Mao's 'theory' of change

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unfortunately, the thread on Mao (in Theory) was closed before I could reply to Red Cat.

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

But that is in fact a 'happy accident' since it now means we can debate this in philosophy, where it belongs. Here is my reply:

Scaredy cat:


Whatever I may have done, that doesn't alter the fact that you claimed that Cantor's theorem is "rubbish", and then failed to back up your claim with any amount of mathematics.

In other words, you admit you spammed this thread.


Which make no sense after I showed how Mao mentions the influence of given conditions.

Except, Mao restricts that to 'the identity of opposites'. The struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as he says, "absolute and unconditional".

You have seen the quotation; do you want to see it again to ignore/alter it some more?


Yes, I know Mao says that. But I have shown that he mentions the influence of "given conditions" too, and what he meant is clearly demonstrated by Maoist practice.

Again, these "given conditions" apply to the 'the identity of opposites', whereas the struggle between opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as Mao says, "absolute and unconditional".

You are running two different things together which Mao clearly distinguishes.


I did not conduct any survey. If you are so eager to conduct one, please do so.

Well, it's your claim -- justify it, or withdraw it.


Actually it is not a negation. To be exact, it is only an attempt to negate MLM.

I already covered that in this comment:


I claim to be able to show that dialectics is non-sensical, and non-sense cannot be negated. If I thought dialectics made sense, then, of course, it could be negated -- but I claim it doesn't make sense.

Now, I might or might not be wrong in thinking dialectics is non-sense, but that does not affect what I claim to be doing.

So, I am not trying to 'negate' Maoism.

You:


The above example of yours. I could say that something opposing a well established paper in mathematics is worthy to be called a paper itself.

Indeed, but as my example shows, that inference is not always safe, otherwise you would have to argue that, say, an anti-Maoist is also a Maoist!:lol:


Since dialectics does make sense, then you must be trying to negate it.

1) In that case, you are invited to say what sense it does make -- and good luck on that one, too! You'll be the first dialectician in 150 years to do so if you manage.

2) I have already covered this reply; here it is again:


I claim to be able to show that dialectics is non-sensical, and non-sense cannot be negated. If I thought dialectics made sense, then, of course, it could be negated -- but I claim it doesn't make sense.

Now, I might or might not be wrong in thinking dialectics is non-sense, but that does not affect what I claim to be doing.

You:


You have been trying to prove that all along.

In fact, I have been trying to show dialectics makes no sense at all, not that it is wrong, as you incorrectly state.


Here you start lying again.

So you say, but where exactly is the lie in this comment of mine:


Well, that makes you the same as the bourgeoisie; they did not create socialism, and you lot didn't.

We could both sit in front of the screen and just post "That's a lie" to everything either of us posted; but that would get us nowhere. What you need to do is say precisely where/why this is a lie.

Can you?

I doubt it...


That does not alter the fact that we created socialism.

Well, I deny you did create socialism, but even if you did, you lot are worse than useless letting it revert to capitalism every single time.

And, given the fact that you have a demonstrably defective theory, this is no surprise: Mao's 'theory' implies that you lot will always fail.

[Unless, of course, you abandon his 'theory'...]

History/practice is trying to tell you something, but your head is far too deeply inserted in the and to hear...


This comes from an anti-dialectician who also claims to be a Trot.

So? How does that alter the truth of this claim of mine (to which the above 'response' of yours was posted in reply):


That's like someone, who has just scored twelve own goals, claiming they are partially successful.

Now, Trotskyism may or may not be a complete disaster area -- we can debate that in another thread -- but one thing is clear, we have yet to create a series of capitalist states like you MLM-ers.


I have proved that your interpretation is wrong.

Well, you keep saying things like this, but you can only get away with this by ignoring what Mao actually says -- when he tells us that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", compounding this by confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the struggle between opposites, which Mao clearly distinguishes -- as did Lenin.


But your trolling is.

1) What 'trolling'?

2) You have already admitted that you are the spammer here, so you have no room to talk.


Shown it many times.

And in each and every case, I have shown that your replies are inadequate; the latest example being your refusal to read Mao's words and acknowledge that he argued that struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional".

And you have yet to show where my long post (in reply to you a month or so ago, which I re-posted in reply to Rise Like Lions, and have re-posted again twice for you to attempt to respond) goes wrong.

You just keep ignoring it.

I'll post it again below.

Only if you respond to it effectively can you say that you have "Shown it every time".

But not otherwise.


Where ?

Here:


1) When we discuss a theory you need to compare it with others.

3) Only because I won't let you escape after you make tall claims about mathematics

This acknowledges that you have diverted this thread into discussing other theories and into mathematics.

And again with this:


In case you didn't notice, I was always expecting a mathematical argument there.

So, and once more: you admit to diverting and spamming this thread.


If you want I can quote your posts which prove it.

If you had the proof, you'd have quoted it by now.

So, yes: be my guest -- post away.


I am only responding to your lies concerning mathematics and politics.

What lies? You keep forgetting to say (or to say precisely why they are lies to begin with).


Not only that, you said many other things a thousand times too. Your habit is to repeat yourself often.

In that, I'm merely catching you up.


You belong to a movement that creates absolutely nothing.

Once more; you might be right on this, or not (we can discuss this in another thread, if you like) -- but one thing not in doubt is that all you lot create are more capitalists, piling up yet more enemies of the working class and the peasantry.

You are, in fact, excellent recruiting sergeants for the enemy, creating countless thousands extra bourgeoisie! :(

We do not do that.


Then you ARE a counter revolutionary.

You missed the "if".

Seems you can't read what I post any better than you can read Mao. :lol:


I prefer to use capitals so that you notice.

And yet you are the one who ignores stuff, like the long post below -- and what Mao himself says.


Of course. You said that Cantor's theorem is "rubbish". This is one of your biggest lies.

Still spamming and diverting this thread, I see...


I am running out of words.

I'm not. Nowhere near.


My posts are getting awfully big, and I hate big posts. So I am making everything very short for you:

1) You claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "A".

2) But I quote Mao to prove that he means ~A.

3) I state that Maoist practice, including that of Mao himself revolves around ~A and thus it proves that what Mao meant is ~A.

4) Therefore your claim that Mao means A, is wrong.

This is the gist of my argument .

In fact what you do is ignore where Mao says the sort of change I have been analysing is "unconditional", and then you change that into "conditional".

So, you are the one who is in fact doing this:


1) You (Rosa) claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "~A". ["Unconditional -- i.e., "not conditional".]

2) But I (Scaredy Cat) ignore Mao and assert he means A. [I.e., you (Scaredy Cat) say "unconditional" means "conditional".]

3) Therefore your claim that Mao means ~A, is wrong, and we (MLM-ers) should always ignore what Mao says, or assert the opposite of what he does say.

And your reference to practice is unfortunate, since all you MLM-ers have ever done is fail to create a socialist state that stays that way.:(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here is the long reply you (Scaredy Cat) keep ignoring:

And in every case, I have replied.

In fact, we are still waiting for your reply to this response from me to your last attempt to reply to my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change (that reply to you was posted again as part of my response to Rise Like Lions):



I also agree with Red Cat's "interpretation" of Mao's theory of change. To me, your criticisms stem from a very literal and inflexible reading of the theory. Despite the fact that Mao used "literal" and "concrete" examples (e.g. death and life, misfortune and fortune), it doesn't even make sense to assume that he would apply the same logic to concepts like subordinate class (proletariat) and ruling class (bourgeoisie). Yes, he used terms like "real" and "concrete" to describe the transformations of opposites, but why would Mao mean this literally? It's illogical to assume that he does

Except, Mao says his 'theory' applies to every example of change in the entire universe, without exception (his words, not mine) and that the identity of opposites is conditional. This part Red Cat quotes, but he/she misses the next thing Mao says: the struggle of opposites, and the transformation of everything into its opposite is absolute. [Quotations below.]

In that case, if, say, a cat dies, which they did even in China under Mao, then the following must be the case. [This is my last reply to Red cat, to which he/she has not yet responded.]



Red Cat:

6) And yet, if it turned into a flat cat, and everything turns into its opposite, that flat cat must be the opposite of the live cat it used to be. [Is this correct or not?]

This is where you go incorrect. A cat, like any other living organism, continuously interacts with its surroundings. It loses and gains chemicals and energy. At some point, when it dies, the nature of this interaction change too. For example, microbes begin to decompose its body etc. Hence, just after the cat has died, it cannot be called the opposite of its living self anymore, because certain interactions with its environment have already occurred, or in other words, the system cannot be approximated to a closed one.

I covered this in an earlier post:


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 n 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; if so no cat can change, let alone die!

Hence, it does not matter to what extent you decompose the life of a cat, it can't pass to the next stage, since that next stage must already exist, and this is because all change is a struggle of opposites, including the change of a cat into its next stage.

And this is so with the stages of everything else in the entire universe (cat's, atoms, electrons, forces...) and any changes they undergo; none can proceed to the next stage, since that stage must already exist for a struggle to take place. Hence, they can't change since that opposite already exists. Nothing can change into what already exists.

And this is so with the struggle between any sub-processes; none of these can change unless they struggle with what they become, their opposite. But this can't happen, since, once more, that opposite already exists.

We can adapt this to cater for your hastily-constructed reply:


For example, microbes begin to decompose its body etc.

Mao tells us that everything that changes, whenever it changes, does so as a result of a struggle with its opposite, and these opposites change into one another -- and this governs all changes, without exception.

In that case, this cat of yours must turn into microbes, and these microbes must turn into a cat! But, that can't happen, for that cat already exists, and so do those microbes.

Red Cat:


Now let us go for a better analysis. Life consists of an organization of particular molecules, chemicals changes, ion flows etc. The whole system concerned with this, that can be approximated to a closed system, is the whole biosphere itself, and we can assume that the energy obtained from the sun and volcanic activities inside the earth's crust is more or less involved with only the basic level of photosynthesis etc. Now consider an atom in the biosphere. This atom, over time, reacts to form and break molecules, collides with other atoms or molecules and what not. This involves basic contradiction of electromagnetic forces and as an outcome of this, the atom continuously changes from being a part of living matter to non-living matter and so on. So, if you consider life and death as opposing states of an atom, for which the much more complex changes of an organism can be broken down to simpler ones, it does pass on from life to death and vice versa.

1) Why is this a 'contradiction' -- you, like other dialecticians, just help yourself to this word without justification.

2) If a dead organism is the opposite of a live one, as you acknowledge above, and a live organism turns into a dead one, then, according to Mao, this can only happen if it struggles with that opposite. But this is just a general version of my cat example.

A) Using "L" for a live organism, and "D" for that organism when dead, then L can only turn into D if they struggle with one another, otherwise Mao was wrong.

He also tells us that they turn into one another.

B) But that can't happen, since D already exists! If it didn't already exist, they could not struggle, and so L could not change.

C) So, we end up with the same ridiculous conclusion, (a) either live organisms (like cats) struggle with the dead organisms that they become, which means they must change before they change, or (b) nothing can change, since nothing can change into something that already exists

And, this is not surprising, since my refutation of Mao was completely general, so it will apply to any particular example of change, like this.

Red Cat:


In a hypothetical situation, if the conditions arise for exactly the constituent particles of a cat that lived earlier, to pass through the same contradictions at favourable time and place, then yes, they can once again result in a live cat. In the real world, the probability of this (that is, the effective closure of this system) is so low, that it can be neglected in the practical sense.

This refutes your argument.

But this can't happen, for if these particles become a live cat again, they can only do this if they struggle with that live cat, according to Mao. But, if this is so, that live cat with which they struggle, must already exist, and if that is so, they can't change into it, since it already exists.

Hence, we get the same result howsoever we try to repair Mao's defective 'theory'.

And it's no use decomposing this into countless sub-processes, as you attempt, since the same argument applies.

Consider Sub-process (1), henceforth "S(1)"; if it is to change it has to struggle with its opposite, say "S*(1)", and these have to change into one another, if Mao is to be believed. But this can't happen since S*(1) already exists. If it didn't, S(1) could into struggle with it, and thus change.

So, once more, we hit the same brick wall; this 'theory' implies that nothing can change!

[All this was covered in my original long post, the one that sparked this debate off. Once more, you must have skim-read that post, and thus missed it.]

Hence, your refutation of my refutation fails.

As far as this is concerned:

Rise:


but why would Mao mean this literally? It's illogical to assume that he does.

I have already dealt with this, when Red Cat tried the same ploy. Here it is again:




Red Cat:


That Mao didn't mean a literal change into opposites, or the classes gaining each of the opposing qualities, is clear from this:

But, I have already covered this last ditch, desperate response of yours.

Here it is again (for you to ignore once more) -- Mao is quite clear that what he has to say is literally true:


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 "below", there would be no "above". Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, these would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty) without difficulty, there would be no facility. 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.

But is it enough to say merely that each of the contradictory aspects is the condition for the other's existence, that there is identity between them and that consequently they can coexist in a single entity? No, it is not. The matter does not end with their dependence on each other for their existence; what is more important is their transformation into each other. That is to say, in given conditions, each of the contradictory aspects within a thing transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction.

There is no way that this can be interpreted non-literally, otherwise the contrasts Mao draws would not work. As he underlines, here:


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.

Notice, these are concrete and real, not non-literal.

As he goes on to say:


Contradiction is universal and absolute, it is present in the process of development of all things and permeates every process from beginning to end.


The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception.


Things in contradiction change into one another, and herein lies a definite identity.


All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites. This is what Lenin meant when he discussed "how they happen to be (how they become) identical--under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves 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.


We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.


We may now say a few words to sum up. The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook. It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. According to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from beginning to end; this is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. Each contradiction and each of its aspects have their respective characteristics; this is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.

Page references can be supplied on request; bold emphases added.

Once more, not much wiggle room there. Just like Hegel, Engels, Lenin and Plekhanov, Mao meant this literally, universally and absolutely.

Rise:


You are obviously an intelligent person, so I can only assume that you know what Mao Zedong is really talking about, but your ideological bias and overly critical eye takes you to absurd and reductionist conclusions.

Well, what I think is that Mao's 'theory' makes no sense at all, and you lot only think it does since you have never examined it critically, and this is because you are so used to just swallowing everything he says.

A soon as you try to work the details out, it falls apart, as I have shown.


If one has enough time on their hands, one would be able to nitpick at all sorts of artistic liberties that many writers and theorists take.

It's not 'nit-picking' to show that Mao's 'theory' cannot account for simple, every day changes -- or that, if it were true, nothing in the universe could change.

Notice what Mao says:


We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

You made a weak attempt to claim that all change is conditional, even though Mao said that this sort of change is "absolute and unconditional", as you can see from the quotation above.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades can read my original demolition of Mao's 'theory', here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1594418&postcount=80

[red cat]

Unfortunately, the thread on Mao (in Theory) was closed before I could reply to Red Cat.

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

But that is in fact a 'happy accident' since it now means we can debate this in philosophy, where it belongs. Here is my reply:

Scaredy cat:



In other words, you admit you spammed this thread.



Except, Mao restricts that to 'the identity of opposites'. The struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as he says, "absolute and unconditional".

You have seen the quotation; do you want to see it again to ignore/alter it some more?



Again, these "given conditions" apply to the 'the identity of opposites', whereas the struggle between opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as Mao says, "absolute and unconditional".

You are running two different things together which Mao clearly distinguishes.



Well, it's your claim -- justify it, or withdraw it.



I already covered that in this comment:



So, I am not trying to 'negate' Maoism.

You:



Indeed, but as my example shows, that inference is not always safe, otherwise you would have to argue that, say, an anti-Maoist is also a Maoist!:lol:



1) In that case, you are invited to say what sense it does make -- and good luck on that one, too! You'll be the first dialectician in 150 years to do so if you manage.

2) I have already covered this reply; here it is again:



You:



In fact, I have been trying to show dialectics makes no sense at all, not that it is wrong, as you incorrectly state.



So you say, but where exactly is the lie in this comment of mine:



We could both sit in front of the screen and just post "That's a lie" to everything either of us posted; but that would get us nowhere. What you need to do is say precisely where/why this is a lie.

Can you?

I doubt it...



Well, I deny you did create socialism, but even if you did, you lot are worse than useless letting it revert to capitalism every single time.

And, given the fact that you have a demonstrably defective theory, this is no surprise: Mao's 'theory' implies that you lot will always fail.

[Unless, of course, you abandon his 'theory'...]

History/practice is trying to tell you something, but your head is far too deeply inserted in the and to hear...



So? How does that alter the truth of this claim of mine (to which the above 'response' of yours was posted in reply):



Now, Trotskyism may or may not be a complete disaster area -- we can debate that in another thread -- but one thing is clear, we have yet to create a series of capitalist states like you MLM-ers.



Well, you keep saying things like this, but you can only get away with this by ignoring what Mao actually says -- when he tells us that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", compounding this by confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the struggle between opposites, which Mao clearly distinguishes -- as did Lenin.



1) What 'trolling'?

2) You have already admitted that you are the spammer here, so you have no room to talk.



And in each and every case, I have shown that your replies are inadequate; the latest example being your refusal to read Mao's words and acknowledge that he argued that struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional".

And you have yet to show where my long post (in reply to you a month or so ago, which I re-posted in reply to Rise Like Lions, and have re-posted again twice for you to attempt to respond) goes wrong.

You just keep ignoring it.

I'll post it again below.

Only if you respond to it effectively can you say that you have "Shown it every time".

But not otherwise.



Here:



This acknowledges that you have diverted this thread into discussing other theories and into mathematics.

And again with this:



So, and once more: you admit to diverting and spamming this thread.



If you had the proof, you'd have quoted it by now.

