect each other. For dialectics then, unity
implies a living, inter-relating connection between opposites. Some forms of
being have their own special opposites from which they can never be separated,
and these are generally opposites of extremes such as black and white, positive
and negative. Such opposites are united by their very opposition -- it would be
impossible to have the concept of positive at all in the absence of the concept
of negative. Each is necessary to the other. But this unity is at the same time
conflict, because each excludes the other -- each is what it is only because it
is not the other. Such opposites as these are called Self-related Opposites.
"Paradoxical as it may seem, opposites
become identical precisely because they start off different. It is clear that
a thing must be different to that which it affects and changes or no change
could take place at all. That which is changed resists, hence the
changing process appears as a struggle of opposites, conflict. The
concept of inter-penetration expresses the way in which each of the opposites in
conflict imposes its qualities on the other, forcing it to become alike,
identical. The matter of precisely how opposites inter-penetrate to the
point of transformation is dealt with in the second law, which is:-
"All progress takes place through the
transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa.
"The transformation of quantity into
quality and vice versa is an obvious case of things being transformed into their
opposites, and to find how they are transformed we must first discover how, by a
process of interpenetration, they become identical. How exactly does
quantity become identical with quality? The first thing we note is that it is
not even possible to speak of one in isolation from the other. In our
example from Engels we see that he does not speak of quantity as an abstraction,
but of a quantity of a quality; a quantity of matter or a quantity of energy of
some kind, and the quantitative change of quality is expressed in the concept of
Alteration. Let us take as an example a quality such as a colour, say blue. If
we leave a dark blue object out in the sunlight it will fade and become light
blue -- but it is still blue. Alteration is change of quality within the limits
of that quality. If we leave the object in the sunlight long enough it will
exceed the limits of the quality in question, the colour blue in this case, and
become white. At the moment of qualitative transformation, the infinitely
small quantity of blue is the same as the quality white. Quantity and
quality find a moment of identity, and that is the leap from one quality to
another. We see countless examples of this. By increasing the quantity of
heat in a body of water the transformation to a new quality, from liquid to
steam, suddenly occurs at a definite temperature at a given pressure;
progressively adding weight to one side of a balance causes it to tip, and so
on. So this is what we mean by the transformation of quantity into quality. The
reverse process, the transformation of quality into quantity, is best understood
by a study of the third law, which is:-
"The law of the negation of the
negation.
"This law brings the other two into a
unity and expresses the whole nature of the dialectical motion of matter, so
that it must be explained at greater length, and in doing so we must introduce
more terms and concepts which are necessary to the practice of dialectical
logic.
"To understand the concept of Negation
we must start from the twin concepts of Quantity and Quality. If a thing or
substance exists then it is self-evident that it has some Quality which
identifies it and that there is a Quantity of it, and negation simply means
cancellation, rendering null. Negation, therefore, must be understood
in a double sense, in the sense of Quantitative negation, and in the sense of
Qualitative negation. Clearly quantitative change is a continuous and more or
less gradual process over a period of time, and if we take two consecutive
moments of time, then the first quantity is replaced, rendered null, or
'negated' by the second. The first quantity no longer exists and the second has
come into being. This latter must also be said of Quality, but there is a
difference. Whereas quantitative change is a gradual and continuous process, a
thing either has a particular Quality or it has not. Qualitative
change, then, can only be conceived as a sudden leap, from one Quality to
another. This is apparent from the above explanation of the Second Law where
we spoke of transformation rather than negation, but clearly each implies the
other.
"We begin with the consideration of the
unity and conflict of opposites. Each opposite affects the other in some way,
and in turn is affected by it. We may say that each Reflects the other. The
dominating opposite determines the outcome of the motion involved, so we refer
to this one as Cause and the way it changes the other as Effect. There is
Difference between the two opposites, and it is helpful to consider this
Difference from the point of view of one side, the affected side. The opposite
with which it is in unity and conflict is a separate thing outside it, so we
refer to the Difference between them as External Difference, and since the two
opposites are different each one has its own Identity. We have said that the
affected opposite, (Effect), Reflects the other, dominant opposite,
(Cause). This means that the External Difference is reflected within the
affected side, and changes it. This is Quantitative change. The affected side
becomes, through time, more and more like its opposite, and correspondingly less
and less like itself, and for this reason we tend to regard Cause as Positive
and Effect as Negative. In every moment then, the affected opposite reflects
the External difference internally, and this is its own Internal Difference...."
[Terry
Button. Bold emphases added. Formatting and quotation marks altered to
conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
[For those interested, or even those not yet
in a coma, this dogma-fest continues for
quite some time at the above link. Masochists are encouraged to read all of it.
They alone will feel the benefit.]
Attentive readers will no doubt have
noticed that Button supplies very little evidence in support of these hyper-bold
theses -- that is, over-and-above referring his readers to the usual trite examples we
have come to expect from DM-clones. As noted earlier, Button is a big fan of
Gerry Healy, which explains his
fondness for some much obscure Hegel-speak.
On another page (which is linked to a site run by
a splinter group that grew out of the wreckage created by the
disintegration of the old WRP), he even quotes Trotsky:
"The dialectic is not a master key for
all questions. It does not replace concrete scientific analysis. But it directs
this analysis along the correct road, securing it against sterile wanderings in
the desert of subjectivism and scholasticism." [Quoted from
here.]
Which only goes to show that DM-fans
do
have a sense of humour.
According to
C L R James, even to ask for
any sort of proof of the 'dialectic' is
woefully misguided:
"Hegel defines the principle of
Contradiction as follows:
'Contradiction is the root of all movement and life, and it is only in so far as
it contains a contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and activity.'
[Hegel (1999),
p.439, §956.]
"The first thing to note is that
Hegel makes little attempt to prove this. A few lines later he says:
'With regard to the assertion that
contradiction does not exist, that it is non-existent, we may disregard this
statement.'
"We here meet one of the most important
principles of the dialectical logic, and one that has been consistently
misunderstood, vilified or lied about. Dialectic for Hegel was a strictly
scientific method. He might speak of inevitable laws, but he insists from the
beginning that the proof of dialectic as scientific method is that the laws
prove their correspondence with reality. Marx's dialectic is of the same
character. Thus he excluded what later became The Critique of Political
Economy from Capital because it took for granted what only the
detailed argument and logical development of Capital could prove. Still
more specifically, in his famous letter to Kugelmann on the theory of value, he
ridiculed the idea of having to 'prove' the labour theory of value. If the
labour theory of value proved to be the means whereby the real relations of
bourgeois society could be demonstrated in their movement, where they came from,
what they were, and where they were going, that was the proof of the theory.
Neither Hegel nor Marx understood any other scientific proof.
"To ask for some proof of the laws,
as
Burnham implied, or to prove them 'wrong' as
Sidney Hook tried to do, this
is to misconceive dialectical logic entirely. Hegel complicated the question
by his search for a completely closed system embracing all aspects of the
universe; this no Marxist ever did (sic!). The frantic shrieks that Marx's dialectic is
some sort of religion or teleological construction, proving inevitably the
victory of socialism, spring usually from men who are frantically defending the
inevitability of bourgeois democracy against the proletarian revolution." [James
(1947), quoted from
here. Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the
conventions adopted at this site. Links added.]
[We
have already seen other
DM-fans argue that an appeal to empirical evidence is way beneath them, and smacks
of 'positivism' or 'empiricism'.]
This
is rather odd. One minute we are being told that the "laws" of the dialectic
must "correspond with reality", and that this is the only "proof" Marx and Hegel
"understood". The next we are being told that to ask for a proof is
"misconceived".
Anyway, as we have also seen, James is mistaken when he tells us that no Marxist has
ever searched for a "completely closed system embracing all aspects of the
universe". Engels, for one, disagreed:
"And
so, what is the negation of the negation? An extremely general -- and for this
reason extremely far-reaching and important -- law of development of nature,
history, and thought; a law which, as we have seen, holds good in the animal and
plant kingdoms, in geology, in mathematics, in history and in philosophy --
a law which even Herr Dühring, in spite of all his stubborn resistance, has
unwittingly and in his own way to follow.... Dialectics, however, is nothing
more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature,
human society and thought." [Engels (1976),
pp.179-80.
Bold emphases added.]
As,
indeed, do many of the other DM-theorists cited or quoted throughout this
Essay. Perhaps James thought that Engels was no Marxist.
In
AD
Engels pointedly calls scientific theories "hypothetical" while the 'laws' of
dialectics are deemed completely universal and not the least bit provisional.
I
then listed several quotations that
support this view. Indeed, for other DM-theorists these 'laws' look anything but "hypothetical"; here are just a few
examplesof what they think:
"Dialectics requires an all-round
consideration of relationships in their concrete development…. Dialectical logic
demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should
be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)….
"[D]ialectical logic holds that 'truth'
is
always concrete, never abstract, as the late Plekhanov liked to say
after Hegel." [Lenin (1921),
pp.90, 93. Bold emphases added.]
"Flexibility, applied objectively,
i.e., reflecting the all-sidedness of the material process and its unity, is
dialectics, is the correct reflection of the eternal development of the world."
[Lenin (1961),
p.110. Bold emphasis added.]
"The identity of opposites…is the
recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies
in allphenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the
knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement,' in
their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a
unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This]
alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….
The
unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle
of mutually exclusive opposites is
absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin
(1961), pp.
357-58.
Bold emphases alone added.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site;
paragraphs merged.]
"[A]ll bodies change uninterruptedly
in size, weight, colour etc. They are never equal to themselves…. [T]he
axiom 'A' is equal to 'A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does
not change, that is, if it does not exist…. For concepts there also exists
'tolerance' which is established not by formal logic…, but by the
dialectical logic issuing from the axiom that everything is always changing….
Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into
quality, development through contradiction, conflict and form, interruption of
continuity, change of possibility into inevitability, etc…." [Trotsky
(1971),
pp.64-66. Bold emphases added.]
"…The principle of the transformation
of quantity into quality has universal significance, insofar as we view the
entire universe -- without any exception -- as a product of formation and
transformation….
"In these abstract formulas we have the
most general laws (forms) of motion, change, the transformation of the stars of
the heaven, of the earth, nature and human society.
"…Dialectics is the logic of
development. It examines the world -- completely without exception
-– not as a result of creation, of a sudden beginning, the realisation of a
plan, but as a result of motion, of transformation. Everything that is became
the way it is as a result of lawlike development." [Trotsky (1986), pp.88,
90, 96. Bold emphases added.]
Perhaps James forgot to check the meaning of "hypothesis".
In
fact, it is quite clear that even for James the 'laws' of the dialectic aren't the
least bit 'hypothetical'. If they were, why would he have written the
following:
"Thus, the inevitability of socialism is
the inevitability of the negation of the negation, the third and most important
law of the dialectic....
"The philosophy of history which is
Bolshevism bases itself upon the destruction of the barbarism by the inevitable
triumph of the socialist revolution. There are even revolutionaries who
deny this. For them it is not scientific to believe in inevitability. Such a
belief implies that dialectic is a religion or mysticism. For them the
correct scientific attitude is to reserve judgement. Yet these very ones turn
out to be the mystics and the practitioners of an ill-concealed religiosity.
"If they recognise the bankruptcy of
bourgeois democracy, if they accept the need for universality in the masses, if
they recognise that barbarism is the only force that can suppress this need,
then to refuse to accept the inevitability of socialism leaves only one of two
choices. Either the inevitability of barbarism, that is to say, the acceptance
of the principle of inevitability which they have just rejected or the hope, the
faith, the belief that history will offer some way out of the impasse. This
is the denial of a philosophy of history, that is to say, the denial of a method
of thought, for which the only name is irrationalism or mysticism.
"The deniers of the inevitability of
socialism can be routed both historically and logically." [James
(1947).
Bold emphases added.]
The
above don't look 'hypothetical', either. James even castigates
fellow Marxists who regard the dialectic as tentative, or who "reserve judgement"!
What
of the alleged "correspondence with reality"? But, how might anyone decide if
there is any such "correspondence" if they have no evidence to that effect? Are
DM-theorists and Hegel-groupies (upside down -- or the 'right way up') in a position to
'intuit' these correspondences without opening their eyes, without observing the
world, without measuring anything or carrying out a few experiments? But what kind of
crazy science would this be? On that basis, we might just as well declare
that crystal gazing and astrology are sciences and criticise anyone who
foolishly asked for empirical proof. It certainly flies in the face of Marx and Engels's
clearly stated attitude (even if Engels later went on to ignore his own protocols):
"The premises from which we begin are
not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can
only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity
and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find
already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can
thus be verified in a purely empirical way....
"The fact is, therefore, that definite
individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these
definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each
separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and
speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with
production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of
the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may
appear in their own or other people's imagination, but as they really are; i.e.
as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite
material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will." [Marx
and Engels (1970), pp.42, 46-47. Bold emphases added.]
"We all agree that in every field of
science, in natural and historical science, one must proceed from the given
facts, in natural science therefore from the various material forms of
motion of matter; that therefore in theoretical natural science too the
interconnections are not to be built into the facts but to be discovered in
them, and when discovered to be verified as far as possible by experiment."
[Engels (1954),p.47. Bold emphases alone added.]
Leading UK-SWP Guru, Alex Callinicos, had this to say about 'dialectics'
(in his review of TAR, approximately
twelve years before its author, John Rees, left the party):
"As John [Rees] stresses, the
fundamental issue involved in the dialectic is not an obscure or complicated
one. It is that of understanding a social world which presents itself -- in the
mass media, for example, and bourgeois social science -- as a chaotic collection
of fragments. Doing so requires, as Marx insisted, distinguishing between the
surface appearance of things and their underlying reality, or essence. But this
essence is precisely not a mere aggregate of unconnected happenings but a
totality. 'The true is the whole,' Hegel wrote. Things and events only
become comprehensible when set in the context of the web of relationships that
bind them together into a single interconnected whole.
"This totality, however,
is a contradictory one. The essence of dialectical thinking consists in the
recognition that antagonism, conflict and struggle are not a secondary aspect of
reality which can be removed through a bit of social engineering or the
decision of rival classes to fall in love and become 'partners'.
'Contradiction is at the root of all movement and life, and it is only in so far
as it contains a contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and
activity,' says Hegel. He understood this thesis primarily in terms of the
contradictions which develop within concepts: the evolution of nature and human
history are an expression of this conceptual dialectic.
"For Marx, however, the main
contradictions do not exist in thought, but constitute the very nature of social
reality. These contradictions are to be located in the tendency of the
prevailing social relations of production to become fetters on the further
expansion of the productive forces and in the class struggle which develops,
within the framework of this conflict, between exploiters and exploited. The
contradictions between the forces and relations of production and between
classes are the driving forces of social transformation. Dialectical thinking
thus sees reality as inherently historical, as a process of constant movement in
which existing forms are destroyed by their internal flaws and replaced by new
ones....
"There are many other
valuable discussions in The Algebra of Revolution. But, rather than spend
too long summarising what readers should discover for themselves, let me, before
concluding, make two more critical points. First of all, as I have already
mentioned, the book presents dialectics through a discussion of major thinkers
in chronological order. Particular themes are treated in depth in the context of
a particular individual's thought. This generally works well, with one major
exception, namely that of the dialectic of nature. John only treats this topic
very briefly in the course of his discussion of Trotsky's Philosophical
Notebooks in chapter 6. Here he offers some good reasons for accepting that
there is a dialectic of nature, but he doesn't really explore the matter in much
depth. This is a pity, since this is such a large and controversial topic as to
require quite extensive discussion in a book that claims (except in this case,
with justification) to be offering a comprehensive treatment of the dialectic.
"An example of the kind of
issue such a treatment would have to address is the status of Engels' famous
laws of the dialectic. One of Trotsky's most intriguing suggestions is that
'the fundamental law of dialectics is the conversion of quantity into quality,
for it gives [us] the general formula of all evolutionary processes -- of nature
as well as of society'. He goes on to argue, 'The principle of the transition of
quantity into quality has universal significance, in so far as we view the
entire universe - without any exception -- as a product of formation and
transformation and not as the fruit of conscious creation'. This claim has much
to be said for it....
"But in what sense is the principle of the transformation
of quantity into quality a law? Scientific laws typically explain specific
phenomena in the world by identifying the real mechanisms responsible for them.
Thus Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a theory of the
mechanism underlying capitalist crises. But the transformation of quantity into
quality isn't a mechanism in this sense. It rather generalises the features
common to physical and social processes which are produced by a wide variety of
different mechanisms. This line of thought suggests that we should see the
dialectic of nature as a broad philosophical conception of nature rather than a
set of general laws from which more specific ones applicable to particular
aspects of the world can be deduced. This way of thinking about the
dialectic of nature has the advantage that it rules out the kind of dogmatic
dictation to working scientists which gave the idea a bad name under Stalinism,
but it implies a fairly loose and open relationship between dialectical
philosophy and scientific research which ought to be explicitly recognised." [Callinicos
(1998), pp.99-100. Bold and italic emphases added. Minor typo
corrected.]
Although Callinicos tells us that his
interpretation of 'the dialectic' rules out the sort of dogmatism we witnessed
under Stalin, and that it is to be contrasted with the use of this theory/method
as a set of "general laws from which more specific ones applicable to particular
aspects of the world can be deduced", he also tells us that the "totality" is:
"a contradictory one. The
essence of dialectical thinking consists in the recognition that antagonism,
conflict and struggle are not a secondary aspect of reality which can be removed
through a bit of social engineering or the decision of rival classes to fall in
love and become 'partners'." [Ibid.]
But, what is this but a dogma which tells us
that certain aspects of the social world can't be reformed away? Or, that
natural processes are contradictory in the way the Stalinists once informed us?
Callinicos even quoted Hegel approvingly to this end:
"Contradiction is the root of all movement and
life, and it is only in so far as it contains a contradiction that anything
moves and has impulse and activity."
[Hegel (1999),
p.439, §956.
I have used a different translation to Callinicos.]
But, again, what is this but a general law
about the movement of everything in the entire universe, something neither Hegel
nor Callinicos could possibly have known for a fact? That being so, it is
plainly adogma imposed on the world as a general law.
More-or-less the same can be said about this
comment:
"Things and events only
become comprehensible when set in the context of the web of relationships that
bind them together into a single interconnected whole." [Callinicos, op cit.]
Again if "things" only become comprehensible
"when set in the context of the web of relationships that bind them together
into a single interconnected whole", then how do comments like that rule out "the kind of
dogmatic dictation to working scientists which gave the idea a bad name under
Stalinism", or militate against the idea that this is a general law "from which
more specific ones applicable to particular aspects of the world can be
deduced"? Surely, if it is only possible to understand "things" when they are
viewed this way, then this thesis must apply to individual cases, and can thus
be used to deduce "particular aspects of the world".
