From Lastsuperpower by Arthur 2006
Hi Rosa, I just read right through your 14,200 word summary and was struck by the following among the caveats at the end:
“…it is fundamental to my project that if I cannot explain myself in ordinary language, then not even I understand what I am attempting to say!** **And that is why this Essay will need to be re-written many, many times.”
I admire the enthusiasm with which you are tackling the problem of why allegedly marxist tendencies have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful and have degenerated into peurile sects adequately ridiculed in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”. But I would say they have as little grasp of dialectical materialism as they do of anything else. A classic illustration can be found in another thread here re Spelling out the Drain the Swamps theory – where a dalek challenged to concretely analyse concrete conditions is reduced to simply frothing at the mouth together with the following complete “dialectical” argument for not trying to change the status quo.
“My answer to all your stuff is that the internal contradictions in any entity will be worked out by the usual dialectical processes. The nature of what is to be born from the internal struggle will be determined by the resolution of the internal contradictions. No amount of outside pressure nor outside influence will have any effect on that which is to emerge.”
Since we are at least in agreement about the complete uselessness of the “philosophy” of the various peurile sects it might be useful to engage in dialogue. But you would need to tackle the concrete issues we are discussing (eg Iraq) in ordinary language. From passing references scattered throughout your material it appears that you share much the same political views as the “dialecticians” you reject as fraudulent. That ought to give you pause for thought.
We hold opposite views on concrete political issues so discussing those concrete issues ought to be more productive. If you read the thread linked above from the beginning, and the links within it, you will find plenty of material that shows the connection between our different political views to yours and our different philosophical views concerning dialectical materialism to yours. Your account of the Background to this project is much easier to follow than your summary. I was struck by your remark:
“…if truth be told, some {Stalinist Dialecticians} (Russian or Chinese) display a far more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of “the dialectic” than do many {Orthodox Trotskyists} – Ilyenkov and Oizerman come to mind here. Another: Alexander Spirkin’s analysis of the Part/Whole relation, here.”
I can at least agree with you there. Ilyenkov is worth reading. (BTW please fix the broken link to Spirkin.)
Frankly I don’t have time at the moment to read much more of your 600,000+ words work. But I will quote this, as an explicit welcome to a site that DOES want to be contradicted:
“Nevertheless, for all their avowed love of “contradictions”, DM-theorists do not like to be contradicted – especially “internally”, as it were, by a comrade. In fact, they reject all attempts at doing this (which is rather odd given their commitment to the belief that progress can only occur this way). So here is a nice conundrum: if all progress and change does indeed result from “internal contradictions, then the pages that follow, which uncover the many that lie at the heart of dialectics, should be warmly welcomed by the DM-faithful. Indeed, if improvement and development can come about in no other way, then these pages ought to be well-received by those committed to “dialectical” change. That they won’t be well-received should therefore count as one of the opening “contradictions” exposed at this site: DM stands refuted as much by its own unwillingness to be contradicted (internally or externally) as it is by the fact that this situation is not likely to change.”
Our experience is that they simply don’t want to argue with us. Occasionally, like the dalek, one of them turns up and expresses his indignation without any attempt to understand what we are actually saying or to directly respond to any replies – the minimum courtesy required for argument. Given your background, you will find much to contradict here. Please go right ahead! But please, avoid the language you use in bantering with your fellow sectarians and just argue with us about how to analyse and change the world in ordinary language that anyone can understand.
Admin, thanks for re-publishing this.
1) “But I would say they have as little grasp of dialectical materialism as they do of anything else.”
As we can see from my demolition of the ‘dialectical theory of change’, *no one* actually understands this theory.
So, I’d like to see how one could come up with an objective way to decide if and when an incomprehensible theory like this has ever been applied correctly — any more than this could:
“`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.”
2) “My answer to all your stuff is that the internal contradictions in any entity will be worked out by the usual dialectical processes. The nature of what is to be born from the internal struggle will be determined by the resolution of the internal contradictions. No amount of outside pressure nor outside influence will have any effect on that which is to emerge.”
But, and once again, this approach has two rather unfortunate consequences:
a) If this were true, nothing could change. A summary of my proof of this controversial allegation can be found in this thread:
http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/?p=2239
But at greater length here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007_03.htm
b) If this were the case, nothing in the universe would have any effect on anything else.
