16-09-02 -- Summary Of Essay Nine Part Two:
How This Theory Has Damaged Marxism
These are Introductory Essays, which have been written for those who find the main Essays either too long, or too difficult. They do not pretend to be comprehensive since they are simply summaries of the core ideas presented at this site. Most of the supporting evidence and argument found in each of the main Essays has been omitted. Anyone wanting more details, or who would like to examine my arguments and evidence in full, should consult the Essay for which each is a précis. [In this particular case, that can be found here.]
This Summary is in the process of being re-written.
Quick Links
Anyone using these links must remember that they will be skipping past supporting argument and evidence set out in earlier sections. [If your Firewall has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these and the other links here won't work!]
1) The Dialectics Of Consolation
a) In Defeat, Don't Organise, Speculate
d) The Dialectical Pecking Order
f) Salvation Through Good Works
a) Social Atoms Trying To Act Like Organic Molecules
c) "Building The Party" -- Through Constant Splits
d) All Hale The Great Splitter
e) The Road To Dialectical Damascus
f) Defeat And Dialectical Druggies
i) Social Psychology Does Not Apply To The Dialectical Prophets
3) Case Studies
Abbreviations Used At This Site
It is important to note from the start that the argument advanced in this Essay isn't that since DM has helped ruin Dialectical Marxism it's a false theory, but rather that since DM makes no sense, it's no great surprise that it has helped ruin the workers' movement.
In Part One of this Essay it was argued that: (1) DM has to be substituted into workers heads from the "outside" since it is based on incomprehensible forms of ruling-class ideology, (2) DM depends neither on the experience of the Party, nor on that of the working class (because of point (1), above), and therefore that (3) DM forms the ideology of substitutionist tendencies in the workers' movement.
[DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
In Part Two of this Essay I aim to show (1) Why leading Marxists have swallowed this regressive theory, (2) How this is related to the class origins of the dialectical classicists, their education and world-view, and (3) How this has helped ruin Marxism.
In Defeat, Don't Organise -- Speculate!
Marxists are well aware of the fact that there are those in the workers' movement who will be searching for consolation in defeat, and that they often find it in Mysticism and Idealism. However, those (like Lenin) who point this out are themselves only immune from the baleful influence exerted by this metaphysical black hole if they can show that they are above the material constraints social life places on everyone else --, which, clearly, they are not, and hence plainly they cannot.
Hence, and we will see, dialecticians have also regularly sought consolation in defeat --, something they experience nearly all the time. They do this by turning to a theory that reassures them with comforting news that DIM is in fact a ringing success; this is because dialectics teaches them that appearances are "contradicted" by underlying realities. Hence, even though DIM might appear to be an abject failure, to those with a well-focussed dialectical 'third eye', it is the very epitome of success. [Or it is about to be, any day soon...]
[Essay Ten Part One is devoted to substantiating these allegations.]
[NON = Negation of the Negation. DIM = Dialectical Marxism/Marxist, depending on context.]
There is in fact no reasoning with pathological optimism of this sort, since it depends on a level of dislocation from material reality that would shame even a coma victim -- as anyone who has tried to slap some material sense into such dialectical day-dreamers can well attest. The fact that we have witnessed little other than defeat, retreat and set-back since the 1920s is brushed off as a mere blip. The dialectic will "spiral" back to save the day, under the watchful eye of the NON, of course.
While revolutionaries drawn directly from the working-class appear to be less susceptible to this intellectual malaise, those entering our movement from other layers of society are, it seems, highly vulnerable. [Why this is so will be outlined presently.] Unfortunately, the authors of the DM-classics weren't workers -- and neither were the Hermetic Philosophers upon whose ideas they have relied. And, in general, if we are honest, neither are those who lead the revolutionary movement and who thus control its ideas.
DM provides this professional layer with a form of intellectual consolation, which, among other things, reassures them that history (if not the entire dialectic of reality) is on their side --, this despite the many material facts which every day openly contradict this rosy view. DM helps these characters account for and then reconfigure their experience of constant defeat, rejection and failure as its own opposite: as success in disguise -- or as success about to happen any day soon.
In this way, recalcitrant reality does not refute dialectics, it confirms it!
Dialectics thus insulates militant minds from the unwelcome fact that their Idealist theory is refuted on a daily basis by intransigent 'appearances'.
Failure, even if it is so much as acknowledged, is blamed on 'objective' factors, on a 'failure of leadership' or on those other 'sects', -- who, oddly enough, do not have the right "dialectical method", even though they say more-or-less the same thing about their accusers, too!
However, on the few occasions when our movement has notched up a success, this is unfailingly attributed to the "dialectical method". So, this method can only ever succeed, -- and when it 'fails', those 'failures' can be easily re-labelled 'mere appearances'.
Material reality is thus inverted so that in an ideal form it now conforms to theory. Dialecticians ignore or explain away whatever fails to fit the Hermetic script inflicted on humanity by that arch Waffle-Meister, Hegel. Naturally, this ostrich-like stance also serves as a defence-mechanism, protecting the militant mind from the fact that workers in general reject the philosophical gobbledygook that the 'orthodox' constantly churn out.