Well, this is merely a slightly more nuanced
version of the approach we have met time and again throughout this Essay: first
DM-fans tell us that their theory isn't a dogma, imposed on nature and society;
then, in the very next breath, they proceed to do just that!
Mandel is in the eyes of many one of the most important Trotskyist theorists
since Trotsky himself. Is his account of DM any different from the
run-of-the-mill-dogmatism we have met so far?
Will he impose DM on nature and society, or allow the facts to speak for
themselves? After all, we have
already seen him saying this:
"Precisely because Marx's dialectic is a materialist one, however, it does
not start from intuition, preconceptions or mystifying schemes, but from a full
assimilation of scientific data. The method of investigation must differ
from the method of exposition. Empirical facts have to be gathered first, the
given state of knowledge has to be fully grasped. Only when this is achieved can
a dialectical reorganization of the material be undertaken in order to
understand the given totality. If this is successful, the result is a
'reproduction' in man's thought of this material totality: the capitalist mode
of production." [Mandel
(1976), p19. Bold emphasis added. (This links to a PDF.)]
Judge for yourself:
"Everything changes, everything is in perpetual motion.... Motion,
universal evolution, governs all existence.... The dialectics or logic of
motion therefore study the laws of motion and the forms adopted by it. These are
examined from two aspects: motion as a function of contradiction; motion as a
function of totality....
"All motion has a cause.... A fundamental cause of all motion, all
change, is the internal contradictions of the changing object. In the final
analysis, every object, every phenomenon, changes, moves, is transformed and
modified under the influence of its internal contradictions. In this sense
dialectics has often been correctly called the science of contradictions. The
logic of motion and the logic of contradiction are two practically identical
definitions of dialectics.
"Motion is contradiction. Contradiction is the co-existence of elements opposed
to each other, simultaneous co-existence and opposition between these elements.
If there is integral homogeneity, a total absence of elements opposed to each
other, there is no contradiction, no motion, no life, no existence....
All motion tends to produce the negation of certain phenomena, tends to
transform objects into their opposite.... To understand motion, universal change, is also to understand the existence of
an infinite number transitory situations.... That is why one of the
fundamental characteristics of dialectics is the understanding of the relativity
of things, the refusal to erect absolute barriers between categories, the
attempt to find mediating forces between opposing elements....
"Everything is relative..., reply the sophists. No, answers the dialectician:
there is also something absolute and not just something relative.... We have
seen that motion is a function of the internal contradictions of the phenomena
or set of phenomena under consideration. Each phenomena...contains an
infinite number of aspects, ingredients and constituent elements. These
elements are not assembled by chance in a constantly changing manner. They
constitute structured wholes, a totality, an organic system
constructed according to an intrinsic logic." [Mandel (1982), pp.157-68. Bold
emphases alone added. Several paragraphs merged.]
"The main advances of dialectical
thought were: Conceiving all reality as in continual change, that is, not as
a sum of facts but as a combination of processes.
Conceiving all reality as a whole in motion, no part of which can be
understood in isolation outside of its interconnections or its relations with
other parts. Conceiving movement as the result of the internal
contradictions of this whole. Conceiving knowledge as the apprehension
of reality by thought (by human activity), that is, as an interaction between
subject and object. The subject tends to transform reality as he or she
apprehends it, but is himself or herself transformed by his or her effort to
investigate, apprehend, and transform reality. Conceiving knowledge as the
laying bare, through analysis and action, of the inherent laws of
development of the processes apprehended. The dialectic of thought must
conform to the dialectic of reality (to the real movement) to understand the
latter." [Mandel (1994), p13. Paragraphs merged; bold emphases alone added.]
As
we can see, Mandel is equally happy to impose DM on the facts; his earlier
commitment to a "full assimilation of scientific data", gathering the facts and
fully grasping "the given state of knowledge" has gone right out of the window.
How, for instance, could he possibly know that "Each phenomena...contains an infinite
number of aspects, ingredients and constituent elements"? Or that "every object,
every phenomenon, changes, moves, is transformed and modified under the
influence of its internal contradictions"? Or even that
"[A]ll reality as a whole [is]in motion, no part of which can be understood in isolation outside of its
interconnections or its relations with other parts"?
Of course, Mandel couldn't possibly have known any of these. Like so many others he offers a
few examples (mostly
drawn from human society) to 'illustrate' the above ideas, but they can only be
called "proof" by someone with either an odd sense of humour or a
tenuous grasp of the English language. Mandel seems to think these
are incontrovertible truths the reader will accept the moment she sees them.
But, that is just par for the course in DM-circles.
Christopher Caudwell (Christopher St John Sprigg) is easily one of the most
intelligent and interesting of DM-theorists; indeed, in other respects, his
ideas have been highly influential on my own. [This will become apparent in
Essay Twelve Parts Two and Three, when they are published.] However, as with
other DM-fans, Caudwell is quite happy to impose this dogmatic theory on nature
and society. Here are just a few examples:
"Why does thought torment itself with this dualism, selecting every possible
combination, yet thrown always back upon itself? And what is the solution? The
second question will be answered first. The solution is dialectical materialism.
Dialectical materialism goes behind subject and object to the material basis
from which their antagonism arose.
"...A and B, and the relations between them, are all real. The Universe is
one, and is as a whole absolutely self-determined, but no part of it is
absolutely self-determined. All that is real exists, and all that is real is
determined, that is, every part of the Universe is in mutually determining A-B
relations with the rest of the Universe. Everything therefore is knowable, for
the meaning of knowable is simply this, the possibility of expressing a
determining relation between that unknown but knowable thing, and a thing
already known. This possibility is given in our premises. This is our
premise: that the Universe is a material unity, and that this is a becoming.
"This material unity of becoming cannot be established by thought alone.
It is established by thought in unity with practice, by thought emerging
from practice and going out into practice. Phenomena are exhibited by the
thing-in-itself, and if we can by practice force the thing-in-itself to exhibit
phenomena according to our desire, then we know this much about the
thing-in-itself -- that in certain circumstances it will exhibit certain
phenomena. This is positive knowledge about the thing-in-itself. When we can in
practice achieve all possible transformations, we have all possible knowledge
about the thing-in-itself. Thus we prove that the universe is a material unity
by proving in practice the material basis of all phenomena. This material basis
is the thing-in-itself, or the like content of any phenomena exhibited by the
thing-in-itself. This proof of material unity is secured by change and is
therefore a process of becoming, of differentiation, of the emergence of the
new. But it is a proof of unity, of the sameness, likeness, or determinism in
all phenomena.
"'The point is to change the world, not to interpret it.' For it is not possible
to interpret the world, except by changing it. Thus the impasse of philosophers
is seen to be the impasse of philosophy, and a proof of the impossibility of
interpreting the world by thought alone.
"A-B do not exist as eternally discrete entities. The Universe is a becoming,
a development. The becoming is primary. Reality does not become in time
and space, but time and space are aspects of its becoming. Becoming is change.
If a thing is changed, it manifests an unlike, a hitherto non-present quality.
If change is real, and by our premises it is primary, such a quality does not
come into existence either by the gradual decrement of a known quality to
nothing, or the gradual increment of a very faint quality to something. Before,
it was not, not in any way. Now it is, in every way. There has therefore been a
'jump'. To deny this is to deny the reality of change, and to suggest that the
quality was already there, but so faintly we did not 'notice it'. But nothing
new would then have come into being. There would therefore have been no change,
and reality is, by our definition, change.
"Although such a quality is new, it is not arbitrary, i.e. absolutely
self-determined. By definition, the Universe is one. A quality that is
self-determined is, as we saw, unknowable. Therefore each new quality, as it
leaps into existence, is determined by all qualities up till then present in the
universe. These qualities do not come into being in time. Time does not flow
on while they emerge. The emergence of such qualities is what time is. Time then
is an aspect of, or abstraction from, change. Time is new quality as it emerges.
"But change does not merely involve the coming into existence of qualities. If
we find different qualities lying about, even though they mutually determine
each other, we cannot say 'something has changed'. The qualities may be
qualities of different things, and so there will have been no change. There
must therefore be something in all qualities that remains the same, even though
these qualities are new, otherwise we cannot say, the 'Universe has changed'.
There must be something like in all unlikes. Otherwise we could say, 'these
unlikes are not changed things, they are different things. We have not moved in
time, but in space.' How else can we distinguish motion in time from motion in
space, unless time is not something in which things change, but the change
itself?
"But if the newness of quality, the unlikeness, as it emerges, is time, the
oldness, the likeness, is space. Qualities do not arrange themselves
homogeneously in space, space is the homogeneity in their qualities. Space is
quantity or known quality as it remains unchanged; it is therefore the
thing-in-itself, the material unity of the Universe. The Universe is a
spatial Universe. Space therefore is an aspect of matter, which is precisely
what relativity physics has established by practice. Mass-energy, or the
likeness in phenomena, generates space. This is established by practice.
All laws of development, of evolution, of difference, of quality, of aesthetics,
of consciousness, are temporal. All laws of conservation, of metrics, of
comparability, of universal and unchanging relations, are spatial.
"But time and space are only aspects of becoming or change. If we could
completely abstract time or space, and divide relations into a set entirely
temporal, and a set entirely spatial, we should have two absolutely
self-determined spheres, contradicting our premises for each sphere would be
unknowable to the other sphere. Therefore no absolute time or space, as
premised in Newtonian dynamics, exists. We know both time and space and prove
this by their mutual convertibility, by the change of qualities and the
reproduction of quantities. Neither does an absolute spatio-temporal
continuum, expressible in purely metrical terms, exist. Such a continuum would
after all be purely spatial, for it would be expressible entirely in terms of
quantity. It would be self-determined, and independent of all quality. It would
therefore be unknowable to quality, and quality would be unknowable to it. Hence
Einstein's relativity physics still contains an illegitimate absolute, which
accounts for its being irreconcilable with quantum phenomena.
"We take as our premise 'becoming', the becoming of a material unity which is
generated by our transformation of matter. Becoming, which involves change,
which involves like and unlike, involves also development. If we had no
development, we would have no 'becoming'. In development there is a relation
between the qualities A, B, C, D, E, which is not only mutually determining,
but such that A is in some way contained in B, B in C, C in D, and D in E, but
not E in D, D in C, C in B, B in A. This relation, which is technically
called 'transitive but asymmetrical', is involved in the process of becoming,
just as are the existence of like and unlike. If becoming were otherwise, if
qualities could not all be ranged in this unique order, we should come upon
groups of qualities such, for example, that A would be contained in B, and then
B in A; or in some other way there would be a 'break' or return to a quality in
which all the new qualities of the interim no longer appear. But such a return
is indistinguishable from the previous situation, and therefore we no longer
have a process of becoming, but of unbecoming. Moreover the relation of
containing and being-contained is, in development, mutually determining. If
therefore the series of qualities (or events) in any way returns on itself in
this fashion, the Universe splits in two 'in time'. We have two or more sets of
self-determined qualities, sufficient to themselves, each unknowable and
non-existent to the other.
"We now see that the determination of qualities as they appear is a relation of
a special sort. It is a transitive asymmetrical relation known as 'cause and
effect', in which one quality mutually determines another in a way which may be
described as the containing (or sublation) of one quality in another. And all
qualities (or events) may, by this means, be ranged in a unique order.
Moreover since no set of qualities is self-determined, we can never have a set
of distinguishable qualities such that A alone determines or is contained in B;
B alone determines or is contained in C, and so on, otherwise the series A, B,
C, would be self-determined and unknowable. This would only be permissible
if this series were the Universe. But we do not regard the Universe as composed
of one event at a time. We do not believe that, whatever cross-section we took
of the mass of qualities that we call the Universe, we would reveal over all the
sections one quality only. If we could do that, space would then be separable
from time, and we could collect spatial and temporal qualities in
self-determined sets, which is contrary to our premises and experience. This
cross-section would correspond to a universal or absolute present, which is
permitted to Newtonian dynamics but is rightly eliminated from relativity
physics.
"Since then this series is impermissible,
the qualities are always arranged as follows: A and A1
contained in B. B and B1,
contained in C. A2 and A3
contained in B1. The only
arrangement which will now completely satisfy all our premises is that each new
quality, as it emerges, is determined by another quality (subject or antithesis)
and the rest of the Universe (object or thesis).
This does not apply merely to the qualities of cognition but to all events.
In older formulations of causality, it would be stated that each 'event' (new
quality) has a 'cause' (prior quality) and a 'ground' (the rest of the
Universe). The ground is currently omitted for reasons of economy. For example,
we say a bell is the cause of a sound. The air, earth, fixed stars must,
however, be as they are in order for the bell to produce the sound. Any general
scientific law must contain Universal constants. This is recognised by modern
relativity physics (p) and quantum physics (h).
"This
then leads to the dialectical law of becoming, applicable to all qualities, that
is, to all events. Any new quality, as it emerges, is determined by (or
'contains') a prior quality (the cause) and the rest of the Universe of
qualities. Or, more strictly -- since becoming is logically prior to time
and space -- the two terms determining a quality, (a) the prior quality and (b)
all other determining qualities, are to that quality cause and ground, and
contain its past time and its surrounding space. All other qualities, not
contained in this way, are part of its effect, and contain its future time. It
is this relation which enables us to settle causality and time and space, which
are never absolute, but relative to a quality. Logically we express this as
follows. Every new quality (B) is the synthesis of an opposition between (A)
the cause, prior quality or thesis, and its negation (not-A), or antithesis --
the rest of the Universe of qualities existent in relation to A. This
dialectical movement does not take place in Time and Space, but Time and Space
are abstractions from it.
"Thus
time not only is an abstraction of the unlikeness in qualities, but is also and
therefore the abstraction of the asymmetrical relations between them which leave
time open and 'infinite', and make its process and its arrangement unique, so
that we cannot conceive the past in the future, or yesterday to-morrow, or
ourselves going backwards in time. To go backwards in time would be to shed
those qualities which contain the past, layer after layer, till we reach the
past. But all that retraced 'shed' past, now no longer being in determining
relations with the past-become-present, would cease to exist, and we should not
have gone backwards in time. Or to go backwards in time would be to come again
on to the qualities of the past which, contained in the present, now also
contain the present, so that we revolve in a self-determined circle like a
needle stuck in a gramophone record, and can therefore know nothing outside that
circle, either past or future. We and the 'outside' would be non-existent to
each other.
"Space
is not only an abstraction of the likeness in qualities, but it is also and
therefore an abstraction of the symmetrical relations between them which make
space closed and finite, and makes its process and its arrangement non-unique,
so that we cannot conceive one part of space being different from another part,
nor our being unable to retrace our steps over any distance we have traversed,
just as we cannot conceive one part of time being like another part, nor of our
being able to go back over any portion of time we have traversed. For if the
qualities A, B, C, D, and E are asymmetrically transitive, so that A is
contained in B, B in C, and C in D, and D in A, there is a common relation to
all events -- in this particular series it is A, for if A is in B, and B is in
C, and C is in D, and D is in E, A must be in E. A therefore, is the spatial
relation or likeness in development. It is that which develops, just as the
unlike elements are the qualities exhibited by it in its development.
"Every
quality is an event; every event is a quality. Every quality of event is a
relation between the subject A, and the object not-A-- the rest of the
Universe. The simplest quality (or event) is a quantum, in which there is a
relation between the electron A and the rest of the Universe not-A.
Relations peculiar to A and general to the Universe must therefore both figure
in the complete specification of a quantum. A quantum is the most temporal
quality we can abstract, just as the interval is the most spatial.
Development does not take place in time and space. Development, becoming, and
change, secrete time and space. Time and space are abstractions of it.
Memory exhibits the asymmetrical transitive relations we have mentioned, so does
experience. They are therefore more concrete, nearer to reality and to becoming,
than abstract time or space, or even the abstract spatio-temporal continuum.
Learning, growth and evolution are not qualities absolutely peculiar to life;
they are what we call becoming in its living aspects. Becoming includes both
spatial finity and temporal infinity.
"We
now see that there is a universal dialectic of reality, a mode of movement which
is prior to time, space, life and all other events and qualities. This
dialectic proceeds as follows. First we have a quality. But a quality is a
relation between subject and object, between A, subject, and not-A, the rest of
the Universe. But the rest of the Universe not-A, has as its object A, to A it
is subject and to it A is the rest of the Universe. The most 'primitive'
quality we take therefore has two terms and a relation, this relation is
involved in 'becoming' and ensures that the process of reality is open and
'infinite' at both ends. Our most infinite regress into the past brings us
therefore to a quality, to an event. We cannot imagine anything simpler, for
such a simplex one-term thing would be absolutely self-determined and could not
be known-by-us, since knowing is a mutually determining relation between us
and the thing. Any known event is already a quality, is already a
subject-object relation. It already involves within itself an antagonism which
can generate the means by which it is known.
"We may take either term as primary and the other as dependent on it. Since we
can take either term as primary, neither can be primary. They may be regarded as
simultaneous. But they are not independent terms, for they are connected by a
relation. The simplest quality therefore reveals itself as a subject-object
relation. But the process of becoming involves that a new quality emerges
(or event occurs) not by the increment of something already there, but abruptly,
exhibiting something altogether unlike. But it also involves that this new
state contains the first old quality in addition to the unlike new. This new
state or quality is also analysable as a two-term relation, and must in turn be
succeeded by a new quality.
"In other words, the fundamental mode of motion is a state, revealed to contain
a thesis and an antithesis each of which is all that is not the other (are
opposites), and yet neither are self-determined but are on the contrary, in
mutually determining relation (unity of opposites). This is the thesis and
antithesis. This state must give place to another, containing both the old
quality (A and B) and yet an unlike element C. This is the synthesis. This
quality, when it reveals its dualism, no longer reveals the dualism A and B, for
this dualism parted between it (relation of subject to rest of Universe) the
whole of reality. There is now newness, so therefore the same portioning of
reality can no longer reveal the same dualism. The old dualism is therefore
'reconciled' in the new synthesis C, which itself however can now be analysed as
a two-term relation, the foundation of another movement.
"Quantity is the comparison of qualities among themselves. For this to be
possible, they must all have a common element of likeness. Yet this likeness,
constantly, by the dialectic movement, gives birth to the new. Quantity becomes
quality, yet remains quantity. This movement guarantees the determinism of
becoming, but not its pre-determinism. The pre-determinism of becoming is a
nightmare arising from mechanical materialism.