So, yes: be my guest -- post away.



What lies? You keep forgetting to say (or to say precisely why they are lies to begin with).



In that, I'm merely catching you up.



Once more; you might be right on this, or not (we can discuss this in another thread, if you like) -- but one thing not in doubt is that all you lot create are more capitalists, piling up yet more enemies of the working class and the peasantry.

You are, in fact, excellent recruiting sergeants for the enemy, creating countless thousands extra bourgeoisie! :(

We do not do that.



You missed the "if".

Seems you can't read what I post any better than you can read Mao. :lol:



And yet you are the one who ignores stuff, like the long post below -- and what Mao himself says.



Still spamming and diverting this thread, I see...



I'm not. Nowhere near.



In fact what you do is ignore where Mao says the sort of change I have been analysing is "unconditional", and then you change that into "conditional".

So, you are the one who is in fact doing this:



And your reference to practice is unfortunate, since all you MLM-ers have ever done is fail to create a socialist state that stays that way.:(

I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later. At present I will keep my posts short so that you cannot divert this thread. This is my summary of arguments:




1) You claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "A".

2) But I quote Mao to prove that he means ~A.

3) I state that Maoist practice, including that of Mao himself revolves around ~A and thus it proves that what Mao meant is ~A.

4) Therefore your claim that Mao means A, is wrong.
You respond to the above:




In fact what you do is ignore where Mao says the sort of change I have been analysing is "unconditional", and then you change that into "conditional".

So, you are the one who is in fact doing this:

Quote:

1) You (Rafflesia) claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "~A". ["Unconditional -- i.e., "not conditional".]

2) But I (Scaredy Cat) ignore Mao and assert he means A. [I.e., you (Scaredy Cat) say "unconditional" means "conditional".]

3) Therefore your claim that Mao means ~A, is wrong, and we (MLM-ers) should always ignore what Mao says, or assert the opposite of what he does say. And your reference to practice is unfortunate, since all you MLM-ers have ever done is fail to create a socialist state that stays that way.:(

1) What I referred to as "A", you are referring to as ~A. Okay , we can do with that.

2) I do not say that conditional means unconditional. I say that Mao states that the nature of change depends on given conditions.

3) How does this follow? Please explain.

And as I have told you many times, preserving a socialist state is not the only measure of success.

[red cat]

Comrades can read my original demolition of Mao's 'theory', here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1594418&postcount=80

As well as your demolition of Cantor's theorem here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-dialectics-and-t128235/index.html

:lol:

[red cat]

Here is the long reply you (Scaredy Cat) keep ignoring:

And in every case, I have replied.

In fact, we are still waiting for your reply to this response from me to your last attempt to reply to my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change (that reply to you was posted again as part of my response to Rise Like Lions):



Notice what Mao says:



You made a weak attempt to claim that all change is conditional, even though Mao said that this sort of change is "absolute and unconditional", as you can see from the quotation above.

No, I am not ignoring it. Presently I need to concentrate on my points instead of replying to your insanely long posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later. At present I will keep my posts short so that you cannot divert this thread. This is my summary of arguments:

1) In what way are they 'invalid'?

2) You often say this, but you then proceed to ignore my argument, asserting later that you have replied to me!


1) What I referred to as "A", you are referring to as ~A. Okay , we can do with that.

2) I do not say that conditional means unconditional. I say that Mao states that the nature of change depends on given conditions.

3) How does this follow? Please explain.

And as I have told you many times, preserving a socialist state is not the only measure of success.

As far as 2) is concerned, I have covered this several times, and you continue to ignore my reply. Here it is again:


Except, Mao restricts that to 'the identity of opposites'. The struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as he says, "absolute and unconditional".

I added:


You have seen the quotation; do you want to see it again to ignore/alter it some more?

and:


Again, these "given conditions" apply to the 'the identity of opposites', whereas the struggle between opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as Mao says, "absolute and unconditional".

You are running two different things together which Mao clearly distinguishes.

You now ask this:


3) How does this follow? Please explain.

Here is the offending inference:


3) Therefore your claim that Mao means ~A, is wrong, and we (MLM-ers) should always ignore what Mao says, or assert the opposite of what he does say.

Well, it is quite plain that when Mao says that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", you read this as "conditional"!

Or, do you want me to walk you through that again?


As well as your demolition of Cantor's theorem here:

So, you want to spam this thread too, I see.


No, I am not ignoring it. Presently I need to concentrate on my points instead of replying to your insanely long posts.

In other words, you will continue to ignore my argument.

Prove me wrong...

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



1) In what way are they 'invalid'?

2) You often say this, but you then proceed to ignore my argument, asserting later that you have replied to me!

Don't try to divert the thread.



As far as 2) is concerned, I have covered this several times, and you continue to ignore my reply. Here it is again:



I added:



and:
But the whole point of my argument is to prove that these do not imply that conditional means unconditional. You are assuming your claim to prove the same claim of yours again. This is circular logic. If you ASSUME Maoism to be wrong, then say so and I will leave you in peace.


You now ask this:



Here is the offending inference:



Well, it is quite plain that when Mao says that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", you read this as "conditional"!

Or, do you want me to walk you through that again?
This again depends on your assumption that Maoism is wrong or self contradictory.



So, you want to spam this thread too, I see.



In other words, you will continue to ignore my argument.

Prove me wrong...In other words, pointing out that you fail in mathematics as well as in politics is "spamming", but not paying any heed to the numerous irrelevant issues you raise( thereby not letting you spam) is just "ignoring your arguments." :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Don't try to divert the thread.

How is it 'trying to divert' this thread to ask you why you claim my argument is invalid?

Or, pointing out that you ignore my argument, as you have also done here, yet again?


But the whole point of my argument is to prove that these do not imply that conditional means unconditional. You are assuming your claim to prove the same claim of yours again. This is circular logic. If you ASSUME Maoism to be wrong, then say so and I will leave you in peace.

Except, you keep claiming that when he says "unconditional" he really meant "conditional".

The truth is that you can see that Mao calls this sort of change (the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process in the entire universe into its opposite) "absolute and unconditional", but, dissembler that you are, you keep calling it "conditional".

Now, these are not my words, but Mao's that you are ignoring/distorting.

The question is: why are you, an alleged Maoist, ignoring/distorting what Mao says?

Finally, I have not assumed Maoism is false, since I claim it is far too confused for it to be either true or false.

Unless, of course, you can show where my demolition goes wrong -- but after several months of you prevaricating, deflecting attention, raising irrelevant issues, spamming threads and ignoring what Mao actually says, it's quite clear that you can't.


This again depends on your assumption that Maoism is wrong or self contradictory.

Well, I have not assumed Maoism is wrong or contradictory, nor have I shown either to be the case (since it was not my aim to do this). What I claim to have done is show that Mao's theory would make change impossible.

You have yet to show where my argument goes astray.


In other words, pointing out that you fail in mathematics as well as in politics is "spamming", but not paying any heed to the numerous irrelevant issues you raise( thereby not letting you spam) is just "ignoring your arguments."

Well, you spammed the other thread, and are doing so here again.

And, what 'irrelevant' issues have I raised here?

Finally, you have ignored my argument, in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1691425&postcount=2

And you have been doing so for months, despite my having re-posted it several times.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



How is it 'trying to divert' this thread to ask you why you claim my argument is invalid?

Or, pointing out that you ignore my argument, as you have also done here, yet again?

The question is that exactly which of your arguments are valid?





Except, you keep claiming that when he says "unconditional" he really meant "conditional".Prove it.

I am quoting Mao again:


Why can an egg but not a stone be transformed into a chicken? Why is there identity between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings and not to anything else? The sole reason is that the identity of opposites exists only in necessary given conditions. Without these necessary given conditions there can be no identity whatsoever.

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.But it is useless to quote Mao to make you admit that what you claim is wrong. Because you will quote other paragraphs from Mao's article again, misinterpret them, and claim that "unconditional" means "conditional".


The truth is that you can see that Mao calls this sort of change (the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process in the entire universe into its opposite) "absolute and unconditional", but, dissembler that you are, you keep calling it "conditional".That Mao states that "unconditional" is "conditional", is YOUR claim. And you misinterpret Mao in order to support your claim.


Now, these are not my words, but Mao's that you are ignoring/distorting.
I am not distorting Mao's words. It is you who is using circular logic and distorting Maoism.


The question is: why are you, an alleged Maoist, ignoring/distorting what Mao says?

Finally, I have not assumed Maoism is false, since I claim it is far too confused for it to be either true or false.Then you have assumed that it is confused. You haven't been able to prove anything.


Unless, of course, you can show where my demolition goes wrong -- but after several months of you prevaricating, deflecting attention, raising irrelevant issues, spamming threads and ignoring what Mao actually says, it's quite clear that you can't.
Your "demolition" ( or what you call demolition)cannot go wrong, because it is not a demolition in the first place. It is just a set of tall claims, just like your mathematical ones, which you fail to prove in any way.



Well, I have not assumed Maoism is wrong or contradictory, nor have I shown either to be the case (since it was not my aim to do this). What I claim to have done is show that Mao's theory would make change impossible.

You have yet to show where my argument goes astray.
Shown it many times. Not my fault if you pretend to misunderstand it.



Well, you spammed the other thread, and are doing so here again.

And, what 'irrelevant' issues have I raised here?

Finally, you have ignored my argument, in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1691425&postcount=2

And you have been doing so for months, despite my having re-posted it several times.Don't complain about spamming until you prove your political and mathematical claims to be true. Because until then, whatever you have posted in Revleft is nothing but spam.

[Kommrad Stalen]

i can't believe this could still be going on. could you really hide from your lies that much rafflesia or rosa or whatever??? really?? look if dialectics had been used by marx lenin and mao and even trotsky then maybe its a good thing..:rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

I wonder, if Red Cat would win this debate, would he turn into Rosa?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


The question is that exactly which of your arguments are valid?

Well, it was your comment!!, so why you are asking me I do not know.

Here's that comment of yours again:


I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later. At present I will keep my posts short so that you cannot divert this thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1691520&postcount=4

So, and once more: which of my arguments are invalid?

And, you still haven't honoured this claim:


I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later.

In fact, you are still ignoring my arguments (valid or otherwise), as you have done for months (see the end of this post).

You now quote Mao:


Why can an egg but not a stone be transformed into a chicken? Why is there identity between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings and not to anything else? The sole reason is that the [b]identity of opposites[b] exists only in necessary given conditions. Without these necessary given conditions there can be no identity whatsoever.

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.

Bold added.

As I pointed out, you are confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites'. Mao goes on to say (in the passage you are constantly ignoring since you have had it quoted at you many times) the following:


We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

Bold added.

This is because Mao agrees with Lenin:


"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 Volume 38, Collected Works, pp.357-58.]

Mao says this several times, so it was no mere slip of the pen:


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]


In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.(pp.345-46).

And here, in the quotation you partially give, he makes this distinction yet again:


When we said above that two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other because there is identity between them, we were speaking of conditionality, that is to say, in given conditions two contradictory things can be united and can transform themselves into each other, but in the absence of these conditions, they cannot constitute a contradiction, cannot coexist in the same entity and cannot transform themselves into one another. It is because the identity of opposites obtains only in given conditions that we have said identity is conditional and relative. We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things. [pp.342-43.]

Bold added in all of the above.

So, that is why I said you ignore the clear distinction Mao drew between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites'. [Do you actually know why Lenin and Mao drew this distinction?] Now, the latter has to be absolute and unconditional since all things are always changing (according to dialectics), and Mao needs an absolute law to account for it since, like Hegel, he was aware of Hume's criticism of rationalist theories of causation (to which Kant had made an unsatisfactory reply).

Hence, if all things are always changing, and dialectical materialism is the theory that can explain change, then it needs an absolute and unconditional law to explain it.

So, I think your errors arise because you do not seem to know much philosophy (but, correct me if I am wrong), and are unaware of the objections Hegel made to Hume, incorporated into Lenin's and Mao's theories.

Unfortunately, as I have shown, while Hegel's theory actually works in an ideal sort of sense, when his theory is 'put on its feet', and 'inverted', its 'rational kernel' extracted, and it's applied to the material world, it does not work, as I have shown.

As for this:


Prove it.

The above shows that you are either (1) deliberately substituting "conditional" for "unconditional", or (2) you do not understand the philosophical reasons for Mao's very clear distinction.

Now, Mao was a far more careful and precise (philosophical) thinker than Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin (and many others) were, but it does not help his cause (or yours) if you ignore the clear distinction he made several times.


I am not distorting Mao's words. It is you who is using circular logic and distorting Maoism.

1) Well, you are deliberately ignoring what he says, then.

2) As we can see, it is you who is at fault here, not me.


Then you have assumed that it is confused. You haven't been able to prove anything.

In fact, I claim to have shown (but I did not assume this) that this 'theory' of change implies change is impossible; you have yet to show where I go wrong (but see below).

In fact, when I began my project back in July 1998, I couldn't see these flaws in Mao's theory (so I did not begin by assuming he was confused), and thought it sound, but could see no way of challenging it in detail. It was only in 2003 that it suddenly hit me that his theory was thoroughly confused, and that it was his claims about the struggle of opposites, and their absolute and unconditional nature that make impossible the very thing (change) it had been introduced to explain.

Now, over the years, I have tried to find a loop-hole in my argument, and it was only when I was convinced there was none, that I posted it here a few years ago (in 2007, I think), and then at my site.

So, if you can find a hole in my argument, I will withdraw it and apologise profusely -- but all you do is prevaricate, divert attention, ignore what Mao says, spam the thread, and then blame me for trying to explain in detail what my theory actually is, as clearly as I can so that if there is an error, you can see what it is more easily.

Here's yet another example of your irrational response to my argument:


Your "demolition" (or what you call demolition) cannot go wrong, because it is not a demolition in the first place. It is just a set of tall claims, just like your mathematical ones, which you fail to prove in any way.

Once more, instead of showing why it's not a demolition, you just repeat yourself.

In which case, it remains a demolition until you show otherwise.


Shown it many times. Not my fault if you pretend to misunderstand it.

In fact, as the above demonstrates, what you have done is confuse the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites', and have thus tried to replace "unconditional" with "conditional", deliberately or because you do not understand the issues involved.

Hence, you have not replied to me at all.

Moreover, you have studiously ignored the argument I have posted here several times, which addresses your last detailed reply to me (months ago!) -- you have yet to show where that response of mine goes wrong.

Here's the link to it again!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1691425&postcount=2

Now, I have been telling you for many weeks that you have ignored this, so you've no excuse.

See what I mean about spamming; you just can resist doing it can you:


Don't complain about spamming until you prove your political and mathematical claims to be true. Because until then, whatever you have posted in RevLeft is nothing but spam.

Now, you can start another thread on this if you want to, but it's off-topic here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kommrad Stalen:


I can't believe this could still be going on. could you really hide from your lies that much rafflesia or rosa or whatever??? really?? look if dialectics had been used by marx lenin and mao and even trotsky then maybe its a good thing..

Is this your only argument, KS -- abuse?

And sure these great comrades claimed to have used this 'theory' (but I maintain that it is far too confused to use), but the 1917 revolution has been reversed, all the former 'socialist states' have embraced market capitalism, or are slowly doing so, all four internationals have gone down the pan, and workers in their billions ignore us.

So, if truth is tested in practice, it has returned a pretty clear verdict: our core theory is defective.

No wonder then that I have been able to show precisely that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dimentio:


I wonder, if Red Cat would win this debate, would he turn into Rosa?

:lol:

Only if Mao's theory were correct; mercifully it is instead seriously defective.:(

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Well, it was your comment!!, so why you are asking me I do not know.

Here's that comment of yours again:



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1691520&postcount=4

So, and once more: which of my arguments are invalid?

And, you still haven't honoured this claim:



In fact, you are still ignoring my arguments (valid or otherwise), as you have done for months (see the end of this post).
Once again, you are raising irrelevant issues, to sideline the main ones. So I will concentrate only on the relevant part of your post.



You now quote Mao:


Why can an egg but not a stone be transformed into a chicken? Why is there identity between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings and not to anything else? The sole reason is that the [b]identity of opposites[b] exists only in necessary given conditions. Without these necessary given conditions there can be no identity whatsoever.

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.Bold added.

As I pointed out, you are confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites'. Mao goes on to say (in the passage you are constantly ignoring since you have had it quoted at you many times) the following:



Bold added.

This is because Mao agrees with Lenin:



Mao says this several times, so it was no mere slip of the pen:





And here, in the quotation you partially give, he makes this distinction yet again:



Bold added in all of the above.Another quotation to clear things up:


All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.This describes the interconnection between identity and struggle of opposites.

Until you respond to this, the rest of your post is useless.



So, that is why I said you ignore the clear distinction Mao drew between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites'. [Do you actually know why Lenin and Mao drew this distinction?] Now, the latter has to be absolute and unconditional since all things are always changing (according to dialectics), and Mao needs an absolute law to account for it since, like Hegel, he was aware of Hume's criticism of rationalist theories of causation (to which Kant had made an unsatisfactory reply).

Hence, if all things are always changing, and dialectical materialism is the theory that can explain change, then it needs an absolute and unconditional law to explain it.

So, I think your errors arise because you do not seem to know much philosophy (but, correct me if I am wrong), and are unaware of the objections Hegel made to Hume, incorporated into Lenin's and Mao's theories.

Unfortunately, as I have shown, while Hegel's theory actually works in an ideal sort of sense, when his theory is 'put on its feet', and 'inverted', its 'rational kernel' extracted, and it's applied to the material world, it does not work, as I have shown.

As for this:



The above shows that you are either (1) deliberately substituting "conditional" for "unconditional", or (2) you do not understand the philosophical reasons for Mao's very clear distinction.

