Anti-Dialectics, a reactionary philosophy

[Philzer]

Introduction:

It is very funny to see that in conjunction with the victory of religion of the bourgeoisie (and their way of life: the unlimited-greed-controlled pantheism) over the socialist-world-system also come the helpers of this ideology to spread their reactionary spirit to avoid the progress of
humankind.

Their concentration is directed against the most proven theoretical tools of all progressively people, the principles of dialectical materialism.

First: Let’s investigate what the problems of dialectical materialism are:

As I have experienced often in philosophical forums, many people think if they apply dialectical methods, like “Negation of Negation”, “Unity of Opposites” and “Quantity changes into quality” they automatically find the truth.

This cannot work of course.

Every of these models can never perform more than the summary
of the scientific inputs! This means the “dialectical laws” are only
methods to systemize our quantity of knowledge’s.

In consequence it means, if our science has developed, it must be
also involved in these thinking models. Truth is a process. If it
stops, it is a religion. You can proof this in the case of the dogmatic
communism in the formerly “eastern bloc” and their practice of
personality-theism.

Furthermore I think that these methods are only a part of modern
scientific view of world and cannot answer all questions.

Second: Let’s try to find out what is the performance of antidialecticians:

The easiest way to uncover the reactionary character of these
philosophers is to look at their results.

You will never find in their theories anything what you can need to understand our world!

All what they give us to eat is pure obscure rubbish. So you will find there dangerously sick guys like “John”. He is caught in an endless wild turning between himself and the mankind. Further you will find schizophrenic people which must be poor and rich at the same time and they never can know how to do this, and much more of these outputs of complete ill brains.

In summary I think is it exactly what Marx called:

Philosophical masturbation! Complete isolated from a real observation of our world.

Third: resume of the intensions of the anti-dialecticians:

If the anti-dialecticians have seriously intensions, they would be able to
transform their methods in the real world and could so perform a part for our understanding of the world.

But you have never seen it, and you will never see it!

Their only true intention is to avoid the progress of knowledge our world. And the method to achieve this is the negation of all kinds of scientific truth, to prefer an esoteric pluralism, like unscientific freedom of opinion, and much more.

In summary they takeover all parts of the ideology of the bourgeoisie!
It is nothing else than a purely nihilism! And so they do slip all these kinds of three-dimensional degrees of freedom (A.Smith: the selfishness of the one automatically leads to the wealth of all individuals) which are the basics for the anarchy of capital!

The anti-dialecticians consolidate all the ideologists’ preconditions of capital for their manner of being, the principle of the strongest.


Really, I have never seen such reactionary philosophy in a left forum before!



Fourth: dialectical view of the world at the beginning of 21st Century:

The world is changing. It’s not new. But what is new? New is the structure of corruption and exploitation between the individuals and the peoples of the world!

At the most time in the “timeframe” of classsocieties the hierarchy in the dialectical unit of “rulers and peoples” was a pure vertically structure at the time in which the economy was also mostly national limited. (Note: in this time the power-generating moment for the ruler was the religious-truth in connection with the latent slavery in family, this works in all pre-pantheistic religions)

Colonialisation and globalisation has changed this corruption-model in a mixture between the classical vertical structure in the nation/state and a horizontally structure between the leading Industry-nations and their wage slaves and suppliers of natural resources in the rest of the world, to feed the endless process of wasting world for the corrupted peoples and their bourgeoisie.

This was the determining part of the strategy of bourgeoisie in their fight against the communism, the corruption of the working class of the modern western industrial-nations by globalisation!

Note: Colonialisation, democratisation and globalisation is only understandable on the whole and together!


Most democratic lefts in these states deny this strictly. At the same time they never want to understand that democracy is nothing else than the practice of a religion.

Democracy is the being of pantheism.

In the same way like the monarchy was the being of monotheism.
And exactly this intention of the religious democratic lefts, to ignore or
mask their own benefit in the global system of capitalistic democracy, is the point for the reactionary philosophers to inject their poison.

Dialectical materialism in conjunction with new scientific knowledge like psychology and socio-biology can explain the real world in a perfect way.

I have shown this in my models and I will continue this in future. And these modern tools of our Marxist philosophy, its tusks, should be quarried out, to walking with "nice pictures" of our famous Marx and some symbols of the soviet-union new created as an altruistic religion in the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) of capitalism!

This, comrades, is the really intention of the “anti-dialectics”!

Furthermore they claim, as a peak of their lies, our classics would have not thought in the sense and needs of working class with the explanation the classics themselves come from the bourgeoisie /middle class.

Their aim is clear! In opposite to Marx: “Proletarian of all countries, unite!” they want split the global working class. Exactly as I have shown this in my analysis of democracy!

If Marx/Engels would live today they would write an “Anti-Anti-Dialecticians” similar like “Anti-Dühring” by F. Engels, against this collection of underhand lies!

Let’s fight together against the “forever Yesterdays”, against the
“apologists of exploitation and destructors of our world”, against the
“puppets of bourgeoisie”!

Kind regards

[ChrisK]

It is very funny to see that in conjunction with the victory of religion of the bourgeoisie (and their way of life: the unlimited-greed-controlled
pantheism) over the socialist-world-system also come the helpers of this ideology to spread their reactionary spirit to avoid the progress of
humankind.

Preach on pastor.


Their concentration is directed against the most proven theoretical tools of all progressively people, the principles of dialectical materialism.

You have proven nothing.


First: Let’s investigate what the problems of dialectical materialism are:

As I have experienced often in philosophical forums, many people think if they apply dialectical methods, like “Negation of Negation”, “Unity of
Opposites” and “Quantity changes into quality” they automatically find
the truth. This cannot work of course.

Every of these models can never perform more than the summary
of the scientific inputs! This means the “dialectical laws” are only
methods to systemize our quantity of knowledge’s.

And you succeed in this how? You show a very low understanding of physics, even lower than myself.


In consequence it means, if our science has developed, it must be
also involved in these thinking models. Truth is a process. If it
stops, it is a religion. You can proof this in the case of the dogmatic
communism in the formerly “eastern bloc” and their practice of
personality-theism.

How is truth a process? That makes no sense as by definition truth is obtained through process and is not a process in it of itself.


Furthermore I think that these methods are only a part of modern
scientific view of world and cannot answer all questions.

And what questions has it ever answered?


Second: Let’s try to find out what is the performance of antidialecticians:

The easiest way to uncover the reactionary character of these
philosophers is to look at their results. You will never find in their theories anything what you can need to understand our world!

What theories? We have none. What we have is a rejection of dialectical materialism and an affirmation of historical materialism.


All what they give us to eat is pure obscure rubbish. So you will find there dangerously sick guys like “John”. He is caught in an endless wild turning between himself and the mankind. Further you will find schizophrenic people which must be poor and rich at the same time and they never can know how to do this, and much more of these outputs of complete ill brains.

Ummmmm, thats Lenin you're talking about. He wrote about John and made claims about unity of opposites, etc, etc.


In summary I think is it exactly what Marx called:

Philosophical masturbation! Complete isolated from a real observation of our world.

I'm glad you admit what you do.


Third: resume of the intensions of the anti-dialecticians:

If the anti-dialecticians have seriously intensions, they would be able to
transform their methods in the real world and could so perform a part for our understanding of the world.
But you have never seen it, and you will never see it!

Marx did it quite well when he wrote Das Kapital. That is an excellent example of how historical materialism works.


Their only true intention is to avoid the progress of knowledge our world. And the method to achieve this is the negation of all kinds of scientific truth, to prefer an esoteric pluralism, like unscientific freedom of opinion, and much more.

In summary they takeover all parts of the ideology of the
bourgeoisie! It is nothing else than a purely nihilism! And so they do slip all these kinds of three-dimensional degrees of freedom (A.Smith: the selfishness of the one automatically leads to the wealth of all individuals) which are the basics for the anarchy of capital!

Right..... You're not so bright are you? How are we nihilist? In fact, how do we reject the progress of knowledge? We tend to reject philosophy in favor of science.


The anti-dialecticians consolidate all the ideologists’ preconditions of capital for their manner of being, the principle of the strongest.

Really, I have never seen such reactionary philosophy in a left forum before!

Ever look at one called dialectical materialism? Its based on the philosophies of dozens of reactionaires throughout history!


Fourth: dialectical view of the world at the beginning of 21st Century:

The world is changing. It’s not new. But what is new? New is the
structure of corruption and exploitation between the individuals and the
peoples of the world!
At the most time in the “timeframe” of classsocieties the hierarchy in the dialectical unit of “rulers and peoples” was a pure vertically structure at the time in which the economy was also mostly national limited. (Note: in this time the power-generating moment
for the ruler was the religious-truth in connection with the latent slavery in family, this works in all pre-pantheistic religions)

Colonialisation and globalisation has changed this corruption-model in a
mixture between the classical vertical structure in the nation/state and a horizontally structure between the leading Industry-nations and their
wage slaves and suppliers of natural resources in the rest of the world, to feed the endless process of wasting world for the corrupted peoples and their bourgeoisie.