So, while you might *think* that your kick is what sent a football off into the distance, its ‘internal contradictions’ are in fact what propelled it along. Naturally, if this theory were true, much of Newtonian and post-Newtonian mechanics will have to be trashed, for here we have energy created from nowhere.
This neatly illustrates the grain of truth in the following anti-dialectical joke:
Q: How many dialecticians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None at all; the light bulb changes itself.
More details here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_01.htm
3) “From passing references scattered throughout your material it appears that you share much the same political views as the “dialecticians” you reject as fraudulent. That ought to give you pause for thought.”
What I do share with them is a commitment to Historical Materialism (providing Hegel has been completely excised), and on that basis, not on the basis of dialectics, I oppose US Imperialism in all its forms.
Indeed, we can now see from the debacle left behind in Iraq (and Afghanistan) by the US military, I was right to do so.
Not to worry, the 1% at the top have certainly laughed all the way to the bank.
4) “I can at least agree with you there. Ilyenkov is worth reading.”
Unfortunately, Ilyenkov is no less confused than other DM-fans. I merely alleged that certain Russian theorists were far more ‘nuanced’, not ‘correct’, or, indeed, less confused.
5) “Frankly I don’t have time at the moment to read much more of your 600,000+ words work.”
Now closer to 2.5 million words!
Since I was last here, and for those who prefer their Internet articles to be short, I have summarised my ideas in several places, for example, here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm
The other things you say I commented upon last time I was here, and have nothing further to add.
Rosa, Please note that point 2 in your comment is actually a quote from dalec. It is a point with which Arthur was disagreeing. The absurdity and reactionary nature of dalec’s position is found in the way his “dialectics” was used to leave the Iraqi people to their own devices – just as (presumably) he wants the Syrians left to resolve their own “internal contradictions”. (Aaah, the looksherry of the green urban first worlders). The superior military support of the US and other allies of the Iraqi people facilitated the overthrow of fascism in Iraq and the establishment of a basic democratic parliamentary institution while also averting the regional conflagration that would have broken out (with a much higher death toll) without the external influence/intervention. New contradictions will continue to emerge and be resolved by human conscious effort, leading to new contradictions. As the advert for Berger paints used to say: “keeps on keeping on”…
Thanks for that Bjork, but my point was in fact quite general: this theory can be used to ‘justify’ anything you like and its opposite. So, one commentator will point to these ‘internal contradictions’ to argue that change can only come from within, while another will argue that the ‘unity of opposites’ highlights the ‘progressive’ side of US Imperialism, and hence change can come from without.
However, I disagree with your assessment of Iraq before the illegal invasion (it certainly wasn’t ‘fascist, howsoever nasty and oppressive it was — all wars are ‘justified’ in this way, I’m surprised you have fallen for it), but it is worth reminding ourselves that that regime was set-up by the USA, who tolerated and supported it until it became expedient to do otherwise.
The USA’s ‘commitment’ to ‘democracy’ can be seen by the way it has supported and helped maintain any number of such regimes around the world in the last fifty years or so (ranging from those headed by the Shah of Iran, to Allende, Marcos, Sukarno, Noriega… — not to mention those lovers of democracy and women’s rights, the rulers of Saudi Arabia).
Also worth mentioning in passing is the fact that democracy needs to be brought to the USA, too. How much choice to does its population have when money largely wins each election, and there is only a ‘choice’ between the nasty pro-business party and the even nastier pro-business party, and the media there is controlled by the top 1% and those who profit from war?
Sure, there is a limited form of democracy in Iraq, but that too is now controlled by Iran — and it is hardly a safe place for the Iraqi people to live. In order to sell this war for oil, the US government had to cloak it with the ideology of ‘liberal democracy’, but what we have in Iraq is a corrupt regime, controlled by the Shia majority. Hardly worth killing a million+ civilians for, I’d say.
The problems of course began much earlier with Imperial intervention beginning after WW1. The ‘West’ screwed Iraq up long before they imposed Saddam on its people.
So, don’t try and fool me with all this ‘progressive’ BS. It’s bad enough you have fooled yourself.
