DM

Part Two -- How Petty-Bourgeois Revolutionaries And Their Theory, Dialectical Materialism, Have Seriously Damaged Marxism

This page might take a few 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 will 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 Internet Explorer 10 (or later), you might find some of the links I have used won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select 'Compatibility View Settings' and 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!

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.

Finally, if you are viewing this with Mozilla Firefox, you might not be able to read all the symbols I have used; Mozilla often replaces them with an "º'. There are no such problems with Chrome, Edge, or Internet Explorer, as far as I can determine.

Readers are advised that the material presented in this Essay should be read in conjunction with Essay Nine Part One (where several conclusions I seem to take for granted below were substantiated), as well as Essay Ten Part One (where this part of the story has been concluded).

Some of my critics have claimed that 'dialectics' is harmless, or that it has had no negative impact on revolutionary socialism, so why not just ignore it? This Essay aims to show both of those contentions are seriously mistaken.

Nevertheless, it is important to emphasise what I am not doing in this Essay: I am not arguing that Dialectical Materialism/Materialist Dialectics [DM/MD] have helped ruin Marxism and therefore they are false. My argument is in fact as follows:

The Essays published at this site show that DM/MD make not one ounce of sense -- indeed, to such an extent that it is impossible to determine whether they are true or false. Hence, it is no big surprise to find out they have not only helped cripple our movement, they have assisted in no small way in its degeneration and corruption.

[Why I include degeneration and corruption will also be explained below; for example, here and here.]

Nor am I blaming all our woes on DM/MD (note the italicised word "helped" the last but one paragraph). However, that topic will be the main theme of Essay Ten Part One, so readers are directed there for more details.

Our 'woes' clearly have several diverse causes; nevertheless, this Essay highlights two of the main reasons why Dialectical Marxism has now become almost synonymous with long-term failure, corruption and sectarian in-fighting. Namely (and in order of importance):

(a) The class origin, socialisation, and class position of the founders of our movement, as well as those who now lead it or control its ideas; and,

(b) The philosophical theory with which they have unfortunately saddled Marxism.

[Note also the use of the term "Dialectical Marxism". I am not criticising Marxism, nor am I claiming it has failed -- the non-dialectical version hasn't been road-tested yet!]

Of course, there are other contributory reasons why our movement has been such a long-term failure, but the few revolutionaries who are even prepared to acknowledge our appalling record are already well aware of these other factors. Hence, in what follows I have largely ignored the latter causes. That doesn't mean they aren't important, but I would merely be raking over familiar territory if I included them in this Essay, making it even longer than it already is!

Readers new to my ideas would be wrong conclude from the title of this Essay (or, indeed, this site) that it is all about DM and the effect it has had on Marxism. This Essay and this site are just as much focussed on the class origin of the founders of our movement, and of those who currently control its ideas, as they are on DM. As such, they break entirely new ground -- as anyone who reads on will soon discover --, providing for the very first time, anywhere**, a Historical Materialist explanation why our movement so often fails and why much that we on the Revolutionary Left touch sooner-or-later becomes corrupt, fragmentary and then turns to dust.

(**) This particular comment is no longer strictly true; a partial explanation for the malaise that has afflicted the revolutionary left for over a century has now been posted here. I have reproduced the core of its argument below. While this 'new' explanation echoes Trotsky's analysis of substitutionism (a topic covered more fully in Part One of this Essay), it omits:

(a) Any mention of the wider class-based and structural problems our movement has faced, and still faces; and,

(b) It completely ignores the historical and ideological roots of that fatal defect; nor does it consider:

(c) Why this keeps happening, and will keep on happening unless we recognise the problem and its causes.

I have addressed those issues at this site, but more specifically in the material presented below.

Another analysis, which I think also beaks new ground, has just been posted here, up-dated here.

While it is encouraging to see comrades (at last!) attempting to account for the serial disasters that regularly engulf the far-left (in political and sociological terms), the analyses that have so far appeared, including the above two, still refuse to consider -- even as a remote possibility -- the issues raised in and by the previous handful of paragraphs. Indeed, the author of the second of the above articles, who is also the owner of the blog in question, even refused to post my contribution to the debate! Below, I also endeavour to explain why such discussion has been deliberately curtailed, why debate on this issue is still heavily constrained and why certain, shall we say, 'sensitive' topics are considered taboo.

Update 01/01/2014: I ought to add that my latest contribution, brief though it is, has just been published at the above site!

These untoward events -- i.e., the many disasters and debacles experienced by the far-left -- were predictable given the things you will read below, as are the many more we will witness in the years to come if what I have to say is ignored. [Which it will be! That is also explained in what follows.]

Unfortunately, long-term failure, sectarian in-fighting, fragmentation, expulsions and bureaucratic cover-ups appear to be the only areas where fellow revolutionaries display genuine expertise or have won any notable 'success'!

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.

(i) Demolishing a dogma that has in my opinion seriously damaged our movement from its inception: DM -- or, in its more 'political' form, MD;

(ii) Exposing the class origin and class position of leading comrades who invented, accepted or who now promulgate this theory; and,

(iii) Revealing at least one source of the countless splits, debacles and disasters we have witnessed on the far-left over the last hundred or so years.

Several readers 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, in this Essay several times, but the link I have 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 in what follows since they used to take the reader to specific chapters of that book, but that faculty is no longer available, it seems.

Some of the links I have posted below -- which were meant to take the reader to Richard Seymour's blog, Lenin's Tomb -- no longer seem to work, either. It now appears there has been a slight change in that blog's URL. It will take me some time to correct them all!

For those who might find the length of this Essay somewhat daunting -- it is, after all, about the same length as a 500 page book! -- I have summarised some of its main points here.

Others who might still be puzzled by the length of this Essay should perhaps reflect on the fact that anything shorter would hardly do justice to this crucially important and universally neglected topic.

A section devoted to the on-going crisis in the UK-SWP that used to form part of this preamble has now been moved since these opening comments were becoming a little too long. A new section: 'The Last Death Throes Of The UK-SWP?' has just been added to the Appendices as a result of the latest wave of resignations following on the December 2013 Conference. [On that particular crisis, see also here and here in the same Appendix.]

Update 09/06/2014: We now learn of new accusations of rape, this time in the Swedish Trotskyist, Socialist Justice Party (affiliated with the CWI). More details here (trigger warning: descriptions of sexual violence), alongside allegations that this is a historic problem that stretches across the entire left.

Update 13/12/2016: Two years on and this is the only new information I could find on-line about the above allegations.

I am only publishing this on the Internet because several comrades whose opinions I respect urged me to do so, even though the work you see before you is less than half complete. Many of my ideas are still in the developmental stage, as it were, and need much work and time devoted to them before they mature.

In addition, this Essay has been written from within the Trotskyist tradition, but because I have found my work is being read by other Marxists I have had to incorporate an analysis of the negative influence that items (a) and (b) above have also had on Communism and Maoism. Since I am far less familiar with those two political currents, many of my remarks in that area are even more tentative than they are elsewhere. I will, of course, add more details (and precision) as my researches continue.

Independently of the above, it is worth pointing out that phrases like "ruling-class theory", "ruling-class view of reality", and "ruling-class ideology" (etc.) -- used at this site in connection with Traditional Philosophy and the concepts that underpin DM/MD (upside down or 'the right way up') -- aren't meant to imply that all or even most members of various ruling-classes actually invented this way 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 relied on ruling-class patronage, or who, in one capacity or another, helped run the system for the elite.

However, that theme 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 further details.)

[Exactly how and why the above applies to DM has been explained in other Essays published at this site (especially here, here and here). In addition to the three links in the previous paragraph, I have summarised the argument (but this time written with absolute beginners in mind) here.]

It is worth pointing out, too, that a good 50% of my case against DM/MD (along with much that I have to say about the class origin and class position of leading Marxists) has been relegated to the End Notes. Indeed, in this particular Essay, most of the supporting evidence is to be found there! That policy has been adopted in order to allow the main body of the Essay to flow a little more smoothly. If readers want to appreciate more fully my case against petty-bourgeois Marxism and its theory -- DM/MD -- they will need to read this material, too. In many respects I have qualified or greatly amplified what I have to say in the main body of this Essay. I have also raised objections to my own arguments (some obvious, many not -- and some that will no doubt have occurred to the reader), which I have then proceeded to neutralise. I explain why I have adopted this tactic in Essay One.

If readers skip this material, then my response to any qualms or objections they might have will be missed, as will my expanded comments, supporting evidence and clarifications.

Since I have been debating this theory with comrades for well over 30 years, I have heard all the objections there are! (Links to many of the more recent 'debates' on the Internet can be found here.)

Anyone who can't be bothered to plough through all the material I have presented in this Essay can use the Quick Links below, or consult the summaries of key points I have posted here, here and here.

A very basic outline of my overall objections to DM/MD can be accessed here; why I embarked on this project is explained here.

Anyone puzzled by the unremittingly hostile tone I have adopted toward DM/MD (and, indeed, toward anyone who propagates either or both of these theories/methods) should read this if they want to know why.

Some parts of this Essay are, unfortunately, a little repetitive. I am in fact trying to make the same point from several different angles. An "all-round" perspective, as Lenin might have said.

Incidentally, I have no illusions that this Essay (or any of the other Essays published at this site) will make a blind bit of difference, or even that it will get a fair hearing from the DM-faithful. Dialectically distracted comrades cling to DM/MD for non-rational reasons (explored fully in what follows). It will take revolutionary workers themselves to rejuvenate our movement and save dialecticians from themselves. This will only happen if or when the proletariat rid the world of the alienating forces that make it attractive for the DM-faithful to look to mystical concepts ('contradictions', 'the negation of the negation', 'unities of opposites', 'determinations', 'mediations', 'moments' -- upside down or 'the right way up') to help explain, and thus influence, social development.

What I hope to achieve is prevent younger comrades from catching this Hermetic Virus.

Finally, in what follows I am dealing with all forms of Dialectical Marxism, not just with Dialectical Trotskyism (or even with the structure and ideology of the UK-SWP!). Some of the things I have to say therefore apply to all forms of Dialectical Marxism, while all of them apply to some.

[On the almost identical use of DM across all forms of Dialectical Marxism, see here and here. Again, on the difference between HM and DM, see here.]

As of May 2024, this Essay is just over 227,500 words long. As noted earlier, a much shorter version of some of its main points can be accessed here; an even shorter one, here.

This Essay was becoming rather unwieldy so I have moved the Appendices to a separate area.

The material below doesn't 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.

Also, if your Firewall/Browser has a 'pop-up' blocker, you might need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or the links above and below 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. If the text is still either too big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!

This half of Essay Nine deals with several of the important background reasons for the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism, linking it with the class origin and class position of those who control, or have controlled, its ideas and party structures. It also exposes the reasons why dialecticians cling to DM like terminally insecure limpets, despite the damage it has done to Marxism and the fact that it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

In these respects Part Two of Essay Nine is a continuation of the argument developed in Part One, which is further elaborated upon in Essay Ten Part One -- where the usual replies advanced by dialecticians to allegations like the above will be dealt with -- alongside several more general, background theoretical issues (concerning the relation between theory and practice).

[Spoiler alert: In the aforementioned Essay it will be shown that truth can't be tested in practice, and that even if it could, practice has returned a very clear verdict: Dialectical Marxism has been refuted by history. Notice the use of the phrase "Dialectical Marxism", here -- and not "Marxism" --, as noted above, non-Dialectical Marxism hasn't been road tested yet. Some might think that the phrase "non-Dialectical Marxism" is an oxymoron; I have dealt with that response here and here.]

In which case, dialecticians would be well advised to stop appealing to practice as proof of the correctness of their theory.

In Essay Ten Part One, I will also reveal why the claim that Dialectical Marxism has been a long-term and abject failure is no exaggeration.

[To save on needless repetition, from now on, when readers encounter the abbreviation "DM" ("Dialectical Materialism") on its own, they should in general view this as incorporating a reference to MD ("Materialist Dialectics"), as well -- and/or vice versa.]

Even though it had been blindingly obvious to many for some time, several comrades have recently voiced concern that the revolutionary left is stagnating, if not experiencing steady and long-term decline. Here, for example, is Richard Seymour:

"The 'strategic perplexity' of the left confronted with the gravest crisis of capitalism in generations has been hard to miss. Social democracy continues down the road of social liberalism. The far-left has struggled to take advantage of ruling class disarray. Radical left formations have tended to stagnate at best." [Seymour (2012), p.191. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis added.]

Of course, as Richard points out, there are two notable exceptions to this generalisation -- the gains made by the electoral left in Greece and France (although, by mid-July 2015 it was clear that the 'advances' made by Syriza weren't worth the paper on which voters had voted for them -- confirming yet again that not even reformist socialism can be built in one country!), but it is far from clear that the 'Dialectical Left' have benefitted (or will benefit) from this in any way. In addition, the anti-austerity left in Spain, spearheaded by Podemos, began to make significant electoral gains in 2015. Finally, the UK Labour Party left has experienced a meteoric rise in numbers culminating in the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. Despite this, the 'dialectical left' has seen no corresponding growth.

A movement that is constantly fragmenting, and which maintains an almost incessant internecine war between its member parties, isn't likely to grow to a size that will threaten even a handful of bosses or local police chiefs, let alone the entire capitalist class.

"There is no question that the global recession on the back of the constant 'war on terror' has produced a radicalisation. Anti-capitalism is widespread. Evidence comes from the sheer scale of popular mobilisations over the last decade. Once, achieving a demonstration of 100,000 in Britain was regarded as an immense achievement. When grizzled lefties looked back on the demo of that size against the Vietnam War in October 1968, tears welled in their eyes. Now a London demo has to be counted in hundreds of thousands, to be a success.

"Yet this radicalisation, in Britain at least, has not been accompanied by the growth of any of the political currents which you would expect to benefit from this anti-capitalism. And I mean any, even those who reject the label 'Party'. The situation the left finds itself in is worse than when it entered the new century.... No other period of radicalisation in British history has experienced this lack of any formal political expression. It's not that people opposing austerity, war and much else are without politics. They are busy devouring articles, books, online videos and much else." [Quoted from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged.]

"Let's start with a simple observation: the revolutionary left is not growing. Indeed I am perhaps being generous in referring merely to stagnation rather than decline.... Yet we live in an age in which many revolutionary socialist groups predict a growth in the revolutionary left -- including whatever their own organisation is -- and indeed sometimes speak as if it's already happening. So for someone from within the revolutionary left -- like me -- to make this comment may be somewhat uncharacteristic. There are two reasons why this stagnation might surprise people and therefore requires explanation. One is historical precedent. Previous periods of systemic crisis -- whether the First World War, the 1930s or the post-1968 era -- have led to a growth in the revolutionary left or in other sections of the Left (or both). So shouldn't that be happening now?

"The second reason is that it's not like we have a shortage of resistance to capitalism, or particular aspects of capitalist crisis, in the current period. Shouldn't such phenomena -- Arab revolutions, Occupy, general strikes in southern Europe, a widespread anti-establishment mood etc -- find expression in the growth of the revolutionary left?" [Quoted from here. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged.]

"[T]here have been some notable, in some cases historic, movements of resistance. The global anti-capitalist movement which began with mass demonstrations against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in 1999 was a signal event. It brought together climate change and environmental activists with trade union demonstrators -- the famous teamster-turtle alliance. It named the enemy in the most general political terms: capitalism. And it self-identified as an 'anti-capitalist' movement. This was new. I remember watching the BBC main news bulletin where the commentator said 'anti-capitalist protestors took over the centre of Seattle today'. I'd rarely heard the BBC use the word 'capitalist', let alone the words 'anti-capitalist' before. This term became the hallmark of many demonstrations to this day. It had a great strength: an immediate identification of the entire system as the problem. But there was also a corresponding weakness: a much lower level of direct workplace struggle than in the 1968-1975 period.

"Even so the movement's political strength became greater as the anti-war movement arose, involving many of the same forces, in response to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002-2003. Again, just as the anti-capitalist movement had popularised to millions of ordinary citizens language once the exclusive property of the left, so the rise of the mass anti-war movement made anti-imperialism a mass popular force on a scale that even exceeded that achieved by the anti-Vietnam protests. At the same time, and partly as a consequence, establishment politics became hollowed out to an unprecedented degree. Faced with mainstream parties all of whom embraced neo-liberalism at home and defended imperialism abroad the old system began to crack. Political party membership fell and turnout in elections declined. Opinion polls revealed that public faith in politicians, the police, the media and other pillars of the status quo were at historic lows.

"And yet at the same time the organisation of the left was also facing a crisis. The Labour Left has probably never been weaker. The Communist Party left is much reduced after the body blow of the East European revolutions of 1989, far longer and deeper in their effect on the left than many thought at the time. The revolutionary far left has, in all too many cases, retreated into sectarian isolation. In fact the central paradox of left politics can be formulated in this way: at a time when an unprecedented level of ideological radicalism have seized large sections of the working class the far left has been unable to strengthen itself because it is wedded to 1970s models of industrial militancy which prevents it from understanding the tasks before it." [Preface to the new edition of The ABC of Socialism, quoted from here. Accessed 21/06/2014. Bold emphases and link added; several paragraphs merged. As we have seen, while the Labour Left did recover dramatically (at least for a few years prior to 2019), the revolutionary left still hasn't.]

Of course, Rees's explanation for the failure of the far-left to make any progress is itself misplaced; even sections of the left that have abandoned "1970's models of industrial militancy" have made little or no progress. We must look elsewhere for the reason why the revolutionary left has signally failed to connect with recent waves of radicalisation, and explore areas dialecticians like Rees still refuse to examine. Even worse, they will reject out-of-hand any attempt to do so.

It is quite remarkable that comrades who will, in one breath, extol the virtues of HM but will, in another, refuse to apply it to the far-left itself.

"The paradox of the present situation is that capital is weak -- but the radical left is much weaker. Alternatively, capital is economically weak, but much stronger politically, less because of mass ideological commitment to the system than because of the weakness of credible anti-capitalist alternatives....

"By contrast today, nearly seven years after the financial crash began, the radical left has not been weaker for decades. We have seen the following pattern over the past 15 years. The period between the late 1990s and the mid-2000s can be described as an era of good feelings for the radical left. In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in 1989-91 neoliberalism had seemed all-conquering. But the Seattle protests of November 1999 marked the beginning of a wave of new movements of resistance demanding another kind of globalisation that were based not just in the North but in parts of the Global South. The events of 9/11 and the proclamation of a global state of emergency by the administration of George W Bush provoked an extension of resistance from the economic to the political, as the altermondialiste [Anti-Globalisation -- RL] networks that had emerged from Seattle and the July 2001 protests at Genoa launched the anti-war movement responsible for the unprecedented day of global protest against the invasion of Iraq on 15 February 2003....

"But May 2005 represented the high-water mark for the radical left in Europe. Afterwards the process went into reverse. Sometimes this took the form of organisational implosion: the splits in the SSP in 2006 and in Respect in 2007 removed the most serious left electoral challenges the Labour Party had faced for decades. Sometimes there were electoral reverses, such as that suffered by the Bloco in 2011. Sometimes it was both: Rifondazione cracked up as a result of both electoral eclipse and a series of splits following its participation in 2006-8 in the centre-left coalition government of Romano Prodi, who continued the neoliberal and pro-war policies of their predecessors.

"Disarray set in among the radical left before the onset of the economic crisis: thus George Galloway launched his attack on the role of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) within Respect in August 2007, just as the credit crunch was beginning to develop. But the process of fragmentation has continued against the background of the crisis. Although developments in France have exercised a major influence on the radical left internationally, new political formations came relatively late there: the Parti de Gauche, which split from the Socialist Party in 2008, and the Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste (NPA) launched at the beginning of 2009 by the LCR. But, bested electorally by the Parti de Gauche and its allies (mainly the Communist Party) in the Front de Gauche, the NPA suffered an agonising internal crisis in 2011-12. This ended with the departure in July 2012 of several hundred members, including many of the historic cadre of the LCR, to form Gauche Anticapitaliste as part of the Front de Gauche.

"Meanwhile, the other major organisation of the European revolutionary left, the SWP, suffered no less than four splits -- one in the immediate aftermath of the Respect crisis in 2010, one involving a group of mainly young members in Glasgow in 2011, and two associated with the intense crisis in 2012-13 precipitated by allegations of rape against a leading member. This crisis saw about 700 members (including, once again, some of the historic cadre of the SWP) leave and three new far-left groups formed. Of course, this particular drama underlines that the splits had very specific driving forces: setting the SWP's troubles in context in no way dismisses the issues of oppression and women's liberation that for many were the central issue. But the broader pattern seems undeniable, as is indicated by the internal divisions that affected the largest far-left group in the United States, the International Socialist Organization, in 2013-14....

"Some 35 years ago, at the dawn of the neoliberal era, Chris Harman wrote a memorable analysis in this journal of the crisis the European revolutionary left was then experiencing. That crisis was much more severe and concentrated than what we are currently experiencing because it represented the collapse, in an astonishingly short period of time, of many of the quite substantial far-left formations that had emerged during the great upturn in workers' struggles of the late 1960s and early 1970s -- formations that had grown very quickly, but that proved to lack the political strength to cope with the downturn in class struggle that developed in the second half of the 1970s. The present crisis is much more diffuse, but in some ways more threatening, because the revolutionary left is much weaker than it was in 1979. This makes the attempts to split and even to destroy organisations such as the NPA and the SWP so irresponsible. These parties represent decades of concentrated efforts by thousands of militants to develop credible revolutionary alternatives. They are not to be thrown away lightly." [Callinicos (2014), pp.111-36. Links and bold emphases added. Since the above was written, the ISO has imploded, and has now disbanded itself.]

In the above article, Callinicos makes no attempt to apply a class analysis to this decline -- and this decline is long-term, too, one that has been on-going now for several generations despite the upturns Callinicos mentions (which turned out to be temporary, 'false dawns', anyway). For far too many the revolutionary left is now largely toxic. Callinicos not only fails to acknowledge this, he ignores his own and the UK-SWP's role in helping to accelerate this steady decline. To be sure, Callinicos discusses several other plausible factors that have contributed to the current weakness of the far-left, but he signally failed to explain why it has a propensity to fragment (he just notes that it happens) or its tendency to decay into crises of corruption (which, in the case of the UK-SWP, he briefly mentions, but soon shrugs off, blaming others for its inevitable consequences).

"[Break] from the toy Bolshevism that has led to the dominance of monsters like Gerry Healy and to grotesque fractures such have been discussed on these pages, a practice that has meant the Left has failed to grow in circumstances that have looked favourable.... The Left can point to some successes out of proportion with its size: the Anti Nazi League, the poll tax campaign, the Stop the War campaign. Have these mobilisations resulted in any genuine lasting and durable implantation of the Left? I'm afraid not. It has to be discussed why not. The lessons have to be learned. Then maybe left organisations can handle incidents such as the one which triggered this whole debate with integrity and humanity and not a squalid clumsiness that discredits it." [Quoted from here; accessed 13/01/2013. Bold emphases added; paragraphs merged. Links added.]

This malaise isn't just a UK or even a European phenomenon; here are the thoughts of a US comrade:

"We should start with the fact that the objective situation is tough and that the left everywhere is having a hard time. Practically no organization or model has succeeded as a consistent challenge to the neoliberal order, and the most inspiring efforts in Greece and Egypt have stalled and been savagely turned back, respectively. The US working class is disorganized and reeling under blow after blow of austerity. The picture is defeat and flaming wreckage all across the front line, and, in Richard Seymour's words, pointing to the example of 'the CTU [Chicago Teachers Union -- RL] will not save us, comrades.' The American capitalist class has done pretty well under Obama's leadership, and profitability is at record levels (though they're not out of the woods of the Great Recession just yet).

"So yes, the world is not making it particularly easy to build a revolutionary socialist organization at the moment (and perhaps for quite a while now). That also makes it more likely that we're getting parts of our perspective and orientation wrong. We cannot allow reference to the objective conditions to become a block to self-evaluation, self-criticism, and change. And on the one hand, to say that objective conditions have been extremely difficult for the past five years does not square with our sense that the onset of the Great Recession would open a new era of radicalization that would allow us to operate more effectively and grow. Nor does it square with the advances in struggle in the Arab Spring and Occupy. Nor does it square with the assertion that there is a 'continuing radicalization' going on right now." [Sid Patel, quoted from here. Accessed 08/02/2014. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis and links added.]

But, "self-evaluation" and "self-criticism" doesn't apparently stretch as far as applying an HM analysis to this chronic problem!

"The international revolutionary Left is in the throes of a serious crisis. This crisis has manifested itself most clearly in organizational terms in the debacle of the Socialist Workers Party in the UK; in the splits in the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste in France; and in the attack on the revolutionary Left within SYRIZA. In practical terms, it has manifested in the inability of the Left to steer major events: the stalemate in the struggle against austerity in Greece and the growth of fascism; the twists and turns of the Egyptian revolution; and the reversals suffered by the defeat of the Wisconsin Uprising, the dramatic repression of Occupy, and even the setbacks in spring 2013 after the heroic Chicago Teachers' Union strike testify to this fact. And on the theoretical plane, there remain large questions about the character of neoliberalism and the current crisis; the shape of the international working class at the end of the neoliberal period; and the strategies and methods for the Left to organize a real struggle against a system in crisis. It is a crisis that requires a deep re-examination of all previous assumptions on the part of the entire international Left.

"We believe this crisis has impacted the ISO as well, though we think that it is a more significant development than simply 'the demoralization and disorientation experienced by the Left in the wake of Occupy'. While the SWP's crisis is far more serious than ours, we believe both crises (as well as the others mentioned) grow out of the same general political background common to the entire revolutionary Left. In the ISO, the response to this crisis has shifted from a perceived new political openness in the first half of the year (most notably Ahmed Shawki's talk at Socialism 2013 on Perspectives for the Left, which was interpreted as such by people well beyond the ISO); to a debate around the March on Washington and the United Front; to a closing of ranks, a renewed focus on routines and low-level political education, and a retreat from outward-looking events such as the regional fall Marxism conferences. The assertion in the NC [National Committee -- RL] report that the ISO was 'under attack' was quite stunning to us. But it has now become clear that the 'attack' is really a bout of self-doubt, in our estimation brought on by the same factors that have precipitated the crisis of the international Left: a misunderstanding of the neoliberal period and its crisis, and a frustration at the ability of the Left to advance." [Quoted from here. Accessed 08/02/2014. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links and bold emphases added. There are now reports of yet another rape cover-up, but this time in the ISO itself! As we will see later, the failure to address an autocratic leadership in the ISO (which, for example, attempted to bury this set of rape allegations) ultimately led to its precipitous demise five years after the above was written.]

The above comrades call for "a deep re-examination of all previous assumptions on the part of the entire international Left" but those words fell on deaf ears. Not even those who wrote them were listening!

But, who wants to join a movement that will in all likelihood split before they receive their membership card? Or, which will descend into yet another wave of scandal, corruption, and cover-ups before they attend their first paper sale?

"If you read the attempts that have been made so far by comrades (here and elsewhere) to account for this and other crises, you will struggle long and hard and to no avail to find a materialist, class-based analysis why this sort of thing keeps happening. Comrades blame such things on this or that foible or personality defect of that or this comrade, or on this or that party structure. If we only had a different CC, or a new constitution, everything would be hunky dory. If only the climate in the party were more open and democratic...

"Do we argue this with respect to anything else? If only we had a different Prime Minister, different MPs or Union Leaders! Or, maybe a new constitution with proportional representation allowing us to elect left-wing representatives to Parliament..., yada yada.

"But this problem is endemic right across our movement, and has been for many generations, just as it afflicts most sections of bourgeois society. In which case, we need a new, class-based, materialist explanation why it keeps happening, or it will keep on happening." [Re-edited, and quoted, for example, from here.]^01a

And yet, comrades still refuse to approach the crisis that has recently engulfed the UK-SWP with any such analysis; they still refuse to apply Marxism to Marxism itself! A point brought out recently in another blog (although the author also neglected to develop an HM analysis of this crisis!):

"Someone, probably the late John Sullivan, once pointed out the irony that parties adhering firmly to historical materialism are even firmer in refusing to apply it to their own organisations; instead insisting, like the best idealists, that they be judged on their programme alone." [Quoted from here; accessed 01/01/2014. Link and bold emphasis added.]

In its place, comrades prefer to write the sort of superficial analyses they would sharply criticise if they were applied to any other group, or, indeed, any other topic -- such as the following:

"There is currently a huge crisis playing itself out within the SWP, the party I have been a member of the past five years. Like many of us warned, this has now spread beyond our ranks into the national press, and has even been picked up by our international affiliate groups in the International Socialist Tendency. Regardless of [any?-- RL] individual's opinion on the details of this case, it can no longer be denied that this issue will create severe repercussions for the party. The CC have failed to lead and much of the membership is demanding an explanation. It is also a dead end to argue that this should stay within the party and we should simply draw a line under it. This is in the national press and silence and failure to recognise the problem would be political suicide with the very people we hope to work with, the movement.... We need an entirely new leadership, and we need to comprehensively overhaul all the democratic structures of the party." [Quoted from here; accessed 14/01/2013. Bold emphasis and link added. Minor typo corrected; paragraphs merged.]

Another UK-SWP comrade had this to say in the March 2013 Special Pre-Conference Bulletin:

"The question therefore becomes how do we organise ourselves in any given period, and, more particularly, how do we need to organise today? It ought to be clear to everybody that our present arrangements are not provably fit for purpose. Either that or we [are? -- RL] the unluckiest party in the world having suffered a string of crises (Respect, Counterfire, IS Group, Disputes Committee) in rapid succession. In a situation like this there can be a tendency to 'batten down the hatches', seek internal scapegoats and meet internal criticism with impatience, censure or even disciplinary measures.... [The following] are some organisational areas...where I think we currently fall short of what is needed to make us a more successful and effective Leninist party." [Quoted from here, p.68. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Accessed 08/03/2013. Although the criticisms and suggestions this comrade then proceeds to make look eminently reasonable, they clearly fall far short of what is required. Paragraphs merged.]

Here is another account from across the Atlantic concerning the collapse of the US-SWP (but the points made are clearly far more general in scope):

"This process can be described by the term 'regression to the mean.' In statistics, that term describes the tendency of 'outliers' -- facts or observations that are substantially different from the average -- to shift over time towards the average. In Marxist politics, it means that a small group that achieves excellence in one or another respect will tend to lose these characteristics over time, unless its strong points are reinforced through immersion in broad social struggles.

"The 'mean' -- that is, the profile of the average small Marxist group -- includes these features:

"A conviction that the small group, and it alone, represents the historic interests of the working class.

"A high ideological fence separating members from the ideas and discussions of the broader Marxist movement.

"A haughty attitude to social movements: the group's interventions, when they occur, focus on self-promotion and recruitment.

"An internal discipline aimed not at fending off blows of the class enemy but at restricting discussion and keeping the members in line.

"A conservative approach to Marxist doctrine, aptly summarized by Marx in 1868: 'The sect sees the justification for its existence and its "point of honour" not in what it has in common with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from it.'" [Quoted from here. Accessed 15/01/2014. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. The comrade is quoting from Marx's letter to Schweitzer, 13/10/1868.]

But, still no attempt was made to provide a class analysis. Indeed, as far as can be determined, none of the articles posted at the site from which the above was taken (which presents a detailed history of the decline of the US-SWP) even so much as attempt to apply Marxism to Marxism itself.

Nevertheless, "crises" like these are endemic on the far-left. As if organisational tinkering can affect issues related to the class origin and class position of those who 'lead' our movement, who control its ideas! As if simply immersing the party in wider activity can erase awkward facts about the class origin of our 'leaders' and their core theory, DM!

And, there is no sign that comrades in the UK-SWP 'opposition' (or elsewhere, for that matter) are even asking the right questions. Here is one of the latest examples from this faction:

"In just a few weeks, the desire to analyse how we got to this point has resulted in many faction members, both longstanding and new cadre, starting the process of attempting to fill some theoretical gaps. This is fantastically encouraging, and a glimpse at how political pride can be rebuilt and how fruitful honest collective discussion is. The very fact of the conference is a victory, but if we accept that silence must follow, then we have not achieved what we set out to achieve." [Megan T., and Mike G., quoted from here; accessed 09/03/2013. Bold emphasis added.]

Other than arguing for an open, democratic party (an excellent aim in itself), filling in the above "theoretical gaps" doesn't seem to involve any attempt to develop an HM-analysis of the class origin and class position of the party 'leadership', coupled with their commitment to thought-forms appropriated from the class enemy --, crystallised in DM.

I will endeavour to answer that question in what follows. This Essay and the other two mentioned in the Preface are aimed at approaching catastrophes like these from an entirely new angle, providing for the first time an HM-explanation why our movement is constantly in crisis, constantly fragmenting, constantly screwing-up -- and what can be done about it.

In addition to providing a class analysis of leading figures in Dialectical Marxism today and in the past, as well as those responsible for its ideas, this Part of Essay Nine will also aim to show how and why:

(3) DM has contributed in its own way to the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism itself.

(4) DM helps convince dialectically-distracted comrades that there are in fact no problems that need addressing (in this regard) -- and, even if there were, DM (supposedly Marxism's core theory!) and the class origin of leading Dialectical Marxists, have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them!

(5) The class origin of leading members of Dialectical-Marxist parties is one of the main reasons why revolutionary politics is deeply sectarian, profoundly unreasonable, serially abusive, alarmingly fragmentary, studiously arrogant, and notoriously ineffective.

DM thrown into the pot, of course, only succeeds in making a bad situation worse.

Part One demonstrated that DM not only doesn't, it can't represent a generalisation of working class experience; nor can it express their "world-view", whoever tries to sell it to them.

Worse still, it can't even represent the generalised experience of the revolutionary party!

It was also shown in Part One that DM can't be "brought" to workers "from the outside" (as Lenin seemed to suggest -- please note the use of the word "seemed" here!), because it has yet to be brought to a sufficient level of clarity so that its own theorists can even so much as begin to understand it themselves, before they think to proselytise unfortunate workers.

In that sense, dialecticians are still waiting for their own theory to be "brought" to them, from the "inside"!

It was alleged in Essay Twelve Part One (and in other Essays posted at this site, here, here and here) that DM is a form of Linguistic Idealism (LIE) and, as such, encapsulates and expresses key features of ruling-class ideology.

However, what has not yet been established is how it is even conceivable that generations of leading revolutionaries with impeccable socialist credentials could have brought with them into the workers' movement ideas derived from the class enemy --, or, at least, from Philosophers who gave voice to the interests and priorities of that class.

Surely, that alone shows the allegations made in these Essays are completely misguided, at best, mendacious, at worst.

Of course, even its own most loyal and avid supporters can't -- indeed, don't -- deny that dialectics itself had to be introduced into the workers' movement from the outside. Neither Hegel, Feuerbach, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin nor Mao were proletarians. Moreover, there is no evidence that workers in the 19^th century were avid readers of Hegel's Logic. The same can be said of workers since.

[The claim that Dietzgen, for example, was an exception to the above generalisation has already been refuted, here.]

As is well-known, Hegel's system is the most absolute form of Idealism yet invented and was itself situated right at the heart of an age-old ruling-class tradition (aspects of which are examined in detail in Essay Twelve and Fourteen (summaries here and here)).

Lenin admitted as much -- without perhaps realising the full significance of what he was saying:

"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; paragraphs merged.]

"Marxism is an integral world-outlook. Expressed in a nutshell, it is contemporary materialism, at present the highest stage of the development of that view upon the world whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece by Democritus, and in part by the Ionian thinkers who preceded that philosopher." [Plekhanov (1908), p.11. Italic emphases in the original; links and bold emphasis added. I have covered this topic in much more detail below.]

Despite this, the importation of Hegel's ideas into Marxism is often justified on the basis that he lived at a time when the bourgeoisie were the revolutionary class, which meant his ideas weren't as 'ideologically-tainted' -- so to speak -- as those of later thinkers.

Now, that excuse might work in relation to theorists like Smith or Ricardo, but it can't work with Hegel. Not only did he live in politically and economically backward Germany, where there was no such revolutionary bourgeois class, his ideas represented a continuation of ruling-class thought and a regression to earlier mystical ideas about nature and society. [On that, see Essay Twelve Part Five and Essay Fourteen Part One (summaries here and here).]

Moreover, by no stretch of the imagination were Hegel's ideas scientific, unlike those of Smith and Ricardo. [That doesn't imply their work can't be criticised, as, indeed, Marx amply demonstrated.]

Nor can it be argued that Marx derived HM from Hegel; in fact (as Lenin himself half admits) both he and Hegel were influenced by the Scottish Historical School (of Ferguson, Millar, Hume, Smith, Steuart, Robertson, and Anderson).⁰¹ If anything, Hegel's work helped slow down the development of Marx's scientific ideas by mystifying them.

It could be argued that Marx derived other important concepts from Hegel (such as alienation or species being), but these ideas (or others very much like them) can be found in Rousseau, Fichte and Schelling (who were far clearer thinkers than Hegel ever was). Moreover, these concepts are easily replaced with materialist analogues -- which explains why Marx subsequently dropped them, adopting others. [On that, see White (1996).]

Finally, no dialectician, as far as I know, would argue the same for other figures who were writing at about this time, and who were much closer to the revolutionary class action (as it were). Does anyone think this of Berkeley? And yet he lived in and around what was the leading capitalist country on earth at the time: Great Britain. Or, Shaftesbury and Mandeville? Slap bang in the middle, those two. And, it is little use pointing out that they wrote shortly after the reaction to the English Revolution, since Hegel did, too, after the reaction to the French Revolution. Nor is it any use arguing that these two were card-carrying ruling-class hacks, since the same can be said of Hegel. Or, even that one of them was an aristocrat. It might be news to some, but Hegel wasn't a coal miner or a stable hand!

Indeed, the only reason Hegel is chosen for special attention is because of contingent features of Marx's own biography. Had Marx's life taken a different course, or had Hegel died of typhoid forty years before he actually did, does anyone really think we would now be bothering with 'dialectics'? It is no surprise, therefore, to find that Marx himself moved away from Hegel and Philosophy all his life.

[The first of those controversial allegations was substantiated in Part One of this Essay; the second, here.]

In that case, and contrary to what Lenin said, we should exclude Marx (at least in relation to his more mature work) from the above, seriously compromised ruling-class philosophical lineage.

Independently of that, it could be objected that this allegedly class-compromised background isn't sufficient to condemn DM. After all, it could be argued that the advancement of humanity has always been predicated on practices, concepts and theories developed by individuals freed from the need to toil almost every day to stay alive -- for example, the ideas and work of scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, technologists, inventors and the like. Surely, that doesn't automatically impugn every idea drawn from outside the workers' movement or from non-workers. Neither does it mean that philosophical notions are in general of no use to revolutionaries. Indeed, denouncing certain beliefs just because they are alien to the working-class is not only ultra-left, it is inconsistent with core HM-principles. In that case, the fact that DM is based on Hegel's system doesn't automatically condemn this theory/method, especially if it has been given a materialist make-flip (as Marx himself argued), and which has subsequently been tested in practice for well over a century.

Furthermore, the origin of DM goes back many centuries, and is related in complex ways to the development of class society and thus of humanity itself. Admittedly, that implicates this process in the formation of ideas representing the theoretical interests of former and current ruling-classes. But, even if that is granted, such ideas have also contributed to the overall development of human knowledge -- indeed, many of them have been integral to the advancement of science -- and thereby of the forces of production. Considerations like these don't compromise DM in any way; on the contrary, as Lenin noted, this complex set of connections (linking DM with the very best of human endeavour, theoretical and practical) constitutes one of its strengths. Dialectical thought is thus not only part of the theoretical maturing process of humanity, it is a key component in its further development.

(1) DM-theses make no sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise is invited to say clearly (and for the first time ever) what sense they do make. As the Essays posted at this site have shown, anyone who attempts that modern-day 'labour of Sisyphus' will face an impossible task.

(2) DM-concepts hinder the development revolutionary theory and practice. We saw that in more detail in Essay Ten Part One -- for example, in connection with Lenin's advice relating to a certain glass tumbler. [Other examples are given below.]

(3) DM is locked inside a tradition of thought that has an impeccable ruling-class pedigree. No wonder then that it hangs like an albatross around our neck, to say nothing of the negative effect it has had on generations of Dialectical Marxists (they are detailed below, too).

(4) Although many claim that science is intimately connected with earlier philosophical and religious/mystical forms-of-thought, that is less than half the truth. Indeed, materialist and technological aspects of science haven't been as heavily dependent on such ruling-class ideas as many believe. [That rather bold claim will be substantiated in Essay Thirteen Part Two (when it is published sometime in 2025).]

(5) DM-concepts undermine ordinary language and common understanding. That means workers have had these alien-class ideas inserted into their heads against the materialist grain, as it were. As such, DM (a) fosters passivity, (b) rationalises substitutionist ideology, (c) aggravates sectarianism and (d) helps motivate corruption.^1a [There is more on each of these accusations below and in Part One, where they have been fully substantiated. On the phrase "common understanding", see here.]

(6) The materialist flip allegedly performed on Hegel's system, so that its 'rational core' might be appropriated by revolutionaries, has been shown not in fact to have been through 180º, as is often claimed, but through the full 360. [On that, see especially Essays Twelve Part One and Thirteen Part One.]

(7) It isn't being claimed here that DM is false because of its ruling-class pedigree; on the contrary, it is being argued that it is far too vague and confused even to be described as true or false; it doesn't make it that far. Nevertheless, its deleterious effect on Marxism itself can be traced back to its origin in ruling-class forms-of-thought. [More on that throughout this Essay, and in Essay Fourteen Part Two.]

(9) Finally, and perhaps more importantly, DM has played its own small but not inconsiderable part in helping to engineer the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism in all its forms. In addition, as noted above, DM has aggravated the personal, organisational and political corruption that petty-bourgeois party 'leaders' have brought with them into the movement.

These are serious allegations; those that haven't already been substantiated (in other Essays) will be expanded upon and defended in what follows.

In spite of this, it could be argued that the above counter-response is totally unacceptable since it ignores the fact that some of the very best class fighters in history have not only put dialectics into practice, they have woven it into the fabric of every classic and post-classic Marxist text. Indeed, without dialectics there would be no Marxist theory. As Trotsky noted, without it Marxism would be like "a clock without a spring":

"While polemicising against opponents who consider themselves -- without sufficient reason -- above all as proponents of 'theory,' the article deliberately did not elevate the problem to a theoretical height. It was absolutely necessary to explain why the American 'radical' intellectuals accept Marxism without the dialectic (a clock without a spring)." [Trotsky (1971), p.56. Bold emphasis added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

[Which is rather odd since Essay Seven Part Three has shown that if DM were true, change would be impossible. So, Trotsky got this the wrong way round: without DM, Marxism gains a spring.]

How could this even be conceivable if the above allegations were correct? How would it even be possible for the very best class fighters in history to have accepted and then promoted this allegedly 'ruling class form-of-thought'? What alternative theory or literature (that has been tested in the 'heat of battle', as it were) can Ms Lichtenstein point to that recommends her ideas, or suggests they are as superior to those found in this proven tradition, one stretching back now over 150 years?

Much of the above volunteered response (in fact, it is a very brief summary of a handwritten letter sent by John Molyneux to a supporter of this site many years ago) is demonstrably misguided. The link between DM and successful practice was irrevocably severed by Essay Ten Part One, and will be further undermined in what follows. Sceptical readers are referred back to it.

Furthermore, very few of the classic Marxist texts (that is, outside the DM-cannon -- i.e., AD, DN, MEC, PN, etc.) even mention this 'theory' (except a few might do so perhaps in passing). Indeed, despite an 'orthodox' tradition that says differently -- and as Part One of Essay Nine shows, here and here --, Das Kapital itself is a Hegel-, and DM-free zone. But, even if that weren't the case, the fact that Dialectical Marxism has been such a long-term failure ought to raise serious questions about the deleterious affect 'dialectics' has had on HM and on revolutionary practice in general.

Indeed, if Newton's theory had been as spectacularly unsuccessful as Dialectical Marxism has been, his ideas would have faced peremptory rejection within a few years of his classic work, Principia, rolling off the press.

In addition, a continuing commitment to dialectics just because it was good enough for the 'founding fathers' of our movement -- and for no other reason -- is itself based on the sort of servile, dogmatic and conservative mind-set that permeates most religions.^1b

There is, indeed, something decidedly unsavoury witnessing erstwhile radicals appealing to tradition as their only reason for maintaining their commitment to such class-compromised ideas -- especially since this doctrine hasn't served us too well for over a century, and remains unexplained to this day.

As it turns out, and as will now be argued, the reason why the majority of revolutionaries not only willingly accept the ruling-class ideas encapsulated in DM, but also cling to them like terminally-insecure limpets, is connected with the following four considerations:

(1) Marx's analysis of the nature and origin of religious alienation -- allied with his rejection of Philosophy.

(2) Lenin's warning that revolutionaries may sometimes respond to defeat and disappointment by turning to Idealism and Mysticism.

(4) The fact that DM not only helps mask the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism itself, it provides its acolytes with a source of consolation for unrealised expectations and repeatedly dashed hopes.

These seemingly controversial allegations will now be expanded upon, and then defended in depth.

[The other counter-arguments summarised in the previous sub-section will also be tackled as this Essay unfolds.]

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." [Marx (1975b), p.244. Bold emphases alone added; some paragraphs merged.]

Of course, no one is suggesting that Dialectical Marxism is a religion -- but it certainly functions in way that means it is analogous to one.

"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 (1975c), p.381. I have used the on-line version, here. Bold emphasis and link added.]

So, "philosophy is nothing but religion rendered into thought". In other words, philosophy is a far more abstract source of consolation. Naturally, that in turn means the same is the case with DM (although I am not arguing that Marx drew that inference -- but if he were consistent, he should have).

These serious allegations along with their basis in HM will now be explained and defended.

Plainly, revolutionaries are human beings with ideas in their heads, and every single one of them (i) Has had a class origin of some sort, (ii) Later assumed a class position (as a result of work or party/revolutionary activity), or (iii) Currently has a current class position. The overwhelming majority of those who have led our movement, or who have influenced its ideas, didn't come from the working class. Even workers, if they become full-time or "professional revolutionaries", are thereby rendered de-classé -- or even become petty-bourgeois -- as a result. Since the social being of these comrades is a reflection of their class origins and current class position, it is no surprise, therefore, to discover that they have allowed "ruling ideas" to dominate their thought.

Of course, the allegation that the above individuals have appropriated these ideas -- which is because of their class origin or current class position --, will be regarded by dialecticians as so patently false it will be rejected out-of-hand as "crude reductionism".

Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, no Marxist Dialectician has subjected the origin of DM, or the reasons for its adoption by the vast majority of comrades, to any sort of class, or even historical materialist, analysis. Apparently, that thought hasn't even occurred to them!

To be sure, they will often subject the ideas of their opponents or their enemies (both Marxist and non-Marxist -- examples of which are given below) to some form of impromptu class analysis, but they never do the same with respect to their own adoption of ruling-class thought-forms, nor yet the acceptance of such ideas by the vast majority of fellow Marxists; certainly not for their approval by every single leading Marxist (except Marx). Apparently, that thought doesn't occur to them, either!

This suggests that dialecticians see themselves as exempt from a class analysis of the origin of their own ideas, and that they somehow think they are immune from the material constraints that affect the rest of humanity.

[We will see this frame-of-mind resurface elsewhere as arrogance, compounded by an almost sociopathic attitude often adopted toward fellow Marxists (and especially female comrades), in what can only be described as a Raskolnikov-like manner.]

Nevertheless, it will be maintained here that these comrades have adopted such ruling-class ideas for at least four reasons:

First: Because of their petty-bourgeois, non-working class origin -- and as a result of their socialisation and the 'superior' education they have generally received in bourgeois society -- the vast majority of the above comrades had "ruling ideas", or ruling-class forms-of-thought, forced down their throats almost from day one.

Second: Because Dialectical Marxism has been so spectacularly unsuccessful, revolutionaries have had to convince themselves that (a) This isn't really so, (b) The opposite is in fact the case, or that (c) This is only a temporary state of affairs. They have to do this otherwise many of them would simply give up. In view of the fact that they also hold that truth is tested in practice they have also been forced to conclude that one or more of (a), (b) and (c) must be the case.

However, because dialectics teaches them that appearances are "contradicted" by underlying "essences" (i.e., that what might on the surface appear to be such-and-such is in reality the exact opposite), it is able to fulfil a unique role in this regard, motivating or rationalising (a), (b) and/or (c), above. In this way, it provides comrades with much needed consolation in the face of 'apparent failure', convincing them that everything is fine with the core theory -- or perhaps even that things will change for the better, one day. This then 'allows' them to ignore the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism, rationalising it as a mere "appearance", and hence either false or illusory.

So, faced with 150 years of set-backs, defeats and disasters, revolutionaries who will in all seriousness tell any who will listen that "truth is tested in practice", will also, in the next breath, respond with something like the following: "Well, these set-backs, defeats and disasters don't prove dialectics is false!"

The results of practice are thus universally ignored, and for the above reasons. At which point, for such individuals, practice ceases to be a test of the truth of DM.

Hence, just like the genuinely and openly religious -- who every day look upon the evil and suffering in the world and see it as its opposite, as an expression of the 'Love of God' who will make all things well in the end -- dialecticians survey the last 150 years and still see the 'Logic of Universal Development' moving their way, and then infer that all will be well in the end, too. Here, for example, is Plekhanov:

"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. Several paragraphs merged. (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!)]

"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." [Plekhanov (1917), pp.601-02. Bold emphasis added.]

Reading Plekhanov with his reference to 'divine omnipotence', we can perhaps see why Marx was right.

[Admittedly, not every DM-theorist is as deterministic as Plekhanov, but which of the above statements (for instance, about the universal applicability of the dialectic, or the fact that everything changes into its opposite) are they prepared to abandon?]

This means that the theory that prevents DM-fans from facing reality (since it tells them that 'appearances' are contradicted by 'essence') is the very same theory that prevents them from examining the role it has played in this long-term failure, inviting yet another generation of set-backs and disasters by masking these unwelcome facts.

Apparently, therefore, the only two things in the entire universe that aren't interconnected are the long term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory!

[This theme is developed below, and in Essay Ten Part One (where the usual objections to these allegations have been neutralised).]^1c

Third: Just like the Bible, which supplies its acolytes with a surfeit of 'reasons' to accuse others of not 'understanding the Word of God', Dialectical Marxism, with its own 'sacred texts' beloved of the 'orthodox', also provides dialecticians with an obscure theory that 'allows' them to claim that other, rival DM-theorists, don't 'understand' dialectics -- or even that they ignore/misuse it --, and that only they, the 'true bearers of the flame', are capable of grasping its inner meaning. This then 'enables' them to anathematise and castigate the rest as un-Marxist, or even anti-Marxist. In short, it puts in the hands of inveterate sectarians (of which Dialectical Marxism has had more than its fair share) an almost infinitely malleable, ideological tool that is pliable enough to prove anything whatsoever and its opposite (often this trick is performed by the very same theorist, in the same article or speech), simply because it glories in contradiction.

[Again, scores of examples (and that is no exaggeration!) of the above phenomena are given below.]

Fourth: It provides dialecticians with an exclusivising set of dogmas that sets them above the 'common herd' -- or, indeed, above those who are lost in the banalities of 'commonsense' and the cloying mists of 'formal thinking'. This now 'confirms' their self-appointed, pre-eminent status in both the class war and the workers' movement, since they alone understand the fundamental nature of reality and the direction it is taking.

In addition, the above phenomena have the effect of making far too many such comrades insufferably arrogant, which further motivates them into treating others in the movement (often those in the same party!) with haughty contempt, condescending indifference, or even callous inhumanity. After all, if you are the sole bearers of 'the word delivered from off the dialectical mountain top', this makes you special, even superior to the 'rank-and-file', which means that anyone who disagrees with you deserves ostracism and expulsion, at best, imprisonment or death, at worst.

[Those serious allegations will also be substantiated throughout the rest of this Essay.]

[The question whether the above analysis is an example of 'crude reductionism' is taken up again in even more detail, below.]

Despite this, it might still be wondered how this relates to anything that is even remotely relevant to the ideas formed, accepted, or even entertained by hard-headed revolutionary atheists. Surely, it could be argued, any attempt to trace a commitment to DM back to its origin in supposedly alienated thought-forms is both a reductionist and an Idealist error.

Fortunately, Lenin himself supplied a materialist answer to this apparent conundrum [i.e., why Marxists turn to mysticism], and John Rees kindly outlined it for us when he depicted the period of demoralisation following upon the failed 1905 Russian revolution in the following terms:

"[T]he defeat of the 1905 revolution, like all such defeats, carried confusion and demoralisation into the ranks of the revolutionaries…. The forward rush of the revolution had helped unite the leadership…on strategic questions and so…intellectual differences could be left to private disagreement. But when defeat magnifies every tactical disagreement, forcing revolutionaries to derive fresh strategies from a re-examination of the fundamentals of Marxism, theoretical differences were bound to become important. As Tony Cliff explains:

'With politics apparently failing to overcome the horrors of the Tsarist regime, escape into the realm of philosophical speculation became the fashion….'

"Philosophical fashion took a subjectivist, personal, and sometimes religious turn…. Bogdanov drew inspiration from the theories of physicist Ernst Mach and philosopher Richard Avenarius…. [Mach retreated] from Kant's ambiguous idealism to the pure idealism of Berkeley and Hume…. It was indeed Mach and Bogdanov's 'ignorance of dialectics' that allowed them to 'slip into idealism.' Lenin was right to highlight the link between Bogdanov's adoption of idealism and his failure to react correctly to the downturn in the level of the struggle in Russia." [Rees (1998), pp.173-79, quoting Cliff (1975), p.290. (This is Volume One of Cliff's political biography of Lenin.) Bold emphases and links added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Some paragraphs merged.]

"With politics apparently failing to overcome the horrors of the Tsarist regime, escape into the realm of philosophical speculation became the fashion. And in the absence of any contact with a real mass movement, everything had to be proved from scratch -- nothing in the traditions of the movement, none of its fundamentals, was immune from constant questioning.... In this discussion Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Bazarov and others tried to combine Marxism with the neo-Kantian theory of knowledge put forward by Ernst Mach, and Richard Avenarius. Lunacharsky went as far as to speak openly in favour of fideism. Lunacharsky used religious metaphors, speaking about 'God-seeking' and 'God-building'. Gorky was influenced by Bogdanov and Lunacharsky.... Lenin's reaction was very sharp indeed. He wrote to Gorky, 'The Catholic priest corrupting young girls...is much less dangerous precisely to "democracy" than a priest without his robes, a priest without crude religion, an ideologically equipped and democratic priest preaching the creation and invention of a god.'" [Cliff (1975), pp.290-91. Bold emphases and links added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Paragraphs merged; minor typo corrected.]

It is quite clear from this that the experience of defeat (and the lack of a significant materialist input from a mass working-class movement) re-directed the attention of leading revolutionaries toward Idealism and the search for mystical explanations for the serious set-backs Russian Marxists had witnessed in and around 1905.

Plainly, that search provided these comrades with some form of consolation, just as Marx had alleged of religious affectation pure and simple, and as Lenin himself had implied.

But, there is another outcome that Rees and others failed to notice: this major set-back turned Lenin toward philosophy and dialectics. They were subjects he had largely, but not completely, ignored up until then.² While it is true that Bogdanov and the rest turned to Mach, Berkeley, Subjective Idealism, and other assorted irrationalisms, it is equally clear that Lenin himself looked to Hegel and Hermetic Mysticism, for the same sort of explanation.

Nevertheless, Lenin's warning shows that revolutionaries themselves aren't immune from the pressures that prompt human beings in general to seek consolation in order to counteract disappointment, demoralisation and alienation. As we have seen, Lenin was well aware that ruling-class ideas, which 'satisfy' such needs, could enter the revolutionary movement from the "outside", or which would become much more prominent and influential under such circumstances.

Even more acute and profound disappointments confronted Lenin a few years later when WW1 broke out. Kevin Anderson takes up the story (without perhaps appreciating its significance):

"The outbreak of World War 1 in 1914 shattered European liberals' belief in peaceful evolutionary progress. To Marxists, however, most of whom already believed that capitalism was a violent and warlike system, an equally great shock occurred when, yielding to the pressure of domestic patriotic sentiment, most of the world's socialist parties, including the largest and most important one, the German Social Democracy, came out in support of the war policies of their respective governments.... So great was the shock to Lenin that when he saw a German newspaper report on the German Social Democracy's vote to support the war, he initially thought that it was a forgery by the Prussian military for propaganda purposes.... Once he arrived in Bern, Lenin moved quickly in two seemingly contradictory directions: (1) he spent long weeks in the library engaged in daily study of Hegel's writings, especially the Science of Logic, writing hundreds of pages of notes on Hegel, and (2)...he moved toward revolutionary defeatism...." [Anderson (1995), p.3. Bold emphasis alone added; paragraphs merged. See also Krupskaya's remarks, here.]^2a

Just as Christians often turn to the Bible in times of stress or when depressed, so Lenin looked to the writings of that Christian Mystic, Hegel. Thoroughly disappointed with the course of events (in this capitalist "vale of tears"), Lenin turned his face toward this (major) source of quasi-religious consolation, and away from the material world of woe, and hence in the direction of a hidden world governed by a gaggle of equally invisible entities -- all those 'abstractions', 'essences', 'concepts', and, of course, the Hegelian Trinity of 'Being', 'Nothing' and 'Becoming' -- fortified by a battery of no less mysterious forces comprising the DM-Trinity, 'contradiction', 'sublation', 'mediation'.

Is it possible, then, that revolutionaries of the calibre of Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Plekhanov and Trotsky (to name just the five most important) were tempted to seek metaphysical consolation of the sort depicted at this site? Is this really the case, even though Lenin accused others of this himself? Is it even conceivable that they opened themselves up to the alien-class ideas that later found expression in DM, and for the above reasons?

As we have seen in other Essays posted at this site (especially Essays Three Parts One and Two, Twelve Part One, the rest of Twelve, and Fourteen Part One (summaries here and here)), and as Lenin himself acknowledged, dialectics is shot-through with ideas, concepts and thought-forms imported from Traditional Philosophy (which ideas, concepts and thought-forms were in turn invented by theorists who, undeniably, had material and ideological interests in rationalising both the status quo and ruling-class hegemony). Indeed, in many places it is hard to tell the difference between DM and open and honest Mysticism (as Essay Fourteen Part One will demonstrate, when it is published -- until then, check this out).

[I have summarised this external, alien-class influence later in this Essay, too.]

This more than merely suggests that the above allegations aren't completely wide-of-the-mark.

But, is there anything in the class origin and class background of leading comrades that pre-disposed (and still pre-disposes) them toward such an unwitting adoption of this rarefied form of ruling-class ideology?

The first of these questions can be answered relatively easily by focussing on item Four above, and then on the periods in which revolutionaries invented, sought out, or reverted in a major way to using or appealing to classical concepts found in DM. Upon examination, a reasonably clear correlation can be seen to exist between periods of downturn in the struggle and subsequent 're-discoveries' of Hegel and DM by aspiring dialecticians -- with the opposite tendency kicking in during more successful times.³

"...[D]efeat magnifies every tactical disagreement, forcing revolutionaries to derive fresh strategies from a re-examination of the fundamentals of Marxism.... Lenin was right to highlight the link between Bogdanov's adoption of idealism and his failure to react correctly to the downturn in the level of the struggle in Russia." [Rees (1998), pp.173-79.]

It is no surprise, therefore, to find that most (if not all) of Engels's work on the foundations of DM was written in the post 1860s downturn, after the massive struggles for the vote in the UK, up to the Reform Act of 1867, following on the demise of the Chartist Movement and after the Paris Commune had been defeated in 1871.⁴

Similarly, Lenin's philosophical/dialectical writings were largely confined to the period after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution, and before the short-lived successes of 1917.

Trotsky's dialectical ruminations (including his Notebooks and his wrangles with Burnham) date largely from the 1930s, after the major reverses that took place in the post 1917-1926 period in Europe and internationally, in China, then subsequently in Spain, following upon his own isolation and political quarantine later in that decade. He had shown very little actual interest in such matters before then.⁵

"It's been about two weeks since I have written much of anything: it's too difficult. I read newspapers. French novels. Wittel's book about Freud (a bad book by an envious pupil), etc. Today I wrote a little about the interrelationship between the physiological determinism of brain processes and the 'autonomy' of thought, which is subject to the laws of logic. My philosophical interests have been growing during the last few years, but alas, my knowledge is too insufficient, and too little time remains for a big and serious work...." [Trotsky (1958), p.109. Bold emphasis added.]

As should seem obvious from the above: Trotsky's interest in philosophy coincided with the period of his political quarantine, and he admits he had paid little attention to it before.

Stalin, too, only became obsessed with dialectics after the defeat of the Deborinites post-1929, and after the failure of the Chinese and German revolutions (although he had written about this theory in 1901). Likewise, Mao himself 'discovered' a fondness for this Hermetic Horror Show after the crushing defeats of the mid-1920s.⁶

More recently, the obsessive devotion shown by OTs toward the minutiae of DM follows a similar pattern: (i) Just like many 'End Times' Christian sects, OTs almost invariably adopt and promote a permanent catastrophist view of everything that happens (or is ever likely to happen) in capitalist society (capitalist crises are always getting worse, anger is always 'growing', etc., etc. -- I have covered this in more detail, here), and (ii) OT parties are constantly splitting and expelling. Hence they face continual disappointment and demoralisation. Naturally, relentless disillusion requires regular, concentrated doses of highly potent DM-opiates. Just to take one example: an OT of the stature of Ted Grant (along with Alan Woods) only 're-discovered' hardcore DM after his party had booted him out, which expulsion itself followed upon the catastrophic collapse of the Militant Tendency in the late 1980s -- this turn toward mystical forms of consolation materialised in the shape of that ill-advised, poorly argued and badly researched book, RIRE.⁷

[OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; NOT = Non-Orthodox Trotskyist; RIRE = Reason In Revolt, i.e., Woods and Grant (1995/2007); TAR = The Algebra of Revolution, i.e., Rees (1998).]

This regressive doctrine doesn't just afflict OTs, NOTs show similar, but less chronic, signs of dialectical debilitation.

For example, the overt use of DM-concepts by leading figures in the UK-SWP (a NOT-style party) only began in earnest after the downturn in the class struggle in the late 1970s, and more specifically following on the defeat of the National Union of Miners in 1985. In this respect, therefore, TAR itself represents perhaps the high-water mark of this latest retreat into consolation by UK-SWP theorists. [That sentence was written before John Rees, TAR's author, resigned from the SWP!] The fact that this newfound interest in DM has nothing to do with theoretical innovation (and everything to do with repetition, reassurance and consolation) can be seen from the additional fact that TAR adds nothing new to the debate (about 'dialectics'), it merely repeats significant parts of it, albeit from a different perspective -- for the gazillionth time. So much for 're-examining the basics'!⁸

[I have added much more detail concerning the UK-SWP's mystical turn to Note 8.]

Given the overwhelming experience of defeat, debacle, disaster, and retreat that the international labour movement and the revolutionary tradition have collectively faced over the last 150 years, these correlations are quite striking (even if they aren't the least bit surprising) -- for all that no one seems to have noticed them before!⁹

If the movement has known little other than defeat, then it becomes vitally important for revolutionaries to account for, re-interpret and then re-configure their view of this depressing state-of-affairs.

[IO = Identity of Opposites; NON = Negation of the Negation; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; NOT = Non-OT.]

Among Maoists, Stalinists and Trotskyists (OTs and NOTs alike) this tactic has often assumed a thoroughly dishonest form, which has frequently sought to re-classify defeats as hidden victories (involving a novel use of the IO-dodge, and a quasi-religious use of the NON-ploy; examples of both of these are given below). Clearly, this has 'allowed' factors other than the theoretical failings of the parties involved to be blamed for the setbacks our side has experienced.

As should seem obvious, a movement can't learn from its mistakes if none are ever made -- or, rather, if Dialectical Marxists never admit to making any! Indeed, it looks like DM-theorists are the only life-form in the known universe that not only does not, but can't, learn from recalcitrant reality. As we will see, the NON and the belief that appearances 'contradict' underlying 'essence' stands in the way of them emulating the rest of sentient life on the planet, learning from past mistakes.^9a

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the aforementioned dialectical-dodges mean that significant parts of our movement have engaged in the deliberate rotation of material reality so that their (in)version of Hegelian Idealism can remain on its feet. Instead of flipping Hegel, material reality has been up-ended in order to conform with a set of ideas held about it.

Hard-headed revolutionaries have spun reality through 180º, stuck their own theoretical feet in the air, inserted their collective head in the sand, and have proclaimed -- despite the fact that virtually every aspect of revolutionary practice has failed for much of the last hundred years, and in the face of the grim realisation that the overwhelming majority of workers ignore DM, and have done so for many generations -- that Dialectical Marxism has been tested successfully in practice and now represents the objective "world view" of the proletariat!¹⁰

Theoretical inversion like this has, unsurprisingly, prompted a headlong retreat into fantasy of the type noted in the last sub-section. Such flights-of-fancy have been reinforced by the profound narcolepsy induced in comrades by the constant repetition of the same tired old formulae, obscure jargon, and hackneyed phrases. A simple but effective Dialectical Mantra, internalised and regurgitated by all serious adepts -- which boasts such hardy perennials as the dogma that Capitalism is riddled with 'contradictions', even though not one of those who intone this shibboleth seems able to say why these are indeed contradictions to begin with (on that, see here and here, in the comments section at the bottom -- unfortunately, the comments sections has now vanished!) has helped insulate them from material reality. In the DM-tradition-dominated and Ideally-constructed world, annoying facts are simply ignored -- or they are flipped upside down. 'Post-truth' isn't a recent phenomenon; DM-fans have been promoting it for over a century.

Anyone who doubts this should try the following experiment: chose any randomly-selected, dialectically-distracted comrade and attempt to persuade them to acknowledge the long-term failure of their own brand of Dialectical Marxism (that is, if the latter has been around long enough!). Unless you are extremely unlucky, you will soon discover how deep this particular head has been inserted into the nearest non-dialectical sand dune.

[On the excuses usually given for the failure of Dialectical Marxism (that is, where failure is even so much as acknowledged!), see Essay Ten Part One.]

To that end, boilerplate phrases will be dusted-off and given another airing almost as if they were still in mint condition. Even a cursory glance at the debates that have taken place over the last five revolutionary generations will reveal the sad spectacle of theorists mouthing dialectical slogans at one another as if those on the receiving end hadn't heard them a thousand times already, and those chanting them hadn't intoned them just as often.¹¹

Alongside this there has emerged a correspondingly robust refusal to face up to reality. In my experience, this ostrich-like characteristic is found most glaringly among OTs -- perhaps because Trotskyism is by far and away the most unsuccessful and fragmentary wing of mainstream Dialectical Marxism --, but this malady is also represented to varying degrees throughout the rest of the revolutionary and communist movement, with MISTs perhaps winning the Silver Medal in this event.¹²

As already noted, an excellent example of this is the knee-jerk quotation of the phrase "tested in practice" in support of the supposed (but imaginary) universal validity of DM. Even though reality tells a different story, we regularly encounter the following 'whistling in the dark' type of argument:

"There is no final, faultless, criterion for truth which hovers, like god, outside the historical process. Neither is there any privileged scientific method which is not shaped by the contours of the society of which it is a part. All that exists are some theories which are less internally contradictory and have a greater explanatory power…. [I]f the truth is the totality, then it is the totality of working class experience, internationally and historically which gives access to the truth…. [A theory's] validity must be proven by its superior explanatory power -- [which means it is] more internally coherent, more widely applicable, capable of greater empirical verification -- in comparison with its competitors. Indeed, this is a condition of it entering the chain of historical forces as an effective power. It is a condition of it being 'proved in practice.' If it is not superior to other theories in this sense, it will not 'seize the masses,' will not become a material force, will not be realized in practice." [Rees (1998), pp.235-37. Bold emphasis added.]

However, Dialectical Marxism -- never mind Dialectical Trotskyism -- has never actually "seized the masses"; except perhaps briefly in Russia, Germany, Italy and France, it has never even got close to lightly hugging them. But this unwelcome fact isn't allowed to "rain on their parade" or interrupt the reverie. So, this inconvenient aspect of reality is simply inverted and the opposite idea is left standing on its feet (as, indeed, the above passage amply confirms) -- or, alternatively, it is simply ignored.

Failing that, of course, the happy day when DM finally manages to captivate the masses is projected way off into the future where it becomes a safe 'fact', insulated from easy refutation.

Of course, beyond blaming the mass of the population for their own failure to appreciate this wondrous theory -- a rhetorical tactic beloved, for example, of Stalinists and Maoists, who tell us the ungrateful masses need a 'Great Teacher' to set them straight --, few DM-fans have ever paused to wonder why the overwhelming majority of workers/human beings stubbornly remain locked in 'un-seized' mode, so deep in the sand has this collective, Hegelianised brain now been wedged.

Since DM is regarded as the very epitome of scientific and economic knowledge (a veritable "Algebra of Revolution", if you will), the fault can't lie with this theory (perish the thought!), so the 'problem' must be located elsewhere. The 'solution' is, apparently, staring us in the face: why, the masses themselves are to blame! They are gripped by "false consciousness", trapped in a world dominated by "formal thinking". "Static" language and "fixed categories" dominate their lives, this sorry state of affairs further compounded by the "banalities of commonsense". Indeed, they have been seduced by "commodity fetishism", or have been bought off by imperialist "super-profits".

Material reality is once more inverted so that a comforting idea is allowed to remain on its feet. Only a vanishingly small fraction of humanity has ever 'seen the light'; the vast majority of working people are hopelessly lost, staggering around in stygian gloom --, this peremptory verdict itself justified by a theory that not one of its acolytes can actually explain, even to each other!

Such is the deleterious effect on Dialectical Marxists of a diet rich in Silicates.

Naturally, this means that dialectics must be brought to the masses "from the outside", whether they like it or not. Up to present, however, the signs are that this has been a clear and consistent "Not!"

But, the conclusion is never drawn -- it doesn't even make the edge of the radar screen -- that workers will never accept a theory that clashes with their materially-, and socially-grounded language, and which is counter to their understanding and experience -- or which, because of this, isn't even a materialist theory!

This isn't to put workers down; as Part One demonstrated, this theory is beyond anyone's comprehension, and that includes those who invented it and those who now disseminate it.

At this point it could be countered that in a revolutionary upheaval daily experience and commonsense aren't sure and safe guides to action. Hence, a revolutionary party needs a theory that not only transcends the immediate, but has been tested in practice.

And yet, HM has provided, and still provides us with just such a theory. Even better: its concepts clash neither with the vernacular nor with common understanding. Quite the contrary, as we saw in Part One of this Essay, HM actually depends on both!

On the other hand, and with respect to concepts drawn from DM, the proffered rejoinder in the last but one paragraph is as misguided as any could be. As Part One of this Essay has also shown, not one single thesis drawn from DM relates to anything a human being, let alone a worker, or even a Marxist, could experience. So, this isn't to put workers down. Not even those who invented this theory, or those who now disseminate it, understand it. [Again, that was established in Part One.] In that case, it can't be an expression of the party's practice; nor can it be, or have been, tested in practice (as we will see). Moreover, as Essays Twelve Part One, and subsequent Parts of Essay Twelve (summary here) and Fourteen Part One (summary here) show, DM is based on concepts derived from over two millennia of deeply entrenched, ruling-class ideology.

Given its origin in Mystical Christianity, it is no big surprise that DM fails to mesh with material reality, and hence that it can't be used to help change it. Still less surprising is the fact that it has failed us for so long.

Nor, it seems, has anyone even considered the effect that DM has had on the standing of revolutionaries in the eyes of ordinary workers, or on their respect for Marxism itself, whose parties are now widely regarded as little more than a standing joke, comprised of nothing but warring sects dominated by obscure and irrelevant ideas.

Still less thought has gone into the extent to which this 'theory' (with its egregious logic) has only succeeded in undermining the reputation of HM viewed as a science, just as precious little attention has been paid to the fatally-compromised credibility of anyone who accepts DM.

Well, would you listen to, or even respect, the opinions of anyone who accepts the theoretical equivalent of Astrology or Crystal Gazing?

However, as noted in the Introduction, revolutionaries are unlikely to abandon DM in spite of the noxious effect it has had on their own thought, let alone their own movement --, or even in the face of the steady blows that yours truly rains down upon it.

Whether or not DM actually spells the Death of Marxism is obviously of no concern to those held in its thrall, which is why many who might have made it this far will reject much of what this Essay has said, and will read no further.

This is once more hardly surprising: indeed, it is difficult to see clearly with your head stuck in what is perhaps the psychological equivalent of the Gobi Desert.

It has been maintained above that DM appeals to, and hence satisfies, the contingent psychological needs of certain sections of the revolutionary movement, comrades who, because of their class origin, class position or their socialisation, and in response to the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism, cling to DM in a way that makes a drowning man look positively indifferent toward any straws that might randomly drift past him.

[Any who doubt this should try 'debating' with comrades who are held in thrall to this theory. And good luck! (On that, see here.)]

As noted earlier, that is because dialectics is a source of consolation analogous to the solace religion provides believers. That is, while DM supplies its acolytes with consolation in the face of dashed hopes and unrealised expectations, it also provides them with a defence against the acid of disillusion by re-configuring each defeat as its opposite.

For example, in relation to the 2013-2014 crisis in the UK-SWP, this is what Mark Steel had to say:

"SWP members who have taken a stand on the current issue seem bewildered as to why their leaders behave in this illogical way. But the reason may be that the debate isn't really about the allegations, or attitudes towards feminism, it's about accepting that you do as you're told, that the party is under attack at all times so you defend the leaders no matter what, that if the party's pronouncement doesn't match reality, it must be reality that's wrong. Dissent on an issue and your crime is not to be wrong about the issue, it's that you dissented at all." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

As we will see, DM plays a key role in this regard, since it teaches the faithful that reality contradicts the way the world appears to be to those not 'in the know'.

This is worryingly similar to the way that theists manage to persuade themselves that, despite appearances to the contrary, death, disease and suffering are not only beneficial, they actually confirm 'the goodness of God'! Both clearly provide believers with a convenient excuse for refusing to face the facts.¹³

In other words, DM is the "opiate" of the Party, the heart of a seemingly hopeless cause.^13a00

For those Dialectical Marxists who live in a world divorced from the day-to-day life and struggles of ordinary workers -- i.e., for professional revolutionaries, academics and itinerant theorists, who aren't employed in the world of work alongside workers --, HM clearly isn't fundamental enough. In fact, these individuals -- who, for whatever reason, are cut-off from the world of collective labour -- clearly require their own distinctive world-view, or 'method', expressed in and by a theory that has itself been abstracted (cut-off) from the world of 'appearances', and thus from material reality itself.

This 'world-view'/'method' must incorporate a theory that adequately represents the (now) alienated experience of these erstwhile 'radicals'; it must not only be divorced from ordinary language and common understanding, it must be distanced from working class experience and hence from genuinely materialist forms-of-thought. In addition, it must help rationalise, justify, and promote the pre-eminent organisational and theoretical position that DM-theorists have arrogated to themselves -- that is, it must ratify their status as 'leaders of the movement and the class'.

To that end, it must be a 'theory'/'method' that only they are capable of "understanding" -- or so they have convinced themselves.

[To save the reader's annoyance, I will henceforth drop the phrase "theory"/"method" and just use "theory" instead. Readers should, however, understand I mean both.]

Even then, they must be able to employ this theory to 'prove' that members of other Marxist groups either (i) Don't "understand" dialectics or (ii) They misuse and/or distort it. [On that, see below.]

What better theory is there then that fits the bill than one that is based on an incomprehensible set of ideas Hegel concocted in the comfort of his own head (upside down or 'the right way up')?

DM is thus beyond workers' experience (indeed, anyone's experience) -- not by accident -- but because it is meant to be that way.^13a0

Naturally, this not only renders DM immune from refutation, it also transforms it into an ideal intellectual device for getting things the wrong way round (or, indeed, upside down). It is thus an ideal tool for keeping 'reality' Ideal. As an added bonus, this 'theory' helps insulate militant minds from the defeats and setbacks revolutionaries constantly face -- just as it inures them to the dire consequences of the theory itself (some of which have been detailed below).

DM isn't just the opiate of the party, it expresses the very soul of professional revolutionaries. Abstracted not just from the class, but also from humanity itself, this faction within the labour movement naturally finds abstraction conducive to (a) The way it sees the natural and social world, and (b) The way it views the working class itself -- that is, as an abstract object of theory, not a very real subject of history.

[This also helps explain why Engels and other DM-theorists regard matter as an "abstraction". The centrality of 'abstraction' and its importance for DM-theorists was underlined in Essay Three Parts One and Two.]

Moreover, it also exposes the motivating factors that underpin the belief that DM is the "world-view" of the proletariat -- plainly, such proletarians aren't real workers they are members of an abstract class of 'workers' kept at arms length by a set of dogmas only the terminally naive or the psychologically challenged among them would swallow!^13a01

Of course, that also helps account for Dialectical Marxism's long-term lack of impact on workers themselves.

It is important to point out that the ideas I am about to rehearse in this sub-section:

(A) Bear no relation to those advanced by the anarchist, Jan Machajski. I am not arguing that 'intellectuals' are at every level automatic and implacable enemies of the working class -- or even that workers are only interested in economic struggle -- just that 'intellectuals' can no more escape the class forces that shaped them than workers can. [On this, see also Note 3, where I attempt to supply some of the theoretical background to this line-of-thought. On Machajski, see here (second section).]

(B) Share nothing with the myth invented and propagated by 'Leninologists', summed up by Hal Draper:

"According to the myth, endlessly repeated from book to book, Lenin's 'concept of the party':

"(1) saw the party as consisting mainly of 'intellectuals,' on the basis of a theory according to which workers cannot themselves develop to socialist consciousness; rather, the socialist idea is always and inevitably imported into the movement by bourgeois intellectuals;

"(2) posited that the party is simply a band of 'professional revolutionaries' as distinct from a broad working-class party;

"(3) repudiated any element of spontaneity or spontaneous movement, in favour of engineered revolution only;

"(4) required that the party be organized not democratically but as a bureaucratic or semi-military hierarchy." [Draper (1999), pp.187-88. Formatting adjusted to agree with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling modified to agree with UK English.]

[1] The party should ideally consist of socialist workers and 'intellectuals' (as well as others less easy to categorise separately). However, it is an undeniable fact that 'intellectuals' (petty-bourgeois and/or déclassé) have not only shaped our core ideas, they have led the movement for over a century. In and of itself that isn't a problem. What is problematic is their importation of ruling-class ideas into our movement. These non-working class 'intellectuals' have appropriated concepts and ideas derived from the very worst forms of Christian and Hermetic Mysticism (via Hegel).

Workers themselves can, and have formed socialist ideas. However, as we have seen throughout this site, DM has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, so the admission that workers are capable of developing socialist ideas doesn't imply they have also developed ideas that are unique to DM. [This was covered in detail in Part One.]

[2] There are "professional revolutionaries" in the party -- but, as Draper notes:

"It can easily be shown, from Lenin's copious discussions of the professional revolutionary for years after WITBD [i.e., Lenin (1947) -- RL], that to Lenin the term meant this: a party activist who devoted most (preferably all) of his spare time to revolutionary work." [Draper (1999), p.193. Italic emphasis in the original.]

However, it is also clear that a layer in the above class of "professionals" is also composed of "full-timers", "party functionaries", and petty-bourgeois or de-classé 'intellectuals'. Draper was concerned to repudiate the myth that the party was formed only of 'intellectuals', full-timers and functionaries. Of course, these three groups can and do overlap.

"The point of defining a professional revolutionary as a full-timer, a functionary, is to fake the conclusion, or 'deduction': only non-workers can make up the party elite, hence only intellectuals (sic). This conclusion is an invention of the Leninologists, based on nothing in Lenin." [Ibid., p.193. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

[Point (3) above lies beyond the scope and aims of this site; the ramifications of (4) will be considered throughout the rest of this Essay.]

[This sub-section isn't aimed at solving the knotty problem of the role of the individual in history, merely raise questions about the nature of petty-bourgeois individualism and how it has affected revolutionary socialism.]

The mind-set mentioned in the previous main section is intimately connected with the following:

(i) The way that leading revolutionaries -- or those who have shaped Marxist theory -- were socialised in and by bourgeois society long before they had even heard of Marxism, and,

(ii) How this socialisation affected their subsequent theoretical, political, and organisational development.

The rest of this Essay will expand on each of these issues, along with several others.^13a1

However, this topic introduces difficult questions about the role of the individual in revolutionary activity, and hence by implication, the role of the individual in history. In turn, this raises further issues connected with the age-old conundrum concerning the relation between 'free will' and 'determinism'. [I will say much more about that controversial topic in Essay Three Part Five. Until that Essay is published readers are directed here and here for more details.]

Given the constraints imposed on every human being by their class origin or current class position, Dialectical Marxists have struggled to explain how individuals, as individuals can have an impact on the class war -- or at least an impact that doesn't imply they are merely automatons totally in thrall to social and economic forces. Plainly, that is because they have largely accepted the parameters of discourse laid down in and by Traditional Thought, an error of judgement seriously compounded by the importation of obscure ideas into Marxism that have only succeeded in further clouding the issue. Small wonder then that they have found it difficult to account for 'free will' in the face of the sort of 'rigid determinism' posited everywhere else by their own theory. As is the case with other 'problems' thrown up by DM, this conundrum was 'solved' simply by throwing the word "dialectical" at it, as if that term possessed magical powers all of its own.

"Another opposition in which metaphysics is entangled is that of chance and necessity. What can be more sharply contradictory than these two thought determinations? How is it possible that both are identical, that the accidental is necessary, and the necessary is also accidental? Common sense, and with it the majority of natural scientists, treats necessity and chance as determinations that exclude each other once for all. A thing, a circumstance, a process is either accidental or necessary, but not both. Hence both exist side by side in nature; nature contains all sorts of objects and processes, of which some are accidental, the others necessary, and it is only a matter of not confusing the two sorts with each other.... And then it is declared that the necessary is the sole thing of scientific interest and that the accidental is a matter of indifference to science. That is to say: what can be brought under laws, hence what one knows, is interesting; what cannot be brought under laws, and therefore what one does not know, is a matter of indifference and can be ignored.... That is to say: what can be brought under general laws is regarded as necessary, and what cannot be so brought as accidental. Anyone can see that this is the same sort of science as that which proclaims natural what it can explain, and ascribes what it cannot explain to supernatural causes; whether I term the cause of the inexplicable chance, or whether I term it God, is a matter of complete indifference as far as the thing itself is concerned. Both are only equivalents for: I do not know, and therefore do not belong to science. The latter ceases where the requisite connection is wanting.

"In opposition to this view there is determinism, which passed from French materialism into natural science, and which tries to dispose of chance by denying it altogether. According to this conception only simple, direct necessity prevails in nature.... [T]hese are all facts which have been produced by an irrevocable concatenation of cause and effect, by an unshatterable necessity.... With this kind of necessity we likewise do not get away from the theological conception of nature. Whether with Augustine and Calvin we call it the eternal decree of God, or Kismet [Destiny -- RL] as the Turks do, or whether we call it necessity, is all pretty much the same for science. There is no question of tracing the chain of causation in any of these cases; so we are just as wise in one as in another, the so-called necessity remains an empty phrase, and with it -- chance also remains -- what it was before....

"Hence chance is not here explained by necessity, but rather necessity is degraded to the production of what is merely accidental. If the fact that a particular pea-pod contains six peas, and not five or seven, is of the same order as the law of motion of the solar system, or the law of the transformation of energy, then as a matter of fact chance is not elevated into necessity, but rather necessity degraded into chance....

"In contrast to both conceptions, Hegel came forward with the hitherto quite unheard-of propositions that the accidental has a cause because it is accidental, and just as much also has no cause because it is accidental; that the accidental is necessary, that necessity determines itself as chance, and, on the other hand, this chance is rather absolute necessity. (Logik, II, Book III, 2: Reality.) Natural science has simply ignored these propositions as paradoxical trifling, as self-contradictory nonsense, and, as regards theory, has persisted on the one hand in the barrenness of thought of Wolffian metaphysics, according to which a thing is either accidental or necessary, but not both at once; or, on the other hand, in the hardly less thoughtless mechanical determinism which in words denies chance in general only to recognise it in practice in each particular case....

"The previous idea of necessity breaks down. To retain it means dictatorially to impose on nature as a law a human arbitrary determination that is in contradiction to itself and to reality, it means to deny thereby all inner necessity in living nature, it means generally to proclaim the chaotic kingdom of chance to be the sole law of living nature....

"The evolution of a concept, or of a conceptual relation (positive and negative, cause and effect, substance and accidency) in the history of thought, is related to its development in the mind of the individual dialectician, just as the evolution of an organism in palaeontology is related to its development in embryology (or rather in history and in the single embryo). That this is so was first discovered for concepts by Hegel. In historical development, chance plays its part, which in dialectical thinking, as in the development of the embryo, is summed up in necessity." [Engels (1954), pp.217-22. Italic emphasis in the original. Bold emphases and links added. Four minor typos corrected. (I have informed the editors over at the Marxist Internet Archive). On this, see also below.]

How that settles this issue Engels neglected to tell his readers. Merely reminding us that Hegel said this or that is no solution if what the latter dogmatically asserted is even more obscure than the 'problem' it was meant to solve! So, it was a bit rich of Engels to add this comment:

"Anyone can see that this is the same sort of science as that which proclaims natural what it can explain, and ascribes what it cannot explain to supernatural causes; whether I term the cause of the inexplicable chance, or whether I term it God, is a matter of complete indifference as far as the thing itself is concerned." [Ibid.]

"What Engels can't actually explain can safely be ascribed to 'dialectical causes'; whether he calls this explanation 'supernatural' or 'dialectical' is 'a matter of complete indifference as far as the thing itself is concerned.'"

"This second definition of freedom [proposed by Dühring -- RL], which quite unceremoniously gives a knock-out blow to the first one, is again nothing but an extreme vulgarisation of the Hegelian conception. Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity

'Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood.' [Engels is here quoting Hegel (1975), p.209, §147 -- RL.]

"Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves -- two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man's judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development. The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom." [Engels (1976), p.144. Bold emphases alone added.]

But, how do dialecticians respond to the counter-argument that human decisions are also 'determined' by events in the CNS? How is it possible to isolate the human will from the 'deterministic' course of nature? As we will see in Essay Thirteen Part Three, dialecticians appeal to Engels's First Law [Q«Q], and, hey presto, freedom just 'emerges' from necessity. Simple really. As we also saw in the aforementioned Essay (and in Essay Seven Part One), that 'law' is far too shaky and insubstantial to support any conclusion much heavier than an amoeba on a crash diet.

Simply asserting that a given action is 'free' if it is in accord with, or based on, knowledge of the "laws of external nature" is itself of little use if those actions themselves have been 'determined' by other laws about which we might not yet be aware. Even more to the point is the question whether those actions were themselves uncaused? So, for example, if woman decides to raise her arm and throw a ball, and we now suppose that all such actions are uncaused, then the action of throwing that ball would be unrelated to the woman concerned -- indeed, as Hume pointed out over two hundred years ago (on that, see here, Section VIII). In that case, they wouldn't be the actions of that individual -- no more than being pushed out of a tree, for instance, would be an action of the individual who had been so pushed. On the other hand, if they are caused, they must have been 'determined' in some way, and so can't be 'free'. Throwing the word "dialectical" at the page (or the screen) in no way resolves this conundrum -- any more than calling the Christian Trinity a "mystery beyond our understanding" solves its insurmountable problems.

[I hasten to add that the above does not represent my view; I have only included it in the Essay in order to highlight several of the theoretical hurdles implied by the traditional theory DM-supporters have bought into, even if they think they have 'solved it somehow'. My 'solution' to this age-old 'problem' is to dissolve it. To that end, I have approached this pseudo-problem from an entirely different angle in order to expose the irredeemable confusion that first motivated it in Ancient Greek Thought -- and, indeed, which still motivates it today. Again, more details on this can be found here and here.]

Other dialecticians have echoed the above non-solution advanced by Engels; here is Lenin:

'Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the appreciation of necessity. "Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood." Freedom does not consist in the dream of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves -- two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man's judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined.... Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity'....

"Firstly, Engels at the very outset of his argument recognises laws of nature, laws of external nature, the necessity of nature -- i.e., all that Mach, Avenarius, Petzoldt and Co. characterise as 'metaphysics.' If Lunacharsky had really wanted to reflect on Engels' 'wonderful' argument he could not have helped noticing the fundamental difference between the materialist theory of knowledge and agnosticism and idealism, which deny law in nature or declare it to be only 'logical,' etc., etc.

"Secondly, Engels does not attempt to contrive 'definitions' of freedom and necessity, the kind of scholastic definition with which the reactionary professors (like Avenarius) and their disciples (like Bogdanov) are most concerned. Engels takes the knowledge and will of man, on the one hand, and the necessity of nature, on the other, and instead of giving definitions, simply says that the necessity of nature is primary, and human will and mind secondary. The latter must necessarily and inevitably adapt themselves to the former. Engels regards this as so obvious that he does not waste words explaining his view. It needs the Russian Machians to complain of Engels' general definition of materialism (that nature is primary and mind secondary; remember Bogdanov's 'perplexity' on this point!), and at the same time to regard one of the particular applications by Engels of this general and fundamental definition as 'wonderful' and 'remarkably apt'!

"Thirdly, Engels does not doubt the existence of 'blind necessity.' He admits the existence of a necessity unknown to man. This is quite obvious from the passage just quoted. But how, from the standpoint of the Machians, can man know of the existence of what he does not know? Is it not 'mysticism,' 'metaphysics,' the admission of 'fetishes' and 'idols,' is it not the 'Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself' to say that we know of the existence of an unknown necessity? Had the Machians given the matter any thought they could not have failed to observe the complete identity between Engels' argument on the knowability of the objective nature of things and on the transformation of 'things-in-themselves' into 'things-for-us,' on the one hand, and his argument on a blind, unknown necessity, on the other. The development of consciousness in each human individual and the development of the collective knowledge of humanity at large presents us at every step with examples of the transformation of the unknown 'thing-in-itself' into the known 'thing-for-us,' of the transformation of blind, unknown necessity, 'necessity-in-itself,' into the known 'necessity-for-us.' Epistemologically, there is no difference whatever between these two transformations, for the basic point of view in both cases is the same, viz., materialistic, the recognition of the objective reality of the external world and of the laws of external nature, and of the fact that this world and these laws are fully knowable to man but can never be known to him with finality. We do not know the necessity of nature in the phenomena of the weather, and to that extent we are inevitably slaves of the weather. But while we do not know this necessity, we do know that it exists. Whence this knowledge? From the very source whence comes the knowledge that things exist outside our mind and independently of it, namely, from the development of our knowledge, which provides millions of examples to every individual of knowledge replacing ignorance when an object acts upon our sense-organs, and conversely of ignorance replacing knowledge when the possibility of such action is eliminated.

"Fourthly, in the above-mentioned argument Engels plainly employs the salto vitale [energetic somersault -- RL] method in philosophy, that is to say, he makes a leap from theory to practice. Not a single one of the learned (and stupid) professors of philosophy, in whose footsteps our Machians follow, would permit himself to make such a leap, for this would be a disgraceful thing for a devotee of 'pure science' to do. For them the theory of knowledge, which demands the cunning concoction of 'definitions,' is one thing, while practice is another. For Engels all living human practice permeates the theory of knowledge itself and provides an objective criterion of truth. For until we know a law of nature, it, existing and acting independently and outside our mind, makes us slaves of 'blind necessity.' But once we come to know this law, which acts (as Marx pointed out a thousand times (sic)) independently of our will and our mind, we become the masters of nature. The mastery of nature manifested in human practice is a result of an objectively correct reflection within the human head of the phenomena and processes of nature, and is proof of the fact that this reflection (within the limits of what is revealed by practice) is objective, absolute, and eternal truth (sic).

"What is the result? Every step in Engels' argument, literally almost every phrase, every proposition, is constructed entirely and exclusively upon the epistemology of dialectical materialism, upon premises which stand out in striking contrast to the Machian nonsense about bodies being complexes of sensations, about 'elements,' 'the coincidence of sense-perceptions with the reality that exists outside us,' etc., etc., etc. Without being the least deterred by this, the Machians abandon materialism and repeat (à la Berman) the vulgar banalities about dialectics, and at the same time welcome with open arms one of the applications of dialectical materialism! They have taken their philosophy from an eclectic pauper's broth and are continuing to offer this hotchpotch to the reader. They take a bit of agnosticism and a morsel of idealism from Mach, add to it slices of dialectical materialism from Marx, and call this hash a development of Marxism. They imagine that if Mach, Avenarius, Petzoldt, and all the authorities of theirs have not the slightest inkling of how Hegel and Marx solved the problem (of freedom and necessity), this is purely accidental: why, it was simply because they overlooked a certain page in a certain book, and not because these 'authorities' were and are utter ignoramuses on the subject of the real progress made by philosophy in the nineteenth century and because they were and are philosophical obscurantists." [Lenin (1972), pp.219-23. Bold emphases and links alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

And yet, just like Engels and Hegel before him, Lenin failed to explain how 'freedom' can emerge from 'necessity' -- except Lenin inserts invective, bluster and abuse in place of cogent argument, providing his readers with a classic example of "philosophy practiced with a mallet". Simply asserting that a passage from Hegel or Engels solves this knotty 'problem' might work for the many true-believers Dialectical Marxism attracts to its ranks, but even they will struggle to fill in the gaps in the above 'argument' (which is, of course, why, when challenged, they resort to abuse almost from the get-go, just like Lenin).

We have already seen (in Essay Thirteen Part One) that Lenin's theory restricts the immediate source of knowledge to 'images in the head':

"All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception. That is true. But the question arises, does objective reality 'belong to perception,' i.e., is it the source of perception? If you answer yes, you are a materialist. If you answer no, you are inconsistent and will inevitably arrive at subjectivism, or agnosticism, irrespective of whether you deny the knowability of the thing-in-itself, or the objectivity of time, space and causality (with Kant), or whether you do not even permit the thought of a thing-in-itself (with Hume). The inconsistency of your empiricism, of your philosophy of experience, will in that case lie in the fact that you deny the objective content of experience, the objective truth of experimental knowledge." [Lenin (1972), p.142. Bold emphasis alone added.]

"For instance, the materialist Frederick Engels -- the not unknown collaborator of Marx and a founder of Marxism -- constantly and without exception speaks in his works of things and their mental pictures or images..., and it is obvious that these mental images arise exclusively from sensations. It would seem that this fundamental standpoint of the 'philosophy of Marxism' ought to be known to everyone who speaks of it, and especially to anyone who comes out in print in the name of this philosophy.... Engels, we repeat, applies this 'only materialistic conception' everywhere and without exception, relentlessly attacking Dühring for the least deviation from materialism to idealism. Anybody who reads Anti-Dühring and Ludwig Feuerbach with the slightest care will find scores of instances when Engels speaks of things and their reflections in the human brain, in our consciousness, thought, etc. Engels does not say that sensations or ideas are 'symbols' of things, for consistent materialism must here use 'image,' picture, or reflection instead of 'symbol,' as we shall show in detail in the proper place." [Ibid., pp.32-33. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"[S]ensation is an image of the external world...." [Ibid., p.56. Bold emphasis added.]

"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world…." [Ibid., p.69. Bold emphasis alone added.]

"The doctrine of introjection is a muddle, it smuggles in idealistic rubbish and is contradictory to natural science, which inflexibly holds that thought is a function of the brain, that sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exist within us, produced by the action of things on our sense-organs." [Ibid., p.95. Bold emphasis added.]

"The sole and unavoidable deduction to be made from this -- a deduction which all of us make in everyday practice and which materialism deliberately places at the foundation of its epistemology -- is that outside us, and independently of us, there exist objects, things, bodies and that our perceptions are images of the external world." [Ibid., p.111. Bold emphasis added.]

"Thus, the materialist theory, the theory of the reflection of objects by our mind, is here presented with absolute clarity: things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images." [Ibid., p.119. Bold emphasis added.]

"For the materialist the 'factually given' is the outer world, the image of which is our sensations." [Ibid., p.121. Bold emphasis added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"[S]ense-perception is not the reality existing outside us, it is only the image of that reality." [Ibid., p.124. Bold emphasis alone added.]

In which case, Lenin can't possibly claim to know anything at all 'objective' even about Engels (let alone about anything else), since all he has available to him are 'images' of Engels's writings with no way of knowing whether or not these 'images' are valid or are illusory. It is no use appealing to practice or even science perhaps as two possible ways of validating these 'images' since, once again, all anyone (including Lenin) has is an 'image' of practice and an 'image' of science, if Lenin is to be believed. Plainly, no 'image' can guarantee the veracity of any other 'image'. Small wonder then that Lenin again substituted bluster for proof -- clearly, in order to distract attention from the gaping holes in his argument. Indeed, as we saw in Essay Thirteen Part One, as a result of his ill-advised and confused arguments, Lenin only succeeded in trapping himself in a solipsistic universe of his own making, leaving him in the same predicament as the subjective idealists he was criticising. And that in turn was because he and they both accepted the parameters laid down by post-Renaissance Philosophers -- compounded by an acceptance of a bourgeois individualist theory of knowledge. [On that, see Essay Three Part Two.]

Be this as it may, these Engelsian pseudo-solutions bequeathed to subsequent generations of DM-theorists an unresolved (and irresolvable) 'problem', which is why they uncritically regurgitate the above 'arguments' verbatim in the vain hope that repetition constitutes proof -- imagining that parroting a series of assertions based on what doesn't even remotely look like a solution will become a solution to the 'problem' of the relation between the individual and history if it is repeated often enough.

'Triumph of the will' at least with respect to theory, in this case, one feels.

However, questions remain: Do we actually have 'free will'? Or, are we all slaves to necessity and mere pawns in its hands? Are we capable of acting and deciding for ourselves? What exactly is 'revolutionary agency'? Subsequent dialecticians have wrestled with these knotty problems long and hard, but they have either (a) Reproduced the above non-solution, or they have (b) Elaborated on it rendering it even more prolix and baroque --, perhaps drawing on certain aspects of contemporary Philosophy. [Callinicos (2004), for instance, is an excellent example of this genre. I will say more about Callinicos's 'solution' in Essay Three Part Five.]

"For the materialist, all of reality is based on matter, including the human brain which is itself a result of the organization of matter in a particular way. In this view, the abstract idea of 'tree' was developed by humans from their experience of actual trees. 'It is not consciousness that determines being,' wrote Marx, putting it another way, 'but social being that determines consciousness.' [D'Amato is here attributing to Marx a bourgeois individualist theory of knowledge/abstraction, little different from that invented by John Locke, not realising that Marx was referring to social being here (even though D'Amato actually quoted the phrase!), not individual experience -- RL.]

"Probably the most popular form of idealism is 'free will' -- the idea that individuals can do anything they set their mind too (sic). For example, the view that 'you can beat poverty if you really try hard' implicitly accepts the idea of free will. Poverty, in this view, is not a social phenomenon caused by, for example, a plant closing or a chronic illness in the family. Rather, poverty is some kind of personal choice.... Marx and Engels ridiculed the view that ideas determine reality. 'Once upon a time, a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity,' they wrote. 'If they were to get this notion out of their heads...they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water.'

"But by rejecting 'free will,' Marx didn't embrace 'determinism' -- the idea that human beings are slaves to the blind forces of history. 'The materialist doctrine,' wrote Marx, 'that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances.' For Marx, people 'make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.'

"Human behaviour is first shaped by our physical makeup. We must labour cooperatively in order to eat, drink and find shelter. At any given stage in human development, the level of production -- and the social relations based on that level of production -- shape our limits and possibilities. 'People cannot be liberated,' wrote Marx and Engels, 'as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. "Liberation" is a historical and not a mental act and it is brought about by historical conditions.' Ideas can and do shape history -- but only if those ideas are embraced by millions and only if the social and material conditions for their realization exist." [Quoted from here; accessed 24/12/2016. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling changed to agree with UK English. Several paragraphs merged.]

But, and once again, simply asserting that humans can do this or that, when your theory also implies they can't since they are all subject to natural necessity, is no solution.

"Before dealing directly with these issues it is worth noting that bourgeois thought has never been able to resolve the problem of determinism. Rather it has swung back and forth between voluntarist idealism, which ignores social conditions and places all the emphasis on 'great' individuals and ideas, and mechanical materialism which stresses the unchangeable nature of people and society. Both these positions reflect aspects of bourgeois society viewed from the top down. On the one hand the bourgeoisie standing at the head of society, freed from productive labour and living off the exploitation of others, is able to flatter itself that its ideas and deeds rule the world. On the other hand looking down on the masses it sees them there as mere objects, passively driven this way and that by the requirements of capital accumulation. Bourgeois ideology thus attacks Marxism both for being too deterministic and for not being deterministic enough....

"Debates about determinism have also occurred amongst those claiming allegiance to Marxism. At different points in time both passive determinist and highly voluntarist interpretations of Marxism have flourished. The most important example of the determinist trend was the version of Marxism developed by Karl Kautsky which dominated German Social Democracy and the Second International in the period leading up to the First World War. In Kautsky's view the economic laws of capitalism guaranteed the growth in numbers and consciousness of the working class to the point where power would 'automatically' fall into its hands. All that was required of the socialist movement was that it build up its organisations, strengthen its vote and avoid adventures while patiently waiting for economic development to do its work. It was of this period that Gramsci wrote that 'the deterministic, fatalistic and mechanistic element has been a direct ideological "armour" emanating from the philosophy of praxis [Marxism -- JM] rather like religion or drugs'.

"At the opposite pole, the most extreme cases of voluntarism trading under a Marxist label were Maoism and Guevarism. Maoism proclaimed not only the possibility of industrialising China by will power in the disastrous Great Leap Forward but even the direct transition to complete communism in China alone without any regard for objective material circumstances.... Guevarism, basing itself on the special case of Cuba, developed a theory of revolution instigated by a small band of guerrillas in the countryside. 'It is not necessary', wrote Guevara, 'to wait until all the conditions for making revolution exist: the insurrection can create them'....

"By absolute determinism I mean the view that every event in the history of the universe from the big bang to the end of time and every human action from the writing of Capital to whether or not I raise my right eyebrow is inevitable and could not be other than it has been, is or will be. The argument in favour of absolute determinism is that every event/action has its cause or causes, and that these causes determine precisely the nature of the said event/action and that these causes are themselves completely determined by prior causes. Thus every particular event or action is part of an infinitely complex but absolutely inevitable chain reaction inherent in the singularity or whatever lay at the origin of the universe.... [Molyneux is here deliberately confusing, or equating, determinism (or 'absolute determinism') with fatalism -- RL.]

"However, it also involves the belief that human behaviour is 'ultimately' reducible to the movements of the physical particles of which humans are made up and which are held to obey universal natural laws. Some such view as this, even if not openly proclaimed, seems to have influenced those Marxists who have held an absolute determinist position. Such Marxists, however, have generously held that for the purposes of social analysis it was unnecessary to effect a reduction to the level of physics since human behaviour was governed by social laws which were akin to natural laws in their operation.

"Discussing absolute determinism, Ralph Miliband comments, 'This is not a view that can be argued with: it can only be accepted or rejected. I reject it and pass on'. Miliband has a point in that it is impossible to cite empirical evidence which refutes absolute determinism (just as it is impossible to cite facts which 'prove' it). Nevertheless it is a view which can be argued with. Bearing in mind Marx's dictum that:

'In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a pure scholastic question.' [Molyneux is here quoting the first of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach -- RL.]

"It is possible to assess the advantages and disadvantages of absolute determinism from the standpoint of practice." [Molyneux (1995), pp.39-42. Italic emphases in the original; links added.]

I will discuss Molyneux's article in much more detail in Essay Three Part Five, but his 'solution' to this ancient problem in the end plainly revolves around practicalities, the dialectical equivalent of Samuel Johnson's attempted refutation of Bishop Berkeley's Subjective Idealism -- by kicking a stone! Moreover, any response that amounts to little more than "I personally can't believe this theory or its implications" has no place in Marxism, or, indeed, in any self-respecting scientific theory.

"In the past, the role of the individual in history (the 'subjective factor' in Marxist terminology) has been the subject of heated debate. There are many bourgeois historians even today who believe that history is made by 'Great Men and Women'.... Supposedly through their force of character, they have shaped history while the masses play little or no role.... Little attention is played to economic, political or social forces which operate largely behind the scenes.

"There are those who argue that individuals determine nothing, but are thrown about by the greater objective forces of history. This school of thought represents fatalism, where individuals act as mere marionettes, their strings pulled by some invisible hand. This idea is derived from a Calvinist doctrine that all human action is divinely predestined, like some lunar eclipse.... The domination of Fate rules out any idea of individual freedom and the independent activity of the masses. We are all reduced to the role of pawns. [Sewell is doing the opposite of Molyneux by deliberately conflating, or identifying, fatalism and determinism -- RL.]

"This is however not the case. History is made by people. Marxists, unlike the superficial fatalists, do not deny the role of the individual, his (sic) initiative or audacity (or lack of it), in the social struggle. It is the task of Marxism to uncover the dialectical relationship between the individual (the subjective) and the great forces (objective) that govern the movement of society. Historical materialism does not dismiss the role of the individual, of personality, in history, but sees this role in its historical context. Marxism explains that no person, no matter how talented, capable or farsighted, can determine the main course of historical development, which is shaped by objective forces. However, under critical circumstances, the role played by individuals can be decisive, the last decisive link in the chain of causality. Under certain circumstances, the 'subjective factor' can become the most important fact in history....

"In relation to the importance of decisive leadership in the socialist revolution, Lenin's role in 1917 stands out as decisive. Could another Bolshevik leader, even Trotsky, have substituted Lenin's role? Trotsky believed not. Given the concrete conditions, where the Bolshevik Party had to be rearmed in April 1917 for the socialist revolution, only Lenin had the necessary authority in the party. The conservative pressures from the other leaders would have had been too great an influence without Lenin. In other words, the importance of the conscious subjective factor stood out with greater force than ever before. Lenin's role could not have been duplicated. This was due not simply due (sic) to his personal qualities, but his exceptional standing within the Bolshevik Party. While the Bolsheviks led the workers and peasants, Lenin led the Bolshevik Party. He was the leader of the leaders.

"One of the fundamental reasons for this critical role of leadership or the subjective factor in our epoch, stems from the fact that all the major objective conditions for the overthrow of capitalism are rotten ripe (the integration of the world economy, the inability of capitalism to take society forward, the chronic instability and impasse of the system, the elements of barbarism emerging, the existence of mass unemployment, etc). The defeat of the numerous revolutions since the October Revolution of 1917 has been due to the failure of leadership of the mass organisations, whether they are social democratic or Stalinist. For the successful socialist revolution, a mass party is needed with a far-sighted revolutionary leadership schooled in the ideas of Marxism ('the memory of the working class'). The Bolsheviks under the Leadership of Lenin and Trotsky was able to provide this. They provided the dialectical unity of the objective and subjective factors." [Rob Sewell. Accessed 24/12/2016. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added.]

Once again, Sewell solves this 'problem', like the others, by throwing 'dialectics' at it, without even a perfunctory attempt to explain how this advances the argument as much as one nanometre.

In the end, echoing Plekhanov [Plekhanov (2004b)], DM-theorists are forced to conclude that the individual personality, say, of Lenin, or the psychological differences between him and other leading Bolsheviks, was the (final) decisive factor in the 1917 revolution! Of course, this observation is also heavily qualified by the objective historical circumstances surrounding both Lenin and that revolution. Nevertheless, in the end, 'subjective' factors 'tipped the balance' in this instance, as they also appear to have done in relation to other 'revolutionary actors' and events, and, indeed, with respect to Marxists in general. "Without Lenin no October Revolution" is the clear message conveyed by the above.

In what follows, I have no desire to question that particular conclusion -- although I will qualify it greatly in Essay Three Part Five.

However, if it is admitted that 'subjective' factors (of the above sort) are important, if not decisive, in revolutionary theory, then it can hardly be claimed that the ideas such individuals bring with them into Marxism are insignificant and can therefore be discounted.

We will soon see, however, that these individuals openly admit that they inherited many of their core ideas from ruling-class ideologues -- a general point Marx underlined, anyway:

"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.]

The next sub-section will further develop this point, underlining its all too easily missed significance.

[Readers should not assume that the argument presented in this section, or even the rest of this Essay, in any way supports, condones or agrees with the caricature of Lenin's views expressed in What Is To Be Done? (On that, see Part One of this Essay.) When I speak about ideas brought into the movement from the "outside", I am, of course, referring to ruling-class doctrines imported into the movement by leading Marxists, which later coalesced to form DM. I am not speaking about 'revolutionary consciousness'!]

This now brings us to a consideration of the factors that define and shape the mind-set, role and status of leading Marxists as well as that of HCDs. Unlike most workers who finally become revolutionaries, the vast majority of 'professional revolutionaries' (and all of the leading revolutionaries, which also includes Marxist 'intellectuals') join, or have be recruited into, the revolutionary socialist movement as a result of one or more of the following 'subjective' factors:

(i) Their own personal or intellectual commitment to the revolution (for whatever reason),

(iv) Other contingent psychological or social motivating factors (for example, in Lenin's case, the execution of his brother, Aleksandr) --, but, significantly,

(v) Not as a direct result of their (collective) involvement in the class war.

"We begin to recruit from sources none too healthy…. Freaks always looking for the most extreme expression of radicalism, misfits, windbags, chronic oppositionists, who had been thrown out of half a dozen organizations…. Many people came to us who had revolted against the Communist Party not for its bad sides but for its good sides; that is, the discipline of the party, the subordination of the individual to the decisions of the party in current work. A lot of dillettantish, petty-bourgeois minded people who couldn't stand any kind of discipline, many of the newcomers made a fetish of democracy…. All the people of this type have one common characteristic; they like to discuss things without limit or end…. They can all talk; and not only can but will; and everlastingly, on every question." [James P. Cannon, History of American Trotskyism, pp.92-93, quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

[Items (i)-(iv) above might appear to be 'subjective factors', but in view of what was argued in the previous sub-section, and what James Cannon has just admitted, this is no mere appearance: they are subjective. Readers are referred to that sub-section or more details.]

"A worker comes to socialism as a part of a whole, along with his class, from which he has no prospect of escaping. He is even pleased with the feeling of his moral unity with the mass, which makes him more confident and stronger. The intellectual, however, comes to socialism, breaking his class umbilical cord as an individual, as a personality, and inevitably seeks to exert influence as an individual. But just here he comes up against obstacles -- and as time passes the bigger these obstacles become. At the beginning of the Social-Democratic movement, every intellectual who joined, even though not above the average, won for himself a place in the working-class movement. Today every newcomer finds, in the Western European countries, the colossal structure of working-class democracy already existing." [The Intelligentsia and Socialism, quoted from here. Bold emphases added.]

These individuals become revolutionaries through their own efforts, or they do so under the influence of someone else (a parent, partner, sibling, friend, teacher, author, another revolutionary, or even a novel!),^13a1a but not (in general) through participation in collective action, in strikes (etc.), at their own place of work -- that is, if they work.

[Concerning Lenin's radicalisation by his reading of What is to be Done?, a novel written by Nikolai Chernyshevsky, see Note 13a1a (link above) -- and Lenin wasn't the only one influenced this way.]

Of course, Trotsky was here speaking about 'intellectuals', but his comments also apply to most individuals who drift into the movement -- that is, those that aren't workers and who don't join as a result of a direct involvement the class war, through collective action. In which case, if these individuals aren't, or weren't, members of the working class, they can't come "to socialism as a part of a whole, along with [their] class", whether or not they are 'intellectuals'. Not everyone outwith the working class is an 'intellectual', but both 'groups' (the 'intellectuals' and the 'non-intellectuals') still join the movement under the circumstances Trotsky outlined -- and that included Trotsky himself!

Lenin (quoting Kautsky) added the following thoughts about these 'intellectuals':

'that again interests us so keenly today is the antagonism between the intelligentsia and the proletariat. My colleagues' (Kautsky is himself an intellectual, a writer and editor) 'will mostly be indignant that I admit this antagonism. But it actually exists, and, as in other cases, it would be the most inept tactics to try to overcome the fact by denying it. This antagonism is a social one, it manifests itself in classes, not in individuals. The individual intellectual, like the individual capitalist, may join wholly in the class struggle of the proletariat. When he does, he changes his character too. It is not of this type of intellectual, who is still an exception among his class, that we shall mainly speak in what follows. Unless otherwise stated, I shall use the word intellectual to mean only the common run of intellectual who takes the stand of bourgeois society, and who is characteristic of the intelligentsia as a class. This class stands in a certain antagonism to the proletariat.

'This antagonism differs however from the antagonism between labour and capital, since the intellectual is not a capitalist. True, his standard of life is bourgeois, and he must maintain it if he is not to become a pauper; but at the same time he is compelled to sell the product of his labour, and often his labour power, and he himself is often enough subjected to exploitation and social humiliation by the capitalist. Hence the intellectual does not stand in any economic antagonism to the proletariat. But his status of life and his conditions of labour are not proletarian, and this gives rise to a certain antagonism in sentiments and ideas.

'...Quite different is the case of the intellectual. He does not fight by means of power, but by argument. His weapons are his personal knowledge, his personal ability, his personal convictions. He can attain to any position at all only through his personal qualities. Hence the freest play for his individuality seems to him the prime condition for successful activity. It is only with difficulty that he submits to being a part subordinate to a whole, and then only from necessity, not from inclination. He recognises the need of discipline only for the mass, not for the elect minds. And of course he counts himself among the latter....'" [Kautsky, quoted in Lenin (1976a), pp.161-62. Bold emphases alone added. Minor typos corrected -- I have informed the editors over at the Marxist Internet Archive. Another version of Kautsky's comments can be found here. I have used the Peking edition in this Essay, which differs slightly from the on-line Russian version ]

To be sure, Lenin and Kautsky were describing hostile (anti-Marxist) intellectuals, but much of what they had to say also applies to those who move in the opposite direction, and become professional revolutionaries -- as Kautsky himself admits:

"The individual intellectual, like the individual capitalist, may join wholly in the class struggle of the proletariat." [Ibid.]

Except, concerning the above individuals, their 'hostility' toward the proletariat is often latent and lies under the surface (although, from several such individuals we regularly hear words like "workerist", or "economism", and who also spare no effort telling us that ordinary workers are prisoners of "banal commonsense", bought off by "super-profits", and are in thrall to "formal thinking"). However, this latent 'hostility' later exhibits an entirely different set of characteristics; as we will see, this typically, but not exclusively, surfaces as a haughty, arrogant, contemptuous, even impatient attitude toward other revolutionaries and, indeed, workers themselves, which later morphs, under specific social and political conditions, into various forms of substitutionism. It is then that this latent hostility fully surfaces, rationalising and justifying (even ignoring or explaining away) the continued oppression and exploitation of workers -- as we saw, for example, in those "already existing socialist" states (now defunct), and now maintained in those states that still claim they are socialist/communist. We witnessed this, too, as generations of Marxist 'intellectuals' ('east' and 'west') rationalised, supported, or advocated the "revolutionary defence" of those anti-worker and oppressive regimes. Of course, this wasn't, or isn't the case with every such Marxist 'intellectual' or 'professional revolutionary', but their class origin or current class position can't fail to have affected their view of, and attitude toward, workers and fellow revolutionaries in general.

This conclusion is forced on us unless we choose to regard such 'individuals' as 'saints', who exist above, or are far removed from, the pressures to which every other human being is subject while they live in class society. Any who cavil at this point might be tempted to conclude that they alone perhaps -- unique in all of humanity over the last five or ten thousand years -- they alone are capable of rising above such mundane and prosaic forces, and are able to do so against the pull of social gravity.

So, Lenin and Kautsky's class analysis also applies to Lenin and Kautsky, as well as other petty-bourgeois, or déclassé, Dialectical Marxists. Again, this must be the case otherwise we would have to conclude that Lenin and Kautsky were committed to an Idealist theory on this specific issue. That is, they would be trying to account for the theories, ideas and attitudes adopted by 'intellectuals', petty-bourgeois, or even déclassé Dialectical Marxists on the basis of who they "identified" with -- but not on their class origin and current class position --, or even their psychological orientation toward other classes. Except perhaps: in the case of the attitude of intellectuals (etc.) toward the bourgeoisie, that would at least have economic and social roots (underlined by Lenin and Kautsky, as we have just seen). However, with respect to their orientation toward the working class it would have no such implications, just a mind-set based on..., er..., maybe..., lifestyle and latent antagonism:

"Hence the intellectual does not stand in any economic antagonism to the proletariat. But his status of life and his conditions of labour are not proletarian, and this gives rise to a certain antagonism in sentiments and ideas." [Ibid.]

"This antagonism differs however from the antagonism between labour and capital, since the intellectual is not a capitalist. True, his standard of life is bourgeois, and he must maintain it if he is not to become a pauper; but at the same time he is compelled to sell the product of his labour, and often his labour power." [Ibid.]

If the intellectual isn't part of the capitalist class and has to sell 'his' labour-power just like workers do, then the only thing that could possibly swing 'him' behind the bourgeoisie is "his standard of life", or 'his' socialisation. But, it would be interesting to see how many intellectuals enjoy a standard of living on a par with an average member of the capitalist class. Their precarious economic condition would surely make them the Janus Class, as Marx characterised the petty-bourgeoisie, a class fraction that could break either way. [On this, see Draper (1978), pp.288-316.] But, whichever way they finally do break, their socialisation will always predispose them toward the ideas and thought-forms of the ruling-class.

So, Lenin/Kautsky tell us that some 'intellectuals' side with the bourgeoisie, which implies, of course, that others identify with the proletariat -- for example, Marx, Engels and Lenin! But, if Lenin and Kautsky were correct, their own ideas wouldn't be a function of their class position as such, they would be the sole function of other ideas they held -- contradicting Marx:

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." [Marx (1968), p.181.]

If those who identify with the proletariat and those who don't identify with them originate in, or belong to, the same class faction (i.e., petty-bourgeois or déclassé intellectuals), then the only factor that would distinguish them, that would motivate them into choosing one over the other (bosses or workers), would be the contingent ideas they had adopted or formed, not their class position as such. But, as has been noted several times, those in this class fraction, on both sides of the class war, have already imbibed ideas inherited from previous generations of ruling-class hacks. While it is undeniable that there are significant differences between Marxist intellectuals and/or "professional revolutionaries", and non-Marxist intellectuals, because they both come from, or now belong to, the same class faction, they are still either petty-bourgeois or they are déclassé -- and, to repeat, they share the same range of ruling-class ideas.

