Internet Explorer 11 will no longer play the videos I have posted to
this page. 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 these videos play in IE11 if you have
upgraded to Windows 10! It looks like the problem is with Windows 7 and
earlier versions of Windows.]
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 then add this site (anti-dialectics.co.uk). Microsoft's new browser,
Edge, automatically
renders these links compatible; Windows 10 also automatically makes IE11
compatible with this site.
However, if you are using Windows 10,
Microsoft's browsers, IE11 and Edge, colour these links somewhat erratically.
They are meant to be dark blue, but those two browsers render them
intermittently mid-blue, light blue, yellow, purple and red!
Firefox and Chrome reproduce these
links correctly.
~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~
Nothing
at this site should be read as an attack
either on Historical Materialism [HM] -- a theory I fully accept --, or,
indeed,
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
over thirty years ago.
That
puts the lie to the
accusation that those who abandon 'the dialectic' soon abandon Marxism.
The
difference between
Dialectical Materialism [DM] and HM, as I see it, is explained
here.
'Hegelism is
like a mental disease; youcan't know what it is until
you get
it, and then you can't know because you have got it' --Max Eastman.
[Anyone who
objects to my quoting Max Eastman should read this, and then perhaps think again.]
Brief introductions to
the ideas presented at this
site and what it seeks to achieve can be found below,
here and
here.
A short summary of some of
my main objections to DM, and written for absolute
beginners, can be accessed
here.
I have adjusted the font
size at this site to ensure that even those with impaired vision
can read what I have to say.
If the font is still either too
big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!
Several readers have complained about the number
of links I have added to the material posted
at this site; that is because they say it makes my Essays very difficult
to read. Of course, DM-supporters can hardly lodge that complaint since they
believe everything is interconnected, and that must surely apply to
work that
attempts to debunk that
very idea.
However, to those who find these links do make
my Essays difficult to read I say this: ignore the links! -- Unless, of course, 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 added links to subjects
or topics that are part of common knowledge (such as recent Presidents of the
USA, UK Prime Ministers, the names of rivers and mountains, films, or certain
words in common use). 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. Some of my readers also struggle with English so any help I can give them
I will continue to provide.
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 endeavour to update these links when it becomes apparent
that they have changed or have died, I cannot 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,
Haloscan
links 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.
According to sources at
Marxism 2007, in response to a challenge that dialecticians
use obscure jargon concocted by ruling-class hacks over the last 2300
years in order to try to make their theory
work,
John Rees alleged that this site
also uses technical language.
Sure, some technical terminology
has been used at this site, but
this is merely a shorthand device; every such term has been
paraphrased in ordinary language (as
Marx himself enjoined of us). This can't
be said of the obscure jargon employed by dialecticians.
[What was that again about truth being tested in
practice...?]
However,
comrades can read a summary of the above events,
along with the original
intervention at Marxism 2007 (made by a supporter of this site)
--
here.
I recently
had a letter concerning Marx and Hegel published in
Socialist Worker.
Two
comrades replied, but my second response wasn't published.
Read the entire correspondence, and more,
here.
And here is another
letter I sent to the above paper; they didn't publish
that, either.
Here is yet another letter I sent in June 2008, which
they failed to publish, too.
In August
2008, a supporter of this site sent a letter to
Socialist Review, which
the editor
decided not to publish. You can read it
here.
In November 2008, the same
supporter sent another letter to
Socialist Review in response to
an
article on dialectics by John Rees.
The editor chose not to publish it, either. You can read that letter
here.
A comrade replied to my
letter; you can read the original letter, his reply and my response -- Engels
And Mickey Mouse Science --
here.
July 2012: A
supporter of this site sent a letter to Socialist Worker, which they
chose not to print. You can read it
here,
and then try to guess why the editors declined to publish it.
October 2012: The same supporter sent a couple
of letters to the editors of Socialist Review and Socialist Worker
in response to two articles about John Molyneux's new book, The Point Is To
Change It: Introduction To Marxist Philosophy.
They chose not to publish either of them (no
surprise there, then!). They can both be accessed
here.
Anyone trying to view these Essays with
Mozilla Firefox might find that some of the
symbols I have used won't show up on their screens;
in addition, the page formatting might change rather erratically.
The editor I have
used to write this material is Microsoft's FrontPage 2003,
which doesn't seem to 'like' Firefox.
01/04/20: I have once again
re-written Essay Four Part One -- Formal Logic Can Handle Change,
adding approximately 4300 words of new material, which makes it 3.6%
longer. I have again slightly reorganised the Essay, clarified the argument and corrected several
serious errors and
minor typos.
February 2020
10/02/20:
I have again
re-written Essay Four Part One -- Formal Logic Can Handle Change,
adding approximately 3300 words of new material, which makes it 2.8%
longer. I have also slightly reorganised the Essay, greatly clarified the argument and corrected several
serious errors and
minor typos.
January 2020
13/01/20: A close relative of
mine has spent the last two weeks converting my system to Windows 10,
which is one reason why there has been no activity on this site since late
December.
As noted above, if you are using
Edge, Windows 10 will render the links I have inserted in my
Essays (other than on this page!) several different colours. They should be dark
blue.
Firefox and Chrome
reproduce them correctly.
December 2019
16/12/19: Essay Three Part One
--
How Abstractionism Undermines Dialectics
-- has been completely re-written and re-organised. I have added just over
19,000 words of new material making it approximately 14% longer. I have also
corrected a few errors and typos and made the argument much clearer.
November 2019
10/11/19:
Essay Ten Part One:
Dialectical Materialism:
Refuted By Practice And History
has just been re-written and slightly re-structured. I have added
just short of 3500 words of new material, making it approximately 5%
longer. I have also corrected several errors and typos, and have
clarified my argument.
04/09/19: I wasn't too
happy with my last re-write of Essay Eight Part Three --Dialectical 'Logic' And Dialectical 'Contradictions'
Exposed As Incoherent
-- so I have re-written it once more. I have added another 3200 words of new
material, which means it is now about 4% longer. Again, I have corrected
several errors and typos as well as greatly clarifying the argument.
