Trotskyism

[Jarc]

I'm sorry if there have been innumerable posts asking this very question, but what exactly is Trotskyism, and where could I find works of his. I am also interested if there are any American Trotskyist parties.

Thanks for any answer!

[chegitz guevara]

You can find most of his works here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/index.htm

And you can learn all about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky

;)

[Kléber]

There are/have been quite a few Trotskyist groups in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trotskyist_organizations_of_the_United_St ates). The main ones I know of and their websites are:

SEP:
http://www.wsws.org (http://www.wsws.org/)

ISO:
http://socialistworker.org/

SA:
http://www.socialistalternative.org/

SO:
http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/

[Jarc]

Thank you all very much. I shall heed your links and learn more. Thank's for the help comrades!

[Bolshevism1917]

Trotskyism is, broadly speaking, a descriptive term for those who believe that the Russian Revolution was a socialist revolution under the leadership of the organized working class, and that the revolution suffered bureaucratic degeneration, resulting in either the restoration of capitalism, or the emergence of a degenerated workers' state, as a result of the failure to spread beyond Russia to more advanced countries such as Germany, and ultimately throughout the entire world. We see ourselves as standing in the tradition of Leninism and as being the defenders of classical Marxism against all forms of distortion and revisionism, and take as our theoretical starting-point the simple principle that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself".

[red cat]

Trotskyist dialectics, the basis of Trotskyism, seems to have been demolished. At least some people here claim so. :D

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm#Trotsky-On-Identity

[RED DAVE]

If you want to have a good time this weekend:

Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/).

RED DAVE

[danyboy27]

Trotskyist dialectics, the basis of Trotskyism, seems to have been demolished. At least some people here claim so. :D

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm#Trotsky-On-Identity

I dont think the OP asked any question about how relevant trotskysm was.
he just wanted to know if there was any american trotskyst party.

if you want to question trotskyst dialectics, make your own damn thread.

[red cat]

I dont think the OP asked any question about how relevant trotskysm was.
he just wanted to know if there was any american trotskyst party.

if you want to question trotskyst dialectics, make your own damn thread.

I did not question Trot dialectics. I just gave a bit of information. :lol:

Also, the OP asked what Trotskyism exactly is. Trotskyism is incomplete without Trot dialectics.

[danyboy27]

I did not question Trot dialectics. I just gave a bit of information. :lol:

Also, the OP asked what Trotskyism exactly is. Trotskyism is incomplete without Trot dialectics.

but you have to admit, a marxist leninist giving indication about trotskysm is, well just like when a trotskysm give information about marxism leninism.

[red cat]

but you have to admit, a marxist leninist giving indication about trotskysm is, well just like when a trotskysm give information about marxism leninism.

Don't compare the two. We uphold the Trot initiatives in Sri Lanka and Argentina, and some of us even criticize China for not supporting the Sri Lankan movement with material aid. When was the last time you heard a Trot criticize another for denouncing Maoist revolutions ?

[chegitz guevara]

Don't compare the two. We uphold the Trot initiatives in Sri Lanka and Argentina, and some of us even criticize China for not supporting the Sri Lankan movement with material aid. When was the last time you heard a Trot criticize another for denouncing Maoist revolutions ?

Oh, pretty much all of the non state-cappie Trots criticize the state-cappie Trots just for that reason.

[el_chavista]

Trotskyist dialectics, the basis of Trotskyism, seems to have been demolished. At least some people here claim so. :D

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm#Trotsky-On-Identity
Hey, there is a catch here! Actually Rosa's "anti-dialectics" regards to all "flavors" of Marxists :confused:

[red cat]

Hey, there is a catch here! Actually Rosa's "anti-dialectics" regards to all "flavors" of Marxists :confused:

I know. Yet she is a member of the Trotskyist group. :lol:

[el_chavista]

I'm with Shapinov:

There are no Stalinists and Trotskyists any more, there are only Marxists and reformists now.

[Muzk]

The question of the newbie has been answered, trolling has started, why not close this?

[red cat]

I'm with Shapinov:

That is a bit of over-simplification. Though in the third world Trotskyism is analogous to reformism at present, there are many comrades in the first world who intend to make revolution but are deluded by infeasible Trot tactics and false history. So it is very important to teach them that no matter how hard they try, they won't be able to make any significant progress if they don't learn from the ongoing revolutions.

[mollymae]

I take interest in these resources as well. thanks for the links.

[The Idler]

There's a list of US parties sectioned by Trotskyist here (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_States).

[Q]

The question of the newbie has been answered, trolling has started, why not close this?
This. Our self-proclaimed warrior against Trotskyism has trolled another thread.

[el_chavista]

That is a bit of over-simplification. Though in the third world Trotskyism is analogous to reformism at present, there are many comrades in the first world who intend to make revolution but are deluded by infeasible Trot tactics and false history. So it is very important to teach them that no matter how hard they try, they won't be able to make any significant progress if they don't learn from the ongoing revolutions.
I didn't make me understood. Victor Shapinov's doc in this now-non-available website http://english.communist.ru/2006/04/05/there-is-no-stalinism-or-trotskyism-any-more-there-is-revolutionary-marxism-and-reformism.htm talks about a post Stalinist/Trotskyist "neo-bolshevik":


The masses understand it better than the revolutionaries; they are hardly interested in the fact who was right - Stalin, Trotsky or Mao. They are interested in technologies of resisting to corporations, in defense of labor and social rights, one can get them interested in the idea of radical breaking of social relations, relations of property and authority, in the idea of revolution.

The main ingredients of the new left ideology and practice are also formed within various Marxist trends simultaneously, that is why the unification on new grounds is about to happen.

By forming the integral Marxist ideology we will have to overcome not just the words: ‘Stalinism’, ‘Trotskyism’, etc. but the corresponding style of thinking. The sectarians will say: Okay, there are no longer conditions for dividing into Stalinists, Trotskyites, there is only revolutionary and reformist Marxism. But they will agree to admit revolutionary only the trend, that will agree to admit all doctrines of this sect. For the sect in general it is important what makes it different, unique but not what unites it with the mass movement. Here the tiniest shades of the meaning in the interpretation of this or that ‘saint’ text are important but not real problems facing the real movement.

As a matter of fact, one will have to overcome the sectarian approach itself. Here one can also find a lot of examples from the history of the revolutionary movement. For instance, even deep disagreements and mutual dislike did not prevent Lenin and Trotsky from working within one party in 1917 if their political line coincided at that moment.

[red cat]

This. Our self-proclaimed warrior against Trotskyism has trolled another thread.

I only linked to a work by one of your fellow Trots. :)


Trotskyist dialectics, the basis of Trotskyism, seems to have been demolished. At least some people here claim so. :D

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm#Trotsky-On-Identity

See ?

[red cat]

I didn't make me understood. Victor Shapinov's doc in this now-non-available website http://english.communist.ru/2006/04/05/there-is-no-stalinism-or-trotskyism-any-more-there-is-revolutionary-marxism-and-reformism.htm talks about a post Stalinist/Trotskyist "neo-bolshevik":

True. The masses will learn through practice and accept the correct ideology irrespective of who proposed it, precisely as they are doing in India, Nepal or the Philippines.

But that does not in any way lessen the duty of the vanguard parties in the first world. They must continuously engage in class struggle, educate base-level cadres of Trot parties and expose their leaders, so that the Sri Lankan incidence does not repeat itself.

[Muzk]

You have a habit of killing our leaders instead of exposing them :crying:

[Q]

You have a habit of killing our leaders instead of exposing them :crying:
Don't feed the troll.

[Q]

I know. Yet she is a member of the Trotskyist group. :lol:
Rosa Lichtenstein is not a member of any group as far as I'm aware. She's sympathetic towards the SWP UK though.


I only linked to a work by one of your fellow Trots. :)

See ?
As noted earlier, Rosa attacks dialectics. There is no such thing as "Trotskyist dialectics". This was only a term you just now invented to troll on Trotskyists.

[Dimentio]

I did not question Trot dialectics. I just gave a bit of information. :lol:

Also, the OP asked what Trotskyism exactly is. Trotskyism is incomplete without Trot dialectics.

Why are you attacking Rosa in a thread which doesn't have anything to do with her?

[red cat]

You have a habit of killing our leaders instead of exposing them :crying:

If you are referring to Trotsky's execution, that was because Trotsky was planning to assassinate Stalin. Stalin only acted first. We call that self-defense.

[red cat]

Rosa Lichtenstein is not a member of any group as far as I'm aware. She's sympathetic towards the SWP UK though.


As noted earlier, Rosa attacks dialectics. There is no such thing as "Trotskyist dialectics".

I was referring to the Trotskyist group here in Revleft. Why is she a member even though she opposes dialectics and typically attacks every revolution that has taken place so far ?

[Q]

If you are referring to Trotsky's execution, that was because Trotsky was planning to assassinate Stalin. Stalin only acted first. We call that self-defense.
And here we go.


I was referring to the Trotskyist group here in Revleft. Why is she a member even though she opposes dialectics and typically attacks every revolution that has taken place so far ?

I don't know, ask her.

[Dimentio]

If you are referring to Trotsky's execution, that was because Trotsky was planning to assassinate Stalin. Stalin only acted first. We call that self-defense.

This is not about Trotsky vs Stalin, but about Trotsky's ideology. I won't lock this thread because of you derailing it. Whatever you are doing now, stop it immediately!

[red cat]

Why are you attacking Rosa in a thread which doesn't have anything to do with her?

I just linked to a work of hers which I thought would be relevant. If you think this to be an attack on Rosa, then please make sure that she herself does not troll any thread and make tall claims that she cannot prove, ever again.

[red cat]

This is not about Trotsky vs Stalin, but about Trotsky's ideology. I won't lock this thread because of you derailing it. Whatever you are doing now, stop it immediately!

That was a reply to Muzk's post. Trash both if you want.

[Q]

This is not about Trotsky vs Stalin, but about Trotsky's ideology. I won't lock this thread because of you derailing it. Whatever you are doing now, stop it immediately!
Red cat's way to wreck a thread is pretty obvious:
1. Put forward a "genuine" critique on Trotskyism, real or invented. In this case it is invented.
2. Use it as a platform to bash against Trotskyism, provoke other Trotskyists.
3. Invite other M-L'ers to join the bandwagon and further demolish said thread.

It gets very tiresome and in my opinion red cat should get more warning points for it.

[red cat]

I don't know, ask her.

That is not the point. A person who thinks that she is doing something very clever by making false claims about well established mathematical theorems can do everything.

What I mean to say is that by keeping Rosa in the Trotskyist group, you are showing indirect sympathy to her anti-communist theories. I think that this should stop.

[red cat]

Red cat's way to wreck a thread is pretty obvious:
1. Put forward a "genuine" critique on Trotskyism, real or invented. In this case it is invented.
2. Use it as a platform to bash against Trotskyism, provoke other Trotskyists.
3. Invite other M-L'ers to join the bandwagon and further demolish said thread.

It gets very tiresome and in my opinion red cat should get more warning points for it.

Well, in that case, people who troll ML threads similarly should also be dealt with in the same manner. And we should have some rules that will prevent such trolling in future.

[Q]

That is not the point. A person who thinks that she is doing something very clever by making false claims about well established mathematical theorems can do everything.

What I mean to say is that by keeping Rosa in the Trotskyist group, you are showing indirect sympathy to her anti-communist theories. I think that this should stop.
1. This thread is about Trotskyism, not about Rosa.
2. The Trotskyist group is a diverse amalgamation of Trotskyists. We don't strive to have a common line, but to have a place of discussion as this is a discussion board and not a political party. Any single member doesn't represent the whole in the slightest.


Well, in that case, people who troll ML threads similarly should also be dealt with in the same manner. And we should have some rules that will prevent such trolling in future.

Of course. At least you admit your trolling, that is a positive step.

[red cat]

1. This thread is about Trotskyism, not about Rosa.

I hardly want to talk about Rosa. But that makes her article irrelevant, does it?



2. The Trotskyist group is a diverse amalgamation of Trotskyists. We don't strive to have a common line, but to have a place of discussion as this is a discussion board and not a political party. Any single member doesn't represent the whole in the slightest.

Okay, so that allows you to let an anti-communist be a member. I understand very clearly.



Of course. At least you admit your trolling, that is a positive step.

That is "trolling" according to my standards. However, since most of the mods and admins allow similar trolls to do their job freely here, I assume that this kind of activity is rather appreciated in Revleft.

[Devrim]

If you are referring to Trotsky's execution, that was because Trotsky was planning to assassinate Stalin. Stalin only acted first. We call that self-defense.

In between all of the accusations, Redcat has been allowed to get away with this one completely. This is just complete fabrication.

Devrim

[Kléber]

I get where Shapinov is coming from, but the bureaucratic despotism of a caste is still an issue in Cuba and the DPRK. Trotskyists shouldn't give up materialist analysis of those states. The 150-year-old debate about whether peasants or just the proletariat can establish socialism, is still going on too, and Leninists shouldn't give up their criticism of populism. At the same time we should work together with everybody if it suits the revolution. Soviet-style councils can only be formed by leftists of different tendencies putting aside their bullshit and coming together to give the working class a new system of political representation and let workers choose for themselves who has the best program. Also, peasant struggles in the countryside can be a great benefit to workers' struggles, and vice versa. So let's not try to forget our disagreements, but also let's not let them keep us from working together on issues, and putting up a united front against the bourgeoisie.