Plainly, their attitudes and beliefs can't change the class to which they belong, or from which they have emerged. So, there remain far more basic ideological similarities between those who break either way (again, siding with the capitalist class or with the working class) than there are differences -- especially since both halves of this class fraction have had ruling-class ideas forced down their throats almost from day one, and which they subsequently employ in the class war:

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.... In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic -- in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production." [Marx (1968), pp.181-82. Bold emphasis added.]

[It could be agued that if the above were correct, then it would imply that workers themselves can use philosophy to help fight their corner in the class war. I have dealt with that riposte in Part One, here.]

The above applies no less to Marxist intellectuals; the only factors that distinguish them from those who do not 'side with the revolution' are those that were mentioned earlier, and in the previous sub-section. Although the ideas held by both sets of individuals originated outside the working class, subjective factors finally determine the side with which they subsequently identify -- which is what one would expect of those who are quintessential 'individuals' and who religiously defend their individuality:

"He does not fight by means of power, but by argument. His weapons are his personal knowledge, his personal ability, his personal convictions. He can attain to any position at all only through his personal qualities. Hence the freest play for his individuality seems to him the prime condition for successful activity. It is only with difficulty that he submits to being a part subordinate to a whole, and then only from necessity, not from inclination. He recognises the need of discipline only for the mass, not for the elect minds. And of course he counts himself among the latter...." [Kautsky, op cit; bold emphases added.]

[More on this later, where I deal with the clichéd rebuttal that this is just 'crude reductionism'.]

So, and once more, such comrades enter the movement committed to the revolution as an Idea, as an expression of their own personal and intellectual integrity -- maybe also because of anger directed against the system (for whatever reason), or their idiosyncratic alienation from class society (again, for whatever reason). However, and once more, they aren't revolutionaries for proletarian or materialist reasons; that is, they don't side with the proletariat as a result of a direct or immediate experience of collective action, or as a direct consequence of working class response to exploitation --, but for individual, albeit often very noble, reasons.

This means that from the beginning (again, by-and-large), because of their class position and non-working class origin and upbringing, they act and think like individuals (indeed, as Trotsky noted, and Lenin implied). This now (i) Affects any new ideas they are capable of forming and the inferences they are capable of making, (ii) Colours their attitude toward such ideas, (iii) Skews their activity inside the movement, and (iv) Slants the relationships they develop with other revolutionaries and with workers themselves.

This isn't to malign such individuals, but to remind us that this is a class issue -- again, as Lenin and Kautsky noted:

Although this is indeed a class issue, it affects how those caught up in revolutionary politics behave as individuals. How else could class influences be expressed?

As noted above, these individuals have had their heads filled with "ruling ideas" almost from the day they left the cradle -- which indoctrination was itself a direct result of the 'superior' education and the bourgeois/petty-bourgeois socialisation to which they had been subjected. So, when those who might later 'side with the revolution' encounter Hegel's work (or even DM), it seems quite 'natural' for them to latch on to his (and its) dogmatic and a priori dogmas -- among the most important of which is the claim that change is part of the cosmic order (when, as we now know, and quite fittingly, that that is the opposite of the truth). "Natural" in the sense that their class origin and current position has already delivered them up as atomised, socially-isolated individuals with no collective identity, just as Lenin and Trotsky argued. Hence, before they became revolutionaries, or even Marxists, they had already been weaned on a diet of ruling-class ideology and boss-class forms-of-thought.

This means that Hegel's doctrines (upside down or 'the right way up') mesh seamlessly with ideas they had already internalised even before they encountered them -- another of which is that it is the job of 'genuine' philosophers to use 'abstraction' in order to concoct a priori theories such as these. Marx's famous words, therefore, apply equally well to them:

"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 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.]

"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.... 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...." [Ibid. Bold emphases added.]

So, they rule also as "thinkers", and this they do in "its whole range". Moreover, those who have no control over the system itself -- which includes every single one of the DM-classicists, as well as those who have led the movement and who have shaped its ideas ever since -- are also "subject" to its vice-like ideological grip. The "ruling intellectual force" can't fail to have affected these 'intellectuals' (Marxist or otherwise).

But, we needn't guess here. Dialecticians openly acknowledge this influence, if not glory in it. [On that, see the next sub-section.]

Moreover, for reasons also outlined in Note 13a2, they are happy to return the 'favour', gladly assisting in the elaboration and dissemination of alien-class though-forms in books and articles on DM, or 'systematic dialectics' in general --, which is, of course, how and why the ruling-class manage to "control at the same time...the means of mental production", and hence control the ideas promoted and promulgated by Dialectical Marxists themselves.

Naturally, "the means of mental production" have changed markedly since Ancient Greece dominated 'western' thought, but the last fifteen centuries or so (again, in the 'west') saw this hegemony initially coalesce in and around the Roman Catholic Church, in Monasteries and later in Universities. But, since the Renaissance intellectual control has become increasingly diffuse, spreading its filaments out from the Universities to include itinerant thinkers (those patronised by the rich as well as those with private means). Of late, "the means of mental production" have also enabled the intellectual labour of freelance and screen writers, journalists, editors, producers, TV, radio, and internet pundits. The livelihood and reputation of those caught up in this are likewise largely dependent on factors highlighted by Lenin and Kautsky:

"[Their] standard of life is bourgeois, and [they] must maintain it if [they are] not to become...pauper[s]; but at the same time [they are] compelled to sell the product of [their] labour, and often [their] labour-power.... [They do] not fight by means of power, but by argument. [Their] weapons are...personal knowledge,...personal ability,...personal convictions. [They] can attain to any position at all only through his personal qualities. Hence the freest play for [their] individuality seems to [them] the prime condition for successful activity. It is only with difficulty that [they submit] to being a part subordinate to a whole, and then only from necessity, not from inclination. [They recognise] the need of discipline only for the mass, not for the elect minds. And of course [they count themselves] among the latter...." [Op cit.]

Hence, those who later became 'leading revolutionaries' (and who had also been "subject to" the full force of this indoctrination before they became Marxists), have had their thinking shaped by the ideas and thought-forms of the ruling-class.

The above considerations help explain why Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Dietzgen (to mention just a few) thought it quite natural and uncontroversial to regard previous (non-working class) thinkers as their precursors, and, indeed, the source of many of the concepts and methods they imported into Dialectical Marxism (for example, the yet-to-be-explained 'process of abstraction'), and hence look to them for inspiration.

"With this assurance Herr Dühring saves himself the trouble of saying anything further about the origin of life, although it might reasonably have been expected that a thinker who had traced the evolution of the world back to its self-equal state, and is so much at home on other celestial bodies, would have known exactly what's what also on this point. For the rest, however, the assurance he gives us is only half right unless it is completed by the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations which has already been mentioned. In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive change. This is true of the transition from the mechanics of celestial bodies to that of smaller masses on a particular celestial body; it is equally true of the transition from the mechanics of masses to the mechanics of molecules -- including the forms of motion investigated in physics proper: heat, light, electricity, magnetism. In the same way, the transition from the physics of molecules to the physics of atoms -- chemistry -- in turn involves a decided leap; and this is even more clearly the case in the transition from ordinary chemical action to the chemism of albumen which we call life. Then within the sphere of life the leaps become ever more infrequent and imperceptible. -- Once again, therefore, it is Hegel who has to correct Herr Dühring." [Engels (1976), pp.82-83 Bold emphases added.]

"Marxism is an integral world-outlook. Expressed in a nutshell, it is contemporary materialism, at present the highest stage of the development of that view upon the world whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece by Democritus, and in part by the Ionian thinkers who preceded that philosopher." [Plekhanov (1908), p.11. Italic emphases in the original; bold emphases and links added.]

"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….

"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), p.32. Bold emphases added.]

"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.]

"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.]

"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; bold added. Some paragraphs merged. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"[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 emphasis added.]

"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...." [Dietzgen (1917a), p.248. Bold emphasis added.]

This approach isn't confined to the DM-classicists; it is universally acknowledged:

"Previous chapters have shown that dialectics has a history which embraces many thousands of years and that it has passed through various stages of development. Disregarding the beginnings of dialectics in Indian and Chinese philosophy, the following main stages can be distinguished: (1) the dialectics of the old Greek philosophers of nature, Heraclitus; (2) the second and higher stage, the dialectics of Plato and Aristotle; (3) Hegelian dialectics; and (4) materialistic dialectics. Dialectics itself has undergone a dialectical development. Heraclitus, representing the first stage, develops the dialectics of one-after-the-other; Plato and Aristotle, representing the second stage, develop the dialectics of one-beside-the-other. The latter is in opposition to the dialectics of the first stage, being its negation. Hegel embraces both preceding stages of development and raises them to a higher stage. He develops the dialectics of the one-after-the-other and the one-beside-the-other, but in an idealistic form; in other words, he develops an historico-idealistic dialectics." [Thalheimer (1936), pp.157-58. Bold emphases added.]

"The integrity, the wholeness, the irrefutable logic and consistency (sic!) of Marxism-Leninism, which are acknowledged even by its opponents (sic!), have been achieved by the application of the unified philosophical dialectical-materialist world outlook and method. Marxism-Leninism cannot properly be understood without its philosophical basis. The philosophy of Marxism-Leninism is a result and the highest stage of the development of world philosophical thought. It has assimilated al that was best ad most progressive in the centuries of development of philosophy...." [Konstantinov (1974), p.15. Bold emphasis added; paragraphs merged.]

"As the philosophy of the working class, Marxist-Leninist philosophy is the supreme form of materialism, a logical result of the preceding development of philosophical thought through the ages, and of the whole spiritual culture of mankind." [Kharin (1981), p.12. Bold emphasis added.]

"The history of Western philosophy, however, begins not with idealism but with materialism. This asserts...that the material world, known to us and explored by science, is real; that the only real world is the material one; that thoughts, ideas and sensations are the product of matter organised in a certain way (a nervous system and a brain); that thought cannot derive its categories from itself, but only from the objective world which makes itself known to us through our senses.

"The earliest Greek philosophers were known as 'hylozoists' (from the Greek, meaning 'those who believe that matter is alive'). Here we have a long line of heroes who pioneered the development of thought.... What was startlingly new about this way of looking at the world was that it was not religious. In complete contrast to the Egyptians and Babylonians, from whom they had learnt a lot, the Greek thinkers did not resort to gods and goddesses to explain natural phenomena. For the first time, men and women sought to explain the workings of nature purely in terms of nature. This was one of the greatest turning-points in the entire history of human thought....

"Aristotle, the greatest of the Ancient philosophers, can be considered a materialist, although he was not so consistent as the early hylozoists. He made a series of important scientific discoveries which laid the basis for the great achievements of the Alexandrine period of Greek science....

"The predominant philosophical trend of the Renaissance was materialism. In England, this took the form of empiricism, the school of thought that states that all knowledge is derived from the senses. The pioneers of this school were Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). The materialist school passed from England to France where it acquired a revolutionary content. In the hands of Diderot, Rousseau, Holbach and Helvetius, philosophy became an instrument for criticising all existing society. These great thinkers prepared the way for the revolutionary overthrow of the feudal monarchy in 1789-93....

"Under the impact of the French revolution, the German idealist Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) subjected all previous philosophy to a thorough criticism. Kant made important discoveries not only in philosophy and logic but in science.... In the field of philosophy, Kant's masterpiece The Critique of Pure Reason was the first work to analyse the forms of logic which had remained virtually unchanged since they were first developed by Aristotle. Kant showed the contradictions implicit in many of the most fundamental propositions of philosophy....

"The greatest breakthrough came in the first decades of the 19th century with George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel was a German idealist, a man of towering intellect, who effectively summed up in his writings the whole history of philosophy.

"Hegel showed that the only way to overcome the 'Antinomies' of Kant was to accept that contradictions actually existed, not only in thought, but in the real world. As an objective idealist, Hegel had no time for the subjective idealist argument that the human mind cannot know the real world. The forms of thought must reflect the objective world as closely as possible. The process of knowledge consist of penetrating ever more deeply into this reality, proceeding from the abstract to the concrete, from the known to the unknown, from the particular to the universal.

"The dialectical method of thinking had played a great role in Antiquity, particularly in the naïve but brilliant aphorisms of Heraclitus (c.500 B.C.), but also in Aristotle and others. It was abandoned in the Middle Ages, when the Church turned Aristotle's formal logic into a lifeless and rigid dogma, and did not re-appear until Kant returned it to a place of honour. However, in Kant the dialectic did not receive an adequate development. It fell to Hegel to bring the science of dialectical thinking to its highest point of development.

"Hegel's greatness is shown by the fact that he alone was prepared to challenge the dominant philosophy of mechanism. The dialectical philosophy of Hegel deals with processes, not isolated events. It deals with things in their life, not their death, in their inter-relations, not isolated, one after the other. This is a startlingly modern and scientific way of looking at the world. Indeed, in many aspects Hegel was far in advance of his time. Yet, despite its many brilliant insights, Hegel's philosophy was ultimately unsatisfactory. Its principal defect was precisely Hegel's idealist standpoint, which prevented him from applying the dialectical method to the real world in a consistently scientific way. Instead of the material world we have the world of the Absolute Idea, where real things, processes and people are replaced by insubstantial shadows. In the words of Frederick Engels, the Hegelian dialectic was the most colossal miscarriage in the whole history of philosophy. Correct ideas are here seen standing on their head. In order to put dialectics on a sound foundation, it was necessary to turn Hegel upside down, to transform idealist dialectics into dialectical materialism. This was the great achievement of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.40-42; pp.44-46 in the second edition. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases and links added. Italics in the original.]

"This world outlook of Marxism is called dialectical materialism, a philosophy that is the direct descendent of the great Enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century but which revolutionized their thinking by introducing a historical dimension. The achievement was scientific materialism enriched with the theory of evolution propounded by G.W.F Hegel. Materialism states that our ideas are a reflection of the material universe that exists independently of any observer. It's dialectical in that it is always in a state of movement, and change. One of the early dialectical philosophers was the Greek Heraclitus, 'the obscure' (535-475 BCE)." [Brad Forrest, quoted from here. Accessed 22/12/2016. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

[Quotations like the above, taken from across the entire spectrum of Dialectical Marxism, would be easy to multiply, something that can be readily confirmed by anyone who has access to as many books and articles on DM as I have, or, indeed, who trawls the Internet.]

Notice that according to Lenin, DM is "a continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy". Plainly, a "continuation of" isn't a "break from"! Plekhanov also thought that DM represented the "highest stage...whose foundations were laid down in ancient Greece"; again, that isn't a "break from", either. The others I have quoted pointedly do not demur. In fact, I have yet to encounter a single DM-theorist who rejects this age-old and well-established connection. [If anyone knows of one, please let me know!]

As we will see in Essay Twelve Part One and the rest of Essay Twelve (summary here), there is a clearly identifiable thread running through the many and varied world-views that have been imposed, encouraged, commissioned, or financed by the assorted ruling-classes history has inflicted upon humanity: i.e., that there is a 'hidden world' underlying 'appearances', accessible to thought alone, the nature of which can be derived or inferred from the supposed meaning of a handful of abstract words, or 'concepts', and nothing more. Concerning the most immediate source of 'dialectical thought' in German Idealism we read the following:

"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.]

Because of this, Traditional Philosophers were quite happy to impose their theories on the world in a dogmatic and a priori manner -- plainly because these theories relate not to the material world but to that invisible world, a world that is supposedly more real than the physical universe we see around us. That is because this 'hidden world' expresses 'essence', not superficiality, which is reflected by 'appearances'.

Even though the content of such theories has altered with each change in the Mode of Production, their form has remained largely the same for two-and-a-half millennia: philosophical ideas derived from words/thought alone, valid for all of space and time, may be imposed on nature and society dogmatically.

Some might object that the above philosophical ideas can't have remained the same for thousands of years, across different Modes of Production; that supposition runs counter to core HM-concepts.

But, we don't argue the same for religious belief. Marx put no time stamp on the following, for example:

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man -- state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." [Marx (1975b), p.244. Italic emphases in the original. Some paragraphs merged.]

The above remarks applied back in Babylon and the Egypt of the Pharaohs, just as they did in Ancient China and the rest of Asia, The Americas, Greece, Rome, and throughout Europe, Africa, Australasia --, as, indeed, they have done right across the planet ever since. Indeed, Marx even said this:

"[O]ne fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms. The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas." [Marx and Engels (1848), p.52. Bold emphases added.]

The same is true of the core thought-forms found throughout Traditional Philosophy: that there is an invisible world underlying 'appearances', accessible to thought alone --, especially since Marx also argued 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 (1975c), p.381. Bold emphasis added.]

In which case, the aforementioned individuals -- who, it is worth recalling, had been educated to view the world precisely this way long before they had ever heard of Marxism --, when they encountered Hegel and DM, readily appropriated these dogmatic ideas. That is because they were looking for 'logical' principles in this hidden world that guaranteed change was an integral part of the 'fabric of reality'. The thought-forms encapsulated in Hegel's Ideas (or in DM) appeared to be at once both philosophical and self-certifying (i.e., they were based on thought and language alone, and hence were held true a priori). Moreover, because dialectical concepts formed part of what seemed to be a radical philosophical and political tradition, they also struck them as revolutionary.

Manifestly, dialectical concepts could only have arisen from Traditional Philosophy (workers aren't known for dreaming them up), which ideological source had already been coloured by centuries of ruling-class dogma, as we have seen.

(a) Traditional Philosophy was the only source of developed, 'High Theory' available to these individuals at the time -- again, as Lenin himself admitted:

"...[B]ourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination. And the younger the socialist movement in any given country, the more vigorously it must struggle against all attempts to entrench non-socialist ideology...." [Lenin (1947), pp.42-43. Bold emphases added.]

Of course, it doesn't help if revolutionaries like Lenin bring this ruling-class ideology with them into the movement.

(b) These erstwhile radicals were predisposed to look for a 'world-view' that told them change was inevitable, part of the cosmic and social order.

(c) They searched for a set of ideas that could and would become exclusively their own -- because, as they will tell anyone prepared to listen, "Everyone has to have a philosophy!" -- which ideas, when they had finished shaping them, taught that the present order was ripe for change.

"It is very difficult to sustain much ongoing political work for any length of time without a coherent alternative worldview to the dominant ideology which we encounter every day in the media (at work, at school, at college, etc.). A significant role in an alternative worldview is played by questions of philosophy.

"[Added in a footnote: To attempt an exact definition of philosophy at this point would be a difficult and lengthy distraction. But what I mean by it in this book is, roughly, 'general' or 'abstract' thinking about human beings and their relations between society and nature.]" [Molyneux (2012), p.5. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis added.]

"Before we start, you may be tempted to ask, 'Well, what of it?' Is it really necessary for us to bother about complicated questions of science and philosophy? To such a question, two replies are possible. If what is meant is: do we need to know about such things in order to go about our daily life, then the answer is evidently no. But if we wish to gain a rational understanding of the world in which we live, and the fundamental processes at work in nature, society and our own way of thinking, then matters appear in quite a different light.

"Strangely enough, everyone has a 'philosophy.' A philosophy is a way of looking at the world. We all believe we know how to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad. These are, however, very complicated issues which have occupied the attention of the greatest minds in history. When confronted with the terrible fact of the existence of events like the fratricidal war in the former Yugoslavia, the re-emergence of mass unemployment, the slaughter in Rwanda, many people will confess that they do not comprehend such things, and will frequently resort to vague references to 'human nature.' But what is this mysterious human nature which is seen as the source of all our ills and is alleged to be eternally unchangeable? This is a profoundly philosophical question, to which not many would venture a reply, unless they were of a religious cast of mind, in which case they would say that God, in His wisdom, made us like that. Why anyone should worship a Being that played such tricks on His creations is another matter.

"Those who stubbornly maintain that they have no philosophy are mistaken. Nature abhors a vacuum. People who lack a coherently worked-out philosophical standpoint will inevitably reflect the ideas and prejudices of the society and the milieu in which they live. That means, in the given context, that their heads will be full of the ideas they imbibe from the newspapers, television, pulpit and schoolroom, which faithfully reflect the interests and morality of existing society.

"Most people usually succeed in muddling through life, until some great upheaval compels them to re-consider the kind of ideas and values they grew up with. The crisis of society forces them to question many things they took for granted. At such times, ideas which seemed remote suddenly become strikingly relevant. Anyone who wishes to understand life, not as a meaningless series of accidents or an unthinking routine, must occupy themselves with philosophy, that is, with thought at a higher level than the immediate problems of everyday existence. Only by this means do we raise ourselves to a height where we begin to fulfil our potential as conscious human beings, willing and able to take control of our own destinies." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.29-30. Italic emphasis in the original; bold added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. (This passage appears on pp.33-34 of the second edition.)]

The above sentiments are echoed by a dusty old Stalinist textbook (whose line, oddly enough, agrees with that of the two 'Trotskyite wreckers', above):

"A philosophical world outlook is a system of highly generalised theoretical views of the world, of nature, society and man. Philosophy seeks to substantiate a definite orientation in social, political, scientific, moral, aesthetic, and other spheres of life. Everybody forms his own particular view of the surrounding world, but this view often consists of no more than fragments of various contradictory ideas without any theoretical basis. The philosophical world outlook, on the other hand, is not merely the sum total but a system of ideas, opinions and conceptions of nature, society, man and his place in the world." [Konstantinov (1974), p.16. Bold emphasis added; paragraphs merged. Which is a bit rich given the fact that DM glories in contradiction! (More-or-less the same comment (almost word-for-word identical) can be found in Krapivin (1985), p.17.)]

However, the everyday musings of an average Jane Doe or John Q Public are hardly to be compared with the systematic thoughts of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas or Immanuel Kant, so the above elision (i.e., between such amateurish musings and the sophisticated theories of Traditional Philosophy) is clearly aimed at justifying the importation of ideas from ruling-class sources, which are, according to Marx, only "to be condemned":

"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 (1975c), p.381. I have used the on-line version, here. Bold emphasis added.]

Plainly, the attitude displayed by DM-fans toward Philosophy (somewhat fittingly) plainly contradicts what Marx himself concluded about this archetypical ruling-class discipline.

This ancient 'world-view' -- on steroids in Hegel's work -- certainly appealed to the DM-classicists, those who later led the movement, and those who shaped and still shape its ideas. It appealed to them since it encapsulated thought-forms to which they were already highly susceptible by the time they hit adulthood. The class background, socialisation and education to which they were, and still are, subject under Capitalism meant that ruling-class ideas had already been installed in their brains long before they became revolutionaries. This thought-form, which has always promoted dogmatic, a priori 'knowledge', mesmerised these comrades from the get-go.

In fact, this new batch of Dialectical and Hermetic nostrums (upside down, or 'the right way up') hardly raised an eyebrow.

Initially, very little specialist knowledge is needed to 'comprehend' DM; no expensive equipment or time-consuming experiments are required. And yet, within hours, this superscientific 'world-view' can be internalised with ease by most eager novitiates -- since, once more, it relies on thought alone, and hence appears to be 'self-evident'. Literally, in half an afternoon, or even less, an initiate can familiarise him/herself with a handful of theses that purport to explain all of reality, for all of time.

Readers can test this for themselves: check out a random sample of the 'theory' sections of Marxist revolutionary websites. It will soon become apparent how each one confidently claims to be able to reveal nature's deepest secrets (valid for all of space and time) in a paragraph or two, or page or two, of homespun 'logic', obscure jargon, and a few helpings of Mickey Mouse Science --, for instance, here, and here.

[I have re-posted much of this Internet material in Appendix A to Essay Two.]

Contrast that with the many months, or even years, of hard work and study it takes to grasp the genuine science of Marxist economics, for example. Contrast it, too, with the detailed knowledge required in order to understand, say, the class structure and development of the Ancient World, or even Medieval Society. No 'self-evident', a priori truths, there!

Moreover, because DM is connected with wider historic, or even romantic aspirations (outlined below), dialectically-distracted comrades soon become wedded (nay, superglued) to this doctrine. They become avid converts who act, talk and behave as if they have received a revelation from 'On High'.

"It was from him that I first learned, often with the force of revelation, many of the main ideas of the Marxist tradition." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

"He was an orthodox Marxist from his conversion to its doctrines in 1898 to his death in 1940." [Novack (1960), reprinted in Novack (1978), p.271. Bold emphasis added.]

Novack's use of quasi-religious language is, in the event, revealing in itself given what Marx had to say:

The subjective and often highly emotional response elicited in such individuals after they have passed through these dialectical 'doors of perception' reveals how crucially important this Hermetic Creed is to the revolutionary ego: it helps guarantee that the anger they feel toward the injustices of Capitalism -- perhaps compounded by their alienation from the system, coupled with all the hard work they have devoted to The Cause --, won't be in vain. For the DM-convert there now appears to be a point, not just to human history, but to the overall development of reality itself, courtesy of the obscure ramblings of a Christian Mystic.

This adoption of DM isn't just an example of the secularisation of Christianity, it also represents the re-enchantment of materialism.

Indeed, this theory now ensures that the life of each initiate assumes truly cosmic significance. Dialectics places the militant mind at the very centre of the philosophical universe, for it offers each of these 'social atoms' a unifying purpose accompanied by a set of eternal 'truths' that underwrite and then confirm their exclusivity, linking their actions directly with the further development of reality itself. Only they understand 'the dialectic' of nature and society -- the very Algebra of the Revolution -- only they have their fingers on the 'pulse of freedom', only they know how to further its development.

For the want of a better phrase, we might even call this insidious process the "Ptolemisation Of The Militant Mind", since around this 'theory', and their interpretation of it, all of reality now revolves -- the obverse of Hegel's doctrine of the 'self-development' of 'Mind', which placed the development of 'God's Mind' at the centre and the periphery of this process, put into neat 'logical' order by a handful of trite, but egregious, a priori theses.

The heady romance of becoming a revolutionary and an active participant in the cosmic drift of the entire universe now takes over. As Alan Wald (veteran US Marxist and editor of Against the Current) noted in connection with the US-SWP:

"To join the SWP was to become a person with a mission, to become part of a special group of men and women who, against all odds, wanted to change society for the better; one felt a bit more in control of the universe." [Quoted from here; bold emphasis added.]

Much the same can be said about those joining other far-left groups. Indeed, even rank-and-file revolutionaries are often affected in this way. Speaking of his time in the Militant Tendency, this is what Andy Troke had to say:

"It's like somebody who has been through a religious period. You look to either Trotsky, Marx, Lenin, Engels or Ted Grant or Peter Taaffe and you have got the rationale for why people are reacting this way or that. And obviously, everyone else is illogical, because you have the right view. I believe there was a great deal of this type of thinking: we were the chosen few. We had the right ideology. People like Tribune, who were at that time Militant's main opponents didn't know where they were going.... We were the right ones." [Quoted in Tourish and Wohlforth (2000), p.181. Bold emphases added. Links added.]

To be honest, I must admit to similar thoughts and feelings myself when I joined the UK-SWP in 1987, pinned a red, clenched fist badge to my lapel, and started selling Socialist Worker. I am sure I wasn't the only one who reacted this way. In fact, I can recall a period in 1988 when a major dispute broke out in the UK-SWP following a talk given by Lindsey German. Lindsey had advanced the claim that, in her, there were "no traces of bourgeois ideology". For some time after that it became a hot topic whether or not revolutionaries were free from all such 'indecent thoughts' -- or, "traces", which was the buzz word used at the time. One could almost hear an echo of the phrases "Born again!" and "Cleansed by the blood of the Lamb!"

Here is what Ian Birchall, longstanding ex-SWP activist, had to say about the origin of the word, "traces" (in his review of John Molyneux's recent book, The Dialectics of Art):

"John [was] particularly concerned with the question of ideology -- the complex of ideas used to legitimate and preserve the existing oppressive order. He [was] well aware of the pervasive power of ideology. Some years ago he wrote an article in Socialist Worker in which he stated that 'as products of a society in which racism and sexism (and many other reactionary ideas) are all pervasive, we all -- black or white, male or female, Jew or gentile -- retain traces of them.' (Socialist Worker 1052, September 1987) The party leadership was outraged at the suggestion that they had not totally liberated themselves from the dominant ideology, and John was reduced to silence." [Quoted from here. Accessed 18/01/2021.]

For all the world, DM-fans appear to fall in love with this 'theory'. That itself is evident from the irrational, emotional, often extremely abusive, if not violently aggressive way they respond when it is attacked. [On that, see below, as well as here.]

The vitriol, hostility, lies and smears I have had to face now for many years suggests I wouldn't last long if DM-fans were ever to gain power in the UK! Indeed, one prominent Marxist Professor of Economics, Andrew Kliman no less, in an e-mail exchange expressed the fervent hope I should "Eat sh*t and die!" (either that or quaff some Hemlock), simply because I had the temerity to question the sacred dialectic. This comradely wish was repeated here (in the comments section) in October 2013, but was deleted by the moderators soon after because of the violent and intemperate language the good Professor thought to use! Another UK-SWP comrade (implicitly) accused me of being worse than the Nazis, and for the same reason! Incidentally, this comrade has now left the UK-SWP. Another recently compared me to the Coronavirus! [Check out the other emotive and abusive comments in the same discussion thread.]

I hasten to add that I am not complaining about this; given the analysis presented in the Essay and that this site, I expect it!

However, the 'dialectical ego' can only ascend to the next 'level' if it becomes a willing vehicle for the tide of history, a veritable slave to the dialectic. DM now expresses in its earthly incarnation cosmic forces that have supposedly governed all of reality from the Big Bang forward, and will continue so doing until the end of time. Its theses are woven into the very fabric of the Universe -- just like the 'Word of God'.

Or, at least, judged by the way DM-acolytes speak about their theory and about those who promulgate it from the dialectical pulpit, that is how the DM-Faithful clearly picture it to themselves.

"It goes without saying that my recapitulation of mathematics and the natural sciences was undertaken in order to convince myself also in detail -- of what in general I was not in doubt -- that in nature, amid the welter of innumerable changes, the same dialectical laws of motion force their way through as those which in history govern the apparent fortuitousness of events; the same laws which similarly form the thread running through the history of the development of human thought and gradually rise to consciousness in thinking man; the laws which Hegel first developed in all-embracing but mystic form, and which we made it one of our aims to strip of this mystic form and to bring clearly before the mind in their complete simplicity and universality." [Engels (1976), pp.11-12. Bold emphasis added.]

"Dialectics, however, is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought." [Ibid., p.180. Bold emphasis added.]

So, by becoming a willing vehicle, ready to channel the mysterious 'mediations' that emanate from the "Totality" (which, like 'God', can't be defined, but which works no less mysteriously), through revolutionary 'good works' ("activity") and pure thoughts ("non-Revisionist" devotion to "the tradition"), by joining a movement that can't fail to alter fundamentally the course of human history, the petty-bourgeois ego is 'born again', to a higher purpose, with a cosmically-ordained mandate to match.

The dialectical novitiate thus emerges as a professional revolutionary -- sometimes with a shiny new name to prove it. But, certainly with a brand new persona.

"Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it." [Eastman (1926), p.22.]

In view of the general atrophy of their critical faculties caused by their commitment to DM -- compounded by the nausea inducing sycophancy exhibited by many of them (on that, see below) -- who can doubt it?

(i) As individuals they can become key figures in the further development of history -- helping determine the direction that social evolution will next take.

(iii) Whatever it was that motivated their personal alienation from class society can be rectified, reversed or even redeemed (in whole or in part) through the right sort of acts, thoughts, and deeds -- reminiscent of the way that Pelagian forms of 'muscular Christianity' taught that salvation might be earned through pure thoughts, good works, and the severe treatment of the body.

Dialectics now occupies a role analogous to that which religious belief has always assumed in the lives of the credulous, giving cosmic significance and consolation to these, its very own, petty-bourgeois victims.

However, because they haven't been recruited from the working class, these social atoms need an internally-generated unifying force -- a theory that supplies a set of self-certifying ideas -- to bind them to The Party and The Cause. Indeed, as Trotsky, Kautsky and Lenin pointed out:

"'...Quite different is the case of the intellectual. He does not fight by means of power, but by argument. His weapons are his personal knowledge, his personal ability, his personal convictions. He can attain to any position at all only through his personal qualities. Hence the freest play for his individuality seems to him the prime condition for successful activity. It is only with difficulty that he submits to being a part subordinate to a whole, and then only from necessity, not from inclination. He recognises the need of discipline only for the mass, not for the elect minds. And of course he counts himself among the latter....'" [Kautsky, quoted in Lenin (1976a), pp.161-62. Bold emphases alone added. Another version of Kautsky's comments can be found here. I have used the Peking edition in this Essay, which differs slightly from the on-line Russian/English version.]

As such, they require a Cosmic Whole allied to a Holistic Theory to help repair their own social fragmentation. That is where the mysterious "Totality" (with its 'universal interconnections' and 'mediations' -- factors that are analogous to the Omnipresence of 'God' and the 'mediations of Christ') comes into its own. But, just like 'God', the DM-"Totality" is so mysterious that, beyond a few vague gestures and much hand waving, none of its devotees can tell you of its nature, even though they all gladly bend the knee to its Contradictory Will.

In stark contrast, workers involved in collective labour have unity forced on them by well-known, external, material forces. These compel workers to combine; they don't persuade them to do so as a result of some theory. Workers are thus compelled to associate, with unity externally-imposed upon them. This is a material, not an Ideal force.^13a

In contrast, once more, while the class war forces workers to unite, it drives apart these petty-bourgeois individuals, these professional revolutionaries, depositing them in ever smaller, continually fragmenting sects. [How it does this will be explored in the next few sub-sections.]

"It is precisely the factory, which seems only a bogey to some, that represents that highest form of capitalist co-operation which has united and disciplined the proletariat, taught it to organise, and placed it at the head of all the other sections of the toiling and exploited population. And it is precisely Marxism, the ideology of the proletariat trained by capitalism, that has taught and id teaching unstable intellectuals to distinguish between the factory as a means of exploitation (discipline based on fear of starvation) and the factory as a means of organisation (discipline based on collective work united by the conditions of a technically highly developed production). The discipline and organisation which come so hard to the bourgeois intellectual are especially easily acquired by the proletariat just because of this factory 'schooling'. Mortal fear of this school and utter failure to understand its importance as an organising factor are characteristic precisely of the ways of thinking which reflect the petty-bourgeois mode of life and which give rise to that species of anarchism that the German Social-Democrats call Edelanarchismus, i.e., the anarchism of the 'noble' gentleman, or aristocratic anarchism, as I would call it. This aristocratic anarchism is particularly characteristic of the Russian nihilist. He thinks of the Party organisation as a monstrous 'factory'; he regards the subordination of the part to the whole and of the minority to the majority as 'serfdom' (see Axelrod's articles); division of labour under the direction of a centre evokes from him a tragicomical outcry against people being transformed into 'cogs and wheels' (to turn editors into contributors being considered a particularly atrocious species of such transformation); mention of the organisational rules of the Party calls forth a contemptuous grimace and the disdainful remark (intended for the 'formalists') that one could very well dispense with rules altogether." [Lenin (1976a), pp.248-49. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases and links added. (The on-line Russian/English version is slightly different from the published (Peking) edition I have used here.)]

Unfortunately, Lenin failed to apply these insights to himself, to his own class origin and current class position. He was, however, quite happy to include Marx and Engels among the "bourgeois intelligentsia":

"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." [Lenin (1947), p.32. Bold emphases added.]

"Many of the most important political and intellectual leaders of the Marxist parties have been middle-class intellectuals. This is true of Marx and Engels, the founders of the movement. Bebel and Dietzgen the elder were of proletarian origin, but these two stand out as conspicuous exceptions in a galaxy which includes Lassalle, DeLeon, Plekhanov, Liebknecht, Luxembourg, Lenin and Trotsky. [As we have seen, this isn't in fact true of Dietzgen -- RL.] All of these intellectuals, 'having grasped the historical movement as a whole', broke with the class of their origin, and merged their lives with the fate of the working class. Trotsky informs us that, of the 15 original members of the Council of People's Commissary elected on the day following the October insurrection, eleven were intellectuals and only four workers....

"Since Marxism, the science of the proletarian revolution, is itself the supreme creation of middle-class intellectuals, and every Marxist party has had its quota of militants drawn from the radical intelligentsia, a Marxist party can, least of all political organizations, ignore the role that intellectuals may play in the struggle of the working class for emancipation. But the relationship between the radical intellectuals and the revolutionary workers' party must be correctly understood. Although individual intellectuals may take a place in the leadership of the party by their talents, energy and devotion, intellectuals are generally an auxiliary force of the party with their own special talents to contribute to its work. There is a place for intellectuals inside the party, in the mass organizations it supports, and in many party activities. But the main body of the party must be recruited from, and rest squarely upon, the vanguard of the working class. The party and its leadership must have a solidly proletarian core." [Novack (1935). Bold emphases and links added.]

The social forces that operate on Marxist dialecticians are thus quintessentially individualistic, manifestly Ideal, and notoriously 'centrifugal' (as, indeed, Lenin pointed out above and earlier, and as we will see again, below); indeed, as one participant admitted in the recent debate over the crisis that engulfed the UK-SWP in January 2013:

"I don't know if you have permanent factions within ISO -- my experience of the movement is that they are a disaster. I assume you have a constitution, rules for members to abide by and a disciplinary procedure to deal with those who deliberately flout them. So do we, and surely you respect our right to act accordingly." [Jeffrey Hurford, quoted from here; accessed 07/02/2013.]

"Peasant revolts would start with vast numbers of people rising up to divide the land of the local feudal lords, but once the lord was defeated they would fall to squabbling among themselves about how they would divide the land. As Marx put it, peasants were like 'potatoes in a sack'; they could be forced together by some outside power but were not capable of linking permanently to represent their own interests. Capitalism makes workers cooperate in production within the factory, and those cooperative skills can easily be turned against the system, as when workers organise themselves into unions. Because they are massed together in huge concentrations it is much easier for workers to democratically control such bodies than it was for previously oppressed classes." [Quoted from here; bold added. Paragraphs merged.]

DM-theorists and leading members of Dialectical Marxism aren't proletarians, so they, too, are like 'potatoes in a sack', incapable of uniting unless forced to do so by a "power" of some sort. As we will see, this "power" is 'intellectual' as well as bureaucratic, and it has been internalised. In response, each revolutionary party has developed a set of anti-democratic and bureaucratic rules in order to ensure (at least, temporary) internal cohesion, doctrinal 'purity', and revolutionary integrity is maintained.

Without DM -- imported "from the outside", from Mystical Christianity and Traditional Thought --, the rationale underlying the romantic revolutionary idea -- which, once more, situates each DM-acolyte at the centre of the dialectical universe -- would lose both its impact and its appeal.

Furthermore, because 'dialectics' provides each 'dialectical comrade' with an apparently coherent, but paradigmatically traditional, picture of reality, it supplies each of its victims with an internalised set of motivating factors. Indeed, because this theory is represented individualistically inside each dialectical skull (via Lenin's 'theory of knowledge' -- which convinces one and all that they alone truly 'understand' this esoteric theory -- they alone have the right 'images', the right 'abstractions'), it can't help but divide each 'dialectical disciple', one from the next -- for reasons explored in the next sub-section, and throughout the rest of this Essay.

As we have seen (and will see in more detail in this and the next sub-section), the sectarianism inherent in Dialectical Marxism is a consequence of the class origin and current class position of its leading figures and most important theorists. Dialectics, the theory of universal opposites, soon goes to work on their minds and turns each and every one of these serial sectarians into fanatical faction fiends, on steroids.

Collective discipline is paramount inside Bolshevik-style parties. But, the strong-willed, petty-bourgeois militant this style of politics attracts isn't used to this form of externally-imposed regimentation (as Lenin noted); as we have seen, these social atoms are in fact attracted by internally-processed, self-certifying ideas. Their socialisation as head strong individuals and their commitment to a theory of knowledge which is based on bourgeois individualism (on that see Essay Three Part Two) means that fights soon break out, often over what seem minor, even petty personal gripes.¹⁴

Ever since childhood, these comrades have been socialised think like social atoms, but in a revolutionary party they have to act like social molecules, which is a psychological feat that lies way above their 'pay grade' (i.e., way beyond capacities that have been created, or motivated, by their class origin or their current class position). Because of this, as noted above, personal disputes soon break out and are immediately re-configured as political differences (that is because, for these individuals, the personal is political). Once again, since these are primarily disputes over ideas they require, and are soon given, theoretical 'justification'. However, because DM glories in contradiction and in splitting (see below), it is ideally suited toward that end.

Unfortunately, again as Lenin and Trotsky intimated, these individuals are socially-conditioned egocentrics who, in their own eyes, enjoy direct access to the dialectical motherlode (a hot wire installed in each DM-cranium by those self-certifying Hegelian concepts, upside down or 'the right way up') -- and they can't resist exploiting this fact. That is because this 'dynamic', contradictory world-view defines them as revolutionaries.

In such an Ideal environment, the DM-classics -- just like the Bible and other assorted Holy Books -- soon come into their own.¹⁵

Again, as Lenin and Trotsky pointed out, ruling-class theorists and 'intellectuals' endeavour to make names for themselves by developing 'their own ideas', carving out a corner, an exclusive niche, in the market of ideas, But, they can only do that by criticising the ideas of every other rival theorist. This is, after all, an integral part of being able to establish a reputation and standing among their intellectual peers, which is an essential component in furthering their career as a theorist worthy of attention -- or, indeed, an essential component when defending and promoting the interests of a patron, or some other beneficent member of the ruling-class. This was particularly true in earlier centuries.

"The intellectual, however, comes to socialism, breaking his class umbilical cord as an individual, as a personality, and inevitably seeks to exert influence as an individual. But just here he comes up against obstacles -- and as time passes the bigger these obstacles become." [The Intelligentsia and Socialism, quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

Just as petty-bourgeois capitalists have to rely on their individual knowledge, drive, effort and skill in order to survive in the face of Big Capital and the working class, so these unfortunate dialecticians find they have to ply their trade in the revolutionary movement as individual theorists, armed only with a set of dogmatic ideas, fortified by an entire Thesaurus of obscure jargon, arcane terminology, sub-Aristotelian 'logic' and Mickey Mouse Science. Hence, these hapless comrades find that they, too, have to find their way in far more hostile revolutionary waters.

[Anyone who doubts this only has to read the writings churned out by these characters to see how little respect they have for the work of the vast majority of other revolutionary theorists (sometimes whose opinions differ from their own only in the minutest of theological details); their work always appears to be a "rant", a "re-hash", a "screed"; it is invariably "boring", "turgid", even "hysterical"; the one writing it has "bloviated" all over the place. In addition, we find a surfeit of scatological epithets. (Monty Python lampooned this mind-set only too well: "The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f*cking Judean People's Front"). Having said that, it isn't being suggested that every last one of them adopts this stance cynically. Many have very noble intentions -- but, once again, this is a class issue. I have posted some of this material in Essays One and Ten Part One, as well as in several places below -- for example, here and Appendix B.]

So it is that these 'social atoms' have brought with them into the Workers' Movement a divisive, petty-bourgeois trait. And, by all accounts, they have perfected it with all the verve of inveterate religious sectarians, whom they resemble.

In the market for 'Marxist' ideas, those with the most sharply-honed critical skills soon claw their way to the top.

"Things get interesting when you go a little deeper. If the correct, imputed class-consciousness resides in the revolutionary party, and yet the members of the revolutionary party are in fact pulled in different directions by their day-to-day experience, where in the revolutionary party does it actually reside? Well, of course, if the members at the 'periphery' of the party -- where it makes contact with the world outside, so to say -- are being pulled by the class, then the correct consciousness must lie at the point furthest away from this periphery -- it must reside at the 'centre' of the party. That is why all the groups have their 'centre', and 'centralised' leaderships.

"However, in reality the central committees are also torn apart by ideological differences; by outside allegiances, prejudices, whims -- whatever it is that drives these people. Therefore, ultimately possession of the correct consciousness comes down very, very often to one person (though a member of the SWP central committee once confided to me that, in her opinion, only two people in the SWP had the correct revolutionary 'instincts' -- herself and Tony Cliff). The way that Gerry Healy dominated the WRP, the way that Cliff dominated the SWP, and so on, is perhaps not merely down to their talents or the force of their personalities, but has been prepared by the logic of a particular mindset. So, while there is no Führerprinzip involved, in practice these groups are nevertheless generally dominated by powerful individuals, or powerful cliques." [Quoted from here; italic emphasis in the original. Accessed 04/02/2013.]

Except, Wilson seems not to have applied any sort of class analysis to this phenomenon, nor does he even so much as mention the theory that lies at its heart.

As Wilson noted, the fact that such individuals have very strong personalities (which they clearly require, otherwise they wouldn't survive long at the top of a revolutionary party, let alone climb the greasy pole) merely compounds the problem. As noted above, in order to make a name for themselves, and advance their 'revolutionary careers', it becomes important, if not necessary, for them to disagree with every other theorist, which they almost invariably proceed to do.

In fact, the expectation is that every single comrade should argue his/her corner, and do so with force, vigour and conviction. And, in some parties, with no little added violence, verbal and/or physical.

While sectarianism is caused by petty-bourgeois social 'atoms' such as these, dialectics only makes a bad situation worse.

The answer isn't hard to find: what better theory could there be than one that is capable of initiating and encouraging endless disputation, one as contradictory and incomprehensible as DM? What other theory informs all who fall under its hypnotic spell that progress (even in ideas) may only be had through "internal contradiction", and thus through controversy and splitting?

"The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts...is the essence (one of the 'essentials,' one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics.... The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute...." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Paragraphs merged; bold emphasis alone added.]

There it is: "splitting" is an "essential", if not "the principle" aspect of this theory, with "struggle" an "absolute". Plainly, this "essential" feature must also involve the relations between comrades.

This was something Engels also emphasised and he, too, connected it with 'dialectics':

"It would seem that any workers' party in a large country can develop only through internal struggle, as indeed has been generally established in the dialectical laws of development." [Engels to Bernstein, October 20, 1882; MECW Volume 46, p.342. Bold emphasis added.]

So, an emphasis on intra-party strife and splits sits right at the heart of Dialectical Marxism!

In which case, dialecticians needn't wait for the ruling-class to divide the movement, they are experts already!

More importantly, as we will see, DM is almost unique in its capacity to 'justify' anything at all and its opposite, both alternatives often promoted or rationalised by the very same dialectician in the same book, article or even speech! Hence, this theory is unique in its capacity to rationalise any relevant point of view and its opposite at the same time as it promotes splits!

For Dialectical Marxists, the drive to impose one's views on others thus becomes irresistible. Doctrinal control (i.e., the control of all those inner, privatised ideas lodged in every other socially-atomised party skull, which threaten the legitimacy of the ideas of other dialecticians similarly so beleaguered) now acts as a surrogate for external control by material forces.

Indeed, this desire to control the thoughts of all the other 'social atoms' inside the Party has even been given the grandiloquent name: "democratic centralism" -- a nice 'contradiction-in-terms' for you to ponder.¹⁶

[Don't get me wrong; I am here referring to the Zinoviev-Stalin aberration, not democratic decisions openly agreed upon and collectively implemented, whatever we finally decide to call it.]

"The Bolshevik leadership of 1917 was elected individually. There was no ban on factions. On the eve of the October Revolution, Zinoviev and Kamenev publicly opposed the insurrection in Maxim Gorky's newspaper...and resigned from the Bolshevik Central Committee. They were not expelled from the Party. The model operated currently by the SWP is not that of the Bolshevik revolution. It is a version of the Zinovievite model adopted during the period of 'Bolshevisation' in the mid-1920s and then honed by ever smaller and more marginal groups." [Quoted from here. Accessed 29/01/2013. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links added; paragraphs merged. On this, see also Appendix D and this. (The background details can be found in Cliff (1985), Chapter 19.) For an alternative view, see the UK-SWP Special Pre-Conference Bulletin article 'You Say Kamenev, I Say Bogdanov', written by 'Kevin', pp.69-70. Bold emphasis added.]

But, just as genuine religionists soon discovered, mind-control is much easier to secure if an appeal is made to impenetrably obscure doctrines that no one understands, no one can explain, but which all must accept and all must repeat constantly, almost mindlessly, in order to dull the critical faculties.

Hence, because the party can't reproduce the class struggle inside its four walls, and thereby force unity on its cadres externally (contrary to what happens with the working class), it can only control political thought internally (in each head) by turning it into a repetitive, mind-numbing mantra, insisting on doctrinal orthodoxy, and then accusing all those who don't conform of heresy, or -- even worse -- of not "understanding" dialectics!

Despite regular calls to "build the party", it now looks like small is beautiful, if not highly desirable. Clearly, that is because it allows for maximum thought-control. In a small party the 'purity' of the 'revolutionary tradition' is easier to enforce and hence control.

Factionalism, splits and sectarianism are thus intrinsic, constant and ubiquitous features of the political and organisational practice of these petty-bourgeois revolutionaries. This keeps their parties small just as it also helps distinguish them from all the rest.

This is what Hal Draper had to say about the situation in America alone, thirty or forty years ago:

"American socialism today has hit a new low in terms of sect fragmentation. There are more sects going through their gyrations at this moment than have ever existed in all previous periods in this country taken together. And the fragments are still fissioning, down to the sub-microscopic level. Politically speaking, their average has dropped from the comic-opera plane to the comic-book grade. Where the esoteric sects (mainly Trotskyist splinters) of the 1930s tended toward a sort of super sophistication in Marxism and futility in practice, there is a gaggle of grouplets now (mainly Maoist-Castroite) characterized by amnesia regarding the Marxist tradition, ignorance of the socialist experience, and extreme primitivism. The road to an American socialist movement surely lies over the debris, or around the rotting off-shoots of, this fetid jungle of sects." [Quoted from here.]

This isn't just an American phenomenon, either, it is international, and, as we will see in Essay Ten Part One, the situation has worsened considerably since the above words were committed to paper. [The fragmentation of the UK-SWP is just the latest example of this trend.]

Inside the Dialectical Matrix, an Authoritarian Personality type soon emerges to endorse, and then enforce, ideological purity (disguised now as part of an endeavour to keep faith with "tradition" -- which is, not un-coincidentally, a noxious trait shared by all known religions). "Tradition" now becomes a watch-word to test and maintain doctrinal purity within party cadres -- especially among those who might stray too far from the narrow path which alone leads the DM-elect toward revolutionary salvation.¹⁷

[History has indeed confirmed that the 'centrifugal forces' of fragmentation that operate between dialectically-distracted comrades far out-weigh their constant calls for unity. (I return to this theme below. See also Appendix F.)]

We have already seen Marx nail his colours to the anti-Philosophy mast with these woods:

"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 (1975c), p.381. I have used the on-line version, here. Bold emphases added.]

So, it is no surprise, therefore, to see DM-fans -- who, incidentally, reject the above remarks and Marx's advice that they should "leave philosophy" -- both act and express themselves in a quasi-religious terms or behave in a manner reminiscent of those who belong to a cult.

In addition to the numerous examples listed here, the above allegations concerning the quasi-religious, or highly emotional and irrational responses elicited from dialecticians when their theory is criticised find ready confirmation in the behaviour of at least one leading Marxist, Trotsky. George Novack records the following meeting he and Max Shachtman had with him in Mexico (in 1937):

"[O]ur discussion glided into the subject of philosophy.... We talked about the best ways of studying dialectical materialism, about Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and about the theoretical backwardness of American radicalism. Trotsky brought forward the name of Max Eastman, who in various works had polemicized against dialectics as a worthless idealist hangover from the Hegelian heritage of Marxism. He became tense and agitated. 'Upon going back to the States,' he urged, 'you comrades must at once take up the struggle against Eastman's distortion and repudiation of dialectical materialism. There is nothing more important than this. Pragmatism, empiricism, is the greatest curse of American thought. You must inoculate younger comrades against its infection.'

"I was somewhat surprised at the vehemence of his argumentation on this matter at such a moment. As the principal defendant in absentia in the Moscow trials, and because of the dramatic circumstances of his voyage in exile, Trotsky then stood in the centre of international attention. He was fighting for his reputation, liberty, and life against the powerful government of Stalin, bent on his defamation and death. After having been imprisoned and gagged for months by the Norwegian authorities, he had been kept incommunicado for weeks aboard their tanker.

"Yet on the first day after reunion with his cothinkers, he spent more than an hour explaining how important it was for a Marxist movement to have a correct philosophical method and to defend dialectical materialism against its opponents!... [Trotsky later wrote:] 'The question of correct philosophical doctrine, that is, a correct method of thought, is of decisive significance to a revolutionary party....'" [Novack (1960), reprinted in Novack (1978), pp.269-71. Italics in the original. Bold emphases and link added. Spelling altered to conform with UK English; quotation marks adapted to agree with conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]

The accuracy of Novack's memory is confirmed by the following remarks written by Trotsky himself:

"...It would not be amiss, therefore, to refer to the fact that my first serious conversation with comrades Shachtman and Warde, in the train immediately after my arrival in Mexico in January 1937, was devoted to the necessity of persistently propagating dialectic materialism. After our American section split from the Socialist Party I insisted most strongly on the earliest possible publication of a theoretical organ, having again in mind the need to educate the party, first and foremost its new members, in the spirit of dialectic materialism. In the United States, I wrote at that time, where the bourgeoisie systematically in stills (sic) vulgar empiricism in the workers, more than anywhere else is it necessary to speed the elevation of the movement to a proper theoretical level. On January 20, 1939, I wrote to comrade Shachtman concerning his joint article with comrade Burnham, 'Intellectuals in Retreat':

'The section on the dialectic is the greatest blow that you, personally, as the editor of the New International could have delivered to Marxist theory.... Good. We will speak about it publicly.'

"Thus a year ago I gave open notice in advance to Shachtman that I intended to wage a public struggle against his eclectic tendencies. At that time there was no talk whatever of the coming opposition; in any case furthest from my mind was the supposition that the philosophic bloc against Marxism prepared the ground for a political bloc against the program of the Fourth International." [Trotsky (1971), p.142. Bold emphases and link added.]¹⁸

Given the content of this Essay -- and Marx's words above --, Trotsky's semi-religious fervour, his emotional attachment to the dialectic compounded by his irrational response to Max Eastman and James Burnham are now much easier to understand. Can you imagine anyone getting so worked up over the minutiae underlying the demise of Feudalism? Or, the falling rate of profit?

Stronger than religious faith. But, from where did this 'faith' arise? What was its source?

As we can see from the above passages, it clearly arose out his commitment to DM, a super-historical, cosmic theory that guarantees victory to true believers.

Despite their profound political differences, Trotsky and Stalin were both Dedicated Dialectical Devotees. Ethan Pollock reports on a revealing incident that took place in the Kremlin just after the end of World War Two:

"In late December 1946 Joseph Stalin called a meeting of high-level Communist Party personnel.... The opening salvos of the Cold War had already been launched. Earlier in the year Winston Churchill had warned of an iron curtain dividing Europe. Disputes about the political future of Germany, the presence of Soviet troops in Iran, and proposals to control atomic weapons had all contributed to growing tensions between the United States and the USSR. Inside the Soviet Union the devastating effects of the Second World War were painfully obvious: cities remained bombed out and unreconstructed; famine laid waste to the countryside, with millions dying of starvation and many millions more malnourished. All this makes one of the agenda items for the Kremlin meeting surprising: Stalin wanted to discuss the recent prizewinning book History of Western European Philosophy [by Georgii Aleksandrov -- RL]." [Pollock (2006), p.15. Bold emphasis and links added. Italic emphases in the original.]

Pollock explains that the problems Aleksandrov faced arose because of his interpretation of the foreign (i.e., German!) roots of DM in an earlier work, and how he had been criticised for not emphasising the "reactionary and bourgeois" nature of the work of German Philosophers like Kant, Fichte and Hegel --, in view of their recent war against the invading fascists -- when, of course, during the Hitler-Stalin pact a few years earlier, the opposite line had been peddled by the Kremlin. Pollock also describes the detailed and lengthy discussions the Central Committee devoted to Aleksandrov's previous work years earlier, even during the height of the war against the Nazis!

It is revealing, therefore, to note that Stalin and his henchmen considered DM to be so important that other more pressing matters could be shelved, or delayed, so that they might devote time to discussing...Philosophy! In this, of course, Stalin was in total agreement with Trotsky and other leading Marxists.

Once more, Marx's comments (repeated below) make abundantly clear why that was so, and why these individuals were so.

We witness something similar in relation to Nikolai Bukharin. Anyone who reads Philosophical Arabesques [Bukharin (2005)] will be struck by the semi-religious fervour with which he defends 'dialectics'. In view of Bukharin's predicament, that is hardly surprising. But, it is also no less revealing since it confirms much of the above: DM is responsible for holding the fragile dialectical ego together, even in the face of execution.

The old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes", may or may not be correct, but it looks like there mightn't have been many non-dialecticians in the Lubyanka waiting on Stalin's 'mercy'. Behind those grim, unforgiving walls it seems that even hard-nosed Bolsheviks needed some form of consolation. As Helena Sheehan notes in her Introduction (to Sheehan (2005)):

"Perhaps the most remarkable thing about his text is that it was written at all. Condemned not by an enemy but by his own comrades, seeing what had been so magnificently created being so catastrophically destroyed, undergoing shattering interrogations, how was he not totally debilitated by despair? Where did this author get the strength, the composure, the faith in the future that was necessary to write this treatise of Philosophy, this passionate defense of the intellectual tradition of Marxism and the political project of socialist construction? Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin was a tragic true believer...." [Sheehan (2005), pp.7-8. Bold emphases added; paragraphs merged.]

"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.... Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification.... Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions...." [Marx (1975b), p.244. Bold emphases added; paragraphs merged.]

The fact that Bukharin, this doomed comrade, chose to spend his last days and weeks expounding and defending a Hermetic theory -- pleading with Stalin not to destroy his book -- tells us all we need to know.

[Several more examples of the expression of DM-faith like this have been posted here and here.]

This gets things completely the wrong way round. As Tony Cliff remarked in a talk, it is lack of power that corrupts absolutely. It corrupts the working class, and that in turn allows the members of the ruling-class to get away with whatever they feel they can get away with, corrupting them in return.

Similarly, a passive working class allows revolutionaries -- or, rather, their supposed 'tribunes' -- to get up to all kinds of dialectical and organisational mischief. Hence, the latter become corrupted, too.

As we have seen, among the many different forms this corruption takes is the general lack of any sort of effective democratic control exercised on Central Committees and Party 'Leaders'.

The aforementioned Authoritarian Personality-type -- in the shape of The Leader, The 'Great Helmsman'/'Teacher', the Central Committee [CC] itself, or one or more of their lackeys -- ensures that democratic accountability is, at best, merely formal. Hence, genuine democratic control soon becomes an early casualty in this backwater of the class war. Democracy is, among other things, an external constraint exercised by the majority on the individual, which, naturally, helps explain why it is favoured by the majority. By way of contrast, democratic control is equally feared by the petty-bourgeois minority, and for the same reason. In such dialectically-dominated micro-parties, democracy threatens the internally-enforced mind control this minority prefers. Which is, of course, why so many DM-parties have latched onto the slate system as the preferred method of electing their CCs, and their preferred method for denying their rank-and-file any sort of democratic control.^18a

This, too, is one of the reasons why Capitalists themselves need the state -- packed with individuals they can trust, selected by their very own version of the slate system (which is quite often no more sophisticated than this: which bed you were born in or which bed you climbed into) -- to impose and then consolidate the rule of the minority over otherwise democratically-inclined workers. And, it is also why they need to call upon various Idealist and reactionary 'theories' to convince the recalcitrant majority that this is "All for your benefit, you understand", since "We are all in it together" and "It's in the national interest", yada, yada...

It is also why Dialectical Marxists need the centralist, but not the democratic, part of democratic centralism, and why democracy is ditched so readily and so often.

Naturally, political degeneration like this doesn't develop in a vacuum, independent of social forces. As noted here, the malignant side-effects of Dialectical Dementia tend to dominate (i) When the materialist counter-weight provided by the working class is totally absent (i.e., before the proletariat had emerged as an effective political and social force), (ii) When that counterweight is much more attenuated, or (iii) In periods of "downturn", retreat and defeat. This is, of course, also when Dialectical Druggies tend to 're-discover' this 'theory' and when they all attempt to snort along the 'correct' philosophical line.¹⁹

Small wonder then that these petty-bourgeois victims cling to DM like drunks to lampposts -- and, alas, like the 'god'-botherers among us cling to their own favoured source of opiates.

DM now shapes and dominates the personal-, and party-identity of such comrades. Any attack on this sacred doctrine is an attack not just on the glue that holds each of these social atoms together, but also on the cement that holds together the party and the entire Dialectical Marxist "tradition".^19a

In their own eyes, these professional, petty-bourgeois revolutionaries are special; they live -- no they embody -- the revolution. They have caught the tide of history, the ineluctable drift of the universe; they must keep the faith.

Commitment to the revolution on these terms now creates a layer of militants who, for all the world, appear to suffer from some sort of dialectical personality disorder -- again, one aspect of which is The Leader Complex.

As noted above, once more, fragmentation lies at the very heart of DM, and is now synonymous with Dialectical Marxism itself -- witness the well-aimed joke in Monty Python's Life of Brian (about the Judean People's Front, etc.). The joke is memorable because everyone recognises its central core of truth.

So, Dialectical Marxists are soon transformed into Militant Martinets, ostracising and expelling anyone who fails to tow the 'correct' line. As we have seen, these Dialectical Despots have very powerful personalities, something they use to good effect in the small ponds they invariably patrol -- and clearly prefer. Expulsions, splits and bans thus keep their grouplets small, and thus easier to manipulate.

The petty-bourgeois revolutionary ego helps keep our movement fragmented, small, insular and thus ineffectual --, clearly in preference to its being democratic, outward-looking and effective. No wonder then that in such circumstances, democracy goes out the window along with reasonableness --, and, of course, along with any significant political impact.

In this way, ruling-ideas have come to rule Dialectical Marxism, which has in turn helped ruin our movement -- by allowing those who divide, rule, and those who rule, divide.

Each Dialectical Disciple now acts as if he/she alone has direct access to the exact meaning of the dialectic (here is an excellent recent example of this syndrome), uncannily mirroring the individualism that underpins Protestantism, where believers are required to work out their own salvation in 'fear and trembling' by means of a thorough study of the Bible, allied with endless disputation. This also helps account for the interminable dialectical debates over vacuous Hegelian concepts (rather like those that exercised the Medieval Schoolmen): for example, whether this or that idea is "abstract", "positivist", "one-sided", or whether 'opposites' are 'united' or 'identical' --, or, indeed, whether "motion precedes matter"..., or is it the other way round?²⁰

This also helps explain why each DM-supplicant thinks that no one else really "understands" the dialectic like they do --, or even as well as they do.

[Since no one does in fact understand DM (on that, see Essay Nine Part One), this is a very easy claim to make, and one no less difficult to discredit.]

Every opponent is now tarred with the same brush (on this, see below, as well as here): all fail to "understand" the dialectic -- that is, all except the blessed soul who made that rather bold claim!

Just like the Old Testament Prophets, it is almost as if these individuals have received a personal visit from the 'Self-Developing Idea' Itself.

Indeed, The Road to Damascus and The Road to Dialectics have much more in common than just a capital letter "D".

All this explains why, to each DM-acolyte, the dialectic is so personal, so intimately their own possession, and why you can sense the personal hurt they feel when it is comprehensively trashed, as it has been at this site. [For two excellent examples of this malady, check out these two incoherent videos.]

Hence, any attack on this 'precious jewel' is an attack on the revolutionary ego itself and will be resisted with all the bile and venom at its command.

And that explains, too, all the abuse you, dear reader, will receive if you think to challenge the Dialectical Doctrines of a single one of these Hermetic Head Cases.

Again, as noted above, in defeat these individuals reach for what is in effect a comfort blanket -- Dialectical Methadone -- in order to insulate their minds from reality and constant failure. And, by all accounts this ersatz opiate has done an excellent job. In fact, anyone who attempts to argue with a single one of these Dialectical Dupes would be far better and more profitably occupied head-butting a Billy-goat for all the good it will do. [That allegation is easily confirmed; the reader should check this out.]

However, narcoleptic stupor of such profundity -- compounded by the constant lack of clarity required to maintain it -- only helps engineer more splits, thus more set-backs and defeats, which in turn creates the need for another sizeable hit.

Small wonder then that Dialectical Marxism is to success what religion is peace on earth.

DM has thus infected our movement at every level, exacerbating sectarianism, factionalism, exclusivism, unreasonableness, dismissive haughtiness (this truly endearing quality displayed most notably by the High Church Faction), pomposity, corruption, extreme dogmatism (bordering on clinical paranoia in some cases), topped-off with a few generous layers of abuse, all liberally peppered with delightful phrases like "rant", "diatribe", "screed", "sh*t", "cr*p", and worse. Indeed, as noted earlier, a leading Marxist Professor of Economics, (Andrew Kliman, no less), recently urged me (via e-mail) to "Eat sh*t and die!", simply because I had the temerity to ask him to explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, which he, like all the rest, had signally failed to do.

[Again, I hasten to add that I am not complaining about this; indeed, I expect it. Indeed, if I received none, I would conclude I had made a mistake or taken a wrong turn somewhere.]

Dialectical vices like these have introduced into each and every tiny sectlet an open and implacable hatred of practically every other sectlet, and, in some cases, every other comrade -- especially those who dare question The Sacred Dialectical Mantra. [On that, see Note 14 and Appendix B.]

Unsurprisingly, the result of all this dialectical infighting is that in order to consolidate their power the ruling-class needn't even try to divide us; we're quite capable of making a first-rate job of it ourselves, thank you very much.

Everyone in the movement is painfully aware of this (some even joke about it -- again, often along Monty Python lines!); others excuse it or explain it away with yet more 'dialectics' -- or even with fruitless and empty calls for unity.²¹

But, no one confronts these fatal defects at their source in (i) The class origin of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries and (ii) Their fondness for the divisive doctrines of that latter-day Hermeticist -- Hegel.

Doctrinaire Marxism is the final result of this mystical creed, hence it needs a Guru or two to interpret it, rationalise constant failure, and 'justify' regular splits -- and, of course, initiate another round of the same.

Enter the cult of the personality with its petty, nit-picking, small pond mentality. Enter the "Leader" who knows all, reveals all, expels all -- and, in several notorious cases, executes or imprisons all -- The Dialectical Magus.

As observers of religious cults have noted, even the most mundane and banal statements uttered by such leaders are treated with undeserved awe, rapt attention and inordinate respect, compounded by a level of sycophancy that would shame a professional boot licker -- almost as if their words had been conveyed to expectant humanity from off the mountain top itself, possessed of profound, esoteric significance and divine authority.

Witness the inordinate and quasi-religious reverence in which the dialectical meanderings of Mao and Stalin were/are held. Here, for example, is Lin Biao on the former, in 1966:

"Chairman Mao is a genius, everything the Chairman says is truly great; one of the Chairman's words will override the meaning of ten thousands of ours." [Quoted from here.]

This is what Nikita Khrushchev had to say (in his 'secret speech' to the 20th Congress of the CPSU):

"After Stalin's death, the Central Committee began to implement a policy of explaining concisely and consistently that it is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics, akin to those of a god. Such a man supposedly knows everything, sees everything, thinks for everyone, can do anything, is infallible in his behaviour.

"Such a belief about a man, and specifically about Stalin, was cultivated among us for many years. The objective of the present report is not a thorough evaluation of Stalin's life and activity. Concerning Stalin's merits, an entirely sufficient number of books, pamphlets and studies had already been written in his lifetime. Stalin's role in the preparation and execution of the Socialist Revolution, in the Civil War, and in the fight for the construction of socialism in our country, is universally known. Everyone knows it well.

"At present, we are concerned with a question which has immense importance for the Party now and for the future -- with how the cult of the person of Stalin has been gradually growing, the cult which became at a certain specific stage the source of a whole series of exceedingly serious and grave perversions of Party principles, of Party democracy, of revolutionary legality. Because not all as yet realize fully the practical consequences resulting from the cult of the individual, [or] the great harm caused by violation of the principle of collective Party direction and by the accumulation of immense and limitless power in the hands of one person, the Central Committee considers it absolutely necessary to make material pertaining to this matter available to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

"Allow me first of all to remind you how severely the classics of Marxism-Leninism denounced every manifestation of the cult of the individual. In a letter to the German political worker Wilhelm Bloss, [Karl] Marx stated: 'From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me. I did not even reply to them, except sometimes to rebuke their authors. [Friedrich] Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute. [Ferdinand] Lassalle subsequently did quite the opposite.'" [Nikita Khrushchev, Speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU, 24-25/02/1956. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged. Spelling modified to agree with UK English. Typos corrected. (I have informed the editors over at the Marxist Internet Archive.)]

"Thank you, Stalin. Thank you because I am joyful. Thank you because I am well. No matter how old I become, I shall never forget how we received Stalin two days ago. Centuries will pass, and the generations still to come will regard us as the happiest of mortals, as the most fortunate of men, because we lived in the century of centuries, because we were privileged to see Stalin, our inspired leader. Yes, and we regard ourselves as the happiest of mortals because we are the contemporaries of a man who never had an equal in world history.

"The men of all ages will call on thy name, which is strong, beautiful, wise and marvellous. Thy name is engraven on every factory, every machine, every place on the earth, and in the hearts of all men.

"Every time I have found myself in his presence I have been subjugated by his strength, his charm, his grandeur. I have experienced a great desire to sing, to cry out, to shout with joy and happiness. And now see me -- me! -- on the same platform where the Great Stalin stood a year ago. In what country, in what part of the world could such a thing happen.

"I write books. I am an author. All thanks to thee, O great educator, Stalin. I love a young woman with a renewed love and shall perpetuate myself in my children -- all thanks to thee, great educator, Stalin. I shall be eternally happy and joyous, all thanks to thee, great educator, Stalin. Everything belongs to thee, chief of our great country. And when the woman I love presents me with a child the first word it shall utter will be: Stalin.

"O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifies the earth,
Thou who restorest to centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical chords...
Thou, splendour of my spring, O thou,
Sun reflected by millions of hearts."

"According to his official biography, Kim Jong Il's birth atop a sacred mountain saw a new star created and winter turn to spring. However, records kept by the country's Soviet allies show he was born in a Siberian village in 1941." [Quoted from here.]

I have just seen a documentary on CNN (aired 14/09/2017 -- the original video is available here, Chapter Six, The Sacred Mountain -- scroll down the latter page to see a short clip from this chapter, although I have posted the full clip below as Video Two), in which the official North Korean guide (employed at the site of Kim-Jong-il's 'miraculous' birthplace) confirms the above tale. She adds that this isn't a legend -- it really did happen. Here is a transcript:

"So it was really cold and the weather was not normal. But, somehow, the day the General was born the strong wind stopped all of a sudden. The sun began shining through. Everything was bright and a quiet calm took over. The flowers bloomed and in the sky was a particularly bright star.... Yes, it actually happened. It's not a legend. Our general is really a person who (sic) heaven sent to us. So, he changed the weather, too. It's a true story.... Nature actually transformed itself to announce the birth of our General to the whole world, blessing it. That's how it happened."

Nor, indeed, need we be reminded of the obsequious praise heaped on Gerry Healy -- Blessed Be His Name! -- by prominent members of the now defunct WRP, or even the nauseating adulation lavished on Marlene Dixon of the DWP:

"Comrade Marlene and the Party are inseparable; her contribution is the Party itself, is the unity all of us join together to build upon. The Party is now the material expression of that unity, of that theoretical world view. That world view is the world view of the Party, its central leadership and all of its members. And there will be no other world view…. This was the unity that founded the Party, this was the unity that safeguarded the Party through purge and two-line struggle, and this is the unity we will protect and defend at all costs. There will be no other unity." [Quoted from here; see also here. This passage in fact appears in Lalich (2004), p.164.]

[I have posted many more examples of this nausea-inducing sycophancy here and here. You might need a bucket.]

In fact, Healy was well-known for fomenting strife among party members (with added violence, so we are told) in order to heighten the 'contradictions' in his micro-sect --, along 'sound' dialectical lines, of course. In the recent crisis in the UK-SWP, Alex Callinicos even spoke of "lynch mobs". Of late we have also witnessed the divisive political and 'philosophical' gyrations of Chris Cutrone and the 'Platypus Affiliated Society'.

Compare the above hero worship with Marx's own stated attitude (referenced above by Khrushchev himself):

"Neither of us cares a straw for popularity. Let me cite one proof of this: such was my aversion to the personality cult that at the time of the International, when plagued by numerous moves -- originating from various countries -- to accord me public honour, I never allowed one of these to enter the domain of publicity, nor did I ever reply to them, save with an occasional snub. When Engels and I first joined the secret communist society, we did so only on condition that anything conducive to a superstitious belief in authority be eliminated from the Rules. (Lassalle subsequently operated in the reverse direction.)" [MECW, 45, p.288, Marx to Wilhem Blos, 10/11/1877. Link added.]

This phenomenon also helps account for much of the personal and organisation corruption revolutionary politics has witnessed over the last hundred years or more -- ranging from Mao's abuse of female comrades to the same with respect to Healy (on that, see Appendix A), down to the scandal that engulfed the UK-SWP a few years ago --, but there are many more examples of this malaise. All of these are partly the result of the noxious effect this doctrine has had on otherwise radical minds -- i.e., convincing them that they are somehow 'special' and hence, Raskolnikov-like, are above the 'conventional' morality of the 'herd', or, in some cases, even the laws of nature!

"Last week the 75-year old Aravindan Balakrishnan (aka 'comrade Bala') was sentenced to 23 years in jail for a string of offences, including rape, sexual assault, child cruelty and false imprisonment -- the last two charges relating to his daughter, Katy Morgan-Davies, who is now 33.

Megalomania coupled with an inflated view of one's own (surely cosmic) importance, a failure to face reality (courtesy of a theory that teaches that 'appearances' are 'contradicted' by underlying 'essence') descend like a cloud on the brains of such individuals --, and, of course, their acolytes. How else would it have been possible for them to rationalise so easily the pragmatic contradiction between, say, the widespread abuse of female comrades and a formal commitment to women's liberation, except by means of this contradictory theory: DM?²³

In this way, we have seen Dialectical Marxism replicate much of the abuse -- and most of sectarianism -- found in almost all known religions. [Again, on this, see Appendix A.] And no wonder: both were spawned by similar alienated patterns of ruling-class thought and social atomisation --, compounded, of course, by a cultic mentality, a pathological mind-set further aggravated by a divisive, Hermetic Creed capable of rationalising anything whatsoever and its opposite!

"It's possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way." [Marx to Engels, 15/08/1857, MECW 40, p.152. Bold emphasis added.]

And this is one of the logical consequences of all that dialectical-adulation, proudly exhibited by Gerry Healy's supporters in the old WRP, but more recently by the UK-SWP in connection with the 'comrade Delta' debacle:

"Rape, however, is a most abusive violent power relation and weapon used for oppression which echoes the exploitative rule of capital itself. For such a form of abuse to emerge in any so-called socialist organisation -- and to 'deal' with it in the way the SWP has -- reflects the presence of the deepest forms of degeneration and corruption which, in turn, replicates the most insidious and inhuman forms of alienation and oppression of capitalist domination. If a so-called socialist organisation is not a safe place for women to voluntarily participate in its activities, then it is not worthy of the name 'socialist'....

"Historically, and speaking from my early political experience, socialists have witnessed such behaviour before. The dissolution of the Workers Revolutionary Party in 1985 was sparked by the discovery that its leader -- Gerry Healy -- had regularly assaulted party members, sexually abusing female comrades for many years and perpetrating various libels and slanders against socialists in other organisations. Healy's secretary -- who was instrumental in exposing his abuses -- listed more than 20 victims. Healy used his position of power in the party to sexually abuse female comrades....

"When Cliff Slaughter in opposition to Healy -- at a meeting in London -- quoted Lenin on morality, Healy et al accused him of purveying bourgeois morality (such accusations will ring a bell with those currently fighting the 'elect' in the SWP) until he actually stated subsequently to the full meeting that he had just quoted from Lenin. This exposed how far Healy & Co had actually moved away from 'their' Lenin on questions of morality. For Healy et al, Lenin was infallible, indisputable gospel. Nobody critiqued Lenin. Volumes 14 and 38 of the Collected Works were treated like divine revelation....

"Corin Redgrave (the now dead brother of the still living actress Vanessa) caused uproar in a meeting in Scotland when he praised what he called Healy's 'achievements' and said that... 'If this is the work of a rapist, then let's recruit more rapists'....

"This was the sort of obscene, anti-socialist, inhuman morality which prevailed in the Workers Revolutionary Party prior to the break-up in 1985. This was used to prop up and validate the bizarre sectarian notions of vanguardism: 'we are the vanguard party', etc. Verbal and physical abuse, coercion, bullying, intimidation, emotional blackmail, humiliation, people re-mortgaging and even losing their houses to fund the party and working all hours (18-hour days were normal for some comrades) were all part of being a 'professional revolutionary' in the WRP. The personal life was 'toast'....

"[All this] was 'complimented' by the most abject philosophical philistinism and theoretically dissolute publication of Healy's very unremarkable 'Studies in Dialectical Materialism' which turned out to be an incomprehensible dog's dinner of convoluted mumbojumbo phrasemongering and terminological confusion. One comrade in Hull sarcastically recommended it as 'bedtime reading' when I told him I was having trouble sleeping. Because we didn't grasp it, we thought it was 'too advanced' for us. We didn't possess the 'supreme dialectical mind of a Gerry Healy'. As things turned out, when we looked at it as the fog started to lift, it was clear that we didn't understand it because it was unadulterated gobbledegook. Here again, we see a characteristic of cult-existence in which its leader was, momentarily at least, attributed powers which he really didn't hold. None of us understood the 'Studies' and so we were told to 'theoretically discipline ourselves' like a mental or intellectual form of self-flagellation or 'penance' found in physical form in some religious cults or sects....

"Many people did actually have mental breakdowns even after the break-up of the WRP. Homes broken. Divorces. Families destroyed. 'Building the party' was simultaneously the point of departure and the point of return. Everything else was subservient to this manic 'party-building'....

"The 'leaders' of these sectarian groups -- these minilenins and tinytrotskys -- tend to attract the same degree of reverence from their rather uncritical membership as a charismatic neo-prophet does from the enchanted congregation of his cult. The social psychology is fundamentally the same. Until, of course, a profound crisis sets in which shakes everything to its foundations. And sexual abuse in a so-called socialist organisation is such a crisis....

"Meanwhile today, in March 2013, 28 years post-Healy, the Socialist Workers Party remains open to the accusation that it is harbouring rapists and sexual predators (sic) whilst two women socialists are insisting that they have been sexually abused by the accused man who is still free to prowl around the female membership. [The ex-comrade involved has since resigned from the SWP in order to avoid having to answer further accusations of sexual harassment levelled at him by the second of the two female comrades mentioned above -- RL.]" [Quoted from here; accessed 09/10/2013. Quotation marks altered to conform with conventions adopted at this site. Links added. (See also here and here -- warning: graphic detail!)]

As things stand, we are bound to witness yet more Gerry Healys and Comrade Deltas on the revolutionary left (accompanied, of course, by the regulation "It's all a fame-up by the capitalist state/media" defence). [On this, see Note 23.]

Update June 2019: As the above was being written, the US International Socialist Organisation (ISO) leadership was busy covering up yet another rape accusation. This latest debacle culminated in the ISO voting to disband in April 2019. [On that see, here.]

As far as the DM-'faithful' are concerned all this will fail to go even in one ear let alone straight out through the other. That is because they refuse to accept that any of the pressures bearing down on the rest of humanity could possibly have any effect on them, the DM-Elect.

Indeed, as far as The Chosen Few are concerned we can totally ignore these famous words:

In response, it is often countered that tracing the fondness dialecticians have for Philosophy back to their class origin or current class position is just "crude reductionism!". In stark contrast, however, dialecticians are quite happy to reduce their opponents' theories and beliefs to their class origin or class position, while any attempt to do likewise with respect to their philosophical ideas is rejected out-of-hand -- with a...label.

"In a word, Comrade Martov's formula will either remain a dead letter, an empty phrase, or it will be of benefit mainly and almost exclusively to 'intellectuals who are thoroughly imbued with bourgeois individualism' and do not wish to join an organisation. Martov's formulation ostensively defends the interests of the broad strata of the proletariat, but in fact it serves the interests of the bourgeois intellectuals, who fight shy of proletarian discipline and organisation. No one will venture to deny that the intelligentsia, as a special stratum of modern capitalist society, is characterised, by and large, precisely by individualism and incapacity for discipline and organisation (cf., for example, Kautsky's well-known articles on the intelligentsia (partially reproduced below -- RL)). This, incidentally, is a feature which unfavourably distinguishes this social stratum from the proletariat; it is one of the reasons for the flabbiness and instability of the intellectual, which the proletariat so often feels; and this trait of the intelligentsia is inseparably bound up with its customary mode of life, and of earning a livelihood, which in a great many respects approximate the conditions of petty-bourgeois existence (working in isolation or in very small groups, etc.). Lastly, it is not fortuitous that the defenders of Comrade Martov's formulation were the ones who were obliged to cite the example of professors and high-school students! It was not the champions of a broad proletarian struggle who, in the controversy over Paragraph 1, took the field against the champions of a radically conspiratorial organisation as Comrades Martynov and Axelrod thought, but the supporters of bourgeois-intellectual individualism, who clashed with the supporters of proletarian organisation and discipline." [Lenin (1976a), pp.87-88. Bold emphasis and links added; italic emphases in the original. I have used the Peking edition here, which differs slightly from the on-line Moscow version.]

Quoting Kautsky on the social psychology of his opponents, Lenin further argued (in the previous paragraph having ascribed the words quoted below to the "wishy-washiness of the intellectual"):

"One cannot help recalling in this connection the brilliant social and psychological characterisation of this latter quality recently given by Karl Kautsky. The Social Democratic parties of different countries suffer not infrequently nowadays from similar maladies, and it would be extremely useful for us to learn from more experienced comrades the correct diagnosis and the correct cure. Karl Kautsky's characterisation of certain intellectuals will therefore be only a seeming digression from our theme.

"The problem 'that again interests us so keenly today is the antagonism between the intelligentsia and the proletariat. My colleagues' (Kautsky is himself an intellectual, a writer and editor) 'will mostly be indignant that I admit this antagonism. But it actually exists, and, as in other cases, it would be the most inept tactics to try to overcome the fact by denying it. This antagonism is a social one, it manifests itself in classes, not in individuals. The individual intellectual, like the individual capitalist, may join wholly in the class struggle of the proletariat. When he does, he changes his character too. It is not of this type of intellectual, who is still an exception among his class, that we shall mainly speak in what follows. Unless otherwise stated, I shall use the word intellectual to mean only the common run of intellectual who takes the stand of bourgeois society, and who is characteristic of the intelligentsia as a class. This class stands in a certain antagonism to the proletariat.

"Just such flabby whining of intellectuals who found themselves in the minority, and nothing more, was the refusal of Martov and his colleagues to take up their posts only because the old circle had not been endorsed, as were their complaints of a state of siege and emergency laws 'against particular groups,' which were not dear to Martov when the Yuzhny Rabochy and the Rabocheye Dyelo were dissolved, but became dear to him when his own group was dissolved.

"Just such flabby whining of intellectuals who found themselves in the minority was that endless torrent of complaints, reproaches, hints, accusations, slanders, and insinuations regarding the 'compact majority' which was started by Martov and flowed so readily at our Party Congress (and even more so after it)....

"There were bitter complaints of the 'false accusation of opportunism'. Well, they had to do something to conceal the unpleasant fact that it was precisely the opportunists -- who in most cases had followed the anti-Iskra-ists -- and partly these anti-Iskra-ists themselves that formed the compact minority, and convulsively clung to the circle spirit in Party institutions, opportunism in their argumentation, philistinism in Party affairs and the instability and wishy-washiness of the intellectual." [Ibid., pp.160-63. Bold emphases and links added; italic emphases in the original. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. I have corrected several typos in the on-line version -- the editors have been informed of these glitches. Again, I have used the Peking edition here, which differs slightly from the on-line Moscow version.]

Trotsky was also happy to do likewise (this time applying the following analysis to those in his own party who opposed him, but failing to do so with respect to those who supported him, or, indeed, himself):

"[Y]ou [James Burnham -- RL], likewise, seek an ideal party democracy which would secure forever and for everybody the possibility of saying and doing whatever popped into his head, and which would insure the party against bureaucratic degeneration. You overlook a trifle, namely, that the party is not an arena for the assertion of free individuality, but an instrument of the proletarian revolution; that only a victorious revolution is capable of preventing the degeneration not only of the party but of the proletariat itself and of modern civilization as a whole. You do not see that our American section is not sick from too much centralism -- it is laughable even to talk about it -- but from a monstrous abuse and distortion of democracy on the part of petty-bourgeois elements. This is at the root of the present crisis....

"Petty-bourgeois, and especially declassed elements, divorced from the proletariat, vegetate in an artificial and shut-in environment. They have ample time to dabble in politics or its substitute. They pick out faults, exchange all sorts of tidbits and gossip concerning happenings among the party 'tops.' They always locate a leader who initiates them into all the 'secrets.' Discussion is their native element. No amount of democracy is ever enough for them. For their war of words they seek the fourth dimension. They become jittery, they revolve in a vicious circle, and they quench their thirst with salt water. Do you want to know the organizational program of the opposition? It consists of a mad hunt for the fourth dimension of party democracy. In practice this means burying politics beneath discussion; and burying centralism beneath the anarchy of the intellectual circles. When a few thousand workers join the party, they will call the petty-bourgeois anarchists severely to order. The sooner, the better." [Trotsky (1971), pp.116-17. Bold emphases and link added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Needless to say, the "few thousand" workers failed to show up. For Burnham's reply to Trotsky, see here.]

"If we exclude that stratum of the intelligentsia which directly serves the working masses, as workers' doctors, lawyers, and so on (a stratum which, as a general rule, is composed of the less talented representatives of these professions), then we see that the most important and influential part of the intelligentsia owes its livelihood to payments out of industrial profit, rent from land or the state budget, and thus is directly or indirectly dependent on the capitalist classes or the capitalist state.

"Abstractly considered, this material dependence puts out of the question only militant political activity in the anti-capitalist ranks, but not spiritual freedom in relation to the class which provides employment. In actual fact, however, this is not so. Precisely the 'spiritual' nature of the work that the intelligentsia do inevitably forms a spiritual tie between them and the possessing classes." [Trotsky, The Intelligentsia And Socialism. Bold emphases added.]

"The entire effort of Stalin, with whom at that time Zinoviev and Kamenev were working hand in hand, was thenceforth directed to freeing the party machine from the control of the rank-and-file members of the party. In this struggle for 'stability' of the Central Committee, Stalin proved the most consistent and reliable among his colleagues. He had no need to tear himself away from international problems; he had never been concerned with them. The petty bourgeois outlook of the new ruling stratum was his own outlook. He profoundly believed that the task of creating socialism was national and administrative in its nature. He looked upon the Communist International as a necessary evil would should be used so far as possible for the purposes of foreign policy. His own party kept a value in his eyes merely as a submissive support for the machine." [Trotsky (1977), p.97. Bold emphasis and links added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"Since the theory of historical materialism, which lies at the very heart of Marxism, is the crowning achievement of the bourgeois intellectual, it is no more than an act of historical justice to apply it to the intelligentsia itself.... But the intelligentsia as a highly self-conscious and separate grouping with its own interests and institutions is a peculiar product of bourgeois society and the highly developed division of labour within it....

"Intellectuals are usually (though not necessarily) professionals of one kind of another, teachers, writers, scientists, artists, politicians, etc....

"But, along with the professionalisation of technical training and the institutionalization of branches of learning which reach their highest development in present-day society, there ensues a further specialization. A deep division of labour springs up between the theorists and practitioners of the arts and sciences. Thus we have theoreticians of aesthetics, who have never produced a work of art, and painters who have never given an abstract thought to their work; practical politicians and professors of politics; field scientists and laboratory scientists; experimental physicists and mathematical physicists. There have even been established 'schools of business administration', like that at Harvard, where the art of exploitation is taught in the grand manner, and the science of capitalist apologetics developed to the same refined degree as the scholastics developed Catholic theology.

"Finally, out of the division of labour in the academic domain have emerged entire departments of philosophy and the social sciences, given over to the task of speculating upon the most profound philosophical, historical, and social problems. The professional philosopher is the most consummate expression of the modern intellectual, as the professional theologian was the highest representative of the medieval learned caste.

"The native habitat of the professional intellectual in modern as well as in medieval society is the university. The growth of universities furnishes one of the best indices to the evolution of the intelligentsia. It must be noted in this connection that the leading institutions of learning are usually supported and controlled by the ruling classes, as a centre for the dissemination of their ideas. Plato's Academy was for the sons of the Greek aristocracy, just as Plato's philosophy was the reasoned expression of the world view of the Greek aristocrat. The medieval universities were in the hands of the higher estates of the clergy and the nobility. Oxford and Cambridge have been, since their inception, finishing schools for the scions of the masters of England and training schools for their auxiliaries the clergy and governmental bureaucracy. Today in the United States the capitalist plutocracy controls the purse strings and the faculties of the great privately endowed institutions like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, and Leland Stanford, while the upper strata of the middle classes set the prevailing tone in the state universities.

"...Intellectuals are specialists in the production and propagation of ideas. They constitute the sensorium of modern society, the concentration points where ideologies emerge into consciousness; take systematic shape; and are then diffused through the body politic. In various professional capacities, as teachers, writers, politicians, etc., the intelligentsia disseminates not only scientific knowledge but the ideas which classes entertain about themselves and their aims....

"Because of their economic insecurity, social rootlessness, and mixed composition, intellectuals constitute one of the most unstable, mobile, and sensitive groups in modern society. The mercurial character of their social and intellectual movements make them excellent barometers of social pressures and revolutionary storms. Impending social changes are often anticipated by restlessness among the intelligentsia. The French Encyclopaedists of the eighteenth century who frequented the salons of the nobility and taunted them with the idea of revolution; the Northern abolitionists and Southern fire-eaters; the Communist and Fascist intellectuals, who are beginning to spring up on all sides in the United States today, fight on an ideological plane the battles to be fought in grim reality between opposing classes on the morrow.

"The intelligentsia therefore becomes a microcosm of capitalist society, mirroring in a contracted compass and often in a distorted manner the real conflicts in the world around them. This peculiar character of the intellectuals endows their history with a significance lacking in the development of other professional groups, just as the articulateness (sic) of the intellectuals, and their function as the spokesmen of party and class interests, give their intellectual expressions, and even their political affiliations, an importance disproportionate to their numbers and actual power....

"Whereas the members of real ruling classes base their claim to supremacy upon social position or economic power, this intellectual élite claim the right to rule by virtue of an ability to produce or appreciate works of art, science, or philosophy. Arrogating a superior social status to themselves, they further declare that, as creators, scientists, or philosophers, they have been washed clean of the material motives and class interests that stain their baser fellow citizens. They make a religion of 'art', torn up from its social roots and abstracted from its social milieu, like Flaubert, or a religion of 'science' in the abstract, like Renan, in order to exalt themselves above the vulgar herd. The perennial wish-fulfilment dream of the intellectual to be the monarch of mankind is best embodied in Plato's mythical republic, where the philosopher is king -- and the labouring masses are helots....

"It is said that radical intellectuals are unstable and unreliable allies of the working class. There is a certain element of truth in this accusation. Since, socially speaking, intellectuals form a parasitic group, even the most radical intellectuals may have stronger social and ideological ties with the existing order than they consciously suspect. Long after the umbilical cord is cut and the youth has declared his independence, the mature man is not free from the subtle subconscious influence of his parents. At crucial moments, deep-seated attachments, reinforced by the exceptionally heavy pressure exerted by alien classes, may generate a mood of vacillation in the intellectual, holding him back from decisive action and a sharp break with the bourgeois world....

"The intellectual defenders of reaction usually abandon the attempt to reason out their position in a straightforward logical manner and rely instead upon some substitute for logical and scientific method. Reaction in every sphere of experience, political, artistic and cultural, disparages the intellect as an organ of objective knowledge and leans upon some presumably more fundamental factor such as intuition, blood-sense, tradition, revelation, emotion, etc. This can be seen in all the great reactionary movements in philosophy and politics from the French Revolution to the present lay. Burke's defense of tradition against the implacable logic of bourgeois revolutionists, DeMaistre's brief on behalf of the Catholic Church and the guillotine as the foundation of the state, Carlyle's exaltation of divine inspiration and the strong man, are instances which spring readily to mind. The truth of this observation can best be seen in the Fascist movements of our own time." [Novack (1935). See also Novack (1936). Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases and links added. Spelling modified to agree with UK English.]

While the above is a much more nuanced analysis, Novack nowhere applies the following comment to the DM-classicists or other Marxist intellectuals:

"Arrogating a superior social status to themselves, they further declare that, as creators, scientists, or philosophers, they have been washed clean of the material motives and class interests that stain their baser fellow citizens." [Ibid., bold added.]

As noted earlier, this can only that mean DM-theorists themselves have indeed been "washed clean of the material motives and class interests...", which, alas, affect the rest of humanity.

So, Lenin and Trotsky saw nothing wrong with applying their analyses to the behaviour of, or the ideas formed by, fellow Marxists. But, which Leninist or which Trotskyist today is going to accuse either of those two of "crude reductionism"?

In which case, while it seems quite legitimate for dialecticians to 'reduce' their enemies and opponents' -- and, indeed, some of their fellow Marxists' -- ideas, attitudes and behaviours to their class position, or class origin, it is illegitimate for anyone to do the same to them!

On the other hand, Marxists are quite right to point out that when, for example, union militants are drafted into the trade union machine, becoming bureaucrats themselves, their new material conditions have a predictable, perhaps even inevitable, effect on the attitudes they adopt and the ideas they are capable of forming. However, the very same Marxists will resist with no little vehemence the same conclusion when it is applied to them, their material circumstances or their class position.

"Put it this way, the Marxist tradition (the SWP certainly included) has been able to produce a class-based analysis that explains why trade-union bureaucrats tend so strongly towards selling out their members. When a rank-and-file member of a union gains a position in the bureaucracy and begins to ascend through its ranks, s/he discovers that his/her material interests are not the same as those of the rank-and-file members s/he left behind.

"It should not be hard for people who have grasped such analyses to realise that if this is the case for union bureaucrats with solid working-class backgrounds, then it can also be the case (and still more so) for the leaders of revolutionary or other far-left political organisations, where petty-bourgeois backgrounds often predominate. And yet it is hard, because the leaderships of such organisations are understandably reluctant to subject their own positions and interests to the same kind of Marxist analysis they're keen to apply to others. Rosa, I think, has made a brave start on this at her site, and I think her work is worth reading for this (even for readers who don't need immunizing against Dialectics).

"So ensuring RR [Respect Renewal] will not go down the same road as the pre-split Respect is not as easy as shedding Rees and those who followed his orders. The same tendencies will be present in the leadership, because they arise from material conditions rather than from personal character quirks. To counteract this, it would take a strong framework of democratic checks together -- most importantly -- with a membership that habitually insists on exercising democratic control of the organisation on a daily basis, and not just at conference time. It will not be easy to sustain this in the conditions that prevail in this country: workers need confidence to win and maintain democratic control, and a long period of defeats for the class is not conducive to such confidence.

"This is not to say that the open-ended RR project is fatally misconceived. But it is to say that the avoidance of the mistakes made in its predecessor organisation will require constant vigilance on the part of the membership, and in the longer run, revived class struggle in this country to at least the levels France enjoys today." [Quoted from here. Link added.]^23a0

If the class analysis promoted at this site is rejected for some reason, the only other conclusion possible is that it must be a sheer coincidence that revolutionary parties the world over have replicated, time and again, practically every single fault and foible that afflicts the genuine god-botherers among us -- even down to their reliance on an obscure book about an invisible 'Being' -- in this case, Hegel's Logic.

So, while all these faults and foibles have well-known material and social causes when they descend upon the duplicitous, the alienated, the superstitious, and the gullible, they apparently have no cause whatsoever when they similarly grace the sanctified lives of our very own Immaculate Dialectical Saints. In which case, faults and foibles like these can safely be ignored, never spoken about in polite company.

Until, that is, The Chosen Ones are caught with their dialectical pants down; even then these "scurrilous accusations" can be brushed aside as "bourgeois propaganda", or part of a heinous "witch-hunt".

This means that the Dialectical Merry-go-round can take another spin across the Flatlands of Failure, its participants ever more convinced of their semi-divine infallibility and ideological purity.

In order to underline its hypnotic power, DM must be able to explain absolutely everything (which is indeed precisely what the DM-classicists assure it is capable of doing; on this, see Essay Two) -- even if it never actually delivers a single comprehensible explanation of anything, predicts not one novel fact, has no mathematical structure, and offers no discernible practical applications or implications -- except, perhaps, negative.^23a

To that end, we are presented with an "insistence" on "Totality" (which remains conveniently undefined), an array of obscure "Infinities", a declaration that "truth is the whole" [Hegel (1977), p.11; Preface, paragraph 20] -- the reader might like to try and render that abstract declaration consistent with Hegel and Lenin's other claim that "truth is never abstract" --, alongside a host of assorted 'relative this' and 'a bsolute that' assertions, all of which are left theologically vague.

DM must not only be able to weather any and all challenges, if not defeats and debacles, it must be capable of 'foreseeing' future victories in each such set-back. To that end, we are told there are UOs everywhere -- a particularly good example of this phenomenon is given below --, all of which are governed by the watchful eye of the NON. The latter Idealist dogma informs us that everything "inevitably" turns into its opposite; if that is indeed so, failure (if it is ever even acknowledged) can't help but turn into its opposite, success -- one day...²⁴

[UO = Unity of Opposites; NON = Negation of the Negation; DM = Dialectical Materialism/Materialist, depending on context.]

This theory must, therefore, enable its adepts to re-configure each defeat as a 'victory waiting in the wings'. To that end, we are told that appearances "contradict" underlying "essence", and hence that the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism can be ignored (since its seemingly disastrous record isn't, after all, really real, it just looks that way to those who don't 'understand' dialectics), or it can be blamed on anything but the theory that has delivered this comforting message to the faithful.

DM must also transcend the limitations of ordinary, 'formal thinking' -- which is one reason why the attainment of 'absolute truth' has to be projected into the far distant future, to the end of time via an infinite asymptotic meander through epistemological space, insulating DM from easy disconfirmation in the here-and-now. In this 'capitalist vale of tears', 'relative truth' is all we can hope to achieve -- except, of course, for that absolute truth itself! This also helps explain why DM-fans develop selective blindness, ignoring awkward facts that fail to fit the Ideal Picture bequeathed to them by generations of mystics via the Dialectical Classicists.

[On all of the above, see Essays Two through Eleven Part Two. Concerning the lengths to which dialecticians will go to ignore things they can't explain, have never even thought about, or do not like, see the links indexed here. As readers will soon come to appreciate, Creationists are rank amateurs in comparison!]

In addition, DM must encourage and facilitate a level of theoretical, and thus tactical, flexibility that places it outside, if not way beyond, the normal canons of reason -- and, indeed, of reasonableness -- enabling its more skilled adepts to change direction (anti-democratically, opportunistically, and inconsistently) at the drop of a negative particle.

To that end, regular appeals are made to the contradictions integral to DM. Since the latter are found throughout the universe, so we are told, they must also appear in 'applied dialectics' if it is to reflect the real world in order to help change it. In that case, 'applied dialectics' is riddled with contradictions, which, paradoxically, is regarded as one of its strengths, not a fatal defect, as would be the case with any other theory! This heady brew now 'allows' skilled dialecticians to argue for anything they like and its opposite. [Concerning how they manage to do that, see below.]

Moreover, this theory must lie way beyond any conceivable doubt, so that if anyone attempts to question its apodictic certainties, they can be ignored on the grounds that they just don't 'understand' dialectics --, which is, once more, a pretty safe accusation to make since no one understands it! [On the accuracy of that allegation, see Part One of this Essay.]

If there is no settled view of DM (or if it is expressed in sufficiently vague and equivocal terms, and is left in that condition for generations, frozen in a nineteenth century time warp), anyone who disagrees with the latest 'dialectical' line can be accused of "Deviationism!" or "Revisionism!" -- and hence of betraying Marxism. Needless to say, this approach to theory is the non-existent deity's gift to opportunists, sectarians, and control freaks of every stripe -- of whom Marxism has had more than its fair share.

"To be sure, [the WRP] did acquire a very bad reputation over the years for having a thuggish and violent internal regime, sometimes spilling over into physical attacks on members of other groups; for its habit of slandering anyone who disagreed with it as an agent of the CIA, the KGB, or both; and for an impenetrable 'philosophy' whose main function was to justify whatever Gerry wanted to do at any particular moment." [Quoted from here; accessed 05/02/2013. Bold emphasis added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Even better, this theory must be impossible to refute. This is a handy by-product of the Hegelian dialectic itself -- which we have already had occasion to highlight -- whereby every attempt to oppose it, expose its contradictions or challenge it is viewed as further proof of its correctness -- since it is argued that to do so is, ipso facto, to use the dialectic itself, providing yet more grist to the Hermetic mill. Hence, any attempted 'refutation' merely doubles up and returns as confirmation of a system that glories in just such contradictions! The more heads that are lopped off this Hydra, the more it grows in their place!²⁵

[It is worth pointing out that at this site I haven't even attempted to 'refute' Hegel's dialectic (i.e., show that it is false), or even its alleged 'rational core' appropriated by Marxist dialecticians, DM. In order to refute this body of doctrine, it would have to shown to be false. What I have argued is that both versions are far too vague and confused for anyone to be able to determine whether they are true or whether they are false, they don't make it that far It is not possible to refute incoherent ideas.]

DM can't disappoint, nor can it fail its acolytes since, according to another of its tenets, humanity will never actually possess the complete picture of anything whatsoever -- apparently not even the truth about an ordinary glass tumbler! So, rather like the 'will of God', the DM-Absolute (the "Totality") mysteriously trundles ever onward, its many twists and turns alone capable of being fully 'comprehended' by our "glorious" leaders -- who, up to now, have proved totally incapable of explaining this 'theory' to a living soul.

Consequently, what might at first sight appear to be an engagingly modest admission (i.e., that no one knows the full or final truth about anything, or that all theories are only ever "partially true", etc., etc.) soon turns into its opposite. It is transformed into a stick with which to beat the opposition: if no one knows the final truth, then neither does an erstwhile critic. Only the Party (with its Doctors of Dialectics) can be relied on to interpret this infinitely plastic theory correctly -- by appealing, rather like the Roman Catholic Church, to "tradition" and authority.^25a

In such a topsy-turvy world of silicate-loving, 'dialectical ostriches', comrades with their heads buried deepest in the sand are promising leadership material!²⁶

However, the spurious superiority enjoyed by DM over 'ordinary consciousness' is secured by means of several exclusivising tricks: (i) The use of unintelligible jargon that no one understands, or seems able to explain (without employing even more jargon, of equal obscurity); (ii) An appeal to authority (sometimes called the "real Marxist tradition");²⁷ (iii) Regular appeals to the sacred DM-canon, linked to an 'orthodox' interpretative tradition of the same, now ossified in recycled and highly repetitive commentaries -- the aforementioned Dialectical Mantra.²⁸

To that end, DM must harmonise to some extent with other ruling-class systems-of-thought, since its theorists have to emphasise the continuity and progress of human knowledge -- "through contradiction" -- of which their theory proudly forms the latest and highest phase. In that case, there must be an IED between DM and Traditional Philosophy otherwise there would be no such continuity. This helps explain why erstwhile radicals are slavishly conservative when it comes to Philosophy.

[IED = Identity In Difference -- or, facetiously, 'Improvised Explanatory Device'.]

However, dialectically-distracted comrades refuse to admit that the demonstrable link that exists between DM and the ideas of previous generations of mystics and ruling-class hacks in any way compromises their theory -- as one would imagine ought to be the case with those who proudly and openly proclaim their materialist and scientific commitments. Ironically, the fact that virtually every DM-thesis finds an echo in most mystical systems-of-thought is, paradoxically, regarded as one of its strengths, not a fatal defect!²⁹

This theory must also insist that in spite of a formal acceptance of the Heraclitean Flux, its core ideas should remain permanently sealed against change. And so they are. In that case, over the last hundred years or so there has been virtually no innovation of note in DM -- just more epicycles. [This allegation will be substantiated in Essay Fourteen Part Two.]

Indeed, those with their heads buried in the nearest dune can hardly promulgate a theory that shifts with the Heraclitean sands.

Furthermore, this theory must be the source of boundless optimism, so that despite the way things might appear -- to those lost in the mists of "commonsense" and "formal thinking", of course --, the NON guarantees that the underlying tendency at work in every corner of the universe favours the dialectical cause -- even if things sometimes need hurrying along a little with human intervention.^29a

Dialectics provides all of the faithful with some of the above, and some of the faithful with all of the above. This helps explain (a) Its acceptance by practically every shade of revolutionary socialism, (b) Its longevity, (c) The semi-religious awe and loyalty it engenders in those held in its thrall and (d) Why these True Believers will never abandon it.

DM-fans would rather die with their heads buried in these Parmenidean Sands than face material reality in all its complexity with even a modicum of courage -- or, for that matter, honesty.

However, this also helps explain a rather curious anomaly: as the working-class grows ever larger the influence that Dialectical Marxism has upon it continues to dwindle.

Parallel to this -- but not unrelated to it -- our movement continues to fragment and flounder, a degeneration plainly not unconnected with its ever dwindling influence on the class war. Moreover, the fact that workers ignore our movement en masse means that the materialist counter-weight they could have brought with them into Marxism now has almost zero impact where it might otherwise have counted -- on our ideas.

The dearth of active socialist workers thus means that the unifying force of the class struggle by-passes our movement, which, because it is dominated by petty-bourgeois individuals, continues to splinter and disintegrate.

So Dialectical Marxism lumbers on while its theorists think of new ways to make these inconvenient facts disappear.

The class origin of the majority of professional revolutionaries -- who, for all or most of their lives don't share in the lives and struggles of ordinary workers analysed in the preceding sections --, means that this alien-class theory (DM) confirms, consolidates and strengthens their sense of exclusivity. Indeed, it is why this theory appeals to petty-bourgeois and de-classé revolutionaries -- most of whom populate the higher echelons of our movement and thus control its ideas.

The growing crisis in the UK-SWP is ample testimony to this (especially since such things aren't unique to that Party):

"Members of the SWP must understand what is at stake in the crisis rocking our organisation. Not only is there already a steady outflow of members resigning in disgust at this farrago and its handling by the leadership, but now other organizations of the left are becoming hesitant about working with us, and in some cases are openly boycotting and censuring us....

But, why does this sort of thing keep happening? Is the UK-SWP simply unlucky? And, why has this malaise been endemic on the left for many generations?

"The CC now unfortunately represents a conservative layer now firmly ingrained in the party and focused on preserving its position. Many of its members have worked for the party for a decade or more, they rely on the party as an income (sic) and have become career bureaucrats entrenched in their jobs. Somewhere along the way the leadership stopped being a group of leading revolutionaries and started to be a self-serving political class in their own right. Now more than ever the party needs effective and democratic leadership made up of the best people in the class, not people who haven't set foot in a workplace for decades and who are in my opinion totally divorced from the class." [Quoted from here; accessed 14/01/2013. Bold emphasis added. Minor typo corrected.]

"The SWP has a particular understanding of the role of the bureaucracy within trades unions. We view them as neither workers nor bosses, but rather as a vacillating force between the two. The bureaucrat is insulated from the day-to-day life of the worker -- of having the boss breathing down their neck, and from the collective interest that workers have within workplaces. They depend for their continued existence, this insulation, and the level of prestige they hold, on the continuation of the capitalist system -- if there were no longer any capitalist class to negotiate with, there would no longer be any need for the bureaucrats. Nothing terrifies a bureaucrat more than being chucked back into the same world the rest of us, as workers, inhabit. There is an old story of an RMT NEC member many years ago (before Bob Crow) who wished to support a strike ballot that the General Secretary opposed. The General Secretary advised him that if he did so, he'd be back working on the tracks within days. The NEC member withdrew his support for the ballot.

"And it is this recognition that the interests of the bureaucracy are not those of the working class that leads us as revolutionary socialists to believe the only truly effective way to organise inside trades unions is on a rank and file basis. We are with the bureaucrats for as long as they support our demands -- we fight without them when they don't. And we recognise a bureaucratisation that takes place when workers are removed from the shop floor -- which is why, for example, it is officially only in exceptional circumstances that SWP members are allowed to take elected trade union positions on 100% facility time. Because we recognise that you cannot act in the interests of the working class if you exist separately from it. I want to illustrate that a failure to apply this analysis to the SWP itself is at the root of many of the problems we now face.

"While very limited steps have been taken in recent years to address this, the Central Committee is made up almost entirely of full-time party workers (and it is notable that of the two CC members removed from the preferred slate 48 hours before conference, one is a respected trade unionist and the other is centrally involved in arguably the broadest united front the party is engaged in). This is a separation from the outside world, and the experiences of the membership. Worse, the slate system as currently constituted is designed to prevent any alternative leadership from emerging -- as we are told to correct any error we must replace the CC wholesale; very difficult if they are also the party workers who run the apparatus. As pretty much the only way to be elected to the CC is to be nominated by the existing CC, this means CC members owe their positions to the other CC members, not to the party membership. And this means that, despite the party's Democracy Commission passing policy in favour of it, disagreements on the CC are not aired in front of the party membership, but rather are usually dealt with privately, with the first most members know of it being when a CC member mysteriously disappears off the slate. I would argue the loyalty to each other this creates amongst CC members leads to many situations, such as those around Comrade Delta and the expulsions of the Facebook Four, being dealt with bureaucratically and behind closed doors and then presented to the party as a fait accompli. Party policies and 'turns' are decided in similar fashion, with a National Committee or Party Council presented with a CC document that is discussed and then invariably approved, usually without any discussion in the wider party, let alone the class.

"This also has the effect of encouraging sycophancy, Comrades who wish to develop their standing in the party, be selected for slates in trade union elections, be added to the CC themselves, or be touted as a public speaker, do so by developing a position of ultra-loyalty to the CC (these are the party members who some refer to as 'hacks'). Party workers are all appointed by the CC, not by the membership, and are threatened with the sack if they dare venture their own political ideas that run contrary to those of the CC. All of this has more in common with the organisation of Stalinist Parties than with the libertarian roots of the IS tradition. The party actually starts to become the caricature painted of it by sectarians and red-baiters.

"At its most extreme, the sycophancy appears cult-like. A number of CC members are big fans of jazz music. Under their leadership over the past few years, the party has organised a number of (mostly loss-making) jazz gigs as fundraising events. Regardless of their own musical tastes, comrades were told they were disloyal if they didn't purchase tickets. This elevates the cultural tastes of the official leadership to a point of political principle; and clearly is not in any way a healthy state of affairs." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases and links added. Minor typo corrected.]

The above comments echo Trotsky's analysis of substitutionism (covered in Part One of this Essay), but they omit (i) Any mention of the wider structural problems our movement faces (i.e., the fact that the situation described by the above comrade has been an integral feature of Marxist parties for well over a hundred years and doesn't just afflict the UK-SWP), just as they completely ignore (ii) The historical and ideological roots of this malaise -- nor do they even consider (iii) Why this keeps happening, not just to the UK-SWP, but right across the Marxist left. Finally, they fail to consider (iv) How and why DM makes a bad situation worse.

Only if Marxists in general become aware of the serious structural, class, and ideological problems we face is there any hope that the movement can extricate itself from this toxic morass -- a poisonous and lethal version of Groundhog Day.

Unfortunately, as is the case with other forms of drug addiction, clarity of vision is the last thing one can expect of the 'leadership' -- those who control the production and dissemination of ideas --, who have a serious dialectical-opiate dependency problem themselves. More-or-less the same applied to anyone in the movement who has caught a nasty dose of 'dialectics'.

As these Essays have shown, and as experience amply confirms, this is indeed what we find.

There are in fact two main currents in Dialectical Marxism: 'Low Church' and 'High Church'. This distinction roughly corresponds with that between active revolutionaries and Academic Marxists -- of course, there is some overlap between these two currents at the margin. Some academic Marxists are also activists.

However, the members of neither faction are seekers after truth, since, like Hegel, they have already found it -- as Glenn Magee pointed out:

"Hegel is not a philosopher. He is no lover or seeker of wisdom -- he believes he has found it. Hegel writes in the preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, 'To help bring philosophy closer to the form of Science, to the goal where it can lay aside the title of "love of knowing" and be actual knowledge -- that is what I have set before me' (Miller, 3; PC, 3). By the end of the Phenomenology, Hegel claims to have arrived at Absolute Knowledge, which he identifies with wisdom.

"Hegel's claim to have attained wisdom is completely contrary to the original Greek conception of philosophy as the love of wisdom, that is, the ongoing pursuit rather than the final possession of wisdom. His claim is, however, fully consistent with the ambitions of the Hermetic tradition, a current of thought that derives its name from the so-called Hermetica (or Corpus Hermeticum), a collection of Greek and Latin treatises and dialogues written in the first or second centuries A.D. and probably containing ideas that are far older. The legendary author of these works is Hermes Trismegistus ('Thrice-Greatest Hermes'). 'Hermeticism' denotes a broad tradition of thought that grew out of the 'writings of Hermes' and was expanded and developed through the infusion of various other traditions. Thus, alchemy, Kabbalism, Lullism, and the mysticism of Eckhart and Cusa -- to name just a few examples -- became intertwined with the Hermetic doctrines. (Indeed, Hermeticism is used by some authors simply to mean alchemy.) Hermeticism is also sometimes called theosophy, or esotericism; less precisely, it is often characterized as mysticism, or occultism." [Magee (2008), p.1. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links and bold emphasis alone added.]

Much the same can be said about Marxist Dialecticians who hail from either of the above two denominations (whether they realise it or not).

Comrades from this persuasion, The 'Evangelical Wing of Dialectical Marxism, cleave to the original, unvarnished truth laid down in the sacred DM-texts (i.e., those written by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, or Mao). Many of these simple souls are highly proficient at quoting, or paraphrasing, endless passages from the Holy Books in answer to everything and anything, just like the faithful who bow to the East or who fill the Gospel Halls around the world. Their unquestioning faith is as impressive as it is un-Marxist.^30a

[An excellent recent example of this affliction, which was in fact prompted by the current crisis in the UK-SWP, can be found here. In January 2013, I posted a mini-refutation of a DM-article of Trotsky's that had been republished at the latter site; my post was based on some of the points made in Essay Six), but, as of March 2020 it is still 'waiting moderation'!]

In general, LCDs are sublimely ignorant of FL. Now, on its own that is no hanging matter. However, such self-inflicted and woeful ignorance of FL doesn't prevent them from pontificating about it, nor regaling us with its alleged limitations at every turn -- accusations based on ideas they unwisely copied off Hegel, surely the George W Bush of Logic.

LCDs are by-and-large active revolutionaries, committed to 'building the party'. Ironically, however, they have unwisely conspired to do the exact opposite, which suicidal policy has helped keep their parties just a few notches above microscopic because of the continual splits and expulsions they skilfully engineer. This is a rather fitting pragmatic contradiction that the 'Dialectical Deity' has visited upon these, the least of its slaves.

Of course, LCDs fail to see the irony in any of this (even after it has been pointed out to them -- I know, I have lost count of the number of times I have tried!), since they, too, haven't taken the lens caps off.

So, despite the fact that every last one of these myopic individuals continually strives to "build the party", after 140 years of such impressive 'building', few revolutionary groups can boast membership rolls that rise much above the risible. In fact, all we have witnessed since WW2, for example, is yet more fragmentation, but still no mass movement.

[Anyone who doubts this should look here, here, here and here -- or, now, here -- and then, perhaps, think again. Here, too, is a diagram of the main branches of, and links between, the leading US Trotskyist parties/tendencies.]

It seems that the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory, DM, are the only two things in the entire universe that aren't 'interconnected'.

HCD Marxists are in general openly contemptuous of the 'sophomoric ideas' found in most of the DM-classics --, let alone books and articles published by their lowly LCD-brethren (even though many of them seem to have a fondness for Engels's First 'Law') -- except, perhaps, Lenin's PN, since it is largely comprised of quotes from the Über-Guru Himself, Hegel.

[An excellent recent example of this elitist attitude can be found in Anderson (2007). Another two, here and here.]

More often than not, HCDs reject the idea that 'the dialectic' applies to nature, sometimes inconsistently using the aforementioned First 'Law' to account for the evolutionary 'leap' that underpinned our development from ape-like ancestors, which tactic allows them to claim that human history and development are therefore unique. Just as they are equally dismissive of simple LCD souls for their adherence to every last word found in the DM-classics. Apparently, the latter do not contain enough philosophical gobbledygook, sufficient Hegel, or a surfeit of post-Hegelian 'Continental Philosophy' for their liking.³¹

[Chomsky's penetrating thoughts on many of the above 'thinkers' can be accessed via Note 31a (link above), along with several other sharp criticisms of this depressing detour into darkness.]

HCDs are generally but not exclusively academics, or they are itinerant 'intellectuals' and 'bloggers'. In common with many of those listed above, tortured prose is their forte and pointless existence is their punishment. Almost any randomly-selected issue of, say, Radical Philosophy or Historical Materialism will provide ample confirmation of the baleful affect the ideas and prose of many of the above theorists have had on left-wing 'intellectuals'.

[This is yet another example to add to the roll-call of The Hallowed Society for the Production of Gobbledygook. (Also, see my comments, here.)]

At least LCDs like to think their ideas are somehow relevant to the class struggle. In contrast, High Church Dialectics is only good for the CV/Résumé.

The late Chris Harman expressed the above sentiments rather concisely a few years ago:

"There is a widespread myth that Marxism is difficult. It is a myth propagated by the enemies of socialism -- former Labour leader Harold Wilson boasted that he was never able to get beyond the first page of Marx's Capital. It is a myth also encouraged by a peculiar breed of academics who declare themselves to be 'Marxists': they deliberately cultivate obscure phrases and mystical expressions in order to give the impression that they possess a special knowledge denied to others." [Chris Harman, How Marxism Works, quoted from here. Bold emphasis and link added.]

"The flaunting of high-sounding phrases is characteristic of the declassed petty-bourgeois intellectuals." ["Left-Wing" Childishness. Bold emphasis added. Unfortunately, Lenin didn't apply that valuable insight to what he found in Hegel's work.]

Plainly, the sanitised version of dialectics that HCDs inflict on their readers (purged of all those Engelsian 'crudities') isn't an "abomination" in the eyes of those sections of the bourgeoisie that administer Colleges and Universities --, or, indeed, those who publish academic books and journals.