Figure One: Dialectician Looking For
"Underlying Essences"
But, by doing this, dialecticians have only succeeded in engineering their own continued rejection by the masses (why this is so explained in Part One), thus ensuring that they waste their time pratting about in microscopic, insular and ineffective grouplets --, whose inflated view of their historical significance runs in inverse proportion to the genuine impact they have on the class struggle.
In this way, DM succeeds in negating in an ideal form its own very real rejection by workers; it does this with some neat, internally-generated dialectical spin. Viewing things from beneath these dialectically-constructed sand dunes, DM-adepts can pretend to themselves that workers en masse do not really reject dialectics. Far from it, they are in fact blinded by "empiricism" and "commodity fetishism" -- or they have been bought off by Imperialism with its super-profits; indeed, they suffer from "false consciousness".
Anything, rather than question the sacred Dialectical Mantra.
Indeed, anything rather than admit that the dialectical gospel is a fraud. Hence, unlike every other scientific theory known to humanity, DM has never once been revised to accommodate reality; reality has been continually adjusted to conform to its eternal verities.
[We aren't speaking of HM here, but DM. On whether this is a bogus distinction, see here.]
Ironically, this means that in DM -- where lack of theoretical change is secured by its own internal contradictions -- there is no theoretical development, just the invention of yet more 'epicycles'.
Thus, it seems that the only thing in the entire universe that does not change through 'internal contradictions' is DM itself!
Any scientific theory that suffered continual refutation of this order of magnitude, and for so long, would be stone dead by now. But not DM; it remains miraculously the same generation on generation.
Dialecticians are thus living disproof of their own ideals: these 'apostles of change' never change!
The explanation for the importation of anti-materialist, ruling-class ideas into Marxism given below is consistently materialist, since it is based on the class origin of the DM-classicists themselves. Because of this, and because of their socialisation and education, these Marxists have found Hegelian ideas conducive to their contingent view of the world.
This also helps explain why those who have tried to substitute themselves for workers -- be they STDs, MISTs, professional revolutionary (i.e., dé classé) intellectuals, activists, Marxist academics, or even OTs -- are among the most avid of DM-fans. [The situation with NOTs (like the UK-SWP, and the IST in general) is less clear cut.]
[STD = Stalinist Dialectician; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist; MIST = Maoist Theorist; NOT = Non-Orthodox Trotskyist.]
If, for whatever reason, it is thought that the working-class cannot bring about socialism on their own, dialecticians have almost invariably concluded that the proletariat need the help of other social forces -- be they Red Army tanks, Maoist/Guervarist guerrillas, "progressive" bourgeois nationalists, parliamentary representatives, students, "rainbow alliances", cadres of conspiratorial individuals, or disparate groups of 'intellectuals'.
In such circumstances, therefore, a ruling-class theory that situates the proletariat right at the bottom of the social and intellectual pecking order is going to look rather appealing. Or, more realistically, it is going to prove highly useful in helping to rationalise the further marginalisation and exclusion of the working class -- and it is obscure and contradictory enough to 'justify' their continued oppression and exploitation -- after the revolution, which is a pragmatic contradiction that only those who "understand" dialectics are capable of "grasping".
[As we will see, this is exactly how Stalin and Mao, for example, argued.]
Indeed, what would be better here than a philosophical theory that appears to have Marx's stamp of approval on it (even though there is precious little hard evidence that he accepted it), which allows its adherents to reconfigure the facts as their contraries, and which can also be used to rationalise any course of action and its opposite: DM?
It's important to note, too, that revolutionaries of the calibre of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky only turned to overt forms of DM when the revolutionary movement was in retreat. [The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of Stalin, Mao and many others.]
Indeed, as should have been clear to all, Hegel's original theory was itself invented to help account for the defeat of the French revolution, and hence the rise of Napoleon.
Dialectics is thus at once the daughter of defeat and the father of failure.
In stark contrast, OTGs -- i.e., the old WRP (re-configured now as the MSF, among others), modern-day Spartacists, the scrag-end of the old Militant Tendency (or, more pointedly, Woods and Grant), and other assorted Trotskyist grouplets (like the AWL) etc. -- constantly appeal to DM because their catastrophist view of everything puts them in a permanently heightened, quasi-numinous state of mind. With nothing but failure staring them in the face, regular doses of Dialectical Methadone are essential if the fixed idea is to be maintained that the revolution is just around the corner --, despite appearances to the contrary.
[OTG = Orthodox Trotskyist Group; OT = Orthodox Trotskyist, DIM = Dialectical Marxism/Marxist.]
To that end, it's worth pointing out that Gerry Healy -- surely until his death in 1989 the annual winner of the Dialectical Gold Medal in all events -- went into frenetic, dialectical overdrive soon after his party booted him out in 1985.