"This
movement is not imposed on becoming by thought. It is the only way becoming can
really become, conformably to our reason and experience; and it is in our reason
because our experience is part of this becoming. This movement contains within
it time and space, memory and perception, quality and quantity, all of which
entities are abstractions from it. Time is the difference between synthesis and
the preceding relation, space is the similarity between them. The dialectic
movement of the Universe does not occur in space and time, it gives rise to them.
The external world does not impose dialectic on thought, nor does thought
impose it on the external world. The relation between subject and object,
ego and Universe is itself dialectic. Man, when he attempts to think
metaphysically, merely contradicts himself, and meanwhile continues to live and
experience reality, dialectically." [Caudwell (1938b), quoted from
here. Bold emphases added. Several paragraphs merged; a
handful of minor typos corrected. The above continues for several more
thousand words!]
Attentive readers will no doubt have noticed that even though Caudwell airily
informs us that "The external world does not impose dialectic on thought, nor
does thought impose it on the external world", that is precisely what he has
done here. Sure enough, he also says that these ideas were
"established by thought in unity with practice", not by thought alone. However,
it might well be wondered what sort of practice could conceivably establish the
truth of the following, for instance:
"The Universe is one, and is as a whole absolutely self-determined, but no part
of it is absolutely self-determined. All that is real exists, and all that is
real is determined, that is, every part of the Universe is in mutually
determining A-B relations with the rest of the Universe. Everything therefore is
knowable....
"Reality does not become in time and space, but time and space are aspects of
its becoming....
"There must therefore be something in all qualities that remains the same, even
though these qualities are new, otherwise we cannot say, the 'Universe has
changed'. There must be something like in all unlikes....
"Space is quantity or known quality as it remains unchanged; it is therefore the
thing-in-itself, the material unity of the Universe.... Space therefore is an
aspect of matter, which is precisely what relativity physics has established by
practice. Mass-energy, or the likeness in phenomena, generates space. This is
established by practice. All laws of development, of evolution, of difference,
of quality, of aesthetics, of consciousness, are temporal. All laws of
conservation, of metrics, of comparability, of universal and unchanging
relations, are spatial....
"Moreover since no set of qualities is self-determined, we can never have a set
of distinguishable qualities such that A alone determines or is contained in B;
B alone determines or is contained in C, and so on, otherwise the series A, B,
C, would be self-determined and unknowable....
"Since then this series is impermissible, the qualities are
always arranged as follows: A and A1
contained in B. B and B1,
contained in C. A2 and A3
contained in B1. The only
arrangement which will now completely satisfy all our premises is that each new
quality, as it emerges, is determined by another quality (subject or antithesis)
and the rest of the Universe (object or thesis). This does not apply merely to
the qualities of cognition but to all events." [Ibid., bold emphases added.]
Caudwell is remarkably coy about which practices the above are predicated
upon.
It
could be objected that Caudwell combines thought and practice to obtain
the above results; anyone who so thinks should
e-mail me with the thoughts and/or the
practices that establish the truth of, say, this:
"The Universe is one, and is as a whole absolutely self-determined, but no part
of it is absolutely self-determined. All that is real exists, and all that is
real is determined, that is, every part of the Universe is in mutually
determining A-B relations with the rest of the Universe. Everything therefore is
knowable." [Ibid.]
Finally, Caudwell clearly accepts the applicability of the
Fichtean triplet -- thesis-antithesis-synthesis -- which,
as we have seen,
has nothing to do with Hegel's method, nor with that of Marx, Engels, Plekhanov
or Lenin.
Card-carrying Maoist, Lenny Wolff, was more than happy to impose the following
dogmatic pronouncements on the facts:
"To begin with, the method forged by Marxism -- materialist dialectics --
is the most systematic concentration of the scientific method ever achieved, the
most accurate and critical tool of inquiry into the world (indeed, the universe)
and how it works. Marxism is materialist: it focuses on the material world for
the ultimate causes and directions of every event and phenomenon in nature or
society. And it is dialectical in that it comprehends all phenomena in their
changingness (sic) and development and in their interaction with other
phenomena, and because it studies the struggle of opposites within a thing or
process as the underlying basis of its motion and change.... (p.12)
"Constant development and
transformation, explosiveness and changeability, all based on the struggle of
opposites, drives forward not only the sun but the entire material universe; and
this fundamental law forms the basis of materialist dialectics. 'Marxist
philosophy,' Mao wrote, 'holds that the law of the unity of opposites is the
fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally, whether in the
natural world, in human society, or in man's thinking.' ('On the Correct
Handling of Contradictions Among the People,' MSR, pp.442-443)
"To grasp the
contradictory properties within a phenomenon and the character of their constant
struggle and mutual transformation, to understand how that struggle in turn
gives rise to qualitatively new things -- that is the heart of the dialectical
method....
"The struggle and interpenetration of
opposites that actually give a thing or process its character generally goes on
beneath the surface. Dialectics uncovers the hidden mainsprings not apparent to
'sound common sense,' which as Engels once remarked, while a 'respectable
fellow...in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful
adventures' when he enters 'the wide world of research.' (Anti-Dühring,
p.26)
"...[After quoting
Lenin] Note that Lenin underscores 'All phenomena' in his opening
sentence. Can this be true? Is everything driven forward by internal
contradiction?...
"Contradiction is
universal, propelling every process and thing. But universality also
means that in the development of each thing, a movement of opposites goes on
from beginning to end. The growth of a child, for instance, unfolds in
contradictions between bursts of rapid growth and periods of relative
consolidation, dependence and independence, learning the old ways and forging
and trying out (their own) new ideas. Where, at any point in the process, is
there not contradiction and struggle?...
"Lenin lays great stress on
internal contradictions as the 'driving force' of development; but this does
not mean that external causes play no role at all. Ice, when heated enough,
changes into water, which is certainly a change in quality, and not just
degree (as one can test by diving into a swimming pool full of ice cubes, or
pouring water into a Coke). Still, this does not make external causes principal;
no amount of heat can transform ice into chocolate milk, or molten Iead. The
ability of ice to undergo certain qualitative changes and not others results
from its internal contradictions, in this case the contradictory properties of
hydrogen and oxygen in their simultaneous interdependence and struggle with each
other.
"Yet that example alone doesn't
sufficiently address the question of the relation between internal and external
contradictions. Can it not be said, for example, that the transformation of
water into steam is the result of the contradictory struggle between heat and
water -- in other words, that on a different level (e.g., considering a steam
engine) the contradiction between water and heat is internal and not external?
And that ultimately the very concept of external cause is meaningless?
"No, it is not meaningless...but it
is relative. This is bound up with the fact that there are qualitatively
different levels to the structure of matter (speaking here of all matter,
whether subatomic particles, human societies or galaxies). Water molecules, for
example, contain atoms. These atoms, however, are not 'mini-molecules,' but
qualitatively different organizations of matter with distinct contradictory
characteristics, properties and structures. Their combination into a molecule is
conditional -- and in the absence of certain underlying conditions, the molecule
will break down. But, at the same time, the behaviour of these atoms when they
are integrated into the structure of a molecule will be more determined
by the contradictions of the molecule than by their own internal particularities
as atoms....
"The point here is that the
concrete character of the process or thing being analyzed must be kept to
the forefront. There are different levels of structure to matter, and any level
is both relatively autonomous and at the same time linked to and influenced by
other levels. Therefore clarity on what exactly is under study, and on that
basis which contradictions should be considered internal and which external, and
how they relate, is critically important to dialectical analysis. Mao emphasized
understanding the 'law of contradiction in things in a concrete way.' ('On
Contradiction,' MSR, p.90) The actual opposites which constitute and push
forward the development of a thing or process must be ascertained, their
interaction and struggle studied and understood....
"To begin with, identity has both a
popular and a philosophical meaning. Philosophically, the identity of opposites
does not mean that the two aspects of a contradiction are the same as
each other, or can't be told apart; it refers instead both to the coexistence of
opposites within a single entity, and to their property
under certain circumstances of
transforming into each other, thereby qualitatively transforming the
character of the thing or process at hand.
"To begin with the first aspect of
the philosophical meaning of identity, the coexistence of opposites: while every
entity or process is a contradiction composed of opposing forces, through most
of their existence entities exist in a relatively stable state. To put it
another way, within any entity or process there are new and rising forces
struggling against the framework of the thing, striving to negate its character
and bring something new into being; nevertheless, at any given time a thing is
still more itself than 'not itself.'... The opposites in a contradiction coexist
with one another, and this (temporary) coexistence is one aspect of what is
meant by the 'identity of opposites.'
"Such coexistence, however, is not
static; it's more in the character of a relatively stable framework within which
the ceaseless struggle of opposites goes on. And this ongoing struggle of
opposites partially alters the character of the identity itself even before it
reaches a point of intensity which fundamentally ruptures the identity (or the
framework).
"Let's look at a few other cases of
mutual coexistence and interdependence of opposites. Life is obviously
diametrically opposed to death -- but really, wouldn't the very concept of life
be meaningless without death, and vice versa? Death only has meaning as a limit
to life, and life itself only continues so long as organisms break down and
synthesize elements from dead plants and animals (and simultaneously expel the
dead cells and toxic waste from their own selves).
"Or take war; war is qualitatively
different from peace -- still the two have identity as well. Peace treaties turn
out to be nothing but the framework within which rival bourgeoisies compete with
each other and prepare for new wars, while war itself is not conducted for its
own sake, but to set the terms for new (and more favourable) peaceful
arrangements. And there is identity and struggle in the contradiction between
just and unjust wars, too -- as when the Russian proletariat transformed the
unjust, imperialist war waged by its own bourgeoisie in World War 1 into a
revolutionary civil war in Russia. Further, wars waged by oppressed classes and
nations for their liberation develop as a qualitative leap out of the --
relatively -- nonmilitary struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor.
But the matter, does not end with the
dependence of opposites upon each other for their existence. As Mao wrote:
'...what is more important is their transformation into
each other. That is to say, in given conditions, each of the contradictory
aspects within a thing transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position
to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of
contradiction. ('On Contradiction,' MSR, p.119)'
"While the struggle between its two
aspects goes on throughout the life of the contradiction, and both aspects
undergo partial transformations through different stages as a result of this (as
well as other contradictions influencing the process), there inevitably comes a
point when the old identity can no longer comprehend the contradictory aspects
in their changed character. The subordinate aspect bursts forth, overcomes the
formerly principal aspect, and brings a qualitatively new and different entity
into being. The shell of the egg is destroyed and replaced by ifs opposite, the
chicken; the shell of capitalist society is ruptured by the proletarian
revolution and a new society begins to be created.... (pp.24-31)
"The identity of opposites in the preceding examples resides not only in
their coexistence, but also in their change of place in their relationship
within the contradiction. In the leap from water to ice, the contradictory
identity between the energy of the individual molecule (which tends to random
motion) on the one hand, and the bonding force between molecules on the
other, goes from a state in which the molecular energy is dominant enough to
permit a degree of fluidity to one in which the molecular bonding force becomes
principal, and the molecules are frozen. Between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie (as noted) does not vanish immediately after the
socialist revolution but continues to exist and wage struggle (speaking here
specifically of the internal makeup of socialist countries) as a dominated and
subordinate aspect of the contradiction (as long as the society remains on the
socialist road); what has changed is the respective position of the two aspects
in the contradiction. This
transformation of opposites into each other changes the qualitative
character of the entity as a whole and the forms assumed by its contradictory
aspects - from water to ice, or capitalism to socialism. In the latter case, the
period in which the bourgeoisie is dominated (first in various countries, later
on a world scale) will eventually result in its full disappearance -- at which
point the proletariat itself will also go out of existence (after all, how could
there be a proletariat without its opposite?) and another new entity, communist
society, with its own contradictions and struggle, will arise....
"Identity, to sum up, is contradictory:
opposites both coexist and transform
themselves into one another. Their coexistence is itself a process of
mutual transformation, and their transformation into each other is generally not
absolute but goes on in wave-Iike, or spiral-like, development (more on this
later)....
"Further, in the relationship between the opposite aspects of a
contradiction, identity and struggle do not exist on a par. Struggle is
principal over identity. Identity, or relative order, is a temporary condition,
but struggle never ceases; it permeates a process from beginning to end and leads to the transformation of opposites
and the eventual annihilation of the process (and its replacement by something
new). In fact, when struggle ceases, identity goes out of existence as well,
since the process itself has come to an end....
"The stars, the planets, different organisms -- all are forms of matter in
motion in which the constituent opposites coexist for a time in one form, only
to eventually be severed through struggle and dissolve (and become in different
forms the elements of new entities). Each individual person, for example, is
nothing but a particular and conditional combination of matter...matter which
existed in different forms previously and will exist in other forms in the
future....
"Again, Lenin's warning to take the
identical opposites in a thing or process 'not as dead, rigid, but as living,
conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another' ('Conspectus
of Hegel's Book The Science of Logic,' LCW, Vol.38, 109) rings home; and
his characterization of socialism (in another work) as a combination of dying
capitalism and nascent communism is an important application of just this
principle of the identity and struggle of opposites.... (pp.32-35)
"At the same time, contradictions do not
necessarily develop in a predetermined path; different processes and things
interpenetrate and influence one another, and relatively external contradictions
(in one context) can alter a process' direction of development and even
eliminate it altogether.... (p.47)
"Change does not proceed by simple addition,
nor simply from within a given process. While internal causes are principal
over external, contradictions cannot be viewed simply as 'things unto
themselves.'... (p.59)
"But back to the central point -- the opposition of materialism to idealism. The
basic split between idealism and materialism concerns the nature of the
contradiction between matter and consciousness.
Matter has existed eternally, in an infinite and everchanging variety of forms;
but through it all it exists, whether as mass or energy, a block of steel or an
exploding supernova.
As life on earth developed, matter began to give rise to its opposite,
consciousness. The rudiments of this are found in the earliest, most primitive
organisms and their ability to respond to environmental stimuli. This reaches a
qualitatively higher state in the more intelligent animals, who can draw
conclusions about their immediate environment and make decisions, and it takes
another leap with human consciousness. Humans have the capacity to analyze their
experience, dream up different ways the future might be, and work to make
reality conform to their ideas and dreams, constantly comparing one to the
other. Still, developed as it is, consciousness is nevertheless based on
material reality and the product and property of a highly organized form of
matter, the brain. This much is basic to all materialism." (p.61) [Wolff
(1983), pp.12-61. Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered, and in
some cases added, in order to conform with the conventions adopted at this
site.]
As
we have come to expect, Wolff's 'evidence' is, at best, watery thin (as
we will find out in Essay Seven Part One),
but that didn't prevent him from imposing his ideas on the world -- on the
sole authority of Hegel, Engels, Lenin and Mao.
Here is
an academic Marxist, Erwin Marquit, dogmatising with best of them:
"All
things are connected to other things in an infinity of interconnections. The law
of universal interconnection is the basis for the dialectical-materialist
concept of the unity of the world and the knowability of the world. Any
exception from universal
interconnection would mean that there is some segment of objective reality not
connected to anything else, and therefore there are no phenomena associated with
it. Such a thing would be even more ethereal than the Kantian unknowable
thing-in-itself. The law of universal interconnection is, at the same time, a
dialectical assertion of the relative independence of things and processes, for
the very concept of interconnection of things and phenomena suggests also their
relative separateness. This allows us to temporarily sever the bonds of
interconnection for a detailed analysis of a subsegment of the world. Such an
investigation must indicate the consequences of the severance of these bonds, as
well as the consequences of their restoration. Herein also lies one source of
the approximate character of our knowledge at any moment....
"Quantitative
changes that precede qualitative changes appear to be the simplest generalized
process. However, there is an ever-present dialectical interconnection between
quantitative and qualitative changes. Every quantitative change springs from a
qualitative change, while the significance of quantitative changes is that
they lead to qualitative changes. The quantitative rise in temperature of water
in a vessel is the result of the addition of thermal energy produced through the
transformation of matter from one form to another (e.g., by chemical
combustion). Changes in the temperature of the water lead to some qualitative
physical effect (triggering of a thermostat control, boiling, etc.)....
"The second law [the unity and
struggle of opposites - RL] reveals the role of contradictions as the driving
force in any process. In their dialectical interconnection as a unity and
struggle of opposites, contradictions represent opposing aspects and tendencies
that mutually affirm and deny each other. The unity and interpenetration of
opposites, while constituting the driving force behind change, also provide the
basis for the relative stability of any material system. Consequently, analysis
of any process requires investigation of a number of levels of the unity and
struggle of opposites....
"Law 3
[the negation of the negation - RL] asserts the universality of development
and shows how this development proceeds. If, as the result of quantitative
changes, the dominance of one polar opposite is replaced by the dominance of the
other, the change is clearly characterized as a negation. The shift to the
dominance of a new subsystem or tendency in a system is always a qualitative
change, which can lead to relatively rapid or avalanche-type processes in
which other contradictions are resolved and new contradictions appear....
"In this way,
we see that law 3...is a statement of a never-ending succession of law-governed
changes through the process of dialectical negation. The law of the negation
of the negation embodies both laws 1 and 2, while, at the same time, law 1
[universal interconnection -- RL] is a particular expression of law 3. Since
process, or motion, constitutes an inseparable unity in which the old and the
new are moments connected with each other by dialectical negation, law 3, in
turn, is an expression of law 2. We thus see that law 2 plays the central role
in materialist dialectics. It points to the importance of contradiction as
the source of motion (where we use the term motion as a philosophical
category for any change or process). Since, according to the dialectical
view, motion is the product of the unity and struggle of opposites, motion is
self-motion. Vyakkerev calls contradiction the 'essence of self-motion'
and suggests that 'self-motion is an existing contradiction or the mode of
existence of contradiction.'...
"No material
object or system of objects, however, is absolutely unchanging. To describe
objects (we include a system of objects within this concept) which, in reality,
are always undergoing some change, we usually make use of two kinds of
reductions to form an approximate picture of objects while they are changing."
[Marquit (1981), pp.309-17, and Marquit (1982), pp.70-77. Bold emphases added;
quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
Of
course, Marquit produced no evidence in support of the hyper-bold things he had
to say about the universal applicability of 'the laws' of DM, but then that is
just par for the course in Dialectical Marxism.
"With Hegel dialectics began to become
self-conscious...; with Lenin dialectics becomes not only self-conscious but a
dialectics of realization in practice. The seed was present in Heraclitus...,
and the oak in Lenin. Philosophy was changing the world.
"The
unity (struggle, identity, interpenetration) of opposites reflects the dynamics
of reality, both natural and historical, and it is vital to see its
operation in today's frontiers of science and social practice...." [DeGrood
(1978), p.45. Italic emphasis in the original, bold emphasis added.]