Some might object that the above is a caricature of 'dialectical thought'. They might even be tempted to argue that dialectics is based as much on evidence as it is on the practice and experience not just of the party, but humanity in general. Alas, that naive belief was put to the sword in Essays Two, Seven Part One, Ten Part One, as well as Part One of this Essay.

It is worth adding that there are notable exceptions to the above sweeping generalisations. Some academic Marxists do actively engage with the class struggle. The point, however, is that the 'High Theory' they crank out is irrelevant in this regard. Indeed, I can't think of a single example of the work of an academic Marxist that has had any impact on the class war, except perhaps negatively. [Any who disagree with that severe indictment are invited to e-mail me with the details of any counter-examples they think I might have missed.]

To be sure, one or two comrades have tried to come up with a few examples of the (positive) practical applications of 'the dialectic'. Unfortunately for them, I have shown that they all fail -- on that, see here, here, and here.

This has meant that the baleful influence of Hegelian Hermeticism becomes important at key historical junctures (i.e., those involving defeat or major set-back), since it acts as a materialist-sounding alternative to mainstream, Traditional Thought -- indeed, as we saw was the case with Lenin after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution in Russia, and again after the Second International caved in to Imperial warmongering at the beginning of WW1.

Dialectics (especially those parts that have been infected with the lethal HCD-strain) thus taps into thought-forms that have dominated intellectual life for over two thousand years, i.e., those that define the 'legitimate' boundaries of 'genuine' philosophy -- those that amount to little more than dogmatic thesis-mongering.

So, because of its thoroughly traditional nature, DM is able to appeal to the closet "god-builders" and dialectical mystics that revolutionary politics seems to attract -- and who, in general, appear to congregate at the top of this ever-growing pile of dialectical disasters.

One question has so far remained unanswered: How is it even remotely possible for the vast majority of revolutionary socialists to have imported into Marxism what are here alleged to be classic examples of ruling-class ideology? At first sight it seems inconceivable that leading socialists -- like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxembourg, and Trotsky, individuals possessed of impeccable socialist and anti-ruling-class credentials -- could have maintained a consistent, life-long revolutionary stance if the account of the origin and nature of DM given in these Essays were correct. An ideological compromise of such an order of magnitude would surely have had major, if not disastrous, effects on revolutionary practice. Indeed, it would have rendered Marxism totally ineffective.

In fact, and contrary to the ideas advanced at this site, it could be argued that DM has actually been successfully tested in practice for well over a hundred and fifty years.

These considerations alone seem to make the abstract accusations advanced at this site impossible to accept.

In spite of constant claims to the contrary, DM has no positive -- only negative --, practical applications, outlined earlier and again, below.

This doesn't mean that revolutionaries haven't continually toyed with dialectical phraseology in some of their deliberations connected with practice. Certainly, DM-theorists can talk the talk, but, as we will soon see, it is impossible for them to walk the walk.

Undeniably, books and articles outlining revolutionary theory often contain plenty of words the presence of which seems to contradict the above accusations, and which might appear to confirm the counter-claim that dialectics has played a central role in Marxist politics since its inception. However, what revolutionaries might want to claim about the relation between theory and practice and what they are capable of putting into practice are two entirely different things.

These Essays have shown, time and again, that DM-theses make no sense at all, just as they have shown that Dialectical Marxism is to success what Donald Trump is to truth-telling. This means that while dialecticians may write, or, indeed, constantly intone DM-phraseology, it isn't possible for them to form a single coherent thought based on it. That also has the further implication that it is impossible for them to put any of it into practice, either.

Of course, this places dialecticians in no worse a position than other metaphysicians (whose theories are similarly bereft of practical import); no worse perhaps, but certainly no better.³²

If a sentence purporting to express a thought is itself incoherent, then no one uttering or writing it can mean anything by it (over and above, perhaps, certain contingent or consequential side effects; for example they might intend to amuse, impress, confuse, bamboozle, con, distract, or startle their audience). [There is more on this in Essay Thirteen Part Three.]

The words employed in such sentences can't represent anything that could become the content of a coherent thought, and hence motivate a corresponding set of actions (trivial examples excepted, of course).³³

Admittedly, dialectical phrases can be and have been wheeled out to 'justify' or 'rationalise' decisions that had already been taken for hard-headed political reasons, which means that they function rather like the empty rituals and incantations that assorted Priests, Bishops and Imams have uttered for many centuries to 'justify' war, royal privilege, exploitation, oppression and gross inequality -- or they work like the 'magical words' stage conjurors intone to impress the unwary.

This means, of course, that DM is the Abracadabra, not the Algebra, of Revolution.

Furthermore, as noted in Essay Twelve Part One, because DM-theories are both non-sensical and incoherent, they are totally incapable of 'reflecting' anything in the natural or social world, and, a fortiori, any processes underlying either.

These allegations might at first sight appear to be rather dogmatic, if not downright impertinent, since it seems plain that if something can be uttered, or perhaps committed to paper, it must be capable of being thought, and hence acted upon.

The rest of this section will be devoted to defending the above apparently controversial claims, partly by responding to the above pro-DM objection.

We encountered similar problems in Essay Twelve Part One connected with Lenin's attempt to specify what could or couldn't be thought concerning matter and motion:

M1: "[M]otion without matter is unthinkable." [Lenin (1972), p.318. Italic emphasis in the original.]

It turned out that what Lenin wanted to 'say' vitiated the content (or, rather, the lack of 'content') of what he appeared to mean by saying the above words. In the end, it emerged that he couldn't actually think what he imagined he could since M1 fell apart in the very act of 'thinking' whatever it was he thought he wanted to say by means of it! So, by asserting that motion without matter is "unthinkable" he had to do what he said could not be done; i.e., he had to think the offending words "motion without matter...", or their presumed content. For M1 to be true, Lenin would have to know what was being ruled out (as forever false) -- i.e., by the sentential use of the phrase "motion without matter", as in: "It isn't possible to think the proposition 'Motion without matter is unthinkable.'" But, he had just declared that that was "unthinkable".

So, in order to know what was being excluded in the above sense he would have had to be able to declare that the following sentence, for example, could only ever be false, never true:

But, if such a sentence can only be false, and never true, it turns out that it can't actually be false. That is because if a sentence is false, it is untrue. And yet, if we can't say under what circumstances such a sentence is true, we certainly can't say in what way it falls short of that so that it could be untrue, and hence false. For Lenin to be able to declare M2 untrue, he would have to know what situation made it true, so that he knew what he was in fact ruling out, or in what way M1 fell short of being true. But, he was in no position to do that, for the truth of M2 he had already declared "unthinkable".

Conversely, if a proposition can only ever be true, the conditions that would make it false are likewise excluded. In that case, if we can't say under what circumstances such a sentence is false then we certainly can't say in what way it falls short of those conditions so that it could be true, and hence not false. In which case, its truth (or non-falsehood) similarly falls by the wayside. Hence, Lenin was in no position to declare M1 true because he was in no position to declare it false or, indeed, vice versa.

[A much more comprehensive explanation of the above argument can be found here; I have also dealt with several obvious, and a few less obvious, objections to it in Essay Twelve Part One.]

If we ignore the remote possibility that Lenin either wanted merely to utter complete nonsense or simply puzzle his readers, the above argument implies that there wasn't in fact anything that Lenin intended to say, nor was there anything in his words that he could have communicated to anyone that was capable of being put into practice, or which could form part of a theory that could be put into practice -- or, indeed, which could have had any practical implications whatsoever (other than negative). If we are in no position to think the truth or the falsehood of M1, we are certainly in no position to say what the world would have to look like for M1 to form part of revolutionary practice and hence is capable of being 'acted upon'.

The problem here, of course, is that it isn't easy to think of a single DM-theory that could plausibly be put into practice, so if the last sentence above looks rather odd, that is the fault of that theory, not the present author! The only point being made is that if it is logically impossible to decide whether or not a certain theory or sentence is true, then it is also logically impossible to decide if it has ever been implemented correctly, or could be implemented in any way at all! Hence, it is no great mystery why DM itself hasn't ever actually been put into practice by dialecticians!

[On that, see here. In over 25 years of searching and asking, I have only been able to find two examples where comrades have tried to argue that DM itself has had some sort of practical application. I have neutralised both of them here and here.]

To see more clearly how this relates in general to the issues raised in this Essay, consider the following sentence schema:

If p is taken to be a schematic letter replaceable by an empirical or factual proposition (such as "The Nile is longer than the Thames"), then clearly the sense that that proposition already has will enable it to become the content of a thought that NN could entertain, truly or falsely. However, if the sentence substitutable for p makes no sense, then not only would the words it contains fail to express a proposition (since it would then be unclear what was being proposed or put forward for consideration), it would be impossible for NN to think a thought by means of it. That is because a sentence lacking a sense can't express a true or false thought -- once more, as we saw was the case with Lenin and M1, or, indeed, as would be the case with M3:

M3c: It possible to think the truth of the proposition "Motion without matter is unthinkable."

[Of course, it is certainly possible for anyone to write/type M3 (as I have just done!), or even utter it and run its words 'through the mind' (or, indeed, do likewise with its first person equivalent, M3a), as Lenin himself might have done. But as we have just seen, the supposed content of M3b would mean that M3 itself would immediately self-destruct. (There is more on this in Note 35a.)]

Howsoever M3, M3a, M3b and M3c are repackaged, they are incapable of making any sort of sense.

It is worth reminding ourselves that it isn't an 'act of thinking' that gives a sentence its sense. If that were so, then anything could make sense, and the clause "This is an act of thinking" would itself become problematic.³⁴

In fact, the opposite of this is the case. The sense a proposition already has is what enables us to think it.

[What the word "sense" means as it is being used in this way is explained here.]

The contrary supposition only gains credence from the Cartesian idea that an 'act of thought' is a private, internal episodic act that takes place in 'the mind', or in 'consciousness', divorced from, or anterior to, social convention or interaction, and which gives both meaning to our words and sense to our indicative sentences.

[Again, I have covered this topic in detail in Essays Twelve Part One and Thirteen Part Three, so the reader is directed there for a more comprehensive explanation.]

S2: NN thought that the speed mice inconsiderable sunset the colour red was twice acidic but not Tarquin on between three o'clock recidivist it squared less before if telescope (sic).

S2a: The speed mice inconsiderable sunset the colour red was twice acidic but not Tarquin on between three o'clock recidivist it squared less before if telescope (sic).

S2a makes no sense, and so while NN might attempt to mouth this set of words (or read them silently to himself) he wouldn't be able to form from them a coherent thought (assuming, of course, that S2a isn't a coded message of some sort).³⁵

The problem with S2a isn't connected with any lack of imagination on the part of the one who might utter it, or even their audience. It isn't that howsoever hard we try we can form no idea of a primary colour that is connected to a "speed mice inconsiderable sunset", which has a pH value close to seven, twice, but only (Tarquin?) on (?) "between three o'clock…", etc. There is no such coherent thought to form. In turn, this is not because of the facts of chemistry, chromatology, or rodent biology -- or even because of the rules we have for telling the time of day. It is because both S2/S2a represent a radical misuse of language, as should seem obvious. Anyone who regularly uttered sentences like S2a would probably be diagnosed as an aphasic, or maybe suffering from some other neurological or psychiatric condition.

While S2a is a clear case of extreme incoherence, DM-sentences require a little more 'encouragement' before they self-destruct (as we saw was the case with M3 and M3b).

As I have argued more fully in Essay Twelve Part One, that is because (just like other metaphysicians) DM-theorists misconstrue the rules we have for the use of certain words as if they reflected substantive features of the world. They confuse rules with empirical propositions.

Dialecticians compound this error by importing concepts found almost exclusively in Mystical Theology, burying the result under several layers of impenetrable Hegelian jargon (upside down or the 'right way up'). This they then aggravate further by the open disdain they have for ordinary language -- when they try to 'do a little 'philosophy' -- certain principles of which are partially expressed in and by FL.

[These allegations have been substantiated in other Essays published at this site, and will be given a more comprehensive analysis in Essay Twelve Parts One to Seven (summary here). It is important to point out that the word "non-sense" used below is being employed in a special way, explanation for which can be accessed here.]

However, the disguised non-sense 'conveyed' by typical DM-sentences doesn't affect the present point. Disguised or not, if it isn't possible to explain the sense of a single one of them (as these Essays have shown, and as DM-theorists themselves have (implicitly) confirmed by their failure to do just that over the last 140+ years), it isn't possible to think their content either -- since they have none.

In that case -- trivial examples aside again -- it isn't possible to put a single DM-sentence into practice.^35a

This means that any sentence token substitutable for p in S1 has to make sense independently of the immediate context of utterance if it is to form the content of a legitimate thought (coded messages and sentences employing indexicals excepted).

Hence, S2a (or whatever finally replaces p) doesn't acquire a sense just because it is prefixed with the sentential operator: "NN thought that…."³⁶

S2a: The speed mice inconsiderable sunset the colour red was twice acidic but not Tarquin on between three o'clock recidivist it squared less before if telescope.

On the contrary, the use of "NN thought that...." is only legitimate if what follows it makes sense independently of that prefix.

S2: NM thought that the speed mice inconsiderable sunset the colour red was twice acidic but not Tarquin on between three o'clock recidivist it squared less before if telescope.

S3: NM thought that Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved in Becoming.

S3a: Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved in Becoming.

S3a doesn't express a coherent thought that NM could form by her use of it (or, indeed, our attribution of it to her), hence the phrase "NM thought that..." is illicit in S3.

So, despite claims to the contrary, metaphysicians and religious mystics can't think the truth -- nor can they even think the falsehood -- of anything they assert in this area.

Naturally, this helps account for the total uselessness of doctrines like S3a, and hence why they appeal to those in power -- or, at least, why they appeal to their ideologues. Plainly, that is because a 'profound-looking' metaphysical theory is more likely to convince a wealthy patron -- or their assorted toadying/uncritical audience -- that the one who concocted it has hit on something 'profound', especially if no one appears to understand it.

Clearly, this is the philosophical equivalent of the Parable of the Emperor's New Clothes.³⁷

"Sociologist C. Wright Mills, in critically examining 'grand theorists' in his field who used verbosity to cover for a lack of profundity, pointed out that people respond positively to this kind of writing because they see it as 'a wondrous maze, fascinating precisely because of its often splendid lack of intelligibility.' But, Mills said, such writers are 'so rigidly confined to such high levels of abstraction that the "typologies" they make up -- and the work they do to make them up -- seem more often an arid game of Concepts than an effort to define systematically -- which is to say, in a clear and orderly way, the problems at hand, and to guide our efforts to solve them.'

"Obscurantism is more than a desperate attempt to feign novelty, though. It's also a tactic for badgering readers into deference to the writer's authority. Nobody can be sure they are comprehending the author's meaning, which has the effect of making the reader feel deeply inferior and in awe of the writer's towering knowledge, knowledge that must exist on a level so much higher than that of ordinary mortals that we are incapable of even beginning to appreciate it.... The harder people have to work to figure out what you're saying, the more accomplished they'll feel when they figure it out, and the more sophisticated you will appear. Everybody wins." [Quoted from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. One link added; paragraphs merged.]

This defect applies equally well to the ideas promoted by DM-theorists, which naturally means that if what they say can't be thought (in the sense indicated above), then it can have no practical consequences (other than negative), nor can it form the basis of a sane course of action. That is, no more than it would be the case if someone uttered the following sentences and imagined they meant anything by them (other than, perhaps, an intention to confuse or startle, etc.), or, indeed, expected others to act upon them:

S4: Make sure that the speed mice inconsiderable sunset of the colour red is twice acidic, or the scabs will break through the picket line.

S5: Don't forget that the speed mice inconsiderable sunset of the colour red is twice acidic, so we have to organise a march next week.

S6: The fact that the speed mice inconsiderable sunset of the colour red is twice acidic means that we should widen this dispute.

S7: Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved by Becoming, so the latest pay offer is unacceptable.

S8: Motion without matter is unthinkable, so you'd better print more strike leaflets.

S9: Change is the result of internal contradictions, so don't forget to turn up on time for the paper sale.

S10: A is never equal to A, it is equal to non-A, so we must oppose this hospital closure!

Of course, S4-S6 are obviously malformed and/or ridiculous, but they have only been quoted to make this point abundantly clear. No one supposes that dialectical propositions or instructions are quite so syntactically-, or semantically-challenged as these are -- on that see, for example, here --, but they all fall apart alarmingly quickly for other reasons (as these Essays have shown). [Another excellent example can be found here.]

However, as S7-S10 also clearly demonstrate, DM-sentences can't form a coherent basis for action.

[Sceptical readers can insert their own favoured DM-thesis (but not HM-thesis!) into any of S7-S10; the result, I predict, won't be much different. If anyone thinks otherwise, please email me your best shot!]^37a

It could be objected that this completely distorts and misrepresents dialectical thinking. Marxists most definitely do not reason along the above lines, nor on anything remotely like them.

Perhaps not, but until we are given a clear example of the practical use of a single DM-sentence, they will have to do.^37b

So, when it is claimed that ideas specific to DM have actually formed a basis for revolutionary practice it is reasonable to expect some sort of explanation how that is even possible -- which explanation must advance beyond the usual hand waving, diversionary tactics, prevarication and bluster, especially when no one seems to be able to say with any clarity what a single DM-doctrine actually amounts to.

Indeed, and because of this, it is equally reasonable to suppose that DM could only ever have succeeded in clouding the issues, hindering revolutionaries in their attempt to develop or refine perspectives, strategies and tactics. In addition, a commitment to this theory/method could only have helped engineer a series of tactical blunders alongside pointless, seemingly endless time-wasting 'theoretical' arguments, just as it should be expected to aggravate sectarian in-fighting and petty inter-party point-scoring. On top of all that, DM should be expected to help 'excuse' post hoc rationalisations of regressive or opportunistic moves, which would be impossible to justify otherwise (indeed, as we will soon discover).³⁸

Of course, these aren't the only reasons for Dialectical Marxism's spectacular record of failure over the last 140+ years -- a record un-rivalled by any other major political creed in recent history (other than perhaps fascism). But, they are certainly major contributory factors.

Without doubt, the truly appalling record Dialectical Marxism has registered has much more to do with the general nature of capitalist society, the fragmented and uneven state of the working-class, when the latter is set against a comparatively far better organised, ideologically much more coherent and focused ruling-class, among other considerations.

Having said that, the opposite idea that dialectics -- which supposedly constitutes the theoretical bedrock, if not the very core, of Marxism -- has had absolutely nothing to do with this long and sorry record is bizarre in the extreme. [There is much more on this in Essay Ten Part One.]

In fact, we may only succeed in absolving this Mystical Quasi-Hermetic Creed of all blame in this regard if we concede that it has had no subjective impact whatsoever on the ideas held by all previous generations of revolutionaries, and has never been invoked by them at any time in the entire history of Marxism.³⁹

To any of my readers who do so think: I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!

When confronted with unwelcome facts like those aired above, DM-fans often respond with a knee-jerk reply: "Well if dialectics is so dire, how come the Bolsheviks were able to win power in 1917?"

[Non-Leninist DM-fans, of course, don't even have that to point to as a 'success'!]

Oddly enough, as a Leninist I find this 'objection' remarkably easy to neutralise: the Bolsheviks were successful because they could not, and pointedly did not, use dialectics (either in its DM-, or in its MD-form) in their interface with the Russian masses -- or, indeed, the Soviets -- in 1917. Admittedly, that is a highly controversial claim, but only because no one has thought to advance it before.

In fact, the material counterweight provided by working class prevented the Bolsheviks from employing this useless, Idealist theory. Had they tried to propagandise or organise Russian workers with slogans such as: "Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing...", "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...", "A is not equal to A, it is equal to non-A...", or "Matter without motion is unthinkable" (and the like), they would have been viewed as complete lunatics, and rightly so.

On the other hand, they not only could, they actually succeeded in employing ideas and concepts drawn from HM to help organise the revolution.

[This topic was covered in much more detail Part One of this Essay. The difference between HM and DM was explained here.]

And it is little use arguing that dialectical concepts were somehow used 'implicitly', or that they 'informed' the strategy and tactics Lenin and his party adopted, somehow operating 'behind the scenes'. As we will see below, since dialectical concepts can be used to justify anything at all and its 'dialectical' opposite (being inherently and proudly contradictory), had they been employed they could only have been used subjectively, since there is no objective way to tell such incompatible applications apart, other than the fact that they contradict one another.

Anyone who takes exception to the above allegations will need to show precisely where and how Lenin and the Bolsheviks explicitly used dialectical-concepts, as opposed to their actual employment of HM-concepts -- the latter having been based on (i) a concrete class analysis of events as they unfolded in that fateful year, and (ii) decades of experience relating to the working class -- in 1917. They will thus need to produce documentary evidence of the Bolshevik's actual use of dialectical ideas and then show how they could possibly have been of any practical benefit or use to workers in revolutionary struggle --, or even how they could have helped the Bolsheviks comprehend what was going on and how to intervene successfully, 'on the ground'.

"The gist of [Bukharin's] theoretical mistake in this case is substitution of eclecticism for the dialectical interplay of politics and economics (which we find in Marxism). His theoretical attitude is: 'on the one hand, and on the other', 'the one and the other'. That is eclecticism. Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development but not a patchwork of bits and pieces. I have shown this to be so on the example of politics and economics....

"The reader will see that Bukharin's example was meant to give me a popular explanation of the harm of one-track thinking. I accept it with gratitude, and in the one-good turn-deserves-another spirit offer a popular explanation of the difference between dialectics and eclecticism.

"A tumbler is assuredly both a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel. But there are more than these two properties, qualities or facets to it; there are an infinite number of them, an infinite number of 'mediacies' and inter-relationships with the rest of the world. A tumbler is a heavy object which can be used as a missile; it can serve as a paper weight, a receptacle for a captive butterfly, or a valuable object with an artistic engraving or design, and this has nothing at all to do with whether or not it can be used for drinking, is made of glass, is cylindrical or not quite, and so on and so forth.

"Moreover, if I needed a tumbler just now for drinking, it would not in the least matter how cylindrical it was, and whether it was actually made of glass; what would matter though would be whether it had any holes in the bottom, or anything that would cut my lips when I drank, etc. But if I did not need a tumbler for drinking but for a purpose that could be served by any glass cylinder, a tumbler with a cracked bottom or without one at all would do just as well, etc.

"Formal logic, which is as far as schools go (and should go, with suitable abridgements for the lower forms), deals with formal definitions, draws on what is most common, or glaring, and stops there. When two or more different definitions are taken and combined at random (a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel), the result is an eclectic definition which is indicative of different facets of the object, and nothing more.

"Dialectical logic demands that we should go further. Firstly, if we are to have a true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and 'mediacies'. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity. Secondly, dialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world. Thirdly, a full 'definition' of an object must include the whole of human experience, both as a criterion of truth and a practical indicator of its connection with human wants. Fourthly, dialectical logic holds that 'truth is always concrete, never abstract', as the late Plekhanov liked to say after Hegel....

"I have not, of course, run through the whole notion of dialectical logic, but what I have said will do for the present. I think we can return from the tumbler to the trade unions and Trotsky's platform....

"Why is Bukharin's reasoning no more than inert and empty eclecticism? It is because he does not even try to make an independent analysis, from his own standpoint, either of the whole course of the current controversy (as Marxism, that is, dialectical logic, unconditionally demands) or of the whole approach to the question, the whole presentation -- the whole trend of the presentation, if you will -- of the question at the present time and in these concrete circumstances. You do not see Bukharin doing that at all! His approach is one of pure abstraction: he makes no attempt at concrete study, and takes bits and pieces from Zinoviev and Trotsky. That is eclecticism." [Lenin (1921), pp.90-93. Italic emphases in the original. Quotations marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

It could be argued that this is a classic example of dialectical thought in action, and one which not only allowed Lenin to transcend the peremptory and one-sided conclusions drawn by Bukharin and Trotsky (on the above issue), but also form a clear, concrete political analysis of events as they arose -- and then decide how to move the revolution forward.

However, as we have seen in Essay Ten Part One, it is in fact quite impossible to put the above strategy of Lenin's into practise, just as there is no evidence that he ever did so himself (in 1917, or even in 1921 when the above was written). [The reader is directed to the aforementioned Essay for more details.]

I have trawled through the available minutes and decrees of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party (from August 1917 to February 1918), and have failed to find a single DM-thesis -- let alone one drawn from or based even upon an attenuated form of DM -- put to any practical use, or even so much as alluded to in passing! [Bone (1974).] Of course, it is always possible I might have missed something, but even if I have, this Quasi-Hermetic Creed hardly forms a prominent part of the day-to-day discussions held between active revolutionaries.

Added on edit: I have now gone though the above source carefully, line by line twice, and there is still no sign of this 'crucially important' theory!

Hence, the available evidence confirms the claims made above: active revolutionaries made no use of this 'theory' --, plainly because it is impossible to put a single DM-concept into practice.

Added later still: I have now checked the Theses, Resolutions And Manifestos Of The First Four Congresses Of The Third International [Holt and Holland (1983)], and the only visible sign of 'dialectics' amounts to a couple of dozen occurrences of the word "contradiction" (employed in relation to the unfolding crises in capitalism (etc.)) in over 400 pages. No other examples of dialectical jargon (or 'thought') appear in the entire volume. Even then, "contradiction" isn't used to explain anything, nor does it seem to do any theoretical or practical work (indeed, as noted elsewhere, that word is used by dialecticians simply because it is part of a well-established DM-tradition, and for no other discernible reason). Furthermore, most of the occurrences of this word are down to Zinoviev; as far as I can determine, Lenin doesn't use the term anywhere in the book.

Moreover, in Trotsky's The Third International After Lenin [Trotsky (1974)], dialectics is mentioned only fourteen times in nearly 300 pages, and then only in passing. The theory does no work there either.

Update February 2017: I have just received a copy of Riddell (2015) -- an amazing book that reproduces The Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 1921 -- which I am now going though line-by-line to see how prominently DM features in these proceedings. However, an initial examination of the Index reveals the unsurprising fact that neither 'dialectics', DM, nor 'philosophy' -- and not even phrases like "contradiction", "unity of opposites", "totality", "mediation", or "negation of the negation" -- merit so much as a single entry. Of course, on its own, that isn't conclusive, but it does show that this theory failed to make a significant (or any?) contribution to these proceedings. When I have finished working my way through its 1200 pages, I will record the results here. Clearly, that will take some time because of the size of the book. [Added in September 2019: I am still checking!]

And it is even less use someone requiring of me to produce proof that Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn't use dialectical ideas at that time, since there is no written evidence that he or they did -- indeed, as the above indicates. In which case, the contrary conclusion (that DM wasn't actually used) stands by default.

That is in addition to the fact that it has been shown (above, and in Essay Nine Part One) that it isn't possible to apply DM-concepts -- they have no practical applications, other than negative (as we will see in the next sub-section). After all, even Lenin got into a serious muddle when he tried to play around with such ideas, let alone when he attempted to apply them. His "all round" consideration of the facts ("mediacies"), in the passage quoted above, would have locked him into a permanent state of indecision. So, it is little wonder he avoided using this impractical -- nay, crazy -- theory at such an important juncture: i.e., all through 1917!

As we will soon also find out: dialectical concepts can be employed to 'justify' almost anything you like (no matter how contradictory that "anything you like" might otherwise appear to be; in fact the more contradictory it is, the more 'dialectical' it looks!). Indeed, it can be, and has been used to rationalise any given course of action and its opposite (often this rhetorical trick is pulled off by the very same dialectician, in the same article, or even in the same speech!), including those that are counter-revolutionary and anti-Marxist.

[Some have argued in response to the above claim that other theories can be, and have been used in this way. Hence, one individual might use a theory to derive one conclusion and then another theorist might use it to derive its opposite. Maybe so, but only DM (or maybe perhaps also, Zen Buddhism) can be and has been used by the very same individual to rationalise one course of action or theory, and its opposite on the same page, or even in the same paragraph, sentence, or speech! But that happens regularly in Dialectical Marxism (as the evidence presented below amply demonstrates). Moreover, no other theory is acceptable to revolutionary cadres, and so no other theory is so well placed to 'win' them to whatever their 'leaders' consider expedient or opportune.]

Update, July 2021: Here is a recent example of the use of 'dialectics' to argue out of both sides of the same mouth at the same time (to add to the more weighty examples of the use of this tactic quoted below):

"Now...the fetishisation of Marx by many on the radical left has meant that the most fundamental law of dialectical logic is forgotten, when it comes to Marxism, which is viewed as a doctrine containing no contradictions. But Marxism, like everything, does contain contradictions -- a positive side and negative side. At the political level, the positive side of Marxism serves the interest of the working class, while the negative side can serve the interest of bureaucracy. This fetishisation means that most leftists focus on the positive, while being unaware of the negative side -- which finds expression in the elevation of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a principle, rather than a tactic, and the abolition of the separation of powers, which Engels called for, which opens the door to political tyranny.

"The point is that socialism, like the trade unions, is part of the working class movement and both can lead to the domination of a bureaucracy to one degree or another. Without democracy, the socialist revolution inevitably leads to the rule of the bureaucracy, just like in the trade unions. In fact, socialism can be described as a general trade union, which has come to power. So why wouldn’t a bureaucracy take control, as they do in the actual trade unions? The main contradiction on the left is between bureaucratic and democratic socialism. Bureaucracy is not the result of backwardness, as the Trotskyist narrative would have us believe.

"[Any] reference to Cromwell in England and the Committee of Public Safety in the French revolution is a red herring, because I am not opposed to dictatorship. I am simply pointing out that it should not be turned into principle. The contradiction between bureaucratic and democratic socialism ensures the defeat of the latter, when dictatorship is made a principle. Lenin's fetishisation of Marx meant he was unable to see where turning dictatorship into a principle would lead to, underpinned by the abolition of the separation of powers. Like most of the left, Lenin saw only the positive side of Marxism, while being unaware of the negative side. Marx must have known that he would become a fetish and once said, 'All I know is that I am no Marxist.'...

"Trotsky failed to think dialectically on socialism in one country, leading him to the mistaken view that world revolution was an immediate absolute necessity for the victory of socialism in individual countries. Casting aside dialectics, like Downing, he demanded the communist movement choose between socialism in one country and world revolution, but it wasn’t an either-or issue." [Tony Clark, letter to the editor of Weekly Worker, 22/07/2021, Number 1357, quoted from here; accessed 30/07/2021. Some paragraphs merged; bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. We will have occasion to meet Tony Clark again, later, making the same ridiculous claims about Trotsky -- that he abandoned 'the dialectic'! If only!! Tony Clark is a 'leftist UFO' advocate and believer in 'extra-terrestrials', a promoter of the 'theory' that human beings were the result of genetic engineering performed by aliens, so we were intended to be their slaves. (Shape-shifting Lizards next, Tony?) In that case, he is a sort of Erich von Däniken of 'the left'. On that, see his letter to the editor of Weekly Worker, 17/06/2021, Issue 1352. Here is just part of it (the entire letter has been re-posted in Appendix B): "Sightings of UFOs happen all over the world and I am far from convinced that those behind the phenomenon are all benign. It goes back thousands of years into prehistory...and was the source of all the main religions, like Christianity -- with its 'god making man in his own image' narrative, and so on -- that plague the human mind, while religious people continue to be unaware of who these 'gods' really were."]

So, it seems that DL-fans can now both support and oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat -- because of the obscure ramblings of a Christian Mystic!

In fact, shortly after the revolution many younger comrades and scientists began to argue that all of Philosophy (and not just dialectics) is a key component of ruling-class ideology -- which is in fact a crude version of my analysis! It wasn't until the Deborinites won a factional battle in 1925/26 that this trend was defeated and then reversed, and that was clearly engineered to help pave the way for the further destruction of the gains of October 1917. [More about that later. On this, see Bakhurst (1991), Graham (1971), Joravsky (1961), Kolakowski (1981), and Wetter (1958).]

It is also worth noting that Lenin's use of 'dialectical logic' (again, in the passage quoted above) took place in 1921, when the revolution was already beginning to retreat. That is in line with what was claimed earlier: DM is only of real use in times of defeat and set-back. This also conforms with other things that have been asserted in this Essay: that dialectics is an ideal weapon to deploy in a faction fight, since its nebulous concepts can be marshalled in support of practically anything and its opposite.

But what about Lenin's open violation/repudiation of core DM-principles when confronted with a real life choice -- for example, in May 1918, in the middle of the civil war as the country faced a serious famine? [Details below.] Did he appeal to, apply, or take into account the following DM-principles?

"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.]

If DM is quite as useful as we have been led to believe, then when Lenin argued as follows:

"Either the advanced and class-conscious workers triumph and unite the poor peasant masses around themselves, establish rigorous order, a mercilessly severe rule, a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat -- either they compel the kulak to submit, and institute a proper distribution of food and fuel on a national scale; or the bourgeoisie, with the help of the kulaks, and with the indirect support of the spineless and muddle-headed (the anarchists and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries), will overthrow Soviet power and set up a Russo-German or a Russo-Japanese Kornilov, who will present the people with a sixteen-hour working day, an ounce of bread per week, mass shooting of workers and torture in dungeons, as has been the case in Finland and the Ukraine," [Lenin (1918), quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

"There is a middle way, comrades; according to Marxist dialectics we should do both."

Did he argue that way? Did he take into consideration the fact that, according to Hegel, there exists nowhere in the entire universe an either-or? Did he argue that there are, according to Marxist dialectics, "no hard and fast lines -- there is no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or'"?

"There is no middle course. The situation of the country is desperate in the extreme. Anyone who reflects upon political life cannot fail to see that the Constitutional-Democrats, the Right Socialist Revolutionaries, and the Mensheviks are coming to an understanding about who would be 'pleasanter', a Russo-German or a Russo-Japanese Kornilov, about who would crush the revolution more effectively and reliably, a crowned or a republican Kornilov.

"It is time all class-conscious and advanced workers came to an understanding. It is time they bestirred themselves and realised that every minute's delay may spell ruin to the country and ruin to the revolution. Half-measures will be of no avail. Complaining will lead us nowhere. Attempts to secure bread or fuel 'in retail fashion', 'each man for himself', i.e., for 'our' factory, 'our' workshop, are only increasing the disorganisation and facilitating for the profiteers their selfish, filthy, and blackguardly work.

"That is why, comrades, workers of Petrograd, I have taken the liberty of addressing this letter to you. Petrograd is not Russia. The Petrograd workers are only a small part of the workers of Russia. But they are one of the best, the advanced, most class-conscious, most revolutionary, most steadfast detachments of the working class and of all the working people of Russia, and one of the least liable to succumb to empty phrases, to spineless despair and to the intimidation of the bourgeoisie. And it has frequently happened at critical moments in the life of nations that even small advanced detachments of advanced classes have carried the rest with them, have fired the masses with revolutionary enthusiasm, and have accomplished tremendous historical feats....

"That is the sort of vanguard of the revolution -- in Petrograd and throughout the country -- that must sound the call, must rise together, must understand that the salvation of the country is in their hands, that from them is demanded a heroism no less than that which they displayed in January and October 1905 and in February paid October 1917, that a great 'crusade' must be organised against the grain profiteers, the kulaks, the parasites, the disorganisers and bribetakers, a great 'crusade' against the violators of strictest state order in the collection, transportation, and distribution of bread for the people and bread for the machines.

"The country and the revolution can be saved only by the mass effort of the advanced workers. We need tens of thousands of advanced and steeled proletarians, class-conscious enough to explain matters to the millions of poor peasants all over the country and to assume the leadership of these millions, resolute enough to ruthlessly cast out of their midst and shoot all who allow themselves to be 'tempted' as indeed happens -- by the temptations of profiteering and turn from fighters for the cause of the people into robbers; we need proletarians steadfast enough and devoted enough to the revolution to bear in an organised way all the hardships of the crusade and take it to every corner of the country for the establishment of order, for the consolidation of the local organs of Soviet power, and for the exercise of control in the localities over every pood of grain and every pood of fuel....

"Such and only such is the state of affairs in Russia today. Single-handed and disunited, we shall not be able to cope with famine and unemployment. We need a mass 'crusade' of advanced workers to every corner of this vast country. We need ten times more iron detachments of the proletariat, class-conscious and boundlessly devoted to communism. Then we shall triumph over famine and unemployment. Then we shall make the revolution the real prelude to socialism, and then, too, we shall be in a position to conduct a victorious war of defense against the imperialist vultures." [Lenin (1918). Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]

So, out of the window went the supposed 'world-view of the proletariat', and especially when Lenin had to address Russian workers. The dogmatic musings of that Christian Mystic, Hegel, as well as Engels's a priori pontifications, were of no use to Lenin when he was faced with the material reality of the Civil War and the choices facing what were left of the advanced sections of the class:

"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." [Hegel (1975), op cit. Bold added.]

It could be argued that Engels also added this rider: "Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity".

But in 1918 this wasn't an "every day use" of language, it was the application of life-or-death tactics in the face of a brutal Civil War. If DM wasn't applicable there, or then, it wasn't applicable anywhere or anywhen in the revolution or the Civil War. Moreover, Lenin was addressing the vanguard of the class, its advanced sections in Petrograd, who would be the first to accept 'dialectical reasoning' had they been 'schooled' in it, and had they been presented with it (if we accept the usual DM-picture of workers -- that they are all either "conscious" or "unconscious" dialecticians!). His acceptance of dialectics should have prompted Lenin into arguing as follows:

"The advanced and class-conscious workers and the bourgeoisie, with the help of the kulaks, and with the indirect support of the anarchists and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, will win Soviet power." [Edited mis-quotation of Lenin.]

As should now seem plain, such an application of 'dialectics' would have helped kill the revolution stone dead.

So, 1917 -- and what followed over the next few years -- can't be chalked-up as a success for this mutant strain of Quasi-Hermetic Mysticism.

However, as we are about to find out, the disintegration and destruction of the results of 1917-1921 can and will be (partly) attributed to this regressive theory.

Naturally, the above comments leave out of the account the influence DM has had on substitutionist ideas at work in the revolutionary tradition. This brings us to our next topic.

I will be devoting an entire Essay to this specific issue, but for present purposes we need merely sum up the results so far:

In Part One it was shown that ideas exclusive to DM can't be used to educate, propagandise or agitate the working-class. Moreover, dialectics can't even represent a generalisation of the experience of the Revolutionary Party. That is because not one single DM-supporter understands this theory -- or if they do, they have kept that fact well hidden for over one hundred and forty years. Worse still, there is no evidence that revolutionaries have used DM in their practical interface with the working-class. Indeed, because of its incoherence, it can't be so used.

On the contrary, the shadowy history of this theory reveals that DM-concepts originated, not from the experience of the party nor from that of the class, but from a tradition possessed of an impeccable ruling-class pedigree, a tradition that promoted an Ideal view of 'reality' across at least two-and-a-half millennia, one that related to hidden world supposedly underlying appearances, anterior to experience and accessible to thought alone.

In this Part of Essay Nine, it has been argued that ideas unique to DM can have no practical impact (other than negative), since they are devoid of sense and are based on divisive concepts imported from the work of ruling-class ideologues. Not only does DM fail to connect with workers' experience, it fails even to relate to anyone's experience -- or, indeed, the experience anyone could conceivably have. Because of that it has had to be imposed on workers 'against the materialist grain', as it were, and hence 'from the outside'.

In stark contrast, not only can HM have practical applications, it does (and countless times). HM represents the generalisation and systematisation of workers' (indeed, humanity's) collective experience and understanding, as well as that of the Party.

[Readers are referred back to Part One (link above) for argument and evidence in support of these controversial, sweeping and seemingly dogmatic claims.]

Nevertheless, in the analysis given so far, the connection between DM and substitutionism has been left somewhat vague and unclear.

Substitutionist ideas in general (in this context) grow from a belief that workers are incapable of organising themselves (i.e., over and above a development of what merely amounts to a 'trade union/economistic form of consciousness'), or they are far too weak and divided, which means they are incapable of bringing about successful revolutionary change solely out of their own efforts.

[It is now clear from Lars Lih's work that Lenin himself didn't accept this view of workers, but the vast majority of those subsequently claiming to be Leninists do (Lih (2005, 2010)). I have also challenged the received view of this aspect of Lenin's ideas in Part One, here.]

Of course, substitutionism isn't itself an expression of 'free-floating ideas' that are divorced from background social or political contexts, nor is it monolithic. It springs from various class ideologies and material interests, but it only becomes problematic at specific historical junctures. It largely gains and maintains its grip (when it does) because of the fragmented and uneven nature of the working-class --, which condition it parasitises, manipulates and exacerbates.

Nevertheless, as is well-known, substitutionist ideas manifest themselves in the general belief that:

(i) Workers in the end need someone else, or some other group, to lead them theoretically and practically; and that,

(ii) Not only are they incapable of leading their own political struggles, and hence of transforming society through their own activity (etc., etc.), it is in fact 'anti-socialist' to suppose otherwise.

In that case, they require non-working class social forces to bring socialism to them and create if for them. To that end, these other forces will use workers as a battering ram or as election fodder. Certainly workers might very well end up being used that way given this regressive view of the proletariat (indeed, this has happened many times over the last century-and-a-half), while these 'other forces' take the lead and benefit from this. [There is more on this in Essay Nine Part One.]⁴⁰

Naturally, this far from the whole story; there is far more to Substitutionism than these few words might seem to suggest. It is also possible to link substitutionist ideas to reactionary ideas and concepts. That won't be attempted here.

Having said that, the above comments were included in order to help motivate much of the rest of this Essay. Because of that these remarks didn't need to be any more detailed, complicated or involved than was absolutely necessary.

Among revolutionaries (at such times) the ideological justification for substitutionism can assume many forms, motivating perhaps the belief that 'objective' factors prevent workers themselves from creating a classless society or from advancing the struggle to build one. It can also encourage the belief that workers are incapable of fully comprehending their own interests (now or at any time in the future), that they have been befuddled by 'commonsense' and 'formal thinking', or that they have been "bought off" by imperialist "super-profits", etc., etc.

However, and more specifically in connection with the main theme of this Essay, a commitment to DM also motivates the idea that workers are incapable of grasping the fundamental, 'scientific' and 'philosophical' principles that underlie human history or, indeed, those that govern the development of the entire universe. That being the case, they will, of course, need someone else to do this, or to understand that, for them. Someone, or some group has to become the 'brains of the class', since capitalism has (supposedly) dehumanised workers to such an extent that they are now viewed as virtually brainless, reduced to an animal sort of existence. No wonder then that their ideas are dominated by 'commonsense' and 'formal thinking', or can be so easily "bought off".^40a

This belief now transforms any DM-theorists who are inclined to adopt the above view of workers into latter-day prophets, 'teachers of the masses', and hence 'superior' human beings -- which helps explain the personality cults and the elitist comments one often hears emanating from such individuals -- such as "workerist", "economism", "banal commonsense", or even "trade union consciousness".⁴¹

Nevertheless, that doesn't exhaust the possibilities. As it turns out, these 'other considerations' are connected with an infamous dogma imported from Traditional Philosophy, that there is a fundamental distinction between "appearance" and "reality".

It is no accident then that this distinction has traditionally been associated with a parallel disdain for ordinary language and common understanding (as we will see in Essay Twelve, summary here). Thus, if reality is fundamentally different from the way it seems -- in fact, it is its very opposite -- then workers, who according to this theory view nature and society superficially based on 'commonsense', will clearly require someone to:

Indeed, if the vernacular is inadequate in this regard -- that is, if it can't be relied on "beyond certain limits" --, then it needs to be 'augmented' or even replaced by jargon that can be trusted. Or, at least, it requires supplementation with Hegelian and 'philosophical' terms-of-art. Since 'commonsense' and ordinary language are inter-linked (according to this view), and both are connected with (benighted) communal life, any such 'replacement language' must be based on what are held to be philosophically-, and scientifically-sound representational principles -- but not on the vernacular, which is governed by 'unreliable' and 'crude' working class communicational or communitarian, and thus severely limited, principles.⁴²

Moreover, the impenetrable jargon employed by those who helped develop this new 'revolutionary' theory must assist in the initiation of any acolyte it manages to attract to its ranks, which induction process will in the end reveal nature's underlying "essence", uncovering secrets that lie way beyond the reach of 'formal thinking' and 'banal commonsense', all in the space of ten minutes (which is just about the time it takes to read most articles 'explaining' DM).

Hence, according to this way of viewing 'reality', workers require teachers -- indeed, 'intellectuals', or even a 'Great Teacher' --, self-selected individuals prepared to substitute a new set of ideas in workers' heads, doctrines that inform them of a hidden world underlying 'appearances', accessible to thought alone. That is why such ideas have to be introduced to workers, not practically, but theoretically, in order to replace the socially-, and materially-grounded beliefs they already have. Unfortunately, these bright new shiny ideas have been imported from a theoretical cess pit created by ideologues of the class enemy, replete with concepts drawn from the worst forms of Mystical Idealism.^42a

So, in spite of what we might read in pro-DM-literature, it isn't Hegelian 'logic' which has been rotated through 180º, but workers themselves. Their thinking has been up-ended, their materialist ideas replaced by incomprehensible Idealist gobbledygook. The erstwhile subjects of history -- revolutionary workers -- must thereby be transformed into passive objects of theory. They must be intellectually neutered, theoretically knocked off their feet.

At this point, it is worth stressing what is not being maintained: that revolutionaries should adopt or develop a romantic or naïve view of workers and the ideas they hold --, i.e., that their thoughts aren't fragmentary or inconsistent, that racist or sexist notions can't 'enter their heads', that they unerringly know how best to further their own cause, that they possess the organisational structures required to promote or defend their interests -- or even that they always understand the nature and source of their own oppression, alienation and exploitation, etc., etc.

[None of the above are cast in stone, anyway! How workers transform themselves in and by struggle (with or without the aid of the revolutionary party) is already well understood by Marxists and needs no elaboration here. Even so, in Essay Twelve Part Seven, it will be shown how and why any successful intervention by revolutionaries has to be expressed in the vernacular, not the obscure jargon concocted by Hegel and other ruling-class hacks. Any who still think ordinary language is inadequate in this respect are encouraged to read this and this, and then perhaps think again. Or, failing that, contact the editors of the vast majority of revolutionary papers on earth and tell them to (i) Stop using the vernacular when communicating with workers and then (ii) Sit back and watch their circulation positively soar to record heights as a result! (Not!)]

Neither is it part of the case being presented here that workers have no need of a revolutionary party largely drawn from their own ranks, which has established long-term links with the proletariat forged in struggle, and which party has in turn learnt from them. [As indeed Lenin did post-1905.].⁴³

On the other hand, because HM represents a generalisation of workers' experience, when it is introduced to them it augments, clarifies and systematises what they already know. In that case, it doesn't need to be substituted in their heads, replacing their own ideas -- even though it might change many of those ideas for the better. As, noted in Essay Nine Part One, because HM meshes with their experience, and speaks to their exploitation, alienation and oppression, it is introduced, as it were, from the 'inside'.

Nevertheless, the only issue of immediate concern is the influence DM has had on the attitude revolutionaries adopt toward workers and each other. Indeed, this will involve the connection between DM and the petty-bourgeois, substitutionist mentality that is endemic among professional revolutionaries (because of their class position and the predilection they all seem to have for elitist, anti-democratic, ruling-class forms-of-thought).

Hence, in relation to strategy and tactics, and in connection with a theoretical understanding of the relationship between party and class, the question posed below will be whether ideas drawn from what are demonstrably ruling-class sources, which reflect the priorities of that class (e.g., mystification, esotericism, secrecy, fragmentation, control, hierarchy, arrogance and disdain), when they have been adopted and internalised by revolutionaries, may turn out to possess unsuspected substitutionist implications of their own.

In short, it will be shown that, among other things, dialectical concepts have been and still are being used in order to normalise, rationalise and 'justify' substitutionism.

[Indeed, as Essay Nine Part One demonstrated, DM is the ideology of substitutionist elements in Dialectical Marxism.]

It could be argued that the remarks so far aired in the first half of this Essay are largely theoretical, academic, or 'abstract'. That isn't entirely true, but let us suppose it is. In that case, what is now required are concrete examples -- drawn from the history of Dialectical Marxism itself -- of the deleterious effect of 'dialectical concepts' on the aforementioned petty-bourgeois and déclassé revolutionaries.^43a

Fortunately, however, because of the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism, these aren't too hard to find -- in fact, it is rather surprising that no one has noticed them before (which in itself confirms the narcoleptic effect Hegelian concepts, compounded by a slavish adherence to tradition, have had on the minds of the vast majority of DM-fans, and, indeed, on those who have studied, or who have written about, the history of our movement).

(1) As noted in the Preface to this Essay, the following sections are still in their infancy; they will require far more attention devoting to them before the conclusions I have drawn can be regarded as in any way definitive. I will add more detail and evidence as my researches continue.

(2) The search for such evidence has been hampered by the fact that every single Marxist history I have read (concerning the periods I am about to analyse -- indeed, about any period in our history!) fails even to consider whether or not DM is in any way to blame (in whole or in part) for the defeats and disasters our side has suffered since the 1870s.

As far as I can determine the role this theory has played in the above doesn't merit so much as a cursory mention -- even in an obscure footnote, let alone in the main body of a given book or article!

Of course, that is in itself quite revealing, given the fact that DM is supposed to be central to everything that revolutionaries are alleged to have said, thought and done -- that is, according to what they themselves tell us.

The answer is pretty clear: as Marx suggested, blaming this theory in any way at all, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism would fatally compromise the only source of consolation available to dialectically-distracted comrades. Despite what we are constantly told, it is also why this theory has never actually been tested in practice -- in the sense that practice has been allowed to deliver its unambiguous and entirely negative verdict.

(3) Any Stalinists and/or Maoists who disagree with my assessment of their respective traditions below are encouraged to shelve whatever knee-jerk reactions they might have to what they read until the end of this main section, by which time they should see the point of it all.

[As for fellow Trotskyists, they will already have switched off, anyway! Experience has taught me that they are among the most closed-minded of dialecticians, often warning others not to read these Essays for fear that the pristine purity of their minds might somehow be 'tainted' as a result -- indeed, they often react just like Trotsky did to those in the US-SWP back in the 1930s who rejected this theory: i.e., almost entirely emotively. Literally scores of examples of this rather odd phenomenon can be found at RevLeft and other sites on the internet where I have tried to engage with them in debate. (Unfortunately, many of these sites have now folded, discussion having been transferred to Facebook or Reddit.)]

(4) Once again, it is worth reminding readers that my argument isn't the following: DM has been derived from, and is based on, ruling-class ideology, therefore it is false. On the contrary, my argument is as follows: DM makes no sense whatsoever; in which case it is impossible to decide if it is true or if it is false. Hence, it is no big surprise to see that it has served us badly for over a century. Furthermore, because (a) DM is non-sensical and incoherent, and (b) it originated in traditional, ruling-class thought, it can't have any positive practical applications -- only negative -- in a movement that is supposed to be focused on bringing and end to class society.

In the material presented below, I have quoted dozens of rather lengthy DM-passages taken from all wings of Dialectical Marxism, aimed at showing how deeply Hegelian concepts have seeped into our movement, exposing the pernicious effect they have had on every aspect of revolutionary theory and practice.

Apologies must be offered in advance for its rather repetitive nature, as well as its length, but there is no other way that the above objectives can be achieved. Experience has taught me that dialecticians tend to deny allegations they don't like (or which threaten to disturb their "dogmatic slumber") unless they are backed-up extensively, by chapter and verse. Even then, with passages from Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or Mao staring them in the face, many of them remain locked in 'deny-everything-mode'. [Excellent recent examples of this phenomenon can be found here.]

I have also quoted many of these passages at length so that the usual get-out-of-jail-free-excuse -- that certain words have been 'taken out of context' -- can gain no purchase.

"In these circumstances, in view of the unprecedently wide-spread distortion of Marxism, our prime task is to re-establish what Marx really taught on the subject of the state. This will necessitate a number of long quotations from the works of Marx and Engels themselves. Of course, long quotations will render the text cumbersome and not help at all to make it popular reading, but we cannot possibly dispense with them. All, or at any rate all the most essential passages in the works of Marx and Engels on the subject of the state must by all means be quoted as fully as possible so that the reader may form an independent opinion of the totality of the views of the founders of scientific socialism, and of the evolution of those views, and so that their distortion by the 'Kautskyism' now prevailing may be documentarily proved and clearly demonstrated." [Lenin (1976b), p.8. Bold emphasis added.]

While Lenin was trying to re-emphasise the nature of Marx's theory of the state alongside the radical nature of the proletarian revolution, my aim is simply to show how DM has only ever had a negative effect on Marxism.

So, to that end, I propose to consider three specific cases -- the effect DM has had on:

There are other examples or periods I could have chosen (indeed, I might include them at a later date, perhaps as part of another Appendix to this Essay), but given the fact that these three instances cover dates when workers (and others) were entering into what is arguably one of the biggest, if not the biggest -- certainly the most important and intense -- revolutionary wave in human history to date, and given the further fact that all this energy was squandered by the activities and the antics of Dialectical Marxists, they should be enough to prove to all but the most rabidly partisan, or the most deeply dialectically doped of comrades, that DM is one of the worst theories ever to have colonised the human brain.

When significant sections of the working class were ready to move, Dialectical Marxists screwed up catastrophically.

DM was used by the Stalinised Bolshevik Party (after Lenin's death) to 'justify' the imposition of an undemocratic (if not openly anti-democratic and terror-based) political structure on both the Communist Party and the population of former Soviet Union (fSU) -- and later still on the citizens of Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, Cuba, and elsewhere.

This new and vicious form of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was justified by Stalin on the following basis: Marxist 'dialectics' holds that everything is 'contradictory', hence increasingly centralised control by the party was compatible with greater democratic freedom! The "withering-away of the state" was confirmed by moves in the opposite direction, the ever-growing concentration of power at the centre. So, and paradoxically, less democracy was in fact more democracy! The merging of all national cultures into one was in fact to preserve them!

[As we will discover, similar moves have been echoed by practically every Marxist Tendency since -- oddly enough, right down to the recent crisis in the UK-SWP.]

Indeed, this very 'contradiction' supposedly illustrates the truth of dialectics!

"The flowering of cultures that are national in form and socialist in content under the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country for the purpose of merging them into one common socialist (both in form and content) culture, with one common language, when the proletariat is victorious all over the world and when socialism becomes the way of life -- it is just this that constitutes the dialectics of the Leninist presentation of the question of national culture. It may be said that such a presentation of the question is 'contradictory.' But is there not the same 'contradictoriness' in our presentation of the question of the state? We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state power -- such is the Marxist formula. Is this 'contradictory'? Yes, it is 'contradictory.' But this contradiction us bound up with life, and it fully reflects Marx's dialectics." [Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU(B), 27/06/1930. Bold emphases alone added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Paragraphs merged.]^43a0

So, less democracy is more democracy! The separate 'national cultures' in the fSU will flower under 'socialism', but only if they are merged in to one, whether they like it or not!

Greater democracy from less democracy; all eminently contradictory, all quintessentially 'dialectical'.

"Anyone who fails to understand this peculiar feature and 'contradiction' of our transition period, anyone who fails to understand these dialectics of the historical processes, is dead as far as Marxism is concerned. The misfortune of our deviators is that they do not understand, and do not wish to understand, Marx's dialectics." [Ibid . Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Paragraphs merged.]

As many leading Bolsheviks alongside countless thousands drawn from the many nationalities that comprised the fSU were soon to find out, Stalin wasn't joking when he made those remarks.

Indeed, as noted above, this theory formed part of Stalin's 'justification' for the Communist Party's line on the National Question, specifically linking these two issues in the previous quotation:

"Lenin sometimes depicted the thesis on national self-determination in the guise of the simple formula: 'disunion for union'. Think of it -- disunion for union. It even sounds like a paradox. And yet, this 'contradictory' formula reflects that living truth of Marx's dialectics which enables the Bolsheviks to capture the most impregnable fortresses in the sphere of the national question." [Ibid . Bold emphasis added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

This 'allowed' Stalin to claim that the merging of all national cultures (in the fSU) into one was at the same time to show respect for, and thus preserve, their differences! One thing we can be reasonably sure about, the Chechens and the Cossacks, among others, certainly 'appreciated' Stalin's 'dialectical' solution to the national question.

"The essence of Trotskyism is, lastly, denial of the necessity for iron discipline in the Party, recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the Party, recognition of the need to form a Trotskyist party. According to Trotskyism, the CPSU(B) must be not a single, united militant party, but a collection of groups and factions, each with its own centre, its own discipline, its own press, and so forth. What does this mean? It means proclaiming freedom for political factions in the Party. It means that freedom for political groupings in the Party must be followed by freedom for political parties in the country, i.e., bourgeois democracy. Consequently, we have here recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the Party right up to permitting political parties in the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, disguised by phrases about 'inner-party democracy', about 'improving the regime' in the Party. That freedom for factional squabbling of groups of intellectuals is not inner-party democracy, that the widely-developed self-criticism conducted by the Party and the colossal activity of the mass of the Party membership is real and genuine inner-party democracy -- Trotskyism can't understand." [Ibid . Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Why Stalin didn't conclude the same about Trotsky's alleged concept of the party:

"[D]enial of the necessity for iron discipline in the Party, recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the Party, recognition of the need to form a Trotskyist party. According to Trotskyism, the CPSU(B) must be not a single, united militant party, but a collection of groups and factions, each with its own centre, its own discipline, its own press, and so forth." [Ibid.]

"It may be said that Trotsky's presentation of the question is 'contradictory.'... Is this 'contradictory'? Yes, it is 'contradictory.' But this contradiction us bound up with life, and it fully reflects Marx's dialectics.... And yet, this 'contradictory' formula reflects that living truth of Marx's dialectics which enables the Bolsheviks to capture the most impregnable fortresses in the sphere of the [party]" [Edited misquotation of Stalin.]

If two contradictions are OK (i.e., concerning (i) The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and (ii) The national question), then why not a third? When and where does the application of 'Marxist dialectics' begin and end. When he says so?

So, here we have Stalin defending one idea and its opposite in the very same speech, along sound dialectical lines. Why not then Trotsky's alleged contradiction between 'iron discipline' and the democratic freedom to form factions? Which of these benefits from a 'dialectical' analysis and which not? And on what grounds?

All this follows, of course, from the Hegelian idea that conformity to law is the very essence of freedom, as Lenin noted:

"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…." [Lenin (1961), p.359. Italic emphases in the original; bold emphases added.]

"This second definition of freedom, which quite unceremoniously gives a knock-out blow to the first one, is again nothing but an extreme vulgarisation of the Hegelian conception. Hegel was the first to state correctly the relation between freedom and necessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity (die Einsicht in die Notwendigheit).

'Necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood [begriffen].' [Engels is here quoting Hegel (1975), p.209, §147 -- RL.]

"Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves -- two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man's judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development.

"The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom.... [F]or the first time there can be talk of real human freedom, of an existence in harmony with the laws of nature that have become known." [Engels (1976), pp.144-45. Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

I will be discussing these rather odd ideas -- which are in fact reminiscent of New Testament, Pauline notions (also to be found in Rousseau) -- in Essay Three Part Five. Suffice it to say here that the 'contradiction' between 'freedom' and 'necessity' was 'solved' by Engels and Lenin in the same basic way that Christians 'solve' scientific problems they encounter in the Bible -- they either (a) Invent a miracle or (b) Bury the problem in the 'Divine Mystery'. DM-theorists 'solve' this problem, too, by waving the word "dialectics" at it, thus burying it in the esoteric mysteries of DL. [In short, they Nixon it.]

Be this as it may, the first 'contradiction' 'justified' the Stalinised argument that greater freedom was to be found in the imposition of an undemocratic and terror based legal structure on the working class of the fSU (and elsewhere). [Although they most certainly wouldn't put this point quite like that!]

[The background to this way of looking at 'freedom' can be found in Isaiah Berlin's classic essay Two Concepts of Liberty -- i.e., Berlin (2002), pp.166-217. I hasten to add that I don't agree with everything Berlin says, but Berlin's essay is still unmatched for the clarity it brought to the topic.]

To be sure, Stalin's line was a gross distortion of what Engels and Lenin might have meant, but that's Diabolical Logic for you; it can be (and was here) used to rationalise anything Stalin and his henchmen found expedient, and its opposite.

Indeed, the use of this handy, universal solvent (DL) made it possible to 'justify' the idea that socialism could be built in one country, by, among other things, the dubious invention (by Stalin) of "internal" versus "external" contradictions, later supported by the further invention of "principal" and "secondary" contradictions, alongside the highly convenient idea that some contradictions were, while some weren't, "antagonistic".

Hence, the obvious class differences that remained, or which soon emerged, in the fSU were either "non-existent" or were, despite 'appearances' to the contrary, "harmonious". The real enemies (i.e., the source of all those nasty, "principal" (or perhaps even "antagonistic") contradictions) were those external, imperialist powers.^43a00

This analysis 'allowed' STDs to argue that socialism could be built in one country because it was now possible to define the intrinsic nature of the fSU by means of its internal relations, not the relations it held with the rest of the capitalist world. We saw this was a consequence of one interpretation of the "unity and interpenetration of opposites" (which was, oddly enough, an interpretation promoted by STDs themselves). Since DM can be used in any which way a particular dialectician pleases, or finds expedient, we also saw that this approach will only work if, in this case, the fSU is isolated from its surroundings and the relations it holds with the rest of the world, which are then treated as merely 'external', and hence not 'essential'.

On the other hand, if we look at capitalism from a different, but no less 'valid', 'dialectical' angle and view the world economy as a whole, as a system in its own right, then the relationship between the fSU and the capitalist world can be re-classified as 'internal', after all. [This is indeed the line that Trotsky and his followers took. Once more, we see here how this theory is capable of explaining anything and its opposite.]

All this is a consequence of the 'dialectical equivocation' we met in Essays Eight Part One and Eleven Part Two -- i.e., between 'external' and 'internal' 'contradictions'; between what I have called the 'geometric', or 'spatial', interpretation of the "unity and interpenetration of opposites", and the 'logical' interpretation. What looks 'external' on one view is 'internal' from another, and vice versa.

The super-dialectical 'flexibility' built into this mutant theory -- after all, neither Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov nor Lenin seem to have known anything about 'external contradictions', and, on 'dialectical' grounds alone the term itself appears to be non-viable, anyway --, once again 'allowed' this convenient distinction to be used to defend any idea whatsoever, and its opposite, put to 'good use' here by the Stalinists to defend his revised view of the nature of the fSU and what was possible to build within its now 'dialectically-sealed' borders.

[This might even be called the dialectical version of King Canute; the Stalinists, instead of trying to hold back the tides, attempted to keep the international capitalist economy at bay by a sheer act of will and by throwing a few 'dialectical' phrases at it!]

Hence, this 'dialectical' sleight-of-hand 'permitted' STDs to claim that in relation to the fSU, the actions of the imperialist powers, for example, constituted one set of 'external contradictions', and then to argue that the real nature of the fSU could be defined internally, based on its own internal, but 'non-antagonistic' contradictions. This in turn 'enabled' them to conclude (or, rather, it 'allowed' them to rationalise a conclusion already arrived at for other, hard-headed, political reasons -- on that, see here) that socialism could be built in one country.

Clearly, this hyper-plastic theory can be bent into any shape that proves either convenient or expedient.

"Our country exhibits two groups of contradictions. One group consists of the internal contradictions that exist between the proletariat and the peasantry.... The other group consists of the external contradictions that exist between our country, as the land of socialism, and all the other countries, as lands of capitalism....

"Anyone who confuses the first group of contradictions, which can be overcome entirely by the efforts of one country, with the second group of contradictions, the solution of which requires the efforts of the proletarians of several countries, commits a gross error against Leninism. He is either a muddle-head or an incorrigible opportunist." [Stalin (1976c), pp.210-11. Bold emphasis added.]

"It means the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and the support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries.

"Without, such a possibility, building socialism is building without prospects, building without being sure that socialism will be completely built. It is no use engaging in building socialism without being sure that we can build it completely, without being sure that the technical backwardness of our country is not an insuperable obstacle to the building of a complete socialist society. To deny such a possibility means disbelief in the cause of building socialism, departure from Leninism.

"What is meant by the impossibility of the complete, final victory of socialism in one country without the victory of the revolution in other countries?

"It means the impossibility of having a full guarantee against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the bourgeois order, without the victory of the revolution in at least a number of countries. To deny this indisputable thesis means departure from internationalism, departure from Leninism...." [Ibid., pp.212-13. Bold emphases added.]^43a1

[How 'contradictions' can be "overcome" is, of course, a deep mystery which we will have to pass over in silence for now. I will return to this passage along with others like it and consider them in more detail as this Essay unfolds.]

Nevertheless, as Tom Weston has shown in a recent article in Science & Society [Weston (2008)], the distinction between "antagonistic" and "non-antagonistic contradictions" [henceforth, ACs and NACs, respectively] can't be attributed to Lenin, as many have supposed:

"Antagonism and contradiction are not at all the same thing. In socialism, the first will disappear, but the latter will remain." [Lenin, quoted in Weston (2008), p.433. This was in fact a marginal note Lenin wrote in his copy of a book by Bukharin!]

"This note has often been treated as evidence that Lenin accepted or even invented the NAC concept (e.g., Mitin and Mao), but it surely does not show this. Like Marx, Lenin distinguished contradiction from antagonism, and this raises a philosophical question about the relation between the two. Lenin did not answer this question, however, and he did not claim that antagonism is a special kind of contradiction." [Weston (2008), p.433.]

[Incidentally, Weston, who knows his logic (after all, he teaches the subject!), is remarkably accommodating here. For example, he nowhere asks why 'dialectical contradictions' are contradictions to begin with. As we have seen (in Essays Five, Eight Part One, Eight Part Two (here, here and here), Eight Part Three, and Eleven Part One), little sense can be made of the term "dialectical contradiction". Nor does Weston ask how Lenin could possibly have known that "antagonism" and "contradiction" either are, or aren't, the same, or that one will disappear under socialism while the other won't. (The answer is, naturally, that Lenin couldn't possibly have known this -- unless, of course, he was imposing these ideas on nature and society, contrary to what dialecticians tell us they never do.) It also raises the question -- which Weston doesn't, I think, bother to answer --, "Ok, so what then is the difference between antagonism and contradiction?"]

Weston then points out that the idea that there are NACs and ACs in nature and society began to take shape in the work of Bukharin and Deborin, but the first explicit appearance of either notion was in 1930, in an article that appeared in the Party's theoretical journal Bol'shevik, written by Nicolai Karev (who was later to play a key role in Boris Hessen's demise):

"The theme of this article was a critique of Bukharin's and Alexandr Bogdanov's conceptions of contradiction and equilibrium. As part of his argument that antagonism of classes is not analogous to antagonism of physical forces acting in different directions, Karev gave the following definition: 'Antagonism is in general that type of contradiction in which the opposite sides have become completely isolated from one another and externally confront one another'". [Ibid., p.440. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

[As noted above, this new line plainly depends on what I have called a geometric or spatial interpretation of the "unity and interpenetration of opposites" (and which can't be made consistent with anything Hegel or Lenin argued -- upside down or the 'right way up'), an idea that has been peddled by STDs and MISTs ever since.]

It is quite clear from what Weston tells us that these two forms of 'contradiction' were introduced in order to rationalise the CPSU's claim that (i) Socialism could be built in one country, (ii) There was no class war in the fSU between the proletariat and peasants, (iii) Workers and peasants were neither oppressed nor exploited -- even if they still had conflicting interests -- and also in order to (iv) 'Justify' the murderous collectivisation of land, alongside the many subsequent purges inflicted on the Russian population:

"From the 1930s, the most important application of the NAC concept was the soviet policy toward the peasantry...." [Ibid., p.436.]

Production by peasants was based on privately owned small-holdings, and there would naturally arise conflict between the peasantry and the urban working class over the prices they charged for their produce. However:

"The Bolsheviks...considered the poor and middle peasants and agricultural workers to be allies of the urban working class, forming a 'bond' which was the official basis of the soviet state." [Ibid., p.437.]

However, this wasn't so with respect to the "kulaks" and the urban traders (the so-called "NEPmen"), who were regarded as class enemies, whose ACs were soon 'resolved' by the 'Bolsheviks' -- that is, these groups were liquidated. "No man, no problem." [Yes, I know Stalin probably didn't say that!]:

"The...official view was that the contradiction of the labouring classes versus the kulaks tend to become more intense, while the contradictions inside the 'bond' tend to die out. Stalin wrote that inside the 'bond', there existed 'a struggle whose importance is out-weighed by...the community of interests, and which should disappear in the future...when they become working people of a classless society'.... Similar claims were made for the contradictions between manual workers and the soviet 'intelligentsia'...." [Ibid., p.437. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]^43b

Nevertheless, a couple of generations later and we find STDs still pushing the same line. Here is Cornforth (also misusing the Lenin quote!):

"In general, social contradictions are antagonistic when they involve conflicts of economic interest. In such cases one group imposes its own interests on another, and one group suppresses another by forcible methods. But when conflicts of economic interest are not involved, there is no antagonism and therefore no need for the forcible suppression of any group by any other. Once class antagonisms are done away with in socialist society, all social questions can be settled by discussion and argument, by criticism and self-criticism, by persuasion, conviction and agreement.... So Lenin remarked that 'antagonism and contradiction are utterly different. Under socialism antagonism disappears, but contradiction remains' (Critical Notes on Bukharin's 'Economics of the Transition Period')." [Cornforth (1976), pp.105-06. Paragraphs merged; italic emphases in the original.]

In which case, under 'socialism' strikes are 'obviously' unnecessary -- or, they just 'don't happen' -- hence, they shouldn't happen. But, when they do, they must be suppressed. And so they were suppressed, with a level of violence rarely seen anywhere outside of overtly fascist states. [On this, see Haynes (2002), Kozlov (2002), and Rossman (2005).]

Any attempt made by workers to rebel (e.g., Hungary 1956) were blamed, naturally, on "external forces", or on agents from outside the working class (a familiar excuse used by ruling classes the world over to account for, and thus ignore or explain away, the significance of 'social unrest' -- all caused, of course, by the ubiquitous "external agitator"), i.e., in this case, the "imperialist powers", a group of "fascists", or even Tito, but not ordinary workers fighting for and on behalf of their own interests, once more.⁴⁴

We will merely note, alongside Cornforth, the calm way that those NACs in Hungary, in 1956, were resolved by Russian tanks (i.e., using "discussion and argument...persuasion, conviction and agreement").

To be sure, howsoever hard one tries it is difficult not to be 'persuaded' by an armoured column.

Cornforth also attempted to defend the idea that socialism could be created in one country -- referring his readers to Trotsky's counter-claim, which was allegedly based on "abstract", fixed categories:

"After the proletarian revolution was successful another scheme was propounded -- this time by Trotsky. 'You can't build socialism in one country. Unless the revolution takes place in the advanced capitalist countries, socialism can't come in Russia.' Lenin and Stalin showed that this scheme, too, was false.... In all these examples it will be seen that the acceptance of some ready-made scheme, some abstract formula, means passivity, support for capitalism, betrayal of the working class and of socialism. But the dialectical approach which understands things in their concrete interconnections and movement shows us how to forge ahead -- how to fight, what allies to draw in. That is the inestimable value of the Marxist dialectical method to the working class movement." [Ibid., pp.79-80. Bold emphasis added; paragraphs merged.]

[Several other attempts made by STDs and MISTs to show that Trotsky ignored or 'misused' the 'dialectic' (or even that he applied a 'wooden', 'abstract' version of it) have been added to Note 44.]

"Shachtman obviously does not take into account the distinction between the abstract and the concrete. Striving toward concreteness, our mind operates with abstractions. Even 'this,' 'given,' 'concrete' dog is an abstraction because it proceeds to change, for example, by dropping its tail the 'moment' we point a finger at it. Concreteness is a relative concept and not an absolute one: what is concrete in one case turns out to be abstract in another: that is, insufficiently defined for a given purpose. In order to obtain a concept 'concrete' enough for a given need it is necessary to correlate several abstractions into one -- just as in reproducing a segment of life upon the screen, which is a picture in movement, it is necessary to combine a number of still photographs. The concrete is a combination of abstractions -- not an arbitrary or subjective combination but one that corresponds to the laws of the movement of a given phenomenon." [Trotsky (1971), p.147. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site; paragraphs merged.]

Since the USSR is no more, and, of course, with the benefit of hindsight, one would be forgiven for concluding that Cornforth ought to have remained loyal to Lenin's 'fixed' and 'abstract' scheme that the revolution would have to spread or die:

"The facts of history have proved to those Russian patriots who will hear of nothing but the immediate interests of their country conceived in the old style, that the transformation of our Russian revolution into a socialist revolution, was not an adventure but a necessity since there was no other choice; Anglo-French and American imperialism will inevitably strangle the independence and freedom of Russia unless the world-wide socialist revolution, world-wide Bolshevism, triumphs." [Lenin, quoted from here. Bold emphasis alone added.]

"We always staked our play on an international revolution and this was unconditionally right... we always emphasised...the fact that in one country it is impossible to accomplish such a work as a socialist revolution." [Lenin, Sochineniia, 25, pp.473-74; quoted from Cliff (1988), pp.156-57. Bold emphasis added. Parts of this can be found in Volume 31 of Lenin's Collected Works; however, the last 18 words have in fact been edited out!]

"We have created a Soviet type of state and by that we have ushered in a new era in world history, the era of the political rule of the proletariat, which is to supersede the era of bourgeois rule. Nobody can deprive us of this, either, although the Soviet type of state will have the finishing touches put to it only with the aid of the practical experience of the working class of several countries.

"But we have not finished building even the foundations of socialist economy and the hostile powers of moribund capitalism can still deprive us of that. We must clearly appreciate this and frankly admit it; for there is nothing more dangerous than illusions (and vertigo, particularly at high altitudes). And there is absolutely nothing terrible, nothing that should give legitimate grounds for the slightest despondency, in admitting this bitter truth; for we have always urged and reiterated the elementary truth of Marxism -- that the joint efforts of the workers of several advanced countries are needed for the victory of socialism." [Lenin, Notes of a Publicist, written February 1922, published in Pravda No. 87, April 16, 1924, reprinted in Collected Works, Volume 33, quoted from here. Bold emphases added.]⁴⁵

Anyone who thinks these comments are prejudicial to Stalinism (and/or Maoism) should perhaps reflect on the fact that the contrary idea -- that socialism could be built in one country -- has been roundly refuted by history.

The additional fact that not one single proletarian hand was raised in defence of the 'workers' states' (both in the fSU and in Eastern Europe) between 1989 and 1991 as they were toppled (or even earlier, in the period 1953-1956, for those who are hardcore Stalinophiles) merely confirms Lenin's assessment. Indeed, many workers actually assisted in the overthrow these 'People's Democracies'. Compare this with the way that workers in many countries have fought (sometimes to the death) to defend or promote even limited forms of bourgeois democracy since then. Indeed, contrast it with the way that workers and others fought in Nepal, Lebanon, Serbia, France, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia recently -- and now in Burma (1988 and 2007), Kyrgyzstan (April 2010), Bangkok (April 2010), Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Morocco, Yemen, Libya, and Romania -- to name but a few.

This is all the more remarkable given the additional fact that the Soviet working class and the Soviet State were supposed to be the most powerful in history, as Stalin himself argued:

"At the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state power -- such is the Marxist formula. Is this 'contradictory'? Yes, it is 'contradictory.' But this contradiction us bound up with life, and it fully reflects Marx's dialectics." [Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU(B), 27/06/1930. Bold emphasis added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Add to this the extra fact that the working class in the fSU were also supposedly in command not only of one of the most powerful military forces on the planet, but the unions, the police, the party, the state bureaucracy, the courts and the media. Considering the overwhelming force available to them, workers could easily have crushed any attempt to undermine the Soviet Union had they chosen to do so (in 1953, when Stalin died, or even in 1991); more-or-less the same can be said of the 'People's Democracies' in Eastern Europe, as well as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia..., and now China and Cuba.

[In response to this, Stalinophiles often point to opinion polls that seem to suggest a large proportion of the population of Russia would prefer to go back to the old system. However, as we know, the results of such polls can be skewed by the options on offer, or the questions posed. Had they been asked instead: "Do you prefer to return to a system dominated by mass incarceration, oppression and lack of democratic control, governed by a self-selecting elite that lines its own pockets at your expense?" I rather think the results would have been different. Of course, that question itself is prejudicial and politically-motivated, so the real test of opinion here isn't simply for the Russian population to express passive opinions about the past, but what they are prepared to do to fight to restore the old system, and what they did in defence of that system when they supposedly had their hands on the levers of power and overwhelming force in their possession -- the answer, of course, being: absolutely nothing. Others have argued that the Russian working class did defend Russia from fascist attack in WW2, so they are prepared to defend their state. If so, why were they quiescent in 1953/1991? I have debated this topic recently with a Stalinophile, in the comments section to a Quora answer of mine, here.]

Be this as it may, the dire political consequences of the idea that socialism could be built in one country can be seen in the subsequent use to which dialectics was put to defend and rationalise this counter-revolutionary idea, as well as try to limit (or deny) the catastrophic damage it inevitably inflicted on the international workers' movement in general, and Marxism in particular.

And, this is precisely where 'dialectics' comes into its own: DM is an invaluable toll when short-term, opportunistic tactics have to be sold to party cadres (nationally or internationally). Since this theory appears to provide militants with an 'orthodox' revolutionary 'method' -- which supposedly bears Marx's imprimatur (certainly Engels and Lenin's), and which can be used to 'justify' anything whatsoever and its opposite, often by the very same individual -- it carries decisive weight both with the cadres and the rank-and-file.

Trotskyists, of course, argue for the exact opposite conclusion, using equally sound 'dialectical' arguments to show how and why the revolution decayed, and how the fSU was (paradoxically) still a workers' state (albeit, 'degenerated'), even if the proletariat were oppressed and exploited for their pains --, and, incidentally, how it is the STDs and MISTs who actually 'misuse' or ignore 'the dialectic' (applying, would you believe, a 'wooden' and 'abstract' version of it!) in order to arrive at the obverse conclusion! [On that, see below.]

Dialectics can therefore be used to defend and rationalise anything the Party, or a particular dialectician, chooses, and as the political or factional circumstances require.

Indeed, Stalinism and Trotskyism (rightly or wrongly) parted company largely over of their differing views on the international revolution, workers' control and party democracy. Of course, this rift wasn't just about ideas! As noted above, hard-headed decisions were taken for political reasons, but in order to rationalise these decisions and sell them to the international communist movement, they were liberally coated with dialectical jargon. How else would cadres so readily swallow this poison?

Those cognisant of the history of Bolshevism will also know of the incalculable damage this rift has inflicted on Marxism world-wide ever since.

Later still, DM was used to 'justify' and rationalise the catastrophic and reckless class-collaborationist tactics imposed on both the Chinese and Spanish revolutions, just as it was employed to rationalise and 'justify' the ultra-left, "social fascist" post-1929 about-turn imposed on the German KPD. This helped cripple the fight against the Nazis by suicidally splitting the left in Germany, pitting communist against socialist while Hitler laughed all the way to the Reichstag.^45a

This 'theory' then helped 'excuse' the rotation of the Communist Party through another 180º in its next, class-collaborationist phase, the "Popular Front" (when all those 'socials fascists' suddenly became allies -- alas too late to stop Hitler!), and then through another 180º in order to 'justify' the unforgivable Hitler-Stalin pact as part of the newly re-discovered 'revolutionary defeatist' stage --, and through yet another 180º two years later in the shape of 'The Great Patriotic War', following upon Hitler's predictable invasion of the "Mother Land" -- "Holy Russia".⁴⁶

In attempting to justify these overnight about-turns, but specifically the criminal Nazi-Soviet 'non-aggression pact' of 1939, all that UK Communist, Ragani Palme Dutt, for example, could say was this:

"We are told that the Soviet-German pact has also strengthened Nazi Germany. The process is of course dialectical, but fundamentally Nazi Germany has been weakened by the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact and is more weakened every day as this [dialectical -- RL] process is continuing and is beginning to become clearer to more and more people." [King and Mathews (1990), p.75. Bold emphasis added.]

Once more, it seems that to strengthen the Nazis is dialectically to weaken them! Well, we can see how accurate that analysis was by the fact that the dialectically "weakened" Wehremacht was able to conquer most of Europe within two years, and large swathes of the fSU in six months! It was only Hitler's incompetent generalship and the hard Russian winter that saved the USSR from total annihilation.

[This isn't to minimise in any way the truly heroic resistance mounted against fascism by the Russian people! A good two thirds of WW2 was fought on the Eastern Front. Two massive battles alone -- Kursk and Operation Bagration -- each dwarf anything fought by the 'western' allies in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific.]

Post-1945, one more dialectical flip saw the invention of "peace-loving" nations versus the evil US Empire. History now became the struggle between "progressive, peace-loving" peoples and reactionary regimes, the class war lost in all the dust kicked up by so much dialectical spinning.

[Indeed, and by now, Marx would be doing much more than 180º flips in his grave!]

Every single one of these 'somersaults' had a catastrophic impact on the international workers' movement. For example, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Treaty fatally weakened the Communist Party's opposition to fascism in France prior to the German invasion of May 1940, which, of course, forms part of the explanation why France collapsed so quickly; this is quite apart from the fact that it allowed Hitler to concentrate his forces in the West, no longer having to worry about his Eastern Front.

Collectively, these dialectical flips cast a long shadow across the C ommunist Party worldwide, reducing it to the sad, reformist rump that we see among us today.

However, but far, far worse: as noted above, these 'contradictory' about-turns helped pave the way for fascist aggression and the Third Reich. In which case, DM has played its own small, shameful, but indirect part in the deaths of millions of workers and countless numbers of communists, Jews, Gypsies, Russians and Slavs -- alongside the many hundreds of thousands of mentally-ill and handicapped victims surrendered to the Nazi death cult by opportunist dialecticians.^46a0

Because of their continual, dialectically-inspired twists and turns, STDs in effect all but invited the Nazi tiger to rip European humanity to shreds.

The negative effect on the reputation of degenerated Dialectical Marxism like this on the great mass of workers can't be over-estimated, howsoever hard one tries.

Talk to anyone about Marxism (and not just Communism), and you will be regaled with much of the above. Hence, these days, everyone 'knows' Marxism/Communism "doesn't work", and stands for bureaucratic authoritarianism, heartless oppression and cynical realpolitik.

We can only put all this down to "capitalist propaganda" if we want to see another wave of dialectical disasters like these.

Of course, none of this is the sole fault of this mystical theory; but it is undeniable that it was a major factor in helping to rationalise the above dizzying gyrations (for whatever other political reasons they were in fact decided upon), and in helping sell them to party cadres. Over the years, this has had an inevitable and seriously demoralising effect on the entire movement.

Moreover, no other theory (save, again, Zen Buddhism!) could so easily excuse the continual, and almost overnight, changes in strategy and tactics --, or rationalise so effectively the pathetic reasons that were given for the criminally unacceptable political U-turns imposed on the Communist Party internationally by post-1925 Stalinism.

Nor, indeed, could any other theory have so effortlessly licensed the grinding to dust of the core and periphery of the old Bolshevik Party in the 1930s, as scores of leading (and thousands of ordinary) comrades were put on 'trail' on trumped-up charges, and then either shot or worked to death -- or, more likely, summarily executed without even a trial.

And you can still find communists defending the execution of these "wreckers" and "fascist" spies -- the core of the party leadership! -- along equally crazy, dialectical lines!

Millions dead, Bolshevism in tatters and Marxism a foul stench in the nostrils of workers everywhere.

Anyone who knows anything about Maoism will also know that Maoist Dialecticians [MISTs] are hardcore DM-oholics and will brook no (apparent) compromise.

[Excellent recent examples of this phenomenon can be found here and here. This might have something to do with the fact that Daoism shares much with Maoism and DM. More on this in Essay Fourteen Part One (summary here). I have said more about this connection in Essay Three Part Two. A detailed survey of the close link there exists between Daoism and Maoist 'Dialectics' can now be accessed here.]

Nevertheless, such deep dialectical devotion means that the anti-democratic and class collaborationist tactics adopted by the CPSU were mirrored by the CCP under Mao (even if this was often for locally different reasons). For example, the use of "principal" and "secondary" contradictions to justify the suicidal alliances with the G uomindang, the use of UOs to rationalise one-party, autocratic rule, and the reference to "leaps" to excuse the lunatic and murderous and ill-advised "Great Leap Forward".

MISTs are among the most fanatical anti-Revisionists on the planet -- but has a single one given Mao a hard time for revising Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lenin, who knew nothing of such 'contradictions'? [There is also evidence that Mao rejected the NON, too.]

Consider the first two of the above allegations: class-collaboration and anti-democratic centralisation. Dialectical arguments favouring class-collaboration and the centralisation ("concentration") of power weren't exclusive to CPSU theorists. In the mid-1930s, the abrupt change from outright opposition to the Guomindang to a policy that advocated a united front with them was justified by, among other things, yet another dollop of dialectics!

The whole sorry affair is well documented in Werner Meissner's detailed study; the reader is directed there for more details. However, a few choice examples will illustrate the influence dialectical mayhem has had on the minds of CCP theorists. Consider the arguments of Ai Ssu-ch'i (whose work was highly influential on Mao's own thought):^46a

"The law of identity is a rule of the abstract, absolute unity; it sees in identical things only the aspect of absolute identity, recognising this aspect alone and disregarding its own contradictory and antagonistic aspects. Since an object can only be absolutely identical to itself, it therefore can't be identical to another aspect. One expresses this with the formula: A is not Not-A, or A is B (sic) and simultaneously it can't be Not-B.... For example, 'retreat is not attack' (A is Not-A (sic)), concentration is limitation of democracy (A is B), one can't in this case develop democracy (simultaneously 'not is Not-B' (sic)). In this definition (sic), an object (concept (sic), thing, etc.) is confronted absolutely with another object, which lies beyond the actual object, a consequence of which is that an object (A) and the others (Not-A) have no relations at all with each other.... The law of identity thus only recognises abstract identity, and the law of contradiction only recognises an absolute opposite." [Ai Ssu-ch'i, 'Formal Logic And Dialectic', quoted in Meissner (1990), p.107. Bold emphasis added.]

We have already had occasion to note the incondite and sloppy syntax found throughout the writings of these 'superior' dialectical logicians, but here we encounter yet another prize example. For instance, the "A" in this passage is at one point "retreat", while "Not-A" is "not attack"! Ai's schema should therefore have been "A is not-B". That is, if "A" is "retreat", "A is Not-A" should in fact be "retreat is not retreat"!

[This is reminiscent of Palme Dutt's 'dialectical' idea that signing a treaty with Hitler weakens the Nazis! In addition, it has already been shown that the above 'conclusions' only seem to follow because everything has been turned into an object of some sort. Even concepts are called objects! On why concepts can't be objects, see Essay Three Part One.]

Despite this, Ai Ssu-ch'i continues in the same fantastical, almost psychedelic, vein:

"The law of the excluded third specifies: either there is an absolute identity (A is B) or an absolute opposition (A is not B); an object can't be simultaneously identical and at the same time be antagonistic. For example 'concentration' is either limited democracy or unlimited democracy; it can't at the same time be limited and a developed democracy. A government in which the people participate is either a democratic organ or it is not a democratic organ. It can't be simultaneously democratic and insufficiently democratic. Therefore the law of the excluded third only recognises opposition or unity, and struggles against the 'unity of opposites'. This meant that it ['formal logic'] and the dialectic are diametrically opposed." [Ibid. Bold emphases added.]

Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the LEM; Ai Ssu-ch'i has simply made this up (as, indeed, did Hegel before him).

Independently of that, when Ai Ssu-ch'i says "This meant that it ['formal logic'] and the dialectic are diametrically opposed", he has in fact just used the LEM himself, since it is now plain that he thinks that the choice is FL or dialectics, one or the other. But, according to his own reasoning, he should have argued that logic can "simultaneously" be dialectical and formal, which rather ruins his whole argument, one feels.

In relation to the above (i.e., "retreat is not attack"), and the question whether increased democracy implied further concentration of power at the centre (which might appear to be diametrically opposed -- but only to those duped by a 'formal' view of the world --, and which we have already seen Stalin brush aside with a breezy appeal to DM-'contradictions') Meissner summarises Ai Ssu-ch'i's main points as follows:

"1. What is the meaning of 'Retreat is not attack'? As we will see in more detail below, this formulation referred to the strategic principles of the long-protracted war.... For Mao Tse-Tung...the defence of Wuhan had no special meaning. Instead he advocated surrendering the city and building up the resistance in the countryside. Ai Ssu-ch'i thus defended Mao's tactics, in that he dismissed the phrase 'Retreat is not attack' as 'formal logically'. To consider the 'retreat' from Wuhan solely as a retreat or non-attack corresponded, according to Ai, to the first law of 'formal logic' and was in no way seen as 'dialectical'. On the other hand, Ai wanted to show that the retreat was at one and the same time both a retreat and not a retreat.... The retreat thus contained an attack.

"2. The explanations of 'democratisation' and 'concentration' were also a criticism of Wang Ming's concepts of setting back 'democratisation' in favour of the 'concentration' of all political and military forces, and of attempting to commit the CCP exclusively to the support of the national government. Behind this was hidden the consideration that a possible 'democratisation' of Kuomintang control could lead to an impairment of the military effectiveness of the United Front. Ai criticised this view as 'formal logically', because 'democratisation' and 'concentration' were seen as mutually exclusive contradictions. 'If we thus say: during the war against Japan, everything must be concentrated and united, but at the same time as much democracy as possible must be developed, that is, according to the rules of formal logic, unreasonable, i.e., illogical.' However according to Ai, that was true only for the rules of 'formal' not of 'dialectical logic.'

"[This was] because, according to 'dialectical logic', 'democratisation' and 'concentration' were not mutually exclusive but rather represented a unity. Ai thus argued in support of Mao Tse-tung's position since Mao had often insisted that the 'democratisation' of all areas of the state by the Kuomintang was essential for the concentration of all forces in the struggle against Japan.

"3. However, Ai Ssu-ch'i' made a further observation concerning the relationship between the CCP and the Kuomintang by speaking of the 'unification of several objects identical to themselves' and by characterising them as a 'formal-logical' combination of independent, mutually unrelated objects, which thus represented a state of rest. The 'formal-logical identity' served him as an example of how the relationship between the two parties should not be constituted. The United Front was not to be a condition of repose, but the very reverse: the 'struggle' was to form the 'driving force'.... This was a clear rejection of the concept of the Commintern faction within the United Front which wanted to suspend the struggle against the Kuomintang.

"Through the example of the 'law of identity', Ai also grappled with the question of how far the CCP should acquiesce in the Kuomintang's demand to base itself on the 'Three principles of the people', without endangering the independence of the CCP....

'Since the law of identity only recognises the absolute aspect of identity, one can maintain in the United Front that all parties and factions have now already given up their independence and have only one goal; consequently, many people say that the CP has given up Marxism. Since, on the other hand, the law of contradiction only recognises the absolute opposite, some people advocate the view that every party and faction must retain its own independent programme and organisation'. [Ibid.]

"Ai characterised the adherents of the first view as 'right deviationists' and those of the second as 'left deviationists'.... Both groups...are, according to Ai, 'formal-logical' in their thought; they consider one aspect of the whole and make it absolute. They both make the mistake of 'formal logic', which includes only the 'external part' of what 'simultaneously exists[']..., but not the diverse connections of the internal parts'. 'Formal logic' recognises only attack and/or retreat, only concentration and/or democracy, only the 'three principles of the people' and/or communism. However, it is not capable of comprehending the existing relationships between those respective pairs of objects....

'Unity is unity, but unity must have as a basis independence of every party. Centralised state power is centralised state power, but a united, effective concentration of forces to the maximum extent must be established on the basis of democracy. Two opposing sides penetrate each other.... If one were to write this as a formula, it would be "A is A and at the same time Not-A". Or, "Affirmation is rejection, rejection is affirmation."'

"Thus, in concrete terms, 'dialectical logic' can be explained thus: the United Front is accepted and at the same time rejected, in that the struggle against the Kuomintang is to be continued within the United Front." [Meissner (1990), pp.107-10. Bold emphases and link added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Some paragraphs merged.]

So, once again, we witness a dialectician using DM to derive specific conclusions -- a result required for political reasons -- and their opposite at the same time, for example: "Affirmation is rejection, rejection is affirmation."

Anyone interested in reading more material like this will find plenty of it -- comprising page-after-page of lame-brained 'logic' (not all of it from the writings of Ai Ssu-ch'i) -- in Meissner's book. In these pages alone we see how dialectics 'allowed' its Maoist acolytes to interpret the world in whatever way they found opportune or expedient, just as we can see how DM helped insulate their thought processes from material reality staring them in the face.

Consider next the second of the aforementioned examples: the 'contradiction' between centralised state power and greater social and democratic accountability. Dialectical dodges similar to those deployed by Stalin were pressed in to service by Mao and his ideological henchmen in order to rationalise this 'paradox', again by an appeal to the alleged 'contradictory' nature of 'socialist' democracy. [Indeed, we saw some of this 'logic' at work in Ai Ssu-ch'i's 'reasoning' above.]

Mao himself tried to rationalise class-collaboration and the contradictory combination of autocracy with proletarian democracy along by-now-familiar Stalinist lines. In what follows, he first of all 'establishes' the truth of certain DM-principles (with some threadbare, home-spun 'logic', thus confirming their dogmatic, a priori provenance), which 'obviously' meant that no one could 'legitimately' question their veracity and their authority. He was then able to appeal to the supposed 'self-evidence' of these quirky ideas to 'justify' a movement away from democratic control as a move toward it.

"The contradictory aspects in every process exclude each other, struggle with each other and are in opposition to each other. Without exception, they are contained in the process of development of all things and in all human thought. A simple process contains only a single pair of opposites, while a complex process contains more. And in turn, the pairs of opposites are in contradiction to one another. That is how all things in the objective world and all human thought are constituted and how they are set in motion. This being so, there is an utter lack of identity or unity. How then can one speak of identity or unity?

"The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without 'above', there would be no 'below'.... Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants, there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semicolonies, there would be no imperialist oppression of nations. It is so with all opposites; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other, and on the other they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating and interdependent, and this character is described as identity. In given conditions, all contradictory aspects possess the character of non-identity and hence are described as being in contradiction. But they also possess the character of identity and hence are interconnected. This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics studies 'how opposites can be and how they become identical'. How then can they be identical? Because each is the condition for the other's existence. This is the first meaning of identity.

"But is it enough to say merely that each of the contradictory aspects is the condition for the other's existence, that there is identity between them and that consequently they can coexist in a single entity? No, it is not. The matter does not end with their dependence on each other for their existence; 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. Why is there identity here, too? You see, by means of revolution the proletariat, at one time the ruled, is transformed into the ruler, while the bourgeoisie, the erstwhile ruler, is transformed into the ruled and changes its position to that originally occupied by its opposite. This has already taken place in the Soviet Union, as it will take place throughout the world. If there were no interconnection and identity of opposites in given conditions, how could such a change take place?

"The Kuomintang, which played a certain positive role at a certain stage in modern Chinese history, became a counter-revolutionary party after 1927 because of its inherent class nature and because of imperialist blandishments (these being the conditions); but it has been compelled to agree to resist Japan because of the sharpening of the contradiction between China and Japan and because of the Communist Party's policy of the united front (these being the conditions). Things in contradiction change into one another, and herein lies a definite identity....

"To consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the people is in fact to prepare the conditions for abolishing this dictatorship and advancing to the higher stage when all state systems are eliminated. To establish and build the Communist Party is in fact to prepare the conditions for the elimination of the Communist Party and all political parties. To build a revolutionary army under the leadership of the Communist Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in fact to prepare the conditions for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites are at the same time complementary....

"All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites. This is what Lenin meant when he discussed 'how they happen to be (how they become) identical -- under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another'." [Mao (1961), pp.337-40. Bold emphases added; several paragraphs merged. I have quoted this passage in full since, when I haven't, I am accused of "taking it out of context". Quotation marks altered to conform with conventions adopted at this site. Minor typo corrected -- I have informed the editors over at the Marxist Internet Archive.]⁴⁷

[As we have seen (link below), the theory that things "struggle" with and then turn into their opposites is defective, which means that DM, the erstwhile theory of change, can't in fact account for change! (See also here.)]

Confused ideas like these have been shown up for what they are in other Essays posted at this site, but the passages quoted above have been included here merely to demonstrate how Maoist versions of DM helped corrupt not only Mao's thought processes, but also the strategy and tactics of the CCP.

[Once more, while there were hard-headed political reasons for these moves, DM provided opportunists like Mao and Ai Ssu-ch'i with an ideal rhetorical device for selling anything whatsoever and its opposite to the rank-and-file of the party.]

Once again: yet more 'dialectical contradictions', yet more dead workers -- and yet more ordure heaped on Marxism.

And, what is more, we can now see the results for ourselves in that model 'socialist' state: China.

At the very least this means that approximately 20% of the world's population can't now (and might not in the foreseeable future ever) be won over to any credible form of Marxism, since the vast majority have been inured to it, having seen for themselves the dire consequences of this contradictory theory, which preaches 'proletarian democracy' but won't actually trust them with any -- alongside the "mass-line", while practicing mass oppression --, these dialectical 'contradictions' rationalised along sound Stalinist lines.

Chinese workers don't need anyone to enlighten them about the results of "practice"; the vast majority can once more see for themselves the dire political and social consequences of this 'theory'.

But, there is little point you complaining that the phrase "socialist billionaire" is a contradiction in terms. You clearly don't 'understand' dialectics!

Once again, anyone who thinks the above is prejudicial to Mao, need only reflect on the fact that, since Maoism has been ditched, China has turned into one of the most successful economies on earth.

Trotskyism has similarly been cursed by the Dialectical Deity. Its founder succeeded in super-gluing his followers to the dialectical doctrine that the 'socialist' regime in the fSU was contradictory -- as Alex Callinicos notes:

In which case, it made perfectly good 'dialectical-sense' to suppose that the ruling-class (i.e., the proletariat!) exercised no power at all, and were systematically oppressed for their pains!

[This is the Trotskyist equivalent of the "Retreat is attack" nostrum that Ai Ssu-ch'i tried to sell his readers, which we met earlier.]

"The bourgeois norms of distribution, by hastening the growth of material power, ought to serve socialist aims -- but only in the last analysis. The state assumes directly and from the very beginning a dual character: socialistic, insofar as it defends social property in the means of production; bourgeois, insofar as the distribution of life's goods is carried out with a capitalistic measure of value and all the consequences ensuing therefrom. Such a contradictory characterization may horrify the dogmatists and scholastics; we can only offer them our condolences." [Trotsky (1977), p.54. Bold emphasis added.]

Hence, because DM appeared to demand it, all good Trotskyists were required to defend the USSR as a "workers' state" --, albeit "degenerated". As he argued at length [in Trotsky (1971)] only those who failed to "understand" dialectics would even think to disagree:

"Is it possible after the conclusion of the German-Soviet pact to consider the USSR a workers' state? The future of the Soviet state has again and again aroused discussion in our midst. Small wonder; we have before us the first experiment in the workers' state in history. Never before and nowhere else has this phenomenon been available for analysis. In the question of the social character of the USSR, mistakes commonly flow, as we have previously stated, from replacing the historical fact with the programmatic norm. Concrete fact departs from the norm. This does not signify, however, that it has overthrown the norm; on the contrary, it has reaffirmed it, from the negative side. The degeneration of the first workers' state, ascertained and explained by us, has only the more graphically shown what the workers' state should be, what it could and would be under certain historical conditions. The contradiction between the concrete fact and the norm constrains us not to reject the norm but, on the contrary, to fight for it by means of the revolutionary road.... (p.3)

"The events did not catch us unawares. It is necessary only to interpret them correctly. It is necessary to understand clearly that sharp contradictions are contained in the character of the USSR and in her international position. It is impossible to free oneself from those contradictions with the help of terminological sleight-of-hand ('workers' state' -- 'not workers' state'). We must take the facts as they are. We must build our policy by taking as our starting point the real relations and contradictions.... (p.24)

"The present political discussion in the party has confirmed my apprehensions and warning in an incomparably sharper form than I could have expected, or, more correctly, feared.... The attitude of [Shachtman and Burnham] toward the nature of the Soviet state reproduces point for point their attitude toward the dialectic.... (pp.60-61)

"...Burnham and Shachtman themselves demonstrated that their attitude toward such an 'abstraction' as dialectical materialism found its precise manifestation in their attitude toward the Soviet state.... (pp.61-62)

"Last year I was visited by a young British professor of political economy, a sympathizer of the Fourth International. During our conversation on the ways and means of realizing socialism, he suddenly expressed the tendencies of British utilitarianism in the spirit of Keynes and others: 'It is necessary to determine a clear economic end, to choose the most reasonable means for its realization,'. I remarked: 'I see that you are an adversary of dialectics.' He replied, somewhat astonished: 'Yes, I don't see any use in it.' 'However,' I replied to him, 'the dialectic enabled me on the basis of a few of your observations upon economic problems to determine what category of philosophical thought you belong to -- this alone shows that there is an appreciable value in the dialectic.' Although I have received no word about my visitor since then, I have no doubt that this anti-dialectic professor maintains the opinion that the USSR is not a workers' state, that unconditional defense of the USSR is an 'out-moded' opinion.... If it is possible to place a given person's general type of thought on the basis of his relation to concrete practical problems, it is also possible to predict approximately, knowing his general type of thought, how a given individual will approach one or another practical question. That is the incomparable educational value of the dialectical method of thought.... (pp.62-63)

"The definition of the USSR given by comrade Burnham, 'not a workers' and 'not a bourgeois state,' is purely negative, wrenched from the chain of historical development, left dangling in mid-air, void of a single particle of sociology and represents simply a theoretical capitulation of pragmatism before a contradictory historical phenomenon.

"If Burnham were a dialectical materialist, he would have probed the following three questions: (1) What is the historical origin of the USSR? (2) What changes has this state suffered during its existence? (3) Did these changes pass from the quantitative stage to the qualitative? That is, did they create a historically necessary domination by a new exploiting class? Answering these questions would have forced Burnham to draw the only possible conclusion -- the USSR is still a degenerated workers' state.... (p.68)

"It is not surprising that the theoreticians of the opposition who reject dialectic thought capitulate lamentably before the contradictory nature of the USSR. However the contradiction between the social basis laid down by the revolution, and the character of the caste which arose out of the degeneration of the revolution is not only an irrefutable historical fact but also a motor force. In our struggle for the overthrow of the bureaucracy we base ourselves on this contradiction.... (p.69)

"...Dialectic training of the mind, as necessary to a revolutionary fighter as finger exercises to a pianist, demands approaching all problems as processes and not as motionless categories. Whereas vulgar evolutionists, who limit themselves generally to recognizing evolution in only certain spheres, content themselves in all other questions with the banalities of 'common sense.'

"A vulgar petty-bourgeois radical is similar to a liberal 'progressive' in that he takes the USSR as a whole, failing to understand its internal contradictions and dynamics. When Stalin concluded an alliance with Hitler, invaded Poland, and now Finland, the vulgar radicals triumphed; the identity of the methods of Stalinism and fascism was proved. They found themselves in difficulties however when the new authorities invited the population to expropriate the land-owners and capitalists -- they had not foreseen this possibility at all! Meanwhile the social revolutionary measures, carried out via bureaucratic military means, not only did not disturb our, dialectic, definition of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state, but gave it the most incontrovertible corroboration. Instead of utilizing this triumph of Marxian analysis for persevering agitation, the petty-bourgeois oppositionists began to shout with criminal light-mindedness that the events have refuted our prognosis, that our old formulas are no longer applicable.... (pp.70-71)

"Tomorrow the Stalinists will strangle the Finnish workers. But now they are giving -- they are compelled to give -- a tremendous impulse to the class struggle in its sharpest form. The leaders of the opposition construct their policy not upon the 'concrete' process that is taking place in Finland, but upon democratic abstractions and noble sentiments.... (p.74)

"Anyone acquainted with the history of the struggles of tendencies within workers' parties knows that desertions to the camp of opportunism and even to the camp of bourgeois reaction began not infrequently with rejection of the dialectic. Petty-bourgeois intellectuals consider the dialectic the most vulnerable point in Marxism and at the same time they take advantage of the fact that it is much more difficult for workers to verify differences on the philosophical than on the political plane. This long known fact is backed by all the evidence of experience.... (p.94)

"The opposition circles consider it possible to assert that the question of dialectic materialism was introduced by me only because I lacked an answer to the 'concrete' questions of Finland, Latvia, India, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and so on. This argument, void of all merit in itself, is of interest however in that it characterizes the level of certain individuals in the opposition, their attitude toward theory and toward elementary ideological loyalty. It would not be amiss, therefore, to refer to the fact that my first serious conversation with comrades Shachtman and Warde, in the train immediately after my arrival in Mexico in January 1937, was devoted to the necessity of persistently propagating dialectic materialism. After our American section split from the Socialist Party I insisted most strongly on the earliest possible publication of a theoretical organ, having again in mind the need to educate the party, first and foremost its new members, in the spirit of dialectic materialism. In the United States, I wrote at that time, where the bourgeoisie systematically instills (sic) vulgar empiricism in the workers, more than anywhere else is it necessary to speed the elevation of the movement to a proper theoretical level.... (p.142)

"This impulse in the direction of socialist revolution was possible only because the bureaucracy of the USSR straddles and has its roots in the economy of a workers' state. The revolutionary utilization of this 'impulse' by the Ukrainian Byelo-Russians was possible only through the class struggle in the occupied territories and through the power of the example of the October Revolution. Finally, the swift strangulation or semi-strangulation of this revolutionary mass movement was made possible through the isolation of this movement and the might of the Moscow bureaucracy. Whoever failed to understand the dialectic interaction of these three factors: the workers' state, the oppressed masses and the Bonapartist bureaucracy, had best restrain himself from idle talk about events in Poland...." (p.163) [Trotsky (1971). Bold emphases alone added. Minor typos corrected. I have reproduced Burnham's response in Appendix C, where we will see that many of Trotsky's claims about what the Red Army would or wouldn't do in Finland and the Baltic States were wildly inaccurate, as he himself later had to admit. So much for the predictive powers of DL.]^47a

"The Marxist method, of consciously engaging theory in a constant conflict with practice, has been under continuous fire ever since the foundation of the Trotskyist movement. Long before the Fourth International was set up, Trotsky fought many battles, inside the Russia Left Opposition as well as internationally, against the impressionistic and empirical method which simply sees this or that series of events as confirmation or refutation of a set of ideas or 'theories'. Within the Fourth International, the first great battle took place in 1939-1940 against the petty-bourgeois opposition of Burnham and Schachtman (sic). This struggle revolved around all the basic political questions, from the class nature of the USSR to the revolutionary party and democratic centralism. Trotsky went to great pains to show that the divisions on these questions flowed inexorably from the failure of the petty-bourgeois opposition ever to break from idealism and pragmatism and to adopt the revolutionary objective standpoint of dialectical materialism. Characteristically, the forces of revisionism in the Fourth International have always resisted the struggle to expose the philosophical roots of their political positions and have condemned the introduction of these fundamental questions as a diversion from the 'concrete questions' of the hour." [Slaughter (1974a), p.xi. Bold emphases added; paragraphs merged.]

"Actually...Marx absorbed Hegel's idea into Marxism, there is absolutely no question that Lenin decided a deep study of Hegel would help him to understand the crisis of the Second International, which had backed the imperialist war. Lenin would not bother writing a 600 page Hegel Notebook just for his curricula vitae. Everything he read and wrote was for a purpose. He was almost monomaniacally devoted to revolution. He once complained about a Beethoven sonata to the effect that it might take his mind off of capitalist barbarism. What preoccupied Lenin in this conjuncture was the failure of the Marxist movement to understand the world dialectically. This has been endemic to the Marxist movement since its inception.

"You can see evidence all around you. Take, for example, the 'state capitalist' theory. What is this except an inability to understand the former Soviet Union dialectically. They argue that there can only be socialism or capitalism. Either/Or. Adam Rose of the British SWP, a likable youth all in all who used to post to the Spoons lists, once cited a passage from Marx that 'defined' socialism. He challenged me to show how the Soviet Union lived up to that definition. I tried to explain to him that Marxists were more interested in motion, in dynamic processes but he couldn't get it." [Quoted from here; accessed 03/08/2003. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases alone added; some paragraphs merged.]

Theoretical wooliness and political dissembling like this helped cripple the strategy and tactics of the Fourth International, demobilising its cadres in the run-up to WW2, whose cadres, even while they were advocating a principled anti-imperialist stance elsewhere were quite happy to defend Stalinist Imperialism after that war.

And, as if to compound this monumental error, Trotsky also used dialectics to justify Stalin's invasion of Finland!

As Alex Callinicos pointed out above, such dialectical devotion prompted OTs to argue that Red Army tanks were capable of bringing socialism to Eastern Europe in the absence of a workers' revolution (a line that in fact agreed with the analysis engineered by the Stalinists themselves!).

After Trotsky was murdered by a Stalinist agent, the application of 'scientific dialectics' to the contradictory nature of fSU (alongside its satellites in Eastern Europe and elsewhere) split the Fourth International into countless warring sects, which have continued to fragment to this day.

Indeed, this is the only aspect of 'practical dialectics' that Trotskyists seem to have perfected, as their movement continues to splinter under the weight of its own 'internal contradictions'.

Trotsky's heirs couldn't quite decide which was the more important principle, loyalty to (a) Their founder's 'dialectical method', or (b) Marx's belief that the emancipation of the working class must be an act of the workers themselves.

If they opt for alternative (b), the emancipation of the working class couldn't possibly be an act of the Red Army (in Finland, Eastern Europe, or even North Korea), 'Third World' guerrillas (in China, Cuba, Nepal, Peru, etc.), nationalist or 'progressive' dictators (in parts of Africa or South America, for example), or even radicalised students -- to name just a few of the forces that have been 'dialectically substituted' for the proletariat by assorted OTs ever since.

Of course, such a "couldn't" was easily neutered by a swift dose of dialectics, enabling OTs to argue two contradictory theses at the same time: the new Stalinist states were socialist and hadn't been created by the working class, meaning that they both accepted and rejected Marx's claim about the self-emancipation of the working class. Just like the STDs and the MISTs, they held one belief and its opposite at the same time.

[OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; STD = Stalinist Dialectician; MIST = Maoist Dialectician.]

On the other hand, if they choose Box (a), one or more of the above once more made perfect 'dialectical' sense. Socialism from below was now replaced by socialism from above, courtesy of this boss-class theory.

Indeed, if it were possible to a create workers' state in this way (deformed or degenerated), then Stalinism must indeed be "progressive" -- and Pablo was right, after all!

It is little use complaining that this contradicts Trotsky's belief that Stalinism is inherently counter-revolutionary (as, for instance, these comrades have tried to argue, again along sound 'dialectical' lines), since, if everything is contradictory, then on equally sound 'dialectical' lines, so is Stalinism. Hence, on that basis, the fSU is both counter-revolutionary and 'progressive' all rolled into one -- as we witnessed, for example, when the Red Army invaded Afghanistan. [This link leads to an article which is plainly the Spartacist equivalent of the "Retreat is attack" assertion, made famous by Ai Ssu-ch'i.]

[I hasten to add that I don't think Stalinism is progressive; quite the reverse! But, if I were a DM-fan, I could easily 'prove' it to be the most progressive force in human history and its opposite at the same time -- and, what is more, I'd be quite content with that contradictory result, too!]

Dialectics has been used, and is still being used, to justify every conceivable form of substitutionism. Just to take one more example: dialectical dissembling allowed Ted Grant to invent yet another contradictory idea -- "Proletarian Bonapartism" -- in order to account for, or rationalise, the fact that the Stalinist regime in the fSU and the Maoist clique in China were actually oppressing the supposed ruling-class: workers!

That contradictory fact didn't mean that they weren't workers' states. Far from it, it proved they were!

[The ghost of Ai Ssu-ch'i lives on! (There is much more on this in Note 48.)]

All this dialectical dithering has gravely wounded Trotskyism. It might never recover. At present the signs aren't at all promising. The difficulties recently experienced by UK-Respect (and now the UK-SWP) are just another sign of this long-term malaise. Indeed, as is the even more recent collapse of the US-ISO.

Confused dialectical 'thinking' like this has infected the movement from top to bottom, to such an extent that mundane tactical discussions are often rendered opaque in the extreme at the hands of DM-fans -- a faint echo of the gobbledygook regularly churned out by academic dialecticians engaged in the production of 'High Theory'.

Here, for example, are two paragraphs taken from a recent letter written by the New Zealand SWP to the UK-SWP:

"'The critics of the [UK] SWP's position have organised themselves under the slogan 'firm in principles, flexible in tactics'. But separating principles and tactics in this way is completely un-Marxist. Tactics derive from principles. Indeed the only way that principles can become effective is if they are embodied in day-to-day tactics.' [This is a quote from the UK-SWP.]

"In contrast, Socialist Worker -- New Zealand sees Respect -- and other 'broad left' formations, such as Die Linke in Germany, the Left Bloc in Portugal, the PSUV in Venezuela and RAM in New Zealand -- as transitional formations, in the sense that Trotsky would have understood. In programme and organization, they must 'meet the class half-way' -- to provide a dialectical unity between revolutionary principle and reformist mass consciousness. If they have an electoral orientation, we must face the fact that this can't be avoided at this historical point. Lenin said in 'Left-Wing' Communism that parliamentary politics are not yet obsolete as far as the mass of the class are concerned -- this is not less true in 2007 than it was in 1921. The question is not whether Respect should go in a 'socialist' or 'electoralist' direction, but in how Respect's electoral programme and strategy can embody a set of transitional demands which intersect with the existing electoralist consciousness of the working class." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Tactics from principles, or flexible tactics from inflexible principles? WTF does that mean? From which 'god'-forsaken Thesaurus have these gems been mined?

Internal Bulletins and Documents are full of empty, radical-sounding rallying calls like this. Catchphrases like: "The relationship is dialectical", "The current situation is contradictory" or "We must move from the abstract to the concrete" litter such literary productions and are invariably a sign that the one using them has run out of arguments -- or, far more likely, has none -- to support their case.

Consider another recent example: ex-member of the UK-SWP, John Rees, sought to defend the "united front of a special type" entered into by the UK-SWP back in 2004. He did so later with a stock phrase, right out of The Dialecticians' Handy Phrasebook; it was -- wait for it -- a "unity of opposites"! On that basis -- as we saw above was also the case with Mao -- any sort of class-collaboration is 'justifiable'. Alas, this desperate dialectical dodge was in its own small way responsible for the subsequent split in the SWP (and, indeed, for many of its subsequent 'problems' -- as a result of which it might not recover). Rees, no mean dialectician in his own right, somehow forgot that such 'opposites', to be counted as 'dialectical', must be 'interpenetrated'. That is, the existence of one must imply the existence of the other, such that they can't exist without one another, rather like the existence of the proletariat implies the existence of the capitalist class, and vice versa. Even worse, if the DM-classics are to be believed, they must struggle with and then turn into one another! But the elements in this 'united front of a special type' in no way implied each another, nor is there any evidence that they turned into one another.

Dialectical incantations like this are then turned around and used to berate whoever might have fallen foul of the CC member (or party theorist) who has just rescued these dialectical dodges from the jaws of oblivion, raised from the dead or borrowed from the last faction fight --, this frame of mind aggravated by far too many years of "dialectical training" than is good for any human being to have to endure.

This means that the Stalinists aren't the only ones who can change tack overnight, and 'dialectically' hatch an opposite analysis within hours of the ink having dried on the previous, but now obsolete, version. Here is a description of how the UK-SWP's CC [Central Committee] have responded to a sizeable faction in their midst (comprised partly of party heavyweights):

"The faction includes a whole raft of middle to senior cadre, including 10 members of the NC [National Committee -- RL] and perhaps as many former members of the CC; it includes people of unimpeachable moral authority within the SWP, such as Pat Stack and Tony Cliff's biographer, Ian Birchall. It is one thing to fold Richard Seymour into an amorphous morass of hostile anti-Leninists and 'creeping feminists'. Ian Birchall simply does not fit the bill. It was too much for the CC, in the end. Having spent every bit of energy it could muster on preventing the opposition from forcing a 'special conference' -- from ruling motions out of order on technical grounds, to imposing an arbitrary February 1 deadline for such motions -- it has executed a whiplash U-turn and called one itself.

"The CC's statement on the matter is remarkable principally for being almost identical to every other statement the CC has put out so far during this crisis. There are the usual attempts to foster a 'bunker mentality' among the membership, shoring it up against 'attacks'...; the usual scare stories about the horrors of permanent factions. There is just that one, tiny, almost insignificant difference: that one week ago, such 'arguments' were being mustered against the idea of revisiting the affair at a special conference, but now they have mysteriously become arguments for doing so." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged.]

Once more, if you have trained yourself to 'think dialectically', U-turns like this are par for the course, if not de rigueur.

[Apologies for that mixed metaphor! Several more examples of this phenomenon are given in Essay Ten Part One. See also my own experience of 'applied dialectics', reported in Essay One. Similar things were (allegedly) taking place in the UK-SWP's recent crisis.]

So, even in the Trotskyist 'tradition', dialectics is still lumbering on, helping wreck all in its path.

Yet more dialectics, yet more dead workers [for example, in the invasion of Finland in 1939, supported by all good Trotskyists], yet more splits, yet more ordure heaped on Marxism.

Stalinist Dialectics: yet more 'dialectical contradictions', yet more dead workers -- and yet more ordure heaped on Marxism.

Maoist Dialectics: yet more 'dialectical contradictions', yet more dead workers -- and yet more ordure heaped on Marxism.

Trotskyist Dialectics: yet more 'dialectical contradictions', yet more dead workers -- and yet more ordure heaped on Marxism.

If truth is indeed tested in practice, the clear message returned by the last hundred years of it is:

This main sub-section should be read by NOTs (like myself) just as it was intended. However, any Maoist or Stalinist readers who have made it this far should perhaps read it as yet more proof of the extent to which dialectics can, and has been, 'misused' by us 'Trotskyite Wreckers' -- although, it might prove difficult for them to provide an objective criterion that distinguishes the 'proper' use of dialectics from its 'misuse'.

[OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; NOT = Non-OT; MIST = Maoist Dialectician; STD = Stalinist Dialectician.]

OTs should make of this material what they can. Anyway, they will have given up on these Essays long ago -- even if a single one of them has actually bothered to read any of them. In which case, they are unlikely to have made it this far! Indeed, if past experience is anything to go by, such 'scientifically'-minded 'radicals' will be busy warning the unwary to avoid exposing their innocent, sensitive eyes to these infidel impertinences lest they be led astray by my "elitism", "empiricism", "arrogance", and "formal thinking" (the OT equivalent of smallpox). (Any who find this difficult to believe should check this or this out (unfortunately, that site might vanish off the internet any week now -- added later: indeed, it has!) -- or several of the links posted here -- where they should find those doubts completely laid to rest.