This Essay also contains the first detailed take-down of Michael
Kosok's lamentable attempt to 'formalise' Hegel's 'Logic'.
May 2019
01/05/19: Essay Five -- Motion Isn't
Contradictory -- has just been re-written and completely
re-organised. I have added about 6,000 words of new material (making it about 7%
longer), corrected a few errors and typos and clarified the argument.
February 2019
27/02/19: I have
just finished re-writing Essay Nine Part One --
Why Workers Will Always Reject
'Materialist Dialectics',
adding just over 2,000 words of new material, which makes the Essay about 2.6% longer. I have
also reorganised the Essay a little, clarified the argument and corrected a few errors and typos.
01/02/19:
I have again
re-written Essay Four Part One -- Formal Logic Can Handle Change,
adding approximately 6500 words of new material, which makes it 6%
longer. I have also slightly reorganised the Essay, clarified the argument and corrected several errors and
typos.
October 2018
I am having to move flats
since the owner of my flat defaulted on his mortgage and it was sold under his
feet.
There will be no more
updates for couple of months.
September 2018:
03/09/18: I have now
re-written Essay Eleven Part One --
The
'Totality' -- WTF Is It?
I have added
approximately 4,000 words of new material, making it 4% longer. I have also made
my argument clearer and corrected several errors and typos.
July 2018:
30/07/18: I have just
re-written and re-organised Essay Four Part One -- Formal Logic Can Handle Change.
I have added just over 5,000 words of new material, making it approximately 5%
longer. I have also made my argument clearer and corrected several errors and
typos.
04/06/18: I have
completely re-written and re-organised Essay Seven Part One --
Engels's Three 'Laws' Of Dialectics Debunked.
I have added 12,500 words of new material, making it approximately
7% longer, clarified the argument and corrected several errors and typos.
April 2018:
24/04/18: Essay Ten Part
One -- Dialectical Materialism:
Refuted By Practice And History
-- has just been re-written. I have added approximately 4,200 words
of new material (making it just under 6% longer), and corrected a few errors and
typos.
I have corrected several
errors and typos in both, adding approximately 6300 words of new material to
Essay Two (making it just under 5% longer) and about 5000 words of new material
to Four Part One (making it also about 5% longer).
February 2018:
14/02/18: I have just
published two more instalments in my long-running reply to a Confused
Marxist-Leninist, who posted two largely incoherent videos which tried to
respond to an Introductory Essay of mine -- i.e., Refuting a Weak Attempt to
Refute Me 11 & 12. All my replies to this individual, including the latest
two, can be accessed
here.
09/02/18: Essay Thirteen
Part Three -- 'Mind', Language, And 'Cognition'
-- has been completely re-written and reorganised. I have clarified
the argument, corrected several typos and errors and added over 11,000 words of
new material, making it approximately 6% longer.
January 2018:
25/01/18: Because it sets
up the other Essays at this site, I have completely re-written and re-organised
Essay Three Part One --
How Abstractionism Undermines
Dialectics.
It shows how core ideas Hegel dreamt up originated in Ancient Greek Metaphysics
and Medieval Theology (connected with the re-configuration of subject-predicate
sentences as identity propositions), and how this abstract approach to knowledge
has totally undermined, not just Dialectical Materialism, but the language used
by dialecticians to explain their theory.
I have reorganised this
Essay, clarified the argument considerably, corrected several serious errors and
annoying typos, and have added approximately 7500 words of new material, making
it about 6% longer.
December 2017:
18/12/17: Essay Eight Part
Two --
Why Opposing Forces Aren't Contradictions-- has just been
re-written. I have corrected several errors and typos, clarified the argument
and added approximately 12,000 words of new material, making it about 12%
longer.
04/12/17: I have just
re-written the opening Essay of this site -- Why I Began This
Project. The argument has been clarified, with 800 words of new
material added, making it approximately 2% longer.
November 2017:
15/11/17: The second edition of Richard Seymour's excellent book about
Jeremy Corbyn was published last month:
05/11/17: Because of its
complexity, I have just re-written Essay Eleven Part Two: Dialectical Wholism -- Full Of Holes
I have clarified the argument, corrected a few errors and typos, and added 3,400
words of new material (making it approximately 5% longer).
October 2017:
05/10/17: I have just re-written two
Essays:
(1) Essay Four Part
One: Formal Logic Can Handle Change.
I have completely re-designed this Essay and have also greatly clarified the
argument; I have also corrected a few errors and typos. Approximately 2,300
words of new material has been added, making it roughly 2.5% longer.
(2) Essay Five:
Why Motion Isn't Contradictory.
The argument has also been greatly clarified, and a few errors and typos
corrected. 3,500 words have been added, making it roughly 4% longer.
I have spent the last two
months re-writing the summaries of all the main Essays at this site, and I have
finished all but three of them. The re-written Essays can be accessed
here.
14/02/17: I have just
re-written Essay Three Part Two --
Abstractionism: 'Science' On The Cheap. I
have added approximately 8000 words of new material, making it about 10% longer.
I have also clarified the argument and corrected several errors and typos.
I have corrected a few
errors and typos and added just under 2000 words of new material, making it
approximately 2% longer.
December 2016:
12/12/16:
Essay Five --
Why Motion Isn't Contradictory
has just been
re-written. I have clarified the argument considerably, corrected a few errors
and typos with just over 2500 words of new material, making it approximately 3%
longer.
November 2016:
28/11/16: I have just
finished re-writing Essay Nine Part One --
Why Workers Will Always Reject
'Materialist Dialectics',
adding 8,000 words of new material making the Essay just over 12% longer. I have
also clarified the argument and corrected a few errors and typos.
12/11/16:
Essay Ten Part One --
Dialectical Materialism:
Refuted By Practice And History
has just be re-written and re-organised to make the argument clearer and run
more smoothly, adding approximately 6,000 words of new material, making it 8%
longer. I have also corrected a few errors and typos.
I am also in the middle of
replying to another largely incoherent video published by 'The
Finnish Bolshevik'. The first four of my responses can be accessed
here,
here,
here, and
here.