Note: Colonialisation, democratisation and globalisation is only
understandable on the whole and together!

This was the determining part of the strategy of bourgeoisie in their fight against the communism, the corruption of the working class of the
modern western industrial-nations by globalisation.

Most democratic lefts in these states deny this strictly. At the same time they never want to understand that democracy is nothing else than the practice of a religion.

Democracy is the being of pantheism.

In the same way like the monarchy was the being of monotheism.
And exactly this intention of the religious democratic lefts, to ignore or
mask their own benefit in the global system of capitalistic democracy, is the point for the reactionary philosophers to inject their poison.

Dialectical materialism in conjunction with new scientific knowledge like psychology and socio-biology can explain the real world in a perfect way.

I have shown this in my models and I will continue this in future. And
these modern tools of our Marxist philosophy, its tusks, should be
quarried out, to walking with "nice pictures" of our famous Marx and some symbols of the soviet-union new created as an altruistic religion in the evolutionarily stable strategy of capitalism!

This, comrades, is the really intention of the “anti-dialectics”!

Furthermore they claim, as a peak of their lies, our classics would have not thought in the sense and needs of working class with the explanation the classics themselves come from the bourgeoisie /middle class.

Their aim is clear! In opposite to Marx: “Proletarian of all countries,
unite!” they want split the global working class. Exactly as I have shown this in my analysis of democracy!

If Marx/Engels would live today they would write an “Anti-Anti-
Dialecticians” similar like “Anti-Dühring” by F. Engels, against this
collection of underhand lies!

Let’s fight together against the “forever Yesterdays”, against the
“apologists of exploitation and destructors of our world”, against the
“puppets of bourgeoisie”!

Kind regards

Whoa, back up. You accept sociobiology? Seriously? How reactionary are you? Anti-democracy? Haven't you even read Marx? Worker's democracy is key to revolution!

[Revolutionair]

Oh god Philzer, what have you gotten yourself into.

[S.Artesian]

On that point, Chris and I are in complete agreement-- sociobiology is nothing but pseudo-scientific racism-- it's Malthus all dressed up looking for someplace to go.

And Marx had more than an affection for democracy; you might say that Marx's historical materialism, his communism, reproduces the promise of democracy on a universal, material basis.

[Philzer]

@ Anti-dialectics:

I know that you know nothing!

God night to all comrades!

[ChrisK]

@ Anti-dialectics:

I know that you know nothing!

God night to all comrades!

Great, and you're delusional.

[Revolutionair]

And Marx had more than an affection for democracy; you might say that Marx's historical materialism, his communism, reproduces the promise of democracy on a universal, material basis.

I think Philzer is talking about democracy as we know it today.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250\ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250%5C)
The last picture from that first post says it all.

edit:
As in right-wing: "we are going to spread democracy!"-style democracy.

[Philzer]

Hi Artesian!


sociobiology is nothing but pseudo-scientific racism-- .

If would you have any knowledge about ESS for example, you could better understand what is class society, and much more.

I think, what the most lefts searching is a capitalism without capitalists, because they do not understand, that the threedimensional freedom, which they always like, as long as they are at the side of the winners, is exactly this kind of unsientific freedom which the capitalist, the capital need, it is his elixir of life, and for which they fight since many hundred years!

Kind regards and god night!

[ChrisK]

Hi Artesian!



If would you have any knowledge about ESS for example, you could better understand what is class society, and much more.

I think, what the most lefts searching is a capitalism without capitalists, because they do not understand, that the threedimensional freedom, which they always like, as long as they are at the side of the winners, is exactly this kind of unsientific freedom which the capitalis need, for which they fight since many hundred years.

Kind regards and god night!

Enjoying that hole you keep digging?

[S.Artesian]

Hi Artesian!



If would you have any knowledge about ESS for example, you could better understand what is class society, and much more.

I think, what the most lefts searching is a capitalism without capitalists, because they do not understand, that the threedimensional freedom, which they always like, as long as they are at the side of the winners, is exactly this kind of unsientific freedom which the capitalis need, for which they fight since many hundred years.

Kind regards and god night!


Might be better if you wrote in your native language. I don't know what ESS, but I know what BS is, and that is exactly what sociobiology is.

I actually think I have a pretty good understanding of class society. I don't think you have a very clear understanding of sociobiology.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


...As in right-wing: "we are going to spread democracy!"-style democracy.

And what I show in my analysis:

There has never been another kind of democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)!

So, there has never been a democracy in everybody in the production process also involved in the democracy involved were!

Democracy is nothing else than another corruption model, as opposed to the pure vertical hierarchy.

The principle of the democracy whether now nationwide or transnational, is always the same one:

Democracy guarantees unequal wage for the same work!

And corruption has been, finally, in the last millenniums always the guarantor for the functioning of the class society!


Kind regards and a nice weekend to all!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer (still offering us no evidence at all in support of the dogmatic things he posts):


It is very funny to see that in conjunction with the victory of religion of the bourgeoisie (and their way of life: the unlimited-greed-controlled pantheism) over the socialist-world-system also come the helpers of this ideology to spread their reactionary spirit to avoid the progress of humankind.

May I suggest then that you stop it at once? I say that since it is you who is trying to push the ideas of a Christian mystic and ruling-class hack -- Hegel.


Their concentration is directed against the most proven theoretical tools of all progressively people, the principles of dialectical materialism.

But this 'theory' of yours has never helped a single oppressed person, ever. Or if it has, can you please post his/her name?


First: Let’s investigate what the problems of dialectical materialism are:

As I have experienced often in philosophical forums, many people think if they apply dialectical methods, like “Negation of Negation”, “Unity of
Opposites” and “Quantity changes into quality” they automatically find
the truth. This cannot work of course.

Every of these models can never perform more than the summary
of the scientific inputs! This means the “dialectical laws” are only
methods to systemize our quantity of knowledge’s.

Why do you persist in trying to sell us a dogmatic theory that does not work? You haven't even made a weak attempt to show why my demolition of this 'theory' of yours fails:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

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


In consequence it means, if our science has developed, it must be
also involved in these thinking models. Truth is a process. If it
stops, it is a religion. You can proof this in the case of the dogmatic
communism in the formerly “eastern bloc” and their practice of
personality-theism.

But, I have already pointed out to you that truth can't be a "process". The search for truth might involve processes. But truth itself can't be one. If it were, then when a scientist says she is looking for the truth, she is not looking for a process. If you tell the truth, you are not telling a process.

Even if you are right, and truth is a process, is what you tell us the truth?

If it is, you made the simple error of posting a sentence, not a process!:lol:

So, by your actions, it's plain that not even you believe that truth is a process!


Furthermore I think that these methods are only a part of modern
scientific view of world and cannot answer all questions.

You haven't answered any!


Second: Let’s try to find out what is the performance of antidialecticians:

The easiest way to uncover the reactionary character of these
philosophers is to look at their results. You will never find in their theories anything what you can need to understand our world!

But we do not have a 'theory' (other than Historical Materialism) -- as you have been told.

So, why are you spreading lies?


All what they give us to eat is pure obscure rubbish.

Accusations are cheap. What you have forgotten to include is proof.


So you will find there dangerously sick guys like “John”. He is caught in an endless wild turning between himself and the mankind. Further you will find schizophrenic people which must be poor and rich at the same time and they never can know how to do this, and much more of these outputs of complete ill brains.

So, not satisfied with posting a priori philosophy you now indulge in amateur psychiatry!


In summary I think is it exactly what Marx called:

Philosophical masturbation! Complete isolated from a real observation of our world.

But, what 'philosophy' do I hold?

You have yet to say, even though you have been told that I have no philosophy, nor do I want one.

Why are you posting nothing but lies?


Third: resume of the intensions of the anti-dialecticians:

If the anti-dialecticians have seriously intensions, they would be able to
transform their methods in the real world and could so perform a part for our understanding of the world.

But you have never seen it, and you will never see it!

But, it is you who wants to mystify Marxism with your odd ideas -- ideas you can't defend without descending into lies.:lol:


Their only true intention is to avoid the progress of knowledge our world. And the method to achieve this is the negation of all kinds of scientific truth, to prefer an esoteric pluralism, like unscientific freedom of opinion, and much more.

Now you are getting desperate!

I think you really do believe your own lies.

Who do you hope to convince with such garbage? The terminally stupid? The suicidally gullible?

Well, they are the only ones who will swallow this guff.

You are as desperate as 'Red Che' -- the RevLeft member who, until you joined, was easily the most desperate and stupid fan of your 'theory'.

I suspect you are determined to out-do even him!


In summary they takeover all parts of the ideology of the
bourgeoisie!

But you are the one who takes his ideas from that bourgeois mystic, Hegel.

And precisely which ideas have I taken from the 'bourgeoisie'?


It is nothing else than a purely nihilism! And so they do slip all these kinds of three-dimensional degrees of freedom (A.Smith: the selfishness of the one automatically leads to the wealth of all individuals) which are the basics for the anarchy of capital!