Either way, this section will remind all but the most dyed-in-the-wool DM-fans that as far as dialectics is concerned, all four 'traditions' have a shared fondness for the same strand of mystificatory jargon, rhetorical flourishes (mostly lifted word-for-word from Engels, or the other DM-classics -- Lenin, Stalin and Mao were themselves particularly good at this), sub-Aristotelian 'logic', and Mickey Mouse Science, all the while using this infinitely malleable theory to 'justify' almost anything which they might find expedient, and its opposite -- as we have seen was the case in the last three sub-sections.

In fact, as far as the dialectics of nature is concerned it is hard to slip a party card between the views expressed by MISTs, STDs, OTs, NOTs, and, indeed, non-Leninist Marxists.

At this point, it is pertinent to ask the following question: Why did the ruling-classes of the former Stalinist states (particularly the fSU) find DM so conducive to their interests? Why were they such avid fans of 'traditional' Marxist Philosophy? An unambiguous answer to this query is all the more pressing because of what Marx appeared to say about 'the dialectic':

"In its mystified form, the dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and glorify what exists. In its rational form it is a scandal and an abomination to the bourgeoisie and its doctrinaire spokesmen, because it includes in its positive understanding of what exists a simultaneous recognition of its negation, its inevitable destruction; because it regards every historically developed form as being in a fluid state, in motion, and therefore grasps its transient aspect as well; and because it does not let itself be impressed by anything (sic), being in its essence critical and revolutionary." [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]

In view of this, one of the following must be the case: (i) The ruling-classes of the former Stalinist states weren't part of a new, capitalist ruling-class, (ii) Marx was wrong, or (iii) He was speaking metaphorically, even hyperbolically (in view of his obvious personification of 'the dialectic', where he tells us that it "does not let itself be impressed by anything"(??)).

It could be replied (by OTs and NOTs) that in the hands of STD hacks the dialectical method became "wooden and formulaic"; it was little more than the "cynical and self-serving creed of a new and brutal ruling class." [Rees (1998), p.196.] While Rees's description of the nature of the Stalinist ruling-elite won't be questioned here -- or anywhere else for that matter -- the rest of what he had to say is, however, highly questionable.

Having said that, Rees then proceeded to devote fifty-nine pages of his book lionising the work of that Stalinist, György Lukács (ibid., pp.202-61). And he isn't the only one. Here is ex-UK-SWP-er, Chris Nineham:

"Georg Lukacs' revolutionary writings of the 1920s provide a devastating account of the way capitalist commodification shapes every aspect of our lives. In particular, they show how living in this commodified world can blind people to capitalism’s underlying drives and therefore prolong the system’s existence. But unlike so much of the critical theory that came after his seminal essays collected in History and Class Consciousness, Lukacs doesn't stop at exposing capitalism's mystifying qualities. He is in fact focused on revealing the other, often ignored but explosive side of the commodification of human beings, the aspects which periodically lead to rebellion. What the right finds even more objectionable about these great works of philosophy is their preoccupation with turning this rebellion into revolution. Not content with identifying the source of mass opposition to capitalism, Lukacs was concerned to work out how conscious human action can encourage and develop resistance into a movement to overthrow reification by overturning the system that creates it." [Quoted from here. Accessed 06/08/2017. Italic emphasis and link added. Original spelling left unchanged; paragraphs merged.]

I have yet to see anyone describe Lukács's works as "wooden and lifeless". Of course, it is always possible to argue that History and Class Consciousness [i.e., Lukács (1971)] was written before Stalinism had crippled his thought, and that might have been a successful reply to have come out with before Rees also helped publish Lukács (2000), a book that was written a few years later (and which defended the extension of 'the dialectic' into nature) -- not to mention Lukács's subsequent publications: e.g., Lukács (1975, 1978a, 1978b, and 1980), all of which are held in high esteem by many non-Stalinist Marxists. This is despite Lukács's anti-Trotskyist, pro-Stalinist diatribes -- for example this one, written in 1968.

Here is quasi-revolutionary, Ross Wolfe, drawn from the ranks of the HCD-fraternity who also appears to be a Lukács fan:

"Georg Lukács wrote in his 1967 preface to the reissue of History and Class Consciousness that he 'always rejected' Trotskyite (sic) positions. Several years later he told Perry Anderson that he disliked Trotsky immediately upon their meeting in 1920, striking him as a 'poseur.' If one goes back to the original version of Lukács' essay 'What is Orthodox Marxism?' published in 1919, one reads: 'As truly orthodox, dialectical Marxists, Lenin and Trotsky paid little attention to the so-called 'facts'…. Lenin and Trotsky understood the true reality, the necessary materialization of the world revolution; it was to this reality, not to the "facts," that they adjusted their actions. It was they who were vindicated by reality, and not the apostles of Realpolitik…swaying to and fro like reeds in the wind.'" [Quoted from here; accessed 06/08/2017. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphases in the original. Link added.]

I am far from sure Lenin and Trotsky ignored the "facts" (but which "facts"? -- we aren't told), but even if they did, Marx certainly did not:

"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; paragraphs merged.]

"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.]

We have already seen, George Novack, a card-carrying OT, quote and agree with the 'wooden and lifeless' dialectic expressed by several communists.

Of course, this helps explain why, for instance, UK-SWP outlets (such as "Bookmarks" in London) find they can sell books on dialectics written by openly Stalinist and rabidly anti-Trotskyist writers -- like Cornforth, among others --, why an Orthodox Trotskyist site can link to arch-Stalinist, J D Bernal's writings about DM (link at the foot of the latter page), and why some OTs openly appeal to, and, indeed, recommend, the work of STDs like Ilyenkov (for example). The old WRP were rather fond of Ilyenkov's terminally obscure and ridiculously over-rated work; one of the fragments that has so far survived the WRP's meltdown thirty odd years ago still appears to be enamoured of it. It also looks like several HCDs are avid Ilyenkov fans; Historical Materialism (one of the in-house journals of the HCD Tendency) has even published a collection of his work -- or rather Brill, a capitalist concern not known for its cheap, worker-friendly or affordable publications, has published it on their behalf!

Indeed, up until a few years ago, OTs, STDs, NOTs and MISTs could one and all read and study classic texts published by Progress Publishers and the Foreign Languages Press (Stalinist and Maoist publishing houses, respectively, whose publications were regularly sold via Trotskyist outlets a generation or so ago -- and which still appear in their second hand departments). [See also the rather odd anomaly mentioned in Note 19a.]

In addition, it is also worth pointing out that even avowedly Stalinist versions of DM emphasise change through contradiction, often in terms indistinguishable from those found in TAR, or other NOT-, and OT-texts. Anyone who doubts this should read, for example, Shirokov (1937).

A question NOT-, and OT DM-fans seldom ask themselves is this: Why were such State Capitalist/Stalinist/'Socialist' regimes happy to publish classic, and post-classic works on DM by the container load? Surely, if Marx were right, that would be like Dracula running a garlic farm, or Superman a Kryptonite factory!

Perhaps this helps account for the fact that books on DM are often published by capitalist enterprises, too -- indeed, TAR was itself published by Routledge, Bertell Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic by the University of Illinois Press, and Raya Dunayevskaya's The Power of Negativity by Lexington Books, Ilyenkov's work by Brill, and so on. How is it that capitalist enterprises like these find they can publish works about a theory which is supposed to be an "abomination" in their eyes?

Of course, all of this becomes explicable if, as is argued here, DM is itself part of an ancient, long-lasting tradition of ruling-class thought. It is inexplicable otherwise.

It could be argued in response that such outlets also sell books on HM. However, since I am not committed to the truth of Marx's claim (that the 'dialectic' is an abomination to the bourgeoisie) I have merely quoted it to embarrass NOTs and HCDs, among others. I am not committed either to the idea that one or other, or even both DM and HM are an anathema to the ruling-class, or, indeed, to any capitalist publishing house. Clearly they sell such books to make a profit -- just as they sell books on magic and mysticism. [What was it again that Lenin said about ropes?] What is pertinent is that capitalist publishers obviously do not see the 'dialectic' as an abomination.

Nevertheless, the alleged differences that are supposed to exist between the three main strands of 'Marxist dialectics' (Stalinist, Maoist, and Trotskyist) are considerably more difficult to find than their similarities. Indeed, we can test the veracity of that allegation if a dozen or more quotations are compared -- these have been lifted from a selection of STD and non-STD sources, the identification of which will be left until the end to assist in their impartial appraisal.

[Apologies are once more offered the reader in advance for the mind-numbingly repetitive and mantra-like nature of the following quotations, but they are typical of the overwhelming majority of books and articles published in the DM-tradition, and, indeed, on-line.]

[1] "Its conception of the inter-relation of Theory and Practice, is the vital essence of Marxism and is that one aspect of its many-faceted unity in which the significance of Dialectical Materialism is most clearly seen…. This unity is a unity of inter-relation: it is Materialist in that it is based on the primacy of practice, and Dialectical in its postulation of the indispensable precondition for both the practice and the unity….

"Its world-conception is Materialist alike in its Objectivity and in its Activity -- in that the world is conceived as a totality, and by means of its inseparably connected and never ceasing interacting movements.

"And it is Dialectical in that these inter-acting movements are recognised as begetting, of necessity, a perpetual self-transformation of the Universe as a whole -- a universally inter-connected series of processes in which old forms, formations, and inter-relations are constantly being destroyed and replaced by new forms…."

[2] "Materialist dialectics was born of the generalisation of scientific achievements and also of mankind's historical experience, which showed that social life and human consciousness, like nature itself, are in a state of constant change and development….

"Every system in the world is formed through interaction between its constituent elements. In exactly the same way all bodies acquire their properties through interaction and motion, through which their properties are manifested. Interaction is universal…."

[3] "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 formula…. Each particular phase of reality has its own laws and its own peculiar categories…. These laws and categories have to be discovered by direct investigation of the concrete whole; they can't be excogitated by mind alone before the material reality is analysed. Moreover, all reality is constantly changing, disclosing ever new aspects of itself which have to be taken into account and which can't be encompassed in the old formulas, because they are not only different from but often contradictory to them."

[4] "Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as just an agglomeration of things, each existing independently of the others, but it considers things as 'connected with, dependent on and determined by each other'. Hence, it considers that nothing can be understood taken by itself, in isolation….

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics considers everything as in 'a state of continuous movement and change, of renewal and development….'

"The dialectical method demands, first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always in their interconnection with other things."

[5] "The dialectical [method]…involves, first and foremost, three principles: totality, change and contradiction….

"Totality refers to the insistence that the various seemingly separate elements of which the world is composed are in fact related to one another….

"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….

"Change, development, instability…are the very conditions for which a dialectical approach is designed to account….

"A dialectical approach seeks to find the cause of change within the system…. If change is internally generated, it must be a result of contradiction, of instability and development as inherent properties of the system itself."

[6] "Marxist dialectics…examines the world in constant motion, change and development….

"To gain knowledge of objects and phenomena, it is necessary first of all to study their constant change and development. To really know an object we must examine it in its development, 'self-motion', change.

"…Dialectics sees the sources of development in the contradictions inherent in objects and phenomena….

"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 [sic] connection or unity with other objects and phenomena….

"One of the most important aims of materialist dialectics is the study of the world as an integral connected whole, the examination of the universal connections of things."

[7] "Dialectics is also the totality of the forms of natural and socio-historical development it its universal form. For this reason the laws of dialectics are the laws of development of things themselves, the laws of development of the self-same world of natural and historical development. These laws are realised by mankind (in philosophy) and verified by the practice of transforming both nature and socio-economic relations."

[8] "Everything is not only part of the great world process but is essentially a process. Its 'nature' can't be understood apart from the form of change it undergoes, that is, inherent in it….

"But this development is not something that proceeds in an automatic fashion, without cause…. 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."

[9] "[Dialectics] is a critique of static, fixed categories usually used in science -- categories valid within certain limits, which differ according to the case, but which prove inadequate to fully grasp the nature of reality….

"[A] further characteristic typical of processes of change is the 'negation of the negation' -- development through a new synthesis emerging which surpasses and transforms the elements of the 'contradiction'."

[10] "Dialectical thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change…. Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into quality, development through contradictions."

[11] "Dialectics is the logic of motion, development, evolution…. Engels, following Hegel, called those who think in absolute and unchanging categories, that is, who visualize the world as an aggregate of unchanging qualities, metaphysicians….

"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 realization 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….

"Thus, 'the materialist dialectic' (or 'dialectical materialism') is not an arbitrary combination of two independent terms, but is a differentiated unity -- a short formula for a whole and indivisible worldview, which rests exclusively on the entire development of scientific thought in all its branches, and which alone serves as a scientific support for human praxis."

[12] "Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard Nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things…are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.

"The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in Nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena….

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that Nature is not 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, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being….

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of Nature…."

[13] "The dialectical philosophy of Hegel deals with processes, not isolated events. It deals with things in their life, not their death, in their inter-relations, not isolated, one after the other. This is a startlingly modern and scientific way of looking at the world. Indeed, in many aspects Hegel was far in advance of his time....

"Dialectics is a method of thinking and interpreting the world of both nature and society. It is a way of looking at the universe, which sets out from the axiom that everything is in a constant state of change and flux. But not only that. Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions. So instead of a smooth, uninterrupted line of progress, we have a line which is interrupted by sudden and explosive periods in which slow, accumulated changes (quantitative change) undergoes a rapid acceleration, in which quantity is transformed into quality. Dialectics is the logic of contradiction....

"When we first contemplate the world around us, we see an immense and amazingly complex series of phenomena, an intricate web of seemingly endless change, cause and effect, action and reaction. The motive force of scientific investigation is the desire to obtain a rational insight into this bewildering labyrinth, to understand it in order to conquer it. We look for laws which can separate the general from the particular, the accidental from the necessary, and enable us to understand the forces that give rise to the phenomena which confront us....

"In general, we can only understand things by comparing them to other things. This expresses the dialectical concept of universal interconnections. To analyse things in their movement, development and relationships is precisely the essence of the dialectical method. It is the exact antithesis of the mechanical mode of thought (the 'metaphysical' method in the sense of the word used by Marx and Engels) which views things as static and absolute. This was precisely the defect of the old classical Newtonian view of the universe, which, for all its achievements, never escaped from the one-sidedness which characterised the mechanistic world outlook."

[14] "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's theory of movement is in opposition first of all with philosophical idealism and with the theological concepts of religion. The fundamental nature of all philosophical idealism and religious theology derives from their denial of the unity and material nature of the world; and in imagining that the movement and development of the world takes place apart from matter, or took place at least in the beginning apart from matter, and is the result of the action of spirit, God, or divine forces....

"The causes of the transformation of matter is to be found not without, but within. It is not because of the impulsion of external mechanical forces, but because of the existence within the matter in question of two components different in their nature and mutually contradictory which struggle with one another, thus giving an impetus to the movement and development of the matter. As a result of the discovery of the laws of such movement and transformation, dialectical materialism is capable of enlarging the principle of the material unity of the world, extending it to the history of nature and society. Thus, not only it is possible to investigate the world considered as matter in perpetual movement, but the world can also be investigated as matter endlessly in movement from a lower form to a higher form. That is to say, it is possible to investigate the world as development and process.

"Dialectical materialism investigate[s] the development of the world as a progressive movement from the inorganic to the organic, and from thence to the highest form of the movement of matter (society)."

[15] "Nature is not an accidental collection of unconnected isolated independent things, but a connected whole, in which all things are connected, determined by and dependent on each other. Therefore nothing can be understood by itself -- in isolation -- but the way to understand anything is to see how it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it arises....

"Nature is not in a state of rest. Everything is continually moving and changing; there is continuous renewal and development. Something is always arising and developing, something is always disintegrating and dying away.

"Therefore we must always think of things in motion, considering where they are coming from and where they are going. And we must attend especially to what is new, to what is arising and developing, because nothing persists unchanged, and what seems established and lasting may already be about to pass away....

"Every process of development is a process of conflict, in which something is dying away, and something is growing up, and this conflict between tendencies operating in opposite directions is what conditions the whole process. A sharp break or decisive leap occurs when one of the tendencies gains a decisive dominance over the other.

"Thus the development of the world is not a smooth, harmonious unfolding, but conflict and contradiction are right at the very heart of things -- as Lenin put it in one place: 'Dialectics is the study of contradiction within the very essence of things.'

[16] "Today...most people have no problem with the idea of scientific materialism. Materialism is the basis of all scientific knowledge, and it says simply that reality has an objective, concrete independence: there is nothing beyond nature -- no supernatural god, fate or destiny. The laws of nature are to be found within nature.

"Few people, either, will have a problem with the idea that this material reality is in a constant process of change and transformation. Under a laboratory microscope apparently dead matter is seen to be a mass of living cells and organisms. Scientists have discovered proof that the universe itself is still expanding.

"But what are the laws of this motion? Can we begin to discern general features of the way things change? Can we codify these laws without imposing some abstract scheme or model on our investigations?

"Marxists recognise the danger of this, but still believe that the essential laws of motion -- both of nature and society -- can be codified. The first attempts to do this used traditional, or formal, logic. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, systematised these laws which still hold good -- within certain limits -- to this day.

"At the centre of these theories was the idea that a thing is equal to itself and cannot therefore be at the same time equal to something else. Crucial as this idea was for the development of arithmetic, basic accounting and the categorisation of the natural world, it contained a basic flaw. It could not account for change, for a process of becoming.

"It is precisely when things are in a process of development from one thing into something else, that new and higher forms of logic are needed. Dialectics applied to a study of all social and physical phenomena show that 'something' can be itself and at the same time be in the process of becoming 'something else'.

[17] "Dialectical materialism is the world outlook and method of scientific socialism. It holds that every natural, social and intellectual formation is the transitory product of given material conditions. That all phenomena come into being, develop and eventually perish as a result of the action of the contradictions within them. For Marx and Engels dialectical materialism provided the means by which the illusions of religion could be dispelled, philosophy could be retrieved from speculation to serve the liberation of humanity, and theory could be put on a scientific basis....

"All phenomena contain contradictions which form the unity of opposites: society is divided into classes. Marx's philosophy is partisan because reality is partisan. Thought and philosophy could not be neutral because they are parts of a world in struggle. In our epoch that struggle, and the principle contradiction determining the fate of humanity, is the struggle between capital and labour....

"Matter exists in motion. All matter, galaxies, plants, molecules and society is in a state of motion. Human beings are part of matter, as is consciousness, but exist in conflict with it. That conflict is conducted through production, which discloses human kind to itself...."⁴⁹

[I have also quoted a several hundred more passages like the above (no exaggeration!) from every wing of Marxism, the vast majority of which say more-or-less the same things: here, here, and here. As noted earlier, the number of virtually indistinguishable passages like these can be multiplied by at least one order of magnitude -- with ease --, as any reader possessed of inordinate patience and plenty of Prozac may readily confirm, providing they have access to the countless books and articles on DM that have been written over the last hundred and forty years. The extremely mind-numbing and repetitive nature of such material (the vast majority of which agree with each other down to the minutest of details, and which use almost exactly the same words, phrases and sentences -- often the latter have simply been lifted verbatim from Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Trotsky) confirms the allegation advanced several times at this site: key DM-theses are living disproof of Heraclitus; they never change.]

In many ways, these passages not only closely resemble one another, they are reminiscent of the role played by ritual and liturgical passages intoned by the genuine god-botherers among us; plainly, the repetition of boilerplate text like this is more important than their content. Hence, in books and articles on dialectics (especially those found in the LCD tendency), the actual words used are more an affirmation of orthodoxy, a commitment to tradition, than they are a genuine contribution -- or any contribution at all -- to socialist theory, understanding the world, or knowing how to go about changing it.

[However, it is important to add that it is not being suggested that Stalinism and Maoism, on the one hand, and Trotskyism, on the other, are remotely similar in any other respect; indeed, in relation to their commitment to the international revolution and change from below, the difference between Trotskyism and the other two 'traditions' couldn't be more stark. However, in relation to their fondness for DM-phraseology, it is hard to slip a bus ticket between them.]^49a

Nevertheless, awkward questions return: How was it possible for the Stalinist ruling-classes and bureaucrats (of the fSU, Eastern Europe, China and elsewhere) to adopt and then advocate enthusiastically a supposedly revolutionary theory (i.e., DM), which is identical in almost every respect to that espoused by those who claim to be genuine revolutionaries, if dialectics is such an "abomination" to all members of the ruling-class and their hangers on? Even an allegedly "wooden and lifeless" version of DM (with its emphasis on 'Totality' and 'change through contradiction', etc., etc.) would be no less "abominable".

The standard explanation why DM is accepted by counter-revolutionaries (such as the above Stalinists) and revolutionaries alike is that the Stalinist version is "wooden and lifeless", whereas the revolutionary strain is 'vibrant' and 'un-dogmatic'. But this is highly implausible, especially since both versions seem to be equally wooden, lifeless and dogmatic, and are practically indistinguishable from one another on the page or screen. It isn't as if when OTTs (or even NOTs) write the very same words as STDs and MISTs their use of these phrases is somehow less 'wooden' or 'lifeless'. Not, that is, unless Trotskyists use a special sort of ink, paper or pixels on their computer screens.

[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; MIST = Maoist Dialectician; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; NOT = Non-OT; OTT = OT Theorist.]

Even so, it could be objected that it is the use to which dialectics is put -- not the phraseology -- that distinguishes Stalinist and Maoist from Trotskyist and revolutionary versions of the dialectic. Hence, when the latter forms part of a genuinely revolutionary movement -- as opposed to its use by a cynically counter-revolutionary 'clique' -- it is vibrant and alive.

[The above passage can be read the same way by supporters of each and every strain of Dialectical Marxism -- just swap the names around as the indignation or inclination takes you.]

In fact, truth be told, some STDs and MISTs display a far more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of "the dialectic" than many OTs -- Lukács, Ilyenkov and Oizerman come to mind, again, here. Another is Alexander Spirkin's intelligent analysis of the Part/Whole relation, discussed here; yet another is Yurkovets's analysis of "quality". To that we can add Shirokov (1937), Thalheimer (1936), and Gollobin (1986) -- to say nothing of Bukharin (2005) and Ai Ssu-ch'i from earlier.

Be this as it may, the DM-response volunteered three paragraphs back (that it is the use to which dialectics is put that distinguishes the correct from a lifeless and wooden use of the dialectic) still assumes that the 'dialectic' has a genuine role to play in the revolutionary movement. This idea has been subjected to sustained criticism in this Essay and throughout this site. The onus therefore is on those who claim this 'theory' has some sort of use or role to play -- i.e., that it can be accurately described as 'vibrant' while keeping a straight face -- the onus is on them to show where and how the 'dialectic' has been employed in a positive way anywhere, at any time, in the entire history of Marxism.^49b

But, even if that could be demonstrated, it would still be worth pointing out that in the hands of the STDs and MISTs (or, in the hands of the OTTs and NOTs, if you are a MIST or an STD yourself!) the dialectic was, and still is, used to derive conclusions that contradict -- not without some irony -- those drawn by other revolutionaries from other wings of Marxism. As we have seen, STDs and MISTs (or OTs and NOTs) use dialectical concepts to justify everything from the denial of party democracy and the concentration of power to the accusations made against the German SPD (that they were "social Fascists"); from the about-turn in the Popular Front to the pact with Hitler and the subsequent war against the Nazis; from the fight against Trotsky (accusing him of being a fascist agent -- if true, that should have in fact made him a hero in the USSR of 1940!) to the argument justifying socialism in one country; from the repeated invasions of Eastern Europe to the opposite conclusion drawn about those very same U-turns (often these are advanced by the same individual or party, sometimes on the same page or even in the same speech!).

In addition, we have even seen how Trotsky scandalously used DM to justify Stalin's invasion of Finland, and how the application of this theory to the allegedly 'Degenerated' Workers' States (the fSU and those in Eastern Europe) split the Trotskyist movement from top to bottom into countless warring sects. DM was also employed by NOTs to justify the theory of State Capitalism -- at the same time as it was being used by OTTs to 'refute' that very theory, in order to show how "un-dialectical" it was -- just as it has been employed to rationalise substitutionist strategies of every stripe!

So, and ironically, the 'correct' use of the dialectic amounts to its being used to prove anything a particular theorist finds expedient and its opposite!

Given such a cynical, opportunist history one would have thought that serious Marxists would want to disown anything that remotely resembled the 'dialectic', especially if their particular version of it is virtually indistinguishable from the lethal STD stain -- or, from the "wooden", "revisionist"/"abstract" MIST/OT/NOT version (depending, of course, on which one of these traditions the reader doesn't belong to).

Finally, the quotation from Marx that opened this section simply said that the dialectic was an "abomination" to the bourgeoisie. He didn't qualify these words. He certainly didn't rule out a "wooden" version of it being an "abomination". What he wrote has to be qualified considerably to make his words fit the picture the above counter-claim wishes to paint.

To be sure, Marx did say that "in its rational form it is a scandal and an abomination to the bourgeoisie". But, "wooden" forms can be no less rational. Anyway, this response begs the question as to what the "rational" form of the dialectic actually is, or even whether there is such a thing as its "rational" form. If, as these Essays have shown, DM has no "rational" form -- just a rotten core -- then wooden or plastic, there is no detectable difference between them.

These observations similarly apply to the usual reason given why DM is almost universally rejected by ruling-class hacks -- which is that DM is an "abomination" because it supposedly shows that all social forms are subject to change, etc. But, if in reality ruling-class hacks reject DM because it threatens their ideologically-motivated belief that certain social forms are unchanging (or, that they are 'natural'), then why didn't the Stalinist ruling-class reject it on similar grounds? Why did they become its most enthusiastic supporters and proselytisers?

[Or, if you aren't a Trotskyist: why do "revisionist" OTs and NOTs also accept the dialectic?]

The reason is pretty clear: DM allowed STDs to justify any old line coming out of the Kremlin, and its opposite the very next day!

[Again, if you are a Maoist or a Stalinist: DM allowed OTs and NOTs to 'justify' their opposition to the genuinely socialist regime in Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China, etc., etc. -- since, once more, it can be used to rationalise anything you like and its opposite, even by us 'trots'!]

However, an overarching answer to these awkward questions isn't too difficult to find. It has been maintained here, and in Part One of this Essay, that DM is the ideology of substitutionist elements in Marxism. That is, DM is the ideology of petty-bourgeois and de-classé revolutionaries, who, at important junctures, use DM to justify the substitution of themselves, or other class forces, for the working class.

If that is so, one should expect to find that only those ruling-classes -- i.e., those comprising petty-bourgeois professional revolutionaries, or the bureaucratic elements that have descended with modification from them, or from some other social layer, which arose as a result of the degeneration of a proletarian revolution (etc.) --, would find this theory conducive to their interests. As we have seen, that is precisely what we have found.

In which case, other ruling-classes (i.e., those that have no pretension, need, or desire to substitute themselves for the working class since they are quite happy to remain the capitalist ruling elite) wouldn't want to adopt DM -- since they have theories of their own that 'justify' and rationalise their own pre-eminent position, thank you very much.

In other words, DM found its place in STD-, and MIST-theory -- not because that theory had become wooden and lifeless in their hands -- but because it helped render the working class wooden and lifeless, therefore all the more easily substituted for, and hence safely removed from, its active role in history.

Since DM is the theory that ideologically 'justifies' all forms of substitution (because it is capable of 'justifying' anything and its opposite), it is hardly surprising to find out that it fails to appeal to those not wishing to substitute themselves for workers -- i.e., the open, honest, genuine, non-Stalinist, non-Maoist bourgeoisie.

Now, if you are a MIST or an STD reading this, the answer is equally clear: one would expect Trotskyist 'wreckers' to adopt dialectics, too. What better theory could there be if you want to argue that the former socialist states -- the USSR, Eastern Europe and Maoist China, for example -- aren't permanent, but will disappear one day (as indeed they have) -- than 'the dialectic'?

"In its rational form it is a scandal and an abomination to the bourgeoisie and its doctrinaire spokesmen, because it includes in its positive understanding of what exists a simultaneous recognition of its negation, its inevitable destruction; because it regards every historically developed form as being in a fluid state, in motion, and therefore grasps its transient aspect as well...." [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphases added.]

It could be objected to this that STDs, MISTs, NOTs, and OTs also accept HM. Hence, based on the above argument, HM must similarly be compromised.

To be sure, the grafting of DM onto HM has undoubtedly been to the detriment of the latter theory. HM is only acceptable to Stalinists (for example) because it can be rendered inoffensive by burying it under several layers of incomprehensible Hermetic jargon. HM isn't an inherently metaphysical theory; it is testable, it actually makes sense (but only when those alien-class, Hegelian concepts have been completely excised), and it arises from, and generalises, workers' experience (as Part One of this Essay sought to show). HM only becomes metaphysical and wooden when combined with DM -- to form Dialectical Mahogany.

When HM is distanced from DM (in the suggested manner) it regains its stature as a scientific theory, of invaluable use to revolutionaries. That is why, of course, the Stalinists (and, indeed, MISTs, OTs and NOTs) never separated the two --, but, that doesn't stop us genuine materialists from doing just that.⁵⁰

On the other hand, if you aren't a Trotskyist (i.e., if you are a Stalinist or a Maoist), the answer is plain too: any petty-bourgeois element in the workers' movement -- be it of the OT or the NOT persuasion -- will have perfectly good, class-based reasons to prefer a theory that rationalises their own substitution (or that of other groups) for the working class.

Perhaps now, dear reader, you can see how useful this theory is at explaining anything you like and its opposite? I have done just that, and several times over!

"The courts play a dual role: enforcers for the ruling class -- as in so many cases when trade unionists have been done in -- and in the main run of cases, where the interests of the ruling class are not at stake, providing a tribunal that interprets and applies the law to regulate relations between individuals within society. The law has two natures (remember dialectics?)." [Quoted from here. Accessed 03/02/2013.]

"Because historically US Imperialism has been very reactionary, as exemplified by the Vietnam war and much more, there are now many people in the world who seem incapable of conceptualising that the US could possibly do something progressive. It's always possible for these people to point to bad things that the US does -- there is no shortage of examples. Maybe part of the problem is that they have an ingrained black and white, non dialectic world view, which implicitly denies the very possibility that the US could do something progressive....

"I'm not saying that thinking dialectically is a substitute for studying the details of processes in detail -- including the details of what the Soviet Union became historically and the details of what is happening in Iraq and the Middle East. But that having the concept of dialectics (the coexistence of opposites in things) might help prevent falling into the rigid black and white thinking illustrated in the two examples above. If some people can't even conceptualise that it might be possible for US Imperialism today to do something progressive then no amount of detail is going to change their mind about Iraq. Their thinking is dogmatically stuck at another level to do with their whole world view. I'm arguing that studying dialectics is useful because it helps us keep our minds open to these possibilities." [Quoted from here. Accessed 12/01/2014. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged.]

"Because historically the Nazis/KKK have been very reactionary, as exemplified by the Second World War/Concentration Camps/US history and much more, there are now many people in the world who seem incapable of conceptualising that they could possibly do something progressive. It's always possible for these people to point to bad things that they do -- there is no shortage of examples. Maybe part of the problem is that they have an ingrained black and white, non dialectic world view, which implicitly denies the very possibility that the Nazis/KKK could do something progressive."

"With some cynicism Shliapnikov told the Eleventh Party Congress: 'Vladimir Ilyich [Lenin] said yesterday that the proletariat as a class, in the Marxian sense, did not exist. Permit me to congratulate you on being the vanguard of a non-existing class.' Of course, to a vulgar materialist, it sounds impossible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat without the proletariat, like the smile of the Cheshire cat without the cat itself. But one must remember that the ideological as well as the political superstructure never reflect the material base directly and immediately. Ideas have their own momentum. Usually in 'normal' times they are a source of conservativism: long after people's material circumstances have changed, they are still dominated by old ideas. However, this disjuncture between the ideological superstructure and the economic base became a source of strength to Bolshevism during the civil war." [Cliff (1990), p.189. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis and link added. Paragraphs merged.]

Hence, what would normally appear to be a 'contradiction in terms' -- i.e., "the dictatorship of the proletariat when there is no proletariat" -- can be rationalised and 'justified' by the use of a little dialectics (surely implied by Cliff's use of the term "vulgar materialist" -- plainly set in opposition to the phrase "dialectical materialist").

DM is an almost infinitely pliable tool for defending or promoting anything a party -- or even a particular individual -- feels expedient and its opposite.

Incidentally, this also explains why revolutionaries almost universally accept DM, and why any attempt to criticise it is resisted with no little vehemence. For such comrades, DM works not only like a drug consoling them for the repeated 'failure' of the class they champion, it allows them to argue for whatever is opportune at the time, and it rationalises their pre-eminent position in the revolutionary movement.

For Stalinists in power, on the other hand, DM also worked as a means of (a) Legitimisation and (b) Ideological control, a handy device for mystifying state power, as well as (c) A convenient way of rationalising the renewed oppression and exploitation of workers -- by the use of cynically casuistical, 'dialectical' arguments that promoted all those 'non-antagonistic contradictions' we met earlier. The "wooden" nature of the Stalinist dialectic is derived from the nature of the class that holds power -- a dynamic dialectic is surplus to requirements if you are already top dog.

On the other hand, 'lively' Trotskyist dialectics arises from sections of Dialectical Marxism that need to generate quasi-religious fervour as a form of consolation for their own lack of power and lack of success.

Finally, it isn't being suggested here that the author of TAR, or any other NOT (or OT, for that matter), is in any way to be associated with the crimes of Stalinism -- far from it. As one comrade so aptly put it a few years ago (Sheila McGregor, if memory serves me right): there is a wall of blood separating Stalinism and Trotskyism.

Nevertheless, TAR itself was clearly written from a revolutionary perspective; that is its enduring strength.

Alas, that is also what makes its author's acceptance of DM so puzzling and so regrettable.

If DM represents a serious inroad -- a bridgehead if you will -- of alien-class ideas in the revolutionary movement, then one should expect it to exacerbate problems that revolutionaries inevitably face in class society. Indeed, it should be expected to aggravate sectarianism, fragmentation, substitutionism and mystification. We saw earlier that there is a layer of professional revolutionaries who in general become Marxists for idiosyncratic, personal reasons (hence, unlike workers, they aren't 'natural' materialists). This means that in the hands of socialist prima donnas like these DM is soon transformed into Dogmatic Marxism.

To this end, one would expect DM to motivate (i) A drift toward centrally-promulgated dogma, controlled from the top, (ii) Obscure 'theological' disputation and self-serving casuistry, (iii) The branding of rival tendencies 'heretical' (in their interpretation of this or that obscure and incomprehensible dialectical thesis), (iv) The emergence of 'dialectical-experts' who arrogate to themselves the semi-miraculous ability of comprehending the terminal obscurities of Hegelian esoterica (again, upside down or the 'right way up'), and who then claim that critics and political enemies just don't "understand" dialectics -- or, indeed, that they can't possibly master Das Kapital until they have thoroughly studied and understood all of Hegel's Logic, a claim, it is worth recalling, not even Marx made about his own work!

In addition, one should expect (v) DM-theorists to use 'dialectics' to defend counter-intuitive doctrines (i.e., those that "contradict commonsense", or even common understanding)⁵¹ and that DM would be used (vi) To justify, on a post hoc basis, impromptu U-turns, inconsistent tactical manoeuvres and off-the-cuff dialectical 'justifications' for one or other of them.

Finally, one should expect (vii) Dialecticians to use this theory to convince recalcitrant workers that they (these DM-soothsayers) are acting in their best interest -- which they would, of course, appreciate if they "understood" dialectics, but, alas, they don't because they are lost in the mists of 'commonsense' and 'formal thinking'. In short, one should expect DM to function as an ideological 'justification' for substitutionist thinking.

Every single one of the above has been instantiated in the history of the various revolutionary tendencies that our movement has thrown up over the last hundred years or so -- and many times over.

From Lenin's claim that no one fully understands Das Kapital who has not fully understood all of Hegel's Logic, down through the wranglings between Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg,^51a to the attempt made by Trotsky to justify the revolutionary defence of the fSU as a "degenerated workers' state" (coupled with his scandalous defence of Stalin's invasion of Finland), on to the interminable use of 'dialectics' within OTGs to justify the latest tactical change (on the basis that it is 'dialectical' -- i.e., openly contradictory -- and that this is something that recommends it), to the haranguing of every other revolutionary group for failing to see things the same way (in view of the fact that everyone else adheres to an "abstract"/"wooden"/"formal" version of 'the dialectic') --, to the use of dialectical jargon to rationalise this or that episode of sectarian point-scoring, and then on to the use of the very same theory to 'justify' the centralisation of power in the former (and the contemporary) communist states on the basis that everything is contradictory anyway, to the regular almost over-night 180º U-turns in policy, and finally down to TAR with its ill-advised use of the word "algebra" in its title.⁵²

Although substitutionist tendencies within Bolshevism act like the proverbial bacteria that invades a diseased or a dead body, it is important to be aware of the class-, and ideological-origin of this infection: an ancient and well-entrenched ruling-class philosophical tradition in the hands of petty-bourgeois theorists who lead our movement.

Given all that has gone before, unless we are clear that DM has played a significant role in preventing Marxism from being "seized by the masses" (on this see Part One of this Essay, and Essay Ten Part One) -- and hence in exacerbating and prolonging the chronic sickness of Dialectical Marxism itself -- unless we are clear about that, all we can ever expect from our efforts are countless more dead workers.

Followed, of course, by a Dead Movement -- DM, the final negation of this Hermetic Dead-End.

01. Marx made plain the influence on his ideas of the 'Scottish School' in the German Ideology (erroneously calling them "English"):

"The French and the English, even if they have conceived the relation of this fact with so-called history only in an extremely one-sided fashion, particularly as long as they remained in the toils of political ideology, have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry." [MECW 5, p.42. Bold added.]

On this see Meek (1967), and Wood (1998, 1999) -- the latter of which underlines how influential Kant's work had been in this area.

It is not I who called them this (i.e., "The Scottish Historical Materialists"), but others, mainly Marx and Engels.

"Ronald Meek, 'The Scottish Contribution to Marxist Sociology' [1954; collected in his Economics and Ideology and Other Essays, 1967.] Such luminaries as Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith. This influence was actually acknowledged. In The German Ideology, right after announcing their theme that 'men be in a position to live in order to be able to "make history", they say "The French and the English, even if they have conceived the relation of this fact with so-called history only in an extremely one-sided fashion, particularly as long as they remained in the toils of political ideology, have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry.'"] [Quoted from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

[I have to point out that the above link is hostile to Marx and Engels, but there is little available on the internet at present on this topic that isn't hidden behind a pay wall.]

Meek actually calls them the "Scottish Historical School" (p.35), but he attributes this phrase to Roy Pascal (Communist Party member, friend of Wittgenstein and translator of The German Ideology), who used it in his article "Property and Society: The Scottish Historical School of the Eighteenth Century", Modern Quarterly, March 1938.

"Since we are dealing with the Germans, who are devoid of premises, we must begin by stating the first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, the premise, namely, that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to 'make history.' But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life. Even when the sensuous world is reduced to a minimum, to a stick as with Saint Bruno [Bauer], it presupposes the action of producing the stick. Therefore in any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its significance and all its implications and to accord it its due importance. It is well known that the Germans have never done this, and they have never, therefore, had an earthly basis for history and consequently never an historian. The French and the English, even if they have conceived the relation of this fact with so-called history only in an extremely one-sided fashion, particularly as long as they remained in the toils of political ideology, have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

"Let us do him this justice: Lemontey wittily exposed the unpleasant consequences of the division of labour as it is constituted today, and M. Proudhon found nothing to add to it. But now that, through the fault of M. Proudhon, we have been drawn into this question of priority, let us say again, in passing, that long before M. Lemontey, and 17 years before Adam Smith, who was a pupil of A. Ferguson, the last-named gave a clear exposition of the subject in a chapter which deals specifically with the division of labour." [MECW Volume 6, p.181. Spelling altered to conform with UK English.]

Marx refers to Ferguson repeatedly in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (MECW Volume 30, pp.264-306), as he does to others of the same 'school' (Adam Smith and Dugald Stuart) throughout this work.

He does so, too, in Volume One of Das Kapital -- MECW Volume 35, pp.133, 359, 366, 367. [He also refers to others of that 'school', e.g., Robertson, p.529, Stuart and Smith (however, the references to the latter two are too numerous to list).]

Indeed, throughout Marx's entire works, the references to Smith and Stuart are also too numerous to list.

Kant's influence is outlined in the following (I owe these references to Philip Gasper):

Wood, A, (1998), 'Kant's Historical Materialism' in Kneller and Axinn, Chapter Five.

Kneller, J., and Axinn, S, (1998), Autonomy And Community: Readings In Contemporary Kantian Social Philosophy (State University of New York Press).

01a. As expected, this comment of mine has sunk without trace on the Internet. It seems that comrades still prefer to advance Idealist explanations why we on the far-left are continually in crisis. [Indeed, this Essay even attempts to explain that phenomenon, too!] After all, if your core theory [DM] has been lifted from German Idealism and Mystical Christianity, it is hardly surprising to see dialecticians automatically reach for an Idealist explanation for most things. As Lenin himself half admitted:

"Intelligent idealism is closer to intelligent materialism than stupid materialism. Dialectical idealism instead of intelligent; (sic) metaphysical, undeveloped, dead, crude, rigid instead of stupid." [Lenin (1961), p.274.]

1. Standard DM-accounts of the origins of materialism (in Ancient Greece, for example) are highly misleading. However, I don't propose to substantiate that contentious observation, here. Several comments will be added to Essay Twelve at a later date.

1a. It is worth pointing out that I am employing the word "sectarianism" in a much wider sense than is generally the case in Marxist circles -- my use is more akin to how it is employed to describe the many and varied splits that occur within and between religious denominations. On that, see here.

"Sectarianism and Opportunism are the twin errors which may befall any organisation formed in pursuit of some principle. The Sectarian emphasises the absolute truth of its principle over any other, finds in every small disagreement the seeds of fundamental difference, see[s] the most deadly foe in the closest rival, puts purity of dogma over tactical advantage, refuses to compromise or modify their aims and is proud of being against the stream. Simply put, sectarianism is the breakdown of solidarity.

"The Opportunist is always ready to adapt its principles to circumstances, minimises the significance of internal disagreements, treats even opponents as 'the lesser evil', puts tactical advantage ahead of being true to its principles, is too ready to make compromises and is all too ready to follow the current of the stream. Not surprisingly, the sectarian or opportunist invariably repudiates being labelled as such, and instead reverses the claim. Meanwhile, these labels are all too easily thrown against minority positions in the attempt to invalidate their opinions as 'anti-party', simply because they are different and challenging.

"Naturally, real differences exist within groups and between different organisations. When these are fundamental differences, opposition and conflict is [sic] to be expected when a common course is attempted. The trouble with sectarianism is that it behaves as if fundamental differences exist when they do not; while opportunism actively ignores real differences. Thus, when for example Anarchists and Socialists attempt a common action, one can expect some areas of conflict. Some confusion arises because the very nature of a Communist is to support the working class as a whole, which includes parties, unions, organisations, etc. Such a purpose is an arduous one and a fine line is sometimes walked between helping increase class consciousness and the sectarian slide of dictating to workers that their interests are not workers' interests! Thus, mutual respect and thorough going [sic] solidarity are two steadfast principles of real Communists.

"Sectarianism and Opportunism exist in all things; but they are no more dominant in the working class movement than they are in religious organisations or capitalist governments. In the United States for example, the Republican and Democratic parties have been in deeply sectarian battles over how best to rule a capitalist government for over 100 years. While they see one another as fundamentally in opposition (though we clearly know that they are not), they do have the tolerance to the extent that they recognize the need for one another in order for their government to survive. Thus, to eradicate sectarianism is impossible (an attempt we saw in the Soviet Union, accomplished with the most brutal of results), but to control it within certain boundaries can be a source of great strength." [Quoted from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several spelling errors corrected; some paragraphs merged. Bold emphases alone added.]

This is in fact much closer to the meaning of the term I have adopted, but it still fails to come to grips with the reasons why Dialectical Marxism is quite so fragmentary. The vast majority of bourgeois parties don't split this much. Dialectical Marxism is surely just as cursed in this regard as Christianity (and more particularly Protestantism) --, indeed, as the above article concedes. According to one estimate, there are 34,000 different Christian sects on the planet! Well, there might not be quite that many Marxist or far-left denominations, but they certainly number in the higher hundreds, possibly thousands. After another 2000 years, if humanity lasts that long, perhaps we will more closely rival the Christians in this respect, too. Even so, per head of believers, Dialectical Marxism is considerably worse off than Christianity -- DM-supporters are, after all, much thinner on the ground compared to the number of Christians. [On that, see here. There are reported to be at least 2.2 billion Christians on earth at present.]

This phenomenon plainly requires a sociological, ideological and political explanation. The beginning of one has been attempted in this Essay.

It is also important to add at the start that I am not arguing that everything that workers do or believe is above criticism, and therefore that Marxists should tail-end the proletariat; quite the reverse, in fact. Hence, the material presented here isn't meant to be an apology for opportunism. But, the politically backward and uneven nature of most sections of the working class, and the need for a Leninist Party have been studied in detail by other Marxists, whereas the sociological, political, and ideological roots of sectarianism haven't -- so, I will be concentrating on the latter, not the former, in this Essay.

[The former was in fact partially dealt with in Essay Nine Part One. Also, see Note 13a, below.]

1b. Alas, this seems to be the case with the overwhelming majority of comrades with whom I have debated this dogma on the Internet. Few seem capable of defending it, and, of those who are minimally proficient in this regard, none can do so to any great depth -- and that even includes academic dialecticians and one or two Marxist Professors! All appear to have uncritically accepted large parts, or, indeed, all of DM. [On that, see here.]

An excellent recent example of this can be found here -- in the comments section at the end; look for the discussion between the present author and a comrade called "Mick Travis".

Added January 2017: Unfortunately, the above comments now seem to have vanished!

"I have heard 'the dialectic' defined by way of the alleged fact that however bleak the present conjuncture may seem (here again the unreliable 'appearances'!), the working class will triumph 'in the end'. In such assurances, the apparent defeat 'turns into is opposite' -- namely certain victory!" [Rosenthal (1998), p.197, Note 2.]

That agrees with my own experience, and, indeed, with the evidence presented in this Essay.

Also compare this with the following words taken from the Preface to the second edition of RIRE:

"Ted Grant was an incorrigible optimist all his life. Marxists are optimistic by their very nature because of two things: the philosophy of dialectical materialism, and our faith in the working class and the socialist future of humanity. Most people look only at the surface of the events that shape their lives and determine their destiny. 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. The idea of constant change, in which sooner or later everything changes into its opposite enables a Marxist to rise above the immediate situation and to see the broader picture." [Quoted from here. (I originally lined to the UK site that published this book on-line, but that link is now dead, so I have now linked to an Australian mirror site, which has slightly different wording.) Bold emphases added.]

'The dialectics of history, the general crisis of capitalism, are far more powerful than all the bureaucrats. If the crisis accelerates the death of the reformist forest, it will -- if revolutionary socialists adopt a correct strategy and tactics -- accelerate the growth of the green shoots of rank and file confidence, action and organisation.'" [Birchall (2011), p.466, quoting Cliff from 1979. Bold emphasis added.]

2. This isn't to suggest that Lenin didn't mention dialectics at all before 1905. Clearly he did (for example, in What The 'Friends Of The People' Are And How They Fight The Social-Democrats and One Step Forward Two Steps Backward), but this theory/method only assumed a centrally important role for him after 1905, and even more specifically after the Second International abandoned Internationalism in response to the outbreak of WW1. Which is, after all, why he spent several months studying Hegel's 'Logic'. [On that, see below and here.]

Evald Ilyenkov (in Ilyenkov (1982b)), argues that Lenin had been interested in dialectics all his mature life (p.9ff), and cites Krupskaya's memoirs in support.

"In the evenings Vladimir Ilyich usually read books on philosophy -- Hegel, Kant or the French materialists -- and when he grew very tired, Pushkin, Lermontov or Nekrasov." [Krupskaya (1970), p.40.]

This passage doesn't in fact support Ilyenkov's specific assertion that Lenin studied Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, and the "classics of world philosophy" (p.10). At best, it provides only weak support for his claim that Lenin was interested in dialectics in general back then. Even so, this "interest" was clearly re-kindled after his arrest and exile to Siberia. In which case, given the line taken in this Essay, it is hardly surprising that Lenin looked for philosophical consolation while incarcerated in Shushenskoe in 1897. So, if anything, this lends support to the thesis maintained here: that philosophy and dialectics become important for petty-bourgeois revolutionaries in times of disaster, defeat and set-back, whether or not the latter are personal or organisational reversals.

It is worth adding that Krupskaya's memoire records both her own and Lenin's continuing interest in philosophy (so the following passage does lend some support to Ilyenkov's claims -- as well as mine):

"A volume entitled Studies in the Philosophy of Marxism appeared in Russia containing essays by Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, Bazarov, Suvorov, Berman, Yushkevich and Gelfand. These Studies were an attempt to revise the materialist philosophy, the Marxist materialist conception of the development of humanity, the conception of the class struggle. The new philosophy was a loophole for a hodgepodge of mysticism. Decadent moods among the intelligentsia during the years of reaction were favourable to the spread of revisionism. Obviously the line had to be drawn.

"Ilyich had always been interested in questions of philosophy. He had studied it closely in exile, was familiar with everything that Marx, Engels and Plekhanov had written in that field. He had studied Hegel, Feuerbach and Kant. While still in exile in Siberia he had had heated discussions with comrades who inclined towards Kant, he followed all that was written on the subject in the Neue Zeit, and was on the whole fairly well-grounded in philosophy.

"The story of his differences with Bogdanov was told by Ilyich in his letter of February 25 to Gorky. Ilyich had read Bogdanov's book Fundamentals of the Historical Conception of Nature in Siberian exile, but Bogdanov's position at the time had been a stage in his transition to his later philosophic views. In 1903, when Ilyich was working with Plekhanov, the latter had often criticized Bogdanov for his philosophic opinions. Bogdanov's book Empiriomonism appeared in 1904, and Ilyich told Bogdanov outright that he considered Plekhanov's view right and not his, Bogdanov's." [Ibid., pp.179-80. Bold emphases alone added. Several paragraphs merged.]

Krupskaya's comment that 'left' intellectuals turn toward mysticism in periods of isolation, defeat and reaction further confirms the judgement expressed in this Essay. However, it is also clear from what she says that Lenin became increasingly focussed on Hegelian Philosophy after 1905 (here speaking of the period they both spent in Berne in 1914-1915):

"While waging a passionate struggle against the betrayal of the workers' cause on the part of the Second International, Ilyich at the same time began an article on 'Karl Marx' for Granat's Encyclopaedic Dictionary as soon as we arrived in Berne. This article, dealing with the teachings of Marx, opens with an outline of his philosophy under two headings: 'Philosophic Materialism' and 'Dialectics,' followed by an exposition of Marx's economic theory, in which he describes Marx's approach to the question of socialism and the tactics of the class struggle of the proletariat.

"Marx's teaching was not usually presented in this way. In connection with the chapters on philosophic materialism and dialectics, Ilyich began diligently to reread Hegel and other philosophers, and kept up this study even after he had finished the article. The object of his philosophic studies was to master the method of transforming philosophy into a concrete guide to action. His brief remarks on the dialectical approach to all phenomena made in 1921 during the trade-union [sic] controversy with Trotsky and Bukharin best testify to the great benefit which Ilyich derived in this respect from his philosophic studies begun upon his arrival in Berne; they were a continuation of his philosophic studies of 1908-1909, when he had combated the Machists. Struggle and studies, study and research with Ilyich were always strongly linked together, and closely bound up between themselves, although they may have appeared at first sight to run in parallels." [Ibid., pp.295-96. Bold emphases and link added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Two minor typos corrected; several paragraphs merged.]

2a. Anderson went on to claim that Lenin's detailed study of Hegel informed his classic work on Imperialism (i.e., Lenin (1975)), but he was also forced to admit the following:

"The relationship of the text of Lenin's Imperialism to the Hegel Notebooks is not immediately apparent and must be excavated. First, it must be said that unlike the Essay 'Karl Marx' (1914), for example, this book does not have a section on dialectics or even one on philosophy. Nor does it even mention the issue of dialectics...." [Anderson (1995), p.128. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases alone added.]

That isn't at all surprising. As Parts One and Two of this Essay have shown, it isn't possible to apply the dialectic in practice -- except, perhaps, negatively, to create confusion, incomprehension or in support of opportunism/factionalism. No wonder then that Lenin kept it well away from that classic work.

"Lenin's hectic activities during the first seven months of the war bear little resemblance to the picture given us by writers who imagine Lenin going through a period of agonising rethinking. According to these writers, Lenin was utterly isolated politically, even from his closest allies; he retired for a space from political activity in order to rethink the foundations of Marxism; he then came up with his political programme only after reading Hegel's Logic. In reality, Lenin had his political programme ready literally from day one, and he immediately plunged into intense political activity to publicise his standpoint and to ensure official party support, which he received." [Lih (2014). Quoted from here. Accessed 27/04/2014. Bold emphasis added.]

It looks like this is yet another DM-fable we should now consign to the dustbin of history. Lenin studied Hegel in order to find some sort of post hoc 'philosophical justification' for decisions already taken for hard-headed political reasons. As we will see, he not only couldn't use 'dialectics' in his or the Bolshevik Party's practical deliberations, when he did attempt to use it (in an argument with Trotsky and Bukharin, in 1921), his reasoning soon lapsed into incoherence. More importantly, as we will also see, 'dialectics' featured nowhere in his deliberations or activities in 1917, during an actual revolution, when one would have expected it to be front and centre.

"Once he arrived in Bern, Lenin moved quickly in two seemingly contradictory directions: (1) he spent long weeks in the library engaged in daily study of Hegel's writings, especially the Science of Logic, writing hundreds of pages of notes on Hegel, and (2)...he moved toward revolutionary defeatism...." [Anderson (1995), p.3.]

"Two other candidates for a unifying theme are 'imperialism' and 'conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war'. As important as these themes are, they do not cover all four levels of the scenario of global revolutionary interaction. 'Revolutionary defeatism' is a non-starter as a candidate, if only because the phrase cannot be found in Lenin." [Lih (2014). Quoted from here. Accessed 27/04/2014.]

While the actual phrase "revolutionary defeatism" can't itself be found in Lenin's work, as Tony Cliff has shown, Lenin certainly used expressions synonymous with it -- Cliff (1986), pp.1-5, quoting Lenin:

"A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, and cannot fail to see that the latter's military reverses must facilitate its overthrow...the socialists of all the belligerent countries should express their wish that all their own governments should be defeated.

"In each country, the struggle against a government that is waging an imperialist war should not falter at the possibility of that country's defeat as a result of revolutionary propaganda. The defeat of the government's army weakens the government, promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses, and facilitates civil war against the ruling classes...

"To repudiate the defeat slogan means allowing one's revolutionary ardour to degenerate into an empty phrase, or sheer hypocrisy." [These all come from Volume 21 of Lenin's Collected Work; exact page numbers can be found in Cliff's book. Bold emphases alone added.]

3. in fact, Hegel's work can itself be seen as a response to the failure of the French Revolution, prompting his own retreat into Dialectical Mysticism. There is an admirably clear account of the demoralisation of 'intellectuals' that swept across Europe at the turn of the 18^th century because of that failure -- in TAR itself (pp.13-54)! Clearly, its author, John Rees, failed to notice the obvious connection between Hegel's demoralisation and his subsequent search for consolation in the sort of Christian Mysticism he effortlessly conjured into existence (literally) out of "Nothing" -- later to be appropriated and given a full 360º flip (not the reputed 180º) by Marxist dialecticians afflicted with the same intellectual malaise.

Incidentally, the last twenty or thirty years have witnessed a significant stampede 'back to Hegel' among Academic Marxists (many of whom I have characterised as HCDs). This is clearly connected with the change in the balance of class forces that has taken place internationally since the mid-, to late-1970s. [Chris Arthur (no doubt inadvertently) plots its course in Arthur (2004), pp.1-16. See also Redding (2007) for the same development among 'Analytic' Philosophers. (I have put 'scare' quotes around the word "Analytic" here since, to my mind, anyone who attempts to rehabilitate that charlatan, Hegel, automatically ceases to be an Analytic Philosopher.) I will add a few comments about Redding's book to Essay Twelve Part Five. In the meantime, readers are encouraged to check out other comments I have made about Redding, here and here (where I have systematically undermined a key argument Redding has borrowed from Kant in his (Redding's) attempt to explain what 'real negation' meant for Hegel).]

Academics, it seems, require a far 'superior' source of consolation; none of those nasty, cheap opiates beloved of LCD comrades for them! Straight to the Mother Lode in Hegel and French Philosophy for them!

The 'revival' of almost pure, unadulterated Hermetic Mysticism in the halls of Marxist academe has also found expression in journals like Historical Materialism, Radical Philosophy and (on-line) in Cultural Logic and the baroque out-pourings of the oddly named, Platypus Affiliated Society. It can also be seen in the recent foundation of the (insular, if not parochial) Marx & Philosophy Society, as well as in (equally insular, no less parochial) books like Marx and Contemporary Philosophy (i.e., Chitty and McIvor (2009)), which manage to omit all mention of the vast bulk of Contemporary Philosophy (except, there is one chapter devoted to Analytical Marxism -- which is now a defunct 'tradition', that, even at its 'height', was a minor back-water of Analytic Philosophy).

If these characters had set out to be totally irrelevant -- at least as far as much of Modern Philosophy is concerned -- they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

[One of the reasons for such selective blindness lies in the fact that HCDs seem quite incapable of writing with any clarity (except perhaps when composing job applications!), and plainly prefer the same level of obscurity in those they judge 'acceptable philosophers'. But, just try telling any of them that! You'll find yourself on the receiving end of a stream of abuse, spiced up with yet more gobbledygook. (Of course, that is an exaggeration on my part -- but only a very slight one!)]

Moreover, we regularly encounter similar episodes (i.e., a preference for Hermetic Idealism) in subsequent generations of revolutionaries, which intellectual decay only serves to reveal, yet again, the historical and ideological link between German Mysticism and Dialectical Marxism itself. In addition, it underlines the connection that also exists between the class-origin of DM-classicists (as well as countless other, 'lesser', DM-theorists) and their fondness for Traditional Philosophy, particularly in times of isolation, retreat and defeat.

Indeed, and as a matter of fact, both DM-classicists and contemporary dialecticians were (and still are) exclusively drawn either from, or they now belong to, the petty-bourgeoisie, or they are simply de-classé. Of course, such a background is no defect in itself. But, the founders of Dialectical Marxism didn't live in air-tight containers, hermetically sealed against contemporaneous social and ideological pressure (nor do contemporary DM-theorists). Those influences clearly found a sympathetic ear, and were given pride-of-place, in the theoretical work of pioneer dialecticians. [I explain why later on in this Note and below.]

Hence, early revolutionary theorists -- who lived in semi-feudal Germany and Russia, both intellectually dominated by Mysticism and Idealism -- found themselves in a society with no developed or assertive working class from which to learn. Workers themselves couldn't provide a materialist counter-weight to the socially-induced, Idealist inclinations of these intellectual pioneers. This meant that the theories developed by the very first DM-classicists would automatically bend too far in the direction of ideas and concepts that have always dominated traditional theory and traditional theorists -- that is, in this case, toward ruling-class forms-of-thought current in Europe and Germany at the time. Workers in Germany and Russia were far too weak, disorganised and certainly too few in number in the nineteenth century to mount a significant challenge to the confident ruling-classes of their day -- or, indeed, impact on the concepts that early DM-theorists began to import into the movement, and then develop in the direction of DM.

[On that, see Note 13a2. Why I have used the phrase "socially-induced, Idealist inclinations" in relation to the DM-classicists will be explained presently.]

Moreover, continual disappointment with the very class upon which the hopes of European and Russian radicals were pinned must have been a constant factor that also influenced the development of revolutionary thought in this period. Repeatedly dashed expectations that a revolutionary workers' movement would emerge in mid-to-late 19^th century Europe meant that the tendency to seek consolation in Mystical Philosophy became irresistible.

And this isn't mere speculation. We know that that is precisely what happened, and is still happening. These facts are clear enough from the biographies of European radicals (including those of Marx and Engels, and later those of Lenin and Trotsky -- and even later still in the thoughts and careers of more recent dialecticians).

An unshakable faith in workers' revolutionary potential coupled with a belief in the proximity of the revolution (which is clear for all to see, for example, in the Marx-Engels correspondence, and elsewhere), alongside the certainty that there would be a terminal crisis of Capitalism in the near future -- all these beliefs had to face disconfirming, material reality, many times over, month in, month out, decade after decade.

[The effect on Marxists (again, including Marx, Engels and the other classicists) of the varying economic fortunes of capitalism in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries is traced rather well in Gouldner (1980), pp.32-150 (albeit interpreted as a form of 'scientific socialism', or even 'Critical Theory'). While there is much with which I would want to disagree in Gouldner's analysis, he seems to me to get this part of the story largely right.]

Naturally, the wide disparity between theory and reality here -- which is more like a yawning gap of Grand Canyon proportions -- requires an HM explanation of some sort. If 'underlying reality' differed so markedly from 'appearances', then a theory that based itself precisely on that premise (i.e., which held that a surface view of reality is misleading and that underlying 'essence' is the opposite of what merely 'seems to be') would immediately appeal to anyone subject to such long-term disappointment and demoralisation. And this would be all the more true of those who, because of their education and socialisation, had ruling-ideas already installed in their heads, and which therefore also predisposed them to think this way about high theory and low appearances.

Nevertheless, an explanation for failure and defeat is one thing, but the enormity of repeated set-backs like these, as they unfolded, required something a little stronger: an industrial strength palliative was called for. Constantly dashed hopes would necessitate something far more soothing and consoling, something absolutely reassuring. Those subject to permanent disappointment would need a concentrated dose of a potent narcoleptic -- Dialectical Methadone --, a powerful, ideological hit provided by a potent doctrine based on the supposed 'contradiction' between 'appearance and reality'.

[I have shown how spurious that ancient, ruling-class distinction is, and how not even science is based on it, here.]

Just like any other opiate, this one prevents DM-fans from appreciating their own parlous, ideological and theoretical condition, which in turn dulls any desire kick the habit.

"Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it." [Eastman (1926), p.22.]

In this way, and to change the image, the gravitational pull of the Black Whole of Hegelian Idealism became irresistible --, indeed, as The Magus, Hegel himself, foresaw:

"Every philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its principle, and the question then is only how far this principle is carried out." [Hegel (1999), pp.154-55; §316.]

How else are we to account for Engels's own 're-discovery' of dialectics later in life, after a brief youthful dalliance and subsequent rejection of it in the 1840s (alongside Marx)? How else can we make sense of an analogous course taken by Lenin and Trotsky?

Admittedly, it isn't easy for Dialectical Marxists to accept such a depiction of the founders of our movement, in view of the almost god-like stature these luminaries have assumed over the years. That, of course, is part of the problem! It prevents revolutionaries thinking for themselves -- 'outside the dialectical box', as it were -- lest they are branded "Revisionists!", traitors to the cause, or are accused of "not being a Marxist" -- or, worse, of 'not 'understanding' dialectics! This helps guarantee that they, too, will always place slavish adherence to tradition ahead of the search for truth and understanding.

Nevertheless, this goes some way toward explaining Engels's drift back into Hegelian Idealism later in life. In his case, it accounts for his use of Hegel's obscure concepts as a "master key" to unlock nature's underlying secrets, which supposedly govern all of material reality, for all of time, even while he denied he was doing just that!

This also helps account for the fact that subsequent generations of revolutionaries have uncritically accepted a demonstrably, if not lamentably, weak theory, one that has presided over decade after decade of abject failure.

These theorists and activists have consistently displayed a level of philosophical gullibility that is impossible to explain in any other way -- especially in view of the fact that elsewhere they think and behave like hard-headed materialists --, unless we appeal to extra-logical -- in this case social and psychological -- factors, such as their class origin and their need for some form of consolation in the face of long-term failure.

Since these comrades were, and still are, subject to the sorts of pressures that weigh upon ordinary human beings (in addition to those created by continually dashed hopes), the need to invert or re-cast material and social reality to fit an Ideal image they have of it clearly was, and still is, irresistible. Decades of defeat and set-back, the almost total failure to win over even a significant minority of the toiling masses, compounded by splits, betrayals, back-stabbing, sectarian in-fighting and bureaucratic inertia -- further compounded by the implacable opposition of the class enemy, to say nothing of the other alienating forces at work in capitalist society -- all these have taken (and are still taking) their toll on generations of the very best or our fellow comrades.

The almost universally irrational and emotional response which these Essays (and my ideas in general) elicit from Dialectical Marxists is further testimony to that fact.

[Again, please note, I am not complaining; I expect this level of abuse, opposition and vitriol -- even total indifference. If I didn't receive it, or wasn't subject to it, I would immediately conclude I had gone wrong somewhere!]

DM has comrades like this in its grip because -- given their material and social circumstances -- it encapsulates the way they were socialised to see the world -- that is, as ultimately Ideal. As children, reared in bourgeois or petty-bourgeois households, benefiting from a 'superior education', they were indoctrinated to believe that there is an invisible world underlying 'appearances' that is more real than the universe we see around us, accessible to thought alone -- doctrines that recapitulate a core set of ideas weaved into the vast majority of religions and traditional forms of thought. In this way, they had "ruling ideas" installed in their brains almost from the cradle on, and which they later brought with them into the workers' movement. Hence, given their socialisation, petty-bourgeois dialecticians 'naturally' concluded there is absolutely nothing wrong, or out of the ordinary, with traditional forms of a priori thesis-mongering. In fact, given this background, nothing else would count as 'genuine Philosophy', since, as noted above, this orientation toward High Theory has been a key feature of 'Western' and 'Eastern' thought for nigh on 2500 years. This intellectual tradition has such a grip on those held in its thrall that it is literally impossible to shake them free of it -- as Lenin inadvertently admitted, and as Marx himself pointed out. Again, as Max Eastman asserted:

"Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you can't know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it." [Eastman (1926), p.22.]

[Here and here are two recent examples of this phenomenon. (Unfortunately, these links no longer work!)]

This means that DM-theorists find they can't abandon -- they can't even bring themselves to contemplate abandoning -- the fixed idea that Marxism needs a philosophy of some sort, and react with genuine shock, amazement and horror at anyone who even suggests otherwise. Indeed, they tend to defend this traditional approach to 'knowledge' with no little vehemence, waxing indignant (often becoming abusive) toward anyone who thinks to question it.

As noted in Essay Two, Traditional Thought finds its most avid fans, its most resolute and emotional defenders among those who claim to be inveterate radicals.

[This topic will be explored at greater length in Essays Three Part Six, Twelve Part One, and Fourteen Part Two, where the usual rationalisations dialecticians offer in order to explain why they still think Marxism needs a philosophy (despite Marx's trenchant criticisms) will be examined, and then neutralised.]

Small wonder then that revolutionaries seek reassurance in the comforting idea that the most fundamental 'Laws' underpinning 'Being' -- or, in the case of HCDs, the 'laws of history' -- are on the side of, or they are strongly pre-disposed toward, their cause. Once made, this is an ideological commitment to which these comrades desperately cling. Few want to sever the cord that binds them to their Dialectical Mother. This is one crossing of the Rubicon that is one-way, only.

[On this, see the classical account in Festinger (1962), and Festinger, et al (1956). See also Travis and Aronson (2008). There is a useful summary here. See also here, which illustrates perhaps why so many comrades readily follow, and rationalise, the 'Party Line'.]

This 'unhealthy syndrome' was dramatised a few years ago in a 'true-to-life' film, Promised A Miracle (1988), which told the story of an evangelical couple who believed their diabetic son could be cured by faith alone, and hence they rejected medical attention and treatment. These two unfortunates clung to this belief even as their son was obviously dying. They accounted for his apparently worsening condition by reasoning that the 'Devil' was falsely creating certain symptoms in the child to test their faith. So, for them, too, 'appearances' were deceptive! Their 'ability' to access an invisible world lying behind these untrustworthy 'appearances' enabled them to see what was essentially happening in a world hidden from the eyes of the benighted majority.

Even after their son had passed away, they continued to believe he would come back to them on the fourth day (reprising the return of Lazarus). The more their beliefs were shown to be mistaken, the more powerfully they believed the opposite. In this case, their minds were clearly in the grip of a deleterious form of Christian Mysticism, which convinced them to believe the opposite of what their eyes were telling them.

Dialectical Marxists likewise rely on a different, but no less pernicious, version of the same opiate -- which, unsurprisingly, is based on Hegel's brand of Christian and Hermetic Mysticism (upside down, or the 'right way up').

Update 12/05/19: CNN has just shown a documentary about the fall of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. They reported that ISIS fighters were expecting 'divine intervention' to save them from defeat, and one of their reporters interviewed some of the civilians who had escaped from the destruction. One woman explained their defeat by saying 'God' was "testing [their] faith", and that in the end 'He' will bring destruction on the 'infidels'. Others said that despite these set-backs, one day the world will be ruled by Islam.

Update 17/11/2020: The global pandemic that hit the earth in 2020 threw up several more absurd examples of this psychological malaise. For example, reports began to emerge in late 2020 that, even on their death beds, individuals who had swallowed right-wing conspiracy theories that the Covid-19 virus was a hoax still denied it existed!

"[According to Travis View, a researcher and co-host of the podcast 'QAnon Anonymous'] [b]elievers...appear to be splitting between those who see Biden's ascent to the White House as a sign that the Q's prophecies were wrong and those who think they were right but need to be recast for a Biden administration in which Trump remains secretly powerful and able to control events unfolding in Washington. 'A minority are facing reality that Biden's going to be president,' View said. 'Others are coming to believe that the storm they were expecting is still going to happen but sometime during the Biden administration.'" [Washington Post, 21/01/2021. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Paragraphs merged.]

So, this condition isn't confined to hyperventilated Christians or staunch DM-fans.

[In connection with the vehemently negative -- if not arrogantly dismissive -- attitude dialecticians almost invariably adopt toward any comrade who questions, criticises or rejects DM, it is also worth consulting the work of Milton Rokeach on "Open and Closed Minds" (which was itself partly based on Adorno's Authoritarian Personality -- i.e., Adorno (1994)); cf., Rokeach (1960), and Lalich (2004).]

To be sure, Trotsky did mention DM in short articles and speeches in the 1920s (but even they date from a time when he was being slowly elbowed out of the Party) -- for example, Trotsky (1925) --, but these comments are few in number, rather brief, and even then they only appear to focus on Engels's First 'Law', the transformation of Quantity into Quality. He didn't become a DM-freak until the 1930s as a result of his exile and political quarantine.

As noted earlier, this isn't to suggest that such comrades showed no interest at all in dialectics in previous years, only that this 'theory' assumed a much more prominent and important role in their lives and their thought in periods of isolation, set-back and defeat.

Moreover, as we will see, in the case of the Stalinists and Maoists, this 'theory' also became a highly useful way of rationalising (i) The party's autocratic domination over the working class, (ii) The denial or suppression of inner-party democracy, (iii) Regular, almost over-night U-turns in strategy and tactics, and (iv) Opportunistic class compromise.

7. Readers can judge for themselves the effect this has had on, for example, the International Marxist Tendency (Woods and Grant's party), here.

The former WRP were past masters in the art of dialectical disputation. Long articles by Gerry Healy (or one of his sidekicks) regularly regaled readers of Newsline with detailed solutions to questions that continually occupy the minds of ordinary workers -- such as: 'Does motion precede matter, or does matter precede motion?'

The WRP were fanatical defenders of every last dot and comma of this 'theory' -- which reached such a level of commitment and fanaticism that even put to shame hardboiled MISTs --, along with practically everything Trotsky ever scribbled on the back of a cigarette packet.

[If further proof is required, check out Healy (1982, 1990). Much of Healy's work can now be accessed here, here and at the above link. If that fails to convince, try this.]

Deep dialectical devotion like this can be seen, for example, in a review of Callinicos (1982), published in Labour Review, Volume 6, number 1, May 1982, pp.40-48 [i.e., Pilling (1982a)]. There, the reader will encounter the same tired old clichés and hackneyed repetition of various articles of DM-faith, dusted-off and given yet another airing almost as if they had only been discovered the night before, and as if Callinicos hadn't heard them all a million times already!

[See also, Labour Review Volume 6, number 2, July 1982, where Geoff Pilling vainly attempts to defend Lenin's MEC -- i.e., Pilling (1982b). (On MEC, see Essay Thirteen Part One.) One of the spin-off organisations that was left standing after the Healy franchise fell apart thirty-five years ago is no less dialectically-devoted. (That should help seal its fate!)]

Now that the Militant Tendency has also self-destructed, it seems that up until his recent death, Ted Grant had inherited Healy's Hermetic Halo (passed down to him after the sad death of the High Priest Himself), and thereafter proudly wore the hallowed Dialectical Mantle as a purveyor of the latest re-hash of DM, unfortunately based on ideas that were already unscientific 200 years ago! Alan Woods now appears to be Grant's successor as Dialectical Pontiff, ready and willing to pass the Sacred Word down to anyone ready to listen.

Scant consolation, too, one might feel, for the abject failure of 'Entryism' into the old UK Labour Party.

Anyway, soon after Militant imploded, these two published a book that celebrated the glitzy, 'scientific' status of DM by, among other things, repackaging the mystical 19^th century musings of Hegel and Engels -- and with no hint of irony. The result? That monument to philosophical and scientific superficiality and irrelevance, Woods and Grant (1995/2007).

[Cf., also Woods (ND). Some of their ideas have already been discussed here, here and here; their work will become the main topic of Essay Seven Part Two, to be published at this site in the next few years.]

The UK-SWP's 're-discovery' of DM is more recent, however. The line taken in Socialist Review in the early 1980s, for example, was that while there might be a dialectic operating in class society, there wasn't one at work in nature.

[That approach was a direct consequence of the influence of Lukacs, and to a lesser extent Althusser on leading SWP theorists at the time.]

"Firstly, Stalinism transformed Marxism from a critical revolutionary theory into the ideology of the Russian ruling class. As part of this process, Stalin invented something called 'dialectical materialism' (snappily abbreviated to 'Diamat'), a set of quasi-religious formulae. (Marx never used the term 'dialectical materialism'; Stalin took it from Plekhanov.) In the hands of a pig-ignorant bureaucrat like Stalin, dialectics was a gift for explaining away the barbarities of the new regime. In 1930 Stalin told the Sixteenth Party Congress:

'We are for the withering away of the state, and yet we also believe in the proletarian dictatorship which represents the strongest and mightiest form of state power that has existed up to now. To keep on developing state power in order to prepare conditions for the withering away of state power -- that is the Marxist formula. Is it "contradictory"? Yes, "contradictory". But the contradiction is vital, and wholly reflects the Marxist dialectic.' [Birchall is here quoting this speech of Stalin's -- RL.]

"The Great Helmsman, Chairman Mao, added his contribution to the great tradition by inventing the concept of 'non-antagonistic contradiction', as a nice way of saying 'class collaboration' (the bourgeoisie are the class-enemy, but we won't fight them.) [Birchall is mistaken; as we will see, 'non-antagonistic contradictions' were invented by the Stalinists -- RL.]

"The second problem that has dogged the argument is the famous debate about the 'dialectics of nature'. Engels was fond of illustrating his account of dialectics from quantity to quality by comparing it to the boiling or freezing or water; water gets progressively warmer or colder, then at a given point turns to ice or steam. The Stalinists eagerly latched on to this method. The French philosopher Georges Politzer tells us that when a chicken comes out of an egg, it negates the egg; but then the chicken grows into a hen and negates itself. So here we have the 'negation of the negation'.

"The trouble with all this is that it both oversimplifies and mystifies. To derive the laws of dialectics from inanimate nature leads to denying the role of human agency in the historical process. The question of the 'dialectics of nature' must be handled carefully. In his last year Engels, a keen but amateur student of natural science, wrote extensive notes on dialectics in relation to various branches of science. Since he rightly gave priority to working on Marx's unfinished Capital, Engels never completed these notes for publication. The posthumous volume that appeared under the title Dialectics of Nature should be seen as no more and no less than the interesting but fragmentary speculations of a gifted thinker.

"Since Engels' time many notable scientists, from J.D. Bernal to the French physicist J.-P. Vigier, have claimed that the dialectical method has helped them in their work. It would be foolish to claim that dialectics has no place in the study of natural science -- but equally dangerous to claim that the validity of dialectics as a method of social enquiry depends on the correctness or incorrectness of a theory about nature. After all, it is conservative, bourgeois thought that tries to see society as subject to the same laws as nature. We've all heard of the economic 'climate', something unchangeable, for which no-one is responsible. As Marx, quoting Vico, points out, 'human history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not the latter.' To derive the laws of dialectics from inanimate nature leads to denying the role of human agency in the historical process.

"What, then, is dialectics? The term was first used by the Greek philosopher, Plato. For him it meant the process by which pure thought advances towards the achievement of coherent knowledge. Over two thousand years later, Hegel took up the term to refer to the movement of ideas which, for him, was the driving force of human history. For Marx and Engels, dialectics came to be the processes by which human history itself developed. Since Marx's day, many people have tried to codify dialectics into a set of laws. However, no two seem to agree as to what the laws are, nor even whether there are three or four of them. Dialectics is, in fact, an extraordinarily slippery subject; attempts to explain it almost always end up in either incomprehensible jargon or banal platitudes." [Birchall (1982), pp.27-28. Bold emphases in the original; links added. Several paragraphs merged. There is no way that the UK-SWP of the next decade, or later, would publish an article such as this -- or anything remotely like it.]

Even the late Chris Harman didn't think DM important enough to mention in print (as far as I can determine) until the late 1980s. For instance, in his reply to an article written by Alex Callinicos [Callinicos (1983b)], Harman largely restricted his use of the term "contradiction" to the following (in the midst of adding several objections to Callinicos's view of Althusser):

"'Turning Hegel on his head', meant for Marx, freeing Hegel's attempts to integrate these partial truths from the compromise with mysticism and religion. It meant 'reading Hegel' from the point of view of a new revolutionary class which had nothing to fear from further historical change -- the working class. Contradiction then becomes contradiction inside capitalist society. The transformation of quantity into quality becomes the way in which bourgeois society itself throws up new elements it can't control. The negation of the negation becomes the creation of a class by capitalist production which is driven to react back upon that production in a revolutionary way. The behaviour of that class can only be understood on the basis of its conditioning within capitalism, but then it comes to understand its conditioning and consciously to transform both society and itself." [Harman (1983), pp.73-74. Bold emphasis added.]

Harman was strangely silent about the 'dialectic' in nature in this article, as were Alex Callinicos and Peter Binns in the same debate. Indeed, Harman pointedly restricted dialectics to human social development (which is an indefensible fall-back option, anyway, as the Essays at this site have shown -- see also Note 31). [Cf., Callinicos (1983b) and Binns (1982).]

This is quite inexplicable if we are now supposed to accept the current UK-SWP line that DM is central to Marxist Theory. In fact, it is even more puzzling when we recall that Alex Callinicos had been severely critical of several core DM-theses in the book under review in the above debate. [Callinicos (1982)]. Comrades in the UK-SWP might not have noticed it, but WRP writers certainly did and laid into Callinicos's 'anti-Marxist heresies' with no little vehemence, as noted earlier. Why didn't Peter Binns or Chris Harman mention such glaring dialectical infelicities in that debate?

Update: Since writing the above the first series of International Socialism has been made available on the Internet (here, here and here). Its content confirms my allegation that DM was totally absent from the UK-SWP's theoretical deliberations between 1958 and 1978. In the second series (1978-onwards), DM didn't begin to appear until the early 1990s. Admittedly, dialectics is mentioned now and again, but it doesn't seem to have been applied to nature before the late 1980s. Indeed, in his early history of the International Socialists, Ian Birchall mentions DM not once. [The latter work can be accessed here and here.]

"For Engels direct acquaintance with the proletariat overtook his involvement with literature, religion and above all philosophy. For Marx it was the other way about. His involvements with religion, Hegel's idealism and Feuerbach's materialism were ended before he became a revolutionary socialist. Intellectually he had already settled accounts with them in a series of savage critiques. He never needed to re-open these questions again, unlike Engels who devoted later works of dubious merit like Anti-Dühring and Dialectics of Nature to them." [Quoted from here. Emphases and link added.]

Except in letters to the editor -- many of which remain unpublished, anyway -- comments like the above wouldn't be permitted in UK-SWP publications these days, let alone articles critical of DM!

"But the dominant impression we get of Marx is of someone who is so consciously trying to live down his Hegelian past that he 'bends the stick' very much the other way -- endorsing Feuerbach's undialectical materialism just because it provides a good (but temporary) stick to beat Hegel with.... But if class antagonisms are irreconcilable these universal and supra-class rationalisations are quite empty, and must ultimately lead us away from the task of helping the fight of the oppressed. That is why from this point on Marx ceases to look for a philosophical base for proletarian struggle. On the contrary it is proletarian struggle itself which will and must provide the real and practical basis for the solution of the problems of ethics and philosophy. What makes The Holy Family so interesting is that it provides us with an answer which is an inconsistent mixture of both the humanist and the class-struggle answer." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases and link added. Italics in the original; paragraphs merged. This isn't a million miles distant from certain aspects of my own argument!]

Furthermore, Tony Cliff's earlier work (as far as I am aware -- but see below) doesn't mention DM, and his lengthy political biographies of Lenin and Trotsky are deafeningly silent on this issue (again, see below for a correction).

In fact, as this thread confirms (specifically here -- (added later: unfortunately, the site to which this connects the reader is now using new software, so direct links to specific comments have been lost), Cliff mentioned this execrable theory in print only 3 times in 60 years (and even then only in passing)!

Update: Since writing the above, I have discovered a handful of references to dialectics (the MD version -- i.e., that which applies to human social development -- but not DM applied to nature) in Cliff's classic book, Cliff (1988); on that see here. Even so, dialectical concepts are nowhere near as prominent in his work as they are in, say, Ted Grant's. [On the latter, see below.] However, I am assured by older members of the UK-SWP that Cliff used to lecture on DM in earlier decades -- but apparently he didn't think it important enough to put any of his ideas on this in print.

Update January 2012: I have just received a copy of Birchall (2011), which confirms my own impression of Cliff: "Cliff rarely resorted to dialectical terminology...." (p.308).

Be this as it may, the point is, of course, that DM only became an overt mantra in SWP publications after 1985.

In addition, there is a passing mention of "dialectical contradictions" in Cliff (1989), p.58. Birchall (2011) records several other places where Cliff uses dialectical jargon (e.g., pp.124, 271, 309, and 397(ftn)). Even so, Cliff does precious little with it. [But see below.]

Eric Petersen adds the following pertinent comments about Cliff's biography of Trotsky:

"Tony Cliff's biography of Trotsky evaluated Trotsky's politics as a critical devotee, but uncritically endorses his dialectical materialism. Cliff writes of Trotsky's plunge into philosophy in 1925:

'Scientists' practical work consistently proved the veracity of dialectical materialism, yet most of them failed to recognise this and opposed the ideas of Marxism ideologically. Trotsky therefore sat at their feet for the study of different branches of science, but felt obliged to act as their tutor when it came to locating science in the broader scientific ambience.' [Cliff (1991), p.120.]

"This dialectical materialism makes its first appearance, bereft of definition, halfway through the third volume of a four-volume biography -- Cliff's Trotsky got that far without needing it. How exactly was dialectical materialism constantly proved? Did the scientists derive any demonstrable benefit from this tutoring? Cliff however spends no time on these questions, and quickly departs from the scientific ambience to return to politics." [Petersen (1994), p.163. Italic emphasis in the original. Formatting conventions modified to agree with those adopted at this site.]

Cliff does, however, mention that Trotsky saw in Mendeleyev's work a confirmation of DM (ibid., pp.120-21), but Cliff failed to notice that Mendeleyev's work in fact refutes DM, as I have shown here. It is also important to add that Cliff's book was published in 1991, a few years after the UK-SWP 'rediscovered' DM. [What motivated this change in line will be explored presently.]

"At several Marxisms [the annual theoretical conference organised by the SWP -- RL] there were heated debates about whether the laws of dialectics applied to the material world or only to human history. Cliff never expressed a view, though John Rees is confident that Cliff did believe there was a dialectic in nature." [Birchall (2011), p.516.]

Even so, if Cliff did believe there was a dialectic in nature, there would surely be more than one comrade who would be able to attest to that fact -- and someone, too, who had no axe to grind, like Rees. Nevertheless, this suggests there is nothing in print that confirms this claim if we have to rely only on what the author of TAR recalls about whether or not Cliff believed there was just such a dialectic in nature, otherwise it would have been cited.

[Birchall's book also confirms several of the allegations advanced in this Essay (i.e., concerning the overt and covert hostility and animosity that exists between comrades -- even between those who belong to the same party!): that prominent UK-SWP comrades actually viewed one another as enemies. One only has to read, say, Higgins (1997) -- now Higgins (2011) -- to see this allegation is readily confirmed. Higgins's comments about Chris Harman and Lindsey German, for example, are hardly models of comradely banter. Indeed, I can recall one or two SWP-ers remarking in my hearing that Paul Foot, for example, wasn't a genuine Bolshevik, but was a closet liberal! The break-up of Respect back in 2007/08 wasn't known for its moderate language and temperate self-restraint, either! Any who doubt this should read, for instance, the comments sections over at Socialist Unity back in 2007/08, or in the intervening years. The current crisis in the UK-SWP also has had its fair share of individuals (who are in fact still comrades) who seem quite happy to bad-mouth, bully and malign one another. (On that, see here.) The same happened in the break-up of the UK-SWP in early 2013. (Unfortunately, the Socialist Unity website is now closed.)]

Similar comments also apply to other prominent UK-SWP theorists. For example, and as far as I can ascertain, Duncan Hallas doesn't mention DM at all in any of his writings. Again, this is decidedly odd if this theory is as 'central' to UK-SWP thought as some would now have us believe. It is possible -- nay, it is highly likely -- that Hallas's solid working class roots inured him to this mystical theory.

[Cf., Cliff (1975-79, 1982, 1988, 1989-93, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003); Hallas (1984).]

Correction: I have come across one mention of DM in Hallas's writings --, in an article, oddly enough, about sectarianism! Anyway, he is merely quoting Trotsky, and does nothing with the idea himself.

The change in direction was heralded by two short articles -- one of which was written by Chris Harman, which appeared in Socialist Review in 1988 [cf., Harman (1988)], the other by John Molyneux, which appeared in Socialist Worker (see below).

Since then, several other UK-SWP DM-fans have joined the slide back into the Hermetic Quagmire Hegel laid in the path of the unwary: John Rees [Rees (1989, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2008) -- but Rees has now resigned from the SWP, so he is no longer an SWP theorist!]; John Molyneux [Molyneux (1987, 2012), see also his blog]; Paul McGarr [McGarr (1990, 1994)]; and Phil Gasper [Gasper (1998)] -- although, now that the US wing (the ISO) of the IST has been expelled, Phil is no longer an SWP/IST-theorist, either! Cf., also Paul Kellogg's review of a recent book on Engels, 'The Demon Marxist', and subsequent letters.

[Paul Kellogg has since resigned from the Canadian International Socialists in protest over the UK-SWP's handing of accusations of rape.]

[Update: Apparently, the US and UK wings of the ISO/IST are now on friendlier terms! The ISO's stance on the latest UK-SWP crisis might put a stop to that, though -- on that, see here, here, and here. Some of the background to the above expulsion is outlined here.]

[Update 14/05/2019: The ISO has now imploded over their mishandling of rape accusations(!) and the lack of inner party democracy. All depressingly familiar tales. In early April 2019 they voted to disband. I will say more about this below.]

See also my letter to the International Socialist Review, which was written in response to an article by Brian Jones [Jones (2008)]. Comrade Jones attempted to mount a surprisingly weak and rather superficial defence of dialectics, to which I have replied (here). [Readers should be made aware of the fact that that response was based on a copy of comrade Jones's reply to me, posted at RevLeft by another comrade who made several typing errors in reproducing it. A more considered version of my reply has now been published here.] A similar letter sent to Socialist Review by a supporter of this site wasn't published. It can be accessed here.

Even Alex Callinicos appears to have softened his anti-DM stance of late. [Callinicos (1998) and (2006); on the latter, see here.] Before this, he had been openly critical of DM; see, for example, Callinicos (1976), pp.11-29; (1978), pp.135-84; (1982), pp.55, 112-19; (1983a), pp.54-56, 61-62; (1987), pp.52-53; (1989a), pp.2-5.

It is quite clear that the downturn in the movement since the 1970s -- and particularly after the defeat of the UK miners in 1985 -- meant that the above comrades began to feel a pressing need to enrol themselves on a sufficiently powerful Dialectical Methadone programme.

Mercifully, DM has yet to appear in Socialist Worker on a regular basis. As far as I am aware, it has only featured once in the paper in the last 30 years -- in an article written by John Molyneux (the reference for which I have unfortunately lost, although Eric Petersen gives it as January 1984) -- subsequently reprinted in Molyneux (1987), pp.49-51. [Cf., Petersen (1994), p.158. Petersen also references a letter sent to Socialist Review, written by a supporter of this site, Nemesis, in response to Harman's article, pp.160-61. (John Rees's dismissive 'response' to that letter can be found in Rees (1990), p.134, note 3.)]

Given the fact that workers are 'supposed' to assent to DM readily when they encounter it --, or, according to Trotsky, they are said to use its concepts unwittingly/"unconsciously" all the time --, the above omission is highly puzzling, especially if DM is as central to revolutionary theory and practice as UK-SWP-dialecticians would now have us believe. Why hasn't Socialist Worker assumed the Dialectical Mantle once worn so proudly by Gerry Healy and Newsline?

The answer isn't difficult to figure out. The editors of Socialist Worker aren't idiots, unlike their counterparts at Newsline. They surely know that DM is a complete turn-off for workers. Even Socialist Review largely ignores this supposedly central tenet of Marxism -- probably for the same reason. [However, in November 2008, it published an article on "Quantity and Quality" by John Rees (i.e., Rees (2008)). More about that later.] But, if DM is to be brought to workers, how might that be achieved if the revolutionary press (in the shape of, say, Socialist Worker) totally ignores it? It is difficult to see how DM could ever "seize the masses" if 'their own paper' omits all mention of it!

[Update March 2009: Also see Harman's comments on a recent article (written by Guglielmo Carchedi) about Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts. Harman is clearly unaware of the serious flaws in Marx's analysis (as it seems is Carchedi, too); on that, see here.]

Another example appeared in an article on Engels, by Simon Basketter [Basketter (2008)]. I have already sent a letter to the paper about this -- we'll see if it is published.

[Update: No such luck! In fact, it now looks like even my e-mails are being blocked! See also, Note 16, below.]

International Socialism now appears to be the only UK-SWP publication 'radical' enough to push DM-Crack-Cocaine on a regular basis. Admittedly, few workers read this otherwise excellent journal -- and that probably explains why the editors find they can peddle this 'theory' between its covers.

Of late (i.e., circa 2003-11), even International Socialism has largely dropped this 'hot' topic (except for this article written by Chris Harman in his review of a recent book by Alex Callinicos, i.e., Harman (2007a), and possibly this one, too -- i.e., Harman (2007b) -- and the two articles mentioned earlier).

This dearth of dialectics is probably because of the turbulent international situation initiated by a resurgence of US and UK Imperialism, which has prompted a massive anti-war response across the globe. It isn't easy to argue with newly radicalised youth that "Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved in Becoming..." and hope to appear either relevant or sane!

One should be able to predict that, as the current wave of radicalisation declines, and as the fortunes of recently fragmented Respect and the hastily-formed (and then dissolved) Left List continue to fade, dialectics should rear its ugly head in SWP publications again. The above reappearances in International Socialism (and those recorded below), alongside Molyneux (2012), are perhaps an early indication of this trend.

In addition, meetings at Marxism (the annual SWP theoretical conference) regularly discuss DM (although only a couple of hours in four or five days each year are devoted to this allegedly core theory).

[Some of that material can be accessed here, although it now features on the UK-SWP's TV Channel over at YouTube. Predictably, the 'dialectical' videos attract very few hits. Not much 'seizing of the masses' going on there, one feels -- on a site that attracts tens of millions of hits a day! (A report concerning the discussion of dialectics at Marxism 2007 can be found here.)]

This phenomenon is also reasonably easy to explain: it clearly represents a rather weak and attenuated gesture toward orthodoxy. However, there are relatively few such meetings (and, as noted above, the videos on dialectics attract very few hits); they connect with or relate to little in the political content of other meetings (which, given the criticisms advanced in this Essay and in Part One, isn't all that surprising. On the other hand, considering the alleged centrality of this theory, it is surprising).

Nevertheless, the contrary view (i.e., anti-dialectics) certainly isn't allowed adequate time to mount an effective case for the prosecution (or any at all). in relation to that, the following was written by a supporter of this site ('Nemesis'):

At Marxism 1990, in separate meetings on dialectics I was given two, three minute impromptu slots in the discussion period at the end. It is only possible to make highly superficial points in such short intervals, which, because they challenge core beliefs are quite easy to dismiss. However, the level of argument advanced in response to what I had to say was truly lamentable; in fact it was difficult to believe that one comrade (Seth Harman) had listened to a word I had uttered, given the irrelevant comments he made. Indeed, after the meeting had finished, I put him on the spot by shouting across the auditorium: "Hey, Seth! Is that the best you can do?"

The main speaker (John Molyneux) even took it upon himself to interrupt me several times at the beginning of my first three minute spell, until I silenced him with a joke. In my opening remarks, I was in the middle of saying that my attack on DM was not an attack on HM, when he interjected loudly over the microphone that it was. I denied it. He re-asserted it. I denied it again. He re-asserted it once more. I then turned to the audience and said "There you go, comrades, a contradiction within the first thirty seconds!" The subsequent laughter drowned out any further response John thought to make.

However, the reception I received from the audience for my brief intervention (a loud and prolonged applause --, indeed, upon request, they even voted for me to be given an extra minute to speak) indicated that there were many comrades in the SWP who held similar views to mine. There is no way I'd experience such a reception these days. The dialectical rot has set in too deep.

After the meeting, John Molyneux put me on the spot by asking me which classic of revolutionary theory had been written by an anti-dialectician, and to what successes could anti-dialecticians point. I made a lame reference to Jerry Cohen's book (Karl Marx's Theory of History, A Defence), which he found easy to ridicule. However, it later occurred to me that on this basis we should accept the validity of Newton's mystical writings since his scientific work was highly successful. Indeed, I should have put him on the defensive by asking him for a currently successful example of a dialectically-inspired socialist state (or even movement!). Indeed, as Rosa's Essays show, Dialectical Marxism is now almost synonymous with abject failure. Moreover, the vast majority of Marxist classics ignore DM, while those that don't are distinctly inferior works. [On this, see Note 28 and Note 30 -- RL.]

My second intervention the next day -- in a meeting given by John Rees -- was far less successful. In fact, I was only able to make a few superficial points since I was keen not to repeat what I had said the day before. However, I did manage to tell John that in his articles on dialectics in International Socialism he had managed to publish several whoppers about formal logic. Given the fact that he later repeated these howlers in TAR, my comments plainly failed even to go in one ear!

In the refectory after the second meeting, I engaged in debate with Andy Wilson (who is now no longer in the SWP, but manages to sniff around its periphery on several internet blogs/boards -- and now in International Socialism itself (IS 133, in fact) -- who attempted unsuccessfully to explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is. His example (that the revolutionary party both is and is not a part of the working class) was easy to dispose of as an undischarged ambiguity. That is, the revolutionary party is part of the working class in so far as..., while it isn't part of the working class in so far as.... (Readers can fill in the blanks according to their own theory of the party.) But this is no more a contradiction, let alone a 'dialectical contradiction', than this would be: Das Kapital is part of my personal library and not part of my personal library. It is part of my library in so far as I have a copy of the book on my shelves. But, it isn't part of my library in so far as the actual book Marx wrote (in his own hand-writing) is not on my shelves. [Compare this with the examples Rosa gives of ambiguous pseudo-contradictions in Essay Five.]

Incidentally, Andy Wilson's 'dialectical manners' have now degenerated to such an extent that the only remarks he can bring himself to post about Rosa's ideas in the comments sections of the various blogs and internet sites he frequents (until recently, particularly Socialist Unity) are as inane as they are abusive. [On this, follow, for example, the links to a debate at the aforementioned site given here and here. (Andy used to post there as 'Karen Elliott'. This isn't to 'out' his identity, since he's openly admitted this on-line.) In the current crisis in the UK-SWP, Wilson is now apparently part of the Democratic Renewal Platform, and the International Socialist Network (which has now folded!). So much dialectical success, it makes the head spin!]

However, in early March 2013, the UK-SWP called a Special Conference to discuss the growing internal crisis in the party. In the Pre-Conference Bulletin, the Central Committee had this to say:

"In our view, some of the issues are the result of frustration felt across the party due to the failure of struggle to break through after 2011. Indeed, the wider problem of the downturn in industrial struggle that took place several decades ago, and which has not subsequently been wholly reversed, despite many hopeful signs, is implicated in the internal crises the party has faced since 2007. Three splits -- first, by a very small group of comrades who sided with George Galloway during the Respect crisis; second, by the group that broke away to form Counterfire; third by the group concentrated in Glasgow who broke to form the ISG -- reflected, in different ways, attempts to find shortcuts to overcome the low level of workers' struggle.

"Forms of voluntarism, whether expressed through electoral shortcuts, movementism, attempts to substitute students, unemployed youth and a supposed 'precariat' for workers, and so on, are a price we have paid for a long period of a generally low level of class struggle. The revival of ideological radicalism, in a context where organisations orientated on workers and socialism are especially weak, and the halting pattern of one-day strikes, can reinforce these tendencies." [Quoted from here, p.7. This links to a PDF; accessed 06/03/2013. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links added; some paragraphs merged.]

The authors forgot to mention this latest set of reverses has motivated the need for yet another hit of Dialectical Dope -- one of the chief sources of which is assumed the shape of Molyneux (2012).

Idealism, too -- evidenced by this example of the 'triumph of the will' -- is once more on in the ascendancy, it seems!

[On that, see the discussion here, where normally sane and sober comrades appear happy to eulogise the sort of stunts we usually associate with anarchists! (Alas, this link no longer works! Some of that discussion has been reproduced here.)]

Finally, we can see how important DM is when it comes to interfacing with the general public, on-line. On the Theory page of the UK-SWP's site, dialectics receives not one mention. HM, on the other hand, is present there in all its glory, all the time.

Update September 2015: 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.

Furthermore, like so many others, Molyneux's work makes all the usual mistakes (several of which had already been pointed out to him), indeed, as do the two articles in International Socialism. A supporter of this site has sent letters to the editors of both SWP publications about this. However, there isn't a cat-in-the-hot-place's chance they will be published (they weren't!). Be this as it may, all three SWP articles and books are classic examples of what I have termed 'Mickey Mouse Science'.

[The aforementioned letters have now been posted here. I will also write a longer reply to Molyneux's book in a separate Essay sometime in the future. In the meantime, see my comments over at Molyneux' blog -- at the foot of the page -- as well as here, here and here.]

Clearly, the failure of the UK-SWP to make much headway in the current climate -- when there are millions of protesters on the streets across Europe (and elsewhere) fighting the cuts, racism and Imperialism -- has clearly necessitated another hit of Dialectical Molly:

"The 'strategic perplexity' of the left confronted with the gravest crisis of capitalism in generations has been hard to miss. Social democracy continues down the road of social liberalism. The far-left has struggled to take advantage of ruling class disarray. Radical left formations have tended to stagnate at best." [Seymour (2012), p.191. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Update April 2020: Two prominent members of the UK-SWP, Donny Gluckstein and Terry Sullivan, have just published a short book about Hegel, entitled Hegel and Revolution [Gluckstein and Sullivan (2020)] -- reviewed by Beach (2020). It looks like the filtered mysticism found in Engels's work (clearly cut with far too much materialism) no longer provides the narcoleptic kick it once did, and these two SWP comrades have found it necessary to return to the un-cut, mother lode.

The headlong retreat into fantasy continues apace in the UK-SWP, no doubt serving as consolation for the fact that this heavily tainted party now has almost zero effect on the class war. If you can't change the world, then day-dreams about a theory that tells you the universe is on your side makes eminent good sense. To that end we see Camilla Royle take another bite at the cherry (after the truly lamentable Royle (2014)) in her attempt to sell us what is surely the political equivalent of snake oil -- in the shape of Royle (2021) --, which was itself a review of Kangal (2020), a regrettable waste of paper and ink that I will be examining slightly more critically in a later re-write of Essays Two and Seven Part One.

[This is a continuation of Note 8. (Unfortunately, some of the links I have added below no longer work!) Much of the material presented in this Essay was largely written before (i) The 2007/08 crisis in UK-Respect manifested itself, (ii) The crises that have blown up in the intervening years, and (iii) The crisis that is building inside the UK-SWP right now (i.e., January/February 2013, continuing into July of the same year).]

Update 09/02/2013: The above crisis has deepened alarmingly since the SWP's NC met over the weekend of the 2nd and 3rd of February, to such an extent that leading members of the party have now declared a faction in open defiance of the party's constitution. [On that see here and here. The first of these links to a PDF.] The CC has now relented and agreed to call a special conference (on March 10th) to discuss this crisis -- a crisis which they mysteriously failed to notice a week or so earlier!

Update 16/02/2013: I have now added several comments about the above crisis in the UK-SWP, here, here, and here. The Special Pre-Conference Bulletin can be accessed here.

Update 10/03/2013: The Special Conference met today and has voted to back the CC's line. This means that widely held and deeply felt concerns in the party (in relation to what might very well have amounted to the rape and sexual abuse of a female comrade -- and possibly even two) have now been swept under the dialectical carpet. Doubtless this will prompt a mass exodus from the SWP, seriously weakening the UK revolutionary left. This mass exodus is also likely to be repeated right across the IST, which will thus have the same effect internationally. [Except in a few isolated cases, that did not happen (and that see below). Readers will be able to make their own minds up concerning what this says about the IST.]

Update 20/03/2013: A series of short essays dealing with this crisis, and how it developed -- written by someone whose opinion I trust -- is now being posted here, here, here, and here.

Update 10/07/2013: The SWP break-away 'faction' -- the IS Network [ISN] -- is now experiencing the sort of internally-generated tensions I have covered in more detail here -- that is, between centralisation and democracy. This latest 'difficulty' revolves around the knotty problem whether or not the ISN should appoint a paid employee! Note the vitriolic tone and the threats to "leave" if this move is implemented. Reports suggest they have already lost half their members (and these were mainly younger comrades).

Within two years of the above being written the ISN voted to disband -- on that, see below.

Update January 2017: The widespread crisis I foresaw in the IST didn't in the end emerge (unless we include the implosion of the ISO six years later for similar reasons). The reaction across the IST was somewhat muted, although there were some resignations in Canada. Given the nature of the allegations that were flying about, that is a problem in itself!

[I am recording some of the above resignations alongside the reasons given for them, in Appendix G.]

As I have explained: fragmentation is an inherent and, it seems, a permanent feature of this corner of the radical market. That is why such parties in the end always tend to err on the side of centralisation -- and then face predictable, damaging splits.

Centralisation, which is aimed at preventing splits, ends up causing them! Is that yet another enigmatic 'unity of opposites'?

Indeed, if this article is to be believed, the ISN might also be about to fragment.

Update 26/01/2014: As predicted, the ISN has suffered its most serious split since it was formed. Those who have departed report the same sort of 'difficulties' that are endemic on the far-left (again, note the vitriolic tone adopted by those involved):

"At issue here is not just the conduct or content of recent discussions or even the political direction of the ISN, but the question of making a habitable culture of discussion on the Left. When some of us recently wrote an article criticising a politics of anathema within the ISN, we were derided by opponents who denied any such thing exists. Unfortunately, it does. One SC [Steering Committee? -- RL] member has recently publicly insisted that 'no one is being targeted personally'. The very same SC member recently seconded a denouncement on Facebook, by another SC member, of several of us as 'arrogant fucks' and 'bad rubbish' to whom 'good riddance'. One leading member expressed a desire on Facebook to strangle one of us -- referring to her as a 'nauseating tosser' -- and not one of the SC members to whom she said this suggested it was an inappropriate comment to make. Several SC members openly expressed their agreement with a status referring to us as 'parasites'. Another SC member wrote 'they should count themselves lucky they haven't been expelled' -- particularly galling to two of the 'Facebook Four' involved in our thread. There are further examples, but this culture is one in which we can no longer work: we also would like comrades to consider whether left organisations can hope to attract a new generation of members if they treat each other in this way.

"We look forward to working in a left culture that has ended certain practices inherited from the SWP. These include moralistic browbeating; the implicit claim that various controversial topics are inappropriate for discussion; that certain comrades can not be argued with on them; and that dissenters from these nostrums deserve to be attacked in personalised terms. We know many ISN members look forward to this with similar enthusiasm." [Quoted from here. Accessed 26/01/2014. Bold emphases added.]

In fact, my comments at the ISN's website are being routinely deleted (even when they aren't about dialectics), and I have now been barred from posting there! The ISN seems to have "inherited" the incipient Stalinism of the old UK-SWP!

Update 03/01/2014: As expected, the ISN, is now experiencing the centrifugal forces that afflict all Dialectical Marxist parties and tendencies:

"In the early days of the ISN, and now again among the recent SWP leavers, there is the idea that we will clarify our ideas over time -- that whatever we set up, the most important question is not organisational but the politics we share. Well, yes and no. While we may all be on a journey towards clarity, we are also travelling on different trajectories. In the ISN, some have become more orthodox Trotskyist, some more left communist, some more anarchist. Some see the best hope as the construction of a new approach fit for 2013, based on contemporary theoretical work instead of a return to any particular canon. (Yes, I see myself in the latter group.) As we followed the logic of our new courses, the political space between us has widened....

"It seems more likely than not that these informal groupings will continue to develop their politics in different ways. That dynamic could, if we are not careful, see the various ex-SWP groupings split into a dozen shards within a few years. (Look at the fate of the fragments of the Workers Revolutionary Party to see where this can end....)" [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

[Yes, I know there is no centrifugal forces in nature, but there most definitely are in Dialectical Marxism!]

The ISN finally voted to disband in April 2015, about which, Richard Seymour, one of its founding members, had this to say (in February 2017):

"Those of us who left the party [the UK-SWP -- RL] were simultaneously dazed by the experience, and left desperately trying to work through what it all meant. That this could happen, surely said so much. We had to go back to first principles [ha! some hope! -- RL], review our entire political tradition, rethink our attitude to feminism, read up, form new alliances, and digest all the emerging ideas about 'intersectionality' and 'privilege' politics. Above all, we tried to begin the process of rebuilding. The SWP was surely dead as a viable organisation, we reasoned, and so it should be. Something else -- more democratic, more intellectually open, more honest, more feminist, less bureaucratic, less defensive, less dogmatic -- would have to emerge. Why? Because the field of the British left, at that point, was not exactly crowded with effective, democratic organisation. And without something like that, the rump SWP, with its funds and discipline, would continue to dominate the terrain, even if not to the same extent. Some of us thought it was our responsibility to try to assemble the most forward-thinking parts of the left in a new organisation.

"To that end, I was one of the founders of a small splinter organisation with (for me, at least) grand ideas about realigning the left. In that false spring, many many good people approached us, wanting to work with us, and maybe even be part of anything we might set up. There was an exuberant moment of 'unity' and hope. But despite our early buoyancy, we underestimated just how fucking traumatised we all were by the shock, and how difficult what we were trying to achieve was, how small the window of opportunity and how large the obstacles. And all we did for months afterwards was tear each other to pieces, often over imaginary or overblown offences and perceived political dangers. We had been united only by our common fight against the unacceptable: rape cover-up and the sexist apologetics propagated in its defence. Beyond that, we were pulling in radically different directions and we were shocked to discover how much we hated each other. And bitterly depressed to harvest nothing but ashes for our trouble. Some time after I left that splinter, I found out that it had its own rape cover-up." [Quoted from here; accessed 05/02/2017. Bold emphases alone added. Minor typo corrected. (A couple of years after the above was written, Richard blocked me on Twitter for daring to question his view of the Corbyn phenomenon, accusing me of 'dogmatism', thereby ending a ten year friendship. Clearly he was being ironic when he said the left should be "more intellectually open".)]

Back 'to first principles', but still no attempt to question 'dialectics', or the class position and class origin of these individuals, or the role of these two factors played in all this back-biting, division and hatred (yes you read that right).

Update 18/10/2013: It is now looking increasingly likely that a serious split will take place in the UK-SWP, sooner rather than later. This is strongly suggested by an acrimonious discussion that has just surfaced in International Socialism [ISJ] -- concerning the CC's handling of the aforementioned allegations of rape and sexual harassment levelled against a former CC member (who has now resigned from the party, possibly to avoid having to face yet more accusations of rape!):

"As members of the editorial board of International Socialism we wish to disassociate ourselves from the recently published article, 'The Politics of the SWP Crisis', written by the journal's editor and the national secretary of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). It purports to offer a summary of the recent disputes that have divided the organisation along with an overview of the party's trajectory over the past decade. The article's account of both processes is partial and misleading. More than this, however, we believe that the political stance adopted by the authors will, if left unchecked, destroy the SWP as we know it and turn it into an irrelevant sect.

It is to the considerable credit of the UK-SWP that dissention like this has been aired in public (at its website, but not in the print version of the ISJ itself). Having said that, because the 'dissenting faction' inside the UK-SWP is so large and has within its ranks many long-standing and prominent members, the CC plainly had no option but to air their grievances. This can be seen from the fact that since the spring of 2013 a semi-permanent faction (represented by the 'dissenters') has been allowed to remain in place within the party (and to have its own website), in defiance of the party's constitution.

"Ian Birchall's excellent recent biography of Tony Cliff [i.e., Birchall (2011) -- RL] made clear what those gains are. Cliff and the International Socialist tradition were never an orthodoxy. Quite the opposite: they stood opposed to others claiming an allegiance to Leon Trotsky, in which the writings of a select canon of masters were treated as if Holy Scripture. The IS was heterodox, seeking to use the best elements of the Marxist tradition to analyse changed circumstances -- the better to change them. The analysis of state capitalism in Russia was one part of that; deflected permanent revolution another; the permanent arms economy a third. More importantly for today, efforts were made in the 1960s and 1970s to understand how changes in working class forms or organisation, particularly around the development of the shop stewards' movement, could provide the class basis for a revolutionary socialist organisation. Understanding properly that fundamental relationship between organisation and the wider class was central to Cliff and the IS's approach, alongside the wider theoretical work. That tradition of independent thinking has now fossilised into an orthodoxy of theory and organisational practice." [Quoted from here; 19/01/2013. Paragraphs merged; minor typo corrected. Links added.]

The author of the above forgot to mention that when it comes to a commitment to DM, it is hard to distinguish Counterfire comrades from those devoted to DM who are also OTs, MISTs, and STDs. [On that, see here.] One only has to look at the theory section over at the Counterfire website, for instance, to see this; when it comes to Philosophy, they are just as devoted to ossified dogma as are the UK-SWP, OTs, MISTs and STDs, and just as resistant to any attempt to think 'outside the box' about Philosophy -- especially along lines explored at this site (and, indeed, which Marx himself advocated).

[OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; MIST = Maoist Dialectician; STD = Stalinist Dialectician.]

"There is a wider problem on the radical left in Britain, in which old organisations have not been able to respond to a new radicalism. Evidence of growing polarisation and radicalism is clear across Europe. But the organised left, with rare exceptions, is not growing.... Some of this contradiction has taken a generational form...." [Quoted from here; 19/01/2013. Bold emphasis added.]

We are never told why this is a 'contradiction'. It is simply left as unquestioned dogma, a clear nod in the direction of orthodoxy and tradition. [On that, see here.]

Update 30/10/2013: It looks like the party is about to fragment even further. Several SWP members have asked for a censored pre-conference Bulletin article (which was highly critical of the CC's handling of the recent rape accusations debacle) to be published in full at the (now defunct) Socialist Unity website (a site that is openly hostile to the SWP and its politics), rather than at the SWP-break-away ISN site, or even at the SWP's own internal faction site. This is almost guaranteed to lead to their expulsion, which will in all likelihood be followed by another mass exodus.

"We aren't rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth -- and guess what, some women and children lie." [Quoted from here. Several other sources on Twitter confirmed this incident.]

Update 30/12/2013: Indeed, there has now been a mass resignation of 165 members from the SWP.

One thing these comrades did not and apparently won't do is apply a Marxist analysis to what has been happening in the UK-SWP, despite being encouraged to do so by yours truly. And after being told to expect more splits just like this!

However, to those left inside the SWP this will only serve to confirm the impression they have that there is a political desert outside their party, which will only accelerate its degeneration into a cult.

Of course, that hasn't stopped those belonging to the many fragments that have emerged (as a result of this crisis) from theorising what went wrong, but other than reaching for rather desperate and predictable reasons why it occurred -- ranging from blaming the CC to blaming 'human fallibility' --, no one has even so much as attempted to develop a historical materialist explanation why this always seems to happen right across Dialectical Marxism. From this, one gets the distinct impression that many ex-SWP-ers are simply running around like headless chickens, afraid to apply Marxism to Marxism itself!

9. That isn't quite correct! Since writing this I have come across somewhat similar (but far less detailed) conclusions in Max Eastman's work. Eric Petersen has also made a somewhat similar point:

"In their incomplete philosophical studies, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky all have one thing in common: they commenced this work after massive defeats for the working class: Engels after the Paris Commune was drowned in blood in 1871; Lenin after the catastrophic collapse of the socialist movement in August 1914; Trotsky's 1925 writings on science followed the political flogging he received in 1924 and accompanied his own withdrawal (temporarily) from public political struggle in Russia; his 1928 fragment followed Stalin's triumph over the Left Opposition [I think Petersen is referring to 'Philosophical Tendencies of Bureaucratism' in Trotsky (1981), pp.389-409 -- RL] and Chiang Kai Shek's beheading of the Chinese working class in 1927; and his Notebooks were written shortly after Stalin and Hitler inflicted, in 1933, this century's greatest defeat of the European working class. It is no coincidence that Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky usually turned to natural dialectics only when their class was nursing its wounds. Trotsky wrote once: 'the harsh and tragic dialectic of our epoch is working in our favour'. It might also include speculation a bit further afield: perhaps the universe is also working in our favour. After all, it too is dialectical." [Petersen (1994), pp.210-11. Underlining in the original. Paragraphs merged.]

9a. "What mistakes?", I hear someone ask. Well, perhaps that word is far too mild; "culpable and egregious blunders", "self-inflicted ignorance" and "dogmatic blindness" might be more apposite. What these are will be detailed below and in Essay Ten Part One.

10. I don't propose to document the history of every attempt made by STDs and OTs to invert reality to accommodate theory (or, indeed, to save face) -- but, see below.

Fortunately, the UK-SWP, up until recently(!), was easily the most honest and self-critical tendency in this tradition (no sarcasm or irony intended -- on that, see Note 16 for an example of how honest they are; I can't think of any other Marxist party that openly admits to such inner-party disputes, or in such detail). Certainly, they used to be willing to acknowledge at least some of their errors. [Cf., Cliff (1999, 2000).]

Whether this means that the DM-credo will ever be abandoned is anyone's guess -- but I for one won't be holding my breath.

11. Several books document these highly ritualised 'debates'. Helena Sheehan's is perhaps one of the best [Sheehan (1993)]. [See also Gouldner (1980), and Note 38, below.] In addition, cf., Bakhurst (1991), Graham (1971, 1987, 1993), Joravsky (1961), Krementsov (1997), MacIntyre (1980), Pollock (2006), Reé (1983), Vucinich (1981, 2001), Werskey (1988), and Wetter (1958).

12. As noted above, with respect to OTs, this is well illustrated in Cliff (1999, 2000). A recent and excellent example of a MIST with his/her head buried deeply in the sand can be found here. [This links to RevLeft, which is now virtually defunct; so this link might not work.]

Nevertheless, the following represent a few of the literally thousands of on-line references to this 'theory' (and its truly miraculous powers) from various wings of Dialectical Marxism, all of whom claim to represent the 'True Gospel':

Mao, Maoists, Canadian Trotskyists, the CPGB, the CPUSA, Weekly Worker, CPI(M) (ironically, this link is to a republished Soviet Communist journal -- The Marxist -- celebrating the fact that Dialectical Marxism has been successfully tested in practice in the fSU; on that basis alone, this journal should be re-named The Fantasist), the Bulgarian CP, the DSP, the SWP(US) (posted on a website belonging to a group that has broken away from the Spartacists), the Indian branch of the ICM, Fourth International OTs, the RCP/US (Maoist), the League for the Fifth International (these comrades clearly hoping it will be fifth time lucky), more Fourth International OTs (who have not yet noticed they have been out-flanked by the 'splitters' from the Fifth International), a spilt (already!) from the Fifth International -- is this the Sixth International in the making? Must we run out of ordinal numbers before workers in their millions eagerly queue up to obtain their first party card? --, the CPA, Italian Maoists...

[Unfortunately, one or two of the above links are now dead, and several have changed since this was originally written. I have listed a score or more extra examples in Essay Two.]

Each of these, of course, has the correct, 'orthodox' dialectical line on everything from the Big Bang to the price of pork.

With scores of parties and tendencies 'testing' their theories in practice (but, oddly enough ignoring the results!), and deciding in their own case they are the non-existent deity's gift to success -- whereas the rest are all abject, anti-dialectical flops --, one would be forgiven for concluding there ought to be a few more workers' states on the planet than there appear to be right now -- which was, alas, zero at the last count.

13. Admittedly, this isn't the first time this particular accusation (i.e., that DM looks like a religious dogma, and Dialectical Marxism looks very much like a religion) has been levelled against Marxist revolutionaries. These remarks, courtesy of Joseph Dietzgen, haven't helped, either:

"Friends and Fellow-Citizens: The teachings of Communism contain the material for a new religion which, unlike any other religion, appeals not merely to the heart and emotions, but at the same time to the brain, the organ of knowledge. From all other earthly knowledge communism is distinguished by its religious form, by its fervid appeal to the heart and soul of man. Generally speaking the object of religion is to save the suffering soul from the gloom and misery of earthly life. This object it has thus far realized only in an unreal and fantastic manner, by referring us to an invisible God and to a Kingdom inhabited by ghosts. The gospel of today promises to save us from misery in a real and palpable way. God -- that is the Good, the Beautiful and the Holy -- is to be made man, and is to descend from heaven unto the earth, not as in the days of old in the flame of religion and in the spell of wonder, but in reason and reality. We want our saviour, our Word, to become flesh, and to be materialized not in one individual only. All of us desire, the people want to become sons of God.