Now, Mao was a far more careful and precise (philosophical) thinker than Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin (and many others) were, but it does not help his cause (or yours) if you ignore the clear distinction he made several times.


I am not distorting Mao's words. It is you who is using circular logic and distorting Maoism.1) Well, you are deliberately ignoring what he says, then.

2) As we can see, it is you who is at fault here, not me.



In fact, I claim to have shown (but I did not assume this) that this 'theory' of change implies change is impossible; you have yet to show where I go wrong (but see below).

In fact, when I began my project back in July 1998, I couldn't see these flaws in Mao's theory (so I did not begin by assuming he was confused), and thought it sound, but could see no way of challenging it in detail. It was only in, 2003, that it suddenly hit me that his theory was thoroughly confused, and that it was his claims about the struggle of opposites, and their absolute and unconditional nature that make impossible the very thing (change) it had been introduced to explain.

Now, over the years, I have tried to find a loop-hole in my argument, and it was only when I was convinced there was none, that I posted it here a few years ago (in 2007, I think), and then at my site.

So, if you can find a hole in my argument, I will withdraw it and apologise profusely -- but all you do is prevaricate, divert attention, ignore what Mao says, spam the thread, and then blame me for trying to explain in detail what my theory actually is, as clearly as I can so that if there is an error, you can see what it is more easily.

Here's yet another example of your irrational response to my argument:



Once more, instead of showing why it's not a demolition, you just repeat yourself.

In which case, it remains a demolition until you show otherwise.



In fact, as the above demonstrates, what you have done is confuse the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites', and have thus tried to replace "unconditional" with "conditional", deliberately or because you do not understand the issues involved.

Hence, you have not replied to me at all.

Moreover, you have studiously ignored the argument I have posted here several times, which addresses your last detailed reply to me (months ago!) -- you have yet to show where that response of mine goes wrong.

Here's the link to it again!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1691425&postcount=2

Now, I have been telling you for many weeks that you have ignored this, so you've no excuse.

See what I mean about spamming; you just can resist doing it can you:



Now, you can start another thread on this if you want to, but it's off-topic here.Start another thread about you spamming? No, thank you. Most of us are already aware that you spam wherever you can, be it a thread about politics or mathematics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Once again, you are raising irrelevant issues, to sideline the main ones. So I will concentrate only on the relevant part of your post.

It can't be irrelevant if I was attempting to answer one of your questions!

Now the comment below shows that you do not get the point of Mao's distinction between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites', nor do you seem to appreciate the philosophical problems with which he was trying to grapple. In fact, it's quite plain that it's gone right over your head:


Another quotation to clear things up:


All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.

This describes the interconnection between identity and struggle of opposites.

Until you respond to this, the rest of your post is useless.

Where does this quote describe the connection between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle between opposites'? In fact, he doesn't even mention the 'struggle of opposites' in this passage.

You are now reduced to inventing even what Mao says!

Anyway, I don't see how this helps you. Let me summarise:

1) Mao follows Lenin and points out that the 'identity of opposites' is both relative and conditional. Any change induced by this means is therefore conditional.

2) But, this is not the same as the 'struggle of opposites' which Mao says goes on all the time, and applies "without exception" to everything in the entire universe, and that such changes are "absolute and unconditional".

You have seen the quotations where Mao distinguishes these two notions. Here they are again for you to ignore once more:



We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

Bold and underlining added.

This is because Mao agrees with Lenin:


"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 Volume 38, Collected Works, pp.357-58.]

Mao says this several times, so it was no mere slip of the pen:


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]


In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.(pp.345-46).

And here, in the quotation you partially give, he makes this distinction yet again:


When we said above that two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other because there is identity between them, we were speaking of conditionality, that is to say, in given conditions two contradictory things can be united and can transform themselves into each other, but in the absence of these conditions, they cannot constitute a contradiction, cannot coexist in the same entity and cannot transform themselves into one another. It is because the identity of opposites obtains only in given conditions that we have said identity is conditional and relative. We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things. [pp.342-43.]

In fact, in this passage Mao clearly draws a distinction between the two:


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]

Bold and underlining added.

So, it is you who can't seem to read Mao correctly.

2) Anyway, as I showed in an earlier post, even if he hadn't have drawn this distinction, or even if you were right about Mao, conditional change into opposites would be no less impossible. Here it is again:

A) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

B) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

C) Call that opposite "P*".

D) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

E) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

F) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

G) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

H) Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

QED

So, where does the above go wrong?

You have in fact been asked this several times already, but you choose to ignore stuff to which you can't respond.

In which case, your dissembling attempt to misread/ignore Mao is to no avail -- whether you are right about conditional change or not, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise...:rolleyes:


Start another thread about you spamming? No, thank you. Most of us are already aware that you spam wherever you can, be it a thread about politics or mathematics.

Instead, you prefer to spam this thread.:lol:

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



It can't be irrelevant if I was attempting to answer one of your questions!

Now the comment below shows that you do not get the point of Mao's distinction between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites', nor do you seem to appreciate the philosophical problems with which he was trying to grapple. In fact, it's quite plain that it's gone right over your head:



Where does this quote describe the connection between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle between opposites'? In fact, he doesn't even mention the 'struggle of opposites' in this passage.

You are now reduced to inventing even what Mao says!

Anyway, I don't see how this helps you. Let me summarise:

1) Mao follows Lenin and points out that the 'identity of opposites' is both relative and conditional. Any change induced by this means is therefore conditional.

2) But, this is not the same as the 'struggle of opposites' which Mao says goes on all the time, and applies "without exception" to everything in the entire universe, and that such changes are "absolute and unconditional".

You have seen the quotations where Mao distinguishes these two notions. Here they are again for you to ignore once more:



In fact, in this passage Mao clearly draws a distinction between the two:



Bold and underlining added.

So, it is you who can't seem to read Mao correctly.

2) Anyway, as I showed in an earlier post, even if he hadn't have drawn this distinction, or even if you were right about Mao, conditional change into opposites would be no less impossible. Here it is again:

A) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

B) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

C) Call that opposite "P*".

D) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

E) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

F) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

G) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

H) Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

QED

So, where does the above go wrong?

You have in fact been asked this several times already, but you choose to ignore stuff to which you can't respond.

In which case, your dissembling attempt to misread/ignore Mao is to no avail -- whether you are right about conditional change or not, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise...:rolleyes:



Instead, you prefer to spam this thread.:lol:

The relevant portion of your post is:



Where does this quote describe the connection between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle between opposites'? In fact, he doesn't even mention the 'struggle of opposites' in this passage.Really ?


All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.

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.


-MaoTransformation of opposites is due to what Marxists call struggle.

[Dermezel]

You notice how Rosa's arguments are almost all circular? I have yet to see her even present something resembling proof.

[core_1]

Thanks for helping the class struggle guys:confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dermezel:


You notice how Rosa's arguments are almost all circular? I have yet to see her even present something resembling proof.

Well, I'm not trying to offer a proof, merely demonstrate how Mao's theory of change implies change is impossible.

What you need to do is resist the temptation to raise irrelevant points and show (if you can) where I go wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


The relevant portion of your post is:

In other words, you can't show where my demolition of your alternative theory of conditional change goes wrong,

No surprise there then...

Really?


All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.

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.

Once more, where does Mao say that the identity of opposites is connected with the 'struggle of opposites'?

In fact, he pointedly distinguishes the two:


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]

The first is conditional, as you say, but the second is unconditional, as you keep ignoring.

But, as I pointed out, but you chose to ignore, it does not matter if you refuse to listen to Mao, the 'conditional theory' of yours fails too, and for these reasons:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "O", that only changes under certain conditions, "A".

2) Under those conditions, O can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Let us call that opposite "O*".

4) Hence, Mao tells us that under conditions A, O and O* can only change if they struggle with each other.

5) Mao also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) However, that is impossible, since O* already exists -- under those conditions.

7) If O* didn't already exist, under those conditions, O could not struggle with it, and so could not change, under those conditions.

8) In which case, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory, or your revisionist version, implies change is impossible.

Where does this demolition go astray?

I have little doubt you will ignore this again, but that will just show you are no more capable of defending Mao's 'theory' than you are of defending your own revisionist version.


Transformation of opposites is due to what Marxists call struggle

Well, you are confusing an outcome with its cause.

But then, you are so confused you can't tell the difference between an identity and a struggle, something Mao saw clearly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Core 1:


Thanks for helping the class struggle guys

It will certainly help us intervene in the class struggle more effectively if we rid ourselves of this mystical theory.

[red cat]

You notice how Rosa's arguments are almost all circular? I have yet to see her even present something resembling proof.

Many Revlefters will agree with you.


Thanks for helping the class struggle guys:confused:

You will notice that only one of the posters in this thread is attempting to distort all the revolutions and class-struggle so far and cook up an illogical and baseless new theory.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In other words, you can't show where my demolition of your alternative theory of conditional change goes wrong,

No surprise there then...

Really?



Once more, where does Mao say that the identity of opposites is connected with the 'struggle of opposites'?

In fact, he pointedly distinguishes the two:



The first is conditional, as you say, but the second is unconditional, as you keep ignoring.

But, as I pointed out, but you chose to ignore, it does not matter if you refuse to listen to Mao, the 'conditional theory' of your fails too, and for these reasons:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "O", that only changes under certain conditions, "A".

2) Under those conditions, O can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Let us call that opposite "O*".

4) Hence, Mao tells us that under conditions A, O and O* can only change if they struggle with each other.

5) Mao also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) However, that is impossible, since O* already exists -- under those conditions.

7) If O* didn't already exist, under those conditions, O could not struggle with it, and so could not change, under those conditions.

8) In which case, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory, or your revisionist version, implies change is impossible.

Where does this demolition go astray?

I have little doubt you will ignore this again, but that will just show you are no more capable of defending Mao's 'theory' than you are of defending your own revisionist version.



Well, you are confusing an outcome with its cause.

But then, you are so confused you can't tell the difference between an identity and a struggle, something Mao saw clearly.

You have ignored my post completely. So here it is again:





All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.

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.


-Mao

Transformation of opposites is due to what Marxists call struggle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You have ignored my post completely. So here it is again:

I didn't ignore it, I acknowledged it by asking where Mao links the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites'.

You have yet to say.

Here's your quotation (I have highlighted the parts you ignore):


All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.

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.

So, this is the conditional, 'identity of opposites' you have been banging on about. But you forget that Mao also commented on the 'struggle of opposites', and that is "absolute and unconditional" (see below).

But, even if I had have ignored it, I pall into insignificance next to your serial ignoring of what I have posted.

You have yet to comment on this very clear statement of Mao's, which is a re-affirmation of what Lenin had said, where he draws a stark contrast between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites':


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]

So, the 'identity of opposites' is "conditional, temporary and relative" -- and that is what you have been focussing on.

While the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional" -- you have systematically ignored this.


We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

Nor have you commented on this, where I show that even if you are right (so I did not ignore you), conditional change, as Mao pictures, it means change is impossible:


But, as I pointed out, but you chose to ignore, it does not matter if you refuse to listen to Mao, the 'conditional theory' of your fails too, and for these reasons:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "O", that only changes under certain conditions, "A".

2) Under those conditions, O can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Let us call that opposite "O*".

4) Hence, Mao tells us that under conditions A, O and O* can only change if they struggle with each other.

5) Mao also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) However, that is impossible, since O* already exists -- under those conditions.

7) If O* didn't already exist, under those conditions, O could not struggle with it, and so could not change, under those conditions.

8) In which case, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory, or your revisionist version, implies change is impossible.

Where does this demolition go astray?

I have little doubt you will ignore this again, but that will just show you are no more capable of defending Mao's 'theory' than you are of defending your own revisionist version.

I have highlighted the parts of my last post that show I haven't ignored you.

So, now that it is clear that I haven't ignored you, you need to show where my demolition of your version of Mao's theory goes wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Many Revlefters will agree with you.

Only those who do not know the difference between a valid argument and a circular argument.:lol:


You will notice that only one of the posters in this thread is attempting to distort all the revolutions and class-struggle so far and cook up an illogical and baseless new theory.

Good of you to own up! :)

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



I didn't ignore it, I acknowledged it by asking where Mao links the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites'.

You have yet to say.

Here's your quotation (I have highlighted the parts you ignore):



So, this is the conditional, 'identity of opposites' you have been banging on about. But you forget that Mao also commented on the 'struggle of opposites', and that is "absolute and unconditional" (see below).

But, even if I had have ignored it, I pall into insignificance next to your serial ignoring of what I have posted.

You have yet to comment on this very clear statement of Mao's, which is a re-affirmation of what Lenin had said, where he draws a stark contrast between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites':



So, the 'identity of opposites' is "conditional, temporary and relative" -- and that is what you have been focussing on.

While the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional" -- you have systematically ignored this.



Nor have you commented on this, where I show that even if you are right (so I did not ignore you), conditional change, as Mao pictures, it means change is impossible:



I have highlighted the parts of my last post that show I haven't ignored you.

So, now that it is clear that I haven't ignored you, you need to show where my demolition of your version of Mao's theory goes wrong.

And again you ignore my point.


All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.

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.


-Mao

Mao has mentioned transformation here, and we hold that transformation takes place due to the struggle of opposites.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Only those who do not know the difference between a valid argument and a circular argument.:lol:



Good of you to own up! :)

:rolleyes:

It feels really great to debate with someone who has "demolished" well established revolutionary theory as well as mathematics, but unfortunately, is recognized by no relevant political or mathematical groups. Really, given the greatness of your achievement, you are just next to Abel in being ignored by the world of mathematics. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


And again you ignore my point.

In fact, I didn't; I specifically addressed it, highlighted in bold:


But, as I pointed out, but you chose to ignore, it does not matter if you refuse to listen to Mao, the 'conditional theory' of yours fails too, and for these reasons:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "O", that only changes under certain conditions, "A".

2) Under those conditions, O can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Let us call that opposite "O*".

4) Hence, Mao tells us that under conditions A, O and O* can only change if they struggle with each other.

5) Mao also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) However, that is impossible, since O* already exists -- under those conditions.

7) If O* didn't already exist, under those conditions, O could not struggle with it, and so could not change, under those conditions.

8) In which case, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory, or your revisionist version, implies change is impossible.

Where does this demolition go astray?

I have little doubt you will ignore this again, but that will just show you are no more capable of defending Mao's 'theory' than you are of defending your own revisionist version.

So, it is you who is ignoring me, not the other way round.

And we both know why; you have no answer.

Moreover, and even worse (for someone who claims to be a Maoist!), you are ignoring the clear distinction Mao drew:


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]


Mao has mentioned transformation here, and we hold that transformation takes place due to the struggle of opposites.

Indeed, and he then added this:


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]

So, the struggle of opposites is not conditional, as you allege. It is, according to Mao, unconditional.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


It feels really great to debate with someone who has "demolished" well established revolutionary theory as well as mathematics, but unfortunately, is recognized by no relevant political or mathematical groups. Really, given the greatness of your achievement, you are just next to Abel in being ignored by the world of mathematics.

1) Well, you certainly can't defend it against my attacks.:(

2) Stop spamming this thread.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In fact, I didn't; I specifically addressed it, highlighted in bold:



So, it is you who is ignoring me, not the other way round.

And we both know why; you have no answer.

Moreover, and even worse (for someone who claims to be a Maoist!), you are ignoring the clear distinction Mao drew:




Indeed, and he then added this:


So, do you agree that in the lines I quoted, it is clear that Mao states that particular opposites struggle with each other only in certain given conditions ?


So, the struggle of opposites is not conditional, as you allege. It is, according to Mao, unconditional.

Mao never said that the properties of struggle of opposites are unconditional.

[Dermezel]

Also why does one party keeping calling these asinine names?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



!) Well, you certainly can't defend it against my attacks.:(

2) Stop spamming this thread.

I am just marvelling at your greatness. :lol:

[Dermezel]

But, as I pointed out, but you chose to ignore, it does not matter if you refuse to listen to Mao, the 'conditional theory' of yours fails too, and for these reasons:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "O", that only changes under certain conditions, "A".

2) Under those conditions, O can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Let us call that opposite "O*".

4) Hence, Mao tells us that under conditions A, O and O* can only change if they struggle with each other.

5) Mao also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) However, that is impossible, since O* already exists -- under those conditions.

7) If O* didn't already exist, under those conditions, O could not struggle with it, and so could not change, under those conditions.

8) In which case, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory, or your revisionist version, implies change is impossible.

Where does this demolition go astray?

I have little doubt you will ignore this again, but that will just show you are no more capable of defending Mao's 'theory' than you are of defending your own revisionist version.

This so reminds me of some arguments I read on a website called "Libertarianism makes you stupid":



The Fallacious Proof:

* Step 1: Let a=b.
* Step 2: Then a^2 = ab,
* Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
* Step 4: 2 a^2 = a^2 + ab,
* Step 5: 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 + ab - 2 ab,
* Step 6: and 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 - ab.
* Step 7: This can be written as 2 (a^2 - a b) =
1 (a^2 - a b)
* Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2 - ab)
from both sides gives 1=2.
Another:



The Fallacious Proof:

* Step 1: -1/1 = 1/-1
* Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: sqrt(-1/1) =
sqrt(1/-1)
* Step 3: Simplifying: sqrt(-1) / sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) /
sqrt(-1)
* Step 4: In other words, i/1 = 1/i.
* Step 5: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i),
* Step 6: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i),
* Step 7: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ),
* Step 8: (i^2)/2 + (3i)/2i = i/(2i) + (3i)/(2i),
* Step 9: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2,
* Step 10: and this shows that 1=2. How about a proof that everyone in Canada is the same age?