And we also killed off the dinosaurs. How evil are we!:rolleyes:


The anti-dialecticians consolidate all the ideologists’ preconditions of capital for their manner of being, the principle of the strongest.

And on which part of my work is this brainless comment based?


Really, I have never seen such reactionary philosophy in a left forum before!

Stop posting it then!


Fourth: dialectical view of the world at the beginning of 21st Century:

The world is changing. It’s not new. But what is new? New is the
structure of corruption and exploitation between the individuals and the
peoples of the world!

As President of the Society of the Bleeding Obvious, you'll be telling us the 'news' that grass is green, next!:lol:


At the most time in the “timeframe” of class societies the hierarchy in the dialectical unit of “rulers and peoples” was a pure vertically structure at the time in which the economy was also mostly national limited. (Note: in this time the power-generating moment for the ruler was the religious-truth in connection with the latent slavery in family, this works in all pre-pantheistic religions)

Once more, you are the one who is happy to accept ideas dreamt up by that Panentheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism), Hegel.

So, you have some cheek pointing your grubby, and class-compromised fingers at me.


Colonialisation and globalisation has changed this corruption-model in a
mixture between the classical vertical structure in the nation/state and a horizontally structure between the leading Industry-nations and their
wage slaves and suppliers of natural resources in the rest of the world, to feed the endless process of wasting world for the corrupted peoples and their bourgeoisie.

Note: Colonialisation, democratisation and globalisation is only
understandable on the whole and together!

This was the determining part of the strategy of bourgeoisie in their fight against the communism, the corruption of the working class of the
modern western industrial-nations by globalisation.

Most democratic lefts in these states deny this strictly. At the same time they never want to understand that democracy is nothing else than the practice of a religion.

Democracy is the being of pantheism.

In the same way like the monarchy was the being of monotheism.
And exactly this intention of the religious democratic lefts, to ignore or
mask their own benefit in the global system of capitalistic democracy, is the point for the reactionary philosophers to inject their poison.

Dialectical materialism in conjunction with new scientific knowledge like psychology and socio-biology can explain the real world in a perfect way.

I have shown this in my models and I will continue this in future. And
these modern tools of our Marxist philosophy, its tusks, should be
quarried out, to walking with "nice pictures" of our famous Marx and some symbols of the soviet-union new created as an altruistic religion in the evolutionarily stable strategy of capitalism!

What has that got to with anything I have ever argued?

Answer: Nothing.

So, why post it?

Oh, I forgot; you are only at home when posting lies...:lol:


This, comrades, is the really intention of the “anti-dialectics”!

This all pure fantasy, in support of which you post allegations, not poof.


Furthermore they claim, as a peak of their lies, our classics would have not thought in the sense and needs of working class with the explanation the classics themselves come from the bourgeoisie /middle class.

If this means anything, it means that we think dialectics is useless.

So, if we are wrong, you should find it easy to show we are. To that end, can you name one, just one, practical consequence this 'theory' of yours has?


Their aim is clear! In opposite to Marx: “Proletarian of all countries,
unite!” they want split the global working class. Exactly as I have shown this in my analysis of democracy!

Yet more lies, based on earlier lies.

Well, at least you are a consistent fabulist!


If Marx/Engels would live today they would write an “Anti-Anti-
Dialecticians” similar like “Anti-Dühring” by F. Engels, against this
collection of underhand lies!

Unfortunately for you, I have already shown that Anti-Dühring is a radically flawed book. Indeed, it is one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-duhring-t80412/index.html


Let’s fight together against the “forever Yesterdays”, against the
“apologists of exploitation and destructors of our world”, against the
“puppets of bourgeoisie”!

Then you will be joining us, eh?:lol:

[Raúl Duke]

Ughh....not this shit again.
Do people here have a proclivity to call every single thing they don't like "reactionary?" From benign subcultures/pop-culture shit (hipsters) to philosophical stuff (anti-dialectics).

Let me put it this way: The common working person knows nothing of dialectics.
You may say that because of this they don't reach above "labor union consciousness" or some rubbish.
Yet over the years, like for an entire century, we have had so-called "dialectical theoreticians" and what not and no matter how much dialectical non-sense formulated we have never come close to an enduring successful revolution.

Dialectics has no correlation to revolution, especially not revolutionary success. If anything, it has a negative correlation.

[S.Artesian]

Ughh....not this shit again.
Do people here have a proclivity to call every single thing they don't like "reactionary?" From benign subcultures/pop-culture shit (hipsters) to philosophical stuff (anti-dialectics).

Let me put it this way: The common working person knows nothing of dialectics.
You may say that because of this they don't reach above "labor union consciousness" or some rubbish.
Yet over the years, like for an entire century, we have had so-called "dialectical theoreticians" and what not and no matter how much dialectical non-sense formulated we have never come close to an enduring successful revolution.

Dialectics has no correlation to revolution, especially not revolutionary success. If anything, it has a negative correlation.

Speaking of shit... the above also fits nicely into this category.

As the subject, the embodiment of estranged labor in it everyday existence, whether or not the working class knows anything about dialectics, as a method of inquiry, as a field of study, is not germane. And it is not germane precisely because the dialectic has its existence, its material existence in the relations of classes, in the expropriation of wage labor, the debasement of labor into the commodity form.

Dialectics actually does have a correlation to revolution. The antagonism between the means and relations of production is that correlation. Revolutions don't just happen, they are determined, precipitated by the antagonism internal to the organization of the mode of production itself-- thus Marx's setting out to explicate the "immanent critique of capital."

Proclaiming the study of Hegel as being indispensable to the seizure of power is irrelevant to the actual course of the class struggle, just as irrelevant as describing "dialectics" as a "poison" contributing to the defeat of workers' struggles. Each, both, converts the substance of dialectic, the antagonisms, oppositions within the social organization of production, of labor, into an ideology, a "thing unto itself."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:


As the subject, the embodiment of estranged labor in it everyday existence, whether or not the working class knows anything about dialectics, as a method on inquiry, is a field of study, is not germane. And it is not germane precisely because the dialectic has its existence, its material existence in the relations of classes, in the expropriation of wage labor, the debasement of labor into the commodity form.

Maybe so, but what you mean by the 'dialectic' is not what Marx meant by it:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-political-t118934/index.html


Dialectics actually does have a correlation to revolution. The antagonism between the means and relations of production is that correlation. Revolutions don't just happen, they are determined, precipitated by the antagonism internal to the organization of the mode of production itself-- thus Marx's setting out to explicate the "immanent critique of capital."

The class struggle, in fact, has nothing to do with the 'dialectic' as you understand this term. And you are right when you say this:


Revolutions don't just happen, they are determined, precipitated by the antagonism internal to the organization of the mode of production itself

But, what has this to do got to do with 'the dialectic', as you understand the word?

Answer: nothing, since you seem to think there is a 'logic' to capitalism -- that is, you are in thrall to the odd idea that capitalism is either an argument, or a mind!


Proclaiming the study of Hegel as being indispensable to the seizure of power is irrelevant to the actual course of the class struggle, just as irrelevant as describing "dialectics" as a "poison" contributing to the defeat of workers' struggles. Each, both, converts the substance of dialectic, the antagonisms, oppositions within the social organization of production, of labor, into an ideology, a "thing unto itself."

It is indeed a poison. Look what it has done to your thought -- it has turned you into a closed-minded, a priori dogmatist, content merely to regurgitate traditional and mystical nostrums, even while you are incapable of explaining them in anything other than similarly jargon-bound sentences.

[S.Artesian]

I love this part. Where Rosa posts her usual tendentious baloney and I don't even have to read it, since she's on my ignore list.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:


I love this part. Where Rosa posts her usual tendentious baloney and I don't even have to read it, since she's on my ignore list.

Head still in the sand, I see.:lol:

[Raúl Duke]

Speaking of shit... the above also fits nicely into this category.

As the subject, the embodiment of estranged labor in it everyday existence, whether or not the working class knows anything about dialectics, as a method of inquiry, as a field of study, is not germane. And it is not germane precisely because the dialectic has its existence, its material existence in the relations of classes, in the expropriation of wage labor, the debasement of labor into the commodity form.

Dialectics actually does have a correlation to revolution. The antagonism between the means and relations of production is that correlation. Revolutions don't just happen, they are determined, precipitated by the antagonism internal to the organization of the mode of production itself-- thus Marx's setting out to explicate the "immanent critique of capital."

Proclaiming the study of Hegel as being indispensable to the seizure of power is irrelevant to the actual course of the class struggle, just as irrelevant as describing "dialectics" as a "poison" contributing to the defeat of workers' struggles. Each, both, converts the substance of dialectic, the antagonisms, oppositions within the social organization of production, of labor, into an ideology, a "thing unto itself."


Blah Blah, keep kidding yourself that dialectics means anything. Never said it was "poison", just that it was a bunch of shit.

The correlation I'm speaking of is that all your "master dialetical theoreticians" who said shit like "We know the secret to revolution" or whatever rubbish is null. No matter how much dialectics, dialectics will do nothing to help/whatever the revolution.