~~~~oOo~~~~
I am in the middle of
reformatting the Essays published at this site, replacing much of the garish red
font with black. I am also having to correct several other serious formatting
glitches mysteriously introduced by the editor I have used, Microsoft's
FrontPage. This should take another two or three weeks to complete.
August 2016:
18/08/16: I have just
finished re-writing Essay Eight Part Two -- Why Opposing
Forces Aren't Contradictions --
adding just over 18,000 words of new material, making it approximately 22%
longer. I have also clarified the argument and corrected several errors and
typos.
In addition, I have
added a section on Immanuel Kant's attempt to
introduce 'real opposition'/'negation' into philosophy, which 'concept', we are
told, was integral to Hegel's own invention of 'dialectical contradictions'.
I have also critically
analysed
Tom Weston's attempt to link a throw-away
remark Marx added to Volume One of Das Kapital (about elliptical motion)
to Hegel's confused introduction of 'dialectical contradictions'.
I will say more about
Weston's ill-considered article in a later re-write of
Essay Nine Part
One.
13/08/16: A couple of
months ago I re-wrote Essay Six --
Trotsky And Hegel -- Or, How To Misconstrue The 'Law' Of Identity,
but on re-reading it, it was apparent that the argument wasn't as clear as it
could or should be.
I have now re-written it again, adding just under 3,000 words of new material, making it approximately
5%
longer still, greatly clarifying the argument and correcting several errors and
typos.
I have also clarified the argument and corrected several errors and
typos.
12/06/16: Last year, a
self-styled 'Marxist-Leninist' (who calls himself 'The Finnish Bolshevik' [TFB])
published a video at YouTube criticising an Essay I wrote some time ago
at the behest of one or two younger comrades who wanted a basic introduction to
my criticisms of DM. I subsequently published a reply to this video, but TFB has
now posted a second video at YouTube attempting to respond to a few of my
replies to him.
[Links to the first video
and my replies to it can be found at the above link.]
04/06/16: I have just finished re-writing Essay Four Part One -- Formal Logic And
Change.
I have added approximately 13,500 words of new material, making it roughly 17%
longer. I have also clarified the argument and corrected several errors and
typos.
May 2016:
04/05/16: I have just finished re-writing Essay Six --
Trotsky And Hegel -- Or, How To Misconstrue The 'Law' Of Identity.
I have added just over 5,000 words of new material, making it approximately 11%
longer. I have also clarified the argument and corrected several errors and
typos.
04/05/16: Here's a new
book by Richard Seymour I can heartily recommend:
Up-to-date
analysis of how Corbyn rose to the head of the Labour Party, and
his prospects for staying there.
Jeremy
Corbyn, the 'dark horse' candidate for the Labour leadership,
won and won big. With a landslide in the first round, this
unassuming antiwar socialist crushed the opposition,
particularly the Blairite opposition.
For the first time in decades, socialism is back on the agenda
-- and for the first time in Labour’s history, it controls the
leadership. The party machine couldn't stop him. An almost
unanimous media campaign couldn't stop him. It is as if their
power, like that of the Wizard of Oz, was always mostly
illusion. Now Corbyn has one chance to convince the public to
support his reforming ambitions.
Where did he come from, and what chance does he have? This book
tells the story of how Corbyn's rise was made possible by the
long decline of Labour and a deep crisis of British democracy.
It surveys the makeshift coalition of trade unionists, young and
precarious workers, and students, who rallied to Corbyn. It
shows how a novel social media campaign turned the media's
'Project Fear' on its head, making a virtue of every accusation
they threw at him. And finally it asks, with all the artillery
that is still ranged against Corbyn, and given the crisis-ridden
Labour Party that he has inherited, what it would mean for him
to succeed.
April 2016:
24/04/16:
I have just finished re-writing Essay Eleven Part Two --
Dialectical Wholism -- Full Of Holes.
I have added just over 3,000 words of new material, making it approximately 5%
longer. I have also clarified the argument and corrected several errors and
typos.
17/04/16: Having
re-written Essay Three Part One, I thought it wise to do the same to its sequel,
Essay Three Part Two --
Abstractionism: 'Science' On The Cheap. I
have added approximately 4000 words of new material, making it about 5% longer.
I have also clarified the argument and corrected several errors and typos.
02/04/16:
I have just finished re-writing Essay Three Part One --
How Abstractionism Undermines Language And Science. I have added just over
25,000 words of new
material, making it approximately 26% longer. I have also clarified the argument
and corrected several errors and typos.
However, the biggest
change is that I have added an Appendix which contains a detailed criticism of
an attempt to defend Hegel against criticisms advanced by
Bertrand Russell.
February 2016:
10/02/16:
Essay Thirteen Part One --
Lenin's Disappearing Definition Of Matter
-- has just been re-written. I have added just over 3,000 words of new material,
making it approximate Ely 4% longer. I have also clarified the argument and
corrected several errors and typos.
02/02/16:
I have just finished re-writing Essay One -- Why I Began This
Project. I have added approximately 3,000 words of new
material, making it roughly 10% longer. I have also clarified the argument
and corrected several errors and typos.
January 2016:
22/01/16:
I have just finished re-writing Essay Seven Part One -- Engels's
Three 'Laws' Debunked. I have added just over 15,000 words of new
material, making it approximately 10% longer. I have also clarified the argument
and corrected several errors and typos.
I have added just over 1000 words
of new material, making it approximately 2% longer. I have also made the argument
clearer and have corrected several errors and typos.
November 2015:
27/11/15: I have just
finished yet another re-write of Essay Eleven Part One -- The 'Totality'
-- WTF Is It?
I have added just short of 14,000 words
of new material, making it approximately 12% longer. I have also made the argument
clearer and have corrected several errors and typos.
I have re-written this
Essay again so soon after the last re-write because, as I say in the preamble, I wasn't happy with the way I had approached this topic.
This means that it
will have to be re-jigged many more times before I am content with the end
product.
I have added 11,000 words
of new material, making it just over 10% longer. I have also made the argument
clearer and have corrected several errors and typos.
10/08/15: I recently
spotted an article in Weekly Worker written by Jack Conrad that attempted
to defend both DM and the traditional view that Marx and Engels were of one mind
when it came to that theory/method.
I wrote a 2000 word reply
which they published in edited form
as a letter.
