Isn't DM demotivating?

[Black Sheep]

Law of Opposites

Marx and Engels started with the observation that everything in existence is a unity of opposites. For example, electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity) is characterized by a positive and negative charge, and atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) consist of protons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton) and electrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron) which are unified but ultimately contradictory forces.



Living things strive to balance internal and external forces to maintain homeostasis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis), which is simply a balance of opposing forces such as acidity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidity) and alkalinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkalinity).
Marx concludes that everything "contains mutually incompatible and exclusive but nevertheless equally essential and indispensable parts or aspects." This unity of opposites is what makes each entity auto-dynamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Auto-dynamic&action=edit&redlink=1) and provides a constant motivation for movement and change. This idea was borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Hegel) who said: "Contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and of all life."
Some opposites are antagonistic,[1] (http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/4/v4n1_dy5.html) as in the competition between capitalists and laborers. Factory owners offer the lowest wages possible, while workers seek the highest wages. Sometimes, this antagonism sparks strikes or lockouts.
This is absurd.If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?
Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?


the nature of opposition, which causes conflict in each element and gives it motion, also tends to negate the thing itself.This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?

[pbond123]

There are is a group of anti-DM RevLeft members on the forums. You should take this there. I'm still exploring the validity of Dialectical Materialism myself.

[Absolut]

When the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class is over, there will still be other opposites which will further development, such as between manual and intellectual labour, or between the countryside or the city. So development doesnt halt when the contradictory struggle between worker and capitalist halt.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Absolut, unfortunately the theory behind what you say is radically flawed. On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24

There you will see that dialectical classicists like Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, and many others (whom I have quoted extensively there) argue that 'dialectical opposites' (comprisng these 'contradictions') all inevitably turn into one another.

That can only mean that the capitalist class must turn into the proletariat, and the proletariat must turn into the capitalist class!

It also means that the forces of production must turn into the relations of production!

Fortunately, we do not need dialectics to make Historical Materialism work.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bulk Sheep, well done for your forthright stance, but you need to know you are banging your head against a brick wall.

That is why I chose this signature:


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 -- Max Eastman.

Alas, dialectically-distracted comrades cling on to this 'theory' for non-rational reasons, those I outlined here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1349779&postcount=2

That is why you will never get much sense out of the vast majority of them.

[I have been trying now for over 25 years -- with very little success so far!]

[benhur]

you are banging your head against a brick wall.


Having corresponded with you for a while, I have an idea what it must feel like.:laugh: Anyway, must you trash every thread with this anti-dialectic diatribe?

Back to topic:

Bulk Sheep,



Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?

The movement and change will continue, as you've rightly suspected. But it will continue within the field of what we call communism, hence the apparent contradictions are resolved.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Having corresponded with you for a while, I have an idea what it must feel like. Anyway, must you trash every thread with this anti-dialectic diatribe?

1) Yes -- get used to it -- or don't.

Why do you think I have notched up nearly 10,000 posts in just over three years? And why do you think the dialectical mystics here had to limp off and form their own secret little coven (the Dialectical Materialism group), which I am not allowed to join?

2) But, aren't you the numpty who said this?


You're denying the fact that opposites combine to create something new. When you get the basics wrong, how can we take you seriously?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1351468&postcount=37

To which I replied:


So, you believe that the bourgeoisie and the working class will 'combine' do you?

But, according to the dialectical prophets (quoted above), these two classes should change into one another.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1351585&postcount=41

3) And, as I predicted, you mystics cannot respond effectively to my demolition of your mystical 'theory', so you just resort to abuse.


The movement and change will continue, as you've rightly suspected. But it will continue within the field of what we call communism, hence the apparent contradictions are resolved.

But we already know this can't work -- anyway, you think that 'opposites' should 'combine'.

So, not even you 'understand' this 'theory'!:(

[Absolut]

Absolut, unfortunately the theory behind what you say is radically flawed. On that see here:

I never said I confessed to dialectic materialism, I just tried to explain it as Ive had it explained to me, as Ive also asked the same question. Personally, I feel I know too little of it to confess to it. Ill definately check your links out though.

[Decolonize The Left]

When the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class is over, there will still be other opposites which will further development, such as between manual and intellectual labour, or between the countryside or the city. So development doesnt halt when the contradictory struggle between worker and capitalist halt.

You must admit that these so-called "opposites" are based upon conceptual differentiations which may, or may not, exist.

Ex: your use of "manual labor" and "intellectual labor."
1) Why are these forms of labor 'opposed' to one another?
2) Does not intellectual labor entail manual labor?
3) Is not intellectual labor manual labor, and manual labor intellectual labor?

If you admit that manual labor (such as digging a ditch) entails intellectual labor (such as engaging in basic logic), then why are they opposed? Where is the opposition?

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

The movement and change will continue, as you've rightly suspected. But it will continue within the field of what we call communism, hence the apparent contradictions are resolved.

"Movement," what movement?
"Change," what change?

Can you be anything other than abstract and vague? I could say that there is 'movement' and 'change' in the fairies which live in my computer and make it function...

- August

[Absolut]

You must admit that these so-called "opposites" are based upon conceptual differentiations which may, or may not, exist.

Ex: your use of "manual labor" and "intellectual labor."
1) Why are these forms of labor 'opposed' to one another?
2) Does not intellectual labor entail manual labor?
3) Is not intellectual labor manual labor, and manual labor intellectual labor?

If you admit that manual labor (such as digging a ditch) entails intellectual labor (such as engaging in basic logic), then why are they opposed? Where is the opposition?

- August

Your points may very well be valid, and Im not going to engange in any kind of defence for dialectic materialism. I can only point you to my answer above.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Absolut:


I never said I confessed to dialectic materialism, I just tried to explain it as Ive had it explained to me, as Ive also asked the same question. Personally, I feel I know too little of it to confess to it. Ill definately check your links out though.

And I never said you did, I merely said that the theory behind what you say (not what you believe or what you accept) is radically flawed.

[Absolut]

Absolut:

And I never said you did, I merely said that the theory behind what you say (not what you believe or what you accept) is radically flawed.

In that case I misunderstood what you said, sorry.

[RebelDog]

This is absurd.If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?
Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?It is a dynamic process. Where class society is 'negated' humans will be left with the battle against nature until either or neither wins.


This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?Surely every reality depends on having a system of quantifying what any given thing is at any given time. Your point might actually be counter-productive, given that if you understand that everything must decay in to something else, then there must be a dynamic process behind this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RD:


Your point might actually be counter-productive, given that if you understand that everything must decay in to something else, then there must be a dynamic process behind this.

But even if there were, that process cannot be 'dialectical', for the reasons I detailed here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24

[PRC-UTE]

This is absurd.If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?

it allows for the beginning of human history. humans and their societies are no longer controlled by the whims and choas of markets, tyrants, war and unavoidable social conflicts.



Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?

the theory goes that change would no longer be directed by forces external to the individual, or internal contradictions (social conflicts from partisan class material interests that cannot be resolved within that society and poitn to the creation of a new society). change would be man-made and designed.



This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?

well for one thing, I don't see the values of dialectics applied to nature. that was something Engels and later the Soviets really applied, not so much Marx.

however it was a positive critique of bourgeois thinking. like take the idea that someone is a petit bourgeois. rather than look at them as a petit bourgeois defined by the nature of the petit bourgeoisie, we may examine how their class is changing and their relationship to other classes in a specific period of time. not just the nature of something, but where it is going, and its interaction within a whole. dialectical reasoning was an attempt to move past the mechanistic thinking inherent to the bourgeoisie, for while it was progressive at one time it has limitations. as does dialectical thinking- it shouldn't be held up as some sort of religion as admittedly many do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


it allows for the beginning of human history. humans and their societies are no longer controlled by the whims and choas of markets, tyrants, war and unavoidable social conflicts.

But this is Historical Materialism, not dialectics.


the theory goes that change would no longer be directed by forces external to the individual, or internal contradictions (social conflicts from partisan class material interests that cannot be resolved within that society and poitn to the creation of a new society). change would be man-made and designed.