Rosa, you clearly don’t think in a dialectical way. The fact that the US had propped up the fascist regime against the Iraqi people for so many years was one good reason for supporting the regime’s overthrow when the US clearly changed direction in its relationship with it (even Bush jr could call it for what it was, so you’re less perceptive than him). But, as you (and dalec) don’t think dialectically, the US will always be wrong – it can be no other way. It is a principle set in concrete.
I would like the US to build alliances to militarily support pro-democratic forces in all the countries under conditions of tyranny, where this is required (such as Syria) but you are citing cases where it hasn’t done so in order to justify opposition to it ever doing so. You cannot comprehend change even when it hits the region’s worst dictator right between the eyes and results in a new, albeit troubled, Iraq that has a system in which its people can vote in a government – and vote one out.
For all your talk about the ‘one percent’ in the USA, you were on the side of all the tyrants who made up the ‘one percent’ in the Middle-East region who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq precisely because they knew it threatened their regional stability (read: privilege and power).
As for Iran, the last thing the Iranian regime needs is the example of a tyranny overthrown and replaced by a basically working parliamentary democracy so close by. And, did you forget about Gaddafi?
Your understanding of the ‘control’ exercised by Iran over Iraq is as wrong as the widely discredited notion that Iraq was a ‘war for oil’. I hope the Administrator will run some of the articles from the old site again on this one, the ‘blood for oil’ claptrap.
The tragedy is that we now have in the White House somebody who doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going but he is certainly not doing the right thing by the oppressed Syrians.
Bjork:
“Rosa, you clearly don’t think in a dialectical way.”
In fact, I have shown that to ‘think in a dialectical way’ would make change impossible:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007_03.htm
As I pointed out in another thread at this site, quoting Dalec:
“’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.’
“Thanks for that, Dalec. But, because dialectics is based on contradiction and the ‘unity of opposites’, it can be, and has been (for instance in the example you quote) used to prove anything you like, and its opposite.
“So, according to this ‘principle’, we could quite legitimately argue the following:
“’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.’
“Hence, on that basis, one could, for example, easily excuse anything the Nazis/KKK chose to do, if one were so determined.
“So, not only is this theory completely useless — since if it were true, nothing could change — it is thoroughly pernicious to boot. That is because it presents every opportunist, reactionary and counter-revolutionary with an ideal excuse for justifying anything they like *and* its opposite.”
So, I am rather glad I don’t ‘think dialectically’.
I am not sure where you got this idea from, though:
“For all your talk about the ‘one percent’ in the USA, you were on the side of all the tyrants who made up the ‘one percent’ in the Middle-East region who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq precisely because they knew it threatened their regional stability (read: privilege and power).”
I oppose all ruling classes wherever they are, so I have never, nor will I ever be “on the side of all the tyrants who made up the ‘one percent’ in the Middle-East.”
Anyway, if I may say so: your argument seems to depend on a rather ‘undialectical’ either-or: I am either on the side of US Imperialism or I am on the side of the reactionaries in the Middle East.
So, the problem is that not even *you* ‘think dialectically’!
In fact, I am on neither side.
Even so, the most dangerous 1% on the planet right now is that which controls the USA, hence my opposition to their murderous invasion of Iraq — which not only went rather badly, it has left a complete disaster behind.
Not to worry, the 1% in the USA are now even stronger (and propping up the 1% in the Middle East you referred to), and thus more dangerous, while you lot gave them a ‘left’ cover. Very intelligent.
“As for Iran, the last thing the Iranian regime needs is the example of a tyranny overthrown and replaced by a basically working parliamentary democracy so close by.”
In fact, they can now control Iraq far more easily than they did fifteen or twenty years ago.
And no, I haven’t forgotten Gaddafi, so I’m not too sure why you brought him up.
“Your understanding of the ‘control’ exercised by Iran over Iraq is as wrong as the widely discredited notion that Iraq was a ‘war for oil’. I hope the Administrator will run some of the articles from the old site again on this one, the ‘blood for oil’ claptrap.”
You can run as many articles as you like, that won’t alter the fact that the invasion of Iraq was for the control of its oil, as all ‘western’ policy has directed been in that region since it was discovered there.