The result? That towering monument to designer gobbledygook: Healy (1990).
This accounts not only for the extra level of religious fanaticism displayed by most OTs in defence of their beloved "dialectics", it also explains their fondness for quoting DM-Scripture at erstwhile critics -- and at one another (over and over again, and then once more for good measure).
Just like the genuinely religious, novelty is the main enemy here -- except, in DIM, novelty is called "Revisionism".
[MISTs are also particularly adept at this 'radical' form of Bible-bashing.]
There are in fact two main types of dialectician (which categories, of course, overlap at the edges):
(1) Low Church Dialecticians [LCDs]:
Comrades of this persuasion cleave to the original, unvarnished truth laid down in the sacred DM-texts (written by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, or Mao). These simple souls are highly proficient at quoting endless passages from the holy books in answer to everything and anything, just like the faithful who bow to the East or who fill the gospel halls around the world. Their unquestioning faith is as impressive as it is un-Marxist.
They may be naive, but they are at least consistently in this regard.
[FL = Formal Logic.]
In general, LCDs are blithely ignorant of FL. Now, on its own this is no hanging matter. However, such self-inflicted and woeful ignorance does not stop them pontificating about FL, or from regaling us with its alleged limitations at every turn -- allegations based on ideas they have unwisely copied from Hegel, who is surely the George W Bush of Logic.
Figure Two: Advanced Logic Class At Camp Hegel
LCDs are by-and-large active revolutionaries, committed to 'building the party'. Alas, they have unwisely conspired to do the exact opposite, helping keep their parties small as a result of the countless splits and expulsions they engineer. This is a rather fitting pragmatic contradiction that the 'Dialectical Deity' has visited upon these the least of its slaves. Of course, these individuals cannot see the irony in all this (even when it is pointed out to them -- I know, I have lost count of the number of times I have tried!), since they too have not taken the lens caps off.
So, despite the fact that every last one of these sad individuals continually strives to "build the party", few revolutionary groups can boast membership roles that rise much above the risible. In fact, all we have witnessed since WW2 is the creation of yet more fragmentation -- but still no mass movement. [Anyone who doubts this should look here, here, here and here. Or now, here.]
Has a single one of these individuals made this connection?
Are you kidding!?
The long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory (i.e., 'Materialist Dialectics') are, it seems, the only two things in the entire universe that are not interconnected.
(2) High Church Dialecticians [HCDs]:
These Marxists are in general openly contemptuous of the 'sophomoric ideas' found in most of the DM-classics (even though many of them seem to have a fondness for Engels's first 'Law').
More often than not, HCDs reject the idea that the dialectic operates in nature, sometimes inconsistently using Engels's first 'Law' to justify this 'leap' (which tactic allows them to claim that human history and development are unique), just as they are equally dismissive of these simple LCD souls for their adherence to every last word in the classics.
[Anyone who knows about High Church Anglicanism will know of what I speak.]
HCDs are mercifully above such crudities; they prefer the mother lode -- direct from Hegel, Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks and/or the writings of assorted latter day Hermeticists like Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Tony Smith, Tom Sekine, Robert Albritton, Chris Arthur, Bertell Ollman, or Slavoj Zizek --, sometimes cut with a few kilos of hardcore jargon drawn straight from that intellectual cocaine-den otherwise known as French Philosophy Or perhaps even from that conveyor belt of systematic confusion: the Frankfurt School.
Or, even worse, that hothouse of intellectual heroin: the works of Heidegger.
HCDs are generally, but not exclusively, academic. Tortured prose is their forte, and pointless existence is their punishment.
At least LCDs try to pretend that their ideas are relevant to the class struggle.
In contrast, High Church Dialectics is just good for the CV.
[Plainly, the latter sort of dialectics is not an "abomination" to that section of the bourgeoisie that administers Colleges and Universities.]
Nevertheless, both factions are well-stocked with conservative-minded comrades happy to appropriate the a priori and dogmatic thought-forms of two-and-a-half thousand years of boss-class theory, seldom pausing to give any thought to the implications of such easily won knowledge. If knowledge of the world is a priori, and based solely on armchair speculation, reality must indeed be Ideal.
Even this simple truth will sail over their heads, so deep have ruling ideas sunk into their class-compromised brains.
This has meant that the baleful influence of Hegelian Hermeticism becomes important at key historical junctures (i.e., those involving defeat or major set-back), since it acts as a materialist-sounding alternative to mainstream traditional philosophical theory -- as we saw happen after 1905 in Russia.
Dialectics (especially those parts that have been infected with the deadly HCD-strain) thus taps into thought-forms that have dominated intellectual life for 2500 years -- i.e., those that define the boundaries of 'acceptable' theory, and thus those which are based upon a priori thesis-mongering and the invention of increasingly baroque, dogmatic theory.
Hence, because of its thoroughly traditional nature, DM is able to appeal to the closet "god-builders" and dialectical mystics that revolutionary politics seems to attract -- and who also appear to congregate mostly at the top of this ever-growing mountain of long-term failure.