Not only are we never told what these alleged 'contradictions' are, or rather why they are contradictions to begin with, what little we are told implies this theory cannot work (or that if dialectics were true, change would be impossible):

Quotes from the Dialectical Classics:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

Argument showing this 'theory' cannot work:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24


well for one thing, I don't see the values of dialectics applied to nature. that was something Engels and later the Soviets really applied, not so much Marx.

I agree, but then your 'half-way house' compromise suggests that human beings are not part of nature!

Better to dump this useless, mystical theory altogether.

[el_chavista]

-Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?
- You previously said that "some opposites are antagonistic", so there must be non antagonistic contradictions or opposites in the communist society

-When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
-When light is a wave and when a corpuscle? How can light be 2 different things at one and the same time?

If Hegels' explanation on how things change is not good, are we to redefine Marxism anew?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

el chavista:


If Hegels' explanation on how things change is not good, are we to redefine Marxism anew?

We do not need to -- all we need is classical historical materialism with the Hegelian jargon removed.

Our understanding of history and how to change it will not be affected in the least.

[PRC-UTE]

PRC:
But this is Historical Materialism, not dialectics.

Marx made no such distinction. He applied dialectics to his studies. DM was a legitimising ideology which was created post-Marx, as my comments about dialectics on nature and science were made in reference to.



Not only are we never told what these alleged 'contradictions' are, or rather why they are contradictions to begin with, what little we are told implies this theory cannot work (or that if dialectics were true, change would be impossible)

we've heard it all before. from Bernstein, actually.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


Marx made no such distinction. He applied dialectics to his studies. DM was a legitimising ideology which was created post-Marx, as my comments about dialectics on nature and science were made in reference to.

1) That does not mean that we shouldn't.

2) Marx abandoned this theory by the time he came to write Das Kapital:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124


we've heard it all before. from Bernstein, actually.

Where in Bernstein do you find this:


As we are about to see, this idea -- that there are such things as "dialectical contradictions" and "unities of opposites" (etc.), which cause change -- presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches, if interpreted along the lines expressed in the DM-classics (quoted above -- added: see below).

[DM = Dialectical Materialism/ist; NON = Negation of the Negation; FL = Formal Logic.]

To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal contradictory opposites" O* and O**, and it thus changes as a result.

[The same problems arise if these are viewed as 'external' contradictions.]

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist then, according to this theory, O* could not change at all, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

Hence, it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it is now said to be what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there, in the present, to make that happen!

So, if object/process A is already composed of a 'dialectical union' of O* and not-O* (interpreting O** now as not-O*), how can O* possibly change into not-O* when not-O* already exists?

Several alternatives now suggest themselves which might allow dialecticians to dig themselves out of this hermetic hole. Either:

(1) O* 'changes' into not-O*, meaning there would now be two not-O*s where once there was one (unless, of course, one of these not-O*s just vanishes into thin air -- see below); or:

(2) O* does not change, or it disappears. Plainly, O* cannot change into what already exists -- that is, O* cannot change into its opposite, not-O* without there being two of them (see above). But even then, one of these will not be not-O* just a copy of it. In that case, O* either disappears, does not change at all, or changes into something else; or:

(3) Not-O* itself disappears to allow a new (but copy) not-O* to emerge that O* can and does change into. If so, questions would naturally arise as to how the original not-O* could possibly cause O* to change if is has just vanished. Of course, this option merely postpones the evil day, for the same difficulties will afflict the new not-O* that afflicted the old. If it exists in order to allow O* to change, then we are back where we were to begin with.

Anyway, as should seem obvious, among other things already mentioned, alternative (2) plainly means that O* does not in fact change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it. Option (1), on the other hand, has the original not-O* remaining the same (when it was supposed to turn into its own opposite -- O* -- according to the DM-classics), and options (2) and (3) will only work if matter and/or energy can either be destroyed or created from nowhere!

Naturally, these problems will simply re-appear at the next stage as not-O* readies itself to change into whatever it changes into. But, in this case there is an added twist, for there is as yet no not-not-O* in existence to make this happen. This means that the dialectical process will grind to a halt, unless a not-not-O* pops into existence to start things up again.

But what could possibly engineer that?

Indeed, at the very least, this 'theory' of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about in the first place. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere, too. [Gollobin (above) sort of half recognises this without realising either his error or the serious problems this creates.]

But, not-O* cannot have come from O* itself, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the NON) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

[However, on the NON, see below.]

Now, it could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes in fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, on that basis, it could be maintained that the above argument is entirely misguided.

Fortunately, repairs are easy to make: let us now suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal/external opposites" O* and O**, (the latter once again interpreted as not-O*) and it thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows as before: if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O*, and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, how is it possible for O* to change into not-O* when not-O* already exists?

Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*.

[This objection might even incorporate that eminently obscure Hegelian term-of-art: "sublation". More on that presently.]

But, if this were so, while it was happening these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process while that is happening". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective', once more.

But, if we ignore that 'difficulty' for now, and even supposing it were the case that not-O* 'developed' into O* while not-O* 'developed' into O*, and such process were governed by the obscure term "sublation", this alternative will still not work (as we are about to see).

Indeed, developing this option further before it is demolished, it could be argued that Engels had himself anticipated the above objections when he said:


"[RL: Negation of the negation is] a very simple process which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand as soon as it is stripped of the veil of mystery in which it was enveloped by the old idealist philosophy and in which it is to the advantage of helpless metaphysicians of Herr Dühring's calibre to keep it enveloped. Let us take a grain of barley. Billions of such grains of barley are milled, boiled and brewed and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions which are normal for it, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the influence of heat and moisture it undergoes a specific change, it germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the grain. But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and as soon as these have ripened the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten-, twenty- or thirtyfold. Species of grain change extremely slowly, and so the barley of today is almost the same as it-was a century ago. But if we take a plastic ornamental plant, for example a dahlia or an orchid, and treat the seed and the plant which grows from it according to the gardener's art, we get as a result of this negation of the negation not only more seeds, but also qualitatively improved seeds, which produce more beautiful flowers, and each repetition of this process, each fresh negation of the negation, enhances this process of perfection. [Engels (1976), pp.172-73.]

"But someone may object: the negation that has taken place in this case is not a real negation: I negate a grain of barley also when I grind it, an insect when I crush it underfoot, or the positive quantity a when I cancel it, and so on. Or I negate the sentence: the rose is a rose, when I say: the rose is not a rose; and what do I get if I then negate this negation and say: but after all the rose is a rose? -- These objections are in fact the chief arguments put forward by the metaphysicians against dialectics, and they are wholly worthy of the narrow-mindedness of this mode of thought. Negation in dialectics does not mean simply saying no, or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any way one likes. Long ago Spinoza said: Omnis determinatio est negatio -- every limitation or determination is at the same time a negation. And further: the kind of negation is here determined, firstly, by the general and, secondly, by the particular nature of the process. I must not only negate, but also sublate the negation. I must therefore so arrange the first negation that the second remains or becomes possible. How? This depends on the particular nature of each individual case. If I grind a grain of barley, or crush an insect, I have carried out the first part of the action, but have made the second part impossible. Every kind of thing therefore has a peculiar way of being negated in such manner that it gives rise to a development, and it is just the same with every kind of conception or idea....

"But it is clear that from a negation of the negation which consists in the childish pastime of alternately writing and cancelling a, or in alternately declaring that a rose is a rose and that it is not a rose, nothing eventuates but the silliness of the person who adopts such a tedious procedure. And yet the metaphysicians try to make us believe that this is the right way to carry out a negation of the negation, if we ever should want to do such a thing. [Ibid., pp.180-81.]

Engels's argument seems to be that "dialectical negation" is not the same as ordinary negation in that it is not simple destruction. Dialectical negation "sublates"; that is, it both destroys and preserves, so that something new or 'higher' emerges as a result. Nevertheless, we have already seen here [in the original article, this 'here' links to another argument at my site, as do several of the other 'here's dotted around this post], that Hegel's use of this word (i.e., "sublate") is highly suspect, and we will also see below [again, this 'below' refers to a later section of the essay from which this was extracted] that this 'Law' (i.e., the NON) is even more dubious still (partly because Hegel confused ordinary negation with 'cancelling out', or with destruction, as did Engels).