I have added just over 6000 words of new material, making the Essay approximately
8% longer. I have
also clarified the argument, and corrected several mistakes and typos.
18/06/15: Over the last
three or four months my time has largely been occupied correcting the formatting
problems at this site (mentioned
above). That onerous task is now nearly complete.
The next Essay to be
published at this site -- devoted to DM and Science -- should appear before the
end of the year.
I have added just under 4000 words of new material, making the Essay approximately
6% longer. I have
clarified the argument, and corrected several mistakes and typos.
I have made the
argument clearer and added about 3000 words of new material, making the Essay
approximately 7% longer.
20/12/14: A few years ago
(and long before their
disastrous handling of rape allegations made
against a former leading member of the UK-SWP) I wrote a letter to Socialist
Worker about, would you believe, Gödel's theorem.
I made the point that
the results of that theorem should only be accepted by Platonists.
They chose not to publish
it.
Since then, I have been
regularly adding new material to a series of addendums to that letter. I have
now added the
latest batch of new material (which largely relates to a paper I have
just read that was written by a Professor of Mathematics concerning the
incoherence of the idea that there are, or could be, infinite sets).
I have added just over
5000 words of new material, making the Essay approximately 7% longer. I have
clarified the argument, and corrected several mistakes and typos.
November 2014:
15/11/14: I have just
received a copy of
Henri Wald's seriously mis-titled
Introduction To Dialectical Logic. I would have obtained this work long ago,
but copies on the Internet were far too expensive. However, a few weeks ago, one
became available in my price range.
This book is, however, a
classic example of how not to introduce a topic, since it is full of
technical jargon and seems to have been written by someone who believes that if
a complicated and incomprehensible sentence can be substituted for simpler
words, then that on its own somehow elevates any thought it attempts to
communicate into a superior form of philosophy. This is typical of Traditional
Thought in this area, and, as several Essays published at this site show,
dialecticians are only
too keen to demonstrate how traditional and
conservative they are in
this respect.
Be this as it may, Wald
has made some attempt to respond to several criticisms I have levelled against
this ruling-class import into the workers' movement (clearly without any
knowledge of my work, since Wald's book was published long before I began to
write these Essays!). That being the case, over the next few months I will be
adding (to several of my Essays) a series of rebuttals to Wald's rather weak
attempt to defend this indefensible theory [DM].
I have made numerous small
changes, corrected several errors and typos -- as well as adding about 5000 words of new
material, making the Essay approximately 10% longer.
Nearly 5,000 words of new material
have been added (making the Essay approximately 7% longer), several
errors and typos have been corrected, and the argument has been clarified
throughout.
I have added just over
10,000 words of new material (making the Essay approximately 10% longer),
corrected several
errors and typos, and clarified the argument considerably.
I have added over
13,000 words of new material (making the Essay approximately 7% longer),
corrected several
errors and typos, and clarified the argument.
I have added just under
21,000
words of new material (making it approximately 28% longer), corrected several
errors and typos, and have made the argument much clearer.
I have added about 6500
words of new material (making it approximately 7% longer), corrected several
errors and typos, and have made the argument much clearer.
March 2014:
23/03/2014: A
new book by a friend of mine has just been
published:
Here is the blurb from the
publishers website:
"Five years into
capitalism's deepest crisis, which has led to cuts and economic pain across the
world, Against Austerity addresses a puzzling aspect of the current
conjuncture: why are the rich still getting away with it? Why is
protest so ephemeral? Why does the left appear to be marginal to political life?
"In an analysis which challenges our understanding of capitalism, class and
ideology, Richard Seymour shows how 'austerity' is just one part of a wider
elite plan to radically re-engineer society and everyday life in the interests
of profit, consumerism and speculative finance.
"But Against Austerity is not a gospel of despair. Seymour argues that
once we turn to face the headwinds of this new reality, dispensing with
reassuring dogmas, we can forge new collective resistance and alternatives to
the current system. Following Brecht, Against Austerity argues that the
good old things are over, it's time to confront the bad new ones."
January 2014:
20/01/14: I have just
begun work on a new addition to this site: Essay Twelve Part Four --
Dialectical Materialism And Linguistic Idealism. Is Nature 'Rational'?
This Essay continues from
where Essays Three
Part One and Twelve
Part One
left off and examines the 'world-view' DM-theorists inherited from Mystical
Christianity and
Hermetic Philosophy, via Hegel (upside down or
'the right way up') -- i.e., that 'reality' not only has a 'rational' structure,
humans beings (in the shape of DM-theorists) can comprehend it.
28/12/13: I am at the moment putting
the final touches to a new Essay (which is in fact a complete re-write of material
drawn from
several other Essays): Essay Seven Part Three -- Why Dialectical
Materialism Can't Explain Change.
I am posting the updates
as they are being written, but I hope to have the Essay finished before
the end of next week.
However, if you are using Internet Explorer 10,
you might find some of the links I have used in both of the above won't work
properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu).
These two items
unfortunately also contain a few rather annoying typos (and bad links); these
will be corrected and the final versions will appear here at a later date.
Approximately
1,500 words of new material has been added (thus making the Essay just over 3% longer).
I have also corrected several errors and typos, and clarified the argument.
Approximately
3,000 words of new material have been added (thus making the Essay just over 6% longer).
I have also corrected several errors and typos, and clarified the argument.
I have added approximately
3,500 words of new material (thus making the Essay nearly 6% longer), corrected
several errors and typos. I have also clarified the argument.
09/09/13: I have just
written a reply to a comrade who criticised my Essay on Wittgenstein -- Hit The
Bottle.
04/09/13: I have also
republished John Moran's path-breaking New Left Review article --
Wittgenstein And Russia -- originally published in May-June 1972.
This Essay contains
original research into the links between Hegel, Marx, Engels, and
Wittgenstein's work not spotted before by anyone, including myself.
In the Introduction and
Conclusion I also explain my motivation
for writing this Essay and why this isn't just an academic exercise.
August 2013
08/08/13: I am putting the
finishing touches to a new Essay -- Was Wittgenstein A Leftist?