Step 1 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess19.html): In any group that consists of just one person, everybody in the group has the same age, because after all there is only one person!
Step 2 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess20.html): Therefore, statement S(1) is true.
Step 3 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess21.html): The next stage in the induction argument is to prove that, whenever S(n) is true for one number (say n=k), it is also true for the next number (that is, n = k+1).
Step 4 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess22.html): We can do this by (1) assuming that, in every group of k people, everyone has the same age; then (2) deducing from it that, in every group of k+1 people, everyone has the same age.
Step 5 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess23.html): Let G be an arbitrary group of k+1 people; we just need to show that every member of G has the same age.
Step 6 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess24.html): To do this, we just need to show that, if P and Q are any members of G, then they have the same age.
Step 7 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess25.html): Consider everybody in G except P. These people form a group of k people, so they must all have the same age (since we are assuming that, in any group of k people, everyone has the same age).
Step 8 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess26.html): Consider everybody in G except Q. Again, they form a group of k people, so they must all have the same age.
Step 9 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess27.html): Let R be someone else in G other than P or Q.
Step 10 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess28.html): Since Q and R each belong to the group considered in step 7, they are the same age.
Step 11 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess29.html): Since P and R each belong to the group considered in step 8, they are the same age.
Step 12 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess30.html): Since Q and R are the same age, and P and R are the same age, it follows that P and Q are the same age.
Step 13 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess31.html): We have now seen that, if we consider any two people P and Q in G, they have the same age. It follows that everyone in G has the same age.
Step 14 (http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess32.html): The proof is now complete: we have shown that the statement is true for n=1, and we have shown that whenever it is true for n=k it is also true for n=k+1, so by induction it is true for all n.

You can refute these claims using formal logic, but empirical means are so much faster.

And as for the above argument is is answered by Caudwell directly:


A-B do not exist as eternally discrete entities. The Universe is a becoming, a development. The becoming is primary. Reality does not become in time and space, but time and space are aspects of its becoming. Becoming is change. If a thing is changed, it manifests an unlike, a hitherto non-present quality. If change is real, and by our premises it is primary, such a quality does not come into existence either by the gradual decrement of a known quality to nothing, or the gradual increment of a very faint quality to something. Before, it was not, not in any way. Now it is, in every way. There has therefore been a ‘jump’. To deny this is to deny the reality of change, and to suggest that the quality was already there, but so faintly we did not ‘notice it’. But nothing new would then have come into being. There would therefore have been no change, and reality is, by our definition, change.

Although such a quality is new, it is not arbitrary, i.e. absolutely self-determined. By definition, the Universe is one. A quality that is self-determined is, as we saw, unknowable. Therefore each new quality, as it leaps into existence, is determined by all qualities up till then present in the universe.

These qualities do not come into being in time. Time does not flow on while they emerge. The emergence of such qualities is what time is. Time then is an aspect of, or abstraction from, change. Time is new quality as it emerges.

But change does not merely involve the coming into existence of qualities. If we find different qualities lying about, even though they mutually determine each other, we cannot say ‘something has changed’. The qualities may be qualities of different things, and so there will have been no change. There must therefore be something in all qualities that remains the same, even though these qualities are new, otherwise we cannot say, the ‘Universe has changed’. There must be something like in all unlikes. Otherwise we could say, ‘these unlikes are not changed things, they are different things. We have not moved in time, but in space.’ How else can we distinguish motion in time from motion in space, unless time is not something in which things change, but the change itself?

But if the newness of quality, the unlikeness, as it emerges, is time, the oldness, the likeness, is space. Qualities do not arrange themselves homogeneously in space, space is the homogeneity in their qualities. Space is quantity or known quality as it remains unchanged; it is therefore the thing-in-itself, the material unity of the Universe. The Universe is a spatial Universe. Space therefore is an aspect of matter, which is precisely what relativity physics has established by practice. Mass-energy, or the likeness in phenomena, generates space. This is established by practice.

All laws of development, of evolution, of difference, of quality, of aesthetics, of consciousness, are temporal. All laws of conservation, of metrics, of comparability, of universal and unchanging relations, are spatial.

But time and space are only aspects of becoming or change. If we could completely abstract time or space, and divide relations into a set entirely temporal, and a set entirely spatial, we should have two absolutely self-determined spheres, contradicting our premises for each sphere would be unknowable to the other sphere. Therefore no absolute time or space, as premised in Newtonian dynamics, exists. We know both time and space and prove this by their mutual convertibility, by the change of qualities and the reproduction of quantities.

Neither does an absolute spatio-temporal continuum, expressible in purely metrical terms, exist. Such a continuum would after all be purely spatial, for it would be expressible entirely in terms of quantity. It would be self-determined, and independent of all quality. It would therefore be unknowable to quality, and quality would be unknowable to it. Hence Einstein’s relativity physics still contains an illegitimate absolute, which accounts for its being irreconcilable with quantum phenomena.

We take as our premise ‘becoming’, the becoming of a material unity which is generated by our transformation of matter. Becoming, which involves change, which involves like and unlike, involves also development. If we had no development, we would have no ‘becoming’. In development there is a relation between the qualities A, B, C, D, E, which is not only mutually determining, but such that A is in some way contained in B, B in C, C in D, and D in E, but not E in D, D in C, C in B, B in A. This relation, which is technically called ‘transitive but assymetrical’, is involved in the process of becoming, just as are the existence of like and unlike. If becoming were otherwise, if qualities could not all be ranged in this unique order, we should come upon groups of qualities such, for example, that A would be contained in B, and then B in A; or in some other way there would be a ‘break’ or return to a quality in which all the new qualities of the interim no longer appear. But such a return is indistinguishable from the previous situation, and therefore we no longer have a process of becoming, but of unbecoming. Moreover the relation of containing and being-contained is, in development, mutually determining. If therefore the series of qualities (or events) in any way returns on itself in this fashion, the Universe splits in two ‘in time’. We have two or more sets of self-determined qualities, sufficient to themselves, each unknowable and non-existent to the other.

We now see that the determination of qualities as they appear is a relation of a special sort. It is a transitive assymetrical relation known as ‘cause and effect’, in which one quality mutually determines another in a way which may be described as the containing (or sublation) of one quality in another. And all qualities (or events) may, by this means, be ranged in a unique order.

Moreover since no set of qualities is self-determined, we can never have a set of distinguishable qualities such that A alone determines or is contained in B; B alone determines or is contained in C, and so on, otherwise the series A, B, C, would be self-determined and unknowable. This would only be permissible if this series were the Universe. But we do not regard the Universe as composed of one event at a time. We do not believe that, whatever cross-section we took of the mass of qualities that we call the Universe, we would reveal over all the sections one quality only. If we could do that, space would then be separable from time, and we could collect spatial and temporal qualities in self-determined sets, which is contrary to our premises and experience. This cross-section would correspond to a universal or absolute present, which is permitted to Newtonian dynamics but is rightly eliminated from relativity physics.

Since then this series is impermissible, the qualities are always arranged as follows: A and A1 contained in B. B and B1, contained in C. A2 and A3 contained in B1. The only arrangement which will now completely satisfy all our premises is that each new quality, as it emerges, is determined by another quality (subject or antithesis) and the rest of the Universe (object or thesis). This does not apply merely to the qualities of cognition but to all events. In older formulations of causality, it would be stated that each ‘event’ (new quality) has a ‘cause’ (prior quality) and a ‘ground’ (the rest of the Universe). The ground is currently omitted for reasons of economy. For example, we say a bell is the cause of a sound. The air, earth, fixed stars must, however, be as they are in order for the bell to produce the sound. Any general scientific law must contain Universal constants. This is recognised by modern relativity physics (p) and quantum physics (h).

This then leads to the dialectical law of becoming, applicable to all qualities, that is, to all events. Any new quality, as it emerges, is determined by (or ‘contains’) a prior quality (the cause) and the rest of the Universe of qualities. Or, more strictly – since becoming is logically prior to time and space – the two terms determining a quality, (a) the prior quality and (b) all other determining qualities, are to that quality cause and ground, and contain its past time and its surrounding space. All other qualities, not contained in this way, are part of its effect, and contain its future time. It is this relation which enables us to settle causality and time and space, which are never absolute, but relative to a quality.http://www.marxists.org/archive/caudwell/1938/reality.htm

Dialectics is less certain then logic, but it is a lot faster. But since Dialectics uses logic, we can proceed with a more concrete analysis:

Simply put the original premise that A is opposed to O in any absolute sense is flawed. A and O can only exist in relative terms. That being the case, we can even say A is O, since objects in the universe are always changing. There is no reason why "process" cannot equate to conditions.

Or you can say is that O is a specific object-process (since in Dialectics these can be the same), and A are the conditions (other surrounding objects and processes). In which case you are equating O to an object and A may be a relative term that can range from a small location like a room, to the entire rest of the universe, simply put it is processes/objects that surround O.

Unless you mean to say O is the entire universe (which may be true if you are trying to use the term in an absolute categorical sense), and A is another condition (surrounding area), in which case you are either saying the universe compared to the multiverse (using the term universe in the physics sense) , or you mean to say the universe as opposed to the universe (using the term universe in the philosophical sense). The former point is valid but simply means to be absolute you'd have to equate A and O with the entire multiverse. Ultimately any absolute equation of A and O coupled with an absolute exclusion of A and O is incoherent, but also a straw man argument because Materialist Dialectics deals only with relative, not absolute, contradictions (the material contradictions are considered both real and relative) .

Last as Caudwell notes, and this is a key point:


We take as our premise ‘becoming’, the becoming of a material unity which is generated by our transformation of matter. Becoming, which involves change, which involves like and unlike, involves also development. If we had no development, we would have no ‘becoming’. In development there is a relation between the qualities A, B, C, D, E, which is not only mutually determining, but such that A is in some way contained in B, B in C, C in D, and D in E, but not E in D, D in C, C in B, B in A. This relation, which is technically called ‘transitive but assymetrical’, is involved in the process of becoming, just as are the existence of like and unlike. If becoming were otherwise, if qualities could not all be ranged in this unique order, we should come upon groups of qualities such, for example, that A would be contained in B, and then B in A; or in some other way there would be a ‘break’ or return to a quality in which all the new qualities of the interim no longer appear. But such a return is indistinguishable from the previous situation, and therefore we no longer have a process of becoming, but of unbecoming. Moreover the relation of containing and being-contained is, in development, mutually determining. If therefore the series of qualities (or events) in any way returns on itself in this fashion, the Universe splits in two ‘in time’. We have two or more sets of self-determined qualities, sufficient to themselves, each unknowable and non-existent to the other.

We now see that the determination of qualities as they appear is a relation of a special sort. It is a transitive assymetrical relation known as ‘cause and effect’, in which one quality mutually determines another in a way which may be described as the containing (or sublation) of one quality in another. And all qualities (or events) may, by this means, be ranged in a unique order.

Moreover since no set of qualities is self-determined, we can never have a set of distinguishable qualities such that A alone determines or is contained in B; B alone determines or is contained in C, and so on, otherwise the series A, B, C, would be self-determined and unknowable. This would only be permissible if this series were the Universe. But we do not regard the Universe as composed of one event at a time. We do not believe that, whatever cross-section we took of the mass of qualities that we call the Universe, we would reveal over all the sections one quality only. If we could do that, space would then be separable from time, and we could collect spatial and temporal qualities in self-determined sets, which is contrary to our premises and experience. This cross-section would correspond to a universal or absolute present, which is permitted to Newtonian dynamics but is rightly eliminated from relativity physics.

Since then this series is impermissible, the qualities are always arranged as follows: A and A1 contained in B. B and B1, contained in C. A2 and A3 contained in B1. The only arrangement which will now completely satisfy all our premises is that each new quality, as it emerges, is determined by another quality (subject or antithesis) and the rest of the Universe (object or thesis). This does not apply merely to the qualities of cognition but to all events. In older formulations of causality, it would be stated that each ‘event’ (new quality) has a ‘cause’ (prior quality) and a ‘ground’ (the rest of the Universe). The ground is currently omitted for reasons of economy. For example, we say a bell is the cause of a sound. The air, earth, fixed stars must, however, be as they are in order for the bell to produce the sound. Any general scientific law must contain Universal constants. This is recognised by modern relativity physics (p) and quantum physics (h).Simply put, even the distinction between O and O* is, if anything, required in Dialectical Materialist reasoning. So according to what you said both O and O* could be contained in A. Likewise you have to keep in mind that opposites can be asymmetrical in Dialectical reasoning. This is what distinguishes Dialectical Materialism from, say some bizarre mystical Yin-Yang Taoism or Cartesian Dualism where everything is equal and opposite. For example O can be an object, O* the entire rest of the universe (opposition is used in a relative, transitive, asymmetrical sense) and A can be the universe as a whole, after O and O* have interacted we have A* (the universe changed), composed of O1(O newly changed) and O1* (O* changed).

[Dermezel]

Thanks for helping the class struggle guys:confused:

If the proletariat abandon dialectics they will be at a tactical disadvantage with respect to planning and debate.

[black magick hustla]

if the "proletariat" abandons dialectics they will get rid of the deadweight of old dead white men who made a career out of smoothtalking.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


So, do you agree that in the lines I quoted, it is clear that Mao states that particular opposites struggle with each other only in certain given conditions?

No I do not, since he does not mention the struggle in the passage you quoted. On the other hand, he clearly says this:


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]

Here Mao clearly distinguishes these two types of change, and you are consistently ignoring what he says.

But, even if you are right (which I deny), I have shown that your conditional theory is defective too. Here's my proof, again:


But, as I pointed out, but you chose to ignore, it does not matter if you refuse to listen to Mao, the 'conditional theory' of your fails too, and for these reasons:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "O", that only changes under certain conditions, "A".

2) Under those conditions, O can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Let us call that opposite "O*".

4) Hence, Mao tells us that under conditions A, O and O* can only change if they struggle with each other.

5) Mao also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) However, that is impossible, since O* already exists -- under those conditions.

7) If O* didn't already exist, under those conditions, O could not struggle with it, and so could not change, under those conditions.

8) In which case, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory, or your revisionist version, implies change is impossible.

Where does this demolition go astray?

I have little doubt you will ignore this again, but that will just show you are no more capable of defending Mao's 'theory' than you are of defending your own revisionist version.

So, whether you are right or not, both the conditional and the unconditional versions of Mao's 'theory' imply change is impossible.

You need to address this, or my criticisms stand.


Mao never said that the properties of struggle of opposites are unconditional.

Well, what was he saying here, then?


We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.


Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dermazel:


Also why does one party keeping calling these asinine names?

Because they fit.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I am just marvelling at your greatness.

Sarcasm and spam in one thread....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dermezel, thanks for posting much that is not relevant to what I have said; you tried the Caudwell material before, but I fail to see how it addresses anything I have argued.

Perhaps you can highlight the parts you think relate to what I have argued, since I can't find anything.

The mathematical examples are no less irrelevant. Where do I use a division by zero to establish anything?

You need to show where this argument goes wrong:

1) Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao (along with many others) argue that all change is a struggle of opposites, and

2) Every object and process in the universe changes into its opposite.

3) But that can't happen, since that opposite already exists. If it didn't, then there could be no struggle, and thus no change.

4) Either way, nothing can change.

5) Hence, if this 'theory' were true, change would be impossible.

Now, I have answered every objection that Red Cat (and many others, in other threads here) have thrown at me. Want to add your objections?

You say this:


Dialectics is less certain then logic, but it is a lot faster. But since Dialectics uses logic, we can proceed with a more concrete analysis:

Simply put the original premise that A is opposed to O in any absolute sense is flawed. A and O can only exist in relative terms. That being the case, we can even say A is O, since objects in the universe are always changing. There is no reason why "process" cannot equate to conditions.

Or you can say is that O is a specific object-process (since in Dialectics these can be the same), and A are the conditions (other surrounding objects and processes). In which case you are equating O to an object and A may be a relative term that can range from a small location like a room, to the entire rest of the universe, simply put it is processes/objects that surround O.

Unless you mean to say O is the entire universe (which may be true if you are trying to use the term in an absolute categorical sense), and A is another condition (surrounding area), in which case you are either saying the universe compared to the multiverse (using the term universe in the physics sense) , or you mean to say the universe as opposed to the universe (using the term universe in the philosophical sense). The former point is valid but simply means to be absolute you'd have to equate A and O with the entire multiverse. Ultimately any absolute equation of A and O coupled with an absolute exclusion of A and O is incoherent, but also a straw man argument because Materialist Dialectics deals only with relative, not absolute, contradictions (the material contradictions are considered both real and relative) .

I'm sorry, I have read this several times, but I can't see how it addresses my argument. [Much of what you say seems radically confused anyway, but we can debate that in another thread.]

Recall, I am not asserting anything (about objects/processes/the universe -- where did that one come from, anyway?), I am only drawing out the absurd consequences of the things the above Dialectical Classicists have said.

And, it does not matter whether this is true or not:


Materialist Dialectics deals only with relative, not absolute, contradictions (the material contradictions are considered both real and relative)

Relative or absolute, what the above classicists say implies change is impossible.


Simply put, even the distinction between O and O* is, if anything, required in Dialectical Materialist reasoning. So according to what you said both O and O* could be contained in A. Likewise you have to keep in mind that opposites can be asymmetrical in Dialectical reasoning. This is what distinguishes Dialectical Materialism from, say some bizarre mystical Yin-Yang Taoism or Cartesian Dualism where everything is equal and opposite. For example O can be an object, O* the entire rest of the universe (opposition is used in a relative, transitive, asymmetrical sense) and A can be the universe as a whole, after O and O* have interacted we have A* (the universe changed), composed of O1 (O newly changed) and O1* (O* changed).