[Devrim]

Still no evidence of Trotsky's plans to assassinate Stalin I notice.

Devrim

[RED DAVE]

If people want to get into sectarian name-calling, instead of using political specifics, there's going to be a lot of bullshit around here.


Though in the third world Trotskyism is analogous to reformism at presentPlease document.


there are many comrades in the first world who intend to make revolution but are deluded by infeasible Trot tactics and false history.Please elaborate what these "infeasible Trot tactics and false history are"m the First World, especially in the United States.


So it is very important to teach them that no matter how hard they try, they won't be able to make any significant progress if they don't learn from the ongoing revolutions.Are you suggesting that Trots follow the Nepalese Maoists and assume the prime ministership of bourgeois governments?

RED DAVE

[anticap]

I was initially excited after clicking this thread, and hoped (quite naively) to finally get some clarification for myself. Then I was reminded why I no longer bother trying to make sense of Marxist factionalism: because Marxists themselves don't want me to understand. This is manifestly and irrefutably true, as evidenced by their own behavior, which is utterly predictable and unchanging.

(I should note that I consider myself a "Marxist" in the sense that I greatly admire Marx. Beyond that, however, Marxism quickly degenerates into a repulsive quagmire. I have no intention of spending years attempting to solve these riddles for myself, when I could be spending that time more productively. If Marxists want fresh blood to fill their ranks, they ought to resolve to wipe away the murkiness of their own sectarianism so that newbies can make informed decisions. As it stands, it appears that Marxists are, to the contrary, relying on that murkiness to help divert the uninformed. This is why I have no tendency beyond "anti-capitalist.")

[Q]

I was initially excited after clicking this thread, and hoped (quite naively) to finally get some clarification for myself. Then I was reminded why I no longer bother trying to make sense of Marxist factionalism: because Marxists themselves don't want me to understand. This is manifestly and irrefutably true, as evidenced by their own behavior, which is utterly predictable and unchanging.

(I should note that I consider myself a "Marxist" in the sense that I greatly admire Marx. Beyond that, however, Marxism quickly degenerates into a repulsive quagmire. I have no intention of spending years attempting to solve these riddles for myself, when I could be spending that time more productively. If Marxists want fresh blood to fill their ranks, they ought to resolve to wipe away the murkiness of their own sectarianism so that newbies can make informed decisions. As it stands, it appears that Marxists are, to the contrary, relying on that murkiness to help divert the uninformed. This is why I have no tendency beyond "anti-capitalist.")
While I'm sad to see you, and undoubtedly many others, feel repelled by researching the tendencies within Marxism deeper, I can completely understand why you do. Provocative behaviour by types like red cat completely derail any genuine debate here. Such a sectarian attitude undermines the movement.

Anyway, I hope the first few posts in this discussion have been informative. If you have more questions relating to those, do ask :)

[ZeroNowhere]

Provocative behaviour by types like red cat completely derail any genuine debate here. Such a sectarian attitude undermines the movement.This sounds rather hypocritical, or at least counterproductive, assuming that it is not facetious.

[Yehuda Stern]

Devrim: all the proof was stolen by the imperialists during the counterrevolution in the USSR so that they could defend Trotsky's name.

[red cat]

Devrim: all the proof was stolen by the imperialists during the counterrevolution in the USSR so that they could defend Trotsky's name.

They tried, but we still have this (http://art-bin.com/art/omosc20e.html).

[red cat]

If people want to get into sectarian name-calling, instead of using political specifics, there's going to be a lot of bullshit around here.

Please document.

Sure. Name a Trot party in India or Nepal, and I will expose their politics.


Please elaborate what these "infeasible Trot tactics and false history are"m the First World, especially in the United States.

The history part is well known. Most of what you claim about the Russian and Chinese revolutions is utterly false. About Trot tactics in the US, I think that you lack a correct military line. The American revolution is a part of the word revolution, and your attitude towards the third world revolution clearly indicates that you don't know how to conduct a revolution at all.


Are you suggesting that Trots follow the Nepalese Maoists and assume the prime ministership of bourgeois governments?

RED DAVE

Why not debate this in the thread that Comrade Alastair started ?

[Yehuda Stern]

red cat, I'm not really sure if you're serious or not. Either way, I'm certainly amused.

[danyboy27]

They tried, but we still have this (http://art-bin.com/art/omosc20e.html).

haa show trial, you no.1 information of truth.

[red cat]

haa show trial, you no.1 information of truth.

Yes. We communists have this very bad habit of trying counter-revolutionaries. And we do so in front of the masses.

Anyway, I think that Trots should use their full revolutionary potential to support the ML camp instead of defending reactionaries executed by the Soviet government.

[red cat]

red cat, I'm not really sure if you're serious or not. Either way, I'm certainly amused.

Why are you amused ?

[danyboy27]

Yes. We communists have this very bad habit of trying counter-revolutionaries. And we do so in front of the masses.

Anyway, I think that Trots should use their full revolutionary potential to support the ML camp instead of defending reactionaries executed by the Soviet government.

maybe you just dont understand what a show trial is.
Okay, you take 1 guy, you push him to breaking point, threatening his family, sleep deprivation, cigarette burn, all that shit.
after all that, you ask him to sign a paper, and help him to learn what its written on it to the trial.




Yes.
Anyway, I think that Trots should use their full revolutionary potential to support the ML camp instead of defending reactionaries executed by the Soviet government.

i think its a bit pretentious to affirm that your way is the better and that, people should fallow it without questionning it.
If you are not with us, you are with the ennemy!

[RED DAVE]

About Trot tactics in the US, I think that you lack a correct military line.red cat is obviously aditioning for a job as a left-wing standup comic.

"I don't get no respect!"

RED DAVE

[red cat]

red cat is obviously aditioning for a job as a left-wing standup comic.

"I don't get no respect!"

RED DAVE

Isn't it a bit unusual to have no Trot parties taking part in any ongoing revolution ?

[Muzk]

Isn't it a bit unusual to have no Trot parties taking part in any ongoing revolution ?


Isn't it a bit unusual to have a maoist taking part in no ongoing revolution ?:rolleyes:

[red cat]

maybe you just dont understand what a show trial is.
Okay, you take 1 guy, you push him to breaking point, threatening his family, sleep deprivation, cigarette burn, all that shit.
after all that, you ask him to sign a paper, and help him to learn what its written on it to the trial.


I think that it was not necessary to make them confess. Third world Maoists nowadays try counter-revolutionaries in a different manner. If they can't defend themselves in public, they are executed, whether they confess or not.



i think its a bit pretentious to affirm that your way is the better and that, people should fallow it without questionning it.
If you are not with us, you are with the ennemy!

Considering the way Trots denounce our revolutions in the third world, their top leadership is definitely with the enemy.

[danyboy27]

Isn't it a bit unusual to have no Trot parties taking part in any ongoing revolution ?
Maybe its beccause nobody wouldnt tolerate them around?

[red cat]

Isn't it a bit unusual to have a maoist taking part in no ongoing revolution ?:rolleyes:

All the big ongoing revolutions are organized by Maoist parties, as far as I know.

EDIT: Except the one in Colombia.

[danyboy27]

I think that it was not necessary to make them confess. Third world Maoists nowadays try counter-revolutionaries in a different manner. If they can't defend themselves in public, they are executed, whether they confess or not.
.
so, basicly, you would fully trust the justice system of the ussr?
beccause that what we are talking about right now.





Considering the way Trots denounce our revolutions in the third world, their top leadership is definitely with the enemy.
so, why trots are not restricted then?

[red cat]

Join them. Thank you for the advice.




One troll less. Are you leaving Revleft or what ?

[red cat]

Maybe its beccause nobody wouldnt tolerate them around?

That is odd, because Maoists uphold the Trot initiatives in Argentina and Sri Lanka.

And even if Maoists don't tolerate them, what has stopped Trots so long from building their own revolutionary movements in those countries ?

[red cat]

so, basicly, you would fully trust the justice system of the ussr?
beccause that what we are talking about right now.

Mostly if not fully.




so, why trots are not restricted then?

Where ?

[danyboy27]

Mostly if not fully.

this will go in my sig.





Where ?
on revleft.

[red cat]

this will go in my sig.

I am honoured :lol:





on revleft.

Because firstly, Maoists don't control Revleft, and secondly, even if Revleft had been under our control, we don't consider base level Trot party cadres to be conscious revisionists in general.

[red cat]

So what are, according to you, Trotskyists?

Most don't know Marxism Leninism very well and religiously believe in Trotsky's writings. But the ones at the top, and most in the third world, are malicious revisionists.

[red cat]

Stalin didn't understand Marx nor Lenin either.

Keep your trolling limited to my profile, kid.

[Kléber]

Here's lookin' at you, kid.

http://www.censorwatch.co.uk/images/nehbogart.jpg

[red cat]

Here's lookin' at you, kid.

http://www.censorwatch.co.uk/images/nehbogart.jpg

Spam picture. Please remove it.

[red cat]

Your last 1590 posts were spam. Please remove them before I call a moderator.

Do you want me to report this post of yours ?

[red cat]

Do you want me to report those posts of yours?

Some moderator please trash the last few posts in this thread. Thanks in advance.

[Yehuda Stern]

red cat, I'm amused because, intentionally or not, you're the most ridiculous Stalinist troll I've ever met, and believe me, you had to overcome some serious competition.

[red cat]

red cat, I'm amused because, intentionally or not, you're the most ridiculous Stalinist troll I've ever met, and believe me, you had to overcome some serious competition.

Why exactly do you think so ?

[Soviet]

Information for thought:

Widely known the following entry from the diary of Joseph Goebbels from 30 June 1941:

"We have 3 secret transmitter in Russia. Trends: the first is Trotskyist,the second is separatist, the third is Russian nationalist."

Source: Agapov AB Diaries of Joseph Goebbels. Prelude "Barbarossa" / Translated from the German. M.: palaeotypes, Logos, 2002. S. 371.

Draw your own conclusions.

[ChrisK]

Trotskyism is incomplete without Trot dialectics.

How?

[Kléber]

Information for thought:

Widely known the following entry from the diary of Joseph Goebbels from 30 June 1941:

"We have 3 secret transmitter in Russia. Trends: the first is Trotskyist,the second is separatist, the third is Russian nationalist."

Source: Agapov AB Diaries of Joseph Goebbels. Prelude "Barbarossa" / Translated from the German. M.: palaeotypes, Logos, 2002. S. 371.

Draw your own conclusions.
Absolutely ridiculous. They called Lenin a German agent too. Conveniently forget that Trotsky was from a Jewish background, like many of the people executed for false charges of treason in support of fascism, it doesn't make any sense. Trotskyists died in the concentration camps like all other leftists, and resisted against Nazism like all other decent people. And didn't support the sellout Molotov Ribbentrop Pact nor the execution of the best Soviet generals and revision of advanced military doctrine on the eve of WWII.

[red cat]

How?

Ask some of your fellow Trots. I am sure that they will be able to explain it better than me.

[Q]

Ask some of your fellow Trots. I am sure that they will be able to explain it better than me.
I'm sorry, but we are unable to explain your fabrications. "Trotskyist dialectics"? Seriously.

[red cat]

I'm sorry, but we are unable to explain your fabrications. "Trotskyist dialectics"? Seriously.

Whatever you call it. Now would you care explaining to ChristoferKoch how Trotskyism depends on it ?

[Q]

Whatever you call it. Now would you care explaining to ChristoferKoch how Trotskyism depends on it ?
I'm still not sure what you're asking here. Would you like me to explain how dialectical-materialism is a part of Marxist philosophy?

[ChrisK]

Whatever you call it. Now would you care explaining to ChristoferKoch how Trotskyism depends on it ?

He/she doesn't need too. We both know your an obnoxious troll who likes to talk shit without backing it up.

[red cat]

I'm still not sure what you're asking here. Would you like me to explain how dialectical-materialism is a part of Marxist philosophy?

Yes, that will do. Stress specifically on its relationship with Trotskyist strategy and tactics.

[red cat]

He/she doesn't need too. We both know your an obnoxious troll who likes to talk shit without backing it up.

You post like a true disciple of Rosa. :lol:

[ChrisK]

You post like a true disciple of Rosa. :lol:

Well now I see your hell bent on proving me right.

[red cat]

Well now I see your hell bent on proving me right.

I don't think many Trotskyists will agree with what shows as your tendency. "Anti dialectics" is utter bullshit.

[ChrisK]

I don't think many Trotskyists will agree with what shows as your tendency. "Anti dialectics" is utter bullshit.

As you have so wonderfully shown :rolleyes:. Thank you for continuing to prove me right.:thumbup1:

[red cat]

As you have so wonderfully shown :rolleyes:

I think I have. In a well mediated debate where every attempt to dodge challenges or lie would be taken care of accordingly, anti-dialectics stands no chance.

[ChrisK]

I think I have. In a well mediated debate where every attempt to dodge challenges or lie would be taken care of accordingly, anti-dialectics stands no chance.

Your challenges consist of challenging Rosa on Cantors Theorem and finding effective Trotskyist movements. For some strange reason I feel as if these in no way defend dialectics. If only I could figure out why....

[Q]

Yes, that will do. Stress specifically on its relationship with Trotskyist strategy and tactics.


I don't think many Trotskyists will agree with what shows as your tendency. "Anti dialectics" is utter bullshit.
You're simply not making sense. First you want me to show some specific Trotskyist relationship towards dialectics (is there any? I wasn't aware) and then you generalise the writings one fringe individual as being part of the Trotskyist movement.

Again, you fail to understand that:
1. This thread isn't about Rosa Lichtenstein
2. Rosa attacks dialectics (not some imagined specific variant of it)
3. Rosa doesn't speak for the whole movement and isn't seriously considered by many Trotskyists

Of course you'll continue your tirade as you're not actually interested in any discussion, just trolling.

[red cat]

Your challenges consist of challenging Rosa on Cantors Theorem and finding effective Trotskyist movements. For some strange reason I feel as if these in no way defend dialectics. If only I could figure out why....

My challenges also consist of challenging Rosa to defend her latest claim that the proletariat has ignored dialectics so far. Surely this is relevant enough ?

The two challenges you mentioned have already exposed how much she lies, as she failed to prove what she claimed.

[red cat]

You're simply not making sense. First you want me to show some specific Trotskyist relationship towards dialectics (is there any? I wasn't aware) and then you generalise the writings one fringe individual as being part of the Trotskyist movement.

Again, you fail to understand that:
1. This thread isn't about Rosa Lichtenstein
2. Rosa attacks dialectics (not some imagined specific variant of it)
3. Rosa doesn't speak for the whole movement and isn't seriously considered by many Trotskyists

Of course you'll continue your tirade as you're not actually interested in any discussion, just trolling.

How is this trolling ? If you cannot explain something to your fellow Trot then say so. It wasn't me who asked the question.

[ChrisK]

My challenges also consist of challenging Rosa to defend her latest claim that the proletariat has ignored dialectics so far. Surely this is relevant enough ?

She has a whole essay on it. You might as well just read it. And considering you ignore her after she makes a valid point, your quite the troll.


The two challenges you mentioned have already exposed how much she lies, as she failed to prove what she claimed.

What lies? She basically smacked you in the mouth for not responding to her arguments.

Maybe if you backed up the stuff you say...

[red cat]

She has a whole essay on it. You might as well just read it. And considering you ignore her after she makes a valid point, your quite the troll.


An essay on how the proletariat ignored dialectics ? Could you please highlight the main points?



What lies? 1) She said that a well known mathematical theorem is "rubbish", but then agreed neither to give her own proof nor to defend any other. Thus it is fair to deduce that she lied.

2) The example of Trotskyist armed struggle that she gave is false.


She basically smacked you in the mouth for not responding to her arguments.

Maybe if you backed up the stuff you say...
:rolleyes:

[ChrisK]

An essay on how the proletariat ignored dialectics ? Could you please highlight the main points?

Or you could read it.


1) She said that a well known mathematical theorem is "rubbish", but then agreed neither to give her own proof nor to defend any other. Thus it is fair to deduce that she lied.

2) The example of Trotskyist armed struggle that she gave is false.

:rolleyes:

1) I don't give a shit about cantor's theorem, nor am I a mathmetian so I can't talk about the proofs she did post. All I can say is that her not wanting to put something on the internet that she intends to publish is her business.

2) As was Lex supporting you. You must be a liar as well.

[red cat]

Or you could read it.

I am not going to read every essay that claims such bullshit. If you want to defend Rosa's works, then summarize the essay here.



1) I don't give a shit about cantor's theorem, nor am I a mathmetian so I can't talk about the proofs she did post. All I can say is that her not wanting to put something on the internet that she intends to publish is her business.By the same logic, I can argue that relativity or quantum mechanics is "rubbish", can't I ?

How about claiming that anti-dialectics is rubbish as well ? May be I have a proof that I am going to publish ?




2) As was Lex supporting you. You must be a liar as well.Please explain why you think so. My interpretation of dialectics is what many Maoists agree with. And Lex is the person who can pass the ultimate verdict about him supporting me. Trying to cover up Rosa's lies won't help.

[Q]

I am not going to read every essay that claims such bullshit. If you want to defend Rosa's works, then summarize the essay here.
So, you claim Rosa's piece is "bullshit", yet you don't even know the argument? One of the aspects of dialectics is that truth is concrete, in other words: know the subject you're talking about or else it is more wise to not say anything about it.

Also, to bring back a point you claimed earlier: did you already found some evidence of Trotsky's plans to murder Stalin?


If you are referring to Trotsky's execution, that was because Trotsky was planning to assassinate Stalin. Stalin only acted first. We call that self-defense.

Do take your time, we've been waiting for 70 years already.

[red cat]

So, you claim Rosa's piece is "bullshit", yet you don't even know the argument? One of the aspects of dialectics is that truth is concrete, in other words: know the subject you're talking about or else it is more wise to not say anything about it.

Am I supposed to know each of her arguments ? I know some of her arguments and the lack of logic in them is enough to support my claim.





Also, to bring back a point you claimed earlier: did you already found some evidence of Trotsky's plans to murder Stalin?



Do take your time, we've been waiting for 70 years already.

I answered that in one of my previous posts already. Of course, you will reject that as Stalinist propaganda. :)

[Muzk]

Am I supposed to know each of her arguments ? I know some of her arguments and the lack of logic in them is enough to support my claim.

Am I supposed to know each of red cat's arguments ? I know all of his arguments and the lack of proof in them is enough to support no claim at all.




I answered that in one of my previous posts already. Of course, you will reject that as Stalinist propaganda. :)ARE YOU ANY BETTER?!

I already said it before: You're not a saint.

[red cat]

Am I supposed to know each of red cat's arguments ? I know all of his arguments and the lack of proof in them is enough to support no claim at all.


You just claimed that you know all my arguments. Now, just to make sure,

1) If the "claims" you mentioned are yours, then my arguments are not supposed to support them.

2) Otherwise, If the "claims" you mentioned are mine, then I can prove you wrong by just discussing any of my arguments and supporting a claim of mine with them.

Be ready, I am going to challenge you soon.



ARE YOU ANY BETTER?!

I already said it before: You're not a saint.

And I too said before that I can't understand what you mean by that .

[Muzk]

You just claimed that you know all my arguments. Now, just to make sure,

1) If the "claims" you mentioned are yours, then my arguments are not supposed to support them.

2) Otherwise, If the "claims" you mentioned are mine, then I can prove you wrong by just discussing any of my arguments and supporting a claim of mine with them.

Be ready, I am going to challenge you soon.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=562&pictureid=5319




And I too said before that I can't understand what you mean by that .Stop pointing at us without looking at yourself. You deny what Trotsky wrote too, probably.

[Q]

Am I supposed to know each of her arguments ? I know some of her arguments and the lack of logic in them is enough to support my claim.
If you want to criticize a specific text of her, you have to know that specific argument.


I answered that in one of my previous posts already. Of course, you will reject that as Stalinist propaganda. :)
Where?

[Muzk]

Where?

http://art-bin.com/art/omosc20e.html

[ChrisK]

I am not going to read every essay that claims such bullshit. If you want to defend Rosa's works, then summarize the essay here.

Wrong thread. You got me distracted. Now you can read this on your own time. You still haven't given anything you've said substance.


By the same logic, I can argue that relativity or quantum mechanics is "rubbish", can't I ?

How about claiming that anti-dialectics is rubbish as well ? May be I have a proof that I am going to publish ?

Claim all you want. I really don't care. The main difference is that she did post proofs by other mathmaticians.


Please explain why you think so. My interpretation of dialectics is what many Maoists agree with. And Lex is the person who can pass the ultimate verdict about him supporting me. Trying to cover up Rosa's lies won't help.

Well since he couldn't specify what he agreed with that indicates that he might be full of shit. Just maybe.

[red cat]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=562&pictureid=5319


Stop pointing at us without looking at yourself. You deny what Trotsky wrote too, probably.

Posting spam pics is becoming a habit of yours.

Yes, we deny much of what Trotsky wrote; but that the Trotskyist line does not give accurate information when we show by the examples of modern revolutions that a large portion of what they state is wrong. Check out the Trot arguments regarding the Indian Maoist movement and how we refuted them in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/india-losing-maoist-t117578/index.html) thread.

[red cat]

If you want to criticize a specific text of her, you have to know that specific argument.


Precisely, and I have done so many times and pointed out the fallacies in Rosa's logic. Watch, I will do it here again.


Where?As Muzk pointed out.

[red cat]

Wrong thread. You got me distracted. Now you can read this on your own time. You still haven't given anything you've said substance.

Then at least link to the article you are talking about. I will point out the fallacies in that.



Claim all you want. I really don't care. The main difference is that she did post proofs by other mathmaticians.Posting proofs isn't enough. She has to take responsibility for defending at least one of those "proofs", otherwise I am not going to waste my time in painstakingly reading them up and negating them. Can you make her agree to do this? If you can then I am willing to negate any single one of those mathematical proof she links to. But after I negate any one of those proofs, she must admit that her claim had been false all along.

Until you can make her do the above, please refrain from defending her mathematical claims.


Well since he couldn't specify what he agreed with that indicates that he might be full of shit. Just maybe.Or maybe he didn't want to argue with Rosa because he didn't want to ? Anyway, in the original challenge, Rosa didn't require any people who supported my interpretation of dialectics to actually debate with her.

[ChrisK]

Then at least link to the article you are talking about. I will point out the fallacies in that.

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm


Posting proofs isn't enough. She has to take responsibility for defending at least one of those "proofs", otherwise I am not going to waste my time in painstakingly reading them up and negating them. Can you make her agree to do this? If you can then I am willing to negate any single one of those mathematical proof she links to. But after I negate any one of those proofs, she must admit that her claim had been false all along.

Until you can make her do the above, please refrain from defending her mathematical claims.

I'm not defending her mathmatical claims. I'm arguing that you call her a liar for nothing.


Or maybe he didn't want to argue with Rosa because he didn't want to ? Anyway, in the original challenge, Rosa didn't require any people who supported my interpretation of dialectics to actually debate with her.

Not debate, but show that he knew what you were saying. He clearly didn't

Speaking of original claims are you ever going to back up you statement about trotsky's dialectics? So far you seem content to prove that your a troll.

[Q]

Precisely, and I have done so many times and pointed out the fallacies in Rosa's logic. Watch, I will do it here again.
Good, but please do so in a new topic as this one isn't about Rosa.


As Muzk pointed out.I don't take show trials, in which people have been forced to make all kinds of statements before they are executed, very serious.

Some independent source perhaps? If Trotsky was really planning an assassination on Stalin, as you claim, there must be a lot of research and evidence on this matter by historians. Could you please point us to some?

[red cat]

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm

That has many parts. Which part concerns the claim in question ?



I'm not defending her mathmatical claims. I'm arguing that you call her a liar for nothing.

Her claim concerns one of the most fundamental and well established theorems of mathematics. Until she agrees to defend a proof of her claim, I WILL call her a liar.



Not debate, but show that he knew what you were saying. He clearly didn't

He himself says that he supports me. Are you a telepathist that you know better than him ? By the way, Rosa's interpretation makes the self contradiction so obvious that no sane person is supposed to interpret Marxism like that and still hold that it is true.


Speaking of original claims are you ever going to back up you statement about trotsky's dialectics? So far you seem content to prove that your a troll. A point to note is that despite the presence of so many Trots in this thread, none of them is stepping forward to explain dialectics. I wonder why... :lol:

Anyway, it is easy to see the link between dialectics and practice. One common example is that opposites transform into each other. In a capitalist system, the major contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So they transform into each other with respect to the ownership of capital plus certain other social characters.

[red cat]

Good, but please do so in a new topic as this one isn't about Rosa.


I think it is relevant enough. Since you lot identify yourselves with Bolsheviks, it won't be off topic to prove that the proletariat didn't ignore Marxist or Leninist dialectics.


I don't take show trials, in which people have been forced to make all kinds of statements before they are executed, very serious.

Some independent source perhaps? If Trotsky was really planning an assassination on Stalin, as you claim, there must be a lot of research and evidence on this matter by historians. Could you please point us to some?No source is independent of class, and I don't know of any other source either.

We don't make a big deal about Trotsky planning to assassinate Stalin, and we don't care whether any bourgeois historian touches the subject or not. We presently concentrate on the ongoing revolutions and it would also be practical for Trotskyists to do so.

[Q]

I think it is relevant enough. Since you lot identify yourselves with Bolsheviks, it won't be off topic to prove that the proletariat didn't ignore Marxist or Leninist dialectics.
Again, Rosa doesn't speak for all Trotskyists. You are truly thick.


No source is independent of class, and I don't know of any other source either.

We don't make a big deal about Trotsky planning to assassinate Stalin, and we don't care whether any bourgeois historian touches the subject or not. We presently concentrate on the ongoing revolutions and it would also be practical for Trotskyists to do so.
I take this as an admission that you don't actually have any proof. Thank you for clearing that up. If you would please retract the statement that Trotsky had any assassination plans, it would add to your credence.

[danyboy27]

We don't make a big deal about Trotsky planning to assassinate Stalin, and we don't care whether any bourgeois historian touches the subject or not. We presently concentrate on the ongoing revolutions and it would also be practical for Trotskyists to do so.

so, the soviet justice system wasnt that reliable after all?

