Dialectical materialism in practice?

[tellyontellyon]

How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
?
?
Can you talk me through an example please?
Thanks :)

[FSL]

How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
?
?
Can you talk me through an example please?
Thanks :)


An example in politics could be the US and its stance on the Kyoto agreement.

On the Bush years, US wanted nothing to do with it. Obama promised to change that. Bourgeois media or history books would view that as a proof of Obama being more progressive, in touch with his era and its problems etc.

A materialist would argue that a person's behaviour (or a rulling class' policies and stance on matters) isn't something that exists independently of this world, the material sphere, and the economy, which is the base of everything.Instead, it is born out of it. Also, that it is the outcome of many "collisions" between groups that see they have conflincting interests as they interract with each other.


In that case, Bush acted in a certain manner not because he believed those saying there is no global warming, but because he represented the interests of Big Oil and polluting industries. US dependence on that type of production was what led to the middle east wars.
Obama on the other hand was backed by that part of the bourgeoisie that sees in the so called "green economy" a great profit opportunity. He was also against the war in Iraq as his sponsors, the capitalists that hired him to do their bidding and whom he represented, wouldn't have much to gain from it. This side grew in strength really fast as only recently renewable forms of energy became financially viable and as science is making great leaps.


So, what did change wasn't that a more progressive man walked into office but that the part of the bourgeoisie that sees a bigger chance for profit in "going green" has for the time being the upper hand in the ongoing "struggle".
The procedure to use it seems to be looking at the right place, which is the economy and the social relations that arise from it.

[red cat]

How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
?
?
Can you talk me through an example please?
Thanks :)Nice question. But I can almost feel a certain one-line reply being typed with a link. So beware...:D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

tellyonsquared:


How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
?
?
Can you talk me through an example please?

Since this theory makes not one ounce of sense, as several of us here have argued more times that the US military has invaded somewhere, it cannot be put into practice, and so it has never been put into practice (except to screw things up, as it did in the former USSR with the theories dreamt up by Lysenko -- link below).

It wasn't even used in 1917 in Russia (proof can be suplied on request).

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

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

There are literally scores of pages at RevLeft where we have demonstrated this; I have collated links to them all here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

The latest place is here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index5.html

and the next ten pages!

Which explains why Red Cat is so miffed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FSL:


An example in politics could be the US and its stance on the Kyoto agreement.

On the Bush years, US wanted nothing to do with it. Obama promised to change that. Bourgeois media or history books would view that as a proof of Obama being more progressive, in touch with his era and its problems etc.

A materialist would argue that a person's behaviour (or a rulling class' policies and stance on matters) isn't something that exists independently of this world, the material sphere, and the economy, which is the base of everything.Instead, it is born out of it. Also, that it is the outcome of many "collisions" between groups that see they have conflincting interests as they interract with each other.

In that case, Bush acted in a certain manner not because he believed those saying there is no global warming, but because he represented the interests of Big Oil and polluting industries. US dependence on that type of production was what led to the middle east wars.

Obama on the other hand was backed by that part of the bourgeoisie that sees in the so called "green economy" a great profit opportunity. He was also against the war in Iraq as his sponsors, the capitalists that hired him to do their bidding and whom he represented, wouldn't have much to gain from it. This side grew in strength really fast as only recently renewable forms of energy became financially viable and as science is making great leaps.

So, what did change wasn't that a more progressive man walked into office but that the part of the bourgeoisie that sees a bigger chance for profit in "going green" has for the time being the upper hand in the ongoing "struggle".

The procedure to use it seems to be looking at the right place, which is the economy and the social relations that arise from it.

But this is an example of Historical Materialism, not Dialectical Materialism!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


But I can almost feel a certain one-line reply being typed with a link. So beware...

Well, you were no more right about that than you were about Lenin and Mao (on change).http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/cool/cool0012.gif

[red cat]

Good. Let other people have a look at our debate and say whose points make sense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Let other people have a look at our debate and say whose points make sense.

And no doubt they will also note that there you support your 'revisionary' claims with not one single quotation from Lenin or Mao, whereas I support everything I allege with many.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



And no doubt they will also note that there you support your 'revisionary' claims with not one single quotation from Lenin or Mao, whereas I support everything I allege with many.
We will see. I am waiting for the mass opinion on your posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


I am waiting for the mass opinion on your posts

They have already passed their opinion on Dialectical Marxism -- they ignore it in their billions.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



They have already passed their opinion on Dialectical Marxism -- they ignore it in their billions.No wonder.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


No wonder.

Indeed, they are right to ignore your useless 'theory'.

After all, it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Indeed, they are right to ignore your useless 'theory'.

After all, it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.An example of relative success by any other alternative, please?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


An example of relative success by any other alterative, please?

Capitalism and liberal democracy come to mind.

Even though capitalism is an evil system (and should be overthrown), it is way more successful than Dialectical Marxism. Why, even China has embraced it (as have the former USSR, and E Europe).

If truth is tested in practice...

[red cat]

An example of relative success by any other alterative, please?
Red Cat:



Capitalism and liberal democracy come to mind.

Even though capitalism is an evil system (and should be overthrown), it is way more successful than Dialectical Marxism. Why, even China has embraced it (as have the former USSR, and E Europe).