In fact, I point out that dialecticians are unclear whether they mean by "internal" logically/conceptually internal, or topologically internal.

And, I am prepared to take your word that this is so:


Likewise you have to keep in mind that opposites can be asymmetrical in Dialectical reasoning. This is what distinguishes Dialectical Materialism from, say some bizarre mystical Yin-Yang Taoism or Cartesian Dualism where everything is equal and opposite. For example O can be an object, O* the entire rest of the universe (opposition is used in a relative, transitive, asymmetrical sense) and A can be the universe as a whole, after O and O* have interacted we have A* (the universe changed), composed of O1(O newly changed) and O1* (O* changed).

But, I'd like to see where the dialectical classicists argue this, or have you just made it up?

Even so I can't see how it affects my argument.

Finally, you alleged that my arguments are circular, and I asked you to show why you think this of them. You have yet to tell us.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dermezel:


If the proletariat abandon dialectics they will be at a tactical disadvantage with respect to planning and debate.

In fact, they have never accepted it. Indeed, and to their credit, they ignore it in their billions.:)

And even if I am wrong, given the fact that this 'theory' has presided over little other than failure, they'd be wise to ditch it.

[Hit The North]

I've trashed the subsequent posts as they were just Red Cat and Rosa spamming each other.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, I was asking Red Cat genuine questions about Mao's words which he/she was studiously ignoring.

[red cat]

In fact, I was asking Red Cat genuine questions about Mao's words which he/she was studiously ignoring.

Stop spamming and first prove this claim of yours to be of any relevance:




In fact, they have never accepted it. Indeed, and to their credit, they ignore it in their billions.:)

Do the proletariat ignore dialectics because they have negated it, or just because they haven't come across it yet? I hope you have a survey to back up your claim. Don't try to dodge this question. Your childish "you answer me first then I'll answer you" type arguments don't really match with you claiming to have "demolished" some well established political theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Stop spamming and first prove this claim of yours to be of any relevance:

Well, BTB has trashed the post where I show that you have ignored where Mao says that while the 'identity of opposites' is relative and conditional, the 'struggle of opposites' is absolute and unconditional.

You won't even comment on the latter point of Mao's points.

And we both know why.

Nor have you commented on my demonstration that even if you are right, you 'conditional' theory of change still implies that change is impossible.


Do the proletariat ignore dialectics because they have negated it, or just because they haven't come across it yet? I hope you have a survey to back up your claim. Don't try to dodge this question. Your childish "you answer me first then I'll answer you" type arguments don't really match with you claiming to have "demolished" some well established political theory.

Partly because they haven't encountered it already, partly because they can see what serial screw-ups you dialectical mystics are -- you claim to be socialists, but all you ever produce is yet more capitalism.

And, I'll post the survey details when you respond to the many questions I have asked you, which you just ignore.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Well, BTB has trashed the post where I show that you have ignored where Mao says that while the 'identity of opposites' is relative and conditional, the 'struggle of opposites' is absolute and unconditional.

You won't even comment on the latter point of Mao's points.
And we both know why.

Nor have you commented on my demonstration that even if you are right, you 'conditional' theory of change still implies that change is impossible.



Partly because they haven't encountered it already, partly because they can see what serial screw-ups you dialectical mystics are -- you claim to be socialists, but all you ever produce is yet more capitalism.

And, I'll post the survey details when you respond to the many questions I have asked you, which you just ignore.

It's good to see some mods realize that what you post is mostly spam.

And now you have started bringing up your anti-communist theory and that other childish game again. If your so called "demolition" of MLM is sooo powerful that it negates our 150 years of revolutionary practice, then why do you have to wait for me to answer your questions before you answer mine? So that you get a chance to spam again ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


It's good to see some mods realize that what you post is mostly spam.

Well, one mod has trashed both our posts, so I do not know where the plural "mods" came from -- nor why your finger is pointed only at me; your posts were trashed too.


And now you have started bringing up your anti-communist theory and that other childish game again. If your so called "demolition" of MLM is sooo powerful that it negates our 150 years of revolutionary practice, then why do you have to wait for me to answer your questions before you answer mine? So that you get a chance to spam again ?

Well you are the one who raised this question; so point that grubby finger of yours at yourself, not me.

So, are you going to continue to ignore this:


the post where I show that you have ignored where Mao says that while the 'identity of opposites' is relative and conditional, the 'struggle of opposites' is absolute and unconditional.

You won't even comment on the latter point of Mao's points.

And we both know why.

Nor have you commented on my demonstration that even if you are right, you 'conditional' theory of change still implies that change is impossible.

We both know you have no answer to it; hence your prevarication and the diversionary tactics.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Well, one mod has trashed both our posts, so I do not know where the plural "mods" came from -- nor why your finger is pointed only at me; your posts were trashed too.



Well you are the one who raised this question; so point that grubby finger of yours at yourself, not me.

So, are you going to continue to ignore this:



We both know you have no answer to it; hence your prevarication and the diversionary tactics.

Why are you waiting for me to answer your questions if your claims are true ? Where are those survey details? I think they are just as real as the armed Trot struggle in Tierra Del Fuego and your negation of Cantor's theorem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Why are you waiting for me to answer your questions if your claims are true ? Where are those survey details? I think they are just as real as the armed Trot struggle in Tierra Del Fuego and your negation of Cantor's theorem.

Your post is off-topic, and might be trashed if BTB sees it.

In the meantime, we can see yet again you have nothing to say about Mao's comment that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional".

Nor have you any answer to my proof that even your 'conditional theory' implies that change is impossible.

Everyone here can see this, so I do not know who you think you are kidding.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Your post is off-topic, and might be trashed if BTB sees it.

In the meantime, we can see yet again you have nothing to say about Mao's comment that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional".

Nor have you any answer to my proof that even your 'conditional theory' implies that change is impossible.

Everyone here can see this, so I do not know who you think you are kidding.

Rather everyone has seen how you refuse to give proofs, lie and dodge challenges.

I am not going to talk about multiple topics, because then you will be able to divert the thread. First you either back up your claim about the working class "ignoring" dialectics with some proof, or admit that you were wrong. Then we shall return first to the passage I quoted.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scareday Cat:


Rather everyone has seen how you refuse to give proofs, lie and dodge challenges.

But I have proved that your 'conditional theoy' of change implies change is impossible.

If this isn't a proof, then you will find that easy to demonstrate.


I am not going to talk about multiple topics, because then you will be able to divert the thread. First you either back up your claim about the working class "ignoring" dialectics with some proof, or admit that you were wrong. Then we shall return first to the passage I quoted.

In other words, you don't have anything to say about Mao's comment that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional".

No surprise there then...:rolleyes:

[red cat]

Scareday Cat:



But I have proved that your 'conditional theoy' of change implies change is impossible.

If this isn't a proof, then you will find that easy to demonstrate.



In other words, you don't have anything to say about Mao's comment that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional".

No surprise there then...:rolleyes:

You haven't proved anything. I am willing to negate your theory step by step, so that you cannot divert the thread. Stop lying and dodging my questions, and we will soon see what your theory amounts to.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You haven't proved anything. I am willing to negate your theory step by step, so that you cannot divert the thread. Stop lying and dodging my questions, and we will soon see what your theory amounts to.

Well, if you could you would have done so by now.

The fact you haven't indicates you can't.

And you still haven't anything to say about Mao's comment that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional".

[Hit The North]

Scaredy Cat:
Well, one mod has trashed both our posts, so I do not know where the plural "mods" came from -- nor why your finger is pointed only at me; your posts were trashed too.


Apologies, Rosa, if I inadvertently trashed any of your relevant posts in my rush to make this thread readable.

Red Cat, Rosa is correct. Your posts were equally, if not more so, devoid of a serious attempt to argue your case. You have no high ground to take.

It's a pity that this thread has resumed its former "stand off". :(

[red cat]

Red Cat, Rosa is correct. Your posts were equally, if not more so, devoid of a serious attempt to argue your case. You have no high ground to take.



I have argued my case all over many times. But from the other side I was hardly met with anything but lies and skillful dodging. Until that is taken care of, I can only reply to Rosa's reactionary posts by insisting that she reply honestly.

If you want to see a speedy conclusion to this debate, then ask a few somewhat neutral people to mediate, and I won't need much time to expose the voidness of anti dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I have argued my case all over many times. But from the other side I was hardly met with anything but lies and skilful dodging. Until that is taken care of, I can only reply to Rosa's reactionary posts by insisting that she reply honestly.

In fact you have made no attempt to comment on Mao's claim that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional".

Nor have you attempted to show where my proof that your 'conditional theory' of change makes change impossible.


If you want to see a speedy conclusion to this debate, then ask a few somewhat neutral people to mediate, and I won't need much time to expose the voidness of anti dialectics.

Brave words from someone who can't show where a simple argument of mine goes wrong.:lol:

[BTB: please note how this comrade will ignore the above yet again.]

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In fact you have made no attempt to comment on Mao's claim that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional".

Nor have you attempted to show where my proof that your 'conditional theory' of change makes change impossible.



Brave words from someone who can't show where a simple argument of mine goes wrong.:lol:

[BTB: please note how this comrade will ignore the above yet again.]

In other words, you are scared of a proper debate. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


In other words, you are scared of a proper debate.

Brave words once again from someone who cannot bring him/herself:

1) To comment on Mao's declaration that the 'stuggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) Cannot respond to my proof that his/her 'theory of conditional change' implies change is impossible.

[BTB: please note how this comrade will ignore the above yet again.]

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Brave words once again from someone who cannot bring him/herself:

1) To comment on Mao's declaration that the 'stuggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) Cannot respond to my proof that his/her 'theory of conditional change' implies change is impossible.

[BTB: please note how this comrade will ignore the above yet again.]

First you back up your claims with some proof. Let us see a survey that confirms your claim that the proletariat ignores dialectics.

[BTB: please note how this reactionary will ignore the above.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


First you back up your claims with some proof. Let us see a survey that confirms your claim that the proletariat ignores dialectics.

[BTB: please note how this reactionary will ignore the above.]

The title of this thread is "Mao's Theory of Change", not "Whatever Scaredy Cat wants to drag in".

Now, if you have nothing constructive to add, or no comment to make about these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'stuggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that his/her 'theory of conditional change' implies change is impossible,

then naff off and start your own thread.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



The title of this thread is "Mao's Theory of Change", not "Whatever Scaredy Cat wants to drag in".

Now, if you have nothing constructive to add, or no comment to make about these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'stuggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that his/her 'theory of conditional change' implies change is impossible,

then naff off and start your own thread.

Yes, the title of this thread is "Mao's Theory of Change", not "Whatever Rafflesia wants to claim". Either support your claim with a survey, or admit that you were wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Yes, the title of this thread is "Mao's Theory of Change", not "Whatever Rafflesia wants to claim". Either support your claim with a survey, or admit that you were wrong

But it's my thread, and it's also clear that you want to avoid discussing the topic of this thread, and thus these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'stuggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that his/her 'theory of conditional change' implies change is impossible.

So, if you want to debate something else, start your own thread.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



But it's my thread, and it's also clear that you want to avoid discussing the topic of this thread, and thus these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'stuggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that his/her 'theory of conditional change' implies change is impossible.

So, if you want to debate something else, start your own thread.

That does not mean that you will get away by claiming anything you want in this thread. The fact that the proletariat does not ignore dialectics is a strong evidence of it being proved largely(if not fully) correct through revolutionary practice.

And if you want me out of this thread, then say so. But that way you will also lose the right to post in any thread where the thread starter will specify that you are not wanted there.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


That does not mean that you will get away by claiming anything you want in this thread. The fact that the proletariat does not ignore dialectics is a strong evidence of it being proved largely(if not fully) correct through revolutionary practice.

Can you stay on topic, please? This thread is about Mao's theory of change.


And if you want me out of this thread, then say so. But that way you will also lose the right to post in any thread where the thread starter will specify that you are not wanted there.

No, I actually want you to stay on topic and comment on these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

If you have nothing to say about these, then at least be honest and admit it (ha, some hope!).

On the other hand, if you want to debate something else, start your own thread.

But, you already knew that...:rolleyes:

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Can you stay on topic, please? This thread is about Mao's theory of change.



No, I actually want you to stay on topic and comment on these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

If you have nothing to say about these, then at least be honest and admit it (ha, some hope!).

On the other hand, if you want to debate something else, start your own thread.

But, you already knew that...:rolleyes:

You are trying to divert the thread again. I am attacking your claim that the proletariat has always ignored dialectics. Either back up your claim with some proof or admit that you are wrong. That will prove the practical validity of dialectics.

[red cat]

red_cat, have you read this? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1691425&postcount=2)

Yes.

EDIT: Muzk, please stop this game of making posts and deleting them the next second.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You are trying to divert the thread again. I am attacking your claim that the proletariat has always ignored dialectics. Either back up your claim with some proof or admit that you are wrong. That will prove the practical validity of dialectics.

In fact, this thread is about Mao's theory of change (check the title if you do not believe me), and I have remained on topic on this subject all the way through (despite your many attempts to divert us into mathematics, etc.).

And we already know why you have been doing this sort of thing for months; you have no reply to make to these sorts of issues:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In fact, this thread is about Mao's theory of change (check the title if you do not believe me), and I have remained on topic on this subject all the way through (despite your many attempts to divert us into mathematics, etc.).

And we already know why you have been doing this sort of thing for months; you have no reply to make to these sorts of issues:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

Why are you not responding to my challenge ? I have already shown how it is related to the thread. Trying to escape yet again ? :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Why are you not responding to my challenge ? I have already shown how it is related to the thread. Trying to escape yet again ?

A) Well, I have been challenging you about the following for several months (here and in that other thread):

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible,

and you have been ignoring them.

B) This thread is about Mao's theory of change, and you are off topic (again!).

So, rotate that dissembling finger through 180 degrees, and point it at yourself.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



A) Well, I have been challenging you about the following for several months (here and in that other thread):

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible,

and you have been ignoring them.

B) This thread is about Mao's theory of change, and you are off topic (again!).

So, rotate that dissembling finger through 180 degrees, and point it at yourself.

But you are the one who made that off-topic claim. So you are the one who should prove it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


But you are the one who made that off-topic claim. So you are the one who should prove it.

And I have already told you that I will reply to you when you respond to my prior challenges to you:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



And I have already told you that I will reply to you when you respond to my prior challenges to you:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

In other words, anti-dialectics boils down to making false claims and lame excuses for not proving them. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


In other words, anti-dialectics boils down to making false claims and lame excuses for not proving them.

But, I have proved that Mao's 'theory' of change is defective, and, if true, would make change impossible. You have yet to say where I go wrong.

Moreover, I have also shown that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it's impossible, too.

Just as I have shown that Mao argued that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", something you refuse to even consider...

Not only won't you defend Mao, your prevarication, lasting now several months, shows you can't.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



But, I have proved that Mao's 'theory' of change is defective, and, if true, would make change impossible. You have yet to say where I go wrong.

Moreover, I have also shown that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it's impossible, too.

Just as I have shown that Mao argued that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", something you refuse to even consider...

Not only won't you defend Mao, your prevarication, lasting now several months, shows you can't.

You will post anything except any proof supporting your claim, won't you ? Why claim something that you can't prove? :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You will post anything except any proof supporting your claim, won't you ? Why claim something that you can't prove?

Maybe so, maybe not, but one thing is for sure, you can't respond to these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Maybe so, maybe not, but one thing is for sure, you can't respond to these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

Actually the thing we are sure about is that the proletariat, through its revolutionary practice, has rejected all other theories except dialectics. Therefore it is the best theory we have got as of now. Every attempted negation of dialectics is invalid until the proletariat accepts it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Actually the thing we are sure about is that the proletariat, through its revolutionary practice, has rejected all other theories except dialectics. Therefore it is the best theory we have got as of now. Every attempted negation of dialectics is invalid until the proletariat accepts it.

[More off topic ramblings from the Scaredy Cat...:rolleyes:]

Except you are totally incapable of showing where my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change goes wrong, just as you seem to be incapable of responding to these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



[More off topic ramblings from the Scaredy Cat...:rolleyes:]

Except you are totally incapable of showing where my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change goes wrong, just as you seem to be incapable of responding to these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

[More attempts from Rafflesia to escape reality :rolleyes:]

Except you are totally incapable of establishing anti dialectics as correct or acceptable because you refuse to prove your claim.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Except you are totally incapable of establishing anti dialectics as correct or acceptable because you refuse to prove your claim

Well, this thread is about Mao's 'theory' of change, so please try to stay on topic.

In that case, unless you have something useful to say in defence of Mao, against my demolition of his 'theory' of change, or these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible,

then at least admit it. [Ha! some hope...]

And I have proved my claim: that Mao's 'theory' implies change is impossibe.

What you have failed to do is show where I go wrong.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Well, this thread is about Mao's 'theory' of change, so please try to stay on topic.

In that case, unless you have something useful to say in defence of Mao, against my demolition of his 'theory' of change, or these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible,

then at least admit it. [Ha! some hope...]

Theory cannot be separated from practice. The fact that you fail to prove that the proletariat ignores dialectics is enough evidence to indicate the validity of dialectics.

[Dimentio]

I think this thread is validating Mao's notion that change is impossible. Several months, and you are still stomping on the same ground.

[red cat]

I think this thread is validating Mao's notion that change is impossible. Several months, and you are still stomping on the same ground.

Ah so Rosa wins at last ! :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dimentio:


I think this thread is validating Mao's notion that change is impossible. Several months, and you are still stomping on the same ground.

And that is because Scaredy Cat here refuses to, or cannot defend Mao

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Ah so Rosa wins at last !