All of this is connected with the way that such comrades find their way into the revolutionary movement.
Unlike most worker-revolutionaries, 'professional revolutionaries' have joined, or have been recruited into the socialist movement (by-and-large) as a result either of (1) their own personal commitment to the revolution, (2) their rebellious personality, (3) their individual alienation from the system, or for (4) other contingent psychological reasons --, but not as a direct result of their involvement in the class war.
That is, they become revolutionaries through their own individual efforts, or those of some other individual (such as a parent, partner or friend) and not (in general) through participation in collective action, or in strikes (etc.) at their own place of work -- that is, if they work.
This means that from the beginning (again, by-and-large), because of their class position and non-working class upbringing, such comrades act and think as individuals. This (a) affects the ideas they form, (b) colours their attitude toward such ideas, (c) affects their activity inside the movement/party, and (f) slants the relationships they form with other revolutionaries.
Such comrades thus enter the movement committed to the revolution as an idea, as an expression of their own personal integrity, idiosyncratic alienation and individual goals in life. They are not revolutionaries for proletarian/materialist reasons --, that is, as a result of their direct experience of collective action, or as a direct consequence of working class response to exploitation --, but for individual, idiosyncratic (albeit, often very noble) reasons.
This is not to malign them, but simply to remind us that this is a class issue.
So, when such comrades encounter DM, it's quite 'natural' for them to latch on to its a priori theses. This is because, as Lenin noted, their class position has already shaped them as atomised, isolated individuals with no collective identity. This non-negotiable condition is further compounded by the additional fact that these individuals have had their heads filled with "ruling ideas" from the 'superior education' they receive because of their class origin.
As we will see in Essay Twelve Part One, and the rest of Essay Twelve (summary here), a guiding thread that runs through the many world-views that have been encouraged, supported and patronised by the ruling-class (because they are conducive to their interests), is the idea that there is an invisible world underlying reality, which is more real that the world we see around us, and which is accessible to thought alone. These ideas were then imposed on the world in a dogmatic and a priori manner, plainly because they cannot be read from it.
In which case, these individuals -- who have already been educated to see the world this way before they've even heard of Marxism --, when they encounter DM, they appropriate its dogmatic, a priori theses with ease. The thought-forms DM encapsulates appear to them to be at once both philosophical and certain (i.e., a priori, and thus self-certifying), in the traditional manner. And because DM-theses originate from within what seems to them to be a radical philosophical/political tradition they appear radical, too -- alas, here they are quite happy to accept appearances at face value!
Manifestly, the concepts found in DM could only have arisen from traditional sources (workers do not dream up such nostrums -- not even Dietzgen managed to do that), which sources had already been tainted by centuries of ruling-class thought (as Marx noted). This is plainly because traditional thought is the only source of developed 'high theory', and these individuals are attracted to this way of seeing things since it promotes the sort of ideas to which these erstwhile radicals are most susceptible. The class background and education such individuals receive mean that ruling-class ideas have already been inserted into their heads, "from the outside", even before they reach their late teens. In that case, this new, Dialectical/Hermetic batch hardly raises an eyebrow. Indeed, it alights on ready soil.
Initially, very little specialist knowledge is needed to 'comprehend' this theory; indeed, no expensive equipment or time-consuming experiments are required. And yet, within hours this Superscientific 'world-view' can be grasped by most eager novices (since it relies on thought alone, and appears to be 'self-evident', self-certifying). Literally in an afternoon an initiate can study and learn a handful of theses that purport to explain all of reality for all of time.
Just try learning Quantum (or even Newtonian) Mechanics that quickly!
One only has to look at most revolutionary internet sites, for example, to see how they claim to be able to reveal nature's deepest secrets (which are true for all of space, for all of time) in page or two of homespun 'logic', loose phraseology, and Mickey Mouse Science --, for example, here, and here.
Contrast that with the many months, or even years of hard work it takes comrades to grasp the genuine science of Marxist economics, for example. Contrast it too with the detailed knowledge one needs in order to understand, say, the class structure and development of the ancient world, or medieval society. No self-certifying 'truths' there!
Moreover, because this 'theory' is connected with wider historic, or even romantic aims (explored briefly below), such comrades soon become wedded (nay, super-glued) to this doctrine. They become eager converts.
This subjective response to such an easily accessible 'door of perception' now connects dialectics with the revolutionary ego, for it is this theory which guarantees for each of these individuals that the anger they feel toward injustice and all the hard work they devote to the cause are not in vain.
On the contrary, this theory guarantees that the life of each of its adepts is capable of assuming cosmic significance. Dialectics places the militant mind at the very centre of the meaning universe, for it seems to give such social atoms unified purpose in life, with a set of eternal 'truths'/'laws' to underpin it. We might even call this the "Ptolemisation of The Militant Mind", since around this 'theory' all of reality now revolves, put into neat logical order by a few trite a priori theses.