Notice that, on the basis of little or no evidence (but see Essay Seven
Part One on this), DeGrood is happy to impose this theory, not just on the
universe as we now know it, but on "reality" itself.
[We
will also see (here
and here) that
not only did Lenin and the Bolsheviks not use dialectics in 1917,
they
couldn't have used it even if they had wanted to!]
Here,
too, is Ifor Torbe (formerly Lecturer in Structural Analysis at the University
of Southampton, and veteran communist), first of all disarming the unsuspecting
reader in the usual manner, quoting Engels approvingly:
"Finally, for me there could be no
question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of
discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels
(1976), p.13. Bold emphasis added. I have used to on-line version here.
Quoted in Torbe (1997), p.11.]
"The mistake lies in the fact that
these laws are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced
from them. This is the source of the whole forced and often outrageous
treatment; the universe, willy-nilly, is made out to be arranged in accordance
with a system of thought which itself is only the product of a definite
stage of evolution of human thought....
"We all agree that in every field of
science, in natural and historical science, one must proceed from the given
facts, in natural science therefore from the various material forms of
motion of matter; that therefore in theoretical natural science too the
interconnections are not to be built into the facts but to be discovered in
them, and when discovered to be verified as far as possible by experiment."
[Engels (1954), pp.62,
47. Bold emphasis alone added. Again, I have used to on-line version here;
partially quoted in Torbe (1997), p.11.]
However, Torbe then proceeds to assert things like the following:
"It is a matter of observation that
all things change, that everything is in ceaseless motion, and that every
change, and in every motion, the laws of dialectics can be seen to be operative
(p.16)...."
"The
position is clearer for the law of the transformation of quantity into
quality.... In the physical domain of the processes of Nature
it is impossible to find a situation in which a quantifiable parameter can
increase indefinitely without a qualitative change occurring at some, usually
precisely defined, value of that parameter (p.18)...."
His
evidence? This:
"Water
when it is heated, boils and turns into steam.... Metals fracture, each when it
reaches its specific level of mechanical stress, and so on through a whole range
of phenomena. Everything has its specific critical limiting value...". [Ibid., p.19.]
[And Torbe actually taught science! Perhaps he forgot about "quantifiable parameters" like weight, speed,
distance, time and temperature. All of these can increase indefinitely without
changing into something new. A temperature of one million degrees K is still a
temperature; a distance of one billion light years is still a distance; one
trillion tonnes is still a weight; one hundred billion years is still a measure
of time.]
With
Mickey Mouse 'proof' like this one wonders why Darwin, for instance,
bothered to collect hundreds of pages of evidence in support of his theory, and
why scientists have been amassing container loads more ever since. Don't they know that all that was
required here
were a few trite, anecdotal examples?
To be
sure, Torbe does add the following comment:
"Far too often [the laws of dialectics]
are given an a priori status, elevated into a sort of Holy Trinity of
incomprehensibles for the uninitiated." [Ibid., p.17.]
But,
as we can see from the passages quoted above, this is precisely what Torbe
does!
And, he keeps doing it,
too:
"Appreciation of the oneness of
physical reality is helped also by the dialectic of the unity of opposites...." [Ibid.,
p.21. Bold emphasis alone added.]
The
sub-title of Torbe's book is a dead give-away, too: The Dialectics Of Reality.
Notice, it isn't The Dialectics Of Nature As We Know It Today, but The
Dialectics Of Reality. But, when will humanity ever
experience, or even know, 'Reality' as such -- as opposed, perhaps, to
parts, regions, segments or slices of it, at best?
Here,
too, is retired physicist, Abdul Malek, with whom I have debated this 'theory'
over at the
Guardian
discussion page; Malek posts under the pseudonym 'FutureHuman' (I refer to
him there as 'Future'). I say "debated", but Malek soon gave up trying to discuss this
'theory', and simply retreated into a dogmatic dialectical sulk. Among his (highly
repetitive) a priori theses (which, true-to-form, he supports with little
or no evidence, and even less argument!) are the following:
"Opposites reside together in the
very element of a thing or a process in simultaneous unity and opposition to
each other and a resolution of this logical contradiction and conflict
provided the dynamics for change, motion, evolution, development, etc.... (p.5)
"One of the most important
characteristics of dialectics is that it denies any permanence or
absoluteness in any thing or process, everything is in a flux of coming into
being and passing out of existence so that change...remains the only
absolute.... [C]ontradiction (unity of opposites) in the unit of a thing or
a process is the most fundamental attribute of all existence...and
change or motion is the manifestation of that inherent contradiction....
(p.7)
[The only exception to this 'absolute' appears to be this 'theory' itself --
RL.]
"The universe is the dialectical
manifestation a) of matter...in eternal self-propelled motion, b) of its
infinite series of leaps, change, transformations...; c) the perpetual process
of its objects coming into being and passing out of existence mediated by
blind chance and iron necessity that is inherent in chance. This motion is
reflected in three...general laws i.e., i) inter-transformation of quality and
quantity; ii) interpenetration of the opposites; and iii) the law of the
negation of the negation that follow the dynamical and helical triads of thesis,
anti-thesis and synthesis. Matter itself appears and disappears in the void
of the infinite universe, in some elementary forms as dialectical and quantum
mechanical necessities and in accordance with the first dialectical triad
being-nothing-becoming.... (p.12) [We
have already seen
that the triad -- 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' --
is a
Fichtean, not an Hegelian, concept -- RL.]
"For
dialectics (and quantum mechanics) on the contrary, matter and motion are the
fundamental elements and the primary conditions of all physical reality;
motion is the mode of existence of matter. Matter without motion is as
inconceivable as motion without matter.... (p.30)
"For dialectical materialism...reality
is always in flux, motion, change, development and it is unstable and
inherently uncertain at quantum scale, such that an exact, fixed, definitive and
quantifiable understanding or an exhaustive description of this reality
forever is impossible. But this also is at the root of the basic dialectical
contradiction and the unity of the opposites between ontology and epistemology,
and resolves this contradiction in the endless progressive evolution of
consciousness/mind. This process can never stop or come to an end,
terminating to some absolute truth.... (p.15) [Except this absolute
truth, of course -- RL.]
"Further,
gravity cannot only be an attractive force, but according to the dialectical law
of the unity of the opposites, must also possess a repulsive nature....
(p.56)
"In
the case of biological processes and the micro-world of quantum mechanics causal
relations break down completely and can only be understood from the point of
view of dialectics which posits that the opposites reside together in dynamic
unity and contradiction, quality and quantity inter-converts into each other and
motion & (sic) development occurs through the negation of the negation....
(p.63)
"As
dialectics rightly asserts, every truth [except this one -- RL] has its
limits; when extended beyond this limit it turns into its opposite or to an
absurdity." (p.71) [Malek (2012), pp.5-71. Bold emphases alone added.]
In
fact, Malek's book contains little other than
page after page of dogmatic assertions like the above.
[Incidentally, I am not 'outing' ("doxing")
Malek, here. He openly admits his real identity over at The Guardian,
which is where I found out about his book.]
Sullivan and Royle are UK-SWP DM-fans.
In relation to the UK-SWP, I
pointed out the following in Essay Nine
Part Two:
In view of the recent crisis that swept over the SWP, and
its subsequent haemorrhaging of members, one should expect Dialectical Mysticism
to make a strong comeback in UK-SWP publications. And that is exactly what we
find in the shape of John Molyneux's latest book -- The Point Is To Change It, An
Introduction To Marxist Philosophy --
alongside (i) An article in a recent edition of
Socialist Worker, and (ii) Two longer articles in International
Socialism --
Royle (2014), and
Sullivan (2015). Molyneux's book also received a favourable
-- and predictably uncritical -- boilerplate response in
Socialist Review.
I
examined Molyneux's attempt to impose DM on nature
earlier in this Essay; the question
is: Do the above two SWP theorists attempt to do the same?
One would
have concluded they wouldn't do it, given these closing remarks:
"Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of
my account is the contention that dialectical biology and dialectics more
generally should in part be understood as a heuristic device -- a device that
allows us to understand the world, not as a guarantee of knowledge but rather
as a useful guide to understanding." [Sullivan
(2015), p.193. Bold emphasis added.]
Sullivan also refers his readers to a passage in Anti-Dühring (which we have
met several times):
"As Engels writes in Anti-Dühring:
'to me there could be no question of building laws of dialectics into nature,
but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it'." [Ibid.,
p.183. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this
site.]
And
yet, in the very same paragraph
(in fact, in the sentence that preceded the above words), he also had this to
say:
"[T]he dialectic is both
a method for coming to understand the world, that is, an epistemological
concept, and, for Marx as well as Engels, the dialectic is a claim about the
nature of the world itself, that is, an ontological claim." [Ibid.,
p.183. Bold emphasis alone added.]
According to Sullivan (who nowhere contradicts what he thinks Marx and
Engels believed), DM is an "ontological claim" about "the nature of the world
itself", not a theory about what we currently know about nature (which is but a
tiny fraction of what we will know in, say, two or three centuries time). And yet,
Sullivan is quite happy to impose this theory on the world, and he has the cheek
to do this in the same breath as saying this is something he won't do!
If
only there were some sort of pattern here...
Incidentally, Sullivan nowhere quotes Marx to the effect that "the dialectic is
a claim about the nature of the world itself, that is, an ontological claim",
and no wonder, Sullivan just made it up!
Not
content with the above, he continues a few pages later:
"First, I have been arguing that
dialectics holds that the world must be understood as a constantly changing
whole driven by internal contradictions. And it is within this broader
concept that the three laws should be understood. To be clear it would be a
mistake to examine the worth or otherwise of the three laws separately from the
notions of totality, change and contradiction." [Ibid.,
p.186. Bold emphasis added. Sullivan repeats this almost verbatim on the following page.]
But
where has this "must" suddenly come from? If, according to Engels (with whom
Sullivan at least seems to agree, even if only for a few seconds!) "there
could be no question of building laws of dialectics into nature", there
should be
no "must" about it. On the other hand, if there is to be a "must", then we need
to adjust Engels's words accordingly, perhaps to: "For me there could be no question of
not building laws of dialectics into nature". That would at least have the
merit of being both more accurate and more honest.
Further 'foistings' by Sullivan include the following:
"In addition to regarding existing
phenomena as stages in a continuing process it is no less important to
consider every part as a component of a whole." [Ibid.,
p.181.]
"[T]he world must be viewed as
whole. The second is that this whole is undergoing a constant process of
change. The third is that change is the result of opposition between the
poles of contradiction." [Ibid.,
p.184.]
[I]f we are to understand the world
around us, for example, capitalism, we must begin with the totality of
social relations -- economic, political, ideological and cultural --
recognising that this totality is undergoing constant change. Further,
this process of 'total change' is a result of opposition between the poles of a
contradiction." [Ibid.,
p.184.]
"[T]he world must be viewed as a
whole that is undergoing a constant process of change as a result of
opposition between the poles of contradiction." [Ibid.,
p.186.]
"[W]e should see the three laws
as examples of patterns of dialectical change that may take place in wholes (or
totalities) undergoing change as a result of internal contradictions." [Ibid.,
p.190.]
"[T]he world mustbe viewed as a
whole that is undergoing aconstant process of change where this change
is the result of opposition between the poles of a contradiction." [Ibid.,
p.193. Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
[What
was that again about DM being highly repetitive?]
To be
sure, in many of the above, Sullivan is summarising what he believes are the
opinions of Marx and Engels, but it is equally clear that he also agrees with what he
thinks they have to say.
Here
are
also several examples of Dialectical Dogmatism in Royle's
article, but first the usual, almost knee-jerk nod in the direction of reasonableness:
"But taking a dogmatic
approach to dialectics was the last thing Engels intended.... This position
is also suggested by Engels's own comments on science, again in Ludwig
Feuerbach. Here he discusses the potential useful contribution of Hegel's
philosophy, from which he derived the three laws, and rejects some conservative
interpretations of Hegel. Engels states: 'The whole dogmatic content of the
Hegelian system is declared to be absolute truth, in contradiction to his
dialectical method, which dissolves all dogmatism. Thus his revolutionary side
becomes smothered beneath the overgrowth of the conservative side.'
"Here it seems he is saying
that Hegel's laws should themselves be left open to being evaluated and
reinterpreted. They are not a fixed set of rules. However, this is not to say
that he intended dialectics to be purely a method. It also seems clear that, at
least as far as Engels was concerned, ways of thinking about the world cannot be
separated from the real nature of the world we are intending to study." [Royle
(2014), pp.106-07. Bold emphases
added.]
This is even though, as we have seen, Engels
was happy to impose his theory dogmatically on the facts -- and, as we have
also seen is the case with others who feign modesty, Royle is quite capable of dogmatising
with
the best:
"For many theorists the
most important aspects of dialectics are change and contradiction. It allows us
to grasp the nature of a world that is constantly changing, an element
that John Molyneux highlights and deals with in his recent guide to Marxist
philosophy.Dialectics can be called a critical
philosophy because it calls into question the idea that our world has always
remained the same and will carry on unchanged into the future. But it also
argues that change is not always gradual -- that things can progress by
leaps.... Most theories take it for granted at the outset that we can start by
looking at the world as if it is static and then try to explain any changes that
we see. For dialectical thinkers the reverse is true. Change is the default
state of the universe; it is stasis that is unusual and requires
explanation." [Ibid.,
pp.99-100.]
"[Paraphrasing David Harvey,
with whom she agrees on this:] He is effectively saying that there is no such
thing as a 'thing'. What we think of as solid objects are actually made up of
processes. Different processes can come together temporarily to produce things
but these are always transitory. Things are always in the process of being
created or destroyed -- all that is solid melts into air. In this
approach a thing could be an idea or concept or something concretely existing
like a city. Engels also argued something similar in Ludwig Feuerbach and
the End of Classical German Philosophy: 'The world is not to be
comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of
processes, in which the things…go through an uninterrupted change of coming
into being and passing away'.
"For Marx, and for many of
his followers, dialectics is about contradiction as well as change. The two are
related, internal contradictions drive change forward and lead to the
dynamism that we observe. Everything under capitalism seems, and is,
contradictory. However, Harvey argues that thinking in terms of
contradictions is compatible with his own approach. If things are made up of
shifting complexes of processes it stands to reason that some of those processes
will be in opposition to each other." [Ibid.,
pp.100-01.]
"The whole of the universe
is both complex and constantly changing. Everything is related to everything
else...." [Ibid.,
pp.111-12.]
"It seems like Engels was
trying to understand something fundamental about the way the world works. He saw
dialectics as describing real material processes. When he says quantitative
change leads to qualitative change it doesn't just mean that it is useful as a
method to treat the world as if this happens or to think about the world in this
way. He means that it really does act in this way." [Ibid.,
p.113.]
"The dialectics of Marx and
Engels is a materialist philosophy. It treats the world as if it is changing
because it does change, and as contradictory because it is contradictory. The
'natural' world really is changing." [Ibid.,
p.116. In all of the above bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
Peter Mason is certainly one of the most reasonable DM-fans whose work I have so far
had the displeasure to read, but, like all too many others, he is nevertheless quite happy to ignore
his own modest disclaimers and
impose DM on nature and society as a "fixed formula". Here, for example (in
the following, quotes from
Mason (2012), bold emphases and links have been
added; italic emphases in the original):
"A fundamental law of
dialectics: truth is concrete." [Mason
(2012),
p.16. Cf., p.3 of the
print edition, but not the on-line version!]
"In other
words, this ancient school of philosophers [the so-called
Ionians -- RL]
believed that the opposites of coming into being and passing away were two
integral aspects of everything capable of change: for instance, a person is born
and dies, and this mortality is a part of their being. This was the origin of
the unity and interpenetration of opposites, which Engels summarised so
clearly -- and which Lenin, following Hegel, considered the central element of
dialectics. These opposites, which dialectics says is found in everything
which changes, attempt to negate the other, until one finally triumphs and there
is a qualitative change – Louis XVI is guillotined, water boils, atoms
decay, the living die. There is a passing away and, perhaps, another coming into
being. This was called the dialectic of becoming. [Ibid.,
p.30.]
"In any case, from a dialectical point
of view, everything that changes has within it an interpenetration of opposites,
as Engels puts it in Dialectics of Nature." [Ibid.,
p.104.]
"Science has demonstrated the dialectics
of the universe. Some ten to twenty billion years ago, so far as is most broadly
accepted by science today, there was a sudden catastrophic dialectical
transformation, and the universe we know came into existence -- from what cause
we do not know. Time and space are bound up with matter and energy, and are not
exempt from the dialectics of nature.
Time has not been ticking eternally,
exempt from the transformations of quantity into quality first discovered by the
ancient philosophers of Ionia, and which in modern times helped form the Marxist
understanding of processes here on earth." [Ibid.,
p.109.]
Of
course, science has shown no such thing. Mason has simply imposed DM on
whatever it is that scientists have so far found. Moreover, the "ancient
philosophers of Ionia" 'discovered' this theory long before there was much scientific
evidence of any description, meaning that they, too, imposed these
ideas on nature. [Moreover, as we will see in Essay Seven
Part One, the evidence that has so far been collected doesn't support DM anyway.]
Mason
continues:
"Dialectics is a holistic
philosophy, which always considers things in their relations and their
development, as Lenin said....
"[The development of Ionian
philosophy] emerged from internal conflict, a war of opposing forces within all
things, a 'unity of opposites' as Lenin called it, an 'interpenetration of
opposites' as Engels termed it. These warring opposites were what drove the
eternal flux of change. Dialectics is a philosophy born of revolution....
"There are various definitions of 'materialism' in
philosophy. Marxists have a unique definition. For Marxists, in this context,
materialism can be described as the philosophy that the world exists
independently of the human mind. Ultimately, the material world is primary, and
thought is secondary...". [Ibid.,
pp.114, 116.]
Mason
seems quite happy to foist the above on nature and society, despite what he
elsewhere says
he never does, or should ever do.
Incidentally, although Mason traces the 'unity of opposites' back to these
Ionian Philosophers and their supposed revolution, this idea was in fact derived
from mystical Greek religion (as I hope to show in Essay Twelve Part Two),
summarised in the
following passage:
In
earlier
myths and
Theogonies,
conflict in this world was viewed as a reflection of the rivalries that existed
between warring 'gods', struggles that took place in a hidden world
beyond the reach of the senses. Their verbal wrangles and machinations became the model upon
which later Idealist and Hermetic thinkers based
their
Super-Scientific Theories that attempted to explain 'Being' -- which they then happily imposed on nature and society.