"Religion was until now a matter for the dispossessed. Now, however, the matter of the dispossessed is becoming religion -- that is, something which takes hold of the whole heart and soul of those who believe. The new faith, the faith of the proletariat, revolutionizes everything, and transforms after the manner of science, the old faiths. In opposition to the olden times we say: Sun, stand thou still, and Earth, move and transform! In the old religion man served the gospel, in the new religion the gospel is to serve man. In order to emancipate humanity from religion not only vaguely but distinctly and really, it is necessary to overcome religion by analyzing and fully comprehending it. The new gospel asks for a thorough revision of the whole system of our thought. According to the old revelation the law was the primary, the supreme and the eternal, and man the secondary element.

"According to the new revelation, man is the primary, the supreme and the eternal, and the law the secondary, temporary and transitory element. We do not live for the sake of the law, but, on the contrary, the law exists for our sake, to serve us, and to be modified according to our needs. The old gospel required of us patience and submissiveness; the new gospel requires of us energy and activity. In the place of grace it puts conscious work. The old bible was named authority and faith; the new has for its title revolutionary science." [Dietzgen (1917a), pp.90-91. Bold emphases alone added. Two paragraphs merged.]

However, on this occasion it is worth emphasising the following significant differences:

(2) Dialectical Marxism isn't a religion; it merely operates in a way that makes it analogous to one. Just as religious alienation finds theoretical expression in Theology, so revolutionary political alienation finds it in DM.

(3) There are other respects in which DM is analogous to Theology: (a) Both depend on, or utilise, metaphysical theories; (b) Both propound and cling to dogma that none may question, but which no one can actually explain; (c) Both possess Doctors of Divinity/Dialectics who not only help preserve and guard the faith, but who are also skilled at complex sectarian/casuistical disputation; (d) Both offer their acolytes some form of consolation; (e) Both dull the critical faculties by the use of robotic mantra; (f) Both have their sacred books; (g) Both have their 'saints'.

(4) These accusations aren't being advanced by an enemy of Marxism, but by a fellow Marxist who harbours serious doubts about the influence such ruling-class ideas have had on our movement, which will only help guarantee that the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism will extend into this new century -- perhaps beyond, if humanity survives that long. The aim of this critique isn't, therefore, to rubbish Marxism, but to help make it more successful -- or, at least, just successful.

However, since religious belief will only disappear when its social, economic and political roots have been eliminated, the hold this Hermetic creed has on the majority of dialectically-distracted comrades will only relent when the working-class succeed in changing society for them, thus saving DM-fans from themselves. Dialecticians will therefore have to have their heads extracted from these mystical sands by a successful workers' revolution. They have shown they are incapable of this simple act.

My Essays can no more do this (i.e., extract these class-compromised heads from the safety of the nearest sand dune) than we can hope to argue the god-botherers of this world out of their faith. This means that, just like religionists, dialecticians will require a very real, materialist cure -- not an Ideal one -- provided by the revolutionary proletariat. So, these Essays will only make sense to such comrades when the Owl of Minerva has finally been shot, plucked and then stuffed by a workers' militia -- if and when that happens.

Nothing short of this will bring an end to the alienation that induces comrades to lose themselves in dialectical daydreams. Of course, if the above revolution never happens, dialectical mystics will doubtless continue to perfect their ostrich impressions right up until the point where the planet finally sinks into barbarism. These Essays won't shift them in the least, for such comrades cling to dialectics for non-rational reasons. [On that, see here, here, here, and Note 13a2.]

13a00. I hasten to add that I most definitely do not think revolutionary socialism is a lost cause; quite the reverse, in fact. But, if we retain a commitment to DM, that could very well turn out to be the case -- unless, once again, the working class manage to save Dialectical Marxists from themselves. [On that, see Note 13 and Note 13a2.]

13a0. This might sound rather Machiavellian, and in some sense it is. Nevertheless, anyone who finds this comment unacceptable is encouraged to shelve those qualms until later on in this Essay, where it will be fully substantiated.

[It is also worth pointing out that the basis for advancing allegations like this was established in Essay Nine Part One.]

13a01. Of course, there are exceptions to these sweeping generalisations -- but, they are just that, exceptions.

13a1. Since writing this I have come across another analysis of petty-bourgeois intellectuals in Löwy (1979), pp.15-90. However, It doesn't appear to add much, if anything, to what I have to say in this Essay. There is also a lengthy analysis in Draper (1978).

[I will add some comments about the latter in a future re-write of this Essay.]

"One of the most influential texts for female activists, and on early Russian socialism as a whole, was an 1862 novel, What is to be Done? by Nikolai Chernyshevsky. It was written within the walls of the Peter and Paul Fortress in St Petersburg, where Chernyshevsky served eight years penal servitude before being exiled to Siberia, where he died at the age of 61. Karl Marx corresponded with Chernyshevsky, and Friedrich Engels described his work as 'greatly surpassing anything produced…in Germany and France by official historical science'. What is to be Done? exposed the burden imposed on women by patriarchal marriage and advocated egalitarian, communal ways of living. It became the foundational text of Russian socialism and radicalised many young Russians including Nadia Krupskaya, Anna and Maria Ulyanova, and their brother Vladimir Lenin. Lenin named his 1902 major work What is to be Done? after Chernyshevsky's novel. Krupskaya recalled the impact of the novel on Inessa Armand: 'Inessa was moved to socialism by the image of women's rights and freedom in What is to be Done. Indeed, whole generations of Russian radicals were influenced by Chernyshevsky's many-sided utopian novel and were moved to imitate its 'uncommon men and women'". [Cox (2021), quoted from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links and bold emphases alone added.]

The rest of Judy Cox's excellent article is relevant to the points made in this sub-section about the radicalisation of Russian Marxists.

13a2. I have summarised this argument elsewhere in the following way (partly in answer to the question "Why is DM a world-view?"):

The founders of this quasi-religion [Dialectical Marxism] weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the Classics, the Bible, and Philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there lies a 'hidden world', accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This world-view was initially concocted by ideologues of the ruling-class over two thousand years ago. They did so because if you belong to, benefit from, or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to win over the majority -- or, at least, a significant proportion of 'opinion formers' (bureaucrats, judges, bishops, 'intellectuals', philosophers, teachers, administrators, editors, etc.) -- to the view that the present order either: (i) Works for their benefit, (ii) Defends 'civilised values', (iii) Is ordained of the 'gods', or (iv) Is 'natural' and so can't be fought against, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view that rationalises one or more of the above is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling "in the same old way". While the content of ruling-class thought may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth (about this 'hidden world') can be ascertained by thought alone, and therefore may be imposed on reality dogmatically and aprioristically. {Some might think this violates central tenets of HM, in that it asserts that some ideas remained to same for many centuries; I have addressed that concern, here.]

So, the non-worker founders of our movement -- who had been educated from an early age to believe there was just such a 'hidden world' lying behind 'appearances', and which governed everything -- when they became revolutionaries, looked for 'logical' principles relating to this abstract world that told them that change was inevitable, and was part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of that ruling-class mystic, Hegel. The dialectical classicists were quite happy to impose their 'new' theory on the world (upside down or the "right way up") -- as we saw in Essay Two -- since that is how they had been taught 'genuine' philosophers should behave.

That 'allowed' the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, couldn't quite comprehend because of their defective education, their reliance on ordinary language and the 'banalities of commonsense'.

Fortunately, history has predisposed these dialectical prophets to ascertain truths about this invisible world on their behalf, which implied they were the 'naturally-ordained' leaders of the workers' movement -- indeed, one or two were even 'Great Helmsmen'. That in turn meant that as teachers of the 'ignorant masses' they could legitimately substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', of course -- since they have been blinded by 'commodity fetishism', 'formal thinking', or they have been bought off by imperial 'super profits'. In which case, 'the masses' were 'incapable' of seeing the truth for themselves.

Unfortunately, these self-appointed leaders will need (materialist) workers to rescue them from themselves. Transforming the material conditions that give rise to such alienated thought-forms is the only way that Dialectical Day-Dreaming like this can be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Dialectical Mystics are just going to have to rely on the material force of the working class to save them from the consequences of importing this virus of the mind into the workers' movement.

13a3. Any who object to my quoting Max Eastman need note that I only agree with his criticism of 'the dialectic' not his subsequent anti-Marxist views. Nor is it true that those who abandon 'the dialectic' soon abandon Marxism. On that, see Note 17.

13a. Workers, if and when they become déclassé revolutionaries, soon distance themselves from the collective discipline of the workplace, and can soon fall prey to this regressive creed. [On that, see here.]

It could be objected that this paints an incorrect picture of the dynamic inside the working class. As Tony Cliff argues:

"In Lenin's view...capitalism tended to organise the proletariat for the class struggle. However, it also constantly disrupted the unity of the working class, creating centrifugal forces. The daily struggle for immediate economic demands constantly unites sections of the class, but this does not last; quite often, in fact, it prevents the unity of the class as a whole. The dialectical contradiction between the unifying and disruptive tendencies creates the need for a revolutionary party which embraces only a minority, perhaps a very small one, of the working class. Without such an organisation, with its clear ideological demarcation and discipline, the socialists will tail-end the class, with all the variety of views influencing it, with the great majority dominated by the prevailing ideas in society, in other words bourgeois ideas. There is nothing élitist, or substitutionist, in Lenin's view of the revolutionary party." [Cliff (1989), p.58. Bold emphasis added.]

(1) Very few working-class Marxists have ever led revolutionary parties, and I can think of none that have helped shape their ideas (i.e., those encapsulated in DM); that is not even true of Dietzgen.

(2) Both Lenin and Cliff emphasise the material roots of the forces that move workers to unite and/or divide, but neither of them even so much as mentions -- it doesn't even make the edge of their radar screens! -- the material forces that similarly operate on the non-working class elements in the Party, which, in general, comprise its 'leading' figures and most important theorists.

To be sure, worker revolutionaries will come from the "advanced battalions" of the class and will have had democratic ideals instilled in them by struggle, which they will bring with them into the movement. But, what about the dominant non-working class elements in the Party? What material forces influence them? What do they bring with them into the party? From what we can ascertain about that layer -- and from what has been written by them! -- it seems that in their own eyes they are superhuman beings who are moved solely by progressive ideas, which have either descended from on high, or which have been appropriated from earlier non-working class theorists, like Hegel -- who were similarly blessed with immaculate, or near-immaculate, concepts. In that case, unless we are prepared to accept an Idealist view of these non-working class comrades (arguing that they are moved solely and uniquely by such pristine, untainted thoughts), we are forced to look elsewhere for the social, political and ideological source of the tendency -- possessed of every single one of the parties they form or join --, to fragment and split, which is a characteristic of the far-left that is so well documented it is in no need of further substantiation.

(3) Continuing with the above point: Cliff doesn't say how Marxist intellectuals and other non-working class elements in the Party are able to resist, almost heroically, the influence of bourgeois ideology. From what he does say, it seems that workers are all too easily duped in this regard, whereas Party intellectuals float sublimely above such mundane concerns. In that case, and in relation to the Party Elect, do we not now have to appeal to a dialectical version of the Immaculate Conception of Ideas in order to locate a source pure enough for these non-working class comrades to have tapped into in the formation of their theories? Have their thoughts 'popped', de novo, 'into existence' untainted by boss-class ideology? Are these comrades the only individuals in human history to whom Marx's famous words (i.e., "social being determines consciousness") fail to apply?

But, it isn't as if we don't already know where these comrades derived their core philosophical ideas. They inherited them from a well-entrenched, mystical, ruling-class tradition. Dialectically distracted comrades not only openly admit this, they revel in it, and see themselves as part of an ancient and noble tradition. Witness the glowing terms Lenin uses to describe this alien-class tradition.

"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.]

"[T]he 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; paragraphs merged.]

[This theme will be expanded upon in Essay Fourteen Part Two. I covered this point in more detail earlier in this Essay.]

Moreover, when workers join the Party (and are largely unaware of these more 'sophisticated' ruling-ideas), they invariably have to have them rammed down their throats. [Witness the force-feeding of DM to students and schoolchildren in the fSU, Eastern Europe and China.] In which case, it is a bit rich of DM-fans pointing to the ideologically-compromised 'consciousness' of workers when the Party itself is awash with alien-class ideology, promoting a set of doctrines that these petty-bourgeois comrades will apparently defend to the death -- perhaps to the death of the movement and/or the planet, if necessary!

We also already know about the atomised, fragmentary and divisive nature of the petty-bourgeoisie, from which class almost all leading Marxists have been recruited, or into which they are soon inducted as "professional revolutionaries", "intellectuals", "full-timers" or "party functionaries".

[As we have seen, the phrase "professional revolutionary" isn't synonymous with the other three terms.]

So, unless we are prepared to argue that these individuals were in fact "born again" when they became Marxists -- the effects of their "social being" having somehow been miraculously wiped from their brains and their personalities --, we are forced to apply a Marxist analysis to expose the effect ruling-class ideas like these have had on Dialectical Marxism in general, and these comrades in particular.

It is also worth noting once again that this isn't to adopt a naive view of workers, nor is it to advocate some form of spontaneism independent of the party; but those issues were discussed in more detail In Part One of this Essay.

After reading the above, some might be tempted to ask the following: Ok, well if, according to Ms Lichtenstein, we are all held in thrall to bourgeois ideology, how come she isn't?

Maybe I am, maybe I am not. But, one thing is for sure, I am not dominated by ideas drawn from Mystical Christianity and Hermetic Philosophy. Moreover, since I base my ideas on the language and experience of the working class -- as Marx suggested we should -- on the vernacular and on common understanding, and I reject all forms of Traditional Philosophy as incoherent non-sense, the influence of boss-class ideology, if there is any, is much more attenuated in my case as a result. [Common understanding must not be confused with common sense. On that, see Note 51.]

It could be objected that ordinary language is itself ideologically tainted. I have batted that idea out of the park here, and in Essay Thirteen Part Three -- here and here -- as well as Essay Three Part Two. However, I will address this topic in much more detail in Essay Twelve Part Seven (when it is published), where I will show that the defence of ordinary language and common understanding is a class issue. [Until then, the reader is re-directed here.]

One of the clearest recent examples of this phenomenon (i.e., internecine warfare, open hostility, and uncomradely back-biting) was the dramatic implosion of the old UK-WRP. [See Appendix A.] Another is the collapse of the old Militant Tendency (the relevant and by-now-standard-issue, if not regulation, mud-slinging that ensued can be viewed in all its glory, here and here). Documents relating to the recent punch-up in the IST (which also seems to be based on a catalogue of misunderstandings and false accusations) can be accessed here. Somewhat similar events have overtaken the Australian ISO, and the subsequent formation of Socialist Alternative, which also later split!

Another excellent example can be found here in the 2007 split of the US Communist League, complete with the usual hackneyed accusations and counter-accusations. See also the degeneration of the Fourth International (albeit told from one perspective, that of the old WRP), laid out in painful detail for all to see, in Slaughter (1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1974d, 1975a, 1975b).

Incidentally, the long slow decline of the US-SWP was also accompanied (and was aggravated) by similar antics:

"Except for a few old-timers in 1981, leaders of the SWP exhibited no dissent, and mostly genuine zeal, as they embraced an optimistic perspective of permanent student radicalization (1971), sterile orthodox 'Leninist-Trotskyism' (1973), a 'turn to the working class' (1976-79), a 'turn within the turn' (1981), and increasing ruptures with Trotskyist theories and affiliations (most explicit in 1982 and 1990). At this point, CEO Barnes is nearly the sole survivor at the top, having beguiled budding new layers of SWP junior executives to purge their predecessors through procedures that would give even the appellation 'Kangaroo Court' a bad name. There are surely valid reasons for questioning the SWP's earlier, pre-1970s, internal life from the point of view of permitting wide-ranging democratic debate. But the two recent memoirs, Outsider's Reverie and North Star, by SWP veterans Leslie Evans (b.1942) and Peter Camejo (1939-2008), indicate a creeping crescendo to bizarre authoritarianism after Barnes consolidated his reign in 1972.

"This was not accomplished single-handedly. For the years immediately before and decades after, the varying individuals backed by Barnes for leadership positions in the SWP more and more operated as a political aristocracy and secret society, a 'Bolshevik' version of the Skull and Bones. There are surely unique and particular facets of the rise and fall of the SWP, but the reader familiar with the history of other political organizations (not all of them Left-wing) will be tempted to quote Mark Twain: 'History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme.' The narratives by Evans and Camejo also indicate that the group finally went over the edge in some qualitative way during the 1980s. One gets the sense that the SWP has become a creepy sect claiming to be 'communist' but operationally suggestive of the Church of Scientology. This is certainly the impression communicated by the online postings of former members....

"[Another] is a 2009 widely-reviewed book, Said Sayrafiedeh's When Skateboards Will Be Free: A Memoir Of A Political Childhood. The author, the disillusioned son of two long-time SWP cadres, claims that there was a cover-up regarding his sexual abuse by an older member. If only one-tenth of Sayrafiedeh's overall portrait of the dismal and deluded lives of rank-and-filers is true, North Korea may serve not only as a template for Barnes' personal leadership aspirations but also as a fitting index of the brand of 'socialism' experienced by recent SWPers." [Quoted from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italics added only to the last paragraph. Bold emphases and links added. Several paragraphs merged.]

As we have seen, not only is DM highly repetitive, its acolytes also behave and argue as if they were clones of one another -- even while the parties to which they belong are continuing to fragment (as the rest of the above article confirms).

Another example of this phenomenon is the poisonous punch-up that broke out recently in UK-Respect, which seems to have progressed along well-worn, left-wing tramlines: claim and counter-claim, allegation and counter-allegation, calls for unity on the back of covert (or even overt) manoeuvres to split -- all compounded by gossip, lies, and innuendo treated as fact, further aggravated by an open distrust of, and hostility toward, comrades who only a week or so earlier were viewed and treated in exactly the opposite manner, etc., etc.

And yet, despite this latest debacle, comrades still refuse even to consider the class origins of those engaged in these break-ups as a factor --, or, indeed, examine their core theory (DM) -- for any clues why there is an ever-present tendency for such rancorous splits to form every few years right across the entire movement. This isn't just the elephant in the room, it is the Blue Whale in the fish tank!

As of February 2008, it also looks like a serious feud is developing in the Maoist RCP-US. All justified 'dialectically'..., of course.

Several more examples can be found in Tourish and Wohlforth (2000), and Tourish (1998), as well as here. [I distance myself, however, from Tourish's comments about Leninism.]

For Stalinists and Maoists (mostly those active a few generations ago), such splits were often drowned in blood (although supporters of my site who live in Bengal tell me this is still the case in their neck-of-the-woods, and live in fear of their own lives as a result of threats of violence from fellow communists). The vehemence of some of the internet attacks on yours truly suggest that some DM fans would make short work of me if I ever fell into their hands. Indeed, as noted above, one prominent Marxist Professor of Economics expressed the desire (in an e-mail) that I should "Eat sh*t, and die!", or drink some hemlock, since I had the gall to question the sacred dialectic.

[Such vitriol is ubiquitous on the far left, and the left in general. More details here, here, and the Appendix.]

In the 2013 spilt forming inside the UK-SWP, Alex Callinicos referred to "lynch mobs" comprised of supporters of the CC-faction as part of their reaction to the 'dissidents' in the same party. Of course, this might have been an example of unwise hyperbole, but given the violent history of Dialectical Marxism, it might very well not have been had the UK-SWP actually been in power at the time! These things have a dynamic of their own, as we saw in the French Revolution, and the degeneration of the Russian Revolution when the Stalinists wiped out most of the old Bolshevik Party -- not to mention that car crash, Mao's Cultural Revolution.

"The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was a decade-long period of political and social chaos caused by Mao Zedong's bid to use the Chinese masses to reassert his control over the Communist party. Its bewildering complexity and almost unfathomable brutality was such that to this day historians struggle to make sense of everything that occurred during the period. However, Mao's decision to launch the 'revolution' in May 1966 is now widely interpreted as an attempt to destroy his enemies by unleashing the people on the party and urging them to purify its ranks.

"When the mass mobilisation kicked off party newspapers depicted it as an epochal struggle that would inject new life into the socialist cause. 'Like the red sun rising in the east, the unprecedented Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is illuminating the land with its brilliant rays,' one editorial read. In fact, the Cultural Revolution crippled the economy, ruined millions of lives and thrust China into 10 years of turmoil, bloodshed, hunger and stagnation. Gangs of students and Red Guards attacked people wearing 'bourgeois clothes' on the street, 'imperialist' signs were torn down and intellectuals and party officials were murdered or driven to suicide. After violence had run its bloody course, the country's rulers conceded it had been a catastrophe that had brought nothing but 'grave disorder, damage and retrogression'. An official party reckoning described it as a catastrophe which had caused 'the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the party, the country, and the people since the founding of the People's Republic' in 1949." [Quoted from here; accessed 01/03/2017. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added; several paragraphs merged. Links in the original.]

Unlike us Trotskyists, Stalinists and Maoist don't split so much as slaughter one another.

"Those of us who left the party [the UK-SWP -- RL] were simultaneously dazed by the experience, and left desperately trying to work through what it all meant. That this could happen, surely said so much. We had to go back to first principles, review our entire political tradition, rethink our attitude to feminism, read up, form new alliances, and digest all the emerging ideas about 'intersectionality' and 'privilege' politics. Above all, we tried to begin the process of rebuilding. The SWP was surely dead as a viable organisation, we reasoned, and so it should be. Something else -- more democratic, more intellectually open, more honest, more feminist, less bureaucratic, less defensive, less dogmatic -- would have to emerge. Why? Because the field of the British left, at that point, was not exactly crowded with effective, democratic organisation. And without something like that, the rump SWP, with its funds and discipline, would continue to dominate the terrain, even if not to the same extent. Some of us thought it was our responsibility to try to assemble the most forward-thinking parts of the left in a new organisation.

For example, at RevLeft, in the Dialectical Materialist Group, we find members who are Left Communists, Libertarian Communists, OTs, NOTs, STDs, and MISTs, who all agree with one another over core DM-theses, and who will defend them along the same lines (repeating almost identical arguments, often using the very same wording), praising one another for that defence, even though they are bitter enemies over practically everything else!

To cap it all, they will subsequently, cynically use the very same 'dialectical method' to prove that every other tendency is anti-Marxist when they engage with one another in the Politics section!

16. Which is a contradictory theory that is often justified by a direct appeal to DM! [Examples are given below.]

[This is a continuation of Note 16. I have concentrated on the UK-SWP, not because it is particularly cursed in this respect (it isn't, I could have focussed on many other revolutionary parties), but because material about them is more readily available on the Internet and in other publications, and I am far more familiar with them than any other party/group. So, many of the conclusions drawn below apply to most far left parties.]

Having said that, the serious difficulties revolutionary parties face -- in their avowed desire to be fully democratic (howsoever that phrase is understood) while remaining organisationally intact -- can be seen, for example, in the problems the UK-SWP were facing in June 2009 over deciding how to reform their internal party structure, in particular the election of a new Central Committee [CC]. This debate was initiated because of the debacle that led to the collapse of Respect, a reverse compounded by the peculiar idea that the latter was founded on a "united front of a special type". In fact, that strategy was 'justified' by John Rees on the grounds that it was a "unity of opposites" -- a rather timely reminder, once more, that DM can be used to rationalise anything whatsoever, in this case a 'united front' comprised of revolutionaries and those who were later described using the derogatory term, "communalists".

Currently, at its Annual Conference, the UK-SWP CC presents the party with a slate of approved candidates for election to the CC, chosen by the CC, which many inside the party felt was part of the reason why (i) A self-perpetuating, semi-authoritarian regime had descended on the party, (ii) The CC had remained largely unchanged for many years, (iii) The Respect debacle had been badly handled, and why (iv) So few members of the CC have any experience of work outside the party, and thus have no first hand experience or comprehension of the class war, or, indeed, of workers themselves. [On the origin of the slate system, see Appendix D. See also here.]

In relation to several of the above points, the following was noted earlier in this Essay (slightly edited):

"The CC now unfortunately represents a conservative layer now firmly ingrained in the party and focused on preserving its position. Many of its members have worked for the party for a decade or more, they rely on the party as an income (sic) and have become career bureaucrats entrenched in their jobs. Somewhere along the way the leadership stopped being a group of leading revolutionaries and started to be a self-serving political class in their own right. Now more than ever the party needs effective and democratic leadership made up of the best people in the class, not people who haven't set foot in a workplace for decades and who are in my opinion totally divorced from the class." [Quoted from here; 14/01/2013. Bold emphasis added. Minor typo corrected.]

A few days after the above appeared on-line, another comrade posted an analysis of this malaise that in fact mirrors several aspects of the analysis presented in this Essay:

"There was a common feeling [at the January conference] that the crisis round Respect revealed a culture of top-down leadership." [Socialist Worker, 2155, 13/06/2009, p.10.]

The problems connected with the prospect of setting-up a new system for electing members of the CC were outlined in the following terms:

"The longest and most controversial discussion was over how the CC should be elected. Under the existing system the outgoing CC puts forward a recommended slate for the new CC during annual conference. This system has hardly ever led to contested elections and all agreed that it needed changing. However, members of the Democracy Commission [DC -- RL] had been unable to agree a new system and two competing proposals were debated. The first was presented by Alex [Callinicos -- RL] from the CC and the DC. He put forward a modification of the existing system that would still use slates.

"Alex said, 'To make contested elections easier, the CC should announce a provisional slate at the start of the pre-conference discussion. This would allow scrutiny of who was being proposed. The CC is a working group. To organise itself it has to operate as a unit. A slate system is necessary for that.' Alex argued that the second proposal would make CC elections, 'depend on atomised individual decisions. It is open to becoming a popularity contest.' He argued it would make it harder for people in unpopular jobs, such as treasurer, to get re-elected or for new and relatively unknown people to advance onto the CC.

"John [Molyneux -- RL] from Portsmouth, who was also on the DC, moved proposal two. He argued for a system which began with slates, but where the final selection was done by voting for individual candidates. He said this 'makes it slightly easier to contest slates and more possible to have real elections'. He said that under proposal one, anyone who put forward an alternative slate would appear to be taking on the whole CC. Proposal two would make it possible for individuals to step forward. 'The CC will still have a slate and three months to argue for it. This is not about strong or weak leadership. Members of the CC will be stronger if they have been elected. Nor is it about Leninism. The Bolsheviks used individual voting to elect their CC.'

"In a lengthy debate there were an equal number of speeches for each proposal. Several delegates argued that individual elections would produce factionalism and an incohesive leadership. Others said that arguments demanding a cohesive leadership were really opposing any kind of election. Estelle from central London argued that she could, 'realistically look at 12 people and weigh up the options of whether they would make a balanced leadership.' Karen from Manchester said, 'Individual elections don't solve the problem of members not being able to have their say in the party. There is a risk that a minority can put someone on the CC that the majority do not want.' At the end of the debate proposal one received 130 votes and proposal two 88 votes. Three delegates abstained. The modified slate system will be used to elect the SWP CC in the future." [Ibid. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged. Bold emphases added.]

This once again illustrates the bind in which all (democratic centralist) revolutionary organisations find themselves when they aren't mass parties and are thereby divorced from the unifying forces that operate on the working class. Can anyone realistically see a mass working class party accepting a slate system? The Bolsheviks in Lenin's day certainly didn't.

In the above, it is plain that leading comrades just do not trust the membership to do 'the right thing' and avoid fragmentation. [Which is an indirect way of confirming one of the main ideas promoted in the Essay.] So, they have to suppress their own democratic socialist instincts that tell them to rely on the majority to decide who leads them. The democratic part of democratic centralism is thus merely formal, and has to be overtly and covertly suppressed.

[Clearly this is what underlies the widespread suspicion that all Leninist parties will sooner or later adopt some form of substitutionism (I hasten to add that this isn't how I see things; on that, see Part One), as Trotsky himself argued at one point:

"In the internal politics of the Party these methods lead, as we shall see below, to the Party organisation 'substituting' itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organisation, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee...." [Trotsky, Our Political Tasks, Part 2. Bold emphasis added.]

Given the rise to prominence of one particular leading UK-SWP comrade in the run up to the Respect debacle, Trotsky's words are somewhat prophetic. We have also seen Trotsky's prediction come to pass in many other Leninist (and Trotskyist) parties, too.

Compare the above with the following comments (from 2002) jointly authored by Sue Blackwell and 'Rehan Hafeez' (the latter is a pseudonym), two long-standing, ex-members of the UK-SWP:

"We would like to imagine that most experienced, self-reflecting SWP members would agree (at least to themselves) that the SWP has a democratic deficit. But a deficit implies an excess of negatives over positives. The trouble is that in terms of party democracy, there is very little on the positive side, that is, there is not just a democratic deficit but an almost complete absence of democracy. Compounding this is also the absence of democracy's twin, accountability. Let us explain why we make this assertion.

"We acknowledge that there is a trade-off between individual desires and beliefs, and the need for discipline and unity in a political organisation -- so that it becomes an effective instrument for fomenting change. Therefore, the individual gives up some liberties for this wider good. But if one has a consistent democratic input in the debate and decision-making process then, providing there has not been a breach of fundamental principles, a member can abide by the decisions taken, even where he or she has disagreed. This, of course, is the essence of democratic centralism, the organising principle which the SWP purportedly advocates. The reality, however, is very different. Democratic debate, discussion, and decision-making necessitate voting -- yet party members within the organisation rarely vote. Moreover, there are practically no democratic levers available to alter the structures and institutions, including the behaviour of full-timers and the leadership. It is a ferociously hierarchical, top-down organisation: the 'line' is set by the Central Committee (CC) and enforced on the ground by full-time organisers. So, rather than democratic centralist it is, in fact, 'command centralist'. Disagreement with the line incurs the wrath of the organiser and the admonishment: 'this is democratic centralism'. But it is emphatically not: centralism without the democracy is what characterises Stalinism. Of course it is taboo to use the S-word about a Trotskyist organisation, but there is no better name for it.

"Indeed, for most members, their contact with the party's structures is dominated by the relationship with the organiser, who exercises a great deal of political power over them. Yet the organiser is not elected by the members -- rather is imposed by the centre. Furthermore, there are no party mechanisms for controlling his/her actions, demanding accountability, or procedures for his/her removal. Hence, knowing that they are untouchable by grassroots members and invariably given full support by the CC, organisers tend to be characterised by astonishing insensitivity and arrogance. [This wasn't my experience in the SWP; the organisers I met and knew were eminently reasonable -- but I recognise that this wasn't the case with every organiser -- RL.] It is important to recognise that the relationship between organisers and the CC is mutually reinforcing. Because the former are appointed by, and report to, the latter, their loyalty is cast iron. Similarly, because the CC appoints and directs organisers, they back them to the hilt. And because practically all CC members are cocooned in an office in London, they rely on organisers (with usually a small group of 'leading' activists with whom they work closely) for information 'on the ground'. Not surprisingly, information travelling up to the centre tends to be massaged to fit in well with the CC's 'perspectives' and 'party lines' -- and of course mistakes and errors of judgement are not likely to be admitted. In regard to admitting mistakes, the same applies, a fortiori, to the CC -- to the point of infallibility. The undemocratic/unaccountable nature of this key party nexus explains well the disastrous behaviour of the party in Birmingham.

"The counter-argument is that the organiser is chosen by the CC whose members have been elected, so that there is a democratic input. But this is a flimsy defence -- in fact there is no defence against the charge. This takes us on to the election of the CC itself -- the highest body of the party. The obvious question to ask is: how democratic is the process for electing the CC? The answer is that it is a sham democracy. Ostensibly, the CC is elected at the annual conference by delegates sent by the branches (or districts, or whatever format is in existence at the time): usually one delegate for every 10 members. But what invariably happens is that the CC recommends a 'slate' of candidates, and asks whether there are any other slates. We have never known of an alternative slate being put forward, so that in effect the CC elects itself. So, for example, when Tony Cliff or another CC member presented a slate to conference, everyone quietly nodded and matters could quickly proceed to the next agenda item. Occasionally, one or two members of the CC are removed and replaced by new members but, operating remarkably like the nomenklatura system of the Stalinist states, this is done by the CC itself. They earmark who can be 'brought on' (invariably from the pool of existing full-timers and organisers) and the leading members quietly cast aside those who are felt no longer to be suitable. We have come to the conclusion that this slate system is intrinsically undemocratic.

"The composition of the CC is never announced to the membership [this is no longer the case -- RL], nor are the political reasons for any change in its personnel ever provided -- confirming again the lack of democracy and accountability. It is no surprise that under this self-selecting system, so many CC members have been in post for over ten years, and some for over twenty years. In fact we know of no other party in Britain that has members in leading positions for such long periods. It could be argued that if the CC is doing a good job, then why change it. Fine, except that given the lack of accountability, there is no way to assess what a good job is, let alone whether it has been done or not. But the more fundamental problem is that this method strongly acts against the democratic spirit and stamps out critical thinking. This helps explain why members tend to become submissive, passive, and hidebound -- being spoon-fed the politics without thinking or evaluating counterarguments. What happened to Marx's dictum 'doubt everything'? It certainly does not get applied to the party line. And when the CC railroads through a line with undemocratic practices such as packing meetings, most members meekly accept the argument -- popular with Stalinists in the past -- that 'it had to be done': a mantra that excuses away the most nefarious of practices. In consequence, members end up with the position, 'see no evil, hear no evil: my party is always right, no matter how wrong'. Alas, such blind loyalty was precisely the position of members of Stalinist parties that the SWP had so powerfully and rightly railed against. In our view the end never justifies undemocratic, abusive, means. If you do not fight for socialism by democratic and inclusive methods, what you will end up with will certainly not be socialism.

"When it comes to the editorship of the party's publications, democracy is completely out of the question. The argument seems to be that editors should be drawn from the CC (though this is not made clear so we are guessing somewhat), and their authority stems from conference. In reality, the jobs are farmed out between CC members or those very close to them -- and as with the very long period of CC membership, so it is with editorship (15-25 years so far for the three main publications). Again, how many other publications' editors can claim such longevity? But there is a pernicious aspect to this undemocratic closed shop: critical articles (from a left perspective by party and non-party contributors alike) can be kept out so that there is a subtle and indeed not-so subtle form of censorship at play. Very occasionally, critical articles appear in the Pre-conference Bulletins (for members only), but these tend to be tangential and coded rather than a frank expression of doubt, disagreement, or misgivings. The vast bulk of the membership, even when having grave doubts about policies and structures, would never dream of raising their head above the parapet. Fear of rocking the boat quickly becomes ingrained, and acts as a powerful control on dissent.

"The party continuously advocates the principle 'never lie to the class'. But in Birmingham we have witnessed the most flagrant of lies by party members that have been defended by the leadership. The party has also espoused another principle: never tell the truth to members regarding membership figures. It has been years since these have been revealed (even when they were, anyone who had been a branch membership secretary knew they tended to be grossly inflated). The reason for this, we believe, is that the party membership has declined enormously from about the mid-1990s -- we estimate its size to be about a third to a half of what it was then. The same is true for the numbers attending the annual 'Marxism' event -- numbers seem to have inexorably fallen. A democratic, accountable, organisation would regularly reveal the true membership figures to its members as of right, and if they have fallen, provide an explanation for this. It would also enable ordinary members to demand accountability and, if need be, allow for the removal of CC members deemed responsible. But alas, none of this happens and SWP members quietly accept what is not given to them....

"The truly bright sparks in recent years on the international horizon for left politics have been the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements. What is crystal clear from these is that millions of people wish to see an alternative to the sham democracy (or no democracy) of the present world. They are certainly not going to tolerate undemocratic and authoritarian practices of left organisations -- and this perhaps helps explain why they have not joined those such as the SWP in any significant numbers. The lesson is abundantly clear: without a relentless commitment to genuine democracy, accountability, and civilised debate, the project of winning a better world will remain grounded. The SWP shows no signs of understanding this." [Quoted from here; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typo corrected. Bold emphases and links added. More details here.]

[The reader shouldn't assume I agree with everything expressed in the above comments, or those posted at the second of the two links that appear at the end. This passage has only been quoted since it proved to be remarkably prescient, and not just because it anticipated the bitter internal debate in the UK-SWP, reported above. Had this been acted upon earlier the Respect debacle might have been avoided, and the same can be said about the even more recent crisis in the party. (See also Anna Chen's article, posted here, as well as Neil Davidson's critical article, written in 2008). Another blog along the same lines (posted by another ex-SWP member) can be accessed here.)]

Update December 2011: As a recent article confirms, the above 'structural problems' are still live issues in the UK-SWP, and threaten to continue into 2012. That article in fact rehearses a series of updated arguments of the sort that have been aired on the far-left in every decade since the 1900s -- and not just in the UK-SWP. This phenomenon it seems is endemic:

"The problem in the SWP is not to be located in specific organisational structures, although these may or may not be appropriate for the period we are passing through, but was correctly identified by Harman as a problem of the party's culture. The top down approach that characterised the group for many long years, especially during the period when John Rees seemed to be first among equals, is only one aspect of this culture if the most obvious one. More importantly it also coloured and continues to colour the manner by way of which the group's militants relate to allies on the left. If a certain degree of sectism [sic] was a product of the Downturn years [i.e., from the mid 1970s to at least the mid 1990s -- RL] then such attitudes need to be jettisoned in the changed and far more positive circumstances of today.

"It is however all too easy to blame individual leaders for the poor culture long prevalent in the group. Events since the departure of John Rees have however shown that not even he can be held to be the sole cause of the rot which set in long before he was elevated to the CC. Rather than seek to discover which individuals are responsible for the group's damaged culture we need to ask what were the objective factors, far more powerful than the role of individuals after all, which shaped that culture. The answer that it was the Downturn simply will not suffice, albeit it is correct in essence (sic). We need to take a short look at the group's history....

"The above can be seen all too clearly in the manner by which the organisation was led during the period when John Rees was a leading member. At this point I should note that the personality of Rees is of no importance as the entire leadership followed and argued for a political line which I assume was authored by Rees and his closest allies. What can't be denied is that at the time of the turn to building Respect, ludicrously described as a United Front sui generis, many comrades had serious doubts which led to them abstaining from joining or building that formation in any way. But the leadership commanded that such was the political line to be followed and not one comrade challenged them publicly although a lot of grumbling took place in pubs the length and breadth of the country. Whether or not the Respect line was wrong, was it not a disgrace that not one comrade felt able to challenge the leadership on it?

"Was it any surprise then that when the party changed course, due to the entirely predictable betrayal of its erstwhile ally George Galloway, that not only were a small number of comrades lost to the sub-reformism of Respect (Galloway), but a line that had obviously failed was continued in the form of the Left Alternative. And worse, was it a surprise that differences within the leadership remained opaque, concealed from the membership to the point that it took some considerable time before the ranks of the party were aware that the Rees minority had considerable differences with the majority of the CC. Although even when the Rees minority briefly surfaced as a formally constituted faction -- there is no question they had functioned as such for much longer -- there was little on the face of it to differentiate their politics from that of the CC majority.

"Many comrades have argued that Rees stood for Rees and nothing else. This is a nonsense that demonizes the man and prevents a proper discussion of the political issues at stake. And the political issues are not to be confined to the group's political line but also concern organizational questions, too, including the question of internal democracy. For revolutionists questions of organisation are of the utmost political importance whether it be when to form workers' councils or internal democracy within the revolutionary party. Which is why the Democracy Commission was such a damp squib as it began a discussion and just as swiftly ended it before any answers had been arrived at and separated questions of democracy and politics in a typically Zinovievite manner. A manner John Rees might have been proud of in fact.

"So inconclusive was the Democracy Commission and so little did it change as to the group's internal functioning that the resignation of a faction around Chris Bambery was a shock only in the sense that it had not already happened. What disappointed many comrades was that he had been allowed to pursue his factional activities under cover of his responsibility as a member of the CC for the party in Scotland. And this despite a leadership that had placed a renewed stress on the need for active functioning branches and was arguing for the need for systematic cadre education in order to raise the cultural level of the party." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases and links added. Minor typos corrected.]

[It is also hardly coincidental that John Rees was one of the leading UK-SWP comrades at the forefront of the stampede back into the mystical past, as the Party 're-discovered' DM in the late 1980s. Plainly, "Dialectics" and "Dictatorship" share more than just a capital "D".]

However, the above quoted passage glaringly failed to consider the class origin, class position and ideological orientation of leading party members (i.e., those who control its ideas and organisational structures). As usual, these factors fail to merit even a brief mention! In which case, good as it is, the above article is seriously flawed as a Marxist analysis. I have attempted to rectify that omission in the present Essay.

Update December 2012: According to a Preconference Internal Bulletin, it looks like moves to augment the internal democracy of the UK-SWP have stalled once again, and the Party is retaining the 'slate' system for CC elections. The autocratic tendency is still in the ascendancy, it seems.

Update January 2013: This dispute is clearly rumbling on into the new year, with a temporary faction called the "Democratic Opposition" (founded by at least 80 members) pushing for 'reform'.

Here is one account of the internal strife that led up to this crisis, written by ex-members of the UK-SWP Central Committee, who formed part of the "minority" referred to below, and who resigned from the SWP in 2010:

"As the minority warned Alex Callinicos and Martin Smith in December 2007, an attack of this kind would, first, irreconcilably split the leadership; second, it would split the party; and, third, it would 'unleash a factionalism into the bloodstream of the party that would prove impossible to remove'. That prediction proved depressingly prescient. Suspensions and expulsions preceded conference in January 2010, again with private online discussions used as a pretext. For the first time the CC used secret caucuses of its own supporters against the minority. This was the first time too someone was instructed to stop running a website. Email accounts were hacked to gain 'evidence' for expulsions. Students who disagreed were invited to leave the party before they were expelled.... The SWP has never recovered from the crisis of 2007. Far from it: the organisation has been locked, as predicted, in a permanent factional paroxysm. There are no real prospects of its recovery." [Counterfire, quoted from here; accessed 19/01/2013. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typo corrected; bold emphasis added. Paragraphs merged.]

If the above contribution is correct (and there is little sign to UK-SWP has recovered since the above was written), it reprises the anti-democratic practices that have been endemic in the revolutionary left for many decades -- and not just in the UK, but right across the planet, right across the movement. Here, for example, is Louis Proyect on his time in the US-SWP:

"Just over 30 years ago the American SWP was going through a profound crisis involving the democratic rights of its membership. The Barnes leadership had decided to dump Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution overboard in a bid to make itself more acceptable to what it saw as an emerging new revolutionary international with Havana functioning as a pole of attraction. When many long-time members, including those who had worked closely with Trotsky, fought to have a debate over this change, Barnes decided to forgo a constitutionally mandated party convention and began expelling members on trumped-up charges. I had left the SWP by this point but was so disturbed by these developments that I began calling comrades I respected. Les Evans was a member of a group of expelled members who hoped to resurrect the 'good, old SWP', a task tantamount to reassembling Humpty-Dumpty. My next phone call was to Peter Camejo, who had been expelled mostly because he was an independent thinker popular with the membership -- a terrible threat to the SWP's leader. After he began figuring out that the party he had belonged to for decades was on a suicidal sectarian path, he took a leave of absence to go to Venezuela and read Lenin with fresh eyes...." [Quoted from here. Accessed 30/01/2013. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links added; paragraphs merged.]

Anyone familiar with the history of Marxism won't need reminding that this is both an international and an endemic 'problem' on the far-left.

Or, are there deeper, ideological, structural and class-based reasons that are to blame in whole or in part for this perennial malaise?

Add to the above, Ian Birchall's assessment of the state of democracy in the UK-SWP, a few years later:

"To sum up. The SWP has suffered from a serious lack of internal democracy. This was not simply imposed by the leadership -- though it took advantage of the lack of accountability -- but was a result of a membership which, understandably but wrongly, wanted interventionist politics and was satisfied if it got results. Hence the lack of democracy which produced such catastrophic consequences when the Delta affair exploded was a question of the culture inside the organisation much more than of constitutional structures, and there was no simple solution in terms of constitutional change which could remedy the situation." [Quoted from here; accessed 15/12/2014. Link and bold emphasis added]

[Incidentally, in his recent and lengthy account of why he thought the UK-SWP had brought the 'Comrade Delta' affair crisis down on its own head, Ian missed a golden opportunity to develop an HM-analysis of this debacle. He never once asked why this keeps happening on the far-left, and has been doing so for over a century. Hence, this isn't an ephemeral feature of Marxist politics, a side issue of little concern; nor is it confined to the UK-SWP. In which case, his analysis of the problems in the party is on a level with one that seeks to blame, say, the sinking of the Titanic on the number of available lifeboats, or the poor training of the crew. (I have chosen that particular example because, if the number of films, TV programmes and newspaper articles about this tragedy are anything to go by, one would be forgiven for thinking it was one of the most important events in all of human history!)]

The pressing need to prevent factions (and the splits that often follow from them) means that the "democracy" part of the couplet "democratic centralism" has to be manipulated to such an extent that the 'correct' decision is always reached in and by the vast majority of those who cast the relevant votes (once a year). Small wonder then that it is a constant complaint -- as, indeed, it will continue to be in the UK-SWP and elsewhere -- that a tendency toward autocracy is the norm, not the exception.

So, the need for a "cohesive" CC -- i.e., one that won't fragment -- reveals that as far as the leadership is concerned the membership can't be trusted to get its (the CC's) composition 'right', which in turn means they must be presented with a 'approved' slate of candidates, backed up where necessary by packed meetings, year in, year out. Alas, long experience has taught us that the struggle between autocratic and democratic forces in Bolshevik-style parties constantly tilts them in the direction of the former, away from the latter.

The many and varied ways that revolutionary parties have tried to avoid these ever-present pitfalls resemble, somewhat uncannily, the impossibly complex method of dividing the loot devised by a group of characters near the beginning of the film, It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. [The scene in question occurs about 22 minutes into the movie and lasts for about 5 minutes, broken into two parts. I have used a slightly edited version of a clip uploaded to YouTube by Paul Thompson, who has helpfully combined them into one.]

There is in fact no solution to this conundrum that doesn't on the one hand threaten to expose such parties to fragmentation, while on the other saddling them with the sort of 'top down' regime that helped strangle, for instance, the Socialist Alliance, Respect, and now the UK-SWP itself (to name just three recent examples).

As one participant in the recent debate over the crisis that hit the UK-SWP in January 2013 admitted:

"I don't know if you have permanent factions within ISO [International Socialist Organisation, the US franchise of the IST -- RL] -- my experience of the movement is that they are a disaster. I assume you have a constitution, rules for members to abide by and a disciplinary procedure to deal with those who deliberately flout them. So do we, and surely you respect our right to act accordingly." [Jeffrey Hurford, quoted from here; accessed 07/02/2013.]

And, as Alex Callinicos argued (which was part of the UK-SWP CC's response to the crisis that engulfed the party):

"For over forty years we have refused to follow other currents on the far left (for example the Fourth International) in allowing permanent factions. These inhibit the free-flowing debate through which comrades can develop the party's perspectives and shift their positions towards a better understanding of the tasks ahead. Moreover, as the partial breakup of the New Anticapitalist Party in France has shown, a regime of permanent factions can lead to a situation in which members put their faction first rather than the organisation as a whole. This is why the constitution requires factions to dissolve after conference." [Quoted from here; accessed 01/03/2013. As Mike McNair has pointed out, Callinicos was mistaken about the break-up of the New Anticapitalist Party in France.]

The above sentiments were repeated in the Special Pre-Conference Bulletin (March 2013):

"We are against permanent factions because they institute a regime of permanent oppositions and of continual divisions on a factional basis. Every issue becomes a matter of 'our' faction's victory or defeat. This would hamper our ability to engage in serious debate and discussion." [Quoted from here, p.5. Accessed 06/03/2013. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"I am strongly opposed to permanent factions, which I think actually impede healthy debate and generally lead to splits.... I also support the slate system, not with any great enthusiasm, but because the alternatives are worse." [Ian B, quoted from here, p.23.]

This is quite remarkable! Apparently, the only thing preventing the party from fragmenting is a raft of anti-democratic and bureaucratic rules -- i.e., protocols banning permanent factions, which attitude underpins and helps preserve as well as perpetuate the UK-SWP's slavish adherence to the slate system. This is tantamount to admitting that the 'natural' state of Bolshevik-style parties is fragmentation. More debate is somehow supposed to lead to less debate!

By "natural state" I mean no more than this: without bureaucratic protocols like the above, such parties will always have a tendency to split.

Nevertheless, we were given to believe that the vote mentioned earlier was 'open', but we have no way of knowing if, or to what extent, the CC packed the meeting with those it could trust to vote the 'right' way (this was, allegedly, a widely used tactic in the Respect split, and elsewhere -- and not just by the UK-SWP) -- although Ian Birchall's report suggests that this is indeed what happened. Meetings were packed, or those attending were monitored while some were prevented from attending:

"The conference preparation was a dispiriting affair. Delegates were elected on the basis of a grossly unrealistic set of membership figures, so that it was highly questionable whether they represented the real membership. The CC sought to stifle debate, not encourage it, by limiting opposition speakers to a mere six minutes. Every effort was made to exclude opposition supporters from attending conference. When I pointed out that in the past, Cliff and his CC had made efforts to ensure that articulate oppositionists attended conference in order to ensure that the real debate was had, I was accused by comrade Callinicos, in tones of snarling aristocratic contempt, of trying to present a 'cuddly Cliff'. Cliff, as I knew all too well, was far from 'cuddly', but he had the political confidence to want open debate at the highest level.

"I won't go into detail about the pre-conference period. Some supporters of the CC acted extremely badly -- for example making fraudulent phone calls to cancel room bookings for perfectly legitimate opposition meetings. Maybe the CC did not positively encourage such actions, but it made no attempt to rein in its more enthusiastic supporters. However, it seems to be a fact of history that in faction fights everybody behaves badly, and doubtless some opposition members conducted themselves in less than an ideal fashion. The CC won the conference, with many supporters of the majority doing their best to encourage the opposition to leave, with moronic foot-stamping -- something I do not remember from party events in earlier years. Not surprisingly some hundreds of members decided to depart." [Quoted from here; accessed 30/12/2015. Quotation marks altered to conform with conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged.]

As anyone who knows the detailed history of Bolshevik-style parties -- and, indeed, isn't ignorant of the history of other far-left groups -- will attest, these anti-democratic and underhand antics aren't unique to the UK-SWP. Ex-CC member, Pat Stack, also confirmed that bureaucratic tactics like these were used in the run-up to the Special Conference that the UK-SWP called to discuss the looming crisis in the party:

"I have to say that coming out of conference our implementation has seemed greatly at odds with this approach. If 48 per cent of a conference votes against a measure and over 500 people (at the time of writing) join a faction, conviction is clearly a problem, and the leadership must either convince or strive to reach agreement. Ours have done neither. Rather they have tried to just tell the 48 percent of the conference -- the 500 plus members of the faction -- to put up and shut up. Furthermore, the approach since emergency conference was called has amplified this approach. Aggregates where the CC get a 25 minute introduction, a ten minute summing up and an extended contribution whereas the faction speaker gets six minutes and no right of reply, hardly suggests a process of fair open discussion. Apparently the speaking ration will be much the same at the conference itself.

"Furthermore, is drawing up delegate election lists in a way that seeks to ensure the 40 per cent will be woefully under-represented at conference really a good example of democratic centralism in action? Or is it likely to lead a whole swathe of younger members to think that the term is just cover for bureaucratic manoeuvre. (It also suggests a very brittle and unconfident leadership, but that's another question.) If that conclusion is drawn, the CC will have done our tradition a huge disservice." [Quoted from here, p.25. Several minor typos corrected; some paragraphs merged. See also here. (Indeed, this is how the Special Conference was finally structured.)]

[Similar allegations were levelled in relation to the December 2013 Conference.]

As others have pointed out, the problem with this belated conversion to openness on the part of some SWP-ers is that comrades who now argue along these lines were remarkably quiet when similar tactics were used to silence critics in the party during, say, the Respect debacle -- or they chimed in with cries of "Witch Hunt!", for example.

Having said that, and to its considerable credit, the UK-SWP is almost unique in openly reporting on many (but not all!) such matters.

Can you imagine the old WRP being this honest? The CPSU, or the CCP? Or even the Spartacists?

[Although, as Ian Birchall has pointed out, the UK Communist Party were remarkably open in their discussion of the crisis following on the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956.]

Even so, the UK-SWP aren't nearly as open as the pre-Stalinised Bolshevik Party were, which not only allowed permanent factions (for a while), they even allowed the theses, resolutions and manifestos of the latter's Congresses to be published -- cf., Holt and Holland (1983) -- along with open disagreements between CC members, and much else besides. As Labour Party Marxist, Stan Keable pointed out:

"Freedom to form factions, with freedom of discussion in public, not just internally, was the norm for the Bolsheviks when they made the revolution in 1917, just as Bolshevik-led revolutionary Russia was the most democratic country in the world, until the revolution was isolated and crushed from without, and finally reversed from within by Stalin's bureaucratic counterrevolution." [Quoted from here; accessed 07/02/2013. Emphases in the original. See also here and here.]

Indeed, much of the internally-generated material that appears in this Essay (in relation to the crisis in the UK-SWP) had to be leaked. So, despite their attempt to be open, a cloak of secrecy still covers this cataclysmic crisis in the UK-SWP.

[On Stalin's views, see here. Several of the issues discussed in this part of the present Essay were also anticipated in Michels (1916).]

[I will add some comments about Michel's book at a later date; in advance, it is important to add that I distance myself from his dismissive and openly contemptuous attitude toward ordinary workers and their parties.]

"...According to the theory, conference discusses and decides (democracy) and then comrades, including those who opposed the agreed position, carry out the decisions (centralism). Fine: but what does conference actually decide? It is presented with a series of general perspective documents which are usually so bland and platitudinous that it is virtually impossible to disagree with them: the economic crisis is not going to be resolved, times are hard but there are also opportunities, we must not be complacent over the threat of fascism, and so on. To agree with this kind of statement is not to make a decision over strategy or tactics, or anything specific enough for the CC to be held to account. The real decisions about actual policy -- to establish united fronts, to join electoral coalitions -- are almost always made by the CC itself between conferences, with conference asked to ratify them after the event.

"The second is in relation to the composition of the CC. The CC self-selects: it has an agreed political perspective; when someone dies or resigns it chooses as replacements comrades who agree -- or who are thought to agree -- with that perspective; at no point is the chain ever broken by open political debate. And if the perspective is wrong? The problems extend to the membership of the CC. What are the requirements of a potential CC member? There are apparently two: that they should live in or around London and that -- with a handful of exceptions -- they are full-time employees of the party. So -- the comrades who are eligible for membership of the CC are those who until their selection have been paid to carry out the decisions of the previous CC and who, because they tend to have been students beforehand, rarely have any direct experience of the class struggle. How can a leadership this narrow be capable of forming an accurate perspective?" [Quoted from here; accessed 29/01/2013. Bold emphases added.]

Tinkering with the democratic forms of the party is hardly going to eliminate the fundamental flaws apparent in this style of far-left politics, any more than sweeping the streets or painting a few front doors would have helped the hapless residents of Pompeii back in 79 CE.

This is especially so when leading Bolsheviks express an open and emphatic distrust of democracy, caricaturing the views of those who maintain that there should be open discussion in the workers' movement:

"[Y]ou [James Burnham -- RL], likewise, seek an ideal party democracy which would secure forever and for everybody the possibility of saying and doing whatever popped into his head, and which would insure the party against bureaucratic degeneration. You overlook a trifle, namely, that the party is not an arena for the assertion of free individuality, but an instrument of the proletarian revolution; that only a victorious revolution is capable of preventing the degeneration not only of the party but of the proletariat itself and of modern civilization as a whole. You do not see that our American section is not sick from too much centralism -- it is laughable even to talk about it -- but from a monstrous abuse and distortion of democracy on the part of petty-bourgeois elements. This is at the root of the present crisis....

"Petty-bourgeois, and especially declassed elements, divorced from the proletariat, vegetate in an artificial and shut-in environment. They have ample time to dabble in politics or its substitute. They pick out faults, exchange all sorts of tidbits and gossip concerning happenings among the party 'tops.' They always locate a leader who initiates them into all the 'secrets.' Discussion is their native element. No amount of democracy is ever enough for them. For their war of words they seek the fourth dimension. They become jittery, they revolve in a vicious circle, and they quench their thirst with salt water. Do you want to know the organizational program of the opposition? It consists of a mad hunt for the fourth dimension of party democracy. In practice this means burying politics beneath discussion; and burying centralism beneath the anarchy of the intellectual circles. When a few thousand workers join the party, they will call the petty-bourgeois anarchists severely to order. The sooner, the better." [Trotsky (1971), pp.116-17. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

The above reads all too uncomfortably like the Thoughts of The Great Leader Himself, a frame-of-mind that helped silence and then expel Trotsky himself a decade or so earlier:

"The essence of Trotskyism is, lastly, denial of the necessity for iron discipline in the Party, recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the Party, recognition of the need to form a Trotskyist party. According to Trotskyism, the CPSU(B) must be not a single, united militant party, but a collection of groups and factions, each with its own centre, its own discipline, its own press, and so forth. What does this mean? It means proclaiming freedom for political factions in the Party. It means that freedom for political groupings in the Party must be followed by freedom for political parties in the country, i.e., bourgeois democracy. Consequently, we have here recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the Party right up to permitting political parties in the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, disguised by phrases about 'inner-party democracy', about 'improving the regime' in the Party. That freedom for factional squabbling of groups of intellectuals is not inner-party democracy, that the widely-developed self-criticism conducted by the Party and the colossal activity of the mass of the Party membership is real and genuine inner-party democracy -- Trotskyism can't understand." [Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU(B), June 27, 1930. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added.]

"The Party is a voluntary association of people who agree to pursue the same task and fight the same enemy. In order to be most effective they must keep order within their ranks. They will tolerate differences of opinion but they will insist on unity of action. The individual who disagrees with a decision is free to leave, but while he is a member, he may not pursue his own road in contradiction to that of the Party. Freedom of opinion exists as long as the Party has not formed its own collective opinion. Once this has happened then opinions contrary to the Party's must not be spread because that would be disruptive. The more unity and cohesion among the Party members the greater the chances of success." [M. Olgin, writing in the 1930s, quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

For some reason the following words of George Orwell's (from Animal Farm) come to mind:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." [Quoted from here.]

Trotsky's class position alongside his commitment to this contradictory theory in the end led him to argue along the same lines as Stalin, those the latter had used against him ten years earlier!

Indeed, the passage above from Trotsky is now being used in the factional battle inside the UK-SWP, as part of an attempt to stifle debate!

The same is true of the following remarks of Trotsky's -- taken from The Revolution Betrayed --, but with the opposite intention: to encourage open debate! (p.67):

"The inner regime of the Bolshevik party was characterized by the method of democratic centralism. The combination of these two concepts, democracy and centralism, is not in the least contradictory. [Compare that with what Stalin said about this conundrum -- RL.] The party took watchful care not only that its boundaries should always be strictly defined, but also that all those who entered these boundaries should enjoy the actual right to define the direction of the party policy. Freedom of criticism and intellectual struggle was an irrevocable content of the party democracy. The present doctrine that Bolshevism does not tolerate factions is a myth of epoch decline. In reality the history of Bolshevism is a history of the struggle of factions. And, indeed, how could a genuinely revolutionary organization, setting itself the task of overthrowing the world and uniting under its banner the most audacious iconoclasts, fighters and insurgents, live and develop without intellectual conflicts, without groupings and temporary factional formations? The farsightedness of the Bolshevik leadership often made it possible to soften conflicts and shorten the duration of factional struggle, but no more than that. The Central Committee relied upon this seething democratic support. From this it derived the audacity to make decisions and give orders. The obvious correctness of the leadership at all critical stages gave it that high authority which is the priceless moral capital of centralism." [Trotsky (1977), pp.94-95. Bold emphases added.]

"Petty-bourgeois, and especially declassed elements, divorced from the proletariat, vegetate in an artificial and shut-in environment. They have ample time to dabble in politics or its substitute. They pick out faults, exchange all sorts of tidbits and gossip concerning happenings among the party 'tops.' They always locate a leader who initiates them into all the 'secrets.' Discussion is their native element. No amount of democracy is ever enough for them. For their war of words they seek the fourth dimension. They become jittery, they revolve in a vicious circle, and they quench their thirst with salt water. Do you want to know the organizational program of the opposition? It consists of a mad hunt for the fourth dimension of party democracy. In practice this means burying politics beneath discussion; and burying centralism beneath the anarchy of the intellectual circles. When a few thousand workers join the party, they will call the petty-bourgeois anarchists severely to order. The sooner, the better." [Trotsky (1971), pp.116-17. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Despite Trotsky telling his readers that "the combination of the two concepts, democracy and centralism, aren't in the least contradictory", his adherence to the 'dialectical method', which welcomes, if not openly insists upon, contradictions allowed him to defend both of these diametrically opposed opinions -- (i) freedom of debate and opinion, and (ii) heavily constrained debate and opinion -- at different times in his life.

[Those who accept this theory insist on the presence of 'contradictions', since, if the world is indeed 'contradictory', then any attempt to represent it accurately could only do that successfully if it, too, is contradictory. Hence, anyone who adopts this topsy-turvy, 'dialectical view' of reality almost feels obliged to develop a contradictory analysis of the social and natural world or they would fail to be a genuine Dialectical Marxist! (I have analysed this predicament in detail -- which I have called The Dialecticians' Dilemma --, in Essay Seven Part One.)]

Of course, the first quote above went in one ear and out the other without engaging with a single 'dialectical brain cell' inside the heads of the supporters of the UK-SWP CC faction. Once again, that is exactly what happened inside the Stalinised Bolshevik Party post-1925.

"The party has to be subordinated to the whole. And so the internal regime in the revolutionary party must be subordinated to the relation between the party and the class. The managers of factories can discuss their business in secret and then put before the workers a fait accompli. The revolutionary party that seeks to overthrow capitalism cannot accept the notion of a discussion on policies inside the party without the participation of the mass of the workers -- policies which are then brought 'unanimously' ready-made to the class. Since the revolutionary party cannot have interests apart from the class, all the party's issues of policy are those of the class, and they should therefore be thrashed out in the open, in its presence. The freedom of discussion which exists in the factory meeting, which aims at unity of action after decisions are taken, should apply to the revolutionary party. This means that all discussions on basic issues of policy should be discussed in the light of day: in the open press. Let the mass of the workers take part in the discussion, put pressure on the party, its apparatus and leadership." [Cliff (2001), p.130. Bold emphasis alone added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

However, it is far from clear that either Cliff, or, indeed, the party he helped create, always adhered to those otherwise excellent precepts.

"'Leninism under Lenin' by Marcel Liebman [is] 'one of a handful of outstanding studies of Lenin' and if anyone is truly interested in the Bolshevik Party in 1917 that section of the book is required reading. Here you get a picture of the real Bolsheviks with differences being argued out in public, minority views being engaged with and brought into the party apparatus, Lenin disagreeing with the policy of the Central Committee and taking his arguments outside of that committee to other parts of the organisation and the rank and file, major decision making being opened up to the membership and much more." [Quoted from here, p.68. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis added; paragraphs merged.]

Few (if any) Bolshevik-style parties have even so much as aspired to achieve openness like this since then, and yet they all claim to be operating in the tradition established by Lenin!

Update June 2019: In April 2019, the ISO voted to disband, mainly because of the disastrous and anti-democratic way that their leadership handled rape accusations in the party that dated back to 2013:

"Three weeks ago, the ISO held its most important convention, which was also its most painful. Much of the convention was devoted to reckoning with the damaging impacts of our past practices and internal political culture. As branches have reported back and opened up these discussions, more examples of a damaging political culture have come to light. This brief letter from the new Steering Committee (SC) [the SC is the rough equivalent of the UK-SWP's CC -- RL] was written to update comrades on those incidents and on timelines with respect to mandates voted on by Convention delegates, while offering some thoughts on how to proceed....

"Offences like the failure of the disciplinary process were the worst products of culture presided over by a leadership that exerted control and had far too little accountability. But there are many other examples. Comrades from oppressed backgrounds were disproportionately impacted by these methods and this culture. Their commitment to the organization and to revolutionary socialism was questioned under the guise of a broad 'identity politics' umbrella and comrades' right to caucus was squashed in practice. Comrades with decades of trade union experience were held in suspicion for fear that they might stray too far from a course set out by the SC. Comrades who raised real questions about the ISO's role in the new socialist movement were accused of violating principles. And the ISO's leadership treated genuine concern from members about resources and personnel decisions as illegitimate expressions of 'anti-leadership' sentiment.

"At convention, we began the process of addressing these things, and doing so with an eye to the future of the ISO and the socialist left. While the fight for socialism from below remains the guide for our work, we are aware of the need to take pause and look squarely at what is coming to light right now. Our first priority is accountability -- to members and non-members harmed by these practices. We must also learn from these grave errors and offences, and work to repair damage done to people, insofar as we can. This is our obligation to our membership, past and present, and to the whole left. In the lead-up to Convention and since, we have begun to reflect on how a project whose intention is to fight with the oppressed for socialism from below could go so horribly wrong. By way of understanding that, we recognize that we are coming out of a several decades-long period of a Left shrinking and in retreat, and that period shaped the ISO's practices, both external and internal. We steeled ourselves to survive amid an otherwise languishing Left." [Quoted from here (dated 15/03/2019); accessed 02/06/2019. Bold emphases added. Some paragraphs merged. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling adjusted in line with UK-English.]

"Members and recent ex-members of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) have decided to dissolve the organization and end publication of SocialistWorker.org over the coming weeks, but also to support several working groups and initiatives going forward, and to work toward continued collaboration in rebuilding independent revolutionary socialist organization. These decisions followed a week of online voting that ended March 29 on nearly two-dozen proposals put forward ahead of an all-member conference call on March 24. Nearly 500 members, participants in disaffiliated branches and recently resigned members took part in the vote.

"The decisions came in the wake of a severe crisis in the ISO after information surfaced about a horribly mishandled sexual assault accusation in 2013. An independent disciplinary committee at the time came to the conclusion that an ISO member had clearly violated the organization’s code of conduct and should be expelled, but the 2013 Steering Committee interfered with the committee's work, overturned its decision and effectively silenced anyone who dissented from the course it chose....

"All of us who were part of the ISO have been through a wrenching and soul-searching process. As the organization’s leadership team pointed out when releasing the vote totals, it will take time for all of us to process, rebuild trust and move ahead. But for everyone who participated, the ISO’s vote to dissolve was the outcome of an honest and passionate discussion about how we could lay the basis for the collective hope we all share: to put forward the politics of socialism from below in the struggles of the future." [Quoted from here (dated 02/04/2019); accessed 02/06/2019. Several paragraphs merged; bold emphasis added.]

It is to be hoped that in their attempt to understand what has happened the ISO apply a little Marxism to their analysis of this catastrophic turn of events -- perhaps even along lines suggested in this Essay --, but if the past is anything to go by, they won't. I hope I am wrong.

Indeed, I was right; in a lengthy and not always well-focused analysis of this latest debacle, veteran Trotskyist, Paul Le Blanc, spent very little time on the alleged rape, and much on wider issues. He did however report this criticism levelled at the ISO's lack of transparency and use of the by-now-familiar slate system:

"There was need for greater openness and democracy in the election of leadership bodies (eliminating the self-perpetuation of leadership that resulted from outgoing leaders regularly presenting the organization with slates of candidates for new elections to those bodies)." [Quoted from here; accessed 02/06/2019.]

But, as predicted, Le Blanc offered no Historical Materialist analysis why this keeps happening on the far left.

I will say more about this latest set-back when the dust has settled and the situation becomes a little clearer -- but it is already obvious from the above and from other ISO-orientated posts (from a few years back), which I have included in this Essay (and in Appendix J), that the autocratic and anti-democratic side of petty-bourgeois, revolutionary socialism is still in charge.

"By some measures, the Committee for a Workers International (CWI) could be considered the largest international Trotskyist tendency in the world. The CWI, which traces its roots back to the Militant tendency inside the British Labour Party, claimed to have sections in 35-40 countries, some of them with several thousand members. On July 21, the CWI's British section, the Socialist Party, declared it would 'sponsor an international conference to reconstitute' the CWI. On July 26, the majority of the CWI's International Executive Committee (IEC) accused them of a 'bureaucratic coup' and a 'split.' This was the culmination of an eight-month faction fight. Numerous internal documents had leaked, but neither side had publicly acknowledged the internal struggle.

"Over the course of 2019, the CWI was divided into warring factions with equally unappetizing names. On the one hand, the CWI's International Secretariat (IS) in London, the permanent leadership body under 77-year-old Peter Taaffe, formed the faction: 'In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI' (IDWCTCWI). The majority of the members on the IEC (representing a pretty clear majority of the membership) were thus forced into opposition. They did not form a faction of their own, but the IS titled them the 'Non-Faction Faction' (NFF).

"Now they are two competing organizations, and the names are not quite clear, with the IS planning to 'reconstitute' the CWI, while the majority wants to 'continue' it. In order to avoid confusion, we will use the names of the internal factions. The IDWCTCWI is supported by the majorities of the sections in England, Wales and Scotland, as well as the very small groups in France, Chile, and India, plus less than half of the German section, with shaky support coming from some of the groups in Africa and Asia. The NFF, in contrast, is supported by everyone else, including the larger sections in Ireland, the U.S., Greece, Sweden, and Belgium.

"The crisis broke out when the IS began to criticize the Irish section (also called the Socialist Party), which has had some important electoral successes in recent years. Taaffe accused them of 'making concessions to identity politics' while abandoning work in the trade unions and the working class in general. The Irish had founded ROSA [which has nothing to do with me! -- RL], a socialist-feminist front, and this concept was copied by the Belgian section. Taaffe's faction also took particular umbrage at too much of a focus on women's rights, criticizing the Irish SP for running a 'socialist feminist' candidate in the EU elections. The NFF responded that the IS is underestimating the potential of 'movements taking on new and innovative forms around the world, often but not always outside of the formal structures of the official labour movement.'

"There have been a number of crises of Trotskyist organizations in recent months, including the dissolution of the ISO in the U.S. and the split of the PO in Argentina...." [Quoted from here; accessed 26/09/19. Capitals and links in the original; minor typo corrected.]

Is this yet another example of successful practice to add to the rest, the other splits and expulsions?

17. This accounts for another odd fact (and one with which I am sure all who question this mystical creed will be familiar): each and every prospective anti-dialectician is issued with an ominous warning that to 'abandon the dialectic' will lead anyone foolish enough to do so far from the 'one true path'.

That dire warning is promulgated even though the one issuing it will belong to a vanishingly small grouplet, and who will also roundly condemn all those who don't belong to his/her micro-slice of the dialectical market (i.e., he/she will condemn all those 'benighted souls' in every other microscopic, competing grouplet), accusing them of "abandoning Marxism". Anathematisations like this will be propagated despite the fact that all those who have been dammed in absentia in this way fully accept DM, who will (in like manner and in return) rebuke this censorious comrade, and everyone else, for the very same reason: for abandoning, distorting, or failing to "understand" 'the dialectic'!

Anyone who doubts this allegation can test it for themselves with the following impromptu experiment: try telling the very next OT you meet (in person or on the Internet) that Stalinists and Maoists also accept and use the dialectic. Then, try telling the very next Stalinist or Maoist you meet (in person or on the Internet) that OTs accept and use the dialectic, too. Repeat this experiment with any Maoists/Stalinists you encounter, but now do it in relation to the Stalinists/Maoists -- tell the Maoists that the Stalinists also accept and use the dialectic, and vice versa with the Stalinists vis-à-vis the Maoists. Extend this impromptu survey and permute the name of every tendency or group you can think of, telling each of them that all their opponents also accept and use the dialectic. Now, unless you are incredibly unlucky, you will be told the same thing over and over: "Those other guys misuse, distort, or ignore the 'dialectical method'; they have all adopted wooden, formulaic abstractions, yada, yada...".

[Dozens of examples of this phenomenon are given below and in Appendix B. Indeed, here is a recent, randomly-selected instance -- concerning the use of the 'dialectic' by the late Maurice Cornforth, along with my response -- which I can safely predict will be ignored -- and it was! Compare the results of the above test (should there be any such) with the way that sectarian Christians and Muslims accuse every other sect of their own respective faiths, and everyone else, of similar 'heresies'.]

In fact, there is no 'objective' way of deciding if, when or how 'the dialectic' has been, or can be used 'correctly'. Indeed, as we have seen, it can be and has been employed in order to defend any theory a particular party or sect finds expedient and its opposite, sometimes in the very next sentence, and by the very same dialectician!

This means that for any randomly-selected dialectician [RSD], there are countless thousands of renegade 'dialecticians' [RDs] who have 'betrayed' Marxism --, namely, all those RDs who aren't members of that RSD's microscopic sect. This in turn means that there are countless thousands of individuals who have 'betrayed' Marxism (in the opinion of every RSD out there), who are all, in fact, card-carrying, solid gold, diamond-studded DM-fans -- at least, in their own eyes!

It turns out, therefore, that the vast majority of those who have 'abandoned' the dialectic (allegedly, all those RDs) are in fact its staunchest defenders!

Plainly, the lesson here is this: It isn't the dialectic-as-such that one should never 'abandon', but the exact copy of 'the dialectic' that any particular RSD, or censorious comrade, has latched onto, which version is in fact indistinguishable from all the other versions of the very same theory adhered to by every other RD, censoriously-condemned, and condemning-in-return, DM-fan!

If you are brave enough to accept that further challenge, let me warn you in advance to expect more than your fair share of scatological abuse, at the very least.

A list, as well as a discussion, of anti-DM theorists (many of whom don't go as far as I do in that direction), but who didn't abandon Marxism, can be found in Petersen (1994), pp.164-70.

And, of course, there is always Plekhanov -- a 23 carat, solid gold dialectician, who later adopted Menshevism --, but who clung to this 'theory' all his life.

Accusations that Plekhanov 'abandoned the dialectic' are without foundation, except in the 'censorious' manner outlined above (which would, naturally, be quite enough to brand Plekhanov an RD). Similar protestations that he didn't "understand" the dialectic must also be waved aside on the grounds that no one actually 'understands' this 'theory'/'method', including any sad dialectical soul who might, or will, accuse you, dear reader, of not 'understanding' it, too.

Finally, Max Shachtman was also an avid dialectician -- who later abandoned Marxism -- while James Burnham was an anti-dialectician who did the same.

Adherence to DM is no guarantee that the individual concerned will always remain 'saved'.

[On this, see also Note 19a. Cf., also the detailed comments I have added to Essay Ten Part One.]

"Like many great men I have met he [Trotsky] does not seem altogether robust. There is apt to be a frailty associated with great intellect. At any rate, Trotsky, especially in our heated arguments concerning the 'dialectic' in which he becomes excited and wrathful to the point of losing his breath, seems to me at times almost weak. He can't laugh at my attacks on his philosophy, or be curious about them -- as I imagine Lenin would -- because in that field he is not secure.... Yesterday we reached a point of tension in our argument about dialectics that was extreme. Trotsky's throat was throbbing and his face was red; he was in a rage...." [Eastman (1942), p.113. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added; paragraphs merged.]

Anyone who has discussed dialectics face-to-face with certain leading comrades alive today (whose names I won't divulge, to save their blushes), or who has challenged this 'theory' on-line, will no doubt recognise in the above passage something that is all too familiar: the highly emotive, abusive and irrational response one receives from the faithful when their 'opiate' is even so much as slightly questioned, let alone demolished.

[This follows my own experiences (on-line) with such comrades, many of which 'encounters' have been recorded here. (Unfortunately, RevLeft is now all but defunct, so the links I have posted might no longer work.)]

However, Eastman is surely wrong about Lenin; anyone who reads MEC, for example, will discover how irrational he, too, could become in this respect. [On that see, Essay Thirteen Part One.]

Unquestioning faith in this theory isn't confined to the past, either; we have already seen this comment by Tony Cliff:

In addition, we find the following passage in the Preface to the new edition of RIRE (published in the summer of 2007):

And we have this from a younger comrade (after attending an IMT Annual Conference):

"Having developed an interest, through prior research, into Materialist Dialectics attending the talk on Philosophy and dialectics was a no-brainer. Covering everything from the nature of Idealism and Empiricism to the limitations of Formal Logic it was a most insightful event. Although the speaker is to be commended for dealing so concisely with so vast a topic, what impressed me most was his capacity to express the complexity of the subject in such simple terms. Using for example the three states of water to describe the relationship between quantitative and qualitative change. [Well, that's never been argued before by anyone, has it? -- RL.] However, the discussion remained true to Marx's own words: 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it'. The practical relevance of these ideas for revolutionaries was elucidated. It was at this point that Marx's true genius seemed to dawn upon me. Almost as if by magic the fallacious nature of our current ideology was laid bare and left wanting. Yet, the insight granted by the Dialectic Method did more to encourage than leave me depressed in its wake." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added; paragraphs merged.]

And here is Alan Woods, DM-guru of the above party, writing in the 2015 Introduction to the e-book edition of RIRE:

"Reason in Revolt was written at a time when the world revolutionary movement was in retreat. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a mood of pessimism and despair. The defenders of capitalism launched a ferocious ideological counteroffensive against the ideas of socialism and Marxism. They promised us a future of peace, prosperity and democracy thanks to the wonders of the free market economy. Two decades have passed since then and a decade is not such a long time in the grand scheme of history. Not one stone upon another now remains of these comforting illusions. Everywhere there are wars, unemployment, poverty and hunger. And everywhere a new spirit of revolt is arising, not just in Asia and Latin America but also in Europe and the USA itself. The tide is turning, as we knew it must do. And people are looking for ideas that can explain what is happening in the world. The ideas of Marxism are enjoying a renaissance. Support for these ideas is growing stronger by the day....

"Marxism is much more than a political doctrine, or a theory of economics. It is the philosophy of the future. 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. The ideas of Marxism have never been more relevant and necessary than at this time. The advanced workers and youth of the whole world will rediscover these ideas and reclaim them for themselves. That is the only guarantee for the success of the struggle for socialism." [Quoted from here; bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

It looks, therefore, like this substandard opiate is continuing to work its 'magic'; indeed, DM-pushers will be hard at work selling hits for the foreseeable future.

As we have seen, one of the main complaints registered by those involved in, or affected by, the countless splits that have bedevilled Dialectical Marxism for over a century concerns the lack of democracy in the party from which they were splitting or had been expelled. [On this, also see Appendix F.] This can't just be a coincidence. Even the UK-SWP appointed an ill-fated commission to try to improve democratic accountability in the party, the successes of which, if there were any, have vanished from history.

Despite what they say, it seems that petty-bourgeois revolutionaries just can't tolerate any meaningful form of party democracy.

[On this in general, see, for example, here, here and here. Concerning issues related to party democracy, see the section on Stalinism and Maoism, below.]

"We begin to recruit from sources none too healthy…. Freaks always looking for the most extreme expression of radicalism, misfits, windbags, chronic oppositionists, who had been thrown out of half a dozen organizations…. Many people came to us who had revolted against the Communist Party not for its bad sides but for its good sides; that is, the discipline of the party, the subordination of the individual to the decisions of the party in current work. A lot of dillettantish (sic), petty-bourgeois minded people who couldn't stand any kind of discipline, many of the newcomers made a fetish of democracy…. All the people of this type have one common characteristic; they like to discuss things without limit or end…. They can all talk; and not only can but will; and everlastingly, on every question." [James P. Cannon, History of American Trotskyism, pp.92-93, quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

Cannon obviously failed to notice that when he wrote this he, too, was thoroughly petty-bourgeois and/or de-classé. Be this as it may, the fact that he thought that party democracy was a "fetish" tells us all we need to know. It is hard to imagine either Marx or Lenin coming out with that remark.

"Repressed during the war and isolated in its aftermath, most of the [Trotskyist] groups retreated into a complacent and self-satisfied sectarianism, not dissimilar, in some ways, from the primitive Christian sects or the later Jesuits. In Pakistan I had been asked about Trotskyism and after my explanation a veteran cadre of the communist movement had laughed and said: 'We've got enough here already. We've got Shias and Sunnis and now you want to bring the Wahhabis in here as well...'. The Wahhabis are, in theory at least, an ultra-orthodox and puritanical Muslim sect.... When I arrived at the Ninth World Congress [of the Fourth International] in Rimini in 1969, the gathering was a strange mix of old and new in every sense.... [The new guard of the American Socialist Workers Party] struck me as apparatchiks pure and simple, obsessed with inner-party manipulations, factional intrigue and an unbelievable sectarian attitude toward everyone else on the American left....

"When I had joined the IMG in Britain, I had been given a number of books to read.... Most were a delight, but one had totally puzzled me and I wondered what I was meant to learn from its pages. This was a volume by an American communist turned Trotskyist: The Struggle For A Proletarian Party by James Cannon. I had not expected this to be non-fiction version of Hemingway or Dos Passos, but the single-minded and relentless pursuit of an oppositional current within the same organisation until it was defeated, demoralized and expelled, had shocked my sensibilities.... I later discovered [that this was] used as a 'key, cadre-building text' by the American SWP, the British SLL, and even the much-dreaded dogmatists of the Lambertist sect in France.... [T]he second generation, whom I met in Rimini in 1969, seemed to be walking and talking parodies of Cannon. In the decades that followed they would adopt internal party norms that made them virtually indistinguishable from the Stalinism that they were supposed to be combating in every way. In this fashion the hopes and aspirations of thousands of young idealists were confiscated and crushed by men...whose control of tiny apparatuses -- a printshop, a few dozen full-time workers, a building -- gave them a power and authority which they shamelessly misused. It was a deadly virus." [Ali (2005), pp.325-27. Bold emphases and links added. Italic emphases in the original. Some paragraphs merged.]

This seems to be the shared experience of many who have passed through similar petty-bourgeois party machines. [The 2012-13 crisis in the UK-SWP is, of course, just the latest example -- as is the implosion of the US-ISO more recently.]

Again, is this just a coincidence? Is it simply bad luck? Or, is it not rather a direct result of the class origin and class position of Dialectical Trotskyists/Marxists, seriously aggravated by a divisive theory inherited from notorious boss-class mystics?

19. I will say much more about this topic, why Leninism was able to chalk up a major success in 1917, and how this turned into disaster in Essay Fourteen Part Two. In the meantime, I have added a few comments on this topic here, with an entire sub- section devoted to it, here.

19a. This helps explain another odd characteristic that runs through Dialectical Marxism, certainly one that had me puzzled for some time: on discussion boards -- some of the best examples of which can be found here -- comrades from every wing of Marxism will defend DM in almost exactly the same way, agreeing with, supporting and quoting one another against anyone who attacks their theory (i.e., by yours truly, or by others), despite the fact that these comrades disagree about practically everything else. Thus, in relation to dialectics, an out-and-out Stalinist will agree with a Trotskyist, a Maoist will align with a member of the IST, 'Libertarian Marxists' will concur with the most Neanderthal of Hoxhaists, supporters of the Juche Idea will welcome the thoughts of ISO-ers, Sparts will see eye-to-eye with CWI honchos, and so on, in defence of the sacred dialectic. At other times and over virtually every other issue they will be, and almost invariably are, at each others throats, often using dialectics to lambaste and excoriate one another in the process! Indeed, on such occasions, each and every one of these sad souls will point their sectarian fingers at all the rest (and at those with whom they had just agreed in their defence of DM!) and, as if to cap it all, will claim in the next breath that not one of them "understands" dialectics!

Even worse, when this is pointed out to them, they all deny they share the same ideas about the dialectic, even while they have just agreed about it in the above manner!

20. This is a burning question that seems to have exercised the Guardians Of The Sacred Flame over at the old WRP -- this was in fact the title of a major article published in Newsline in the early 1980s (the exact reference for which I have now lost).

As pointed out in Essay Three Part Two, despite claims to the contrary, DM-epistemologists have clearly adopted bourgeois individualist theories of knowledge -- which theories were themselves based on the thought-forms invented at, or around about, the time of the last major change in class power approximately four hundred years ago.

And we can now see why that is so. Each DM-acolyte must stand on his/her own two feet before Hegel's Absolute (upside down or the 'right way up'), relying on their own personal "understanding" of the DM-Holy Books -- which is part of the reason they so readily accuse others of not 'understanding' the Dialectical Mantra. [More on this in Essay Fourteen Part Two, when it is published.] To be sure, DM-fans gesture in the direction of the thesis that language and knowledge are collective phenomena, but when their ideas are examined more closely, what they actually have to say undermines belief in their social nature. [On that, see here, here and here.]

21. Check out this talk by ex-UK-SWPer, Mark Steel (unfortunately, the first of these two links no longer works!). In less than one hour he makes two such cracks, both of which went down rather well with his audience, who chuckle along, knowingly. Yes, it is so amusing that we are at each others throats all the time. The ruling-class must be laughing their socks off...

[As noted earlier, Mark left the UK-SWP over a decade ago; on that, see his recent book, Steel (2008). See also here.]

22. An excellent recent example of such egregiously un-merited hero worship directed toward 'St. Bob' can be found here. In August 2008, the following comment was published at the Revcom website:

"We are proud and thrilled to announce the posting of important new talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP/USA, on bobavakian.net and revcom.us. These talks are truly pathbreaking explorations in communist theory and its application to a breathtaking range of questions, including political questions which are urgently and sharply posed in today's situation. They are also living laboratories in the communist method and approach to the world. There is a scope and a depth to each talk, and the talks as a whole, that is really unprecedented and extraordinary." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases added.]

[For more examples, and some analysis, see here. However, on this, also see Note 26, below.]

Click on the website of practically any Christian or Muslim sect to find similar language, pictures and servile sycophancy -- only this time directed at ancient deities, as well as contemporary guru figures.

[Anyone unconvinced of this should watch, say, the videos posted here. I hasten to add that they should only do so after swallowing a powerful anti-emetic, if they want to hang on to their last meal a little longer. Warning, flashing images begin about half-way through.]

On the DWP and Marlene Dixon, see Lalich (2004), pp.113-218, and Tourish and Wohlforth (2000), pp.145-55.

Any MISTs who have made it this far should, I think, avert their eyes at this point since I am about to remind them that Mao was no saint, and used female comrades as others tend to use paper handkerchiefs; on this, see Zhisui Li (1996).

[This is probably part of the reason why ardent Maoists tend to rubbish Zhisui Li's book. However, the latter book should be read in conjunction with Gao (2008).]

"As Eric Hobsbawm has pointed out in Revolutionaries, the widespread belief that there is some connection between social revolutionary movements and permissiveness in sexual behaviour actually has no basis in fact. Indeed, there is by contrast a strain of Puritanism in many revolutionary movements. This seems to be particularly true in the Maoist forms of revolution, since they have tended to focus on the movement (as represented by for example the Chinese Communist Party or the Angkar of the Khmer Rouge) taking the place of the family. The young Chinese Communists who supported Mao Zedong as he emerged as the leader of the movement were in fact positively forbidden from any kind of personal intimacy. Despite the constant threat of death or serious injury, not to mention capture by the enemy, the young men and women had to endure without physical comfort from each other.

"This restriction did not, of course, apply to Mao himself. Anchee Min's Becoming Madame Mao describes the sound of passion coming from Mao's quarters, as he made love to the young actress who was to become the terror of the Cultural Revolution, quite unnerving the young guards posted outside. Mao of course was by then onto what was to become marriage to his third wife. However, these marital liaisons were but one part of his sexual life. Throughout the period of his ascendancy, as reports of his personal life have made clear, young and virgin girls were brought to his bed on a regular basis. Agents, they might equally be termed pimps, roamed the Chinese countryside searching for suitable girls and explained the situation to their parents. They were sold the idea that a great honour was being provided for them and their daughter. Perhaps financial or material inducements were also provided at need. Presumably, there are a number of these women living still in China with Mao's children, although this is not a subject which is discussed very much in the public sphere.

"As for Mao himself, an endless series of young girls and a sense of entitlement would be strong enough inducements for most men but, in his case, he did seem to have a genuine intent to reach an advanced age, which he managed to achieve to a reasonable extent. There has been a longstanding belief in Chinese society that men can reinvigorate themselves by absorbing life energy from younger women through sexual contact. In fact, older women could receive the same favour from younger boys but, apart from the Empress Wu and her like, much fewer have been able to take advantage of the possibility." [John Walsh. Bold emphases and links added. Italics in the original.]

Maoist cadres were, of course, largely drawn from conservative middle class and peasant stock, so it is hardly surprising they were somewhat puritanical. Add to that the fact that pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases during a revolutionary war would be highly inconvenient, to say the least. By way of contrast, the sexually predatory nature of leading Russian Stalinists is hardly a closely kept secret, nor is the widespread use of rape by the Red Army toward the end of WW2. And, of course, there was a genuine wave of sexual liberation following on the Russian Revolution, later reversed by Stalin.

Gerry Healy, a far more substantial dialectician than Mao ever was or could have been, appears to have treated female comrades little better. [On that, see here, as well as Tourish and Wohlforth (2000), pp.156-72.]

"Five months after Mark Stanton Curtis was arrested in Des Moines on charges of sexual abuse and burglary, Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young sent a letter to the authorities in Iowa charging frameup and police brutality. 'As an early union organizer,' Young wrote on August 18, 1988, 'I am concerned that Mr. Curtis may be being harassed for his political beliefs rather than fairly investigated and brought to trial for actual criminal activity.' Young's letter was one of hundreds sent to Des Moines that summer on behalf of Curtis, a 29-year-old-member of the [US-]Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and an employee at the local Swift meatpacking plant. It echoed a Detroit City Council resolution which stated there was 'no evidence' that Curtis beat and raped a 15-year-old African-American girl in her home on the night of March 4, 1988, and referred to 'a brutal attack' on Curtis by 'law enforcement officials' of Polk County. It isn't often that the government of one American city accuses another of holding and beating a political prisoner. So the retractions, when they came, were even more startling.

"'I've done some checking on my own,' wrote Detroit Councilman Mel Ravitz, in a letter to the victim's father, 'and have concluded that it is improbable that Mr. Curtis was framed.' Councilmen John Peoples and Nicholas Hood also wrote personal letters of apology for their support of Curtis. The Socialist Workers Party has devoted an enormous effort to the Curtis case in the three years since his arrest. It has gathered endorsements from more than 8,000 political activists and organizations in and around the world and raised, by its own estimate, $150,000 in living room and union hall fundraisers, and by working the crowds at peace and pro-choice rallies across the country. Past and present Curtis endorsers include Ed Asner, Congressmen John Conyers and Ronald Dellums, Angela Davis, the Rev. Daniel Berrigan, Detroit Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, several chapters of NOW, the national chair of Sinn Fein, and members of [the UK?] Parliament and the African National Congress.

"But while endorsers around the world see Mark Curtis as a champion of civil rights, his defense committee in Des Moines is picketed by the National Black United Front. While Curtis claims he was framed because of his fight for undocumented Latino workers, activists in the Des Moines Latino community say they never heard of him until his arrest. While his supporters contend Curtis was prosecuted as a warning to labour organizers everywhere, his own union refuses to endorse the effort to free him. And while feminists from North Carolina to Great Britain write letters of support, counsellors at the rape crisis centre in Des Moines insist on his guilt, and accuse his defense committee of harassing a teenaged rape victim.

"Critics charge the Socialist Workers Party with perpetrating a hoax that is rapidly becoming an embarrassing cause célèbre. Feminists in particular charge that the success of the Curtis Defense Committee in winning financial and political support reveals a deep streak of sexism among progressives, and an ignorance of the realities of rape. What does it mean, they ask, when so many 'politically correct' people are willing to take, at face value, the word of a white man convicted of rape over that of his Black victim? The case against Mark Curtis rests on the accounts of two key witnesses, 15year-old [sic] Demetria Harris [in order to protect her identity the victim's name had been changed by the author of this article -- RL] and her 11year-old [sic] brother Jason. According to their testimony, they were home alone on the evening of March 4, 1988, watching TV, when there was a knock at their door. When Demetria asked who it was, a man answered 'Mark.' Thinking it might be their big brother Mark, Demetria opened the door to see a 'tall and skinny' white man standing on the steps outside their enclosed front porch, asking if 'Bonita or Keith' were there, if this was 1545 IXth Street. The Harris home is at 1529 IXth Street -- just a few houses down. When Demetria told him he had the wrong address, the man asked if her parents were home. Jason, getting bored, went back into the house to watch TV. That's when 'Mark' pushed his way onto the porch.

"'He closed the door behind him,' Demetria told the jury, 'and he told me -- threatened, he said, "I have a knife. I'll hurt your brother and you if you don't cooperate.' Demetria struggled, until 'Mark' began punching her in the face and head. Jason, hearing the struggle, came to investigate. Opening the door a moment he saw 'Mark' on top of Demetria. Jason went back into the house, armed himself with a kitchen knife, took the phone as far from the porch as he could, and dialled 911. 'This man is raping my sister,' he told police dispatcher Kim Manning. Manning logged the call into her computer at 8:51 PM. She then radioed officers Joseph Gonzales and Richard Glade, parked nearby. The officers arrived two minutes later, pulled up silently. They walked to the front door and knocked.

"'Mark' put his hands around Demetria's throat, 'and started choking me, and told me not to say anything.' Gonzales and Glade pushed through the door, and 'Mark,' his pants down around his legs, took off into the back of the house. Demetria, nude from the waist down and bleeding from the face, told Gonzales, 'He just raped me.' The assailant was cornered in a back bedroom, where, his pants still down around his legs, Mark Stanton Curtis was handcuffed and read his rights.... The jury found Curtis guilty as charged. Curtis was sentenced by Judge Harry Perkins to 25 years in the Men's Reformatory in Anamosa. In April 1990 the Iowa Court of Appeals rejected his final appeal....

"In their pamphlet, 'Who is Mark Curtis?' an SWP supporter is quoted saying, 'This is not a case about rape.' But the Mark Curtis case is precisely about rape. It is about the insidious and pernicious myths that work to silence rape survivors and protect their abusers. It is about backlash against the stop-rape movement. It is about how easy it is for a rapist and his friends to recruit allies in their attack on a courageous young woman who dared to speak out against her abuser." [Quoted from here; accessed 04/01/2017. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling modified to agree with UK English. Several minor typos corrected. Links added. Several paragraphs merged.]

"Mark Curtis, recently released from the Iowa State Penitentiary after serving seven and half years behind bars, addressed a crowd of 70 people here. Curtis, who was a unionist and member of the Socialist Workers Party in Des Moines, Iowa, was framed-up in 1988 and sentenced to 25 years for rape and burglary -- crimes he did not commit." [Quoted from here; accessed 04/01/2017.]

And, "puritanical" isn't a word that would instantly spring to mind if I were to describe my experience of UK Trotskyism twenty-seven years ago. Socialist females who are members of revolutionary discussion boards will know of what I speak. Of course, the male comrades who dominate such fora can't see this, and regularly scratch their heads and wonder why there are so few female contributors to their sites. They then compound this wilful ignorance by dismissing, or rejecting, what they have been told about their own insidious sexism by what few female members are brave enough to remain, often accusing the latter of being 'hysterical'!

Then there is this 1991 report from the Japanese section of the Fourth International [FI]:

"From 1982, the Japanese section of the Fourth International had to confront a situation where the women members and women who worked with the section in the Sanrizuka airport movement accused members of the Japanese section of severe sexual discrimination, harassment and rape. The response of the JRCL and its leadership was to deal with the accusations as individual cases. There was a lack of collective understanding that these cases arose in a context of severe sexual discrimination within the organization for which all male comrades bore collective responsibility. Moreover, the individual cases were dealt with in an uneven and inconsistent way.

"This led to the situation where almost all women comrades ceased regular functioning within the framework of the JRCL. The inability to deal with the rape and discrimination cases revealed and accentuated a general state of crisis which led to the split of the JRCL into two groups (JRCL and National Council) with greatly weakened national implantation. Around 30 women comrades are organized in the FI Women's Liberation Group, whose principal activity as a group is to discuss what happened in the section. Their outward political activity is carried out through the Socialist Women's Association, a women's organization of around 130 members which was originally founded by the JRCL in 1978 but today has no formal relationship to either of the factions resulting from the split. This situation of division of the male and female members into separate groups because the women comrades consider it impossible to participate in a common organization with the men is extremely serious.

"It indicates a profound inability on the part of the male members to apply our programme concerning the fight against women's oppression in the practice of the organization. This deep contradiction between our programme and the reality of these groups of male members make it impossible for us to consider these groups as being in any way groups that represent the International or have any formal status within it. The ability of members of the JRCL and National Council groups to continue a discussion which increases their understanding of why these problems arose and why their response was judged inadequate by the women comrades will also depend on their developing activity within the Japanese workers' movement challenging all manifestations of discrimination and oppression of women." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged.]

"The present document is a contribution from the PRT Women's Commission to the thinking about a sanctions policy in relation to women's oppression. We thought it was especially important to start the thinking in writing now, since we decided at our last congress to initiate new efforts to make this a feminist party. We believe that, since our last congress, women militants have been feeling more confident about denouncing cases of aggression against them, which motivates us to make the following observations with an eye to continuing to deepening the discussion begun two years ago.... Social control to protect women militants against aggression by male comrades is not commonly accepted. In other words, feminizing the public sphere (access for women to the leadership, delegates, etc.) is less problematic than feminizing the private sphere. The biggest problem is that that is where we find the worst of women's oppression....

"First of all we recognize the need for sanctions. The sanctions are necessary to preserve the party, and this includes the women. Minimum norms of respect are required among militants, minimal norms of interacting, which give women a place to act politically in our country, with certain confidence. We believe that these minimal norms can be listed in three categories: Violence (threats and blows), sexual violence (harassment and rape) and sexist verbal aggression (sexist remarks against comrades). Of course all of these categories can be broken down a bit more, and they require different levels and kinds of sanctions, but we consider them to be the minimum aspects around which each man and women in the PRT should establish rules for working together. If we fail to regulate these three aspects, women would be left completely unprotected in our life in the party. The sanctions are a defensive action so that we, as women can remain in the party with at least minimum conditions guaranteed." [Quoted from here. Bold emphases added. Some paragraphs merged.]

23a0. On this, see Note 16 and Note 18a, above. See also an analysis that at least represents the beginning of an attempt to understand the malaise that afflicts our movement along class lines, here.

Dialecticians reject the above allegation, and yet the only practical applications of DM that they generally offer in response have been taken from HM, not DM -- or, believe it or not, from the Biological Sciences! But, as we saw in Essay Seven, even there DM doesn't in fact fit; it has simply been read into the phenomena in the usual manner. [Also see Essay Four Part One.]

"[Lenin] showed how quantitative changes in capitalism, the concentration of production and the growth of monopolies, led to a qualitatively new stage in capitalism -- imperialism -- and how that new stage, far from overcoming the system's internal contradictions, reproduced them on a new level, thus laying the basis for the imperialist world war." [Molyneux (2012), p.59.]

"The relationship of the text of Lenin's Imperialism to the Hegel Notebooks is not immediately apparent and must be excavated. First, it must be said that unlike the Essay 'Karl Marx' (1914), for example, this book does not have a section on dialectics or even one on philosophy. Nor does it even mention the issue of dialectics...." [Anderson (1995), p.128. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphasis in the original; bold added.]

So, DM has to be read into Lenin's book, too, and not just foisted on nature and society! To be sure, Lenin does use the word "contradiction" fourteen times throughout that work, but he nowhere says anything like this:

"...far from overcoming the system's internal contradictions, reproduced them on a new level, thus laying the basis for the imperialist world war." [Molyneux, op cit.]

Indeed, Lenin's employment of this particular word follows on in an established tradition, one where DM-authors simply help themselves to this word, and then do very little, or in fact nothing, with it. It sits idly by on the page. As such, the use of this word is plainly an affectation, a move that is more of a nod in the direction of orthodoxy -- a sign that the one using it has remained faithful to 'dialectical tradition' -- than it is a genuine use of DM. Again, this is plain from the fact that Lenin's employment of this word is sketchy (at best) and he, too, does nothing with it. Indeed, given the additional fact that these 'contradictions' are never derived logically from the phenomena to which they supposedly relate, they can't be 'dialectical contradictions', to begin with. Compare this with the way that the existence of the proletariat is supposed to be implied by that of the bourgeoisie, in that they both presuppose, and can't exist without, each other, so we are told. DM-fans never even attempt to do likewise with the many 'contradictions' they claim to be able to see all over the place. For example, in the list below, check out how many such 'contradictions' Lenin actually tried to derive by from the phenomena by showing that their component parts (as it were) are 'internally' related, an presuppose one another in the way that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are said to do.

[However, in what follows, readers mustn't assume that I disagree with Lenin's analysis of Imperialism! I don't (even if I'd argue it must be updated and modified). I am only concerned to show that DM not only wasn't, it couldn't have been used by Lenin to develop this part of his theory.]

"The growing world proletarian revolutionary movement in general, and the communist movement in particular, cannot dispense with an analysis and exposure of the theoretical errors of Kautskyism. The more so since pacifism and 'democracy' in general, which lay no claim to Marxism whatever, but which, like Kautsky and Co., are obscuring the profundity of the contradictions of imperialism and the inevitable revolutionary crisis to which it gives rise, are still very widespread all over the world.... (p.8.)

"...The result is a slurring-over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism. (pp.110-11.)

"...Evasion of existing contradictions, forgetting the most important of them, instead of revealing their full depth -- such is Kautsky's theory, which has nothing in common with Marxism. (pp.111-12.)

"...Kautsky's utterly meaningless talk about ultra-imperialism encourages, among other things, that profoundly mistaken idea which only brings grist to the mill of the apologists of imperialism, i.e., that the rule of finance capital lessens the unevenness and contradictions inherent in the world economy, whereas in reality it increases them. (p.113.)

"Finance capital and the trusts do not diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various parts of the world economy. Once the relation of forces is changed, what other solution of the contradictions can be found under capitalism than that of force?... (p.116.)

"...As we have seen, the deepest economic foundation of imperialism is monopoly. This is capitalist monopoly, i.e., monopoly which has grown out of capitalism and which exists in the general environment of capitalism, commodity production and competition, in permanent and insoluble contradiction to this general environment.... (p.119.)

"...Instead of an analysis of imperialism and an exposure of the depths of its contradictions, we have nothing but a reformist 'pious wish' to wave them aside, to evade them. (p.135.)

"Kautsky's theoretical critique of imperialism has nothing in common with Marxism and serves only as a preamble to propaganda for peace and unity with the opportunists and the social-chauvinists, precisely for the reason that it evades and obscures the very profound and fundamental contradictions of imperialism: the contradictions between monopoly and free competition which exists side by side with it, between the gigantic 'operations' (and gigantic profits) of finance capital and 'honest' trade in the free market, the contradiction between cartels and trusts, on the one hand, and non-cartelised industry, on the other, etc. (pp.141-42.)

"Kautsky's obscuring of the deepest contradictions of imperialism, which inevitably boils down to painting imperialism in bright colours, leaves its traces in this writer's criticism of the political features of imperialism. Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom.... (p.146.)

"Kautsky's theoretical analysis of imperialism, as well as his economic and political critique of imperialism, are permeated through and through with a spirit, absolutely irreconcilable with Marxism, of obscuring and glossing over the fundamental contradictions of imperialism and with a striving to preserve at all costs the crumbling unity with opportunism in the European working-class movement. (p.148.)

"The extent to which monopolist capital has intensified all the contradictions of capitalism is generally known. It is sufficient to mention the high cost of living and the tyranny of the cartels. This intensification of contradictions constitutes the most powerful driving force of the transitional period of history, which began from the time of the final victory of world finance capital." (p.150.) [Lenin (1975). Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphases in the original; bold emphases added.]

As far as can be determined, no other dialectical jargon appears in the entire book. [I have done several word searches of the on-line edition, all to no avail.] And, as should now be obvious, Lenin doesn't even attempt to show how the two 'halves' of these 'contradictions' logically imply one another. Indeed, as we saw was the case with MEC, Lenin plainly thought it sufficient just to keep repeating the same assertion if he wanted to 'prove' a certain point. But, nowhere does he "show" that the things he calls 'contradictions' are contradictions, let alone 'dialectical contradictions', or even how they are capable of doing the things Molyneux and others allege of them.

The closest Lenin came to "showing" that imperialism lays "the basis for the imperialist world war" is here, in the following passage:

"Finance capital and the trusts do not diminish but increase the differences in the rate of growth of the various parts of the world economy. Once the relation of forces is changed, what other solution of the contradictions can be found under capitalism than that of force?..." (p.116.)

In fact, Lenin "shows" no such thing, he merely asks a question -- and he certainly doesn't "show" a 'contradiction' emerges 'dialectically'. Questions and assertions do not amount to "showing".

"...how that new stage, far from overcoming the system's internal contradictions, reproduced them on a new level...." [Molyneux, op cit.]

In fact, Lenin nowhere mentions this "new level" -- let alone "show" how the alleged 'internal contradictions' of capitalism led to the said development. Hence, Molyneux has completely failed to make his case.

Again, in his book on imperialism Lenin nowhere mentions, or even alludes to, Engels's first 'law', the supposed change of 'quantity into quality'. We have already seen that DM-fans employ this 'law' subjectively, using it when and where it suits them, ignoring the many cases where it fails to work.

That is partly because the vast majority of them leave the terms "quantity" and "quality" hopelessly vague. Indeed, Molyneux is no less hazy about this 'law', too (cf., pp.48-52). What is the "quantity" here in Lenin's work, according to Molyneux? And what is the "quality"? We aren't told. But, are we really supposed to believe that when a monopolistic form or stage of capitalism has been reached, one more added unit of capital suddenly precipitates (i) Investment in India, (ii) The invasion of Africa, or even (iii) The firing of a gun in Sarajevo? But, it must do one or more of these -- or it must precipitate whatever other events constitute a 'dialectical' change or 'leap' from the Monopoly, to the Finance, and then to the Imperialist stages of Capitalism, if Molyneux is to be believed.

As is usually the case in this area of Mickey Mouse 'Dialectical Science', we are left to guess the details. And yet when we do try to do that, the ridiculous nature of this 'law' soon becomes apparent.

So, if, say, the Finance stage of Capitalism is constituted by C units of Capital, and the Imperialist stage by C+1 units, must we assume that when that extra unit has been added, the capitalists concerned (or their political representatives) suddenly start casting covetous eyes at (a) their neighbours' colonial possessions, (b) the investment possibilities offered in, say, Argentina, or (c) the need to build another Dreadnought? Again, this is precisely what ought to be the case if Engels's 'law' is in any way applicable here:

"With this assurance Herr Dühring saves himself the trouble of saying anything further about the origin of life, although it might reasonably have been expected that a thinker who had traced the evolution of the world back to its self-equal state, and is so much at home on other celestial bodies, would have known exactly what's what also on this point. For the rest, however, the assurance he gives us is only half right unless it is completed by the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations which has already been mentioned. In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive change. This is true of the transition from the mechanics of celestial bodies to that of smaller masses on a particular celestial body; it is equally true of the transition from the mechanics of masses to the mechanics of molecules -- including the forms of motion investigated in physics proper: heat, light, electricity, magnetism. In the same way, the transition from the physics of molecules to the physics of atoms -- chemistry -- in turn involves a decided leap; and this is even more clearly the case in the transition from ordinary chemical action to the chemism of albumen which we call life. Then within the sphere of life the leaps become ever more infrequent and imperceptible. -- Once again, therefore, it is Hegel who has to correct Herr Dühring." [Engels (1976), pp.82-83. Bold emphasis added.]

"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 emphasis alone added.]

But, water is still H₂0 either side of the liquid/gas boundary, and Imperialist capitalism is still capitalism. So, nothing substantially new has emerged -- if, that is, we adhere to Hegel's definition of "quality":

"Each of the three spheres of the logical idea proves to be a systematic whole of thought-terms, and a phase of the Absolute. This is the case with Being, containing the three grades of quality, quantity and measure. Quality is, in the first place, the character identical with being: so identical that a thing ceases to be what it is, if it loses its quality. Quantity, on the contrary, is the character external to being, and does not affect the being at all. Thus, e.g. a house remains what it is, whether it be greater or smaller; and red remains red, whether it be brighter or darker." [Hegel (1975), p.124, §85. Paragraphs merged.]

"Quality is an aspect of something by which it is what it is and not something else and reflects that which is stable amidst variation. Quantity is an aspect of something which may change (become more or less) without the thing thereby becoming something else. Thus, if something changes to an extent that it is no longer the same kind of thing, this is a 'qualitative change', whereas a change in something by which it still the same thing, though more or less, bigger or smaller, is a 'quantitative change'.

"In Hegel's Logic, Quality is the first division of Being, when the world is just one thing after another, so to speak, while Quantity is the second division, where perception has progressed to the point of recognising what is stable within the ups and downs of things. The third and final stage, Measure, the unity of quality and quantity, denotes the knowledge of just when quantitative change becomes qualitative change." [Quoted from here. Accessed August 2007. This definition has been altered slightly since. Two paragraphs merged.]

But, once more, nothing substantially new emerges in this instance. Of course, that depends on what we mean by "new"; but DM-fans are remarkably coy about such 'pedantic' details. [This is a brief summary of a much more detailed argument laid out in Essay Seven Part One. Readers are referred there for more details.]

It could be objected that the above comments are a crude caricature of the practical application of DM that underpins Lenin's book. Well, until we see the 'sophisticated version' -- and we have only been waiting for seventy or eighty years, certainly Anderson (1995) failed to produce it --, it will have to do.

So, not only did Lenin not apply this 'law', it is far too vague and confused for anyone to apply it, which is, of course, what has been maintained all along about DM at this site.

In which case, Lenin's classic book can't be successfully offered as an example of the practical application of DM.

Anderson returned to this topic in Anderson (2007), but failed once again to show how 'dialectics' actually informed Lenin's work. However, he drew our attention to an article Lenin wrote late in 1923, Our Revolution (but not Notes on Sukhanov, as Anderson has it), where we read this:

"They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics. They have even absolutely failed to understand Marx's plain statements that in times of revolution the utmost flexibility is demanded, and have even failed to notice, for instance, the statements Marx made in his letters -- I think it was in 1856 -- expressing the hope of combining the peasant war in Germany, which might create a revolutionary situation, with the working-class movement -- they avoid even this plain statement and walk around and about it like a cat around a bowl of hot porridge." [Lenin (1923), p.476). Bold emphasis added.]

That's it! That's the only mention of dialectics in the entire article! So much for its 'central importance' for Lenin. And the only thing Lenin does with this 'theory'/'method' is emphasise that "utmost flexibility" is required by revolutionaries. But, Lenin didn't need to appeal to 'dialectics' to do that; even non-Marxists can be, and often are, "flexible". Pragmatic bourgeois politicians, for example, are no less "flexible", or opportunistic.

It could be objected that this is unfair to Lenin (and Anderson) since the dialectic emphasises a specific kind of "flexibility". Maybe so, but what this 'special kind of flexibility' is we have been left, once more, to guess. Worse still, we have already seen (in Essay Ten Part One) that Lenin's use of 'dialectics' would have had the opposite effect, and would imply not only cloying inflexibility but hyper-prevarication.

Even worse than that, we have also seen that dialectics sanctions the rationalisation of any course of action, or theory, and its opposite (often this trick is performed by the very same DM-fan in the same book, article, paragraph, or even speech!). So, not only did Lenin learn nothing he couldn't have derived from pragmatic bourgeois theorists, his peculiar brand of 'dialectical flexibility' is about as welcome as a dose of Anthrax!

Now, it surely goes without saying that tactical inflexibility is a luxury revolutionaries will only ever 'live' to 'enjoy' the other side of a failed revolution! Even so, it is possible to ignore Lenin's advice without implying any such rigidity.... This means that we would be well-advised to base revolutionary activity on criteria that are far less suicidally impractical than those proposed by Lenin....Naturally, no revolutionary in his or her left mind would do this, or even contemplate doing it. In practice, activists rightly ignore Lenin's criteria -- advice not even he could have followed.

Molyneux's other examples (i.e., the alleged use of DM in Lenin's The State and Revolution, The April Theses, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, or Trotsky's The First Five Years of the Communist International -- pp.59-61), are no less fanciful. Sceptical readers are encouraged to check for themselves, and if they still disagree with my estimation, they can email me with their best example(s) of the (positive) practical application of this 'theory'/'method' in the above works, or in any other book/article written by these great revolutionaries, or, indeed, by any other DM-theorist.

However, as noted elsewhere, I have been challenging DM-fans to produce just such examples for a couple of decades. Deafening silence has been the only response.

24. An excellent example of this phenomenon can be found here; several more, here.

This is, of course, the dialectical equivalent of the 'pie-in-the-sky' myth that Christian preachers feed the alienated, the poor, and the gullible.

Naturally, the argument is never put as crudely as that, but it is implied by the sort of things DM-classicists do assert (on this, see Essay Ten Part One). How and why that so will form much of the content of Essays Three Parts Three and Five, and Fourteen Part Two.

25. Examples of this tactic will be given below. There, we will see that in the eyes of its acolytes the fact that DM is contradictory constitutes one of its most potent selling points!

The same 'defect' is, however, regarded as a fatal weakness when it afflicts any competing theory, even one that is advanced by rival dialectical dogmatists. For example, below we will witness Maoists accuse Stalinists of being contradictory, even while they proudly announce how contradictory their own theory is! We will also see the same is true of Trotskyists, who will accuse fellow Trotskyists -- or Maoists, or Stalinists -- of the very same sins, who for their part will aim the same barbs in like manner back at Trotskyists, and even at each other, as well as anyone and everyone who has attracted the ire of their very own sanctified DM-Guru.

After all, what could be more contradictory than to claim that while being contradictory is both a fatal defect in other theories, its your own best feature?

[This is indeed how Buddhists (but, particularly Zen Buddhists) deal with the contradictions in their own belief system. Examples of the latter tactic can be found in McFarlane (2002), where that irrational defect is also viewed as one of Buddhism's unique strengths by those who have snorted this particular line of opiates.]

A dialogue in Price (1990) nicely illustrates this bankrupt form of 'rationality' (otherwise called "Nixoning" in Essay Eight Part One):

"Me: 'Is it really? But Fred is in it, and that's the important thing.' (Leaves for kitchen.)" [Price (1990), p.224. I owe this reference to Grimm (2000). p.70.]

Arguing with DM-fans and Buddhists is rather like this, except their confusion is far more convoluted and involved compared with the 'Me' character in the above fictional exchange -- both hold fast to contradictory or inconsistent ideas and somehow regard this as a unique strength or even a badge of honour!

As noted earlier: the above is so except when and where these "contradictory ideas" appear in the ideas and theories of those DM-fans perceive as political enemies, whose 'contradictions' are then bellowed from the rooftops. Two relatively recent examples of this phenomenon can be found here and here. More recently still we find the late Chris Harman, for instance, doing something similar here [i.e., in Harman (2007b), pp.113-15]. We have already seen Tony Cliff use this tactic in order to argue that it is still possible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat when there is no proletariat!

25a. On a personal note, I have lost count of the number of times dialectically distracted comrades have said to me (mostly on the internet): "Who are you, Ms Lichtenstein, to question Engels/Lenin/Trotsky/Mao...?" Of course, this is the dialectical equivalent of "If it was good enough for my grandfather...".

To this I often reply: "You strike me as the modern-day equivalent of those Roman Catholic Priests who might have said to Galileo: 'Who are you, Galileo Galilei, to question Aristotle or Ptolemy...?'"

Another recent manifestation of dialectical inconsistency like this is the demand that my work should be 'peer reviewed' before it can be taken seriously, or even read. It never occurs to such odd individuals that Marx's work wasn't 'peer reviewed', nor was that of Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxembourg, or Trotsky.

And can you imagine anyone even so much as suggesting that Stalin or Mao should have their work 'peer reviewed'? To say nothing of Enver Hoxha's or Kim Il-Sung's?

This helps account for the almost god-like status of 'Party Leaders' in the fSU, China, North Korea, Vietnam, the Eastern European 'Peoples' Democracies', Cuba, some OTGs, and other revolutionary groups (e.g., the WRP and the DWP). The correlation between the existence of a personality cult and the extent to which DM is accepted as unquestioned dogma by a particular revolutionary tendency is quite striking; the two seem to be directly proportional to one another.

[Concerning the sycophantic adulation of no marks like Bob Avakian and Marlene Dixon, see Note 22.]

Naturally, this aspect of the cult of the individual is closely linked to political expediency (as it was/is in, say, the fSU, Eastern Europe, Cuba, China, and North Korea, etc.); if a regime is going to subject its citizens to vicious forms of repression and relentless super-exploitation, that will, of course, massively increase the alienation experienced by that population. If such a society, or party, is also at least nominally atheistic, more than one surrogate for frustrated religious adulation and veneration is going to be required. Similarly, if a nonentity, or a sociopath, leads a party, almost supernatural powers will have to be attributed to that individual otherwise the jig will be up; and that is especially so if the rank-and-file have to give, or, indeed, sacrifice, body and soul (and all, or much, of their money) to the party (as is the case with many Trotskyist and Maoist sects), and are thus held fast by an authoritarian power structure. [On this, see Lalich (2004), Tourish (1998), and Tourish and Wohlforth (2000).]

Hence, a cult of the Saints is required by most DM-dominated parties or countries.

Moreover, criticism of this phenomenon in this Essay is independent of whether or not the individuals lionised in this way were in favour their sanctification, encouraged it, or, indeed, whether or not they made a few weak attempts to reject or disown it. What is important is the fact that those constituting the power structures surrounding these individuals found it expedient to beatify them for the sort of political reasons adverted to above. Having said that, the mystical nature of DM certainly enabled that 'theory'/'method' to function as a highly effective ideological legitimator of the exalted and remote status of these 'heroic' 'Leaders' -- in movements supposedly 'of the people' --, since, as is the case with assorted Popes, Bishops, Grand Imams and Dalai Lamas, these 'Great Helmsmen' possessed, among other things, a hot-line to 'dialectical truth' not shared by the rest of the mere mortals they sought to control.

So, there have been, and still are, hard-headed political reasons underlying these Personality Cults (the details surrounding which I will not enter into in this Essay -- but on that, see here); the point is that dialectics certainly helped rationalise anti-Marxist posturing like this, just as it helped cloud the critical faculties of those held in its thrall --, and to such an extent that these sad souls either fail to notice it, deny it exists, or refuse even to be informed of them. [Up until recently, I had a link to a Marxist discussion board frequented by individuals who were classic examples of this anti-Marxist affliction, but it has now folded. Even so, this unhealthy phenomenon is not all that difficult to confirm. Here is a another recent example, along with my response. (This link is also now broken!) Here is an even more extreme example of the deleterious effects this 'theory' has on the mind of a contemporary Maoist. (RevLeft, the site to which I have linked here, is now almost totally defunct; so that link might not work, too!) This cultish phenomenon also tends to surface regularly over at the Soviet Empire Forum.]