It does nothing in terms of understanding the "class struggle," I understand class struggle using the methods I learned in social sciences (none which have anything to do with dialectics) and many people understand the class struggle with no prior academic/whatever knowledge.

I didn't make dialectics into any ideology, that is the work of dialecticians. The way they present it makes it seem an ideology of obscurantism, sophism, etc.


I love this part. Where Rosa posts her usual tendentious baloney and I don't even have to read it, since she's on my ignore list. That's rich.

Someone points out how crappy dialectics is in a very thick philosophy-laden language, the kind of language I thought dialecticians make like, and yet you ignore them. You think that by ignoring them you "win." A hallow victory indeed sir!

I don't really care if either she or you are "right" (since to be honest, I can't understand or see anything special in dialectical language that can't be explain in any other way, or just explained without having to call the explanation "dialectical", and I'm no expert in philosophy to be able to easily understand Rosa) it makes no difference in making it clear how dialectics is nothing but rubbish to every other normal person out there.

The fact you and everyone else who is into that delusionally think it's important, sometimes utmost so, yet unknown to all but a bunch of back-room Trotskyists and Stalinists, makes the claim laughable.

[S.Artesian]

The correlation I'm speaking of is that all your "master dialetical theoreticians" who said shit like "We know the secret to revolution" or whatever rubbish is null. No matter how much dialectics, dialectics will do nothing to help/whatever the revolution.

It does nothing in terms of understanding the "class struggle," I understand class struggle using the methods I learned in social sciences (none which have anything to do with dialectics) and many people understand the class struggle with no prior academic/whatever knowledge.

I didn't make dialectics into any ideology, that is the work of dialecticians. The way they present it makes it seem an ideology of obscurantism, sophism, etc.


it makes no difference in making it clear how dialectics is nothing but rubbish to every other normal person out there.

The fact you and everyone else who is into that delusionally think it's important, sometimes utmost so, yet unknown to all but a bunch of back-room Trotskyists and Stalinists, makes the claim laughable.

First, I don't know any "master dialectical theoreticians." And I've never said that those who grasp, or promote, dialectics know the secret to anything. But I do know shit when I run across it and your vulgar "real men don't need dialectics" posing is real shit.

If you think, for example, Pavel Maksakovsky's The Capitalist Cycle is somehow impaired by his demonstration of the dialectic in capitalist accumulation-- the self-contradiction-- then you need to step forward and show how his fidelity to dialectics impairs the analysis, and improve on the analysis sans dialectic. That BTW is exactly the challenge put to RL, to actually demonstrate some substantive correction to Marx's "Hegelian" influenced work that Marx provides in volume 1.

Secondly, you are the one making a big thing out of dialectics as dialectics, not me and not Graymouser or Zero Nowhere or BTB etc. I know I entered this discussion and I'll bet the others did because of the rancid distortion of Marx's work by the "anti-dialecticians," who, while never undertaking any material analysis of any manifestation of capitalism or Marx's critique thereof, feel at liberty to post the most putrid distortions of Marx's appreciation, and critique of Hegel, and of the Marx's own assessment of the role of dialectic in his analysis of capital.

Here's the point-- Rosa and her coterie can attack Hegel and dialectic all they want I wouldn't give a flying fuck, but the coterie doesn't just do that. They claim Marx "extirpated" Hegel-- that he only coquetted with Hegel; that Marx's dialectic is akin to that of Ferguson, Stewart etc. and even Kant. No evidence is forthcoming for that claim, but then again, how can we expect any from those who don't actually engage Marx's work? So the issue becomes of historical accuracy, of which the AD [anti-dialectic] coterie displays none.

You learned everything you know about class struggle from the "social sciences"? Well that's just so precious. The question isn't how you learned, but what you've learned. It's the quality that counts.

People say the same thing about reading Marx, about reading Capital: "I don't need to read that. I learned what I need to know from..." from what? Hating your high-school? Reading Wage-Labor and Capital? Wikileaks?

BFD.

As I stated before, you don't have to study Hegel to understand class struggle.. but Marx did. Again, it's a point of historical accuracy.

Must say that I loved the part where you contrast those who have some degree of regard for dialectics to the rest of you "normal people" out there. Isn't the first time I've been characterized as not normal, and I've always been proud of that when I see how you normal people act.

One more thing... I'm neither a Trotskyist or a Stalinist, but I am a Marxist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:


If you think, for example, Pavel Maksakovsky's The Capitalist Cycle is somehow impaired by his demonstration of the dialectic in capitalist accumulation-- the self-contradiction-- then you need to step forward and show how his fidelity to dialectics impairs the analysis, and improve on the analysis sans dialectic. That BTW is exactly the challenge put to RL, to actually demonstrate some substantive correction to Marx's "Hegelian" influenced work that Marx provides in volume 1.

Since neither you, nor the character you mention, has justified your odd use of 'contradition', then you might just as well have posted this:


If you think, for example, Pavel Maksakovsky's The Capitalist Cycle is somehow impaired by his demonstration of the dialectic in capitalist accumulation-- the self-immolation -- then you need to step forward and show how his fidelity to dialectics impairs the analysis, and improve on the analysis sans dialectic. That BTW is exactly the challenge put to RL, to actually demonstrate some substantive correction to Marx's "Hegelian" influenced work that Marx provides in volume 1.

My use of "immolation" is no more nor no less justifiable than your use of "contradiction". In which case, the above passage -- or at least the sentence in which this word occurs -- makes no sense.


That BTW is exactly the challenge put to RL, to actually demonstrate some substantive correction to Marx's "Hegelian" influenced work that Marx provides in volume 1

And I have said I would rise to that challenge, when you answer the many questions/challenges I have posed you, which you just ignore.


Secondly, you are the one making a big thing out of dialectics as dialectics, not me and not Graymouser or Zero Nowhere or BTB etc. I know I entered this discussion and I'll bet the others did because of the rancid distortion of Marx's work by the "anti-dialecticians," who, while never undertaking any material analysis of any manifestation of capitalism or Marx's critique thereof, feel at liberty to post the most putrid distortions of Marx's appreciation, and critique of Hegel, and of the Marx's own assessment of the role of dialectic in his analysis of capital.

Here's the point-- Rosa and her coterie can attack Hegel and dialectic all they want I wouldn't give a flying fuck, but the coterie doesn't just do that. They claim Marx "extirpated" Hegel-- that he only coquetted with Hegel; that Marx's dialectic is akin to that of Ferguson, Stewart etc. and even Kant. No evidence is forthcoming for that claim, but then again, how can we expect any from those who don't actually engage Marx's work? So the issue becomes of historical accuracy, of which the AD [anti-dialectic] coterie displays none.

You keep alleging we have 'distorted' Marx, but (1) you have yet to show wheer and how we do this, and (2) you are the one who wants to re-mystify his work.


that Marx's dialectic is akin to that of Ferguson, Stewart etc. and even Kant.

Where have I said that? I have never used the word 'akin'.

Once more you prefer lies to facts.


One more thing... I'm neither a Trotskyist or a Stalinist, but I am a Marxist.

You left out: "'Marxist' and ruling-class lackey"...:)

[Raúl Duke]

your vulgar "real men don't need dialectics" posing is real shit.My message isn't as sexist as you construe it as (not that it surprises me, people fond of dialectics always distort others arguments); I say "no one, man or woman, needs dialectics." If you think that's shit, so what, that's your opinion.

No one has proven to anyone (sane) that dialectics is good for anything other than a language for mental masturbation.
I'm still waiting to hear why an understanding of dialectics is a "good thing" and different or "superior" from other methods of analysis/explanations in a clear plain language.

[S.Artesian]

My message isn't as sexist as you construe it as (not that it surprises me, people fond of dialectics always distort others arguments); I say "no one, man or woman, needs dialectics." If you think that's shit, so what, that's your opinion.

No one has proven to anyone (sane) that dialectics is good for anything other than a language for mental masturbation.
I'm still waiting to hear why an understanding of dialectics is a "good thing" and different or "superior" from other methods of analysis/explanations in a clear plain language.

Apparently you don't read what is written, which is a signature characteristic of the AD-D crowd. I never said it's a good or bad thing. I said clearly Marx takes over dialectic from Hegel, extracts its rational kernel, and relocates the basis of "contradiction," "negation," antagonism, supercession, etc. in the labor process. I said that Marx's analysis of capital, of value, of the commodity is certainly "enhanced," sharpened by his "takeover."

If there is anything superior to Marx's method of inquiry in the analysis of capital then it should manifest itself in the presentation of the analysis of capital-- so all those who learned everything they need to know about class struggle from Youtube, or sociologists, or anthropologists should have at it and provide that superior critique of capital. That superior critique of course never appears. Instead we get what we always get-- garbage.

So go ahead, show us your superior analysis of class struggle-- pick an area, a moment, in that struggle and show us how your anti-dialectic analysis clears the way to class power.

And right, that's my opinion, just like yours is your opinion. SFW?

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


I love this part. Where Rosa posts her usual tendentious baloney and I don't even have to read it, since she's on my ignore list.

