Traditionally, most philosophers who’ve talked a lot about ‘dialectics’, mainly Marxists and Hegelians, have seen it in an essentially positive light, as something that drives forward progress. I think it should be recognised, though, that very often, dialectical processes are conservative: they contribute profoundly to the stability of systems, and hold back progress. Of course this is, in practice, often quite obvious, but it may be helpful to put it in theoretical terms.
Several senior figures in the Church of England have claimed that British society under Labour is suffering from “family breakdown, an addiction to debt and a growing gap between rich and poor.“
This reminds me of nothing so much as the following passage from the good ol’ Communist Manifesto on ‘feudal socialism’:
“It became the vocation of the aristocracies…to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.
In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone.
Prince Edward goes out with some dogs and kills pheasants. He then hits on of the dogs. People are in uproar about hitting the dog. Uproar does not seem to be forthcoming about the fact that he was shooting pheasants.
If I a choice between being a dog and getting hit with a stick, and being a pheasant and getting shot with a gun, I know which one I’d choose.
