Dialectical Materialism Made Easy

[Charles Xavier]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/index.html

I would argue this is not as simply divided out like V.G. Afanasyev's work on the same subject. This is an amazing resource online to understand dialectical materialism.


I would recommend this beginner level work to all who want to understand the philosophy of Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You have recommended this before, but Afanasyev makes all the usual mistakes, ones you keep ignoring.

For example:

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

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

This shows that not only can dialectics not explain change, but that if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible.

[benhur]

You have recommended this before, but Afanasyev makes all the usual mistakes, ones you keep ignoring.

For example:

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

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

This shows that not only can dialectics not explain change, but that if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible.

This has already been explained with the wood-table example, but you refuse to acknowledge it. It's been shown that whilst there's no substantial distinction (which is why it appears as if no change has taken place), there's yet a change in forms, utility etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


This has already been explained with the wood-table example, but you refuse to acknowledge it. It's been shown that whilst there's no substantial distinction (which is why it appears as if no change has taken place), there's yet a change in forms, utility etc.

Not so, and you know it. [Or, if this were the case, you'd be able to provide the links. Go on, big mouth, where are they....?]

But, how can the things you say 'struggle' with one another? How can 'utility' make wood change into a table? And how can a 'change in forms' do this?

Once more, according to the dialectical prophets, all objects and processes change because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and yet they all also change into those opposites.

So, the wood that is used to make a table, according to this 'theory', has to struggle with what it turns into, that is, this wood has to struggle with the table it turns into!

In that case, the table must already exist, or it could not 'struggle' with the wood from which it is to be made.

But, if the table already exists, then the wood cannot be changed into it.

On the other hand, if the table does not already exist, then the wood cannot 'struggle' with its own opposite, that is, it cannot struggle with the table it has yet to become.

Either way, change could not happen, according to this 'theory'.

Now, I have backed this up with lengthy quotations from the dialectical Holy Books, and with a detailed and general argument. The above is just a particular, concrete example.

Other than wave your arms about, you, smarty pants, have yet to show where I go wrong.

And, we all know why that is: you have great difficulty with an argument that is more than a few sentences long, having an attention span less than that of a nervous cat... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animals/animal0048.gif

[Charles Xavier]

can you please stop hijacking every thread on your posts in other threads?

[Bilan]

She has every right to provide counter-evidence toward such a claim.

[Charles Xavier]

But instead of concrete criticism of the work at hand writen by the author. What occurs is spamming their links to their bankrupt theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TA II:


can you please stop hijacking every thread on your posts in other threads?

1) Nope.

2) This is a public forum; you post on dialectics, I will demolish it.

3) You dialectical pussies have your own, secluded coven where you can post nice, safe, comforting words for each other's delectation, where I cannot go. If you want to practice 'safe dialectics', use that electronic prophylactic.


What occurs is spamming their links to their bankrupt theory.

These are links to RevLeft pages that demolish your 'theory', to which you never respond, because, if you are honest (heh, some hope!), you can't.

And I do not have a 'theory', nor do I want one.

[benhur]

BenHur:



Not so, and you know it. [Or, if this were the case, you'd be able to provide the links. Go on, big mouth, where are they....?]

Use the search facility to find out. I am not going to do the homework for you.



So, the wood that is used to make a table, according to this 'theory', has to struggle with what it turns into, that is, this wood has to struggle with the table it turns into!

In that case, the table must already exist, or it could not 'struggle' with the wood from which it is to be made.

First of all, tell me whether you consider wood to be any different from the table. If so, why? If not, why not? Then you can better understand this example. Until then, I am not gonna waste time.


And, we all know why that is: you have great difficulty with an argument that is more than a few sentences long, having an attention span less than that of a nervous cat... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animals/animal0048.gif

If a few sentences can prove one's point, why bother writing 100000-word gibberish as some people do (you know who, don't you;))?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Use the search facility to find out. I am not going to do the homework for you.

You made the claim; back it up or withdraw it.


First of all, tell me whether you consider wood to be any different from the table. If so, why? If not, why not? Then you can better understand this example. Until then, I am not gonna waste time.

Tables consist of wood, nails and glue, so yes.

But, let's make it easy for you:

Let the wood before it was made into a table be W; let the dialectical opposite of that wood be W*; let the table that is made out of W be T

Since W turns into T, W* and T must be one and the same.

But, according to the Dialectical Magi, things/processes change as a result of a 'struggle' with their dialectical opposite, and they all change into that opposite.

So, W must 'struggle' with T. In other words, that table must exist before it exists!

On the other hand, if T did not already exist, W could not 'struggle' with it.

So, either tables have always existed (or the wood they are made out of could not become a table, since it would have nothing with which it could 'struggle'), or wood cannot change into the tables they become, because those tables already exist!

Either way, change could not happen, at least here.

[The general proof shows it cannot occur anywhere, if dialectics were true.]

Now, it matters not whether T is different from, or the same as W, since W can only change into T if it 'struggles' with it.

So, T has to exist alongside W.

You keep ignoring this crazy consequence of your 'theory'.

In your unenviable position, I'd do the same.


If a few sentences can prove one's point, why bother writing 100000-word gibberish as some people do (you know who, don't you)?

Yes, and 130 years ago, I can just imagine a numpty like you arguing thus:


If it is possible to summarise marxist economics in a few pages, then why, Herr Marx, did you write millions of words of gibberish trying to prove the point?

In fact, on this one point about change, if you ignore the 1000s of words I published at my site consisiting of long and detailed quotations from the Dialectical Gospels, my argument only stretches acrosss a few hundred words.

So, you can't even get this right!

The rest of my site is devoted to exposing the many, many other fatal weaknesses of your 'theory'.

No wonder you have to bad-mouth my work (without having read it)...

[Charles Xavier]

Rosa,

10000 words of gibberish are just as good as 1 word of gibberish.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAII:


10000 words of gibberish are just as good as 1 word of gibberish.

Never mind; let's hear what you have to say anyway...

[Charles Xavier]

If anyone wants to learn about Dialectical Materialism we have a group called Dialectical Materialism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

If anyone wants to learn about Dialectical Materialism we have a group called Dialectical Materialism.

Good. That should be helpful for people like me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAII


If anyone wants to learn about Dialectical Materialism we have a group called Dialectical Materialism.

Where not much happens.

[PRC-UTE]

Good. That should be helpful for people like me.

Please do join us there :)

[Hiero]

When dialectical materialism is applied on a metaphysical level as Rosa has done, then it does not make sense.

When applied to concrete examples it does make sense.

Which is why Rosa always makes up own example and her own definition of change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


When dialectical materialism is applied on a metaphysical level as Rosa has done, then it does not make sense.

When applied to concrete examples it does make sense.

On the contrary, as I have shown, this 'theory' cannot even account for change in cats, tables or boiling water:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1360444&postcount=29

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1384331&postcount=4

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


Which is why Rosa always makes up own example and her own definition of change.

In fact, as the quotations I have appended show, I have used the 'definition' of change found in Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and several others.

There we are told that every object and process changes because of a 'struggle of opposites', and that they all inevitably turn into their opposites.

But, if that opposite already exists, an object/process cannot change into it. If that opposite does not already exist, an object/process cannot 'struggle'with it.

Either way, according to this 'wondefull' theory of change, change cannot actually happen.

Here are those quotations:

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

And still, after all your bluster, you cannot show where my argument goes wrong, you just make up spurious excuses.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


Please do join us there

And end up discussing zippo...

[Charles Xavier]

Rosa isn't making an sense and has to turn every discussion into some metaphysical one.

What everyone should do is come join Dialectical Materialism group so you can discuss dialectical materialism without having to read spam where someone is posting a bunch of links to their hair brain argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAII:


Rosa isn't making an sense and has to turn every discussion into some metaphysical one.

You keep saying this, but refuse to say where my argument goes wrong -- and we know why: you can't.


What everyone should do is come join Dialectical Materialism group so you can discuss dialectical materialism without having to read spam where someone is posting a bunch of links to their hair brain argument.

No escape there either; check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1606

[PRC-UTE]

PRC:



And end up discussing zippo...

Thanks for reminding me to post there :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


Thanks for reminding me to post there

Mustn't miss a meeting of the Coven...

[Hyacinth]

What everyone should do is come join Dialectical Materialism group so you can discuss dialectical materialism without having to read spam where someone is posting a bunch of links to their hair brain argument.
How terribly uncritical of you; instead of retreating into the confines of your own private forum where you can avoid any criticism of your theory why not instead actually respond to the criticisms raised in this forum (time and time again, I add)? After all, if dialectics is coherent and true, as you maintain, surely you can counter the arguments of us anti-dialecticians.

[PRC-UTE]

How terribly uncritical of you; instead of retreating into the confines of your own private forum where you can avoid any criticism of your theory why not instead actually respond to the criticisms raised in this forum (time and time again, I add)? After all, if dialectics is coherent and true, as you maintain, surely you can counter the arguments of us anti-dialecticians.

Why don't you join it and criticise dialectics there.

And we have responded to the criticisms raised 'time and time again'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


And we have responded to the criticisms raised 'time and time again'.

In fact you (plural) ignore most of them.

Check this list out:

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

For example, you all ignore this proof that if dialectics were true, change would be impossible:

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

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

[Hyacinth]

Why don't you join it and criticise dialectics there.
I have from time to time, but unlike Rosa (who should be nominated for Sainthood for her seemingly infinite patience with dialecticians) I don't have the patience to bother refuting what is such obvious nonsense. Rosa has done a fantastic, and perhaps the most meticulous demolition of dialectics in the history of philosophy, exposing the conceptual confusions that underlie the Hegelian system. There's a reason why Hegel is the object of jokes in serious philosophy, and it is most unfortunate that Marx--despite eschewing Hegelianism completely, dialectics included--is associated with this nonsense, in part due to the fact that he appropriates certain Hegelian terms.

[Hiero]

Hiero:



On the contrary, as I have shown, this 'theory' cannot even account for change in cats, tables or boiling water:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1360444&postcount=29

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1384331&postcount=4

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



In fact, as the quotations I have appended show, I have used the 'definition' of change found in Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and several others.

There we are told that every object and process changes because of a 'struggle of opposites', and that they all inevitably turn into their opposites.

But, if that opposite already exists, an object/process cannot change into it. If that opposite does not already exist, an object/process cannot 'struggle'with it.

Either way, according to this 'wondefull' theory of change, change cannot actually happen.

Here are those quotations:

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

And still, after all your bluster, you cannot show where my argument goes wrong, you just make up spurious excuses.


See how Rosa doesn't actually use dialectical materialism.

The cat died, it's change is really metaphsical, the physcial side did not change untill it starts decay. It is still a cat.

The table example is just as stupid. The wood didn't change into a table. The wood is still present in it's forum, it has had quantative changes in size, maybe some oil has been applied. It is still wood.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


See how Rosa doesn't actually use dialectical materialism.

Well, I am in good company, since no one can use this 'theory', any more than they can use, say, the Christian Trinity (except to confuse -- and in your case, it seems to have worked).


The cat died, it's change is really metaphysical, the physical side did not change until it starts decay. It is still a cat.

No problem, we'll just adjust my argument.

Let this cat be C, and the pile of dust (or whatever) it will become be D.

In that case, according to the dialectical holy books, this cat must 'struggle' with what it one day becomes.

Hence C must 'struggle' against D.

Has anyone ever seen this: every live cat on the planet struggling with the pile of dust they will one day become?

Perhaps Hiero has.

But, if C is to become D, that cannot happen, since D already exists, or C could not 'struggle' with it.

So, not only do cats 'struggle' with the piles of dust they will one day become in this rather odd dialectical universe, cats cannot change into these piles of dust, either!