The heady romance of being both a revolutionary and an active participant in the cosmic drift of the entire universe now takes over. Indeed, for all the world, these comrades seem to fall in love with this 'theory'! [This plainly surfaces in the irrational, emotional and abusive way they all defend it, when it's attacked -- on that, see below, and here.]
Indeed, since the dialectic governs the nature of everything in existence, that includes even the thoughts of these, the 'least' of its servants -- as part of a process otherwise known as "subjective dialectics".
By becoming slaves to the mysterious 'mediations' that emanate forth from the "Totality" (which, like 'God', cannot be defined, and which works in mysterious ways the dialectical elect find impossible to explain), through revolutionary 'good works' ("activity") and pure thoughts ('Non-Revisionism'/'Orthodoxy'), by joining a movement that cannot fail to alter fundamentally the course of human history, the petty-bourgeois ego is 'born again' to a higher purpose, and with a cosmic mandate.
The dialectical novitiate now emerges as a professional revolutionary --, sometimes even with a shiny new name to prove it. But, certainly with a new persona.
The scales now drop from its eyes.
The Hermetic virus has found another victim.
There is now no way back for this lost soul...
Indeed, as Max Eastman noted:
"Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it."
This now provides such comrades with well-known social psychological motivations, inducements and reinforcements. These, in turn, help convince these hapless victims that:
(1) They as individuals can become key figures in history -- actually helping to determine the next direction social/cosmic evolution will take.
(2) Their personal existence is, after all, not meaningless or for nought.
(3) Whatever it was that caused their alienation from bourgeois society can be rectified, reversed or redeemed through the right sort of deeds and thoughts -- reminiscent of the way that Pelagian forms of 'muscular Christianity' taught that salvation might be had through pure thoughts, good works, and severe treatment of the body.
[Which explains all that emphasis on "activity".]
In these individuals, DM now takes on a role analogous to that which religion occupies in the minds of the masses, giving cosmic significance and consolation to these, its very own petty-bourgeois victims.
Same alienating cause, similar palliative drug.
Social Atoms Trying To Act Like Organic Molecules
However, because they have not been recruited from the working class, these social atoms need an internally-generated unifying force -- one provided by a set of self-certifying ideas -- to bind them to the international workers' movement and the Party. As such, they need a Cosmic Whole to make sense of their social fragmentation. This is where the mysterious "Totality" comes into its own -- but, just like 'God', so mysterious is this "Totality" that not a single one of its slaves can tell us, or one another, of its nature, even though they all gladly bend the knee to its Contradictory Will.
In stark contrast, workers involved in collective labour have unity forced on them by well-known, external material forces. These compel workers to combine; they do not persuade them to unite as a result of some theory or other. Workers are thus forced to combine out of material necessity, with unity externally-imposed upon them, since this unifying force is a material, not an Ideal force.
In contrast, once more, while history has shown that the class war forces workers to unite, it also reveals that it drives these petty-bourgeois revolutionaries apart. In that case, dialectical theory has to replace material struggle as their sole unifying principle; petty-bourgeois/de-classé Marxists are thus supposedly united by a set of ideas. The forces that operate on them are thus quintessentially individualistic, unquestionably ideal and dangerously centrifugal (as Lenin noted, and as we will soon see). Without this 'theory', the rationale underlying the romantic idea that these comrades stand right at the philosophical centre of the dialectical universe would vanish.
Moreover, because dialectics provides such comrades with an apparently coherent, but paradigmatically traditional picture of reality (i.e., as an a priori theory, dogmatically imposed on reality), it supplies each of its acolytes with a unique set of motivating factors. Indeed, because this theory is represented individualistically inside each brain, it helps further divide each 'dialectical disciple' from the next (for reasons explored below).
Dialectics, the theory of universal opposites, goes to work on militant minds and helps turn each into a dedicated sectarian and fanatical faction fiend.
Collective discipline is paramount inside Bolshevik-style parties. But, the strong-willed, petty-bourgeois militant that this style of politics attracts is not used to this form of externally-imposed regimentation (since, again, as Lenin noted, these comrades are attracted by internally-processed and self-certifying ideas), and so fights soon break out, often over minor, even personal issues.
Since childhood, these comrades have been educated think like social atoms, but in a revolutionary party they have to act like social molecules, which is a psychological feat that lies way beyond their 'pay grade', their class position. Personal disputes quickly break out and are soon re-configured as political differences -- which are, once more, differences over ideas. These quarrels require, and are soon given, theoretical 'justification'.
Unfortunately, these revolutionaries are socially-conditioned egocentrics who, in their own eyes, have a hot-line to dialectical truth (hard-wired in each brain by those self-certifying Hegelian concepts, once more -- upside down or the 'right way up') -- and they cannot help exploiting this fact since that is what defines them as a revolutionary.