Well, despite all this, is it the case that the above comments neutralise the argument presented in this part of this post? Is the argument here guilty of the following:


"These objections are in fact the chief arguments put forward by the metaphysicians against dialectics, and they are wholly worthy of the narrow-mindedness of this mode of thought." [Ibid.]

To answer this, let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and not-O*, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change/develop into a "sublated" intermediary, but not into not-O* -- incidentally, contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier. O* should, of course, change into not-O*, not into some intermediary.

Putting this minor quibble to one side, too, on this 'revised' view, let us suppose that O* does indeed change into that intermediary. To that end, let us call the latter, "O*(1)" (which can be interpreted as a combination of the old and the new; a 'negation' which also 'preserves'/'sublates').

If so, then O*(1) must remain forever in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*(1) in existence to make it develop any further.

[Recall that on this 'theory', everything (and that must include O*(1)) changes because of a 'struggle' with its opposite.]

So, there must be a not-O*(1) to make O*(1) change further. To be sure, we could try to exempt O*(1) from this essential requirement on an ad hoc basis (arguing, perhaps, that O*(1) changes spontaneously with nothing actually causing it), and yet if we do that, there would seem to be no reason to accept the version of events contained in the DM-classics, which tells us that every thing/process changes because of the operation of opposites (and O*(1) is certainly a thing/process). Furthermore, if we make an exemption here, then the whole point of the exercise would be lost, for if some things do and some things do not change according this dialectical 'Law', we would be left with no way of telling which changes were and which were not subject to it.

[This would also mean that the second 'Law' (discussed here) was not a 'law' either, just like the first.]

This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that such a subjectively applied exemption certificate (issued to O*(1)) would mean that nothing at all could change, for everything in the universe is in the process of change, and is thus already a 'sublated' version of whatever it used to be.

Ignoring this, too, even if O*(1) were to change into not-O*(1) (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems simply reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*(1) already existed to make it happen! But not-O*(1) cannot already exist, for O*(1) has not changed into it yet!

Once more, it could be objected that the dialectical negation of O* to produce not-O* is not ordinary negation, as the above seems to assume.

In that case, let us say that O* turns into its 'sublated' opposite not-O*(s), but if that is to happen, according to the Dialectical Gospels, not-O*(s) must already exist! If so, and yet again, O* cannot turn into not-O*(s), for it already exists! On the other hand, if not-O*(s) does not already exist, then O* cannot change, for O* can only change if it struggles with what it changes into, i.e., not-O*(s).

Once more we hit the same non-dialectical brick wall.

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into a man (his opposite), as the above argues. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists.

Or so it could be claimed.

But, this theory tells us that things/processes change because of a struggle with their opposites, and with what they become. Are we now to assume that John has to struggle with all the individuals that are already men if he is to become a man himself (if we now treat all these other men as John's opposites)? And are we to suppose that John struggles with what he is to become, even before it exists? If not, then the above response is beside the point. And, in view of the fact that John must turn into his opposite, does that mean he has to turn into these other men, or even into one of them? But he must do so if the Dialectical Holy Books are to be believed.

Anyway, according to the DM-worthies quoted above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites taking place in the here-and-now. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

Some might be tempted to reply that this is precisely what adolescence is, and yet, in that case, John-as-boy and John-as-a-man would have to be locked in struggle in the present. [Of course, adolescence cannot struggle with anything, since it is an abstraction.] But, John-as-a-man does not yet exist, and so 'he' cannot struggle with John-as-boy. On the other hand, if John-as-a-man does exist, so that 'he' can struggle with his youthful self, then John-as-boy cannot change into 'him', for John-as-a-man already exists!

To be sure, John's 'opposite' is whatever he will become (if he is allowed to develop naturally), but, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist otherwise John would not need to become him!

Looking at this more concretely, in ten or fifteen years time, John will not become just any man, he will become a particular man. In that case, let us call the man that John becomes "Man-J". But, once again, Man-J must exist now or John cannot change into him (if the DM-worthies quoted earlier are to be believed), for John can only become a man if he is locked in struggle with his own opposite, Man-J. But, if that is so, John cannot become Man-J since Man-J already exists!

[This, of course, is simply a more concrete version of the argument outlined above.]

Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100oC (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam? This must be so if the Dialectical Saints are to be believed.

Hence, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens, according to these wise old dialecticians, is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy and turn the gas off!

In fact, let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it, we shall call it "W1", and the steam molecule it turns into "S1". But, if the DM-Worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it! Again, if that is so, where does S1 disappear to if W1 changes into it?

In fact, according to the Dialectical Magi, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1 at the same time as W1 is turning into S1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific 'theory', steam must be turning back into the water you are boiling, and it must do so at the same rate!

One wonders, therefore, how dialectical kettles manage to boil dry.

This must be so, otherwise when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists, or W1 could not change into it -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other alleged examples of DM-change).

It could be objected that the opposite that liquid water turns into is a gas; so the dialectical classicists are correct. However, if we take them at their word, then that gas must 'struggle' with liquid water in the here-and-now if water is to change. But that gas does not yet exist; in which case, water would never boil if this 'theory' were true. But even if it did, it is heat that causes the change not the gas! However we try and slice it, this 'theory' is totally useless -- that is, what little sense can be made of it.

This, of course, does not deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

Alternatively, if DM were true, change would be impossible.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24

The quotations upon which the above is based can be found here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

[gilhyle]

You must remember that in Rosa's mind this site is a location on which to conduct class struggle, rather than a location for fraternal mutual informative debate between comrades and she....in her own mind at least....is involved in a class strugge against a ruling class ideology, consequently she has no intention of allowing debate about DM to occur; she flames here as a political method.

Like Don Quixote she is tilting at windmills; the model of class struggle underlying such website behaviour is as absurd as her criticisms of dialectical materialism are confused.....but the price you pay for wanting to look for any debate on this site about DM to develop your own attitude to it is that you have to endure Rosa, class struggle warrior that she is, carrying out her war on your thread. :rolleyes:

Now on to the issue. What is important to understand about DM is that as a metaphysic it is trivial. Its ideas about the universal nature of change have no significant implications, when underrstood as those propositions were understood by, for example, Engels. What DM is is a set of critical ideas that help to cut against ideological assumptions that get put into many ideological arguments.

Potentially it has second relevance. Marx used a methodology which few if any Marxists have used since - a complex methodology which involved the articulation of models of reality which explaned empirical phenomena which directly contradicted key claims of the model. But no Marxists have been able to replicate that model since. Lenin, for example, did not use such a methodology, being as he said himself a political journalist rather than a theorist. Thus you cannot say that DM leads you to Marx's methodology - but you can say that DM led Marx to that methodology.

But leaving that aside and going back to the first point, DM as a critique of aspects of ideologies, you ask


If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?
Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?

It is not the point of accepting that change is constant to argue that change should end. Marxism is not a Buddhism - which seeks escape from the eternal cycle etc. We recognise the constancy of change to criticise those ideologies which suggest that captialism is in some sense normal, or the end of history. We do not suggest that we fight against capitalism to end change - but rather accept that our struggle will continue it.

It is true that it is implicit in the Marxist concept of advanced communism that a point is reached when the nature of historical change itself changes fundamentally. All history has been the history of class struggle, driven by the inadequacy of human resources to perceived need, based on the given level of productive forces. At the point of full communism that ceases to be the case. But that does not mean change ends, rather that the driver of change alters. But all that is highly theoretical. Really who cares ? We'll all be long since dead.


This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?

YOu are absolutely correct and it is critical to DM that it affirms that it cannot say when the cat ceases to be a cat. That must be worked out but it must be worked out by persons operating at a different level than DM theorists. DM theory is only a gloss on more particular theories and perspectives.

Of course when the cat ceases to be a cat is also, to some extent, a matter of subjective consensus. Underlying it of course is an objective process, which underlies what we define as objects, but this does not determine what we characterise as an object in some mechanical, realist manner in which we perceive objects which are just there and and which dictate to us what we will identify as objects.