And what applies to cats applies to all other living things

So, this is not in fact a Heraclitean world of flux and change, but a Parmenidean world full of eternally changeless plants and animals, who can't move for all the piles of dust that confront them.:lol:

Is it any wonder Dialectical Marxism is a long-term and abject failure with whacko ideas like this at its core?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus


The table example is just as stupid. The wood didn't change into a table. The wood is still present in it's forum, it has had quantitative changes in size, maybe some oil has been applied. It is still wood.

And yet, if that wood is to change into a table, it must 'struggle' with that table, if the Dialectical Magi are to be believed. So, the table that the wood is to become must exist before it exists!

But, more interestingly, has anyone seen belligerent, combative wood like this?

Perhaps we do not 'understand' dialectics?:(

[Hiero]

Perhaps we do not 'understand' dialectics?

Perhaps you do not understand tables are made of wood.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Perhaps you do not understand tables are made of wood.

Certainly not those made by you mystics, since they have to be made before they are made!

[Bilan]

Does dialectical materialism necessitate that only internal contradictions force change, or does it necessitate both internal and external?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bilan:


Does dialectical materialism necessitate that only internal contradictions force change, or does it necessitate both internal and external?

Depends who you listen/talk to. If the individual concerned is more of a Hegelian Marxist, he/she will state emphatically that all change is internally generated. This was a ploy that German Idealists adopted in order to counter Hume's criticism of rationalist theories of causation.

On the other hand, if the individual concerned is more of a positivist, he/she will emphasise both.

Neither in fact works; the first option falls foul of the criticisms I have raised in this thread. The second allows 'God' back in. On top of that, as noted earlier, the second option is also susceptible to Hume's counter-argumets (but updated to avoid his implausible psychology), which is not surprising in view of the fact that Hegel concocted the first in order to turn Hume's destructive criticism of rationalist theory of causation.

[Josef Balin]

Hiero:



Well, I am in good company, since no one can use this 'theory', any more than they can use, say, the Christian Trinity (except to confuse -- and in your case, it seems to have worked).



No problem, we'll just adjust my argument.

Let this cat be C, and the pile of dust (or whatever) it will become be D.

In that case, according to the dialectical holy books, this cat must 'struggle' with what it one day becomes.

Hence C must 'struggle' against D.

Has anyone ever seen this: every live cat on the planet struggling with the pile of dust they will one day become?

Perhaps Hiero has.

But, if C is to become D, that cannot happen, since D already exists, or C could not 'struggle' with it.

So, not only do cats 'struggle' with the piles of dust they will one day become in this rather odd dialectical universe, cats cannot change into these piles of dust, either!

And what applies to cats applies to all other living things

So, this is not in fact a Heraclitean world of flux and change, but a Parmenidean world full of eternally changeless plants and animals, who can't move for all the piles of dust that confront them.:lol:

Is it any wonder Dialectical Marxism is a long-term and abject failure with whacko ideas like this at its core?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus



And yet, if that wood is to change into a table, it must 'struggle' with that table, if the Dialectical Magi are to be believed. So, the table that the wood is to become must exist before it exists!

But, more interestingly, has anyone seen belligerent, combative wood like this?

Perhaps we do not 'understand' dialectics?:(
Cats do not change when they die. The pile of dust and a vibrant, moving cat are the same thing. The same for a table, the wood never changes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JB:


Cats do not change when they die. The pile of dust and a vibrant, moving cat are the same thing. The same for a table, the wood never changes.

I think you have misunderstood, and that is probably because you have not read this thread or the threads where I lay this argument out in detail:

Quotes:

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

Argument:

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

The first of these contains dozens of quotations from the dialectical classics which show that theorists like Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Mao, and many others, believed that every object/process changed because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and that they also inevitably changed into those opposites.

Now, this is not a workable theory (it was in fact invented, among other things, to counter empiricist criticisms of rationalist theories of change).

The second of the links above sets out a rather detailed and complex argument to show how this theory fails, but in order for several comrades here to understand what I was saying (I think they found the long argument too much of a challenge), I translated it into more ordinary language.

So, here is the cat argument again.

Cats undoubtedly die; so live cats at some point become dead cats.

But, the dialectical classicists tell us that such changes can only occur if there is a 'struggle' of opposites, and that things like live cats change into their opposites.

In that case, the dead cat that a live cat will one day become must be one of these opposites. [If it isn't, then dialectics cannot account for death -- or, in the general case, for any changes at all. Intermediate stages in a cat's life are handled below.]

Now, this is where it gets tricky, since this live cat, in order to change and die, must struggle with what it becomes, that is, it must 'struggle' with the dead cat.

But, in that case, the live cat cannot change onto the dead cat it will one day become, since that dead cat already exists! If it didn't already exist, then the live cat couldn't struggle with its opposite, this dead cat, and so could not change!

Either way, change would be impossible if this theory were true.

On the other hand, if this live cat in fact changes into another, different dead cat, and not the one just mentioned, then in order to do that, it would have had to have 'struggled' with this second dead cat too. Hence this second dead cat would also have to exist alongside this by now confused moggie and the original dead cat!

I know that cats are supposed to have nine lives, but, if we press this argument much further this live cat will turn out to have more than nine deaths (or rather more than nine dead versions of its future self littering the place).

So, despite appearances to the contrary, every live cat on the planet is now, and always has been, struggling with the future dead cat that it will one day become.

Once more, that just means that no cat can ever die, since the dead cat that each live cat will one day become is already there, or it can't 'struggle' with it!

Naturally, this raises serious problems about where all these dead cats came from. They can't have come from live cats, since live cats can only become dead cats if these dead cats already exist! They must pop into existence from nowhere!

Now, this is not to deny change, only to argue that if dialectics were true, change could not happen.

But, what is true of cats is true of all living things.

Hence, this 'wonderful' theory not only has every live organism existing alongside the dead organism it is supposed to one day become (but is now struggling with it), it implies that nothing can die!

Now, Hiero here, tried to argue that I had made a serious error, so I adapted my argument accordingly to show that I hadn't. And that is where I think you came in.

Other comrades have tried to argue that this is ridiculous since cats goes through many intermediate stages between birth and death, so in order to show that this makes no difference I posted this argument:


Incidentally, the same result emerges if we consider the intermediate stages in the life and death of cat C.

Let us assume that cat C goes through successive stages C(1), C(2), C(3)..., C(n), until at stage C(n+1) it finally pops its clogs.

But, according to the dialectical classics, C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites. They also tell us that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite.

So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it.

But then the same problems emerge, for C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist, and no cat can change, let alone die!

These 'dialectical cats' sure are odd...

Now these intermediate stages could be those created by the negation of the negation. where an earlier stage is allegedly 'negated' to produce a higher stage, which also preserves certain things from that earlier stage.

However, this doesn't affect the argument.

To see this, call cat stage C(2) the negation of cat stage C(1), such that C(2) is a higher stage which also preserves certain things from that earlier stage.

The same problems arise:

The dialectical classics tell us that C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite, C(2).

So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it!

But C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist, and no cat can change, let alone die!

Now there is no way out of this self-inflicted quandary.

Or none that our dialectical friends at RevLeft have been able to come up with (but, most of them just ignore this demolition of a core thesis of their 'theory' of change, since they have no answer, but do not want to admit it!).

[Incidentally, the same argument apples to the making of tables from wood, in addition to anything in the entire universe that changes. More details in the above links]

[Hiero]

Does dialectical materialism necessitate that only internal contradictions force change, or does it necessitate both internal and external?

Dialectical materialism is something has been developed over time.

Mao stated that external forces can trigger internal contradictions. Such as the case if we look at China, the imperialist intervened into China's internal struggle. Imperialism/neo-colonialism created a struggle between the revoluationary/nationalist classes in China and the British and after Japanese imperialists.

This also set off internal contradictions, the struggle between proleteriat and peasant allies against their respective ruling classes.

This lead Mao to the theory that we have principal contradictions and the principal aspect of that contradiction. There are also secondary contradictions.

It has been awhile since I have read On Contradiction by Mao, but let me take a stab at it. In China's case the principal contradiction was the national struggle. With in that contradiction was a principal apsect, like a positive aspect. That was the Proleteriat, the Nationalist/progressive Bourgeiosie and all other alleys of the national liberation struggle.

They are the principal aspect between they are the forces that can progress and create movement, from a neo-colonial system to a national system. In China there was another contradiction, the bourgeoise, semi-fuedal system. In that the contradiction was between the proleteriat/peasantry and the bourgeois and fuedal lords. However this contradiction was not at it's highest point, it was a secondary contradiction.

The primary contradiction has to be resolved before the secondary contradiction can be resolved. It is possible for both contradictions to be active, but the social revolution of the second can not succed, how can a proleteriat take power over their national bourgeosie while a foreign bourgeoise remains?

As you can see in China's history the external forces effected internal forces.

Here is Mao's On Contradiction (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm)

I hope I have made it clear, I am a bit tired and haven't read it for awhile.

Oh and Mao gives the example of an egg, outside force (heat) applied to an egg makes a reaction inside the egg (internal contradiction). But applying heat to a rock wont make a chicken hatch, because the rock doesn't have the same internal contradiction like a egg does.


Cats do not change when they die. The pile of dust and a vibrant, moving cat are the same thing. The same for a table, the wood never changes.
Just ignore here, she has been doing this for 20 years apparantly.

[Bilan]

Bilan:



Depends who you listen/talk to. If the individual concerned is more of a Hegelian Marxist, he/she will state emphatically that all change is internally generated. This was a ploy that German Idealists adopted in order to counter Hume's criticism of rationalist theories of causation.

On the other hand, if the individual concerned is more of a positivist, he/she will emphasise both.

Neither in fact works; the first option falls foul of the criticisms I have raised in this thread. The second allows 'God' back in. On top of that, as noted earlier, the second option is also susceptible to Hume's counter-arguments (but updated to avoid his implausible psychology), which is not surprising in view of the fact that Hegel concocted the first in order to turn Hume's destructive criticism of rationalist theory of causation.

I don't understand. Why does it necessitate "God" coming back in?
When I said internal or external, I was referring to a much lower level.
For example, you raised the snooker ball (or whatever it was) example and asked, "What are the internal contradictions of the snooker ball?". Correct me if I am wrong, but the answer is nothing, there are none.
But the ball does change.
The ball is not isolated, it exists within the confines of that which is outside - from the table, to the room, to the building, to the air, temperature, etc, etc.
Essentially, External factors contribute to internal changes.


Anyhow, I don't think - and I will reiterate that my understanding of dialectics is relatively elementary compared to others - that Dialectical materialism (as I think Leo put in another thread) can be applied universally.

But I think the relevance, and the usefulness of Dialectical materialism, comes from its ability to be applied to human society, I don't think that snooker balls, or whatever, really has much relevance or importance.
If it can accurately depict the nature of modes of production, then (at least for us), it is of use. It can't, if it is wrong, it isn't.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Mao stated that external forces can trigger internal contradictions. Such as the case if we look at China, the imperialist intervened into China's internal struggle. Imperialism/neo-colonialism created a struggle between the revolutionary/nationalist classes in China and the British and after Japanese imperialists.

It matters not what 'triggers' the alleged 'internal contradiction' here, Mao also argued that every object and process could only change because if a 'struggle of opposites' (internal or external), and that such objects and processes inevitably turn into their opposites.

In that case, "Imperialism/neo-colonialism" should have changed, according to this wonderful 'theory', into that with which it struggles, namely "revolutionary/nationalist classes in China", and vice versa.

Now, the history books are silent on this, so perhaps you can tell us (from the record, or from your secret files on this) if this really happened? Did the imperialist powers change into the revolutionary/nationalist classes, and vice versa, as Mao's theory predicts they should?

We are all eager to see you prove to us that Mao was not a philosophical and political idiot his writings suggest.


Oh and Mao gives the example of an egg, outside force (heat) applied to an egg makes a reaction inside the egg (internal contradiction). But applying heat to a rock wont make a chicken hatch, because the rock doesn't have the same internal contradiction like a egg does.

