Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On Jul 19, 12:03 pm, Tom Cod <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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 am, 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

I can appreciate your disgust for the misuse that has been made of
dialectics by intellectuals. However, you ignore the first part of the
quote from Trotsky where he expresses astonishment at Burnham and
Schactman's take it or leave it attitude to the dialectic. He shares
your disgust with the brand of philosophy as picked up in the
university but in no way dismisses trying to get an understanding of
humanity's great thinkers and using their insights as part of the
guide to practice for workers developing their party.

Anti-intellectualism has a sad history in the U.S. It has reached its
apogee in our current President. You say our task is simply to
organize the workers. There are no doubt major struggles are on the
agenda. But how can they be successful? It is not simply a matter of
the quantity of people involved. For a party to be successful it must
inspire the confidence of the working class by clearly laying out the
problems the working class confronts and developing a program for
their solution. Dialectics in its true sense (not in the university
talking shop sense) provides a guide to this practice. It bases itself
on a profound understanding of history (historical materialism) as a
guide to where we are and how we can go forward to a higher level of
civilization.

Your comment about understanding the nature of the Soviet Union in the
'40's indicates you have not read the entire article linked in the
quote I posted. Please read this as it address this issue and provides
an even more profound expostion on dialects than in the quote posted.
It is at:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/09-pbopp.htm