Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

But to develop learning and knowledge among workers or anyone else,
the first thing to do is try and inculcate a spirit of critical
thinking and skepticism which would turn a critical eye towards the
pretentions of philospophers who proclaim in the manner of pharasaical
priests that a study of obscure sacred texts is a precondition for
political action which in the sectarian tradition has meant seeking to
divert people away from mass struggle into some rathole for study
groups until they become some demoralized by this ossified exercise
that they drop out.

I was a little too glib, however, in responding to the remark about
how I must have studied books in law school and therefore the workers
must, by saying workers aren't lawyers.  I should have added that I
may have studied books in law school, but certainly nothing as obtuse
and irrelevant as Hegel.  I think more than anything workers and
people should study history because it is their that the lessons of
life applicable to political struggle today can be most effectively
gleaned and individuals become more politically aware and not through
Ptolemaic philosophy that seeks to glibly "rationalize" bad facts by
suggesting folks really aren't seeing all the nuances and
contradictions, that "dialectics" can explain this away in the manner
of some medieval doctrine or ideological smokescreen.

Thus as to the example of In Defense of Marxism, the concrete issue
was the Soviet Union.  Personally  I don't think that analyzing that
issue is a function of a philosophy that gives one a predetermined
answer, rather a critically minded person would be more inspired to
investigate the facts of what the Soviet Union was in itself and in
relation to its context in confronting this issue which Trotsky did
exactly. Thus for me, books like Norman Davies, "No Simple Victory"
about the Russo-German War, which I might not agree with, constitute
more productive mental exercize in reading in dealing with this
issue.  Were tens of thousands of Polish officers killed by the Soviet
Army at the Katyn Forest or not?  What is the signifcance of that
fact?  Does it in fact pale in comparison with the horrors inflicted
by the Nazis etc etc. (BTW, while Davies has much bad to say about the
USSR, one thing he does give it credit for is its immense military
contribution to the outcome of WW2).

Although in the legal world we may have certain philosophical
precepts, human equality, social justice, presumption of innoncece
etc, in confronting a case first we proceed in the spirit of
empiricism to see what the facts are: is that really OJ Simpson's DNA
on that item or not? etc.  We must first become conversant in the
facts before we pretentiously take about what "method", pharasaical or
not, to employ in analyzing them.  I learned more about Marxism,
although my intitial academic study of it was fruiftul, in my first
week working in a factory, than years of tedium in study groups would
have provided.


On Jul 1, 10:58=A0am, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The pretense to understand dialectics is widespread among self-
> proclaimed Marxists. Recall the emphasis that one James Paris placed
> on dialectics as the method by which he arrived at his political
> conclusions. It is extremely easy to brag about such understanding.
> Almost as easy to fool oneself into thinking one has it. The self-
> deception usually involves mistaking the ability to provide examples
> with understanding.
>
> srd