But, according to Mao, things/processes struggle with their opposites, and they also become their opposites.

So, does the egg struggle with the chicken that it is to become?

If not, the egg cannot change.

If so, the egg cannot change into that chicken, either, since the chicken already exists!

If it didn't already exist, the egg could not 'struggle' with it.

Either way, dialectical eggs do not produce chickens, and are this changeless.

All of which confirms the general assessment of this 'theory': if dialectics were true, change could not happen.

Good job then it isn't true -- or, rather, it is too confused for anyone to be able to say if it is true or false.

And that includes you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bilan:


I don't understand. Why does it necessitate "God" coming back in?

Lenin's argument is that the theory of change he proposed, or derived from Hegel (whereby things/processes self-move and develop because of the 'internal contradictions' or because of the 'struggle between their dialectical opposites) undercuts the traditional argument for 'God', since, if the universe is sufficient to itself, wherein every object and process self-moves in the way described, then the universe as a whole is its own source of movement and development.

Now, later dialecticians saw that this was far too implausible, since objects and processes interact and externally move each other, so they concocted a half-way house theory that such objects and processes were moved both by their internal opposites and by external contradictions.

But, once these external sources of motion and development were allowed back in, the superiority of this account over the theistic version is lost.

All a theist has to argue is that if everything has external and internal causes of motion, then why not the universe as a whole? It is no longer a sealed unit, as it were.

This would mirror the atheist's objection to the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, which (crudely put) argues that everything requires a cause for its existence. If so, the universe also requires a cause for its existence, and that is 'God'.

The atheist argues back: if everything requires a cause for its existence, what caused God?

So, the theist can now argue with the wishy-washy, half-way house dialectician: if everything has external causes (albeit mixed with internal ones), then what is the external cause of the universe?

These wishy-washy dialecticians (the half-way house tendency) now have no answer to the theist.


For example, you raised the snooker ball (or whatever it was) example and asked, "What are the internal contradictions of the snooker ball?". Correct me if I am wrong, but the answer is nothing, there are none.
But the ball does change.

But, it changes its position, it moves. Now Lenin argued that everything self-moves, and that this is a result of a 'struggle' of 'internal opposites'.

So, what are the 'internal opposites' that make a billiard ball move?

We have yet to be told.


The ball is not isolated, it exists within the confines of that which is outside - from the table, to the room, to the building, to the air, temperature, etc, etc.
Essentially, External factors contribute to internal changes.

Indeed, and this is why the wishy-washy, half-way house dialecticians modified Lenin's theory.

On the one hand we have the maximalist theory that tells us that everything self-moves because of a 'struggle' between 'internal opposites'. That cannot work even with billiard balls, as we have seen.

On the other hand, we have the half-way house theory that allows 'God' back in (and if true, would make change impossible, anyway, as I have shown here several times).


Anyhow, I don't think - and I will reiterate that my understanding of dialectics is relatively elementary compared to others - that Dialectical materialism (as I think Leo put in another thread) can be applied universally.

But I think the relevance, and the usefulness of Dialectical materialism, comes from its ability to be applied to human society, I don't think that snooker balls, or whatever, really has much relevance or importance.
If it can accurately depict the nature of modes of production, then (at least for us), it is of use. It can't, if it is wrong, it isn't.

But, the same problems arise there too.

Anyway, we have yet to be given one example of the use if dialectics that makes sense of human social change. [HM is quite sufficient here, I think -- we do not need dialectics.]

So, not only is this 'theory' the enemy of change (making it impossible), it is also useless (and probably for the same reason).

[Hiero]

Did anything I say help? Why would you respond just to Rosa when her every attempt is made to persuade people to not understand dialectical materialism?

Do you want to talk about snooker balls, wood, tables and dead cats or dialectical materialism?

[Charles Xavier]

Rosa you make less sense that the worst explanation of dialectical materialism. If dialectical Materialism was so wrong why do you make so little sense?

[Hyacinth]

Do you want to talk about snooker balls, wood, tables and dead cats or dialectical materialism?
The difference being? Look, what Rosa is trying to do is to demonstrate that dialectics is patently inadequate, and in fact downright nonsensical, in its explanations of perfectly ordinary instances of change. Given this, why should we suppose it any better in explaining change in history?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAII:


Rosa you make less sense that the worst explanation of dialectical materialism. If dialectical Materialism was so wrong why do you make so little sense?

1) As youi have been asked before, several times: you need to say where my argument goes wrong, instead of making vague accusations.

2) I specifically say that dialectics is far too confused for anyone, least of all you, to be able to say if is right or wrong, true or false.

What I did say was that if (note the 'if') dialectics were true, chnage would be impossible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Did anything I say help?

With respect to dialectics, if anything you say does help, that would be a first.


Why would you respond just to Rosa when her every attempt is made to persuade people to not understand dialectical materialism?

Well, yo clearly dop not understand it, or if yuo do, you should find it easy to show where my argument goes wrong.


Do you want to talk about snooker balls, wood, tables and dead cats or dialectical materialism?

Do you mean to say that dialectics does not affect the natural world?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacinth:


The difference being? Look, what Rosa is trying to do is to demonstrate that dialectics is patently inadequate, and in fact downright nonsensical, in its explanations of perfectly ordinary instances of change. Given this, why should we suppose it any better in explaining change in history?

Thanks for that, but these mystics are not listening.

Like born again Protestants, they are saved, and once saved, they are always saved. So, for them, our words are rather like those from Satan -- 'Stop up your eyes and ears, for fear of losing your dialectical soul...'

They neither read what we say carefully enough to know what we are objecting to, nor know how to go about responding even if they did.

The mystic's typical response:

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/22000/22027/monkeys_22027_lg.gif

[Louise Michel]

But, stating the blindingly obvious to the deaf and dumb, why not just debate something that has actually happened!!? The Russian Revolution, the period prior to the Russian Revolution, the period after the Russian Revolution??!! The events are well known, documented, not in dispute. Let's see how dialectics explains or doesn't explain this period of history. Again, why is this so difficult to organize? :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise, you will soon find you are doing this with these mystics: http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0228.gif

[Charles Xavier]

But, stating the blindingly obvious to the deaf and dumb, why not just debate something that has actually happened!!? The Russian Revolution, the period prior to the Russian Revolution, the period after the Russian Revolution??!! The events are well known, documented, not in dispute. Let's see how dialectics explains or doesn't explain this period of history. Again, why is this so difficult to organize? :confused:

What I can give you is conclusions of Dialectical Materialism not the method. I could explain dialectical materialism but it isn't something that 6 year olds will understand and will require a fair bit of writing. Its like asking, please explain the whole of the Russian Revolution. You are asking for a novel on an internet forum. I am not a philosophy student and unfortunately I am not willing to write a grand essay on dialectical materialism.

I am neither writer, many comrades, much better than me have written better on this subject and to explain dialectical materialism is more than writing 1 page worth of material.

The best summary i found about Dialectics is

here:

"At the heart of Marxist dialectics is the idea of contradiction, with class struggle playing the central role in social and political life. Marx and subsequent Marxists also identify other historically important contradictions, such as those between mental and manual labor and town and country. Contradiction is the key to all other categories and principles of dialectical development: development by passage of quantitative change into qualitative ones, interruption of gradualness, leaps, negation of the initial moment of development and negation of this very negation, and repetition at a higher level of some of the features and aspects of the original state."

But it obviously is a lot more complex than just this.

Dialectics you will learn through study of it. It is not heavy material, but it isn't light either.

[Hyacinth]

"At the heart of Marxist dialectics is the idea of contradiction, with class struggle playing the central role in social and political life. Marx and subsequent Marxists also identify other historically important contradictions, such as those between mental and manual labor and town and country. Contradiction is the key to all other categories and principles of dialectical development: development by passage of quantitative change into qualitative ones, interruption of gradualness, leaps, negation of the initial moment of development and negation of this very negation, and repetition at a higher level of some of the features and aspects of the original state."
Curious that for such a central concept, we are never told what a dialectical contradiction consists in.

[Charles Xavier]

Curious that for such a central concept, we are never told what a dialectical contradiction consists in.

A dialectical contradiction
Is basically just an opposition—
A pair of wrestlers in a tuggle
Locked together while they struggle.
You can't separate them with two wild horses,
These two entwined, opposing forces.
Yet usually from this convolution
There comes eventual resolution—
One force defeats, subsumes, the other
The struggling thing becomes another;
The conflict leads to elevation—
A qualitative transformation.
—JSH, "Wrestling with Contradiction" (2001)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAII:


"At the heart of Marxist dialectics is the idea of contradiction, with class struggle playing the central role in social and political life. Marx and subsequent Marxists also identify other historically important contradictions, such as those between mental and manual labor and town and country. Contradiction is the key to all other categories and principles of dialectical development: development by passage of quantitative change into qualitative ones, interruption of gradualness, leaps, negation of the initial moment of development and negation of this very negation, and repetition at a higher level of some of the features and aspects of the original state."

The alleged 'law' of the transformation of quantity into quality does not work. This has been shown here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-materialism-t66588/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-quality-t66709/index.html


interruption of gradualness, leaps

Many qualitative changes are not in the form of 'leaps': for example melting metal, rock, plastic, butter, toffee, glass...

So, this 'law' cannot be a law.

And as far as 'dialectical contradictions' are concerned, Marx also said that the elements of a 'contradiction' mutually exclude one another.

In that case, they cannot co-exist. But, if they cannot co-exist, they cannot 'struggle' with one another. On the other hand, if they do in fact 'struggle' with one another, they cannot mutually exclude one another.

Either way, there can be no 'dialectical contradictions'.

Of course, all this is quite apart from the fact that if there were such 'dialectical contradictions', change would be impossible.

You keep ignoring this fatal weakness of your 'theory'.


such as those between mental and manual labor and town and country.

How are these 'contradictions'. Do they mutually exclude one another? No. Do they turn into one another? No. Are they internally linked? No.

And, where did this prize specimen come from?


A dialectical contradiction
Is basically just an opposition—
A pair of wrestlers in a tuggle
Locked together while they struggle.
You can't separate them with two wild horses,
These two entwined, opposing forces.
Yet usually from this convolution
There comes eventual resolution—
One force defeats, subsumes, the other
The struggling thing becomes another;
The conflict leads to elevation—
A qualitative transformation.
—JSH, "Wrestling with Contradiction" (2001)

This cannot be a 'dialectical contradiction' for these reasons:

1) These wrestlers are not 'internally' connected; that is they do not 'interpenetrate' one another. These two are externally related.

2) These wrestlers do not mutually exclude one another, either. They co-exist, and so are not part of a 'dialectical contradiction'.

3) These two wrestlers are not 'dialectical opposites', and so they do not turn into one another, as we are told must "inevitably" happen with all such dialectical opposites in 'struggle'.

Quotations from the Dialectical Classics that tell us this can be found here:

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

So, we are still waiting for a genuine example of a 'dialectical contradiction'.

Just one will do.

We have only been waiting now for nearly 200 years...

[Hyacinth]

A dialectical contradiction
Is basically just an opposition—
A pair of wrestlers in a tuggle
Locked together while they struggle.
You can't separate them with two wild horses,
These two entwined, opposing forces.
Yet usually from this convolution
There comes eventual resolution—
One force defeats, subsumes, the other
The struggling thing becomes another;
The conflict leads to elevation—
A qualitative transformation.
—JSH, "Wrestling with Contradiction" (2001)


This cannot be a 'dialectical contradiction' for these reasons:

1) These wrestlers are not 'internally' connected; that is they do not 'interpenetrate' one another. These two are externally related.

2) These wrestlers do not mutually exclude one another, either. They co-exist, and so are not part of a 'dialectical contradiction'.

3) These two wrestlers are not 'dialectical opposites', and so they do not turn into one another, as we are told must "inevitably" happen with all such dialectical opposites in 'struggle'.