Language, which was originally the
product of collective labour and developed as a means of communication, is ill-suited if
pressed into service as a means of representation (especially when it is
interpreted as a way of representing the thoughts of 'God'). In order to
transform the vernacular into a representational device, theorists found they
had to take words that had grown out of, and which expressed, relations between
human beings, and apply them to the relations between objects in nature
--,
or, indeed, between those warring 'deities' --, as the late Professor
Havelock
noted:
"As long as preserved
communication remained oral, the environment could be described or explained
only in the guise of stories which represent it as the work of agents: that is
gods.
Hesiod
takes the step of trying to unify those stories into one great
story, which becomes a cosmic theogony. A great series of matings and births of
gods is narrated to symbolise the present experience of the sky, earth, seas,
mountains, storms, rivers, and stars. His poem is the first attempt we have in a
style in which the resources of documentation have begun to intrude upon the
manner of an acoustic composition. But his account is still a narrative of
events, of 'beginnings,' that is, 'births,' as his critics the
Presocratics
were to put it. From the standpoint of a sophisticated
philosophical language, such as was available to Aristotle, what was lacking
was a set of commonplace but abstract terms which by their interrelations could
describe the physical world conceptually; terms such as space, void, matter,
body, element, motion, immobility, change, permanence, substratum, quantity,
quality, dimension, unit, and the like. Aside altogether from the coinage of
abstract nouns, the conceptual task also required the elimination of verbs of
doing and acting and happening, one may even say, of living and dying, in favour
of a syntax which states permanent relationships between conceptual terms
systematically. For this purpose the required linguistic mechanism was furnished
by the timeless present of the verb to be -- the copula of analytic
statement.
"The history of early
philosophy is usually written under the assumption that this kind of vocabulary
was already available to the first Greek thinkers. The evidence of their own
language is that it was not. They had to initiate the process of inventing it....
"Nevertheless, the
Presocratics could not invent such language by an act of novel creation. They
had to begin with what was available, namely, the vocabulary and syntax of
orally memorised speech, in particular the language of
Homer
and
Hesiod. What they proceeded to do was to take the language of the mythos and
manipulate it, forcing its terms into fresh syntactical relationships which had
the constant effect of stretching and extending their application, giving them a
cosmic rather than a particular reference."
[Havelock (1983), pp.13-14, 21. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to
conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling modified to agree with
UK English. Links added.]
Unfortunately, these ordinary expressions carried with them the connotations
they possessed in their everyday use in connection with those inter-human
relations. These moves had a inevitable result: when imposed on nature they
transformed the traditional view of the world so that it became the projection
of human social relations, thus anthropomorphising nature. Again, as Marx pointed out:
"Feuerbach's
great achievement is.... The proof that philosophy is nothing else but
religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form
and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally
to be condemned...." [Marx
(1975b),
p.381. Bold emphasis
and link added.]
As we will see in other Essays published at
this site: because they appropriated and then elaborated upon these
anthropomorphic concepts, later generations of thinkers (including Marxist
dialecticians
and the vast majority of post-Renaissance Philosophers) anthropomorphised
nature in like manner. In this way, much of subsequent thought failed to break free from this
animistic view of reality....
Superstitious individuals had earlier tried to interpret natural processes as
the work of various assorted 'spirits' or 'deities', using anthropomorphic
language to that end. Subsequently, in more developed class societies, priests
and theologians indulged in this thought-form for ideological reasons, in
order to suggest that the natural and social order are 'divinely-ordained', the
legitimacy of which not only couldn't, it shouldn't be questioned, let alone resisted. Subsequently, as we can see from the record,
Ancient Greek Thinkers began looking for increasingly secular ways of theorising
about the world in order to construct a less animistic rationale for the new forms of class
society beginning to emerge in the 6th century BC.
However, they also retained this
transformed language, not noticing they had in fact banished the
aforementioned 'spirits' and 'gods' in name alone (as Feuerbach half
recognised), but the
anthropomorphic
connotations still lingered on, and there they remain to this day.
Unfortunately for humanity, these
developments also meant
that it became 'natural' for theorists (like
Anaximenes and
Heraclitus) to see conflict in conceptual, logical and
linguistic terms. And this is from
where Hegel appropriated these archaic and terminally obscure ideas.
That, of course, set
this new form of discourse in direct opposition to the language of everyday
life. Again, as noted above, this alienated thought-form was bequeathed to all
subsequent generations of thinkers, since the latter largely shared the same
privileged material conditions, ruling-class patronage, as well as
the ideological predispositions that came with this slice of the
intellectual territory.
In this artificial 'intellectual' world, populated
by indolent thinkers like these,
words appeared to
exert
their own irresistible authority; commands, edicts and orders seemed to
possess their own secret, magical power (which, of
course,
accounts for the ancient and early modern search for the original language that 'God' gave to mankind;
on this, see
Eco
(1997), partially quoted
here).
Words were, after all, capable of moving slaves, servants, and
workers effortlessly about the place. Codified into law,
words
also appeared to possess genuine
coercivepower,
which helped mask the class domination on which this parasitic social form was
predicated. Naturally, this
entirely superficial aspect of official language would blind those who benefited from
these social forms
to its material roots in class society.
The very real social power that words seemed
to possess would
'naturally' suggest to such theoretical 'drones'
that if language underpinned
the authority of the State, and if the
State mirrored
Cosmic Reality, then the universe must run along discursive lines.
[In
Appendix One, the reader will
find dozens of examples of mystical and Idealist systems of thought that saw
(and still see) the
world in this way -- powered by the 'conflict of opposites' and by 'contradictions'.]
Which
is ironic in view of this comment of Mason's:
"As Trotsky writes, 'if any
idealist philosopher, instead of arriving in time to catch the nine p.m. train,
should turn up two minutes late, he would see the tail of the departing train
and would be convinced by his own eyes that time and space are inseparable from
material reality.'
"But this becomes merely an
anthropomorphic view if, as we shall shortly see, time and space do not exist in
some real sense at the atomic level. Why define reality only by what we humans
commonly experience?" [Mason (2012),
p.128.]
And
yet, this is what Mason himself does when he projects a theory he admits was derived
from a 'revolution' in nature as a universally valid cosmic 'law' -- the 'unity
of opposites':
"[The development of Ionian
philosophy] emerged from internal conflict, a war of opposing forces within all
things, a 'unity of opposites' as Lenin called it, an 'interpenetration of
opposites' as Engels termed it. These warring opposites were what drove the
eternal flux of change. Dialectics is a philosophy born of revolution."
[Ibid., p.114.]
Earlier in Mason's book we find this additional imposition on the facts
of a "fixed formula":
"For two-and-a-half
millennia, many philosophers have supported the view that infinity is an
imaginary concept which has no actual existence. Hegel arrived at a dialectical
proposition which can be expressed like this: you can always imagine an unending
series of galaxies following one after another, but in concrete reality, at a
certain point, quantity turns into quality and a new phenomenon emerges.
Whatever existed before is negated. From this point of view there may be many
galaxies undiscovered, or many universes beyond our own -- it is speculation --
but, at some point, some other property will arise that ends the tedious
repetition, whether of galaxies or universes, the conception of which is beyond
our current scientific horizons". [Ibid.,
pp.6-7. Bold emphasis added.]
Mason
nowhere criticises Hegel for this clear example of a priori dogmatism;
indeed, and quite the opposite, he uses this presumed fact to berate
W&G (who do believe in the existence of the infinite). One might well
wonder, in passing, how the above 'fact' actually coheres with what
Engels had to say about this 'Law' (the "fixed formula", 'transformation of quantity into
quality'):
"...[T]he transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa.
For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner
exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only
occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called
energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body
without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative
alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954),
p.63.
Bold emphasis
alone added.]
But,
precisely
what matter or energy has been added, and by whom, to the universe (or, to a collection
of universes) that is capable of bringing about the above 'transformation of
quantity into quality')? Does Mason really believe that matter or energy
(which wasn't there before) is added to
the universe (or collection of universes) each time we discover
a new galaxy? But, if there is no matter or energy that has been added, then what
precisely is the 'quantity' that passes over into 'quality', here? And from where does it
originate?
Moreover, one presumes that the change in 'quality' here is the change from an
infinite universe to a finite universe (although Mason is far from clear about
this). But, is he also suggesting that as galaxies are 'added' (or, perhaps,
discovered), at some point, the universe suddenly becomes finite? If
he does mean this, then what was the universe before these galaxies were discovered? Was it infinite?
If it wasn't, then precisely what 'quality' has changed?
None of this seems to
make sense, even in DM-terms!
While
Mason rightly lambastes W&G for their many errors (of fact and
theory), he might be well-advised to turn an equally critical eye on his own work,
for he seems not to 'understand' dialectics!
Either that, or Engels didn't and Mason was unwise to listen to him!
Mason
even had the audacity to argue as follows:
"But to quote Engels 'The
mistake lies in the fact that these laws [of dialectics -- Mason's
interpolation, RL] are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not
deduced from them.' (Dialectics of Nature) We begin with nature and
history as discovered over millennia by concrete, detailed and sometimes
painstaking analysis, rather than beginning with philosophy." [Ibid.,
p.v.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
In spite of this apparent (but plainly
superficial) modesty, a few paragraphs earlier we are being told the following:
"...[A] more flexible
'dialectical' outlook is required, a core view of which is that in the real
world any particular thing, whether it is an atom or a particular scientific
outlook, contains within it contradictory elements or opposites. The ancient
Greeks argued that anything which lacked such internal contradictions could
never change, and would exist for all eternity. They recognised the impermanence
of all things outside the 'Heavens', the starry firmament where the gods were
thought to reside." [Ibid.,
p.iv. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this
site.]
Dialecticians
like Mason plainly do not
"begin with nature and history as discovered
over millennia by concrete, detailed and sometimes painstaking analysis", as
even Mason admits; they begin with the speculative fancies of Ancient
Greek Philosophers -- which speculations they in turn were happy to impose on nature.
Hence, in direct (and ironic) contradiction to what Mason tells us: "rather than
beginning with philosophy",
that is precisely where he and other DM-fans begin.
To cap it all, Mason has the cheek to
criticise W&G for imposing DM on nature!
"Reason in Revolt
reaches the pinnacle of its ridicule of modern science in its condemnation of
the modern science of black holes and the Big Bang theory. Yet there is no
direct mention of this in the 2007 preface. Instead, Woods comments on the
correct method by which to apply dialectical materialism. Woods quotes Engels,
who criticises the idealism of Hegel. Engels says:
'The mistake lies in the
fact that [the laws of dialectics] are foisted on nature and history as laws of
thought, and not deduced from them. (Dialectics of Nature, Chapter 2)'
[Quoted in Woods and Grant (2007), pp.12-13 -- RL.]
"In our critique we ask:
Does not Woods make the same type of mistake? Does not Woods attempt to foist on
cosmology what he believes are the laws of dialectical materialism?
Reviewing, with complete incomprehension, the modern science of the Big Bang in
relation to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, Woods cries, 'Here the
study of philosophy becomes indispensable.' (Reason
in Revolt, p.216)" [Ibid.,
p.8.
Formatting and quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at
this site.]
Here is another Trotskyist, John
Pickard, who, almost in the same breath, manages to condemn dogmatism and assert a
couple of dogmas of his own:
"In point of fact Marxism
is the opposite of a dogma. It is precisely a method for coming to grips
with the processes of change that are taking place around us.
"Nothing is fixed and
nothing remains unchanged. It is the formalists who see society as a still
photograph, who can get overawed by the situations they are faced with because
they don't see how and why things will change. It is this kind of approach that
can easily lead to a dogmatic acceptance of things as they are or as they have
been, without understanding the inevitability of change." [Quoted from
here. Accessed 14/06/2016. Bold emphases added.]
While Pickard is happy to chide the "formalists" for their alleged dogmatism, in
the next paragraph
throw in the assumed fact that "nothing is fixed and nothing remains unchanged"
-- having just told us that "Marxism is the opposite of a dogma"!
Perhaps this is Pickard's own ironic attempt to manufacture a rhetorical 'unity
of opposites'?
If
this site had one, that would be enough to make Pickard its poster-boy.
Pickard's summary of DM is no less dogmatic,
and resembles much that we have already seen (I have omitted the clichéd
and egregious things Pickard has to say about
FL -- they can be
found here):
"Dialectics is quite simply
the logic of motion, or the logic of common sense to activists in the movement.
We all know that things don't stand still, they change. But there is another
form of logic which stands in contradiction to dialectics, which we call 'formal
logic', which again is deeply embodied in capitalist society....
"So we need to have a form of
understanding, a form of logic, that takes into account the fact that things,
and life, and society, are in a state of constant motion and change. And
that form of logic, of course, is dialectics.
"But on the other hand it
would be wrong to think that dialectics ascribes to the universe a process of
even and gradual change. The laws of dialectics -- and here is a word of
warning: these concepts sound more intimidating than they really are -- the
laws of dialectics describe the manner in which the processes of change in
reality take place....
"Let us take, to begin with,
'the law of the transformation of quantity into quality'. This law states that
the processes of change - motion in the universe - are not gradual, they are not
even. Periods of relatively gradual or slight change are interspersed with
periods of enormously rapid change - change which cannot be measured in terms of
quantity but only in terms of quality....
"A second law of dialectics
is 'the law of the negation of the negation', and again it sounds more
complicated than it really is. 'Negation' in this sense simply means the passing
away of one thing, the death of one thing as it becomes transformed into
another.
"For example, the development
of class society in the early history of humanity represented the negation of
the previous classless society. And in future, with the development of
communism, we will see another classless society, that would mean the negation
of all present class society.
"So the law of the negation
of the negation simply states that as one system comes into existence, it forces
another system to pass away. But that doesn't mean that the second system is
permanent or unchangeable. That second system itself becomes negated as a result
of the further developments and processes of change in society. As class society
has been the negation of classless society, so communist society will be the
negation of class society -- the negation of the negation.
"Another concept of
dialectics is the law of the 'interpenetration of opposite' (sic). This law
quite simply states that processes of change take place because of
contradictions -- because of the conflicts between the different elements
that are embodied in all natural and social processes...." [Quoted from
here. Bold emphases added.]
In
an introduction to a series of articles about DM (published, 22/12/2017), most
of which have been quoted here or elsewhere at this site -- Dialectical
Materialism and Science --, Pickard (I am guessing it was written by
Pickard!) repeats some of the above, beginning with the usual disclaimer, "What,
us, guvner? We ain't no dogmatists!!":
"The ideas of
Dialectical Materialism, based on the best traditions of philosophical thought,
are not a fixed dogma but a system of tools and general principles for
analysing the world materialistically and scientifically.
"The basic tenets
of Dialectical Materialism are: that everything that exists is material and
is derived from matter; that matter is in a process and constant change; and
that all matter is interconnected and interdependent." [Quoted form
here; accessed 28/03/2018. Bold emphases added.]
We
have met this
schizoid approach to the 'fight against dogmatism'
several times already, but Pickard is at
least honest where these ideas originated, in "the best traditions of
philosophical thought", so it is no wonder they were dogmatic.
As if to prove they can be just as dogmatic
as anyone else in this ideologically compromised market of ideas, here is an assortment of (highly)
repetitive Stalinist authors who have written about DM. Much of
what the following theorists have to say is, in many places, almost (word-for-word)
identical. Readers will also no doubt notice how alike the above Trotskyists and
the following Stalinists are. I take this theme up again in Essay Nine
Part Two.
The following material come from what was perhaps
the official Soviet DM-textbook in the 1930s:
"Everything flows,
everything changes; there is nothing absolutely stagnant, nothing unchangeable
in the processes of actuality. This was the conclusion, the guiding
principle of knowledge (already formulated by the ancient Greek thinkers) at
which bourgeois science of the first half of the nineteenth century arrived,
influenced as it was by the stormy social transformations of the epoch of
classical bourgeois revolutions. Such a scientific conclusion was possible only
after many centuries of social practice and through the accumulation of a mass
of data concerning the mutability of natural phenomena. However, one ought not
to think that all those who acknowledge the mutability of phenomena understand
it in an objective fashion as governed by law, as an evolutionary
development....
"The exponents of the second
conception [i.e., DM -- RL] proceed from the standpoint that everything
develops by means of a struggle of opposites, by a division, a dichotomy, of
every unity into mutually exclusive opposites. Thus capitalism develops in
virtue of the contradiction between the social character of production and the
private means of appropriation; transitional economy develops on the basis of
the struggle between developing and growing socialism and developed, but not yet
annihilated, capitalism, and also on the basis of the sharpened conflict of
classes in this period in the course of which classes ultimately disappear.
"The second conception,
not remaining on the surface of phenomena, expresses the essence of movement as
the unity of opposites. It demands a penetration into the depth of a process, a
disclosure of the internal laws which are responsible for the development of
that process. This conception seeks the causes of development not outside
the process but in its very midst; it seeks mainly to disclose the source of the
'self-movement' of the process. To understand a process means to disclose its
contradictory aspects, to establish their mutual relationship, to follow up the
movement of its contradictions through all its stages. This view gives the key
to the 'leaps' which characterize the evolutionary series; it explains the
changing of a process into its opposite, the annihilation of the 'old' and
emergence of the 'new.' Thus only by disclosing the basic contradictions of
capitalism and by showing that the inevitable consequence of such contradictions
is the destruction of capitalism by proletarian revolution do we explain the
historic necessity of socialism. This second conception is the conception of
dialectic materialism.... (pp.133-35)
"All processes that
originate in nature and society are found in uninterrupted mutual action. In one
way or another they are mutually linked up and influence each other. But in
order to get to understand any one of them, to investigate the course of its
development, to establish the character of its mutual action with other
processes, it is no use to proceed only from the action of external forces on a
given phenomenon, as do the mechanists, but it is necessary to lay bare its
internal contradictions.
"The fact that all
phenomena in the world contain within themselves a number of contradictory
aspects and properties was noticed long ago and is still noticed every day
and reflected in people's thoughts and notions. But these opposing aspects were
and are reflected in different ways. The eclectics, who see the opposing aspects
of some processes but do not know how to expose their internal connection and
mutual relationships, grasp at now one, now another of its opposing factors,
according to their point of view or to the changing situation, and whatever
aspect they select they advance as the general characteristic of the whole.... (pp.145-46)
"It is true that even a
simple movement, the mechanical shifting of a point in space, is contradictory.
A moving point is simultaneously found and not found in a given spot. Here
already we have the unity of opposites, but in its simplest and most primitive
form. Mechanical movement originating in consequence of an impulse or
impact, i.e. in consequence of external causes, is derived from some other
higher form of movement and is therefore quite inadequate as an illustration of
movement in general, as for instance -- physical, chemical, biological and
social movement. The mechanical is contained in each one of these in a certain
degree, but the higher and more complex the form of the movement of matter, the
smaller is the role that the mechanical plays. So it is impossible to reduce the
contradictions of all these forms of movement to that of mechanical movement....