Some Stalinophiles quote this comment (which appears in a letter written to one Shatunovsky in August 1930):

"You speak of your 'devotion' to me. Perhaps it was just a chance phrase. Perhaps.... But if the phrase was not accidental I would advise you to discard the 'principle' of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals." [Stalin, quoted from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"However, surely the humility and modesty of what Stalin is saying only contributes to the image of Stalin as the perfect Bolshevik? It would be unlikely for him to write 'This is a cult I have constructed around myself, I have fabricated history so that I look like Lenin's successor. That is the true Bolshevik way.' Also, if his works were intended for public consumption, it would make sense to take his rhetoric with a pinch of salt. There is no way to confirm that...this quote represents Stalin's genuine views, and that it was not part of the wider construction of his cult of personality." [Julia Kenny, quoted from here; accessed 23/01/2017. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typo corrected.]

Add to that the mountain of contrary evidence that shows that Stalin and his image were lionised, if not worshipped, especially after WW2, not to mention naming a city after Stalin (now called Volgograd), as well as the notorious doctoring of certain photographs -- some of which material has been aired in this Essay. [If I can actually summon up the will, I plan to add several more videos and pictures to Appendix Two.]

"The fact that a) Stalin's image was imposed upon visual culture and implanted into education as part of an intensive propaganda campaign and b) Stalin tried to rewrite history and portray himself as having been consistently close to Lenin, tampering with photographs to legitimise himself as Lenin's successor would suggest that there was a cult around Stalin, and one that he intended to create. Tampering with history seems like a deliberate and incriminating action of someone who is keen to construct a public image." [Ibid.]

Some now try to tell us that Stalin set his face against this cult; if so, he was either (i) Totally incompetent in his endeavour to eliminate or oppose, it (compare this, for example, with his regime's other attempts to remove, prosecute, imprison and execute all those 'Trotskyite Wreckers' in the 1030s); or (ii) Duplicitous in the extreme. Which horn of that dilemma Stalinophiles are prepared to grasp is, of course, their problem.

One such Stalinophile has mounted a forceful defence of his hero, quoting other passages where Stalin airs similar claims to 'modesty', but he signally failed to say which horn of the above dilemma was the more acceptable to him. Nevertheless, as noted above:

[C]riticism of this phenomenon in this Essay is independent of whether or not the individuals lionised in this way were in favour their sanctification, encouraged it, or, indeed, whether or not they made a few weak attempts to reject or disown it. What is important is the fact that those constituting the power structures surrounding these individuals found it expedient to beatify them for the sort of political reasons adverted to above.

"Still, an important question remains. If the cult of personality did not arise from the conscious decisions of Stalin and the Party, where did it come from? There is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that cults of personality served a material purpose. Scholars since Max Weber have observed that cults of personality can unify a group in times of crisis and inspire them to action. The cult of personality around Stalin rallied the masses around a common cause. It inspired them to not only win the war against the fascists, but also to rebuild their decimated economy after they had done so. These specific material conditions necessitated the development of a personality cult." [Quoted from here; accessed 23/01/2017. Italic emphasis in the original; link added. (Unfortunately, this link is now dead, too!)]

Of course, even though this individual conceded that such cults did exist in the fSU, and that there were clear political reasons for it, one wouldn't expect Stalinophiles to accept the allegation that the oppression and super-exploitation of the working population of that country meant that such cults became economically, politically and socially necessary; but we already know they are impervious to the lessons of history.

However, the above Stalinophile's argument is suspect on other grounds. If, as he admits, there were understandable reasons why it was important for such a cult to arise when the fSU was under attack, then surely Stalin would have been fully aware of it. If so, why the attempt to absolve him of involvement in this cult? Either (a) Stalin didn't actually want to defend the fSU, or (b) He was being hypocritical when he only appeared to reject the cult that formed around him.

Finally, Stalin can't have been unaware of the cult around Lenin -- involving the erection of huge statues all over the fSU (after Lenin died), naming a city after him (which has now reverted to its old Tsarist name, St Petersburg), the millions spent on Lenin's mausoleum, and the religious awe with which his writings were viewed (indeed, Stalin was particularly adept at quoting Lenin as the final authority on anything). How could he have been blithely unaware? In fact, Stalin helped manufacture it! [This links to a PDF.] So statements like the following are disingenuous in the extreme:

"[S]uch undertakings lead to the strengthening of a 'cult of personality,' which is harmful and incompatible with the spirit of our party." [Stalin, quoted from here. Accessed 23/01/2017.]

The post-Lenin Bolshevik Party was (somewhat fittingly, one feels) the exact opposite of this. Is this yet another 'Unity of Opposites'?

Anyone familiar with 'Marxist' iconography and hagiography -- particularly concerning the images of the Dialectical Saints that adorn the banners that used to be and still are carried on parades and jamborees by assorted Stalinists, Maoists and Kim-Jong-Il-ists (the latter of whom in fact regard the birth of members of the Kim Dynasty as miraculous, and who also think their leaders are immortal) -- will know of what I speak.

Figures Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen And Sixteen: So Let's Hear No More About It!

Just as they will know all about the decidedly peculiar nature of 'Socialist Realism', with its craggy-jawed, muscle-bound proletarians, striking heroic poses, or sporting permanently ironed-on, white toothed grins -- especially when they are reading the world-shattering, and highly lucrative 'thoughts' of Chairman Mao.

Moreover, the 'success' of the 'unremitting struggle' against the cult of the individual in China can be seen from the size of the portrait of Mao that still dominates Tiananmen Square:

[There might be excellent reasons why the Chinese authorities removed Mao's statue -- they are explored here.]

Compare, for example, the above images with these -- as well as those to be published in Appendix Two.

Then there was the mass hysteria around 'Mao's Mangoes' -- which were, at one stage, regarded with almost supernatural awe:

Figure Twenty-Three: Wax Replica Mangoes, On Silk Cushions, Held In Glass Cases,

During The Re-Enactment Of Beijing's National Day Parade In Harbin, October 1968 --

"For 2,000 years, the peach was the iconic fruit of China, an auspicious symbol of good health and a long life. But from August of 1968 until roughly the fall of the following year, the mango was China's most revered produce item, whose meaning was unwittingly bestowed upon it by none other than Mao Zedong. Now an exhibition about the mango's short-lived sanctification has opened at Museum Reitberg in Zurich, Switzerland. Continuing through June 16, 2013, the show is organized around more than 60 Mao-era mango items -- from Mao mango medallions to textiles bearing mango imagery -- donated to the museum by scholar and author Alfreda Murck, who also edited the exhibition's catalogue and will be speaking at the Capital Literary Festival in Beijing on March 2, 2013.

"The circumstances leading to the mango's prominence as a symbol of the working class have their roots in 1958, when Mao Zedong instituted a series of agricultural and industrial reforms known as the Great Leap Forward. Within three years, an estimated 30 million Chinese citizens were dead, most lost to starvation caused by the program's ill-conceived and occasionally oppositional policies. By the early 1960s, with Mao's credibility and popularity at an all-time low, a new initiative was needed to revive China's economy, as well as the political fortunes of its beleaguered leader. That movement became the Cultural Revolution, which began in 1966.

"One by-product of the Cultural Revolution was the spontaneous formation of zealously pro-Mao student groups, whose young, idealistic members had not lost faith in their charismatic Chairman. If such devotion sounds naïve to 21st-century ears, then maybe it won't come as a surprise that the first of these organizations was formed at a middle school in Beijing. Calling themselves the 'red guards who defend Mao Zedong Thought,' the students received Mao's personal blessing, which spawned countless other Red Guard units at middle schools, high schools, and universities across the country. Though unified by their loyalty to Mao, these Red Guards units were often fierce and even violent rivals. The animosity between Red Guards peaked in the spring of 1968 at Qinghua (also spelled 'Tsinghua') University, where two oppositional cadres, the Jinggangshan Corps and the Fours, engaged in what became known as the Hundred Day War, hurling stones, spears, and sulphuric acid at each other in a bitter struggle to prove their obsequiousness to Mao and his teachings.

"The skirmishes sent more than half the university's students fleeing, and by late July, even Mao had had enough. On July 27, 1968, Mao sent 30,000 Beijing factory workers, dubbed the 'Capital Workers Mao Zedong Thought Propaganda Teams,' to interpose themselves between the Jinggangshan and the Fours in an orchestrated attempt to keep the peace. About half a dozen workers were killed and more than 700 others were injured, which prompted Mao to disband his beloved Red Guards the very next day. Which brings us back to the mangoes. One week after Mao dissolved the Red Guards, on August 4, Pakistan's foreign minister, Mian Arshad Hussain, and his wife met with the Chairman. It was not an especially momentous occasion on the order of, say, President Richard Nixon's trip to China in 1972. Rather, it was your basic, run-of-the-mill courtesy call from a foreign dignitary paying homage to a bigger, mightier neighbour. And because China is a gift-giving society, Mr. Hussain brought a case of mangoes with him, in the same way that you or I might stop off at the liquor store on the way to a party to pick up a bottle of wine so we don't arrive empty handed.

"The next day, Mao delivered a message to the workers, who were still stationed at Qinghua University, designating them as the 'permanent managers' of the nation's education system. Accompanying the message was the untouched case of Pakistani mangoes. In the days to come, much would be made of Mao's 'refusal to eat the fruit,' which was interpreted as 'a sacrifice' on the Chairman's part 'for the benefit of the workers.' In fact, says Murck, the truth may have been a good deal simpler. 'Apparently,' Murck says, via Skype from her home in Beijing, 'Mao didn't like fruit. Mangoes are messy, so he would have needed someone to peel and slice them. It was an easy re-gift.'

"Of course, that's not how the workers saw it. For them, the mangoes were imbued with all sorts of power. They were the vehicle conveying a rare personal message from Mao, in which he thanked them for their heroism in the battle with the Red Guards. Even more auspiciously, the mangoes' appearance coincided with the transfer of the Cultural Revolution's stewardship from members of the nation's intelligentsia (as personified by the student Red Guards) to its workers. Indeed, the mantra of the revolution soon became, 'The Working Class Must Exercise Leadership in Everything.' According to a 2007 article Murck wrote for the Archives of Asian Art, workers stayed up long into the night after the mangoes arrived, discussing their meaning and Mao's intent. Most of the workers had never seen a mango before, or even knew what to call it, since the fruit was not native to this part of China. It must have seemed unimaginably exotic, which may help explain why in a photo of the workers at Qinghua standing amid their newly arrived mangoes [see Figure Twenty-Five, above -- RL], a calligraphic message in front of the fruit reads, 'Respectfully Wishing Life Without End to Chairman Mao.' Thus, in just 24 hours, the mango had absorbed the meaning of the iconic peach, China's most venerable symbol of immortality and long life.

"After the People's Liberation Army moved in to assume peacekeeping duties at Qinghua (they were always the true power behind the throne), the workers returned to their respective factories. Each of the eight factories that supplied workers to the Propaganda Teams received a Pakistani mango from the original case. If the workers were treated like heroes upon their return, the perishable mangoes were given the sort of deference usually reserved for religious relics and artefacts. One factory preserved its mango in formaldehyde, another tried to stem the fruit's decay by sealing it in wax before placing it on an altar so that factory workers could solemnly file by to pay their respects to this token from on high. When that mango began to rot through its porous wax shell, it was peeled and boiled in an enormous pot of water -- each factory worker was permitted a teaspoon of the precious fruit's sacred broth. [This is reminiscent of the 'Follow the Gourd' scene from the Monty Python film, The Life of Brian -- on that see below -- RL.]

"For his part, Mao was reportedly surprised and even amused by the cult that grew around the mangoes he had sent to Qinghua. But the fictions that swirled around the fruit, which was described as 'a precious gift received from foreign friends' rather than just a token from an ingratiating neighbour, served Mao's agenda well. The mango's exalted status was cemented when wax and plastic replicas, as well as rectangular vitrines, were ordered for all the workers in the factories whose members had gone to Qinghua. Wang Xiaoping, who worked at Beijing No.1 Machine Tool Plant and received one of these mangoes and vitrines, shared her recollections in the Reitberg exhibition catalogue.... Although the sense of wonder over the fruit was obviously authentic, Xiaoping recalls a coercive aspect to the adoration workers were obliged to show to both the mango and Mao. Everyone held their wax model of the sacred fruit solemnly and reverently,' Xiaoping writes. 'Someone was even admonished by senior workers for not holding the fruit securely, which was a sign of disrespect to the Great Leader.'

"Others who failed to show proper respect for wax facsimiles of Mao's mangoes did not get off so easy. In her 2007 essay, Murck tells the story of one Fulin villager's fatal encounter with a mango that was being toured around the country. 'The burlesque silliness of the travelling mangoes would be amusing except for the fanatics who took pleasure in enforcing ideological conformity,' Murck writes. She goes on to tell the tale of a little boy who was 'crestfallen' with disappointment upon seeing the mango, but had the good sense to keep his opinion to himself. When the village's dentist, Dr. Han, saw the mango, he was equally unimpressed, but made the mistake of saying so. 'Apparently, upon seeing the mango, Dr. Han remarked that it was nothing special and looked just like a sweet potato,' Murck writes. 'His frankness was called blasphemy; he was arrested as a counterrevolutionary. He was soon tried and, to the dismay of the village, found guilty, paraded through the streets on the back of a truck as an example to the masses, taken to the edge of town, and executed with one shot to the head.' An isolated incident? 'I think it was common, regrettably,' says Murck today. 'That's why that little boy who had thought the same thing was so terrified.'

"By October 1, 1968, on the occasion of China's National Day Parade in Tiananmen Square, the cult of the mango had supplanted even great achievements in the nation's infrastructure. 'One of the interesting things that emerged when I was working on this catalogue,' says Murck, 'is that the 1968 parade should have celebrated the opening of the Yangtze River Bridge at Nanjing. But the mango had taken over. It was seen as a more exciting symbol to celebrate the workers, so it was forefronted in the parade.'

Figure Twenty-Seven: A Mango Float At The October 1, 1968, National Day Parade In Tiananmen Square.

"Looking at photographs of the parade through contemporary Western eyes, it's difficult to imagine anyone taking all this seriously, but there it is, an enormous float shaped like a basket piled high with gigantic mangoes. Almost overnight, the image of this float, sometimes paired with the Nanjing Bridge, would decorate textiles and propaganda posters. Wax and plastic mangoes were also in demand. For those not fortunate enough to work in one of the factories that had supplied workers to Mao's Thought Propaganda Teams, department stores sold bell-shaped glass vitrines meant to hold a plastic mango. Mangoes accompanied by patriotic slogans and portraits of Mao also decorated enamel mugs and trays, packs of cigarettes, pencil cases, vanity mirrors, and medallions...." [Quoted from here; accessed 08/06/2019. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling adjusted to agree with UK English. Italic emphasis in the original; three links added. Several paragraphs merged; some pictures omitted.]

Just be dismayed, and a little annoyed, you missed these monumental, 'sacred events':

"Zhang Kui, a worker who occupied Qinghua, says that the arrival of one of Mao's mangoes at his workplace prompted intense debate. 'The military representative came into our factory with the mango raised in both hands. We discussed what to do with it: whether to split it among us and eat it, or preserve it. We finally decided to preserve it' he says. 'We found a hospital that put it in formaldehyde. We made it a specimen. That was the first decision. The second decision was to make wax mangoes -- wax mangoes with a glass cover. After we made the wax replicas, we gave one to each of the Revolutionary Workers.'

"Workers were expected to hold the sacred fruit solemnly and reverently, and were admonished if they failed to do so. Wang Xiaoping, an employee at the Beijing No 1 Machine Tool Plant, received a wax replica. The fruit itself was destined for higher things. 'The real mango was driven by a worker representative through a procession of beating drums and people lining the streets, from the factory to the airport,' says Wang. The workers had chartered a plane to fly a single mango to a factory in Shanghai. When one of the mangoes began to rot, workers peeled it and boiled the flesh in a vat of water, which then became 'holy' -- each worker sipped a spoonful. (Mao is said to have chuckled on hearing this particular detail.)

"'From the very beginning, the mango gift took on a relic-like quality -- to be revered and even worshipped,' says Cambridge University lecturer Adam Yuet Chau. 'Not only was the mango a gift from the Chairman, it was the Chairman.' This association is reflected in a poem from the period:

"The mangoes toured the length and breadth of the country and were hosted in a series of sacred processions. Red Guards had wrecked temples and shrines, but destroying artefacts is easier than erasing religious behaviour, and soon the mangoes became the object of intense devotion. Some of the rituals imitated centuries of Buddhist and Daoist traditions, and the mangoes were even placed on an alter to which factory workers would bow." [Quoted from here. Accessed 11/02/2016. Several paragraphs merged. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added.]

"All the peoples of our Motherland and the working people all over the world are today doing honour to their great leader, wise teacher and best friend, Comrade Stalin, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Comrade Stalin has been fighting for the happiness of the working people, for over fifty years. His life has been one of self-sacrificing effort, and is an inspiring example for all Soviet people, and for the working people of the whole world. Comrade Stalin's name is most precious and dear to the heart of all toiling mankind; Stalin -- is the symbol of all that is advanced and progressive.

"Stalin is the genius, the continuer of Lenin's immortal cause, the inspirer and organizer of the building of Communism in our country. Stalin is the creator of the Soviet Armed Forces; he is the greatest military leader of modern times. It was under his guidance that our Armed Forces were created, grew and gained strength. It was under his leadership that they routed the enemy in the period of the Civil War (sic -- RL!), upheld the freedom and independence of our Motherland in the Great Patriotic War, and saved the people's of the world from the menace of enslavement to German fascism. Stalin is the creator of the advanced, Soviet military science." [Nikolai Bulganin, quoted from here. Bold emphases added. The above continues in the same vein for many more, nausea-inducing paragraphs.]

"Comrade Stalin, as nobody else, profoundly understood Lenin's inspired ideas on the Marxist Party of a new type, upheld the purity of the Marx-Engels-Lenin teaching, developed the Marxist-Leninist theory, steeled the Party in the struggle against numerous enemies, and forged and trains cadres capable of furthering the cause of our Party. The whole world saw Stalin's greatness at the sharp turning-points of history: in October, 1917, during the Civil War [editing Trotsky out again -- RL], in the years of the intervention, when together with Lenin, he led the Socialist Revolution (sic!) and the struggle to defeat the enemies of the Soviet Power, and in the Great Patriotic War, when Comrade Stalin led the routing of the strongest enemies of our Motherland....

"Comrade Stalin is rightly regarded as the great and loyal friend of the peace-loving peoples of the countries of people's democracy, liberated from the yoke of Fascism, of the peoples of China and North Korea, who have for ever thrown off the yoke of the imperialists. That is why the peoples of the Soviet Union and all progressive mankind see in the person of Comrade Stalin their recognised leader and teacher. That is why today they express with particular warmth their affection and devotion to Comrade Stalin, and put on record his great services in the struggle for a happy life for the people, for peace among the nations. [Georgy Malenkov, quoted from here. Bold emphases added. This, too, continues for many more vomit-inducing paragraphs.]

"Revolutionary students from east, northeast, north, central-south, southwest and northwest China...declared:

'We feel boundlessly happy now that we stand by the side of our respected and beloved leader Chairman Mao. We are here to learn from the Red Guards of the capital. We are here to learn successful experience. We are determined to carry back with us the dauntless revolutionary spirit of Peking's Red Guards, the spirit of daring to think, to speak out, to do, to break through and to make revolution so that all of China will be set ablaze by the revolutionary flame of Mao Tse-tung's thought.'

'With the great helmsman Chairman Mao steering for us and with the brilliant Mao Tse-tung's thought lighting our way of advance, we are dauntless. We are fully confident and resolved to create a completely new world with our own hands. Through this great proletarian cultural revolution, we shall eradicate the roots of revisionism in our country so that our beloved motherland will for ever keep its bright red colour!'

'The banner and arm band of the Red Guard fighters are a bright red, and so are our hearts. Completely loyal, we'll follow the Party and Chairman Mao for ever to make revolution and carry it through to the end!'

'We Red Guards follow Chairman Mao's teachings most faithfully. We'll work hard to learn from the People's Liberation Army. We'll seriously study the 16 Points, know them well and apply them. We'll persist in carrying on the struggle by reasoning and not by coercion or force. And we pledge to carry the great proletarian cultural revolution through to the end.'" [Peking Review, 9, 37, 09/09/1966, pp.5-9. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"The New Year has arrived at a time when several hundred million people of our country are triumphantly marching forward along the road of the great proletarian cultural revolution charted by Chairman Mao. We wish long, long life to Chairman Mao, our great teacher, great leader, great supreme commander, and great helmsman! We salute the workers, members of the people's communes, revolutionary students and teachers, and revolutionary intellectuals and revolutionary cadres of the whole country!

"In the course of the revolution, this great spiritual force of Mao Tse-tung's thought is turning further into a new tremendous material force. In the year just past, our whole army, holding high the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung's thought, has faithfully implemented the five-point principle, put forward by Comrade Lin Piao, for giving prominence to politics. It took an active part in the great proletarian cultural revolution and won great successes on both the ideological and material fronts. The mass movement of studying and applying Chairman Mao's works in a creative way surged ahead, each wave higher than the preceding one....

"Whatever our army has achieved is due to Chairman Mao's brilliant leadership and the implementation of the directives of Comrade Lin Piao and the Military [Affairs] Commission of the Party's Central Committee. It represents a shining victory for giving prominence to proletarian politics, a shining victory for the great proletarian cultural revolution, a shining victory for the great thought of Mao Tse-tung!

"...We must really turn our army into a great school of Mao Tse-tung's thought, meet the new situation of the great proletarian cultural revolution, and the new situation in which the whole Party and the whole nation are studying Chairman Mao's works in a big way. Therefore, in the months ahead we must hold higher than ever before the great red banner of Mao Tse-tung's thought and bring the mass movement of creatively studying and applying Chairman Mao's works to a new and higher stage, in accordance with Comrade Lin Piao's directive. [Peking Review, 10, 3, 13/01/1967, pp.8-13. Bold emphases and link added.]

"Chairman Mao is the very red sun that shines most brightly in our hearts. He is the great, teacher, great leader, great supreme commander and great helmsman selected by the proletariat and the revolutionary people of China and the world in the course of their protracted revolutionary struggles. He is the authority of the world proletarian struggle in the present era.... He has the most profound Marxist-Leninist wisdom and the richest experience in struggle.... Chairman Mao is the greatest Marxist-Leninist, the most outstanding proletarian leader and the greatest genius of our era....

"Comrade Lin Piao says that a genius like Chairman Mao appears in the world only once in hundreds of years, or in China only once in thousands of years. Chairman Mao is the world's greatest genius.... Chairman Mao will always be our supreme leader, our supreme commander and the red sun shining most brightly in our hearts. Without him, there would not be the great Party we now have, nor our great army and great country; the Chinese people would have nothing, and the people of the world would find it impossible to achieve their liberation.... We will always follow him closely and thoroughly establish the absolute authority of our great supreme commander Chairman Mao. We pledge our lives to defend Chairman Mao's position as the supreme leader. Anyone who opposes Chairman Mao stands condemned by all of us, the whole Party; he will be denounced by all of us, the entire nation...." [Yang Cheng-wu: 'Thoroughly Establish the Absolute Authority of the Great Supreme Commander Chairman Mao', Peking Review, 46, 1967; pp.17-18, 19, 20, quoted from here. Bold emphases added. Minor typo corrected. (I have informed the editors over at the Marxist Internet Archive.)]

"Chairman Mao is the greatest Marxist-Leninist of our era. Every sentence uttered by Chairman Mao is truth.... Therefore we must act according to Chairman Mao's instructions whether or not we have already fully grasped its significance.... A proletarian party must have its own true outstanding leader and it is necessary to establish his absolute revolutionary authority throughout the party." [Lin Chieh, without a hint of irony, writing in an article entitled 'Down With Slavishness'! Quoted from here, where there are plenty more examples of sycophancy like this. Bold emphases added. (I have posted some more of this stuff here for anyone into self-flagellation.) The cult goes into hyperdrive here (this links to a PDF).]

Sycophantic adulation like this isn't confined to the cult of Stalin or Mao; here is more of the same heaped on the heads of those towering mediocrities, Bob Avakian and Marlene Dixon:

"But Bob Avakian is more than that. He is someone who has persisted in confronting the hardest, most excruciating questions before humanity. In so doing, he's taken the communist understanding of the world and how to change it to a new place. The answers he's brought forward and the pathways he's forged demand a serious look -- a deep engagement -- from everyone concerned about the future of humanity....

"Avakian has broken new ground on the important role of ethics and morality in a revolutionary society. He's analyzed how the basic relations of today's society drive people to confront each other as 'owners of things' and forces them to strive to profit at each other's expense....

"This restless search for the truth has often led Avakian to 'go against the tide.' He has stood up for truth and refused to back down, even in the face of tremendous and fierce opposition, including, at times, from within the communist movement. It's a question of whether you want revolution badly enough, he has said, to be rigorously scientific about it." [Quoted from here, where there is plenty more of this sort of material. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"Historic Talks by Bob Avakian. Get The Word Out!

"We are proud and thrilled to announce the posting of important new talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP/USA, on bobavakian.net and revcom.us. These talks are truly pathbreaking explorations in communist theory and its application to a breathtaking range of questions, including political questions which are urgently and sharply posed in today's situation. They are also living laboratories in the communist method and approach to the world. There is a scope and a depth to each talk, and the talks as a whole, that is really unprecedented and extraordinary." [Quoted from here; bold emphases added.]

"In Bob Avakian, the Chairman of our Party, we have the kind of rare and precious leader who does not come along very often. A leader who has given his heart, and all his knowledge, skills and abilities to serving the cause of revolution and the emancipation of humanity....

"He has deeply studied the experience of revolution -- the shortcomings as well as the great achievements -- and many different fields of human endeavour, through history and throughout the world -- and he has brought the science and method of revolution to a whole new level, so that we can not only fight but really fight to win. Bob Avakian has developed the scientific theory and strategic orientation for how to actually make the kind of revolution we need, and he is leading our Party as an advanced force of this revolution. He is a great champion and a great resource for people here, and indeed people all over the world. The possibility for revolution, right here, and for the advance of the revolution everywhere, is greatly heightened because of Bob Avakian and the leadership he is providing. And it is up to us to get with this leadership…to find out more about Bob Avakian and the Party he heads…to learn from his scientific method and approach to changing the world…to build this revolutionary movement with our Party at the core…to defend this leadership as the precious thing it is…and, at the same time, to bring our own experience and understanding to help strengthen the process of revolution and enable the leadership we have to keep on learning more and leading even better....

"We must spread the word to every corner of this country…." [Quoted from here; bold emphases added. Spelling modified to agree with UK English.]

"Comrade Marlene and the Party are inseparable; [and] her contribution is the Party itself, is the unity all of us join together to build upon. The Party is now the material expression of that unity, of that theoretical world view. That world view is the world view of the Party, its central leadership and all of its members. And there will be no other world view…. This was the unity that founded the Party, this was the unity that safeguarded the Party through purge and two-line struggle, and this is the unity we will protect and defend at all costs. There will be no other unity." [Quoted from here. This passage in fact appears in Lalich (2004), p.164. Bold emphasis added.]

Thus was also created the cult of the Central Committee, built upon the aforementioned Leadership Cult and the word of the Dialectical Guru. Alongside this came the doctrine that only a few (oracular) individuals (or committees) are deemed to be fountains of 'dialectical truth', or 'Great Teachers', 'Great Helmsmen', and can be quoted as such -- and are quoted as such --, over and over again to confound the waverers and recalcitrant infidels.

An excellent example of this theological frame-of-mind is exhibited in Healy (1990), where it seems sufficient for Healy to quote Lenin, Engels or Trotsky to settle every dispute (even where Healy arguing with or addressing non-Marxists!). Of course, Healy was following a tradition established by Lenin himself, who, at the beginning of MEC thought it acceptable to argue (indirectly) with an unnamed "lecturer" --, although the Foreign Languages Press edition tells us that Lenin wrote this in May-June 1908, and it formed "the thesis for a speech given by I F Dubrovinsky (Innokenty), member of the Bolshevik centre and one of the editors of the newspaper Proletary, at a philosophical symposium sponsored by A Bogdanov, in Geneva" (p.440); presumably this renegade Bolshevik was the eponymous 'lecturer' -- in the following terms):

"1. Does the lecturer acknowledge that the philosophy of Marxism is dialectical materialism?

"If he does not, why has he never analysed Engels' countless statements on this subject?

"If he does, why do the Machists call their 'revision' of dialectical materialism 'the philosophy of Marxism'?

"2. Does the lecturer acknowledge Engels' fundamental division of philosophical systems into idealism and materialism, Engels regarding those intermediate between these two, wavering between them, as the line of Hume in modern philosophy, calling this line 'agnosticism' and declaring Kantianism to be a variety of agnosticism?

"3. Does the lecturer acknowledge that recognition of the external world and its reflection in the human mind form the basis of the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism?

"4. Does the lecturer acknowledge as correct Engels' argument concerning the conversion of 'things-in-themselves' into 'things-for-us'?

"5. Does the lecturer acknowledge as correct Engels' assertion that the 'real unity of the world consists in its materiality'? (Anti-Dühring, 2nd ed., 1886, p.28, section I, part IV on world schematism.)

6. Does the lecturer acknowledge as correct Engels' assertion that 'matter without motion is as inconceivable as motion without matter'? (Anti-Dühring, 1886, 2nd ed., p.45, in part 6 on natural philosophy, cosmogony, physics and chemistry.)

"7. Does the lecturer acknowledge that the ideas of causality, necessity, law, etc., are a reflection in the human mind of laws of nature, of the real world? Or was Engels wrong in saying so? (Anti-Dühring, S.20-21, in part III on apriorism, and S.103-04, in part XI on freedom and necessity)...." [Lenin (1972), pp.1-2. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

It isn't easy to believe that someone as sophisticated as Lenin was capable of thinking that this amateurish challenge would have had any effect other than negative on anyone who wasn't either a sycophant or a simpleton. Of course, Lenin was playing to the gallery here, hoping to expose this lecturer's fall from DM-grace in the eyes of the party faithful; and it could be argued that Healy was doing likewise. Nevertheless, it is still the case that rhetorical flourishes like the above are as common as dirt in DM-circles, especially among ML-ers.

27. This, of course, becomes a 'self-certifying' argument (I am not saying it is valid!):

D5: Hence, anyone who has the temerity to question it must have questionable motives themselves.

The full weight of this class-compromised and servile tradition is then dropped on any unfortunates who do question it from a great height. [See also Note 25a, above.]

In fact, D5 is often the very first accusation be levelled at malcontents, by-passing the other four. The hapless, targeted 'doubter' is automatically regarded as guilty for even thinking to question the ideas of the founding fathers.

[Here is a recent example of the above, along with my reply. (Unfortunately, this link is now dead.) Here is another even more recent example. There are plenty more to be found here.]

But, it never occurs to those pointing their grubby finger at critics like me that the best way to dishonour Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxembourg -- to say nothing of the countless thousands of revolutionaries who have contributed to, and have even died in the fight for, socialism -- is to adhere slavishly to a demonstrably defective theory just because it is 'traditional' to do so.

28. This also helps explain why the DM-classics are easily among the very worst literary products to be found in the entire Marxist cannon. Despite this, these books are treated with a degree of reverence normally reserved for the 'sacred' texts treasured by the genuine god-botherers amongst us. The relevant 'classics' include Dialectics Of Nature, Anti-Dühring, Ludwig Feuerbach And The End Of Classical German Philosophy, Materialism And Empirio-Criticism, Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, several sections of Trotsky's In Defense Of Marxism, Mao's On Contradiction, as well as many secondary works that feed off them and which are in many cases almost indistinguishable from the 'classics' -- such as the work of Plekhanov, Dietzgen and Stalin. [On this, see Note 30.]

29. Naturally, Hegel, who was at least an open and honest mystic, was quite happy to trace several his core ideas back to the ramblings of previous mystics and obscurantists -- see, for example, the three volumes of his Lectures on the History of Philosophy -- i.e., Hegel (1995a, 1995b, 1995c).

[This topic will be tackled in more detail in Essay Fourteen Part Two (see also, here). In the meantime, the reader should check this, this and this out.]

29a. Anyone who doubts this should perhaps read a few more revolutionary papers (particularly those published by OTs) to see how things are routinely talked up. Hence, protests are always "growing"; anger is always "intensifying"; movements always "building"; meetings are always "historic", "packed", "rammed", "significant", "exciting", "thrilling" or even "marvellous".

Indeed, when 300 or so comrades are gathered together in an obscure hotel in some 'god'-forsaken town in the middle of nowhere -- over 150 years after the Communist Manifesto was first published --, it will be hailed in the following, glowing terms:

"In the first week of August 2004 a meeting of almost 300 Marxists from 26 countries, including Venezuela and Cuba, met in Spain to discuss the world situation and the tasks of the international revolutionary Marxist tendency. This was for many reasons an historic turning point that registered a qualitative advance of the forces of Marxism on a world scale." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

"July 30, the 2006 World Congress of the International Marxist Tendency [IMT] opened in Barcelona. This was a truly amazing congress, characterized by terrific energy, enthusiasm, and optimism combined with an extremely high level of political discussion and debate. Above all, there was a firm determination to build the International in the coming period. It was the largest congress ever, with 320 present, cramming the meeting hall almost to capacity.... This world congress is dedicated to the memory of Ted Grant and we pledge ourselves to continue in his work. I will finish with the words inscribed on the tomb of Wren, the great architect: 'If you want a monument, look around you.'" [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added; paragraphs merged.]

If you patrol the flatlands of failure year-in, year-out, then when you stop to "look around you" every molehill will indeed look like a mountain, and 320 comrades seem a big deal.

Revolutionary chest-beating like this is depressingly common on the far-left. The above comments were made by the IMT; I have quoted subsequent breathlessly up-beat remarks from the same outfit over the next fourteen years, here.

30. The mindlessly uncritical and obsequiously reverential attitude adopted by revolutionaries toward the third-, and fourth-rate works listed in Note 28, above -- in inverse proportion to their genuine value -- is one of the more remarkable features of Dialectical Marxism, the worst aspect of which is that those held in its thrall seem quite incapable of recognising this craven attitude for what it is: servile devotion to tradition in a movement that boasts its own implacable opposition to tradition!

[If DM-theorists examined these fourth-rate works with the same critical eye, or even attention to detail, that some of them devote to my work, they would perhaps see this glaring incongruity for themselves.]

None of this sits at all well with Marx's favourite aphorism -- recorded by one of his daughters --, which was: "Everything should be doubted" (reported in, for example, Wheen (1999), p.388). His spirit of scepticism harmonises rather badly with the way his own writings (and, even more so, the dialectical musings of Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky) have been ossified into Holy Writ by subsequent generations of DM-fans. Which, of course, is odd given the many things the DM-classicists had to say about dogmatism. Here, for example, are Engels and Mao:

"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.]

"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 (1961), p.311. Bold emphasis and link added.]

The following comment was added to Mao's On Practice by the editors, but that must have enjoyed Mao's permission:

"'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 (1937b), p.295. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

A score or more similar statements from 'lesser' DM-theorists have been quoted in Essay Two.

30a. It could be objected that this is precisely what Ms Lichtenstein does -- i.e., she quotes Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin when it suits her. If it is OK for Ms Lichtenstein to do this, why is it a problem for dialecticians to do likewise in support of their views?

That is a fair point. However, the difference is that, unlike LCDs, (i) I don't accept as Gospel Truth everything Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky had to say. That is, after all, part of the reason I set this site up. And, (ii) I use the writings of these classicists to expose the inconsistencies in DM, since LCDs -- at least nominally -- accept them as authorities. Plainly, quoting texts they don't accept in this regard would be so much wasted effort.

[I have used the word "nominally" here since it is quite clear that when DM-fans are confronted with texts from the dialectical (or even Marxist) classics that they don't like or which expose the incoherence of DM, they tend to ignore them or hand wave them aside. On that, see here.]

31. The rationale behind this particular idea is difficult to grasp; why should Hegel's 'logic' (upside down, or the 'right way up') apply only to human affairs and not to nature in general? If it doesn't apply to nature, that would suggest that humanity itself isn't part of nature. That is indeed how Gramsci saw things; here is how John Molyneux expressed this idea (in response to Lukács's claim that Marx himself didn't apply the dialectic to the entire universe):

"Human beings emerge out of nature and remain part of it and therefore Gramsci's objection to Lukács that 'If his assertion proposes a dualism between nature and man he is wrong' (A Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks,...p.448) is valid. Marxism is not only a critique of capitalism but, as Gramsci says, 'contains in itself all the fundamental elements needed to construct a total and integral conception of the world, a total philosophy and theory of natural science' (A Gramsci, as above, p.462)." [Molyneux (2012), p.56. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Paragraphs merged.]

Apart from such ex cathedra pronouncements, supported with the usual set of quotations from the classics and an appeal to tradition, we are never presented with even so much as a cursory attempt to construct some sort of proof that dialectics must apply to nature (or, indeed, to anything at all!). To be sure, we are confronted with the same old hackneyed examples that supposedly illustrate the truth of this theory (and Molyneux's book is merely the latest attempt to venture down that well-worn trail); but, at best, this impressively weak 'evidential' display is more accurately to be described (by me) as Mickey Mouse Science.

Be this as it may, and references to Marx's humanistic method -- à la Lukács -- to one side (which itself should surely be based on something more substantial than Marx's towering authority alone), to what can the average HCD appeal to justify the break in continuity here except Engels's dubious 'First Law'?

That is, HCDs will have to appeal to the idea that during human evolution, as the complexity built into our species increased (both biologically and socially), at some stage a new sort of being, or group, came into existence. At that point, there was a "leap" of sorts, and, hey presto!, modern humans suddenly emerged -- or, so it would seem. [There is more on this in Essay Thirteen Part Three.]

If that weren't so, and humanity were continuous with nature (i.e., if there were no such "leap"), and assuming that DM applies to our species, it must also apply to nature, too.

Now, in order to block that inference the only principle to which HCDs can appeal is, clearly, this rather shaky 'Law', with its "leaps".

Unfortunately, the consequences of adopting it are no less damaging to the line HCDs appear to accept, as we are about to see.

Let us first of all assume for the sake of argument that this shaky 'Law' is 100% valid (at least when it is applied to human beings and their social development). On that basis, if it applies to the linking stage between humanity and whatever came before the aforementioned "leap", then it must apply (one supposes) to both sides of that "leap" (or we might have to stop calling it a "Law", or even a "leap"). In that case, out, too, would go "gradualness" with its associated "break":

"With this assurance Herr Dühring saves himself the trouble of saying anything further about the origin of life, although it might reasonably have been expected that a thinker who had traced the evolution of the world back to its self-equal state, and is so much at home on other celestial bodies, would have known exactly what's what also on this point. For the rest, however, the assurance he gives us is only half right unless it is completed by the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations which has already been mentioned. In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive change. This is true of the transition from the mechanics of celestial bodies to that of smaller masses on a particular celestial body; it is equally true of the transition from the mechanics of masses to the mechanics of molecules -- including the forms of motion investigated in physics proper: heat, light, electricity, magnetism. In the same way, the transition from the physics of molecules to the physics of atoms -- chemistry -- in turn involves a decided leap; and this is even more clearly the case in the transition from ordinary chemical action to the chemism of albumen which we call life. Then within the sphere of life the leaps become ever more infrequent and imperceptible. -- Once again, therefore, it is Hegel who has to correct Herr Dühring." [Engels (1976), pp.82-83. Bold emphasis added.]

"The 'nodal line of measure relations'... -- transitions of quantity into quality.... Gradualness and leaps. And again...that gradualness explains nothing without leaps." [Lenin (1961), p.123. Bold emphasis alone added. Lenin added in the margin here: "Leaps! Leaps! Leaps!"]

What distinguishes the dialectical transition from the undialectical transition? The leap. The contradiction. The interruption of gradualness. The unity (identity) of Being and not-Being." [Ibid., p.282. Bold emphasis added.]

"The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say their 'unity,' -- although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society). 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. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self'-movement. The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new." [Ibid., pp.357-58. Bold emphasis alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Some paragraphs merged.]

If the human race arose because of a long and complex series of gradual changes, which at some point "leaped" to produce homo sapiens, then this 'Law' must apply to whatever it was that preceded modern humans. If we then extrapolate backwards, this argument must apply to the origin of whatever preceded homo sapiens, and so on until we reach the origin of life, and then beyond.

If so, and this 'Law' is assumed to be 100% valid (in the above sense), then the argument developed earlier shows that it must apply to nature and to the origin of human beings and their social development. Of course, if this 'Law' doesn't apply here -- i.e., if there was no such gradual change, followed by a "leap" that produced homo sapiens --, then that would appear to threaten Darwinism, too.

In order to see this more clearly, let us call whatever it was that existed on the 'far' side of the last "leap" of this sort, "PH₁" (short for "pre-human₁"), and whatever emerged on the 'near' side, "H₁" (for "human₁", of course). So, it would seem that the first 'Law' must have applied to the transition from PH₁ to H₁, since this transition was a "leap" of some sort.

[Assuming this series of 'pre-humans' proceeded as follows: PH_n, PH_n-1, PH_n-2, PH_n-3,..., PH_n-k, PH_n-(k+1),..., PH₃, PH₂, PH₁, H₁ (where PH_n-k < PH_n-(k+1) -- i.e., PH_n-k is earlier than PH_n-(k+1), and n, k are integers). Of course, this oversimplifies human evolution somewhat and assumes there was a single chain leading to the emergence of homo sapiens, with no setbacks or dead ends, but further complexity won't affect the argument, since whatever the stages turn out to be there would have to be a "leap" between them, as we are about to see.]

Naturally, if this 'Law' didn't apply to this transformation, then these stages must have been qualitatively the same, implying there was no "leap", no evolution!

[Let us also assume that in both the human and the pre-human stages we include any relevant social, quasi-social, and/or pre-social relations. But, these must have undergone a "leap", too. If so, that means this 'Law' will also apply there.]

The question now becomes: Precisely what governed the transition from whatever preceded PH₁ to PH₁ itself -- i.e., the "leap" from PH₂ to PH₁? If there was no "leap" here, then once more these two stages must have been qualitatively the same, such that there was no difference between them, implying no evolution.

On the other hand, if these stages were 'qualitatively' different, then this 'Law' must apply to the transition from PH₂ to PH₁.

By n applications of the same argument, this 'Law' must apply to the transition from, say, PH_n_-₂ to PH_n-1 -- otherwise, once more, there would have been no evolutionary development here, too. If we now make n sufficiently large, that will take us back, at least, to the 'Big Bang'!

So, if Engels's shaky 'Law' applies anywhere, it applies everywhere (if we extrapolate the above back far enough in the above manner, and generalise it to every process in nature).

On the other hand, if this 'Law' applies nowhere in this chain of events (not even to the last stage, the development of PH₁ into H₁), then HCDs will have no 'law-governed' explanation for the uniqueness of humanity and its evolution --, or, indeed, for the emergence of the qualitatively different social and biological stage, H₁ -- undermining Darwinism into the bargain.

In that case, if this 'Law' doesn't apply to the development of H₁, then the dismissive attitude HCDs usually display toward to their lowly LCD brethren is disingenuous, even if only here. At least LCDs have a shaky 'Law' which they can apply consistently. HCDs simply have a surfeit of jargon, but no 'laws' (in this sense).

[Unless, of course, we suppose this 'Law' is itself subject to the very same 'Law', and also emerged as a result of a "leap" of some sort. That would mean that, at one moment this 'Law' didn't exist, then the next it did. But, if that is the case, this 'Law' itself would have to exist before it existed, otherwise it couldn't have facilitated its own 'qualitative' emergence!]

The reader must not assume I have suddenly 'seen the light', back-sassed, and now accept the validity of this aspect of Engelsian Hermetic Hokum (i.e., his First 'Law'). The above dilemma is based on the assumption that Engels's shaky 'Law' makes some sort of sense. If we assume it does, that assumption has then been used to put pressure on the ability of HCDs to explain where human uniqueness came from. And that in turn was done in order to demonstrate that the adoption of a single Hegelian idea spells doom for any theory -- and, by implication, any theorist foolish enough to go down that road. This Hermetic virus is no respecter of theories, or theorists.

Of course, if this shaky 'Law' makes no sense at all (as Essay Seven demonstrates -- that is, Essay Seven revealed that this 'Law' is far too vague for anyone even to be able to decide whether or not is true or false), then it can't be used to account for human development, anyway. In that case, the entire Hegelian baby can be thrown out with the Hermetic bath water -- more specifically since Hegel's entire system is based on a series of egregious logical blunders.

If 'truth is the whole', then the Hegelian Whole goes down the tubes as a job lot -- including the odd idea that 'truth is the Whole'.

Incidentally, the above argument can be extended to cover other Hegelian principles which HCDs also apply exclusively to human society.

[I will substantiate that allegation at a later date, in Essay Twelve Part Five.]

In which case, the 'inner-development' of these 'concepts' only succeeds in shifting them into auto-destruct mode.

"Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound." [Quoted from here.]

Chomsky's comments on this strain of philosophical confusion are also worth noting:

"I've returned from travel-speaking, where I spend most of my life, and found a collection of messages extending the discussion about 'theory' and 'philosophy,' a debate that I find rather curious. A few reactions -- though I concede, from the start, that I may simply not understand what is going on.

"As far as I do think I understand it, the debate was initiated by the charge that I, Mike, and maybe others don't have 'theories' and therefore fail to give any explanation of why things are proceeding as they do. We must turn to 'theory' and 'philosophy' and 'theoretical constructs' and the like to remedy this deficiency in our efforts to understand and address what is happening in the world. I won't speak for Mike. My response so far has pretty much been to reiterate something I wrote 35 years ago, long before 'postmodernism' had erupted in the literary intellectual culture: 'if there is a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to the conduct of foreign affairs or the resolution of domestic or international conflict, its existence has been kept a well-guarded secret,' despite much 'pseudo-scientific posturing.'

"To my knowledge, the statement was accurate 35 years ago, and remains so; furthermore, it extends to the study of human affairs generally, and applies in spades to what has been produced since that time. What has changed in the interim, to my knowledge, is a huge explosion of self- and mutual-admiration among those who propound what they call 'theory' and 'philosophy,' but little that I can detect beyond pseudo-scientific posturing. That little is, as I wrote, sometimes quite interesting, but lacks consequences for the real world problems that occupy my time and energies....

"The proponents of 'theory' and 'philosophy' have a very easy task if they want to make their case. Simply make known to me what was and remains a 'secret' to me: I'll be happy to look. I've asked many times before, and still await an answer, which should be easy to provide: simply give some examples of 'a body of theory, well tested and verified, that applies to' the kinds of problems and issues that Mike, I, and many others (in fact, most of the world's population, I think, outside of narrow and remarkably self-contained intellectual circles) are or should be concerned with: the problems and issues we speak and write about, for example, and others like them. To put it differently, show that the principles of the 'theory' or 'philosophy' that we are told to study and apply lead by valid argument to conclusions that we and others had not already reached on other (and better) grounds; these 'others' include people lacking formal education, who typically seem to have no problem reaching these conclusions through mutual interactions that avoid the 'theoretical' obscurities entirely, or often on their own. Again, those are simple requests. I've made them before, and remain in my state of ignorance. I also draw certain conclusions from the fact.

"As for the 'deconstruction' that is carried out (also mentioned in the debate), I can't comment, because most of it seems to me gibberish. But if this is just another sign of my incapacity to recognize profundities, the course to follow is clear: just restate the results to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others had been doing long before and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc. That will cure my deficiencies -- of course, if they are curable; maybe they aren't, a possibility to which I'll return.

"These are very easy requests to fulfil, if there is any basis to the claims put forth with such fervour and indignation. But instead of trying to provide an answer to this simple requests (sic), the response is cries of anger: to raise these questions shows 'elitism,' 'anti-intellectualism,' and other crimes -- though apparently it is not 'elitist' to stay within the self- and mutual-admiration societies of intellectuals who talk only to one another and (to my knowledge) don't enter into the kind of world in which I'd prefer to live. As for that world, I can reel off my speaking and writing schedule to illustrate what I mean, though I presume that most people in this discussion know, or can easily find out; and somehow I never find the 'theoreticians' there, nor do I go to their conferences and parties. In short, we seem to inhabit quite different worlds, and I find it hard to see why mine is 'elitist,' not theirs. The opposite seems to be transparently the case, though I won't amplify.

"To add another facet, I am absolutely deluged with requests to speak and can't possibly accept a fraction of the invitations I'd like to, so I suggest other people. But oddly, I never suggest those who propound 'theories' and 'philosophy,' nor do I come across them, or for that matter rarely even their names, in my own (fairly extensive) experience with popular and activist groups and organizations, general community, college, church, union, etc., audiences here and abroad, third world women, refugees, etc.; I can easily give examples. Why, I wonder. The whole debate, then, is an odd one. On one side, angry charges and denunciations, on the other, the request for some evidence and argument to support them, to which the response is more angry charges -- but, strikingly, no evidence or argument. Again, one is led to ask why.

"It's entirely possible that I'm simply missing something, or that I just lack the intellectual capacity to understand the profundities that have been unearthed in the past 20 years or so by Paris intellectuals and their followers. I'm perfectly open-minded about it, and have been for years, when similar charges have been made -- but without any answer to my questions. Again, they are simple and should be easy to answer, if there is an answer: if I'm missing something, then show me what it is, in terms I can understand. Of course, if it's all beyond my comprehension, which is possible, then I'm just a lost cause, and will be compelled to keep to things I do seem to be able to understand, and keep to association with the kinds of people who also seem to be interested in them and seem to understand them (which I'm perfectly happy to do, having no interest, now or ever, in the sectors of the intellectual culture that engage in these things, but apparently little else).

"Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're left with the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding. I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons. There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. -- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest -- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of 'theory' that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b)...I won't spell it out.

"Again, I've lived for 50 years in these worlds, have done a fair amount of work of my own in fields called 'philosophy' and 'science,' as well as intellectual history, and have a fair amount of personal acquaintance with the intellectual culture in the sciences, humanities, social sciences, and the arts. That has left me with my own conclusions about intellectual life, which I won't spell out. But for others, I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about the wonders of 'theory' and 'philosophy' to justify their claims -- to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames.

"Specific comment. Phetland asked who I'm referring to when I speak of 'Paris school' and 'postmodernist cults': the above is a sample. He then asks, reasonably, why I am 'dismissive' of it. Take, say, Derrida...one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least be able to understand his Grammatology, so tried to read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood. Well, maybe I missed something: could be, but suspicions remain, as noted. Again, sorry to make unsupported comments, but I was asked, and therefore am answering.

"Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible -- he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven't met, because I am very remote from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far broader ones -- the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I've dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish. When I proceed as I do in other areas where I do not understand, I run into the problems mentioned in connection with (1) and (2) above. So that's who I'm referring to, and why I don't proceed very far. I can list a lot more names if it's not obvious. For those interested in a literary depiction that reflects pretty much the same perceptions (but from the inside), I'd suggest David Lodge. Pretty much on target, as far as I can judge.

"Phetland also found it 'particularly puzzling' that I am so 'curtly dismissive' of these intellectual circles while I spend a lot of time 'exposing the posturing and obfuscation of the New York Times.' So 'why not give these guys the same treatment.' Fair question. There are also simple answers. What appears in the work I do address (NYT, journals of opinion, much of scholarship, etc.) is simply written in intelligible prose and has a great impact on the world, establishing the doctrinal framework within which thought and expression are supposed to be contained, and largely are, in successful doctrinal systems such as ours. That has a huge impact on what happens to suffering people throughout the world, the ones who concern me, as distinct from those who live in the world that Lodge depicts (accurately, I think). So this work should be dealt with seriously, at least if one cares about ordinary people and their problems. The work to which Phetland refers has none of these characteristics, as far as I'm aware. It certainly has none of the impact, since it is addressed only to other intellectuals in the same circles. Furthermore, there is no effort that I am aware of to make it intelligible to the great mass of the population (say, to the people I'm constantly speaking to, meeting with, and writing letters to, and have in mind when I write, and who seem to understand what I say without any particular difficulty, though they generally seem to have the same cognitive disability I do when facing the Postmodern cults). And I'm also aware of no effort to show how it applies to anything in the world in the sense I mentioned earlier: grounding conclusions that weren't already obvious. Since I don't happen to be much interested in the ways that intellectuals inflate their reputations, gain privilege and prestige, and disengage themselves from actual participation in popular struggle, I don't spend any time on it.

"Phetland suggests starting with Foucault -- who, as I've written repeatedly, is somewhat apart from the others, for two reasons: I find at least some of what he writes intelligible, though generally not very interesting; second, he was not personally disengaged and did not restrict himself to interactions with others within the same highly privileged elite circles. Phetland then does exactly what I requested: he gives some illustrations of why he thinks Foucault's work is important. That's exactly the right way to proceed, and I think it helps understand why I take such a 'dismissive' attitude towards all of this -- in fact, pay no attention to it.

"What Phetland describes, accurately I'm sure, seems to me unimportant, because everyone always knew it -- apart from details of social and intellectual history, and about these, I'd suggest caution: some of these are areas I happen to have worked on fairly extensively myself, and I know that Foucault's scholarship is just not trustworthy here, so I don't trust it, without independent investigation, in areas that I don't know -- this comes up a bit in the discussion from 1972 that is in print. I think there is much better scholarship on the 17th and 18th century, and I keep to that, and my own research. But let's put aside the other historical work, and turn to the 'theoretical constructs' and the explanations: that there has been 'a great change from harsh mechanisms of repression to more subtle mechanisms by which people 'come to do' what the powerful want, even enthusiastically. That's true enough, in fact, utter truism. If that's a 'theory,' then all the criticisms of me are wrong: I have a 'theory' too, since I've been saying exactly that for years, and also giving the reasons and historical background, but without describing it as a theory (because it merits no such term), and without obfuscatory rhetoric (because it's so simple-minded), and without claiming that it is new (because it's a truism). It's been fully recognized for a long time that as the power to control and coerce has declined, it's more necessary to resort to what practitioners in the PR industry early in this century -- who understood all of this well -- called 'controlling the public mind.' The reasons, as observed by Hume in the 18th century, are that 'the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers' relies ultimately on control of opinion and attitudes. Why these truisms should suddenly become 'a theory' or 'philosophy,' others will have to explain; Hume would have laughed.

"Some of Foucault's particular examples (say, about 18th century techniques of punishment) look interesting, and worth investigating as to their accuracy. But the 'theory' is merely an extremely complex and inflated restatement of what many others have put very simply, and without any pretence that anything deep is involved. There's nothing in what Phetland describes that I haven't been writing about myself for 35 years, also giving plenty of documentation to show that it was always obvious, and indeed hardly departs from truism. What's interesting about these trivialities is not the principle, which is transparent, but the demonstration of how it works itself out in specific detail to cases that are important to people: like intervention and aggression, exploitation and terror, 'free market' scams, and so on. That I don't find in Foucault, though I find plenty of it by people who seem to be able to write sentences I can understand and who aren't placed in the intellectual firmament as 'theoreticians.'

"To make myself clear, Phetland is doing exactly the right thing: presenting what he sees as 'important insights and theoretical constructs' that he finds in Foucault. My problem is that the 'insights' seem to me familiar and there are no 'theoretical constructs,' except in that simple and familiar ideas have been dressed up in complicated and pretentious rhetoric. Phetland asks whether I think this is 'wrong, useless, or posturing.' No. The historical parts look interesting sometimes, though they have to be treated with caution and independent verification is even more worth undertaking than it usually is. The parts that restate what has long been obvious and put in much simpler terms are not 'useless,' but indeed useful, which is why I and others have always made the very same points. As to 'posturing,' a lot of it is that, in my opinion, though I don't particularly blame Foucault for it: it's such a deeply rooted part of the corrupt intellectual culture of Paris that he fell into it pretty naturally, though to his credit, he distanced himself from it. As for the 'corruption' of this culture particularly since World War II, that's another topic, which I've discussed elsewhere and won't go into here. Frankly, I don't see why people in this forum should be much interested, just as I am not. There are more important things to do, in my opinion, than to inquire into the traits of elite intellectuals engaged in various careerist and other pursuits in their narrow and (to me, at least) pretty uninteresting circles. That's a broad brush, and I stress again that it is unfair to make such comments without proving them: but I've been asked, and have answered the only specific point that I find raised. When asked about my general opinion, I can only give it, or if something more specific is posed, address that. I'm not going to undertake an essay on topics that don't interest me. Unless someone can answer the simple questions that immediately arise in the mind of any reasonable person when claims about 'theory' and 'philosophy' are raised, I'll keep to work that seems to me sensible and enlightening, and to people who are interested in understanding and changing the world.

"JohnB made the point that 'plain language is not enough when the frame of reference is not available to the listener'; correct and important. But the right reaction is not to resort to obscure and needlessly complex verbiage and posturing about non-existent 'theories.' Rather, it is to ask the listener to question the frame of reference that he/she is accepting, and to suggest alternatives that might be considered, all in plain language. I've never found that a problem when I speak to people lacking much or sometimes any formal education, though it's true that it tends to become harder as you move up the educational ladder, so that indoctrination is much deeper, and the self-selection for obedience that is a good part of elite education has taken its toll. JohnB says that outside of circles like this forum, 'to the rest of the country, he's incomprehensible' ('he' being me). That's absolutely counter to my rather ample experience, with all sorts of audiences. Rather, my experience is what I just described. The incomprehensibility roughly corresponds to the educational level. Take, say, talk radio. I'm on a fair amount, and it's usually pretty easy to guess from accents, etc., what kind of audience it is. I've repeatedly found that when the audience is mostly poor and less educated, I can skip lots of the background and 'frame of reference' issues because it's already obvious and taken for granted by everyone, and can proceed to matters that occupy all of us. With more educated audiences, that's much harder; it's necessary to disentangle lots of ideological constructions.

"It's certainly true that lots of people can't read the books I write. That's not because the ideas or language are complicated -- we have no problems in informal discussion on exactly the same points, and even in the same words. The reasons are different, maybe partly the fault of my writing style, partly the result of the need (which I feel, at least) to present pretty heavy documentation, which makes it tough reading. For these reasons, a number of people have taken pretty much the same material, often the very same words, and put them in pamphlet form and the like. No one seems to have much problem -- though again, reviewers in the Times Literary Supplement or professional academic journals don't have a clue as to what it's about, quite commonly; sometimes it's pretty comical.

"A final point, something I've written about elsewhere (e.g., in a discussion in Z papers, and the last chapter of Year 501). There has been a striking change in the behaviour of the intellectual class in recent years. The left intellectuals who 60 years ago would have been teaching in working class schools, writing books like 'mathematics for the millions' (which made mathematics intelligible to millions of people), participating in and speaking for popular organizations, etc., are now largely disengaged from such activities, and although quick to tell us that they are far more radical than thou, are not to be found, it seems, when there is such an obvious and growing need and even explicit request for the work they could do out there in the world of people with live problems and concerns. That's not a small problem. This country, right now, is in a very strange and ominous state. People are frightened, angry, disillusioned, sceptical, confused. That's an organizer's dream, as I once heard Mike say. It's also fertile ground for demagogues and fanatics, who can (and in fact already do) rally substantial popular support with messages that are not unfamiliar from their predecessors in somewhat similar circumstances. We know where it has led in the past; it could again. There's a huge gap that once was at least partially filled by left intellectuals willing to engage with the general public and their problems. It has ominous implications, in my opinion.

"End of Reply, and (to be frank) of my personal interest in the matter, unless the obvious questions are answered." [Quoted from here. Spelling adjusted to agree with UK English, formatting and quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphases in the original; links added. Some paragraphs merged.]

The above comments neatly sum up my attitude, too -- except I wouldn't be quite as pleasant, tolerant or accommodating as Chomsky is with the work of these charlatans..., er..., "theorists" and "Paris intellectuals".

To be sure, it could be argued that Chomsky's comments might equally well apply to HM, but that isn't so. HM can be explained in simple, everyday terms, free from 'High Theory' (even if it rarely is, or has been), its theses supported by evidence from history, ancient, early modern and contemporary, whose implications are contestable just like any others found in science. The main thrust of Chomsky's argument revolves around the avoidance of "'theoretical' obscurities" and a request that 'High Theorists' should:

"...just restate...to me in plain words that I can understand, and show why they are different from, or better than, what others had been doing long before and have continued to do since without three-syllable words, incoherent sentences, inflated rhetoric that (to me, at least) is largely meaningless, etc."

That is, of course, entirely possible with respect to HM, but only if Hegelian and 'philosophical' jargon have been completely excised.

[Cohen (2000) is a good place to start -- if, that is, we ignore the author's Functionalism and Technological Determinism.]

Be this as it may, bitter experience has taught me that comrades who are enamoured of 'High Theory' tend to have too much "noise" going on in their heads -- as Peter Geach once characterised this phenomenon (Geach (1972b), p.58, this links to a PDF) -- to appreciate, or even process, what Chomsky is saying. Indeed, as he himself indicated.

Chomsky has elsewhere complained that Marxism can't be counted as a science because no science names itself after a man/woman(!!) as Marxism has. There is even a thread devoted to this hot topic, here. This is how I replied to it (slightly edited):

Not sure why this thread begins with Chomsky's thoughts on 'Marxism' since, as he admits, he isn't an expert on Marx's writings. And it shows.

He makes a few insubstantial points, however:

1) Why call Marxism 'Marxism'? Science doesn't work this way. Who names Einstein's theory 'Einsteinianism'?

Well, of course, Marx's theory is scientific only in the wider German sense of the word, as linguist Chomsky should know. It is also a political theory, and part of a political movement. The term 'Marxism' distinguishes it from other versions of socialism. This is quite apart from the fact that Einstein's theory is named after him, as is Newton's. And there was an identifiable Newtonianism in the 18th century, just as there was one named after Darwin in the 19th and 20th; who has never heard of Darwinism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian

2) He seems to think Marxism has stood still for 150 years. This is the sort of 'analysis' one finds in the tabloid press. Why is shoddy commentary like this taken seriously?

3) He says Marx said little about socialism. Chomsky is unclear what he meant by this. Did he mean Marx said little about the fight for socialism, or about a future socialist society? If the latter, there was good reason for this: he wasn't a utopian. It was up to the working class to define what sort of society they wanted, not Marx. The only thing that it is up to them is the fight to establish it, not an elite band of socialist warriors who would do that for them.

Throughout his life Marx not only wrote about the fight for socialism, he also fought for it, so Chomsky is wrong about that, too.

Chomsky would be the first to complain about ill-informed criticisms of his own work, especially any such based solely on a superficial acquaintance with it. [From here. (That site is now defunct!)]

One or two 'Chomskyans' took exception to my response. The ensuing debate can be accessed here. [Again, that site is now dead!]

Nevertheless, the following cartoon puts Chomsky's earlier point rather well, one feels:

No less a DM-fan than Lenin agreed about the use of obscure language (even as he quoted page-after-page of it from Hegel):

"The flaunting of high-sounding phrases is characteristic of the declassed petty-bourgeois intellectuals." ["Left-Wing" Childishness.]

Here, too, is Martha Nussbaum's perceptive analysis of Judith Butler's style (although much of what Nussbaum has to say could very well apply to the majority of those writing in the style that has come to be associated with, and seems to be required by, 'Continental Thought', and that includes countless 'leftist' writers influenced by it):

"It is difficult to come to grips with Butler's ideas, because it is difficult to figure out what they are. Butler is a very smart person. In public discussions, she proves that she can speak clearly and has a quick grasp of what is said to her. Her written style, however, is ponderous and obscure. It is dense with allusions to other theorists, drawn from a wide range of different theoretical traditions. In addition to Foucault, and to a more recent focus on Freud, Butler's work relies heavily on the thought of Louis Althusser, the French lesbian theorist Monique Wittig, the American anthropologist Gayle Rubin, Jacques Lacan, J. L. Austin, and the American philosopher of language Saul Kripke. These figures do not all agree with one another, to say the least; so an initial problem in reading Butler is that one is bewildered to find her arguments buttressed by appeal to so many contradictory concepts and doctrines, usually without any account of how the apparent contradictions will be resolved.

"A further problem lies in Butler's casual mode of allusion. The ideas of these thinkers are never described in enough detail to include the uninitiated (if you are not familiar with the Althusserian concept of 'interpellation,' you are lost for chapters) or to explain to the initiated how, precisely, the difficult ideas are being understood. Of course, much academic writing is allusive in some way: it presupposes prior knowledge of certain doctrines and positions. But in both the continental and the Anglo-American philosophical traditions, academic writers for a specialist audience standardly acknowledge that the figures they mention are complicated, and the object of many different interpretations. They therefore typically assume the responsibility of advancing a definite interpretation among the contested ones, and of showing by argument why they have interpreted the figure as they have, and why their own interpretation is better than others.

"We find none of this in Butler. Divergent interpretations are simply not considered -- even where, as in the cases of Foucault and Freud, she is advancing highly contestable interpretations that would not be accepted by many scholars. Thus one is led to the conclusion that the allusiveness of the writing cannot be explained in the usual way, by positing an audience of specialists eager to debate the details of an esoteric academic position. The writing is simply too thin to satisfy any such audience. It is also obvious that Butler's work is not directed at a non-academic audience eager to grapple with actual injustices. Such an audience would simply be baffled by the thick soup of Butler's prose, by its air of in-group knowingness, by its extremely high ratio of names to explanations.

"To whom, then, is Butler speaking? It would seem that she is addressing a group of young feminist theorists in the academy who are neither students of philosophy, caring about what Althusser and Freud and Kripke really said, nor outsiders, needing to be informed about the nature of their projects and persuaded of their worth. This implied audience is imagined as remarkably docile. Subservient to the oracular voice of Butler's text, and dazzled by its patina of high-concept abstractness, the imagined reader poses few questions, requests no arguments and no clear definitions of terms.

"Still more strangely, the implied reader is expected not to care greatly about Butler's own final view on many matters. For a large proportion of the sentences in any book by Butler -- especially sentences near the end of chapters -- are questions. Sometimes the answer that the question expects is evident. But often things are much more indeterminate. Among the non-interrogative sentences, many begin with 'Consider...' or 'One could suggest...' -- in such a way that Butler never quite tells the reader whether she approves of the view described. Mystification as well as hierarchy are the tools of her practice, a mystification that eludes criticism because it makes few definite claims.

'What does it mean for the agency of a subject to presuppose its own subordination? Is the act of presupposing the same as the act of reinstating, or is there a discontinuity between the power presupposed and the power reinstated? Consider that in the very act by which the subject reproduces the conditions of its own subordination, the subject exemplifies a temporally based vulnerability that belongs to those conditions, specifically, to the exigencies of their renewal.'

'Such questions cannot be answered here, but they indicate a direction for thinking that is perhaps prior to the question of conscience, namely, the question that preoccupied Spinoza, Nietzsche, and most recently, Giorgio Agamben: How are we to understand the desire to be as a constitutive desire? Resituating conscience and interpellation within such an account, we might then add to this question another: How is such a desire exploited not only by a law in the singular, but by laws of various kinds such that we yield to subordination in order to maintain some sense of social "being"?'

"Why does Butler prefer to write in this teasing, exasperating way? The style is certainly not unprecedented. Some precincts of the continental philosophical tradition, though surely not all of them, have an unfortunate tendency to regard the philosopher as a star who fascinates, and frequently by obscurity, rather than as an arguer among equals. When ideas are stated clearly, after all, they may be detached from their author: one can take them away and pursue them on one's own. When they remain mysterious (indeed, when they are not quite asserted), one remains dependent on the originating authority. The thinker is heeded only for his or her turgid charisma. One hangs in suspense, eager for the next move. When Butler does follow that 'direction for thinking,' what will she say? What does it mean, tell us please, for the agency of a subject to presuppose its own subordination? (No clear answer to this question, so far as I can see, is forthcoming.) One is given the impression of a mind so profoundly cogitative that it will not pronounce on anything lightly: so one waits, in awe of its depth, for it finally to do so.

"In this way obscurity creates an aura of importance. It also serves another related purpose. It bullies the reader into granting that, since one cannot figure out what is going on, there must be something significant going on, some complexity of thought, where in reality there are often familiar or even shopworn notions, addressed too simply and too casually to add any new dimension of understanding. When the bullied readers of Butler's books muster the daring to think thus, they will see that the ideas in these books are thin. When Butler's notions are stated clearly and succinctly, one sees that, without a lot more distinctions and arguments, they don't go far, and they are not especially new. Thus obscurity fills the void left by an absence of a real complexity of thought and argument.

"Last year Butler won the first prize in the annual Bad Writing Contest sponsored by the journal Philosophy and Literature, for the following sentence:

'The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.'

"Now, Butler might have written: 'Marxist accounts, focusing on capital as the central force structuring social relations, depicted the operations of that force as everywhere uniform. By contrast, Althusserian accounts, focusing on power, see the operations of that force as variegated and as shifting over time.' Instead, she prefers a verbosity that causes the reader to expend so much effort in deciphering her prose that little energy is left for assessing the truth of the claims. Announcing the award, the journal's editor remarked that 'it's possibly the anxiety-inducing obscurity of such writing that has led Professor Warren Hedges of Southern Oregon University to praise Judith Butler as "probably one of the ten smartest people on the planet."' (Such bad writing, incidentally, is by no means ubiquitous in the 'queer theory' group of theorists with which Butler is associated. David Halperin, for example, writes about the relationship between Foucault and Kant, and about Greek homosexuality, with philosophical clarity and historical precision.)

"Butler gains prestige in the literary world by being a philosopher; many admirers associate her manner of writing with philosophical profundity. But one should ask whether it belongs to the philosophical tradition at all, rather than to the closely related but adversarial traditions of sophistry and rhetoric. Ever since Socrates distinguished philosophy from what the sophists and the rhetoricians were doing, it has been a discourse of equals who trade arguments and counter-arguments without any obscurantist sleight-of-hand. In that way, he claimed, philosophy showed respect for the soul, while the others' manipulative methods showed only disrespect. One afternoon, fatigued by Butler on a long plane trip, I turned to a draft of a student's dissertation on Hume's views of personal identity. I quickly felt my spirits reviving. Doesn't she write clearly, I thought with pleasure, and a tiny bit of pride. And Hume, what a fine, what a gracious spirit: how kindly he respects the reader's intelligence, even at the cost of exposing his own uncertainty." [Nussbaum (1999), Professor of Parody, accessed 02/04/2019. Italic emphases in the original; links added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

In the above, replace Butler's name with Zizek's and little else will need much modification.

As one critic -- in response to Butler's counter-argument that difficult ideas can't be expressed in simple prose -- noted:

"More generally, against Butler's claim that difficult subjects require difficult or specialized language, there is the obvious truth that many -- indeed, most -- generally recognized 'great thinkers' have been clear and lucid in their writing. This is especially true in Butler's field, the humanities. Freud won the Goethe Prize for Literature. Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Henri Bergson won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Hume, Descartes, Plato, Darwin, Berkeley, Pascal, Rousseau, Augustine, and Marx are all models of literary style of the Orwellian sort, plain, elegant, clear of expression." [Roney (2002). Quoted from here. The author is referring to Orwell (1946). Links added.]

To which list one can perhaps add the names of Engels (for the most part -- when he avoided 'dialectics'), Christopher Caudwell, Trotsky, Moore, Ryle, and the later Wittgenstein -- and, indeed, most Wittgensteinians who aren't postmodernists or social scientists!

Anyone with lingering doubts should check out the following (mercifully brief) example of HCD gobbledygook:

"Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal -- of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean (sic) provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm, of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard." [Roy Bhaskar, quoted from here. Links added. In fact, I could have quoted almost any paragraph from Bhaskar (1993). That book must surely win the Gold Medal in this event.]

And then we have this from a book aimed at clarifying -- plainly with no hint of irony! -- Roy Bhaskar's corpus of knotted dialectical spaghetti (aka "Critical Realism"):

"We have now considered how Bhaskar launches his dialecticisation of critical realism and his 'critical realisation' of dialectics. In terms of the MELD schema, these are essentially 2E moves based on negativity. Dialecticising critical realism by integrating absence and being, and 'critically realising' dialectic to produce a materialist conception of diffraction, both concern real determinate non-being in the world. In the process, however, both moves point beyond negativity to a third level of analysis, that of totality. Thus to think of the spatio-temporal causality of human being (sic)...is to think of the presence of the past in the present and the future, and of the relationship between identity and its outside. Similarly, to think of materialist diffraction of dialectic is to think...of how fragmentation and fracturing are ultimately the relata of a structured, contradictory whole.... 2E negativity in its various forms entails 3L totality, so in terms of the MELD schema, we move from 1M perduring non-identity to 2E real negativity, and on to 3L open totality...before moving...to 4D agency." [Norrie (2010), p.86.]

Readers interested in inflicting some more brain damage on themselves can find page-after-page of obscure dogmatic apriorism, expressed in academic-looking gobbledygook, 'supported' and 'clarified' by yet more gobbledygook, throughout the rest of Norrie's book.

[An 'explanation' of the odd abbreviations in the above passage can be found in the opening pages of Hartwig (2007), a book that plumbs even greater depths of obscurity in its earnest endeavour further to confuse those already reeling from having struggled through Norrie (2010). Incidentally, both of these books were published by Routledge; apparently Bhaskarean 'dialectic' -- coupled with these brave attempts to make his thoughts yet more opaque -- isn't an "abomination" for at least this wing of the bourgeoisie. Clearly, those in charge at Routledge have concluded that if the revolution depends on philosophical goulash of this consistency, their class has little to fear. Plainly, this spectre isn't haunting Europe, it is far too busy haunting Academic Marxism. (Hartwig's book is available from here as a downloadable PDF.)]

Francis Bacon summed-up this mind-set admirably well (although he confined his criticism to the tangled verbal spaghetti weaved by Medieval Schoolmen, i.e., the Scholastics):

"This kind of degenerate learning did chiefly reign amongst the Schoolmen: who having sharp and strong wits, and abundance of leisure, and small variety of reading, but their wits being shut up in the cells of a few authors (chiefly Aristotle their dictator) as their persons were shut up in the cells of monasteries and colleges, and knowing little history, either of nature or time, did out of no great quantity of matter and infinite agitation of wit spin out unto those laborious webs of learning which are extant in their books. For the wit and mind of man, if it work upon matter, which is the contemplation of the creatures of God, works according to the stuff, and is limited thereby; but if it work upon itself, as the spider works his web, then it is endless, and brings forth indeed cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit." [Bacon (2001), pp.25-26. Bold emphasis added; Stuart/Elizabethan words replaced by modern English equivalents.]

In Essay Two I have included several no less impressive examples of profound obscurantism that Zizek thought it wise to inflict on his unfortunate readers -- these were extracted from his recent book, Less Than Nothing -- i.e., Zizek (2012), pp.364-67. (This links to a PDF.) Zizek only succeeded in adding to the confusion by following that prize specimen with his next book, the aptly named, Absolute Recoil (i.e., Zizek (2015)), the title of which neatly summarises the reaction one experiences upon reading it.

This Essay would be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words longer if even a tiny fraction of leftist, 'post-modernist'/'post-structuralist'/post-comprehensionist gobbledygook like the above on offer were quoted.

"If you don't know who Slavoj Žižek is, my first piece of advice would be that you should treasure your ignorance. In my view he's an utterly absurd figure, but this view is not universal. Credulous people -- people who are basically intelligent but assume that anything expressed in incoherent but resonant terms by a professor with an eccentric manner and a central European accent must be profound truth -- have a nasty habit of anointing him some kind of guru for the left. This would be funny (he's like a cartoon leftist made flesh, even down to the beard) if it weren't so counterproductive." [Quoted from here.]

"Credulous people -- people who are basically intelligent but assume that anything expressed in incoherent but resonant terms by a professor with an eccentric manner and a central European or a French accent must be profound truth...."

An apposite quotation from Larry Laudan (although this time aimed at French Philosophers in general) springs to mind, here:

"Foucault has benefited from that curious Anglo-American view that if a Frenchman talks nonsense it must rest on a profundity which is too deep for a speaker of English to comprehend." [Laudan (1977), p.241. I owe this reference to Kitcher (1998), p.55. Link added.]

Readers can now generate their very own profoundly impenetrable, pseudo-Marxist and postmodernist gobbledygook by visiting this page. Each visit generates another slab of 'profound-looking', but meaningless, glop.

"Here is a quick guide, then, to speaking and writing 'postmodern'.

"First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language is out of the question. It is too realist, modernist and obvious. Postmodern language requires that one uses play, parody and indeterminacy as critical techniques to point this out. Often this is quite a difficult requirement, so obscurity is a well-acknowledged substitute. For example, let's imagine you want to say something like, 'We should listen to the views of people outside of Western society in order to learn about the cultural biases that affect us'. This is honest but dull. Take the word 'views'. Postmodernspeak would change that to 'voices', or better, 'vocalities', or even better, 'multivocalities'. Add an adjective like 'intertextual', and you're covered. 'People outside' is also too plain. How about 'postcolonial others'? To speak postmodern properly one must master a bevy of biases besides the familiar racism, sexism, ageism, etc. For example, phallogocentricism (male-centredness combined with rationalistic forms of binary logic).

"Finally 'affect us' sounds like plaid pyjamas. Use more obscure verbs and phrases, like 'mediate our identities'. So, the final statement should say, 'We should listen to the intertextual, multivocalities of postcolonial others outside of Western culture in order to learn about the phallogocentric biases that mediate our identities'. Now you're talking postmodern!

"Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won't have the time to muster even the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and neologisms needed to avoid public disgrace. Remember, saying the wrong thing is acceptable if you say it the right way. This brings me to a second important strategy in speaking postmodern, which is to use as many suffixes, prefixes, hyphens, slashes, underlinings and anything else your computer (an absolute must to write postmodern) can dish out. You can make a quick reference chart to avoid time delays. Make three columns. In column A put your prefixes; post-, hyper-, pre-, de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and counter-. In column B go your suffixes and related endings; -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, -itivity, and -tricity. In column C add a series of well-respected names that make for impressive adjectives or schools of thought, for example, Barthes (Barthesian), Foucault (Foucauldian, Foucauldianism), Derrida (Derridean, Derrideanism).

"Now for the test. You want to say or write something like, 'Contemporary buildings are alienating'. This is a good thought, but, of course, a non-starter. You wouldn't even get offered a second round of crackers and cheese at a conference reception with such a line. In fact, after saying this, you might get asked to stay and clean up the crackers and cheese after the reception. Go to your three columns. First, the prefix. Pre- is useful, as is post-, or several prefixes at once is terrific. Rather than 'contemporary building', be creative. 'The Pre/post/spatialities of counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity' is promising. You would have to drop the weak and dated term 'alienating' with some well suffixed words from column B. How about 'antisociality', or be more postmodern and introduce ambiguity with the linked phrase, 'antisociality/seductivity'.

"Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone will agree is important and hardly anyone has had the time or the inclination to read. Continental European theorists are best when in doubt. I recommend the sociologist Jean Baudrillard since he has written a great deal of difficult material about postmodern space. Don't forget to make some mention of gender. Finally, add a few smoothing out words to tie the whole garbled mess together and don't forget to pack in the hyphens, slashes and parentheses. What do you get? 'Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits us to an ambivalent recurrentiality of antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated subjectivity'. You should be able to hear a postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural floor.

"At some point someone may actually ask you what you're talking about. This risk faces all those who would speak postmodern and must be carefully avoided. You must always give the questioner the impression that they have missed the point, and so send another verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in their direction as a 'simplification' or 'clarification' of your original statement. If that doesn't work, you might be left with the terribly modernist thought of, 'I don't know'. Don't worry, just say, 'The instability of your question leaves me with several contradictorily layered responses whose interconnectivity cannot express the logocentric coherency you seek. I can only say that reality is more uneven and its (mis)representations more untrustworthy than we have time here to explore'. Any more questions? No, then pass the cheese and crackers." [Quoted from here. Accessed 31/05/2014. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling mistake corrected.]

I have just found this comment on the Internet, which helps explain why so many 'on the left' eagerly consume this stuff (the author, Nathan Robinson, is speaking about the pompous guff that Jordan Peterson secretes, but it also applies to much that rolls off the production line, courtesy of the HCD-industry):

32. This age-old, perennial malaise is amply illustrated, too, in and by the numerous passages taken from DM-texts -- none of which make any sense -- quoted in previous Essays --, and which because of that can't be acted upon.

33. I don't want to enter into this complex issue in any great detail here (much more has been said about it in Essays Twelve Part One and Thirteen Part Three). Briefly: if a putative 'thought' is expressed by a sentence that (i) violates certain linguistic rules (i.e., normative social practices), or (ii) uses words in a way that fails to conform with the criteria we ordinarily observe when employing them in the formation of sentence tokens (explicit or implied), then extensive stage-setting or 're-interpretation' will be necessary before sense can be attached to them or made of them. The extent to which this will need to be done will clearly depend on each individual case.

[Incidentally, this is one of the few places where surrounding circumstances can be used to help determine the sense of what was written or said; that is if any such can be made of it. More on that in Essay Thirteen Part Three. On criteria, see here.]

If the linguistic expression of just such a supposedly empirical thought appears to be expressed in the indicative mood (that is, if the sentence concerned is supposed, or meant, to be fact-stating, and whose main verbs/verbs are in the indicative mood), and yet that expression is itself incapable of being true or incapable of being false (that is, if for some reason either or both of these options is closed-off), then that apparent grammatical mood is plainly misleading, or obviously inappropriate. Clearly, this would render such a sentence problematic if it were still meant to be taken literally. In that case, exactly what 'thought' (if any) is attributable to the one uttering such a string of words -- or noises -- is no longer in the sole possession of its originator to decide (coded messages to one side, of course).

then, coded messages to one side once more, we wouldn't be able to understand such a person (save we attribute certain incidental aims and intentions to them -- such as a desire to confuse or entertain their listeners, or, perhaps, an intention make the points being advanced in this Essay), or, indeed, comprehend how N1 or N3 could possibly be connected with N2 or N4, respectively, in the suggested manner. That is, no more than we would be prepared to countenance an offer of the Crab Nebula, say, as payment for a year's subscription to the New Statesman, or comprehend the existence of "off-side" in golf, chess or poker. Typically, individuals can no more establish the sense of a sentence than they can decide the (public) value of a unit of currency, or the rules of an already established game.

35. Once more, this will be discussed in more detail in Essay Thirteen Part Three.

35a. A trivial example of this would be if, say, someone read M1a (below) and actually tried to 'think' it, or its supposed content (i.e., the state of affairs that would make it true). If they then failed to notice that it (or its content) falls apart upon actually being thought, they might then recommend it to a third party as a Law of some sort (as, indeed, both Engels and Lenin attempted to do).

Of course, it could be objected that this is a caricature of the complex way that Marxists actually argue and reason 'dialectically'.

But, that is precisely the point at issue. No one doubts that Marxists both can and do argue in a more sophisticated manner using ideas and concepts drawn from HM. The question is: Does a single dialectical concept or thesis add anything practical, or rational, to such deliberations?

"The ICFI doesn't simply talk about the dialectical method. It seeks to apply it as an instrument of political analysis. For example, in a lecture on the nature of trade unionism given in Australia in 1998, I sought to demonstrate how dialectical logic sheds light on the nature of this complex social form:

'It must be kept in mind that when we set out to study trade unionism, we are dealing with a definite social form. By this, we mean not some sort of casual, accidental and amorphous collection of individuals, but rather a historically-evolved connection between people organized in classes and rooted in certain specific relations of production. It is also important to reflect upon the nature of form itself. We all know that a relation exists between form and content, but this relationship is generally conceived as if the form were merely the expression of content. From this standpoint, the social form might be conceptualized as merely an outward, plastic and infinitely malleable expression of the relations upon which it is based. But social forms are more profoundly understood as dynamic elements in the historical process. To say that "content is formed" means that form imparts to the content of which it is the expression definite qualities and characteristics. It is through form that content exists and develops.

'Perhaps it will be possible to clarify the purpose of this detour into the realm of philosophical categories and abstractions by referring to the famous section in the first chapter of the first volume of Capital, in which Marx asks: "Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from the form itself." That is, when a product of labour assumes the form of a commodity -- a transformation that occurs only at a certain stage of society -- it acquires a peculiar, fetishistic quality that it did not previously possess. Once products are exchanged on the market, real social relations between people, of which commodities are themselves the outcome, necessarily assume the appearance of a relation between things. A product of labour is a product of labour; and yet, once it assumes, within the framework of new productive relations, the form of a commodity, it acquires new and extraordinary social properties.

'Similarly, a group of workers is a group of workers. And yet, when that group assumes the form of a trade union, it acquires, through that form, new and quite distinct social properties to which the workers are inevitably subordinated. What, precisely, is meant by this? The trade unions represent the working class in a very distinct socio-economic role: as the seller of a commodity, labour power. Arising on the basis of the productive relations and property forms of capitalism, the essential purpose of the trade union is to secure for this commodity the best price that can be obtained under prevailing market conditions.

'Of course, there is a world of difference between what I have described in theoretical terms as the "essential purpose" of trade unions and their real-life activities. The practical reality -- the everyday sell-out of the most immediate interests of the working class -- corresponds very little to the theoretically conceived "norm." This divergence does not contradict the theoretical conception, but is itself the outcome of the objective socio-economic function of the trade union. Standing on the basis of capitalist production relations, the trade unions are, by their very nature, compelled to adopt an essentially hostile attitude toward the class struggle. Directing their efforts toward securing agreements with employers that fix the price of labour power and determine the general conditions in which surplus-value will be pumped out of the workers, the trade unions are obligated to guarantee that their members supply their labour-power in accordance with the terms of the negotiated contracts. As Gramsci noted, "The union represents legality, and must aim to make its members respect that legality."

'The defense of legality means the suppression of the class struggle, which, in the very nature of things, means that the trade unions ultimately undermine their ability to achieve even the limited aims to which they are officially dedicated. Herein lies the contradiction upon which trade unionism flounders. [Marxism and the Trade Unions, accessible at the World Socialist Web Site, here.]'" [North (2007), pp.22-24. Bold emphases added; italic emphasis in the original. Spelling modified to conform with UK English; quotation marks altered to agree with the conventions adopted at this site.]

However, apart from the clichéd reference to "contradictions" near the end, no 'dialectics' as such appears to have been employed in the above passage. And, of course, as we have seen, the things North calls "contradictions" aren't even remotely like contradictions. In line with other DM-fans, he has simply helped himself to this word with no attempt to explain this odd use of it. It isn't even remotely like a 'dialectical contradiction', the 'halves' of which (those parts that are supposedly internally-related to, or which interpenetrate, one another) are supposed to turn into one another after they have struggled among themselves, if the DM-classics are to be believed.

Is it really the case that "the defence of legality" struggles with and then turns into "the limited aims of trade unions"? If so, North unwisely omitted the details.

It could be argued that those parts of the above passage which have been highlighted in bold (and perhaps others) show where dialectics has been applied -- but that isn't so. An Aristotelian or even a Kantian could have written those sections. Once more, there is nothing unique to DM in this quotation -- and, as we have just seen, even the alleged 'contradiction' isn't in fact a contradiction, 'dialectical' or otherwise!

To be sure, concepts from HM have been used, but HM isn't the same as DM. In that case, we still await an example of the (positive) practical use or application of dialectical concepts, as opposed to the actual use of HM-concepts. Indeed, if North wanted to make sense, as he plainly did, he found he had to use HM-concepts and ordinary language. Had he tried to rephrase what he wanted to say using Hegel-speak (upside down or the 'right way up'), no one would have been able to follow him. Or, he would have ended up saddling his readers with the sort of gobbledygook HCDs and WRP-adepts regularly churn out.

[Contrast North's clarity here with Gerry Healy's style -- who continually wrote and talked fluent Hegel-speak (on that, follow the above WRP link). See also here for several examples of the alleged practical applications of DM suggested by John Molyneux.]

This is typical of DM-fans; they tell us 'the dialectic' is of inestimable value, but when we examine the assembled article, we find that either (i) It hasn't actually been used, (ii) Its alleged use turns out to be an empty gesture (as we saw was the case with the above example from David North), (iii) We are presented with hardcore Healy-esque or Bhaskharean gobbledygook, or (iv) It is HM that has been employed instead.

[Those who think HM and DM are one and the same should read this, and then perhaps think again. Incidentally, anyone who still thinks they are identical (after having read the argument presented at the above link) has clearly not "understood" dialectics, since, according to the Dialectical Prophets, nothing is identical with anything else! So, if DM is correct, HM and DM can't be the same! Such are the consolations of Diabolical Logic.]

Of course, one of the main the purposes of these Essays is to show that, except negatively, DM-theorists not only don't, they can't, use concepts and theses drawn from DM in their practical deliberations, and hence as a guide to action. Indeed, it will be claimed that dialectical concepts in fact function (a) As window dressing, (b) As confirmation and proof of the 'orthodoxy' of the DM-fan involved, or (c) As an in-group/out-group identity marker. In addition, they are often used (d) As part of petty sectarian point scoring, (e) In an attempt to 'justify' substitutionism, or to (f) Defend, rationalise or provide a smokescreen for opportunism, (g) 'Excuse' or explain away political treachery, corruption and double-dealing, (h) 'Justify' oppression and exploitation, (i) Rationalise class-collaboration --, or even (j) Provide a source of consolation for past failures and dialectically-driven screw-ups.

[Evidence for all these will be presented as this this Essay proceeds -- as well as in other Essays, especially Ten Part One. See also Note 37a, below.]

36. These comments shouldn't be read as a denial that context matters, they merely seek to remind us that the use of the pre-fixing clause "NN thought that…" can't perform magic and turn non-sense into sense. [See Note 33, above.]

This controversial claim in fact follows from all that has gone before in the Essays posted at this site. It will be examined in more detail later.

37a. It could be objected that these examples are far too crude; no militant in his or her left mind would use them. This is doubtless correct, but that just shows how useless DM-theses are in relation to the class struggle. Since this was discussed in more detail in Essay Nine Part One, the reader is directed there for more dialectically-depressing details. [See also Note 35a, above, and here.]

37b. As I have pointed out several times (for example here): I have been asking dialectically-distracted comrades now for well over 30 years (in person and on the Internet) for a single example of a DM-proposition or argument that has any positive practical use, or impact, other than trivial. No luck so far! Nor is there even so much as one such instance to be found in the DM-classics.

[Again, if anyone can come up with a viable example, again, please e-mail me! (Concerning John Molyneux's recent suggestions, see here. See also here, and here.)]

38. A survey of the theoretical arguments that focus on the precise nature of DM, which have dominated Marxism for over one hundred years, can be found in Sheehan (1993). Unfortunately, all that Sheehan has succeeded in doing is inadvertently revealing the monumental waste of time and effort that DM-fans have inflicted on themselves, the parties and tendencies to which they belong, as well as on others, by their devotion to this 'theory' -- and, one might add, it highlights the pointless and destructive consequences Hegel's ideas have had on the entire movement -- although, these are, of course, my conclusions, not Sheehan's!

[An excellent recent example of this can be found here, but there are literally hundreds of examples on the Internet.]

Discussing how many angels can do the Polka on a pinhead would be a more profitable way to spend one's time, it seems. [On this, see also Note 39, as well as here and here.]

39. By "used", here, I mean, of course, someone who has "spoken or written down one or more traditional DM-phrases", to whatever end.

As far as can be ascertained, the negative effect on workers of all this bickering has largely gone unnoticed, or unremarked on, by DM-fans who are too busy infighting and back-biting to realise how un-seized "the masses" have become by internecine warfare like this. Much of this bickering was, and still is, fuelled by obscure differences over minute changes of emphasis inflicted on the wording of this or that incomprehensible dialectical thesis. For goodness sake, who gives a George Dubbya whether opposites are "identical" or "united"?!

"The critics of the [UK] SWP's position have organised themselves under the slogan 'firm in principles, flexible in tactics'. But separating principles and tactics in this way is completely un-Marxist. Tactics derive from principles. Indeed the only way that principles can become effective is if they are embodied in day-to-day tactics.' [This is a quote from the UK-SWP -- RL.]

Page-after-page of material like this can be found in the archives of every tendency within Dialectical Marxism, about which Richard Seymour recently admitted:

"In the argot of Trotskyist dialectics, I could never work out whether principles determined tactics, or tactics were independent from principles. It was definitely one or the other, depending on what ineffective tactic had to be defended -- by means of what was euphemistically called 'hard arguments'." [Quoted from here; accessed 05/02/2017. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Link added.]

To cap it all, comrades who dote on this sort of material --, or, indeed, who write it --, have the cheek to turn around and complain about my alleged 'pedantry'!

[Several more examples of 'dialectical casuistry' and Hermetic hair-splitting like this are given below.]

Much of it resembles yet another scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian; after being confused with the 'Messiah', Brian races away from a hysterical crowd. During the chase he loses a shoe:

Arthur: Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.

Youth: No, no! It is a sign that, like Him, we must think not of the things of the body, but of the face and head!

Admittedly, the 'dialectical' debates between Marxists enamoured of this 'theory' are in general far more sophisticated than this, but the small-minded mentality, petty squabbling and sectarian psychopathy illustrated in this clip isn't all that far removed from what passes for 'comradely' polemic in DM-circles.

To be sure, such internecine, sectarian warfare arises from hard-headed social and political differences, but DM has made these disputes not just vastly more poisonous -- as will be demonstrated below --, it has rendered them permanently irresolvable.

As noted earlier, an excellent recent example of this can be found here. [Unfortunately, the comments at the latter site have vanished!] The comrades locked in discussion at that site are not only trapped inside a traditional approach to the question under discussion -- which is dominated, and has been seriously aggravated, by the confused ideas imported into Marxism from assorted (contemporary) French 'Philosophers', 'postmodernist' and 'post-structuralist' theorists -- they insist on using language in a cavalier and sloppy manner, which only succeeds in condemning such debaters to endless disputation, reminiscent of early Christian arguments over the precise nature of Christ. That is because, if they misuse ordinary language (as Marx reminded us they all must do), they are sailing in uncharted waters, as it were, outwith the social conventions that lend to most of their words any meaning at all. Many of the other words they employ are either meaningless or their use is far too vague to do much with. In that case, there is little common ground between disputants since they are all, as it were, making the rules up as they go along. The result is the same as it would be if those engaged in a game of chess, for instance, ignored the established rules and moved the pieces as the whim took them, or they introduced new 'pieces' as they saw fit. The 'game' would be as endless as it was pointless, and would, of course, provoke nearly as much rancour.

[When I say that certain words are meaningless, I do not, of course, intend to suggest that they fail to possess 'meaning' in senses (1) or (2) that have been listed here, but that it is impossible to explain what they do in fact mean without appealing to another set of similarly semantically-challenged terms. This would be like someone trying to explain the Jabberwocky along lines illustrated here. The 'explanatory terms' seem to make some sort of sense, but the explanation itself in the end makes absolutely nothing clear, as anyone reading the 'explanation' given at the second of the above links can see for themselves.]

That is, of course, just one of the reasons why not one single philosophical problem has been solved in two-and-half thousand years; indeed, we are no nearer to solving them than Plato was. [More on that here, and here.]

While not significant in itself, DM-squabbling like this can't fail to have affected the view workers have formed of Dialectical Marxism -- and more specifically their opinion of STDs, MISTs, NOTs, and OTs. At the very least, such bickering has seriously diverted the energy of the vast majority of revolutionary theorists and parties into empty disputation (again, on a par with the apocryphal tale that medieval philosophers and theologians debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin), thus surrendering the minds of the proletariat to the ideologues our class enemies -- who, unfortunately, possess a far less confused set of ideas and a much more focussed agenda.

[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; MIST = Maoist Dialectician; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; NOT = Non-OT.]

"There has been a striking change in the behaviour of the intellectual class in recent years. The left intellectuals who 60 years ago would have been teaching in working class schools, writing books like 'mathematics for the millions' (which made mathematics intelligible to millions of people), participating in and speaking for popular organizations, etc., are now largely disengaged from such activities, and although quick to tell us that they are far more radical than thou, are not to be found, it seems, when there is such an obvious and growing need and even explicit request for the work they could do out there in the world of people with live problems and concerns. That's not a small problem. This country, right now, is in a very strange and ominous state. People are frightened, angry, disillusioned, sceptical, confused. That's an organizer's dream, as I once heard Mike say. It's also fertile ground for demagogues and fanatics, who can (and in fact already do) rally substantial popular support with messages that are not unfamiliar from their predecessors in somewhat similar circumstances. We know where it has led in the past; it could again. There's a huge gap that once was at least partially filled by left intellectuals willing to engage with the general public and their problems. It has ominous implications, in my opinion." [Quoted from here.]

In the age of Donald Trump and right-wing populism, Chomsky's words are surely prophetic. [This links to a PDF.] How many workers (either side of the Atlantic) listen to HCD, or even LCD, 'intellectuals'?

Finally, as we will see, DM in fact enabled anti-Marxist tactics and theories to be sold all the more readily to supine cadres.

[Naturally, the 'leader' mentioned in the main body of this Essay could be a group as well as an individual.]

40a. I have argued that that isn't Lenin's view, in Part One of this Essay.

However, this frame-of-mind seems to be more blatant, obvious and up-front among Maoists. [As we will see, the so-called 'mass line' is more accurately to be described as 'the mass lie'. Unsurprisingly, there is no evidence that the masses were ever asked what they thought. If anyone thinks there is any such evidence, please email me with the details, including the primary sources. (When I have raised this on-line with assorted Maoists, the level of vitriol and abuse they exude increases markedly, but, despite being asked several times to produce this 'evidence', they all miserably failed to do so.)]

This doesn't mean that DM-theorists haven't tried to explain their theory to workers. Far from it. [However, DM seldom puts in an appearance in revolutionary newspapers. Why that is so was revealed here.] The vast majority of books and articles about this theory take the form of Introductions to DM, aimed at workers or other interested parties. The problem with these 'Introductions' is that despite their having been written (by-and-large) in what appears to be the vernacular, what they actually have to say is as clear as mud -- as the Essays published at this site have repeatedly shown.

[Once more, it is as if someone attempted to explain clearly the 'Incarnation of Christ' in ordinary language!]

Again, this odd use of what appears to be ordinary language is what finally renders these 'Introductions' incoherent. [Since I have covered this topic at length in Essay Twelve Part One, the reader is directed there for more details -- or here for a summary.]

More importantly, as Part One also demonstrated, DM-theses can't be comprehended by workers on the basis of their own experience, so it has to be introduced to them theoretically -- i.e., from the 'outside', from outwith their experience (i.e., in their daily lives, at work or as part of struggles they are drawn into). In stark contrast, HM is introduced to workers from the inside, as it were -- since it does represent and express a generalisation of their experience, even though Marxists have had to systematise it.

This otherwise edifying homily shouldn't be news to most Marxists; however, substitutionist ideas have other implications and ramifications that are all too easily missed, to be outlined presently.

42. This theme (i.e., concerning two incompatible views of language: the traditional, individualistic, representational theory versus the Marxist and/or Wittgensteinian communicational/communitarian model) will be explored at length in the later Parts of Essay Twelve and in Essay Thirteen Part Three. [Aspects of it have already been addressed in Essay Twelve Part One.]

42a. Of course, dialecticians claim that the Hegelian 'concepts' they use have been rotated through 180º, and now proudly stand 'on their feet', the 'right way up'. However, as the Essays published at this site have shown, the angle through which these Hegelian 'concepts' have actually been spun is the full 360.

[I will enter into more detail on this in Essay Twelve Part Four, when it is published sometime in 2020.]

43. In short, I accept the classical Leninist theory of the Party; I just reject the dialectical dogma that has usually been superimposed upon it. [On this, see Appendix E.]

43a. It might be wondered how dialectical concepts can have any use at all in view of earlier comments about the impossibility of putting such concepts into practice. In fact, those comments were qualified by the addition of the phrase "other than negative". The import of that particular codicil will become clear as this main sub-section unfolds.

"To organize itself for carrying out this world-historic aim, the working class in each country must construct a revolutionary socialist party in the pattern developed by Lenin; that is, a combat party capable of dialectically combining democracy and centralism -- democracy in arriving at decisions, centralism in carrying them out; a leadership controlled by the ranks, ranks able to carry forward under fire in disciplined fashion." [Socialist Equality Party (UK), quoted from the World Socialist Web Site, here. Bold emphasis added.]

The Socialist Equality Party (UK) is one of the microscopic fragments that formed after the break-up of the old WRP, affiliated with the ICFI. As we will see, when it comes to 'applying dialectics' -- and despite the fact that a wide chasm separates them politically -- there is little difference (in this respect) between Stalinists, Maoists and Trotskyists. [On this, see also Appendix D.]

In addition, we find a dialectician of the stature of Ted Grant arguing along similar lines, too:

"The whole contradiction, a contradiction within the society itself and not imposed arbitrarily -- is in the very concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If one considers the problem in the abstract, one can see that this is a contradictory phenomenon: the abolition of capitalism yet the continuation of classes. The proletariat does not disappear. It raises itself to the position of ruling class and abolishes the capitalist class...." [Ted Grant. Bold emphases added.]

And, almost predictably, we find Maoists criticising Trotsky (and perhaps also Trotskyism in general) along similar lines, employing DM to that end:

"Contrary to what is often thought, democratic centralism concerns questions of elaboration of the party line and leadership more than questions of organisation. A centralised party is necessary to unify and co-ordinate all the people's struggles, to centralise and systematise them after studying the correct ideas of the masses (sic), to mobilise the masses around slogans corresponding to the tasks of the moment, to assess constantly the experience gained in the struggles as a whole, and to educate the masses in the spirit of scientific socialism so that they can carry through the revolution to the end. None of these objectives can be achieved if this leadership is not carried out democratically.

"Trotsky's positions on this issue varied considerably during his life. We see him oscillate from one extreme to another because of his inability to grasp the dialectical link uniting these pairs of opposites: the distinction between the party and the class and its fusion with it; the authority of the centre and its monitoring by the militants; the need for statutory rules and the fact that they must be subordinated to 'revolutionary opportunity', as Lenin said." [Kostas Mavrakis, quoted from here. Bold emphases added.]

Of course, if any of these were indeed 'dialectical opposites' (which they would have to be or the above couldn't be 'dialectical contradictions'), then according to the DM-classicists, they must both struggle with and then turn into one another. It would be interesting, therefore, to see the Maoist above, comrade Mavrakis, explain how the party struggles with and then turns into the working class, and vice versa. Assuming the Communist Party of China is at best to be numbered in the hundreds of thousands, while the Chinese working class is perhaps to be numbered in the hundreds of millions, it might take some sort of miracle to turn the former into the latter, involving each party member splitting into thousands of parts which somehow become thousands of workers so that those hundreds of thousands or party members can turn into hundreds of millions or workers. In reverse, exactly how those many millions of workers squeeze into a few hundred thousand party members I'll leave the reader to work out for herself. But, has there been any intimation in the news media concerning these remarkable Chinese prodigies? I have to say, if there has, I missed it. [Any who have seen such reports, please e-mail me with the details.]

Perhaps even more intriguing, it would be interesting to see Ted Grant (or one of his acolytes) explain how the same sort of miracle -- which ensures that these alleged 'dialectical opposites', "the abolition of capitalism" and "the continuation of classes", struggle with and then change into one another -- might conceivably happen.

That is quite apart from the addition fact that these 'opposites' must also imply one another, such that one can't exist without the other (rather like the proletariat can't exist without the capitalist class, and vice versa, so we are told; they supposedly inter-define one another). But, in what way does the "abolition of capitalism" imply the "continuation of classes" such that the one can't exist without the other, or such that they inter-define one another? We are never told -- and that is probably because it is impossible to see how it could be the case. If so, whatever else they are, these can't be 'dialectical opposites'; in turn, if that is so, this can't be a 'dialectical contradiction', either.

The same goes for the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese working class. [The latter can surely exist without the former --, and, indeed, vice versa.]

Be this as it may, others have joined in with the dialectal chorus (without once explaining how these alleged 'opposites' inter-define one another, and then change into each other after they have slugged it out -- that is, if the DM-classicists are to be believed):

"Democratic Centralism is the name we give to the Leninist (i.e. Marxist) theory of organisation. These two words, which have diametrically opposite meanings, express the dialectical character of the Marxist approach to this question. In simple terms, it means: 'full freedom in discussion, complete unity in action'. But these two opposite poles -- democracy and centralism -- cannot be mechanically combined, but are in fact in a continual 'struggle', the 'balance' between democracy and centralism tipping to one side or the other, depending on conditions democracy the means of building centralism; centralism the means of achieving democracy." [Taken from here; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis added. Paragraphs merged.]

"Democratic centralism is a method of organization that embodies two elements, democracy and centralism, in an ever-changing dialectical relationship of struggle and unity. Thus, there is no formula for the 'correct' proportions of democracy and centralism. Instead, communists must determine the synthesis of the two that enables their organizations to provide coherent and decisive leadership to the working class." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"The democratic centralism of the Comintern (SH) [Stalinist-Hoxhaist -- RL] as the central head quarter of the world proletariat must be dialectically combined and be brought into accordance with the democratic centralism of the Sections as the Comintern's detachments of the proletariat in the countries." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

"The CPGB [Communist Party of Great Britain -- RL] is organised on the basis of democratic centralism. Democratic centralism is a form of organisation and a political principle. Democratic centralism entails the subordination of the minority to the majority when it comes to the actions of the party. That does not mean that the minority should be gagged. Minorities must have the possibility of becoming the majority. As long as they accept in practice the decisions of the majority, groups of comrades have the right to support alternative platforms and form themselves into temporary or permanent factions and express their views publicly. Democratic centralism therefore represents a dialectical unity entailing the fullest, most open and frank debate, along with the most determined, selfless, revolutionary action." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added. Paragraphs merged.]

"Thus in the dialectical relationship between democracy and centralism, Mao showed that the correct method was ‘first democracy, then centralism’. He also showed the crucial importance of democratic centralism both inside and outside the party. He showed how correct democratic centralism was essential for the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and, therefore, the establishment of socialism and the prevention of the restoration of capitalism." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis added.]

"Democratic centralism is the principle governing activities of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). To build the Party strong and pure, especially during the time when party congresses are convened at all levels in preparation for the 12th National Congress of the Party, there should be proper awareness and serious implementation of this principle. First, it is necessary to promote education, to enhance awareness of cadres and party members, especially the key cadres, member of the party committees at all levels so that they can have correct and full awareness on the nature, contents and dialectical relations of the principle. The two factors, namely 'democracy' and 'centralism' of the principle are not separated but intertwined. Centralism is based on democracy and democracy is put under the direction of centralism." [Taken from here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added.]

If this wasn't clear enough by now, the above should highlight the fact that, for DM-fans, the word "dialectical" (and its cognates) works like a magic wand, which, once waved, dispels all doubt, silencing every question. [Except, of course, the awkward ones I have asked!]

43a00. This helps explain why, as far as I can determine, Trotskyist dialecticians haven't widely adopted or accepted the distinction between 'external' and 'internal' contradictions (although Trotsky himself appears to have used both terms), or even 'antagonistic' versus 'non-antagonistic' contradictions. Perhaps that is because these dubious notions were themselves unknown to Hegel, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin -- and, oddly enough, as this more recent Russian author himself points out (although I must apologise in advance for his obscurity of expression; anyway, those familiar with DM will already be inured to verbal spaghetti like this):

"But the point is that antagonism is not analogous to dialectical contradiction. In a dialectical contradiction of opposites is expressed the inner, essential condition of some phenomenon, while antagonism express the occurrence of confrontation, resistance of opposite social, socio-economic, and socio-political forces, social classes, social strata and groups, on the basis of such contradictions in social life.

"Here are the essential and substantial characteristics of antagonism. First, it is not individual, but social antagonism. Second, it is manifested in relationships as particular, specific forms of the development of social production. Third, social antagonism has a historically transitory character, originating with the phenomenon of private-property-owning, exploiting society, and disappearing with the destruction of the last such type of society -- capitalist society.... In exploiter society, antagonism expresses the main mode of its basic dialectical contradiction in social areas.

"The presence of the struggle of opposites includes the formal coincidence of dialectical contradiction and antagonism. But in general it should not be possible to identify them, as is done rather often. Between dialectical contradiction and social antagonism, there exist essential and derivative relations, inner causes and social effects. Indeed by means of the resolution of social class antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as a result of class struggle and socialist revolution the contradiction between social production and private appropriation is resolved. In its turn, on the basis of the resolution of the given deep inner dialectical contradiction, both of the opposite sides of the social class antagonism are eliminated: the bourgeois class and all other exploiting elements are eliminated, and the proletariat is qualitatively transformed into the ruling, leading class of socialist society.

"Consequently, the struggle of social forces...causing the given deep dialectical contradiction is resolved, and the resolution of that contradiction leads to the removal also of social antagonism. Having been resolved, the dialectical contradiction changes into a qualitatively different content, displaying unity and struggle in the conditions that have arisen of social ownership of the means of production, but not reproducing in this any social class antagonism, which comes to an end under socialist conditions. Thereby the social dialectic is cleansed of antagonisms.

"This means that between dialectical contradiction and social antagonism, there are essential differences of general and particular, universal and specific, inner content and external form, essential and derivative, inner cause and social environment, historically permanent (non-transitory) and historically transitory. As Lenin wrote, Marxist theory 'directly sets itself the task of revealing all forms of antagonism and exploitation in contemporary society, tracing their evolution, indicating their transitional character, avoiding showing them in other forms.' [V. I . Lenin, Full Collected Works, (Russian Edition), volume 1, p. 340.]

"Such essential qualitative demarcations of dialectical contradictions and social antagonism excludes the possibility of applying them to one another and spreading specific features of antagonism into the universal-general and essential, deep character of dialectical contradictions. This means that a dialectical contradiction cannot be characterized as an 'antagonistic contradiction' or as a 'non-antagonistic contradiction.' It is remarkable that the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. I. Lenin do not contain the expressions 'antagonistic contradiction' or 'non-antagonistic contradiction,' to which many authors are attracted.

"We share the position of those Soviet authors and philosophers from the socialist countries who employ the concepts 'contradiction' and 'antagonism,' but do not unite them. [See, for example, G. S. Batishchev, 'Protivorechia i antagonizm, Problemy dialektiki,' in Vyp. III: Voprosy dialektiko-materialisticheskoi teorii protivorechiia, Leningrad, 1973.]

"(In this connection it must be said that in a series of earlier publications, the author, together with many Soviet scholars, used the concepts of 'non-antagonistic' and 'antagonistic' contradiction).

"With regard to the point of view of scholars distinguishing dialectical contradiction and antagonism, or uniting them by using the concepts of 'antagonistic contradiction' and 'non-antagonistic contradiction,' the present position is most fully set out in the work of A. A. Khamidov. [A. A. Khamidov, 'Kategoriia dialekticheskogo protivorechiia i poniatie antagonizm,' Printsip protivorehiia v sotsial'nom poznanii, Alma-Ata, 1982, pp.51-139.] In a thorough analysis of the present problem, he sets out the view that 'dialectical contradiction and antagonism are phenomena of a different order,' that the expression 'antagonistic contradiction' 'plainly does not occur' in the classic works. 'There are none in the works of Marx and Engels, nor in the works of Lenin, nor even in...Plekhanov's works.' [Ibid., p.121.]

"In the conditions of the new society, there is no transition of dialectical contradictions from 'antagonistic contradictions' to 'non-antagonistic contradictions,' but rather the liberation of dialectical contradiction from the social antagonisms that accompany them in exploitative society. Dialectical contradiction appears in its proper, 'pure,' essential type, without any additional particular antagonistic form and concrete antagonistic manifestation, and on a qualitatively new level, as a united and universal impulse of social self-movement.

"The inner source and common initial motive force of social development in socialist conditions is only a dialectical contradiction in a qualitatively new condition, but still not anything analogous to 'non-antagonistic contradiction.'" [Excerpts from V. S. Semenov, Dialektika razvitiia sotsializma [Dialectics of Socialist Development], Moscow: "Mysl'," 1987, quoted from here. Formatting and quotation marks modified to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typos corrected. Italic emphases in the original; bold emphases added.]

[It isn't easy to see how 'external contradictions' can be rendered compatible with an 'upside-down', or even the 'right-way-up', version of Hegel's system (let alone 'antagonistic' versus 'non-antagonistic' contradictions). Indeed, I have yet to see a single one of those who think there are any such 'external contradictions' show how they can be based on even a 'rotated' form of Hegelianism. In fact, 'external contradictions' would undermine key features of Hegel's response to Empiricist criticisms of Rationalist theories of causation. (The comments of at least one dialectician -- and a MIST, too -- who seems to recognise this incongruity can be found here.)]

However, the rejection of the distinction between 'external' and 'internal' contradictions would leave Dialectical Trotskyists in something of a bind, since it would suggest that nothing can have an effect on anything else, and that everything is 'self-moving', as, indeed, Lenin insisted. Hence, and as a consequence of this (Leninist) theory, while you might think that a baseball bat striking a ball moves that ball, the ball in fact moves itself as a result of its own 'internal contradictions'.

[Having said that, I have recently come across at least one Trotskyist who now appears happy to talk about 'primary contradictions'.]

Since I have discussed these distinctions at length in Essay Eight Part One, the reader is directed there for more details. [See also here and here.]

43a1.It could be argued that Stalin was in fact arguing the opposite in this passage: that the victory of socialism requires the revolution to be spread internationally (which was, of course, the classic Leninist line):

"If the possibility of victory of socialism in a single country means the possibility of solving the internal contradictions which can be completely overcome in a single country (we are of course thinking about our own country), the possibility of the definitive victory of socialism means the possibility to overcome the external contradictions between the country of socialism and the countries of capitalism, and these contradictions can only be overcome thanks to the victory of the proletarian revolution in a certain number of countries". [XVth conference of the CPSU. Quoted from here. This link is now dead!]

But, he is clearly arguing for a stagiest programme, that:

(1) The 'internal contradictions' of the fSU can be "overcome", meaning that socialism could be created in one country before the revolution is spread. The victory of socialism wasn't therefore intrinsically connected with the international revolution; the two were conceived of as different stages.

Indeed, Stalin went on to declare that this had in fact been achieved in the 1930s:

"Since then fourteen years have elapsed. A period long enough to test the experiment. And what do we find? This period has shown beyond a doubt that the experiment of forming a multi-national state based on Socialism has been completely successful. This is the undoubted victory of the Leninist national policy.... Our Soviet society has already, in the main, succeeded in achieving Socialism; it has created a Socialist system, i.e., it has brought about what Marxists in other words call the first, or lower, phase of Communism. Hence, in the main, we have already achieved the first phase of Communism. Socialism. (Prolonged applause.) The fundamental principle of this phase of Communism is, as you know, the formula: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work.' (sic) Should our Constitution reflect this fact, the fact that Socialism has been achieved? Should it be based on this achievement? Unquestionably, it should. It should, because for the U.S.S.R. Socialism is something already achieved and won." [Stalin, On the Draft Constitution of the USSR, Report Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., 25 November 1936. Italic emphasis in the original; bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Paragraphs merged.]

(2) The "definitive" victory of socialism will then require a solution of these 'external contradictions'.

(3) The international revolution was secondary to the formation of socialism in the fSU, not integral to it, as Lenin had maintained.

(4) Any attempt to create socialism in the fSU was bound to fail -- as Lenin predicted would happen -- if the revolution wasn't spread.

Now, I don't want to enter into this knotty problem in any great detail here (however, I have added several more comments below); Trotskyists will in general agree with the above, anyway (even if they disagree with what I have to say about the role of dialectics in all of this), while Stalinists and Maoists won't -- whatever I say.

Even so, and as far as the latter are concerned, as I noted in the main body of this Essay:

Anyone who thinks these comments are prejudicial to Stalinism (and/or Maoism) should reflect on the fact that the contrary idea -- that socialism could be built in one country -- has been refuted by history.

43b. Weston goes on to list several other dialecticians writing in the 1930s who concurred with, or elaborated upon, this new and convenient re-definition of the word "contradiction" (Weston (2008), p.441).

Also at his site Weston has very helpfully posted a link to English translations of numerous STD-texts (from the 1930s to the present day -- one of these has already been quoted in Note 43a00, above), which substantiate many of the allegations made in this Essay (i.e., that dialectics was used to rationalise contradictory decisions that had already been taken for hard-headed political reasons). Several other texts are slowly beginning to appear at the Marxist Internet Archive.

Here is the first of these, which manages to rationalise both the class war against the Kulaks and the economic and social compromise Lenin had to make (in the NEP) to stabilise the Russian economy and rebuild the proletariat -- all the while succeeding in criticising Bukharin and Trotsky (who, apparently, didn't "understand dialectics"), into the bargain:

"Thus all development is reduced to a 'triad,' the triad is reduced to equilibrium, its disturbance and re-establishment, and synthesis is reduced to the reconciliation of opposites. It is understandable that Bukharin does not solve the problem of the new. We already know what political conclusions his theory of equilibrium and reconciliation of opposites led Bukharin toward. The theory of a snails pace on the path to socialism, the growth of the kulak cooperative nests into socialism, equilibrium in the struggle of the two sectors in the USSR, reconciliation in the class struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie -- this is the historical synthesis, which also had to denote a new basis of development. Under the first successes of socialist construction, which evoked furious resistance from the class enemy, rightists began to shout about the disturbance of equilibrium and of the necessity of its re-establishment. Synthesis must happen on a new basis. This 'new' basis, in the opinion of the rightists, was a return to the NEP of 1923. In reality such synthesis is a reactionary justification for the necessity of remaining in the old framework and merely touching up the old....

"Negation of the negation, synthesis, the new -- these arise not by means of simple unification, agreement, reconciliation, or combination of opposites. This mechanical interpretation of synthesis is nothing other than eclecticism. When Lenin describes the discussion on the trade unions and brings out two basic struggling points of view, he clearly emphasizes eclecticism of Bukharin, who made the proposal to unify the thesis approved by the Central Committee and Trotsky's thesis. Lenin pointed out that the essence of the question was not in the means to unify the two points of view. Every object and phenomenon has many contradictory sides and definite characteristics. However, in a concrete situation it is important to find the new, that leading element that enters into the interaction of these sides. An eclectic does not know how to reveal this new, leading source.