Quotations from the Dialectical Classics that tell us this can be found here:

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

So, we are still waiting for a genuine example of a 'dialectical contradiction'.

Just one will do.

We have only been waiting now for nearly 200 years...
As well, a poem hardly counts as a substitute for definition, which isn't to say that metaphor or analogy is inadmissible, but the metaphors offered are not, as Rosa points out, apt in capturing all the work you need the concept of dialectical contradiction to do.

[Hyacinth]

Another thought that just occurred to me—taking up the theme of opposition—if all we mean by a contradiction within a given system is that, within that system, due to the structure of said system, there exist classes (i.e. a set of people who have a particular relation to the means of production and to others within said system) which have competing interests, then I think the concept of contradiction perfectly harmless, and to a degree apt (even if I think the term itself misleading).

But what I find curious about the opposition [at least some] dialecticians have to such reformulations of the concept of contradiction into systems theoretic or ordinary terms is that it makes it an empirical question whether or not this account described capitalism, as a system, accurately. The dialecticians seem to want to make it a matter of metaphysical necessity that capitalism will collapse, which is, of course, patently absurd.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacinth:


Another thought that just occurred to me—taking up the theme of opposition—if all we mean by a contradiction within a given system is that, within that system, due to the structure of said system, there exist classes (i.e. a set of people who have a particular relation to the means of production and to others within said system) which have competing interests, then I think the concept of contradiction perfectly harmless, and to a degree apt (even if I think the term itself misleading).

These are called, rather loosely, pragmatic contradictions, since it is physically impossible to bring both halves about simultaneously.

A simple example might be where two people, one of whom wants to open a door, while the other wants to close it at the same time.

But that is not what dialecticians are referring to, since their 'contradictions' "interpenetrate" one another, or as Engels described them, they "exist only inside their belonging together and unification" -- i.e., they are 'dialectically' united opposites.

However, I do not think we should make any concessions here and allow DM-fans to use this word, for they soon begin to misuse it, just like Stalin did, here undemocratically excusing the centralisation of power in the former USSR:


"It may be said that such a presentation of the question is 'contradictory.' But is there not the same 'contradictoriness' in our presentation of the question of the state? We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state power -- such is the Marxist formula. Is this 'contradictory'? Yes, it is 'contradictory.' But this contradiction us bound up with life, and it fully reflects Marx's dialectics." [Political Report of the Central Committee to the Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU(B), June 27,1930. Bold emphasis added.]

Mao also argued along similar lines.

Other dialecticians (including prominent Trotskyists) use the alleged fact that nature and society are 'contradictory' to justify state oppression, invasion, denial of party democracy, and substitutionism, just like Stalin, and Mao.

Plenty of examples here:

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

Section 7: Case Studies

So, no compromise with this Hermetic virus should be tolerated.

[benhur]

Rosa (who should be nominated for Sainthood

We should then call her "Mother Terosa.":laugh:

Jokes aside, she's simply attacking things that are NOT there in DM. So on what basis can one argue with her? She spends most of her time writing about dead cats, flying pigs (or is it dancing monkeys?), and all the rest. Seems like she's more interested in a circus than she's in DM, so how can one argue with her at all?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Jokes aside, she's simply attacking things that are NOT there in DM. So on what basis can one argue with her? She spends most of her time writing about dead cats, flying pigs (or is it dancing monkeys?), and all the rest. Seems like she's more interested in a circus than she's in DM, so how can one argue with her at all?

Like what? What am I attacking that is "NOT there in DM"?

You failed to say -- I suspect we know why. You can't.

[TheCagedLion]

I must say, Rosa is the one here making the best case, so you can now consider me a anti-dialectician (not that I was ever pro-, philosophy has never been my forté)

It seems to me, that DM merely is the equivalent of Free Marketeers belief in The Free Market.
That somewhere out there, there is a unknown force that if left to its own devices will, due to some vague internal mechanisms, magically create a just society.

This may be my atheism talking, but i'm not touching anything that even resembles any sort of mysticism with a 10-foot pole

[Bilan]

Sorry, I was meant to thank you, as I do appreciate what you said, and will look into it more. I just have to find the time to read On Contradiction.
My apologies, I hope I didn't seem rude.

[benhur]

BenHur:



Like what? What am I attacking that is "NOT there in DM"?
.

Dead cats, talking wood, and much more.

[Hit The North]

It seems to me, that DM merely is the equivalent of Free Marketeers belief in The Free Market.
That somewhere out there, there is a unknown force that if left to its own devices will, due to some vague internal mechanisms, magically create a just society.


This is quite the most absurd description of the Marxist dialectic that I've ever read. If this is the impression Rosa gives you then she has done you a real diservice.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Dead cats, talking wood (eh?), and much more.

But, Engels, Plekanov and Lenin (among many others) tell us that everything and every process in the universe changes because of a 'struggle of opposites', and that they all inevitably change into those opposites.

Now, unless you think that cats and wood (but where have I mentioned 'talking wood'?) are not part of the material world, then my criticism of this unworkable 'theory' of yours still stands.

Not only can dialectics not explain change, if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible.

You have yet to show where my argument goes wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Caged Lion:


I must say, Rosa is the one here making the best case, so you can now consider me a anti-dialectician (not that I was ever pro-, philosophy has never been my forté)

It seems to me, that DM merely is the equivalent of Free Marketeers belief in The Free Market.
That somewhere out there, there is a unknown force that if left to its own devices will, due to some vague internal mechanisms, magically create a just society.

This may be my atheism talking, but i'm not touching anything that even resembles any sort of mysticism with a 10-foot pole

Thank you for those comments, but as you can see from the knuckle-headed 'replies' from Hiero, Tupac, Benhur, and others this just sails over their class-compromised heads. Indeed, it is quite clear that they simply cannot cope with my arguments and have to make stuff up, with BenHur here thinking that I referred to 'talking wood'!

But these jokers are no more nor no less pathetic than the scores of other DM-fans who have tried to take me on here over the years.

And there will be plenty more...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


This is quite the most absurd description of the Marxist dialectic that I've ever read. If this is the impression Rosa gives you then she has done you a real diservice.

You clearly haven't read BenHur's lame attempt!:lol:

But, you have yet to give us a much better description -- despite being asked to do so for over three years, and not just by me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bilan:


Sorry, I was meant to thank you, as I do appreciate what you said, and will look into it more. I just have to find the time to read On Contradiction.
My apologies, I hope I didn't seem rude.

No, not at all. that is why I took time to explain things to you. Had you been rude, I'd just have taken the p*ss out of you, like I do with BenHur, Hiero, Tupac, and the rest of the numpty wing of the dialectical community here.

My experience is that most DM-fans have not really thought-through the implications of what they have read in the dialectical classics, and when I point these out to them, they either think I am making them up (and they do so even when confronted with the actual quotations, in context, Hiero and BenHur being excellent examples of this head-in-the-sand approach), or they blame me for this(!!) (the above three stooges being good examples of this, too), or they claim that the dialectical classicists did not mean what they all clearly said (Lord Hargreaves is the leader of that tendency here, I think), and so they try to tewll us their language 'figurative', rather like theologians who try to harmonise the Book of Genesis with modern science by making it 'figurative'.

Anything but confront the awful truth that the theory of change -- dialectics -- cannot actually account for it, and worse, if true, would mean that change could not happen.

[benhur]

Now, unless you think that cats and wood (but where have I mentioned 'talking wood'?) are not part of the material world, then my criticism of this unworkable 'theory' of yours still stands.



Obviously, you're not smart enough to see the significance behind my apparent sarcasm. But don't worry, that's normal for you. My point is, you're applying the same principles to both sentient and insentient objects by rationalizing that they're both made of matter. It's so silly, isn't it? Even though everything is material, there are distinctions, grades, and levels all the same. You conveniently ignore this fact, and ramble on and on about dead cats, snooker balls, whatever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Obviously, you're not smart enough to see the significance behind my apparent sarcasm. But don't worry, that's normal for you. My point is, you're applying the same principles to both sentient and insentient objects by rationalizing that they're both made of matter. It's so silly, isn't it? Even though everything is material, there are distinctions, grades, and levels all the same. You conveniently ignore this fact, and ramble on and on about dead cats, snooker balls, whatever.

On the contrary, you do not appear to have the brain power to show where my argument goes wrong.

It seems, according to you, that things like cats, tables and billiard balls are not part of the material universe.:lol:

But, the Dialectical Gospels tell us that everything in the universe changes because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and they all inevitably change into those opposites.

Now, either you disagree with Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (and a host of other dialecticians), or you have not given this theory much thought.

I suspect the latter is the case.

[Louise Michel]

What I can give you is conclusions of Dialectical Materialism not the method. I could explain dialectical materialism but it isn't something that 6 year olds will understand and will require a fair bit of writing. Its like asking, please explain the whole of the Russian Revolution. You are asking for a novel on an internet forum. I am not a philosophy student and unfortunately I am not willing to write a grand essay on dialectical materialism.

This, for the moment, is my final comment on the DM/anti-DM debate (I may return when I've done some reading if I feel I have to punish myself for some moral misdemeanour). I can't see a smiley that begins to express my exasperation.

It may be that dialectical materialism cannot be understood by six year olds but I sometimes get the feeling that the debate here is being conducted by six year olds. I'm not asking for a novel or a massive essay just that instead of all this pointless point-scoring a framework for a real discussion is created. My suggestion is that it focusses on real events with a willingness to go step for step through a process of defining what happened and thus illustrate DM/HM. If necessary create special rules for the debate to cut out all the personal crap.

If someone has a better suggestion let's hear it. Or just carry on as you wish. At least no trees are being chopped down.:tt2:

[benhur]

It seems, according to you, that things like cats, tables and billiard balls are not part of the material universe.:lol:



This exposes how silly you are. No one denied they're part of the material universe, but you seem to ignore differences between sentient and insentient matter, in fact, you deny all differences in the material world and bang on about how your stupid 'dead cat' theory applies to all situations. Seriously, Mother Terosa;), you're pathetic. Try another trick, cuz this one sucks.

[Hyacinth]

This exposes how silly you are. No one denied they're part of the material universe, but you seem to ignore differences between sentient and insentient matter, in fact, you deny all differences in the material world and bang on about how your stupid 'dead cat' theory applies to all situations. Seriously, Mother Terosa;), you're pathetic. Try another trick, cuz this one sucks.
Would you care to then explain—rather than just assert—what the relevant difference is between these two domains of the material world, the animate and the inanimate, such that dialectical contradictions (also, still waiting for an explanation of what these are suppose to be) are applicable to explanations of/true of the one but not the other? Why can't the concept of pragmatic "contradictions", which was outlined briefly in Rosa's response to my suggestion, do all the work that we need it to do in historical materialism?

[Hyacinth]

Dead cats, talking wood, and much more.
To repeat what I said before; the point of the analogy is that (a) Engels, et al., do explicitly state that dialectics is meant to account for all change—if you wish to disagree with them, great, as you should, since they were obviously wrong, but, if you are going to disagree with them and still try to maintain the applicability of dialectics to certain domains of change, then (b) you have to account for how it is that dialectics can explain change in those domains when it cannot explain even the most simple instances of change elsewhere.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


This exposes how silly you are. No one denied they're part of the material universe, but you seem to ignore differences between sentient and insentient matter, in fact, you deny all differences in the material world and bang on about how your stupid 'dead cat' theory applies to all situations. Seriously, Mother Terosa, you're pathetic. Try another trick, cuz this one sucks.

Are you saying that cats are not sentient?

But, whatever you think, the Dialectical Holy Men were quite clear, everything in the entire universe, sentient or not, changes because of a 'struggle of opposites', and they change into those opposites.

Now, this is an unworkable theory whether it is applied to sentient beings or non-sentient objects and processes.

Now, stop prevaricating, and address that.