The identification of objects, the division of the world into descrete defined objects is itself a complex process. Within a class divided society, even the definition of objects becomes a matter of politically charged debate - note the debate on abortion. But DM does not aim to tell you in advance of more specific debate what is a useful or acceptable usage.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


You must remember that in Rosa's mind this site is a location on which to conduct class struggle, rather than a location for fraternal mutual informative debate between comrades and she....in her own mind at least....is involved in a class struggle against a ruling class ideology, consequently she has no intention of allowing debate about DM to occur; she flames here as a political method.

Ah, at last, Gil's annual 'review' of me -- those who saw his/her 'review' last year will know that I predicted that we'd have another soon -- the gap being slightly larger than even I had imagined. I also predicted that Gil would make unsubstantiated allegations about me, and in that I was right too.

In fact, from the very beginning Gil, you are the one who has avoided "fraternal mutual informative debate", whereas I have merely reacted to your lies, fabrications and systematic avoidance of evidence and argument you could not answer.


Like Don Quixote she is tilting at windmills; the model of class struggle underlying such website behaviour is as absurd as her criticisms of dialectical materialism are confused.....but the price you pay for wanting to look for any debate on this site about DM to develop your own attitude to it is that you have to endure Rosa, class struggle warrior that she is, carrying out her war on your thread.

Which 'windmills' am I 'tilting at'? You always fall to say. And which of my criticisms are 'confused', and in what way? You shed no light there either.

So, true to form, you just advance yet more unsupported allegations.

Roll up next year, folks, for the same sort of 'review'.



Now on to the issue. What is important to understand about DM is that as a metaphysic it is trivial. Its ideas about the universal nature of change have no significant implications, when understood as those propositions were understood by, for example, Engels. What DM is is a set of critical ideas that help to cut against ideological assumptions that get put into many ideological arguments.

For Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among many others) it's a world-view alright, and not just a 'critical method'. And, as it turned out, it is dogmatic and a priori -- having been imposed on the world on the basis of very thin, and highly dubious evidence (mostly copied from Hegel or Engels), and in defiance of a mountain of facts.


Potentially it has second relevance. Marx used a methodology which few if any Marxists have used since - a complex methodology which involved the articulation of models of reality which explained empirical phenomena which directly contradicted key claims of the model. But no Marxists have been able to replicate that model since. Lenin, for example, did not use such a methodology, being as he said himself a political journalist rather than a theorist. Thus you cannot say that DM leads you to Marx's methodology - but you can say that DM led Marx to that methodology.

But we already know that Marx abandoned this mystical method when he wrote Das Kapital.

And, you have no excuse, you have been told.


It is not the point of accepting that change is constant to argue that change should end. Marxism is not a Buddhism - which seeks escape from the eternal cycle etc. We recognise the constancy of change to criticise those ideologies which suggest that capitalism is in some sense normal, or the end of history. We do not suggest that we fight against capitalism to end change - but rather accept that our struggle will continue it.

But, according to the Dialectical Holy books, things change because of their 'internal contradictions' comprised of a 'unity and identity of opposites', and they inevitably change into their opposites.

Comrades can read the sacred texts to this effect here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

But, as my argument above shows, this is not possible, for if that opposite already exists, then the original object cannot change into it. On the other hand, if that opposite does not already exist, no change can come about, since there would then be no opposite for the said object to struggle with.

In that case, of DM were true, there could be no change; alternatively, if and when change occurs, DM cannot explain it.

Gil has ignored this since he/she cannot answer it -- and neither can any other of our brave dialectical warriors here. No wonder they had to slope off into their secret cabal to avoid me.


YOu are absolutely correct and it is critical to DM that it affirms that it cannot say when the cat ceases to be a cat. That must be worked out but it must be worked out by persons operating at a different level than DM theorists. DM theory is only a gloss on more particular theories and perspectives.

Unfortunately, DM cannot even explain dead cats!

Consider cat C. According to the Dialectical Prophets, cat C can only change because of its internal opposite, its internal contradiction. Let us call the opposite of cat C, cat C*. But they also tell us that cat C will change into that opposite; so this opposite must be cat C*, which cat C must change into. But C changes into a dead cat, so that dead cat must be this opposite, it must be C*.

But if C is to struggle with C*, then C* must already exist. In other words, this live cat C must struggle with dead cat C*!

Have you ever seen a live cat struggle with its future dead self?

But, if this dead cat already exists, then C cannot change into it! In that case, according to this wonderful 'theory', this amazing 'method', cat C cannot die!

Now, one might be tempted to argue that C changes into some other dead cat, say C**, but in that case, if the Dialectical Magi are to be believed, C** must already exist, otherwise it could not struggle with C! So, C cannot change into it either! In fact, in this case, there would now be two dead cats, not one!

[The same argument applies to any of the intermediate stages in a cat's life -- for the general details, see the long argument I posted earlier.]

Hence, we hit the same non-dialectical brick wall.

And what is true of this moggie is true of all moggies. No cat can, or has ever died, according to the 'world-view' of the proletariat!

Is it any wonder that workers ignore us?

[B]There is indeed a spectre haunting Europe, and its not that of a dead cat -- for there are none.

So, workers of the world unite, you have nothing to fear but the loss of your dead pets!

Not rousing slogans, I trust you will agree...

In that case, we should perhaps rename DM as the theory that proves there are no Dead Moggies.

So, it must be an illusion of bourgeois 'commonsense' that cats die!

And this, in brief, is the argument that Gil and the rest ignore, since it almost single-handedly demolishes DM, and they have no answer to it.

So they just deflect attention, and make personal attacks.

[Hit The North]

And what is true of this moggie is true of all moggies. No cat can, or has ever died, according to the 'world-view' of the proletariat.

Ha, what a bunch of morons Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin must have been!


Is it any wonder that workers ignore us?

Yes, that must be it. They've penetrated to the internal contradictions of classical DM and found us out for the morons we are. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Ha, what a bunch of morons Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin must have been!

They were not the first, nor will they be the last non-workers to accept a loopy ruling-class theory.

Look how many 'intelligent' people believe in God.


Yes, that must be it. They've penetrated to the internal contradictions of classical DM and found us out for the morons we are.

You said it comrade.

[Hit The North]

They were not the first, nor will they be the last non-workers to accept a loopy ruling-class theory. Yes, but one so crass as to resolve itself into the denial of dead cats!? This particular 'ruling class theory' is so loopy, even the ruling class don't have any use for it!

Meanwhile which theory do the workers use which separates their view from the ruling class theory?


You said it comrade.

Yes, but in jest. Obviously the reason workers ignore Marxist has next to nothing to do with the problems of dialectical theory and more to do with their attachment to ruling class ideas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Yes, but one so crass as to resolve itself into the denial of dead cats!? This particular 'ruling class theory' is so loopy, even the ruling class don't have any use for it!

Well, in general they don't; only Hegelians (and materialist dialecticians) seem to believe it.

And it's ruling-class in the sense I gave it here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1349779&postcount=2

And yes it is crass, but then there are highly intelligent people who believe that Jesus walked on water, changed water into wine, was born of a virgin, and rose from the dead (so for them there is no dead Jesus, either!).


Meanwhile which theory do the workers use which separates their view from the ruling class theory?

They have none, which is all to the good.

But, because of this, in times of struggle, it is very easy to persuade them of the truth of Historical Materialism.

The exact opposite is the case with those comrades who have fallen for this virus of the mind:


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.

BTB:


Yes, but in jest. Obviously the reason workers ignore Marxist has next to nothing to do with the problems of dialectical theory and more to do with their attachment to ruling class ideas.

Indeed, but it is part of the story.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

[SEKT]

PRC:

2) Marx abandoned this theory by the time he came to write Das Kapital

I think someone needs to re-read Das Kapital!

In fact, Have you read The fetishism of commodities passage?? It´s completely dialectical
How could you then deny the dialectical conception of Marx if it is present even (which is your assumption not mine) in Das Kapital??

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SEKT:


I think someone needs to re-read Das Kapital!

And that "someone" is you.


In fact, Have you read The fetishism of commodities passage?? It´s completely dialectical
How could you then deny the dialectical conception of Marx if it is present even (which is your assumption not mine) in Das Kapital??

In what way is it 'dialectical'?