Again, as Lenin points out, ruling-class theorists -- 'intellectuals' -- have to make a name for themselves by criticising the ideas of other, rival theorists. This is, after all, part of establishing their reputation, and is thus an essential component in promoting their individual careers -- or, indeed, part and parcel of defending a patron or some other beneficent section of the ruling-class. Petty-bourgeois capitalists plainly have to rely on their individual skills in order to survive in the face of Big Capital. In like manner, these unfortunate characters have to ply their trade in the revolutionary movement as individual theorists, armed only with ideas.
Petty-bourgeois dialecticians thus trade in similarly soiled goods, and so it is that they have brought with them (into Marxism) this divisive trait. In the market for 'Marxist' ideas, those with the most forthright critical and inventive skills often float to the top.
The fact that such individuals have very strong characters (otherwise they'd surely not survive the competition) merely compounds the problem. In order to make their names, and advance their 'revolutionary careers', it becomes vitally important for them to disagree with every other theorist, which they then almost invariably proceed to do. Sectarianism is caused by such petty-bourgeois social 'atoms'.
Dialectics merely makes this dire situation worse. In such an ideal environment, the DM-classics, just like the Bible and other assorted Holy Books, soon come into their own. What better theory is there then -- that is, other than Zen Buddhism, perhaps -- that is also capable of initiating and exacerbating endless disputation than one that is as contradictory and incomprehensible as 'Materialist Dialectics'/DM? Or, indeed, one that informs all who fall under its hypnotic spell that progress (even in ideas) may only be had through "internal contradictions"?
For Dialectical Marxists, the drive to impose one's views on others becomes not only irresistible, it becomes a necessity. Doctrinal control (i.e., the control of all those inner, privatised ideas lodged in every other atomised party skull) now acts as a surrogate for external control by material forces. Hence, the only force holding these tiny groups together is the force of ideas.
But, just as genuine religionists soon discovered, mind-control is much easier to secure if appeal is made to impenetrably mysterious doctrines that no one understands, which all must accept and which all must repeat constantly to dull the critical faculties.
Hence, because the party cannot reproduce the class struggle inside itself, and thus force materialist unity on its cadres externally, it can only control political thought internally (in each head) by turning it into a mind-numbing mantra, insisting on doctrinal purity, and then accusing all those who do not conform to such ideal standards of not "understanding" dialectics.
In this milieu, an Authoritarian Personality type soon emerges in the revolutionary movement to enforce ideological orthodoxy (disguised now as part of an endeavour to keep faith with "tradition", which is, not un-coincidentally, a noxious trait shared by all known religions). "Tradition" now becomes a watch-word to test the doctrinal purity of party cadres -- especially those who might stray too far from the narrow path which alone leads the select few toward revolutionary salvation.
This naturally helps inflame more disputes and thus more splits.
[History has indeed shown that the inter-atomic forces of fragmentation that operate between dialectically-distracted comrades far out-weigh their frequent calls for unity.]
All this explains why, to each DM-acolyte, the dialectic is so personal, and so intimately their own possession, and why you can almost hear the hurt in their throats when it is comprehensively trashed, as it has been at this site.
Hence, any attack on this precious 'jewel' is an attack on the revolutionary ego itself, and must be resisted with all the bile at its command.
And that explains, too, all the abuse you will receive if you think to challenge the dialectical doctrines of a single one of these Hermetic Head Cases.
"Building The Party" -- Through Constant Splits
Lord Acton was wrong when he said:
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This gets things completely upside down. As Tony Cliff remarked (in a talk), it's lack of power that corrupts absolutely. It corrupts the working class, and that in turn allows the members of the ruling-class to get away with whatever they think they can, thus corrupting them in return.
Similarly, a passive working class allows revolutionaries (or, rather, their 'leaders') to get up to all kinds of dialectical mischief. So the latter become corrupted, too.
Among the many different forms this corruption takes is the general lack of any sort of democratic control (on Central Committees and these 'leaders').
To this end, and despite the constant calls to "build the party", small now becomes beautiful, if not desirable. That is because this allows for maximum thought-control. Plainly, in small parties, the 'purity' of the 'revolutionary tradition' is easier to enforce.
Sectarianism is thus an intrinsic feature of the political and organisational practice of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries.
The aforementioned Authoritarian Personality ensures that democratic accountability is at best merely formal. And this soon becomes an early casualty in this backwater of the class war. Democratic control and accountability is, after all, an external constraint, favoured by the majority for obvious reasons. But, it is equally feared by this petty-bourgeois minority, and for the same reasons. In such dialectically-dominated micro-parties, democracy threatens the internally-enforced control that the professional revolutionary invariably prefers.
This is, after all, why Capitalists themselves need the state to impose their rule on otherwise democratic workers -- and it's why they also need to call upon various idealist and reactionary nostrums to convince the recalcitrant that all this is 'for their benefit'. It is also why Dialectical Marxists need the "centralist", but not the "democratic", part of democratic centralism, and why the latter is dispensed with so readily and so often.
Naturally, these distortions do not arise independently of external events. As noted above, these malignant features of Dialectical Dementia tend to dominate when the materialist counter-weight provided by the working class is much more attenuated, or when it is totally absent -- for example, before the working class had emerged an effective social force, or in periods of defeat or "downturn". This is, of course, when Dialectical Druggies tend to 're-discover' this 'theory', and when all of them attempt to snort along the same correct party line.
