How is Marxism-Leninism scientific?

[Luisrah]

Pretty much straightforward. How is Marxism-Leninism scientific?

[Muzk]

Marxism-Leninism is not, however, Marxism is. I SHIT YOU NOT!


It's all about the scientific method. Check this!

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_technique) for investigating phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon), acquiring new knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-0) To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement) evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1) A scientific method consists of the collection of data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment), and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2)

For example after the Paris Commune Marx was able to use the experiences made by the proletariat in Paris to change parts of the theory for the better. (Like, the working class can't take over a readily made state apparatus at once, but it must crush the old one and build a new one...)

[fa2991]

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_technique) for investigating phenomena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon), acquiring new knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge), or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-0) To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement) evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-1) A scientific method consists of the collection of data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment), and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-2)

Wouldn't that make bourgeois economics "science," too? Or were you being sarcastic?

[¿Que?]

Actually, I don't think the term scientific socialism refers to the application of the scientific method per se. Rather, scientific socialism has to be understood in relation to what it was a reaction against, which is utopian socialism. The difference lies in the idea that scientific socialism is predominantly an analysis of present conditions for the purpose of achieving socialism. Thus, the primary strategy for scientific socialism was recognizing and even possibly creating the conditions for social revolution. In contrast, the utopians' main focus was the end result, going so far as creating little socialist utopias within capitalist society, with the expectation that eventually the rest of the world would follow suit.

I think to put it simply, utopian socialism asks what does a classless society look like, whereas scientific socialism asks how do we actually get there.

[revolution inaction]

Pretty much straightforward. How is Marxism-Leninism scientific?

in the same way as creation "science"

[Muzk]

Wouldn't that make bourgeois economics "science," too? Or were you being sarcastic?

Dohohoho! If you had any knowledge you would know that the theoretical basis of neo-classical economics has little to no empirical evidence!

[RadioRaheem84]

Dohohoho! If you had any knowledge you would know that the theoretical basis of neo-classical economics has little to no empirical evidence!

Anarchist FAQ does a great job dispelling the idea that neo-classical economics is a science.



in the same way as creation "science"

:thumbdown:

[el_chavista]

Wouldn't that make bourgeois economics "science," too?
Bear in mind that in social sciences we replace experimentation with statistic trues. For me, neoliberal economics is just part of economics, from a capitalist perspective.
I modestly think that we, as Marxists, are scientific politicians. Marxism is a social science about history and human progress. Leninism would be a political application of Marxism.

[chegitz guevara]

It's scientific because we base our theories on the existing world, not on ideas we come up with in our head. All previous socialist ideas were simply guys sitting around trying to plan out the perfect world (or their version of it). Marx looked at the real world, sussed out its dynamics, and postulated a means by which exiting forces in the world would bring about socialism ... without Marx planning out that future society. Instead Marx said, the people whom make the revolution will make their own society, and that will be socialism.

It is scientific, because it changes in response to new data and changes in the world, rather than dogmatically clinging even harder to old ideas.

It is not science, however.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Pretty much straightforward. How is Marxism-Leninism scientific?
Its considered scientific because its not the bare idea, its phylosophy , sociology , and economical research all together. It's considered scientific because its not list of dogma's , its a developing idea , which analyzes the current situation through the prisma of historical materialism , and tries to explain why do our socio-economical relations work the way they do , and argues for abandoning current trends via revolution.

[NecroCommie]

Have any of you ever read Lenin? As opposed to Marx's manifesto, he actually cited his source material and statistics, both of which he used to great extenct. For example, Imperialism: highest stage of capitalism is 3/4 statistics, and 1/4 analysis drawn from those statistics.

EDIT: Accompany this statement with what Chegitzszshzssomething Guevara said and you have a full image of why Leninism is scientific.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chegitz:


It's scientific because we base our theories on the existing world, not on ideas we come up with in our head. All previous socialist ideas were simply guys sitting around trying to plan out the perfect world (or their version of it). Marx looked at the real world, sussed out its dynamics, and postulated a means by which exiting forces in the world would bring about socialism ... without Marx planning out that future society. Instead Marx said, the people whom make the revolution will make their own society, and that will be socialism.

In fact, you impose your ideas on nature and society in a thoroughly dogmatic and a priori manner.

Proof here:

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


It is scientific, because it changes in response to new data and changes in the world, rather than dogmatically clinging even harder to old ideas.

This is, in fact, the reverse of the truth. For example, you cling to dialectics like drunks to lamp posts, despite the evidence and argument I have posted here, and elsewhere.

[Jazzhands]

y'all postin' in a Rosa thread now.

[fa2991]

Chegitz:



In fact, you impose your ideas on nature and society in a thoroughly dogmatic and a priori manner.

Proof here:

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



This is, in fact, the reverse of the truth. For example, you cling to dialectics like drunks to lamp posts, despite the evidence and argument I have posted here, and elsewhere.

What was the last post you made that didn't attack dialectics? :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-member-trying-t141493/index.html?p=1861301

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Commisar:


y'all postin' in a Rosa thread now.

Y'all better believe it...:cool:

[ckaihatsu]

There's nothing *wrong* with using dialectical logic -- but, it *is* only a tool and so is only as good as the person wielding it. Oftentimes the dialectical process isn't even *needed* -- if you already have the correct information then you're done!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

C:


There's nothing *wrong* with using dialectical logic -- but, it *is* only a tool and so is only as good as the person wielding it. Oftentimes the dialectical process isn't even *needed* -- if you already have the correct information then you're done!

Well, it doesn't work, and is based on a series of logical blunders Hegel committed:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

In fact, if it were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761299&postcount=30

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31

[Weezer]

Marxism in general is a science because it observes the world and makes observations of it.

If experiments of Marxism don't work, mistakes are corrected and noted until an experiment proves the hypothesis correct.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll entertain a concrete argument here, if you have one.

Please keep in mind that the world is *not* static, and is *always* in constant motion, so the person I was only a few seconds (or microseconds) ago is not *exactly* the same person I am at *this* moment....

I recently created a diagram that is based on two axes -- time and scale -- to show scientifically how one's consciousness is located within that kind of dimensionality:


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://i46.tinypic.com/24fwswi.jpg

[Apoi_Viitor]

Have any of you ever read Lenin? As opposed to Marx's manifesto, he actually cited his source material and statistics, both of which he used to great extenct. For example, Imperialism: highest stage of capitalism is 3/4 statistics, and 1/4 analysis drawn from those statistics.

EDIT: Accompany this statement with what Chegitzszshzssomething Guevara said and you have a full image of why Leninism is scientific.

Shit man, he uses statistics, therefore it must be scientific.

[NecroCommie]

Shit man, he uses statistics, therefore it must be scientific.
That's the way! Not everyone can make just about anything sound ridiculous at will... No wait!

Extensive use of statistics means that something about the theories simply must be based on material world. If that is the case, then yes it is scientific. Read the post of chegitz.

[4 Leaf Clover]

C:



Well, it doesn't work, and is based on a series of logical blunders Hegel committed:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

In fact, if it were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761299&postcount=30

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31

dude , you give dialectics too much credit , its barely an idea...

what chegitz said was a pure materialst stance , i guess you didn't even read what he posted you just shooted out your accusations

[revolution inaction]

That's the way! Not everyone can make just about anything sound ridiculous at will... No wait!

Extensive use of statistics means that something about the theories simply must be based on material world. If that is the case, then yes it is scientific. Read the post of chegitz.

statistics can be used in all kinds of ways, i'm fairly sure that homoeopaths use statistics to show there methods work.

[chegitz guevara]

Chegitz:



In fact, you impose your ideas on nature and society in a thoroughly dogmatic and a priori manner.

Proof here:

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



This is, in fact, the reverse of the truth. For example, you cling to dialectics like drunks to lamp posts, despite the evidence and argument I have posted here, and elsewhere.

Rosa is so anti-dialectical she is attacking the scientific method.

That tells you everything you need to know about Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG:


Rosa is so anti-dialectical she is attacking the scientific method.

And where precisely have I attacked the 'scientific method'?

Seems you mystics are so desperate to cling onto your 'theory', instead of defending it, you find you have to lie and make personal attacks on us genuine materialists.

Only a few weeks ago you advanced the lie that I blamed all our failures on dialectics, but when asked to show where I had alleged this, you went very quiet.

We can expect the same again from you this time.


That tells you everything you need to know about Rosa.

In fact, for every grubby finger you point at me, there are three that point back at you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

4 Leaf:


dude , you give dialectics too much credit , its barely an idea...

what chegitz said was a pure materialst stance , i guess you didn't even read what he posted you just shooted out your accusation

1. You can see from the emotive and irrational response I receive from the mystics here that they certainly think it's a big deal. Since it's these sad characters I am addressing, not you wishy-washy fence sitters, I will continue to attack this 'theory' just so long as there is a single person on the planet who accepts it. And I will do that with or without your negligible approval/condemnation.


what chegitz said was a pure materialst stance , i guess you didn't even read what he posted you just shooted out your accusation

2. In fact he posted this:


It's scientific because we base our theories on the existing world, not on ideas we come up with in our head. All previous socialist ideas were simply guys sitting around trying to plan out the perfect world (or their version of it). Marx looked at the real world, sussed out its dynamics, and postulated a means by which exiting forces in the world would bring about socialism ... without Marx planning out that future society. Instead Marx said, the people whom make the revolution will make their own society, and that will be socialism.

It is scientific, because it changes in response to new data and changes in the world, rather than dogmatically clinging even harder to old ideas.

Which is plainly not true. Not only do comrades like him accept ideas from that Christian mystic, Hegel, (upside down or the 'right way up') who manifestly and demonstrably did do this:


ideas we come up with in our head

they, like Hegel, impose these ideas on nature and society, contrary to what, for example, Engels said:


"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Anti-Duhring, p.13. Bold emphasis added.]


"The mistake lies in the fact that these laws are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought...." [Dialectics of Nature, p.62. Bold added.]

And when this is pointed out to them, they either resort to lying, or they focus on personal attacks to deflect attention from this fact -- as you can see CG doing both above.

[Dimentio]

The problem with dialectics isn't its importance, but the fact that it is there.

I could imagine what the detractors of technocracy would have said if we for example had advocated orgone theory, transhumanism or cybernetics.

[chegitz guevara]

CG:And where precisely have I attacked the 'scientific method'?

By attacking my post, which was describing the scientific method.

By continuing to attack my post, even when people continue to point out it is nothing more than the scientific method.

It's your typical strawman method of debate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ckaihatsu:


entertain a concrete argument here, if you have one.

I have, you'll find it at the links I posted in my last reply to you.

Here they are again:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761299&postcount=30

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31


Please keep in mind that the world is *not* static, and is *always* in constant motion, so the person I was only a few seconds (or microseconds) ago is not *exactly* the same person I am at *this* moment....

Where have I claimed otherwise? The point is that if dialectical materialism were true, nothing could change. [You will find both a general and a 'concrete' proof of that at the above links.]


I recently created a diagram that is based on two axes -- time and scale -- to show scientifically how one's consciousness is located within that kind of dimensionality:

Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://i46.tinypic.com/24fwswi.jpg

Fine, but what has that got to do with anything I have argued here?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

By the way,I checked your beautiful diagram (I am not being sarcastic here!) -- but it looks like yet more a priori dogmatics to me.

You know, of the sort that Engels (among others) rejected.

[See my reply to 4 Leaf, above.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG:


By attacking my post, which was describing the scientific method.

1. I wasn't attacking your post, only pointing out that you fail to observe several of the criteria you depict -- see my reply to 4-Leaf above.

2. That isn't the 'scientific method' anyway. There is no such thing as 'the scientific method'. There are, however, many different methods that scientists use, and they differ form science to science.


By continuing to attack my post, even when people continue to point out it is nothing more than the scientific method.

It's your typical strawman method of debate.

As we can see, you confuse an attack on your post with my argument that you do not practice what you preach -- again, see my reply to 4-Leaf above.

[RadioRaheem84]

By the way,I checked your beautiful diagram (I am not being sarcastic here!) -- but it looks like yet more a priori dogmatics to me.
Cannot everything be resorted to a philosophical presupposition? The point is, does it make sense. Is it logical?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh and we are still waiting for your proof that I blame everything (all our failures) on dialectics, as you asserted a few weeks back.

[chegitz guevara]

Has anyone ever told you you're intellectually dishonest?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RR84:


Cannot everything be resorted to a philosophical presupposition?

Why do we need any of these?


The point is, does it make sense.

In fact, the point is that philosophical presuppositions make no sense at all, as I demonstrated here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1718346&postcount=61


Is it logical?

Well, that rules dialectics out for a kick off.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG:


Has anyone ever told you you're intellectually dishonest?

Only liars like you.:)

[ckaihatsu]

mystics


Cheese it! We've been made!


x D


http://www.mondoville.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/doug.jpg

[ckaihatsu]

By the way,I checked your beautiful diagram (I am not being sarcastic here!) -- but it looks like yet more a priori dogmatics to me.

You know, of the sort that Engels (among others) rejected.

[See my reply to 4 Leaf, above.]


Dude, look, the diagrams I do are only *more tools* -- we can argue endlessly about the metallic densities of various kinds of hammers, or on what hammers have or have not done in the world, but in the end it's about the *specifics*: Who's using a hammer where, and for what....

Without *concrete* contexts and examples we're just chasing after one abstraction with *another* abstraction. I really have better things to do....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

C:


Cheese it! We've been made!

Too right you have.


Dude, look, the diagrams I do are only *more tools* -- we can argue endlessly about the metallic densities of various kinds of hammers, or on what hammers have or have not done in the world, but in the end it's about the *specifics*: Who's using a hammer where, and for what....

Eh?:confused:


Without *concrete* contexts and examples we're just chasing after one abstraction with *another* abstraction. I really have better things to do....

I accept your capitulation...:)

[ckaihatsu]

Dude!!! What *is* it -- ??? Are you going for the biggest-dick prize here, or what?!

Let me put it this way: Thousands of years ago there were human beings, and... fire. Or, human beings, and... stone tools.

Anything that we *use*, including language and cognitive skills, are *tools*. Either we use them *well*, or we use them not-so-well. I'm not capitulating to shit if I just so happen to not want to chase my tail with you. Is this comprehendable?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Dude!!! What *is* it -- ??? Are you going for the biggest-dick prize here, or what?!

Let me put it this way: Thousands of years ago there were human beings, and... fire. Or, human beings, and... stone tools.

Anything that we *use*, including language and cognitive skills, are *tools*. Either we use them *well*, or we use them not-so-well. I'm not capitulating to shit if I just so happen to not want to chase my tail with you. Is this comprehendable?

Well then, one can debate the functionality of a certain tool. Marxist-Leninism should be looked at by how effective it is in explaining and accounting for historical phenomenon. While I think Marxist-Leninism can be applicable in some historical cases, I don't see it as any sort-of "be-all, end all" approach to historical analysis. To explain my point, we all know that "game-theory" is completely incapable of explaining mundane, basic human interaction. Yet, it does quite well at explaining the diplomatic actions of The Soviet Union and the US during the Cold War. Similarly, Marxist-Leninism can be used as an understanding of some historical phenomenon, but I don't see it as some universal dichotomy which explains all historical events. I think Orthodox Marxism attempts to understand all of human behavior, by looking at every human action, and its alleged relation to "modes of production", whenin some cases, there is little to no correlation. As I said, there are some examples where this scientific analysis is useful, and some where its not applicable.

[ckaihatsu]

Well then, one can debate the functionality of a certain tool.


Okay.





[It] does quite well at explaining the diplomatic actions of The Soviet Union and the US during the Cold War.


This is a relatively easy example you're picking (for the sake of argument), and so it's easy to see the usefulness in the correlation between the highly formalized situation of the Cold War (dual superpowers' world power consolidation), and the tool of Marxism-Leninism (dialectical materialism).





Similarly, Marxist-Leninism can be used as an understanding of some historical phenomenon, but I don't see it as some universal dichotomy which explains all historical events.


We, as the detached observer / analyzer of history have to *first* make the decision as to whether all of history is *eventful* or not. If history, or particular segments of history, are considered to be 'uneventful' then there's not really anything *to study*.

If, however, we consider history as being made up of some kind of series of events then we have to take a step back and ask where these events *come from* -- is there a driving force *common* to all of them, or are they just kind of *random*, like the weather affecting a body of water?

If there *is* some kind of *pattern*, or *commonality*, to these events then they're *not* random -- we can attempt to discern what *kind* of pattern drives them, exactly, and what the basis of the *pattern* may be.

The tricky part of all of this, as with *any* science, is that you can only see what you're aiming the microscope at. If you're looking at the events in one particular neighborhood of an urban area you *may* be able to discern a correlation between *world* events and that neighborhood, or you may not. I'll argue, on the basis of theory, that a correlation *does* exist between the world stage and the particulars of the events in our individual lives, but I won't attempt to convince you of it. (I would have to make a specific argument about specific world events to a specific urban area.)

And, just because I can say that we're *influenced* by world events doesn't mean that we're 100% *controlled* by them, either -- there's *some* kind of correlation but we have relative amounts of autonomy and self-determination at the *individual* scale, too.





To explain my point, we all know that "game-theory" is completely incapable of explaining mundane, basic human interaction.




I think Orthodox Marxism attempts to understand all of human behavior, by looking at every human action, and its alleged relation to "modes of production", whenin some cases, there is little to no correlation. As I said, there are some examples where this scientific analysis is useful, and some where its not applicable.


I've developed a little Marxism-derived framework, based on the reality of a societal surplus, that goes like this: Either we're *working*, to *add* to the societal surplus, or the surplus is being *used* for societal *overhead* (administration and/or management), or else the surplus is being *consumed* in leisure / pleasure-related activities. (See my blog entry.)





Marxist-Leninism should be looked at by how effective it is in explaining and accounting for historical phenomenon. While I think Marxist-Leninism can be applicable in some historical cases, I don't see it as any sort-of "be-all, end all" approach to historical analysis.


I think adding in the tool of complexity theory helps to bridge the gaps -- we have to address the dimension of *scale* (or *scope*) before we begin our inquiry -- again, it's about where we're aiming the microscope....

[the last donut of the night]

Chegitz:



In fact, you impose your ideas on nature and society in a thoroughly dogmatic and a priori manner.

Proof here:

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



This is, in fact, the reverse of the truth. For example, you cling to dialectics like drunks to lamp posts, despite the evidence and argument I have posted here, and elsewhere.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIM52zau9LxqQlVBERxENKK23mkwKky dKNJxImkDWDGRuk82I&t=1&usg=__Ucp_cqO9_hP3wIDu-r7JS5J6CnM=

[ckaihatsu]

Similarly, Marxist-Leninism can be used as an understanding of some historical phenomenon, but I don't see it as some universal dichotomy which explains all historical events. I think Orthodox Marxism attempts to understand all of human behavior, by looking at every human action, and its alleged relation to "modes of production", whenin some cases, there is little to no correlation. As I said, there are some examples where this scientific analysis is useful, and some where its not applicable.


I'll add that -- in my perception -- dialectics is like having *two* variables in an algebraic equation. The two variables, or unknowns, are related and thus dependent on each other, and working with either will help you towards figuring out the other, and the equation as a whole.

In more real-world settings the unknowns and the overall environment are much more "fuzzy" and nonlinear. Nonetheless the relation between the two unknowns exists and efforts towards illuminating *any* of the components will be additive and most likely constructive. I like to think of a pinball machine that is stripped of *all* elements from its playing field so that there is only the blank surface, the two flippers, and the drain. Efforts made at the flippers to keep one or more pinballs in play will serve to carve out "pathways" through the unknown, between the twin "dialectics" of the *sides* of the pinball machine. One could argue that resolving the *full* surface of the table through cumulative pinball pathways could take awhile using this method, since there's only the two sides for the balls to bounce off of.

This is where I would say to introduce *complexity theory* -- add *more* elements, or "variables", to the playing field so as to make the dialectics "multipolar":





Complex systems is a new approach to science that studies how relationships between parts give rise to the collective behaviors of a system and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems#Complexity_and_chaos_theory


With more stuff on the table the pinballs will experience more kinetic energy and the pathways will carve out more illumination, faster.





"modes of production"


I created a historical framework that simply orders societal dynamics on a hierarchy from 'macro', or large-scale, to 'micro', or small-scale. I have 'mode of production' as the second-highest most determining factor in society, only below class struggle.


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://i45.tinypic.com/149030w.jpg





Materialism in dialectical materialism

Marx's doctoral thesis concerned the atomism of Epicurus and Democritus, which (along with stoicism) is considered the foundation of materialist philosophy. Marx was also familiar with Lucretius's theory of clinamen.

Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist philosophy of science,[5] which holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world is in principle knowable.

"The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." --Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Vol. 1.

Marx endorsed this materialist philosophy against Hegel's idealism; he "turned Hegel's dialectics upside down." However, Marx also criticized classical materialism as another idealist philosophy due to its transhistorical understanding of material contexts. According to the famous Theses on Feuerbach (1845), philosophy had to stop "interpreting" the world in endless metaphysical debates, in order to start "changing" the world, as was being done by the rising workers' movement observed by Engels in England (Chartist movement) and by Marx in France and Germany. Thus, dialectical materialists tend to accord primacy to class struggle. The ultimate sense of Marx's materialist philosophy is that philosophy itself must take a position in the class struggle based on objective analysis of physical and social relations. Otherwise, it will be reduced to spiritualist idealism, such as the philosophies of Kant or Hegel, which are only ideologies, that is the material product of social existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Materialism_in_dialectical _materialism

[Muzk]

Dude!!! What *is* it -- ??? Are you going for the biggest-dick prize here, or what?!

Rosa is female

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_MP1P_P_PlEw/TFOY54TzfQI/AAAAAAAABmY/l0MdwmeYpo0/Camisa%20Troll%20Face%20Mini.jpg

[NecroCommie]

Rosa's anti-dialectic zeal is kind of cute. :blushing: I say this while fully aware of the fact that I'd propably lose to him in a debate.
EDIT: Muzk just clarified that one thing.
EDIT: And now ckaihatsu debunked it... oh well!

[ckaihatsu]

---





Rosa is female





This is a picture of Rosa Luxembourg, not me!

I point this out merely to end the speculation I have seen on some discussion boards.

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

[Muzk]

---



I was not refering to that picture, but to an earlier post of her. It seems like I'm a much better lurk0r than you, so just trust me for now.

(Not like this should change your attitude towards her!)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ckaihatsu:


Dude!!! What *is* it -- ??? Are you going for the biggest-dick prize here, or what?!

Let me put it this way: Thousands of years ago there were human beings, and... fire. Or, human beings, and... stone tools.

Anything that we *use*, including language and cognitive skills, are *tools*. Either we use them *well*, or we use them not-so-well. I'm not capitulating to shit if I just so happen to not want to chase my tail with you. Is this comprehendable?

Indeed, and some of them derive from the 'ruling ideas' that have always ruled -- your a priori dogmatics being a prime example of one such.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yet Humanity Lives On: Thankyou for your incomprehensible reply -- it does, however, make more sense than dialectical materialism!:lol:

[ckaihatsu]

Indeed, and some of them derive from the 'ruling ideas' that have always ruled -- your a priori dogmatics being a prime example of one such.


What th'--??? Who you callin' a dog-matic??? I ain't no fucking animal robot!!!


x D


Seriously, though, don't just be looking to bicker.... I have half a mind to track down the electronic pathways that are bringing this text to your eyes and jumping into the $%#@!*^% wiring and out the other side to take care of this once and for all....


>8 (


= )

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ckaihatsu:


What th'--??? Who you callin' a dog-matic??? I ain't no fucking animal robot!!!

Where did I say you were a 'robot'?


Seriously, though, don't just be looking to bicker.... I have half a mind to track down the electronic pathways that are bringing this text to your eyes and jumping into the $%#@!*^% wiring and out the other side to take care of this once and for all....

Looks like you are getting increasingly irrational and incoherent with each post.:(

[ckaihatsu]

Looks like you are getting increasingly irrational and incoherent with each post.:(


Or you could simply stop being antagonistic.

[Muzk]

Or you could simply stop being antagonistic.


Why don't you make another 3D picture to prove your point!

[ckaihatsu]

Why don't you make another 3D picture to prove your point!


= )

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ckaihatsu:


Or you could simply stop being antagonistic.

Me, antagonistic?

The very idea! :rolleyes: