want to understand dialectics?

[the youth dialectic]

if you are interested in learning about Dialectics, or an easy way to understand Marxism, then read my blog.
not only are our articles more concise than anything else available in contemporary Marxism today, but we have proven that we are doing the right thing practically in that we have build a party of revolutionaries in a few months, in NZ a country that knows nothing of Marxism, dialectics, or even class struggle, that dwarfs the membership of the International Socialists and all other sectarians, as well as the International Marxist Tendency New Zealand section combined, which have been active for many years or even decades.

how have we done this? with dialectics. dialectics is a shortcut to teaching people about revolution

[Q]

Expect fierce opposition from a user called Rosa Lichtenstein, our home anti-dialectic troll.

Welcome :)

[Nolan]

Welcome!

[the youth dialectic]

(my first) REPLY TO ROSA
1. not all ruling class are idealist. if you believe this then you are idealist. materialism came from the ruling class as well. read my evolution of consciousness

2. dialectics is not imposed on nature, it is learned from nature*, then imposed on difficult concepts to make them simpler

ie. Dialectics explains the development of society as the result of the struggle between roles in production, and can be used to show how the next form to arrive will be due to the reconstruction of the relationship between workers and capitalists.

on the other hand, more information can be learned about this process, about the specific economic behavior of the roles in production and exactly what made one rise above the other changing the form of society. (This is explained in my article Surplus Value), this is historical materialism and is proof of dialectics. but it is easier to ‘impose’ Dialectics first, then explain historical materialism later if your goal is to teach people about revolution in the easiest way possible. because dialectics is the story of everything. it has no flaws and can not be argued against.

3. the other point of your argument is that historical materialism is different to dialectical materialism. as i have just explained. dialectics is the shortcut and proof. historical materialism is the deeper explanation of the specific process of social development.
dialectics can be used to show how animals evolve. punctuated equilibrium is the deeper explanation of the specific process.

dialectics is the shortcut to teaching people about revolution. yours is the most difficult way i have ever seen. therefore you have failed as a revolutionary.

you have failed as a materialist too by relying on idealist science to defend your idealism. when you talk about forces disappearing, they reappear with new names just as fast as they disappear, but the material force that binds things was there before and remained after the name changed in somebody's mind. you talk about changeless particles and this is idealism again. my article the discovery of dialectics and the philosophy of materialism disproves the big bang theory and proves that the scientific community is corrupted by idealism

*only an article on science proving that the unity of opposites pervades all nature that we know will prove that dialectics is learned from nature. this will be easy to do and i will publish it soon. after that you will have to overemphasize your point that the nature we don't know about might not be moving, then your idealism will be right out in the open.

in brief.
protons (positive) Electrons (negative) neutrons (neutral) (opposing particles)
H, He, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen (opposing chemical elements)
unity of opposing chemical elements makes compounds
carbon compounds can be long chains or rings.
nucleic acids are unity of three opposed compounds Phosphate (acid) Sugar (neutral) nitrogenous base (basic)
Arginine, Thiamine, Cytosine, Guanine (opposing Nucleic Acids) A determines T, C determines G
RNA are made up of nucleic acids and catalyze their own self replication
opposing orders of Nucleic Acids (AAT, ACG, AAA) determine the order of Amino Acids (opposing amino acids)
the o-N=O (nitrogen base) side of an amino acid bind to the o-C=o (carbon acid) side of another amino acid. N and C are opposite in this case, with opposite properties.

proteins are the assembly of amino acids. proteins help catalyze the replication of RNA

DNA reproduces the entire cell structure
opposed cells make up tissue
opposed tissue makes up organs
opposed organs make up organisms
opposed sexes determine each other
organisms are opposed to each other and determine each other
the circle of life evolves due to this struggle

dialectics is learned from nature, the basic laws
1.the form is the sum of and unity of the elements
2.the elements are opposed to each other and determine each other
3.the form changes as the relationship between the elements change
can then be used to show people how society will evolve into communism, without understanding social development in a deep way they can see the most profound truth of our time

[Q]

you have failed as a materialist too by relying on idealist science to defend your idealism. when you talk about forces disappearing, they reappear with new names just as fast as they disappear, but the material force that binds things was there before and remained after the name changed in somebody's mind. you talk about changeless particles and this is idealism again. my article the discovery of dialectics and the philosophy of materialism disproves the big bang theory and proves that the scientific community is corrupted by idealism

I followed you up to here. The Big Bang theory has some considerable body of evidense, which is the reason why it is accepted in the standard model. One of the fundamental rules of dialectics is that truth is concrete and as such I'm going to ask you what kind of proof - that is, actual observations or physical theoretical considerations - you have to claim the contrary?

[the youth dialectic]

if you wish to defend the big bang theory can you challenge my arguments in 'the discovery of dialectics and the philosophy of materialism'?
before reading that article read 'the evolution of consciousness'.

[Q]

You're turning things around now: I'm asking you what arguments you hold against the Big Bang (I'm not going to just waste my time reading long walls of text, so if you don't mind, please be concise). I did not explicitly "argue against you", just inquired your position and how you come to this, based on observations or theoretical considerations.

[synthesis]

dialectics is the shortcut to teaching people about revolution.Wow, no. This is basically the opposite of a shortcut. It's one of those shortcuts that turns out to take twice as long as the non-shortcut way and then there's construction right before you get there and you have to turn around and go the regular way, which you know you should have taken to begin with.