Sometimes it should be a good solution, but at the other hand....
...more and more I find some amusing stuff and often this makes my day! :D

->


And precisely which ideas have I taken from the 'bourgeoisie'?

You ask like an Egyptian farmer 2000. before Christi who his self-lived religion does not understand as an religion!

Bravo! Mr. philosopher!

The answer: You have taken over the complete religion from the bourgeoisie! :D (esoteric pluralism, democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250) etc etc etc )


The anti-dialecticians consolidate all the ideologists’ preconditions of capital for their manner of being, the principle of the strongest.
&

And on which part of my work is this brainless comment based?

Note:

The motivation to be a democrat is nothing else than the practice of pantheism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3), and this, like every other religion matters the taken over of the rules from unconscious-life: carelessness (permanent overexploitation of biosphere) and the principle of the strongest, which explaines my democracy-analysis (people in India works for 15 Cent/per hour, in China for 1 Dollar per hour -> and all this is produced for the peoples in the democratic-exploiter-nations)

And last but not least, the top-joke in British humor:


Once more, you are the one who is happy to accept ideas dreamt up by that Panentheist (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism), Hegel.

Of course! At the time as Hegel was Pantheist, the normal-Individuals, the mass and the rulers, where monotheists! He was an advanced thinker! ( like Spinoza etc etc)

But you have not a progressive world view, because you are a democrat, and the pantheism of bourgeoisie is the actual ideology of the mass and the rulers, at least in the democratic-exploiter-nations!

(at the moment I would call the pantheism as the global level of consciousness)

For an "normal" individual it would be an average - thinking, but as a philosopher I would call it reactionary.
And you didn't comprehend it at all! :D
Sorry but this is my position.


PS:
How does the auction of the doctorate run? :D

Kind regards & good night!

[4 Leaf Clover]

My thought is , if every proletarian of the world would have to learn about all this philosophical crap you preach here to become a revolutionary , revolution would never happen

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:

In response to this question of mine:


And precisely which ideas have I taken from the 'bourgeoisie'?

You answer as follows:


You ask like an Egyptian farmer 2000. before Christi who his self-lived religion does not understand as an religion!

The answer: You have taken over the complete religion from the bourgeoisie! (esoteric pluralism, democracy etc etc etc )


Are you utterly and completely mad?

I ask for evidence that I have accepted ideas from the bourgeoisie, and you simply post yet more baseless assertions, supported by not one shred of evidence.

As I said earlier:


But, it is you who wants to mystify Marxism with your odd ideas -- ideas you can't defend without descending into lies.

And it seems you are still intent on lying:


Bravo! Mr. philosopher!

You have been told five or six times, in no uncertain terms, that I am, if anything, an anti-philosopher, like Marx.

Are you too thick to understand plain speech?


The motivation to be a democrat is nothing else than the practice of pantheism, and this, like every other religion matters the taken over of the rules from unconscious-life: carelessness (permanent overexploitation of biosphere) and the principle of the strongest, which explains my democracy-analysis (people in India works for 15 Cent/per hour, in China for 1 Dollar per hour -> and all this is produced for the peoples in the democratic-exploiter-nations)

I suggested in my last post that you look up the meaning of the word 'relevant'.

From the above it looks like you ignored that sound piece of advice, since that comment of yours is unrelated to anything I have said here at RevLeft, or anywhere else for that matter.

Look, if you do not want to debate the topic of this thread, answering my criticisms of what you have posted, then why did you come here, to RevLeft? It seems from the dogmatic nature of your pronouncements, you should be in a pulpit somewhere.

Anyone reading your posts, even if they are Dialectical Marxists themselves, is going to scratch their heads and wonder what the hell you are on about.:confused:


Of course! At the time as Hegel was Pantheist, the normal-Individuals, the mass and the rulers, where monotheists! He was an advanced thinker! ( like Spinoza etc etc)

I did not use the word 'Pantheist'. I used the word 'Panentheist' and I provided a link so you could look up the difference (since I suspected you might not know).

Looks like I was right and that you know even less than me!:lol:

And so you post yet more brainless drivel:


But you have not a progressive world view, because you are a democrat, and the pantheism of bourgeoisie is the actual ideology of the mass and the rulers, at least in the democratic-exploiter-nations!

Yes, and I'm a shape-shifting lizard too. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif


(at the moment I would call the pantheism as the global level of consciousness)

For an "normal" individual it would be an average - thinking, but as a philosopher I would call it reactionary.
And you didn't comprehend it at all!
Sorry but this is my position.

So you should apologise, since what you post looks like the ravings of madman.

Exhibit A for the prosecution:


How does the auction of the doctorate run?

Yes, you are plainly stupid enough to imagine anyone could sell a higher degree.:lol:

[S.Artesian]

My thought is , if every proletarian of the world would have to learn about all this philosophical crap you preach here to become a revolutionary , revolution would never happen


Well, right now, on the historical balance, it would seem you're making an argument for Philzer's views, not against them, seeing as how the Russian Revolution has been definitively erased; Chinese socialism which never was is even less than it ever was; Cuba is unwinding its revolution more slowly than China, but unwinding nonetheless.

In truth, I don't think the proletariat, or anybody has to understand every facet of Hegel, but I think it helps to understand every facet of Marx. I mean it really helps, and as far as I can tell, those who don't understand Marx's critique of Hegel, his break with and overtaking of Hegel, why he says things the way he does in his economic works, don't actually understand the social relation that is the being of capital. Now maybe that doesn't matter either. Maybe people don't need analysis, critique, tactics, strategy-- all those things that come with comprehension. Maybe people just need to get really pissed off and then we'll have a revolution.

I'm betting not. I'm betting that all those, including the AD-D crowd, think there is a "science" to history, and a science to abolition of modes of production. So if you're making that bet, then abolishing capitalism means understanding how capitalism came into being, and maintains its existence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:


Apparently you don't read what is written, which is a signature characteristic of the AD-D crowd. I never said it's a good or bad thing. I said clearly Marx takes over dialectic from Hegel, extracts its rational kernel, and relocates the basis of "contradiction," "negation," antagonism, supercession, etc. in the labor process. I said that Marx's analysis of capital, of value, of the commodity is certainly "enhanced," sharpened by his "takeover."

1) But we already know that Marx did not mean by 'the dialectic method' what you mean by it, since -- unlike yours -- his method wasn't mystical.

2) Since you insist on using words like 'contradiction' and 'negation' in odd ways, and refuse to justify that use, you might just as well have posted this:


Apparently you don't read what is written, which is a signature characteristic of the AD-D crowd. I never said it's a good or bad thing. I said clearly Marx takes over dialectic from Hegel, extracts its rational kernel, and relocates the basis of "beige dungarees," "dog kennel," antagonism, Superhero, etc. in the labor process. I said that Marx's analysis of capital, of value, of the commodity is certainly "enhanced," sharpened by his "takeover."

My use of "beige dungarees", "dog kennel" and "Superhero" are no more nor no less obscure in such a context, and since I haven't justified their use, you'd be right to criticise their substitution for your own words -- but only if you justified your use of them at the same time.

This, you consistently refuse to do.

And no wonder -- these terms were borrowed from that confused mystic Hegel, who derived his use of them from his conflation of the 'law of identity', stated negatively, with the 'law of non-contradiction', when these two 'laws' are unrelated.

Other than that -- and as a gesture toward tradition -- you have no other reason to use these words in this way.

Unless, of course, you supply us with one...:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:


I'm betting not. I'm betting that all those, including the AD-D crowd, think there is a "science" to history, and a science to abolition of modes of production. So if you're making that bet, then abolishing capitalism means understanding how capitalism came into being, and maintains its existence.

Indeed, we do think there is a science of history; and even better we can show there is.

If you ask real nice, I'll condescend to post a link to where this was thrashed out last year.:)

[4 Leaf Clover]

I do understand where dialectical-materialism makes point. But as Rosa said , what the OP said has nothing to do with what i read. And its not much. And then you discuss about Dialectics of Hegel , but from what i know , Marx inverted Hegel's dialectics , but not only Hegel's. Dialectics are thousands years old "way of thinking and understanding" coming from Greek philosophers.

From some point , i think that these kind of stuff is not the thing people need to learn , and embrace dogmatically , i think this is something that only needs to be discovered. The theory of Marx , Engels etc , already developed these ideas and expanded them from simply being sociological paths to actually becoming complex class theory. I don't understand why are they considered something so separate and special. Why would we have to go back to Hegel , if we already have Marx and Engels

[S.Artesian]

I do understand where dialectical-materialism makes point. But as Rosa said , what the OP said has nothing to do with what i read. And its not much. And then you discuss about Dialectics of Hegel , but from what i know , Marx inverted Hegel's dialectics , but not only Hegel's. Dialectics are thousands years old "way of thinking and understanding" coming from Greek philosophers.

From some point , i think that these kind of stuff is not the thing people need to learn , and embrace dogmatically , i think this is something that only needs to be discovered. The theory of Marx , Engels etc , already developed these ideas and expanded them from simply being sociological paths to actually becoming complex class theory. I don't understand why are they considered something so separate and special. Why would we have to go back to Hegel , if we already have Marx and Engels

I don't have any problem with your take on it. I don't go around urging everyone to go back and read Hegel. I have enough enemies as it is. Reading Hegel is no joy that's for sure.

But it helps to know how Marx developed his critique of capital.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:


I don't go around urging everyone to go back and read Hegel. I have enough enemies as it is. Reading Hegel is no joy that's for sure.

But it helps to know how Marx developed his critique of capital.

In that case, stay well away from Hegel, since, as we now know, Marx rejected that mystical bumbler root and branch when he came to write his masterpiece.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


My thought is , if every proletarian of the world would have to learn about all this philosophical crap you preach here to become a revolutionary , revolution would never happen

Peoples, listen the signals!

Nevertheless, there you are quite quite close to it!

What do you believe why nothing was happening in the last 90 years and today?

You recognized the first reason thus. Bravo!


The Second is here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)



Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Peoples, listen the signals!

We have, and they tell us you're a nutter.:(


Nevertheless, there you are quite quite close to it!

While you are on another planet.


What do you believe why nothing was happening in the last 90 years and today?

So, the second world war did not happen, eh?


You recognized the first reason thus. Bravo!

Eh?


The Second is here.

Yet more a priori dogmatism...

[Blackscare]

This thread is worse than a train wreck.

[Philzer]

Hi!


This thread is worse than a train wreck.

This emotional post is worse than a train wreck. :D

But in the contrary to You, I can give an explanation!

Note:

Emotions are the control-signals of the unconscious life.

Conclusion:

Actions according to the emotions, is nothing else than to realize the principle of the strongest. And the result is class-society.


Kind regards


:D PS:

It is to be seen very merrily again and again that the emotional posts are honored immediately. -> Conclusion: class-society will stay.:(

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!

I hope you had a good night rest.




So, the second world was did not happen, eh?

:D:D:D

I think your manifest misunderstanding is a part of your philosophical-reactionary fight.

(Could it be, that you feels as priviligeged, master the language of the Central-imperators of the world as your native language accurately?)

I meant naturally with it the global social development at the whole.

1900-> capitalism world
2000-> capitalism world

Kind regards

PS: More to your last Posts if I have more time for alternative entertainment again.

[MarxSchmarx]

Philzer your latests posts are really impossible to understand in English. Do take the time to write up sensible responses, you are not helping your case. And Rosa please don't egg this person on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^If you check, I have been extraordinarily patient with this numpty.

Philzer:


I think your manifest misunderstanding is a part of your philosophical-reactionary fight.

(Could it be, that you feels as priviligeged, master the language of the Central-imperators of the world as your native language accurately?)

I meant naturally with it the global social development at the whole.

1900-> capitalism world
2000-> capitalism world

Kind regards

PS: More to your last Posts if I have more time for alternative entertainment again.

And yet again, you win the RevLeft award for the most irrelevant response of the week!:)

[Philzer]

Hi!

@ Rosa Li:

As I already said to your adoptee CK:

I have the ideas.

I have the tools.

I have the models & results.

The sulky child may always have the final word in all my threads.

It amuses me. :D

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


I have the ideas.

I have the tools.

I have the models.

Alas you haven't got a clue, either.:(

[Nr2]

Hello Rosa!

Philosophy is science. It is not "be right" !!
We must recognize the truth.
The truth (Natural laws) exists independently of human consciousness.
3000 years ago there were three elements: air, earth, water, fire.
That was 3000 years ago the state of knowledge.
But that was the truth? for the people yes... scientific NO

The initial Post from Philzer is the critical of the partial unscientific in this forum. Religion replace Science.
Marxism has a scientific basis and can only be a science.

wewewe.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250

whey moved to Religion?
Marx view of democracy is very incomplete.
it's time to start a scientific discussion over the nature of the democracy!
Only one reply in this thread!
This is the first time that one analysis of democracy was made.
Not every people on Earth has English as mother language
but this analysis is for me the best scientific view over the nature of the democracy!
How is your view on democracy?

any unreflective adoption of the language of the bourgeoisie is harm to Marxism.
I do not think that's the goal for this forum.
Even my mother language is not English .. excuse that please.

have fun

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Nr2, but you sound just as dogmatic as Philzer.

Moreover, I suspect you are no more intent on debating your pronoucements than Philzer is.

[ZeroNowhere]

The truth (Natural laws) exists independently of human consciousness.“But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history.”

“Like all other sciences, mathematics arose out of the needs of men: from the measurement of land and the content of vessels, from the computation of time and from mechanics. But, as in every department of thought, at a certain stage of development the laws, which were abstracted from the real world, become divorced from the real world, and are set up against it as something independent, as laws coming from outside, to which the world has to conform. That is how things happened in society and in the state, and in this way, and not otherwise, pure mathematics was subsequently applied to the world, although it is borrowed from this same world and represents only one part of its forms of interconnection — and it is only just because of this that it can be applied at all.”

Incidentally, it is somewhat ironic that Norman Swartz's regularitarian Martian happens to be from the red planet.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You might like to have pointed out that your quote comes from Anti-Dühring. And while Engels is quite happy to criticise Dühring's apriorism, he is quite happy to inflict plenty of his own on his readers. Here's a selection of several:


"When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. This primitive, naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away." [p.24.]

"In like manner, every organic being is every moment the same and not the same, every moment it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other atoms of matter, so that every organic being is always itself, and yet something other than itself.

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.

"None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin, and ending. Such processes as those mentioned above are, therefore, so many corroborations of its own method of procedure." [p.27.]

"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations, in which, at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap; for example, in the case of heated or cooled water, where boiling-point and freezing-point are the nodes at which -- under normal pressure -- the leap to a new state of aggregation takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." [p.56.]

"With this assurance Herr Dühring saves himself the trouble of saying anything further about the origin of life, although it might reasonably have been expected that a thinker who had traced the evolution of the world back to its self-equal state, and is so much at home on other celestial bodies, would have known exactly what's what also on this point. For the rest, however, the assurance he gives us is only half right unless it is completed by the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations which has already been mentioned. In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive change. This is true of the transition from the mechanics of celestial bodies to that of smaller masses on a particular celestial body; it is equally true of the transition from the mechanics of masses to the mechanics of molecules -- including the forms of motion investigated in physics proper: heat, light, electricity, magnetism. In the same way, the transition from the physics of molecules to the physics of atoms -- chemistry -- in turn involves a decided leap; and this is even more clearly the case in the transition from ordinary chemical action to the chemism of albumen which we call life. Then within the sphere of life the leaps become ever more infrequent and imperceptible. -- Once again, therefore, it is Hegel who has to correct Herr Dühring." [pp.82-83.]

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

"When we speak of being, and purely of being, unity can only consist in that all the objects to which we are referring -- are, exist. They are comprised in the unity of this being, and in no other unity, and the general dictum that they all are not only cannot give them any additional qualities, whether common or not, but provisionally excludes all such qualities from consideration. For as soon as we depart even a millimetre from the simple basic fact that being is common to all these things, the differences between these things begin to emerge -- and whether these differences consist in the circumstance that some are white and others black, that some are animate and others inanimate, that some may be of this world and others of the world beyond, cannot be decided by us from the fact that mere existence is in equal manner ascribed to them all.

"The unity of the world does not consist in its being, although its being is a precondition of its unity, as it must certainly first be before it can be one. Being, indeed, is always an open question beyond the point where our sphere of observation ends. The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved not by a few juggled phrases, but by a long and wearisome development of philosophy and natural science." [p.54.]

"For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction." [p.63.]

"The materialists before Herr Dühring spoke of matter and motion. He reduces motion to mechanical force as its supposed basic form, and thereby makes it impossible for himself to understand the real connection between matter and motion, which moreover was also unclear to all former materialists. And yet it is simple enough. Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be. Motion in cosmic space, mechanical motion of smaller masses on the various celestial bodies, the vibration of molecules as heat or as electrical or magnetic currents, chemical disintegration and combination, organic life -- at each given moment each individual atom of matter in the world is in one or other of these forms of motion, or in several forms at once. All rest, all equilibrium, is only relative, only has meaning in relation to one or other definite form of motion. On the earth, for example, a body may be in mechanical equilibrium, may be mechanically at rest; but this in no way prevents it from participating in the motion of the earth and in that of the whole solar system, just as little as it prevents its most minute physical particles from carrying out the vibrations determined by its temperature, or its atoms from passing through a chemical process. Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself; as the older philosophy (Descartes) expressed it, the quantity of motion existing in the world is always the same. Motion therefore cannot be created; it can only be transferred. When motion is transferred from one body to another, it may be regarded, in so far as it transfers itself, is active, as the- cause of motion, in so far as the latter is transferred, is passive. We call this active motion force, and the passive, the manifestation of force. Hence it is as clear as daylight that a force is as great as its manifestation, because in fact the same motion takes place in both.

"A motionless state of matter is therefore one of the most empty and nonsensical of ideas -- a "delirious fantasy" of the purest water.... We may turn and twist as much as we like, but under Herr Dühring's guidance we always come back again to -- the finger of God." [pp.73-74.]

"Life is the mode of existence of albuminous bodies, and this mode of existence essentially consists in the constant self-renewal of the chemical constituents of these bodies." [p.102.]

"But what are these universal phenomena of life which are equally present among all living organisms? Above all the fact that an albuminous body absorbs other appropriate substances from its environment and assimilates them, while other, older parts of the body disintegrate and are excreted. Other non-living, bodies also change, disintegrate or enter into combinations in the natural course of events; but in doing this they cease to be what they were. A weather-worn rock is no longer a rock, metal which oxidises turns into rust. But what with non-living bodies is the cause of destruction, with albumen is the fundamental condition of existence. From the moment when this uninterrupted metamorphosis of its constituents, this constant alternation of nutrition and excretion, no longer takes place in an albuminous body, the albuminous body itself comes to an end, it decomposes, that is, dies. Life, the mode of existence of an albuminous body, therefore consists primarily in the fact that every moment it is itself and at the same time something else; and this does not take place as the result of a process to which it is subjected from without, as is the way in which this can occur also in the case of inanimate bodies. On the contrary, life, the metabolism which takes place through nutrition and excretion, is a self-implementing process which is inherent in, native to, its bearer, albumen, without which the latter cannot exist. And hence it follows that if chemistry ever succeeds in producing albumen artificially, this albumen must show the phenomena of life, however weak these may be. It is certainly open to question whether chemistry will at the same time also discover the right food for this albumen." [pp.102-03.]

"...Truth and error, like all thought-concepts which move in polar opposites, have absolute validity only in an extremely limited field, as we have just seen, and as even Herr Dühring would realise if he had any acquaintance with the first elements of dialectics, which deal precisely with the inadequacy of all polar opposites. As soon as we apply the antithesis between truth and error outside of that narrow field which has been referred to above it becomes relative and therefore unserviceable for exact scientific modes of expression, and if we attempt to apply it as absolutely valid outside that field we really find ourselves altogether beaten: both poles of the antithesis become transformed into their opposites, truth becomes error and error truth...." [p.114.]

"True, so long as we consider things as at rest and lifeless, each one by itself, alongside and after each other, we do not run up against any contradictions in them. We find certain qualities which are partly common to, partly different from, and even contradictory to each other, but which in the last-mentioned case are distributed among different objects and therefore contain no contradiction within. Inside the limits of this sphere of observation we can get along on the basis of the usual, metaphysical mode of thought. But the position is quite different as soon as we consider things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence on one another. Then we immediately become involved in contradictions. Motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical change of position can only come about through a body being at one and the same moment of time both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it. And the continuous origination and simultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely what motion is." [p.152.]

"If simple mechanical change of position contains a contradiction this is even more true of the higher forms of motion of matter, and especially of organic life and its development. We saw above that life consists precisely and primarily in this -- that a being is at each moment itself and yet something else. Life is therefore also a contradiction which is present in things and processes themselves, and which constantly originates and resolves itself; and as soon as the contradiction ceases, life, too, comes to an end, and death steps in. We likewise saw that also in the sphere of thought we could not escape contradictions, and that for example the contradiction between man's inherently unlimited capacity for knowledge and its actual presence only in men who are externally limited and possess limited cognition finds its solution in what is -- at least practically, for us -- an endless succession of generations, in infinite progress.

"We have already noted that one of the basic principles of higher mathematics is the contradiction that in certain circumstances straight lines and curves may be the same. It also gets up this other contradiction: that lines which intersect each other before our eyes nevertheless, only five or six centimetres from their point of intersection, can be shown to be parallel, that is, that they will never meet even if extended to infinity. And yet, working with these and with even far greater contradictions, it attains results which are not only correct but also quite unattainable for lower mathematics." [pp.153-54.]

"But even lower mathematics teems with contradictions. It is for example a contradiction that a root of A should be a power of A, and yet A^1/2 = the square root of A. It is a contradiction that a negative quantity should be the square of anything, for every negative quantity multiplied by itself gives a positive square. The square root of minus one is therefore not only a contradiction, but even an absurd contradiction, a real absurdity. And yet the square root of minus one is in many cases a necessary result of correct mathematical operations. Furthermore, where would mathematics -- lower or higher -- be, if it were prohibited from operation with the square root of minus one?

"In its operations with variable quantities mathematics itself enters the field of dialectics, and it is significant that it was a dialectical philosopher, Descartes, who introduced this advance. The relation between the mathematics of variable and the mathematics of constant quantities is in general the same as the relation of dialectical to metaphysical thought. But this does not prevent the great mass of mathematicians from recognising dialectics only in the sphere of mathematics, and a good many of them from continuing to work in the old, limited, metaphysical way with methods that were obtained dialectically." [p.154.]

"...Elementary mathematics, the mathematics of constant quantities, moves within the confines of formal logic, at any rate on the whole; the mathematics of variables, whose most important part is the infinitesimal calculus, is in essence nothing other than the application of dialectics to mathematical relations. In it, the simple question of proof is definitely pushed into the background, as compared with the manifold application of the method to new spheres of research. But almost all the proofs of higher mathematics, from the first proofs of the differential calculus on, are from the standpoint of elementary mathematics strictly speaking, wrong. And this is necessarily so, when, as happens in this case, an attempt is made to prove by formal logic results obtained in the field of dialectics...." [pp.171-72.]

"...[P]rocesses which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. And though in 1754 Rousseau was not yet able to speak the Hegelian jargon {D. K. G. 491}, he was certainly, sixteen years before Hegel was born, deeply bitten with the Hegelian pestilence, dialectics of contradiction, Logos doctrine, theologies, and so forth...." [p.179.]

"And so, what is the negation of the negation? An extremely general -- and for this reason extremely far-reaching and important -- law of development of nature, history, and thought; a law which, as we have seen, holds good in the animal and plant kingdoms, in geology, in mathematics, in history and in philosophy -- a law which even Herr Dühring, in spite of all his stubborn resistance, has unwittingly and in his own way to follow. It is obvious that I do not say anything concerning the particular process of development of, for example, a grain of barley from germination to the death of the fruit-bearing plant, if I say it is a negation of the negation. For, as the integral calculus is also a negation of the negation, if I said anything of the sort I should only be making the nonsensical statement that the life-process of a barley plant was integral calculus or for that matter that it was socialism. That, however, is precisely what the metaphysicians are constantly imputing to dialectics. When I say that all these processes are a negation of the negation, I bring them all together under this one law of motion, and for this very reason I leave out of account the specific peculiarities of each individual process. Dialectics, however, is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought." [pp.179-80.]

"...Long ago Spinoza said: Omnis determinatio est negatio — every limitation or determination is at the same time a negation. And further: the kind of negation is here determined, firstly, by the general and, secondly, by the particular nature of the process. I must not only negate, but also sublate the negation. I must therefore so arrange the first negation that the second remains or becomes possible. How? This depends on the particular nature of each individual case. If I grind a grain of barley, or crush an insect, I have carried out the first part of the action, but have made the second part impossible. Every kind of thing therefore has a peculiar way of being negated in such manner that it gives rise to a development, and it is just the same with every kind of conception or idea. The infinitesimal calculus involves a form of negation which is different from that used in the formation of positive powers from negative roots. This has to be learnt, like everything else. The bare knowledge that the barley plant and the infinitesimal calculus are both governed by negation of negation does not enable me either to grow barley successfully or to differentiate and integrate; just as little as the bare knowledge of the laws of the determination of sound by the dimensions of the strings enables me to play the violin." [pp.180-81.]

"Once again, therefore, it is no one but Herr Dühring who is mystifying us when he asserts that the negation of the negation is a stupid analogy invented by Hegel, borrowed from the sphere of religion and based on the story of the fall of man and his redemption {D. K. G. 504}. Men thought dialectically long before they knew what dialectics was, just as they spoke prose long before the term prose existed. [An allusion to Molière's comedy Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, Act II, Scene 6 — Ed.] The law of negation of the negation, which is unconsciously operative in nature and history and, until it has been recognised, also in our heads, was only first clearly formulated by Hegel. And if Herr Dühring wants to operate with it himself on the quiet and it is only that he cannot stand the name, then let him find a better name. But if his aim is to banish the process itself from thought, we must ask him to be so good as first to banish it from nature and history and to invent a mathematical system in which -a x -a is not +a^2 and in which differentiation and integration are prohibited under severe penalties." [pp.181-82.]

[In the above, I have used the on-line version of Anti-Duhring (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm), but the page numbers of the Foreign Languages edition. Bold emphases added.]

But, he's no different from most Dialectical Mystics, who also are happy to impose this 'theory' on nature and society despite the fact that they tell us they never do this -- proof here:

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

Indeed, the same comment applies to Philzer and Nr2

However, I'm not sure what point your are making about Norman Swartz.