[Charles Xavier]

This, for the moment, is my final comment on the DM/anti-DM debate (I may return when I've done some reading if I feel I have to punish myself for some moral misdemeanour). I can't see a smiley that begins to express my exasperation.

It may be that dialectical materialism cannot be understood by six year olds but I sometimes get the feeling that the debate here is being conducted by six year olds. I'm not asking for a novel or a massive essay just that instead of all this pointless point-scoring a framework for a real discussion is created. My suggestion is that it focusses on real events with a willingness to go step for step through a process of defining what happened and thus illustrate DM/HM. If necessary create special rules for the debate to cut out all the personal crap.

If someone has a better suggestion let's hear it. Or just carry on as you wish. At least no trees are being chopped down.:tt2:

Buy a book and read, come to your own conclusions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAII:


Buy a book and read, come to your own conclusions.

Yes, I'm sure that's what Engels said to Duhring...:lol:

[Cumannach]

Rosa, could you briefly present your argument as to why Dialectics implies change is impossible? No link please ;)

[rosie]

[So, the wood that is used to make a table, according to this 'theory', has to struggle with what it turns into, that is, this wood has to struggle with the table it turns into!

In that case, the table must already exist, or it could not 'struggle' with the wood from which it is to be made.

But, if the table already exists, then the wood cannot be changed into it.]
To make a joke...Thats where physics comes in....sorry, i had to say it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks Rosie, but I have it covered.

Cummanach:


Rosa, could you briefly present your argument as to why Dialectics implies change is impossible? No link please

1) What's wrong with links, especially if they are to other RevLeft threads?

2) I have written this argument out dozens of times. I am sick of writing it, and re-writing it. Hence the links.

Ok, just for you.

Dialecticians are unclear whether objects and processes change (1) because of a 'struggle' between their internal opposites, or whether they (2) change into these opposites as a result of that "struggle", or indeed whether they (3) also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change.

Here are a few quotations from a wide selection of theorists to that effect:


"If, for instance, the Sophists claimed to be teachers, Socrates by a series of questions forced the Sophist Protagoras to confess that all learning is only recollection. In his more strictly scientific dialogues, Plato employs the dialectical method to show the finitude of all hard and fast terms of understanding. Thus in the Parmenides he deduces the many from the one. In this grand style did Plato treat Dialectic. In modern times it was, more than any other, Kant who resuscitated the name of Dialectic, and restored it to its post of honour. He did it, as we have seen, by working out the Antinomies of the reason. The problem of these Antinomies is no mere subjective piece of work oscillating between one set of grounds and another; it really serves to show that every abstract proposition of understanding, taken precisely as it is given, naturally veers round to its opposite.

"However reluctant Understanding may be to admit the action of Dialectic, we must not suppose that the recognition of its existence is peculiarly confined to the philosopher. It would be truer to say that Dialectic gives expression to a law which is felt in all other grades of consciousness, and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of Dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being stable and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by that Dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than what it is, is forced beyond its own immediate or natural being to turn suddenly into its opposite." [Hegel (1975), pp.117-18.]

"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Ibid., p.174.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... Mutual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., pp.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"...but the theory of Essence is the main thing: the resolution of the abstract contradictions into their own instability, where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone than it is transformed unnoticed into the other, etc." [Engels (1891), p.414.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing, each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical, -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end.... [Ibid., pp.311-18.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"So far we have discussed the most general and most fundamental law of dialectics, namely, the law of the permeation of opposites, or the law of polar unity. We shall now take up the second main proposition of dialectics, the law of the negation of the negation, or the law of development through opposites. This is the most general law of the process of thought. I will first state the law itself and support it with examples, and then I will show on what it is based and how it is related to the first law of the permeation of opposites. There is already a presentiment of this law in the oldest Chinese philosophy, in the of Transformations, as well as in Lao-tse and his disciples -- and likewise in the oldest Greek philosophy, especially in Heraclitus. Not until Hegel, however, was this law developed.

"This law applies to all motion and changes of things, to real things as well as to their images in our minds, i.e., concepts. It states first of all that things and concepts move, change, and develop; all things are processes. All fixity of individual things is only relative, limited; their motion, change, or development is absolute, unlimited. For the world as a whole absolute motion and absolute rest coincide. The proof of this part of the proposition, namely, that all things are in flux, we have already given in our discussion of Heraclitus.

"The law of the negation of the negation has a special sense beyond the mere proposition that all things are processes and change. It also states something about the most general form of these changes, motions, or developments. It states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing.

"Conceptually the actual movement of things appears as a negation. In other words, negation is the most general way in which motion or change of things is represented in the mind. This is the first stage of this process. The negation of a thing from which the change proceeds, however, is in turn subject to the law of the transformation of things into their opposites." [Ibid., pp.170-71.]

"The second dialectical law, that of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the essentially contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a hundred years ago….

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite." [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

"Movement and change result from causes inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions….

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other....'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels (1891), p.414.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, ex pressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.'" [Rob Sewell, quoted from here.]

Bold emphases added.[/QUOTE]

References and links can be found at my site, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

Apologies for the link, but this post is long enough as it is.

In my next post I will expose this theory's fatal weaknesses

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, here it is:

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).

[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.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I then gave a series of shorter, more down-to-earth explanations.

Here is one such:

Cats undoubtedly die; so live cats at some point become dead cats.

But, the dialectical classicists tell us that such changes can only occur if there is a 'struggle' of opposites, and that things like live cats change into their opposites.

In that case, the dead cat that a live cat will one day become must be one of these opposites.

Now, this is where it gets tricky, since this live cat, in order to change and die, must struggle with what it becomes, that is, it must 'struggle' with the dead cat.

But, in that case, the live cat cannot change onto the dead cat it will one day become, since that dead cat already exists! If it didn't already exist, then the live cat couldn't struggle with its opposite, this dead cat, and so could not change!

Either way, change would be impossible if this theory were true.

On the other hand, if this live cat in fact changes into another, different dead cat, and not the one just mentioned, then in order to do that, it would have had to have 'struggled' with this second dead cat too. Hence this second dead cat would also have to exist alongside this by now confused moggie and the original dead cat!

I know that cats are supposed to have nine lives, but, if we press this argument much further this live cat will turn out to have more than nine deaths (or rather more than nine dead versions of its future self littering the place).

So, despite appearances to the contrary, every live cat on the planet is now, and always has been, struggling with the future dead cat that it will one day become.

Once more, that just means that no cat can ever die, since the dead cat that each live cat will one day become is already there, or it couldn't 'struggle' with it!

Naturally, this raises serious problems about where all these dead cats came from. They can't have come from live cats, since live cats can only become dead cats if these dead cats already exist! They must pop into existence from nowhere!

[I]Now, this is not to deny change, only to argue that if dialectics were true, change could not happen.

But, what is true of cats is true of all living things.

Hence, this 'wonderful' theory not only has every live organism existing alongside the dead organism it is supposed to one day become (but is now struggling with it), it implies that nothing can die!

Some comrades have tried to argue that this is ridiculous since cats go through many intermediate stages between birth and death, so in order to show that this makes no difference I posted this argument:


Incidentally, the same result emerges if we consider the intermediate stages in the life and death of cat C.

Let us assume that cat C goes through successive stages C(1), C(2), C(3)..., C(n), until at stage C(n+1) it finally pops its clogs.

But, according to the dialectical classics, C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites. They also tell us that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite.

So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it.

But then the same problems emerge, for C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist, and no cat can change, let alone die!

These 'dialectical cats' sure are odd...

Now these intermediate stages could be those created by the negation of the negation, where an earlier stage is allegedly 'negated' to produce a higher stage, which also preserves certain things from that earlier stage.

Nevertheless, this doesn't affect the argument.

To see this, call cat stage C(2) the negation of cat stage C(1), such that C(2) is a higher stage which also preserves certain things from that earlier stage.

The same problems arise:

The dialectical classics tell us that C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite, C(2).

So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it!

But C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist, and so no cat can change, let alone die!

Now there is no way out of this self-inflicted quandary.



Now, please, [I]do not make me type that out again...

[Cumannach]

2) I have written this argument out dozens of times. I am sick of writing it, and re-writing it. Hence the links.

Ok, just for you.


Thank you.



Dialecticians are unclear whether objects and processes change (1) because of a 'struggle' between their internal opposites, or whether they (2) change into these opposites as a result of that "struggle", or indeed whether they (3) also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change.

Here are a few quotations from a wide selection of theorists to that effect:

...

Bold emphases added.

I agree, that these quotations could give rise to some confusion for two reasons, first, if they are read standing alone out of context, and second because philosophy inherently creates confusion being so abstract. That's nothing peculiar to DM however.



Ok, here it is:

...

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.

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.I think there's a mistake here. The thesis is not that O' turns into O'', it is that A, whose nature is determined by which of it's internal contradictions predominates, becomes A', once O'' overwhelms O' and predominates. Is it not?

So using the example everyone here is interested in, the Capitalist mode of Production, A which is composed of two elements in conflict, the relations of production O', which predominate and determine the nature of the mode of production (it's capitalist nature) and the forces of production O'', the which are in opposition to O', their character being social, as opposed to private. Once, O'' overcomes O', we have the end of the capitalist mode of production A, and the emergence of a new communist mode of production A'. A' is the opposite of A in the sense that, it's defining element is opposite in character to the defining element of the A, namely, it is social rather than private.

A bit more metaphorically, the same with John becoming a man. What defines a man in this context is the character of his abilities, which in a boy is opposite to the character of his needs, specifically his abilities are few and poor, and he can't meet his own needs which are many and demanding. But his abilities are changing and eventually the character of his abilities overwhelm his boyish needs and he is a man. In your words, his manhood overwhelms his boyhood.



Cats undoubtedly die; so live cats at some point become dead cats.

But, the dialectical classicists tell us that such changes can only occur if there is a 'struggle' of opposites, and that things like live cats change into their opposites.

In that case, the dead cat that a live cat will one day become must be one of these opposites.

Now, this is where it gets tricky, since this live cat, in order to change and die, must struggle with what it becomes, that is, it must 'struggle' with the dead cat.

But, in that case, the live cat cannot change onto the dead cat it will one day become, since that dead cat already exists! If it didn't already exist, then the live cat couldn't struggle with its opposite, this dead cat, and so could not change!

Either way, change would be impossible if this theory were true.



Again the same thing; You said a live cat must struggle with a dead cat in order to become a dead cat, but dialectics says that objects undergo internal struggle that produces change.

What is it that characterizes a dead cat, that defines it, in relation to a live cat? It is obviously that the cat's constitution is no longer held together but disintegrates and decomposes and is in a process of decay; it's hairs are falling out, it's flesh is rotting and disappearing, it's skin is falling away and disintegrating and all it's tissues. Clearly the tendency of the cat to decay has overwhelmed it's opposite, the tendency of the cat to hold itself together and replenish itself, to grow new hairs and new claws, for it's dead skin to peel off and be replaced by fresh skin, for the dead cells from all over it's body to be replenished with new cells.

The live cat C, had within it this struggle between opposites, life and death, or cell mitosis O' and cell necrosis O''. When O' predominated, it was alive, when O'' won out, it was dead, the dead cat C'.

So dialectics does not imply that the cat cannot die.

With the steam, the water has a struggle going on between the strength of it's intramolecular forces (whose strength characterizes it as water) and the energy from the heat that breaks down those bonds. Enough heat and the energy overwhelms the strength of the intramolecular bonds and we have gas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanch:


I agree, that these quotations could give rise to some confusion for two reasons, first, if they are read standing alone out of context, and second because philosophy inherently creates confusion being so abstract. That's nothing peculiar to DM however.

Well, that just tells me that the theory as it appears in the classics is no good.

And, I have not quoted the context since, had I done so, my first post would have been ten times longer, but the result would have been no different.