[red cat]

Again, Rosa doesn't speak for all Trotskyists. You are truly thick.


Do you even read my posts? I am defending Leninist dialectics.



I take this as an admission that you don't actually have any proof. Thank you for clearing that up. If you would please retract the statement that Trotsky had any assassination plans, it would add to your credence.

We believe the Soviet version of history to be true.

[red cat]

so, the soviet justice system wasnt that reliable after all?

We support the Moscow trials.

[danyboy27]

We support the Moscow trials.

this will go in my sig too!

[red cat]

this will go in my sig too!

Thank you. Can you please put some more of my statements in your sig? I will be happy if you propagandize for me. :)

[Q]

Do you even read my posts? I am defending Leninist dialectics.
I have, much to my agony. And like there is no such thing as "Trotskyist dialectics", so there is no such thing as "Leninist dialectics" either. Dialectical-materialism is an inherent part of Marxist philosophy. Your attacks therefore on "Trotskyist dialectics" make no sense.

And this thread isn't even about dialectics whatsoever.


We believe the Soviet version of history to be true.Just like that? A statement made by a tortured person in a showtrial which is about to be executed has any kind of value to you? If this medieval practice was done in a bourgeois judicial system you'd be fighting against it (I hope), so why do you accept it as a legitimate way to find the truth in the case of the USSR?

[RedAnarchist]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=562&pictureid=5319


Stop pointing at us without looking at yourself. You deny what Trotsky wrote too, probably.


Please keep the spam pictures off of the forum. Consider this a verbal warning.

[red cat]

I have, much to my agony. And like there is no such thing as "Trotskyist dialectics", so there is no such thing as "Leninist dialectics" either. Dialectical-materialism is an inherent part of Marxist philosophy. Your attacks therefore on "Trotskyist dialectics" make no sense.

And this thread isn't even about dialectics whatsoever.

Whatever you call it, I am defending dialectics, not attacking it. It is important to establish that the proletariat does not ignore dialectics.

Once again, to make things easier for you to understand, I AM NOT ATTACKING TROTSKYIST DIALECTICS.



Just like that? A statement made by a tortured person in a showtrial which is about to be executed has any kind of value to you? If this medieval practice was done in a bourgeois judicial system you'd be fighting against it (I hope), so why do you accept it as a legitimate way to find the truth in the case of the USSR?

The portion of making the accused confess was not necessary. I think that it was enough to shoot them when they could not defend themselves against the accusations.

[Q]

Please keep the spam pictures off of the forum. Consider this a verbal warning.
Could you please issue a verbal warning to red cat continues trolling, lies and provocations? It is pretty obvious that he considers himself on some kind of holy crusade against the Trotskyist movement, this adds venom to the atmosphere on the board. And while I think Muzk should have responded more levelheaded and refuse to give in to the provocations, I can certainly understand why he does.

[red cat]

Could you please issue a verbal warning to red cat continues trolling, lies and provocations? It is pretty obvious that he considers himself on some kind of holy crusade against the Trotskyist movement, this adds venom to the atmosphere on the board. And while I think Muzk should have responded more levelheaded and refuse to give in to the provocations, I can certainly understand why he does.

Please explain which of my posts in this thread fit the above category and why.

[Q]

Whatever you call it, I am defending dialectics, not attacking it. It is important to establish that the proletariat does not ignore dialectics.
Good. Now open a thread in which you deal with Rosa's attacks on dialectics and continue this discussion in there.


Once again, to make things easier for you to understand, I AM NOT ATTACKING TROTSKYIST DIALECTICS.We are making progress. You can't attack something which doesn't exist after all.


The portion of making the accused confess was not necessary. I think that it was enough to shoot them when they could not defend themselves against the accusations.So you're guilty unless proven otherwise? I think the bourgeois judicial system is much better then.


Please explain which of my posts in this thread fit the above category and why.

Pretty much all of them for reasons I elaborated in previous posts.

[red cat]

Good. Now open a thread in which you deal with Rosa's attacks on dialectics and continue this discussion in there.


But dialectics is a part of Marxism, and Trotskyists consider themselves to be Marxists. So this topic is not irrelevant here.



So you're guilty unless proven otherwise? I think the bourgeois judicial system is much better then.There must have been some kind of proof against them. And considering that the same movement that opposes the present revolutions supports the ones accused, they were certainly guilty.


Pretty much all of them for reasons I elaborated in previous posts.

Not clear enough.

[Chambered Word]

Trash every bit of stupidity he's posted on this thread, for the love of god...:rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

There must have been some kind of proof against them. And considering that the same movement that opposes the present revolutions supports the ones accused, they were certainly guilty.

there must have been some proofs against communist for the germans to trial and execute communists, they burned the reichtag after all:rolleyes:

on another Note Reinard heidrich and the SD where actively disseminating information inside the soviet union before the war to incriminate high profile civilian and military targets.

[RedAnarchist]

Could you please issue a verbal warning to red cat continues trolling, lies and provocations? It is pretty obvious that he considers himself on some kind of holy crusade against the Trotskyist movement, this adds venom to the atmosphere on the board. And while I think Muzk should have responded more levelheaded and refuse to give in to the provocations, I can certainly understand why he does.


OK.

Verbal warning to red cat as well.

[red cat]

OK.

Verbal warning to red cat as well.

I odject. None of the other posters have so far been able to state clearly why my posts should be classified as spam.

[Muzk]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=562&pictureid=5320



I odject. None of the other posters have so far been able to state clearly why my posts should be classified as spam.


If you didn't know, here's your spam: (this thread only)

Also, the OP asked what Trotskyism exactly is. Trotskyism is incomplete without Trot dialectics.

When was the last time you heard a Trot criticize another for denouncing Maoist revolutions ?
After joining chegitz' spam:

I know. Yet she is a member of the Trotskyist group. :lol:

That is a bit of over-simplification. Though in the third world Trotskyism is analogous to reformism at present, there are many comrades in the first world who intend to make revolution but are deluded by infeasible Trot tactics and false history. So it is very important to teach them that no matter how hard they try, they won't be able to make any significant progress if they don't learn from the ongoing revolutions.
Explaining spam with more spam:

I only linked to a work by one of your fellow Trots. :)

True. The masses will learn through practice and accept the correct ideology irrespective of who proposed it, precisely as they are doing in India, Nepal or the Philippines.

But that does not in any way lessen the duty of the vanguard parties in the first world. They must continuously engage in class struggle, educate base-level cadres of Trot parties and expose their leaders, so that the Sri Lankan incidence does not repeat itself.

I was referring to the Trotskyist group here in Revleft. Why is she a member even though she opposes dialectics and typically attacks every revolution that has taken place so far ?


What I mean to say is that by keeping Rosa in the Trotskyist group, you are showing indirect sympathy to her anti-communist theories. I think that this should stop.

Enough for now.

[red cat]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=562&pictureid=5320





If you didn't know, here's your spam: (this thread only)


After joining chegitz' spam:


Explaining spam with more spam:





Enough for now.

Stop posting spam pics. And you are yet to explain why those posts of mine are spam.

[Muzk]

Stop posting spam pics. And you are yet to explain why those posts of mine are spam.

It is hard, your spamming techniques are very well trained.

But I can say that most of your posts have nothing to do with the thread, and were mere provocations. Every normal person is able to see that.

Furthermore, you started pointing at Rosa, who probably doesn't even know this thread exists.


Stop posting spam pics.
I expressed my feelings towards your sarcastic provocations.
No deal.

[red cat]

It is hard, your spamming techniques are very well trained.

What spam ? So far you have been the only person to have spammed here.


But I can say that most of your posts have nothing to do with the thread, and were mere provocations.

You are yet to show how.



Every normal person is able to see that.

:rolleyes:


Furthermore, you started pointing at Rosa, who probably doesn't even know this thread exists.

I have pointed only at the invalid arguments that anti dialectics raises to negate Marxism. Since an anti-dialectician has joined this thread, he should be able to defend this anti-Marxist theory.



I expressed my feelings towards your sarcastic provocations.
No deal.

Really ? Then don't remove those pics and wait for the mods to find out your feelings.

[RedAnarchist]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=562&pictureid=5320.

You've already been warned for spamming. I'll send you a PM warning, and any more spam pictures will result in an infraction.

[Muzk]

What spam ? So far you have been the only person to have spammed here.

Your level of hipocrisy... noone can beat it.




I have pointed only at the invalid arguments that anti dialectics raises to negate Marxism. Since an anti-dialectician has joined this thread, he should be able to defend this anti-Marxist theory.

ô_o YOU started with dialectics. Now YOU excuse this by saying "an anti-dialectician is in this thread"?!? With this logic I might as well say because you are in this thread you have to defend Mao, and go completely off-topic (where I'm from this is called spam)


Really ? Then don't remove those pics and wait for the mods to find out your feelings.
I'm chilled :cool:

[red cat]

Your level of hipocrisy... noone can beat it.



ô_o YOU started with dialectics. Now YOU excuse this by saying "an anti-dialectician is in this thread"?!? With this logic I might as well say because you are in this thread you have to defend Mao, and go completely off-topic (where I'm from this is called spam)


I will take the first significant step in reducing spam in this thread. I won't reply to these troll-posts of yours anymore.


I'm chilled :cool:Good :lol:

[Q]

I will take the first significant step in reducing spam in this thread. I won't reply to these troll-posts of yours anymore.
Perhaps you could do us a favor and stop posting inhere (and other threads on the Trotskyist movement) at all? Nice try at trying to make yourself look like the victim by the way.

[red cat]

Perhaps you could do us a favor and stop posting inhere (and other threads on the Trotskyist movement) at all?

Sorry, can't do that. I am defending the revolutionary aspects of Trotskyism here.


Nice try at trying to make yourself look like the victim by the way.I don't get your point. :confused:

[Q]

I am defending the revolutionary aspects of Trotskyism here.
You're a true master of confusion.

[red cat]

You're a true master of confusion.

Stop spamming. Let's engage in some serious discussion.

[bricolage]

We support the Moscow trials.

Do you think statements like this might be on of the reasons lots of people are very apprehensive of supporting the current insurgencies you so often parade here?

[chegitz guevara]

After joining chegitz' spam:

Wait? What? This is my third post in this thread, and one of those posts was pointing out RC was wrong.

[red cat]

Do you think statements like this might be on of the reasons lots of people are very apprehensive of supporting the current insurgencies you so often parade here?

Trotskyists should get over it. They have been thinking nothing but what happened seventy years ago.

[bricolage]

Trotskyists should get over it. They have been thinking nothing but what happened seventy years ago.

The idea of getting beyond solely thinking of the past is a fair one, I agree with Vaneigem that 'an ideology of history has one purpose only; to prevent people from making history' and Marx that 'the tradition of all the dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the brain of the living'. However at the same time we cannot simply ignore everything that has come before us and when people make comments such 'we support the Moscow trials', it seems to demonstrate nothing other than a failure to deal with past mistakes and indicates that they will end up going down these same paths and repeating these same errors.

[RED DAVE]

Trotskyists should get over it. They have been thinking nothing but what happened seventy years ago.The very fact that you want us to "get over" murders committed by people you support of people we support prevent us from getting over it.

Why, for example, should we "get over" the fact that Stalin had Trotsky murdered when Stalinists justify this crime? This makes it likely, in our eyes, that given a chance, Stalinists will commit such crimes again.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

The idea of getting beyond solely thinking of the past is a fair one, I agree with Vaneigem that 'an ideology of history has one purpose only; to prevent people from making history' and Marx that 'the tradition of all the dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the brain of the living'. However at the same time we cannot simply ignore everything that has come before us and when people make comments such 'we support the Moscow trials', it seems to demonstrate nothing other than a failure to deal with past mistakes and indicates that they will end up going down these same paths and repeating these same errors.

The point is that, no matter how many documents or scholarly works you have, they don't really prove anything. On the other hand, our tendency has been leading the revolutionary wave always. What if the accused were found guilty ? You cannot ignore what revolutionary parties uphold as their lines. Maybe some of them had comrades present there ? That is how revolutionary parties decide their line, not by looking at works from bourgeois historians.

[red cat]

The very fact that you want us to "get over" murders committed by people you support of people we support prevent us from getting over it.

Why, for example, should we "get over" the fact that Stalin had Trotsky murdered when Stalinists justify this crime? This makes it likely, in our eyes, that given a chance, Stalinists will commit such crimes again.

RED DAVE

Because if you don't stop whining about all that then you won't make any practical progress. This is why you haven't been able to do anything in India or Nepal.

[bricolage]

The point is that, no matter how many documents or scholarly works you have, they don't really prove anything... You cannot ignore what revolutionary parties uphold as their lines. Maybe some of them had comrades present there ?

I'm sorry but the possibility that 'maybe' some parties had comrades there is a terrible way of looking at history, just seems to suggest there is no evidence to support this line. That's not history it's inherited memory and...


That is how revolutionary parties decide their line, not by looking at works from bourgeois historians.

I think is a terrible way to approach things. In the first instance it's wholly elitist as it assumes that 'revolutionary parties' have the right to dictate an interpretation of the past as 'true' and that others most follow suit, despite however much evidence may suggest the contrary. Furthermore it gives such parties to change the past on a whim, if tomorrow they decided the Moscow trials were a sham, would you then change your view too?
I think in total this boils down to complete stripping of agential power in favour of collective subsurvience to a higher good; the party. This isn't revolutionary, it's disgusting.

[red cat]

I'm sorry but the possibility that 'maybe' some parties had comrades there is a terrible way of looking at history, just seems to suggest there is no evidence to support this line. That's not history it's inherited memory and...


You have not received any argument from any partisan Maoist from the third world yet. Most of our CPs are underground. Before you can make a decisive comment, you should be able to engage in debate with them.


I think is a terrible way to approach things. In the first instance it's wholly elitist as it assumes that 'revolutionary parties' have the right to dictate an interpretation of the past as 'true' and that others most follow suit, despite however much evidence may suggest the contrary. Furthermore it gives such parties to change the past on a whim, if tomorrow they decided the Moscow trials were a sham, would you then change your view too?
I think in total this boils down to complete stripping of agential power in favour of collective subsurvience to a higher good; the party. This isn't revolutionary, it's disgusting.I believe that whatever revolutionary parties decide, they do with a concrete reason. Provided that I can verify they are not turning revisionists, I prefer to adopt their political and historical line as mine. There is no reason why I would support the military line of the PKP, but say, uphold the historical line of the CWI.

[bricolage]

You have not received any argument from any partisan Maoist from the third world yet. Most of our CPs are underground. Before you can make a decisive comment, you should be able to engage in debate with them.

This seems to be a rather lazy way of ending the issue, I cannot comment until I speak to Third World Maoists, however seeing as Third World Maoists are underground I probably couldn't speak to them anyway, right?


I believe that whatever revolutionary parties decide, they do with a concrete reason.

Well everything that happens has a concrete reason, without meaning to dig too much I then don't think it's unfair to say the conrete reason behind supporting the Moscow Trials would be to provide an element of legitimacy to any similar show trials you might engage with yourself.


Provided that I can verify they are not turning revisionists, I prefer to adopt their political and historical line as mine.

Do you think, for a Marxist, this then betrays Marx's idea that we should 'question everything'?


There is no reason why I would support the military line of the PKP, but say, uphold the historical line of the CWI.

I don't really think there's any reason so support either!... But that's a whole other discussion.

[red cat]

This seems to be a rather lazy way of ending the issue, I cannot comment until I speak to Third World Maoists, however seeing as Third World Maoists are underground I probably couldn't speak to them anyway, right?



Well everything that happens has a concrete reason, without meaning to dig too much I then don't think it's unfair to say the conrete reason behind supporting the Moscow Trials would be to provide an element of legitimacy to any similar show trials you might engage with yourself.



Do you think, for a Marxist, this then betrays Marx's idea that we should 'question everything'?



I don't really think there's any reason so support either!... But that's a whole other discussion.

Big Trot parties can engage in debates with the UCPN(M) though. However, I have started a new thread on the Moscow trials here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/moscow-trials-t131416/index.html?p=1697654#post1697654), so that MLers and Trots can debate.

[bricolage]

Big Trot parties can engage in debates with the UCPN(M) though.

Sadly I am not a big Trot party :(


However, I have started a new thread on the Moscow trials here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/moscow-trials-t131416/index.html?p=1697654#post1697654), so that MLers and Trots can debate.

Once again I guess I can't take party. Alas.

[red cat]

Sadly I am not a big Trot party :(


I am only saying that if big Trot parties had any intention to debate this topic, then they could have done so.




Once again I guess I can't take party. Alas.

Why not ? :lol:

[bricolage]

I am only saying that if big Trot parties had any intention to debate this topic, then they could have done so.

I'm not sure that's really the case, beside from the fact I doubt there are really any 'big Trot parties', I think it's highly possible they don't really have avenues of communication in with Maoists in the Global South? In any case I don't understand why the apparent lack of debate by Trotskyist political parties either validates or invalidates arguments to do with the Moscow Trials and/or following a parties historical line.


Why not ? :lol:

I'm not a MLer or a Trot :)

[red cat]

I'm not sure that's really the case, beside from the fact I doubt there are really any 'big Trot parties', I think it's highly possible they don't really have avenues of communication in with Maoists in the Global South? In any case I don't understand why the apparent lack of debate by Trotskyist political parties either validates or invalidates arguments to do with the Moscow Trials and/or following a parties historical line.


Because since that is what Trot parties seem to care about the most, then they should debate it with some big MLMist party like the UCPN(M), now that they are powerful enough and are operating openly.

Since this debate is not taking place, I think that the big Trot parties are rather scared that they will be defeated.



I'm not a MLer or a Trot :)Still, please feel free to debate there. It is for everyone, though MLers and Trots will automatically make the most posts. :)

[ChrisK]

That has many parts. Which part concerns the claim in question ?

The whole thing.


Her claim concerns one of the most fundamental and well established theorems of mathematics. Until she agrees to defend a proof of her claim, I WILL call her a liar.




He himself says that he supports me. Are you a telepathist that you know better than him ? By the way, Rosa's interpretation makes the self contradiction so obvious that no sane person is supposed to interpret Marxism like that and still hold that it is true.
A point to note is that despite the presence of so many Trots in this thread, none of them is stepping forward to explain dialectics. I wonder why... :lol:

This thread isn't about Rosa. You can continuing talking shit, or you can prove that Trotskyism requires "Trotsky's dialectic"


Anyway, it is easy to see the link between dialectics and practice. One common example is that opposites transform into each other. In a capitalist system, the major contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. So they transform into each other with respect to the ownership of capital plus certain other social characters.

Using that argument, I could argue that a Marxist group will turn into its opposite, a fascist group. Great example.

[red cat]

The whole thing. Good. Do you agree to defend it ?




This thread isn't about Rosa. You can continuing talking shit, or you can prove that Trotskyism requires "Trotsky's dialectic"Is that all you have to say when you are cornered ? :lol:



Using that argument, I could argue that a Marxist group will turn into its opposite, a fascist group. Great example.You need a lesson in elementary dialectics. :lol:

EDIT: Are you sure you want me to tell you why your example is wrong ? Or are you writing all this just for the sake of contradicting me ?

[ChrisK]

Good. Do you agree to defend it ?

If I disagree with parts I won't defend them. But the parts I do agree with I will defend.


Is that all you have to say when you are cornered ? :lol:

No, this is what I say when I'm tired of the lets bash Rosa game.


You need a lesson in elementary dialectics. :lol:

EDIT: Are you sure you want me to tell you why your example is wrong ? Or are you writing all this just for the sake of contradicting me ?

Its called a counter example. Care to show me where it goes wrong?

[Chimurenga.]

Why, for example, should we "get over" the fact that Stalin had Trotsky murdered when Stalinists justify this crime?

If you have any proof of this allegation, I'd like to see it.

[h9socialist]

An important part of Trotskyism in the US has been overlooked in this thread, and that's the Shactmanite influence. A main reason that Trots get a rough rap in some quarters is that his main lieutenant in the US, Max Shactmann became so ardently anti-Moscow that he started to seem like a CIA operative. Shactmann himself was not a bad socialist, but when his wing took over the Socialist Party in the 1960s it went very far to the right. Reagan Administration stalwarts Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Linda Chavez were originally right-wing Shactmanites. Shactmann will always be remembered for overzealously pulling American socialism toward an anti-Soviet and anti-Communist stance during the Cold War, and he took a big piece of US Trotskyism right along with him.

[red cat]

If I disagree with parts I won't defend them. But the parts I do agree with I will defend.

Good. I will read it up and see how it proves that the proletariat has always ignored dialectics.




No, this is what I say when I'm tired of the lets bash Rosa game.

Okay, let's stop discussing her. But even though you refuse to recognize the fact that Rosa never debates properly and dodges challenge instead, it will be useful for you to know that what she has claimed about Cantor's theorem is so big that it will shake the foundations of mathematics and many other sciences if it is true. It is unusual that she hasn't published her work in any reputed journal yet; generally these types of works get published soon after their discovery. Specifically with the ICM not far away, we would surely know if someone achieved such a breakthrough by now.




Its called a counter example. Care to show me where it goes wrong?Sure. First tell me why you think communists and fascists are opposites. In details.

[ChrisK]

Okay, let's stop discussing her. But even though you refuse to recognize the fact that Rosa never debates properly and dodges challenge instead, it will be useful for you to know that what she has claimed about Cantor's theorem is so big that it will shake the foundations of mathematics and many other sciences if it is true. It is unusual that she hasn't published her work in any reputed journal yet; generally these types of works get published soon after their discovery. Specifically with the ICM not far away, we would surely know if someone achieved such a breakthrough by now.

Funny, for not talking about it, you write alot


Sure. First tell me why you think communists and fascists are opposites. In details.

Fascists: Reactionary, Bonapartist, Pro-state, Capitalist
Communist: Revolutionary, Anti-state, Anti-capitalist.

And if you'll indulge me, why not turn into a capitalist party then?

[red cat]

Funny, for not talking about it, you write alot

I just wanted you to know. :)




Fascists: Reactionary, Bonapartist, Pro-state, Capitalist
Communist: Revolutionary, Anti-state, Anti-capitalist.

And if you'll indulge me, why not turn into a capitalist party then?

I appreciate your sense of humour. :)

So, it is evident that fascists and communists are opposites in the specific aspects that you mention, right ? In other very negligible aspects, they might have common characteristics. For example, both are human beings. Very naive example though, but do you agree?

[InuyashaKnight]

I don't mind Trotsky-ism, i support the idea of Worldwide revolution.

[ChrisK]

So, it is evident that fascists and communists are opposites in the specific aspects that you mention, right ? In other very negligible aspects, they might have common characteristics. For example, both are human beings. Very naive example though, but do you agree?

You are the one who argues that things turn into their opposites and visa versa. Since this is the case, a reactionary would turn into a revolutionary and a revolutionary back into a reactionary. A socialist would turn into a capitalist and back into a socialist. A human into a rock. All of these are opposites turning into eachother.

[red cat]

You are the one who argues that things turn into their opposites and visa versa. Since this is the case, a reactionary would turn into a revolutionary and a revolutionary back into a reactionary. A socialist would turn into a capitalist and back into a socialist. A human into a rock. All of these are opposites turning into eachother.

Look, if you want to learn then answer my questions to the point. I know exactly why you are reacting like this, but breaking down one's old ideas is a part of learning, and it has to be done no matter how much one respects a theory or its proposer. So, back to the point, if you please.

EDIT: And my example is far from complete.

[Kléber]

If you have any proof of this allegation, I'd like to see it.
Trotsky's assassin was a GPU agent and was given a hero's welcome by the Soviet bureaucracy. At the height of the campaign against "Trotskyism," an entire floor of NKVD headquarters had been devoted to offices organizing slander, infiltration and assassinations against the Fourth International. In his later years, Molotov was honest enough to admit that Stalin had ordered the killing. Also, don't forget about the first failed attempt..

[RED DAVE]

The very fact that you want us to "get over" murders committed by people you support of people we support prevent us from getting over it.

Why, for example, should we "get over" the fact that Stalin had Trotsky murdered when Stalinists justify this crime? This makes it likely, in our eyes, that given a chance, Stalinists will commit such crimes again.
Because if you don't stop whining about all that then you won't make any practical progress. This is why you haven't been able to do anything in India or Nepal.You prove my point.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

You prove my point.

RED DAVE Huh ? :confused:

[ChrisK]

Look, if you want to learn then answer my questions to the point. I know exactly why you are reacting like this, but breaking down one's old ideas is a part of learning, and it has to be done no matter how much one respects a theory or its proposer. So, back to the point, if you please.

EDIT: And my example is far from complete.

Okay, your point that these things aren't opposites because they have things in common. Well that point destoy's your own view of dialectics. If things aren't opposites unless they are completely opposite, then the bourgeoisie and proletariat aren't actually opposites since both are human, both can speak a language, etc.

[red cat]

Okay, your point that these things aren't opposites because they have things in common. Well that point destoy's your own view of dialectics. If things aren't opposites unless they are completely opposite, then the bourgeoisie and proletariat aren't actually opposites since both are human, both can speak a language, etc.

See ? You are assuming things again. I just asked you whether you understood up to that part or not. Answer my questions to the point. Sometimes a simple yes or no will suffice.

The point that I wanted to make is that when we talk of opposites, we only talk of them opposing each other in certain aspects. Is this much clear ?

[ChrisK]

See ? You are assuming things again. I just asked you whether you understood up to that part or not. Answer my questions to the point. Sometimes a simple yes or no will suffice.

The point that I wanted to make is that when we talk of opposites, we only talk of them opposing each other in certain aspects. Is this much clear ?

Yes

[red cat]

Yes

Good. Now let us set this example aside for a while. We will return to it later.

Suppose you have a jar half filled with water. You fasten its lid and keep it that way for a couple of days. What do you observe ?

Then you take off its lid for a few minutes, and then fasten it again. What do you observe after a few days?

[ChrisK]

Good. Now let us set this example aside for a while. We will return to it later.

Suppose you have a jar half filled with water. You fasten its lid and keep it that way for a couple of days. What do you observe ?

Then you take off its lid for a few minutes, and then fasten it again. What do you observe after a few days?

