Nasir Khan, August 3, 2013
In a Facebook comment Rahul Banerjee offered his views on Marxist dialectics that I thought needed my brief reply.
Nasir Khan: Mr Banerjee, as a casual reader of Marx and Marxian
concept of dialectics, I find your views on dialectics interesting on a
number of points. But if I understand you correctly, then your notion of
dialectics seems to me mechanistic and deterministic; it has little in
common with what Marxist dialectics stands for. No wonder the question
of thesis and a ‘matching antithesis’ in ‘natural or social
developments’ you have summed up falls in that category! I don’t know
how you have arrived at the view that for Marx the process of thesis and
antithesis inevitably is ‘progressive’. I have not found anything like
that in my reading of Marx’s texts. What you say does not represent
Marxist concept of dialectics. No, Sir; Marx did not expound such a
view. Another puzzling thing is that you name quantum physics and
molecular biolog
y to elaborate on the
social development of society. In my view any advances in physical
sciences do not lead to the negation of dialectics, which essentially is
a model to analyse social change.
Rahul Banerjee:
what marx took from hegel was his version of dialectics. now this form
of dialectics too is shabby stuff that is not borne out by reality at
all times. there is not always a thesis and matching antithesis in
natural or social development and the synthesis that results even if
there was such a pair may not always be of a progressive kind!! instead
the process of change in the real world is of a very chancy kind and not
deterministic and linear as envisaged in the dialectical method. now
that we have a better understanding of this chanciness due to advances
in quantum physics and molecular biology and the unpredictable
development of society, we need to move on from what Hegel and Marx
could surmise in their day.
No comments:
Post a Comment