Small wonder then that these petty-bourgeois victims cling on to 'Materialist Dialectics' like drunks to lampposts -- and just like religionists their opiates.
'Materialist Dialectics' now dominates and then shapes the personal and party identity of such comrades. Any attack on this sacred doctrine is an attack not just on the psychological glue that holds each dialectical acolyte together, but on the ideological cement that holds the party, nay, the entire Dialectical Marxist tradition together.
In their own eyes, these professional, petty-bourgeois revolutionaries are special; they live -- no they embody -- the revolution. They have caught the tide of history, they must keep the faith. Commitment to the revolution on these terms now creates a clique of militants who, for all the world, appear to suffer from a personality disorder of some sort -- chief among which is the Leader Complex.
All this helps explain why, among dialecticians, disagreements quickly become so personal, and why factionalism is so rife -- and why strong characters, like Ted Grant, Gerry Healy, Michael Pablo, Tony Cliff, Ernest Mandel, Pierre Lambert, and host of others, began to form splits and divisions almost from the get-go.
As noted above, fragmentation is now virtually synonymous with Dialectical Marxism itself (witness the well-aimed jokes in Monty Python's Life of Brian about the Judean People's Front, etc.).
Dialectical Marxists thus soon become Militant Martinets, ostracising and expelling anyone who fails to tow the 'correct line'. As noted above, these Dialectical Despots often have very powerful personalities, something they can use to good effect in the small ponds they invariably patrol, and clearly prefer. Expulsions, splits and bans thus keep their grouplets small and easier to control.
This petty-bourgeois revolutionary ego helps keep our movement fragmented, small, insular and thus ineffectual --, in preference to its being democratic, outward-looking and effective. No wonder then that in such circumstances, democracy goes out the window along with reasonableness --, and, of course, along with any significant political impact.
In this way, ruling-ideas have come to rule Dialectical Marxism; and this has helped ruin our movement by allowing those who divide, rule.
The Road To Dialectical Damascus
Each dialectical ego imagines that it alone has direct access to the exact meaning of the dialectic (here is an excellent recent example), mirroring the sort of individualism that underpins petty-bourgeois Protestantism, where believers are required to find their own way to salvation via the Bible and endless disputation. This accounts for the intense and interminable dialectical debates over vacuous Hegelian concepts (again, rather like those that exercised the medieval schoolmen), whether this or that thesis is "abstract", "positivist", or "one-sided", or, indeed, something else.
This, of course, also helps explain why each supplicant thinks that no one else "understands" the dialectic, and who thus 'misuse' it.
[Since no one does understand this mystical theory (on that, see Essay Nine Part One), that is a very easy claim to make, and one which is equally impossible to refute.]
Thus, every opponent is branded in the same way (on this see below, and here): all fail to "understand" the dialectic -- that is, all except the blessed soul that made that claim!
Rather like the Old Testament Prophets, it's almost as if such comrades have received a personal visit from the Self-Developing Idea itself. Indeed, the Road to Damascus and the Road to Dialectics have more in common than just a capital "D".
Defeat And Dialectical Druggies
As noted above, in defeat such comrades turn once more to Dialectical Methadone to insulate their minds from reality and constant failure. And by all accounts this opiate does an excellent job. Indeed, anyone attempting to argue with any of these Dialectical Druggies would be far better occupied head-butting a Billy-goat for all the good it will do. [That allegation is easily confirmed; check this out.]
However, narcoleptic stupor of this level of intensity -- and the lack of clarity required to maintain it -- only helps engineer yet more splits, and thus more set-backs and defeats, thus creating the need for another sizeable hit.
And so this Dialectical Merry-go-round lumbers on into this new millennium.
No wonder Dialectical Marxism is to success what religion is to peace on earth.
DM has thus infected our movement at every level, exacerbating sectarianism, factionalism, exclusivism, unreasonableness, dismissive arrogance (this endearing quality displayed most notably by the High Church Faction), extreme dogmatism (bordering on clinical paranoia in some cases), all topped off with layers of abuse, (peppered with delightful phrases like "rant", "diatribe", "screed", "sh*t", "cr*p", and worse), which dialectical vices have introduced into each and every tiny Dialectical Sect an open and implacable hatred of practically every other Sect, and in some cases, every other comrade -- especially those who dare to question the sacred dialectic.
If faults such as these were to afflict an individual, they would provide sufficient grounds for sectioning under various mental health regimes. Unsurprisingly, the result is that the ruling-class do not need to divide us in order to help consolidate their rule; we are quite capable of making a first-rate job of it ourselves.
Everyone in the movement is painfully aware of this predicament (some even joke about it -- again, along Monty Python lines!); others excuse it or explain it away with yet more 'dialectics'.