Anyway, I note you failed to tell us how the context could possibly alter the import of these unequivocal statements.

The problem is, no DM-text I have ever read (and I have read and studied literally hundreds) explains the theory of change in sufficient detail. All of them make wild claims which just do not work, as I have shown, and am about to show.


I think there's a mistake here. The thesis is not that O' turns into O'', it is that A, whose nature is determined by which of it's internal contradictions predominates, becomes A', once O'' overwhelms O' and predominates. Is it not?

Well, the way I have set this up, it does not matter. [In fact if you read my argument carefully, I have already covered this objection.]

The Dialectical Classics tell us that every object/process in existence changes into its opposite by 'struggling' with it.

So, whether you label an object/process A*, O* or O** it matters not. [I prefer to use A* etc, since it is clearer.]

To see this, let us concentrate on A, and its opposite A*. A can only change into A* by 'struggling' with it. The internal contradictions here are just this A and A*.

Now if you want to label them as I did O* and 0**, then there is not much difference.

As you put it:


once O'' overwhelms O' and predominates

But, this too is covered by this dialectical law, since everything is. So, O** can only change into a predominating contradiction by 'struggling' with its own opposite, O**(opp), and it also becomes its own opposite O**(opp). But this it can't do since O**(opp) already exists.

Now, it is not possible to get around this problem by simply inventing new labels or letters. My general proof shows this to be so.

As noted above, A can only change into A* by 'struggling' with it. Hence, it cannot change by means of a side battle between O* and O**. If A were able to change this way, the dialectical classics would have said so. They are quite clear. Every object and process changes because of a 'struggle of opposites' and they change into their opposites.

But, even if O* and O** are implicated, as you picture things, this too cannot work, for the reasons I outlined above.


So using the example everyone here is interested in, the Capitalist mode of Production, A which is composed of two elements in conflict, the relations of production O', which predominate and determine the nature of the mode of production (it's capitalist nature) and the forces of production O'', the which are in opposition to O', their character being social, as opposed to private. Once, O'' overcomes O', we have the end of the capitalist mode of production A, and the emergence of a new communist mode of production A'. A' is the opposite of A in the sense that, it's defining element is opposite in character to the defining element of the A, namely, it is social rather than private.

But, if there is a conflict between the Relations of Production [ROP] and the Forces of Production [FOP], then, according to the dialectical classics, these must change into one another!


A bit more metaphorically, the same with John becoming a man. What defines a man in this context is the character of his abilities, which in a boy is opposite to the character of his needs, specifically his abilities are few and poor, and he can't meet his own needs which are many and demanding. But his abilities are changing and eventually the character of his abilities overwhelm his boyish needs and he is a man. In your words, his manhood overwhelms his boyhood.

Once more, according to the dialectical classics, John can only change because of a struggle between him and his dialectical opposite (this is precisely what the 'dialectical contradiction' is here). In that case, he has to struggle with the man he will one day become.

Now we can try to get around this in the way you attempt:


What defines a man in this context is the character of his abilities, which in a boy is opposite to the character of his needs, specifically his abilities are few and poor, and he can't meet his own needs which are many and demanding. But his abilities are changing and eventually the character of his abilities overwhelm his boyish needs and he is a man. In your words, his manhood overwhelms his boyhood.

[The words in bold are not my words; I never used them, nor quoted them, so I do not know why you alleged this of me.]

But this cannot work. If John's manhood is to 'overwhelm' John's boyhood (and we abbreviate the former to J(M), and the latter to J(B)), then J(M) must change and become 'overwhelming' (label that J(M(O))). But to do that, according to the dialectical classics, it has to 'struggle' with its opposite, and become that opposite. But it can't do that since J(M((O)) already exists.

Once more we hit a brick wall.

The problem is that the dialectical classics are unequivocal: every process and object in existence changes as a result of a 'struggle' with its dialectical opposite, and that they all change into that opposite.

This is what scuppers your attempted rescue bids.

The same problem afflicts this attempted solution:


Again the same thing; You said a live cat must struggle with a dead cat in order to become a dead cat, but dialectics says that objects undergo internal struggle that produces change.

What is it that characterizes a dead cat, that defines it, in relation to a live cat? It is obviously that the cat's constitution is no longer held together but disintegrates and decomposes and is in a process of decay; it's hairs are falling out, it's flesh is rotting and disappearing, it's skin is falling away and disintegrating and all it's tissues. Clearly the tendency of the cat to decay has overwhelmed it's opposite, the tendency of the cat to hold itself together and replenish itself, to grow new hairs and new claws, for it's dead skin to peel off and be replaced by fresh skin, for the dead cells from all over it's body to be replenished with new cells.

The live cat C, had within it this struggle between opposites, life and death, or cell mitosis O' and cell necrosis O''. When O' predominated, it was alive, when O'' won out, it was dead, the dead cat C'.

This does not affect the argument. Take any part of or process within a cat (call it P(C)), no matter how small, large, insignificant, or significant it may be.

Now P(C) can only change because of its own 'struggle' with its opposite, call this P(C*). The relation between P(C) and P(C*) constitutes one of this cat's internal contradictions.

But, according to the dialectical classics, P(C) also changes into P(C*). But, it can't do that since P(C*) already exists.

Now, this immovable brick wall will always be in the way of any attempt you might think to make to rescue this drowning theory.


So dialectics does not imply that the cat cannot die.

In fact, it not only implies that cats cannot change, no part of process within a cat can change, either.

Hence, dialectical cats cannot die.


With the steam, the water has a struggle going on between the strength of it's intramolecular forces (whose strength characterizes it as water) and the energy from the heat that breaks down those bonds. Enough heat and the energy overwhelms the strength of the intramolecular bonds and we have gas.

Alas, this 'solution' is subject to the same fatal defect.

Call one of these intramolecular bonds B. According to the dialectical classics, B can only change because of its own 'struggle' with its opposite, B*. Not only that, it also changes into B*. But, B can't do this since B* already exists.

Yet another non-dialectical brick wall.

Nice try, only it wasn't...

[benhur]

Live cat = c, dead cat = c1

For an entity to be c, it cannot be c1 at the same time, which implies a constant struggle between c and c1. Meaning, for a cat to be considered alive (c), it has to fight against death (c1), which is the opposite. Implicit in c is the opposite c1, with which the former struggles (else, c wouldn't even exist for a minute). But this struggle itself leads c to c1, how?

Let's say there are certain biological factors that distinguish c from c1. A great deal of energy is expended in order to keep these differences intact, or c would've have existed in the first place. Then again, this very consumption (of energy) is what weakens c, starts the aging process etc., thus gradually leading to c1. In other words, the struggle that keeps c distinct from c1 - the struggle between opposites - is the factor which, ironically, leads c to c1.

This is true of capitalism and its opposite socialism as well. Captialism fights with its opposite to keep itself alive, so what does it do? It either oppresses workers, or keeps them sedated with incentives, both of which helps the workers become class-conscious sooner or later. Which means, the things that capitalists do to fight its opposite, are the very things that lead to the opposite. Which is why, Marxists believe capitalism contains within it the seed of its opposite, and all the struggle with its opposite actually leads to the opposite, far from destroying it.

[Cumannach]

The Dialectical Classics tell us that every object/process in existence changes into its opposite by 'struggling' with it.

So, whether you label an object/process A*, O* or O** it matters not. [I prefer to use A* etc, since it is clearer.]

To see this, let us concentrate on A, and its opposite A*. A can only change into A* by 'struggling' with it. The internal contradictions here are just this A and A*.

Now if you want to label them as I did O* and 0**, then there is not much difference.



No Rosa, as you originally put it:


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.

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. 'A is comprised of two internal contradictory opposites'. O' and O'' are the internal contradictory opposites. A changes into A' once O'' overwhelms O' in the struggle. In what sense is A opposite to A'? In the sense that it's dominating internal element is opposite to the dominating internal element of A'. You can't just talk completely abstractly about 'opposites'.

What is the opposite of a tree? A 'not-tree'. Well everything besides a tree is a 'not-tree', so everything is the opposite of a tree. The opposite of a tree is everything. Both a dog and a cat are the opposite of a tree. This is nonsense of course. To speak about opposites we have to define what element we have in mind. The opposite of a 'living tree' is a 'dead tree'. The opposite of a 'tree in Spring', growing it's leaves, is 'a tree in Autumn', shedding it's leaves.

Now as for object/process A, what is the opposite of it?

Since we're talking dialectics here, we're trying to understand object/process A by looking at it's internal contradictions, the struggle of it's internal opposites.

The opposite of the object/process A (= the object in which O' dominates in the struggle), is A' ( = the object/process in which O'' has overwhelmed O' and dominates the struggle). In this way, A is the opposite of A'. And, once the struggle of internal opposites takes the decisive turn, A will have turned into it's opposite A'.



But, if there is a conflict between the Relations of Production [ROP] and the Forces of Production [FOP], then, according to the dialectical classics, these must change into one another!No, the Capitalist Mode of Production (A), in which the capitalist relations of production (O') dominate the socialist productive forces (O'') in the struggle of internal opposites, changes into it's opposite the Communist/Socialist Mode of Production (A') in which the productive forces (O'') have won the struggle and dominate.



Call one of these intramolecular bonds B. According to the dialectical classics, B can only change because of its own 'struggle' with its opposite, B*. Not only that, it also changes into B*. But, B can't do this since B* already exists.

No, B, a liquid, changes because of an internal struggle of opposites, one of which characterizes B (as a liquid) and the other which characterizes B' (as a gas). In this sense does B struggle with B'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Busy this weekend; will reply to you two guys in a day or so.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanach:


'A is comprised of two internal contradictory opposites'. O' and O'' are the internal contradictory opposites. A changes into A' once O'' overwhelms O' in the struggle. In what sense is A opposite to A'? In the sense that it's dominating internal element is opposite to the dominating internal element of A'. You can't just talk completely abstractly about 'opposites'.

1) You have helped yourself to the word "overwhelm", here. It cannot be found in the Dialectical Classics. There, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin (etc.) speak about a 'struggle' of opposites, and they tell us these opposites inevitably turn into one another. They do no speak about such opposites 'overwhelming' one another. If you want an unbiased account of how Marx and others used these terms, check this out:

'The Concept of Non-Antagonistic Contradiction in Soviet Philosophy', by Tom Weston, Science & Society Vol 72, October 2008.

PDF available here: http://marxistphilosophy.org/SSART.pdf

There you will see just how Hegel, Marx and others use this term -- and how none of them uses 'overwhelm'.

2) The Dialectical Classics are in fact ambiguous about what they mean by an 'internal contradiction', that is between "internal" meaning "logically interconnected" and "internal" meaning (geometrically) "inside". Your argument slips between these two senses (and you are not alone -- every dialectician I have read equivocates here too). This equivocation does not matter in the end (except it merely serves to confuse), since the end result is the same.

I need to digress for a minute (the point of which will become apparent later)

Hegel originally invented the idea in order to develop Leibniz's arguments against materialist and empiricist analyses of causation (what later dialecticians called 'mechanical materialism'). Leibniz in turn developed ideas he lifted from Aristotle and the Scholastics concerning the nature of substance. In order for him to argue that the universe was fully rational, and the creation of 'God', the cause of all things, the interaction of substances could not be externally determined (his arguments to this effect are still rather difficult to defeat, but I won't digress here), but internally-generated, so that the causal interaction between substances might seem to the naked eye to be accidental, rational analysis showed they were all logically pre-determined by the fact that everything true of each substance (including all its interactions) had already been programmed into the logical notion of that substance by 'God'. So, the interaction of everything in reality was internally generated.

Hegel took this notion and re-wrote it along universally developmental lines, where by the subjective working out of the logic of each substance (in the rational development of the Mind of 'God') through determinate negation transformed each and every one into what it was not. But, the link between a substance S and what-it-was-not was not accidental, but necessary and 'internal' (that is, it was logically internal to the determination of the concept of that substance). So, for Hegel, the link between S and not-S was logical, and this is what he meant by "internal".