Well, you abandoned the argument months ago. Originally, you made a few pathetic attempts to show where I went wrong, but when that failed you switched tactics, and have been trying to divert attention from you incapacity to defend Mao ever since. So, if I have 'won', it's because you have allowed me to.


Theory cannot be separated from practice. The fact that you fail to prove that the proletariat ignores dialectics is enough evidence to indicate the validity of dialectics.

In other words, you can't show where my demolitionon of Mao's 'theory' of change goes wrong, or expose the errors in my proof that your 'theory' of conditional change makes change impossible, too.

Moreover, practice has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion of Mao's comment that 'the struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", something you have been trying to ignore for weeks.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Well, you abandoned the argument months ago. Originally, you made a few pathetic attempts to show where I went wrong, but when that failed you switched tactics, and have been trying to divert attention from you incapacity to defend Mao ever since. So, if I have 'won', it's because you have allowed me to.



In other words, you can't show where my demolitionon of Mao's 'theory' of change goes wrong, or expose the errors in my proof that your 'theory' of conditional change makes change impossible, too.

Moreover, practice has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion of Mao's comment that 'the struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", something you have been trying to ignore for weeks.

Still no response to my challenge. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Still no response to my challenge.

You have already been told the following, so please take note of it this time:


And I have already told you that I will reply to you when you respond to my prior challenges to you:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' implies it is impossible.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



You have already been told the following, so please take note of it this time:

As I have said before; in other words, anti-dialectics boils down to making false claims and lame excuses for not proving them. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


As I have said before; in other words, anti-dialectics boils down to making false claims and lame excuses for not proving them

As now seems plain, you are not posting in this thread in order to address its main topic: Mao's 'theory' of change, and thus you have no answer to my demolition of his 'theory'.

Nor have you any intention of commenting on these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' also implies change is impossible.

There are other threads here where you can post your opinions about anti-dialectics, or you can start your own. But your delaying and diversionary tactics are impressing no one other than your fellow MLM-clones (none of whom can defend Mao, either).

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



As now seems plain, you are not posting in this thread in order to address its main topic: Mao's 'theory' of change, and thus you have no aswer to my demolition of his 'theory'.

Nor have you any intention of commenting on these:

1) Mao's declaration that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute and unconditional", and,

2) My proof that your 'theory of conditional change' also implies change is impossible.

There are other threads here where you can post your opinions about anti-dialectics, or you can start your own. But your delaying and diversionary tactics are impressing no one other than your fellow MLM-clones.

As is now plain, you are desperately trying to cover up the fact that your claim was false. But your delaying and diversionary tactics are impressing no one other than your blind disciples.

[Dermezel]

Dermezel, thanks for posting much that is not relevant to what I have said;

It totally refutes what you said. He like breaks it down into super-technical points and shows in complete detail how you are wrong.


You need to show where this argument goes wrong:

1) Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao (along with many others) argue that all change is a struggle of opposites, and

As Caudwell notes this is a conditional term. He means two different objects like A and non-A. He doesn't mean literal dualist opposites like Yin Yang or anything weird like that.


2) Every object and process in the universe changes into its opposite.

I don't see how that is, and Caudwell refuted that by noting that the change is asymmetrical. If anyone did say that, they are wrong and it is ridiculous.

Like if someone says well tomorrow I'm going to turn into a capitalist just because today I was a communist, that's way ridiculous, almost religious.


3) But that can't happen, since that opposite already exists. If it didn't, then there could be no struggle, and thus not change.

Okay look I even agree with you about weird opposites turning into each other, and I still say your reasoning's wrong. That's like saying man couldn't have evolved from monkey's because monkeys still exist.

Like if I am going to turn into a capitalist, the fact that capitalists exist doesn't mean I can't become a capitalist. That makes no sense at all.


4) Either way, nothing can change.

5) Hence, if this 'theory' were true, change would be impossible.

Okay, yeah if you define the universe as a mystical place where everything changes into its exact opposite at the same time then yeah. But Caudwell doesn't present Dialectics that way. Ilyenkov doesn't. Engels doesn't.

I think you are just equating dialectical idealism with dialectical materialism.

Now, I have answered every objection that Red Cat (and many others, in other threads here) have thrown at me. Want to add your objections?


Relative or absolute, what the above classicists say implies change is impossible.

Wait no, sorry man but that's a very important point. If you are saying all dialectical statements are absolute you are making a straw man argument.

Like I don't even know what that would mean. Like every material object is absolute and cannot change? Or our categories have to be absolute? That literally doesn't make any sense given a normal dictionary definition of the word absolute.

With respect to this Caudwell, Ilyenkov, Mao and Engels are relativists. They see change as part of a cause and effect relationship.

–adjective5.considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative merits of democracy and monarchy.

6.existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: Happiness is relative.

7.having relation or connection.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relative

Like you are ignoring some way important distinctions. Like the definition of opposites as relational entities, and how Dialectical Materialism presents contradictions and change as relative things.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


As is now plain, you are desperately trying to cover up the fact that your claim was false. But your delaying and diversionary tactics are impressing no one other than your blind disciples.

Still refusing to stay on topic and defend Mao, I see.

At least Dermazel makes some sort of effort, putting you to shame.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Still refusing to stay on topic and defend Mao, I see.

Still refusing to stay on the topic you raised and defend your claim, I see.




At least Dermazel makes some sort of effort, putting you to shame.

Very soon he will realize that all his painstakingly written posts are nothing in front of a diverter and dodger like you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dermezel:


It totally refutes what you said. He like breaks it down into super-technical points and shows in complete detail how you are wrong.

1) I have read it many times and I still can't see it; that is why I asked you to highlight the sections where you think he does this.

2) I suspect you think Caudwell was psychic, since he wrote this material over 60 years before I constructed my arguments!

But seriously, how could Caudwell refute arguments he had never seen, and which are totally original to me.


As Caudwell notes this is a conditional term. He means two different objects like A and non-A. He doesn't mean literal dualist opposites like Yin Yang or anything weird like that.

But, and once more, what has this got to do with my argument?


I don't see how that is, and Caudwell refuted that by noting that the change is asymmetrical. If anyone did say that, they are wrong and it is ridiculous.

Then your knowledge of the dialectical classics leaves something to be desired. In fact, in the posts you plainly skim-read, where I set out my demolition of the 'dialectic theory' of change, I also quoted Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao (along with many other, lesser figures), who explicitly tell us, over and over that:

1) Every object/process in the entire universe changes as a result of a 'struggle of opposites', and

2) That they all change into their opposites.

3) This is not possible, and for the reasons I outlined.

You can find the quotations here:

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

And even more at my site, here:

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

[Note 10b1.]

So, it is not easy to see how you can argue that Caudwell has refuted my argument ([I]one he did not see) when it is plain you do not even know what the 'dialectical theory' of change is!


Like if someone says well tomorrow I'm going to turn into a capitalist just because today I was a communist, that's way ridiculous, almost religious.

Eh?:confused:


Okay look I even agree with you about weird opposites turning into each other, and I still say your reasoning's wrong. That's like saying man couldn't have evolved from monkey's because monkeys still exist.

Well , I took care of that objection months ago. Here is it's general form (I will make it concrete later):

Let us suppose that in evolution there were a series of sub-evolutionary changes that slowly led from an ape-like ancestor to man: S(1), S(2), S(3),..., S(k-1), S(k), S(k+1),..., S(n-1), S(n), where S(n) is the final stage that leads to, or constitutes, modern man. So S(2) is what S(1) changes into, and so on.

Now, according to the dialectical classics, every object/process in the entire universe (without exception, according to Mao) changes because of a 'struggle of opposites', and it turns into that opposite.

1) So, for example, in the above, S(1) and S(2) must be opposites, and they must turn into one another.

2) But, in order to do that, they must struggle with one another.

3) And yet, that is impossible since S(2) does not yet exist, since S(1) has not yet changed into it!

4) But, in that case, S(1) and S(2) cannot 'struggle', since S(2) does not yet exist!

5) On the other hand, if S(2) already exists, then S(1) can't change into it, since it already exists!

So, no matter how you try to re-package this 'theory; it still implies that change is impossible.

Now, in order to make this more concrete, let us assume that there was a group of human beings who were the first to be recognisably homo sapiens. Call them H(n). Let P(1) be an individual in that group.

In order for P(1) to come into existence, a series of events must have led to his/her conception and development. Now, if we trace P(1) backwards, we have series of stages/processes that led up to P(1) being born. Call this backward series F(n), F(n-1), F(n-2),..., F(0), where F(0) is the moment of conception, and "F" stands for "foetal stage".

1) But according to the dialectical classics, in order, say, for F(n-k) to turn into F(n-k+1), these have to 'struggle' with one another, since every object and process in the universe struggles with what it turns into.

2) But, in order to do that F(n-k+1) must already exist, otherwise they could not 'struggle'.

3) If so, F(n-k) cannot change into F(n-k+1) since it already exists!

4) If it didn't already exist, there could be no 'struggle'.

Once more, no matter how we try to slice this up, or howsoever much we descend into the fine detail of this and other processes and sub-processes, this 'theory' implies change is impossible.

This is not surprising since my original refutation was completely general.


Okay, yeah if you define the universe as a mystical place where everything changes into its exact opposite at the same time then yeah. But Caudwell doesn't present Dialectics that way. Ilyenkov doesn't. Engels doesn't.

Engels does, so does Plekhanov, so does Lenin, so does Mao...

And they were wise to do so, since they derived this 'theory' from Hegel who was attempting to provide an answer to Hume's criticism of rationalist theories of causation. Hegel postulated for each object and process a unique opposite (called its 'other'), which was logically connected (via determinate negation) to the original object/process. This provided him with the logical link between events that Hume had denied existed. Now, if you throw these logical opposites away, the whole theory of change becomes susceptible to Hume's criticisms again.

Hence, this was a genuine attempt to provide a theory of change, and Engels, Lenin and Mao knew what they were doing when they appropriated it. The problem is that this theory only works in an ideal form; as soon as it is translated into material terms, it falls apart, in the above manner.


I think you are just equating dialectical idealism with dialectical materialism.

In fact, I contend there is little difference between them


Now, I have answered every objection that Red Cat (and many others, in other threads here) have thrown at me. Want to add your objections?

No so; you have skipped past most of them!


Wait no, sorry man but that's a very important point. If you are saying all dialectical statements are absolute you are making a straw man argument.

Well, I am saying nothing; I just quote Mao and Lenin who tell us that the 'struggle of opposites ' is "absolute".


Like I don't even know what that would mean. Like every material object is absolute and cannot change? Or our categories have to be absolute? That literally doesn't make any sense given a normal dictionary definition of the word absolute.

This relates to nothing I have said, or argued, so I'm not sure why you have posted it.


With respect to this Caudwell, Ilyenkov, Mao and Engels are relativists. They see change as part of a cause and effect relationship.

Once more, Lenin and Mao said that the 'struggle of opposites' is "absolute", and they did so for the reasons I outlined earlier (in order to answer Hume's objections).


–adjective5.considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative merits of democracy and monarchy.

6.existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: Happiness is relative.

7.having relation or connection.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relative

Like you are ignoring some way important distinctions. Like the definition of opposites as relational entities, and how Dialectical Materialism presents contradictions and change as relative things.

I'm quite happy with this distinction, but I have yet to see how it affects any of the things I have argued here or in earlier posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Very soon he will realize that all his painstakingly written posts are nothing in front of a diverter and dodger like you.

In this debate, you are now an irrelevance. Dermezel puts you to shame.

At least he/she makes some attempt to show where I am wrong -- you gave up months ago

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In this debate, you are now an irrelevance. Dermezel puts you to shame.

Indeed. I am so irrelevant that you are more or less obsessed with replying to my posts, no matter how devoid of content your replies may be. :lol:



At least he/she makes some attempt to show where I am wrong -- you gave up months ago What can I do if you make claims and refuse to prove them? Till now you have shown no sign of trying to back your claim that the proletariat has always ignored dialectics with any survey.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Indeed. I am so irrelevant that you are more or less obsessed with replying to my posts, no matter how devoid of content your replies may be.

In fact, I said this:


In this debate, you are now an irrelevance. Dermezel puts you to shame.

And that is becasue you have given up defending Mao (in a thread about his 'theory' of change). A few months ago, you did try to put up a rather weak defence, and were worth responding to. That is no longer the case.

Unless you have something relevant to add in defence of Mao, all you will get from me is a reminder of how irrelvant you have become.


What can I do if you make claims and refuse to prove them? Till now you have shown no sign of trying to back your claim that the proletariat has always ignored dialectics with any survey.

Once more, this is irrelevant to the point of this thread, as you have been told many times.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In fact, I said this:



And that is becasue you have given up defending Mao (in a thread about his 'theory' of change). A few months ago, you did try to put up a rather weak defence, and were worth responding to. That is no longer the case.


Quite confusing, because you still reply to my posts. Of course, your replies have always been lacking logic. :lol:



Unless you have something relevant to add in defence of Mao, all you will get from me is a reminder of how irrelvant you have become.



Once more, this is irrelevant to the point of this thread, as you have been told many times.It is relevant to the thread. You are trying to avoid the topic because you cannot prove your claim with a survey.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Quite confusing, because you still reply to my posts. Of course, your replies have always been lacking logic.

Only to point out how irrelevant you have now become.


It is relevant to the thread. You are trying to avoid the topic because you cannot prove your claim with a survey

No, this thread is about Mao's 'theory' of change, a topic you have given up discussing, since it is now plain you have nothing worthwhile to say.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Only to point out how irrelevant you have now become.



No, this thread is about Mao's 'theory' of change, a topic you have given up discussing, since it is now plain you have nothing worthwhile to say.

In other words, you have no hope of defending the claim you made, because it is false.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Irrelevant:


In other words, you have no hope of defending the claim you made, because it is false.

Off topic. Defend Mao or stay irrelevant.

[red cat]

Irrelevant:



Off topic. Defend Mao or stay irrelevant.

Prove your claim or admit that you can't. It is not off topic; you made the claim yourself and now you are calling it off-topic because you want to escape from proving it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Irrelevant:


Prove your claim or admit that you can't. It is not off topic; you made the claim yourself and now you are calling it off-topic because you want to escape from proving it.

This thread is about Mao's 'theory of change, and you are still irrelevant.

[red cat]

Irrelevant:



This thread is about Mao's 'theory of change, and you are still irrelevant.

Every post of yours is irrelevant until you defend your claim. Your inability to prove that claim is enough evidence to show that MLMist dialectics is the best theory so far for conducting revolution.

[Dermezel]

Scaredy Cat:



Still refusing to stay on topic and defend Mao, I see.

At least Dermazel makes some sort of effort, putting you to shame.

I am not putting anyone to shame, and you keep ignoring the point on how your philosophical stance cannot establish heuristic principles which is a critical weakness. That means you cannot technically get past solipsism or other types of subjective idealism, or even make statements regarding empirical probabilities.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Irrelevant:


Every post of yours is irrelevant until you defend your claim. Your inability to prove that claim is enough evidence to show that MLMist dialectics is the best theory so far for conducting revolution.

Off topic.

Still irrelevant to the title of this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dermezel:


I am not putting anyone to shame, and you keep ignoring the point on how your philosophical stance cannot establish heuristic principles which is a critical weakness.

You might not think so, but the fact that you are at least trying to defend this 'theory' of yours does in fact put Irrelevant here to shame, whether you intend to do so or not.

And, what 'heuristic principles' do you mean? And what have they got to do with whether or not my argument works?


That means you cannot technically get past solipsism or other types of subjective idealism, or even make statements regarding empirical probabilities.

This is a rather wild accusation to make. Can you back it up with evidence or argument?

If not, please withdraw it.

[Dimentio]

I feel almost compelled to post the argument sketch from Monty Python here...

[red cat]

Irrelevant:



Off topic.

Still irrelevant to the title of this thread.

Irrelevant until you prove your claim.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Irrelevant:


Irrelevant until you prove your claim.

Still off-topic...:(

[By the way, you're on your own now. Dermezel has just been restricted for Eurocentric racism and national chauvinism.]

[red cat]

Irrelevant:



Still off-topic...:(

[By the way, you're on your own now. Dermezel has just been restricted for Eurocentric racism and national chauvinism.]

Still irrelevant. :(

And still no sign of proving your claims. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


Still irrelevant.

Indeed, you are.


And still no sign of proving your claims.

The title of this thread is "Mao's 'theory' of change"; I'd suggest you at least tried to stay on-topic, but it's clear you have no intention of doing so.

[red cat]

Off-Topic:



Indeed, you are.



The title of this thread is "Mao's 'theory' of change"; I'd suggest you at least tried to stay on-topic, but it's clear you have no intention of doing so.

Does this mean that you think your claim was off-topic ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


Does this mean that you think your claim was off-topic ?

Your question is...er...erm...what's that word I'm looking for...oh yes "off-topic".

[red cat]

Off-Topic:


Does this mean that you think your claim was off-topic ?

Your question is...er...erm...what's that word I'm looking for...oh yes "off-topic".

Good strategy. Anything you fail to answer is "off-topic". :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


Good strategy. Anything you fail to answer is "off-topic".

Well done -- off topic yet again.

[red cat]

Off-Topic:



Well done -- off topic yet again.

It would be easier for you to admit that your claim was false than trying to dodge the challenge so desperately. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


It would be easier for you to admit that your claim was false than trying to dodge the challenge so desperately.

Check the title of this thread; your comment is off-topic.

[red cat]

Off-Topic:



Check the title of this thread; your comment is off-topic.

No it is not. Dialectics is associated with Maoist theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


No it is not. Dialectics is associated with Maoist theory.