If truth is tested in practice...To be precise, an alternative that claims to be proletarian, vividly preaches socio-economic equality, has been able to overthrow a former regime, and has witnessed massive increase in the levels of education, health-care, average life-span etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


To be precise, an alternative that claims to be proletarian, vividly preaches socio-economic equality, has been able to overthrow a former regime, and has witnessed massive increase in the levels of education, health-care, average life-span etc.

And yet which has now embraced a far more successful (but evil) system: capitalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Socialist:


Capitalism is "successful"?

It has conquered the world, and revolutionised the productive forces -- so much so that the vast majority of the former 'socialist' states have embraced it.


Why are you a socialist then? Try being a "successful" capitalist instead.

That's about as brainless an argument as "Why don't you lot go live in Russia?" used to be.

I am a socialist since I want it to be successful, hence the need to ditch this ruling-class 'theory' of yours.


Socialism failed?

In your highly emotional frame of mind, you have clearly lost the ability to read. Where did I say socialism has failed?

This is what I said:


Even though capitalism is an evil system (and should be overthrown), it is way more successful than Dialectical Marxism. Why, even China has embraced it (as have the former USSR, and E Europe).

I can enlarge the font for you if that helps...


As materialists, we don't judge systems as "evil" or "good" but in class terms. If its evil, it must be bad for the working class. If its good, it must be good for the working class. Thats the only way to see it from a materialist perspective.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that capitalism isn't evil.

[And I'd like to see you define "good" in non-moralistic terms!]

Furthermore, I'm glad you mentioned the working class, since, the larger it gets, the more it ignores your 'theory'.


I am still a learner like yourself, but thinking in terms of dialectics is something that changes your world view from a metaphysical one to a materialist one. To quote Mao, "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. "

And yet as we have seen, this theory cannot account for change -- or, alternatively, if it were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index5.html


FSL gave an excellent example.

But, where was the 'dialectics' in it?

[btpound]

I find your argument interesting Rosa, but it sound like you are picking apart dialectic materialism just to show you can. You take like four or five comments on dialectical materialism as the base of the argument and ignore what it says on the whole.

Nothing is fixed
everything changes
through the interaction of multiple forces new conditions and forces will arise.

boom. DM in 100 words or less. This philosophy is not only true but incredible useful. You do a lot of philosophical waxing but I don't really see its value outside of a nice talk. Okay, so DM is riddled with holes? Okay? So what does your perspective bring to the international revolutionary movement? What is the cash-value of your argument? I haven't seen anything from you positive. Just a tearing down of an incredibly practical philosophy. You act like everyone is against you. Like they are afraid of your ideas because you have so blown everyone’s mind. I don't think that’s it. I think you are talking over everyone’s heads. And if no one understands you, you might as well be putting down your argument in Latin because if no one gets it and no one can use it, your argument is impotent from the get-go. Also I think your harsh and antagonistic tone when talking further alienates yourself. You said on your site that you “generally go for the jugular from the get-go”. You’re not playing Left4Dead, you’re talking to comrades. I am not saying your argument is wholly wrong, although I do think that, I'm saying that it is wholly useless in its current form. I think that if you published a book on this, the only person who would buy it would be college students, and the only person who would like it is Noam Chomsky. If you want anyone to care I would make it more palatable to the general person and I would avoid putting people on the defensive because it does you no credit. Although I suspect that you will not take my criticism with good humor.

[red cat]

Rosa's arguments are based on the following points(she refuses to accept that these facts have always been a part of Marxist dialectics):

Lenin, Mao etc. have stated that opposites struggle. Therefore it is to be assumed that a "struggle" will exist in every place, everywhere. The meaning of "struggle" is the conflict of opposing forces.

Mutually exclusive systems struggle through forces that lead to these systems. These forces co-exist. For example, in a capitalist system, both the bourgeoisie and proletariat co-exist and struggle, for capitalism and socialism, respectively.

As systems change, contradictions change too. So, after a point, reversal to a system identical to a previously existent one becomes impossible. Hence capitalism cannot reverse back to socialism forever, and must proceed to communism.

Rosa asks for passages from dialecticians' works which state these facts, instead of providing examples were they have stated anything near to what she claims are the "faults" of dialectics.

[F9]

KC this is a verbal warning for spamming, please dont post stupid pictures, and especially please dont do it in Learning.

[BobKKKindle$]

Nothing is fixed
everything changes

The permanence of change (regardless of whether this is an accurate description of how the world operates or not) is something that is fixed, hence the three basic principles of dialectics you identified are internally contradictory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bob:


The permanence of change (regardless of whether this is an accurate description of how the world operates or not) is something that is fixed, hence the three basic principles of dialectics you identified are internally contradictory.

But, dialectics not only can't explain change, if it were true change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index5.html

[FSL]

The permanence of change (regardless of whether this is an accurate description of how the world operates or not) is something that is fixed, hence the three basic principles of dialectics you identified are internally contradictory.



This is the point where we stop being relevant to anything around us and start acting like some ancient athenian smartass.

We can act like ancient smartasses but split part of this to philosophy?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Rosa's arguments are based on the following points (she refuses to accept that these facts have always been a part of Marxist dialectics):

Lenin, Mao etc. have stated that opposites struggle. Therefore it is to be assumed that a "struggle" will exist in every place, everywhere. The meaning of "struggle" is the conflict of opposing forces.

Where have I denied this? Why do you find in necessary to lie about my ideas?