"Synthesis is historical synthesis. Only a concrete analysis can show how opposites are overcome in synthesis and to what extent they are 'preserved.' Analyzing the theory of knowledge of dialectical materialism, we are convinced that it is not at all a synthesis of empiricism and rationalism. Dialectical materialism overcomes the one-sidedness of empiricism and rationalism, pulling apart the experiential and logical moments of a single process of cognition. Dialectical materialism does not negate the empirical and rational moments in cognition, but by no means preserves empiricism and rationalism as tendencies. It is quite characteristic of Menshivist (sic) idealism that, while criticizing those who saw 'triadness' (sic) in the law of the negation of the negation, it did not manage to pose the question of synthesis correctly itself. Thus the essence of synthesis consists in this, that it expresses the origin of the new. The new arises through a jump. The negation of the negation also expresses this break in continuity, manifesting new developmental tendencies, which overcomes the old form of the contradiction. The old contradiction is overcome in synthesis.

"The NEP was the negation of War Communism. But the NEP did not mean the negation of socialist construction, but only a particular form of its development. Socialism in its developed form overcomes a contradiction, and signifies the negation of the negation. But if the negation of [the negation? -- RL] took place on the basis of the developmental tendencies of the transition period, then the negation of the negation means the transition to new developmental tendencies, those of socialism."

"Selections on the concept of synthesis, from Dialekticheskii materializm [Dialectical Materialism], by A. Aizenberg, K. Egorova, M. Zhiv, K. Sedikov, G. Tymianskii, and R. Iankovskii, under the general editorship of A. Aizenberg, G. Tymianskii, and N. Shirokov, Leningrad: ORGIZ-Privoi, 1931, written as a textbook. This work was translated into Chinese by Li Da and Lei Zhongjian in 1933, and studied by Chinese Marxists, including Mao Zedong." [The latter comments are Weston's, not mine -- RL. Quoted from here. (This links to a PDF.) Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typo corrected; bold emphases added. Some paragraphs merged.]

[We can see in the above the beginnings of the distinction between 'principal' and 'secondary' contradictions. Concerning Lenin's 'dialectical' criticism of Bukharin and Trotsky, and the mess he got himself into as a result, see here.]

This passage is in fact very similar to a much longer presentation published in Shirokov (1937), pp.359-87. The latter, however, adds the following rather ominous note:

"In NEP, the contradictions of the transitional period are fully developed, because a fierce class struggle still goes on for the final eradication of the class enemy.... As the energizing negative of the contradictions of NEP, socialist reconstruction emerges, negating in its very movement the given form of its development, i.e., NEP. The entry into the period of socialism is the entry into the period of final resolution of the basic contradictions of NEP. Whereas the 'negation' of war communism proceeded on the basis of the law-systems of NEP, the 'negation of the negation' denotes the transition to the new law-system of socialism, on the basis of which the movement of the whole system of social relationships in the USSR is proceeding, the capitalist classes are being liquidated and the edifice of socialist society is being raised." [Shirokov (1937), p.378. Bold emphases added. This text is now accessible here.]

Readers will no doubt notice that it is the assumed 'contradictory' nature of this theory (or 'reality' --, or, indeed, both) that 'permits' these authors to derive whatever they want from it.

"Antagonistic contradictions are those contradictions in social life which bring out the fundamental oppositions of classes and the fundamental difference of interests of those classes, and which can only be overcome through irreconcilable class struggle….

"Non-antagonistic contradictions are of a completely different character from antagonistic ones. Hostile classes with directly opposed interests do not stand behind such [non-antagonistic] contradictions in social life. The contradictions, for example between the working class and the labouring peasantry are non-antagonistic. Although their class positions are opposed to one another in capitalist society, they become joined into one single powerful camp under the leadership of the working class through their common interests in the struggle against capitalist exploitation and against misery and impoverishment, a struggle directed against the camp of the exploiters. The antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions naturally have different content, and therefore the ways and means of overcoming them are also different….

"The development of antagonistic contradictions leads unavoidably to an ever deeper division of society into powers opposed to each other, powers which fight each other in a life-and-death struggle. Antagonistic contradictions are not evened out or lessened in the process of development, but are deepened and take on sharper and sharper forms.

"These contradictions appear very abruptly, especially in the relations of production. The growth of contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production reaches a point in every antagonistic society where they can no longer exist in the previous frame of relative unity. The sharpening of contradictions in the relations of production is expressed in the class struggle. The presence and the sharpening of class struggle does not lead, as all representatives of vulgar theories assume, to the ruin of society. The struggle of oppressed classes against the exploiting classes does not destroy society, but drives it forward to higher and higher forms…. The overcoming of antagonistic contradictions can…only succeed by way of the revolutionary overthrow of existing exploiter regimes, but [by? -- RL] way of revolutionary class struggle….

"During the transition period from capitalism to socialism in the USSR, there was also a contradiction of a different kind, the contradiction between the working class and the peasantry. This contradiction consists in the fact that, in opposition to the proletariat, which possess no private property in the means of production, the peasant class constructed their economy on the basis of small private property, a source which feeds capitalism. It is not possible to construct socialism, however, if the peasantry is not convinced of the necessity of the transition to large-scale socialist agriculture, if its consciousness as an owner of private property is not changed.

"Stalin's historical service consisted in his having taken Lenin's work further, having treated the problem of the particular, non-antagonistic character of the contradictions between the working class and the peasantry, and having advocated the only correct path which leads to the overcoming of these contradictions." [M. M. Rosental, 'The Marxist Dialectical Method,' translated from the German version, 'Die marxistische dialektische Method,' Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1953, pp.274-75, 288-89, 291-12, 293, 294-95. This work was in turn translated from 'Marksistskii dialekticheskii metod,' Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1952. [Quoted from here. This links to a PDF; spelling adjusted to agree with UK English, minor typos corrected. Page references and quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphases in the original; bold emphasis added. Some paragraphs merged.]

Of course, we all know how Stalin 'resolved' this particular contradiction with extreme 'sensitivity' -- just as we also know that Stalin's name was dialectically-edited out of the story a few years after the above had been written:

How this 'contradiction' could fail to be 'antagonistic' the above author failed to say. Did the peasants happily volunteer to give up their land? Were they persuaded or were they forced? These questions in fact answer themselves -- but we can console ourselves with the thought that a different set of conclusions is easily obtained if we throw some dialectics at it; indeed, as we are about to see. The above author now continues (also using dialectics to score a few petty, sectarian points along the way):

"'We have,' said Comrade Stalin in his report 'On the Results of the Work of the 14th Conference of the CPR(B)' in 1925, 'two main classes before us: the proletarian class and the class of private-property-owners, i.e., the peasantry. Hence, contradictions between them are inevitable. The whole question is whether we shall be able by our own efforts to overcome the contradictions that exist between the proletariat and the peasantry. When the question is asked: can we build socialism by our own efforts? what is meant is: can the contradictions that exist between the proletariat and the peasantry in our country be overcome or not?' [J. V. Stalin, 'Results of the Work of the Fourteenth Conference of the R. C. P. (B.),' Works, Foreign Languages Press, Moscow, 1954, volume 7, p.111.]

"A bitter struggle took place in our party between the Leninists and the opportunists over this question. The various positions taken on this question and its solution clearly reveal the difference between the dialectical world view of the party, and the metaphysical essence of opportunism of all sorts.

"How did the Trotskyists, who hid behind a 'Left' mask, stand on this question? The Trotskyists held that the peasantry was a completely homogeneous reactionary mass, a class which contained no inner contradictions. They did not see the dual nature of the peasantry and did not distinguish what makes the peasant a man who works hard and what makes him a small property owner. They threw these two sides together and drew the conclusion that the peasantry is a power hostile to the working class, and that a collision between the working class of our country, which had taken the power into its hands, and the peasantry, is unavoidable. [Er..., where did Trotsky say this? What he (and Lenin) said was that this endeavour was doomed to fail unless the revolution was spread -- RL.] The general conclusion that resulted from this was that it is impossible to construct socialism on our country.

"What position did the Right take on this question? These enemies of the party also considered the peasantry in a purely metaphysical way. Since they did not see the peasantry's contradictoriness in the essence, they left the side of the peasantry as small property owner wholly unconsidered, consciously blurred the difference between the working peasant and the kulak, and denied the presence of contradictions between the peasantry and the working class. From this resulted a whole series of Right opportunist measures which were based on the metaphysical 'equilibrium' theory, according to which not the struggle of opposites but their reconciliation, kulakism 'growing into' socialism, is the source of the 'development' to socialism….

"Comrade Stalin revealed the characteristic mark of the non-antagonistic contradiction between the proletariat and the peasantry when he showed 'that, besides contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry, there are also common interests between them on fundamental problems of development, interests which outweigh, or, at all events, can outweigh those contradictions, and are the basis, the foundation, of the alliance...between the workers and the peasants.' [ibid., p.112]....

"In any case, the overcoming of all non-antagonistic contradictions takes place through the path of struggle. Stalin's 1925 characterization of the particular features of the non-antagonistic contradiction between the working class and the peasantry had the result that in addition to the bond between these classes, a 'struggle inside the alliance' also existed, 'a struggle whose importance is outweighed by that of the community of interests, and which should disappear in the future, when the workers and the peasants cease to be classes -- when they become working people of a classless society.' [J. V. Stalin, 'Questions and Answers: Speech Delivered at the Sverdlov University, June 9, 1925,' Works, volume 7, p.179.]

"That was the struggle over the question of prices, about taxes, the struggle against the influence of the kulaks on the middle peasants, the struggle against the instinct of private ownership, concerning the socialistic re-education of the labouring peasantry.

"But the overcoming of non-antagonistic contradictions proceeds completely differently from the case of antagonistic contradictions. In the first publication of Stalin's 'Letter to Comrade Ch,' in volume 13 of Stalin's collected works, Comrade Stalin shows very clearly the different possibilities for resolving non-antagonistic and antagonistic contradictions. These Stalinist indications are important mainly for understanding the particular nature of different types of contradictions. Stalin spoke of contradictions between the proletariat and the labouring peasantry and showed as a result that 'it is a matter of the contradictions [inside the smychka] (the union, the bond between the proletariat and the peasantry -- M. R.), which will be evened out and overcome satisfactorily as industrialization increases, that is, as the strength and influence of the country's proletariat grows.' [J. V. Stalin, 'Letter to Comrade Ch,' November, 1930, Works, 1955, volume 13, p.21.]

"The contradiction between the proletariat and the kulaks, that is, the antagonistic contradiction, develops in a completely different way. Here the subject is 'contradictions between the proletariat and the kulaks, thus, contradictions that lie outside the scope of the bond [between workers and peasants] and will grow and become more acute until we eliminate the kulaks as a class.' [ibid., pp.21-22.]

"Consequently antagonistic contradictions increase in the course of struggle and become sharper, until one of the opposite powers is removed. Conversely, non-antagonistic contradictions become evened out and moderated in the course of struggle, and find a satisfactory solution in the interests of progressive development.

"The program of socialist re-education of the peasants achieved a complete victory in the course of the struggle for the collectivization of agriculture. In his report 'On the Draft Constitution of the USSR' Comrade Stalin explained that the economic and political contradictions between the working class and the peasantry 'fall away and disappear,' that from the essence of these classes new classes have come about, classes of socialist society.

"The overcoming of the contradictions between the working classes and the old, small capitalist peasantry in our country has showed [sic] the people of the world for the first time that contradictions are resolved through the re-education of a whole class and its being convinced of the appropriateness and necessity of a new path of development, not on the basis of a bloody and deadly struggle. Such a resolution was possible since the contradiction between the working class and the peasantry has a non-antagonistic character." [Ibid. (This links to a PDF.) Spelling altered to agree with UK English, minor typos corrected. Bold emphases alone added. Page references and quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Link added.]

Neutral observers, who might still doubt the allegation that DM can be used to justify anything a DM-fan likes will find all the proof they need in the above passage.

Exactly how one 'persuades' peasants to relinquish their land the above author passed over in silence; and no wonder. If peasants can be 'persuaded', why not the Kulaks, and why not the capitalist class in its entirety? That is, of course, partly why ACs and NACs were invented in the first place -- to 'excuse' and rationalise policies that had been decided upon in advance for hard-headed political reasons, in defence of the interests of the bureaucratic clique around Stalin.

"In capitalist society, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are opposites which are external and hostile to one another. However, these classes are indissolubly connected to each other in the economic structure of capitalism, and the presence of one class is a condition for the existence of the other. Just as it is not possible for capitalism to exist without the bourgeoisie, it cannot exist without the proletariat. The creation by the working class, which has been deprived of the means of production, of surplus value for a bourgeoisie which buys its labour power, and of the exploitation of labour power by the bourgeoisie which owns the means of production, is a single process that conditions the very existence of capitalist society. At the same time, the relative character of this unity, 'mutual penetration', is obvious: by no means is there any unity of interests of both classes. It is not the coinciding of class interests, but, on the contrary, their struggle which is the basis of social development. The strengthening of the proletarian state, as Comrade Stalin points out, prepares the conditions for its withering away in the future. The strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the future withering away of the state in this way are not external opposites. The strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat is identical with the preparation of its future withering away. It would be the greatest mistake, however, to forget the opposition of these stages and merely identify the two processes, to consider that with the withering away of the proletarian state results directly from its strengthening.

"At bottom, contemporary mechanism, Menshevist idealism and views like it fundamentally distort the correct Leninist understanding of the unity and mutual penetration of opposites. Mechanists, from Dühring to Comrade Bukharin, regard every kind of opposites found in a unity as forces external to one another, oppositely directed against one another. The mechanists identify every unity of opposites, every contradiction, with external contradictions, with antagonisms of hostile forces, while they explain the coexistence of these forces and the preservation of the contradiction as the equilibrium of opposites. Engels ridicules Dühring's trivial conception of oppositely directed forces. Lenin pointed out to Comrade Bukharin, while reading his Economics of the Transition Period, that it is incorrect to identify contradiction and antagonism, that under socialism, for example, class antagonisms will disappear, but contradictions between nature and society, and between the relations and forces of production will still occur.

"Antagonism is a particular aspect of a contradiction, in which the sides are related to each other as irreconcilable extremes. The best example of antagonism of a social character is the class contradictions between exploited and exploiting classes. But in a dialectical understanding of contradictions, we also have to look for and find the possible inner connections even between antagonistic opposites, since otherwise any protracted coexistence of these extremes in one object, phenomenon, society, etc., would be unthinkable (see above, the example of the bourgeoisie and working class). The antagonism of dying capitalism and of socialism, born in revolution, permeates the entire transitional epoch. That is no less true of the early stage, of the restoration period, the stage of the NEP.

"Lenin regarded it as possible to use the method of state capitalism, controlled by the dictatorship of the proletariat, to use the bourgeoisie the NEP [New Economic Policy -- RL] in order to increase and develop the production forces under conditions of their complete subordination to proletarian laws, at the same time limiting and supplanting them. The period of socialist reconstruction and the offensive of socialism on every front sets out the task of the liquidation of the kulaks as a class, of the abolition of the remainder of capitalism in economics and in people's consciousness: The antagonism of capitalist elements and the socialist order already makes their further coexistence impossible, and class struggle intensifies. Right opportunism, which identifies antagonisms and contradictions, and which describes contradictory development as equilibrium of antagonistic forces, has emerged with a sermon of reconciliation, of the equilibrium of the struggling forces, and of capitalist and socialist sectors, and of the theory of the damping down of class struggle in the Soviet economy in the process of this 'balancing' of the sectors.

"Menshevism and Menshevist idealism also distorts a correct understanding of the unity of opposites. Menshevist idealism understands it as 'flexibility, subjectively applied,' as sophistry and eclecticism. They view the unity of opposites as their eclectic conjunction. Menshevist idealism, departing from the Leninist formulation of the law of the unity of opposites, outlines a completely mechanistic scheme, according to which at the beginning, we have difference, then opposition, and then contradiction. They do not understand that contradiction already resides in each difference. Like Plekhanov, they limit the universal character of the law of contradictory development. Meanwhile, Lenin, on the contrary, emphasizes the conditional, temporary, relative character of the unity, identity, and mutual penetration of opposites, and the absolute character of their mutual negation, of the mutual exclusion of opposites, of their struggle, which is the source of development." [Mitin (1931), pp.148-50. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases and link added. Spelling modified to agree with UK English. Some paragraphs merged.]

[Also see Afanasyev (1968), pp.100-02, Kharin (1981), pp.171-93, Krapivin (1985), pp.165-71, Kuusinen (1961), pp.97-99, and Yurkovets (1984), p.99. Cf., also Maoist theorist Ai Siqi (1957). (This links to a PDF).]

[I will post other passages when they appear on-line -- and which also seem relevant to the aims of this Essay -- in the Appendix at a later date.]

Incidentally, readers who know anything about the sophisticated argumentative gyrations of Protestant Millenarianism (where every line of the Bible is interpreted as if it foretold whatever these groups and their leaders have done, are doing, or are about to do) will recognise the similarities between these sad Christians and the first two of the above DM-texts.

A particularly good, example of this phenomenon can be found in the musings of The Lord's Witnesses (henceforth "LWs", a break-away sect from the Jehovah's Witnesses [JWs]; incidentally, the JWs are almost as adept at this form of post-hoc adaptive sophistry as the LWs). I have been following the interpretive antics of the LWs for several years; every minor twist and turn in their own fortunes and those in the world around them are squeezed into the interpretation of some obscure biblical text or other (including, believe it or not, the Fukushima nuclear disaster (in 2011) and the West Texas Fertiliser Explosion (in 2013), 'predicted' by (yes, you guessed it!) yet another suitably opaque text in the Bible, in this case, 1 Kings 18 -- are you not surprised and ashamed you missed that patently obvious Biblical clue?). When their predictions fail to pan out, as they have done hundreds of times (no exaggeration!), these passages are then skilfully re-interpreted so that this "new truth" fits, too.

These numpties even list all their failed predictions of nuclear explosions (now running at over 500!), here. Their latest 'prediction' runs as follows:

"We now expect the first of these twin nuclear terrorist attacks to occur one on Manhattan producing a rising mushroom cloud of 1Kings18 from the Hudson and the other on London producing a rising mushroom cloud of 1Kings18 from the Thames near Dartford. These 2nd and 3rd fire signs of 1Kings18 will occur during 2016Shebat20-22, which is 2017January23-26. We expect the 2nd and 3rd fire signs to fall on 2016Shebat21 (2017January24/25), the 77th contest BLC Pentecost from 2006Sivan12, our first prediction failure which was the start of the contest. So we must in all seriousness advise everyone in Manhattan or in Dartford, UK with faith in God to leave or to limit as far as possible the time they spend in these two areas, until after these fire signs have occurred." [Concatenated dates in the original. Paragraphs merged.]

Update June 2019: Ok, well, 2017 came and went; needless to say, London is still here, as is Dartford. In fact the above passage has now been altered to the following:

"We now predict the 2nd fire sign of 1Kings18 to occur during the evening (we expect it at sunset on Saturday 2019September7 -- 19:32 BST, above the Thames, East of London, around Dartford) on 2019Elul5 (Saturday/Sunday 2018September7-8), the late Zoar Pentecost, and the 3rd fire sign to occur during the morning (we expect it at sunrise on Sunday - 06:30 EDT 2019September8, above the Hudson on Manhattan) on 2019Elul5. We saw these predictions on 2018Tishri8/9 and published them at 01:10 BST on Sunday 2018September23 (2018Tishri9). The 2nd and 3rd fire signs are nuclear attacks on Manhattan and East of London around Dartford producing mushroom clouds rising from the Hudson and the Thames. The UK attack should come first. For the lightning of Matthew24 shines from the East/Sunrise to the West/Sunset and Matthew16:1-4 and Luke 13:54-56 indicate that these fire signs occur at sunrise or at sunset, beginning the summer of the harvest of the saints, Matthew24 and Revelation7:1,2 indicate that the 2nd and 3rd fire signs may be EMP weapons -- man made lightning." [Quoted from here; accessed 12/06/2019. Paragraphs merged. Concatenated dates in the original.]

By the way, as these words are being typed, World War Three is also due to start in June 2019, along with the nuclear strikes that failed to materialise in 2017 (scroll to the graphics section about one third of the way down the page). But, curious readers will need to hurry, otherwise, when this prophecy goes wrong (again!), those dates will have been 'updated'. [This is, of course, precisely what one would expect on the basis of Cognitive Dissonance Theory.]

Readers are also encouraged to check the LW's site out for themselves -- begin here (but down a couple of neat whiskeys first; the site is virtually unreadable, and has plainly been constructed by someone with an insecure grip on reality, sanity -- or both!) where they will no doubt recognise many familiar dialectical twists and turns (but, mercifully, of a less ominous nature). Except, of course, the LWs don't have the benefit of all those highly malleable DM-concepts to which they can appeal -- i.e., "dialectical contradiction", UO and NON -- to help them perform screeching U-turns (sometimes overnight), which means that when their predictions fail they have to refer to 'human error', or to the alleged fact 'God' is 'testing them'.

[This is hardly surprising; such antics originate in the same petty-bourgeois mind-set analysed earlier. After all, 'The Lord' works in no less a mysterious way than the 'The Divisive Dialectic'.]

Of course, this puts DM-fans at a distinct advantage, since they can attribute the contradictions in their theory -- as well as their numerous, overnight changes in direction etc. --, to the 'contradictory nature' of reality, as opposed to the unfathomable 'mysteries' inherent in 'God'.

Update January 22, 2021: Here is the latest brazen 'prediction' of these serial error-junkies:

"We now predict the 2nd fire sign of 1Kings18 to occur on 2020Shebat4/5/6 (2021January22-25), above the Thames, East of London around Dartford. We predict the 3rd fire sign of 1Kings18 to occur on 2020Shebat20-22 (2021February7-10), above the Hudson on Manhattan (or the other way around)." [Quoted from here. Accessed 22/01/2021.]

Update September 22, 2021: This has now been 'corrected'; here is the latest 'prophecy':

"We now predict the 2nd fire sign of 1Kings18 to fall on 2021Tishri11-12 (2021September20-22), the late 4th 1NC Pentecost or Super Pentecost thereafter, and the 3rd fire sign to fall on 2021Tishri20-22 (2021September29-October2), the 12th 2NC Pentecost or 7th Sabbath thereof or Super Pentecost thereafter." [Quoted from here. Accessed 21/09/2021. Underlining and concatenated dates in the original.]

Update June 19, 2022: They have now changed the 'rock sold, cast iron' date for the end; so it will now take place in December 2022. Don't forget to stock up!

"So we are now predicting the 2nd fire sign to occur on 2022Chislev4-6 (2022December1-4), the 5th Zoar Pentecost or 7th Sabbath thereof or Super Pentecost thereafter, and the 3rd fire sign of 1Kings18 to occur on 2022Chislev20-22 (2022December17-20) the 2NC Pentecost of the Heshvan1 secular year, or 7th Sabbath thereof or Super Pentecost thereafter. On Thursday 2022June9 (2022Sivan8) at 03:01 BST, we saw the predictions and at 03:38 BST on Thursday 2022June9 (2022Sivan8) we published them. On 2022Nisan23-25 we saw 2022Chislev5-7 and 2022Chislev20-22 for the 2nd and 3rd fire signs." [Quoted from here. Paragraphs merged, links removed. Accessed 19/06/2022. Concatenated dates in the original.]

Update February 8, 2024: This is perhaps the last time I will mention these impressive nut cases (and they are anti-vaxxers, too!), but they have once again changed the above date:

"So we are now predicting the 2nd fire sign to occur on 2023Shebat1-21 (2024January16-2024February6). And the 3rd fire sign of 1Kings18 to occur on 2023Shebat20-22 (2024February4-7). We saw these predictions on 2023Tebbeth26. We published them at 21:20 GMT on Thursday 2024January11 (2023Tebbeth26).... Having predicted the 2nd fire sign of 1Kings18 to fall on 2022Chislev4-6 (2022December1-4) the 5th Zoar Pentecost or the 7th Sabbath thereof or Super Pentecost thereafter, and the 3rd fire sign to fall on 2022Chislev20-22 (2022December17-20), the 2NC Pentecost of the Heshvan1 secular year or the 7th Sabbath thereof or Super Pentecost thereafter having predicted the 2nd fire sign of 1Kings18 to fall on 2022Chislev5 (2022December2/3) the 5th Zoar Pentecost, and the 3rd fire sign to fall on 2022Tebbeth21 (2023January17/18), the 2NC Pentecost of the Chislev1 secular year honouring Jesus being installed as Caesar over Abraham on 2022Chislev5 and rapturing the Abrahamic 2Ncs on 2022Chislev15-19 into Ark2." [Quoted from here; paragraphs merged. Concatenated dates in the original.]

Independently of the above, we witnessed (no pun intended) an even more recent example of this phenomenon with the failed 'Doomsday' predictions of the late Harold Camping. From his reading of the Bible this confused individual predicted that the end of the world would commence with a series of global catastrophes beginning at exactly 18:00, 21/05/2011 (local time). True-to-form, when these catastrophes failed to materialise, several of his followers began revising the date, or explaining away the 'error'.

In fact, and in line once more with the predictions of Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Camping revised his ideas; instead of May 21st being a literal 'Day of Judgement', he informed eager humanity that it was a "spiritual" 'Judgement Day'. The new date is, so we were told, 21/10/2011.

Update May 2012: Camping has now conceded that he was "mistaken". However, if he had access to the Hegelian dialectic (upside down or the 'right way up'), he could have powered through these relatively minor set-backs with ease, blaming it all on the 'contradiction' between appearance and 'essence', or some such.

[This is precisely the tactic adopted by the JWs when their predictions concerning the Second Coming of Christ in 1914 failed to materialise; they then argued that Christ had returned 'invisibly', in 'Heaven'! Except, they managed to argue 'dialectically' in this way without knowing too much Hegel, either. Perhaps they are the Christian equivalent of Dietzgen?]

Anyway, there is an excellent YouTube video on this individual and his terminally gullible followers (although I distance myself from some of the things said in the video about the supposed connection between brain scans and beliefs -- on that see Essay Thirteen Part Three). Moreover, a brief Internet search will reveal countless 'predictions' like these. This one, for instance, tells us The End will definitely take place on May 27th, 2012.

Update April 2013: Unless my eyes deceive me (curse those pesky 'appearances'!), the world is still here...

Second Update June 12, 2019: Hold the front page! Apparently we have been reading the Mayan Calendar all wrong:

"Author David Montaigne insists we were wrong about the Mayan's prediction of an apocalypse in 2012, and said the date just acted as a start point of seven years of tribulation -- as spoken about in the Bible. Mr Montaigne says the end of the world will actually beginning on December 21 this year [2019 -- RL] -- exactly seven years after the Maya calendar predicted the end of the world." [Quoted from here; accessed 12/06/2019.]

For an exhaustive list of the hundreds of 'predicted' dates for the end of the world (many still in the future), see here. Apparently, one of them says it should have ended on the 9th of June, 2019. If you are reading this, may I suggest you look out of the window and check you haven't missed it.

44. A 'dialectical' analysis in the hands of Stalinophiles 'allows' them -- even now -- to reject what took place in Hungary in 1956 as an example of a workers' revolt. Of course, only those who don't 'understand' Stalinised dialectics will think to disagree.

Here follows a selection of passages from several STD-texts, which demonstrates that Cornforth's 'analysis' isn't unique to him -- beginning with Shirokov:

"The mechanistic theory of development permeates reformist sociology, which holds that the simple quantitative growth of monopoly and of finance-capital signifies the growing of capitalism into socialism, that the simple growth of bourgeois democracy is an ever greater winning of power by the working class, etc. These philosophers have thrown aside he theory of movement by means of contradictions as too revolutionary. A mechanistic principle of development also penetrates the views of Trotskyism; for instance its acceptance of the superficial view that capitalism was planted in Russian by the West a view which ignores the development of capitalism that proceeded among us on the basis of the break-up of the peasant community. [Er..., where did Trotsky, or subsequent Trotskyists, assert this? -- RL.] The Trotskyist theory of the impossibility of a socialist victory in one country alone proceeds from its ignoring of the unevenness of the development of capitalism and of the internal laws of development of the U.S.S.R. which have by the operation of new internal forces made it possible to resolve those contradictions of the proletariat and the peasantry that obstruct the building of socialism. This theory holds that the external contradictions of capitalism and the U.S.S.R. are the determining factor in our development, and that the course, of development of the environment (capitalism) determines the course of development of the system, i.e. the U.S.S.R....

"The antagonism between the interests of the proletariat, the owners of socialistic industry, and the capitalistic elements -- elements which have been in part already expropriated since the October Revolution and put to rout in the civil war, but are not yet finally liquidated, and in part are being born anew on the basis of N.E.P. on the basis of individualist, small-scale, peasant economy.

"This contradiction was resolved by the proletariat on the lines of the general policy of the party which was the industrialization of the country and the socialist recasting of peasant economy; different methods were required at different stages of the revolution-ranging from the policy of curtailing and expelling the capitalist elements to the liquidation of the kulaks as a class and the establishment of all-round collectivization....

"On the mechanistic understanding of contradictions is constructed the Trotskyist theory that denies the possibility of a socialist victory in one country. Trotsky recognizes, as basic and decisive in this question, not the internal contradictions of our Soviet economy (which are being resolved within the country), but the external contradictions the contradictions between the Soviet Union and capitalist countries. Trotsky holds that it is these last that determine the development of soviet economy and so only a resolution of these contradictions can lead to a complete victory of socialism in our country.

"Bukharin, like all mechanists, identifies contradiction with antagonism. That is wrong. Those contradictions (carefully distinguished by Marx and Engels in their analysis of the complex forms of development of class society) are antagonistic, in which the struggle of indissolubly connected opposites proceeds in the form of their external collisions, which are directed on the part of the dominant opposite so as to preserve the subordination of its opposite and of the type of contradiction itself; and on the part of the subordinated opposite -- to the destruction of the dominant opposite and of the contradiction itself as well.

"The contradiction of any process is resolved, not by some external force, as think the mechanists, but by the development of the contradiction itself. This is true also in regard to antagonistic contradictions. But in the course of development of an antagonistic contradiction at its different stages, only the premises for its resolution are prepared and ripen. The contradiction itself at every new stage becomes ever more intensified. An antagonistic contradiction does not pass beyond the stages of Its partial resolution.

"Thus the periodic crises of capitalism are a violent form in which the contradictions of a given cycle of capitalist reproduction find their resolution; but in relation to the contradictions of the capitalist means of production as a whole, these crises emerge only as landmarks of the further intensification of these contradictions and of the ripening of the forces making for the violent overthrow of capitalism.

"Antagonistic contradictions are resolved by the kind of leap in which the internal opposites emerge as relatively independent opposites, external to each other, by a leap that leads to the abolition of the formerly dominant opposite and to the establishment of a new contradiction. In this contradiction the subordinated opposite of the previous contradiction now becomes the dominant opposite, preserving a number of its peculiarities and determining by itself the form of the new contradiction, especially at the first stages of its development. But in contradictions that do not have an antagonistic character, the development of the contradiction signifies not only the growth of the forces making for its resolution, but each new step in the development of the contradiction is at the same time also its partial resolution.

"Not all contradictions are antagonistic. Thus the relationships of the proletariat and the peasantry are not of an antagonistic character -- in both classes we find a number of common interests. In a class society the contradictions of the basic classes are antagonistic and are resolved in antagonistic form. In developed socialist society there will be no class struggle, no class antagonism. 'It is only in an order of things,' says Marx, 'in which there will be no more classes and class antagonism, that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions.' [Poverty of Philosophy; i.e., Marx and Engels (1976), p.212 -- RL.]

"But Bukharin, because he identifies contradiction with antagonism, holds that in general there will be in this case no contradictions at all. This is what Lenin wrote in answer to that assertion: 'Quite wrong. Antagonism and contradiction are by no means the same. Under socialism the first will vanish, the second will remain.' If in developed socialism there were no contradictions -- contradictions between productive forces and relations in production, between production and demand, no contradictions in the development of technique, etc. -- then the development of socialism would be impossible, then instead of movement we should have stagnation. Only in virtue of the internal contradictions of the socialist order can there be development from one phase to another and higher phase.

"But each step in the development of socialism will denote not only a ripening of the forces making for a developed communist society, but also an immediate partial resolution of the contradictions of socialism. Just in the same way, each new stage in the transitional period denotes not only a growth of the forces making for socialism (which can enter into being once the leap to a new order is made), but also an immediate construction of socialism, a partial resolution of the most basic contradiction of the transitional period.

"The identification of contradiction with antagonism leads on the one hand to the Trotskyist assertion that the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry are of the same character as those between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, i.e. are relations of class antagonism. On the other hand, it leads to right-opportunist conclusions. The right-opportunists maintain that the relations of these classes are not antagonistic and are, therefore, not even contradictory." [Shirokov (1937), pp.138-39, 157, 173-76. (These link to PDFs.) Italic emphases in the original; bold and links added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]

As we saw in Essay Eight Part One, Shirokov was only able to argue this because of the equivocation between a spatial and a dialectical-logical interpretation of "internal" and "external". This confusion is obvious from the following comment:

"On the mechanistic understanding of contradictions is constructed the Trotskyist theory that denies the possibility of a socialist victory in one country. Trotsky recognizes, as basic and decisive in this question, not the internal contradictions of our Soviet economy (which are being resolved within the country), but the external contradictions the contradictions between the Soviet Union and capitalist countries." [Ibid. Bold added.]

As I have pointed out elsewhere (here, here, and here), if DL is to be believed, then there can't be any 'external contradictions'.

Hence, it is difficult to see how 'dialectical contradictions' are capable of being non-antagonistic. If they are 'dialectical', then they must involve the interplay between 'dialectical'/'internal opposites', that is, opposites that inter-define one another, the existence of one of which implies the existence of the other (just as the existence of the proletariat implies the existence of the capitalist class, so we are told). Furthermore, if the DM-classics are to be believed, one opposite can only change by struggling with and then turning into the other opposite, that is they struggle with and turn into that with which they have struggled. But, NACs only have external opposites, so they can't be 'dialectical'! In that case, what are they, then? And what are they doing in books about DM? In turn, if that is so, it is impossible to see how NACs can possibly change. Here is Lenin:

"The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say their 'unity,' -- although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society). 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." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58. Link in the on-line original; bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"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...." [Mao (1961), pp.311-18. Some paragraphs merged.]

This can only mean that NACs either can't change, or they don't exist, since Lenin tells us that the above principles apply to "all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society)", and Mao says that they apply to the "development of all things".

"The following types of contradiction are usually distinguished: internal and external, essential and non-essential, basic and non-basic. The interaction of the opposite aspects inherent in one and the same phenomenon is called an internal contradiction, whereas that of the opposite aspects inherent in different phenomena is called an external contradiction.... Contradictions between classes or other social groups that have opposite interests are antagonistic.

"Contradictions between slaves and slave-owners, peasants and landlords, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are antagonistic, while contradictions between the working class and the peasantry, and between various socialist countries are non-antagonistic. Antagonistic contradictions are characterised by the fact that when they are resolved the unity within which they existed is eliminated. Thus, the resolution of the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie brings about the transformation of capitalism, in which this contradiction was inherent, into socialist society.

"The situation is quite different with non-antagonistic contradictions. Their resolution does not eliminate the unity within which they existed, but rather strengthens and consolidates it.... Since irreconcilable class interests underlie antagonistic contradictions, the latter, as a rule, have a tendency to intensify. It does not follow, however, that this tendency manifests itself in all cases, under all circumstances. Conditions may obtain which paralyse this tendency and the antagonistic contradiction, resolved step by step, will ease off, rather than intensify. The development and resolution of the antagonistic contradictions between the national bourgeoisie and the working class in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a relevant example. The above contradictions ease off as they are gradually resolved.

"In contrast to antagonistic contradictions, non-antagonistic ones do not tend to intensify. On the contrary, since the social groups representing the aspects of these contradictions are interested in ensuring society's further progress, the contradictions tend to ease off, smooth out and become resolved, without reaching extreme forms.

"Antagonistic contradictions are resolved through acute class struggle, whereas non-antagonistic contradictions are overcome by persuasion, criticism and self-criticism. This in no way means that such methods can't be employed under certain conditions to resolve antagonistic contradictions. When the bourgeoisie realises the senselessness and futility of resisting the advance of society toward socialism, the antagonistic contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat may be resolved by peaceful means (sic!), by resorting to persuasion and re-education on a wide scale of that section of the bourgeoisie that accepts socialist transformation and cooperates on a voluntary basis with the proletariat and other groups of working people. The experience of transforming private capitalist enterprises in the German Democratic Republic and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam are examples of the widespread use of persuasion and re-education in overcoming antagonistic contradictions." [Sheptulin (1978), pp.268-73. Italic emphases in the original. Bold added; several paragraphs merged.]

Lest you are tempted to think this completely undermines the difference between ACs and NACs, or you were rather rashly to conclude that the distinction between them and that between "internal" and "external" contradictions is entirely subjective, may I remind you that if you were to voice such concerns, you would be in serious danger of being accused of not "understanding" dialectics.

It is also worth warning you, dear reader, not to allow the word "reformism" to cross your mind when reading the last paragraph of the above passage! Or, indeed, accept the equally odd idea that it would be possible to argue the bourgeoisie out of their wealth and power -- which reminds me of the old communist joke:

Young Communist: "Comrade, does the revolution have to be violent or can we expect a miracle of some sort?"

Old Communist: "If Jesus Christ returns to earth and attempts to take the wealth and power off the bourgeoisie, we can expect a fight. On the other hand, if they give up without a fight, that will be a miracle."

But, we note once again that Sheptulin was only able to derive the 'contradictory' conclusion that the class war can be terminated peacefully by a convenient use of -- yes, you guessed -- dialectics. No doubt, had he been required to do so, he could easily have obtained the opposite result on the same basis (indeed, as we have seen many others do).

However, Sheptulin and the other STD-worthies quoted in this section offer their readers no materialist explanation how or why such contradictions must behave in the way they say they do. Nor is the distinction between ACs and NACs easy to harmonise with other aspects of DM. For example:

"The interaction of the opposite aspects inherent in one and the same phenomenon is called an internal contradiction, whereas that of the opposite aspects inherent in different phenomena is called an external contradiction.... Contradictions between slaves and slave-owners, peasants and landlords, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are antagonistic, while contradictions between the working class and the peasantry, and between various socialist countries are non-antagonistic." [Ibid. Italic emphasis in the original. Paragraphs merged.]

And yet, what exactly constitutes a separate "phenomenon" in a world where everything is supposedly interconnected? Indeed, what constitutes a single "phenomenon"? And why aren't various "socialist countries" part of a single "phenomenon" (the 'non-capitalist world', perhaps?), when the proletariat and the bourgeoisie already are?

It could be replied that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are united opposites, which means they do indeed form a single phenomenon. Maybe so, but if they are opposites, they are opposite "phenomena" too, and if that is so, there are two "phenomena" here, not one. [This is just a particular example of a more general and fatal defect lying at the heart of this 'theory', exposed in Essays Seven Part One and Eight Part One. (Notice the subjective way I have used dialectics to derive the result I wanted? Readers are now invited to use the same theory to derive the opposite result -- or, indeed, any they care to dream up, and its opposite.)]

In fact, the idea that contradictions can be "overcome" is foreign to Marx, Engels and Lenin, too -- even though Hegel seems to have characterised them this way. [On this, and Marx's view, see Weston (2008), pp.428-33.] Not that this is a decisive factor in itself, but it does weaken somewhat the claim STDs often make that their theory is faithful to the ideas of the Dialectical Classics, while those of, say, OTs (most of whom reject this classification of contradictions, anyway) are not. [More on this below.]

Having said that, Weston seems to think Marx did argue that 'contradictions' can be 'resolved' (but not "overcome") -- in Weston (2012).

[Concerning Weston's substantive claims about Marx's use of "contradiction", see Essay Eight Part Two, here, here, here, here, here, and here.]

Despite this, STDs and MISTs distinguish between the different categories of contradiction (mentioned above) in order to account for the wide variety of changes that occur in nature and society, especially in their own countries. But, because they also tell all who will listen that they don't adhere to "fixed" and "rigid" dichotomies (even while they obviously do -- indeed, the distinction between ACs and NACs is one such!), this allows them to adapt as circumstances require.

[Incidentally, this tactic is otherwise known to those of us who don't to "understand" dialectics as: "opportunism".]

So, the (ironic) fact that the resulting theory turns out to be of great use to opportunists and class-collaborators of every stripe is, I am sure, just another amazing coincidence.

Cynics mustn't assume that this is the real reason these convenient distinctions (which, incidentally, have no other rationale) were in fact invented by STDs.

Unfortunately for STDs and MISTs, the accuracy of the above cynical conclusion has been confirmed by the disappearance of most of the former communist states -- and not least by the fact that the "German Democratic Republic" (GDR -- referred to by Sheptulin, above) has since ceased to be of much concern to the Dialectical Deity, having self-destructed, too.

In that case, the surviving elements of the bourgeoisie in that country, at least, were plainly unconvinced by the "arguments" they were fed, meaning that the resulting 'contradictions' weren't "overcome", after all -- as Sheptulin assured us they had been.

Incidentally, this looks like a historically unique example of profound social change (i.e., the 'return to capitalism') that wasn't initiated by ACs (since, so we were told, there were none in the former GDR). Either that, or -- shock, horror! --, there were some ACs in the GDR, after all. [Perhaps Sheptulin doesn't "understand" dialectics, after all.]

"The contradictions internal to a phenomenon are normally the causes of its course of development while the contradictions external to the phenomenon are the conditions of its development. Thus, for example, in explaining the rise of revisionism in the Soviet Union it is to internal contradictions rather than external contradictions, such as imperialist encirclement, that we need to look in order to produce an explanation. However there can be occasions when an external contradiction becomes principal as possibly was the case when the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany in 1941. It might be argued that at that point the contradiction between the proletarian state and the imperialist states became the principal one determining the development of the contradictions internal to Soviet society." [Harry Powell, quoted from here. Underlining in the original replaced by italics.]

"The second dogmatic assumption of mechanism is the assumption that no change can ever happen except by the action of some external cause. Just as no part of a machine moves unless another part acts on it and makes it move, so mechanism sees matter as being inert -- without motion, or rather without self-motion. For mechanism, nothing ever moves unless something else pushes or pulls is, it never changes unless something else interferes with it. No wonder that, regarding matter in this way, the mechanists had to believe in a Supreme Being to give the 'initial push'....

"So in studying the causes of change, we should not merely seek for external causes of change, but should above all seek for the source of change within the process itself, in its own self-movement, in the inner impulses to development contained in things themselves.... '[S]truggle' is not external and accidental. It is not adequately understood if we suppose that it is a question of forces or tendencies arising quite independently the one of the other, which happen to meet, to bump up against each other and come into conflict. No. 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. Thus, for example, the old mechanist conception of movement was that it only happened when one body bumped into another: there were no internal causes of movement, that is, no 'self-movement', but only external causes. But on the contrary, the opposed tendencies which operate in the course of the change of state of a body operate on the basis of the contradictory unity of attractive and repulsive forces inherent in all physical phenomena....

"Why should we say that contradiction is the driving force of change? It is because it is only the presence of contradictions in a process which provides the internal conditions making change necessary.... It is the presence of contradictions, that is of contradictory tendencies of movement, or of a unity and struggle of opposites, which brings about changes of movement in the course of a process. [Cornforth (1976), pp.40-43; 90, 94. Italic emphases in the original. Bold emphases added. Several paragraphs merged.]

"Internal contradictions are of decisive importance in the development of any object or phenomenon, for they are connected with its content, its essence, and are pivotal to its change and development.... External contradictions affect the development of objects and phenomena, often exerting a considerable influence on the resolution of internal contradictions. That is why they should be taken into account in the study of various development processes.

"The experience of the socialist countries shows that successful socialist construction involves resolution of internal contradictions, the most important of which are those between the working people and the overthrown exploiter classes. External contradictions -- those between socialism and capitalism -- also influence the course of socialist construction, but their resolution mostly depends on the internal development of socialist and capitalist countries." [Krapivin (1985), pp.165-66. Some paragraphs merged; gold emphases added.]

That is because "internal contradictions" supposedly 'determine' the "essence" of each particular object, process or "form of motion"; here is Mao:

"First, the contradiction in each form of motion of matter has its particularity. Man's knowledge of matter is knowledge of its forms of motion, because there is nothing in this world except matter in motion and this motion must assume certain forms. In considering each form of motion of matter, we must observe the points which it has in common with other forms of motion. But what is especially important and necessary, constituting as it does the foundation of our knowledge of a thing, is to observe what is particular to this form of motion of matter, namely, to observe the qualitative difference between this form of motion and other forms. Only when we have done so can we distinguish between things. Every form of motion contains within itself its own particular contradiction. This particular contradiction constitutes the particular essence which distinguishes one thing from another. It is the internal cause or, as it may be called, the basis for the immense variety of things in the world. There are many forms of motion in nature, mechanical motion, sound, light, heat, electricity, dissociation, combination, and so on. All these forms are interdependent, but in its essence each is different from the others. The particular essence of each form of motion is determined by its own particular contradiction. This holds true not only for nature but also for social and ideological phenomena. Every form of society, every form of ideology, has its own particular contradiction and particular essence." [Mao (1961), p.320. Bold emphases added.]

However, it could be argued that on the basis of comrade Powell's comments that the 'external contradictions' resulting from the actions of the imperialist powers did indeed become the 'principal contradictions' in this case, causing the internal changes (i.e., the "essential changes") we saw in the fSU and Eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991. I'll leave others who think any of this makes a blind bit of sense to decide.

But, the above response is double-edged: if it is correct, then Lenin was right after all: socialism can't be built in one country -- or, indeed, in several --, if the core economies of world capitalism are left intact.

[How this is supposed to work in dialectical terms, was, alas, left entirely mysterious by comrade Powell. Indeed, as we will soon see, these changes not only didn't, they couldn't take place if DM were true. Anyway, MISTs are happy to use the argument that the 'internal contradictions' in a country determine the way it develops, when it suits them.]

But, isn't this an example of "reformism" in reverse? Might this not be an example of the 'un-negation' of the 'negators' at work here? Or, is this a case of the 're-appropriation of the 'expropriators'? Has the spectre that used to haunt Europe/Asia finally been exorcised with the demise of these former 'socialist' states? It certainly looks like it, given Sheptulin's version of DM.

This is no doubt because the proletariat in the former 'socialist' states must have preferred the older, harsher form of class-war-driven ACs to the benign, fluffy, Stalinist NACs on offer. And since the working class is supposed to be the ruling-class in all such states, the communist regime (which runs, for example, the 'Socialist Republic of Vietnam' on behalf of that ruling-class -- that is, on behalf of the workers and peasants, again), plainly did as it was told by the working class (i.e., it must have been told by itself!), and proceeded to enact the above market 'reforms'.

All of these 'reforms' were, of course, based on "argument" and "discussion" (as Sheptulin, again, assured us they must) -- and were in no way a response to the pressure of world capitalism --, nor were they a result of the un-reconstructed class nature of these states.

"Contradictions are resolved, overcome in struggle. They and their resolution stimulate motion. The interaction of opposites, as a contradiction and its resolution, is what awakens every seed to growth and every bud to unfold as a leaf, a flower, or a juicy fruit. Contradiction and its resolution lend motion to things great and small and are revealed in the regular 'reasonable' order of the universe. They account for the unity of life and death, the beating of the pulse, the motion of forces released in crystals, in plants, animals, human beings, society, and in the whole universe. Unless resolved, contradictions do not 'spur on' development, they are a necessary but not sufficient condition for development.

"There are many ways of resolving contradictions and they depend on various conditions, including the character of the contesting parties in the case of contradictions in the life of human beings and society. In some cases one side of the contradiction perishes and the other triumphs, in others both sides perish, exhausting themselves in the struggle. There may also be a more or less prolonged compromise between the contestants. The resolution of a contradiction may be complete or partial, instantaneous or by stages. Let us take, for example, the present age. It is full of contradictions of every type and variety. On the socio-political plane the situation is dangerously tense because of the unrestrained arms race initiated by imperialism, which forces the socialist countries to take measures to strengthen their defences. Relations between some countries are badly strained. A fierce ideological struggle is going on between the countries of socialism and capitalism. What do the peoples of the world desire? What is their main concern? Everyone knows what it is and it was stated in full at the 26th Congress of the CPSU -- to achieve detente. The Soviet leadership has affirmed by positive action that it is seeking not to build up contradictions between the world of socialism and capitalism but to resolve existing contradictions by peaceful political means....

"The character of contradiction depends on the specific nature of the opposed sides and also on the conditions in which their interaction takes place. Internal contradictions are interaction of opposite sides within a given system, for example, within a certain animal species (intraspecific struggle), within a given organism or society. External contradictions are the interaction of opposites related to different systems, for example, between society and nature, the organism and the environment, and so on. In the final analysis, the decisive contradictions in development are the internal ones.

"Antagonistic contradictions are interactions between implacably hostile classes, social groups and forces. As a rule, they build up to the point of conflict and are resolved in social and political revolutions. Non-antagonistic contradictions are interactions between classes whose basic interests and aims coincide. The socialist revolution resolved and thus eliminated antagonistic contradictions, but it did not eliminate contradictions in general. Socialism has its contradictions, for example, those between developing production and increasing demands, between the advanced and the backward, between creative thinking and dogmatism. The main contradiction is the one which in a whole set of contradictions plays the decisive role in development." [Spirkin (1983), pp.147-48. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases and link added.]

Sheptulin's "phenomena" have now been replaced by "systems" in Spirkin's analysis (which alternative still suffers from the fatal defects outlined in Essay Eight Part One). Even so, Spirkin fails to explain how different classes can have interests that don't clash, nor does he tell us how something can become the "main contradiction" (which seems to be the same as the "principle contradiction" that Mao employed in order to rationalise class collaboration; on that, see below) without some sort of internal struggle taking place in this "main contradiction" itself.

Similar 'revisionist' thoughts (to those expressed by Cornforth, Spirkin and Sheptulin) were advanced by Afanasyev:

"External contradictions can facilitate development or impede it, lend it different shades of forms, but usually are unable to shape the main course of a process or of development as a whole. The victory of socialism in the Soviet Union, for example, was ensured by correctly resolving the internal contradictions, above all the antagonism between the bourgeoisie, which has been overthrown but not yet fully abolished, and the proletariat. But the advance to socialism was also affected by the external contradictions between the Soviet state and the capitalist countries, which did everything in their power to restore the capitalist system in Russia....

"Non-antagonistic contradictions are contradictions between classes and between social groups whose fundamental interests coincide. These contradictions are gradually eliminated and are not resolved though a social revolution....

"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union approaches the contradictions of social development concretely, takes into account historical conditions, singles out the chief contradictions and employs the main forces and resources to resolve them. In the first years of Soviet power the contradiction between the advanced political system established in the country and the backward economy inherited from tsarist Russia made itself felt very strongly. This contradiction was resolved in the process of industrialisation, but as the industrialisation made headway, the contradiction between socialist industry and peasant farming became more and more acute. This contradiction too was resolved by the efforts of the people and the Party through the organisation of the peasants in collective farms. The elimination of these contradictions was of decisive significance in building socialism in the Soviet Union." [Afanasyev (1968), pp.99-104. Bold emphases added.]

Readers will no doubt note that Afanasyev's description of the 'peaceful' manner in which the "contradiction between socialist industry and peasant farming" was "resolved" by the forceful collectivisation of the peasantry. No doubt, too, the peasantry saw this development in the same way, since, as we know, the interests of the peasantry and the proletariat are always and under all circumstances the same -- or they can both be 'talked' into thinking they are the same by a silver-tongued DM-proselytiser, or, indeed, by an apparatchik with a gun. Is this why they had to be forced into collective farms, didn't propose this policy themselves, and weren't even consulted?

More of the same sort of material can be found in Kharin (1981), pp.132-35, 192, Konstantinov et al (1974), pp.146-52, 588-89, Kuusinen (1961), pp.91-99, and Yurkovets (1984), pp.96-100.

Even so, the earlier, sabre-rattling words of the 1930s, which were also 'solidly based' on 'dialectics', have now been quietly dropped -- to be replaced by "peaceful means" and "detente":

"The development of antagonistic contradictions leads unavoidably to an ever deeper division of society into powers opposed to each other, powers which fight each other in a life-and-death struggle. Antagonistic contradictions are not evened out or lessened in the process of development, but are deepened and take on sharper and sharper forms.

"Stalin's historical service consisted in his having taken Lenin's work further, having treated the problem of the particular, non-antagonistic character of the contradictions between the working class and the peasantry, and having advocated the only correct path which leads to the overcoming of these contradictions." [M. M. Rosental, 'The Marxist Dialectical Method,' translated from the German version, 'Die marxistische dialektische Method,' Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1953, pp.274-75, 288-89, 291-12, 293, 294-95. This work was in turn translated from 'Marksistskii dialekticheskii metod,' Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1952. [Quoted from here. This links to a PDF; spelling modified to agree with UK English, minor typos corrected. Page references and quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Italic emphases in the original; bold emphases added. Some paragraphs merged.]

We also find the following gems on the Internet -- quoted here to confirm the allegation that the issues that were raised by earlier generations of STDs and MISTs (in support of the idea that socialism could be built in one country, as well as to demonstrate that Trotsky and his followers just did not "understand" dialectics (etc., etc.)) are still alive and well, and are just as 'dialectical' (and just as repetitive!) -- here is revisionist Marxist-Leninist, Tony Clark (whom we met earlier):

"One reason for the advanced workers to oppose the claim that Trotskyism is the 'Leninism of today', stems from our determination to uphold dialectical logic. Anyone who upholds dialectical reasoning and practice can't simultaneously argue that Trotskyism represents Leninism, or take Trotsky's side in the theoretical disputes, which divided the communist movement after the death of Lenin. This letter will briefly outline the general features of the two important issues of the immediate post-Lenin period. At the heart of the post-Lenin disputes in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was the question of whether or not to pursue a dialectical or non-dialectical approach regarding the nature of the world revolutionary process.

"Unlike Lenin, Trotsky's theory of the world revolutionary process was of a pseudo-leftist character, having certain similarities with Lenin's position, although a different theory. The simple procedure of applying dialectic logic to the world revolutionary process compels Marxist-Leninists to reject the either world revolution or socialism in one country thesis of Trotsky and his followers....

"Whatever one may think of Trotsky's version of the theory of permanent revolution, it is clear that Trotsky's either/or methodology is a repudiation of dialectics in that it applies an anti-dialectical method to a dialectical process. Regardless of the views that some people may have of Stalin, he led the grouping that maintained a Leninist dialectical approach to the world revolutionary process, in which the part, socialism in one country, was never separated from the whole, i.e., international revolution. Following the death of Lenin in 1924, Trotsky sought to polarise, or split communists on an anti-dialectical basis. This is to say that the arguments he used were not based on Leninism or dialectics.

"Trotsky wanted communists to take sides, or choose between what he considered two diametrically opposed lines. For Trotsky, this was 'either' you support socialism in one country, or you support world revolution (i.e., Trotsky's permanent revolution theory). Trotsky saw socialism in one country as opposed to world revolution. On this issue, dialectics never came into his thinking at all. Later, the whole international Trotskyist movement based itself on a fundamental repudiation of dialectical logic, failing to see that it was never a question of socialism in one country versus world revolution....

"The 'either' socialism in one country 'or' world revolution position was clearly to apply an anti-dialectical approach to a living dialectical process. If matter moves dialectically, how can one apply non-dialectical concepts to it and hope to capture the real movement? It is the dialectical movement itself that should, and does, suggest a dialectical approach. I believe that dialectical logic, the dialectical approach, is the foundation of both Marxism and Leninism, and it is clear from his writings that Trotsky only began to study dialectics at a very late date in his political evolution. (See Trotsky's: In Defence of Marxism).

"Although dialectics is the foundation of Marxism and Leninism, this does not preclude communists making mistakes, but we should all be guided by dialectics. This is why it is necessary to oppose Trotsky and those who have been blinded by him to viewing the dialectical world revolutionary process in a non-dialectical way, as socialism in one country or world revolution. Simply put, socialism in one, or several countries and the world revolution are different sides of the same coin. The Trotskyists toss this coin and call out head or tail, but in reality, both sides are inseparably linked.

"It was wrong and counterrevolutionary to needlessly split, or try to split, the international communist movement on an argument based on a repudiation of dialectics. The heads or tails approach can't be applied to the dialectical process of world revolution. For the dialectician it can never be a question of 'socialism in one country or the international revolution'. Thus, only people not versed in elementary Marxist-Leninist dialectics could countenance Trotsky's approach. The world revolutionary process unfolds through the particular transforming itself into the universal. Hence arises the possibility of socialism in one country, resulting from uneven development, leading on to the international, or world revolution.

"Without a doubt, Marxism-Leninism has been vindicated as regarding the dialectical nature of the world revolutionary process. Only those who reject dialectical logic, or perhaps are unconscious of it, would oppose Lenin, who dialectically viewed socialism in one country as an integral part of the world revolutionary process. The slogan of the CPGB (Weekly Worker) or the SWP [i.e., UK-SWP -- RL], that socialism is 'either' international 'or' is nothing stems from a profound rejection of dialectics. Such slogans have nothing to do with Leninism or dialectics....

"Because for Marxist-Leninists, the world revolutionary process is a dialectical process, whereby the particular, socialism in one country, is transformed into the universal, i.e., world revolution, this dialectical world revolutionary process requires dialectical thinking. Lenin, correctly, had earlier warned against those who neglected dialectics in his remark that:

'Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel and) Marxism. This is the "aspect" of the matter (it is not "an aspect" but the essence of the matter) to which Plekhanov, not to speak of other Marxists, paid no attention.' (V. I. Lenin: cw.vol.38; p.362 -- in fact this should be p.360 -- RL).

"As already pointed out, Trotsky rejected the dialectical nature of the world revolutionary process; demanding communists make a choice between world revolution and socialism in one country. Had the Soviet leadership made such a choice it would have constituted a crass repudiation of both Leninism and dialectical logic and practice....

"The whole essence of Stalin's struggle against Trotskyism in the Soviet Union can be summed up as the struggle to silence Trotskyist/Menshevik defeatism about the possibility of building socialism in the Soviet Union. Certainly, Stalin derived a great deal of Kudos (sic) from the fact that Lenin had indicated that it could be done. Who can doubt that all those siren voices protesting against the possibility of building socialism in the Soviet Union were in fact serving the interest of the bourgeois counterrevolution, even if some of them did so unconsciously? Stalin defended Leninism, not Trotskyism, and this included the question of the dialectical nature of the world revolutionary process. Stalin was perfectly correct, from the standpoint of dialectics, to oppose Trotsky's either/or methodology. To side with Stalin on this issue was therefore to side with dialectics." [Tony Clark, 2004. Bold emphases and link added. Minor typo corrected. Some paragraphs merged. More of the same sort of 'dialectical-criticism' of Trotsky by Clark can be found here and here. The man is obsessed with Trotsky! Update: April 2018: Tony Clark has now abandoned Marxism, claiming it leads to 'dictatorship', which is a bit rich coming from a former Stalinist! He now seems determined to conflate his former Stalinist belief system with Marxism itself, which means he has at least remained consistent -- only now he rejects both. But, we see here yet another dialectician who has strayed off the straight-and-narrow, confounding the dogma that only non-dialecticians are guilty of such heinous crimes.]

This former comrade was clearly a Stalinist and a Maoist, and is, therefore, impervious to reason. [That is no exaggeration and can readily be confirmed by anyone who reads this or this, or, indeed, by those who even so much as attempt to argue with a Maoist.] That might be why he seems not have noticed that history has in fact vindicated Trotsky's 'non-dialectical' approach to world revolution. Indeed, Clark's own implicit adherence to the eminently un-dialectical formula -- the hard and fast dichotomy, either socialism can be created in one country or it can't -- is, in the event, doubly ironic. Naturally, the impertinent answer to this and other such Dialectical Doozies is, of course, "both".

"Trotsky spoke in favour of dialectical materialism, but he frequently made use of undialectical ways of reasoning and judging political events. This is notable among Trotskyists to this day. They replace dialectics with a mechanical way of reasoning, and they replace investigation of the concrete circumstances of a situation with appeals to what's true of the world situation in general.... Trotsky recognized materialism in theory, but negated it in practice.... Thus, his adherence to materialism was skin-deep, and he pooh-poohed materialism in practice....

"Perhaps the key dialectical aspect of dialectical materialism is that it focuses attention on the internal contradictions that in large part determine the character of a thing or process. For example, a country, a party, a government, and so forth are affected by other countries, parties and governments that oppose them, and this is recognized by mechanical materialists as well as dialectical materialists. But dialectical materialism highlights the internal conflicts and opposing forces that exist inside a country, party and so forth, and that account for why they react to external pressures the way they do. Mechanical materialists often overlook such things, and in a number of crucial situations, so did Trotsky.

"For example, seeing that the old ruling class was overthrown and thus had lost its control over the state sector, Trotsky regarded that [sic] the state sector of the Soviet Union was inherently socialist. He didn't see the importance of the internal contradictions in the state sector.... Trotsky repeatedly denounced the idea of 'democratic dictatorship' of the workers and peasants as an algebraic formula, for example, he might say that it had 'a certain algebraic quality, which had to make way for more precise arithmetical quantities in the process of historical experience', this arithmetic allegedly showing that the idea was wrong. Thus he contrasted algebraic formulas to good old, time-honoured, solid arithmetic.

"It has since become something of a shibboleth of Trotskyist reasoning to refer to certain political terms as 'algebraic formulas'; this is usually meant as a denunciation, but it is also conceded that certain demands must, alas, have an algebraic character for the time being. But the difference between algebra and arithmetic is precisely that algebra is more dialectical than arithmetic. So Trotsky's elevation of arithmetic over algebra is about as close as one can get to seeing someone who claims to be a dialectical materialist attack dialectics." [Joseph Green. Bold emphases added. Several paragraphs merged.]

All this dialectical finger-pointing even though Trotsky himself repeatedly referred to the 'internal contradictions' in the fSU in order to derive diametrically opposite conclusions!

Still attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable -- i.e., proletarian democracy coupled with increased centralisation -- by the use of 'dialectical concepts', on sound Stalinist lines, we find this additional (MIST) critique of Trotsky (partially quoted earlier):

"Contrary to what is often thought, democratic centralism concerns questions of elaboration of the party line and leadership more than questions of organisation. A centralised party is necessary to unify and co-ordinate all the people's struggles, to centralise and systematise them after studying the correct ideas of the masses, to mobilise the masses around slogans corresponding to the tasks of the moment, to assess constantly the experience gained in the struggles as a whole, and to educate the masses in the spirit of scientific socialism so that they can carry through the revolution to the end. None of these objectives can be achieved if this leadership is not carried out democratically.

"Trotsky's positions on this issue varied considerably during his life. We see him oscillate from one extreme to another because of his inability to grasp the dialectical link uniting these pairs of opposites: the distinction between the party and the class and its fusion with it; the authority of the centre and its monitoring by the militants; the need for statutory rules and the fact that they must be subordinated to 'revolutionary opportunity', as Lenin said....

"We have just alluded to the mass line, the developed form of democratic centralism. Here is how Mao Tse-tung defines it:

'In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily "from the masses to the masses". This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action.... And so on, and over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.' [This is from Mao's 'Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership' -- RL.]

"It follows from this text and from all the others in which Mao formulates his idea of the mass line that democratic centralism presents a dialectical contradictory unity: 'Within the ranks of the people, democracy is correlative with centralism and freedom with discipline. They are the two opposites of a single entity.'" [Kostas Mavrakis. Bold emphases added.]

[We will have occasion to examine Mao's attempt to reconcile the dictatorship over the proletariat with 'proletarian democracy' later on in the Essay. Again, "The mass line" is more appropriately to be called "The mass lie", and far from it being "From the masses to the masses", it was more like "From the Party to the masses, whether they like it or not." On that, see here.]

On the role that 'principal' contradictions have played in rationalising class compromises..., er..., sorry, alliances, we find this convoluted and tortured 'dialectical argument':

"Studying the revolutionary process from the point of view of diachrony, Trotskyism emphasises continuity and the possibility of making non-stop progress: 'The living historical process always makes leaps over isolated "stages" which derive from the theoretical breakdown into its component parts of the process of development in its entirety' (this is from Trotsky's Permanent Revolution -- RL); and also the interpenetration, the 'telescoping' of stages, since, according to it, socialist transformations are the order of the day even before the tasks of the bourgeois revolution are completed. Lenin, on the contrary, as a good dialectician, has the correct priorities, putting the emphasis on discontinuity.

'Of course, in actual historical circumstances, the elements of the past become interwoven with those of the future; the two paths cross.... But this does not in the least prevent us from logically and historically distinguishing between the major stages of development. We all contrapose bourgeois revolution and socialist revolution; we all insist on the absolute necessity of strictly distinguishing between them.' [This is from Lenin's Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution -- RL.]

"If this is not done it is no longer possible to distinguish between the principal contradiction and the secondary contradictions, it is impossible to determine the class alliances required by the tasks of the stage, the location of the line of demarcation between friends and enemies; the result is that it is impossible to carry out a correct united front policy which assumes that the contradictions which are secondary objectively are kept so by making concessions to one's allies; thus the proletariat is prevented from taking the leadership of the united front, it is isolated and condemned to impotence.

"Trotsky's unilateral emphasis on continuity is the sign of the incomprehension of the Marxist dialectic which led him to ignore the essential implications of the law of uneven development. This law signifies not only that the imperialist powers and monopolies grow at an unequal rate, but also that, in each social formation, the economic base and the political and ideological superstructures evolve at an unequal rate and by leaps, that these instances possess a relative autonomy and a peculiar temporality, and that in each of them the contradictions and their aspects shift (are transformed into their opposite). The revolution explodes when the principal contradiction reaches an explosive phase. The displacement of its aspects then brings about a restructuration of the whole. This contradiction is the nodal point where all the others converge. That such a convergence occurs in the sense of a rupture is rare, as will be clear, and all the more so in several countries at once. This is why, according to Lenin, the victory of the proletariat in one country is the 'typical case', while revolution in several countries can only be a 'rare exception'.

"In 'Results and Prospects', Trotsky prophesied the extension of the revolution throughout Europe when the victorious Russian proletariat called on its brothers throughout the world for 'the last fight'.... For Trotsky, society has a simple structure in which the principal contradiction 'de jure' (proletariat-bourgeoisie) is always and everywhere principal 'de facto' during the whole period of the transition. That is why he saw only the world revolution (and also saw it 'sub specie aeternitatis'). He imagined it as unfolding in a continuous and homogeneous socio-historical time-space. The underground work of the 'old mole', the structure and the articulation of the strata which it has to get through were invisible from the ethereal heights he occupied.

"The Trotskyists are ignorant of the dialectic of continuity and discontinuity which is as necessary for an understanding of history as it is for one of microphysics. They roar with laughter when they hear talk of the uninterrupted revolution by stages. For them, it is a contradiction in terms. We know that the concept of the 'break' which Althusser borrowed from Bachelard was inspired in the latter by that of 'discontinuity' in particle physics. If one can't even grasp the universality of contradiction demonstrated by the unity and opposition of continuity and discontinuity in all the sciences, how could one penetrate its specificity in historical materialism?

"It was clear at the time of the campaign which the Trotskyists launched in 1971 against China's international policy that they approached problems in an absolutely unilateral, metaphysical way. They do not understand that a state like Cambodia before Sihanouk's overthrow, or Pakistan, can have a dual nature: progressive, in so far as it defends its autonomy against the superpowers; reactionary, in that it oppresses the people. For them, reactionaries are reactionaries and it is not permissible to apply different policies to them, taking into account their differences so as to isolate the principal enemy of the moment." [Kostas Mavrakis. Bold emphases and links added.]

This comrade (no doubt unwittingly, once more), failed to notice that the concept of "principal" and "secondary" contradictions was unknown to Lenin (and was, indeed, foreign to Hegel, Marx, Engels, and Plekhanov). Does this perhaps make comrade Mavrakis a -- shock! horror! -- Revisionist?

It is also worth pointing out that the only substantive arguments the above comrades can cobble-together against Trotsky are based on -- dialectics --, just as we will find the same -- in return -- is the case with Trotskyists who level exactly same criticisms against NOTs, STDs and MISTs, 'deriving' the opposite conclusion along equally 'sound' dialectical lines.

Anyone with a stainless steel stomach can read more of this material here -- in this case, inflicted on humanity by no less a dialectician than Charles Bettelheim, who, as a MIST-Meister-Extraordinaire, was eager to reveal to an eagerly expectant world exactly why Ernest Mandel -- the doyen of Trotskyist dialecticians -- was wrong to ignore 'principal' contradictions, among other things. [That might be because Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lenin ignored them, too. Just a thought.]

"The fundamental and 'specific' difference between Marxist analysis and pre-scientific (ideological) analysis is that the former recognises that the field to which it is applied is a 'complex whole structured in dominance' (to use the expression of Louis Althusser, in his article on materialist dialectics in La Pensée, No.110, August 1963, reproduced in Pour Marx, Edit. Maspero, 1965: Eng. edn., For Marx, Allen Lane, 1969) and that it therefore uses concepts which are linked together dialectically, their inter-relation expressing the relations and contradictions of the very field to which it is applied. This means that it does not proceed dogmatically and 'abstractly', because the very concepts which it employs teach that the 'principal' contradiction in a given concrete situation, and the principal aspect of any contradiction, may vary from one moment to another.

"This is why one must always find the principal contradiction in each situation, and the principal aspect of each of the various contradictions (this is the problem of the 'decisive link' or the 'leading link'). It is clear that one cannot 'grasp' this link 'mechanically', that to do it requires a series of mental efforts, which eventually make possible a conceptual structuring that gives as faithful an expression of reality as can be achieved....

"However, contradictions must not be studied in themselves (in the Hegelian manner); they need to be considered as forming part of 'the very essence of things', as Lenin puts it. This is where the specificity of the contradiction lies, in Marxist dialectics. It is this specificity that brings it about that, in dialectical materialism, every contradiction reflects the existence of a complex process and constitutes one contradiction amid a series of others. This is also why, in the totality of contradictions that makes up a structured whole, there is always one contradiction which is the principal one. As Mao Tse-tung says:

'In the process of development of a complex thing, many contradictions exist; among these, one is necessarily the principal contradiction....' (Mao Tse-tung, On Contradiction, p.55: Eng. version from Selected Works, Vol. II, p.35.)

"From this there also follows the necessary distinction between the principal aspect and the secondary aspect of the contradiction, which is merely the reflexion 'within each contradiction of the complexity of the process, that is, the existence within it of a plurality of contradictions, one of which is dominant...' (cf. Louis Althusser, La Pensée, August 1963, 'Sur la dialectique matérialiste', p.27).

"Materialist dialectics is thus something very different from the simplifying abstraction, remote from the historical, the complex and the concrete, which Ernest Mandel offers us as 'Marxist dialectics'. This kind of abstraction is not even at the level of idealist dialectics in its most finished form (the Hegelian form), but it starts, like idealist dialectics, from the basic presupposition of a simple contradictory unity which develops within itself by virtue of the negative element in it, so that the 'concrete' totality that results from this development always brings us back to the original simplicity. It is especially important to stress that the desire to consider only 'simple' categories, to refuse theory access to the concrete, leads precisely to the errors that it is sought to avoid.

"Take, for example, the problem posed by the fact that the proletarian revolution has been victorious in a number of countries with relatively underdeveloped productive forces. Confronted with this situation, an attitude which does not correspond to that of dialectical materialism can lead, and does in fact lead, to two sorts of 'explanation', neither of which has anything in common with Marxism, and which, furthermore, though mutually exclusive, are both sometimes accepted by those who decline to recognise the specificity of Marxist dialectics:

"(a) The first 'explanation' leads to declaring that, though the productive forces of the under-developed countries were in themselves too weak to provide the source of the revolutionary movement, it was nevertheless the contradiction between productive forces and production-relations that was the source of the revolution that occurred in these countries, because what counts is not the 'local' or 'national' level of the productive forces but the world contradiction between productive forces and production-relations.

"This way of allegedly 'solving' the problem brings in, first of all, a purely idealistic relationship between what is internal and what is external, and, in addition, it reveals that those who offer this 'explanation' have not understood that the contradiction between the level of development of the productive forces and the production-relations, although it is the fundamental contradiction, is only one of the contradictions in the complex situation of the country where the revolution has occurred, and is not necessarily, and even, generally speaking, does not constitute the principal contradiction. The latter may be found at quite a different level. It was constituted, for example, by the revolt of the Russian peasant soldiers against continuing the imperialist war. This war itself, of course, resulted from the contradiction, on the world scale, between the level of development of the productive forces and the production-relations; but this contradiction had attained its maximum sharpness only in the most highly developed countries.

"This contradiction existed, too, though to a lesser extent, in the countries where the revolution occurred, and this was what made it possible for the revolution to assume a socialist character. However, the revolution took place in these countries not because the contradiction between productive forces and production-relations had reached maximum sharpness there, but because there was a principal contradiction (not identical in each country) which had become very acute, and because the revolutionaries of these countries were able to lay hold of this contradiction so as to effect a radical transformation. This transformation assumed a socialist character in so far as these revolutionaries did not confine themselves to acting upon the principal contradiction (guiding the masses in their struggles for peace, or for freedom, or for land) but undertook the task of resolving the fundamental contradiction of our age.

"(b) The other 'explanation' of the development of the revolution in countries where the productive forces have not yet reached a high level of development leads (and this is the idealist alternative) to a denial of any role to this contradiction between productive forces and production relations, and explaining the revolutionary process by revolutionary consciousness alone, by the example set by the socialist countries, and so on. We thus see how refusal to appreciate the complex and concrete character of Marxist analysis leads either to idealistic positions or to mechanistic ones. It is noteworthy that all the conceptions which depart from Marxism in this way finally end up in eclecticism.

"Actually, if, as Mandel thinks, Marxism were incapable of analysing 'real capitalism as it has developed historically...as it has developed concretely...' but only a 'pure and abstract capitalism...' (art. cit., pp.9-10), it would provide us merely with a 'pure' and 'simple' theory which would therefore be remote from concrete conditions, which are particular, historical, contingent and accidental. These conditions, while they are those of practice, would thus elude the grasp of theory. Hence forth, as the well-known expression has it, 'the necessary would make itself felt through the accidental', and the latter would therefore have either to be ignored or else made the object only of short-sighted practice, of empiricism.

"A conception like this can obviously provide no guidance for effective practice, since, if it is to be effective, theory must be capable of grasping the allegedly 'accidental', that is, of conceiving reality as a complex, structured whole, involving a totality of contradictions which are never congealed once for all in an immutable hierarchy. This is what Lenin expresses when he says: 'Concrete analysis of the concrete situation is the soul of Marxism.' This is so because Marxism is not an 'abstract' theory but a theory which leads to the concrete, and which therefore can be a guide for practice. Thanks to this, Marxist practice in the economic and social spheres can operate upon all the contradictions. It is able to do this because it enables us to grasp the links that exist between all the contradictions, and to ascertain what, at any given moment, is the principal contradiction, which is such because by acting upon it one can eventually act upon all the contradictions.

"For Marxist analysis there is not, on the one hand, an abstract model functioning in the realm of ideas, and, on the other, a reality which comes more or less close to this model, and includes, besides the categories of the 'model', some 'accidental conditions', that is, some purely 'external' factors. Marxism does not lead to such a superficial view of things. It considers every reality as a structured whole which has to be analysed as such, with its principal and secondary contradictions.

"Lenin provides a precise theoretical explanation of the October Revolution by taking account of the totality of the conditions that existed at the time of that revolution, that is, the real, historical, concrete conditions. Only thus can one understand why the socialist revolution, dictated fundamentally by the contradiction between productive forces and production relations, broke out, not in the countries where this contradiction had been brought to its maximum acuteness, but in those where a number of historical and concrete 'conditions' came together. An explanation which resorts to taking account of these 'conditions' can avoid eclecticism and empiricism only if these conditions are theoretically reintegrated in the overall conception of a structured complex whole. More precisely, these conditions have to be understood as they are, that is, as the conditions of existence of a complex whole, taken in its totality.

"If, in the name of the 'purity' and 'simplicity' of theory, one leaves the conditions out of account, then one is left operating outside reality, which is always complex, historical, concrete and structured, and always includes principal and secondary contradictions, and contradictions whose 'order of importance' changes with changing circumstances. So long as one remains at this level of ideological abstraction, one can know only a 'pure' capitalism, on the one hand, and a 'pure' socialism on the other. On the political plane this can lead either to 'ultra-leftism' (for instance, with the slogan, mechanically applied in all circumstances, of 'class against class') or to opportunism, waiting indefinitely for real capitalism to become sufficiently 'pure' for the coming of 'pure' socialism to be inevitable.

"When what is on the agenda is building socialism, the 'purest' conception of socialism is of only limited value, because history is never 'pure', nor is it 'straight and even as the Nevsky Prospekt' (which means, among other things, that the features which will characterise developed socialist society are not only not all necessarily to be observed in the society of transition, but that it may even happen that, during certain stages of the development of this transitional society, some features that one may expect to be possessed by the socialist society of the future will temporarily become blurred, and will not at all necessarily become increasingly clear-cut).

"What matters, therefore, if theory is to be capable of throwing light on the way forward for the transitional society or the conditions for the building of socialism, is analysis of the concrete conditions of this transitional society or of this building of socialism, in a particular country. This analysis must obviously deal with the significant wholeness of the situation. Here again it is a question of analysing the totality of the contradictions, bringing out the principal contradiction and the secondary contradictions, and the principal and secondary aspects of the contradictions. Only thus can the specific character of a situation be brought out, with the specific character of the contradictions that are characteristic of it.

"The specific character of the contradictions (in a given country at a given time) is only the reflexion of the conditions of existence of this country (the level of development of its productive forces, its culture, its traditions, its size, the level of consciousness existing at a particular moment) on the contradictions in general, and the principal contradiction in particular. This is precisely why socialism is not being built under the same conditions in Cuba, in the USSR, in China, and so on. Whoever refuses to take account theoretically of these 'specificities' is not a Marxist. That is where one falls into empiricism and eclecticism, because one wants to keep theory outside of history.

"Except from the point of view of ideology, practice and theory are never outside of history. What they have to deal with, in reality and in thought, is never a 'pure' mode of production but always an historically given social formation, with all its specific contradictions, its principal and secondary contradictions, and so on. Marxism is the only theory that enables us to deal practically and theoretically with a reality like this (which is what Mandel refuses to do, not only theoretically but also practically).

"With a living approach like this, of course, the contradictions and categories are no longer univocal; they do not have one fixed role and meaning, given once for all. At the same time, they are not 'equivocal', for, while they are no longer determined once for all in their role and essence, 'they show themselves to be determined by the structured complexity' which assigns them their role (cf. Louis Althusser, art. cit., p.37). The problem of dialectical materialist analysis is precisely that of revealing why and how it is that successively dominant contradictions do not follow each other in an arbitrary way: and the problem of Marxist practice is to grasp what at each moment is the principal contradiction, and how by acting upon it (that is, by acting on what Lenin called the 'decisive link') one can pass from a situation dominated by one contradiction to a situation dominated by another.

"The generality from which the scientific approach starts is not itself the outcome of an abstracting process, but of complex social processes taking place at the level of technique and ideology. It is upon these abstractions that science works in order, gradually, to go forward to fresh abstractions, enriched by increasingly 'concrete' knowledge, and thus forging scientific concepts (which will eventually become the negation of the ideological and technical concepts with which investigation began). It is this process of enrichment (of progress towards the concrete) that is the essence of scientific thought and of the dialectical materialist approach. One must avoid substituting for this scientific and dialectical approach the simplifying procedures of deduction, that is, of mere formal logic." [Bettelheim, quoted from here. Formatting and punctuation marks modified to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases alone added. Several paragraphs merged.]

The above is as good an example of the use of dialectics to 'prove' whatever is expedient as one could wish to find.

Here is yet more dialectical double-think (mercifully, this example constitutes perhaps the final reductio ad absurdum of this entire dialectical/sectarian genre), involving a DM-fan deriving a desired result and its opposite, in the very same paragraph:

"Too frequently, the question of the nature of the Soviet Union and 'existing socialism' (perhaps it should now be called 'previously existing socialism') is approached in a mechanical and metaphysical manner: the Soviet Union either is socialist, or it is not; its bureaucracy either is a ruling class, or it is not. The antidote to such thinking, of course, is dialectics. The Soviet Union both is, and is not, socialist; its bureaucracy both is, and is not, a ruling class. 'Existing socialism,' in other words, must be viewed dialectically, not just in terms of what is, but what it has been and what it is becoming, and in terms of its interconnections with the global sweep of modern social change." [Eugene Ruyle. Bold emphases added.]

Naturally, these characters were simply following in the footsteps of the Great Teacher Himself, who, quoting Lenin, used similar rhetorical flourishes against Bukharin:

"It is said that Bukharin is one of the theoreticians of our Party. This is true, of course. But, the point is that not all is well with his theorising.... Yes, Bukharin is a theoretician; he is a theoretician who has much to learn before he can become a Marxist theoretician. Reference has been made to the letter in which Comrade Lenin speaks of Bukharin as a theoretician. Let us read this letter:

'Of the younger members of the Central Committee...I should like to say a few words about Bukharin.... Bukharin is not only a very valuable and important theoretician in our Party; but it is very doubtful whether his theoretical views can be classed as fully Marxist for there is something scholastic in him (he has never studied and, I think, has never fully understood dialectics)...'.

"Thus, he is a theoretician without dialectics. A scholastic theoretician. A theoretician about whom it was said 'It is very doubtful whether his theoretical views can be classed as fully Marxist.' That is how Lenin characterised Bukharin's theoretical complexion. You can well understand, comrades, that such a theoretician has still much to learn. And if Bukharin understood that he is not yet a fully-fledged theoretician, that he still has much to learn, that he is a theoretician who has not yet mastered dialectics -- and dialectics is the soul of Marxism -- if he understood that, he would be more modest, and the Party would only benefit thereby." [Stalin (1929), pp.354-55. Bold emphases added. Italic emphasis in the original (i.e., they are Stalin's italics, not Lenin's). Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]

Apparently, in order to prove you have 'mastered dialectics' you had to be able to (i) Rationalise whatever decisions had already been taken (by Stalin or his henchmen and their successors), and/or (ii) Derive any conclusion whatsoever and its opposite without breaking into a sweat. Clearly, Bukharin never quite managed to master the first of these relatively easy tricks and was murdered for his pains before he could align his thought processes with the second.

Of course, Stalin never explained why Bukharin couldn't be inducted into the Pantheon of The DM-Saints; it was enough for Lenin to have anathematised him in this regard. For Stalin, he wasn't Lenin, and that was sufficient. Nor did Lenin explain why Bukharin was to be turned away at the gates of DM-Valhalla by the DM-equivalent of St Peter.

Again, there is plenty more of this sort of material on the Internet, just as there are countless pages of similarly mindless Trotskyist diatribe arguing along equally sound 'dialectical' lines for the opposite conclusions. [On the latter, see here.]

45. A long list of quotations from Lenin along the same lines, revealing his deep and consistent commitment to the international revolution, and opposition to the idea that socialism could be built in one country, can be accessed here. [Unfortunately, that link no longer seems to work! Two other such lists can be found here and here. See also my earlier comments.]

The fact that Lenin and Trotsky were right can be seen from the present state of Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba and Vietnam, for example. [On this, see also here.]

Unfortunately for STDs, Stalin himself adopted this Leninist line (in the first edition of his book, Foundations of Leninism):

So, either Lenin changed his mind posthumously, or Stalin dropped an inadvertent clanger, here -- or, and what is even more likely, he accurately reported Lenin's position until it became politically expedient to make a U-turn and then misrepresent him.

"By far the most important such amendment was the theory of socialism in one country, first promulgated by Stalin in autumn 1924. The introduction of this theory needs to be considered from a number of angles: how it was done, why it was done, the social interests it served, and its consequences. First Stalin's method. 'Socialism in one country' marked a dramatic break with the internationalist position formulated by Marx and Engels as early as 1845 and 1847, (94) and tirelessly repeated by Lenin in relation to the Russian Revolution. (95) It also contradicted what Stalin himself had written in The Foundation of Leninism as late as April 1924:

'The main task of socialism -- the organisation of socialist production -- still remains ahead. Can this task be accomplished, can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several countries? No, this is impossible.' (96)

"Stalin 'solved' this contradiction by rewriting this passage to read the opposite ('After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry in its wake the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society' (97)) and having the first edition withdrawn from circulation. There was no new analysis, simply the assertion of a new orthodoxy (retrospectively grafted on to Lenin). Indeed, apart from this one passage the rest of the text was left unchanged, including passages which clearly reflected the earlier perspective. (98) Only later were 'analyses' concocted to justify the new line.

"This procedure was not an isolated example, rather it was typical. When Social Democracy (according to Stalin) changed from an ally (1925-27) to 'the main enemy' (1928-33) and then back to an ally again (1934-39), the change of line was not based on any new analysis of Social Democracy. It was simply a fiat to which analysis had to accommodate itself afterwards. The 'secret' of this method is not that Stalin had no analysis but that the analysis he had could not be spoken publicly, because its real criteria, and real purposes, had ceased to be those of the theory whose language it retained.

"What then was Stalin's reason for introducing socialism in one country in 1924? Clearly it was a response (a defeatist response) to the failure of the German Revolution in 1923 and the relative stabilisation of capitalism that followed. Stalin had never been much interested in world revolution (he was by far the most insular of the leading Bolsheviks) and now he wrote it off entirely, but this alone does not explain why he didn't simply continue to pay lip service to the old internationalism. The answer is that socialism in one country fitted exactly the needs and aspirations of the bureaucrats now dominating the country. They longed for business as usual, uncomplicated by international revolutionary adventures. At the same time, they needed a banner around which to group themselves, a slogan defining their goal. As Trotsky put it, socialism in one country 'expressed unmistakeably the mood of the bureaucracy. When speaking of the victory of socialism, they meant their own victory.' (99) It was to the bureaucracy what 'All power to the soviets' was to the working class in 1917.

"As we have seen, Stalin introduced his new theory with the minimum of fuss (precisely to disguise its newness) yet in reality it marked a decisive shift in orientation which had the most far-reaching consequences. The Soviet Union was isolated in the face of a hostile capitalist world -- a world which had already demonstrated its eagerness to strangle the Revolution by its intervention in the Civil War, and which, as Lenin emphasised, remained economically and militarily stronger than the young workers' state. The strategy of the early years of the Revolution -- the strategy of Lenin and Trotsky -- included, of course, the most determined military defence but ultimately it relied on stimulating international revolution to overthrow capitalism from within. The policy of socialism in one country changed this emphasis. It replaced reliance on the international class struggle with reliance on the power of the Soviet Union as a nation state, and this decision had its own implacable logic.

"The defence of the Soviet state demanded armed forces equal to those of its enemies and in the modern world that meant an equivalent industry and an equivalent surplus. Engels had already grasped this crucial fact of 20th century economics and politics in 1892:

"From the moment warfare became part of the grand industrie (iron clad ships, rifled artillery, quickfiring and repeating cannons, repeating rifles, steel covered bullets, smokeless powder etc.) la grande industrie, without which all these things can't be made, became a political necessity. All these things can't be had without a highly developed metal manufacture. And that manufacture can't be had without a corresponding development in all other branches of manufacture, especially textiles.' (100)

'No comrades...the pace must not be slackened! On the contrary, we must quicken it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. To slacken the pace would mean to lag behind; and those who lag behind are beaten. We do not want to be beaten. No, we don't want to. The history of old...Russia...she was ceaselessly beaten for her backwardness.... For military backwardness, for cultural backwardness, for political backwardness, for industrial backwardness, for agricultural backwardness.... We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this lag in ten years. Either we do it or they crush us.' (101)

"But Russia was poor, compared with its rivals desperately so, and its productivity of labour was low. To industrialise it required massive investment and without international aid there was only one possible source for this investment, the labour of its workers and peasants. A massive surplus had to be extracted and ploughed back into industrial growth. But with the majority of the population living not much above subsistence level there was no way such a surplus could be extracted and set aside voluntarily by collective decision of the associated producers. It could be done only through forcible exploitation and that in turn required an agency to apply this force -- a social class freed from the burdens, but reaping the benefits, of the process of capital accumulation -- a class playing the same historical role as the bourgeoisie had done in western Europe. Thus the consequence, in practice, of socialism in one country was its direct opposite, state capitalism in one country.

"Socialism in one country also had theoretical consequences. It could not be confined, much as Stalin may have wished it, to a minor amendment to the orthodoxy. In Russia the overwhelming majority of the population were not workers but peasants. Marx and Lenin, although they recognised the possibility of a revolutionary alliance between workers and peasants to overthrow the capitalists and landlords, always insisted that the peasantry was not a socialist class. 'The peasant movement...is not a struggle against the foundations of capitalism but a struggle to cleanse them of all survivals of serfdom.' (102) But if Russia, by itself, was to accomplish the transition to socialism, then this attitude to the peasantry had to be revised. So for a period Stalin (and his ally Bukharin) advanced the notion of the peasantry 'growing into' socialism. In practice of course the peasantry was crushed by the forced collectivisation of 1929-33, for it constituted an obstacle not only to socialism but also to state capitalism, but not before the blurring of the distinction between the working class and the peasantry had passed into Stalinist ideology....

"Finally the logic of socialism in one country played havoc with the Marxist theory of the state. By 1934 Stalin was claiming that socialism had been established in Russia. This was on the basis that with the transformation of the peasantry into state employees, classes no longer existed -- the bureaucracy of course was not a class for Stalin. According to Marxism, the state, as an instrument of class rule, was destined to wither away under socialism, but Stalin's state had not the slightest intention of withering away, and this was a fact that no amount of propaganda could hide. Stalin fielded this particular contradiction by asserting that Marx and Engels had expected the state to wither away because they viewed socialism as an international phenomenon, whereas when socialism existed only in one country the state had to be strengthened. (104) It was the kind of circular argument that works well when anyone who points out the circularity is a candidate for the firing squad.

"But if this argument justified the existence of the state it still left unsolved the problem of the class nature of this state. It could not be a specifically workers' state if Russia was a classless society -- and precisely this was involved in the claim that Russia was socialist. The only solution was the notion that the Soviet state had become a state of 'the whole people', a thoroughly bourgeois view of the state vigorously attacked by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme and by Lenin in The State and Revolution. Moreover it was a view of the state adopted by the Stalinist bureaucracy for exactly the same reason that the bourgeoisie has always viewed their state as a state of the whole people, namely its refusal to acknowledge its own existence as a ruling class." [Molyneux (1983), pp.30-33. Bold emphases added; italic emphases in the original. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Some links added, and several paragraphs merged.]

Of course, Molyneux forgot to mention that Stalin's line makes perfectly good 'dialectical sense' (indeed, as does its opposite!), just as he neglected to mention that this is precisely how this counter-revolutionary ideology was sold to the communist party world-wide.

But, Molyneux's omission is only to be expected, since he, too, is a dialectician.

However, it would be interesting to reveal how Stalin himself rationalised this change of emphasis. In his pamphlet, Concerning Questions of Leninism, written in 1926, he argued as follows:

"The pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism (May 1924, first edition) contains two formulations on the question of the victory of socialism in one country. The first of these says:

'Formerly, the victory of the revolution in one country was considered impossible, on the assumption that it would require the combined action of the proletarians of all or at least of a majority of the advanced countries to achieve victory over the bourgeoisie. Now this point of view no longer fits in with the facts. Now we must proceed from the possibility of such a victory, for the uneven and spasmodic character of the development of the various capitalist countries under the conditions of imperialism, the development within imperialism of catastrophic contradictions leading to inevitable wars, the growth of the revolutionary movement in all countries of the world -- all this leads, not only to the possibility, but also to the necessity of the victory of the proletariat in individual countries' (see The Foundations of Leninism).

"This thesis is quite correct and needs no comment. It is directed against the theory of the Social-Democrats, who regard the seizure of power by the proletariat in one country, without the simultaneous victory of the revolution in other countries, as utopian. But the pamphlet The Foundations of Leninism contains a second formulation, which says:

'But the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and establishment of the power of the proletariat in one country does not yet mean that the complete victory of socialism has been ensured. The principal task of socialism -- the organisation of socialist production -- has still to be fulfilled. Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No, it cannot. To overthrow the bourgeoisie the efforts of one country are sufficient; this is proved by the history of our revolution. For the final victory of socialism, for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of a peasant country like Russia, are insufficient; for that, the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are required' (see The Foundations of Leninism, first edition).

"This second formulation was directed against the assertions of the critics of Leninism, against the Trotskyists, who declared that the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, in the absence of victory in other countries, could not 'hold out in the face of a conservative Europe.' To that extent -- but only to that extent -- this formulation was then (May 1924) adequate, and undoubtedly it was of some service. Subsequently, however, when the criticism of Leninism in this sphere had already been overcome in the Party, when a new question had come to the fore -- the question of the possibility of building a complete socialist society by the efforts of our country, without help from abroad -- the second formulation became obviously inadequate, and therefore incorrect.

"What is the defect in this formulation? Its defect is that it joins two different questions into one: it joins the question of the possibility of building socialism by the efforts of one country -- which must be answered in the affirmative -- with the question whether a country in which the dictatorship of the proletariat exists can consider itself fully guaranteed against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the old order, without a victorious revolution in a number of other countries -- which must be answered in the negative. This is apart from the fact that this formulation may give occasion for thinking that the organisation of a socialist society by the efforts of one country is impossible -- which, of course, is incorrect.

"On this ground I modified and corrected this formulation in my pamphlet The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists (December 1924); I divided the question into two -- into the question of a full guarantee against the restoration of the bourgeois order, and the question of the possibility of building a complete socialist society in one country. This was effected, in the first place, by treating the 'complete victory of socialism' as a 'full guarantee against the restoration of the old order,' which is possible only through 'the joint efforts of the proletarians of several countries'; and, secondly, by proclaiming, on the basis of Lenin's pamphlet On Co-operation, the indisputable truth that we have all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society (see The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists).

"It was this new formulation of the question that formed the basis for the well-known resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference 'The Tasks of the Comintern and the R.C.P.(B.),' which examines the question of the victory of socialism in one country in connection with the stabilisation of capitalism (April 1925), and considers that the building of socialism by the efforts of our country is possible and necessary. This new formulation also served as the basis for my pamphlet The Results of the Work of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.) published in May 1925, immediately after the Fourteenth Party Conference. With regard to the presentation of the question of the victory of socialism in one country, this pamphlet states:

'Our country exhibits two groups of contradictions. One group consists of the internal contradictions that exist between the proletariat and the peasantry (this refers to the building of socialism in one country -- J. St.). The other group consists of the external contradictions that exist between our country, as the land of socialism, and all the other countries, as lands of capitalism (this refers to the final victory of socialism -- J. St.).'...

'Anyone who confuses the first group of contradictions, which can be overcome entirely by the efforts of one country, with the second group of contradictions, the solution of which requires the efforts of the proletarians of several countries, commits a gross error against Leninism. He is either a muddle-head or an incorrigible opportunist' (see The Results of the Work of the Fourteenth Conference of the R.C.P.(B.).)

"On the question of the victory of socialism in our country, the pamphlet states:

'We can build socialism, and we will build it together with the peasantry under the leadership of the working class'...for 'under the dictatorship of the proletariat we possess...all that is needed to build a complete socialist society, overcoming all internal difficulties, for we can and must overcome them by our own efforts' (ibid.).

'The final victory of socialism is the full guarantee against attempts at intervention, and hence against restoration, for any serious attempt at restoration can take place only with serious support from outside, only with the support of international capital. Therefore, the support of our revolution by the workers of all countries, and still more the victory of the workers in at least several countries, is a necessary condition for fully guaranteeing the first victorious country against attempts at intervention and restoration, a necessary condition for the final victory of socialism' (ibid.).

"Clear, one would think. Such are the facts. These facts, I think, are known to all the comrades, including Zinoviev. If now, nearly two years after the ideological struggle in the Party and after the resolution that was adopted at the Fourteenth Party Conference (April 1925), Zinoviev finds it possible in his reply to the discussion at the Fourteenth Party Congress (December 1925) to dig up the old and quite inadequate formula contained in Stalin's pamphlet written in April 1924, and to make it the basis for deciding the already decided question of the victory of socialism in one country -- then this peculiar trick of his only goes to show that he has got completely muddled on this question. To drag the Party back after it has moved forward, to evade the resolution of the Fourteenth Party Conference after it has been confirmed by a Plenum of the Central Committee, means to become hopelessly entangled in contradictions, to have no faith in the cause of building socialism, to abandon the path of Lenin, and to acknowledge one's own defeat.

"What is meant by the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country? It means the possibility of solving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by means of the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat seizing power and using that power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and the support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries. Without, such a possibility, building socialism is building without prospects, building without being sure that socialism will be completely built. It is no use engaging in building socialism without being sure that we can build it completely, without being sure that the technical backwardness of our country is not an insuperable obstacle to the building of a complete socialist society. To deny such a possibility means disbelief in the cause of building socialism, departure from Leninism.

"What is meant by the impossibility of the complete, final victory of socialism in one country without the victory of the revolution in other countries? It means the impossibility of having a full guarantee against intervention, and consequently against the restoration of the bourgeois order, without the victory of the revolution in at least a number of countries. To deny this indisputable thesis means departure from internationalism, departure from Leninism.... You see that this clear thesis of Lenin's, in comparison with Zinoviev's muddled and anti-Leninist 'thesis' that we can engage in building socialism 'within the limits of one country,' although it is impossible to build it completely, is as different from the latter as the heavens from the earth. The statement quoted above was made by Lenin in 1915 [quoted earlier by Stalin -- RL], before the proletariat had taken power. But perhaps he modified his views after the experience of taking power, after 1917? Let us turn to Lenin's pamphlet On Co-operation, written in 1923.

'As a matter of fact;' says Lenin, 'state power over all large-scale means of production, state power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc. -- is not this all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society from the co-operatives, from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly looked down upon as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to look down upon as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary for building a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building' (see Vol. XXVII, p.392). [Stalin's italics, not Lenin's. This pamphlet in fact appears in Volume 33 of the Collected Works at the MIA -- RL.]

"In other words, we can and must build a complete socialist society, for we have at our disposal all that is necessary and sufficient for this building. I think it would be difficult to express oneself more clearly." [Stalin (1976c), pp.207-17. Formatting and punctuation adapted to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Stalin's footnotes not included, some links added. Italic emphases added only to the titles of books and pamphlets; bold added. Compare the above with the remarks Stalin made here (section IV. Several paragraphs merged.]

So, although Molyneux's political assessment of Stalin's change of line seems to be formally correct, he is a little unfair to Stalin, who openly admitted he had changed emphasis; he didn't try to cover it up. Indeed, it was an integral part of the convoluted 'dialectical' gyrations he performed in order to 'justify' these changes.

The new line emphasised the final or "complete" victory of socialism. For Stalin, while it was possible to build socialism in one country, its final victory couldn't be achieved until the threat of external, anti-socialist forces had been neutralised, and that could only happen with the assistance of the proletariat of several other countries. However, in this we can see the point Molyneux was making, that the entire international communist movement would now become an extension to Soviet foreign policy. The international revolution, instead of being integral to the fight for socialism, would become secondary to it. Its main aim would now be the preservation of the Soviet State.

So, despite these dialectical gyrations, the politically significant section of the above is this:

In this passage Stalin inadvertently lets the cat out of the bag for he declares that "a complete socialist society" can emerge in the fSU even if there is no "victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries." All that was needed was their "sympathy and support". Hence, this socialist society could be shielded against the economic, social and military pressures exerted by the capitalist/imperialist forces surrounding it. The final victory of socialism could, therefore, be kicked down the road, off into the distant future; the fSU would be quite safe in the meantime. The practical import of all this was that the international revolution was subordinate to the formation of socialism in the fSU, and, as things turned out, it was finally sacrificed -- in China and Spain, for example.

"Our country exhibits two groups of contradictions. One group consists of the internal contradictions that exist between the proletariat and the peasantry (this refers to the building of socialism in one country -- J. St.). The other group consists of the external contradictions that exist between our country, as the land of socialism, and all the other countries, as lands of capitalism (this refers to the final victory of socialism -- J. St.).....

"Anyone who confuses the first group of contradictions, which can be overcome entirely by the efforts of one country, with the second group of contradictions, the solution of which requires the efforts of the proletarians of several countries, commits a gross error against Leninism. He is either a muddle-head or an incorrigible opportunist." [Ibid.]

Once again, we see how DM can be put to use 'justifying' any course of action, even if it contradicts Marxism -- or, indeed, Leninism. In fact, the more it appeared to do this, the more 'dialectical' it seemed to be!

I have outlined some of the background theory to Stalin's change of direction -- which, despite the above attempt to 'justify' it 'theoretically', was made for political reasons --, and how it is inconsistent with Lenin's theory of change, here. [The latter forms part of my reply to a rather confused video criticising my Essays, posted on YouTube in 2015.]

45a. There are many histories of this dark period of our movement; one of the best is, I think, Gluckstein (1999) -- which, incidentally, also fails to mention the impact this contradictory 'theory' had on the policies adopted by the KPD -- or, rather, were forced to adopt because of the points made, for example, at the end of Note 45, above.

46. We also find this 'dialectical' justification for the change from the 'social fascist' redoubt into the Popular Front love-fest -- in direct 'contradiction', of course, to what had gone before:

"Others argue that, since the establishment of the united proletarian front meets in a number of countries with the resistance of the reactionary part of Social-Democracy, it is better to start at once with building up the People's Front, and then develop the united working class front on that basis. Evidently both groups fail to understand that the united front and the anti-Fascist People's Front are connected by the living dialectics of struggle; that they are interwoven, the one passing into the other in the process of the practical struggle against fascism, and that there is certainly no Chinese wall to keep them apart." [Georgi Dimitroff, General Secretary of the Communist International, 1935. Bold emphasis added; paragraphs merged.]

So, here we see yet more dialectics thrown at the page in order to excuse a compromise with those who were formerly (i.e., only a few weeks earlier!) depicted as 'social fascists'.

Here is Ernst Thälmann (leader of the KPD in the early 1930s), writing what turned out to be a suicide note:

"In his pamphlet on the question, How will National Socialism be Defeated?, Trotsky gives always but one reply: 'The German Communist Party must make a bloc with the social democracy...' In framing this bloc, Trotsky sees the only way for completely saving the German working class against fascism. Either the Communist Party will make a bloc with the social democracy or the German working class is lost for 10-20 years. This is the theory of a completely ruined fascist and counter revolutionary. This theory is the worst theory, the most dangerous theory and the most criminal that Trotsky has constructed in the last years of his counter revolutionary propaganda." [Quoted from here. Italic emphasis in the original; paragraphs merged.]

A few months later, Thälmann was arrested by the Nazis and subsequently shot in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944. Negation of the negator?

46a0. Some might regard this accusation as yet another wild exaggeration, but without the use of dialectics it would have been considerably harder to sell these suicidal about-turns to the communist cadres and the rank-and-file, world-wide. In that case, this theory must take its fair share of the blame.

46a. On this, see Chan (2003), Knight (2005), and Tian (2005). [It is worth noting that these authors Anglicise Ai's name to "Ai Siqi".]

"Such naive ideas seem to suggest that contradictions no longer exist in a socialist society. To deny the existence of contradictions is to deny dialectics. The contradictions in various societies differ in character as do the forms of their solution, but society at all times develops through continual contradictions. Socialist society also develops through contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production. In a socialist or communist society, technical innovations and improvement in the social system inevitably continue to take place; otherwise the development of society would come to a standstill and society could no longer advance. Humanity is still in its youth. The road it has yet to traverse will be no one knows how many times longer than the road it has already travelled. Contradictions, as between progress and conservatism, between the advanced and the backward, between the positive and the negative, will constantly occur under varying conditions and different circumstances. Things will keep on like this: one contradiction will lead to another; and when old contradictions are solved new ones will arise. It is obviously incorrect to maintain, as some people do, that the contradiction between idealism and materialism can be eliminated in a socialist or communist society. As long as contradictions exist between the subjective and the objective, between the advanced and the backward, and between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between materialism and idealism will continue in a socialist or communist society, and will manifest itself in various forms. Since man lives in society, he reflects, in different circumstances and to varying degrees, the contradictions existing in each form of society. Therefore, not everybody will be perfect, even when a communist society is established. By then there will still be contradictions among people, and there will still be good people and bad, people whose thinking is relatively correct and others whose thinking is relatively incorrect. Hence there will still be struggle between people, though its nature and form will be different from those in class societies. Viewed in this light, the existence of contradictions between the individual and the collective in a socialist society is nothing strange. And if any leader of the Party or state isolates himself from collective leadership, from the masses of the people and from real life, he will inevitably fall into rigid ways of thinking and consequently make grave mistakes. What we must guard against is that some people, because the Party and the state have achieved many successes in work and won the great trust of the masses, may take advantage of this trust to abuse their authority and so commit some mistakes.

"The Chinese Communist Party congratulates the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on its great achievements in this historic struggle against the cult of the individual (sic!). The experience of the Chinese revolution, too, testifies that it is only by relying on the wisdom of the masses of the people, on democratic centralism and on the system of combining collective leadership with individual responsibility that our Party can score great victories and do great things in times of revolution and in times of national construction. The Chinese Communist Party, in its revolutionary ranks, has incessantly fought against elevation of oneself and against individualist heroism, both of which mean isolation from the masses (sic!). Undoubtedly, such things will exist for a long time to come. Even when overcome, they re-emerge. They are found sometimes in one person, sometimes in another. When attention is paid to the role of the individual, the role of the masses and the collective is often ignored. That is why some people easily fall into the mistake of self-conceit or blind faith in themselves or blind worship of others. We must therefore give unremitting attention to opposing elevation of oneself, individualist heroism and the cult of the individual." [The Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Bold emphases added.]

"In his way of thinking, Stalin departed from dialectical materialism and fell into metaphysics and subjectivism on certain questions and consequently he was sometimes divorced from reality and from the masses. In struggles inside as well as outside the Party, on certain occasions and on certain questions he confused two types of contradictions which are different in nature, contradictions between ourselves and the enemy and contradictions among the people, and also confused the different methods needed in handling them. In the work led by Stalin of suppressing the counter-revolution, many counter-revolutionaries deserving punishment were duly punished, but at the same time there were innocent people who were wrongly convicted; and in 1937 and 1938 there occurred the error of enlarging the scope of the suppression of counter-revolutionaries. In the matter of Party and government organization, he did not fully apply proletarian democratic centralism and, to some extent, violated it. In handling relations with fraternal Parties and countries, he made some mistakes. He also gave some bad counsel in the international communist movement. These mistakes caused some losses to the Soviet Union and the international communist movement." [On The Question of Stalin. Bold emphases added.]

Once again, we can see how dialectics was used as the only legitimate weapon of criticism in order to rationalise political decisions taken for other reasons, made all the more easy because of a commitment to the existence of 'contradictions'.

There are 66 pages of such material in the following rather odd article (which is mostly devoted to the obscure idea that there is an "identity" between "thinking" and "Being" -- an idea invented by ancient mystics -- here bizarrely linked in with Mao's 'Great Leap Backwards'):

"Between 1949 and 1964, three major struggles of principle took place on China's philosophical front, centring around the question of China's economic base and superstructure, the question of whether there is identity between thinking and being, and the question of one divides into two or 'combine two into one.' These struggles were provoked one after another by Yang Hsien-chen, agent of the renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao-chi in philosophical circles, at crucial junctures in the struggle between the two classes (the proletariat and the bourgeoisie), the two roads (socialism and capitalism) and the two lines (Chairman Mao Tse-tung's proletarian revolutionary line and Liu Shao-chi's counter-revolutionary revisionist line). They were fierce struggles between dialectical materialism and historical materialism on the one hand and idealism and metaphysics on the other, and were a reflection on the philosophical front of the acute class struggle at home and abroad....

"Yang Hsien-chen arbitrarily declared: 'Identity between thinking and being is an idealist proposition.' He raved that 'identity between thinking and being' and 'dialectical identity' did not mean the same thing, that they belonged to 'two different categories.' Viciously distorting Marxism-Leninism, he tried to set the identity between thinking and being against the materialist theory of reflection, alleging that, with regard to the question of the relationship between thinking and being, 'materialism uses the theory of reflection to solve it, while idealism solves it by means of identity.'

"Materialist dialectics teaches us that the law of the unity of opposites is universal. The identity of opposites, that is, their mutual dependence for existence and their transformation into each other, is undoubtedly applicable to the relationship between thinking and being. By denying the identity between thinking and being, Yang Hsien-chen was denying that the two opposite aspects of the contradiction, thinking and being, depended on each other for their existence and could transform themselves into each other in given conditions. If Yang Hsien-chen's assertion were true, the law of the unity of opposites as taught by dialectics would not be universal.

"Yang Hsien-chen metaphysically negated the interconnection between thinking and being, regarding them as absolute opposites. Thus he sank into dualism and, from there, into subjective idealism. He denied the dynamic role of revolutionary theory and opposed the revolutionary mass movement. He exaggerated the non-essential and secondary aspects of the revolutionary mass movement to the point of absurdity. He concentrated his attack on one point to the complete disregard of the rest, closing his eyes completely to the essence and the main aspects of the revolutionary mass movement. He even had no scruples to palm off his counter-revolutionary subjective perceptions as the objective reality. He did all this in a vain attempt to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and restore capitalism.

"By denying the dialectical identity between thinking and being, Yang Hsien-chen was, in the final analysis, opposed to arming the masses with Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought and using it to actively transform the world, that is to say, he was trying to hoodwink the masses with counter-revolutionary revisionist ideas and attempting to transform the world with the reactionary world outlook of the bourgeoisie. It was precisely this reactionary theory of Yang Hsien-chen's that provided the 'theoretical basis' for Liu Shao-chi's slavish comprador philosophy and his doctrine of trailing behind at a snail's pace.

"Backed by Liu Shao-chi, Yang Hsien-chen started preaching this reactionary theory in 1955. In 1957, he went so far as to flagrantly demand that those opposing his trash and consistently advocating the identity between thinking and being be labelled 'Rightists.' In 1958, he knocked together his sinister article 'A Brief Discussion of Two Categories of "Identity,"' branding as 'subjective idealism' the scientific thesis that there is identity between thinking and being; then he ordered his men to write articles to propagate his reactionary theory. Chairman Mao sharply pointed out the reactionary essence of Yang Hsien-chen's fallacy in October the same year, but the latter resisted for all he was worth. Also, when giving lectures in November 1958, Yang Hsien-chen vilified the theory of the identity between thinking and being as 'sheer nonsense and out-and-out reactionary theory.' And between 1959 and 1964, in close co-ordination with Liu Shao-chi's counter-revolutionary activities for capitalist restoration, he repeatedly waged counter-attacks against Mao Tsetung Thought on this particular question. But all these schemes fell apart one after another under the crushing blows from the proletariat.... (sic!)

"Chairman Mao pointed out: Chairman Mao's brilliant thesis that one divides into two is a penetrating and concise generalization of the law of the unity of opposites; it is a great development of materialist dialectics. Acknowledging that one divides into two means acknowledging the existence, in socialist society, of classes, class contradictions and class struggle, the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road, the danger of capitalist restoration, and the threat of aggression and subversion by imperialism and social-imperialism. To resolve these contradictions, it is essential to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.... The three major struggles in the field of philosophy all ended with resounding victories for Chairman Mao's philosophical thinking. But class struggle has not ended. The struggle between materialism and idealism and between dialectics and metaphysics will always go on. We must carry on deep-going revolutionary mass criticism of the idealism and metaphysics spread by Liu Shao-chi and other political swindlers, and eradicate whatever remains of their poisonous influence....

"In 1958, Chairman Mao formulated the general line of going all out, aiming high and achieving greater, faster, better and more economical results in building socialism. He issued the call to do away with all fetishes and superstitions, emancipate the mind and carry forward the communist style of daring to think, speak and act. Again and again he stressed that we must persevere in putting politics in command and give full play to the mass movement in all our work. The people's revolutionary enthusiasm and creativeness were enormously mobilized by Chairman Mao's revolutionary theory and revolutionary line. And the great leap forward emerged all over the nation and people's communes were set up throughout the rural areas. The great victory of Mao Tsetung Thought aroused mad opposition by the class enemies at home and abroad. Answering their needs, Yang Hsien-chen racked his brains to systematize his 'there is no identity between thinking and being' rubbish and came up with his reactionary article 'A Brief Discussion of Two Categories of 'Identity.'" In it he opposed the Marxist theory of knowledge and attempted to deny fundamentally the general line, the great leap forward and the people's commune." [Three Major Struggles On China's Philosophical Front. Bold emphases and links added; some paragraphs merged.]

"A new and heated polemic has developed on the philosophical front in China; it concerns the concepts of 'one divides into two' and 'two combines into one.' This debate is a struggle between those who are for and those who are against materialist dialectics, a struggle between two world outlooks -- the proletarian world outlook and the bourgeois world outlook. Those who maintain that 'one divides into two' is the fundamental law of things stand on the side of materialist dialectics; those who maintain that the fundamental law of things is that 'two combine into one' stand in direct opposition to materialist dialectics. The two sides draw a clear line of demarcation between themselves and their arguments are directly opposed to each other. This polemic is an ideological reflection of an acute and complex class struggle now being waged both internationally and in China.

"Counting from May 29, the date of publication in the newspaper Guangming Ribao of the article '"One Divides Into Two" and "Two Combine Into One,"' by Comrades Ai Heng-wu and Lin Ching-shan, this debate has already been going on for three months. In order to get a better understanding of the present state of this polemic and in order to promote it, the Hongqi [Red Flag] Editorial Department organized a forum on August 24-25 attended by cadres and students from the Higher Party School. Our correspondent subsequently interviewed a number of the comrades concerned....

"Recalling events in the last few years, they all noted that, in line with the situation in the class struggle at home and internationally, the Party had strengthened its propaganda on the dialectical materialist concept that 'one divides into two.' Our Party has pointed out that everything tends to divide itself into two. And theories are no exception; they also tend to divide. Wherever there is a revolutionary, scientific theory, its antithesis, a counter-revolutionary, anti-scientific theory, is bound to arise in the course of its development. As modern society is divided into classes and as the difference between progressive and backward groups will continue far into the future, the emergence of such antitheses is inevitable.

"The Party has further pointed out: The history of the international communist movement demonstrates that like everything else, the international working-class movement tends to divide itself into two. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is inevitably reflected in the communist ranks. It is inevitable that opportunism of one kind or another should arise in the course of development of the communist movement, that opportunists should engage in splitting activities against Marxism-Leninism and that Marxist-Leninists should wage struggles against opportunism and splittism. It is precisely through such struggles of opposites that Marxism-Leninism and the international working-class movement have developed.

"The Party has criticized the so-called 'new concept' advanced by modern revisionism with regard to the current international situation, pointing out that this concept implies that in the present-day world antagonistic social contradictions of all kinds are waning, and that contradictory social forces are tending to unite themselves into a single whole. For instance, they hold that the conflicting forces represented by the socialist system and the capitalist system, by the socialist camp and the imperialist camp, by one imperialist country and another, by the imperialist countries and oppressed nations, by the bourgeoisie on the one hand and the proletariat and other labouring people on the other in the capitalist countries, by the different monopoly groups in the imperialist countries, as well as the contradictions within socialist countries -- that all these are uniting or on the way to uniting into a single whole.

"The revolutionary dialectical method summed up in the concept that 'one divides into two' has been grasped more and more fully by our comrades and the masses to become a powerful ideological instrument for achieving a correct understanding of the present situation in the class struggle both domestic and international. It helps people to recognize that the contradiction and struggle between imperialism and the revolutionary people of the world are irreconcilable, and that the contradiction and struggle between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism are irreconcilable. It enhances people's courage in opposing imperialism, the reactionaries in various countries, and in fighting modern revisionism. It increases people's confidence in victory. But, while our Party is strengthening its propaganda on the revolutionary dialectics of 'one divides into two,' Comrade Yang Hsien-chen talks a lot about the concept of 'two combine into one,' thus setting up another platform opposite to that of the Party.

"Comrade Yang Hsien-chen's idea of reconciling contradictions and negating struggles was formed a long time ago. In November 1961 when lecturing in the Higher Party School, he said: 'The unity of opposites, the unity of contradictions means: The two opposites are inseparably connected.' 'What we want to learn from dialectics is how to connect two opposite ideas. Since the Party strengthened its propaganda on the concept of 'one divides into two,' Comrade Yang Hsien-chen has disseminated his idea of reconciling contradictions with even greater zeal. In November 1963, he generalized his idea as 'two combine into one,' and made this public while lecturing in the Higher Party School. In April 1964, in a lecture to a class of Sinkiang students at the Higher Party School, he further developed this thesis, making it more 'systematic,' and more 'complete.' Subsequently, he attempted by every means to propagate this thesis, trying to thrust in his anti-dialectical viewpoint wherever possible....

"After the article by Ai Heng-wu and Lin Ching-shan was published in Guangming Ribao, the leading comrades in the Higher Party School, seeing that the debate involved a matter of principle and that it was a debate between revolutionary dialectics and anti-dialectics, asked the Research and Teaching Group in Philosophy to hold a discussion on it. When Comrade Yang Hsien-chen was told of this by Li Ming, he was very displeased and angry. On July 17, Comrades Wang Chung and Kuo Pei-heng wrote an article in Renmin Ribao, exposing and criticizing Yang's concept that 'two combine into one.'...

"Comrade Yang Hsien-chen's concept that 'two combine into one' has also evoked a great deal of controversy among the general public. Some people support it; but, many criticize and reject it. Up to the end of August, more than 90 articles on the subject had been published in newspapers and in magazines, both national and local. Theoretical workers in Party schools, universities and colleges, and research institutes in various places have held forums on it. At the present time the central question in the debate is whether or not to recognize the law of the unity of opposites as the fundamental law of objective things, and materialist dialectics as the world outlook of the proletariat. The majority of the students and staff workers of the Higher Party School have come to see clearly from the words and deeds of Yang Hsien-chen and others that it is not fortuitous that Comrade Yang Hsien-chen should at this time have made public the concept that 'two combine into one.' He has done this with the aim and plan of pitting the reactionary bourgeois world outlook against the proletarian world outlook of materialist dialectics.

"Participants in the forum pointed out that Yang Hsien-chen had all along, repeatedly and painstakingly, propagated the idea that 'the tendency in everything is for "two to combine into one."' He had talked with great zeal about 'the inseparable connection' between antitheses, the 'inseparability' of things, and asserted that the task of studying the unity of opposites lies solely in seeking 'common demands,' or 'seeking common ground while reserving differences.' If things are viewed in the light of his concept that 'two combine into one,' their internal contradictions disappear and the struggle of opposites within them disappears; the concept that one side of a contradiction must of necessity overcome the other side, that the outcome of struggle is the destruction of the old unity and the emergence of a new unity, and that old things are replaced by the new -- all this, too, disappears. In this way, Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics is completely negated.