Sorry, off-topic again.:(

But, don't give up; by sheer luck you might be able to post on-topic one day... :rolleyes:

[red cat]

Off-Topic:



Sorry, off-topic again.:(

But, don't give up; by sheer luck you might be able to post on-topic one day... :rolleyes:

Don't give up; by sheer luck you might be able to debate honestly one day :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


Don't give up; by sheer luck you might be able to debate honestly one day

Nope, still off-topic. Have another try...

[red cat]

Off-Topic:



Nope, still off-topic. Have another try...

Still trying to escape ? Have another try at proving your claim. :lol:

[Ramon Mercador]

Here we see why Trotskyism is just retarded and Marxism-Leninism actually makes sense.

Long live Stalin.

[Dimentio]

Now we cut the off topic discussion I say.

Did Mao mean what he wrote literally or figuratively? Should he be interpreted literally or teleologically?

[red cat]

Now we cut the off topic discussion I say.

Did Mao mean what he wrote literally or figuratively? Should he be interpreted literally or teleologically?

No need of asking that here, because Rosa will definitely change the topic. I am explaining dialectics in the thread on Trotskyism. Read the last few posts of mine there and ask specific questions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dimentio, as you can see from this thread, which is specifically about Mao's 'theory' of change, it's Red Cat here who keeps avoiding this topic, while I keep trying to get him/her back on-topic.

If you don't believe me, just re-read Red Cat's responses to my attempts to get him/her back on-topic.

And I have already tackled the 'objection' that Mao meant his words to be taken figuratively (etc.) in a reply to Red Cat, and More Fire for the People (who ignored my reply to Red Cat on this), in the Mao thread in Theory.

As that reply shows, Mao used word like "concrete", "absolute", "universal", "unconditional" and "without exception" to describe his 'theory' that objects change because of a struggle between opposites, all the while maintaining that these objects all change into one another. But this is not possible, since those opposites already exist. If they didn't, then they could not engage in struggle. [I can re-post it if you doubt me.]

Red Cat has tried every dodge, ploy, diversionary tactic, off-topic post, irrelevant comment, and smokescreen he/she can think of to distract attention from the fact that he/she has no answer to this objection.

Now, if I were to do this in someone else's thread, I'd be accused of spamming, and give an warning. In fact, I have been. Apparently, it's OK for Red Cat to do this.:confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


Still trying to escape ? Have another try at proving your claim

Sorry, still off-topic.:(

[red cat]

Off-Topic:



Sorry, still off-topic.:(

Come here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-theory-t131796/index.html) if you want to debate properly. Let others find out who goes off-topic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Off-Topic:


Come here if you want to debate properly. Let others find out who goes off-topic.

Still off-topic...:(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

So, is there a Maoist anywhere who can defend Mao's defective 'theory' of change, now Red Cat has given up (not that he/she tried very hard)?

[red cat]

So, is there a Maoist anywhere who can defend Mao's defective 'theory' of change, now Red Cat has given up (not that he/she tried very hard)?
^
Off-topic and false.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I thought that would wake you up.:)

But, and once more, you have yet to show where my demolition of Mao's 'theory' goes wrong.

In fact, over the last month or two, you have simply ignored it!

[red cat]

^^^I thought that would wake you up.:)

But, and once more, you have yet to show where my demolition of Mao's 'theory' goes wrong.

In fact, over the last month or two, you have simply ignored it!

Proofs proceed step by step. The first step at this point depends on whether you can prove your claim on the proletariat ignoring dialectics by providing a suitable survey or not. I refuse to proceed to the next step or answer any other question until you prove your claim with a survey.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Proofs proceed step by step. The first step at this point depends on whether you can prove your claim on the proletariat ignoring dialectics by providing a suitable survey or not. I refuse to proceed to the next step or answer any other question until you prove your claim with a survey.

My proof does not involve that step.

Here it is again (aimed both at your 'conditional' version, and Mao's 'unconditional version'); see if you can spot any mention of the proletariat:

First, here is Mao:


The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things.

We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.


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.


The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception.


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.

Bold added.

Conditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

2) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

7) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

8) Hence, Mao's theory ('conditional version') implies change is impossible.

Unconditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P".

2) According to Mao, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists!

7) If P* didn't already exist, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change.

8) Hence, Mao's unconditional theory implies change is impossible.

Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Did you see any mention of the proletariat in the above? No.

Now, these demolitions are completely general, and apply to every form of change in the entire universe, and for all of time, as Mao sees things.

So, I have been asking you for over six months, and you have yet to provide an effective reply: where do these go wrong?


I refuse to proceed to the next step or answer any other question until you prove your claim with a survey.

Suit yourself, but as the above demolitions do not depend on this latest red herring of yours, the only result will be that you will leave my refutation of Mao in place, with no effective response, once more.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



My proof does not involve that step.

Here it is again (aimed both at your 'conditional' version, and Mao's 'unconditional version'); see if you can spot any mention of the proletariat:

First, here is Mao:









Bold added.

Conditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

2) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

7) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

8) Hence, Mao's theory ('conditional version') implies change is impossible.

Unconditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P".

2) According to Mao, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists!

7) If P* didn't already exist, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change.

8) Hence, Mao's unconditional theory implies change is impossible.

Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Did you see any mention of the proletariat in the above? No.

Now, these demolitions are completely general, and apply to every form of change in the entire universe, and for all of time, as Mao sees things.

So, I have been asking you for over six months, and you have yet to provide an effective reply: where do these go wrong?



Suit yourself, but as the above demolitions do not depend on this latest red herring of yours, the only result will be that you will leave my refutation of Mao in place, with no effective response, once more.

The technique of my negation of your proof will not strictly depend line by line on the ones you have used. So I need you to clarify some of the claims you made.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


The technique of my negation of your proof will not strictly depend line by line on the ones you have used. So I need you to clarify some of the claims you made

But, I make no claims (except the last one: "Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible"). I just take what Mao says, and work out the ridiculous consequences.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



But, I make no claims (except the last one: "Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible"). I just take what Mao says, and work out the ridiculous consequences.

You had claimed that the proletariat has ignored dialectics so far. That is what I am referring to. Prove your claim with a survey.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You had claimed that the proletariat has ignored dialectics so far. That is what I am referring to. Prove your claim with a survey.

Where does that appear in my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change? Point me to the line.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Where does that appear in my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change? Point me to the line.

Does not have to appear in those few sentences. Once you have made the claim I am free to use it or its negation in my proof. This is why the validity of your claims need to be checked.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Does not have to appear in those few sentences. Once you have made the claim I am free to use it or its negation in my proof. This is why the validity of your claims need to be checked.

Go on then, use it -- it's still irrelevant to my demolition, which remains standing until you show where I go wrong.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Go on then, use it -- it's still irrelevant to my demolition, which remains standing until you show where I go wrong.

Before using them I need to check whether they are valid or not. The claims are yours, so the burden of proof lies upon you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat (still prevaricating):


Before using them I need to check whether they are valid or not. The claims are yours, so the burden of proof lies upon you.

So, in other words, you can't show where my demolition goes wrong.:(

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat (still prevaricating):



So, in other words, you can't show where my demolition goes wrong.:(

In other words, you have made some false claims that you cannot prove.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


In other words, you have made some false claims that you cannot prove.

My demolition is based on the assumption that Mao spoke the truth.

Of course, if you think he lied, then what can I say?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



My demolition is based on the assumption that Mao spoke the truth.

Of course, if you think he lied, then what can I say?

I need the proofs of your claims first, not Mao's.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I need the proofs of your claims first, not Mao's.

You seem to be goung round in circles in your desperate attempt to put off the evil day where you actually have to confront my demolition of Mao's 'theory', but, as I pointed out earlier, I make no claims (except perhaps the last one: "Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible").

I just take what Mao says, and work out the ridiculous consequences.

Go on, check it again: no claims anywhere in sight:


First, here is Mao:


The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things.

We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.


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.


The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception.


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.

Bold added.

Conditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

2) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

7) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

8) Hence, Mao's theory ('conditional version') implies change is impossible.

Unconditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P".

2) According to Mao, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists!

7) If P* didn't already exist, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change.

8) Hence, Mao's unconditional theory implies change is impossible.

Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Did you see any mention of the proletariat in the above? No.

Now, these demolitions are completely general, and apply to every form of change in the entire universe, and for all of time, as Mao sees things.

So, I have been asking you for over six months, and you have yet to provide an effective reply: where do these go wrong?


I refuse to proceed to the next step or answer any other question until you prove your claim with a survey.

Suit yourself, but as the above demolitions do not depend on this latest red herring of yours, the only result will be that you will leave my refutation of Mao in place, with no effective response, once more.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



You seem to be goung round in circles in your desperate attempt to put off the evil day where you actually have to confront my demolition of Mao's 'theory', but, as I pointed out earlier, I make no claims (except perhaps the last one: "Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible").

I just take what Mao says, and work out the ridiculous consequences.

Go on, check it again: no claims anywhere in sight:

What is this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1693267&postcount=42) then ?

Rafflesia:


In fact, they have never accepted it. Indeed, and to their credit, they ignore it in their billions.:)

[shiroscott]

Mao is a very good political leader I admire him.

[red cat]

Mao is a very good political leader I admire him.

Stand appreciated, but posts should be more elaborate.

[S.Artesian]

You know what I wonder? I wonder about Marx's theory of change... you know the one about history and class struggle; the one that talks about the labor process and the expropriation of that labor through its conversion into forms of property; the one that talks about how those property relations, the alienation of the labor process, are transformed from vehicles for the development of the means of production into obstacles to such development.

Is there a logic in that theory of change; and if so can it be refuted?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


What is this then ?

It's an allegation that has nothing to do with my demolition of Mao's 'theory', as you have been told several times.

Now, if you want to drag irrelevances in again, then fine.

But in that case, my demolition still stands.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

shiroscott:


Mao is a very good political leader I admire him.

Mao worship is not relevant to defending his defective 'theory' of change, so why post this comment here?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


You know what I wonder? I wonder about Marx's theory of change... you know the one about history and class struggle; the one that talks about the labor process and the expropriation of that labor through its conversion into forms of property; the one that talks about how those property relations, the alienation of the labor process, are transformed from vehicles for the development of the means of production into obstacles to such development.

Is there a logic in that theory of change; and if so can it be refuted?

Only if he appealed to the sort of 'dialectical contradictions' Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao (among many others) inserted into his theory.

But, as we have seen, he didn't.:)

[S.Artesian]

But does he, Marx, have a theory of change? And if so what is the basis for that theory, what are its elements, how is change pre-figured, determined, and then made manifest.

Is change both "potential" and "actual" in Marx's theory; can it be latent, can change be manifest?

Does change have an agent, act-ers? If so what makes up that agency, what makes the act-ers, act?

You know, all that nitty-gritty concrete stuff.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


But does he, Marx, have a theory of change? And if so what is the basis for that theory, what are its elements, how is change pre-figured, determined, and then made manifest.

Is change both "potential" and "actual" in Marx's theory; can it be latent, can change be manifest?

Does change have an agent, act-ers? If so what makes up that agency, what makes the act-ers, act?

You know, all that nitty-gritty concrete stuff.

Unfortunately, that is off-topic in this thread.

Anyway, I was hoping you had put me on your 'ignore' list, as you threatened to do...:(

[S.Artesian]

I did, but when Vyborg used the term "hysterical" and that discussion started I wanted to see where it would go.

As for off-topic, sure. Tell you what, I'm going to start a thread about Marx's theory of change.

See if you sign up for a tour of duty when the issue is the world of concrete, not the philosophy of the abstract.

You know what Hegel called the philosophy of the abstract that capitulated before the world of the concrete, don't you Asor?

[red cat]

I did, but when Vyborg used the term "hysterical" and that discussion started I wanted to see where it would go.

As for off-topic, sure. Tell you what, I'm going to start a thread about Marx's theory of change.

See if you sign up for a tour of duty when the issue is the world of concrete, not the philosophy of the abstract.

You know what Hegel called the philosophy of the abstract that capitulated before the world of the concrete, don't you Asor?

I would advise you to ask someone to moderate your thread and trash illogical posts.

[S.Artesian]

OK, thanks

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


I did, but when Vyborg used the term "hysterical" and that discussion started I wanted to see where it would go.

As for off-topic, sure. Tell you what, I'm going to start a thread about Marx's theory of change.

See if you sign up for a tour of duty when the issue is the world of concrete, not the philosophy of the abstract.

And yet, this is the Philosophy section. What else do you expect?


You know what Hegel called the philosophy of the abstract that capitulated before the world of the concrete, don't you Asor?

Even though you make this point with an abstract statement like this, too...:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I would advise you to ask someone to moderate your thread and trash illogical posts.

Yes, like your idea that my allegation about the world proletariat has anything to do with my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Official statement from the Mutual Admiration Society Between 'Trotskyists' and Maoists:


OK, thanks

Right up each others..., aren't you?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Yes, like your idea that my allegation about the world proletariat has anything to do with my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change.:lol:

Why are you so taken back by the idea of a well moderated thread ? :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Why are you so taken back by the idea of a well moderated thread ?

Why can't you read?

Anyway, despite this, my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change still stands.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise.:rolleyes:

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Why can't you read?

Anyway, despite this, my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change still stands.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise.:rolleyes:

You need to prove your claims for that.

[S.Artesian]

Asor,

This type of talk with its sexual innuendo and overt anti-homosexuality is not the least bit odd coming from someone like you who protested sexual harassment when a comrade used the term "hysteria."

[Dean]

Official statement from the Mutual Admiration Society Between 'Trotskyists' and Maoists:



Right up each others..., aren't you?

Rosa, that was unnecessarily provocative and can be seen as flaming. Consider this a Verbal Warning. Provocation is not allowed, either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You need to prove your claims for that.

And yet, my demolition is free-standing, based solely on what Mao wrote.

Once more, if you want to drag irrelevances in, fine by me.

Except, in that case, my demolition of Mao's 'theory' will have gone unchalleged by you.

I can live with that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


This type of talk with its sexual innuendo and overt anti-homosexuality is not the least bit odd coming from someone like you who protested sexual harassment when a comrade used the term "hysteria."

And yet, there was no sexual innuendo, except in your mind.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



And yet, my demolition is free-standing, based solely on what Mao wrote.

Once more, if you want to drag irrelevances in, fine by me.

Except, in that case, my demolition of Mao's 'theory' will have gone unchalleged by you.

I can live with that.

Yes, you can live very well with making outright false claims that you can't prove.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Yes, you can live very well with making outright false claims that you can't prove.

Even if that were so, since that claim has nothing to do with my demoltion of Mao's 'theory', and you seem incapable of responding to that demolition, it still stands.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Even if that were so, since that claim has nothing to do with my demoltion of Mao's 'theory', and you seem incapable of responding to that demolition, it still stands.

It surely does have to do a lot with my proof that negates your so called "demolition". It is pretty strange that you have no intention of proving the claims you make. You know that most of them are false, don't you ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


It surely does have to do a lot with my proof that negates your so called "demolition". It is pretty strange that you have no intention of proving the claims you make. You know that most of them are false, don't you ?

Here's my demolition again. Can you point out where in there this allegedly false claim of mine appears?


First, here's Mao:


The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things.

We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.


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.


The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception.


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.

Bold added.

Conditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

2) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

7) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

8) Hence, Mao's theory ('conditional version') implies change is impossible.

Unconditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P".

2) According to Mao, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists!

7) If P* didn't already exist, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change.

8) Hence, Mao's unconditional theory implies change is impossible.

Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Did you see any mention of the proletariat in the above? No.

Now, these demolitions are completely general, and apply to every form of change in the entire universe, and for all of time, as Mao sees things.

So, I have been asking you for over six months, and you have yet to provide an effective reply: where do these go wrong?


I refuse to proceed to the next step or answer any other question until you prove your claim with a survey.

Suit yourself, but as the above demolitions do not depend on this latest red herring of yours, the only result will be that you will leave my refutation of Mao in place, with no effective response, once more.

I can't see it in there, can you?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Here's my demolition again. Can you point out where in there this allegedly false claim of mine appears?



I can't see it in there, can you?

Whether your claim appears there or not, my proof will use it. Until you prove your claim, your "demolition" is invalid.

[black magick hustla]

this thread is outrageous and wild

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Whether your claim appears there or not, my proof will use it. Until you prove your claim, your "demolition" is invalid.

You have an odd notion of invalidity: an allegation of mine, even if it has nothing to do with my demolition, is somehow capable of invalidating that demolition.

How do you work that out?

Can we all do this? So, if I were to challenge something Mao once said, that would invalidate everything he ever said/argued?

Given your odd view of validity, it seems it must.

Even so, unless and until you show how that allegation of mine is relevant to my demolition, the latter still stands.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



You have an odd notion of invalidity: an allegation of mine, even if it has nothing to do with my demolition, is somehow capable of invalidating that demolition.

How do you work that out?

Can we all do this? So, if I were to challenge something Mao once said, that would invalidate everything he ever said/argued?

Given your odd view of validity, it seems it must.

Even so, unless and until you show how that allegation of mine is relevant to my demolition, the latter still stands.

You prove your claim first or admit that it is false.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You prove your claim first or admit that it is false.

But, what has it got to do with my demolition of Mao's 'theory'?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



But, what has it got to do with my demolition of Mao's 'theory'?

I will tell you that after you prove your claim.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I will tell you that after you prove your claim.

In other words, it has nothing to do with my demolition of Mao's 'theory', otherwise you'd tell me now (since you already think I can't prove this claim).

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In other words, it has nothing to do with my demolition of Mao's 'theory', otherwise you'd tell me now (since you already think I can't prove this claim).

In other words you admit that your claim is false.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


In other words you admit that your claim is false.

I admit no such thing.

But what this means is that until I pander to your attempt to de-rail this thead, and respond in a way that you'll accept, you are stuck, unable to defend Mao.

And that means, of course, that you will remain stuck, unable to show where my demolition fails.

I think I can live with that.:)

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



I admit no such thing.

But what this means is that until I pander to your attempt to de-rail this thead, and respond in a way that you'll accept, you are stuck, unable to defend Mao.

And that means, of course, that you will remain stuck, unable to show where my demolition fails.

I think I can live with that.:)

But by your own logic, if you had a proof of your claim, you would tell me by now because you already think that I cannot disprove your so called "demolition". :)

[Dimentio]

Actually, this thread is the existing proof that two combatants could be locked in an eternal struggle, that they are opposites and that change is impossible. Now I'm only waiting for Rosa and Red Cat to change brains.

:laugh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


But by your own logic, if you had a proof of your claim, you would tell me by now because you already think that I cannot disprove your so called "demolition".

So, you are stuck, and my demolition still stands.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dimentio:


Actually, this thread is the existing proof that two combatants could be locked in an eternal struggle, that they are opposites and that change is impossible. Now I'm only waiting for Rosa and Red Cat to change brains.

But, according to Mao's theory, this could never happen.

Anyway, you tell me: which of the two us is trying to stay on topic in this thread?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



So, you are stuck, and my demolition still stands.

No, you are stuck.

[red cat]

Dimentio:



But, according to Mao's theory, this could never happen.

Anyway, you tell me: which of the two us is trying to stay on topic in this thread?

To make things clearer to everyone, I challenge you to debate in a well moderated thread with no scope of dodging or diverting, much like the one that Little Bobby Hutton started.

[Dimentio]

Dimentio:



But, according to Mao's theory, this could never happen.

Anyway, you tell me: which of the two us is trying to stay on topic in this thread?

I conceal my views to myself regarding that matter. What is fascinating me though is this cosmic struggle of epic proportions which has erupted here regarding a philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


No, you are stuck.

Except, the demolition is still there, waiting for you to refute, and all you can do is p*ss about with irrelevances.

You act like you think that if you ignore it, or try to distract attention from it, it goes away. But, look, it's still there, and it's still a demolition -- until you, or someone else, show otherwise.

Now, I might be right about you being stuck, and you might be right about me. The bottom line is that none of this affects the fact that my demoltion is still out there with no one, least of all you, to refute it.

So, please keep screwing around with that distraction; it suits me fine.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dimentio:


I conceal my views to myself regarding that matter. What is fascinating me though is this cosmic struggle of epic proportions which has erupted here regarding a philosophy.

In this case, no answer is also an answer.:thumbup1:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


To make things clearer to everyone, I challenge you to debate in a well moderated thread with no scope of dodging or diverting, much like the one that Little Bobby Hutton started.

In that case, if there's to be no dodging and diverting, where will you post?

Anyway, an admin merged the two threads: the one I began, and the one you mentioned, into this one.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In that case, if there's to be no dodging and diverting, where will you post?

Anyway, an admin merged the two threads: the one I began, and the one you mentioned, into this one.

And will Jazzratt be moderating it ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


And will Jazzratt be moderating it ?

How should I know?

You do know, don't you, that this is the merged thread, and it is moderated by Dean, global mods and admins.

And, it's about Mao's Theory of Change -- which, alas for you Maoists, has been demolished by yours truly...

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



How should I know?

You do know, don't you, that this is the merged thread, and it is moderated by Dean, global mods and admins.

And, it's about Mao's Theory of Change -- which, alas for you Maoists, has been demolished by yours truly...

I don't find it merged with any other thread. You are trying to dodge my challenge again. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I don't find it merged with any other thread.

Oddly enough, I thought they had been merged. My mistake!


You are trying to dodge my challenge again.

Even if I were, that still leaves you p*ssing about with an irrelevance, and all the while Mao's 'theory' remains trashed -- unless, of course, you can show otherwise.

But we already know you can't.:(

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Oddly enough, I thought they had been merged. My mistake!



Even if I were, that still leaves you p*ssing about with an irrelevance, and all the while Mao's 'theory' remains trashed -- unless, of course, you can show otherwise.

But we already know you can't.:(

We shall see which theory stands its ground when you accept my challenge. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


We shall see which theory stands its ground when you accept my challenge.

So, let's have a look see...

Yes, Mao's theory is still trashed.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



So, let's have a look see...

Yes, Mao's theory is still trashed.

I wonder why you are not accepting my challenge. Is anti-dialectics that weak ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I wonder why you are not accepting my challenge. Is anti-dialectics that weak ?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But one thing is for sure, Mao's 'theory' will remain in ruins unless someone else can show where I go wrong -- I leave you out, since you seem not to be interested in defending him, but more intertested in p*ssing about.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But one thing is for sure, Mao's 'theory' will remain in ruins unless someone else can show where I go wrong -- I leave you out, since you seem not to be interested in defending him, but more intertested in p*ssing about.

Off topic.:(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Off topic.

And yet, my demolition is still there, mocking your incapacity to show where it goes wrong.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



And yet, my demolition is still there, mocking your incapacity to show where it goes wrong.

Off topic again. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Off topic again.

And Mao's 'theory' remains trashed, with no one to defend him.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



And Mao's 'theory' remains trashed, with no one to defend him.

The situation is more like a defender is standing all armed ready to defend Maoism but since the unarmed, armorless "attacker" refuses to accept any challenge, the defender can only laugh at her while she pathetically tries to claim she has demolished Maoism. :lol::lol::lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


The situation is more like a defender is standing all armed ready to defend Maoism but since the unarmed, armorless "attacker" refuses to accept any challenge, the defender can only laugh at her while she pathetically tries to claim she has demolished Maoism.

The result of this latest attempt to distract is...?

Yes, you guessed it: Mao's 'theory' still remains trashed.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



The result of this latest attempt to distract is...?

Yes, you guessed it: Mao's 'theory' still remains trashed.

More false assertions again. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


More false assertions again.

They remain true until you can show where I go wrong.

In the meantime, Mao's 'theory' is still in the trash can.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



They remain true until you can show where I go wrong.

In the meantime, Mao's 'theory' is still in the trash can.

False assertions are never true. Until you agree to have a proper debate and prove your theory correct, it remains trashed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


False assertions are never true. Until you don't agree to have a proper debate and prove your theory correct, it remains trashed.

And yet, all I have done is quote Mao. If you want to now tell us that Mao wrote nothing but falsehoods, that's OK by me.:)

While you ponder that, Mao's 'theory' still lies rotting in its grave.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



And yet, all I have done is quote Mao. If you want to now tell us that Mao wrote nothing but falsehoods, that's OK by me.:)

While you ponder that, Mao's 'theory' still lies rotting in its grave.

At least try to speak the truth sometimes. You will benefit from it greatly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


At least try to speak the truth sometimes. You will benefit from it greatly.

Good advice more appropriate to you, I feel.

In the meantime, Mao's 'theory' is still six feet under.:)

Is there anyone out there who can defend it?

Seems not...:(

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Good advice more appropriate to you, I feel.

In the meantime, Mao's 'theory' is still six feet under.:)

Is there anyone out there who can defend it?

Seems not...:(

Poor you. Still afraid of accepting my challenge. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Poor you. Still afraid of accepting my challenge.

Maybe so, maybe not, But one thing we do know: Mao's 'theory' is still pushing up daisies.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Maybe so, maybe not, But one thing we do know: Mao's 'theory' is still pushing up daisies.

What does this mean ? If you do refuse to accept my challenge then what is the point of continuing the debate ?? :confused:

And anti-dialectics pushes up daisies in the meantime.. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


What does this mean ? If you do refuse to accept my challenge then what is the point of continuing the debate ??

But you refuse to debate Mao's 'theory', more content to raise irrelevant issues.


And anti-dialectics pushes up daisies in the meantime..

Well, it would be if you had posted a demolition of it; but, all we have had from you is chest-beating.

While you contemplate your navel, my demolition remains without an answer from you --, so, it still stands.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



But you refuse to debate Mao's 'theory', more content to raise irrelevant issues. Debating is what the challenge is for.




Well, it would be if you had posted a demolition of it; but, all we have had from you is chest-beating.

While you contemplate your navel, my demolition remains without an answer from you --, so, it still stands.

Your "demolition" has been answered many times. You would have accepted my challenge by now if you really wanted to debate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Debating is what the challenge is for.

And, as you have been told, it's off-topic. My demolition does not contain, mention or depend on the subject of your 'challenge'.


Your "demolition" has been answered many times.

Not this one:


First, here's Mao:


The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things.

We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.


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.


The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception.


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.

Bold added.

Conditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

2) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

7) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

8) Hence, Mao's theory ('conditional version') implies change is impossible.

Unconditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P".

2) According to Mao, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists!

7) If P* didn't already exist, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change.

8) Hence, Mao's unconditional theory implies change is impossible.

Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Did you see any mention of the proletariat in the above? No.

Now, these demolitions are completely general, and apply to every form of change in the entire universe, and for all of time, as Mao sees things.

So, I have been asking you for over six months, and you have yet to provide an effective reply: where do these go wrong?

Nor the longer one I posted in reply to your last detailed response to me, which I have reposted four or five time since, and which you just ignore.


You would have accepted my challenge by now if you really wanted to debate.

But, I want to debate Mao's demolished 'theory' of change, not the random challenges that buzz around your head, which have nothing to do with it.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



And, as you have been told, it's off-topic. My demolition does not contain, mention or depend on the subject of your 'challenge'.



Not this one:



Nor the longer one I posted in reply to your last detailed response to me, which I have reposted four or five time since, and which you just ignore.



But, I want to debate Mao's demolished 'theory' of change, not the random challenges that buzz around your head, which have nothing to do with it.
Challenge as in the one which requires you to post in a well-moderated thread with some rules. If you don't accept it anti-dialectics automatically gets exposed as an invalid theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Challenge as in the one which requires you to post in a well-moderated thread with some rules. If you don't accept it anti-dialectics automatically gets exposed as an invalid theory.

1) It's not a theory, and I defy you to show otherwise.

2) And while you are p*ssing about, Mao's 'theory' is still wearing a concrete overcoat, at the bottom of the Yalu River.

So, bluster away, my mystical friend, Mao is still looking for someone to defend his ramshackle 'theory'.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



1) It's not a theory, and I defy you to show otherwise.

2) And while you are p*ssing about, Mao's 'theory' is still wearing a concrete overcoat, at the bottom of the Yalu River.

So, bluster away, my mystical friend, Mao is still looking for someone to defend his ramshackle 'theory'.

Yet again another pathetic attempt to divert the thread. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Yet again another pathetic attempt to divert the thread.

Once again, the thread is: "Mao's 'theory' of change", not "Scaredy Cat's random 'challenges'".

And Mao's 'theory' is still down the pan.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Once again, the thread is: "Mao's 'theory' of change", not "Scaredy Cat's random 'challenges'".

And Mao's 'theory' is still down the pan.

Anti-dialectics is down the pan until you accept my challenge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Anti-dialectics is down the pan until you accept my challenge.

Maybe so, maybe not; but one thing is for sure: Mao's theory of change has been shredded.

Unless, of course, you know of someone who can defend it.:rolleyes:

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Maybe so, maybe not; but one thing is for sure: Mao's theory of change has been shredded.

Unless, of course, you know of someone who can defend it.:rolleyes:

Anti dialectics is down the pan automatically implies that dialectics still stands as a valid theory. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Anti dialectics is down the pan automatically implies that dialectics still stands as a valid theory.

1) We are still waiting for you to prove it's a theory.

2) Just as we are still waiting for you to post your demolition of it. You can do so in the 'anti-dialectics made easy' thread.

3) In the meantime, we do have a demolition of Mao's 'theory', which you are ignoring.

4) In that case, Mao's 'theory' is now on the trash can of history.

5) You still refuse to let us know if there is a Maoist on the planet who can defend him.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



1) We are still waiting for you to prove it's a theory.

2) Just as we are still waiting for you to post your demolition of it. You can do so in the 'anti-dialectics made easy' thread.

3) In the meantime , we do have a demolition of Mao's 'theory' which you are ignoring.

4) In that case, Mao's 'theory' is now on the trash can of history.

5) You still refuse to let us know if there is a Maoist on the planet who can defend him.

I have negated your demolition many times, and willing to do it again as soon as you accept my challenge. However, so desperate you are to cover up the fact that anti-dialectics is on the trash can of history, you refuse to accept my challenge.

[black magick hustla]

anti-dialectics is not in the "trash of history" because virtually everyone except marxists would reject dialectics. the only reason why normal folks that arent marxist wouldnt reject it is that some people are impressed by big words.

[red cat]

anti-dialectics is not in the "trash of history" because virtually everyone except marxists would reject dialectics. the only reason why normal folks that arent marxist wouldnt reject it is that some people are impressed by big words.

Then why is the main preacher of anti-dialectics here refusing to debate in a well moderated thread with some rules for posting? :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I have negated your demolition many times, and willing to do it again as soon as you accept my challenge.

Not the demolition I posted above, nor the long reply I made to your last serious attempt to respond to me months ago, posted again several times -- which you simply ignore.


However, so desperate you are to cover up the fact that anti-dialectics is on the trash can of history, you refuse to accept my challenge.

Well it would be if you could point to a demolition of it to which I haven't replied, but you have yet to do that, too.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Not the demolition I posted above, nor the long reply I made to your last serious attempt to respond to me months ago, posted again several times -- which you simply ignore.



Well it would be if you could point to a demolition of it to which I haven't replied, but you have yet to do that, too.

What does all this have to with you accepting my challenge? :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Then why is the main preacher of anti-dialectics here refusing to debate in a well moderated thread with some rules for posting?

This is a bit rich coming from someone who has spammed this thread from the beginning.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


What does all this have to with you accepting my challenge?

What has your 'challenge' got to do with the title of this thread?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



This is a bit rich coming from someone who has spammed this thread from the beginning.

You mean you hereby accept my challenge ? :)

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



What has your 'challenge' got to do with the title of this thread?

That is what the debate which I challenge you to will be on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


You mean you hereby accept my challenge ?

In your dreams...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


That is what the debate which I challenge you to will be on.

But this thread is not about your 'challenge'.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In your dreams...

Too bad for anti-dialectics then, as it still remains lying on the trash can of history.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



But this thread is not about your 'challenge'.

But the challenge is surely about the topic of this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Too bad for anti-dialectics then, as it still remains lying on the trash can of history.

In that case, you will be able to point us to its refutation, won't you?

By way of contrast, I can point you to a hundred refutations of dialectics, none of which has been answered, including my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


But the challenge is surely about the topic of this thread.

You have been asked repeatedly to show how it is relevant to this thread, but on every occasion you have refused.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



In that case, you will be able to point us to its refutation, won't you?

By way of contrast, I can point you to a hundred refutations of dialectics, none of which has been answered, including my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change.

I will refute your theory as soon as you accept my challenge.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



You have been asked repeatedly to show how it is relevant to this thread, but on every occasion you have refused.

A challenge to debate on the topic of this thread is by definition relevant to this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


I will refute your theory as soon as you accept my challenge.

1) I do not have a theory, and you have yet to show I have one.

2) And what makes you think I care whether or not you choose to refute my demolition? The bottom line is that it remains standing, and you have put yourself out of the picture.

3) As I noted before, if choose not to repond to your challenge, then you are stuck. Mao's theory will be without you as its defender.

That suits me fine...

---------------------------------------

So, is there anyone else out there who want's to defend Mao? This joker gave up months ago.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


A challenge to debate on the topic of this thread is by definition relevant to this thread.

But your challenge isn't related to this thread; so I do not know where this 'definition' came from.

I could just as well say that 'by definition' it isn't.

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



1) I do not have a theory, and you have yet to show I have one.

2) And what makes you think I care whether or not you choose to refute my demolition? The bottom line is that it remains standing, and you have put yourself out of the picture.

3) As I noted before, if choose not to repond to your challenge, then you are stuck. Mao's theory will be without you as its defender.

That suits me fine...

---------------------------------------

So, is there anyone else out there who want's to defend Mao? This joker gave up months ago.

Fine. Don't respond to my challenge. If you don't respond to challenges then you can claim anything. :)

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



But your challenge isn't related to this thread; so I do not know where this 'definition' came from.

I could just as well say that 'by definition' it isn't.

I already told you how my challenge is related to this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Fine. Don't respond to my challenge. If you don't respond to challenges then you can claim anything.

Is there negative particle missing in there somewhere?

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread, now that Scaredy here has whimped out again.

Here's the short version of my demolition of Mao's 'theory':


First, here's Mao:


The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things.

We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.


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.


The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception.


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.

Bold added.

Conditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

2) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

7) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

8) Hence, Mao's theory ('conditional version') implies change is impossible.

Unconditional Version:

1) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P".

2) According to Mao, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

3) Call that opposite "P*".

4) So, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

5) He also says that they change into each other.

6) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists!

7) If P* didn't already exist, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change.

8) Hence, Mao's unconditional theory implies change is impossible.

Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

Anyone see an error in there anywhere?

[red cat]

Scaredy Cat:



Is there negative particle missing in there somewhere?

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread, now that Scaredy here has whimped out again.

Here's the short version of my demolition of Mao's 'theory':



Anyone see an error in there anywhere?

Still not responding to my challenge... :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scaredy Cat:


Still not responding to my challenge...

You are an irrelevance now. So you can stick your 'challenge' where the sun does not shine.

Unless, of course, you can show why it is relevant to this thread.

But, I have asked you that many times, and you refuse to say.