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_02.htm][/url]


Mutually exclusive systems struggle through forces that lead to these systems. These forces co-exist. For example, in a capitalist system, both the bourgeoisie and proletariat co-exist and struggle, for capitalism and socialism, respectively.

As you have had pointed out to you several times, if these are "mutually exclusive", as you say, then they cannot co-exist, and so cannot interact or "struggle". On the other hand, if they do interact, and therefore "struggle", then they cannot be "mutually exclusive".

That is unless you are using "mutually exclusive" in a new and as-yet-unexplained sense.

And, as you have also been shown, because the dialectical classicists tell us that such "opposites" turn into "one another", then this means that the proletariat must turn into the bourgeoisie, and [I]vice versa, and that socialism should turn into capitalism, and vice versa.


As systems change, contradictions change too. So, after a point, reversal to a system identical to a previously existent one becomes impossible. Hence capitalism cannot reverse back to socialism forever, and must proceed to communism.

As you have also had it shown you, this does not affect the outcome, which is that this 'theory' cannot account for change --, or alternatively, if it were true, change would be impossible.

Here it is again:

Let us call whatever contradiction C changes into "C*", Now, according to the dialectical classics, this can only happen if C "struggles" with C*. But, this means that C can't change into C* since C* already exists. If it didn't, C could not turn into it.


Rosa asks for passages from dialecticians' works which state these facts, instead of providing examples were they have stated anything near to what she claims are the "faults" of dialectics.

Again, why are you lying? What I in fact asked for were quotations that supported your view that "struggle" did not mean "struggle" but "no struggle at all".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTPound:


I find your argument interesting Rosa, but it sound like you are picking apart dialectic materialism just to show you can. You take like four or five comments on dialectical materialism as the base of the argument and ignore what it says on the whole.

In fact, I am taking this theory apart since I think it partly responsible for the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism -- and that is in addition to the fact that it makes not one ounce of sense.


Nothing is fixed
everything changes
through the interaction of multiple forces new conditions and forces will arise.

How do you know that everything changes?

But, even if you are right, it is possible to agree with you and not admit to one atom of dialectical materialism -- in fact, if we needed a theory of change, dialectical materialism would not make the bottom of the reserve list of likely/viable candidates.


boom. DM in 100 words or less.

That's not dialectical materialism, but a terminally brief and bowdlerised version of Cratylean metaphysics.


This philosophy is not only true but incredible useful. You do a lot of philosophical waxing but I don't really see its value outside of a nice talk. Okay, so DM is riddled with holes? Okay? So what does your perspective bring to the international revolutionary movement? What is the cash-value of your argument? I haven't seen anything from you positive. Just a tearing down of an incredibly practical philosophy. You act like everyone is against you. Like they are afraid of your ideas because you have so blown everyone’s mind. I don't think that’s it. I think you are talking over everyone’s heads. And if no one understands you, you might as well be putting down your argument in Latin because if no one gets it and no one can use it, your argument is impotent from the get-go. Also I think your harsh and antagonistic tone when talking further alienates yourself. You said on your site that you “generally go for the jugular from the get-go”. You’re not playing Left4Dead, you’re talking to comrades. I am not saying your argument is wholly wrong, although I do think that, I'm saying that it is wholly useless in its current form. I think that if you published a book on this, the only person who would buy it would be college students, and the only person who would like it is Noam Chomsky. If you want anyone to care I would make it more palatable to the general person and I would avoid putting people on the defensive because it does you no credit. Although I suspect that you will not take my criticism with good humor.

Thanks of those comments, but I get e-mails all the time from comrades (who are Marxists), right across the planet, who thank me for my stance. In fact, the only reason I started publishing my ideas on the internet is because several comrades whose opinion I respect asked me to do so -- one of whom invited me here to give the dialecticians a hard time.

1) This theory has been refuted by history -- tested in practice, it has failed.

2) No wonder, it is not just full of holes, it is one huge hole -- with no substance.

3) You want something positive? Then re-read Marx (only this time, filter out the Hegelian gobbledygook). If you want something more concrete, I can post you a few links...

4) Despite several of us asking now for well over four years, not one of you has been able to provide us with [I]a single practical application of this theory.

And that's not surprising in view of the comments I made above.

5) How many workers read books on dialectics? In fact, as I pointed out above, as the working class grows larger, internationally, the less influence Dialectical Marxism has on it.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Where have I denied this? Why do you find in necessary to lie about my ideas?
Read the part within brackets very carefully.
Again, why are you lying? What I in fact asked for were quotations that supported your view that "struggle" did not mean "struggle" but "no struggle at all".Another example of your flawed logic.

(http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_02.htm%5D)



As you have had pointed out to you several times, if these are "mutually exclusive", as you say, then they cannot co-exist, and so cannot interact or "struggle". On the other hand, if they do interact, and therefore "struggle", then they cannot be "mutually exclusive".

That is unless you are using "mutually exclusive" in a new and as-yet-unexplained sense.

And, as you have also been shown, because the dialectical classicists tell us that such "opposites" turn into "one another", then this means that the proletariat must turn into the bourgeoisie, and [I]vice versa, and that socialism should turn into capitalism, and vice versa.



As you have also had it shown you, this does not affect the outcome, which is that this 'theory' cannot account for change --, or alternatively, if it were true, change would be impossible.

Here it is again:

Let us call whatever contradiction C changes into "C*", Now, according to the dialectical classics, this can only happen if C "struggles" with C*. But, this means that C can't change into C* since C* already exists. If it didn't, C could not turn into it.