But, then he also wanted to see development as an inner-striving in things themselves, but if this is so, then the connection between things would be lost. Hegel ignored this serious problem and just ploughed on regardless.

But this ambiguity/difficulty only re-surfaced in 'Materialist Dialectics', whose theorists do not see reality as the development on Mind. Hence, in his Notebooks, while Lenin clearly takes the Hegelian line and sees everything as self-moving, driven by this 'inner-striving', he also equivocated. The advantage he saw in this is that the Hegelian account fully answered Hume's criticisms of the rationalist theory of causation, just as it undercuts the need for an external creator, or Prime Mover (as Aristotle saw things).

But, Lenin immediately faces problems, since he wants to use the 'rational core' of Hegel's system to account for (geometrically) external interaction, too, so that he and others could understand the driving force of Capitalism and how to overthrow it. This meant he had to appeal to the other sense of "internal"; that is, in order to make the development of capitalism rational, and non-accidental, objects and processes in capitalist society not only develop because they 'self-move', they also interact (externally) with one another. Now, this allows him to appeal to the contradictions in Capitalism (which are plainly geometrically external to each object and process in the system, while being 'internal' to the whole system) as logically inter-connected (so that the system as a whole, with all its parts) developed lawfully.

Later dialecticians, as I pointed out in an earlier post, inherited this ambiguity, and tried to drop the Hegelian 'logical connections' part all the while trying to retain the much of the outer form of the theory. And that is why they found they had to introduce 'external contradictions' to account for the interaction they found in reality. But, external contradictions quickly fall foul of Hume's arguments, just as they allow 'God' back in through a side door. This fatal defect remains unresolved to this day.

Apologies or the above detour, but I am not convinced you know enough of the background to stop you dropping clangers that philosophers have been aware of for many centuries. [Again, the point of the above will soon become apparent.]

But, what of your actual argument?


'A is comprised of two internal contradictory opposites'. O' and O'' are the internal contradictory opposites. A changes into A' once O'' overwhelms O' in the struggle. In what sense is A opposite to A'? In the sense that it's dominating internal element is opposite to the dominating internal element of A'. You can't just talk completely abstractly about 'opposites'.

But, the Dialectical Classics tell us that all objects and processes change into their opposites and the also 'struggle' with them. So, the opposites that A 'struggles' with is not O' or O'', but not-A, and it also changes into not-A.

Once more, that is not possible for not-A already exists!

But, even if your re-write of this theory were correct (in that it faithfully represented what the Dialectical Classics tell us, which it doesn't), as I pointed out to you before: if all objects and processes change because of a struggle with their opposites, and they change into those opposites, then O' must struggle with not-O', and it must change into not-O'. But, this it cannot do, since not-O' already exists. If it didn't, O' could not 'struggle' with it.


What is the opposite of a tree? A 'not-tree'. Well everything besides a tree is a 'not-tree', so everything is the opposite of a tree. The opposite of a tree is everything. Both a dog and a cat are the opposite of a tree. This is nonsense of course. To speak about opposites we have to define what element we have in mind. The opposite of a 'living tree' is a 'dead tree'. The opposite of a 'tree in Spring', growing it's leaves, is 'a tree in Autumn', shedding it's leaves.

Now, this is where the confusion I alluded to above enters in, for, as you note, there are countless things that can be described as 'not-tree'. To prevent the theory implying that a tree could change into any one of the things that it is not (including a tea pot, a lion, a pair of cuff links, a mountain, a quasar...), Hegel made the link between things logical (and so did Lenin). [This is part of the reply to Hume's criticism of the rationalist theory of causation I mentioned earlier.]

So, there is a specific 'other' for each object and process; here is Lenin:


"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing, each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." Shorter Logic, pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285.]

This 'other' is not just any old 'other', but is logically-connected to the original object/process. At a stroke this undercuts Hume; but equally quickly it is highly implausible (for reasons I have mentioned before, but will omit here).

So, your re-write has to take account of this part of Lenin's theory. The 'internal contradictions' here are thus those between an object and its 'other'; they are not geometrically internal. But, the ambiguous use of 'internal' also allowed Lenin and Hegel to refer to processes (geometrically) internal to, say, a tree that make it grow and develop in the way it does.

However, as I noted above, neither sense of 'internal' will work. Why that is so will be outlined presently.

Now, you half-recognise this difficulty:


Well everything besides a tree is a 'not-tree', so everything is the opposite of a tree. The opposite of a tree is everything. Both a dog and a cat are the opposite of a tree. This is nonsense of course. To speak about opposites we have to define what element we have in mind. The opposite of a 'living tree' is a 'dead tree'. The opposite of a 'tree in Spring', growing it's leaves, is 'a tree in Autumn', shedding it's leaves.

But, how do you get around it?

Well, you don't

[This is what made me conclude that you were unaware of the philosophical background to this -- Lenin certainly was aware of it (that's why he accepted Hegel's rebuttal of Hume).]

So, you do not solve this classical problem (about the links between objects/processes and what they become), you ignore it, and merely re-assert your re-write of Hegel/Lenin:


Now as for object/process A, what is the opposite of it?

Since we're talking dialectics here, we're trying to understand object/process A by looking at it's internal contradictions, the struggle of it's internal opposites.

The opposite of the object/process A (= the object in which O' dominates in the struggle), is A' ( = the object/process in which O'' has overwhelmed O' and dominates the struggle). In this way, A is the opposite of A'. And, once the struggle of opposites takes the decisive turn, A will have turned into it's opposite A'.

Once, more, if this had been Hegel or Lenin's theory, it would not have explained why A developed into a specific not-A, and not just any old not-A.

Appealing to the 'inner contradictions' (in the sense of those inside A) of A will not do, for then the same problems will simply re-appear at a lower level.

Again, I covered this in my original argument, but here it is again.

According to the Dialectical Classics, every -- not nearly every or even most -- but, every object and process in existence changes because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and they all inevitably change into those opposites.

Let A have two internal opposites, P' and P'' (I won't use your symbols here, to save confusion in the next part of my argument), and the alleged 'struggle' between them changes A into not-A.

In that case, A will not have 'struggled' with not-A, and the Dialectical Classics are wrong.

On the other hand, if P' 'struggles' with P'', and becomes 'overwhelming' (to use this imported word of yours), then it must become P'(O) (i.e., it must change from P' into P'(overwhelming)).

But, the Dialectical Classics tell us that P' can only change into P'(O) by struggling with it. In that case, P'(O) must already exist. If so, P' cannot change into it! If it didn't, P' could not change into P'(O).

Now, if we follow Hegel/Lenin here, this has to be the case, otherwise P' might change into any one of its countless opposites, as I noted above. In order for P' to change into what you say it does, and not into a coffee mug, elephant, continent, planet, etc., there has to be a logical link between P' and what it becomes. And that is why Hegel/Lenin introduced this specific 'other' for all things to change into, and thus (for Lenin) to 'struggle' with. So, if P' is to change into its 'overwhelming' form, and not into a coffee mug, elephant, continent, planet, etc., it has to struggle with what it will become, namely P'(O).

But, as we have seen time and again, this cannot happen. P' cannot both struggle with and change into P'(O).

So, as soon as you have P' changing into its dominant form, all the problems I have been outlining fall on your head.


No, the Capitalist Mode of Production (A), in which the capitalist relations of production (O') dominate the socialist productive forces (O'') in the struggle of opposites, changes into it's opposite the Communist/Socialist Mode of Production (A') in which the productive forces (O'') have won the struggle and dominate.

But, this is again to re-write the theory, since, according to the Dialectical Classics, these opposites change into one another. Do they? Hardly!

Anyway, I have already covered this; but here it is again, adapted accordingly (using P' and P'' in place of your O' and O'', again):

If P' 'struggles' with P'', and becomes 'overwhelming', then it must become P'(O).

But, the Dialectical Classics tell us that P' can only change into P'(O) by struggling with it. In that case, P'(O) must already exist. If so, P' cannot change into it!

Otherwise P' might change into any one of its countless opposites. In order for P' to change into what you say it does, and not into, say, slave relations of production or feudal relations of production, etc, there has to be a logical link between P' and what it becomes. So, if P' is to change into its 'overwhelming' form, and not into slave relations of production, feudal relations of production, etc, it has to struggle with what it will become, namely P'(O).

But, once more, P' can't do this since P'(O) already exists; if it didn't then it could not 'struggle' with it and thus change into it!


No, B changes because of an internal struggle of opposites, one of which characterizes B (liquid) and the other which characterizes B' (gas). In this sense does B struggle with B'.

But how can this be, if in that liquid, B' does not yet exist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


For an entity to be c, it cannot be c1 at the same time, which implies a constant struggle between c and c1. Meaning, for a cat to be considered alive (c), it has to fight against death (c1), which is the opposite. Implicit in c is the opposite c1, with which the former struggles (else, c wouldn't even exist for a minute). But this struggle itself leads c to c1, how?

You have clearly missed the point, for if this cat cannot be C and C1 at the same time, C cannot 'struggle' with C1, and so cannot change. On the other hand, if this cat can be C and C1 at the same time, then (1) you are wrong that the cat cannot be C and C1 at the same time, and (2) this cat cannot change into C1, since C1 already exists.


Let's say there are certain biological factors that distinguish c from c1. A great deal of energy is expended in order to keep these differences intact, or c would've have existed in the first place. Then again, this very consumption (of energy) is what weakens c, starts the aging process etc., thus gradually leading to c1. In other words, the struggle that keeps c distinct from c1 - the struggle between opposites - is the factor which, ironically, leads c to c1.

This does not affect my counter-argument; in fact, it contradicts your own! This is because you said:


For an entity to be c, it cannot be c1 at the same time, which implies a constant struggle between c and c1. Meaning, for a cat to be considered alive (c), it has to fight against death (c1), which is the opposite. Implicit in c is the opposite c1, with which the former struggles (else, c wouldn't even exist for a minute).

So, on your account C and C1 'struggle', but now you say C is "weakened" by the expenditure of energy. In other words, this cat does not change because of a 'struggle' with C1, but because of the "aging process".


This is true of capitalism and its opposite socialism as well. Capitalism fights with its opposite to keep itself alive, so what does it do? It either oppresses workers, or keeps them sedated with incentives, both of which helps the workers become class-conscious sooner or later. Which means, the things that capitalists do to fight its opposite, are the very things that lead to the opposite. Which is why, Marxists believe capitalism contains within it the seed of its opposite, and all the struggle with its opposite actually leads to the opposite, far from destroying it.

But, according to the dialectical Holy Books, opposites change into one another, and they do so because of a 'struggle' between them. In that case, capitalism must 'struggle' with socialism, and they must change into one another! But, this mean that socialism must exist before it exists! Otherwise it cannot 'struggle' with anything.

Or, if you prefer, the capitalists must change into workers, and workers must change into capitalists.

So, this theory would either make change impossible, or it would have the billions of workers on the planet all changing into capitalists, preventing socialism from coming about!

[Cumannach]

...
It cannot be found in the Dialectical Classics.
...
The Dialectical Classics are in fact ambiguous
...
Later dialecticians, as I pointed out in an earlier post, inherited this ambiguity,


I've come to realise what we're arguing against is your personal interpretation of Dialectical Materialism, as you have constructed it from cherry picking quotes out of various 'Dialectical Classics'. You should offer your own summary of the principles of Dialectics according to you, so we could know what it is we're actually arguing about.


But, the Dialectical Classics tell us that all objects and processes change into their opposites and the also 'struggle' with them. So, the opposites that A 'struggles' with is not O' or O'', but not-A, and it also changes into not-A.I explained it as clearly as possible. If you can't understand it there's no hope for you. You cannot take every sentence literally, neither in Science nor Philosophy nor in everday language. Look up 'metaphor'.