Evaporation?

[The Ben G]

Red Cat, please stop trolling. Its not going anywhere.

[red cat]

Evaporation?

Correct !

After you have sealed the lid and kept the jar for a few days, you will observe that the water level has gone down slightly.

In the jar, countless water molecules always collide with each other. There is a certain force of attraction between any two water molecules, but sometimes due to these collisions, a molecule gains so much momentum that it shoots out into the air above. Similarly, the water molecules in the air too hit the water surface very hard and enter the water mass sometimes. After a while the number of water molecules leaving the water mass per unit time equals the number of water molecules entering it, which is why only a certain amount of water will evaporate in the jar. This is called a state of equilibrium. Thus, even in a system(the jar of water) that seems so static, there is transformation.

Now, when you take off the lid of the jar, some of the air in it escapes into the open, and is replaced by air from outside, with less water content. This means that less water molecules will enter the water mass every unit time, and more will enter the air. So the water level will decrease even more before equilibrium is reached.

Thus, in even such a system which seems stagnant, change is always taking place.

Till now, no system in the real world has been observed, which truly remains static. Change is there everywhere. No matter what the conditions of a given system(in the real world) be, some change will always take place there.

Is everything so far clear?

[red cat]

Red Cat, please stop trolling. Its not going anywhere.

Either follow the discussion or stop posting. Don't comment on anything that you don't want to understand.

[ChrisK]

Correct !

After you have sealed the lid and kept the jar for a few days, you will observe that the water level has gone down slightly.

In the jar, countless water molecules always collide with each other. There is a certain force of attraction between any two water molecules, but sometimes due to these collisions, a molecule gains so much momentum that it shoots out into the air above. Similarly, the water molecules in the air too hit the water surface very hard and enter the water mass sometimes. After a while the number of water molecules leaving the water mass per unit time equals the number of water molecules entering it, which is why only a certain amount of water will evaporate in the jar. This is called a state of equilibrium. Thus, even in a system(the jar of water) that seems so static, there is transformation.

Now, when you take off the lid of the jar, some of the air in it escapes into the open, and is replaced by air from outside, with less water content. This means that less water molecules will enter the water mass every unit time, and more will enter the air. So the water level will decrease even more before equilibrium is reached.

Thus, in even such a system which seems stagnant, change is always taking place.

Till now, no system in the real world has been observed, which truly remains static. Change is there everywhere. No matter what the conditions of a given system be, some change will always take place there.

Is everything so far clear?

Clear, but inaccurate. Water doesn't evaporate because of some contradictions in the water. Water evaporates because some outside force (heat) causes the molecules to move faster.

Also, observations of protons indicates that they don't change and that they are static.

[red cat]

Good points. But don't hurry much. I haven't spoken of contradictions yet. Not in this example at least.


Clear, but inaccurate. Water doesn't evaporate because of some contradictions in the water. Water evaporates because some outside force (heat) causes the molecules to move faster.

Heat itself is nothing but the cumulative property of a system which corresponds to the amount of movement of its molecules. When you dip your finger in hot water it feels hot because many water molecules collide with your finger every moment. When the jar is at room temperature, its water molecules already are in a state of motion. That itself is enough to cause vaporization.


Also, observations of protons indicates that they don't change and that they are static.Even if you take an isolated atom to be static (in coordinates), the protons inside it's nucleus will undergo change in coordinates. But perhaps the best example of protons changing are certain types of radioactive decay which involve protons being transferred and even created.

Let me know what you think.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Nice to see the Trotskyists/Left communists ganging up and calling those who criticize them "trolls" and basically chasing away any critics.:thumbup1: Way to fight them Stalinists!!

[Q]

Nice to see the Trotskyists/Left communists ganging up and calling those who criticize them "trolls" and basically chasing away any critics.:thumbup1: Way to fight them Stalinists!!

Ping!


Red cat's way to wreck a thread is pretty obvious:
1. Put forward a "genuine" critique on Trotskyism, real or invented. In this case it is invented.
2. Use it as a platform to bash against Trotskyism, provoke other Trotskyists.
3. Invite other M-L'ers to join the bandwagon and further demolish said thread.

It gets very tiresome and in my opinion red cat should get more warning points for it.

Took you long enough.

[ChrisK]

Good points. But don't hurry much. I haven't spoken of contradictions yet. Not in this example at least.



Heat itself is nothing but the cumulative property of a system which corresponds to the amount of movement of its molecules. When you dip your finger in hot water it feels hot because many water molecules collide with your finger every moment. When the jar is at room temperature, its water molecules already are in a state of motion. That itself is enough to cause vaporization.

And in the room were cold, then the vaporization wouldn't happen. It requires a certain external temperature. Heat is an external factor in terms of water vaportizing.


Even if you take an isolated atom to be static (in coordinates), the protons inside it's nucleus will undergo change in coordinates. But perhaps the best example of protons changing are certain types of radioactive decay which involve protons being transferred and even created.

Let me know what you think.

The changes your talking about are changes in position and creation, but that doesn't change that we haven't seen a proton actually change.

[red cat]

And in the room were cold, then the vaporization wouldn't happen. It requires a certain external temperature. Heat is an external factor in terms of water vaportizing.

A certain amount of motion is required to break through the water surface. But since the liquid state of water implies motion of its constituent molecules, a non-zero probability of accumulation of enough momentum on a single molecule remains, which can make it leave the water mass and enter the air. Since this property is displayed in room temperature itself, no external factor in the form of heat is required.




The changes your talking about are changes in position and creation, but that doesn't change that we haven't seen a proton actually change.Change in position is good enough. But since you want to know, protons can change into neutrons.

Clear ?

[chegitz guevara]

If you have any proof of this allegation, I'd like to see it.

Are you joking? Ramon Mercador was a GPU agent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Till now, no system in the real world has been observed, which truly remains static. Change is there everywhere. No matter what the conditions of a given system (in the real world) be, some change will always take place there.

That is like the Christian argument, many centuries ago, that no system has been observed that does not illustrate the benevolence of 'god'.

But, there are changeless objects in the universe: protons, photons and electrons.

If left alone, they are, as far as is known (by observation), eternal. So, if they do ever change (because they are experimented upon), it can't be because of their 'internal contradictions'.

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

But, even if the universe is always changing, along with the above particles, this doesn't mean we have to accept the confused explanation we find in 'dialectical materialism'. In fact, if we need a theory of change, dialectics would not even make the bottom of the reserve list of viable candidates.

And this is because, as I have shown in the Mao thread (and my argument has yet to be effectively refuted -- you, Red Cat, have abandoned the field, more intent on diverting attention from your plight than in defending your 'theory'), if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-theory-change-t130879/index.html

[red cat]

Red Cat:



That is like the Christian argument, many centuries ago, that no system has been observed that does not illustrate the benevolence of 'god'.

But, there are changeless objects in the universe: protons, photons and electrons.

If left alone, they are, as far as is known (by observation), eternal. So, if they do ever change (because they are experimented upon), it can't be because of their 'internal contradictions'.

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

But, even if the universe is always changing, along with the above particles, this doesn't mean we have to accept the confused explanation we find in 'dialectical materialism'. In fact, if we need a theory of change, dialectics would not even make the bottom of the reserve list of viable candidates.

And this is because, as I have shown in the Mao thread (and my argument has yet to be effectively refuted -- you, Red Cat, have abandoned the field, more intent on diverting attention from your plight than in defending your 'theory'), if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/maos-theory-change-t130879/index.html

Rosa, I think you know how unscientific your claims are. However, I will not let you spam here. I have been explaining dialectics here, and so I will; but I won't reply to your posts in this thread anymore.

Now, as we have already seen in other threads, you will probably post some more here mocking dialectics and then leave us in peace.

EDIT: If you are not afraid of losing this debate, then you will defend your previous claims in the Mao thread, and raise these points there. But to speak the truth, I am not interested in debating science or mathematics with anyone who lies about both and whose knowledge is limited to wikipedia.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Rosa, I think you know how unscientific your claims are. However, I will not let you spam here. I have been explaining dialectics here, and so I will; but I won't reply to your posts in this thread anymore.

So, still incapable of defending your 'theory', I see? :lol:


Now, as we have already seen in other threads, you will probably post some more here mocking dialectics and then leave us in peace.

But you are the one who introduced dialectics to this thread.

Moreover, you've some cheek; you have been spamming the Mao threads for months!:lol:

[ChrisK]

A certain amount of motion is required to break through the water surface. But since the liquid state of water implies motion of its constituent molecules, a non-zero probability of accumulation of enough momentum on a single molecule remains, which can make it leave the water mass and enter the air. Since this property is displayed in room temperature itself, no external factor in the form of heat is required.



Change in position is good enough. But since you want to know, protons can change into neutrons.

Clear ?

I seriously doubt that protons can change into neutrons (feel free to prove me wrong). But anyway, continue.

[AK]

I seriously doubt that protons can change into neutrons (feel free to prove me wrong). But anyway, continue.
Now I haven't been paying much attention to this thread at all but how in the hell did you manage to steer the topic away from Trotskyism to the components of atoms...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Well, Red Cat introduced 'dialectics' on page one, and then made a series of provocative remarks (some about change, which introduced protons), and then had the cheek to tell me not to derail the thread with talk about dialectics.:lol:

[AK]

^^^Well, Red Cat introduced 'dialectics' on page one, and then made a series of provocative remarks (some about change, which introduced protons), and then had the cheek to tell me not to derail the thread with talk about dialectics.:lol:
It sounds like smart-people talk. I'd best not get myself involved.

[chegitz guevara]

I seriously doubt that protons can change into neutrons (feel free to prove me wrong). But anyway, continue.

Where do you think neutron stars come from?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Protons can change into neutrons if they are acted upon externally -- through electron capture. But, the point I was making is that if protons do change, it can't be because of their 'inner contradictions', for they have none.

That is, even if we knew what a 'dialectical contradiction' was to begin with.

[chegitz guevara]

According to the currently operating models of the universe, all protons will eventually decay.

[red cat]

I seriously doubt that protons can change into neutrons (feel free to prove me wrong). But anyway, continue.

The notion that every real system changes is fundamental to dialectics. Even if we ignore the more complex situations of protons changing, and go for some simpler example of "change" in protons, change in their position with respect to other particles is good enough; change in the number of protons in the nucleus of an element transforms the element itself.

Till now we have not observed any real system that does not change.

Clear ?

[el_chavista]

If there is enough matter, the Universe will stop expanding and begin to shrink until it would become one point of energy that, in turn, eventually would again big-bang and originate another Universe.

[Q]

Derailing complete.

Can this thread be trashed now?

[ChrisK]

The notion that every real system changes is fundamental to dialectics. Even if we ignore the more complex situations of protons changing, and go for some simpler example of "change" in protons, change in their position with respect to other particles is good enough; change in the number of protons in the nucleus of an element transforms the element itself.

Till now we have not observed any real system that does not change.

Clear ?

But you talk about, in various places, internal contradictions causing change. How do protons change through internal contradicitions?

[red cat]

But you talk about, in various places, internal contradictions causing change. How do protons change through internal contradicitions?

We did not come to any such conclusion yet, did we ?

The first point that I want to make is that everything changes. To analyze the nature of different kinds of change is the next step.

But are you okay with the fact that every object in the real world changes ?

[chegitz guevara]

If there is enough matter, the Universe will stop expanding and begin to shrink until it would become one point of energy that, in turn, eventually would again big-bang and originate another Universe.

It is currently believed there is not enough matter/dark matter to overcome dark energy's repulsive force. The real question is, is there enough matter/dark matter to keep space/time from being ripped apart by dark energy some 50 billion years from now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chegitz:


According to the currently operating models of the universe, all protons will eventually decay.

And yet there is no evidence that they do.

But, even if they do, it won't be as a result of their 'internal contradictions', since there are none.

So, 'dialectical materialism' is no use here, too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


But are you okay with the fact that every object in the real world changes ?

And how do you know this? Or, is this not yet another example of a priori dogmatics on the part of you mystics?

But, even of you are right, we already know that if we needed a theory of change, dialectical materialism [DM] would not even make the bottom of the reserve list of viable candidates.

As my demonstration (in the Mao threads) shows: if it were true, DM would imply change is impossible.

[S.Artesian]

WTF? I mean WTF? Here's a thread on Trotskyism. Trotskyism has an actual history. It can be analyzed, validated, or invalidated by what has occurred in the concrete world.

"Trotskyism" has no separate dialectic, no separate ideology, from the content of its analysis of class struggles from... 1905, 1917, 1921 in Germany, 1926-1929 in China, 1933 in Germany, 1936-1937 in Spain; the actual economic tasks facing the infant USSR.

So to come to grips with that material history, it's absolutely essentially to jettison all diversionary material and propaganda-- like Rosa's view on dialectics; like the propaganda that says Trotsky was a Nazi agent, was planning to kill Stalin; like producing 100% verified "extracts" from secret documents belonging to Goebbels-- all that junk. And I say that being perhaps the one who has tangled most extensively and persistently with Rosa in other threads. That is not what this thread is supposed to be about. If it is, I'm leaving. Immediately.