And, I see you have not read the argument here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

Is it any wonder then that Marx abandoned this 'theory'? As the long argument above shows, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible. On the other hand, if and when change occurred, dialectics would not be able to explain it.

[gilhyle]

In fact, from the very beginning Gil, you are the one who has avoided "fraternal mutual informative debate", whereas I have merely reacted to your lies, fabrications and systematic avoidance of evidence and argument you could not answer.

You do not believe that this is a site for fraternal debate. You have made it clear that you think anything goes in responding to opponents in this debate; you have also made it clear that you think that those who accept the DM view are, thereby, on the wrong side of the class divide. but the nub of the point is this: people raise sincere issues about DM and your purpose in intervening in the thread and in posting 10,000 posts over three years is to shout down others, confuse issues, misrepresent, represent accurately....anything that will suit your purpose of defeating the windmill which is the DM of your own imagination, a DM which you claim not to understand, but which you claim to be able, authoritatively, to set out.....an unprecedented feat of philosophical gymnastics from someone who also claims not to have a philosophical stance etc.....the absurdity goes on and on and on and on ....and the only result is no one can ask a question or have a debate on DM which is, sadly, your ownly purpose - although you do have some challenging points to make about DM which are lost in your own class struggle fantasy.

You should at least have the decency to stay way from the 'Learning forum, or limit your contributions to the kind f factual elaborations which are approrpriate for this forum, but no the class struggle must go on.

Lo ! Another Windmill Rosa, tilt, for Wittgensten's sake, Tilt !

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, clearly riled:


You do not believe that this is a site for fraternal debate. You have made it clear that you think anything goes in responding to opponents in this debate; you have also made it clear that you think that those who accept the DM view are, thereby, on the wrong side of the class divide. but the nub of the point is this: people raise sincere issues about DM and your purpose in intervening in the thread and in posting 10,000 posts over three years is to shout down others, confuse issues, misrepresent, represent accurately....anything that will suit your purpose of defeating the windmill which is the DM of your own imagination, a DM which you claim not to understand, but which you claim to be able, authoritatively, to set out.....an unprecedented feat of philosophical gymnastics from someone who also claims not to have a philosophical stance etc.....the absurdity goes on and on and on and on ....and the only result is no one can ask a question or have a debate on DM which is, sadly, your ownly purpose - although you do have some challenging points to make about DM which are lost in your own class struggle fantasy.

So, you still can't respond to my argument.

No change there then, -- and this from a supposed apostle of change!

Yet another ironic dialectical inversion. I hope you agree.


You should at least have the decency to stay way from the 'Learning forum, or limit your contributions to the kind f factual elaborations which are approrpriate for this forum, but no the class struggle must go on.

Why should I? If you can't respond to my demolition of your source of opiates, I think newer comrades should see this, and witness your melt-down.


Another Windmill Rosa, tilt, for Wittgensten's sake, Tilt !

Not windmills, but windy gils.

[gilhyle]

I think newer comrades should see this

Newer comrades as you call them are perfectly capable of going to the philosophy forum. People post in this forum not because they are new, but because its a learning forum. If you werent so preoccupied with your class struggle role, you could treat it as such.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WindGil:


Newer comrades as you call them are perfectly capable of going to the philosophy forum.

So are you.


People post in this forum not because they are new, but because its a learning forum.

And I intend to learn them. Get used to it, or don't.


If you werent so preoccupied with your class struggle role, you could treat it as such

Indeed, and we are on opposite sides, too: you struggle to convey the ideas of the ruling class to newer comrades, whereas I aim to stop you.

And that is why you throw so many tantrums.

By the way, got anywhere with the paradox of the dialectical wood yet?

You know, the one where he/she who struggles with wood to make a table, turns into that wood, since the dialectical prophets tell us that everything turns into that with which it struggles, its 'opposite'.

Or are you still sulking?

[Charles Xavier]

This is absurd.If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?
Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?

This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?

Right, the contradictions within society will be halted thus there would be no need for further social change once communism is achieved. Technology and other sciences would still advance because they would have to address society's concerns.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GDII:


Right, the contradictions within society will be halted thus there would be no need for further social change once communism is achieved. Technology and other sciences would still advance because they would have to address society's concerns.

As I have shown. these alleged 'contradictions', if valid, would prevent change.

You keep dodging this fatal weakness of your theory.

[benhur]

GDII:



As I have shown. these alleged 'contradictions', if valid, would prevent change.


That's because you've ignored Hegel's idea of The Absolute, which is essentially unchanging, and which is the substratum of all change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


That's because you've ignored Hegel's idea of The Absolute, which is essentially unchanging, and which is the substratum of all change.

And how do you know this?

As I said, you mystics like such a priori 'truths', acessible to thought alone, which is, of course, why I posted this earlier:


1) The founders of this quasi-religion weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was this hidden world that governed everything, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

2) That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history had predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for them, which meant they were their 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could thus legitimately substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand, since the masses were too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why DM is a world-view.

It is also why dialecticians cling on to this theory like grim death (and become very emotional (and abusive!) when it is attacked by yours truly), since it provides them with a source of consolation that, despite outward appearances to the contrary, and because this hidden world tells them that dialectical Marxism will one day be a success, everything is in fact peachy, and nothing in the core theory needs changing -- in spite of the fact that that core theory says everything changes! Hence, it is ossified into a dogma, and imposed on reality. A rather nice unity of opposites for you to ponder.

So, this 'theory' insulates the militant mind from the facts.

In that case:

Dialectics is the sigh of the depressed dialectician, the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the party. The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Unfortunately, these sad characters will need (materialist) workers to rescue them from themselves.

[benhur]

BenHur:



And how do you know this?:

Self-evident. Consider the wood-table analogy, which seems to be your favorite.;) When wood becomes table, there's a change in form, but no change in substance. One might as well relate the process of change to the forms such as table, chair etc., and conclude that the substance wood, which happens to be the substratum, is unchanging.

In other words, change always implies change of forms and, hence, there must be an unchanging substratum, which is what Hegel's idea of The Absolute is all about. Without this unchanging substratum, there'll be no change in forms. Without wood as an unchanging basis, there's no change in forms from table to chair to any other wooden object.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Self-evident. Consider the wood-table analogy, which seems to be your favorite. When wood becomes table, there's a change in form, but no change in substance. One might as well relate the process of change to the forms such as table, chair etc., and conclude that the substance wood, which happens to be the substratum, is unchanging.

1) If it were 'self-evident', it wouldn't need a proof. So, it can't be 'self-evident'.

2) Even supposing you are correct about the wood example (not in fact my choice of example, but that of another comrade), this does not show what you say is true of every change that has occurred in the entire universe, and for all of time. You simply assume it is a priori true. We have yet to see the general proof.

3) According to Trotsky, even wood must change:


Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is true (sic) -– all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself at 'any given moment'…. How should we really conceive the word 'moment'? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that 'moment' to inevitable changes. Or is the 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom 'A' is equal to 'A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is if it does not exist.

In Defence of Marxism, pp.63-64.

No body is ever equal to itself. If A is never equal to A, then wood is never equal to wood. So Trotsky disagrees with you.

3) Again, even if you were completely correct here, and there is some unchanging substrate to all change, how does that refute my proof that dialectics cannot explain change, and that if dialectics were true, change could not happen.

According to the dialectical prophets
, objects change because of a 'struggle' between 'dialectical opposites', and they inevitably change into those opposites.

In that case, if wood changes into a table, the wood must struggle with the table it becomes!

On the other hand, if the wood is to struggle with the table it becomes, then the table must exist before it exists!

But, if it does not exist yet, it can't struggle with the wood from which it is made.

And, the same problem afflicts any of the intermediary stages here -- see my longer post on this.

[QUOTE]In other words, change always implies change of forms and, hence, there must be an unchanging substratum, which is what Hegel's idea of The Absolute is all about. Without this unchanging substratum, there'll be no change in forms. Without wood as an unchanging basis, there's no change in forms from table to chair to any other wooden object.

That makes you an [I]Absolute Idealist, or an old-fashioned Aristotelian, then.

