Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 11:53:32 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: Dialectics of Nature -Forwarded -Reply



> 
> Subjective dialecrtics is dialectics in cognition or thought.
> "Dialectical logic" would be subjectiuve dialectics.  DIalectics
> has several meanings -- Bhaskar gives 3 types in the DICTIONARY OF
> MARXIST THOUGHT -- you seem to be using objective dialectic in the
> sense of a historical process, but it could also be conceived less
> directly as logical/conceptual analysis of objective processes,
> which means one could have a dialectical intterpretation of
> evolutionary processes, but without directly claiming that the
> dialectic IS the evolutionary process itself.
> 

Oh dear, I seem to have run into a minefield of terminology.

When I use the word "dialectic" , I mean a materialist dialectic.
If I mean some other mode of thought, particularly Hegel's dialectic,
I say so : "Hegel's dialectic" , "idealist dialectic" , or some such
phrase. In my phraseology, I deliberately imply that any other dialectic
is not really dialectical. Dialectical Logic is Dialectical Materialist
Logic. If you want to talk about Formal Dialectical Logic ( whatever that might be )
or Hegel's Logic, then go ahead.

I would never claim that the dialectic IS history or evolution. Nevertheless,
simply claiming to HAVE an dialectical INTERPRETATION of evolutionary or
historical processes is too weak a claim. I would claim that these processes 
ARE actually DIALECTICAL, whether or not I choose to interpret them in that
manner.

There is ALSO a dialectical relationship between our ideas and the material world.
This relationship IS dialectical - the world actually shapes our ideas, and we
actually use our ideas to shape the world. Although the subject matter, "ideas"
of our investigation is by definition "subjective" , in the loose sense of
being in our heads , this dialectic is a materialist dialectic. Of course
we may or may not choose to interpret this relationship in a dialectical
way, or not.

The first class in history which can actually have a fully scientific world view
world is the working class. So the ( at least potential ) relationship between
the working class , its ideas and its world, is slightly different to that of all
other classes. Simultaneously, the exploitation of the proletariat under capitalism
is the most hidden of all modes of production up until now, and so the false
consciousness is MORE false than previously.
 
The question Jerry almost raised, or rather, that I interpreted him as raising, is :
is the dialectic in history actually different to the dialectical relationship between
humans and their ideas, including the special case of the working class under 
capitalism ?

My provisional answer is, "No".

The reason my provisional answer is "No", is because "ideas" cannot be a Marxist
category in itself. You have to look at ideas as they play their role in the
forces and relations of production, and the superstructure. 

For instance, the different relationship that the working class has with its
ideas is different only because it has a different relationship to the means
of production than all preceeding classes.

Adam.



Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---