28/05/13: At the request
of one or two comrades who are interested in my ideas, I have responded to a new
batch of critics of my ideas over at
RevLeft.
The following Essays
will be published at this site over the coming months and years -- those inblue have already been published, those in crimson haven't:
These are
articles written by other anti-dialecticians who have developed some of
the ideas published at this site. Visitors shouldn't assume, however, that I
agree with everything they contain.
The above page contains links to forums on the web where I have 'debated' this creed
with other comrades.
For anyone
interested: check out the desperate 'debating' tactics used by Dialectical
Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas.
You
will no doubt notice that the vast majority all say the same sorts of things, and
most of them pepper their remarks with scatological and abusive language. They
all like to make things up, too, about me and my beliefs. [Here
is a particularly egregious recent example of the lies they spin.]
30+
years (!!) of this from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now take an
aggressive stance toward them every time -- I soon learnt back in the 1980s that
being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) didn't alter by one jot their abusive tone,
their propensity to fabricate, nor reduce the amount of scatological language
they threw at me.
So,
these days, I generally go for the
jugular from the
get-go.
Apparently, they expect me to take their abuse lying down, and regularly
complain about my "bullying" tactics.
These mystics can dish it out, but they
plainly can't take it.
[Several of the above are no
longer being updated!]
It is worth adding that I do not necessarily agree with everything
published at the above sites; indeed, John Molyneux's otherwise excellent
blog
endorses the very theory under attack here!
The above Essay shows that, contrary to a
widely held view on the left, Wittgenstein wasn't a
conservative mystic. In which case, there is now no good reason why his ideas
shouldn't be given a fair hearing by revolutionaries.
However, visitors would be wrong conclude from
its title that the above Essay is all about 'dialectics' and
its effect on Marxism.
It is just as much about the class origin of
the founders of our movement (and the class position of those who control its ideas today), as it is about that
theory.
As such it breaks entirely new ground, as anyone who reads
it will soon
see -- providing for the first time a historical materialist explanation why
our movement so often fails and why almost everything that we on the
Revolutionary Left touch sooner or later becomes corrupted, falls apart, and then turns to dust.
A much shorter version of the above Essay
can be accessed
here.
Ex-SWP members, who left the organisation
because of its disastrous handling of this crisis have set up their
own
website.
Unfortunately, the creeping Stalinism of
the SWP seems to have carried over into this new site, for my posts
there are now being
deleted.
[I was allowed one post, but my reply to
Andy Wilson (follow the above link) was deleted. In fact, I am now being
told: "You do not have permission to post in this thread",
even when I am not banging on about 'dialectics'!]
It seems that any old material
concerning the
thoughts of assorted latter-days
Neo-Platonists,
Hermeticists and bourgeois apriorists -- such as
Raya Dunayevskaya, Zizek, Freud,
Lacan,
Heidegger, or the Lenin of the Philosophical Notebooks
-- is welcome, but the comments of a comrade who challenges such
mysticism aren't.
Another SWP break-away group have set up
their own much more successful website and incipient movement,
here.
~~~~oOo~~~~
July 2012: A supporter of this site sent a letter to Socialist Worker,
which they chose not to publish. You can read it
here.
October 2012: The same supporter sent a couple
of letters to the editors of Socialist Review and Socialist Worker
in response to two articles about John Molyneux's new book, The Point Is To
Change It: Introduction To Marxist Philosophy.
They chose not to publish either of them (no
surprise there!). Both can be accessed
here.
I have posted a few comments about John's book,
here. I will add
several more later this year.
Back in 2007, a
leading member of the CPGB (Jack Conrad) wrote an article in
Weekly Worker criticising a few of the ideas found at this
site, and expressed in an earlier
article of mine.
Initially, I was quite shocked at how superficial and
irrelevant this important comrade's response was.
I was in fact banned for censuring a
handful of male comrades who seemed quite happy to use the 'c'
word -- which is ironic since Socialist Unity
pretends to be a supporter of feminism.
Neutral observers can, of course, draw their
own conclusions!
Apparently, Andy Newman, the big cheese over
there, doesn't want anyone to be reminded he was/is a
supporter of this mystical theory (Dialectical Materialism)
now that he is cuddling up to the Labour Party.
So, before I was banned, he regularly
deleted any comments of mine that alluded to his former
'philosophical' allegiances, no matter how mild or nuanced
they were.
Looks like Stalinism is
the default position of most DM-fans!
Unfortunately, all links to
Socialist Unity are now dead.
However, the first two
links above have preserved much of the aforementioned
'debate'.
Those who would like a
relatively short (but
very basic) introduction to the aims of this site should
read
the Introductory Essay: Why I Oppose
Dialectical Materialism.
I have now written this
much shorter, and even more basic, summary of some of my main objections to
Dialectical Materialism:
Anti-Dialectics
For Dummies.
There is also a
single
page précis
of some of my main objections to DM,
here.
This was in fact an
article I wrote for Weekly Worker (published in September 2007).
Those who would like
a more
detailed summary of my main
objections to Dialectical Materialism should begin
here.
The
Main Index to my
extended Essays can be found
here.
The complete
irrelevance of 'Materialist Dialectics' to the class struggle
is underlined in
these
dialogues (written and contributed by my
collaborator, 'Babeuf').
Unfortunately,
Babeuf has written no more dialogues, but a new blog posting similar
dialogues has just started up.
I regularly
check the internet to see if thesenumpties have had
another go at my ideas; sure enough they have. My
response is however PG-rated; sensitive souls might like to
avert their eyes. In fact, I am presumptuous enough to emulate
Lenin's approach to critics.
[Soon after, the individual
concerned resigned from the UK-SWP.]
This is a site which is
also devoted to
anti-dialectics, and which is well worth visiting -- if you speak
French -- although Google Translator should be able to
render it into English.
And
here's a Blog which argues
along lines similar to those explored at this site. While I
do not agree with everything this author says, much of it
strikes me as excellent.
Once again, please note that nothingposted at this site is intended to undermine Historical Materialism [HM] -- a theory I fully
accept -- or, indeed, 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 over thirty years
ago.
Dialectical Materialism
[DM] and 'Materialist
Dialectics' [MD] have been the official philosophies of active
revolutionary socialists for over a hundred and thirty
years.