...But, even if your re-write of this theory were correct (in that it faithfully represented what the Dialectical Classics tell us, which it doesn't), as I pointed out to you before:...
When I 'faithfully represent' the 'Dialectical Classics' you just tell me that, 'no, in fact the Classics were ambiguous so... I don't have to address your point.' A lucky thing for you, too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanach:


I've come to realise what we're arguing against is your personal interpretation of Dialectical Materialism, as you have constructed it from cherry picking quotes out of various 'Dialectical Classics'. You should offer your own summary of the principles of Dialectics according to you, so we could know what it is we're actually arguing about.

Well, in that case, I am sure you can provide the quotations that support your view of dialectical change.

[Except, the quotations I have given are from widely varying sources (and I could have given more), and are typical of the wild things dialecticians say.]

Until you do, my version of your theory stands -- and that version does not work.

But wait; why is it only now that you have come to realise this?

Has it got anything to do with the fact that your 'interpretation' (which does not work) finds absolutely no support in the dialectical classics?

In short, you are in a hole, and this is your last desperate gambit.


I explained it as clearly as possible. If you can't understand it there's no hope for you. You cannot take every sentence literally, neither in Science nor Philosophy nor in everyday language. Look up 'metaphor'.

And I have explained even more clearly that your view:

1) Finds no support in the Dialectical Classics -- in fact, it runs counter to them. [Unless, as I said above, you have chapter and verse to support your revisionary view of this theory. I have the texts that support my reading.]

2) Does not work anyway.


You cannot take every sentence literally, neither in Science nor Philosophy nor in everyday language. Look up 'metaphor'

Already covered that excuse (and others); here it is again:


When confronted with such allegations, dialecticians with whom I have 'debated' this have tended to respond in one or more of the following ways:

(1) They deny these authors meant what they said (or they did not even say it!).

(2) They argue that these quotations are not representative.

(3) They claim that the author in question mis-spoke, or made an error.

(4) They argue that my demolition of this core DM-principle is merely "semantic", or that it is a classic example of "pedantry".

As far as (4) is concerned:

However, to those who think that this sort "pedantry" can be ignored it is worth pointing out that that would be the only way they could excuse their own sloppy thinking, and the only way they could make their ideas appear to work.

This sort of attitude would not be tolerated for one second in the sciences, or in any other branch of genuine knowledge. Can you imagine the fuss if someone were to argue that it does not matter what the Magna Carta said, or when the Battle of the Nile was fought, or what the Declaration of Independence actually contained, or what the exact wording of Newton's Second Law was, or whether "G", the Gravitational Constant, was 6.6742 x 10^-11 or 6.7642 x 10^-11 Mm^2kg^-2, or indeed something else? Would we accept this sort of excuse from someone who said it did not matter what the precise wording of a contract in law happened to be? Or, that it did not really matter what Marx meant by "variable capital", or that he "pedantically" distinguished use-value from exchange-value -- or more pointedly, the "relative form" from the "equivalent form" of value --, we should be able to make do with anyone's guess? And how would we react if someone said, "Who cares if there are serious mistakes in that policeman's evidence against those strikers"? Or if someone else retorted "Big deal if there are a few errors in this or that e-mail address/web page URL, or in that mathematical proof! And who cares whether there is a difference between rest mass and inertial mass in Physics! What are you, some kind of pedant?"

With such a sloppy regard for logic and fondness for Mickey Mouse Science, is it any wonder that genuine ruling-class theorists regard Dialectical Marxists with undisguised contempt, and workers in their billions ignore Marxism?

Taking (2) next: Here is a list of representative passages lifted from the dialectical prophets (and lesser DM-clones) which shows that the quotations I have given are indeed representative.


"If, for instance, the Sophists claimed to be teachers, Socrates by a series of questions forced the Sophist Protagoras to confess that all learning is only recollection. In his more strictly scientific dialogues, Plato employs the dialectical method to show the finitude of all hard and fast terms of understanding. Thus in the Parmenides he deduces the many from the one. In this grand style did Plato treat Dialectic. In modern times it was, more than any other, Kant who resuscitated the name of Dialectic, and restored it to its post of honour. He did it, as we have seen, by working out the Antinomies of the reason. The problem of these Antinomies is no mere subjective piece of work oscillating between one set of grounds and another; [B]it really serves to show that every abstract proposition of understanding, taken precisely as it is given, naturally veers round to its opposite.

"However reluctant Understanding may be to admit the action of Dialectic, we must not suppose that the recognition of its existence is peculiarly confined to the philosopher. It would be truer to say that Dialectic gives expression to a law which is felt in all other grades of consciousness, and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of Dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being stable and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by that Dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than what it is, is forced beyond its own immediate or natural being to turn suddenly into its opposite." [Hegel (1975), pp.117-18.]

"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Ibid., p.174. Bold emphasis added.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., pp.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"...but the theory of Essence is the main thing: the resolution of the abstract contradictions into their own instability, where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone than it is transformed unnoticed into the other, etc." [Engels (1891), p.414.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing, each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical, -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature....

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes." [Stalin (1976b), pp.836, 840.]

"[The sides of] dialectical contradictions do not dissolve one another, do not neutralise one another, while oppositely directed forces do not prevail over one another but turn into one another, and this transition of every phenomenon, every process into its opposite also constitutes the essence of all forms of movement of matter, a general law of its existence."

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, [B]transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end.... [Ibid., pp.311-18.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"So far we have discussed the most general and most fundamental law of dialectics, namely, the law of the permeation of opposites, or the law of polar unity. We shall now take up the second main proposition of dialectics, the law of the negation of the negation, or the law of development through opposites. This is the most general law of the process of thought. I will first state the law itself and support it with examples, and then I will show on what it is based and how it is related to the first law of the permeation of opposites. There is already a presentiment of this law in the oldest Chinese philosophy, in the of Transformations, as well as in Lao-tse and his disciples -- and likewise in the oldest Greek philosophy, especially in Heraclitus. Not until Hegel, however, was this law developed.

"This law applies to all motion and changes of things, to real things as well as to their images in our minds, i.e., concepts. It states first of all that things and concepts move, change, and develop; all things are processes. All fixity of individual things is only relative, limited; their motion, change, or development is absolute, unlimited. For the world as a whole absolute motion and absolute rest coincide. The proof of this part of the proposition, namely, that all things are in flux, we have already given in our discussion of Heraclitus.

"The law of the negation of the negation has a special sense beyond the mere proposition that all things are processes and change. It also states something about the most general form of these changes, motions, or developments. It states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing.

"Conceptually the actual movement of things appears as a negation. In other words, negation is the most general way in which motion or change of things is represented in the mind. This is the first stage of this process. The negation of a thing from which the change proceeds, however, is in turn subject to the law of the transformation of things into their opposites." [Ibid., pp.170-71.]

"The second dialectical law, that of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the essentially contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a hundred years ago….

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite." [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature….

Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

"Movement and change result from causes inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions….

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other....'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels (1891), p.414.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, ex pressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"The statement that the struggle of opposites is decisive in development in no way belittles the importance of their unity. The unity of opposites is a requisite of struggle, because there is struggle only where opposite sides exist in one object or phenomenon....

"And so, objects and phenomena have opposite aspects -- they represent the unity of opposites. Opposites not merely exist side by side, but are in a state of constant contradiction, a struggle is going on between them. The struggle of opposites is the inner content, the source of development of reality." [Afanasyev (1968), pp.95-97. Italic emphasis in the original; bold emphases added.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.'" [Rob Sewell, quoted from here.]

It would not be difficult to double or even treble the length of this list of quotations (as anyone who has access to as many books and articles on dialectics as I have will attest). From the above, it is quite clear that classical and later dialecticians do indeed believe (a) that all change is a result of a "struggles" of "opposites", and (b) that all objects/processes change into their "opposites", and (c) that they produce these "opposites" when they change, as is argued in the main body of this Essay.

Now, as far as (1) is concerned, if the above DM-worthies did not mean what they said then latter-day DM-fans (who advance this excuse) will, it seems, have to ignore their own classics! [Less irrational comrades will note that many of the above authors quote one another word-for-word, so they at least thought their sources meant what they said.]

More-or-less the same can be said for excuse (3); if the above worthies miss-spoke, or were wrong, then contemporary DM-clones would be well advised to ignore these error-strewn classics!

Of course, anyone foolish enough to adopt this sound piece of advice will have to endure the same amount and volume of abuse that I have received from those misguided enough to ignore it.

References and links can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

As far as these being 'metaphorical' is concerned, I make the following comments:

1) The classics are quite clear; what they say is not the least bit figurative, but literal. Here is Engels:


"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Dialectics of Nature, p.211.]

Looks pretty literal.


"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices." [Ibid., pp.212-13.]

If Engels was speaking 'metaphorically' here, the contrast he draws with metaphysics would be lost.

Here is Plekhanov:


"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

Again, no hint of 'metaphor'.

Here is Lenin:


"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

Note that Lenin says this dogma is "absolute", not 'metaphorical'.

Mao is even clearer:


"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

Notice that: these processes are "real and concrete" -- no hint of metaphor here.

2) This ruse of yours is reminiscent of the sort of verbal trick theologians try to pull when they attempt to reconcile the Book of Genesis with modern science: they tell us that Genesis is 'metaphorical'. We are not inclined to let these charlatans get away with this, and neither should we allow you to pull this dishonest trick.

3) What is the 'cash value' (to use William James's handy phrase) of these alleged 'metaphors'?

For example, if a man is described as a pig, we can infer from that that he is slovenly, dirty, uncouth and has rather unsavoury habits.

So, what do your 'metaphors' mean?

4) And how do you know that 'contradiction' is not 'metaphorical' too? Or that there are indeed [I]any literal parts of your theory? And if there are any of these, how do you tell which parts are 'metaphorical' and which literal?

In fact, this might be the only way to rescue 'dialectics': turn it into a rather obscure form of metaphysical poetry.


When I 'faithfully represent' the 'Dialectical Classics' you just tell me that, 'no, in fact the Classics were ambiguous so... I don't have to address your point.' A lucky thing for you, too.

Well you don't; not only do you ignore those passages that show your view is wrong, you have to invent an extra word not found in the Classics (i.e., "overwhelm").

And you have clearly failed to comprehend the ambiguity I detailed which confirms my suspicion that you do not know the background to this ancient debate (that goes back to Plato, and possibly beyond), which Hegel at least tried to resolve. He grasped this ambiguity and gave an entirely novel solution to it (which, as it turns out, does not work -- but, to his credit, he was aware of it, and addressed it).

He, at least, did not ignore it (and neither did Lenin), unlike you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cummanach:


it's a waste of time

Posted here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1600

It certainly is if you are:

1) Going to ignore what the Dialectical Gospels tell you, and

2) Going to invent words (like 'overwhlem'), and then tell me I am misreading those Gospels!

and

3) Trying to defend a theory that just does not work, and cannot be made to work no matter what you do.

[Black Sheep]

Well, OP's link certainly is not DM 'made easy', judging from the word count right from the introduction.:mad:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bulk Sheep, Spirkin's book is in fact quite easy, despite its length, but most books on dialectical materialism [DM] arelike this -- and they all tend to say more-or-less the same things, often even down to the exact same words.

I have yet to read/find a book that goes in to this theory in any depth -- they are all introductions or they are all basic textbooks.

The closest to an in-depth study of DM that I have come across is Ira Gollobin's huge book (Dialectical Materialism. Its Laws, Categories And Practice), but it is ruined by the fact that Gollobin thinks it sufficient to quote Engels, Lenin or Mao to prove a point. Much of the rest of what he says is no less dogmatic; he makes very little attempt to defend this theory, rectify is fatal weaknesss (if he even recognises any!) or clarify its many obscurities.

In fact, it reads like a rather poor work of dogmatic theology.