[synthesis]

Also, no offense, but...

we have proven that we are doing the right thing practically in that we have build a party of revolutionaries in a few months, in NZ a country that knows nothing of Marxism, dialectics, or even class struggle, that dwarfs the membership of the International Socialists and all other sectarians, as well as the International Marxist Tendency New Zealand section combined, which have been active for many years or even decades....really? Google seems to disagree.

[Q]

Also, no offense, but...
...really? Google seems to disagree.


Oh lol, this thread is hit #1 on "Youth Dialectic party of New Zealand".

[the youth dialectic]

i will publish more information about our party after the 6th of january which will be our first party congress. since we have only been active for a few months we havnt got official statistics on google yet, but we do have hundreds of members.

and to q. please, dont complain that you are too lazy to read my argument and then say its my fault.

to synthesis. have you read my articles and found them to take twice as long to understand as other explainations of marxism? if so, please outline where the confusion lies. dont complain that my position is wrong before you have proven that you yourself understand it.

[synthesis]

I have absolutely no interest in reading anything more about dialectics - again, no offense. If you find that it works for you, then by all means, keep doing what you're doing.


dont complain that my position is wrong before you have proven that you yourself understand it.

Which position are we talking about? Dialectics being a shortcut to revolution? It's hard to see how this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog_attachment.php?attachmentid=90&d=1289517500) could be a shortcut to anything.

[the youth dialectic]

my position is that 'dialectics is a shortcut to teaching people about revoulution' which i explained breifly in my reply to rosa

if you have no interest in learning about dialectics or my position my position that dialectics is a shortcut to teaching people about revolution, then please dont come onto my thread 'want to learn about dialectics' and try and confuse others by contesting my position, without saying which points of my argument you dont agree with.

let me say to all readers, this is marxist theory we are talking about, i do not enjoy arguing with people who feel they can criticise my position without even bothering to read the articles that explain my positions.

i.e. in my reply to rosa... my point that rosa relied on idealist science to back up her idealsim was backed up by my point that science was corrupted by idealism. proof of this point is revealed in my article 'the discovery of dialectics and the philosophy of materialism' and 'the evolution of consciousness'.

is marxist theory a 'waste of time' for Q?
i dont consider my efforts to explain marxism to others, including the members of revleft, to be a waste of time. this is why i took the trouble to defeat rosa

[synthesis]

:lol:



if you have no interest in learning about dialectics or my position my position that dialectics is a shortcut to teaching people about revolution, then please dont come onto my thread 'want to learn about dialectics' and try and confuse others by contesting my position, without saying which points of my argument you dont agree with.

I very specifically said that I disagree with your argument that "dialectics are a shortcut to teaching people about revolution." They aren't a shortcut to anything, regardless of whether they are incorrect.

[scarletghoul]

Referrals to walls of text, claims of disproving a widely-accepted scientific theory but without explaining how, insistence that dialectics is the most important thing ever..

I think we have finally found the dialectical antithesis to Rosa :lol:

[the youth dialectic]

"I very specifically said that I disagree with your argument that "dialectics are a shortcut to teaching people about revolution". They aren't a shortcut to anything, regardless of whether they are incorrect."

you say that you disagree with my argument that 'dialectics are a shortcut' and then say that they arent a shortcut. you just said the same thing twice and still havnt explained how dialectics arent a shortcut. to do this you may have to break down and counter the points in my reply to rosa in which the argument is contained :thumbdown:

"Referrals to walls of text, claims of disproving a widely-accepted scientific theory but without explaining how" before claiming that i havnt explained how i disproved this theory, you may have to read 'the philosophy of materialism and the discovery of dialectics' and 'the evolution of consciousness' and then break down and counter the points.
before using the term 'walls of text' you may want to read my articles and find examples of long windedness.

[Q]

is marxist theory a 'waste of time' for Q?
i dont consider my efforts to explain marxism to others, including the members of revleft, to be a waste of time. this is why i took the trouble to defeat rosa

It is a waste of time if that theory is used in an idealist way, yes. I.e. that you're imposing a way of thinking ("dialectics") on nature (Big Bang).

[the youth dialectic]

so, to avoid reading my articles, you have decided to use the same idealist argument of Rosa, 'that dialectics is imposed on nature' which i have already defeated and which i turned on its head to prove that 'dialectics is a shortcut to teaching people about revolution'

you have not made any points against my reply to rosa and therefore have no right to use the same argument for a different purpous: to excuse yourself from reading my articles :thumbdown:

[KC]

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk4/KiriA500/stormy.jpg

Bizarro Rosa

[synthesis]

"I very specifically said that I disagree with your argument that "dialectics are a shortcut to teaching people about revolution". They aren't a shortcut to anything, regardless of whether they are incorrect."

you say that you disagree with my argument that 'dialectics are a shortcut' and then say that they arent a shortcut. you just said the same thing twice and still havnt explained how dialectics arent a shortcut. to do this you may have to break down and counter the points in my reply to rosa in which the argument is contained

It is self-evident that they are not a shortcut: I can explain Marxism and argue for revolution in a single paragraph, so the fact that you're dismissing other people's arguments by referring people to needlessly complex essays you've written on the subject makes it self-evident that dialectics are not a shortcut in any way.

[Q]

As this thread is going nowhere, I'm going to close it.

Have fun with your "dialectics" comrade.