Again, why are you lying? What I in fact asked for were quotations that supported your view that "struggle" did not mean "struggle" but "no struggle at all".Contradiction between capitalism and socialism(within a country) = Contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat

Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. Bourgeoisie and proletariat co-exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Contradiction between capitalism and socialism(within a country) = Contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat

You have plainly stopped arguing, and like the simple souls who populate the churches around the world, you are just repeating simple articles of faith.

But, as the dialectical classics tell us, these opposites will change into one another -- so, the bourgeoisie must change into the proletariat, and the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie.


Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. Bourgeoisie and proletariat co-exist.

But then you must mean by "mutually exclusive" something else, since if two things are "mutually exclusive" they cannot coexist.


Read the part within brackets very carefully.

What brackets?


Another example of your flawed logic.

You're like someone who picks up Das Kapital, and just says "flawed from end to end" and will say no more.

If you are to retain any credibility you need to say where I go wrong.

[btpound]

How do you know that everything changes?

Like what? A water molecule can be broken down into atoms, hydrogen and oxygen. And even atoms are broken down into smaller components. There comes a point where the matter becomes so fineite, that the diffrence compared to what's fixed is like comparing .0192837465 and .0192837464. What does it really matter? Your not being practical.



Thanks of those comments, but I get e-mails all the time from comrades (who are Marxists), right across the planet, who thank me for my stance.

You know, i had a bet that if I said that you wouldn't take my comments in good humor, you would do exact the opposite. I won.



In fact, the only reason I started publishing my ideas on the internet is because several comrades whose opinion I respect asked me to do so -- one of whom invited me here to give the dialecticians a hard time.

1) This theory has been refuted by history -- tested in practice, it has failed.

2) No wonder, it is not just full of holes, it is one huge hole -- with no substance.

3) You want something positive? Then re-read Marx (only this time, filter out the Hegelian gobbledygook). If you want something more concrete, I can post you a few links...

4) Despite several of us asking now for well over four years, not one of you has been able to provide us with [I]a single practical application of this theory.

And that's not surprising in view of the comments I made above.

5) How many workers read books on dialectics? In fact, as I pointed out above, as the working class grows larger, internationally, the less influence Dialectical Marxism has on it.

What is the practical application of this. I have no use for metaphysics. "The the fact that everything changes is something fixed which refutes the presence". This is all just semantics. Trotsky proved that there is no such thing as identity. You have changed a million times qualitatively just in the time that you took to read this. That is a incredibly useful philosophy which reveals a incredible amount of information about our world. So because we don't have world socialism Dialectics is flawed? What is this great failure on the part of DM? Furthermore, where is the practice under which you have scutinized your theory? What good does it do me? Honestly, I am not trying to shout you down. I want to know more. It just feels like you're argueing just to prove you can.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTpound:


Like what? A water molecule can be broken down into atoms, hydrogen and oxygen. And even atoms are broken down into smaller components. There comes a point where the matter becomes so fineite, that the diffrence compared to what's fixed is like comparing .0192837465 and .0192837464. What does it really matter? Your not being practical.

Like protons, photons and electrons. Protons, if left alone, do not decay -- their theoretical life span is supposed to be 10^35 years, but no proton has ever been observed to decay:

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

Electrons and Photons are similarly non-dialectical.

How is this not 'practical'? If nature is the way it is, and we think otherwise, things stop working.


You know, i had a bet that if I said that you wouldn't take my comments in good humor, you would do exact the opposite. I won.

Who is being trivial now?


What is the practical application of this. I have no use for metaphysics. "The the fact that everything changes is something fixed which refutes the presence". This is all just semantics. Trotsky proved that there is no such thing as identity. You have changed a million times qualitatively just in the time that you took to read this. That is a incredibly useful philosophy which reveals a incredible amount of information about our world. So because we don't have world socialism Dialectics is flawed? What is this great failure on the part of DM? Furthermore, where is the practice under which you have scutinized your theory? What good does it do me? Honestly, I am not trying to shout you down. I want to know more. It just feels like you're argueing just to prove you can.

1) It's not just 'semantics':

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. The distinction Marx drew is just "semantics" and we can ignore it, can't we? 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?"

2) As I said, I am not denying change, but one can accept the reality of change without accepting the confused ideas one finds in dialectical materialism -- especially if dialectics cannot explain change anyway, and if true, would make change impossible, as I have demonstrated.


So because we don't have world socialism Dialectics is flawed?

Then you must deny that a theory is tested in practice.

And, I did not say that dialectics was the sole reason we do not have socialism. Read what I said at my site (and have said here many times):


It is important to emphasise from the outset that I am not blaming the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism solely on the acceptance of the Hermetic ideas dialecticians inherited from Hegel.

It is worth repeating this since I still encounter comments on Internet discussion boards, and still receive e-mails from those who claim to have read the above words, who still think I am blaming all our woes on dialectics. I am not.

However, no matter how many times I repeat this caveat, the message will not sink in (and this is after several years of continually making this very point!).

It seems that this is one part of the universe over which the Heraclitean Flux has no power!

What is being claimed, however, is that adherence to this 'theory' is one of the subjective reasons why Dialectical Marxism has become a bye-word for failure.

There are other, objective reasons why the class enemy still runs this planet, but since revolutions require revolutionaries with ideas in their heads, this 'theory' must take some of the blame.

So, it is alleged here that dialectics has been an important contributory factor.

It certainly helps explain why revolutionary groups are in general vanishingly small, neurotically sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative, theoretically deferential to 'tradition', and almost invariably lean toward some form of substitutionism.

Naturally, this has had a direct bearing on our lack of impact on the working-class over the last seventy years or so -- and probably for much longer -- and thus on the continuing success of Capitalism.

The following 'Unity of Opposites' is difficult to explain otherwise:

The larger the proletariat, the smaller the impact that Dialectical Marxism has on it.

Sadly, this will continue while comrades cling on to this regressive doctrine.

Any who doubt this are encouraged to read on, where those doubts will be severely bruised, if not completely laid to rest.

You:


Furthermore, where is the practice under which you have scutinized your theory?

I don't have one, nor do I want one.

I am, of course, referring to philosophical theories here, not scientific ones. For example, I fully accept historical materialism, a theory that has not yet been tested free of the Hermetic virus we inherited from Hegel:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm


It just feels like you're argueing just to prove you can.

Not at all, I have already told you why I am doing this.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



You have plainly stopped arguing, and like the simple souls who populate the churches around the world, you are just repeating simple articles of faith.

But, as the dialectical classics tell us, these opposites will change into one another -- so, the bourgeoisie must change into the proletariat, and the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie.



But then you must mean by "mutually exclusive" something else, since if two things are "mutually exclusive" they cannot coexist.



What brackets?



You're like someone who picks up Das Kapital, and just says "flawed from end to end" and will say no more.

If you are to retain any credibility you need to say where I go wrong.When did I claim that mutually exclusive things co-exist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


When did I claim that mutually exclusive things co-exist?

Here:


Mutually exclusive systems struggle through forces that lead to these systems. These forces co-exist. For example, in a capitalist system, both the bourgeoisie and proletariat co-exist and struggle, for capitalism and socialism, respectively.

If they do not co-exist then they can't struggle, nor can they do this through the forces you mention.

Moreover, Mao tells us they do:


"The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without 'above', there would be no 'below').... Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants, there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semicolonies, there would be no imperialist oppression of nations. It is so with all opposites; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other, and on the other they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating and interdependent, and this character is described as identity. In given conditions, all contradictory aspects possess the character of non-identity and hence are described as being in contradiction. But they also possess the character of identity and hence are interconnected. This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics studies 'how opposites can be ... identical'. How then can they be identical? Because each is the condition for the other's existence. This is the first meaning of identity.

Clearly, you do not even read Mao with due care, let alone what I have posted.

[tellyontellyon]

Mmmm.
Some useful replies... was hoping you folks could keep it simple. Some of the arguments here seem to be intellectual hair splitting.

From what I've been able to tell DM is more of a general description that tends to see phenomena as being interconnected and interdependent,

eg. like describing how a wave moving through water is dependent on and not seperate from the movement of the rest of the water around the wave...
...This then becomes a way of understanding change (eg. the movement of a wave) by considering the interaction of competing forces, rather than simplistically using a model that describes a wave as a lump of water sliding across the surface of the ocean.

Or am I getting this all ar*e backwards???

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

tellyonsquared:


From what I've been able to tell DM is more of a general description that tends to see phenomena as being interconnected and interdependent,

eg. like describing how a wave moving through water is dependent on and not separate from the movement of the rest of the water around the wave...

...This then becomes a way of understanding change (eg. the movement of a wave) by considering the interaction of competing forces, rather than simplistically using a model that describes a wave as a lump of water sliding across the surface of the ocean.

Or am I getting this all ar*e backwards???

Well, it's far more than this, but when dialecticians tell us that everything is interconnected they mean what they say: every atom and particle in the entire universe is logically connected with every other (by a series of what they call 'internal relations'), in what they call 'the Totality'.

But this is what mystics have always believed:


"Another parallel between Hermeticism and Hegel is the doctrine of internal relations. For the Hermeticists, the cosmos is not a loosely connected, or to use Hegelian language, externally related set of particulars. Rather, everything in the cosmos is internally related, bound up with everything else.... This principle is most clearly expressed in the so-called Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, which begins with the famous lines 'As above, so below.' This maxim became the central tenet of Western occultism, for it laid the basis for a doctrine of the unity of the cosmos through sympathies and correspondences between its various levels. The most important implication of this doctrine is the idea that man is the microcosm, in which the whole of the macrocosm is reflected.

"...The universe is an internally related whole pervaded by cosmic energies." [Magee (2001) Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition, p.13.]

This can be found here:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm


"The ancient Egyptians believed that a totality must consist of the union of opposites. A similar premise, that the interaction between yin (the female principle) and yang (the male principle) underlies the workings of the universe, is at the heart of much Chinese thinking. The idea has been central to Taoist philosophy from the fourth century B.C. to the present day and is still embraced by many Chinese who are not Taoists. Nor is the idea confined to the Egyptians and the Chinese. Peoples all over the world, in Eurasia, Africa and the Americas, have come to the conclusion that the cosmos is a combining of opposites and that one of the most important aspects of this dualism is the opposition between male and female." [Maybury-Lewis (1992) Millennium: Tribal Wisdom And The Modern World , p.125.

As Marx noted, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class

So, this is a much more pernicious set of dogmas than you appear to think.

And which parts of the above were 'hair-splitting?

[btpound]

Like protons, photons and electrons. Protons, if left alone, do not decay -- their theoretical life span is supposed to be 10^35 years, but no proton has ever been observed to decay

If left alone? You mean if your removed them from the real world and put them in an artificially contrived one they would do what you say? Proton decay and your theory are just as probable, since neither have been observed to be true and remain an abstract theory. Protons themselves are made up of even smaller particles. Who knows? Maybe there is something smaller than that? Maybe these smaller building blocks go through changes within the proton changing it qualitatively? We don't know. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



How is this not 'practical'? If nature is the way it is, and we think otherwise, things stop working.

Here is why. Because you're not relating it to anything in the practical world. Here is how DM can be related to the practical world. In 1917 when Lenin came back from exile, he returned to find that the Bolshevik party had slumped into supporting the bourgeois class. They had come to the conclusion that the Mensheviks had, which is that since Russia had not developed the productive forces of capitalism, they should support the bourgeois, have a bourgeois democratic revolution, and then socialism. Lenin, in his April Thesis, set the record straight. They were not being dialectical. The Bourgeois class in Russia were reactionary. They were in no position to be progressive because they were also tied to the land. Dialectical Materialism means not ascribing preconceived notions about the situation. You look at the situation on the ground and develop a course of action from there. With DM, Lenin concluded that the answer was not supporting the bourgeois; the answer was all power to the soviets. And using the program they developed from DM, they won that revolution. If you want another practical application of DM, I think The Art of War by Sun Tzu is another pretty good example of seeing the situation as always fluid. I could go on with all the examples of people who used DM with success, and people who ignored it with calamity.


Who is being trivial now?

You're right, that was cheap.


1) It's not just 'semantics'

The examples you listed show qualitative difference in the total. You say that you don't ignore that presence of change but your arguments work toward that end. The reason what you are arguing is semantics is because you are arguing that the unchanging components of a molecule are more important than the parts that change. You look at The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain and The German Ideology by Karl Marx and say, "The letters are the same. It's about the same size. What's the difference?" It sounds like Socratic Reductionism. The ways in which they are different are much greater that the way they are similar. You and I are 98% the same as an ape. You chime in and say, "Look! We are overwhelmingly the same! Ignore the way in which we are qualitatively different. We are made of identical unchanging material. We must draw conclusions from that base." If you said that to me, I would throw my poop at you.


2) As I said, I am not denying change, but one can accept the reality of change without accepting the confused ideas one finds in dialectical materialism -- especially if dialectics cannot explain change anyway, and if true, would make change impossible, as I have demonstrated.

It sounds like you are saying that the fact that we can set these changes into predictable systems makes them not changes at all. Change is not randomness. Far from it. If you have confused the two, it sound like you yet again fail to see the bigger picture.

I, and others on this board, have given you multiple examples of where DM is practicly used and worked. We have given you real world examples of where it works, I you have not done the same. I don't care about abstraction. i feel like I am arguing with at creationist. This is the third time I have asked for a real world example of the application of your theory. Either you have one, and we can talk. Or you don't and your theory is impotent and lifeless, and entirely useless; in which case I see no need to continue this discussion. My feet are on the ground Rosa, where are yours?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTPound:


If left alone? You mean if your removed them from the real world and put them in an artificially contrived one they would do what you say? Proton decay and your theory are just as probable, since neither have been observed to be true and remain an abstract theory. Protons themselves are made up of even smaller particles. Who knows? Maybe there is something smaller than that? Maybe these smaller building blocks go through changes within the proton changing it qualitatively? We don't know. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

By 'left alone', I meant, if they are not smashed in a linear accelerator.

The fact is that they last 10^25 longer than the universe has been in existence; and this is only their theoretical age. No one has observed their decay.

And, if they do change, it's not because of their 'internal contradictions', since the have none.

Sure, they are made up of smaller particles -- quarks -- in fact three quarks. A contradiction with three terms in it? I think not.

And you are right, we have no evidence they do or do not change internally, but then that just means you have no right to claim, as you did, that everything does in fact change. That is to impose this theory on reality, something you later say that you dialecticians never do.

Anyway, photons and electrons are simple; they have no parts, and last just as long as protons, so we are told.


Here is why. Because you're not relating it to anything in the practical world. Here is how DM can be related to the practical world. In 1917 when Lenin came back from exile, he returned to find that the Bolshevik party had slumped into supporting the bourgeois class. They had come to the conclusion that the Mensheviks had, which is that since Russia had not developed the productive forces of capitalism, they should support the bourgeois, have a bourgeois democratic revolution, and then socialism. Lenin, in his April Thesis, set the record straight. They were not being dialectical. The Bourgeois class in Russia were reactionary. They were in no position to be progressive because they were also tied to the land. Dialectical Materialism means not ascribing preconceived notions about the situation. You look at the situation on the ground and develop a course of action from there. With DM, Lenin concluded that the answer was not supporting the bourgeois; the answer was all power to the soviets. And using the program they developed from DM, they won that revolution. If you want another practical application of DM, I think The Art of War by Sun Tzu is another pretty good example of seeing the situation as always fluid. I could go on with all the examples of people who used DM with success, and people who ignored it with calamity.

And yet there is no evidence that Lenin and the Bolsheviks used DM in 1917, and no evidence that it was the least bit useful in developing Bolshevik theory. Historical materialism certainly was. Here is what I have posted in an earlier thread on this:



When confronted with the above unwelcome facts, DM-fans sometimes respond with a "Well if dialectics is so dire, how come the Bolsheviks were able to win power in 1917?"

[Non-Leninist DM-fans, of course, do not have even this to point to as a 'success'!]

Oddly enough, as a Leninist myself, I find this 'objection' remarkably easy to answer: the Bolsheviks were successful because they could not and did not use dialectics (either in its DM -- or in its 'Materialist Dialectics' -- form). To be sure, this claim is controversial, but only because no one has thought to question the role of dialectics before.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism; HM = Historical Materialism.]

In fact, the material counterweight provided by working class soviets prevented the Bolsheviks from employing this useless theory. Had they tried to propagandise/organise Russian workers with slogans such as: "Being is identical with but at the same time different from Nothing...", "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts...", or "Matter without motion is unthinkable" (and the like), they'd have been regarded as complete lunatics, and rightly so.

On the other hand, they could and did use ideas drawn from HM to help organise the soviets. [All this was covered in detail Part One (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm) of this Essay.]

And it is no use arguing that dialectical concepts were used 'implicitly' (or that they 'informed' the tactics that Lenin and his party adopted, somehow operating 'behind the scenes'). As we will see below, since dialectical concepts can be employed to justify anything and everything (being inherently and proudly contradictory), had they been employed, they could only have been used subjectively since there is no objective way to tell these incompatible applications apart.

Anyone who takes exception to the above will need to show precisely how Lenin and the Bolsheviks explicitly used dialectical-concepts --, as opposed to their actual employment of HM-concepts (the latter based on a concrete class analysis of events in 1917, and on years of experience relating to the working class). They will thus need to produce documented evidence of the Bolshevik's use of dialectical ideas/theses, and then show how they could possibly have been of any practical benefit to workers in revolutionary struggle --, or even how they could have helped the Bolsheviks comprehend what was going on and know how to intervene successfully.

Now, I have carefully trawled through the available minutes and decrees of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party (from August 1917 to February 1918), and have so far failed to find a single DM-thesis, let alone one drawn from 'Materialist Dialectics', put to any use, or even referred to abstractly! [Bone (1974).] To be sure, it is always possible I have missed a minor entry, but even if I have, this Hermetic creed hardly forms a prominent part of the day-to-day discussions of active revolutionaries.

Added later: I have now gone though the available documents line by line twice -- still no sign of this Hermetic virus!

In fact, it is conspicuous by its absence.

Hence, the evidence suggests that active revolutionaries made no use of this 'theory'.

Moreover, I have now checked the Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of The Third International [Holt and Holland (1983)], and the only sign of dialectics is a couple of dozen occurrences of the word "contradiction" in relation to capitalism (etc.) in over 400 pages. No other examples of dialectical jargon appear in the entire volume, and even then this word is not used to explain anything, nor does it seem to do any work. Furthermore, most of the uses of this word were made by Zinoviev; as far as I can tell, Lenin does not use the term anywhere in this book.

Moreover, in Trotsky's The Third International After Lenin [Trotsky (1974)], dialectics is mentioned only fourteen times in nearly 300 pages, and then only in passing. The theory does no work there either.

And it is even less use someone requiring of me to produce proof that Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not use dialectical ideas, since there is no written evidence that he/they did, as the above indicates. Hence, the contrary case goes by default. Of course, all this is quite independent of the proof offered in these Essays that not one single dialectical concept is in fact useable, nor is the alleged 'method'; after all, as we saw earlier in this Essay, even Lenin got into a serious muddle when he tried to play around with such ideas (in 1908), let alone when he attempted to apply them.

As we will soon find out, when dialectical ideas are in fact deployed, they can be made to justify anything whatsoever (no matter how contradictory that "anything whatsoever" might otherwise appear to be; in fact the more contradictory it is, the more 'dialectical' it seems to be!) -- and it can be, and has been used to rationalise any course of action, and its opposite, including those that are both counter-revolutionary and anti-Marxist.

In fact, shortly after the revolution, many younger comrades and Russian scientists began to argue at length that all of Philosophy (and not just dialectics) is part of ruling-class ideology (which is in fact a crude version of my own thesis!). It was not until the Deborinites won a factional battle in 1925/26 that this trend was defeated (and this was clearly engineered to help pave the way for the further destruction of the gains of October). More about this later.

[On this, see Bakhurst (1991), Joravsky (1961), Graham (1971), Wetter (1958).]

So, 1917 cannot be chalked-up as a success for this strain of Hermetic Mysticism.

However, we will see that the disintegration of the results of 1917 can partly be put down to dialectics.

And, even better, I have the evidence to prove it.

Bakhurst, D. (1991), Consciousness And Revolution In Soviet Philosophy. From The Bolsheviks To Evald Ilyenkov (Cambridge University Press).

Bone, A. (1974), The Bolsheviks And The October Revolution. Central Committee Minutes Of The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolshevik) August 1917-February 1918 (Pluto Press).

Graham, L. (1971), Science And Philosophy In The Soviet Union (Allen Lane).

Holt, A., and Holland, B. (1983), Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of The Third International (Ink Links).

Joravsky, D. (1961), Soviet Marxism And Natural Science 1917-1932 (Routledge).

Wetter, G. (1958), Dialectical Materialism (Routledge).

Trotsky, L. (1974), The Third International After Lenin (New Park).

The above has been taken from my Essay Nine Part Two: The Damage Inflicted On Marxism By 'Materialist Dialectics'.

You can find the evidence and argument that this mystical theory helped destroy the gains of October 1917 in that essay, i.e., here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

And no wonder: this 'theory' is impossible to put into practice, it helped destroy the Bolshevik Party, and it makes no sense -- and this is because it was derived from, and contains little other than ruling-class ideology.

You:


Dialectical Materialism means not ascribing preconceived notions about the situation.

But, that is the opposite of the truth; you have already tried to impose Heraclitus's view on of change reality! Other dialecticians also try to impose this theory on nature and society; in fact, they do little else.

Proof here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm


They were not being dialectical.

The problem is that, with this theory, it is possible to prove anything you like and its opposite, sometimes in the same breath. All you have to do is accuse your opponent of 'not being dialectical' (which means absolutely nothing at all), then assert whatever you were going to assert, and if that contradicts what you said earlier, claim that this is what 'being dialectical' is all about, since, everything is contradictory! If anyone disagrees, you can then accuse them of not 'understanding' dialectics --, or, if in power, have them shot, imprisoned, or declared insane.


The examples you listed show qualitative difference in the total. You say that you don't ignore that presence of change but your arguments work toward that end. The reason what you are arguing is semantics is because you are arguing that the unchanging components of a molecule are more important than the parts that change. You look at The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain and The German Ideology by Karl Marx and say, "The letters are the same. It's about the same size. What's the difference?" It sounds like Socratic Reductionism. The ways in which they are different are much greater that the way they are similar. You and I are 98% the same as an ape. You chime in and say, "Look! We are overwhelmingly the same! Ignore the way in which we are qualitatively different. We are made of identical unchanging material. We must draw conclusions from that base." If you said that to me, I would throw my poop at you.

I'm sorry, but I do not recognise this as a summary of anything I have said here or anywhere else, for that matter. Where did you get all this stuff (you attribute to me) from?


It sounds like you are saying that the fact that we can set these changes into predictable systems makes them not changes at all. Change is not randomness. Far from it. If you have confused the two, it sound like you yet again fail to see the bigger picture.

Where have I said change is "randomness", or even implied it?

And what 'bigger picture'?

Unfortunately for you, the things Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Mao -- and a host of other dialecticians -- say about change, if true, would make any sort of change, impossible. Do you want to see the quotes?


I, and others on this board, have given you multiple examples of where DM is practically used and worked. We have given you real world examples of where it works, I you have not done the same. I don't care about abstraction. i feel like I am arguing with at creationist. This is the third time I have asked for a real world example of the application of your theory. Either you have one, and we can talk. Or you don't and your theory is impotent and lifeless, and entirely useless; in which case I see no need to continue this discussion. My feet are on the ground Rosa, where are yours?

No you haven't, and I challenge you to provide a single example/link.

What you have done is merely assert that dialectics is useful, but when we look at the details, dialectics either hasn't been used (historical materialism, or some other theory, has) or it has had a negative effect (as was the case with Lysenko)


This is the third time I have asked for a real world example of the application of your theory.

How many more times do I have to tell you? I do not have a theory, nor do I want one!


My feet are on the ground Rosa, where are yours?

And yet your theory has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.


in which case I see no need to continue this discussion

I accept your capitulation.

[red cat]

BTPound:

And yet your theory has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.



Which is better? Making a revolution and then suffering a counter-revolution, or not making a revolution at all? Which one do you think contributes more towards the final liberation of the proletariat?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Which is better? Making a revolution and then suffering a counter-revolution, or not making a revolution at all? Which one do you think contributes more towards the final liberation of the proletariat?

I fully support the non-proletarian, anti-imperialist revolution in China, but that does not mean that Lenin and Mao's theory of change works. It doesn't -- as I have shown.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



I fully support the non-proletarian, anti-imperialist revolution in China, but that does not mean that Lenin and Mao's theory of change works. It doesn't -- as I have shown.
It does. Until you quote a passage of Mao or Lenin unambiguously referring to a social or class transformation which fits your interpretation, your claims will not be regarded as valid.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


It does. Until you quote a passage of Mao or Lenin unambiguously referring to a social or class transformation which fits your interpretation, your claims will not be regarded as valid.

Done it, many times -- you just ignore them.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Done it, many times -- you just ignore them.
No, you haven't. Just quote a passage where they say that socialism will transform into capitalism every time, or that the whole of the proletariat will transform into the bourgeoisie, or that even a part of the proletariat will transform into the bourgeoisie, always.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


No, you haven't. Just quote a passage where they say that socialism will transform into capitalism every time, or that the whole of the proletariat will transform into the bourgeoisie, or that even a part of the proletariat will transform into the bourgeoisie, always.

Done it; as I have said, you just keep ignoring them, and you will do so even if I quote them again.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Done it; as I have said, you just keep ignoring them, and you will do so even if I quote them again.
As far as I recall, in the quotes they talked about some general principle and say that it applies to everything. But you can always misinterpret these principles. So those quotes do not prove your claim.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


As far as I recall, in the quotes they talked about some general principle and say that it applies to everything. But you can always misinterpret these principles. So those quotes do not prove your claim.

What is there to interpret if they tell us it applies to everything, and that it is an absolute?