tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post4705285784627261645..comments2023-10-24T11:03:41.388-05:00Comments on ladypoverty: 5. An aside about Marx and post-modernismJ.R. Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09076895859826581960noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-50607148054978313042010-06-18T18:04:10.229-05:002010-06-18T18:04:10.229-05:00Rosa L is a bit loony if you ask me, but her criti...Rosa L is a bit loony if you ask me, but her critique of diamat does make sense.<br /><br />However, the point of this post is that you can read any text any which way you want. Personally, I am more in line with Harvey's understanding of Marx's dialectic, as being different than Hegel, i.e.: less about negation and more about a non-dualistic approach that could account for contradictory and mutually reciprocal interaction.<br />ex: bourgeoisie/proletariat<br /> capital/labour<br /> etc.le sans-culotteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06284361447941787720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-37682625280540223392010-06-05T11:30:02.192-05:002010-06-05T11:30:02.192-05:00Yeah, thanks for the information, Jack. I knew tha...Yeah, thanks for the information, Jack. I knew that Marx would have used it in discussing Hegel, I just haven't read that stuff. I was also under the impression that Hegel's dialectic was different than the so-called Marxist dialectic.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-55534536864752819642010-06-05T08:36:29.714-05:002010-06-05T08:36:29.714-05:00Good stuff, Jack. Don't know much about it my...Good stuff, Jack. Don't know much about it myself.JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-74937607719449814622010-06-04T22:19:20.160-05:002010-06-04T22:19:20.160-05:00I should be clear: In Capital, he refers to the me...I should be clear: In Capital, he refers to the method (but does not use the term itself).<br /><br />As to all the contradictions stuff, I think Rosa has made a cogent case: <br /><br />On its own terms, dialectical materialism cannot allow for the change it declares, because it insists that history is material (no problem there) and that all processes are material (no problem there) but that they also all contain their own negations (bwuh?) which emerge from (what? never said) self-contradiction in order to "contradict" the already existent, triggering a crisis.<br /><br />But if this is actually the case, nothing can happen - because the self-contained contradictions, being material, must also then contain their own self-negating contradictions, which must contain theirs, and so on ad infinitum.<br /><br />Diamat also fails to explain the problem of photons which don't ever change and seem to last a very, very, very long time* (I owe this recognition, again, to Rosa).<br /><br />* - they also do not contain their own opposites (as diamat insists), just waiting the chance to emerge and contradict them.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-47293273500419001992010-06-04T22:13:00.819-05:002010-06-04T22:13:00.819-05:00Richard,
Marx uses it, when discussing Hegel. He ...Richard,<br /><br />Marx uses it, when discussing Hegel. He also uses it, when he mentions that he's gone beyond Hegel (in Capital), and no longer needs it.<br /><br />But the term "dialectical materialism" was invented by Dietzgen, and then later incorporated into Diamat by combining Engels' essays, with Feuerbach, to arrive at an alleged science. <br /><br />I will admit that I am fully, completely in agreement with Rosa L, here:<br /><br />http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/<br /><br />...and furthermore, confess her influence.<br /><br />If you have six months (and it takes that long, since Rosa is up to almost a million words, IIRC), it's the pre-eminent deconstruction of diamat.<br /><br />Because I was not clear the last time I mentioned Rosa - she doesn't reject Lenin, Trotsky or Marxism. Just the dialectical materialism.<br /><br />Respect,<br /><br />JackJack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-23072408286107766472010-06-04T22:00:21.426-05:002010-06-04T22:00:21.426-05:00That's an interesting comment, Jack. I admit I...That's an interesting comment, Jack. I admit I don't know too much about Engels or his proselytizing of Marx's work; I know Engels did some good work of his own, but beyond that....<br /><br />but this point about the cult of the dialectic--so far I have yet to see Marx use the word (in <i>Capital</i> anyway), yet commentators use it constantly, including the writer of the introduction, and even Harvey in his lectures uses it all the time, "you have to think dialectically". And yet what Harvey seems to mean by it is to keep in mind the movement and the contradictions (and all the rest of it!), but does that really need to be called dialectics? Isn't keeping alive contradictions and tensions and whatnot just part of thinking?Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-17322896853561622002010-06-04T20:04:28.062-05:002010-06-04T20:04:28.062-05:00Seriously, Enron. Engels transformed Marx's an...Seriously, Enron. Engels transformed Marx's analysis into a damned cult of the dialectic.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-78328498197805818732010-06-04T18:08:44.254-05:002010-06-04T18:08:44.254-05:00I would say it was more Engels anyways.I would say it was more Engels anyways.Enronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04452719183147212113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-56322787136473154662010-06-04T15:03:14.367-05:002010-06-04T15:03:14.367-05:00Well said.Well said.JRBhttp://ladypoverty.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-72893338848405446712010-06-04T14:48:36.432-05:002010-06-04T14:48:36.432-05:00In addition, while one doesn't need to attend ...In addition, while one doesn't need to attend to <i>Marx</i>, necessarily, one <i>does</i> need to attend to the problems he was addressing. The problem is those who dismiss Marx are all too often missing the nature of the problem at hand. Marx can help.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461044.post-83268193842275993342010-06-04T09:02:08.095-05:002010-06-04T09:02:08.095-05:00Timely.
A number of critiques of the resurgence o...Timely.<br /><br />A number of critiques of the resurgence of "marxist" thought, lately.<br /><br />Marx's work is a useful tool. <br /><br />Not the only tool - and certainly not a reason to avoid play.Jack Crowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499087036876745723noreply@blogger.com