But what happens if the wood is burnt? What stays the same then? The atoms? But what happens if the atoms decay, or are smashed (in a high energy physics experiment)? What stays the same then? The elementary particles? What happens when they decay (as almost all of them do)?

Finally, your argument seems to depend on this inference:

In every change, something remains the same. Therefore there is something that remains the same in every change.

This is called the 'quantifier switch fallacy' in modern logic.

If valid, it would licence the following inferences:

Every road goes somewhere. [True] Therefore there is somewhere that every road goes. [False]

But, in that case, all roads would indeed go to Rome.

Every football team has a captain. [True] Therefore, there is a captain for every football team. [False]

But, who is this universal captain?

Every event has some cause. Therefore there is some cause for every event -- call it 'God'.

In other words, this fallacy lies behind the Cosmological Argument for the existence of 'God'! No wonder Idealists liked to use this sort of inference.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

And that switch is why this argument fails.

This fallacy was easy to expose after modern quantifier logic was invented.

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/QuantifierOrder.pdf

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mgl/languageandlogic/lectures/classwork8_tutor.pdf

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3WwdwPvNb2wC&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=Quantifier+switch+fallacy&source=web&ots=E0yGDzC3dw&sig=B8SY_VBLtSdKLSogQ4Ua2tmRe5g&hl=en&ei=RZ6SSYG3HsOe-gbdkKSfCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

[Charles Xavier]

Rosa really doesn't like science. All their posts are anti-science and doesn't talk about other subjects. Rosa are you even a communist? I have never seen you talk politics only yell against science?

I mean in your anti-science speeches you don't seem to understand Dialectical Materialism, yet you write so much.

So I will summarize, what change is:

Matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GDII:


Rosa really doesn't like science. All their posts are anti-science and doesn't talk about other subjects. Rosa are you even a communist? I have never seen you talk politics only yell against science?

Ah, yet another sad mystic reduced to making stuff up about me because he/she cannot respond to my demolition of her/his pet 'theory.

In fact, what I do not like is the importation of mystical and useless concepts into science, which, if correct, would mean that change is impossible.

And you have not been here long enough to see my many politcal posts.




I mean in your anti-science speeches you don't seem to understand Dialectical Materialism, yet you write so much.

Perhaps you missed this:


There is in fact no way to tell if the dialectic has been 'bastardised' or mis-applied, since it can be made to say anything, and then its opposite a few minutes later. And that is because it is contradiction friendly.

All a dialectically-distracted comrade has to do is argue for A one minute, and not A the next. As soon as this contradiction is pointed out, the reply comes back: "That's dialectics. You clearly do not understand it!".

[Of course, us anti-dialecticians are not allowed this convenient loophole; every error we make, or every alleged contradiction in what we say, is paraded about as if were a hanging offence!]

There have been several examples of this recently at RevLeft. For instance, I have posted a series of quotations from the dialectical classics that show that theorists like Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, and a host of others, all believe that change is the result of a struggle between 'internal opposites', and that things inevitably turn into their opposites.

Now when I pointed out that this is not possible, since if an object has to struggle with its opposite, that opposite must exist already, and so it cannot change into it, for it is already there (or if I point out that if that opposite does not already exist, there is nothing there to struggle with), several comrades just said that I did not "understand dialectics". They did not even attempt to resolve this contradiction, they just blame me for exposing it!

Or they just ignore it.

So the dialectical classics contain glaring contradictions, but that is OK, apparently. If you object, you 'do not understand' -- just like if you object that the Christian Trinity is not possible, Christians will retort 'you do not understand'...

[Incidentally, Gilhyle is one of the worst offenders here, but there are plenty of subs waiting on the bench.]

It is not possible to 'understand' mysticism.

[I]Clearly, you are next sub off the bench.

Now, you have been asked to explain where I go wrong; instead of doing that, you just make stuff up about me, and moan.

Have all you mystics been cloned somewhere? You all respond in the exactly same boorish manner.

Scores of examples of the same sort of thing are logged here

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

Ah, at last, an in-depth explanation of change (Newton, Darwin and Einstein eat your hearts out!):


So I will summarize, what change is:

Matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements.

But, according to the Dialectical Magi, opposites not only struggle with one another, they inevitably turn into one another.

Here is the refutation you keep ignoring (from higher up this page, so you have no excuse):


Unfortunately, DM [Dialectical Materialism] cannot even explain dead cats!

Consider cat C. According to the Dialectical Prophets, cat C can only change because of its internal opposites, its internal contradictions. [Hegel and Lenin both affirmed that there is only one 'other', one dialectical opposite, for any object or process.] Let us call the opposite of cat C, cat C*. But they also tell us that cat C will change into that opposite; so this opposite must be cat C*, which cat C must change into. But C changes into a dead cat, so that dead cat must be this opposite, it must be C*.

But if C is to struggle with C*, then C* must already exist. In other words, this live cat C must struggle with dead cat C*!

Have you ever seen a live cat struggle with its future dead self?

But, if this dead cat already exists, then C cannot change into it! In that case, according to this wonderful 'theory', this amazing 'method', cat C cannot die!

Now, one might be tempted to argue that C changes into some other dead cat, say C**, but in that case, if the Dialectical Magi are to be believed, C** must already exist, otherwise it could not struggle with C! So, C cannot change into it either! In fact, in this case, there would now be two dead cats, not one!

[The same argument applies to any of the intermediate stages in a cat's life -- for the general details, see the long argument I posted earlier.]

Hence, we hit the same non-dialectical brick wall.

And what is true of this moggie is true of all moggies. No cat can, or has ever died, according to the 'world-view' of the proletariat!

Is it any wonder that workers ignore us?

There is indeed a spectre haunting Europe, and its not that of a dead cat -- for there are none.

So, workers of the world unite, you have nothing to fear but the loss of your dead pets!

Not rousing slogans, I trust you will agree...

In that case, we should perhaps rename DM as the theory that proves there are no Dead Moggies.

So, it must be an illusion of bourgeois 'commonsense' that cats die!

And this, in brief, is the argument that Gil and the rest ignore, since it almost single-handedly demolishes DM, and they have no answer to it.

So they just deflect attention, and make personal attacks.

The last sentence sums you up rather well.

Now, instead of lying about me, care to show where my argument goes wrong -- if you can...?

[Charles Xavier]

I don't understand how you cannot understand contradictions or change, you write so much but understand so little. You write nonsense and you ask me to debate you.

Chickens like to eat pork. Prove me wrong!

Dialectical Materialism is simple but you need to make an effort and read about it to understand it clearly.

But you don't even get the simple part, you are refuting something that trotsky said but the most irrelevant part and even that you misunderstood.

Why don't you apply your way of thought about the randomness of life to explain class conflict?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GDII:


I don't understand how you cannot understand contradictions or change, you write so much but understand so little. You write nonsense and you ask me to debate you.

As predicted, that is your only reply; the reply one would expect of a born again Christian, too: 'you just don't understand'.

What you really mean is that I don't agree with you, and then you have the cheek to turn round and blame me for the defects in your own 'theory'!

Once more, instead of just moaning, you need to address my refutation of your 'theory', or show where my assumptions and/or reasoning goes wrong.


Chickens like to eat pork. Prove me wrong!

What has this got to do with anything?


Dialectical Materialism is simple but you need to make an effort and read about it to understand it clearly.

As I have told you many times, I have been studying this hopeless 'theory' for longer than most RevLefters have been alive. The problem is that I know it better than you do, that's why you can't respond.


But you don't even get the simple part, you are refuting something that trotsky said but the most irrelevant part and even that you misunderstood.

Ok, smarty pants, which of my assumptions is incorrect, and where does my argument go astray?

I have asked you this several times and the fact that you can't or won't tell us suggests that you have no effective response to make -- hence your repeated attempts to distract attention.


Why don't you apply your way of thought about the randomness of life to explain class conflict?

What are you talking about? What way of thought of mine about 'the randomness of life' are you on about? I have expressed no opinion on this.

Still making stuff up as you go along, I see.

Yet more delaying tactics on your part.

But, then, you are just like the many hundreds of dialectical mystics I have 'debated' with over the last 25 years or so.

No change there, then.

You lot are living disproof of the doctrine of universal change.

