Re: dialectics

Phil Graham (pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au)
Thu, 04 Feb 1999 00:00:13 +1100

I know I probably shouldn't even be doing this but ...

Kellner, (1984) Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. London:
MacMillan (Chapter 2: Phenomenological Marxism?).

The philosophy to which Peter refers is the revisionist orthodoxy of
"historical determinist" dialectical materialism which was typical of the
second communist international (as exemplified from Lenin through to
Ilyenkov: Soviet Marxism). It's been tagged by some (like Horkheimer,
Kellner, Habermas, and Marcuse) as a kind of neo-Hegelianism because of its
dogmatic adherence to "laws". It requires (a priori) that:

1. In order to really know an object, one must grasp and investigate all
sides of the object, all its relations and "mediations" [assumes this
exhausts the object and it becomes truly known]

2. The object be taken in its development, in its "self-movement" [truly
known only in an historical sense - applies entelechy to whatever it "sees"]

3. The whole of human praxis must enter into the "definition" of the
object, as well as the critique of its truth [!]

4. "there is no abstract truth"; truth is always "concrete". [!!]

(cf V.I. Lenin "the fight for social revolution").

The idea of social "fallenness" in Marxism, however, is a distinctly
Marcusian revision via the incorporation of Heidegger's existential
phenomenology, thus 'ascendence to the concrete' becomes the "authentic"
radical act as 'concrete truth' for the individual (Kellner, 1984, pp.
39-49). It was also an attempt on Marcuse's part to collapse the
subject-object rift. Thus the (perhaps inevitable) inversion posited by
Marcuse which he later refuted. Existentialist phenomenology was a purely
Marcusian revision of Marx.

Marx, to my knowledge, never used the term "ascending to the concrete".
Indeed, his notions of social consciousness travelled in precisely the
opposite direction (eg postface to the 2nd edn of Capital; & especially,
German Ideology, Chapt 1). Marx's materialism 'descends from the highest
levels of abstraction' to answer the questions he poses (B. Fowkes,
(Trans.) in Capital Vol. 1, 1976, p. 29).

I'd like the references to those discussions by Marx you mention please Peter.

Dialectical materialism, is, of course, open to many interpretations (and
almost as many revisions). Often the method of questioning gets confused
with the method of answering. Also, as soon as a materialist dialectical
"truth" is established (according to the concrete a priori "laws" of the
2nd international's orthodoxy), it necessarily diappears because of its
historical specificity. Handy stuff for revolutionaries. This revisionist
doctrine to which you refer, Peter, is known as 'scientific Marxism'.

No help to Rachel, of course.

Perhaps we should take this to alt.marx.argument, Peter. Then again, I'm
tired of arguing about "what Marx meant", especially now that communist
dogmas are taken so seriously as the basis of "what he _really_ meant". To
my mind, the communist doctrines were not only deeply flawed
interpretations of Marx, they were the dogmatic basis of social domination
by cruel elites who dwarfed Hitler in terms of mass murder, and who managed
to produce a fairly pure form of Taylorism (Frederick Winslow, I mean,
Harvard Business School). Not my cup of tea, really.

Phil

At 10:16 03-02-99 +0000, you wrote:
>3 february 1999
>from peter jones, sheffield hallam university, UK
>in reply to rachel's query
>the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete is a fundamental
>ingredient of what is usually referred to as the marxist method (or
>'dialectical materialism'). It involves quite a different (in many
>respects, opposite) understanding of the terms 'abstract' and 'concrete' to
>that in mainstream philosophical discourse. this 'ascent' has to do with
>the way in which scientific, theoretical cognition represents or reproduces
>in concepts the real phenomena under consideration in their concreteness,
>ie in their law-governed dynamic and interconnectedness within the system
>of phenomena to which they belong. in fact it has nothing to do with
>marcuse (as per the communication from phil). it is discussed and explained
>by marx in various places but the most extensive treatment is in the book
>by Evald Ilyenkov (1982), 'The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete
>in marx's capital' and is also discussed in David Bakhurst's book on
>Ilyenkov: 'consciousness and revolution in soviet philosophy: from the
>bolsheviks to evald ilyenkov' (1991), Cambridge. specifically in
>application to AT - i can't think of anything immediately, at least in
>English. i hope this is of some help!!
>very best wishes
>p
>
>
Phil Graham
pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html