"The concept that 'one divides into two' is the kernel of the revolutionary philosophy of materialist dialectics, the world outlook of the proletariat. Using this world outlook to apprehend things, the proletariat recognizes that contradictions are inherent in everything, that the two sides of a contradiction are in a state both of unity and of struggle, and that contradiction is the motive force in the development of things. While the identity of opposites is relative, their struggle is absolute. Therefore, the task of materialist dialectics has never been to cover up contradictions, but to disclose them, to discover the correct method for resolving them and to accelerate their transformation, in order to bring about the revolutionary transformation of the world. Using the world outlook of materialist dialectics to analyze class societies, the proletariat recognizes class contradiction and class struggle; it recognizes class struggle as the motive force of social development; it firmly maintains that the proletariat must carry out the class struggle through to the end and so bring about the transformation of society. But to view relations between the various classes of society in accordance with the concept that 'two combine into one' as advocated by Comrade Yang Hsien-chen will inevitably lead to obscuring the boundaries between classes, and to repudiating the class struggle, and thus lead to the theory of class conciliation.

"Comrades Yang Hsien-chen, Ai Heng-wu and Lin Ching-shan gave an intolerably distorted picture of the basis on which the Party maps out its principles, lines and policies. They arbitrarily asserted that the Party's general line for socialist construction, the principles of political life of the Party and the State, the Party's economic, foreign and cultural policies, etc., were all worked out in accordance with their concept that 'two combine into one.' Thus, they themselves have raised a fundamental question of political principle. However, the defenders of Yang Hsien-chen's concept that 'two combine into one' are unwilling to admit that a question of political principle is involved. Actuated by ulterior motives, they have even said that an academic question should not be turned into a political question.

"Some comrades maintain that Comrade Yang Hsien-chen described the concept that 'two combine into one' as a matter of world outlook and the concept that 'one divides into two' as a matter of methodology, and point out that this runs completely counter to the materialist theory of the unity of world outlook and methodology. The fact that Comrade Yang Hsien-chen has time and again stressed that the aim of studying the dialectical method 'is to acquire the ability to unite into one two opposite ideas.' This precisely shows the complete unity of his world outlook and his methodology; both conform to the concept that 'two combine into one.'

'It is only the reactionary ruling classes of the past and present, and the metaphysicians in their service, who regard opposites not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves into one another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere to delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule.' [This was taken from Mao (1961), p.340 -- RL.]

"Comrade Yang Hsien-chen's concept that 'two combine into one' treats the connections between the two sides in a contradiction as precisely 'dead and rigid things.' Utilizing every opportunity to disseminate this kind of view, he has tried to mislead many people, thus playing a role which serves the reactionary classes. In the debate, some people made statements which, though differing slightly, coincide in the main with Comrade Yang Hsien-chen's concept that 'two combine into one.' For example, some said that the controversy is merely concerned with phraseology or usage; and added that anyone can make a slip or two when lecturing in the classroom. Others, pretending to be fair and to see the question from all sides, have advanced the idea of using the concept that 'two combine into one' to supplement the concept that 'one divides into two,' thus making the former into one aspect of the law of unity of opposites; they assert that only in this way can we avoid 'one-sidedness.' Others again, pretending to make a concrete analysis of contradictions, divide contradictions into two types: Those which have 'unity as their main feature,' and those which have 'struggle as their main feature,' claiming that the concept that 'two combines into one' should be used in handling contradictions which have 'unity as the main feature.' Still others describe the concept that 'one divides into two' as a means of analysis and the concept of 'two combine into one' as a means of generalization, asserting that each is a component part of the dialectical method of cognition. All these assertions, however, are nothing but attempts to defend the thesis that 'two combine into one.'

"Many comrades pointed out that the Marxist-Leninist concept that 'one divides into two' has its definite meaning and that the concept that 'two combine into one' put forward by Yang Hsien-chen, likewise, has its definite meaning. As a technical term, 'one divides into two' very accurately, vividly and colloquially expresses the kernel of dialectics, that is, the essence of the law of the unity of opposites, whereas the concept that 'two combine into one' put forward by Yang Hsien-chen is systematic metaphysics from beginning to end. These are two fundamentally opposite world outlooks. How can one possibly mix them together and not distinguish the one from the other?...

"Philosophy is a part of social ideology; it has its distinct Party character, that is, class character. The struggle on the philosophical front invariably reflects class struggle on the economic and political fronts. In class struggle, different classes, proceeding from their respective class interests, are bound to put forward different points of view and make philosophical generalizations of these viewpoints, which are either revolutionary or reactionary. There is the revolutionary philosophy of the proletariat, and there is the reactionary philosophy of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the struggle between the two antagonistic groups is reflected on the philosophical front. Those individuals within the ranks of the proletariat who have a bourgeois world outlook or who are influenced by the bourgeois world outlook, likewise often use bourgeois philosophy to oppose the revolutionary philosophy of the proletariat.

"At the present time, internationally, the revolutionary struggle waged by the people of various countries is developing vigorously against imperialism, headed by the United States, and its lackeys. Inside the international communist movement, a fierce struggle is being waged between Marxism-Leninism and modern revisionism. In our country, the class struggle between the proletariat on the one hand and the bourgeoisie and the remnant feudal forces on the other, as well as the struggle between the socialist and capitalist roads have advanced to a new, deep-going stage. Confronted with this situation in the class struggle internationally and at home the Central Committee of the Party and Comrade Mao Tse-tung place great emphasis on using the concept that 'one divides into two' and the Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle to combat modern revisionism and to arm our people and have proposed to crush the offensive launched by the bourgeoisie and the remnant feudal forces by carrying out a widespread movement for socialist education in the cities and the countryside. Comrade Yang Hsien-chen's propagation of the concept that 'two combine into one' at such a time is precisely and deliberately designed to meet the needs of modern revisionism and aid the modern revisionists in their propaganda for class peace and class collaboration, and also for the theory of reconciling contradictions. It is at this same time deliberately designed to meet the needs of the bourgeoisie and the remnant feudal forces at home by providing them with so-called theoretical weapons for resisting the movement for socialist education. It has already become very clear that this new polemic, that concerns the question of who will win over whom on the philosophical front, is a serious class struggle in the realm of ideology.

"That such a debate should have arisen on our philosophical front is not difficult to understand. History has shown that whenever a sharp class struggle develops in the political and economic fields, there is bound to be acute class struggle in the ideological field as well. Social life in the Soviet Union was in a period of drastic change towards the end of the 1920s. The unfolding of the movements for agricultural collectivization and socialist industrialization and the desperate resistance put up by the kulaks and the bourgeois forces has made the class struggle in Soviet society very acute. At that time the anti-Party group of Trotsky and Bukharin emerged within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The deeper the socialist revolution went on the economic and political fronts, the greater the shock it caused ideologically to various classes and strata. It was at this crucial moment that Deborin's anti-dialectical philosophical views became the ideological weapon of the anti-Party group, while the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union headed by Stalin sharply criticized and rejected the philosophical position of the Deborin school. That struggle in the realm of ideology was precisely a reflection of the acute class struggle in Soviet society.

"At the present time, the debate which has started on the philosophical front in our country is continuing. In terms of numbers of participants or of its widespread influence and great significance, a debate such as this has rarely been seen in our academic circles for many years now. It seems that it is still far from being concluded. Step by step, it is deepening, truth always develops in struggle. Through this debate, the dialectical way of thinking will certainly triumph over the anti-dialectical and the political and theoretical level of our people will be greatly raised." [Quoted from here. Formatting and quotations marks modified to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Spelling adjusted to agree with UK English. Several paragraphs merged. Minor typo corrected.]

It is hard to believe that intelligent human beings can produce such third-rate gobbledygook, but material like this poured out of China for decades. Small wonder then that the Chinese working population ignored it (even if they knew anything about it).

Update November 2012: More material like this has appeared in English on the Internet since the above was written -- for example, here. The articles posted at that site are as good an example of scholastic hair-splitting as one could wish to find. [What was that again about 'angels dancing' and 'the head of a pin'?]

47. Mao also tried to justify class-collaboration with his invention of "principal" and "secondary" contradictions:

"1. As the contradiction between China and Japan has become the principal one and China's internal contradictions have dropped into a secondary and subordinate place, changes have occurred in China's international relations and internal class relations, giving rise to a new stage of development in the current situation.

"2. China has long been in the grip of two acute and basic contradictions, the contradiction between China and imperialism and the contradiction between feudalism and the masses of the people. In 1927 the bourgeoisie, represented by the Kuomintang, betrayed the revolution and sold China's national interests to imperialism, thus creating a situation in which the state power of the workers and peasants stood in sharp antagonism to that of the Kuomintang, and, of necessity, the task of the national and democratic revolution devolved upon the Chinese Communist Party alone.

"3. Since the Incident of September 18, 1931 and especially since the Northern China Incident of 1935, the following changes have taken place in these contradictions:

"(1) The contradiction between China and imperialism in general has given way to the particularly salient and sharp contradiction between China and Japanese imperialism. Japanese imperialism is carrying out a policy of total conquest of China. Consequently, the contradictions between China and certain other imperialist powers have been relegated to a secondary position, while the rift between these powers and Japan has been widened. Consequently also, the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people are faced with the task of linking China's anti-Japanese national united front with the world peace front. This means that China should not only unite with the Soviet Union, which has been the consistently good friend of the Chinese people, but as far as possible should work for joint opposition to Japanese imperialism with those imperialist countries which, at the present time, are willing to maintain peace and are against new wars of aggression. The aim of our united front must be resistance to Japan, and not simultaneous opposition to all the imperialist powers.

"(2) The contradiction between China and Japan has changed internal class relations within China and has confronted the bourgeoisie and even the warlords with the question of survival, so that they and their political parties have been undergoing a gradual change in their political attitude. This has placed the task of establishing an anti-Japanese national united front before the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people. Our united front should include the bourgeoisie and all who agree to the defence of the motherland, it should represent national solidarity against the foreign foe. This task not only must, but can, be fulfilled.

"(3) The contradiction between China and Japan has changed matters for the masses throughout the country (the proletariat, the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie) and for the Communist Party, and it has changed the Party's policy. More and more people have risen to fight for national salvation. The policy proclaimed by the Communist Party after the September 18th Incident was to conclude agreements with those sections of the Kuomintang which were willing to co-operate with us for resistance, subject to three conditions (stop attacking the revolutionary base areas, guarantee the freedoms and rights of the people, arm the people), and it has developed into a policy of establishing an anti-Japanese united front of the whole nation. This is the reason for the following steps taken by our Party: in 1935, the August declaration and the December resolution; in 1936, the abandonment of the 'anti-Chiang Kai-shek' slogan in May, the letter to the Kuomintang in August, the resolution on the democratic republic in September, and the insistence on a peaceful settlement of the Sian Incident in December; and in 1937, the February telegram to the Third Plenary Session of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang....

"(5) In terms of relative political importance the development of the national contradiction between China and Japan has demoted the domestic contradictions between classes and between political groupings to a secondary and subordinate place. But they still exist and have by no means diminished or disappeared. The same is true of the contradictions between China and the imperialist powers other than Japan. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people are faced with the following task -- to make the appropriate adjustments with regard to those internal and external contradictions which can and must be adjusted at present so as to fit in with the general task of unity against Japan. This is the reason for the Chinese Communist Party's policies of peace and unity, democracy, bettering the life of the people and negotiations with foreign countries that are opposed to Japan....

"11. For the sake of internal peace, democracy and armed resistance and for the sake of establishing the anti-Japanese national united front, the Chinese Communist Party has made the following four pledges in its telegram to the Third Plenary Session of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang:

"(1) the Communist-led government in the Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia revolutionary base area will be renamed the Government of the Special Region of the Republic of China and the Red Army will be redesignated as part of the National Revolutionary Army, and they will come under the direction of the Central Government in Nanking and its Military Council respectively;

"(2) a thoroughly democratic system will be applied in the areas under the Government of the Special Region;

"(3) the policy of overthrowing the Kuomintang by armed force will be discontinued; and

"(4) the confiscation of the land of the landlords will be discontinued." [Mao (1937a), pp.263-69. Bold emphases added. Confusingly, in the printed version, several of the numbers in brackets have been replaced by letters in brackets!]

Class collaboration makes eminent good sense if one accepts DM. Eric Petersen's criticisms were well aimed, therefore:

"Mao's criterion of truth has the undisguised purpose of revealing the falsity of the 'Left Opportunists' with whom Mao had some disagreement in either 1937 or 1950, or both. The context of this disagreement was the drastic change of CCP policy between the Soviet Period (a period of CCP-led armed insurrections in 1928-29) and the Yenan Period (when the Red Army merged with the army of Chiang Kai-shek). Opponents of the change are, to Mao, 'dogmatists who will not change their position....':

'In a revolutionary period the situation changes very rapidly; if the knowledge of revolutionaries does not change rapidly in accordance with the changed situation, they will be unable to lead the revolution to victory.' [Mao (1937b), p.306.]

"...This essay gives no real explanation of the relation between practice and knowledge. It boils down to this: Japan has invaded; let's form a United National Front with the Kuomintang against Japan;...but don't listen to the dogmatists who go on about the Kuomintang being murderers and butchers. The essay 'On Contradiction' is also directed against the dogmatists.... [There] the dialectic is a battle between contradictions, one of which wins. The contradictions, instead of comprising each other in a continual state of flux and development, are in Mao's view rigidly defined and separated. In this viewpoint the result of the struggle of opposites is not an eventual transcending of the dialectic and its replacement by a new one -- as is the viewpoint of Lenin -- but simply the victory of one side....

"What different kinds? These include, for example, Universality of Contradiction and the Particularity of Contradiction, and the distinction between Primary contradiction and Secondary contradiction. Particularity means more than the concrete material content of any particular contradiction. It means that dialectics, as a law of movement and development has no consistent meaning at all. It means in practice that a particular contradiction can be redefined by giving it a different political label....

"As Mao further describes these 'different kinds' of contradictions, we see that he has turbulent recent history to explain:

'...[W]e must not only observe them in their interconnections or their totality, we must also examine the two aspects of each contradiction. For instance, consider the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Take one aspect, the Kuomintang. In the period of the first united front, the Kuomintang carried out Sun Yat-sen's Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party, and assistance to the peasants and workers; hence it was revolutionary and vigorous, it was an alliance of various classes for the democratic revolution. After 1927, however, the Kuomintang changed into its opposite and became a reactionary bloc of the landlords and big bourgeoisie. After the Sian Incident in December 1936, it began another change in the direction of ending the civil war and co-operating with the Communist Party for joint opposition to Japanese imperialism.' [Mao.]

"Thus 'each aspect' can freely change and even reverse its nature if Mao requires it. The class content of the Kuomintang is in Mao's view determined by its policy -- particularly by its attitude to the CCP. The Kuomintang, in historical fact, never ceased to be an alliance of landlords and prospective industrialists, resentful of any move by the Chinese peasants and workers that could threaten their methods of exploitation. In Mao's philosophy, however, the criterion is not what the Kuomintang is, but what it says." [Petersen (1994), pp.119-21. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links added; several paragraphs merged.]

Once more, we can see how political decisions, taken for other reasons (in this case, those involving class collaboration and the dire consequences this brought in its train), were 'justified' by dialectics.

Nevertheless, Petersen goes on to argue that had this change of direction been caused by actual events, as opposed to being the cause of them, it might be possible to call this a materialist sort of explanation. Yet, for Mao:

'For instance, in the period of its first cooperation with the Communist Party, the Kuomintang stood in contradiction to foreign imperialism and was therefore anti-imperialist; on the other hand, it stood in contradiction to the great masses of the people within the country -- although in words it promised many benefits to the working people, in fact it gave them little or nothing. In the period when it carried on the anti-Communist war, the Kuomintang collaborated with imperialism and feudalism against the great masses of the people and wiped out all the gains they had won in the revolution, and thereby intensified its contradictions with them.' [Mao.]

"When the other aspect of the contradiction, the CCP, is discussed, the interpretation is entirely idealistic:

'...[I]t [the CCP] courageously led the revolution of 1924-27 but revealed its immaturity in its understanding of the character, the tasks and the methods of the revolution, and consequently it became possible for Chen Tu-hsiuism, which appeared during the latter part of this revolution, to assert itself and bring about the defeat of the revolution. After 1927, the Communist Party courageously led the Agrarian Revolutionary War and created the revolutionary army and revolutionary base areas; however, it committed adventurist errors which brought about very great losses both to the army and to the base areas. Since 1935 the Party has corrected these errors.' [Mao; Petersen's added emphases.]

"Mao's criterion for correctness or error is very appropriate to his own version of events. The CCP's military insurrections after 1927 were dictated by the short-term desire of the Stalin-Bukharin leadership of the Russian Communist Party to cover up for the disaster of the CCP-Kuomintang alliance, [which] were beyond the objective possibilities in China at that time, and were doomed from the start.... Those responsible for the disastrous policies of 1924-1927 are excused. Then the loss of military base areas is dumped upon 'adventurists' instead of upon Chiang's extermination campaigns (the Kuomintang has become 'vigorous'). Moreover, the 'adventurist errors' have been corrected since 1935 when Mao became leader.

"Mao's description of 'the two aspects of a contradiction' allows any subjectivist interpretation of the contradiction to be made because neither aspect is determined by its objective material base. This treatment of contradiction is not a mere vulgarisation of Engels. It is an attempt to justify with philosophical authority the actions of the CCP, and to blame past disasters upon scapegoats (including Chen-Tu-Hsiu who opposed the disastrous strategy of alliance with the Kuomintang) whose ideas...allegedly caused the defeat of the Red Army.

"The division of contradictions into Principal, 'whose existence and development determine or influence other contradictions' and Secondary is...unique to Mao. [However, as we have seen, STDs were quick to appropriate this distinction -- RL.] What criterion...separates contradictions into 'Principal' and 'Secondary'? This is unexplained. However, the practical effect of the distinction is made clear by the example given:

'When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction, between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position.' [Mao; I have corrected Petersen's transcription errors.]

"Mao having said that contradiction is everywhere, has introduced a distinction that allows him to ignore most of those contradictions (e.g., those between classes); only the Principal (the war against Japan) matters. It is however a historical fact that some members of some classes still want to fight the Secondary class war. Chiang Kai-shek for example fought Chinese trade unionists with greater ferocity than he fought Japanese armies. Why does he ignore the Principal contradiction? The causes are subjective not material:

'Chang Kai-shek's betrayal in 1927 is an example of splitting the revolutionary front.' [Mao.]

"This raises more questions that it answers. Who or what distinguishes between Principal and Secondary? How and why does a Principal suddenly revert to a Secondary? Why do some betray? Mao can't answer this at all, though a historical materialist approach would suggest the explanation that Chiang's class consciousness always told him that 'the main enemy was at home'. Why call anyone a traitor for placing the interests of their class above the alleged interests of a nation that contains antagonistic classes?

"...After discussing various 'types' of contradiction 'On Contradiction' concludes that they can and should be 'resolved'. This idea was a recent invention at the time [this] essay was written. It came into general use in the official Russian philosophy of the late 1920s. (Such an idea was unknown in the dialectics of Hegel and Marx. -- However, as we have seen, Marx does speak about 'contradictions' being 'solved', as does Engels -- RL)." [Petersen (1994), pp.122-24. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis and links added. Some paragraphs merged.]

As Petersen goes on to point out, the only contradictions that appear to matter here are those that are of concern to the CCP, and he adds that no materialist reason was given by Mao why some contradictions are "antagonistic" while others aren't (pp.125-31).

However, this 'allowed' the CCP (after the 1949 Chinese revolution, just as it 'allowed' the CPSU post-1924) to ignore -- or, rather, pretend to ignore -- the class tensions that emerged between their status as a new ruling-class and the working class itself, simply carrying on as before oppressing and exploiting the proletariat.

It also 'allowed' those who resisted the CCP and its use of this theory to be branded as "enemies" (or as "right-", or "left-", "deviationists"), their opposition labelled "antagonistic". In that way, this helped stifle and then suffocate any nascent form of socialist democracy.

"Mao's definition of antagonistic class contradictions in contemporary China, Hungary or Russian is tautological: they are antagonistic because they can't be ignored and need handling or 'vigilance.'" [Ibid., p.127.]

[Readers are encouraged the consult the rest of this chapter in Petersen's book for his more complete analysis of the political background which made the adoption of dialectical concepts so useful to the CCP. It should be added, however, that Petersen doesn't view dialectics in the way I do -- his approach and my own appear to be about 75% the same. For example, Petersen accepts there is a dialectic at work in human social and economic development, but not in nature.]

Nevertheless, this sort of contradictory, MIST-engulfed approach to theory and practice makes perfectly good sense to those who believe that everything in reality is contradictory.

[The best account of Mao's China is Harris (1978) -- the most relevant section to the aims of this Essay (Part IV) can be found here. I must however distance myself from Harris's philosophical remarks. Also well worth consulting are Hore (1987, 1991).]

But, it is pertinent to ask: How can contradictions themselves change? How do 'principal contradictions' become 'secondary contradictions'? If they are subject to some form of development, they must be UOs themselves or part of a UO.

"Engels said, 'Motion itself is a contradiction.' Lenin defined the law of the unity of opposites as 'the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society)'. Are these ideas correct? Yes, they are. The interdependence of the contradictory aspects present in all things and the struggle between these aspects determine the life of all things and push their development forward. There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist....

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook. It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. According to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from beginning to end; this is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. Each contradiction and each of its aspects have their respective characteristics; this is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction". [Mao (1961), pp.316-46. Bold emphases alone added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Dozens of quotations have been posted here that show that Mao and the other DM-classicists believed that:

(i) Change and development are the result of the struggle between UOs, and that

(ii) All objects and processes inevitably turn into their opposites. [Some of the relevant passages from the DM-classics have been reproduced below.]

As Essay Seven Part Three demonstrates, this would in fact make change impossible. The argument below is just a particular application of the general points made in that Essay.

So, if Mao and the other DM-classicists are correct, everything in the universe (a) changes because of a struggle between 'opposites', and (b) changes into that opposite.

Let us assume that for some reason, under 'certain circumstances', the 'principal' contradiction, P₁, changes into 'secondary' contradiction, S₁.

Given the DM-theory of change, P₁ must itself be composed of at least two further opposites, or opposite 'tendencies', P* and P** -- otherwise, according to the aforementioned classicists, it couldn't change -- one of which P₁ must itself turn into. That is because, as we have just seen, this theory tells us that everything changes into its opposite.

Either that, or P* must change into P**, and vice versa, since everything changes into that with which it has struggled. But, that would leave P₁ itself unchanged! That is because P₁ was already composed of P* and P** before it 'changed' and it is still composed of these two after that 'change'!

Putting this minor problem to one side for now, there are thus three possibilities if P₁ is to change: it must (i) turn into P**, (ii) develop into P*, or (iii) P* must change into P** (and vice versa).

Well, if the dialectical classics are to be believed, that must be because there is a 'contradiction' (a) between P₁ and P*/P**, or, perhaps, (b) between P* and P**.

If (b) is the case, and if all things turn into their opposites, P* must change into P**, too! But, P** already exists, so P* can't turn into it!

If P** didn't already exist, P* couldn't 'struggle' with it, and hence couldn't change. As Mao himself argued:

"The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without 'above', there would be no 'below'.... Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants, there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semicolonies, there would be no imperialist oppression of nations. It is so with all opposites; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other, and on the other they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating and interdependent, and this character is described as identity. In given conditions, all contradictory aspects possess the character of non-identity and hence are described as being in contradiction. But they also possess the character of identity and hence are interconnected. This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics studies 'how opposites can be and how they become identical'. How then can they be identical? Because each is the condition for the other's existence. This is the first meaning of identity.

"Why is there identity here, too? You see, by means of revolution the proletariat, at one time the ruled, is transformed into the ruler, while the bourgeoisie, the erstwhile ruler, is transformed into the ruled and changes its position to that originally occupied by its opposite. This has already taken place in the Soviet Union, as it will take place throughout the world. If there were no interconnection and identity of opposites in given conditions, how could such a change take place?" [Mao (1961), pp.338-39). Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"And it is just as impossible have one side of a contradiction without the other, as it is to retain the whole of an apple in one's hand after half has been eaten." [Engels (1891b), p.496.]

Similarly, if (a) were the case, then P₁ couldn't turn into P* or P** since they already exist, too.

For either of these to work, it seems there must be two P**'s -- say P**^a and P**^b --, for both of these (i.e., P₁ and P*) to turn into, collectively or severally.

So, one or both of P₁ and P* must turn into one or other of P**^a or P**^b, while P** remains the same.

And yet, in that case, P** would either be changeless, or it must change into one or other of P**^a or P**^b, too.

But, once more, P**^a and P**^b already exist, so P** can't change into either or both of them!

[It is worth recalling at this point that dialecticians are equally unclear whether or not 'internal' opposites are logically-'internal' to, or spatially-internal to other objects and processes with which they struggle. (This was discussed in detail in Essay Eight Part One.) The argument in this section leaves these issues unresolved; it can however be re-configured so that it applies to both options. That won't be attempted here.]

So, either (1) P₁ and P* merge into one entity (as they both become P**), or (2) they turn into one or other of P**^a or P**^b -- or, (3) maybe a third P**-sort-of-possibility (a new opposite, perhaps P**^c) pops into existence as they (both?) change into it!

But, in that case, the changes wrought in P₁ and P* can't be the result of a 'struggle of opposites', since this new opposite (i.e., P**^c) doesn't yet exist!

On the other hand, if P**^c does already exist (so that it can 'struggle' with one or both of the other two, and thereby cause the given change), neither P₁ nor P* can change into it since P**^c already exists!

Either that, or there must be something else for one or both to change into. But, even then, the very same problems would simply return. [The reader is left to work these out for herself.]

In that case, this 'theory' seems to imply that things either merge, disappear, or are created ex nihilo -- or, of course, that they don't change!

Anyway, why should anything change from a P-type-, into an S-type-contradiction, to begin with? That is, from a 'principal' into a 'secondary' contradiction?

Given this theory, that could only happen if, say, P₁ already 'contained' (as an 'internal opposite') an S-type contradiction for it to change into.

[Recall this 'theory' holds that internal opposites cause change, and that things also change into such opposites! That is, they change into that with which they have struggled, and they struggle with that with which they change into.]

Given the above reasoning, for that to happen, P** (from earlier) must be an S-type contradiction otherwise P₁ (or P*) couldn't change into it! But, as we saw, P** already exists, so nothing can change into it!

In that case, the following appear to be the only three options left available to MISTs:

But, these three (P**^a, P**^b and P**^c) can't exist, since if they did, P* and P₁ couldn't change into them. And, if they don't exist, they can't struggle with one another, or with anything else, in order to bring about the required change!

In that case, not only can this scenario not work, we still don't know why anything should alter from the one into the other sort of contradiction, or, indeed, why anything should/could change into anything else, to begin with -- if the DM-classics are to be believed.

It could be argued that a P-type contradiction and an S-type contradiction change because other things around them change. [We will see examples of this below.] But, if that were so, then these contradictions wouldn't change because of any struggle in which they were involved, but would do so as a result of other struggles going on around them. This would make a mockery of the DM-classics have to say about change.

But, let us suppose that some way can be found of avoiding the above impasse, and that P-type and S-type contradictions change because of other struggles going on around them. However, as Essay Seven Part Three has shown, that escape route faces yet another impasse. Readers are directed there for further details.

Now, these difficulties don't disappear if concrete examples are substituted for the schematic/'abstract' letters employed above.

So, for example, if we ask: why did the "principal contradiction" between China and Japan (specifically referred to by Mao) itself change? On sound dialectical lines, it could only do so as a result of its own 'internal contradictions'. In that case, this "principal contradiction" --, call it C/J --, must have had its own internal opposites, say, C/J* and C/J**.

If so, the rest follows as before: C/J* can't change into C/J** since it already exists, etc., etc.

[Here, using "C" for China, and "J" for Japan, and "/" for the 'contradictory' relation between them.]

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For instance, to use Mao's examples, peace changes into war; love can change into hate, and so on.

No one doubts this, but DM is manifestly incapable of explaining why any of these happen. Indeed, if DM were true, they couldn't happen!

So, for peace to change into war, it would have to struggle with it. Has anyone witnessed this odd event? Can an abstraction like peace actually struggle with another abstraction? And yet, both Mao and Lenin were quite clear:

"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….

"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 added.]

"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. Engels said, 'Motion itself is a contradiction.' Lenin defined the law of the unity of opposites as 'the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society)'. Are these ideas correct? Yes, they are. The interdependence of the contradictory aspects present in all things and the struggle between these aspects determine the life of all things and push their development forward. There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist....

"The contradictory aspects in every process exclude each other, struggle with each other and are in opposition to each other. Without exception, they are contained in the process of development of all things and in all human thought. A simple process contains only a single pair of opposites, while a complex process contains more. And in turn, the pairs of opposites are in contradiction to one another. That is how all things in the objective world and all human thought are constituted and how they are set in motion....

"War and peace, as everybody knows, transform themselves into each other. War is transformed into peace; for instance, the First World War was transformed into the post-war peace, and the civil war in China has now stopped, giving place to internal peace. Peace is transformed into war; for instance, the Kuomintang-Communist co-operation was transformed into war in 1927, and today's situation of world peace may be transformed into a second world war. Why is this so? Because in class society such contradictory things as war and peace have an identity in given conditions. All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites. This is what Lenin meant when he discussed 'how they happen to be (how they become) identical -- under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another...'.

"Why is it that 'the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite. Reflected in man's thinking, this becomes the Marxist world outlook of materialist dialectics. It is only the reactionary ruling classes of the past and present and the metaphysicians in their service who regard opposites not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves into one another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere to delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule.... All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute.

"There are two states of motion in all things, that of relative rest and that of conspicuous change. Both are caused by the struggle between the two contradictory elements contained in a thing. When the thing is in the first state of motion, it is undergoing only quantitative and not qualitative change and consequently presents the outward appearance of being at rest. When the thing is in the second state of motion, the quantitative change of the first state has already reached a culminating point and gives rise to the dissolution of the thing as an entity and thereupon a qualitative change ensues, hence the appearance of a conspicuous change. Such unity, solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity, attraction, etc., as we see in daily life, are all the appearances of things in the state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the dissolution of unity, that is, the destruction of this solidarity, combination, harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity and attraction, and the change of each into its opposite are all the appearances of things in the state of qualitative change, the transformation of one process into another. Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute.

"When we said above that two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other because there is identity between them, we were speaking of conditionality, that is to say, in given conditions two contradictory things can be united and can transform themselves into each other, but in the absence of these conditions, they can't constitute a contradiction, can't coexist in the same entity and can't transform themselves into one another. It is because the identity of opposites obtains only in given conditions that we have said identity is conditional and relative. We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute. The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things." [Mao (1961), pp.316, 337-38, 339-40, 342-43. Bold emphases alone added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]

If the above DM-classicists are right, how can peace change into war unless it "struggles" with it?

It could be argued that the contradictory aspects (or underlying processes/tendencies) in a given society, or between societies -- which might give the appearance of peace -- are what turn peace in to war; it is the mutual struggle of these contradictory aspects (or underlying processes, tendencies, forces) that change the one into the other.

In that case, let us call these underlying contradictory aspects (or underlying processes, tendencies, forces) UA and UA*, respectively. If the above passages are correct, it is the struggle between UA and UA* that changes Peace (P) into War (W). And yet, if that were indeed so, the DM-classics would be wrong; that is because P and its opposite, W, don't actually struggle with one another -- even though they are opposites and should struggle with one another (if those classics are to be believed). What changes P into W is a struggle between their non-opposites, UA and UA*. Furthermore, if either UA or UA* changes P into W, then one or both of them must be the opposite(s) of P (according the very same DM-classics), and if they are the opposite(s) of P they should change into P! Either that, or the DM-classics were mistaken, once more.

On the other hand, if UA and UA* are indeed opposites of one another, they should change into each other. But, they can't do that since they both already exist!

Of course, this doesn't deny change, only that if and when it occurs, neither Mao nor dialectics can account for it.

47a. As has already been pointed out, a dialectician of the stature of Alex Callinicos failed to notice the irony when he argued as follows:

"There is, moreover, a third respect in which the classical Marxist tradition is relevant to understanding the Eastern European revolutions. For that tradition gave birth to the first systematic attempt at a social and historical analysis of Stalinism. Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed (1937) pioneered that analysis by locating the origins of the Stalin phenomenon in the conditions of material scarcity prevailing in the Civil War of 1918-21, in which the bureaucracy of party officials began to develop. He concluded that the USSR was a 'degenerated workers' state', in which the bureaucracy had succeeded in politically expropriating the proletariat but left the social and economic foundations of workers' power untouched. The contradictions of that analysis, according to which the workers were still the ruling class of a state which denied them all political power, did not prevent Trotsky's more dogmatic followers extending it to China and Eastern Europe, even though the result was to break any connection between socialism and the self-emancipation of the working class: socialism, it seemed, could be imposed by the Red Army or peasant guerrillas. The Palestinian Trotskyist Tony Cliff refused, however, to accept this line of reasoning. Trotsky's insistence on treating the USSR as a workers' state, despite the dominance of the Stalinist bureaucracy, reflected, according to Cliff, the illicit conflation of the legal form of state ownership of the means of production with the relations of production proper, in which the working class was excluded from any effective control of the productive forces. The USSR and its replicants in China and Eastern Europe were, he argued, bureaucratic state-capitalist societies, in which the bureaucracy collectively fulfilled the role performed under private capitalism by the bourgeoisie of extracting surplus-value and directing the accumulation process." [Callinicos (1991), pp.18-19. Bold emphasis and links added; minor typo corrected.]

The irony here is that the contradictions Callinicos highlighted are precisely the contradictions one would expect if Trotsky's theory faithfully represented the contradictory nature of social reality -- as Trotsky himself argued (and as his 'orthodox' epigones were quick to point out). Picking and choosing which contradictions are acceptable and which aren't on what appears to be an entirely subjective basis is no way for an academic dialectician like Callinicos to enhance his theoretical reputation.

As I have shown, DM can be and has been used to derive the opposite conclusion from the one that Trotsky obtained (or, indeed, the opposite from any conclusion that could be obtained by anyone else). If the fSU was indeed 'contradictory', then it would make just as much dialectical sense to suppose the fSU wasn't a degenerated workers' state, but was State Capitalist, even if there were no competing capitalists in the fSU, as it was to suppose it was a degenerated workers' state where the proletariat (the supposed ruling-class!) were denied power. What could be more 'contradictory', therefore, than a form of capitalism with no capitalists, or a form of workers' power with no workers' power?

[I hasten to add that I fully accept Cliff's theory, but not on the basis of dialectics, on the basis of this revision to classical Marxism. Or, rather, on the basis of its reconfiguration in the light of events.]

48. The invasion of Finland is still defended to this day by OTs (again, using 'dialectics'). A recent example of the sort of tortured OT 'logic' employed to explain away the class treachery of the Hitler/Stalin pact can be found here:

"One final instructive historical debate that highlights the role of the dialectic occurred within the [US-]Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 1939 and 1940. Up until that time the generally accepted position of the party called for the 'unconditional support of the Soviet Union.' This orientation flowed from an analysis that concluded that the Soviet Union was a 'workers' state,' meaning that the economy had been nationalized so that capitalists could no longer operate. However, the Soviet Union was also categorized as a 'deformed' workers' state because Stalin had crushed all democratic impulses, instituted a totalitarian regime, and stifled dissent. In a genuine socialist society workers as a class control the state so that the majority truly rules, and with that crucial stipulation absent, the [US-SWP -- RL] was not prepared to designate the Soviet Union a 'socialist' society. The concept of a 'workers' state' signified that a crucial step had been taken in the direction of socialism with the nationalization of the economy, but only a step. Consequently, the SWP defended the Soviet Union with respect to its nationalized economy but at the same time called for a political revolution to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy and institute a state democratically controlled by the working class.

"But in 1939 the SWP was convulsed by internal debate, prompted by the Hitler-Stalin pact, which included the division of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union. This historic event triggered the creation of a minority within the SWP, led by Shachtman, Burnham, Abern and Bern, who challenged the party's established position on the Soviet Union on several different fronts. Their position demanded that, because of Stalin's pact with the devil, as it were, the party must cease defending the Soviet Union, despite the nationalized economy. This conclusion was also based on the conviction that the Soviet Union had become 'imperialist.' However, they disagreed among themselves on the question of whether it was still a workers' state. Burnham argued that it was not, on the grounds that genuine workers' democracy was absent. Shachtman was prepared to retain the designation of 'workers' state,' but with the attached provision that it was imperialist. Trotsky, who was very close to the party, vigorously defended the established line of the SWP. In the course of the debate he accused the opposition of failing to approach the questions at hand dialectically. His opponents countered that dialectics was either irrelevant or inimical to a scientific analysis. It will be instructive to examine these charges and counter charges more closely. As we shall see, although both sides appear to be using the same words, they were speaking two fundamentally different languages.

"Trotsky's position rested on the conviction that the achievement of socialism is a protracted struggle. Burnham, demanding instant results, refused to applaud even partial steps in a progressive direction, and in this respect his analysis was undialectical. Because the Soviet Union was not a consummate socialist society, it was not one at all. But profound transformations are never linear. The construction of a revolutionary society with a new culture at times will encounter setbacks, especially when the bourgeoisie is struggling desperately to regain power and the world imperialist powers are threatening at the gates. In fact, the Soviet Union had already been invaded by western imperialism, with the United States in the lead, shortly after the revolution, contributing to a bitter civil war. The west also slapped an economic embargo on its revolutionary enemy that at times paralyzed the economy. Having lost many of its most dedicated revolutionaries during the civil war, the Soviet Union could not help but falter as it staggered forward toward the dawn of a new historical period. Burnham, however, remaining blind to this larger context, was content to dispense judgments as if the course of the revolution flowed directly and exclusively from the moral fibre of its leaders. [We can see from Appendix C that this isn't even remotely correct -- RL.]

"Shachtman, while maintaining that the Soviet Union was a workers' state, argued persistently that it was nevertheless implementing an imperialist agenda and for this reason should not be defended with respect to these kinds of adventures:

'It is entirely correct, in my opinion, to characterize the Stalinist policy as imperialist, provided, of course, that one points out its specific character, that is, wherein it differs from modern capitalist imperialism.... Stalin has showed himself capable of pursuing imperialist policy. That is the fact.... Like every bureaucracy, the Stalinist is interested in increasing the national income not in order to raise the standard of living of the masses but in order to increase its own power, its own wealth, its own privileges.'

"In order to understand why this is not a dialectical analysis, one must return to the classic Marxist theory of imperialism, which Trotsky championed. Marx argued that because capitalists compete with one another, each must strive to minimize production costs. This means procuring the cheapest labour and raw materials available. When these assets are located in less developed countries, capitalists from advanced industrialized nations readily resort to military force to seize control of them, thereby assuring their survival in the face of intense competition. In other words, the contradictory interests among capitalists propel them onto the road of imperialism, making imperialism the logical consequence of capitalism.

"Shachtman conceded that what he called Soviet imperialism was fundamentally different from all other examples of modern imperialism since it was not linked to capitalism. But when it came to giving this designation some kind of historical footing, Shachtman was at a complete loss. He could only explain it in terms of psychological impulses, such as the bureaucracy's desire to 'increase its own power, its own wealth, its own privileges,' impulses that could conceivably arise at any time in history. There was no grounding of this analysis in a historically specific economic base. There was no attempt to organically link it to other social domains. Instead, the term dangled alone, detached, and so simply became another way of referring to the greed of specific individuals, which hardly amounts to an analysis at all. In this respect, the approach was entirely undialectical.

"Like Burnham, Shachtman seemed incapable of understanding the Soviet Union in light of the larger imperialist context. Although the major western capitalist countries were prepared to fight among themselves over the acquisition of colonies, they were united in their determination to destroy the Soviet Union. Even the best of Soviet governments would have been compelled to play one capitalist government off against another, simply in order to stall for time in the hope that other revolutions would break out in advanced industrialized countries, enabling it to escape its isolation. Stalin's pact with Hitler for the division of Poland was certainly in part an effort to keep German imperialism from taking all of Poland, which would have brought it flush with the Soviet border. It was as if the minority was intent on condemning an individual for running a few stop signs while failing to take into consideration the car had been hijacked and a gun was pointed at the driver's head. [This is a 'dialectical' explanation, then? -- RL.]

"Trotsky's analysis, consistent with the Marxist emphasis on the economic foundation of society as the propelling force of historical change, placed the primary contradiction between western capitalist-imperialist countries on the one hand and the Soviet Union with its nationalized economy on the other, the fundamental historical struggle was being waged between these antagonists. Although Trotsky condemned the Hitler-Stalin pact, he nevertheless situated it within, and subordinated it to, this broader context and was thus still prepared to defend the Soviet Union in relation to imperialist aggression. The Shachtman opposition, however, ignored this broader historical struggle in favour of a moral condemnation of the Soviet Union's foreign policy. Hence the Hitler-Stalin pact offered sufficient grounds in the eyes of the minority for abandoning the defense of the Soviet Union altogether. In this way the minority failed to provide any analysis of the fundamental contradictory forces at play at this historical conjuncture, including any indication of the direction in which events were likely to unfold. [In the event, Burnham's analysis proved far more perceptive, while Trotsky's was as wrong as an analysis could be -- RL.] In fact, they viewed calls for consideration of this historical context as a kind of dodging the question of the significance of the Hitler-Stalin pact, upon which they launched their attack. For them, the crucial question was posed in these terms: 'What is the character of Russia's role in the present war -- not the war as it was foretold on this or that occasion, and not the war into which this one may or will be converted, but the present war?'

"So the members of the minority, instead of viewing themselves as part of a historical process, withdrew themselves from the collective struggle and assumed the role of the spectator on the sidelines, dispensing moral pronouncements as they pleased. Although many have found such a role to be egotistically gratifying, they seldom, if ever, contribute to the advance of history. Here the isolated ego becomes the point of departure for all judgments, not humanity in the process of creating a better world, and for this reason the chasm between Trotsky and the majority on the one hand and the minority on the other became unbridgeable. The latter soon split altogether." [Ann Robertson, quoted from here; bold emphases and links added. Spelling adjusted to agree with UK English; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]

Of course, readers will have noticed the "undialectical" approach comrade Robertson promoted, who seems to think Imperialism is an unchanging feature of the capitalist universe (so that, for example, Marx's analysis is rendered eternally valid, frozen in non-dialectical heaven), just as they will no doubt have registered the fact that the only rationale offered by Robertson for her defence of the Imperialist aims of the fSU is -- yes, you guessed it, once again! -- dialectical.

"the primary contradiction [is] between western capitalist-imperialist countries on the one hand and the Soviet Union with its nationalized economy on the other..." [Ibid.]

As we have seen many times, if this were a 'dialectical contradiction', and we were to believe the DM-classics, then the relation between the factors involved here (the "western capitalist-imperialist countries" and "the Soviet Union") would have to constitute a UO such that (a) They not only inter-define each other, the existence of one must imply the existence of the other (just like the proletariat and the capitalist class inter-define each other so that the existence of one implies the existence of the other, if we are to believe what we are told), and (b) They struggle with and then change into each other (since the above DM-classics tell us all change is a struggle of opposites and that objects and processes change into their opposites -- that is, they change into that with which they have struggled).

But, not only can the imperialist powers exist without the Soviet Union (indeed, as they did prior to 1917), at what point did the imperialist powers change into the Soviet Union, and vice versa, according to this theory?

Robertson failed to consider these fatal defects in her thesis, which suggests she either didn't understand DM, or she hoped no one would notice her ideas don't work. Independently of this, these fatal defects mean that, whatever else it is, this alleged 'contradiction' isn't 'dialectical'.

Be this as it may, it could be countered that Robertson, like Trotsky, appealed to the nationalised economy in the fSU as proof that it was still a workers' state. But, on its own that can't be used to prove a state is a workers' state. [The Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages controlled extensive property and wealth (commanding the labour of countless thousands of workers), but it belonged to no individual. Did that make the Church a workers' state? Or 'a step on the road to socialism'?] Ownership and control are the crucial factors, here. Indeed, as should seem obvious, a state can't be a workers' state if workers hold no power and exercise no control. Now the only way that my counter-argument can be neutralised is to invoke 'dialectics' and the 'contradictory' nature of the fSU. Which is precisely what Trotsky, Robertson and subsequent OTs do. However, as we have just seen, this aspect of DM collapses since it violates core principles laid down by the DM classics.

It is also worth adding that in later years the US-SWP also split many times -- as did the tendency to which comrade Robertson belongs. Hence, deep dialectical devotion is no guarantee against fragmentation; if anything, it helps make it far more likely. [Exhibit A for the prosecution is Dialectical Trotskyism itself.] In which case, comrade Robertson's caustic observation that the "minority" later split is somewhat ironic; DM-fans are notorious split-Meisters!

Also worthy of note is the fact that Shachtman was (at the time) a dialectician, and fully capable of using this 'theory' to justify anything he liked, as was Trotsky --, and now Robertson.

However, it isn't my place to defend Shachtman; but I for one can find no 'moralistic' analysis in what he wrote; in fact, it would be interesting to see what comrade Robertson imagines the motives were that guided the Stalinist bureaucracy.

It could be countered that Shachtman was being moralistic -- for example, in this passage:

"It is entirely correct, in my opinion, to characterize the Stalinist policy as imperialist, provided, of course, that one points out its specific character, that is, wherein it differs from modern capitalist imperialism.... Stalin has showed himself capable of pursuing imperialist policy. That is the fact.... Like every bureaucracy, the Stalinist is interested in increasing the national income not in order to raise the standard of living of the masses but in order to increase its own power, its own wealth, its own privileges." [Quoted in ibid.]

But this is hardly moralistic, any more than Marx's comments about the motivations that drove Feudal Lords to accumulate wealth was moralistic. Shachtman is simply pointing out that in order to compete with other capitalist regimes, and thus prosecute imperialist wars, the soviet bureaucracy would have to increase its power and wealth (and reinvest the latter in heavy industry -- as, indeed, Engels had pointed out in general, and as Stalin also argued). Of course, that is fine as far as it goes, but it will need supplementing with a much deeper analysis -- indeed, one such on the lines that Cliff provided. [See also above.] However, the superficial nature of Shachtman's comments hardly renders them as 'moralistic'.

Be this as it may, OT critics of the theory of State Capitalism, for example, were quick to remind Tony Cliff of a handful of rather stale dialectical nostrums in order to 'refute' his theory, as if Cliff had never heard of them before.

"In the transition from one society to another, it is clear that there is not an unbridgeable gulf. It is not a dialectical method to think in finished categories; workers' state or capitalist state and the devil take any transition or motion between the two. It is clear that when Marx spoke of the smashing of the old state form in relation to the Commune, he took it for granted that the economy would be transformed at a greater or lesser pace and would come into consonance with the political forms. We will see later in relation to Eastern Europe that Cliff adopts the same formalistic method....

"Thus, one can only understand class society if one takes into account the many-sided dialectical inter-dependence and antagonisms of all the factors within it. Formalists usually get lost in one or other side of the problem.... The whole contradiction, a contradiction within the society itself and not imposed arbitrarily -- is in the very concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If one considers the problem in the abstract, one can see that this is a contradictory phenomenon: the abolition of capitalism yet the continuation of classes. The proletariat does not disappear. It raises itself to the position of ruling class and abolishes the capitalist class....

"...To abstract one side must lead to error. What is puzzling about the Russian phenomenon is precisely the contradictory character of the economy. This has been further aggravated by the backwardness and isolation of the Soviet Union. This culminates in the totalitarian Stalinist regime and results in the worst features of capitalism coming to the fore -- the relations between managers and men, piece-work, etc. Instead of analysing these contradictions Comrade Cliff endeavours as far as possible to try and fit them into the pattern of the 'normal' laws of capitalist production....

"This whole formalistic method is the fatal weakness of Cliff's case. It would have been impossible for Trotsky in the early stages to deal with the problem in the abstract. He had to deal with the concrete situation and give a concrete answer. But the further degeneration posed the problem in an entirely different way. Once it had been established that it was impossible to reform the Stalinist party, that it was impossible to reform the Soviet state (we assume that Cliff also believes this was the task since up to 1928 since he says Russia was a degenerated workers' state), then the question had to be viewed in a somewhat different light. It is foreign to the Marxist method to search for isolated contradictions, real or apparent. What is required is an examination of a theory in its broad general development, in its movement, and its contradictions...." [Ted Grant. Bold emphases added; italic emphases in the original. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Some paragraphs merged.]

As we saw above (with Trotsky and Robertson), apart from a reference to the state ownership of property (see below, here and here), the only rationale to which Grant could appeal was 'the dialectical method' -- and thus the 'contradictory' nature of the fSU -- in support of his argument against Cliff (who, oddly enough, also appealed to dialectical concepts, which 'allowed' him to derive the opposite conclusion!).

"Dialectical historical development, full of contradictions and surprises, brought it about that the first step the bureaucracy took with the subjective intention of hastening the building of 'socialism in one country' became the foundation of the building of state capitalism." [Cliff (1988), p.166.]

"The regulation of economic activity by the state is, in itself, a partial negation of the law of value, even if the state is, as yet, not the repository of the means of production. The law of value assumes the regulation of economic functions in an anarchical way. It determines the exchange relations between the different branches of the economy, and explains how relations between people appear, not as direct, crystal clear relations, but indirectly, lost in mysticism. Now, the law of value holds absolute sway only under conditions of free competition, i.e., when there is free movement of capital, commodities and labour power. Therefore, even the most elementary forms of monopolistic organisation already negate the law of value to a certain extent. Thus when the state regulates the allocation of capital and labour power, the price of commodities, etc., it is most certainly a partial negation of capitalism.... State capitalism and a workers' state are two stages in the transition period from capitalism to socialism. State capitalism is the extreme opposite of socialism -- they are symmetrically opposed, and they are dialectically united with one another." [Ibid., pp.171, 174.]

"History often leaps forward or backward. When it leaps backward, it does not return directly to the same position, but goes down a spiral, combining the elements of the two systems from which and to which the society passed. For example, because in the state capitalism which is an organic, gradual continuation of the development of capitalism, a form of private property would prevail in the ownership of shares and bonds, we must not conclude that the same will apply to state capitalism which rose gradually on the ruins of a workers' revolution. Historical continuity in the case of state capitalism which evolves from monopoly capitalism, is shown in the existence of private property (bonds). Historical continuity in the case of state capitalism which evolves from a workers' state that degenerated and died, is shown in the non-existence of private property.

"The spiral development brings about the synthesis of two extremes of capitalist development in Russia, a synthesis of the highest stage which capitalism can ever reach, and which probably no other country will ever reach; and of such a low stage of development as has yet to demand the preparation of the material prerequisites for socialism. The defeat of the October revolution served as a springboard for Russian capitalism which at the same time lags well behind world capitalism." [Ibid., p.188.]

"From the standpoint of formal logic it is irrefutable that if the proletariat can't gradually transform the bourgeois state into a workers' state but must smash the state machine, the bureaucracy on becoming the ruling class also can't gradually transform the workers' state into a bourgeois state, but must smash the state machine. From the standpoint of dialectics, however, we must pose the problem differently. What are the reasons why the proletariat can't gradually transform the bourgeois state machine, and do these continue as an immovable impediment to the gradual change of the class character of a workers' state?" [Ibid., p.194.]

"The historical task of the bureaucracy is to raise the productivity of labour. In doing this the bureaucracy enters into deep contradictions. In order to raise the productivity of labour above a certain point, the standard of living of the masses must rise, as workers who are undernourished, badly housed and uneducated, are not capable of modem production. The bureaucracy approaches the problem of the standard of living of the masses much in the same way as a peasant approaches the feeding of his horses: 'How much shall I give in order to get more work done?' But workers, besides having hands, have heads. The raising of the standard of living and culture of the masses, means raising their self-confidence, increasing their appetite, their impatience at the lack of democratic rights and personal security, and their impatience of the bureaucracy which preserves these burdens. On the other hand, not to raise the standard of living of the masses means to perpetuate the present low productivity of labour which would be fatal for the bureaucracy in the present international situation, and would tend to drive the masses sooner or later to revolts of despair." [Ibid., pp.271-72. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"Those who believe that the 'People's Democracies' are workers' states, and after 'diplomatic' avoidance of the issue will in due course say that Mao-tse Tung's China is also a workers' state, claim that this is not undermining our position on Stalinism and the consistency of our world programme, any more than the social revolution (according to Trotsky) brought about in Eastern Poland and the Baltic countries in 1939-40 did. (Trotsky did not cease to call Stalin the 'grave-digger of the socialist revolution', and Stalinism a socially counter-revolutionary force, in spite of the transformation of Eastern Poland and the Baltic countries into workers' states.) They say that this argument is as good today as it was then, even though it leads to the assumption that half Europe and half Asia have been transformed into workers' states by Stalin. This is simply nonsense, and contrary to the basic law of dialectics about the change of quantity into quality. Let us examine the argument more closely." [Cliff (1950), p.64; accessible here. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added. Some paragraphs merged.]

There are many other passages that could have been quoted from Cliff's work. [However, I have yet to find in anything in Cliff's writings that commits him to a dialectic in nature. (Update: That comment has now been qualified; on that, see here.)]

Unfortunately, Cliff neglected to explain what FL has got to do with the gradual transformation of the bourgeois state by the proletariat -- indeed, and like other dialecticians, Cliff seems to have had an idiosyncratic 'understanding' of FL, which wasn't handicapped by any obvious acquaintance with it.

In fact, FL has nothing to say about the transformation of the bourgeois state (any more than botany and campanology have), or anything else, for that matter (since FL is the study of inference, not the world, which is the job of science), so it can hardly tell us what can or can't happen in this or any other respect, contrary to what Cliff asserts. However, using Modal and Temporal Logic it might be possible to formalise interpretations of such transformations, but the effort isn't worth the candle since it is far easier to explain them using HM and ordinary language -- indeed, as most books and articles written by Marxists on this subject attest. Few of the latter, except where they are attacking other rival accounts of this transformation (as we have seen) even bother to mention DL, let alone use any.

Furthermore, contrary to what Cliff also asserts, the introduction of dialectics here would be unwise, since, as we have also seen, it can be used to 'prove' anything you like and its opposite, often by the very same author in the same article, book or speech.

Anyway, not happy with Trotsky's analysis, Grant invented another (suitably) contradictory concept: the idea that regimes like those in the fSU and China were "Proletarian Bonapartist"!

"The question of the class nature of Russia has been a central issue in the Marxist movement for decades. Now, with the collapse of the USSR and the movement in the direction of capitalism, this question assumes an even greater importance. It is not possible to grasp the processes that are taking place in Russia from the point of view of formal logic and abstract definitions. In elementary chemistry, a simple litmus test is sufficient to reveal whether a substance is acid or alkaline. But complex historical processes do not admit such a simple approach. Only the dialectical method, which takes the process as a whole and concretely analyses its contradictory tendencies as they unfold, stage by stage, can shed light on the situation. Endless mistakes occur when we attempt to base ourselves on chemically pure abstractions instead of real historical processes. Thus, we know what a trade union and a workers' party is supposed to look like. But history knows of all kinds of weird and wonderful variants, of the most monstrously bureaucratised trade unions and corrupt reformist parties. A workers' state is roughly like a trade union in power. Under conditions of extreme backwardness, such a state can experience a process of bureaucratic degeneration. Stalinism, as Trotsky explains, is a peculiar variant of Bonapartism -- a regime of proletarian Bonapartism.... [In what way was the state in the fSU 'proletarian' under Stalin? -- RL.]

"Likewise, the political counter-revolution carried out by the Stalinist bureaucracy in Russia completely liquidated the regime of workers' Soviet democracy, but did not destroy the new property relations established by the October Revolution. The ruling bureaucracy based itself on the nationalised, planned economy and played a relatively progressive role in developing the productive forces, although at three times the cost of capitalism, with tremendous waste, corruption and mismanagement, as Trotsky pointed out even before the war when the economy was advancing at 20 per cent a year. The problem which we now face was also faced by Trotsky in the 1920s and 1930s, when he had the task of analysing the phenomenon of Stalinism. For certain ultra-lefts, the problem was a simple one. The Soviet Union, in their opinion, was already a new class society as early as 1920. All further analysis was therefore superfluous! There was a fundamental difference between this formalism and the careful dialectical method of Trotsky. He painstakingly traced the process of the Stalinist counter-revolution through all its stages, laying bare all its contradictions, analysing the conflicting tendencies both within Soviet society and within the bureaucracy itself, and showing the dialectical interrelation between developments in the USSR and on a world scale....

"What defines the class nature of the state from a Marxist point of view is undoubtedly property relations. However, here too, the relation is not automatic, but dialectical.... There were many turning-points on the road of the bureaucratic counter-revolution in the period 1923-36. This was by no means a preordained event. The final victory of Stalin was not determined in advance. As a matter of fact, up till 1934, Trotsky held the position that it was possible to reform both the Soviet state and the Communist Parties, a position that led to frequent conflicts with the ultra-lefts. Trotsky's dialectical method was one of successive approximations, which followed the process through all its stages, showing concretely the relation between the class balance of forces in Russia, the different tendencies in the Communist Party and their relationship to the classes, the evolution of the world situation, the economy, and the subjective factor. It is true that he varied his analysis at different times. For example, he initially characterised Stalinism as bureaucratic centrism, a formula which he later rejected in favour of the more precise proletarian Bonapartism. These changes do not reflect any vacillations on Trotsky's part, but only the way in which his analysis accurately followed the process of bureaucratic degeneration as it unfolded....

"In the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx explained that the sum total of the relations of production constitutes the real foundation upon which all aspects of social life -- the state included -- are grounded. Property relations is merely a legal expression for these relations of production. However, this relationship is neither direct nor automatic. If that were the case, revolutions would not be necessary. The whole history of class society proves that this is not the case. On the contrary, for long periods the superstructure can stand in open contradiction to the demands of the productive forces. Nor does the state at all times directly reflect the ruling class in a given society, as we saw in the first part of the present work. The relationship is complex and contradictory, in other words dialectical....

"The Soviet Union is a good example of this dialectical relation. The nationalised planned economy was in contradiction to the bureaucratic state. This was always the case. Even in the period of the first Five-Year Plans, the bureaucratic regime was responsible for colossal waste. This contradiction did not disappear with the development of the economy, but, on the contrary, grew ever more unbearable until eventually the system broke down completely...." [Ted Grant. Bold emphases alone added. Some paragraphs merged.]

[Special pleading like this is reminiscent of the 'alternative facts' the Trump regime has been busy generating since January 2017.]

But, comrade Grant never once shows how or why this, for example, is a 'dialectical contradiction':

"the superstructure [stands] in open contradiction to the demands of the productive forces..." [Ibid.]

Are these two elements ("the superstructure" and "the productive forces" of the fSU) UOs? They must be otherwise the relationship between the them can't be 'dialectical'. But, in that case, they must also be 'dialectical opposites' which struggle with and then change into one another (if the DM-classics are to be believed). Did anyone see the political and social superstructure struggle with the factories, mines and transport systems in the fSU and then change into them -- or, vice versa?

If not, they can't be UOs, and this can't be a 'dialectical contradiction', whatever else it is.

Grant and his epigones are oddly silent on these issues. They aren't the only ones.

Independently of this, the bemused reader will search long and hard and to no avail through Trotsky's writings for this mis-begotten concept -- Proletarian Bonapartism -- even though he does use the word "Bonapartist" is relation to the fSU.

"Orthodox Trotskyists outside the USFI have attempted similar balancing acts to Mandel's, with equal lack of success. When the British RCP anticipated the FI's development by declaring the Eastern European 'buffer zone' workers' states in 1947–8 (see Section 2.2 above), Ted Grant had formulated the concept of 'proletarian Bonapartism'. This was an interesting example of what Lakatos (1976: 20ff., 83ff., 93ff.) called 'concept-stretching', where a theory is defended from refutation by the extension of its concepts to cover apparently aberrant cases. Marx had coined the term 'Bonapartism' to describe regimes where the state, while not controlled by the bourgeoisie, acted in the latter's class interests (Draper 1977: Bk II). Grant (1989: 231), following but developing formulations of Trotsky's, extended the concept from capitalist to workers' states, and advanced the general proposition that '[f]or quite a lengthy period, there can be a conflict between the state and the class which that state represents'. 'Stalinism', Grant (1989: 302) argued, 'is a form of Bonapartism that bases itself in the institution of state ownership, but it is different from the norm of a workers' state as fascism or bourgeois Bonapartism differs from the norm of bourgeois democracy'. On this basis, Grant (1989: 350) was more generous than the USFI about the successes of 'proletarian Bonapartism' in the Third World, in 1978 describing China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Syria, Angola, Mozambique, Aden, Benin, and Ethiopia as deformed workers' states. Although criticized by other orthodox Trotskyists, the list reflected Grant's relatively consistent use of statization of the economy as the criterion of the existence of a workers' state. He resisted, however, the temptation to welcome the makers of these revolutions into the Trotskyist camp -- for example, in 1949 attacking the IS's treatment of Tito as 'an unconscious Trotskyist' (Grant 1989: 298). The pressure towards substitutionism nevertheless found political expression. Having joined the Labour Party with the rest of the RCP majority in 1949, Grant became the principal figure of the Militant Tendency, which emerged as the strongest organized left grouping inside the Labour Party at the end of the 1970s. Practising a far more long-term version of entrism than anything envisaged by Trotsky, Militant supporters expected catastrophic economic crisis to radicalize the Labour Party and provide mass support for a left government which would effect '[a]n entirely peaceful transformation of society' by means of large-scale nationalization authorized by Parliament through an Enabling Act (Taaffe 1986: 25 and passim). On this scenario, a transformed social democracy would play the kind of role which other orthodox Trotskyists thought some versions of Stalinism would perform (McGregor 1986)." [Callinicos (1990), pp.48-49. References can be found here. Bold emphases and links added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

And, here are Woods and Grant on the 'abuse' of dialectics (this time, supposedly inflicted on DM by the Stalinists):

"One of the things which created all kinds of misconceptions about Marxism was the way that it was presented by the Stalinists. The ruling elite in Russia could not tolerate freedom of thought and criticism in any sphere. In the hands of the bureaucracy, Marxist philosophy ('diamat' as they called it) was twisted into a sterile dogma, or a variety of sophism used to justify all the twists and turns of the leadership. According to Lefebvre, at one point things got so bad that the Soviet army high command insisted that lessons on formal logic be put back on the curriculum of military academies because of the shameful confusion caused by the teachers of so-called 'diamat.' At least lessons in logic would teach the cadets the ABCs of reasoning. This little incident is enough to expose the caricature nature of the 'Marxism' of the Stalinists.

"Under Stalin, scientists were forced to accept without question this rigid and lifeless caricature, as well as a number of false theories with no scientific basis which happened to suit the bureaucracy, such as Lysenko's 'theory' of genetics. This discredited the idea of dialectical materialism in the scientific community to a certain extent, and prevented a fruitful and creative application of the method of dialectics to different fields of science, which would have made possible serious advances both in the sciences themselves and in the further elaboration of the philosophical ideas which Marx and Engels explained in outline, but left to future generations to develop and fill out in detail." [Woods and Grant (1995), p.391; p.393 in the second edition. Bold emphasis and links added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

Although these two were happy to criticise the Stalinists for their use of dialectics to justify whatever they found expedient, they mysteriously failed to mention their own opportunist leanings in that direction. And, as far as the "sterile dogma" the Stalinists allegedly substituted for 'Marxist dialectics' is concerned, the reader is directed here for a completely different perspective. Of course, Woods and Grant also failed to notice the "sterile dogma" with which they too wished to saddle the workers' movement.

Ernest Mandel similarly laid into State Capitalist theory, attributing its errors to:

"A schematic system of thought which only operates in black and red and which is the prisoner of outrageously simplistic abstractions incapable of handling the categories of 'transition', of combined and uneven development' and of 'contradictory reality'. In other words, such thought is undialectical. This unfortunately is the way in which Tony Cliff and Chris Harman think, at least when dealing with general problems." [Mandel (1990), p.54; Mandel and Sheppard (2006), pp.28-29. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. (Mandel's words can now be accessed here.) This criticism is uncannily like those advanced against Trotsky by assorted Stalinists and Maoists.]

The problem is, of course, that the economy of the fSU was "hybrid and contradictory", which UK-SWP theorists inexplicably failed to notice -- Ha! Some hope!!

Mandel employed this critique to justify his characterisation of various third-world revolutions (and, unsurprisingly, movements that weren't led by the proletariat) as legitimate examples of Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution (in contrast to Cliff's revision of the same theory), the bottom line of which was that other forces have been substituted for the working class in the struggle for socialism. [On that, see, Mandel (1992), pp.157-65.]

"The underlying differences in method, schematic formalism and dogmatism as opposed to scientific dialectical thinking, are clearly revealed in Callinicos's critique of our analysis of the Second World War as 'five years in one'. Again trying to turn our strong points against us, Callinicos accuses us of 'syncretism' and 'scholasticism':

'the subtle skills of a medieval school man to distinguish the relevant factors -- for example, to distinguish no less than five distinct wars within the Second World War.... The effect is to deprive social theory of the interaction with potentially disconfirming observations.'

"The last sentence is a perfect non-sequitur, and a near perfect refutation of the dialectic. If you note contradictory elements of society, you are supposed to 'deprive social theory of the interaction with potentially disconfirming(?) observations'. You are forbidden to start from the assumption that reality is contradictory and condemned to assume that really existing contradictions automatically 'disconfirm' social reality. All references made to formalistic monocausal schemas, i.e., preconceived dogmas, not to the real living world and to attempts to develop 'social theories' which take into account the existence of these contradictions and to try to explain them. The rejection of dialectical thought is finally based upon the rejection of the dialectical nature of objective reality itself." [Mandel (1992), p.157. Bold emphases added. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Two paragraphs merged.]

Mandel failed to notice that his own assumption that the world is dialectical is no less dogmatic and has also been imposed on reality, as, indeed, we saw in Essay Two (here). Even so, the relevant point is that he was quite happy to derive contradictory consequences from his contradictory assumptions -- which conclusions can't be derived in any other way. Moreover, and once more, that is why this 'theory' is so useful: anything and its opposite can be 'inferred' when using it -- by the very same author, often in the same sentence or paragraph.

[Callinicos replied to Mandel (in Callinicos (1992)), but that response was, for him, rather weak.]

"It is when Cliff comes to analyse the internal mechanism of a workers' state, i.e., a transitional economy, that his basic methodology is revealed. This methodology is undialectic (sic), being a form of formal logic, one that admits to no unity of opposites or contradictory totalities. He says:

'State capitalism and a workers' state are two stages in the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. State capitalism is the extreme opposite to socialism -- they are diametrically opposed, and they are dialectically united with one another.' [Cliff, Russia: A Marxist Analysis, p.113.]

"This passage confuses stages, which by their nature are intermediaries, and phenomena that are opposites, and exposes the linear concepts underlying such thinking. Moreover, it confuses form and content. A workers' state is a synthesis of previous contradictions, because a workers' state abolishes state capitalism (i.e., those property forms which are state owned but subordinated to the needs of monopoly capitalism), along with the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. The formal and judicial forms have deceived Cliff. When Cliff says that state capitalism and a workers' state are two stages in the transition to socialism he shows clearly that he is an economic determinist not a historical materialist. Looked at from Cliff's point of view, capitalism is 'only' a stage between feudalism and socialism! To talk of stages in this way betrays a fatalistic view of history, of inevitability in a very crude form.

"...To play around with words by saying state capitalism and socialism are 'diametrically opposed, and they are dialectically united' is to make nonsense of dialectics. That they are diametrically opposed is quite true, state capitalism (in the sense used above) pushes the capitalist relationships to their extreme. The nationalisations that take place under a capitalist regime are not such as to weaken the bourgeoisie's rule, rather they serve to strengthen it. Politically under a social-democratic government they have served to impart illusions among the working class, economically they have enabled unprofitable industries to be taken over and put in order to serve the monopolies. The nationalisations of a workers' state may only seem to push these forms further, but their content is of a completely different order, because the nature of the state that undertakes them is an expression of a changed relationship of classes. In these circumstances the bourgeoisie is expropriated, its hands are wrenched from the levers of power. Far from being a stage in development, i.e., one that has direct and palpable links with what went before, it represents a sharp break, a dialectical leap, not dialectical unity....

"Cliff's whole theory, so impressive at first sight, is on close examination seen to be a set of eclectic ideas gummed together with yards of quotations. At heart this failure is one of a lack of understanding of dialectics, the dialectics of transitional societies. He is unable to view matters in anything but a black or white, formal logical view. Trotsky once remarked that Marxist theory without dialectics was like a clock without a spring, never was it more apt than in this case. Cliff's 'clock' has shown the same time for the last twenty years or more, it bears all the marks of the times of its birth. That was a time of retreat and isolation for revolutionary Marxists. The communist movement was, in the large majority, still in the icy grip of Stalinism, and imperialism seemed to be all-powerful. It was little wonder that the times produced such theories of despair. For make no mistake about it, this particular theory is fundamentally one of despair. Each victory for the international revolution has been seen as a victory for state capitalism! So preoccupied with victories for the 'bureaucracy,' that the defeats of imperialism seemed to have been half-forgotten." [Ken Tarbuck. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typos corrected.]

Once more, we can see that the only 'substantive' argument against Cliff depends on the application of yet more 'dialectics'.

In the following passage it is argued that the contradictory nature of the fSU is consistent with its being a transitional regime, after all. Same theory, but it is now being used to derive the opposite conclusion:

"We shall return to consider this question of 'empty capitalist forms' later. What is important at present is to see how the Trotskyist approach is able to ground the contradictory appearance of the USSR as both capitalist and non-capitalist in terms of the transition from capitalism to socialism. To this extent the Trotskyist approach has the advantage over most state capitalist theories that are unable to adequately account for the non-capitalist aspects of the USSR. This failure to grasp the non-capitalist aspects of the USSR has been exposed in the light of the decay and final collapse of the USSR." [Quoted from here; bold emphases added.]

Here the theory that the fSU was capitalist and its opposite at the same time -- that it was capitalist and non-capitalist -- both 'justified' by the use of yet more DM.

In 2006/07, a 'dialectical punch-up' broke out in one of the US wings of the old ICFI (although, it seems to have been brewing for several years); details here, here and here. Anyone who reads these documents will see that each side openly accuses the other of not using, or of not "understanding", dialectics, exactly as predicted by this Essay. The main political problem (in this case) seems to revolve around "internal party democracy" (no surprise there!), only expressed in obscure philosophical verbiage.

An even earlier dialectical dog-fight was recorded in detail for posterity by North (1988, 1991), Healy (1990), and Slaughter (1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1974d, 1975a, 1975b). In this instance, the various factions/individuals belonging to the highly friable ICFI argued that every other faction/individual has an insecure or 'abstract' grasp of dialectics in contrast to the 'correct' view entertained by each particular accuser.

Here follow a few passages that further illustrate this seemingly universal dialectical phenomenon. For example, in his study of the political degeneration of Gerry Healy, David North had this to say about the "opportunism" of the former Socialist Labour League (SLL), the forerunner of the old WRP:

"The political retreat of the [SLL] from the struggle against opportunism led to a decline in the theoretical level which had been established during the fight against the SWP-Pabloite reunification. Increasingly abstract references to the necessity of a struggle for dialectical materialism became a substitute for the actual development of revolutionary perspectives. Moreover, as the pressure of petty-bourgeois radicalism produced signs of political divisions within the International Committee and the SLL, the formal invocation of dialectical materialism became more and more a means of avoiding concrete issues which confronted the Trotskyist movement. The WRP leaders utilized the phraseology of dialectics while engaging in practices which were inimical to the critical spirit of Marxism. The 'holding fast of opposites', a phrase which Healy had extracted from Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, was converted into an organizational principle which justified all sorts of rotten compromises within the central leadership. Thus dialectics was converted into a system of sophistries which provided an imposing cover for the evasion of political responsibilities and the betrayal of principles.

"By the early 1970s, the SLL began developing a theory of 'dialectical cognition' [see Figure Twenty-Seven, below -- RL] which reflected and justified the drift toward opportunism. Healy played a significant role in this enterprise, but the revisionist innovations which led to the 'practice of cognition' were, like the positive work of the previous decade, the outcome of a collaborative effort involving the principal leaders of the [SLL]. As we have previously noted, Slaughter asserted following the split with the OCI that the experiences of party building in Britain had demonstrated 'that a thoroughgoing and difficult struggle against idealist ways of thinking was necessary which went much deeper than questions of agreement on program and policy.' He argued that the 'fight for a deepening of the understanding of dialectical materialism as the theory of knowledge of Marxism' meant that it was necessary 'to redirect the movement towards the fundamental questions involved in the nature of consciousness, of what is meant by a "leap" in consciousness....' (Slaughter (1975b, p.83).

"The content of the consciousness-raising exercise proposed by Slaughter emerged in the polemics produced after Alan Thornett was expelled from the WRP. The party proceeded to mystify the essential political issues underlying the split by presenting the dispute as an epic battle between irreconcilably opposed epistemologies. Banda's magnum opus Whither Thornett? was largely devoted to 'exposing' Thornett's 'total rejection of the Marxist theory of cognition,' as if the Cowley auto worker was a renowned disciple of Bertrand Russell or Ludwig Wittgenstein....

"Anticipating what was to become the standard fare of Healy's future lectures and writings, Whither Thornett? presented abstruse descriptions, weighed down with Hegelian phraseology, of the 'moments' of the cognitive process, starting with 'living perception' of nature and ending with practical action.... These and other passages of the book were certainly incomprehensible to most members of the [WRP]. The use of pretentious and all but incomprehensible jargon was itself an indication of a shift in the class axis of the WRP. The document was not written to clarify either the membership or the advanced workers who studied the political literature of the WRP. The mystifying language was intended to obscure the really opportunist implications of the new philosophical positions being staked out by the WRP. Few suspected or were in a position to understand that concealed within the pretentious and mystifying jargon employed by Banda, Geoff Pilling and Slaughter was a bitter denunciation of the political priority which the Fourth International has traditionally given to the defense of its program." [North (1991), pp.80-82. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added; some paragraphs merged.]

While North acknowledges the unique role that dialectics can play -- via the "holding fast of opposites" -- in justifying "opportunism" and political compromise, he, too, failed to notice that dialecticians in general use this 'theory' to justify whatever they like and its opposite (more again about that later). To be sure, the use of dialectics by the old WRP was an extreme example of this phenomenon, but that only serves to confirm the accuracy of the approach promoted in this Essay: no other theory is as useful as DM is in this respect (except, perhaps, Zen Buddhism -- but, plainly, its religio-philosophical dogmas can't be used by Marxists). That is part of the reason why all dialecticians not only appeal to DM, they cling to it like grim death.

As North goes on to point out (pp.69-74), Healy's dive into the deep-end of dialectical dissembling 'allowed' him to rationalise the WRP's adulation of prominent members of the Arab ruling classes (such as Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein -- on this, see Appendix A):

"The more Healy turned away from the basic task of resolving the crisis of leadership in the working class and depended upon alliances with nonproletarian forces, both inside and outside the party, the more obsessed he became with acquiring vast resources -- presses, motorbikes, vacant buildings, and all sorts of expensive electronic gadgets and security paraphernalia. He had convinced himself that all the contradictions within the party and the difficulties it confronted in establishing a strong base within the mass organisations of the working class could be overcome simply through the growth of the party's assets, regardless of how they were acquired. Indeed, Healy no longer recognised the essential historical link between the growth of the revolutionary party and the development of Marxist consciousness in the working class. Rather the perpetual accumulation of resources was seen as a substitute for the training of a working class cadre." [Ibid., p.74. Bold emphasis added.]

This political and theoretical degeneration finally culminated in Healy's rapprochement with 'de-Stalinised' Stalinism (in the form of 'Glasnost') alongside his infatuation with Gorbachev. Healy had come full circle, as North accurately describes: from his indefatigable opposition to the Stalinisation of the ICFI in the 1950s and 1960s (under the influence of Pablo, and then the US-SWP), to accommodation with the last dying embers of Russian Communism. Indeed, North (1990) is largely devoted to this particular theme. And yet, he fails to notice once more that dialectics is uniquely placed to 'excuse' any number of U-turns (as we saw was the case with the old CPSU and the CCP), alongside any and all ideological compromises necessary to rationalise them.

[Incidentally, this is just one more example of the use of dialectics to justify substitutionism. Healy (1990) is almost entirely devoted to this; Lotz and Feldman (1994) is an extended, hagiographical attempt to defend and rationalise this class-compromised line, 'dialectically'. (See also Redgrave (1994).)]

How did Healy respond to these attacks from North & Co? No prizes for guessing the answer: he appealed to yet more dialectics! For example, in the following:

"In the 'split' that took place in the [WRP] in the late autumn of 1985, the opportunist attempt was made to split the dialectical from the historical. It was falsely alleged that the author of these articles on the 'Theory of Knowledge' was guilty of the 'crime' of Hegelianism in his work on materialist dialectics; that he 'ignored' historical materialism. Such a division between dialectical and historical materialism was not accidental. In the case of Slaughter and the American D. North, they had never participated in the day to day practice of Party building, either the [ICFI] and the [WRP] or, in the case of North, a party in the United States. Slaughter, from 1966 to the time of the split, adopted an eclectical attitude towards theory whilst he completely evaded practice of any kind towards the building of the [WRP]. The American, D. North, when he became General Secretary of the section of the [ICFI] in the USA, acquired a section with well over 100 members, which was built mainly by Wohlforth, who deserted to the US State Department controlled [US-SWP]....

"The attempt by the Banda, Slaughter, North clique to separate dialectical from historical materialism was a most reactionary approval of subjective idealist image making. These were to be pasted over the objective reality of the world class struggle as it is now unfolding.... Hegel analyses such a process in a philosophical concrete way when he turned to the writings of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814):

'The infinite limitation or check of Fichte's idealism refuses, perhaps, to be based on any Thing-in-itself, so that it becomes purely a determinateness in the Ego. But this determinateness is immediate and a limit to the Ego, which transcending its externality incorporates it; and though the Ego can pass beyond the limit, the latter has in it an aspect of indifference by virtue of which it contains an immediate not-Being of the Ego though itself contained in the Ego.' [Pow! Take that Banda! Zap! Eat that, North! Kapow! You, too, Slaughter! -- RL.]

"Let us now analyse this paragraph sentence by sentence so that we may understand the subjective idealist method of Fichte, the Bandas, Slaughter, Hunter and Co.

'a) The infinite limitation or check of Fichte's idealism refuses, perhaps, to be based on any Thing-in-itself, so that it becomes purely a determinateness in the Ego.'

"Here Fichte was determining his Ego in word forms which were empty without any Thing-in-itself for content. For over three decades the Bandas and Slaughter assembled their word forms to the requirements of the historical propaganda needs of the [ICFI], the [SLL] and the [WRP], which was founded in 1973.

'b) But this determinateness is immediate and a limit to the Ego, which transcending its externality incorporates it; and though the Ego can pass beyond the limit, the latter has in it an aspect of indifference by virtue of which it contains an immediate not-Being of the Ego though itself contained in the Ego.'

"The empty word form 'is immediate and a limit to the Ego', because it does not contain a content. Nevertheless, the Bandas, Slaughter, Hunter and Co. carry on stringing together 'empty word forms' in requirement with historical and propaganda needs of the ICFI and the Party. What they fail to realise is that these empty word forms contain a content of 'Not Being' -- the everchanging world economic and political crisis, whether they are aware of it or not. The build-up of such countless 'not-beings' have their revenge when the multitude of 'empty word forms', without them being able to recognise their 'not-Being' content blow up in their face [sic], leaving them totally unprepared....

"Then they rush to form a 'clique alliance' with the American pragmatic hustler, North, who immediately sees the opportunity to do some pragmatic leg-work for the 'good old USA'! They dispatch him on a tour of a handful of German pragmatists whilst he is in constant contact with an equal handful of Ceylonese and Australian pragmatists. At the Tenth Congress of the ICFI in January 1985, it was disclosed that in the 1984 November General Elections in Australia, they took state aid to help finance their election expenses. When this was criticised by Banda and Slaughter using their usual 'empty word forms' of criticism, Mulgrew, Beams and Co. admitted the gross opportunism of their action. After the split was over the pragmatist North lined up the small groups of pragmatists from West Germany, Ceylon, Australia and, of course, his own 80 members and proceeded to expel Slaughter and Band for being accomplices to 'immorality'. In this case it was a win 'on points' for US pragmatism over Fichtean subjective idealism." [Healy (1990), pp.49-52. Bold emphases in the original; italic emphases added. Punctuation errors and typos corrected. Several paragraphs merged.]

Well, I'm sure that Healy's use of Hegel's critique of Fichte(!!) put the above "clique" squarely in its place, all the while totally refuting those impertinent, peremptory and baseless accusations of 'Hegelianism' advanced by Healy's critics!

Even so, anyone who reads this material will scratch their heads and wonder how on earth the ICFI, or, indeed, the old WRP, failed to be a monumental, world-wide success, just as they will be completely mystified that workers in their hundreds of millions totally ignored these deranged dialectical dope dealers.

Healy made an even more pointed attack on this "clique" of Fichtean Idealists:

"When North speaks of establishing through the class struggle in the [USA] the revolutionary independence of the great American working class, these are just 'left' words. They have absolutely no content. North as a petty bourgeois is incapable of building a section of the [ICFI] either in the USA or in any country of the world.... Both North and Slaughter have one thing in common -- both are abstract propagandists who are utterly incapable and totally unable, because of their abstract propagandism, to penetrate the working class and the youth....

"North, Slaughter and the Bandas are now retreating so rapidly from the effects of the world capitalist crisis that they have collectively embarked on a course of liquidating the WRP into the Labour Party as rapidly as possible and virtually abandoning the class struggle. They have abandoned the dialectical materialist method of training and have replaced it with 'left' opportunist propagandism.... The political instrument for the destruction of the WRP and the [ICFI] is the characterisation of their opponents as 'Hegelian idealists'! It is a lie from beginning to end.... A new WRP is already well under way to replace the old. Its cadres will be schooled in the dialectical materialist method of training and it will speedily rebuild its daily press. It will be a new beginning, but a great revolutionary leap forward into the leadership of the British and the international working class. It will be a revolutionary leap forward for the [ICFI]." [Healy's 'Interim Statement' 24/10/1985. reproduced in Lotz and Feldman (1994), pp.334-36. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphasis added. Several paragraphs merged.]

Just how great a "leap" forward and just how effective these re-born Dialectical Day-Dreamers proved to be can be judged from the fact that the 'new' WRP soon split again, and then again, and is now tiny sectlet of truly impressive irrelevance. Do these highly "trained" Dialectical Dopeheads draw the obvious conclusion that this theory has repeatedly been tested in practice and has left them with a consistent record of negative results -- splits, internecine warfare, dwindling party membership and long-term failure --, which mean it has plainly been refuted by history?

"The Norths, Slaughters and Bandas have come to the end of the opportunist, propagandist road. The teachings of Leon Trotsky were throughout his life on the dialectical materialist method of training. A brief glance at In Defence of Marxism will demonstrate this beyond question. Let Trotsky answer North, Slaughter, the Bandas and Co....

[There then follows a page and a half of quotes from the Dialectical Gospels which, mercifully, I won't inflict on the reader -- RL.]

"When North, Slaughter and the Bandas speak about 'historical materialism' their method is that of the opportunist impressionists which means the abandonment of the dialectical materialist method of training and empirically reacting to the objective situation as they drift rightwards to political disaster...." [Ibid., pp.336-38. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Bold emphases added.]

Apologies are once more owed the reader for the mind-numbingly repetitive nature of this stuff. Again: this material has only been reproduced here to underline the true nature of this 'theory' and the deleterious effect it has had on these sad characters (Healy perhaps being the saddest of the lot). However, the reader should in return spare a thought for yours truly; over the last twenty-five or more years I have had to trawl through this guff countless times in the hundreds of books and articles I have had to read that are devoted to this 'theory' and its main use in (i) sectarian point-scoring and (ii) rationalising dialectically-inspired U-turns.

[The full-size picture can be accessed here. Wags who say that the above makes the Christian Trinity look easy in comparison should be told to zip it.]

"Far from serving as a methodological instrument to analyze objective reality and orient the party, Healy's 'dialectics' served as a factional weapon whose purpose was simultaneously to obscure politics, justify the leadership's grotesque opportunism and confuse the cadre. Hegelian categories were regularly hauled out to sanctify the betrayals of the trade union bureaucrats with whom Healy had made unprincipled deals. For example, after the TUC and NGA has sold out the strike against the Stockport Messenger and paid off fines levied by the Tory government, Healy drafted a Central Committee resolution which attempted to prove that the actions of the bureaucrats were the inevitable and necessary outcome of the moments of cognition.

'Wednesday December 14, 1983 marked the negation of Semblance into Appearance when the General Council voted 29 to 21 to abandon the NGA and uphold the Tory Employment Act. The Appearance manifested on December 14 continued to develop through a series of events which finally forced the NGA on January 19, 1984 to legally purge its contempt and pay the fine. At this point appearance as the unity of semblance and existence turns into actuality.' [Fourth International, Summer 1986, p.92.]

"In order to keep the membership in a state of utter confusion, Healy, with the help of Slaughter and the other high priests of the WRP, began to devise a sacred pseudo-philosophical language which replaced normal English as the tongue in which political discourse -- or at least what passed for it -- was officially conducted. Rather than challenge the political line developed by the leadership, members were led to believe that they were simply not smart enough to understand it. For example, what was the average WRP member to make of the following explanation concocted by Healy's 'Central Committee Department' of the party's political work:

'The four resolutions adopted by the 6th Congress are what the Congress "asserted." In dialectical materialist terms they are the "OTHER OF THE FIRST, (OTHER OF THE 6TH CONGRESS).... From the 6th Congress decisions (assertion) to unity with immediate being through contradiction (asserted). The presence of the positive in the negative (absolute essence) will denote recognition of the changes which have taken place since the Congress was held. This denotes both Semblance and Absolute Essence which is negated in anti-thesis through negation of the negation into our "theory of knowledge" consisting of the "logical" and the "historical" analysis of events.

'A synthesis is formed through essence in existence in which as a result of analysis those parts of Congress resolutions which have become most urgent, together with the "changes" emerge as essence. We must counterpose these same "parts" which have changed in essence, sharply to one another in order to determine the essence of the changes which have taken place. Congress proceeding through the antithesis of negation of the negation, which establishes the synthesis, allows analysis firstly to establish more clearly the importance of the abstract nature of the 6th Congress Resolution becoming more clearly revealed in the apprehension of the movement of dialectical thought' [Ibid., p.89.]." [North (1991), pp.92-94. Bold emphases and some italics added. Block Capitals in the original. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Links added, several paragraphs merged. North's comments were echoed by an ex-WRP member, quoted earlier in this Essay.]

The WRP were, of course, situated at the extreme end (and as things turned out, the relegation end) of the LCD spectrum, but the low grade gobbledygook presented above differs little from Hegel's tortured prose, or, indeed, from that of many HCDs. [Anyone who followed the comments made earlier about The Lord's Witnesses will now perhaps regard Healy as a secular manifestation of the same screwball phenomenon -- and perhaps appreciate why mention was made of them back then.] In Healy's case, as North points out, the 'dialectic' was used to mystify; with HCDs it both confirms, underlines and enhances a particular theorist's academic credentials in the eyes of other HCDs -- that is, as a genuine philosopher.

And, here is further proof that the acceptance of DM can result in a severe case of Cognitive Dissonance:

"Healy's insistence of philosophical training, and his determination that the practice of the Party must be inseparably connected with it, engendered opposition, much of it in the form of unspoken resentment from those who could not master their own subjective idealism. Cliques began to form and in 1985 the Party suffered a serious split following the intense struggles surrounding the miners' strike of 1984-5 which heightened all the contradictions contained in the Party. In a six part series written for the Party's daily paper, by now re-named the News Line and printed in full colour on new presses, Healy explained that the leaders of the split were fighting shy of training themselves and the members in materialists dialectics, regarding it as something to mention in passing when making speeches. For their part the leaders of the split were incapable of any attempt to analyse and make serious reply to Healy's views and could only resort to ludicrously false accusations as to his personal integrity.

"Such theoretical short-comings quickly caused a second split in 1986, the objective cause this time being the developments in the Soviet Union under the leadership of Gorbachev, who was struggling to restructure the government and economy, to restore soviet democracy and reveal the truth of what had happened under the dictatorship of Stalin. Healy, who was already aware that vital theoretical developments had been made in the Soviet Union by philosophers such as E. V. Ilyenkov, insisted that the political revolution, long ago predicted by Trotsky, was unfolding in the Soviet Union, and that the consequent overthrow of the Stalinist bureaucracy was a great step forward for the world social revolution. However, his opponents saw these dramatic changes as the restoration of capitalism and the disagreement was deep enough to cause a split. (Capitalism was of course restored later when Boris Yeltsin overthrew Gorbachev's government in a coup in 1993, but at that time Healy was correct in his analysis.) Following this second split only a minority remained with Healy, those who had consistently taken the theory and practice of dialectical materialism seriously, and these formed themselves into a new organisation called the Marxist Party. Its first practice was a series of cadre training classes, and soon a new theoretical journal, the Marxist Monthly, appeared, but by now Healy had been suffering poor health for some years, and he died on December 14, 1989.

"This appreciation of the life and work of Gerry Healy would be incomplete without an account of what happened to the organisation he left behind. Shortly after his death the Marxist Party split again. Those who separated from the Marxist Party continued to organise according to his method and published a political biography, Gerry Healy, A Revolutionary Life...[i.e., Lotz and Feldman (1994) -- RL], and continue to re-publish his work. With Healy gone the leaders of the side that inherited the party name and publication, the Marxist Monthly, proved unequal to the challenges of new developments.

"It became clear that they had not really grasped Healy's dialectical analysis of the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. The contradictory situation there contained both a revolutionary and a reactionary moment. Reactionary because of the tendency to the restoration of capitalism, and revolutionary because of the inevitable defeat of the Stalinist bureaucracy. The essence of Healy's position was that even in the event of a restoration of capitalism the revolution would at the same time receive a mighty impetus because the greatest obstacle in its path, the Stalinist bureaucracy, would be removed. When the political revolution which had begun in the Soviet Union was defeated and capitalism was restored by the counter-revolutionary coup led by Boris Yeltsin during the period 1991 to 1993, a deep pessimism descended over the Party. Cadre training steadily fell into a state of dereliction and finally ceased completely and the Marxist Party degenerated into an opportunist clique with individuals who knew nothing of Marxism in leading positions. Shortly before his death, in an article entitled 'Sceptics and the Political Revolution' in the November 1989 issue of Marxist Monthly, Healy, writing from long experience, described just such situations as this:-

'Sceptics can be arrogant and assertive towards internal party relations or passive towards materialist dialectics. In this way they achieve "peace of mind" by concealing their real sceptical differences from their political colleagues. But the sceptics themselves by no means refrain from decision-making when they consider it politically suits them. Their organisational manifestation is their clique or "personal ties" relations. In this way, they have almost a tribal instinct for self-preservation. Their basic outlook is that the interests of the clique come first, especially that of their "leader", who is the political guru whose ego demands unconditional support and political adulation. This is indeed an absolute precondition for being recognised by the clique as one of their "trusties".'

"There could not have been a better characterisation of the leadership of the Marxist Party during its final years. It is no surprise that they could not live with the Party's democratic centralist constitution which was later abandoned for a system of formal rules which better suited their authoritative methods. In 2001 the Party adopted an anti-Leninist, social-chauvinist manifesto calling for armed forces to be retained for 'the legitimate defence of a population from a threat from a more powerful neighbour' and for 'self defence at home', with only one member voting against, the writer of these lines. In July 2002 its leading member publicly repudiated dialectical materialism in the capitalist press, and another of its leaders accepted a CBE for 'services to acting' and allowed herself to be described as 'a great admirer of Prince Charles' in a glossy magazine interview. Voting became a matter of hand raising in favour of the perspectives put by these leaders, who, after Protagoras, imagined themselves the measure of all things. The magazine Healy had founded ceased publication in 2003, following an abortive attempt to transform it into a commercial publication. The death of the Marxist Party came in 2005 when it was liquidated into a single issue organisation campaigning for peace and the retention of existing legal rights under the name 'Peace and Progress'. No mention of Marxism or even the class division of society was made in its initial manifesto or any subsequent statement; indeed all attempts at retaining Marxist organisation and training of any kind were ignored and suppressed." [Terry Button, quoted from here. Bold emphases and links added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

The above confirms yet again (if more proof were necessary) how this theory can be used, by the very same author, to argue for anything that author chooses and its opposite:

"It became clear that they had not really grasped Healy's dialectical analysis of the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. The contradictory situation there contained both a revolutionary and a reactionary moment. Reactionary because of the tendency to the restoration of capitalism, and revolutionary because of the inevitable defeat of the Stalinist bureaucracy." [Ibid. Bold emphasis added.]

Finally on this topic, here is that other Guru of the UK far-left, Sean Matgamna, painting a slightly different picture of Healy:

"Healy was always, even in his best days, given to paranoid self-importance and paranoid fear of the State, and now his derangement got completely out of control. A terrible panic seized him during the 1974 miners' strike that led, on February 28th, to the dismissal of the Tory Government by the electorate. At one stage members of the organisation were instructed to hide their 'documents' because a military coup was only days away. Then Healy 'discovered' that other Trotskyists who opposed him, such as Trotsky's one-time secretary Joseph Hansen, were really secret 'agents' of the US or Russian governments, or both. A great barrage of lies and bizarre fantasies...poured out.

"A vast world-wide campaign -- the Healyites had small groups in many countries -- was launched to 'explain' much of the tortured history of Trotskyism as a convoluted spy story. All of the world, and much of recent history, was reinterpreted as an affair of 'agents' and double-agents. Perhaps as part of the eruption of his paranoia, Healy now transmuted into a 'philosopher.'

"Living the life of a millionaire if not a pasha, while members of the SLL/WRP often went short so that they could finance the organisation, and it was not unknown for full-time workers for the organisation to go hungry, Healy concentrated more and more on expounding a pseudo-Marxist, pseudo-Hegelian gobbledegook reminiscent, despite its verbiage about 'dialectics' and so on, of nothing so much as L Ron Hubbard's dianetics, around which the Church of Scientology has been constructed. This stuff mixed oddly with his continuing 'political' concerns and the lines were often crossed: it was not unknown for the WRP press to denounce someone as both a police agent and a 'philosophical idealist.' By the mid-1970s the organisation was in serious decline, financially over-extended, and threatened with collapse.

"At this point, Healy sold the organisation to Libya, Iraq and some of the sheikhdoms as a propaganda outlet and as a jobbing agency for spying on Arab dissidents and Jews ('Zionists') in Britain! Arab gold flowed into the shrunken and isolated organisation. Printing presses were bought, more modern than those on which the bourgeois papers were printed. To get away from the London print unions, they were installed in Runcorn, Cheshire anticipating by a decade Murdoch's move from Fleet Street to Wapping. [On this, see Appendix A -- RL.]

"They churned out crude Arab-chauvinist propaganda lauding Saddam Hussein and Libya's ruler Colonel Gaddafi and denouncing Israel and 'Zionism.' Numerically still in serious and progressive decline, the organisation nevertheless built up a property empire of bookshops and 'training centres' around Britain. To earn their wages, they, still calling themselves Trotskyists, publicly justified Saddam Hussein's 1980 killing of Iraqi Communist Party members, and provided reports on London-based Arabs and on Jewish capitalists. The organisation, as Socialist Organiser insisted at the time -- paying-for our insistence with a costly libel case -- could now no longer be considered part of the labour movement. In fact it was still widely accepted as part of the labour movement, but that's another story.

"The final act came in October 1985. Healy, who had run the organisation by personal terror, was now 72, weakened by age and by a bad heart. He was suddenly denounced as a rapist of 20-something female comrades and expelled from the organisation! Exactly what happened is still not entirely clear, but, with Healy dithering on the margin between retirement and full guruship, the WRP imploded. Faced with continued decline and, despite the Arab gold, a new financial crisis, the WRP apparatus divided. Healy himself was probably getting ready for a purge. The organisation fell apart in a great outburst of hysteria. The subgroups which Healy had kept in line fell on each other, and on Healy, who had disappointed their political hopes." [Quoted from here. Bold emphasis and links added; quotation marks and formatting altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Minor typos corrected; some paragraphs merged.]

Another dialectical dog-fight (this time Maoist) has just flared-up (in 2007-08) in the US-RCP over Mike Ely's 'Nine Letters'; details here and here (the latter links to a PDF).

Clearly the recent downturn after the massive radicalisation of the anti-war movement of, say, 2003-09 has had its effect on comrades world-wide, requiring several sizeable hits of Dialectical Dopamine, as the movement begins to fragment (again!). The split in UK-Respect is just one more example -- although dialectics doesn't appear to have had much to do with it (indeed, this split seems to be a purely petty-bourgeois affair); much of it did, however, centre around allegations of inner party democracy (advanced by the break-away Respect Renewal faction), as might have been expected (given the analysis advanced in the main body of this Essay). This is, of course, in addition to the on-going fragmentation of the UK-SWP.

To be sure, it isn't all bad news; in Australia, three former splinter groups from the IST have just re-united.

[There is plenty more material like this on the Internet, whose authors all use 'the dialectic method' to derive whatever he/she finds convenient and/or its opposite. I have added some of it to Appendix B.]

49. These passages have been quoted from the following: [1] Jackson (1936), p.626; [2] Konstantinov, et al (1974), pp.126-27; [3] Novack (1971), p.70; [4] Cornforth (1976), pp.71-72; [5] Rees (1998), pp.5-7; [6] Afanasyev (1968), pp.84-89; [7] Ilyenkov (1982a), p.160; [8] Guest (1939), pp.52-53; [9] McGarr (1994), pp.153-55; [10] Trotsky (1971), p.65; [11] Trotsky (1986), pp.86-97; [12] Stalin (1976b), pp.837-40; [13] Woods and Grant (1995), pp.42-44, 156; [14] Mao (quoted from here); [15] CPGB (quoted from here); [16] A break-away from The Fifth International (quoted from here); [17] Trevor Rayne, an RCG author (taken from here). [Quotations marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Emphases in the original.]

In this brief selection, we have at least eight Stalinists, one Maoist, seven Trotskyists, and one ex-Trotskyist.

[We have already seen (here and here) how the vast majority of dialecticians, from all wings of Marxism (and this includes Hegel, too), mis-characterise the LOC, LEM and LOI -- once more, often using almost exactly the same wording each time. We have also seen how they speak about 'universal interconnection' in the same terms (here and here), as well as the nature and universal ubiquity of UOs and the role they play in development and change. Many more examples (where such theorists agree -- almost down to the letter -- over other core DM-principles) have been given throughout this site, but especially here.]

[LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction; LEM = Law of Excluded Middle; LOI = Law of Identity; UO = Unity of Opposites.]

49a. Indeed, as noted earlier, over at RevLeft unreconstructed Stalinists, Maoists, Left Communists, OTs and NOTs, among others, have all joined the Dialectical Materialism Group. However, when it comes to politics these comrades disagree over practically everything, but with respect to dialectics, it is as if they are all singing from the same hymn sheet!

49b. I have been studying this 'theory' now for over thirty years and I have yet to come across a single unambiguous (positive), practical application of DM. During this long and tedious meander through these dialectical wastelands; I have also asked (any who will listen) for a single example of the positive practical application of DM, just as I have asked the same of comrades on the Internet over the last six or seven years.

If anyone reading this knows of even one such instance, please e-mail me with the details!

I have considered two suggested examples of the practical application of DM, here and here -- where both have been shown to fail.

50. DM has to be consigned to the dustbin of history first. Only then may reconstructive surgery begin on ailing HM. More about that another time.

51. The phrase "common understanding" must not be confused with "common sense"; the former will be explained in a later Essay.

"Comrade Luxemburg commits exactly the same basic error. She repeats naked words without troubling to grasp their concrete meaning. She raises bogeys without informing herself of the actual issue in the controversy. She puts in my mouth commonplaces, general principles and conceptions, absolute truths, and tries to pass over the relative truths, pertaining to perfectly definite facts, with which alone I operate. And then she rails against set formulas and invokes the dialectics of Marx! It is the worthy comrade's own article that consists of nothing but manufactured formulas and runs counter to the ABC of dialectics. This ABC tells us that there is no such thing as abstract truth, truth is always concrete. Comrade Rosa Luxemburg loftily ignores the concrete facts of our Party struggle and engages in grandiloquent declamation about matters which it is impossible to discuss seriously. Let me cite one last example from Comrade Luxemburg's second article. She quotes my remark that the way the Rules of Organisation are formulated can make them a more or a less trenchant weapon against opportunism. Just what formulations I talked about in my book and all of us talked about at the Congress, of that she does not say a word. What the controversy at the Party Congress was, and against whom I advanced my theses, she does not touch on in the slightest. Instead, she favours me with a whole lecture on opportunism...in the parliamentary countries!! But about the peculiar, specific varieties of opportunism in Russia, the shades which it has taken on there and with which my book is concerned, we find not a word in her article. The upshot of all these very brilliant arguments is: 'Party Rules are not meant in themselves [?? understand this who can!] to be a weapon of resistance to opportunism, but only an outward instrument for exerting the dominant influence of the actually existing revolutionary-proletarian majority of the Party.' Quite so. But how this actually existing majority of our Party was formed Rosa Luxemburg does not say, yet that is exactly what I talk about in my book. Nor does she say what influence it was that Plekhanov and I defended with the help of this outward instrument. I can only add that never and nowhere have I talked such nonsense as that the Party Rules are a weapon 'in themselves'." [Collected Works, Volume VII; quoted from here. Bold emphasis added; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

It is quite apparent from this that, despite saying "understand this who can!", Lenin's last few words: "I can only add that never and nowhere have I talked such nonsense as that the Party Rules are a weapon 'in themselves'" indicate that he understood perfectly well what Rosa Luxemburg was saying and was simply point-scoring.

Be this as it may, the reader will note once again that dialectics was used by both sides in this dispute to 'prove' that the opposite view held by their opponent is incorrect/un-dialectical.

Incidentally, we have already seen that Lenin's claim that all truth is concrete (a dogma he nowhere tries to justify -- that is, over and above merely quoting Hegel, who similarly failed to justify it) self-destructs, along the following lines:

L5: If L1 is false, then there can be abstract truths. [Of course, this assumes that there are only two truth values available here: true or false.]

L10: Assuming there are only abstract and concrete truths, then there can be abstract truths. [By L9.]

Clearly, Lenin inadvertently exposed his philosophical and logical naivety in the above passage.

52. The infelicity of the word "algebra" may have escaped some readers of TAR -- as seems to be the case with its author. If they had reflected on the attitude that most workers have toward algebra (when they were at school, and subsequently) the unfortunate connotations conveyed by this word might become a little clearer.

However, the title of TAR is unfortunate in other ways. Alan Wood [not the same person as Alan Woods!] brings this out well:

"The terms 'dialectical method' and 'dialectical logic' are apt to mislead. Neither in Hegel nor in Marx is dialectical thinking really a set of procedures for inquiry, still less a set of rules for generating or justifying results. Only harm can be done by representing dialectic as analogous to formal logic or mathematics (witness Alexander Herzen's famous but asinine description of the Hegelian dialectic as the 'algebra of revolution')." [Wood (1981), p.190. Link added.]

The problem with the phrase "the algebra of revolution" is that it does indeed suggest there is a well worked-out body of theory that is clear, precise, possessed of rigorous proof structures, and which generates determinate results. None of these is even remotely true of dialectics. Readers searching through TAR (or the vast majority of DM-texts) hoping to find anything even vaguely algebraic (or systematic) will look long and hard, and to no avail.

Perhaps worse still, the word "algebra" implies that the results of the revolution can be calculated in a formal manner before the event has taken place, and that all the steps leading up to the final QED at the end will decide the result -- even if the author of TAR will emphatically repudiate such an implication.

On reflection, therefore, Rees might have thought better of the title he gave his book.

Indeed, because of its close links with German mysticism -- mediated by DM -- a more accurate title would be:

Several of Marx and Engels's works listed below have been linked to the Marxist Internet Archive, but since Lawrence & Wishart threatened legal action over copyright infringement many no longer work.

Adorno, T. (1994), The Authoritarian Personality. Studies In Prejudice (WW Norton).

Ali, T. (2005), Street Fighting Years. An Autobiography Of The Sixties (Verso).

Anderson, K. (1995), Lenin, Hegel, And Western Marxism. A Critical Study (University Of Illinois Press).

--------, (2007), 'The Rediscovery And Persistence Of The Dialectic In Philosophy And In World Politics', in Budgen, et al (2007), pp.120-47.

Bakhurst, D. (1991), Consciousness And Revolution In Soviet Philosophy. From The Bolsheviks To Evald Ilyenkov (Cambridge University Press).

Basketter, S. (2008), 'Theorist And Fighter', Socialist Worker 2105, 14/06/08, p.13.

Bone, A. (1974), The Bolsheviks And The October Revolution. Central Committee Minutes Of The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolshevik) August 1917-February 1918 (Pluto Press).

Budgen, S., Kouvelakis, S., and Zizek, S. (2007) (eds.), Lenin Reloaded. Toward A Politics Of Truth (Duke University Press).

--------, (1989a), 'Introduction: Analytical Marxism', in Callinicos (1989b), pp.1-16.

--------, (1991), The Revenge Of History. Marxism And The Eastern European Revolutions (Polity Press).

--------, (1992), 'Rhetoric Which Can't Conceal A Bankrupt Theory: A Reply To Ernest Mandel', International Socialism 57, pp.147-60.

--------, (2004), Making History. Agency, Structure, And Change In Social Theory (E J Brill, 2^nd ed.).

--------, (2014), 'Thunder On The Left', International Socialism 143, pp.111-40.

Chitty, A., and McIvor, D. (2009), (eds.), Marx And Contemporary Philosophy (Palgrave).

--------, (1960), 'Trotsky On Substitutionism', reprinted in Cliff (1982), pp.192-209, in Cliff et al (1996), pp.56-79, and in Cliff (2001), pp.117-32.

--------, (1975-79), Lenin, Four Volumes (Pluto Press). [All four volumes can be accessed here.]

--------, (1982), Neither Washington Nor Moscow. Essays In Revolutionary Socialism (Bookmarks).

--------, (1989-93), Trotsky, Four Volumes (Bookmarks). [All four volumes can be accessed here.]

--------, (2001), International Struggle And The Marxist Tradition (Bookmarks).

Cliff, T., Hallas, D., Harman, C., and Trotsky, L. (1996), Party And Class (Bookmarks, 2^nd ed.).

Cohen, G. (2000), Karl Marx's Theory Of History: A Defence (Oxford University Press, 2^nd ed.).

Cornforth, F. (1976), Materialism And The Dialectical Method (Lawrence & Wishart, 5^th ed.). [A PDF of the 2015 reprint of this book (which appears to be slightly different from the 1976 edition used in this Essay) is available here.]

Daniels, R. (1980), 'Evolution Of Leadership Selection In The Central Committee, 1917-1927', in Pintner and Rowney (1980), pp.355-68. [This article is quoted in Appendix D.]

Dietzgen, J. (1906), Some Of The Philosophical Essays On Socialism And Science, Religion, Ethics, Critique-Of-Reason And The World At Large (Charles Kerr).

--------, (1917b), Some Of The Philosophical Essays (Charles H. Kerr & Company.)

Draper, H. (1977), Karl Marx's Theory Of Revolution, Volume One: State And Bureaucracy (Monthly Review Press).

--------, (1978), Karl Marx's Theory Of Revolution, Volume Two: The Politics Of Social Classes (Monthly Review Press).

Eastman, M. (1926), Marx, Lenin And The Science Of Revolution (George Allen & Unwin).

--------, (1942), Einstein, Trotsky, Hemmingway, Freud, And Other Great Companions (Collier Books).

Festinger, L. (1962), A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford University Press).

Festinger, L., Riecken, H., and Schachter, S. (1956), When Prophecy Fails (Harper Torchbooks).

Gao, M. (2008), The Battle For China's Past. Mao And The Cultural Revolution (Pluto Press).

Gluckstein, D. (1999), The Nazis, Capitalism And The Working Class (Bookmarks).

Gollobin, I. (1986), Dialectical Materialism: Its Laws, Categories And Practice (Petras).

Gouldner, A. (1980), The Two Marxisms. Contradictions And Anomalies In The Development Of Theory (Macmillan).

--------, (1987), Science, Philosophy, And Human Behaviour In The Soviet Union (Columbia University Press).

--------, (1993), Science In Russia And The Soviet Union: A Short History (Cambridge University Press).

Guest, D. (1939), A Textbook Of Dialectical Materialism (International Publishers).

Hanna, P., and Harrison, B. (2004), Word And World. Practice And The Foundations Of Language (Cambridge University Press).

--------, (2007a), 'Dialectics Of Morality', International Socialism 113, pp.199-202.

Hartwig, M. (2007), Dictionary Of Critical Realism (Routledge). [This book is available as downloadable PDF via this link.]

--------, (1990), Materialist Dialectics And The Political Revolution (Marxist Publishing Collective). [Parts of this book can be accessed here.]

Hegel, G. (1975), Logic, translated by William Wallace (Oxford University Press, 3^rd ed.).

--------, (1999), Science Of Logic, translated by A. V. Miller (Humanity Books).

Higgins, J. (1997), More Years For The Locust. The Origins Of The SWP (IS Group).

--------, (2011), More Years For The Locust. The Origins Of The SWP (Unkant Publishers, 2^nd ed.).

Holt, A., and Holland, B. (1983), Theses, Resolutions And Manifestos Of The First Four Congresses Of The Third International (Ink Links).

Jones, B. (2008), 'Marxism In A Single Volume', International Socialist Review 59, May-June 2008, pp.56-63.

Joravsky, D. (1961), Soviet Marxism And Natural Science 1917-1932 (Routledge).

Kettler, D. (2005), Adam Ferguson: His Social And Political Thought (Transaction Books).

King, F., and Matthews, G. (1990) (eds.), About Turn. The Communist Party And The Outbreak Of The Second World War: The Verbatim Record Of The Central Committee Meetings, 1939 (Lawrence & Wishart).

Kneller, J., and Axinn, S. (1998), Autonomy And Community: Readings In Contemporary Kantian Social Philosophy (State University of New York Press).

Knight, N. (2005), Marxist Philosophy In China: From Qu Qiubai To Mao Zedong, 1923-1945 (Springer).

Kolakowski, L. (1981), Main Currents Of Marxism. Its Origins, Growth And Dissolution. 3: The Breakdown (Oxford University Press).

Konstantinov, F. et al (1974), The Fundamentals Of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (Progress Publishers, 2^nd ed.).

Kozlov, V. (2002), Mass Uprisings In The USSR: Protest And Rebellion In The Post-Stalin Years (M. E. Sharpe).

Krapivin, V. (1985), ABC Of Social And Political Knowledge: What Is Dialectical Materialism? (Progress Publishers).

Kuusinen, O. (1961) (ed.), Fundamentals Of Marxism-Leninism (Lawrence & Wishart).

Lalich, J. (2004), Bounded Choice. True Believers And Charismatic Cults (University of California Press).

Laudan, L. (1977), Progress And Its Problems (University of Californian Press).

Lih, L. (2005), Lenin Rediscovered. What Is To Be Done? In Context (E J Brill).

Lotz, C., and Feldman, P. (1994), Gerry Healy. A Revolutionary Life (Lupus Books). [The Forward and Introduction can be accessed here.]

Löwy, M. (1979), Georg Lukács -- From Romanticism To Bolshevism (New Left Books).

--------, (1975), The Young Hegel (Merlin Press). [Several Chapters of this book can be accessed here.]

-------- (2000), Tailism And The Dialectic. A Defence Of History And Class Consciousness (Verso).

MacIntyre, A. (1976) (ed.), Hegel: A Collection Of Critical Essays (University of Notre Dame Press).

MacIntyre, S. (1980), A Proletarian Science. Marxism In Britain, 1917-1933 (Lawrence & Wishart).

Mandel, E. (1951), 'The Theory Of "State Capitalism"', written under the pseudonym, Ernest Germain, Fourth International 12, 5, pp.145-56.

--------, (1990), 'A Theory Which Has Not Withstood The Test Of The Facts', International Socialism 49, pp.43-64, reprinted in Mandel and Sheppard (2006), pp.16-38.

--------, (1992), 'The Impasse Of Schematic Dogmatism', International Socialism 56, pp.135-72.

Mandel, E., and Sheppard, B. (2006), 'State Capitalism'. A Marxist Critique Of A False Theory (Resistance Books).

--------, (1970), The German Ideology, Students Edition, edited by Chris Arthur (Lawrence & Wishart).

McGarr, P. (1990), 'Order Out Of Chaos', International Socialism 48, pp.137-59.

Meek, R. (1967a), 'The Scottish Contribution To Marxist Sociology', in Meek (1967b), pp.34-50.

Meissner, W. (1990), Philosophy And Politics In China. The Controversy Over Dialectical Materialism In The 1930s (Hurst & Company).

Michels, R. (1916), Political Parties. A Sociological Study Of The Oligarchical Tendencies Of Modern Democracy (The Free Press). [Part of this book can be accessed here.]

--------, (2009), 'On Party Democracy', International Socialism 124, pp.137-58.

--------, (2012), The Point Is To Change It. An Introduction To Marxist Philosophy (Bookmarks).

Norrie, A. (2010), Dialectic And Difference. Dialectical Critical Realism And The Grounds Of Justice (Routledge).

North, D. (1988), The Heritage We Defend. A Contribution To The History Of The Fourth International (Labor Publications). [Extracts of this book can be accessed here.]

--------, (1991), Gerry Healy And His Place In The History Of The Fourth International (Labor Publications).

--------, (1982b), 'Lenin's Materialism And Empirio-Criticism', Labour Review 6, 2, July 1982, pp.28-35.

Pintner, W., and Rowney, D. (1980) (eds.), Russian Officialdom: The Bureaucratization Of Russian Society From The Seventeenth To The Twentieth Century (Macmillan). [This book is quoted in Appendix D.]

Plekhanov, G. (1908), Fundamental Problems Of Marxism (Lawrence & Wishart). [The Appendix to this work -- which in fact formed part of Plekhanov's Introduction to Engels (1888) -- can be found here, under the title 'Dialectic and Logic'. It can also be found in Plekhanov (1976), pp.73-82.]

--------, (1956), The Development Of The Monist View Of History (Progress Publishers). This is reprinted in Plekhanov (1974), pp.480-737. [Unfortunately, the Index page for 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!]

--------, (1974), Selected Philosophical Works, Volume One (Progress Publishers).

--------, (1976), Selected Philosophical Works, Volume Three (Progress Publishers).

--------, (2004a), Selected Philosophical Works, Volume One (University Press of the Pacific).

Pollock, E. (2006), Stalin And The Soviet Science Wars (Princeton University Press).

Priest, G., Beall, J., and Armour-Garb, B. (2004) (eds.), The Law Of Non-Contradiction. New Philosophical Essays (Oxford University Press).

Redding, P. (2007), Analytic Philosophy And the Return Of Hegelian Thought (Cambridge University Press).

Rees, J. (1989), 'The Algebra Of Revolution', International Socialism 43, pp.173-214.

Riddell, J. (2015) (ed.), To The Masses. Proceedings Of The Third Congress Of The Communist International, 1921 (Haymarket Books).

Rosenthal, M. (1998), The Myth Of Dialectics. Reinterpreting The Marx-Hegel Relation (Macmillan).

Rossman, M. (2005), Worker Resistance Under Stalin: Class And Revolution On The Shop Floor (Harvard University Press).

--------, (2021), 'Engels: The Enemy Within?' International Socialism 172. [I no longer subscribe to this journal, so I don't have the page references.]

Slaughter, C. (1974a) (ed.), Trotskyism Versus Revisionism. A Documentary History. Volume One: The Fight Against Pabloism In The Fourth International (New Park Publications). [Parts of this volume can be accessed here. Other documents related to this dispute can be accessed here.]

--------, (1974b) (ed.), Trotskyism Versus Revisionism. A Documentary History. Volume Two: The Spilt In The Fourth International (New Park Publications).

--------, (1974c) (ed.), Trotskyism Versus Revisionism. A Documentary History. Volume Three: The Socialist Workers Party's Road Back To Pabloism (New Park Publications).

--------, (1974d) (ed.), Trotskyism Versus Revisionism. A Documentary History. Volume Four: The International Committee Against Liquidationism (New Park Publications).

--------, (1975a) (ed.), Trotskyism Versus Revisionism. A Documentary History. Volume Five: The Fight For the Continuity Of The Fourth International (New Park Publications).

--------, (1975b) (ed.), Trotskyism Versus Revisionism. A Documentary History. Volume Six: The Organisation Communiste Internationaliste Breaks With Trotskyism (New Park Publications).

Stalin, J. (1926), 'The Right Deviation In The CPSU(B)', Speech Delivered At The Plenum Of The Central Committee And Central Control Commission Of The CPSU(B), April 1929, in Stalin (2002), pp.313-69.

Steel, M. (2008), What's Going On? The Meanderings Of A Comic Mind In Confusion (Simon & Schuster).

Tian, C. (2005), Chinese Dialectics. From Yijing To Marxism (Lexington Books).

Tourish, D., and Wohlforth, T. (2000), On The Edge. Political Cults Right And Left (M E Sharpe).

[This has been reprinted in a slightly different form in the online Marxist journal What Next? 27, 2003, and is accessible here. Anyone interested can follow the ensuing debate here. (See also here.)]

Travis, C., and Aronson, E. (2008), Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) (Pinter and Martin).

--------, (1981), The Challenge Of The Left Opposition (1928-29) (Pathfinder Press).

Vucinich, A. (1980), 'Soviet Physicists And Philosophers In The 1930s: Dynamics Of A Conflict', Isis 71, pp.236-50.

White, J. (1996), Karl Marx And The Intellectual Origins Of Dialectical Materialism (Macmillan).

Wohlforth, T. (1994), The Prophet's Children. Travels On The American Left (Humanities Press).

--------, (1998), 'Kant's Historical Materialism', in Kneller and Axinn (1998), pp.15-37.

Woods, A., and Grant, T. (1995/2007), Reason In Revolt. Marxism And Modern Science (Wellred Publications; 2^nd ed., 2007). [I have in fact used the first edition in this Essay. Added on edit: It now looks like only parts of this book are available on-line at the original site. A mirror version of what appears to be the entire second edition can, however, be accessed here.]

Yurkovets, I. (1984), The Philosophy Of Dialectical Materialism (Progress Publishers).

--------, (2015), Absolute Recoil. Toward A New Foundation Of Dialectical Materialism (Verso).