[Black Sheep]

"DM is the sum up, the generalization and the aggregate of all science.Like ie, biology is a sub-... thing (excuse my english) for chemistry, etc, DM is the summarization of all science, which describe how things change etc".

comments?

[Decolonize The Left]

"DM is the sum up, the generalization and the aggregate of all science.Like ie, biology is a sub-... thing (excuse my english) for chemistry, etc, DM is the summarization of all science, which describe how things change etc".

comments?

That quote is fundamentally false. DM cannot be a science, or a 'sum' of science, as DM has no scientific method.

It is pure speculation.

- August

[Cumannach]

Well Newton's Law of Gravity is pure speculation, but it's speculations have been proven to be very well founded by experiment. The dialectical method as applied to historical materialism by Marx is another form of speculation that has been remarkably prophetic in the 150 years or so since he made it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanach:


Well Newton's Law of Gravity is pure speculation, but it's speculations have been proven to be very well founded by experiment. The dialectical method as applied to historical materialism by Marx is another form of speculation that has been remarkably prophetic in the 150 years or so since he made it.

His theory of gravity was certainly speculative, but his mathematical and phyical theory of motion wasn't, since it was based on the previous 400 years of impetus theory, Galileo's and Descartes' work, and Kepler's laws, as well as advances in analytic geomety, algebra and observational astronomy.

Moreover, Newton's theory does not imply that change is impossible, which dialectics does, as my posts in this and other threads show; for example, here:

Quotations from the Dialectical Gospels:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

Argument:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24


The dialectical method as applied to historical materialism by Marx is another form of speculation that has been remarkably prophetic in the 150 years or so since he made it.

But, Marx abandoned the 'dialectic', as it has traditionally been understood, by the time he came to write Das Kapital, as I have also shown here many times.

For example here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

Most recently, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-dm-considered-t100843/index3.html

and on the subsequent pages.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bulk Sheep:


"DM is the sum up, the generalization and the aggregate of all science.Like ie, biology is a sub-... thing (excuse my english) for chemistry, etc, DM is the summarization of all science, which describe how things change etc".

It can't be for several reasons, the most important one being that if dialectics were true, change would be impossible.

[gilhyle]

is dialectics were true, change would be impossible.

I would be interested to see if there is even one of the few people on this board who have any sympathy for your views who accepts this particular sophistic absurdity. It is up there with your quite incredible claim that Marx had abandoned dialectics when he wrote capital as one of the parts of your view that is of the flat earth type - I suspect that you are alone (at least on this board and maybe everywhere) in these two particular claims.

[Cumannach]

Rosa, no offense, but a short summary of your argument wouldn't be uncalled for, instead of sending me off on a homework assignment;)


Cummanach:

His theory of gravity was certainly speculative, but his mathematical and phyical theory of motion wasn't, since it was based on the previous 400 years of impetus theory, Galileo's and Descartes' work, and Kepler's laws, as well as advances in analytic geomety, algebra and observational astronomy.

Moreover, Newton's theory does not imply that change is impossible, which dialectics does, as my posts in this and other threads show; for example, here:



All Galileo's, Descartes, Kepler's theories were speculation as well.:confused: Speculation well justified by experiment. Applying abstract mathematics to physical reality is speculation. Brilliant speculation. All Science is speculation.
It speculates that patterns exist in Nature, but can never prove this hypothesis because we can't see into the future. But as the evidence piles up, we come to accept it.

Newton's theory implied impossibilities if looked at one way. This is why Einstein produced his theory of relativity to deal with those shortcomings. Yet Newtonian Mechanics is still fruitfully used to this day, in practical situations where velocities are much smaller than the speed of light.

Dialectics as used by Marx for the scientific study of history, were a resoundingly successful set of speculations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WindyGils:


I would be interested to see if there is even one of the few people on this board who have any sympathy for your views who accepts this particular sophistic absurdity. It is up there with your quite incredible claim that Marx had abandoned dialectics when he wrote capital as one of the parts of your view that is of the flat earth type - I suspect that you are alone (at least on this board and maybe everywhere) in these two particular claims.

Oh dear! Once again you have turned down yet another golden opportunity to put me in my place, and defend the 'world-view' of the proletariat.

But what do you do, Windy? Instead of demonstrating which, if any, of my assumptions is false, or where my reasoning goes astry, all you so is defelct attention on to me.

As I argued earlier:


There is in fact no way to tell if the dialectic has been 'bastardised' or mis-applied, since it can be made to say anything, and then its opposite a few minutes later. And that is because it is contradiction friendly.

All a dialectically-distracted comrade has to do is argue for A one minute, and not A the next. As soon as this contradiction is pointed out, the reply comes back: "That's dialectics. You clearly do not understand it!".

[Of course, us anti-dialecticians are not allowed this convenient loophole; every error we make, or every alleged contradiction in what we say, is paraded about as if were a hanging offence!]

There have been several examples of this recently at RevLeft. For instance, I have posted a series of quotations from the dialectical classics that show that theorists like Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, and a host of others, all believe that change is the result of a struggle between 'internal opposites', and that things inevitably turn into their opposites.

Now when I pointed out that this is not possible, since if an object has to struggle with its opposite, that opposite must exist already, and so it cannot change into it, for it is already there (or if I point out that if that opposite does not already exist, there is nothing there to struggle with), several comrades just said that I did not "understand dialectics". They did not even attempt to resolve this contradiction, they just blame me for exposing it!

Or they just ignore it.

So the dialectical classics contain glaring contradictions, but that is OK, apparently. If you object, you 'do not understand' -- just like if you object that the Christian Trinity is not possible, Christians will retort 'you do not understand'...

[Incidentally, Gilhyle is one of the worst offenders here, but there are plenty of subs waiting on the bench.]

It is not possible to 'understand' mysticism.

And as for your question whether anyone here (belonging to the esoteric Dialectical Cabal, I presume) accepts my alleged 'sophistry' (and you have yet to show where my argument is sophistical), you might just as well ask a bunch of creationists if they accept Darwin's theory.

They, like you, prefer personal attacks over substance, Windy.

[However, I prefer both when it comes to you.]

Finally, with respect to your other claim about my demonstration that Marx abandoned the dialectic when he wrote Das Kapital, you have yet to show where it is mistaken, despite your many unsuccessful attempts to do so.

And good luck there, since Marx himself indicated he did precisely what I allege.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cumannch:


Rosa, no offense, but a short summary of your argument wouldn't be uncalled for, instead of sending me off on a homework assignment

I have in fact posted several, and in this thread! You need to wake up.


All Galileo's, Descartes, Kepler's theories were speculation as well. Speculation well justified by experiment. Applying abstract mathematics to physical reality is speculation. Brilliant speculation. All Science is speculation.
It speculates that patterns exist in Nature, but can never prove this hypothesis because we can't see into the future. But as the evidence piles up, we come to accept it.

Well, you seem to think that all science is speculative; but the fact is that mathemtics is not abstract.

But, even if it were, how is counting, say, speculative? How is the application of rules and principles derived from ballistics, building, and commerce speculative?

And how is observational astronomy speculative?

I think you are confusing 'speculative' with 'hypothetical'. They are not at all the same.

But, even if you were right, and all of this was 'speculative', there would still be different sorts of speculation -- that which makes sense and that which doesn't.

Dialectics falls into the latter category; not only does it fail to explain change, if it were true, change would be impossible.


Newton's theory implied impossibilities if looked at one way. This is why Einstein produced his theory of relativity to deal with those shortcomings. Yet Newtonian Mechanics is still fruitfully used to this day, in practical situations where velocities are much smaller than the speed of light.

I see you have swallowed the standard line. But in what way did Newton's theory imply 'impossibilities'?

But even if it did, scientists at least tried to invent new theories to get around the difficulties they saw in his theory.

Dialecticians do not, they just make personal attacks on those who expose the impossibilities in their 'theory' -- or they, like you, make lame excuses.


Dialectics as used by Marx for the scientific study of history, were a resoundingly successful set of speculations.

And yet dialectical Marxism is spectacularly unsuccessful.

So, if truth is tested in practice, dialectics must be false.