But, no one confronts it at its poisonous source in the class origins of the petty-bourgeois revolutionary with his/her fondness the divisive doctrines of latter-day Hermeticism.
If Doctrinaire Marxism is the final outcome of this mystical creed, it needs a Guru or two to interpret it, rationalise constant failure, and justify the regular splits -- and, of course, to create yet more of the same.
Enter the personality cult along with its petty, nit-picking, small-minded, little pond megalomania. Enter the "Leader" who knows all, reveals all, expels all (and, in notorious cases, kills all): the Dialectical Magus.
As observers of religious cults have noted, even the most mundane and banal of statements churned out by such leaders are treated with a level of deference that would shame orthodox Roman Catholics -- almost as if they had been delivered from the mountain itself and were possessed of profound mystical significance.
Figure Three: Gerry Healy Receives The Word --,
Or Is It Bob Avakian?
Witness the inordinate respect and semi-religious awe shown for the dialectical meanderings of Mao or Stalin. Few will need reminding of the cult of Kim-II-sung, Kim-Jong-iI and Enver Hoxha -- to say nothing of the adulation of comrade Healy (shown by prominent members of the old WRP), and Marlene Dixon of the DWP. In fact, Healy was well-known for fomenting strife among comrades (with added violence, so we are told) to accentuate the 'contradictions' in his 'Party' --, along 'sound' dialectical lines. Witness also the wholly un-merited worship of that towering mediocrity, Bob Avakian.
This phenomenon also helps account for the personal and organisation corruption revolutionary politics has witnessed over the years (ranging from Mao's use of female comrades to the same with respect to Healy (on that, see Appendix A of Essay Nine Part Two) -- but there are many other examples), which is partly the result of the noxious effect this doctrine has had on otherwise radical minds.
In this way, we have seen Marxism replicate much of the abuse sectarianism which is found in all forms of religion. [Again, see for example, Appendix A.] And no wonder: both were spawned by similar alienated patterns of ruling-class thought and social atomisation --, compounded, of course, by a cultic mentality -- further aggravated by a divisive Hermetic 'theory' that is capable of rationalising anything and it opposite!
Social Psychology Does Not Apply To The Dialectical Prophets!
As far as the DM-'faithful' are concerned, all this will fail to go even in one ear, let alone straight out through the other. This is because they refuse to accept that any of the pressures that bear down on the rest of humanity could possibly have any effect on them, the DM-elect. In that case, social psychology does not apply to such demi-gods!
In stark contrast, dialecticians are quite happy to reduce their opponents' ideas to their class origins/position; indeed they do this all the time. However, any attempt to do likewise with respect to their own philosophical ideas --, i.e., which traces the fondness leading dialecticians have for Philosophy back to their class origin/position --, is rejected out-of-hand as "crude reductionism"!
Indeed, Lenin was quite happy to 'reduce' his opponents' political stance to their class position. [Lenin (1947), pp.66-67.]
In which case, for dialecticians like Lenin, it seems it's legitimate to 'reduce' one's enemies' and opponents' ideas to their class position, but not his.
While such theorists are quite right to point out that when, for example, union militants are drafted into the trade union machine, becoming bureaucrats themselves, their new material conditions have a predictable effect on their attitudes and ideas, and yet they will resist with no little vehemence the same conclusion when it is applied to them and their material circumstances.
The only conclusion possible here is that it must be a sheer coincidence that revolutionary parties the world over have replicated, time and again, practically every single fault and foible that afflicts the god-botherers among us -- even down to their reliance on an obscure book about an invisible 'Being' (i.e., in this case, Hegel's Logic).
So, while all these faults and foibles have well-known material causes when they descend upon the superstitious, they apparently have no cause whatsoever when they similarly grace the sanctified lives of our very own Dialectical Saints. Hence, faults and foibles like these can safely be ignored, never spoken about in polite company.
Until, that is, such comrades are caught with their dialectical pants down -- and even then this can be brushed aside as "bourgeois propaganda".
This means that this Dialectical Merry-go-round simply takes another spin across the flatlands of failure, its participants ever more convinced of their semi-divine infallibility.
Of course, as the above will seem (to some) to suggest this analysis resembles those that critics of Marxism have advanced. However, the difference here is that this attack is being launched only against DM (not HM), and by a fellow revolutionary. It is also backed-up by an analysis that is fully compatible with HM, even if it is completely destructive of traditional forms-of-thought.
In Essay Nine Part Two, in order to show that the above comments are not merely abstract, I have added three case studies that confirm the above indictments. They have not been included in this summary for reasons of space.
According to HM, humanity will rid itself of class oppression only through the collective action (at least) of ordinary workers, not because of the operation of metaphysical laws found in DM, put into practice by a revolutionary 'elite'.
In their own small way, therefore, these Essays are aimed at helping end the baleful influence of this regressive anti-materialist theory (DM) on revolutionary socialism, so that HM can at last begin to stand for a fully Humanised Marxism.
Word Count: 7,870
Latest Update: 11/02/11
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2011
Hits Since 31/03/08: