Dialectics: once and for all I need to know...

[A.R.Amistad]

For weeks I have been battling the inner depths of the dark, whirl winding chasm that is my brain to understand just what are dialectics? I would post this in philosophy, but I am putting this in learning because I need somebody to explain to me (@ Rosa: objectively explain, without bias) what are cold, hard dialectics. I understand the idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, at least when applied to history in the manner of historical materialism, but beyond that I can't conceive of how to use dialectics in my everyday argument, or how to apply them to understand the world around me. Since I have been getting into this Marxist Existentialism quite heavily, I am trying to determine basically which side to take. If dialectics seek to give meaning to what I see as a meaningless world, I am going to have to give my support to Rosa's faction in opposing dialectics and upholding instead Historical Materialism. But if dialectics seek, like traditional science does, to explain how things are in the world without giving them meaning, then I see no problem with Materialist Dialectics. I was reading Lenin's Three Components of Marxism, which I thoroughly enjoy since it has worked well for me as a guide to Marxism, but I was both a little bit skeptical and confused in his passage on Dialectical Materialist. Lenin said that the thesis statement of dialectics where that 'everything has an absolute truth, that truth is not abstract' or something along those lines. Since I believe that we largely create truth for things that already exist, I was a little wary about dialectics because I don't believe in universal truths. But maybe there is a difference between a universal and an absolute truth. I also tried to read Sartre's critique of dialectics, but the work assumes that one has a more-than-elementary understanding of dialectics. Sartre's Humanism surprisingly only mentions dialectics in passing. So, the min highlights of what I want and need to know are
1. What is the main thesis statement of dialectics?
2. How can I use dialectics to understand the environment around me?
3. Do dialectics seek to explain or do they go so far as to give meaning to things?

[red cat]

My posts in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-made-easy-t132387/index.html) thread might interest you.

As far as the environment around us is concerned, I find dialectics too general to be used to analyze and develop most systems other than the society. This is because though the laws of dialectics hold true everywhere, they are not sufficient to get the results we require in, say physics or chemistry. Whole different and far more precise branches of science are devoted to analyze the systems concerned.

[A.R.Amistad]

I appreciate the link, red cat, but I simply can't follow it very well because of some of the minor spamming and side conversations and such.

[Martin Blank]

Check your Inbox. I PMed you.

[red cat]

I appreciate the link, red cat, but I simply can't follow it very well because of some of the minor spamming and side conversations and such.

I understand. But I have ignored all other posts and the conversation is between just Chris and myself.

[A.R.Amistad]

Ok, thank you everybody, comrades! My main concerns have been addressed and you guys can close this thread or move it to philosophy were it belongs. Again, much tanks everyone, it really helped!
-Comradely,
Amistad :thumbup1:

[red cat]

Just curious, are you now pro or anti-dialectics ?

[A.R.Amistad]

Just curious, are you now pro or anti-dialectics ?


Taken them the way that Comrade Miles put them to me in his PM, I'd have to say that I am pro-dialectics, especially since they don't try to give inherent meaning to things.

[S.Artesian]

FWIW, I don't think "dialectics" can be understood apart from Marx's relation to Hegel, that is exactly what it is that Marx accomplishes in the "extraction of the rational kernel" from Hegel.

My view is a little bit different than most others, because I do not think Marx's analysis creates a counter "world-view," a counter "philosophy," but recognizes, and dismisses, philosophy as an alienated expression of human history.

IMO the best explanation of the relation of Marx to Hegel is in Marcuse's Reason and Revolution.

And if I were going to recommend an introduction to "dialectics," it would be, no kidding, Marx's Economic and Philsophical Manuscripts of 1844, and his Grundrisse.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A R Amistad:


I understand the idea of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, at least when applied to history in the manner of historical materialism,

Alas, this isn't dialectics; on that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7


But if dialectics seek, like traditional science does, to explain how things are in the world without giving them meaning, then I see no problem with Materialist Dialectics.

And yet, as I have shown repeatedly, if this theory were true, change would be impossible. In that case, it can't be used to explain anything, and thus it can't help us change the world.

Now, there are two sorts of dialecticians [DM = Dialectical Materialism]:

(1) Low Church Dialecticians [LCDs]: Comrades in this category cleave to the original, unvarnished truth laid down in the sacred DM-texts (written by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, or Mao). These simple souls are highly proficient at quoting endless passages from the holy books as an answer to everything and anything, just like the faithful who bow to the East or who fill the gospel halls around the world. Their unquestioning faith is as impressive as it is un-Marxist.

They may be naive, but they are at least consistently so.

[FL = Formal Logic.]

In general, LCDs are blithely ignorant of FL. Now, on its own this is no hanging matter. However, such self-inflicted and woeful ignorance does not stop them from pontificating about FL, or from regaling us with its alleged limitations -- charges based on ideas they unwisely copied from Hegel, surely the George W Bush of Logic.

LCDs are by-and-large active revolutionaries, committed to 'building the party'. Alas, they have in fact conspired to do the exact opposite, helping to keep the parties to which they belong small because of the countless splits, executions and expulsions they help engineer. This then is a rather fitting pragmatic contradiction that the 'Dialectical Deity' has visited upon these the least of its slaves.

Of course, these individuals cannot see the irony in all this (even when it is pointed out to them -- I know, I have lost count of the number of times I have tried!), since they too have their heads in the sand.

This has meant that despite the fact that every last one of these sad individuals continually strives to "build the party", and urges others to do likewise, few revolutionary groups can boast membership roles that rise much above the risible. In fact, all we seem to have witnessed since WW2 is the creation of more and more fragmented sects -- but still no mass movement.

Has a single one of these individuals made this connection (which, for comrades who claim that everything is inter-linked, should be an easy connection to spot, one would think)?

Over and above blaming everyone and everything else for this sorry state of affairs -- are you kidding!?

The long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory (i.e., 'Materialist Dialectics') are the only two things in the entire universe that are not interconnected, it seems!

Many of those who post here are of this sort.

(2) High Church Dialecticians [HCDs]: These Marxists are in general openly contemptuous of the 'sophomoric ideas' found in most of the DM-classics (even though many of them seem to have a fondness for Engels's first 'Law').

More often than not, HCDs reject the idea that the dialectic operates in nature, sometimes inconsistently using Engels's first 'Law' to justify this 'leap' (which tactic allows them to claim that human history and development are unique), just as they are equally dismissive of these simple LCD souls for their adherence to every last word in the classics.

[Anyone who knows about High Church Anglicanism will know exactly of what I speak.]

HCDs are mercifully above such crudities; they prefer the mother lode -- direct from Hegel, Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks and/or the writings of assorted latter day Hermeticists like Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Tony Smith, Tom Sekine, Robert Albritton, Chris Arthur, Bertell Ollman, Roy Bhaskar, or Slavoj Zizek --, sometimes cut with a few kilos of hardcore jargon drawn straight from that intellectual cocaine-den otherwise known as French Philosophy --, or, perhaps even from that hot-bed of systematic confusion: the Frankfurt School.

Or, even worse, that haven of intellectual heroin: the works of Heidegger.

HCDs are generally, but not exclusively, academics. Tortured prose is their forte, and pointless existence is their punishment.

At least LCDs try to pretend that their ideas are relevant to the class struggle.

High Church dialectics, in contrast, is just good for the CV.

[And clearly, the latter sort of dialectics is not an "abomination" for that section of the bourgeoisie that administers Colleges and Universities!]

Both factions are, however, well-stocked with conservative-minded comrades, happy in their own small way to copy the a priori thought-forms of two-and-a-half millennia of boss-class theory, seldom pausing to give any thought to the implications of such easily won knowledge. If knowledge of the world is a priori, and based solely on armchair speculation, reality must indeed be Ideal.

Few HCDs post here ('Gilhyle', if you can remember him/her, was one), but I think 'Comrade' Artesian shows distinct symptoms of this malaise.

So, the OP will have to choose who he listens to:

Although, for all their other differences, Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists (Orthodox and Non-Orthodox), Libertarian Marxists, and a few other rag-bag tendencies, will all more or less agree what the basics of this theory are (if they are LCDs, otherwise, if they are HCDs, they will deny there is a dialectic in nature; apparently they think we are not part of nature!), they will all disagree among themselves over how to apply it, and they will all use the very same theory to 'prove' that all the rest either (1) do not 'understand' dialectics, or (2) have mis-applied it, or (3) have ignored 'Marx's method'.

This is because this theory can be used to prove anything you like, and its opposite, sometimes in the same breath. This in turn is because it glories in contradiction, a term, as we have seen in other threads, not a single one of them can explain.:lol:

[Martin Blank]

Tortured prose is their forte, and pointless existence is their punishment.

Graphic removed because it cut too close to the bone for a certain someone, and she went a-snitchin'.

(I seem to be getting a lot of use out of this little graphic today. :D )

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Miles, I thought that posting pictures like this warranted an infraction?

Even so, I see you have chickened out again...

[ContrarianLemming]

I would apprciate that PM aswell, i have no idea what dielectics are, i thought it was like dianetics for a moment.. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Aeon135, I have written a very basic guide (and criticism) for absolute beginners, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm

Word of warning: ignore everything that dialecticans tell you about 'formal logic'. Not one of them has studied it, but they are happy to pontificate about it.

[red cat]

I would apprciate that PM aswell, i have no idea what dielectics are, i thought it was like dianetics for a moment.. :P

If you have any questions about formal logic, you can PM me. Don't listen to people who claim to have disproved major theorems in mathematics but are not publishing their results for some unknown reasons.

[A.R.Amistad]

Haha I was waiting to see how long it would take before this thread turned into a battlefield :laugh:

[red cat]

Haha I was waiting to see how long it would take before this thread turned into a battlefield :laugh:

I think I will prevent the battle from happening. :lol:

As usual, I will not respond to any trollish provocations. That should leave your thread in peace. ;)

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm no admin, but I'm going to do my best to prevent this thread from going down the same drain that every other dialectics thread on here has that prevents people from understanding dialectics at all, anti or pro. Here is comrade Miles great response to my questions for those who were confused or interested, or both.

Comrade Miles

1. What is the main thesis statement of dialectics?

Dialectics is a method of analyzing and understanding the development of things. It looks at the contradictions within an object to see how they interrelate and interact, and how that causes that object to move, grow, change and develop over time (this is its dynamic).

I'm sure by now that you've had the three postulates of materialist dialectics explained. If not, let me know and we can talk about them, too.

2. How can I use dialectics to understand the environment around me?

Observation and analysis. Look and study the objects around you to see what its dynamics are. But do understand: sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system. Think of it like basic math and calculus; you can use calculus to solve "1 + 1 = x", but it's cumbersome and unnecessary. If more basic and elementary methods of understanding prove inadequate, then the dialectical method is probably more appropriate to use.

3. Do dialectics seek to explain or do they go so far as to give meaning to things?

Dialectics neither explains nor gives meaning. It simply shows us the reality of a thing. It is up to us as the observers and analysts to explain and give meaning to it.

[The Grey Blur]

I think Rosa just doesn't understand dialectics. It's not meant to be a mystical guide to the world, just a way of looking at events as processes. These debates around these ridiculous hypothetical situations like whether water boils or whether a rock is inherently 'dialectic' in a frozen space vacuum are ridiculous. Dialectics is useless unless applied, and only then to events or processes. Don't worry if you don't understand it completely, most people use dialectics without ever consciously realising it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


If you have any questions about formal logic, you can PM me. Don't listen to people who claim to have disproved major theorems in mathematics but are not publishing their results for some unknown reasons.

What has formal logic got to do with mathematics?

Or are you a Logicist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eirigi:


I think Rosa just doesn't understand dialectics.

Well, I'm in good company then, since no one understands dialectics -- or if they do, they have kept that secret well hidden.


It's not meant to be a mystical guide to the world, just a way of looking at events as processes. These debates around these ridiculous hypothetical situations like whether water boils or whether a rock is inherently 'dialectic' in a frozen space vacuum are ridiculous. Dialectics is useless unless applied, and only then to events or processes. Don't worry if you don't understand it completely, most people use dialectics without ever consciously realising it.

Except, if true, it would make change impossible, as I have shown.

Of course, if you can show where my argument goes astray, you can do so in the Mao thread in Philosophy:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A R Amistad, quoting Miles (I hope you got his permission! He wouldn't let me quote a PM he sent me on dialectics):


1. What is the main thesis statement of dialectics?

Dialectics is a method of analyzing and understanding the development of things. It looks at the contradictions within an object to see how they interrelate and interact, and how that causes that object to move, grow, change and develop over time (this is its dynamic).

I'm sure by now that you've had the three postulates of materialist dialectics explained. If not, let me know and we can talk about them, too.

2. How can I use dialectics to understand the environment around me?

Observation and analysis. Look and study the objects around you to see what its dynamics are. But do understand: sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system. Think of it like basic math and calculus; you can use calculus to solve "1 + 1 = x", but it's cumbersome and unnecessary. If more basic and elementary methods of understanding prove inadequate, then the dialectical method is probably more appropriate to use.

3. Do dialectics seek to explain or do they go so far as to give meaning to things?

Dialectics neither explains nor gives meaning. It simply shows us the reality of a thing. It is up to us as the observers and analysts to explain and give meaning to it.

Taking these one at a time:


Dialectics is a method of analyzing and understanding the development of things. It looks at the contradictions within an object to see how they interrelate and interact, and how that causes that object to move, grow, change and develop over time (this is its dynamic).

A) The examples of 'contradictions' dialecticians refer us to turn out not to be contradictions, in the first place.

B) But, even supposing they were, this approach to change would make it impossible. On that see the Mao thread in Philosophy:

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


2. How can I use dialectics to understand the environment around me?

Observation and analysis. Look and study the objects around you to see what its dynamics are. But do understand: sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system. Think of it like basic math and calculus; you can use calculus to solve "1 + 1 = x", but it's cumbersome and unnecessary. If more basic and elementary methods of understanding prove inadequate, then the dialectical method is probably more appropriate to use.

A) These are rather odd assertions. Mathematics is vastly more efficient at solving such problems than is 'dialectical logic'.

B) In fact, I challenge Miles to solve a single mathematical problem 'dialectically', and quicker than the usual methods.


3. Do dialectics seek to explain or do they go so far as to give meaning to things?

Dialectics neither explains nor gives meaning. It simply shows us the reality of a thing. It is up to us as the observers and analysts to explain and give meaning to it.

A) But what is the use of this theory of it can't explain anything? In fact, as Miles's first point reveals, he seeks to explain change by recourse to 'internal contradictions'.

b) In fact, dialecticians like Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used dialectics all the time to explain things. [Not that they did this very well, using this theory!]

[A.R.Amistad]

My main point: "existence precedes essence" does not stand in total opposition to dialectics, or dialectical materialism, and maybe even the same can be said for anti-dialectics. :thumbup1:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AR Amistad:


My main point: "existence precedes essence" does not stand in total opposition to dialectics, or dialectical materialism, and maybe even the same can be said for anti-dialectics.

But, what does your point mean?

And what has it got to do with dialectics?

[Martin Blank]

(I hope you got his permission! He wouldn't let me quote a PM he sent me on dialectics):

He's got it. You don't, and never will. Why? I don't like you. :p


A) The examples of 'contradictions' dialecticians refer us to turn out not to be contradictions, in the first place.

B) But, even supposing they were, this approach to change would make it impossible. On that see the Mao thread in Philosophy:

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

A) I don't have time to read another 17 pages of your drivel. New person. New argument. Same goes for trying to pin Mao's "dialectics" on me.

B) I think we've had the argument before about "contradictions" and "opposites", and I've already explained to you on numerous occasions that "opposites" and "contradictions" are not always the "night-and-day" poles you try to make them out to be. This is why I prefer to use the term "opposing forces" instead of "opposites".

C) It is neither contradiction alone, nor motion alone, that causes transformational change. It's both in constant interaction over time that causes change. (This also gets to a point of yours below; it's not just internal, but both internal and external contradictions that have to be observed.)


A) These are rather odd assertions. Mathematics is vastly more efficient at solving such problems than is 'dialectical logic'.

B) In fact, I challenge Miles to solve a single mathematical problem 'dialectically', and quicker than the usual methods.

Sigh. I see your reading comprehension skills have not improved in the last four-plus years (a fat lot of good that PhD is doing you). I specifically said: "sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system". I was never one to see materialist dialectics as a "catch-all" method, any more than I bought into the foolish idea that it is a standalone "science". Sure, you could overwork the system and spend untold time and energy using dialectics to find the sum of one plus one. But why, when there are more efficient means to solve such a basic problem? The method of materialist dialectics has its role in observing and understanding society, just as any other viable scientific methods of analysis do.


A) But what is the use of this theory of it can't explain anything? In fact, as Miles's first point reveals, he seeks to explain change by recourse to 'internal contradictions'.

B) In fact, dialecticians like Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used dialectics all the time to explain things. [Not that they did this very well, using this theory!]