Indeed, history has refuted it.

[Good job then that Marx abandoned the 'dialectic' when he wrote Das Kapital.]

[Cumannach]

Rosa,

A scientific hypothesis is a form of speculation. It speculates that patterns observed in the past will repeat themselves in the future, or that new data about the past will reveal the same pattern, given the same circumstances. That's hardly controversial.

'Observational Astronomy' is speculation if you want talk about it that way. It speculates that all the previous hypotheses it uses to make it's measurements - all of Galileo's etc hypotheses are correct and hence that it's observations are actually meaningful.

Human History and Society are the most complex subjects for study, at the other end of the spectrum from the mechanics of lifeless atoms. Of course the analysis is going to be crude relative to quantum mechanics.

According to Marx, Dialectical Philosophy helped him make the powerful analysis of human history and society that is a part of Marxism. That's about the only interest I have in dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cumannach:


A scientific hypothesis is a form of speculation. It speculates that patterns observed in the past will repeat themselves in the future, or that new data about the past will reveal the same pattern, given the same circumstances. That's hardly controversial.

Well, your crude typology cannot, it seems, distinguish a scientific hypothesis from flights of fancy. In that case, it is a useless word, as you interpret it.


'Observational Astronomy' is speculation if you want talk about it that way. It speculates that all the previous hypotheses it uses to make it's measurements - all of Galileo's etc hypotheses are correct and hence that it's observations are actually meaningful.

It looks like, for you, everything is 'speculation'. That makes your interpretation of this word even more useless.

Once again, even if you are right, there is a world of difference between a 'speculative' scientific hypothesis and the 'speculation' found in dialectics, which, if correct, would make change impossible.

I note you keep ignoring that fatal defect -- as I predicted.


Human History and Society are the most complex subjects for study, at the other end of the spectrum from the mechanics of lifeless atoms. Of course the analysis is going to be crude relative to quantum mechanics.

According to Marx, Dialectical Philosophy helped him make the powerful analysis of human history and society that is a part of Marxism. That's about the only interest I have in dialectics

But you also keep ignoring the fact that Marx abandoned 'the dialectic' by the time he came to write Das Kaiptal.

And no wonder, 'the dialectic' gives 'speculation' a bad name.

[Cumannach]

Well, in fairness I wasn't the one who introduced 'speculation'. I agree it's a silly word to use in this discussion. Maybe I can't fathom the profound philosophical depths of the errors of dialectics, or maybe I'm not interested, but I still think it was a way of thinking that helped Marx develop his revolutionary theory. That puts it in my good books. As for Marx abandoning dialectics in Kapital, well he had already developed much of his theory by the time he wrote the Communist Manifesto. So...?

[Hit The North]

But you also keep ignoring that fact that Marx abandoned 'the dialectic' by the time he came to write Das Kaiptal.

FYI: This is not a fact.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cumannach:


Well, in fairness I wasn't the one who introduced 'speculation'. I agree it's a silly word to use in this discussion. Maybe I can't fathom the profound philosophical depths of the errors of dialectics, or maybe I'm not interested, but I still think it was a way of thinking that helped Marx develop his revolutionary theory.

Maybe so, but you certainly made an art form of it.


That puts it in my good books. As for Marx abandoning dialectics in Kapital, well he had already developed much of his theory by the time he wrote the Communist Manifesto. So...?

Well, so this: dialectics simply does not work.

Hence, the fact that this 'theory' has presided over 150 years of the almost total failure of Dialectical Marxism is no big surprise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


This is not a fact.

Well you, and a host of others, certainly haven't been able to show why it isn't, or where my arguments showing it is go wrong.

[gilhyle]

BTB:



Well you, and a host of others, certainly haven't been able to show why it isn't, or where my arguments showing it is go wrong.

Thats not how it goes....you make your claims, its explained to you why they are wrong, you dont accept that others finish posting and simply because you make the last post you think your arguments remain intact. Your dialectics and Capital argument isnt even coherent, you cant even say when Marx made this supposed transition.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WindGil:


Thats not how it goes....you make your claims, its explained to you why they are wrong,

What you really mean by 'explained' here is that you just repeated the traditional fairytale, and expected that to win the day. You really are going to have to do better than that to refute my arguments.:lol:

Even so, your 'explanations' only worked because the lot of you simply ignore Marx's own words.

Some 'explanation' that was, then!


you dont accept that others finish posting and simply because you make the last post you think your arguments remain intact.

And this is just another way of saying that I have a lot more stamina than the lot of you put together.

And, I can defend my position; which is more than we can say for you the rest of your Hermetic cabal.


Your dialectics and Capital argument isnt even coherent, you cant even say when Marx made this supposed transition

1) Coming from someone who accepts a theory that can't explain change, and which is so incoherent that if it were, per impossible, true it would mean that change could not happen, this is a bit rich.

2) Why do I have to pin-point the exact day, hour, and minute when Marx changed his mind? The important fact is that he did, as he himself indicated in Das Kapital.

You just can cope with that, since it threatens your source of opiates.

And I note once again that you can't respond to my demolition of the dialectical 'theory' of change, so you just distract attention by attacking me.

Same old same old...

[RebelDog]

Moreover, Newton's theory does not imply that change is impossible, which dialectics does, as my posts in this and other threads show; for example, here:Dialectics is the philosophy of change and how change is a constraint of all matter in the universe as always dictated by the physical laws of our universe. DM is an attempt to understand change, and a very logical one at that. Change cannot happen for no reason and contradictions are a logical espousal of why change happens. Please don't post links Rosa I cant be arsed clicking them, engage me, tell me if contradictions power any change whatsoever? If they dont what are contradictions? I ask with all respect and friendlieness. And give me a break, I'm on the nightrain here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RD:


Dialectics is the philosophy of change and how change is a constraint of all matter in the universe as always dictated by the physical laws of our universe. DM is an attempt to understand change, and a very logical one at that. Change cannot happen for no reason and contradictions are a logical espousal of why change happens. Please don't post links Rosa I cant be arsed clicking them, engage me, tell me if contradictions power any change whatsoever? If they dont what are contradictions? I ask with all respect and friendlieness. And give me a break, I'm on the nightrain here.

Yes, we know what the brochure says, but when you try to work the details out, as I have done, this theory falls apart. Indeed if dialectics were true, change would be impossible.

And no, 'contradictions' cannot power change; energy does that.

Now, if you can't be 'arsed' to click on a link, then here is the short version:

According to the dialectical classics (see the first link below), things change because of their 'internal contradictions' and because of a struggle between 'dialectical opposites'. But, they also tell us that things change into those opposites.

But this is not possible; here is why, using a concrete example (taken from an earlier post):


DM cannot even explain dead cats!

Consider cat C. According to the Dialectical Prophets, cat C can only change because of a struggle between its internal opposites, its internal contradictions. [Hegel and Lenin both affirmed that there is only one 'other', one 'dialectical opposite', for any object or process.]

Let us call the opposite of cat C, cat C*.

But they also tell us that cat C will change into that opposite; so the opposite it changes into must be cat C*.

But C changes into a dead cat, so that dead cat must be this opposite, it must be C*.

In other words, this live cat C must struggle with dead cat C*!

Have you ever seen a live cat struggle with its future dead self?

But if C is to struggle with C*, then C* must already exist.

But, if this dead cat C* already exists, then C cannot change into it! For C* already exists!

In that case, according to this wonderful 'theory', this amazing 'method', cat C cannot die!

Now, one might be tempted to argue that C changes into some other dead cat, say C**, but in that case, if the Dialectical Magi are to be believed, C** must already exist, otherwise it could not struggle with C! So, C cannot change into it either! In fact, in this case, there would now be two dead cats, not one!

Hence, we hit the same non-dialectical brick wall.

[The same argument applies to any of the intermediate stages in a cat's life -- for the general details, see the long argument in the second link below.]

And what is true of this moggie is true of all moggies. No cat can, or has ever died, according to the 'world-view' of the proletariat!

Is it any wonder that workers ignore us?

A longer, more detailed and general proof is given in the second link below.

Quotes from the DM-classics here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350764&postcount=23

Argument to show this theory fails, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1350765&postcount=24