The history of Trotskyism after Trotsky's death is a topic requiring its own thread-- but to say that the practice of the politics of Trotskyism in the "3rd world" is equal to reformism is a denial of the history of the struggle of "3rd world" workers-- like the miners in Bolivia against the MNR; like the workers in Indochina against the restoration of French colonialism at the end of WW2.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


So to come to grips with that material history, it's absolutely essentially to jettison all diversionary material and propaganda-- like Rosa's view on dialectics; like the propaganda that says Trotsky was a Nazi agent, was planning to kill Stalin; like producing 100% verified "extracts" from secret documents belonging to Goebbels-- all that junk. And I say that being perhaps the one who has tangled most extensively and persistently with Rosa in other threads. That is not what this thread is supposed to be about. If it is, I'm leaving. Immediately.

One small detail: it was Red Cat, not me, who introduced dialectics to this thread -- but, whoever it was that introduced it, Trotskyists are no more capable of defeding this mystical 'theory' than Maoists, Stalinists or academic 'Marxists' are.


If it is, I'm leaving. Immediately

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:sWMAUEIcBaX3iM:http://images.zaazu.com/img

[S.Artesian]

I didn't say you did introduce it, Rosa. I am tempted to say you need to learn how to pay attention to what is actually being written, but we know from past experience that you don't.

And I'm sure it's gratifying for others to see how your commitment to yourself, and only yourself, is consistent no matter what the content of the thread.

So I'll ask the moderator to explain-- is this thread going to deal with anything concrete, anything to do with historical materialism, or is it just going to be as Hudson put it in Aliens, "just another bug hunt?"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


I didn't say you did introduce it, Rosa. I am tempted to say you need to learn how to pay attention to what is actually being written, but we know from past experience that you don't.

And I didn't say you had said I had introduced it; so it's you who needs to opticians' appointment, not me.


And I'm sure it's gratifying for others to see how your commitment to yourself, and only yourself, is consistent no matter what the content of the thread.

No more than you think it's about you.:lol:


So I'll ask the moderator to explain-- is this thread going to deal with anything concrete, anything to do with historical materialism, or is it just going to be as Hudson put it in Aliens, "just another bug hunt?"

Looks like we have just attracted a tiny one labelled 'Artesian'...:)

[S.Artesian]

I'll leave you to fuck up another potentially useful inquiry.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


I'll leave you to fuck up another potentially useful inquiry.

I don't think the inquiry into who introduced dialectics to this thread is at all useful.

[S.Artesian]

That wasn't my inquiry. You really can't read, can you? I was suggesting that we drop all the extraneous stuff and like a the substance of the issue, the historical materialism, something you claim to support-- but of course can't demonstrate that support with an actual concrete analysis, inquiry.

But wait, since you can't read, send me your phone number and I'll read it to you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


That wasn't my inquiry. You really can't read, can you? I was suggesting that we drop all the extraneous stuff and like a the substance of the issue, the historical materialism, something you claim to support-- but of course can't demonstrate that support with an actual concrete analysis, inquiry.

Still whining, I see. Smarting from the ass-kicking you got in Philosophy?


But wait, since you can't read, send me your phone number and I'll read it to you.

Sorry, couldn't read that. Post it again, only type much slower this time... :cool:

[S.Artesian]

I know you'll find this hard to believe, Rosa, but this thread isn't supposed to be about you and your rather obscure, bizarre, and absurd mis-analysis of Marx.

So try and contain your raging narcissism, an infantile disorder if there ever was one-- except its not a disorder in infants, only in infantile adults-- and say something about the thread topic-- Trotskyism. Or shut the fuck up.

Pick one. Or if you like, I'll pick one for you-- actually for all us-- and that would be the latter.

[Ramon Mercador]

I'm just sick and Tired of these fucken Trotzkyites.

Long live Stalin

[Q]

I'm just sick and Tired of these fucken Trotzkyites.

Long live Stalin


And the forum is sick of you.

[S.Artesian]

Hey, do me a favor. Don't thank me. I don't need thanks from somebody who has as his/her avatar the assassin of the organizer of the Red Army-- the organizer of victory as Lenin called him--, the president, twice, of the Petrogad Soviet, the representative of the government of Soviets who actually took the Russian proletariat out of World War 1.

Q has it right.

[red cat]

If Rosa has any intention of engaging in a proper debate with me, she will do so in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-theory-t131796/index.html?t=131796) thread.

[S.Artesian]

How about you both do that over the actual material of this subject rather than Hegel's dialectic?

[red cat]

How about you both do that over the actual material of this subject rather than Hegel's dialectic?

I think that the thread I linked to will be about the whole of MLMist dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


I know you'll find this hard to believe, Rosa, but this thread isn't supposed to be about you and your rather obscure, bizarre, and absurd mis-analysis of Marx.

1) Nice to see you think that dialectics is not integral to Trotskyism. I agree, but I think we are in a tiny minority.

2) I did not introduce dialectics to this thread; so pick a fight with Red Cat, not me.

3) You have show yourself totally incapable of responding to my arguments, so no wonder all you have left to offer is abuse.


So try and contain your raging narcissism, an infantile disorder if there ever was one-- except its not a disorder in infants, only in infantile adults-- and say something about the thread topic-- Trotskyism. Or shut the fuck up.

I tried to find an argument in there, among all that mystically-motivated abuse, but I couldn't.:(

Do you actually know what an argument is? We already know you have difficulties with Marx's simple declaration (in Das Kapital) that he had waved 'goodbye' to the mystical version of historical materialism that has colonised your brain.


Or shut the fuck up

No chance.


Pick one. Or if you like, I'll pick one for you-- actually for all us-- and that would be the latter

Already have done: you. And my reduction of you into a gibbering idiot is well under way (not that we had far to go).

Nice to see, also, that you are getting thanks from Mad Maoists and Slavering Stalinists.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


If Rosa has any intention of engaging in a proper debate with me, she will do so in this thread.

But you have fought shy of me here, too!

[chegitz guevara]

Clear, but inaccurate. Water doesn't evaporate because of some contradictions in the water. Water evaporates because some outside force (heat) causes the molecules to move faster.

This is not entirely correct. Ice evaporates in freezers, where heat is not a factor. As far as water is concerned, it mostly has to do with heat, but not entirely.

[red cat]

This is not entirely correct. Ice evaporates in freezers, where heat is not a factor. As far as water is concerned, it mostly has to do with heat, but not entirely.

When we consider a jar in room temperature, it is effectively almost a closed system with respect to heat. Therefore heat should not be considered as an outer factor in this case at least.

[28350]

This is exciting.

[ChrisK]

We did not come to any such conclusion yet, did we ?

The first point that I want to make is that everything changes. To analyze the nature of different kinds of change is the next step.

But are you okay with the fact that every object in the real world changes ?

No, since you have no proof that everything changes. For the purposes of the debate, I'll say sure, things change.

[S.Artesian]

Here is the initial post of this thread:

"I'm sorry if there have been innumerable posts asking this very question, but what exactly is Trotskyism, and where could I find works of his. I am also interested if there are any American Trotskyist parties.

Those are the questions. Arguments about the nature of the universe, proton decay, and immutability belong elsewhere.

[red cat]

No, since you have no proof that everything changes. For the purposes of the debate, I'll say sure, things change.

Till now we have not observed even a single real object or system that does not change. The statement "everything changes" is a part of our model describing the whole universe, because all of the huge amount of data corresponding to our observation of the universe agrees with this. To challenge this statement, you will have to come up with a real object that does not change. This is the method that we follow in science.

I don't understand what you mean by "proof that everything changes". Can you explain it to me in details ?

[ChrisK]

Till now we have not observed even a single real object or system that does not change. The statement "everything changes" is a part of our model describing the whole universe, because all of the huge amount of data corresponding to our observation of the universe agrees with this. To challenge this statement, you will have to come up with a real object that does not change. This is the method that we follow in science.

I don't understand what you mean by "proof that everything changes". Can you explain it to me in details ?

In other words, it is impossible to establish that everything changes unless you have observed everything. Clearly we have not. Ergo, a statement like everything changes is not proveable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Till now we have not observed even a single real object or system that does not change. The statement "everything changes" is a part of our model describing the whole universe, because all of the huge amount of data corresponding to our observation of the universe agrees with this. To challenge this statement, you will have to come up with a real object that does not change. This is the method that we follow in science.

I don't understand what you mean by "proof that everything changes". Can you explain it to me in details ?

If everything changes, and this is your 'model', then it should change into its 'opposite', too.

So, your 'theory' should change into the 'model' that not all things change.

Now, since that 'model' excludes some things from changing, we cannot now safely argue this new 'model' of yours will also change.

In which case, your 'model' soon collapses into the 'anti-dialectical model' that some things do not change.

On the other hand, if your 'model' does not change, then there is at least one thing in the entire universe that does not change, namely your 'model'.

So, by vel elimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction#Introduction_and_elimination), we get the conclusion: either way your 'model' collapses into the 'anti-dialectical model' that some things do not change.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chegitz:


This is not entirely correct. Ice evaporates in freezers, where heat is not a factor. As far as water is concerned, it mostly has to do with heat, but not entirely.

In which case, Engels was wrong: some things do not change from quantity into quality 'nodally' (in 'leaps'), but gradually.

DM takes yet another body blow...:(

[red cat]

In other words, it is impossible to establish that everything changes unless you have observed everything. Clearly we have not. Ergo, a statement like everything changes is not proveable.

By "everything" we mean every real object or system. Of course it is not possible to observe EVERY object or system in the real world. But for that, if we don't make some obvious generalizations, then we have to say goodbye to science ! :lol:

[ChrisK]

By "everything" we mean every real object or system. Of course it is not possible to observe EVERY object or system in the real world. But for that, if we don't make some obvious generalizations, then we have to say goodbye to science ! :lol:

Well we've already established that protons changing to be highly dubious. And yet, you have no proof from observation that all things change.

[red cat]

Well we've already established that protons changing to be highly dubious. And yet, you have no proof from observation that all things change.

As Chegitz pointed out, many theories indicate that protons actually decay. That protons change has also been used to explain a kind of beta emission. Moreover, you ignored position change which is very important at the level of subatomic particles.

EDIT: Also, the kind of "proof" you probably want is beyond the method that we follow in science. If you want such "proofs", then you can argue that many laws of science may not be correct. On the other hand, if you want to prove them wrong in spite of the evidence provided by 100% of our data, then we require you to give a counter-example. Is this point clear ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


As Chegitz pointed out, many theories indicate that protons actually decay. That protons change has also been used to explain a kind of beta emission. Moreover, you ignored position change which is very important at the level of subatomic particles.

1) As I pointed out to Chegitz, this has yet to be observed.

2) But, even if you are correct, neither protons, electrons nor photons change because of their 'internal contradictions', for there are none here.

So, once again, 'dialectical materialism' takes yet another body blow.

However, has anyone noticed how odd it is in a thread on Trotskyism, we have Trotskyists and Maoists (and Stalinists) agreeing on this mystical 'theory'?

They fall out over practically everything else, but with respect to this 'theory' it is hard to slip a party card between them.:lol:


EDIT: Also, the kind of "proof" you probably want is beyond the method that we follow in science.

But that just means that your earlier assertion that everything in the entire universe is always changing is dogmatic and a priori.

As George Novack noted:


A consistent materialism cannot proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason, intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source. Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in practice.... [Novack (1965) The Origin of Materialism, p.17. Bold emphasis added.]

Now I do not expect you Maoists to agree with Novack, so perhaps Engels will do (here speaking of Dühring's apriorism):


What he is dealing with are therefore principles, formal tenets derived from thought and not from the external world, which are to be applied to nature and the realm of man, and to which therefore nature and man have to conform. But whence does thought obtain these principles? From itself? No, for Herr Dühring himself says: the realm of pure thought is limited to logical schemata and mathematical forms (the latter, moreover, as we shall see, is wrong). Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we are dealing with here is solely forms of being, of the external world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter, and Herr Dühring's contrary conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas, out of schemata, schemes or categories existing somewhere before the world, from eternity — just like a Hegel. [Anti-Dühring p.43.]


The general results of the investigation of the world are obtained at the end of this investigation, hence are not principles, points of departure, but results, conclusions. To construct the latter in one's head, take them as the basis from which to start, and then reconstruct the world from them in one's head is ideology, an ideology which tainted every species of materialism hitherto existing.... As Dühring proceeds from "principles" instead of facts he is an ideologist, and can screen his being one only by formulating his propositions in such general and vacuous terms that they appear axiomatic, flat. Moreover, nothing can be concluded from them; one can only read something into them.... [Marx and Engels (1987) Collected Works, Volume 25, p.597. Bold emphasis added.]

So, with the above in mind, it is worth recalling that the dogma of universal change was first dreamt-up by that confused mystic, Heralclitus. The fact that he was a card-carrying idiot can be seen from the additional fact that he thought he could decide what was true for all of everything in nature, and for all of time, based on what he thought was true of stepping into a river (the details of which he got wrong, too)!

Hence, this 'model' of yours has not been derived from the evidence, but imposed on it, and borrowed from mystics, who invented it when there was precious little evidence to speak of.

In which case, you dialectical mystics are little other than 'ideologists', according to Engels!:lol:

[S.Artesian]

asoR: "However, has anyone noticed how odd it is in a thread on Trotskyism, we have Trotskyists and Maoists (and Stalinists) agreeing on this mystical 'theory'?