A) Yes, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used something they called "dialectics", and left the world wanting. The same is true of virtually all of the 20th century's self-proclaimed "dialecticians". The problem is that they didn't understand Marx's views on materialist dialectics (which is partially Marx's fault, since it's not like he wrote a definitive guide or anything -- that, sadly, was left to Engels). Nevertheless, it was the individuals that did the explaining, based on what their observations showed them.

B) Your problem, Rosa, is that you keep looking for the deus ex machina in every theory and methodology. Look, I'm sorry you got burned by the IST theoreticians many, many years ago. It had to suck to realize that your "god" failed. But maybe you should take that as a hint to stop looking for a "god theory" to explain everything ... or thinking that every person who advocates the method of materialist dialectics was made in your "god's" image.

[Lyev]

But, without over-complicating this, or using dialectics for something totally irrelevant, how can this be applying to an actual, concrete example in the real world? For example; capitalism. Is it that the contradiction(s) between labour and capital*will lead to a change, and ultimate overhaul of the system? Is that a dialectical analysis, or am I way off track?

*There's a plethora of contradictions in the capitalist system.

[S.Artesian]

But, without over-complicating this, or using dialectics for something totally irrelevant, how can this be applying to an actual, concrete example in the real world? For example; capitalism. Is it that the contradiction(s) between labour and capital*will lead to a change, and ultimate overhaul of the system? Is that a dialectical analysis, or am I way off track?

*There's a plethora of contradictions in the capitalist system.

No you are not off the track. "The rational kernel" that Marx extracts is the recognition that Hegel in his writings on spirit, on consciousness, on being and becoming, is attempting to come to grips with the real content of history.

Feuerbach [here comes a radical simplification] argues essentially that the real content of history is human beings, human beings in nature.

Marx, "crosses that brook of fire," arguing that it is not the world of nature and the laws of nature that we confront in the apprehension, or attempted apprehension of history, it is the world of men and women-- it is the world created by men and women as species-beings, i.e. as social beings.

The "dialectic," the contradictions, the opposing forces [and I think Miles is spot one in opting for the description "opposing forces," is/are in the social organization of labor.

Marx finds the source of the development of capital, and the contradictions of capitalist development in that fundamental social relation of capital-- the organization of labor as wage-labor, which is labor existing in a form where the very conditions of labor [the society] are determined by the means of production existing as private property. Thus labor and the conditions of labor oppose each other. Capital exists as the expropriation, the aggrandizement of surplus value, surplus value being the product of this "de-formation" of labor as wage-labor exchanging itself with the capitalist's means of production in order to obtain access to food, clothing, shelter etc.-- in short in order to reproduce itself once again as wage-labor, where it must again exchange itself, sell itself, in order to survive.

It is from this primary opposition, between labor and its "condition of employment" that the contradiction of value are generated; that the means of production at a certain point are developed beyond the capability of the relations of production, private property; that the very accumulation of surplus value in the mode of production, returning as expanded means of production undermines profit and profitability, which is the source of accumulation.

Through the development of the means of production, which capitalism undertakes to increase the accumulation of surplus value, the foundation is created for the abolition of capitalism in total.

[Martin Blank]

But, without over-complicating this, or using dialectics for something totally irrelevant, how can this be applying to an actual, concrete example in the real world? For example; capitalism. Is it that the contradiction(s) between labour and capital*will lead to a change, and ultimate overhaul of the system? Is that a dialectical analysis, or am I way off track?

*There's a plethora of contradictions in the capitalist system.

Don't take this the wrong way, but, yes, that's an incredibly simple one. It's so simple that you really don't need dialectics to see that one. A simple review of history shows a pattern that develops out of the contradictions of a class society. Where dialectics becomes valuable is when you move past this to observing development and dynamics.

It's one thing to understand that classes will conflict and that will eventually lead to an abstract change. It's another thing to be able to look at the development of each of the elements in class society -- the composition and consciousness of classes, their relations to each other, their relations to the mode of production, the state of the mode of the production and productive forces, how these have influenced and affected the political situation (and vice versa), the effects these have had on culture (and vice versa), and so on -- and see how they interact with each other. This is where materialist dialectics has its value.

The method of materialist dialectics lets the observer and analyst look at these different elements, not as separate parts, but as an integral whole -- the opposing forces that create contradictions, how those contradictions foment motion, how the changing contradictions resulting from motion affect that motion, how this ongoing interaction and movement over time results in incremental and fundamental change, how one set of changes can negate a previous set of changes and move things to another level. Done correctly, the observer can not only correctly see what has happened, but can extrapolate a hypothesis of what will happen by abstracting out the dynamics (some of us refer to this as "telescoping").

Modern computer science is trying to catch up to this by attempting to apply chaos theory to statistical analysis. Eventually, armed with the right formulas and a knowledge of SPSS, much of what is done "analog" could be done with the press of a few buttons.

When we use the method of materialist dialectics, it is often for analyzing the development of the economic and political situations. We've been successful in our use of the method over the years, including in instances when we "telescoped" to see what was coming. But it also helps to see broader issues, like the development of class relations vis-à-vis development of the mode of production or the level of class consciousness (and the barriers standing in the further development thereof) in a society.

In the end, though, dialectics is a method of analysis -- nothing more. The "human factor" plays the crucial role in regards to how it is used ... or misused.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Miles:


A) I don't have time to read another 17 pages of your drivel. New person. New argument. Same goes for trying to pin Mao's "dialectics" on me.

Still too scared to take me on, so you resort to abuse once more, I see.:lol:


B) I think we've had the argument before about "contradictions" and "opposites", and I've already explained to you on numerous occasions that "opposites" and "contradictions" are not always the "night-and-day" poles you try to make them out to be. This is why I prefer to use the term "opposing forces" instead of "opposites".

But opposing forces can't be contradictions either. Unless, of course, you are using "contradiction" in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?


and I've already explained to you on numerous occasions that "opposites" and "contradictions" are not always the "night-and-day" poles you try to make them out to be.

Well, I just quote the Dialectical Holy Books, so pick a fight with them, not me.


C) It is neither contradiction alone, nor motion alone, that causes transformational change. It's both in constant interaction over time that causes change. (This also gets to a point of yours below; it's not just internal, but both internal and external contradictions that have to be observed.)

Even so, as I have shown (but you are too lazy to read it -- in fact, the core argument is only a few hundred words long!), this still makes change impossible.



Sigh. I see your reading comprehension skills have not improved in the last four-plus years (a fat lot of good that PhD is doing you).

Well, your writing 'skills' are to blame here, as we will see.


I specifically said: "sometimes applying dialectical analysis is overworking the system".

And where did I deny you said this?


I was never one to see materialist dialectics as a "catch-all" method, any more than I bought into the foolish idea that it is a standalone "science". Sure, you could overwork the system and spend untold time and energy using dialectics to find the sum of one plus one. But why, when there are more efficient means to solve such a basic problem? The method of materialist dialectics has its role in observing and understanding society, just as any other viable scientific methods of analysis do.

Go on then let's see you apply this 'theory'/'method' to one problem that shows that a historical materialist answer (minus the gobbledygook you mystics dote upon) is inferior. Indeed, choose just one example that shows this 'superfine method' of yours is capable of handling anything at all.

You (and other mystics who post here) have been asked this several times before, but you always go rather quiet...

Wonder why?:rolleyes:

And. you have yet to show us how 'dialectics' can solve just one mathematical problem, let alone do this better than the usual methods us mathematicians use.


(a fat lot of good that PhD is doing you)

Why the present tense? I finished those studies nearly 30 years ago.

But, a fat lot of good this 'theory' has done you. How massive is that huge party of yours? And a fat lot of good it has done the international revolutionary movement. Dialectical Marxism is a long-term and abject failure. But you lot still cling to it like the medievals clung to Ptolemy's system. :lol:


A) Yes, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao used something they called "dialectics", and left the world wanting. The same is true of virtually all of the 20th century's self-proclaimed "dialecticians". The problem is that they didn't understand Marx's views on materialist dialectics (which is partially Marx's fault, since it's not like he wrote a definitive guide or anything -- that, sadly, was left to Engels). Nevertheless, it was the individuals that did the explaining, based on what their observations showed them.

So, let me get this straight: you are the only dialectician on the planet who is in direct contact with self-developing 'Being', and thus who understands this Hermetic 'theory' aright, eh? I'm sorry, I'll take my shoes off in your presence in future .

One small problem, you are so far in advance of us mere mortals that you seem totally incapable of explaining these semi-divine truths to us. We are still waiting for you to explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is.:(


B) Your problem, Rosa, is that you keep looking for the deus ex machina in every theory and methodology. Look, I'm sorry you got burned by the IST theoreticians many, many years ago. It had to suck to realize that your "god" failed. But maybe you should take that as a hint to stop looking for a "god theory" to explain everything ... or thinking that every person who advocates the method of materialist dialectics was made in your "god's" image.

Not so, and once more, I just quote the Dialectical Gospels, and draw out the absurd consequences. Apart from a few paragraphs of flowery rhetoric, and no little and abuse, you have yet to show where I go wrong.

I'm beginning to suspect you can't...:(


Look, I'm sorry you got burned by the IST theoreticians many, many years ago. It had to suck to realize that your "god" failed.

What has this got to do with anything? In fact, like you, they are fans of this Hermetic theory, too -- which, also like you, they can't explain, either. If they are screw ups, and your massive party is too, then the common element is this 'theory'.

Unless, of course, your huge, whopping party is a success...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


No you are not off the track. "The rational kernel" that Marx extracts is the recognition that Hegel in his writings on spirit, on consciousness, on being and becoming, is attempting to come to grips with the real content of history

But, we have already established (in the "Anti-Dialectics Made Easy,Thread 2" in Philosophy), that by the time Marx came to write Das Kapital, he had waved 'goodbye' to all this Hegelian giff (upside down or 'the right way up').

And, you keep helping yourself to the word "contradiction" when it turns out that the things you say are contradictions manifestly are not.

No wonder Marx merely "coquetted" with this word in Das Kapital.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Miles:


A simple review of history shows a pattern that develops out of the contradictions of a class society. Where dialectics becomes valuable is when you move past this to observing development and dynamics.

But the sort of things you quote aren't contradictions to begin with, so how can capitalism develop this way?

[Martin Blank]

Still too scared to take me on, so you resort to abuse once more, I see. :lol:

Sigh! Honestly, Rosa, do you really think that this is how you have to act when dealing with other self-described socialists and communists? Seriously! It's off-putting and tiring, and makes it so I don't even want to waste my time responding to you, because it wouldn't matter what I say. It would be just like talking to a brick wall, and it just makes you seem like a troll.

I'm saying this sincerely, Rosa. You need to let go of this obnoxious veneer you seem to think you need when you're engaged in a political discussion. I'm confident enough in my own understanding and advocacy of materialist dialectics that I don't have to jump at your petty sniping. It's unfortunate that you cannot say or act the same -- that you cannot actually be open-minded enough to have an honest and comradely conversation with someone you disagree with.

It makes me think that you fear your own hermetically-sealed metaphysical house of cards will come crashing down if you do.

Rosa, when you've calmed down, when you're ready to respect your fellow discussants, when you've let go of the defense mechanisms you picked up from dealing with the sexist British left, then we can talk seriously. I'm ready to listen when you're ready to honestly engage.

[black magick hustla]

instead of wasting time reading the deadweight of old dead white men that made a living of smoothtalking (hegel) read lewis carroll, the dadaists, the surrealists etcetera, there nonsense rhyming and bombastic nothing is atleast fun and beautiful.

marx grew up in german idealism and he was a product of his time. in the same sense he called lasalle a nigger and supported the american side of the mexican american war under the premise that mexicans "are lazy".

[S.Artesian]

instead of wasting time reading the deadweight of old dead white men that made a living of smoothtalking (hegel) read lewis carroll, the dadaists, the surrealists etcetera, there nonsense rhyming and bombastic nothing is atleast fun and beautiful.

marx grew up in german idealism and he was a product of his time. in the same sense he called lasalle a nigger and supported the american side of the mexican american war under the premise that mexicans "are lazy".


And Isidore Ducasse, what did he suport?

[S.Artesian]

Rosa, when you've calmed down, when you're ready to respect your fellow discussants, when you've let go of the defense mechanisms you picked up from dealing with the sexist British left, then we can talk seriously. I'm ready to listen when you're ready to honestly engage.

Don't hold your breath, comrade.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Miles:


Sigh! Honestly, Rosa, do you really think that this is how you have to act when dealing with other self-described socialists and communists? Seriously! It's off-putting and tiring, and makes it so I don't even want to waste my time responding to you, because it wouldn't matter what I say. It would be just like talking to a brick wall, and it just makes you seem like a troll.

I'm saying this sincerely, Rosa. You need to let go of this obnoxious veneer you seem to think you need when you're engaged in a political discussion. I'm confident enough in my own understanding and advocacy of materialist dialectics that I don't have to jump at your petty sniping. It's unfortunate that you cannot say or act the same -- that you cannot actually be open-minded enough to have an honest and comradely conversation with someone you disagree with.

It makes me think that you fear your own hermetically-sealed metaphysical house of cards will come crashing down if you do.

Rosa, when you've calmed down, when you're ready to respect your fellow discussants, when you've let go of the defense mechanisms you picked up from dealing with the sexist British left, then we can talk seriously. I'm ready to listen when you're ready to honestly engage.

What do you expect when all you ever post about my ideas is stuff like this?


I don't have time to read another 17 pages of your drivel.

And you have been doing this for nearly five years. In that case, it seems that you can treat me with disrespect, but I have to be all sweetness and light in return.

You regularly substitute abuse for argument, but somehow you expect me either to desist from arguing, or to rise above the bile you constantly pour out.

Well, you have chosen the wrong girl, sonny.

You either treat me with respect, or you can look forward to another five years of this.

[black magick hustla]

And Isidore Ducasse, what did he suport?

idk he died when he was 24. but left something beautiful

[S.Artesian]

idk he died when he was 24. but left something beautiful

Yes, and Engels "rejoiced" in 1847 in the US conquest of Mexican territory, and in 1861 Marx "reversed" that describing the war as wage in the interests of the slaveholding South.

[blake 3:17]

What do you expect when all you ever post about my ideas is stuff like this?

It has nothing to do with your ideas. It has everything to do with the rude and tedious and belligerent way you hammer at people.

You're interesting when you talk about real stuff but your philosophic interventions are dull dull dull.

[Martin Blank]

You either treat me with respect, or you can look forward to another five years of this.

Respect is earned, not given. And, yes, it's a two-way street. I'll treat you with respect if you start treating everyone else, including me, with respect. Otherwise, expect another five years of me ignoring you. You had your chance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Miles:


Respect is earned, not given. And, yes, it's a two-way street. I'll treat you with respect if you start treating everyone else, including me, with respect. Otherwise, expect another five years of me ignoring you. You had your chance.

Maybe so, but the bile you pour out constantly hasn't been earned.


I'll treat you with respect if you start treating everyone else, including me, with respect.

What was that about 'earned'?


Otherwise, expect another five years of me ignoring you.

Oh dear! How will I ever recover from his mortal wound?!?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


It has nothing to do with your ideas. It has everything to do with the rude and tedious and belligerent way you hammer at people.

Miles was like this from the start, before I 'hammered' at anyone.


You're interesting when you talk about real stuff but your philosophic interventions are dull dull dull

So you say, but plenty here think otherwise.


It has everything to do with the rude and tedious and belligerent way you hammer at people.

In that case, you mystics can expect another five. I've only just warmed up.:lol:

[A.R.Amistad]

Rosa

But, what does your point mean?

And what has it got to do with dialectics?

because of this fundamental dialectic:

Thesis:Being
Antithesis: Nothingness
Synthesis: Becoming

[S.Artesian]

Rosa


because of this fundamental dialectic:

Thesis:Being
Antithesis: Nothingness
Synthesis: Becoming

As we used to say, "There it is!"-- this category becoming really sums it up-- transitions, mediations-- that's what Marx takes over from Hegel, that's what he sees in the organization of labor; in "species-being."

Now I know this is "mystical guff" according to Rosa, and that Marx discarded this Hegelian residue sometime after his notebooks on economics and before the publication of volume 1, but...

but the reason that Marxism is not dialectical materialism, but does "locate" a dialectic is precisely that the antagonisms, conflicts, oppositions the drive the expansion of capital, it's "becoming," are located in, and confined in, the actual social organization of labor which is the human process of "becoming" in the material world.

[A.R.Amistad]

And here I have done in a few posts what Sartre spent a great deal of his largely confused life trying to do. That "existence precedes essence" cannot escape the dialectic because essence is always the synthesis and never the thesis or antithesis.

[anticap]

I'm far less interested in understanding the finer details of DM than I am in understanding why I might want to understand the finer details of DM.

I'm sure DM is a fun topic for discussion at dinner parties with academic elites, but I always find myself visualizing (literally) working-class folks living out the daily grind of wage labor, and asking myself, "How will this help them?"

So, can anyone tell me how DM will help the working-class to get out from under the yoke of capitalism, without telling me that I'll first need to understand the finer points of DM before I can ever hope to understand their answer?

For example, I can easily see how math will help someone build a bridge, despite the fact that I suck at math.

[red cat]

I'm far less interested in understanding the finer details of DM than I am in understanding why I might want to understand the finer details of DM.

I'm sure DM is a fun topic for discussion at dinner parties with academic elites, but I always find myself visualizing (literally) working-class folks living out the daily grind of wage labor, and asking myself, "How will this help them?"

So, can anyone tell me how DM will help the working-class to get out from under the yoke of capitalism, without telling me that I'll first need to understand the finer points of DM before I can ever hope to understand their answer?

For example, I can easily see how math will help someone build a bridge, despite the fact that I suck at math.

It is generally observed that the social contradictions can be arranged like a pyramid in terms of their influence. It is necessary to identify the one which is at the top, that is, the principal contradiction. The outcome of this contradiction radically affects all the other ones and hence, the direction of development of the society. Also, the way a contradiction is to be resolved, can be deduced by looking at its relationship with other contradictions.

[S.Artesian]

I'm far less interested in understanding the finer details of DM than I am in understanding why I might want to understand the finer details of DM.

I'm sure DM is a fun topic for discussion at dinner parties with academic elites, but I always find myself visualizing (literally) working-class folks living out the daily grind of wage labor, and asking myself, "How will this help them?"

So, can anyone tell me how DM will help the working-class to get out from under the yoke of capitalism, without telling me that I'll first need to understand the finer points of DM before I can ever hope to understand their answer?

For example, I can easily see how math will help someone build a bridge, despite the fact that I suck at math.

Well, a core to the materialism in Marx's historical materialism [which I like to think of as the social dialectic] is that no philosophy as a philosophy will "help working class folks in their daily grind..."

One problem, however, with your formulation is that the same "common-sense" criticism can be raised against any and every material analysis of capitalism itself-- it can be raised against Marx-- "how is understanding the dual existence of the commodity as a use-value and as value help the workers in their daily grind, struggling with the bourgeoisie? How does grasping the impact of turnover periods on rates if profit, help the working class? How does recognizing the 'secret to primitive accumulation' help...."

Certainly the establishment of soviets was not triggered by a "correct understanding" of, or the debate around the validity of DM. Likewise, it was not debate about the "meta-theory" of the conflict between means and relations of production that produced the Russian Revolution.. but it was the actual conflict between means and relations of production that precipitated both the Revolution and the soviets.

So to the degree that we understand capitalism in its specific iteration, and inits general organization, requirements, and needs, we can participate in that actual history, in the emergence of that conflict. In knowing capitalism, we'll know the capitalists and mistakes not to make, like say... supporting provisional governments, popular fronts, subordinating the independence of the working class to some alliance with capitalists... etc.

[anticap]

It is generally observed that the social contradictions can be arranged like a pyramid in terms of their influence. It is necessary to identify the one which is at the top, that is, the principal contradiction. The outcome of this contradiction radically affects all the other ones and hence, the direction of development of the society. Also, the way a contradiction is to be resolved, can be deduced by looking at its relationship with other contradictions.

I thank you for trying, and I'm sorry, but this is just hot air.

I can know that society is pyramidal without knowing a lick of DM. Indeed, every last person on Earth knows this, and yet the number of fluent dialecticians is vanishingly small.

Likewise, we all know who is on top and who isn't; we all know whether we approve of the arrangement as it stands; and we all know (more or less, and within a range of possibilities) what we could do to change it, if we ever got up the gumption.

None of this requires an understanding of DM.


Well, a core to the materialism in Marx's historical materialism [which I like to think of as the social dialectic] is that no philosophy as a philosophy will "help working class folks in their daily grind..."

One problem, however, with your formulation is that the same "common-sense" criticism can be raised against any and every material analysis of capitalism itself-- it can be raised against Marx-- "how is understanding the dual existence of the commodity as a use-value and as value help the workers in their daily grind, struggling with the bourgeoisie? How does grasping the impact of turnover periods on rates if profit, help the working class? How does recognizing the 'secret to primitive accumulation' help...."

Certainly the establishment of soviets was not triggered by a "correct understanding" of, or the debate around the validity of DM. Likewise, it was not debate about the "meta-theory" of the conflict between means and relations of production that produced the Russian Revolution.. but it was the actual conflict between means and relations of production that precipitated both the Revolution and the soviets.

So to the degree that we understand capitalism in its specific iteration, and inits general organization, requirements, and needs, we can participate in that actual history, in the emergence of that conflict. In knowing capitalism, we'll know the capitalists and mistakes not to make, like say... supporting provisional governments, popular fronts, subordinating the independence of the working class to some alliance with capitalists... etc.

Thanks for your effort as well, but (and granted I'm not the brightest spark), you seem to be agreeing with me.

[red cat]

I thank you for trying, and I'm sorry, but this is just hot air.

I can know that society is pyramidal without knowing a lick of DM. Indeed, every last person on Earth knows this, and yet the number of fluent dialecticians is vanishingly small.

Likewise, we all know who is on top and who isn't; we all know whether we approve of the arrangement as it stands; and we all know (more or less, and within a range of possibilities) what we could do to change it, if we ever got up the gumption.

None of this requires an understanding of DM.

You understood nothing of my post. I was talking about the pyramid of contradictions, not the society itself.

And the number of dialecticians is increasing everyday. Most of the base level cadres of Maoist parties know very well about the subject.

[A.R.Amistad]

If you are a revolutionary it is important to know this stuff because it is important to understand that any group that oppresses and exploits cannot itself be free. Its called the slave-master dialectic. I think this is the most important dialectic for revolutionaries to know. The master is just as much a slave to their slaves as the slaves are to them. Without the slaves, the master is not a master. The master depends entirely on that which is without, not from within in relation to what is without. A laborer only depends on themselves becoming, which is labor. So when someone tells you that "workers need bosses" the dialectic shows how the boss is not really in total control. It can be also called the God-dialectic, which is much easier to understand. Given the hypothetical existence of a God, a God is as much under the control of its followers, because after all what is a God without followers? Without followers, the God ceases to be a God and is just an entity, a potential energy. The God is at the beck and call of its antithesis, its followers.

[anticap]

You understood nothing of my post. I was talking about the pyramid of contradictions, not the society itself.

Your answer to this, then, would appear to be "No":


So, can anyone tell me how DM will help the working-class to get out from under the yoke of capitalism, without telling me that I'll first need to understand the finer points of DM before I can ever hope to understand their answer?


And the number of dialecticians is increasing everyday. Most of the base level cadres of Maoist parties know very well about the subject.

No need to get defensive. The number, however it may be growing, is vanishingly small in comparison to the general population, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.


If you are a revolutionary it is important to know this stuff because it is important to understand that any group that oppresses and exploits cannot itself be free. Its called the slave-master dialectic. I think this is the most important dialectic for revolutionaries to know. The master is just as much a slave to their slaves as the slaves are to them. Without the slaves, the master is not a master. The master depends entirely on that which is without, not from within in relation to what is without. A laborer only depends on themselves becoming, which is labor. So when someone tells you that "workers need bosses" the dialectic shows how the boss is not really in total control. It can be also called the God-dialectic, which is much easier to understand. Given the hypothetical existence of a God, a God is as much under the control of its followers, because after all what is a God without followers? Without followers, the God ceases to be a God and is just an entity, a potential energy. The God is at the beck and call of its antithesis, its followers.

But people were making that argument with regard to slavery before Marx or Hegel were even born.

[A.R.Amistad]

But people were making that argument with regard to slavery before Marx or Hegel were even born.

Its how you support the argument that counts

[S.Artesian]

Thanks for your effort as well, but (and granted I'm not the brightest spark), you seem to be agreeing with me.

I'm not actually agreeing with you. If you want to criticize DM, that's fine with me. But the criticism that is worthwhile is not a criticism that lends itself to simple "anti-intellectualism" by saying "What use is this, whether its right or wrong, to workers in their daily grind?" That's kind of a market-based criticism.

[red cat]

Your answer to this, then, would appear to be "No":

Consider every possible social contradiction. Contradiction B is placed below contradiction A if the total social impact of A is more than that of B, and the nature of B depends on A.

For example, if B is the contradiction between different capitalist blocs, and A is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, then B is placed below A. Doing this with every possible pair of social contradictions results in a pyramid.




No need to get defensive. The number, however it may be growing, is vanishingly small in comparison to the general population, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.This is because dialectics is a subject that is practically outlawed.

[A.R.Amistad]

This is because dialectics is a subject that is practically outlawed.

:confused:

[red cat]

:confused:

How do you properly teach a subject ? By giving examples. Giving appropriate examples concerning dialectics is practically outlawed in the third world; you will be condemned as a terrorist if you do so.

[anticap]

I'm not actually agreeing with you. If you want to criticize DM, that's fine with me. But the criticism that is worthwhile is not a criticism that lends itself to simple "anti-intellectualism" by saying "What use is this, whether its right or wrong, to workers in their daily grind?" That's kind of a market-based criticism.

Oh, fuck, how I love this forum! How quickly the leftist slurs begin to fly! Now I'm an "anti-intellectual" (rather than simply ignorant, which I've openly confessed), and a "market-based" critic (this seems to be some sort of combo-fallacy, where you attempt to poison the well by making me appear guilty of association with markets).

Let me ask you this: would it be dialectical of me if I were to turn your "anti-intellectual" slur around and label you an "anti-unintellectual"? Because your basic point seems to be that if I don't get it because I'm an ignorant doofus, then I'm not entitled to criticize it, because to do so would make me an "anti-intellectual."

If you don't care to tackle the problem I've presented to you, then take a hike, and take your ridiculous slurs with you. But don't try to pass your failure (or laziness) off on me.


Consider every possible social contradiction. Contradiction B is placed below contradiction A if the total social impact of A is more than that of B, and the nature of B depends on A.

For example, if B is the contradiction between different capitalist blocs, and A is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, then B is placed below A. Doing this with every possible pair of social contradictions results in a pyramid.

When I said that your answer appeared to be "No," I was speaking to the fact that you responded to my ignorance by implying that I had much to learn before I could get an answer to my original question. And now you appear to be trying to teach me DM, which is precisely what I asked you not to do.


This is because dialectics is a subject that is practically outlawed.

Yes, I'm sure if it weren't for the grand conspiracy, the majority of the world's population would care enough to understand this shit.

[A.R.Amistad]

Giving appropriate examples concerning dialectics is practically outlawed in the third world; you will be condemned as a terrorist if you do so.

I think you'd be called a terrorist in the third world if you were holding your fork in the wrong hand. :(

[red cat]

I think you'd be called a terrorist in the third world if you were holding your fork in the wrong hand. :(
It is sort of like that. In the countries where the peoples' wars are going on, in many places you get arrested if you are found owning a communist manifesto without being affiliated to any of the parliamentary revisionist parties. :)

[S.Artesian]

Oh, fuck, how I love this forum! How quickly the leftist slurs begin to fly! Now I'm an "anti-intellectual" (rather than simply ignorant, which I've openly confessed), and a "market-based" critic (this seems to be some sort of combo-fallacy, where you attempt to poison the well by making me appear guilty of association with markets).



You need sit down and take a stress-pill. I didn't accuse you of being an anti-intellectual, I said the criticism you made lends itself to anti-intellectual criticisms that usually revolve around issues of the "practical value" of a theory or analysis.

I didn't say you have no right to criticize DM. I'm all for criticizing DM. But to say DM has not practical value to a worker trying to put 3 squares on the table and pay the mortgage is not a criticism of DM.

The "market-based" comes into play in that such criticisms expect an analysis to realize a "value," a sort of political profit by providing detailed solutions and pathways to success.

I did tackle the problem... in describing how actually knowing something about capitalism, and its capitalists, can translate it class strategy. You apparently missed that.

As for your bullshit about slurs and laziness.... get a grip.

[anticap]

You need sit down and take a stress-pill. I didn't accuse you of being an anti-intellectual, I said the criticism you made lends itself to anti-intellectual criticisms that usually revolve around issues of the "practical value" of a theory or analysis.

Be that as it may, I fail to see how focusing on the practical value is a negative (worthy of sneer-quotes, even!).

Seriously now: what fucking good is DM, if it won't help workers throw off their yokes?


I didn't say you have no right to criticize DM.

And I didn't say you did (OK, I did, but I worded it poorly). What I meant was, you implied that for me to do so was "anti-intellectual" (which is as good as saying "don't do it").


I'm all for criticizing DM. But to say DM has not practical value to a worker trying to put 3 squares on the table and pay the mortgage is not a criticism of DM.

You're absolutely right, but that's not the issue I raised at the outset. I didn't say " DM has no practical value to a worker trying to put 3 squares on the table and pay the mortgage [then DM is a shit theory]"; I asked "how DM will help the working-class to get out from under the yoke of capitalism, without [them having] to understand the finer points of DM." See the difference? And remember how I also conceded that DM might be a lovely intellectual exercise? It might be a perfectly sound theory, but who really gives a shit (or ought to)? That's the question.


The "market-based" comes into play in that such criticisms expect an analysis to realize a "value," a sort of political profit by providing detailed solutions and pathways to success.

Well? What are you saying then? That we ought not expect anything of a theory? Or that [I]we who don't understand it ought not expect to understand why it's important? I hope it's not the latter, because that's precisely the issue I've raised here! And I hope it's not the former, because that's not even worth laughing at. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume an excluded middle and that you'll fill me in on why it is wrong to criticize a theory for lack of perceived usefulness.


I did tackle the problem... in describing how actually knowing something about capitalism, and its capitalists, can translate it class strategy. You apparently missed that.

But we can know everything we need know about capitalism without DM. Unless you've simply conflated DM with "understanding of capitalism" -- but that would be begging the question.


As for your bullshit about slurs and laziness.... get a grip.

I could say the same to you. I'm sure you're well aware of how readily such slurs are tossed around on here. Liberal this, opportunist that, blah blah. It's a copout. Everyone needs to get a grip and stop doing it.

[red cat]

When I said that your answer appeared to be "No," I was speaking to the fact that you responded to my ignorance by implying that I had much to learn before I could get an answer to my original question. And now you appear to be trying to teach me DM, which is precisely what I asked you not to do.

Okay, so this is beyond my capability. :)


Yes, I'm sure if it weren't for the grand conspiracy, the majority of the world's population would care enough to understand this shit.

It is not very practical to comment about things which you don't have the least ideas about.

[S.Artesian]

I could say the same to you. I'm sure you're well aware of how readily such slurs are tossed around on here. Liberal this, opportunist that, blah blah. It's a copout. Everyone needs to get a grip and stop doing it.

That's the point-- I didn't say you were a liberal or an opportunist. I said that type of argument lends itself, parallels is a better way to put it, anti-intellectual arguments, and as such weren't criticisms of DM.

I think we certainly can get our insights into capital without engaging in the construction of the mega-philosophy called DM. I do not think we can truly grasp the origin, and reproduction of capital, the origin and reproduction of which contains the origin and the reproduction of the prospects for the overthrow of capitalism, without understanding Marx's work in Capital, all volumes, The Grundrisse, his various manuscripts on economics and theories of surplus value, etc. And I don't think we can understand Marx's work without grasping his dialectic, which I regard, and Rosa clearly does not, as a transposition of Hegel's, an "extraction of the rational kernel."

Now does that mean there isn't going to be a revolution unless and until everybody and somebody understands all there is to be understood about capital? Obviously not. The materialism in Marx-- which is a historical materialism, "cuts us some slack here." Social history is not based on perfect knowledge. But... but it's an alienated history, isn't it?... or more precisely a history of alienation of social beings from their social labor... so maybe, just maybe more insight can be made more social, and be used to overturn that alienation.

That was my point. I was not at all trying to dismiss your attempt to either understand or criticize DM. I simply think that the criticism of DM requires a thorough, deeper, inquiry into Marx than is summed up in saying, "what's the point if it won't help the workers throw off the yoke of capital."

[anticap]

Okay, so this is beyond my capability. :)

OK then. :)


It is not very practical to comment about things which you don't have the least ideas about.

1. I stated the fact that DM-experts are a relatively tiny subset of the population.

2. You made the claim they're growing. I won't belabor that point, except to say that for every one you gain, you may lose another, especially if Rosa has her way! :lol:

3. I made the claim that DM-experts will remain a relatively tiny subset of the population, however #2 plays out.

4. You made the claim that the claim I made at #3 is true (note the concession) only because of a conspiracy against DM.

5. I expressed doubt that the majority of the global population would find reason to care about DM (much less bother to become experts) -- which is the very reason I poked my head into this thread to begin with -- whether or not there were any such conspiracy.

6. You graciously condescend one last time to inform me that it wouldn't be "practical" to continue our discussion, in light of my apparent ignorance.

So what have we learned here? That you're willing to admit that you're not up to a task (an admirable trait); but that you're not willing to admit that you're living in a fantasy-world. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AR Amistad:


because of this fundamental dialectic:

Thesis:Being
Antithesis: Nothingness
Synthesis: Becoming

But this is Kant and Fichte's dialectic, not Hegel's.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Consider every possible social contradiction. Contradiction B is placed below contradiction A if the total social impact of A is more than that of B, and the nature of B depends on A.

For example, if B is the contradiction between different capitalist blocs, and A is the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, then B is placed below A. Doing this with every possible pair of social contradictions results in a pyramid.

But we have yet to be told why these are 'contradictions' to begin with.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



But we have yet to be told why these are 'contradictions' to begin with.

My post was addressing anticap, not you.

[S.Artesian]

AR Amistad:



But this is Kant and Fichte's dialectic, not Hegel's.

Hegel takes it over, perhaps from Kant, but his own analysis of becoming is quite explicit in the Science of Logic, Vol 1, Book 1, Section 1.

[red cat]

OK then. :)



1. I stated the fact that DM-experts are a relatively tiny subset of the population.

2. You made the claim they're growing. I won't belabor that point, except to say that for every one you gain, you may lose another, especially if Rosa has her way! :lol:

3. I made the claim that DM-experts will remain a relatively tiny subset of the population, however #2 plays out.

4. You made the claim that the claim I made at #3 is true (note the concession) only because of a conspiracy against DM.

5. I expressed doubt that the majority of the global population would find reason to care about DM (much less bother to become experts) -- which is the very reason I poked my head into this thread to begin with -- whether or not there were any such conspiracy.

6. You graciously condescend one last time to inform me that it wouldn't be "practical" to continue our discussion, in light of my apparent ignorance.

So what have we learned here? That you're willing to admit that you're not up to a task (an admirable trait); but that you're not willing to admit that you're living in a fantasy-world. :D

How do you conclude that I am living in a fantasy-world ?

[anticap]

Now does that mean there isn't going to be a revolution unless and until everybody and somebody understands all there is to be understood about capital? Obviously not.

Since we're talking about DM, not Marx's critique of political economy per se, and since I reject any attempted conflation of the two as question-begging, I'm going to paraphrase the above as follows (I hope you won't mind too much):

"Do I mean to say that there isn't going to be a revolution unless and until everybody understands DM? Obviously not."

And now I'll paraphrase myself as well:

"Is DM in general, and an understanding of its finer points in particular, necessary for the working-class to get out from under the yoke of capitalism?"

If you accept both paraphrases as more-or-less accurate, then I'll thank you for your satisfactory answer and leave it at that. :)


How do you conclude that I am living in a fantasy-world ?

Because you don't share my doubts at #5!

Edit: Even though you conceded the claim I made at #3!

[S.Artesian]

Since we're talking about DM, not Marx's critique of political economy per se, and since I reject any attempted conflation of the two as question-begging, I'm going to paraphrase the above as follows (I hope you won't mind too much):

"Do I mean to say that there isn't going to be a revolution unless and until everybody understands DM? Obviously not."

And now I'll paraphrase myself as well:

"Is DM in general, and an understanding of its finer points in particular, necessary for the working-class to get out from under the yoke of capitalism?"

If you accept both paraphrases as more-or-less accurate, then I'll thank you for your satisfactory answer and leave it at that. :)


Yep, I think both phrase are more or less accurate. Although this may confuse some, I don't accept dialectical materialism as being the core or essential to Marx's analysis. Social materialism, historical materialism, the dialectic as it is contained, manifested in the social organization of labor is essential to Marxism. Actually, I think "dialectical materialism" is a diversion from Marx.

An understanding of dialectical materialism might and does prove useful in the negative, in comprehending how the substitution of the "mega-universe" of DM has the obscured the precision, specificity of Marx's analysis of the class relations of production, and the conflict between means and relations of production inherent to the organization of social labor as wage-labor for the extraction and accumulation of surplus value.

[red cat]

Because you don't share my doubts at #5!

Indeed, it is hard to believe that even talking about radical change can be considered a crime in some places. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


My post was addressing anticap, not you

So? This is an open forum, if you can't explain yourself, at least have the courage to admit it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian:


Hegel takes it over, perhaps from Kant, but his own analysis of becoming is quite explicit in the Science of Logic, Vol 1, Book 1, Section 1.

Not according to these experts:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

[red cat]

Red Cat:



So? This is an open forum, if you can't explain yourself, at least have the courage to admit it.

I believe that what a contradiction is has been explained many times in many threads till now. It is rather stupid to ask these questions again and again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


I believe that what a contradiction is has been explained many times in many threads till now.

Then back up your 'belief' with a link.


It is rather stupid to ask these questions again and again.

It's even stupider to accept a 'theory' which uses terms it supporters can't explain.

[anticap]

Indeed, it is hard to believe that even talking about radical change can be considered a crime in some places. :)

Haha, oh no you don't! :D That's not at all what we're talking about here.

(Note: I edited the post you quoted, before noticing that you'd done so.)

The reason I conclude that you're living in a fantasy world is that you believe that the majority of the world will embrace DM!

Oh, but it only gets better: you believe this, despite having admitted that it ain't gonna happen!

Is this how DM works? You believe -- and disbelieve -- the same thing at the same time... and then your head explodes due to cognitive dissonance, and we discover the synthesis after picking through the resulting slurry of gray matter? :lol:

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Then back up your 'belief' with a link.



It's even stupider to accept a 'theory' which uses terms it supporters can't explain.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1711842&postcount=58

[red cat]

Haha, oh no you don't! :D That's not at all what we're talking about here.

(Note: I edited the post you quoted, before noticing that you'd done so.)

The reason I conclude that you're living in a fantasy world is that you believe that the majority of the world will embrace DM!

Oh, but it only gets better: you believe this, despite having admitted that it ain't gonna happen!

Is this how DM works? You believe -- and disbelieve -- the same thing at the same time... and then your head explodes due to cognitive dissonance, and we discover the synthesis after picking through the resulting slurry of gray matter? :lol:

Where did I say this ?

[anticap]

Where did I say this ?

Are you kidding? Scroll up! I've even summarized it for you already!

[red cat]

Are you kidding? Scroll up! I've even summarized it for you already!

The number of dialecticians is less now because it is outlawed. But it won't remain outlawed in future. So, almost everyone will embrace it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat, thanks for that link, but it dosen't tell us why these are contradictions. In fact, as far as I could see, it doesn't even mention them!

[anticap]

The number of dialecticians is less now because it is outlawed. But it won't remain outlawed in future. So, almost everyone will embrace it.

:lol: OK, that will save your head from exploding; but unfortunately it's still stuck in the clouds.

[red cat]

Red Cat, thanks for that link, but it dosen't tell us why these are contradictions. In fact, as far as I could see, it doesn't even mention them!

Read carefully, it does. By contradiction, antagonization etc. we refer to struggle between opposites.

[red cat]

:lol: OK, that will save your head from exploding; but unfortunately it's still stuck in the clouds.

Don't worry, things will get better as our movements progress. :lol:

[anticap]

Don't worry, things will get better as our movements progress. :lol:

But why must we wait for DM? :( It's rather like the notion of forgoing Earthly pleasures in hopes of an afterlife full of bliss!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Read carefully, it does. By contradiction, antagonization etc. we refer to struggle between opposites.

Here is that post again:


What I described in my earlier posts is essentially dialectics.

Now just a bit about the language part. In our daily lives we refer to several things as opposites. We say that a body at rest is the opposite of a body in motion. Again, bodies moving in two opposite directions are opposites of each other. A slow moving body is the opposite of a fast moving body. When we talk of dialectics, we generalize this notion to that of systems displaying mutually exclusive states. Indeed, all things that we normally refer to as opposites fall under this category.

Now look at the "special" type of class interaction that we talked about. It is a full-fledged struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Look at the biosphere in general. Species develop due to evolution which is determined by struggle between individuals, species, and life and environment. Again, in dialectics, we generalize the notion of struggle to interaction between opposites. Same as earlier, what we generally refer to as struggle in our daily lives is a subset of this. Note that for systems like capitalism and socialism, the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat can actually be viewed as a struggle between socialism and capitalism, since the former uniquely determines the latter.

These are the fundamentals of dialectics and this is what we mean by struggle between opposites. Thus the terms like contradiction, antagonization etc. also arise. I hope all this makes things clear for you. Do you have any more questions ?

I can see no attempt here to explain why:


contradiction, antagonization etc. we refer to struggle between opposites

is legitimate.

A contradictioin here would be something like: "The proletariat struggles with the bourgeoisie and it does not", but you do not apparently mean this.

So, why is this a 'contradiction' when it plainly is not?

We have yet to be told...

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Here is that post again:



I can see no attempt here to explain why:



is legitimate.

A contradictioin here would be something like: "The proletariat struggles with the bourgeoisie and it does not", but you do not apparently mean this.

So, why is this a 'contradiction' when it plainly is not?

We have yet to be told...

How does dialectics imply that ?

[red cat]

But why must we wait for DM? :( It's rather like the notion of forgoing Earthly pleasures in hopes of an afterlife full of bliss!

Because DM is one of the basic tools for making revolution. :)

[anticap]

Because DM is one of the basic tools for making revolution. :)

But you've already confessed that you're not equipped to demonstrate this, so how can you be sure that you even believe it? :D

[S.Artesian]

S Artesian:



Not according to these experts:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

I should have specified that I was referring to the importance of becoming in Hegel's Logic-- not the thesis/antithesis/synthesis.

Science of Logic, Chapter 1, C. "Becoming" 1. Unity of Being and Nothing

"But equally the truth is not their lack of distinction, but that they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet unseparated and inseparable, each disappearing immediately into its opposite. Their truth is therefore this movement, this immediate disappearance of one into the other, in a word, Becoming; a movement wherein both are distinct, but in virtue of a distinction which has equally immediately dissolved itself."

Sounds like the relation between wage-labor and capital, doesn't it? At least to me it does.

[red cat]

But you've already confessed that you're not equipped to demonstrate this, so how can you be sure that you even believe it? :D

I can't demonstrate the importance of dialectics without teaching it. ;)

[anticap]

I can't demonstrate the importance of dialectics without teaching it. ;)

And a Christian will tell us that we can't understand the power of Christ until we've entered into a personal relationship with Him. :D

[red cat]

And a Christian will tell us that we can't understand the power of Christ until we've entered into a personal relationship with Him. :D

And a mathematician will tell you that you can't understand differentiation until you have understood limits. :D

[anticap]

And a mathematician will tell you that you can't understand differentiation until you have understood limits. :D

Failed analogy! :D


I can easily see how math will help someone build a bridge, despite the fact that I suck at math.

That's the one you're looking for, but it serves me, not you! :D

[red cat]

Failed analogy! :D


Not so. The application of dialectics is something under dialectics as well.:)

EDIT :
I can easily see how math will help someone build a bridge, despite the fact that I suck at math.

How can you see this if you know virtually nothing of math ?

[anticap]

Not so. The application of dialectics is something under dialectics as well.:)

That's not the kind of analogies we were drawing!

1. Dialectician: you can't understand importance of DM w/o understanding DM.

2. Xian: you can't understand power of Jesus w/o "knowing" him.

3. Mathematician: you can't understand the usefulness of math without being a math-whiz.

The above all take this form: "expert" claims you can't understand why their general expertise matters unless you too become an "expert."

Your failalogy (:D) takes this form: "expert" claims you can't understand some obscure aspect of their expertise unless you also understand some other obscure aspect on which the first depends.

Moreover, the 1st 3 are all nonsense, whereas your oddball is actually true.


How can you see this if you know virtually nothing of math ?

I can know that it's useful for such things without knowing how to apply it. Unlike DM, apparently! :D

[red cat]

That's not the kind of analogies we were drawing!

1. Dialectician: you can't understand importance of DM w/o understanding DM.

2. Xian: you can't understand power of Jesus w/o "knowing" him.

3. Mathematician: you can't understand the usefulness of math without being a math-whiz.

The above all take this form: "expert" claims you can't understand why their general expertise matters unless you too become an "expert."

Your failalogy (:D) takes this form: "expert" claims you can't understand some obscure aspect of their expertise unless you also understand some other obscure aspect on which the first depends.

Moreover, the 1st 3 are all nonsense, whereas your oddball is actually true.



I know that it's useful for such things. Unlike DM, apparently! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif:D

Cool. So now let me tell you that DM is useful for making revolutions. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


How does dialectics imply that ?

In fact, that is a genuine contradiction. The ones you list you have yet to show are contradictions.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



In fact, that is a genuine contradiction. The ones you list you have yet to show are contradictions.

That is not an answer to my question. :(

State any specific example of mine, and I will show why it is a correct one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


That is not an answer to my question.

As if you answer my questions.:rolleyes:


State any specific example of mine, and I will show why it is a correct one.

Ok, here is a genuine contradiction (made out of your own words):


I will show why it is a correct one and I won't

The alleged 'dialectical contradictions' aren't like this. In what way then are they contradictions to begin with?

[red cat]

Red Cat:



As if you answer my questions.:rolleyes:



Ok, here is a genuine contradiction (made out of your own words):



The alleged 'dialectical contradictions' aren't like this. In what way then are they contradictions to begin with?

The example you gave is not mine. I am not responsible for showing how, if at all, it is a contradiction.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


The example you gave is not mine.

Well I used your words; what more do you want?

Ok, so i'll try again:


The example you gave is and is not mine.

Once more this is a genuine contradiction. 'Dialectical contradictions' aren't like this.

In what way then are they contradictions to begin with?

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Well I used your words; what more do you want?

Ok, so i'll try again:



Once more this is a genuine contradiction. 'Dialectical contradictions' aren't like this.

In what way then are they contradictions to begin with?

What sort of game is this ? I did not use any such examples in my posts. If you construct examples yourself then the burden of proving that these are contradictions according to DM as explained in my posts, lies upon you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


What sort of game is this?

No game; I'm deadly serious.


I did not use any such examples in my posts.

You have just used another, here.

From this we may form the contradiction:


I did and i did not use any such examples in my posts.

Now this is a genuine contradiction, unlike the ones you mystics refer to in your 'theory'.


If you construct examples yourself then the burden of proving that these are contradictions according to DM as explained in my posts, lies upon you.

But that's like asking me prove that an isosceles triangle is really a tuna fish!

And you are the one who keeps telling us that your examples are contradictions. What we lack is your proof/explanation.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



No game; I'm deadly serious.



You have just used another, here.

From this we may form the contradiction:


I did and i did not use any such examples in my posts.

Now this is a genuine contradiction, unlike the ones you mystics refer to in your 'theory'.



But that's like asking me prove that an isosceles triangle is really a tuna fish!

And you are the one who keeps telling us that your examples are contradictions. What we lack is your proof/explanation.

Please point out where I have used these sentences as examples of contradictions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Please point out where I have used these sentences as examples of contradictions.

You haven't, but I thought you needed help in recognising one, since your earlier post suggests you have rather odd ideas about what a contradiction is.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



You haven't, but I thought you needed help in recognising one, since your earlier post suggests you have rather odd ideas about what a contradiction is.

Thank you, but I don't need your help in recognizing contradictions, and I have made DM very clear in my posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Thank you, but I don't need your help in recognizing contradictions, and I have made DM very clear in my posts.

Except the part where you confuse contradictions with things that manifestly aren't contradictions.

So, you do need my help, after all.:)

[red cat]

Red Cat:



Except the part where you confuse contradictions with things that manifestly aren't contradictions.

So, you do need my help, after all.:)

Where ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Where ?

At RevLeft. Where else could I give you any help in this regard?

Unless you want to decamp to another board (say, Kasama?) where I can assist you grasp the concept of a contradiction.

[Robocommie]

I think Red Cat and Rosa are the thesis and antithesis of dialectical materialism itself. If the two of them were to meet in real life, the resulting explosion would be the synthesis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact, Red Cat would duck the challenge, as he/she does here all the time.

[red cat]

In fact, Red Cat would duck the challenge, as he/she does here all the time.

:rolleyes: Right. Like here for example:


You mean you hereby accept my challenge ? :)


Scaredy Cat:


You mean you hereby accept my challenge ?

In your dreams...


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1709330&postcount=234

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1709334&postcount=236

[red cat]

Red Cat:



At RevLeft. Where else could I give you any help in this regard?

Unless you want to decamp to another board (say, Kasama?) where I can assist you grasp the concept of a contradiction.

I meant to say that where is the part where I "confuse", according to you, "contradictions with things that manifestly aren't contradictions" in my posts in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-made-easy-t132387/index.html)(Dialectics made easy) thread ?

[A.R.Amistad]

But this is Kant and Fichte's dialectic, not Hegel's

i wasn't asking, in this thread, specifically for Hegel's dialectic over anyone elses, I just wanted to know what they were. Now I have a base understanding. So what differences does it make if it is Kant's or Fichte's dialectic?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Dialectics, as pointed out by Engels in "Dialectics of Nature", seem to play hand-in-hand with the "Butterfly Effect" theory. Am I right, or am I missing something here?