During that time
Dialectical Marxism has 'enjoyed' spectacularlack
of success.
[Note my use of the
term 'Dialectical Marxism' -- the non-dialectical version hasn't been road
tested yet. On the difference between HM and DM, see
here.]
Given the fact that
dialecticians assure us that truth is tested in practice, and that DM is the
main-spring of all they do, this can only mean that this 'theory' has been
tested and shown to fail.
However, not only is it virtually impossible for most
Dialectical Marxists to accept this negative picture of their own
disastrous history, it is more difficult still for them to blame it
even so much as partially on the
misbegotten theory they have imported from Hegel (upside down or 'the right way
up').
In fact, it doesn't even make the
bottom of the reserve list.
This
must mean that
in a world where dialecticians claim that everything is interconnected, the only
two things in the entire universe that are not inter-linked are the long-term
failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory: DM!
Unfortunately, such denial means that
Dialectical Marxists never seem to learn from theirmistakes --, they just blame their long-term failure on anything and everything else.
Naturally, this just leads
to
yet more failures, and the cycle continues year after
year.
This site has been set up to
substantiate the above allegations, as well as to advance
several more; among which are the following:
To avoid misunderstanding, it is worth emphasising that my argument here isn't as follows:
Dialectical Marxism has failed, therefore DM is false. My argument is:
(1) DM makes
no sense whatsoever so,
(2) No wonder it has failed us for so long.
This site is also aimed at establishing
point (1) so that (2) may safely be inferred from it.
Of course, highly
controversial claims like these require a considerable amount
of proof; that is why
the Essays posted at this site enter into such unprecedented detail.
Unfortunately, when I write short articles, dialecticians complain about their
"superficiality". Then, in response to my greatly extended Essays,
they moan that they are too long!
The
plain fact is, of course, that dialecticians already have the truth, and despite what
Lenin said (about no theory being final), they treat theirs as if it had been
delivered to them from on high on stone tablets.
Despite their belief that all change is the result of contradiction,
dialecticians do not like to be contradicted.
Nevertheless,
those who like their Internet articles short and to the point can read
brief summaries of all the main Essays
here.
In August 2006, I added an 'Absolute Beginners'
page, and in the summer of 2007
I published an even shorter Essay, 'Anti-Dialectics
For Dummies' -- which was written for those who find even these
summaries either too long or difficult.
In
fact, there is now a one page précis of my main objections
here.
As predicted, some DM-fans
have complained about the superficiality of these summaries!
Great care
has been taken with these Essays; they have been distilled from work I
have been doing for the last twenty years, even
though I have been mulling over these ideas
for over thirty. Literally thousands of hours have gone into
writing, re-writing and re-thinking this material. In addition, I have spent
more money than I care to mention obtaining literally
thousands of obscure books, theses, articles and papers on a whole range
of topics directly or indirectly connected with DM.
In that case, anyone who
can't bring to this discussion the seriousness it deserves
is encouraged to go and waste their time elsewhere. I am not interested in
engaging with clowns.
Essay One
expands on the above comments, and explains:
(i) Why I
began this project,
(ii) Why the tone I have adopted is unremittingly hostile
toward this theory, and,
(iii) Why
I have gone into such unprecedented detail.
(1) It is important to
emphasise from the outset that I am notblaming the
long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism solely on the acceptance of
the
Hermetic ideas dialecticians
have importedfrom Hegel.
It is worth repeating this since I still
encounter comments on Internet Discussion Boards, and still receive e-mails from
those who claim to have read the above words, who still think I am blaming all
our woes on dialectics.
I am not.
However, no matter how many times I
repeat the above caveat, the message will not sink in -- and that is after
several years of continually making this
very point!
It seems this is one part of the
universe over which the
Heraclitean Flux
has no hold!
And
here are even more recent examples (in the comments section at the bottom).
What
is being claimed,
however, is that
adherence to this 'theory' is one of the subjective reasonswhy
Dialectical Marxism has become a bye-word for failure.
There are other, objective reasons why the class enemy still runs the planet,
but since revolutions require revolutionaries with ideas in their heads, this
'theory' must take some of the blame.
So, it is alleged here that dialectics has
been an important contributoryfactor.
It
certainly helps
explain why
revolutionary groups are
in general vanishingly small,
neurotically sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative,
inconsistently deferential to 'tradition', and almost invariably
lean toward some form
of
substitutionism.
Naturally, this has had a direct bearing on
ourlack of impact on the working class over the last
seventy years or so -- and probably
for
much longer-- and thus on the continuing success of Capitalism.
I
hope I'm wrong about this, but bitter experience over the last
twenty-five years 'debating' with the DM-faithful tells me I am talking to
comrades with stoppered ears and
closed minds. Internet 'discussions' have merely confirmed (if not
greatly amplified) this
negative impression.
Nevertheless, a
marker has to be put down by someone.
Someone has to try to
prevent younger
comrades from catching this
Hermetic virus.
(3) Now, if Dialectical Marxism were a ringing success,
it is I who would be on the defensive, and dialecticianscould
rightly ignore these Essays.
However, it
is over one hundred and fifty years since the Communist Manifesto
was published, and we still do not have a Workers' State
anywhere
on the planet --, despite the fact
that the working class can now be
numbered in the billions and is by far and away
the biggest class on earth.
Indeed, we seem to be
further away from that goal than the Bolsheviks were in 1917!
[The fact that openly
fascist and right-wing parties led the revolt in the Ukraine is irrelevant to
the point I am making: if they can fight armed police on the streets, why
couldn't Russian workers do the same to defend 'their state' back in 1991? The
question answers itself: it wasn't 'their state' and hadn't been since the early
1920s.]
In late September 2014 we saw the streets of
Hong Kong blocked by tens of thousands of
protesters demanding "free and fair elections", and in June 2015, we
saw
tens of thousands of protesters in Yerevan,
capital city of Armenia, prevent an electricity price hike!
So, ordinary workers in Lebanon will protest rubbish collection, and
face up to riot police, but the tens of millions of workers in the former
Soviet Union (fSU) and Eastern Europe, supposedly the most powerful working class in
history, allegedly in control of the state, the police, the military, the courts,
the unions,
and the media, couldn't be bothered to lift one finger in defence of 'socialism'.