They fall out over practically everything else, but with respect to this 'theory' it is hard to slip a party card between them"
_________________________

That above is the work of a self-proclaimed logician, anti-mystic, materialist. In reality, it's the reasoning of a Fox news commentator, a conspiracy-monger, a gossip artist.

Anybody every notice how "Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists" all agree about the need for socialist revolution? Anybody ever notice how Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, all opposed the US war against the Vietnamese people? Anybody every notice how Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, all oppose police repression of the those on strike in Greece, France, Korea...etc? Anybody ever notice how Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, all have the same mitochondrial DNA? All share a common genome? All need to drink water?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


asoR: "However, has anyone noticed how odd it is in a thread on Trotskyism, we have Trotskyists and Maoists (and Stalinists) agreeing on this mystical 'theory'?

They fall out over practically everything else, but with respect to this 'theory' it is hard to slip a party card between them"

Indeed, and they all use it to 'prove' each other wrong, since this 'theory' can be used to prove practically anything you like and its opposite, in the same breath.

Plenty of examples here:

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

Section (7) Case Studies.

[S.Artesian]

Your argument is irrelevant, Asor, as I demonstrated above.

I don't know how "all" use "it" to "prove" each other wrong. I do know how some actually use the concrete analysis of historical developments to determine, evaluate, propose, tactics, strategy, program. You are not, BTW, any part of that "some." And since I know "some" don't do what you say "all" do, you have once again identified yourself as ignorant, dishonest, and a....troll.

[S.Artesian]

Hey Chris,

Nice to see you back in the flow. How come you disappeared from Rosa's thread without answering the questions on Marx's analysis in volume 3?

[S.Artesian]

And for those not quite convinced of Asor's irrelevance-- just substitute the word "Marxism" for "mystical theory," and then you see how all use this Marxism to prove each other wrong since this theory can be used to prove anything and its opposite...

As a matter of fact, this is exactly what bourgeois ideologues, of which Asor is one, do.

[red cat]

Anti-dialecticians here seem not very familiar with the basic methods of science. Or maybe they disagree with those methods. This explains their disagreement with dialectics.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


Your argument is irrelevant, Asor, as I demonstrated above.

I don't know how "all" use "it" to "prove" each other wrong. I do know how some actually use the concrete analysis of historical developments to determine, evaluate, propose, tactics, strategy, program. You are not, BTW, any part of that "some." And since I know "some" don't do what you say "all" do, you have once again identified yourself as ignorant, dishonest, and a....troll.

Oh, so emotional...!

In fact, so emotional, you confuse an allegation with an argument!:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


And for those not quite convinced of Asor's irrelevance-- just substitute the word "Marxism" for "mystical theory," and then you see how all use this Marxism to prove each other wrong since this theory can be used to prove anything and its opposite...

Oh dear, is that the best you can do?

In fact, I fear it is, since you have no answer to my criticisms, and like your lap-dog Red Cat, you try to divert attention from your plight by a mixture of abuse and lies. [Like your recent claim, over in Philosophy in the 'anti-dialectics' thread, that you had read an essay of mine (over 58,500 words long) in 14 minutes! :lol:]


As a matter of fact, this is exactly what bourgeois ideologues, of which Asor is one, do.

Yet more slurs, backed by no evidence and/or argument.

Once more, why are you mystics so emotional?

[Answer here:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Anti-dialecticians here seem not very familiar with the basic methods of science. Or maybe they disagree with those methods. This explains their disagreement with dialectics.

Still unable to respond, I see.:(

[chegitz guevara]

Chegitz:

In which case, Engels was wrong: some things do not change from quantity into quality 'nodally' (in 'leaps'), but gradually.

DM takes yet another body blow...:(

I don't recall Engels writing it never occurred.

The main problem I see with your argument is that you engage in strawmen arguments, arguing not against Marxian dialectics but against Hegelian dialectics.

I honestly think you make a much bigger deal over it than is warranted. You idealistically blame dialectics for the failure of socialism in the 20th Century, when it was material forces that brought that about.

Meanwhile, dialectics is nothing more than understanding that the universe is dynamic and in constant motion, as opposed to the 19th Century clockwork view of reality and human society.

Dialectical thinking allows us to understand something can be composed of opposites, i.e., the USSR was both a workers state and not a workers state. Fuzzy logic, predicate logic, modal logic, are all dialectical logics. But you're stuck on formalism, instead of trying to get at the heart of what dialectics is about. If you were to apply such thinking to science, you should be attacking Einstein's theory of gravity because Newton was wrong, attacking psychology, because Freud was wrong, attacking Gould, because Darwin was wrong, etc. You should also be attacking Marxism, because Marx was wrong about where the first revolutions would occur and how soon they would occur.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chegitz:


I don't recall Engels writing it never occurred.

In fact, he said this:


"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations, in which, at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap; for example, in the case of heated or cooled water, where boiling-point and freezing-point are the nodes at which -- under normal pressure -- the leap to a new state of aggregation takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." [Engels (1976), Anti-Duhring, p.56. I have used the online version here, but quoted the page numbers for the Foreign Languages edition. Bold emphasis added.]

"With this assurance Herr Dühring saves himself the trouble of saying anything further about the origin of life, although it might reasonably have been expected that a thinker who had traced the evolution of the world back to its self-equal state, and is so much at home on other celestial bodies, would have known exactly what's what also on this point. For the rest, however, the assurance he gives us is only half right unless it is completed by the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations which has already been mentioned. In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive change. This is true of the transition from the mechanics of celestial bodies to that of smaller masses on a particular celestial body; it is equally true of the transition from the mechanics of masses to the mechanics of molecules -- including the forms of motion investigated in physics proper: heat, light, electricity, magnetism. In the same way, the transition from the physics of molecules to the physics of atoms -- chemistry -- in turn involves a decided leap; and this is even more clearly the case in the transition from ordinary chemical action to the chemism of albumen which we call life. Then within the sphere of life the leaps become ever more infrequent and imperceptible. -- Once again, therefore, it is Hegel who has to correct Herr Dühring."

"We have already seen earlier, when discussing world schematism, that in connection with this Hegelian nodal line of measure relations -- in which quantitative change suddenly passes at certain points into qualitative transformation -- Herr Dühring had a little accident: in a weak moment he himself recognised and made use of this line. We gave there one of the best-known examples -- that of the change of the aggregate states of water, which under normal atmospheric pressure changes at 0°C from the liquid into the solid state, and at 100°C from the liquid into the gaseous state, so that at both these turning-points the merely quantitative change of temperature brings about a qualitative change in the condition of the water." [Ibid., p.160. Bold emphasis added.]

Not much wiggle room in there.

Especially when we add in this comment:


"...[T]he transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Ibid., p.63. Emphasis added.]

You:


The main problem I see with your argument is that you engage in strawmen arguments, arguing not against Marxian dialectics but against Hegelian dialectics

Ok, find me one 'strawman' argument, and I'll apologise profusely, withdraw it, and repent in sackcloth and ashes.


I honestly think you make a much bigger deal over it than is warranted. You idealistically blame dialectics for the failure of socialism in the 20th Century, when it was material forces that brought that about.

You see, you too have to resort to invention, for I say this on the opening page of my site (and it's repeated many times in my essays):


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, you may still disagree with me, but do try to get my ideas right!

And you were the one who complained about 'strawmen'!:lol:


Meanwhile, dialectics is nothing more than understanding that the universe is dynamic and in constant motion, as opposed to the 19th Century clockwork view of reality and human society.

Except, as I have shown in the Mao thread in Theory, and a similar the one in Philosophy, if this 'theory' were true, change would be impossible (and this takes care of your claim below that dialectics deals with opposites; it's precisely this which scuppers the dialectical 'theory' of change).


Dialectical thinking allows us to understand something can be composed of opposites, i.e., the USSR was both a workers state and not a workers state. Fuzzy logic, predicate logic, modal logic, are all dialectical logics. But you're stuck on formalism, instead of trying to get at the heart of what dialectics is about. If you were to apply such thinking to science, you should be attacking Einstein's theory of gravity because Newton was wrong, attacking psychology, because Freud was wrong, attacking Gould, because Darwin was wrong, etc. You should also be attacking Marxism, because Marx was wrong about where the first revolutions would occur and how soon they would occur.

In fact, the formal logics you mention are not the least bit 'dialectical' and I defy you to show otherwise.

And your analogies with Newton, Einstein and the rest is defective too, since their theories make sense; dialectics does not, and I also defy you to show otherwise.

And I like this point:


the USSR was both a workers state and not a workers state.

It is this aspect of dialectics that allows Trotskyists, Maoists and Stalinists to defend anything they like and its opposite, in the same breath, all the while accusing one another of "ignoring Marxist dialectics"!:lol:

[S.Artesian]

I guess the fact that this thread was started by a request from someone seeking to now something real, something historically accurate about the work of Trotsky and those who claimed to support that work is immaterial, is immaterial, insignificant when compared to that real work of revolutionary import, which is of course, understanding the true nature of the universe, the life expectancy of protons, etc.

For those who think perhaps there is more to history, at least as Marx explored it, than that, I would like to suggest a topic. Trotsky's first contribution to analyzing the course of development of international capitalism and the immanent prospects for its overthrow is in his elaboration of the permanent revolution where he argues that in the less-developed, backward area of Russia, which contains pre-capitalist economic agricultural relations absorbed into the capitalist world market and the most advanced urban, industrial relations between capitalist and proletarians, the moment for the ascendancy of a "liberal" "democratic" bourgeois order has been eclipsed, and when struggle does break out against the restrictions, limitations of the Czarist order, the bourgeois struggle will be overtaken, surpassed by the class struggle of the proletariat which alone has the cohesion, the organization, and the ability to break the relations of private property that bind the bourgeois order firmly through the world markets to the very backwardness of Russia.

In addition, because the proletariat in struggling, and achieving power given the incapacity of the bourgeoisie, in Russia will face the legacy of such incapacity, only through the triumph of the proletarian revolution in the advanced countries can the workers in Russia obtain the development of the means of production that can support the advanced social relations of the revolution.

Those who have studied this recognize that Trotsky is articulating the "practical" solution to the problems of uneven and combined development that so characterize capitalism as an international system.

So... let's talk about that-- about uneven and combined development as it exists and functions in capitalism today, and what that means for the theory of permanent revolution and the practice of proletarian revolution.

And if others want to discuss proton decay-- move it to another thread.

[ChrisK]

As Chegitz pointed out, many theories indicate that protons actually decay. That protons change has also been used to explain a kind of beta emission. Moreover, you ignored position change which is very important at the level of subatomic particles.

EDIT: Also, the kind of "proof" you probably want is beyond the method that we follow in science. If you want such "proofs", then you can argue that many laws of science may not be correct. On the other hand, if you want to prove them wrong in spite of the evidence provided by 100% of our data, then we require you to give a counter-example. Is this point clear ?

You are a scientist now are you?

As Rosa pointed out, proton decay hasn't been observed.

I'm not conviced that eveything changes, nor will I ever be. It might be the case, it might not be.

[ChrisK]

Hey Chris,

Nice to see you back in the flow. How come you disappeared from Rosa's thread without answering the questions on Marx's analysis in volume 3?

Finals week, I was a wee bit busy. I'll respond in a bit.

[red cat]

You are a scientist now are you?

As Rosa pointed out, proton decay hasn't been observed.

That is because it is not possible to observe it right now given that the half life of proton is many times the present age of the universe.


I'm not conviced that eveything changes, nor will I ever be. It might be the case, it might not be.

We haven't observed the interaction between every two objects in the universe. Does that make you deny the law of gravity ?

[S.Artesian]

Cool. Looking forward to it.

[ChrisK]

That is because it is not possible to observe it right now given that the half life of proton is many times the present age of the universe.

So you admit you don't know if they can decay.


We haven't observed the interaction between every two objects in the universe. Does that make you deny the law of gravity ?

Nope, I admit the laws of gravity work in instances observed on earth and other places.

[red cat]

So you admit you don't know if they can decay.


Depends on how you define "knowing".


Nope, I admit the laws of gravity work in instances observed on earth and other places.

What about the gravitational force within any two objects ? Do you refuse to believe that it exists, or is according to the formula we have, within any two objects other than those involved in experiments concerning the same ? May be there is no gravitational force between some objects on the earth itself ?

[ChrisK]

Depends on how you define "knowing".

If you can definatively prove it, then I'll grant that as knowing.


What about the gravitational force within any two objects ? Do you refuse to believe that it exists, or is according to the formula we have, within any two objects other than those involved in experiments concerning the same ? May be there is no gravitational force between some objects on the earth itself ?

I refer you to my previous post.

Clearly you won't go on until you force some metaphysical statement like everything changes down my throat. I guess our discussion ends here unless you care to move on.

[red cat]

If you can definatively prove it, then I'll grant that as knowing.



You did not explain what you mean by "proving".


I refer you to my previous post.

Clearly you won't go on until you force some metaphysical statement like everything changes down my throat. I guess our discussion ends here unless you care to move on.So, you mean to say that you won't agree that the law of gravity, or any such other law of science, holds true when it is concerned with any object other than for which they have been proved true experimentally in the laboratory. For example, you won't believe that gravitational force is acting in between you and your computer.

You know what the practical consequences of all this are ?