(p.152)
"Not only does
every unity contain within itself polar opposites but these internal opposites
are mutually connected with each other; one aspect of a contradiction cannot
exist without the other. In capitalist society the bourgeoisie is connected
with the proletariat, the proletariat with the bourgeoisie; neither of these two
classes can develop without the other, because the bourgeoisie cannot exist
without exploiting the labour of others and the hired proletariat cannot exist
without selling its labour power to a capitalist, seeing that itself it does not
possess the means of production....
"We see the same
indissoluble connection of contradictory aspects in all the processes of
objective actuality. There is no mechanical action without its
counteraction. The chemical dissolution of atoms is indissolubly connected
with their union. Electrical energy declares itself in the form of opposite
electricities -- positive and negative....
"Opposites are not only
found in indissoluble, inalienable connection, but they cross over and mutually
penetrate each other.... (pp.162-63)
"The mutual penetration of
opposites, the transition of one opposite into another, belongs to all
processes. But to uncover and reveal this mutual penetration, a careful,
concrete analysis of the process is required.... (p.164)
"A planet in its movement
expresses the connection of the whole solar system, but its movement is only one
aspect, which outside the whole is impossible.
"But the universal itself
exists through the particular. Every particular is incomplete and one-sided.
However, the incompleteness of one aspect is supplemented by another
incompleteness, by another one-sidedness. Although they are mutually opposed yet
at the same time they presuppose each other, amplify each other and are the
inseparable poles of a single whole.
"And so in virtue of their
contradictory nature, their internal incompleteness, particular qualities
cannot exist in isolation, they presuppose other opposite qualitative
peculiarities and exist only in union with them. A planet exists as a planet
only because there is a sun round which it revolves. Beasts of prey exist only
in company with herbivorous animals. Animals as a whole can exist only because
plant-life exists, whose green leaves under the influence of sun-light turn
inorganic substances into organic. And in return animals exhale carbonic acid
gas, which is required for the synthesis of organic substances, and so give food
to plant life. (pp.250-51)
"There are no isolated
qualities of things. Every quality in its existence and development
presupposes a number of others...." (p.253)
[Shirokov
(1937), pp.133-253. Bold emphases
alone added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at
this site. Several minor typos in the on-line text have been corrected by reference to the published
version.]
Shirokov can't possibly have known (even though he might sincerely have
believed) that "Everything flows, everything changes", or that "Everything
develops by means of a struggle of opposites", or even that "All processes that
originate in nature and society are found in uninterrupted mutual action. In one
way or another they are mutually linked up and influence each other...", but
that didn't stop him -- just as we have seen it hasn't stopped other DM-fans --
from asserting these things dogmatically, imposing them on nature and society in
defiance of the claim that they never do this.
Here is Alexander Spirkin, dogmatising his heart out:
"The concept of
universal connection.Nothing in the world stands
by itself. Every object is a link in an endless chain and is thus connected with
all the other links. And this chain of the universe has never been broken; it
unites all objects and processes in a single whole and thus has a universal
character. We cannot move so much as our little finger without 'disturbing' the
whole universe. The life of the universe, its history lies in an infinite web of
connections....
"So everything in the
world is connected with something else. And this universal interconnection,
and also the connection of the elements within the whole at any level, form an
essential condition for the dynamic balance of systems....
"The material unity of the
world, the interconnection of all the structural levels of existence is achieved
through the universality of interaction. The chain of interaction is never
broken and has neither beginning nor end. Every phenomenon is a link in the
general universal chain of interaction. In the immediate sense interaction
is causal. Every cause is simultaneously both active and passive in relation
to another cause. The origin and development of objects depend on interaction.
Every qualitatively defined system has a special type of interaction. Every kind
of interaction is connected with material fields and involves transference of
matter, motion and information. Interaction is impossible without a specific
material vehicle....
"Development. Any type
of connection or interaction must take a certain direction. Nothing in the
world is final and complete. Everything is on the way to somewhere else.
Development is a definitely oriented, irreversible change of the object, from
the old to the new, from the simple to the complex, from a lower level to a
higher one. The vector of a developing phenomenon is towards acquisition of the
fullness of its essence, towards self-fulfilment in various new forms. The new
is an intermediate or final result of development in relation to the old.
Changes may involve the composition of the object (its quantity or quality), the
type of connection of the elements of the specific whole, its function, or its
'behaviour', that is to say, the means by which it interacts with other objects
and, finally, all these characteristics taken as a whole.
"Development is irreversible. Nothing passes through
one and the same state more than once. Development is a dual process: the
old is destroyed and replaced by something new, which establishes itself in life
not simply by freely evolving its own potential but in conflict with the old....
(pp.82-85)
"Causality is universal. Nowhere in the world can there
be any phenomena that do not give rise to certain consequences and have not been
caused by other phenomena. Ours is a world of cause and effect or,
figuratively speaking, of progenitors and their progeny. Whenever we seek to
retrace the steps of cause and effect and find the first cause, it disappears
into the infinite distances of universal interaction. But the concept of cause
is not confined to interaction. Causality is only a part of universal
connection. The universality of causality is often denied on the grounds of the
limited nature of human experience, which prevents us from judging the character
of connections beyond what is known to science and practice.... (p.87)
"The concept of essence
and phenomenon. All thinking people want to get at the essence. They seek it
like hidden treasure, which lies at the heart of things and controls them.
Essence may be considered in global terms, as the ultimate foundation of the
universe, in terms of various categories, such as the essence of the human
being, for example, and in the sense of the main thing in an individual
object....
"On the same grounds one may
assert that things, events are absolutely irrepeatable in time; nothing
happens twice. Everything that happens must obey the inexorable principle of the
irreversibility of time. The so-called repeated event differs from what it
repeats in that it occurs at a different time and therefore in new conditions
that leave their ineradicable individualising mark upon it. The individual is an
object taken in its distinctness from everything else and in its unique
specific. The characteristic thing about the individual is its distinctness from
everything else, its qualitative singularity. Here we come up against the
concept of 'other'. 'Other' is 'not this', it is the background from which the
object emerges and from which it differs as from everything else....
"Everything individual is transient. Every
individuality passes like a shadow and suffers the fate of all transient forms.
The general, on the other hand, is stable, constant, unvarying. The
individual cannot arise, survive or change without being connected with a
multiplicity of other things. And since various things are interconnected,
interact and interdepend, they must have some point of contact, they must
possess generality.... (pp.106-11)
"Everything passes! All
things are finite, everything is moving towards its end. Everything has its
spring and its summer, everything declines into autumn and dies in the frigid
cold of its winter. Such is the inexorable logic of life, both natural and
human. Everything individual is like the flame of a fire and fire consumes its
own source. Time is similar. Like the ancient god
Cronus, it
eats its own children. This is a sad fact of life. But wisdom reminds us that
without negation of the old there could be no birth or maturing of the higher
and fuller forces of the new and, therefore, no process of development, no
progress. Even when young and still full of energy, things start to change
inwardly in the direction of inevitable ageing. This begins even when energy and
strength are at their peak. Immortal is the race where the mortal dies....
"The chain of negation of the old and emergence of the
new has no beginning and no end. The developing object simultaneously becomes
something different and in a certain sense remains the same. For example,
youth negates child hood and itself in its turn is negated by maturity, and the
latter is negated by old age. But these are all different stages in the
development of one and the same person.... (p.137)
"It is even more important to remember this point when we
are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of
development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one
cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old
and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a
dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their
struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a
whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for
opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity
of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient,
while the struggle of opposites is absolute, ex-pressing the infinity of the
process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship
between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also
the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant
self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread,
positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are
constantly in conflict, fighting each other." (pp.143-44)
[Spirkin
(1983), pp.82-144. Bold emphases alone added.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.
Link added. Minor typos corrected.]
Afanasyev, not
to be outdone, was no less happy to impose DM on nature and society:
"Matter exists only in
motion, and manifests and reveals itself through motion.... Let us take, for example,
the atom. It is exists as a definite material body only in so far as the
elementary particles forming it are in constant motion. Outside of the motion
of these particles the atom could not exist, not could there be any other body
without motion.... Similarly, all other
material bodies exist and manifest themselves only in motion.... Motion is thus a
form of the existence of matter, its inalienable attribute.... (p.61)
"The motion of matter is
absolute and eternal, it can neither be created nor destroyed,
inasmuch as matter itself in uncreatable and indestructible.... (p.62)
"The forms of motion of
matter are interconnected and inseparable. Their unity and
interconnection is based on the material unity of the world.... Recognition of the absolute
and universal character of motion, with due account taken of the qualitative
distinction of each form, the ability of these forms to become mutually
transformed, and the impossibility of reducing higher to lower forms -- this is
the essence of the dialectical-materialist concept of motion.... (p.64)
"Space and time are
universal forms of the existence of matter.... The most important
attribute of space and time is their objectivity, i.e., their existence
independently of the mind of man.... (p.67)
"Everything in the world
develops.... (p.84)
"The development of the
material world is a never-ending process of the old dying and the new
coming into being.... (p.86)
"The material world is not
only a developing, but also a connected, integral whole. Its objects and
phenomena do not develop of themselves, in isolation, but in inseverable
connection or unity with other objects and phenomena.... (p.87)
"Lenin called the law of the
unity and struggle of opposites the essence, the core of dialectics.
This law reveals the sources, the real causes of the eternal motion and
development of the material world.... (p.93)
"All objects and phenomena
have contradictory aspects which are organically connected and which make up
the indissoluble unity of opposites.... (p.94)
"The contradictoriness of
objects and phenomena is thus a general, universal nature. There is no
object or phenomena in the world which cannot be divided into opposites. Opposites are not only
mutually exclusive, but also necessarily presuppose each other. They
coexist in one object or phenomenon and are inconceivable one without the
other.... (p.95)
"And so, objects and
phenomena have opposite aspects -- they represent the unity of opposites.
Opposites not merely exist side by side, but are in a state of constant
contradiction, a struggle is going on between them. The struggle of opposites
is the inner content, the source of the development of reality.... (p.97)
"All outside influences
exerted on an object are always refracted through its inherent contradictions,
which is also a manifestation of the determining role of these contradictions in
development.... (p.99) [Afanasyev (1968), pp.61-99. Bold emphases alone added.
Several paragraphs merged.]
Recall once more that the truth of falsity of the above pronouncements isn't at issue here
(although it will be in later Essays), merely the way they have been imposed
on naturedogmatically.
This dusty old
textbook, written by a committee, but which I have labelled with the name of one
of its authors, opens with the following (by-now-familiar) disclaimer:
"Dialectical and historical materialism is thus an integral part of
Marxism-Leninism, its philosophical bed-rock. It is a creative, revolutionary
doctrine, a doctrine that is constantly being enriched and tested by historical
practice. It is opposed to any kind of dogmatism...." [Konstantinov,
et al (1974), p.9. Bold emphasis added.]
But, a few
chapters later we encounter the following
boilerplate, dogmatic pronouncements:
"As we get to know the world
around us, we see that there is nothing in it that is absolutely stationary
and immutable; everything is in a state of motion and passing from one form into
another. Elementary particles, atoms and molecules are in motion within all
material objects, every object is interacting with its environment and this
interaction is bound to involve motion of some kind or other....
"Motion is the
universal attribute, the mode of existence of matter. Nowhere in the world is
there matter without motion, just as there can be no motion without matter....
"Matter is the vehicle of
all change, the substantial foundation of all processes in the world; there is
no such thing as motion divorced from matter, no such thing as 'pure motion'....
(p.80)
"Space
is an objectively real form of the existence of matter in motion....
"Time is an
objectively real form of the existence of matter in motion....
(p.85)
"No material object can
exist only in space without existing in time, or exist in time without exiting
in space. It must always and everywhere exist in both space and time. Hence
space and time are organically connected....
"As real forms of the
existence of matter space and time are characterised by a number of specific
features. First, they are objective, they exist outside and independently of
the consciousness. Second. they are eternal inasmuch as matter exists eternally.
Third, space and time are boundless and infinite....
"The boundlessness of space
implies the following. No matter in what direction we move or how far we go
from our starting point there will never be any boundary beyond which we can go
no further. Universal space is not only boundless but also infinite.... The
infinity of space is the infinity of the volume of the whole countless totality
of material bodies of the Universe.
"What is meant by the
boundlessness and infinity of time? No matter how much time may pass up to a
certain moment, time will always go on and on never reaching a limit beyond
which there can be no further duration, no infinite number of processes
following one after the other and constituting in their entirety boundless and
infinite duration. Similarly, no matter how long ago a certain event occurred it
must have been preceded by countless number of other events which, taken
together, possess infinite duration. (p.86-87)
"Perpetual motion and
change is inherent in everything that existsand there is no special
world that does not obey this general law....
"Not even the smallest
particle of matter appears out of nothing or disappears without trace;
matter is only transformed from one state to another and never loses its own
basic qualities....
"The indestructibility and
uncreatability of matter and its motion are expressed in the law of the
conservation and conversion of energy, which plays a role in conforming the
proposition that the world is a material unity.... (p.98)
"There has never
existed anywhere in the world, nor will there ever exist anything that is not
moving matter of that has been engendered by moving matter....
"The word is material. It is
unitary, eternal and infinite.... (p.100)
"The world knows no
absolutely isolated phenomena; all are conditioned by some other phenomena.
Any phenomenon that is taken out of its natural connection becomes something
inexplicable and irrational....
"Every phenomenon and the
world as a whole are a complex system or relationships, in which the connection
and interaction of cause and effect play an essential part.... (p.127)
"The contradiction between
quality and quantity is only one of the manifestations of the general law that
internal contradictoriness is inherent in all things and processes, and that
this is the source and motive force of their development.... (p.141)
"The world knows no
absolutely identical things or phenomena...every object is simultaneously
identical to another and yet different from it....
"The difference in an object
is not only a difference in relation to another object but also a difference in
relation to itself, that is, the given object, no matter whether we are
comparing it with something else or not, contains a difference in itself.... (p.142)
"When dialectical theory
maintains that an object simultaneously exists and does not exist, that it
contains within itself its own non-being, this must be understood in only one
sense: an object is a unity of stability and changeability, of the positive and
the negative, of what is dying out and what is entering life....
"This means that every
object, every phenomenon is a unity of opposites. What this important
proposition implies above all is that opposite aspects and tendencies are
inherent in all objects. Internal contradictions are an inseparable property
of the structure of the structure of any object or process.... This
structure is such that each of the aspects of the whole is entirely dependent on
its opposite for its existence and this duality is not confined to merely to
their external relationships. The interconnection, interdependence and
interpenetration of opposite aspects, properties and tendencies of the
developing whole are an essential feature of any unity of opposites....
"Another of its vital aspects
in mutual negation. Because the two aspects of the whole are opposites
they are not only interconnected but also mutually exclusive and mutually
repellent. This factor is expressed in the concept of the struggle of
opposites....
"But no matter what concrete
form this struggle assumes, the main thing is that the dialectical contradiction
implies also the element of mutual negation of opposites, and an extremely
important element, because the struggle of opposites is the motive force,
the source of development....
"This law explains one of the
most important features of dialectical development: motion, development takes
place as self-motion, self-development.... It means that the world develops not
as a result of any external causes but by virtue of its own laws, the laws of
motion of matter itself. It has dialectical meaning because it indicates that
the source, the motive force of development of phenomena is to be found in their
internal contradictions." (pp.143-44) [Konstantinov, et al (1974), pp.80-144). Bold
emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site.]
Sheptulin's textbook also opens
with the following (by-now-familiar) statement:
"Marxist-Leninist philosophy, though
essentially partisan, committed, is at the same time consistently objective.
Subjectivism, voluntarism and dogmatism are entirely alien to it."
[Sheptulin (1978), p.6. Bold emphasis added.]
However, a few chapters later we are
presented with
these dogmatic pronouncements:
"The dialectical method sees nature,
society and knowledge in a constant state of motion and development....
The dialectical method recognizes that contradictions are universal.
(p.65)
"All the materialist,
however, recognise the real, objective existence of matter.... (p.95)
"According to dialectical
materialism, no concrete form of the existence of matter -- atom, molecule or
electron -- is eternal and invariable. On the contrary, it is constantly
in motion and change, under certain conditions turning into other concrete
forms, which themselves turn into others, and so on ad infinitum. (p.97)
"...[I]t affirms the truth of
[the principle] that everything existing in the world is in constant motion
and changes from one thing into another. What then is matter as seen
by dialectical materialism? The concept of matter is tied up with all that
exists outside and independently of the human mind, with the whole of objective
reality.... (p.98)
"All the same, matter is
eternal and spatially boundless.... (p.99)
"The material unity of the
world is expressed in the substantiality of matter. The infinite multitude of
various phenomena that make up reality has one material origin, constituting the
various forms, stats or properties of matter. (p.102)
"...[M]otion is a
philosophical concept denoting all changes occurring in objective reality.... There is an infinite
multitude of various forms of the motion of matter.... The basic forms of motion of
matter are always interconnected and interdependent. One form of motion
is a prerequisite for the appearance of another form. (p.104)
"Motion is an attribute of
matter, its fundamental property. There has never been nor can there be motion
without matter or matter without motion.... (p.105)
"Matter exists eternally
and continually changes from one qualitative state or type into another.
The same holds for motion.... Engels stressed that matter and motion are
eternal and inherently linked.... (p.107)
"What is most significant and
universal in development is the fact that all material entities possess the
ability to become more complex and to pass from the lower to the higher, rather
than develop in general. This ability, inherent in all matter and in every
material entity, manifests itself, like any other property, only under
relevant conditions.... (p.110)
"According to dialectical
materialism, space and time are the necessary objective properties of any
material entity and the objective real forms of the existence of matter....
(p.113)
"If space has three
dimensions, time has only one. It always flows in one direction --
forwards. The present becomes the past, and the future becomes the present.