Figure Twenty-Seven: 1991 --
Dramatic Scenes From The Former USSR
As Massed Ranks Of Workers
Defend 'Their' State
[Yes, it's supposed to be deserted since it
was!]
The above events are all
the more ironic when we witnessed (in
December 2011) tens of thousands of Russian workers protesting
against vote-rigging, facing down Vladimir Putin's uniformed bully-boys.
Figures Twenty-Eight And Twenty-Nine: Moscow
--
Not
1991 -- But 2011
The population of Russia is
plainly prepared to defend even limited forms of bourgeois democracy, but
apparently not their 'workers' state' back in 1991!
Compare the passivity of workers in the
Communist Block back in 1989/91 with the above, or with way that ordinary citizens responded to
the
attempted coup in Turkey in July 2016. There, workers
in their tens of thousands poured on to the streets, lying down in front of tanks, to defend even
this fractured and corrupt bourgeois democracy --
with more than 200 killed and over 2000 wounded.
Video Three: Not
Soviet Russia In 1953, 1956, Or Even 1991
But Turkey, July 2016
In the following video, a
Turkish citizen lies down in front of
two tanks (warning,
graphic imagery -- the man suffered a damaged right arm in the end, but he
survived and was later interviewed by
BBC News):
Video Four: Are Turkish Workers Braver
Than Soviet
Workers?
In
the first eleven months of 2019 we have witnessed mass protests across the
globe, in the following countries, among others:
Given the
above, the
only two conclusions possible here are the following:
(i) Russian workers,
despite being the most powerful and well-organised working class in human
history, allegedly in control not only of one of the mightiest military forces
on the planet, but the unions, the police, the party, the state bureaucracy, the
courts, and the media (etc., etc.), were in fact the most cowardly and
pusillanimous working class ever, or,
(ii) The former Soviet Union
wasn't socialist and workers were glad to see the back of it. More-or-less the same can be
said about the workers in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria,
East Germany, Yugoslavia, and Albania.
On top of this, communist partiesthe world overhave adopted
market forms of
capitalism,
and, despite
the rhetoric, most have embraced openly
reformist
policies.
[I have responded to an attempt by a
Stalinophile to criticise the above,
here.]
Trotskyism is,
if anything, in even worseshape. It is riddled with
cavernous
divisions and warring
sects. With few exceptions, its
countless parties are
vanishingly small, constantly at each other's
throats, and
rabidly
sectarian.
Hence, Dialectical Trotskyism iseven less successful than
Maoism and Stalinism have been -- well, is
there a Trotskyist Workers' State anywhere on earth? Has there ever been?
And I say that as a
Trotskyist!
Sure, we could point to Russia in 1917, but even that has gone
backwards!
[The idea that DM was of central importance to
the Bolsheviks in 1917 has been laid to rest
here.]
Unfortunately, because of its propensity to provoke
endless
splits (its one genuine growth area), Trotskyism
isnow a standing
joke:
Video Five: 'The Life Of Brian'
Libertarian Communism, too, is almost non-existent,
and is thus politically impotent -- but, for all their
chest
beating, you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise. In fact, this is one of the few areas
of Dialectical Marxism that makes Trotskyism look successful in comparison!
Furthermore, Marxist (revolutionary)
parties have not noticeably benefited from theworld-wide radicalisation created by the
Anti-Globalisation
Movement, the
unprecedented world-wide opposition mounted against
the 'allied' invasions of Iraq and
Afghanistan, workers' opposition to 'austerity', the determined resistance to
the Racist-in-Chief (President Trump), or the global movement protesting
anthropogenic global warming.
Comparethat
with the way many
of the above parties grew
in the first half of the 20th century, or in the 1960s and
1970s.
Compare it, too, with the way
that non-Marxist, anarchist, anti-capitalist (and thus largely
non-dialectical), or autonomist and single-issue groups
have grown since 1999. In the UK, for example, widespread radicalisation
only seems to have affected the
UK Labour Party since 2015.
For most people, rightly or wrongly,
Dialectical Marxism has become a by-word for
boorish sectarianism, petty in-fighting, bureaucratic authoritarianism,
mindless inertia,
systematic oppression, brutal mass murder, widespread denial of freedom, and
vicious dictatorship.
[This shouldn't be taken to mean I think this shameful record can't
be changed for
the better. That is, after all, one of the reasons why I began this project!]
And yet, there are comrades who
will tell youwith a straight facethat
Dialectical Marxism isaringing
success, since it has been 'tested in practice'!
Such benighted souls will not respond to
anything I have to say (even if they were listening); pathological
myopia of this order of magnitude requires professional help.
Figure Thirty-One: Dialectical
Marxism
--
'Tested In Practice'
Dialecticians claim that
DM/MD is the dynamic heart of both Marxist
politics and material reality, and that it is the guiding light of all
they do.
If revolutionary practice has dialectics stamped all over it
and 'truth is tested in practice' --
and if the vast bulk of that practice has failed -- the inescapable conclusion is that
practice has refuted dialectics.
Because
its supporters claim such a prominent role for
DM/MD in their practice, thefailure of the subjective side ofDialectical Marxism points nowhere else but here.
[Clearly, only those who reject the idea that truth is tested in practice
should feel confident enough
to resist that
particular conclusion.]
To those who think this is
an Idealist explanation for the failure of Dialectical Marxism: In fact, I
advance historical and materialist reasons
(based on ideas floated by Marx and Lenin)
why dialectics has had this negative effect on the movement.
And to those who have read
the above, and who think I am claiming that Marxism is a failure: please read it again,
and note that I am referring to "Dialectical Marxism".
As I noted earlier: the non-dialectical
version hasn't been road tested
yet.
Hence, it is dialecticians who should be on the defensive.
They are
the ones who still adhere to a theory that has presided over 140+ years of almost
total failure.
In
that case, we
have no alternative; we have to re-think our ideas from
scratch, like the radicals we claim to be.
To that end,
I propose a suitably
radical starting point: the rejection of the theory that
history has already refuted: 'Materialist Dialectics'.
