[Marxism] Rosa's latest replies

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Oct 7 08:26:52 MDT 2009


Besides the sheer repetitiveness of Rosa's answers, her distortions of what 
Marx wrote, her rigid schemes that serve her arguments by ignoring the 
totality of Marx's work-- correspondence not permitted, only those parts of 
unpublished works that agree, reinforce Rosa's distortion of published works 
allowed, her insistence when presented with the elements of  the 
contradictions of capital that Marx analyzed as contradiction, as the 
dialectic of capital, that Marx was only coquetting with the words dialectic 
and contradiction, AND that noone can explain what a dialectical 
contradiction is--- besides all that,  it is her contention that:

1) dialectic, contradiction, etc. are ruling class ideologies designed to 
obscure the...what?  The actual content of the class domination?  Perhaps, 
but if it is an ideology designed to do just that, then the appearance of 
the class domination, how the bourgeoisie presents, administers, and is in 
turn compelled by its capitalism, its relation to its property,  must be 
opposed to that actual content, and since both must be grounded in the 
material conditions, the social organization of labor, we are right back to 
Marx's dialectic of history, Hegel's tension, antagonism, contradictiion 
whatever you want to call between appearance and essence, actual and 
potential, and on and on we go.

2. And there's more.... that this insidious ideology has in fact led Marxism 
to defeat over the last 100-150 years.  The fact that Lenin, for better or 
worse, took up the study of Hegel and apparently found it helpful in a 
profound apprehension of the real dynamics of the only successful, 
self-conscious, proletariant revolution in history, is not of course 
evidence to the contrary.  The actual material of the defeat of the 
revolution, profoundly non-ideological, existing in tactics, strategy, 
actual material organization of the proletariat-- that doesn't matter either 
because you see the failures in tactics, strategy, material organization are 
all the result of infection with Hegelian herpes [and I'm sure Rosa will 
adopt that faux description of dialectic as one of her "characterizations" 
of dialectic].

3. And there's more:  She has nothing to say about capitalism, about 
capital.  Not a word about any of the issues Marx analyzes in Vol 1; not a 
word about the subjects undertaken, but certainly not exhausted in Vol 2 and 
Vol 3; not a shred of  examination about how and why capital functions as it 
does anywhere, and anytime, past or present.  Nothing.  No demonstration of 
how her assertion of Marx's extirpation of Hegel in Vol 1, not to mention 
Vols. 2,3 is actually carried out in his concrete analysis of wage-labor and 
capital.  And in fact although she denies it, she is in fact doing nothing 
but repeating Althusser's argument of an epistemological rupture in Marx by 
claiming as she does-- that prior to Capital, Marx was influenced, tainted, 
by Hegel, but not in Vol 1, and not after... except when "coquetting."  Of 
course, Marx practices safe coquetting, otherwise he'd get herpes.  And... 
this transformation happens, apparently, all at once, because Rosa engages 
in no historical examination of Marx's work itself-- she shows no 
transition, no development of anti-Hegelianism [how could she? first none 
exists, secondly if it did exist, if it did develop-- why that itself might 
be evidence of dialectic, especially of the gradual changes accumulated to 
the point where Marx achieved a breakthrough--- then we'd have the old 
quantity into quality thing, and good-bye Rosa].

4. And there's more In fact all of Rosa's efforts serve either to  a) 
satisfy her need for self-aggrandizement-- she knows the truth, she grasps 
the reality  b) duel with the ghost of Hegel, utilizing  her popgun of 
positivism to recuperate actual history, the examination of the dialectic of 
the relations of production and the means of production,  into speculative 
consciousness; into language philosophy.

It is not a discussion we engage with Rosie the derivator, it is a tic...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <farmelantj at juno.com>
To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Rosa's latest replies


>
> Note that Rosa has added some additional
> responses on the following page.
>
> http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/weak_responses_from_kosloff_and_mage.htm





More information about the Marxism mailing list