This direction cannot be changed -- time is irreversible. Infinity is another major
characteristic of space and time.... (p.115)
"As distinct from
metaphysicists..., dialectical materialists believe that interconnection is a
universal form of being inherent in all phenomena of reality.... To put it shortly,
everything is interconnected in reality.... (pp.190-91)
"Each thing has an infinite
multitude of aspects which interact and cause changes in one another. These
changes move in similar, different or opposite directions; they may reflect one
and the same or different trends. Aspects in which changes
move in opposite directions and which have opposite trends of functioning and
development are called opposites, while the interaction of these aspects
constitutes a contradiction.... (p.259)
"Transition of opposites into
one each other when they exchange places is the supreme manifestation of the
identity of opposites.... (p.261)
"As distinct from
metaphysicists, dialectical materialists hold that contradictions are
universal. They exist in any field of reality and in any material entity.... Thus contradictions are
present in any field of reality. Contradictoriness is universal. It is
intrinsic in all that exists in reality and consciousness.... (pp.265-66)
"All this is a graphic
illustration of how contradiction acts as a source of the motion and
development of matter and consciousness...." (p.268) [Sheptulin (1978),
pp.95-268. Bold emphases alone added. Several paragraphs merged.]
Kharin's much less
substantial book is, nevertheless, still a veritable fountain of dogmatic
claims:
"The concept of matter serves
to denote objective reality.... (p.54)
"This definition above all
stresses the property of all objects and phenomena of the surrounding world
to exist objectively, outside and independently of man's and mankind's
consciousness. Matter is also an objective reality that has be engendered by
nobody and by nothing; and it does not presuppose and reasons or conditions for
its existence.... Matter is in itself the source of the infinite
multiformity of things and processes of the objective world. It also engenders
consciousness, which is its highest product.... (p.56)
"Marxist philosophy closely
connects the concept of matter with the capacity of matter to move. To be an
objective reality in its various manifestations means to exist in motion.
Motion is an inalienable property of matter, its mode of existence and an
expression of its inherent activity.... (p.61)
"Everything in the world
is in change and motion.... Recognition of the absolute
nature of motion, i.e., that matter cannot exist in any form outside motion,
is not tantamount to denying that there are moments of rest and equilibrium in
the objective world. Motion is the unity of two opposites, changeability and
stability.... All rest is however
relative, while motion and change are absolute. This is to be understood
as an indication of the self-activity of matter, rather than in the sense
that motion is possible without rest.... Any state is temporary and
transient, and any thing or phenomena has a beginning and end to its existence.
The motion of matter is uncreatable and indestructible. It can only change
its forms. No single phenomenon or object can lose its ability to change or
be deprived of motion under any conditions.... The source of the
internal activity of matter lies within it, in its inherent potentiality for the
perpetual changeability of its concrete shape and form of existence.
Motion is absolute, for it is unrelated to anything external that could
determine it. There is nothing else in the world except eternally moving matter,
its forms, properties and manifestations.... (pp.62-63)
"Dialectical materialism
fully preserves the earlier fully preserves the earlier progressive thinkers'
idea of the infinity of the world in space and its eternity in time.... Space and time are
incorporated in the very concept of matter as its universal attributes.... What are space and time?
They are the necessary, fundamental conditions for matter to exist in motion;
inseparable from it, the most general forms of the orderliness and interaction
of material phenomena. Specifically, the concept of space expresses the
universal mode of coexistence of interacting material objects and their
extension, juxtaposition and structuralness. The concept of time denotes the
universal form of objective realities changing, which expresses the period of
existence of material systems and the succession of events occurring in the
world.... (p.66)
"The process of the
self-development of matter is irreversible, which is expressed in the way
time is only able to change from the past to the future, not the other way
round. Time only flows in one
direction and is irreversible.... The conception of the world
as logically moving matter prompts the conclusion that space and time are
infinite. Matter is infinite because, firstly, it is absolute objective reality
outside which no existence(of any Spirit, God, etc.) is possible.
Secondly, matter is infinite in its structure and in the qualitative
multiformity of the specific forms of its existence.... It is infinite,
thirdly, by virtue of its inherent self-activity, self motion and
self-development.... The infinity of matter in motion implies the
infinity of the basic forms of its existence, i.e. space and time....
(pp.68-69)
"Objective reality is an
endless emergence of qualitatively new manifestations of matter in motion.... It is to be stressed that
dialectical materialism conceives of the motion of matter as its
self-development.... The motion of matter engenders objects of a higher
level and more complex structure, possessing new properties and regularities.
The development of the world consists precisely in irreversible qualitative
changes of material systems, involving things arising and passing away with
progress and regress in qualitative changes. It is matter's capacity for
self-development that conditions the emergence under definite conditions of the
culmination of its perfection, i.e., the thinking mind in which matter
apprehends itself. (pp.68-72)
"[T]he unity of the world
lies in its materiality. In general terms this means that: a) the world is
objective reality existing independently of man's consciousness and is
reflected by it, and is hence in its very essence knowable; b) the world is a
law-governed motion of matter in space and time; c) the world is the process by
which matter develops itself, giving rise to more complex forms of its existence
and to motion possessing qualitatively new properties.... (p.79)
"The materialist teaching on
dialectics views the world as matter moving according to the laws of nature.
This fundamental scientific thesis lies at the heart of the basic idea of
Marxist dialectics. These include, above all, the principles of universal
connection and development.... (pp.110-11)
"According to dialectical
materialism, the development of the objective world can be explained without
recourse to the activity of forces external to matter. The source of the
development of matter lies in matter itself, in its internal contradictoriness....
Contradictions are to be found everywhere; they are universal in character....
This universal
contradictoriness of all that exists is also the most profound motivating force
behind development, and the source of all changes in objective reality. The
doctrine of the contradictoriness is therefore the essence of dialectics.
(p.121-22)
"Each real thing is
objectively marked by both identity and difference.... (p.123)
"[Contradiction] can
therefore be briefly defined as the unity of opposites which mutually
exclude one another and are in struggle. The law of dialectics that demonstrates
the driving force of contradictions is formulated as the law of the unity and
struggle of opposites. According to this law,
contradictions are the inner impetus of development, the source of the
self-movement and change of things.... The unity of opposites is transient
and relative, while their struggle is as absolute as movement itself.... Development as a whole is
a process whereby contradictions arise, evolve and are resolved...."
(pp.125-26) [Kharin (1981), pp.54-126. Bold emphases added. Several paragraphs
merged.]
Kuusinen's much more
substantial book is also a classic dogmathon. Here are just a few
examples:
"The term 'matter'
as used in Marxist philosophical materialism designates objective reality in all
its manifestations.... It is the infinite multitude of worlds in an infinite
universe.... In short, the concept of matter embraces everything existing
outside and independent of our mind.... (p.32)
"Matter is uncreatable and
indestructible. It is eternally changing, but not a single particle can be
reduced to nothing by any physical, chemical or other process.... (p.34)
"Nature and society do not
know absolute rest, immobility, immutability. The world presents a picture of
constant motion and change. Motion, change
development is an eternal and inalienable property of matter.... Every
material body, every material particle -- the molecule, atom or its components
-- are by their very nature in a constant state of motion and change. The philosophical
understanding of motion and change implies more than the movement of a body in
space. As a mode of existence of matter, motion embraces all the processes
and changes taking place in the universe.... There are no permanently
fixed, ossified things in the world, only things undergoing change,
processes. This means that nowhere is their absolute rest, a state which
would preclude motion.... Only motion is absolute, without exceptions.
(p.35)
"Space is a universal mode
of the existence of matter. There is not and cannot be matter without space,
just as there cannot be space without matter. The difference between the
extension of an individual body and that of the whole material world is that the
former is limited, finite, that is, has a beginning and end, whereas the
material world is limitless, infinite.... Every body, every phenomenon
of nature, has its past, present and future. These are expressions of time.
Time, like space, is a universal mode of the existence of matter. Every
individual thing, every process, and the material world as a whole, exists in
time. But again there is a
difference between the duration of existence of an individual thing and of
nature as a whole: the existence of individual things is restricted in time,
while nature as a whole exists eternally. Every thing arises,
undergoes change and subsequently ceases to exist. Nature, on the other
hand, has no beginning and no end. Individual things are transient, but
the connected finite things constitute an eternal nature that knows neither
beginning nor end.... Space and time, being
universal modes of the existence of matter, are absolute, nothing can exist
outside of time and space.... (pp.37-38)
"Nature constitutes a
single whole, all parts of which are connected in one way or another. In
this universal interconnection, any phenomenon, itself the effect of some
cause, also acts as a cause in some other connection, giving rise to new
effects.... Hence, cause and effect
should not be viewed metaphysically as ossified, unconnected, absolute
opposites. They should be viewed dialectically as interconnected,
interconvertible, 'fluid' conceptions.... (p.76)
"By recognising that all
phenomena are necessarily subject to causality, we recognise that the world
is ruled by necessity.... Necessary development is the development that
cannot fail to take place under the given conditions.... Necessity in nature and
society is most completely revealed in laws....
"Each law is a
manifestation of the necessity that governs phenomena.... (p.77)
"But what is the motive
force, the source, of all development?... The starting-point...is the
contradictory nature of all reality.... (p.91)
"The concept of contradiction
is of crucial importance in analysing the process of development.... The division of a unity into
opposites and the mutual counteraction or 'struggle' of these opposites is the
most fundamental and universal law of dialectics.... All development,
whether the evolution of the stars, the growth of a plant the life of man or the
history of society, is contradictory in its essence. In fact, development
in its most general sense signifies that at any given momenta thing
retains its identity and at the same time ceases to retain it. Its definiteness
remains, but at the same time it changes and becomes different.... A developing thing has
within it the embryo of something else. It contains within itself its own
antithesis, a negating element which prevents it from remaining inert and
immutable. It contains an objective contradiction; opposite tendencies operate
within it and a mutual counteraction or 'struggle' of opposites forces or sides
takes place, leading eventually to the resolution of the contradiction, to a
radical, qualitative change of the thing.... Each thing or phenomenon
contain innumerable interacting aspects. Moreover, each phenomenon is connected
with the things and processes that surround it. This is why diverse external
and internal contradictions can be found in all phenomena." (pp.94-96)
[Kuusinen (1961), pp.32-96. Quotation marks altered to conform with the
conventions adopted at this site.
Bold emphases alone
added. Several paragraphs merged.]
Adoratsky first of all greets the reader with the usual disarmingly modest
denials:
"Marxism provides no ready-made recipes that can be applied uniformly in
any and every circumstance without further reflection. The Marxian theory 'is
not a dogma but a guide to action.' (p.7)
"Engels also dwelt on the same theme and treated it in a similar spirit. To the
question, wherein lies the error of Hegel, he replies in the fact that the laws
of dialectics 'are not drawn from nature and history, but imposed on the
latter as laws of thought.'
Hence the nonsensical concept that 'the world must conform to the logical
system, which is itself only the product of definite stages of development of
human thought.'" [Adoratsky
is here quotingEngels
(1954), p.62, clearly using a
different translation to the one used below
-- RL.] [Adoratsky (1934), pp.7-26.
(This links to a PDF.) Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered
to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
[Quoting Lenin, but without using any quotation marks:] "[T]he author
abuses the phrase 'dialectic negation': it must not be used without
first demonstrating it by facts, it must be used cautiously....
"Lenin, therefore, condemns the application of ready-made schemes, the
inability, or lack of desire, to formulate theoretically the actual situation,
with all its contradictions and complexity, and the inability to think
concretely. Lenin untiringly exposed and condemned every departure from this
fundamental demand of dialectic materialism."
[Ibid., p.61. Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with
the conventions adopted at this site.]
After which he proceeds to do the exact opposite -- he imposes DM on the
phenomena by applying just such a "ready-made scheme" (as did Lenin before him):
"Throughout the universe, development proceeds not as the result of any
external cause (God), not because of any 'purpose' inherent in events, but
because of the inherent contradictions in all things and in all phenomena.
[And the 'evidence' for this is...what? Yes, you guessed it..., Hegel's 'logic'
-- RL.] 'Contradiction is the root of all motion and of all life,' Hegel wrote.
'It is only because a thing contains a contradiction within itself, that it
moves and acquires impulse and activity. This is the process of all motion and
all development.'
"Lenin in his article On Dialectics points out that contradiction exist
universally: repulsion and attraction, positive and negative electricity,
the division into parts, and the union of the parts to form a whole, etc. [Well,
who could possibly argue with such a wealth of 'evidence'? -- RL.] In
all the phenomena and processes of nature and society there are contradictory,
mutually exclusive, and at the same time associated, tendencies. Dialectics,
i.e., the contradictions, union and conflict of opposites, prevails in the
material world and is reflected in consciousness.
"The general laws of dialectics are universal... (pp.26-27)
"We thus see that nothing is immutable; everything changes, everything passes
from one state to another. For this reason metaphysical thought, which
regards things in isolation and treats them as immutable, cannot correctly
reflect the ceaseless process of motion and the inter-relationship of all
phenomena. (pp.32-33)
"Eclecticism employs methods repugnant to dialectical materialism. Dialectics
is opposed to the habit of the eclectics of arbitrarily selecting isolated
phrases, and their inability to grasp an object or phenomenon as a whole, in its
totality, and in its systematic and inevitable inter-relationships and
development as they exist in reality. Instead of taking the phenomenon as a
whole in all its complexity, but at the same time in its unity and
totality, they onesidedly exaggerate isolated features, component parts and
phases. Materialist dialectics demands that the important factor should
be singled out, but that at the same time attention should be devoted to those
phases that that are brought to the forefront by circumstances.... The concrete is the whole of nature, the whole of reality, surrounding us:
it embraces, combines and coalesces all contradictions. Our knowledge moves
towards an ever more complete and more profound reflection of this (concrete)
reality. (pp.34-35)
"We have already said that dialectic materialism (sic) demands the
expression and formulation of the actual process of development. (p.41)
"We have already seen that dialectic materialism (sic) demands the study
of phenomena in all their totality (concretely) just as they occur in reality.
(p.44)
"The fact that dialectics, which demands concrete thinking and a grasp
of objective reality as one whole, is the theory of knowledge, serves as a
guarantee that those who are guided by dialectics will not find themselves in
the unpleasant and ludicrous position in which the doctrinaires found themselves
(sic). (p.62)
"We conceive nature as the sum total of all bodies...which are in a constant
state of interaction and motion, constantly changing their forms and qualities
and passing from one into the other. It is impossible to understand their
movement and the transformation of one form into another...without using the
dialectic method." [Ibid., pp.26-70.
Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks
altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Some paragraphs
merged.]
Is there some sort of pattern emerging here?
Or am I being a little too hasty?
I have discussed
Oparin in more detail in Essay Four
Part One, however, he,
too, seemed happy to impose DM on 'reality':
"This problem [of life's origins] has however always been the focus of a bitter
conflict of ideas between two irreconcilable schools of philosophy -- the
conflict between idealism and materialism.... A
completely different prospect opens out before us if we try to approach a
solution of the problem dialectically rather than metaphysically, on the basis
of a study of the successive changes in matter which preceded the appearance of
life and led to its emergence. Matter never remains at rest, it is constantly
moving and developing and in this development it changes over from one form of
motion to another and yet another, each more complicated and harmonious than the
last. Life thus appears as a particular very complicated form of the motion of
matter, arising as a new property at a definite stage in the general development
of matter.
"As early as the end of the last century Frederick Engels indicated that a study
of the history of the development of matter is by far the most hopeful line of
approach to a solution of the problem of the origin of life. These ideas of
Engels were not, however, reflected to a sufficient extent in the scientific
thought of his time." [Oparin, quoted in Woods and Grant (1995),
pp.239-40. (The above appears on the same pages in the second edition.) Bold
emphasis added. Some paragraphs merged.]
How Oparin knew
that matter never remains at rest he unfortunately kept to himself.
Our
most recent contribution to The Annals of Dialectical Dogmatism comes
courtesy of a Danish activist, Torkil Lauesen:
"Knowledge
about the world comes from human practice. Human practice is not reduced to
economic production but has many sources: class struggle, scientific and
artistic activities, and so forth. But how do we acquire knowledge from
practice? First, there is the immediate sensory perception of the world. You
don't have concepts for things and phenomena yet, don't see connections or draw
logical conclusions. Eventually, though, after ever increasing sensory
impressions, there is a qualitative leap in the epistemological process and
human consciousness: concepts begin to take form. Our ability to analyze
leads us from sensory impressions to identifying commonalities between things
and phenomena, and knowledge is created with the help of logic. Concept
formation and logical knowledge help us to understand the complexity and essence
of phenomena. We begin to understand developmental processes, see connections,
and draw conclusions.
"Concepts
are like intersections of knowledge. They help us bring order to our perception
of the world and understand it. Concepts are never detached from practice.
They derive from practice and their usefulness is proven by practical
application. Without practice, there are no concepts or theories.
Practice, of course, means collective practice. We cannot have each practical
experience individually, but we can gather many individual experiences
collectively. Sensory and intellectual knowledge are of different qualities, but
they are not separate. Practice unites them.
"Knowledge begins with practical experience, our own or that of others. This is
the materialist element in epistemology. To expand our knowledge, we have to
move from sensory to intellectual knowledge. This is the dialectical element in
epistemology. When we have attained intellectual knowledge based on practice, we
have to use this knowledge. Knowledge increases not only in the qualitative
leap from sensory to intellectual knowledge but, more significantly, in the
qualitative leap of reapplying it to practice. Dialectical materialism's
epistemology is based on the cycle between practice and knowledge, between
'doing' and 'thinking.'...
"The
materialist worldview understands 'matter' as anything that exists objectively,
that is, independent of human consciousness. In this understanding, 'matter'
does not just refer to physical things but also to phenomena, processes, and
social relationships.... The first rule is that the study of all things and
phenomena, as well as of the relationships between them, must take into account
the things, phenomena, and relationships that surround them. Everything is
connected, everything has a cause and effect -- everything is cause and effect.
"In order to understand the development of a 'thing' we have to study its
qualities as well as its relationship to other things. The contradictions of
the thing itself are the basis for its development, but the relationships to
other things are crucial for the direction the development takes and the speed
at which it occurs.
To illustrate
this, Mao compared heating a stone to heating an egg. At the right temperature
of 36 degrees Celsius, an egg turns into a chicken. A stone remains a stone. At
800 degrees Celsius, however, a stone turns into floating lava. Its inner
contradictions are the basis for this change, but it would not happen without
the impact of the outer circumstances. The exterior interacts with the
interior....
"The second methodological rule of dialectical materialism is that we need to
study the development of things. Matter is in constant motion. Matter as an
entity is eternal and all-encompassing, but the different forms it takes have a
history, a beginning and an end. Different social developments also have a
beginning and an end; they appear and disappear....
"The third methodological rule reminds us that historical changes happen in
qualitative leaps. There is no linear development; there are ruptures. Let
us use an example from physics: at 100 degrees Celsius, water suddenly turns
from liquid to steam; at 0 degrees Celsius, it turns to ice. At first,
quantitative changes often have no qualitative effect. But there is always a
point when they do. And no qualitative effect occurs without a preceding
quantitative change....