We can't keep blaming our failure on
workers' "false consciousness"
(a term, incidentally, unknown to Marx).
Dialectics isn't the "world-view of the proletariat",
since they know nothing of it, never have, and
never will.
Indeed, for several generations
workers have sent a
very clear message our way: they are
not the least bit interested in
Dialectical Mysticism, or in
those who peddle either it the version that has been put the
'right way up'.
So, if
change is indeed caused by "internal contradictions"
-- as dialecticians
allege --, let it begin here with
the many I have exposed in their theory.
In that case, comrades, you have nothing to lose but your
failed theory of change.
(4) Some might wonder how I can count myself as both a Leninist and a Trotskyist
while advancing such profound criticisms of the ideas that the
founders of both these traditions regarded as fundamental to Marxism.
Well, we can surely recognise Newton's genius while rejecting his
Alchemical and
Kabbalisticramblings, just as we can be
severely critical of him for wasting
so much time and effort on such worthless
rubbish.
The same comment applies to the
dialectical
writings of Engels, Lenin,
and Trotsky. Hence, even though
I hold their work inpolitics, economics and
historyin the highest regard, I am no less
dismissive of the mystical gobbledygook they imported
into our movement.
[Why I have left Marx out of the above is
explained
here and
here.]
In fact, and on the contrary, a slavish acceptance of everything these great
revolutionaries had to say
about
dialectics -- just because they said it, and just because the vast majority
of comrades think highly of it --, would be to spit on their graves.
Marxism is not a personality cult. If it
were, then Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would have been the first to turn their backs
on it.
The radical movement was built on a lack of respect for mindlesstradition like this.
Anyone who still prefers
the safe confines of dogma is encouraged instead to join the Roman Catholic
Church.
(5) Those who might be tempted to think that this is
"just another attack on dialectics" -- something the enemies of Marxism are
always attempting (since the dialectic in
history is "an abomination to the bourgeoisie",
etc., etc.) -- need only
reflect on the fact that revolutionaries like me attack dialectics
because it is by far and away the weakest aspect of
Marxist theory (a boast that is as easy to make as it is to substantiate -- as
the Essays posted at this site amply demonstrate), and this we do in order to strengthen,
not weaken,
Revolutionary Socialism.
On the other hand, our enemies attack dialectics simply because it is
such an easy target
--, and they do so for the opposite reasons.
We
have presented them with this'gift' for far too long.
We need to stop leading
with our chins.
(6) Much of
Academic Marxism has
largely been ignored in these Essays.
Rightly or wrongly, this site is aimed at impacting on the class war by
seeking to influence those actually involved in it. Since active revolutionaries still accept
-- to a greater or lesser extent --
classical forms of
DM/MD, they alone are being addressed in what follows.
Academic
Marxism (mercifully) has had no impact on the class struggle, or none of any note
--,
and
it probably never
will.
Very little
attempt has been made, therefore, to engage with this theoretical dead end.
It is also worth pointing out here that I am not just attacking 'Diamat' (i.e.,
the 'orthodox' Soviet Russian version of DM), but every aspect and
application of 'dialectics'.
Figure Thirty-Two: Academic Marxism
-- The Movie
Of course, there are notable exceptions to
these sweeping
generalisations, but they are just
that: exceptions.Some academic Marxists have fought,
and still fight,
alongside workers in the class war.
However, I can think of no work published by an academic
Marxist that has ever impacted on the class struggle (except perhaps negatively).
Such comrades, who spare no effort telling us that 'praxis' is a core
principle of Marxism, are clearly living on a different planet to the rest of
us, for their work has had no discernible impact on the class war!
(7) These Essays represent work in progress; hence they do not
necessarily reflect my final view.
I am only publishing this material on the Internet
because several comrades whose opinions I respect urged me to do so back in 2005
-- even though
the work you see before you is less than half complete. Many of my ideas are still in
the formative stage and need
considerable
attention devoted to them to
mature.
I estimate this project
will take another ten years to complete before it is fit to publish either here
in its final form or in hard copy.
All of these Essays will have radically
changed by then.
This work
will be updated regularly -- edited and re-edited
constantly --, its arguments clarified andprogressivelystrengthened as my
research continues (and particularly as my 'understanding' of Hegel develops).
So, visitors are encouraged to check back often.
As of April 2020,
I have posted
Essaysand other material
totalling
in excess of 3.5 million words.
This is
approximately 80% of all the material I have.
Far more will be added as my researches continue.
However, much of the second half of this work
still exists only in note form, so the
next set of
Essays will appear here far more slowly than the first.
Anyone who
objects to the length of these Essays should rather pick a fight with Marx,
Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin
and Trotsky -- and Hegel -- whose
collected work easily dwarfs my own.
Even Zizek's latest book,
Less Than Nothing, easily dwarfs any one of
my Essays!
Figure
Thirty-Three: Exhibit A For The Defence --
Das Kapital
However, as noted above, whenever I post short summaries of my ideas, DM-fans
moan about their superficiality.
Then, if I enter into greater detail, they complain
even more about their length!
(8)
Finally, and most importantly: I can't emphasise strongly enough that
nothing written here is intended to undermine Revolutionary
Socialism -- or Historical Materialism [HM], a scientific theory I fully accept (provided
that the
pernicious influence of Hegel has been completely
excised).
HM will therefore be taken for granted.
This means that any non-Marxists
who visit this site are advised to go no further; this material
isn't intended for them.
Finally:
Several
critics have taken the above comments as
definitive of my entire work, and have therefore
read no further, when these are merely opening remarks that represent
about 0.001% of the material posted at this site!
This page
is deliberately provocative and isn't meant to contain water-tight
arguments; it is merely a statement of intent.
In contrast, the
Essays I have posted so far
are meant to be definitive. Whether
they succeed in reaching
that particularly high standard is, of course, another matter.
However, to date, no one has been able to
respond effectively to my Essays (including thisposeur).
Clearly, this superficial approachto my work, based solely on this page, makes about as much sense as
someone who reads the opening page
of the Preface to Das Kapital and judges all that Marx
ever wrote on the basis of
that!