That last paragraph should, of course, read:
You can run as many articles as you like, that won’t alter the fact that the invasion of Iraq was for the control of its oil, as all ‘western’ policy in the region has been directed since oil was discovered there.
Ah Barry,
Let me ask you a number of questions, yes or no answers to each will do.
Do you support the invasion of;
China by the Japanese?
India by the British?
Poland by the Germans?
Afghanistan by the Russians?
Afghanistan by the US ?
Vietnam by the US?
Singapore by the Japanese ?
Australia and PNG by the Japanese?
Iraq by the US ?
(sigh) Saddam was selling to the US all the oil they wanted to buy from him… get real… Check out the new thread on this (from the old site).
Thanks for that Bjork. Seen it and it changes nothing.
The invasion, as leading Republicans and generals have since admitted, was for control of the oil (by US and other oil companies, or sub-contractors) — that is they wanted to free it from national control by Saddam. Hence the law they tried to force through in Iraqi in 2007.
So, you can ‘get real’.
Check this out:
http://www.fuelonthefire.com/
Dalec:
All those invasions, *and* their opposites, can by ‘justified’ dialectically.
“A contradiction!”, I hear you say?
Well, you just don’t ‘understand’ dialectics…
Rosa,
All those invasions – just a small sample in that list.
Surely if you support one you should support them all. Conversely if you oppose one you should oppose them all.
They all ended badly for the invader.
Have since Roman days and before and of course the Crusades.
Failed to “drain the swamps” back then too. Still trying but.
Dalec,
“All those invasions – just a small sample in that list. Surely if you support one you should support them all. Conversely if you oppose one you should oppose them all.”
Forgive me for saying this, but that sounds very ‘un-dialectical’ to me!
I think a ‘consistent’ fan of the dialectic will be able to use this infinitely pliable ‘theory’ to justify whatever war/invasion is expedient, while condemning other similar wars on equally sound ‘dialectical’ lines. No other theory (other than perhaps Zen Buddhism) is this malleable.
So, it seems that you, too, just do not ‘understand’ dialectics. :-0
I give dozens of examples where the Maoists, Stalinists *and* Trotskyists (among others) do just this — justify whatever is opportune, *and* its opposite (sometimes in the same book, article or even speech!), here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm#CaseStudies
Thanks Rosa, that is precisely my point, like any other tool the dialectic can be used or misused, or applied where it is irrelevant.
To invoke it in defence of a bloody and horrific invasion with massive civilian casualties by an Imperial power is simply a low form of sycophancy. Especially when it comes from a source that once opposed a similar venture in Vietnam.
Dalec:
“Thanks Rosa, that is precisely my point, like any other tool the dialectic can be used or misused, or applied where it is irrelevant.”
There is in fact no objective way to tell whether or not ‘the dialectic’ has been applied ‘legitimately’. Certainly you have yet to show there is.
In fact, I’d go further: since this theory/method is far too confused for anyone to be able to say whether or not it is true/practical, there can’t be a ‘legitimate’ application of ‘the dialectic’.
We have already seen that if this ‘theory’ were true, change would be impossible, so it is a good job it can’t be applied.
In which case, I have still no idea why you accept it.
We opposed a fascist regime in South Vietnam and we opposed a fascist regime in Iraq. We were proven right on both occasions, and Bush jr and Condi Rice acknowledged as much. You may recall that she said, in Cairo, in 2005 that US foreign policy had basically been wrong for 60 years. She said: “For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East — and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people”. http://arabist.net/blog/2005/6/20/condoleezza-rices-remarks-from-her-cairo-speech-at-auc.html
She didn’t say that in order to confuse John Pilger and Tariq Ali but rather to send a message to the regional dictators whose opposition to the US invaders was no different to that of the daleks. The pity and tragedy is that the US has lost its nerve now… as witnessed by failure to appropriately lead military intervention on the side of the Syrian people.
PS – Rosa, isn’t it clear that dalec doesn’t accept the theory but merely mouths words around it?
Bjork:
“Rosa, isn’t it clear that dalec doesn’t accept the theory but merely mouths words around it?”
I think that this can be said with some truth about all of you. Why else would you (plural) accept a theory, which, if true, would make change impossible.
Hence, all you (plural) can do is regurgitate unworkable dogmas to which very few of you have given much thought.