"The fourth methodological rule of dialectical materialism is that matter's
development originates in the contradictions of things themselves, not in the
relationships between them. We can say that each thing is defined by its own
contradictions. So when we speak of a 'contradiction,' we do not mean a
'logical contradiction' or a 'contradiction in terms.' The contradiction in a
thing is not an 'error.'
"Let us first consider the universality of contradiction, then turn to the
particularity of contradiction. Each contradiction has two 'aspects.' These
aspects complement one another. They both exclude and require one another at the
same time. They are like plus and minus. The form and character of things
depends on how their two aspects relate to one another, how they struggle and
how they unite. Each thing carries its inherent contradictions with it as
long as it exists. When old things disappear, their contradictions disappear
with them; when new things emerge, new contradictions emerge with them....
"Dialectics
allows us to analyze the world as an interconnected, contradictory, and changing
whole. That is why having a global perspective and identifying the principal
contradiction are essential to our ability to analyze and intervene. That
contradiction is internal to the thing in itself does not rule out the
relationships between things being equally important to the development of the
whole. Change is the important idea. Dialectics focuses on movement, process,
and change, and means never losing sight of the whole and the relations therein.
Dialectical materialism and the concept of contradiction are tools to analyze
the world. We must become familiar with these tools in order to understand how
they function. What is unique about dialectical materialism is that we use it
with the goal of changing the world." [Lauesen (2020). My copy of this book is
in PDF form which doesn't have any page numbers! However, all of the above have
been taken from Chapter 2. Bold emphases added; quotations marks altered to
conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]
Much of this part
of Lauesen's book is just a regurgitation of Mao, and in places it is simply
a word-for-word copy. The book itself reads in places like a high school student's very
first book report, except with the usual grandiose dogmatism (of the sort we have seen is typical
of this genre) thrown in for good measure.
[If I
were to quote all the dogmatic statements in Lauesen's book, this Essay would be
about 5,000 words longer still!]
There
are scores of examples of dialectical-"foisting" and
"-imposing" in other books and articles
devoted to this theory, just as there seem to be countless sites on the Internet
that also foist alongside the best of them.
Here follows a brief selection of the latter --
apologies are once again owed the reader
for the mind-numbingly repetitive nature of this material (but
spare a thought for yours truly; I have had to wade through guff like this for
more years than is good for any human being to have to endure):
[1] "Every phenomenon in nature is a
contradiction, a unity of opposites. Contradiction is an internal process
and
the basis of all quantitative development. Development or motion comes
about through the struggle and unity of opposites.... All phenomena are comprised of
opposing poles which are mutually exclusive and interdependent, and in
contradiction. This polarity -- the relation between the two poles –-
organizes them and makes them what they are, a quality." [Quoted from
here
and
here. This site alone contains dozens of examples of the sort of 'foisting'
in which DM-fans tells us they never indulge. Bold emphases added. Paragraphs
merged.]
[2] "The world in which we live is a
unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness,
Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump,
thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above-below,
evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on. The fact that two poles of a
contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular
wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or
opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a
unity of opposites in the material world.
"Motion, space and time are nothing
else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a
contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity
of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is
the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion
possible.' (Hegel) To understand something, its essence,
it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain
circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the
universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect
and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the
never-ending chain in the development of matter....
In the words of Hegel, everything
which exists, exists of necessity. But, equally, everything which exists
is doomed to perish, to be transformed into something else. Thus what is
"necessary" in one time and place becomes "unnecessary" in another.
Everything begets its opposite, which is destined to overcome and negate it.
This is true of individual living things as much as societies and nature
generally." [Rob
Sewell. Bold emphases added.
Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.
Several paragraphs merged.]
As we
will see, motion isn't
'contradictory', but it is noteworthy that comrade Sewell's only
evidence for thinking it is, is..., yes, you guessed it..., Hegel's say-so!
Nevertheless,
comrade Sewell was quite happy to impose the above dogmas on nature.
Here
is yet another Duplicitous Dialectical Dogmatist:
[3] "Dialectical thought is merely the
reflection of objective dialectics: laws governing the development of nature,
the laws of uninterrupted change or, as Darwin discovered, the laws of
evolution. According to this view, change occurs in the struggle between
opposites. Nothing exists without opposition. When opposites confront each
other, changes occur." [Quoted from
here. Bold emphasis added.]
"For everything must be the product
of opposition and contrariety, and it cannot be otherwise." [Copenhaver
(1995), p.38. Bold emphasis added.]
[The
on-line translation has this as follows: "For all things must consist out of
antithesis and contrariety; and this can otherwise not be." (Quoted from
here,
Book Ten, Section Ten.)]
Here are the thoughts of several more
latter-day Hermeticists
(again, compare the following with the above, as well as with
these mystics):
[4] "Opposition is universal.
Every process coexists with its opposite (Heraclitus): harmony and conflict,
asymmetry and symmetry, union and separation, positive and negative, male and
female.... If
opposition is universal in reality, then opposition must be included in
logic. In contrast, it is excluded by the principles of no contradiction
(nothing is A and no[t]-A) and of the excluded third (either A or no[t]-A).
Other formulations of logic dismiss the excluded middle...or allow the
coexistence of opposites....." [Quoted from
here.
Bold emphases and two letter "t"s added. Paragraphs merged.]
[5] "One -- Every thing (every object and
every process) is made of opposing forces/opposing sides.
"Two -- Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the
other.
"Three -- Change moves in spirals, not circles.
"These are the three laws of dialectics
according to Frederick Engels, a revolutionary thinker and partner of Karl Marx,
writing in the 1870s in his book Dialectics of Nature. Engels believed that
dialectics was 'A very simple process which is taking place everywhere and every
day, which any child can understand'....
"Here's how it works --
"1) Everything is made of opposites.
"No object could hold together without an opposing force to keep it from
flying apart. The earth tries to fly away from the sun, but gravity holds it
in orbit. Electrons try to fly away from the nucleus of an atom, but
electromagnetism holds the atom together. Ligaments and tendons provide the ties
that hold bones together and muscles to bones.
"Like material objects, the process of change needs opposing forces. Change
needs a driving force to push it ahead, otherwise everything stays put. A
billiard ball only moves when hit with a pool cue or another ball. We eat when
our hunger tells us to. A car won't move if it's engine won't start. To win in
fair elections candidates need more votes than their opponents.
"Engels, drawing from the philosopher, Hegel, called this law the
'interpenetration of opposites'; Hegel often referred to the 'unity of
opposites.' This may sound contradictory, but it is easy to understand. It's
like the saying, 'It takes two to tango.' There is no game if one side quits.
There is no atom if the electrons fly away. The whole needs all of its parts to
be a whole." [Quoted from
here;
accessed 24/10/2013. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site. Some of this
dogmatic material
(this links to a PDF)
even featured in
the truly awful film,
Half Nelson, a movie directed by
the son of the owner of the site, Dialectics For Kids, which is where
the above passage originated. Indeed, the PDF linked to above had this to say:
"In a New York Times review, Dennis Lim (2006), who interviewed Ryan
Fleck [the director of the film -- RL], stated: 'Mr. Fleck's father, Jack Lucero
Fleck, a San Francisco traffic engineer, was a central influence on Half
Nelson. A dialectics autodidact, the senior Mr. Fleck maintains a Website,
http://dialectics4kids.com, which includes educational stories and MP3s of songs
like "Do Our Lives Go Round in Circles?" Many of [Dan Dunne's] classroom
monologues are lifted almost verbatim from the site.'" See also my comments
about Dialectics For Kids,
here.]
[6] "Dialectics is the science of the
most general laws of development of nature, society, and thought. Its
principal features are as follows:
"1) The universe is not an accidental
mix of things isolated from each other, but an integral whole, wherein things
are mutually interdependent.
"2) Nature is in a state of constant
motion....
"3) Development is a process whereby
insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes lead to fundamental,
qualitative changes. The latter occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly,
in the form of a leap from one state to another.
"4)
All things contain within themselves internal contradictions, which are the
primary cause of motion, change, development in the world." [Quoted from
here.
Bold emphases added.]
[7] "Again, matter is not only dynamic,
it is dialectical. Since matter is dialectical, it is dynamic. So, the
reason why matter is dynamic is no longer unknown. Not only this, motion is
not considered external, it is the internal property of matter arising from
internal contradiction and conflict....
"It is
now established that all particular matters are interrelated --
interrelated by unity and struggle. Contradictions, you know, are of two types
-- internal and external. The contradiction within any particular matter is its
internal contradiction and the contradiction between one particular matter and
another is called the external contradiction. Now, the nature of relationship
between the internal and the external contradiction should be understood. First,
we are to understand that they help and influence each other and so the relation
is what we call supplementary-complementary. But it is to be understood that out
of these two, the internal contradiction is the basis of change. The external
contradiction influences the internal contradiction no doubt and in some cases
plays a very important role indeed. But despite this, it should be understood,
when a change occurs it cannot at all come about until the internal
contradiction matures. So, the point is to be understood like this that whatever
influence the external contradiction might have and however important its role
might be in initiating a change, it is the internal contradiction that is the
basic cause of change, the basis of change." [Quoted from
here.
Bold emphases added.]
[8] "All things have to be understood in
their interconnections and their development, not as fixed, eternal objects
isolated from one another. To achieve this, the dialectic sets out new
logical laws. The three major laws of the dialectic are:
"No object or thing should ever be
treated as if it is fixed or static forever. Each 'thing', in nature and
society, is composed of a complex of interacting elements and forces.
Contending components of a thing exist in contradiction with one another, giving
motion and development to the thing itself....
"Gradual
changes which occur to an object will eventually reach a point of rupture, at
which point the thing itself is abruptly transformed....
"As inner contradictions unfold, a change in the quality of an object takes
place. Yet the original object is not simply obliterated by a completely
separate thing which takes its place. A complex process occurs in which both the
original object and the prevailing force that transforms it are themselves
transcended and replaced by a higher unity incorporating aspects of both in a
radically different relationship." [Quoted from the
Fifth International
website. Bold emphases added.]
[9] "Since ancient limes, people have
pondered the cause of changes in nature and the society, looking for their
source and driving power. Thinkers made various suppositions on
this point, either
approaching or moving away from the truth. Thus, religion attributes the
changes going on in the world to God, idealists to the operation of some
universal will or supernatural absolute idea, and metaphysicians look for the
source of motion and change in some external force, in an initial impulse, and
so end up in idealism.
"The scientific answer to the question
of the cause of development given by the Marxist-Leninist philosophy is
expressed in the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. Lenin called that
law the essence, the core of materialist dialectics. It reveals the inner
cause of development, showing that its source lies in the contradictory nature
of phenomena and processes, the interaction and struggle of the opposites
immanent in them. To understand this law, one should
first clear up the meaning of opposites and contradictions.
"Opposites are the inner aspects,
tendencies or forces of an object or phenomenon which rule each other out while
simultaneously presupposing each other. The interconnection of opposites
constitutes a contradiction....
So,
all phenomena and processes of reality have opposite aspects. Everything is
shot through with contradiction." [Quoted from
here.
Bold emphases added; numerous typos corrected. Several paragraphs merged.]
[10] "Dialectics was initially a particular
kind of dialogue invented in Ancient Greece in which two or more people holding
different points of view about a subject seek to establish the truth of the
matter by dialogue with reasoned arguments.... Today dialectics denotes a
mode of cognition which recognizes the most general laws of motion,
contradiction and new development. There exist four 'laws' to the
dialectical method. They are:
"1) Everything is in a constant state
of motion, development and change.
"2) Everywhere there exist opposing
forces which are mutually exclusive yet cannot exist without the other.
Their conflict results in movement.
"3) Change occurs suddenly, all at
once. A quantitative amount of something results in a qualitative change (a
'breaking' point).
"4) Development moves in spirals,
from lower to higher planes of development....
"Dialectical materialism is the
recognition of a transient nature --
a physical reality in constant motion and change. What makes dialectical
materialism a revolutionary scientific method is that it excludes all static
states, all metaphysical views of reality, all one-sidedness and inflexibility.
Because it recognizes the concrete and present side of things, at the same time
it acknowledges that this present state is bound to end. For dialectal
materialism, the only absolute is that there are no eternal absolutes....
"Motion is the mode of existence of
matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be.
As we mentioned earlier, everything in nature is transient, finite, and in
motion. Matter cannot exist without motion. Everything has its beginning and its
end. People are born, grow and eventually pass away. Stars such as our sun
eventually begin to die, either slowly burning out or self-destructing. Species
evolve, adapt, or go extinct. Rain falls from the clouds, evaporates back into
the clouds where it will once again rain. Human society is also part of nature
and is therefore subject to the same laws....
"The
principle governing all growth and development is the idea of opposition and
contradiction. Two mutually exclusive forces which at the same time cannot
exist without each other has been a common theme in many philosophies for a
long time (i.e. yin and yang) exactly because such processes occurring around us
reflect this concept upon our minds...." [Quoted from
here.
Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions
adopted at this site. Minor typos corrected.]
[Another fifty on-line examples of this dogmatic approach to DM and Philosophy have been
added to
Appendix Three.]
And, if the above isn't enough,
readers should feast their eyes on
this
tangled web of crazed 'psychedelic' dialectics. That link will lead
you to a site run by someone who has clearly taken some half-digested mathematics and
thrown a container-load of semi-coherent Hegel-speak at it. Adventurous readers
should follow the links on that page if they want a free 'trip' to another
dimension, a veritable Twilight Zone, without the need to
inject, snort or smoke anything 'illegal'. Or, if your eyes need an extra
work-out, cast them over the material that has been re-reposted
here. [Unfortunately, that link is now dead since the character involved was
banned for posting several anti-Semitic remarks, so I am told.]
I
would attempt to
reproduce a few paragraphs from that site here on this page but I'm not sure my
computer would survive the trauma! Anyway, before I was banned for being rather
too good at exposing DM-gobbledygook for what it is, I posted a response,
here.
Over
the last few years there has been a proliferation of videos on YouTube
that purport to 'explain' nature's deepest secrets, true for all of space and
time, in a few idle
minutes:
Video Two -- How To Misconstrue Formal
Logic 101
Video Three -- Dialectics For Novices --
Awful Music, Too!
Video Four -- Dialectics For Numpties
Video Five -- UK-SWP's Impressive Contribution
To
Dialectical Confusion
Despite their superficial differences, they all say basically
the same thing, just as they all seem happy to impose
such ideas on nature and
society. In a world supposedly governed by the
Heraclitean Flux
--
ironically -- not much change apparent here!
Moreover, and unsurprisingly, these videos receive very few hits.
As noted above,
a priori dogmatics isn't confined to the Dialectical Musings of lowly
LCD
clones. In
fact, if anything,
HCDs
are not only more dogmatic, they are far less likely to own up to the
crime. That is probably because they either don't know when they are indulging
in it,
or, they care even less about it when they do.
[Here
is an excellent recent example.]
Far
more likely though, it is because
Traditional Thought has always adopted a dogmatic approach to 'philosophical
knowledge',
and HCDs are only too keen to show how 'intellectual' and traditional they
are, even if it means they have had to appropriate a set of ruling-class
ideas and forms-of-thought to prove it -- as, indeed, Marx predicted they
would:
"The
ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class
which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling
intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its
disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so
that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of
mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than
the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant
material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make
the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The
individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness,
and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and
determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do
this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as
producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of
their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch." [Marx and
Engels (1970), pp.64-65, quoted from
here.
Bold emphases added.]
And,
here follows a particularly good example of the genre...
[Once
again, it is worth pointing out that I am not here questioning the truth
of any of the assertions DM-fans make (that will be the subject of later
Essays), but their consistency: do they or do they not impose their ideas
on nature and society while claiming they don't it?]
First, we will note in passing the
by-now-familiar, almost de rigueur, disarming initial disclaimer,
followed, as we will see, by its prompt abrogation:
"Dialectical materialism diverges from
Hegelian dialectic at this point. Marx's dialectic is not an a priori
deduction, but a summary of human knowledge. 'Nature is
proof of dialectics' [Engels (1976), p.28] according to Engels.
Colletti,
Popper
and company do not understand this. Their constant refrain is that dialectics is
an a priori dogma….
"No doubt dialectical materialism can be
used as a set of dogmatic principles from which to deduce things. But
Marxists have been at pains to stress that dialectical materialism is not a
universal formula which may be applied to generate significant conclusions a
priori….
"Correctly understood, dialectical
materialism is
not a dogma. Indeed, it is rather Popper, Colletti and other such critics
of dialectic who show themselves to be dogmatists by the terms of their
criticisms. For they merely assert their philosophy, embodied in the principles
of formal logic, and when confronted with the dialectical concept of
contradiction reject it as 'absurd', and 'irrational' for failing to conform to
formal logic.
"Philosophy and logic can never
replace the need for a detailed investigation of the concrete and particular
conditions under study. They can never replace the need for the fullest
possible practical experience; and no philosophy makes this point more forcibly
than dialectical materialism. According to it, philosophy is not a body of
merely conceptual, logical or a priori truths. Philosophy has a
twofold character: it
summarizes, at the most general level, the results of human knowledge and
experience; and it functions as a guide to further thought and action.
"There is no
question here of using the principles of dialectics as 'axioms' from which
to 'deduce' any concrete results. If anything, the process works the other
way around, and philosophies are based upon results in the particular
sciences…." [Sayers (1980a), pp.19-21. Bold emphases alone added. Engels's
reference altered in line with the edition used here.]
This
seems reasonably clear, if not disarmingly honest: it is the critics of DM
who are the
dogmatists here; dialecticians never impose their ideas on reality, never
reason or deduce a priori. Perish the thought! In fact, Sayers assures us that DM-theorists are the
exact opposite of the caricature retailed by
anti-dialecticians like Popper and Colletti.
Nevertheless, when we encounter claims like the following (in this case,
just two pages after the above 'modest' disavowals!), we might be
forgiven for thinking that Sayers is living on another planet -- alongside the
rest of his conservative, dialectical peers:
"Dialectical materialism, by contrast,
is a philosophy of struggle and of conflict. Nothing comes into being except
through struggle; struggle is involved in the development of all things; and it
is through struggle that things are negated and pass away. Conflict and
contradiction are inevitable…." [Ibid., p.23. Bold emphasis added.]
But, how could Sayers possibly know all this?
The above manifestly
isn't
a summary of experience, nor even of the available evidence, but a clear
imposition on reality of objects it might not have, or of processes it might
not possess in its entirety, even in isolated pockets. For example, where is the evidence that "contradictions" are
"inevitable", or
