More basics on Marxism

[Wolf Larson]

For people unfamiliar with Marxism try reading The Meaning of Marxism by Paul D'amato. You can get it from Haymarket Books. Also check this site out for some of his basic articles- http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml



SUBJECTS BELOW:
The ABCs of Marxism (http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml#ABC)
History and class struggle (http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml#History)
Capitalism and crisis (http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml#Crisis)
How can we change the world? (http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml#Change)
War and imperialism (http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml#War)
The struggle against oppression (http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml#Oppression)
Marxism in the modern world (http://socialistworker.org/Featured/MeaningOfMarxism.shtml#Modern)

Turn the TV off- stop reading bourgeois economists apologetic reasoning for this current crisis and check Mr D'amato's work out. As with most Marxists he rightly shows how this current crisis, just as with all others, is based in overproduction and the unplanned nature of capitalism. Most basic questions concerning Marxism are answered in his book The Meaning Of Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that, but the essay on dialectics is a joke:

http://socialistworker.org/2002-2/427/427_13_Dialectics.shtml

For example , the comrade who wrote it makes several serious mistakes; here is one:


Formal logic, or what philosophers have sometimes called "metaphysics," sees things as static and unchanging: A always is equal to A, and can never become B. To the extent that this approach sees movement, it is one "thing" acting on some other "thing." To the extent that there are cycles, they are endlessly repeating cycles.

But, Formal Logic [FL] does not 'see things' this way. As I argue in my thread in Philosophy:


Logic

Dialecticians tell fibs about FL; indeed, they regularly say things like this:


"Formal logic regards things as fixed and motionless." [Rob Sewell.]

"Formal categories, putting things in labelled boxes, will always be an inadequate way of looking at change and development…because a static definition cannot cope with the way in which a new content emerges from old conditions." [Rees (1998), p.59.]

However, I have yet to see a single quotation from a logic text (ancient or modern) that supports such allegations -- certainly dialecticians have so far failed to produce even one.

And no wonder: it is completely incorrect.

Indeed, Formal Logic uses variables -- that is, it employs letters to stand for named objects, designated expressions (some of these are called "predicates"), and the like -- all of which can and do change.

This handy device was invented by the very first logician we know of (in the West): Aristotle (384-322BC). He experimented with variables approximately 1500 years before the same tactic was extended into mathematics by Muslim Algebraists -- who in turn used them several centuries before René Descartes (1596-1650) began employing them in the 'West'.

However, Engels said the following about that particular innovation:


"The turning point in mathematics was Descartes' variable magnitude. With that came motion and hence dialectics in mathematics, and at once, too, of necessity the differential and integral calculus…." [Engels (1954), p.258.]

No one doubts that modern mathematics can handle change, so why dialecticians deny this of FL is something of a mystery.

With very little variation between them, dialecticians also like to assert things like the following:


"The basic laws of formal logic are:

1) The law of identity ('A' = 'A').

2) The law of contradiction ('A' does not equal 'not-A').

3) The law of the excluded middle ('A' does not equal 'B')." [Woods and Grant (1995), p.91. Quotation marks have been altered to conform to the conventions adopted at my site.]

Even a cursory examination of a handful of logic texts will show that not only are the above claims incorrect, but not even Aristotle's logic was based on these so-called 'laws'!

Sure, dialecticians claim that Aristotle founded his logic on such principles, but they have yet to produce the evidence. In fact, Aristotle knew nothing of the 'Law of Identity' [LOI], which was a medieval invention.

The LOI will be examined presently, but the 'Law of Contradiction' [LOC] merely says that if one proposition is true then its negation is false, and vice versa -- or, in some versions found in mathematical logic, it says that no contradiction can be true, but must be false. The LOC says nothing about "equality", or the lack of it.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1378013&postcount=1

Moreover, modern logic is even more change-fiendly than the obsolete logic Aristotle invented 2400 years ago.

Furthermore, dialectial logic itself cannot cope with change -- or, alternatively, if dialectical materialsm were true, change would be impossible. On that, see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1401000&postcount=76

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1401001&postcount=77

This comrade is also wrong when he says:


Formal logic, or what philosophers have sometimes called "metaphysics,"

No philosopher has called FL metaphysics. It's no suprise therefore to see this comrade offers no reference in support.

Finally, the Law of Identity does not preclude change, since if an object changes, then anything identical to it will change equally quickly.

With that observation, much of the rationale for dialectics goes out of the window.

Other things he says have been destructively criticised at the above link.

[Nolan]

Lol, give it a rest, Rosa. Jesus Christ.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^No, I won't. Get used to it -- or don't.

[Nolan]

Well, you've made your point in other threads, and anti-dialectics has its own thread, doesn't it? I've never said anything, but you derail almost every thread this way. Seriously, it's annoying. I don't know why you haven't gotten infractions for off-topic trolling.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And others have posted material on the basics of marxism (many, many times here), but we don't see you complaining about that, do we?

It's not off-topic if one of the essays posted at those links raises this issue.

[Nolan]

And others have posted material on the basics of marxism (many, many times here), but we don't see you complaining about that, do we?

It's not off-topic if one of the essays posted at those links raises this issue.

What?

Well post something on anti-dialectics in its own thread. And stop turning every thread into your crusade against dialectics. I respect your opinion, but you're not exactly being conducive to a good learning environment here in the learning forum, or anywhere else but Philosophy, Theory, and maybe History for that matter.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Captain:


Well post something on anti-dialectics in its own thread. And stop turning every thread into your crusade against dialectics. I respect your opinion, but you're not exactly being conducive to a good learning environment here in the learning forum, or anywhere else but Philosophy, Theory, and maybe History for that matter.

1) Once more, I did not post the above links, one of which takes learners to a ridiculous 'theory' called 'dialectics', the OP did.

2) In that case, it is on-topic to point out to learners that this 'theory' is flawed from beginning to end.

[Wolf Larson]

^^^No, I won't. Get used to it -- or don't.

I thought we decided to hold hands and form a love train in the other thread ;) NOTE: For people new to Marxism- ignore the rhetoric surrounding the dialectical method at first- Tis not necessary to understand the meaning of the class struggle. Hell, ignore most of what I say seeing I'm more of an anarchist :) I've read Paul's articles over the years and bought his book for a few people, they told me it helped them fully conceptualize Marx's ideas. Like it or not The Meaning of Marxism is a good book for the beginner mind.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I agree, but when it comes to dialectics, even the most sober and sound of comrades come out with rubbish.

On other topics they are crystal clear. Really odd...