[ZeroNowhere]

"When we speak of being, and purely of being, unity can only consist in that all the objects to which we are referring -- are, exist. They are comprised in the unity of this being, and in no other unity, and the general dictum that they all are not only cannot give them any additional qualities, whether common or not, but provisionally excludes all such qualities from consideration. For as soon as we depart even a millimetre from the simple basic fact that being is common to all these things, the differences between these things begin to emerge -- and whether these differences consist in the circumstance that some are white and others black, that some are animate and others inanimate, that some may be of this world and others of the world beyond, cannot be decided by us from the fact that mere existence is in equal manner ascribed to them all.
While the above happens to be not entirely relevant, I am eminently curious as to what is wrong with the quoted statement in the given context.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Engels thinks he is deriving what he takes to be series of truths about fundamental aspects of realty (or 'being') from the alleged meanings of a handful of words (which he does not even attempt to justify) -- which is, of course, what traditional philosophers have been doing since Ancient Greek times.

It only appears 'Ok' because traditional theorists have been doing it for so long; it thus seems to be the only way, the proper way, to 'do philosophy'.

Here is what I have posted about this (in answer to a somewhat similar question; "Why is Dialectical Materialism a world-view?"):


There are two interconnected reasons, I think.

1) The founders of this quasi-religion [Dialectical Marxism] weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, and derivable solely from language, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers", administrators, 'intellectuals' and theorists, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm).

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated before they became revolutionaries to believe there was just such a hidden world that governed everything, when they became revolutionaries would naturally look for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

2) That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and their reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history has predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for the rest of us, which means that they must be our 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also Teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could 'legitimately' substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand. This is because the masses are too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why Dialectical Materialism is a world-view.

So, that is why Engels felt he was doing 'geniune philosophy' (and why most comrades who post here think the same, even if they disagree with Engels), when he was merely aping an ancient ruling-class tradition.

This is how you, too, were probably taught to 'do philosophy' -- it is how we are all taught to do it --, and that is because it forms an important part of the ruling ideas that have always ruled ('East' and 'West'), the main malaise underlying which was highlighted by Marx:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.

I have explained what this distortion (of language) is and how it 'works' (or, rather, why it must always fail) here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

And in greater detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm

[ZeroNowhere]

You didn't deal with the specific extract, where Engels is only pointing out that Duhring's attempts to state profound truths about things based on their 'unity of being' simply resolves down to the statement that all things referred to exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I didn't deal with the full stop either.

[mossy noonmann]

as someone who pays an interest, if only in passing, how can you use an entire gigabyte and not answer the question?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Are you addressing me?

[syndicat]

Dialectics actually does have a correlation to revolution. The antagonism between the means and relations of production is that correlation. Revolutions don't just happen, they are determined, precipitated by the antagonism internal to the organization of the mode of production itself-- thus Marx's setting out to explicate the "immanent critique of capital."


This sort of determinism is not entailed by Marx's theory of history. His theory posits structural background conditions but structures by themselves don't cause or "determine" anything. There need to also be stimuli or occasioning causes, such as actual movements, protests, conflicts, ideologies, humans in motion, etc. It's humans who make history, not "conflicting tendencies."

I doubt that there is a trans-historical tendency to the development of the productive forces. but even if there is, it's a mere tendency, that is, a structural feature. If these tendencies are "fettered" by the existing social relations of production, there are conflicting tendencies. No reason to call it a "contradition" tho.

[4 Leaf Clover]

The way i get it , is Marx rejected philosophy as a revolutionary weapon , but somehow embraced dialectics in some of his statements , especially the part about contradiction , stating that every progress is a consequence of some contradiction , of one part countering other etc...

[Dimentio]

If Dialectical materialism has friends like you, it doesn't need enemies.

Troll thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

4 Leaf:


The way i get it , is Marx rejected philosophy as a revolutionary weapon , but somehow embraced dialectics in some of his statements , especially the part about contradiction , stating that every progress is a consequence of some contradiction , of one part countering other etc...

But the examples usually given of such 'contradictions' do not even look like contradictions to begin with.

And even if they did, how they can cause/motivate progress is even more mysterious.

This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that Marx ceased to view things this way when he came to write Das Kapital:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-political-t118934/index.html

[S.Artesian]

This sort of determinism is not entailed by Marx's theory of history. His theory posits structural background conditions but structures by themselves don't cause or "determine" anything. There need to also be stimuli or occasioning causes, such as actual movements, protests, conflicts, ideologies, humans in motion, etc. It's humans who make history, not "conflicting tendencies."

I doubt that there is a trans-historical tendency to the development of the productive forces. but even if there is, it's a mere tendency, that is, a structural feature. If these tendencies are "fettered" by the existing social relations of production, there are conflicting tendencies. No reason to call it a "contradition" tho.

Nope, it's not determinism, but there are determinants to the "opening" of an era of social revolution, thus Marx's iteration and re-iteration of the antagonism between the means and relations of production. He states as much in The German Ideology, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, etc.

The development of the productive forces is not a structural tendency separate and apart from the social relations that propel that development, or lack thereof. So for Marx, the technical development is driven by social relation and in turn reproduces that social relation in a broader and more acute form. That social relation appears as the determinant, which of course, becomes the negation of the very impulse to technical development previously expressed.

In the case of capitalism, it is the amplification of the productivity of labor, so essential for the aggrandizement of surplus value, that precipitates overproduction, the trend for the rate of profit to decline, thus manifesting the conflict between the social basis of production and its expression as private property.

At certain critical points in its reproduction the conflict inherent in capital's organization becomes "unmanageable"-- the quantitative accumulation of capital propels a qualitative change in relations of classes.

Again revolutions don't just happen. People make their own history, but it's not made willy-nilly. There is a definite, material basis for the eruption of revolutionary struggles. There are specific changes that occur prior to that eruption.

[syndicat]

Nope, it's not determinism, but there are determinants

"determinant" is an obfuscatory term. in any adequate explanation there will be both stimulus (or occasioning) causes and structural causes. there can be no explanation without both. the structural cause is no more "determinant" than the occasioning causes, which are the stimuli or events.

for example, if I strike a wooden kitchen match on a rough surface and it bursts into light, the striking is the occasioning cause. that is not sufficient by itself. if the match were wet, or if the striking occured in a vacuum, or if there wasn't the right chemstry on the match head, the result wouldn't have occurred. all these latter are structural causes.

neither a structural cause nor an occasioning event are sufficient to explain anything, neither by itself determines anything.

[4 Leaf Clover]

If Dialectical materialism has friends like you, it doesn't need enemies.

Troll thread.

Badly interpreted phrase


4 Leaf:



But the examples usually given of such 'contradictions' do not even look like contradictions to begin with.

And even if they did, how they can cause/motivate progress is even more mysterious.



The most obvious one i come at a head is

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles

Then he again stated , that contraries are the main reason of progress , and that is the sample civilization has followed. However im not sure is this pre or post capital.

But , now i try to figure the difference between words contraries and contradictions. Pardon my weak English and lack of fundamental knowledge on this topic. Hence my questions , i was never really keen on philosophy.

Maybe im imlpementing everything wrong , and that i missunderstood the meaning of contradictions , and that they should have been interpreted different way , which i would like someone who considers himself loyal dialectic to explain to me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

4 Leaf:


Then he again stated , that contraries are the main reason of progress , and that is the sample civilization has followed. However im not sure is this pre or post capital.

But , now i try to figure the difference between words contraries and contradictions. Pardon my weak English and lack of fundamental knowledge on this topic. Hence my questions , i was never really keen on philosophy.

Maybe im imlpementing everything wrong , and that i missunderstood the meaning of contradictions , and that they should have been interpreted different way , which i would like someone who considers himself loyal dialectic to explain to me.

1) These still aren't 'contradictions', which is what you required.

2) You will no doubt note you have to appeal to concepts drawn from Historical Materialism, not Dialectical Materialism, to explain social change.

3) Why are these 'contraries'? They do not even look like contraries. Anyway, it's their struggle that explains change, not the fact that they are 'contraries'.

4) as I have shown, if your theory were true, change would in fact be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

So, not only do your 'contradictions' not even look like contradictions, they can't explain change, and would in fact make change impossible.

5) Finally, it's not your English that's the problem; even native English speakers, who are dialecticians, can tell us why or how 'contradictions' can cause change -- or, indeed, why they are contradictions to begin with.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Basically you ask for explanation , why and how does A turn into non-A etc... ? What triggers the change and how it happens ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

4 Leaf:


Basically you ask for explanation , why and how does A turn into non-A etc... ? What triggers the change and how it happens ?

No, I have asked for no such explanation.

What I have argued is that if dialectical materialsm were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

[4 Leaf Clover]

4 Leaf:



No, I have asked for no such explanation.

What I have argued is that if dialectical materialsm were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html


But according to the DM-Gospels, if A turns into not-A it must struggle with it. But, it can't do that since not-A does not yet exist. If not-A already existed A could not turn into it, for it is already there! So class society could not be abolished , since a class couldn't abolish it's own class status , because non-class is already there. ?


In which case, P*, for example, must either change or stay the same. If it changes, then according to the Dialectical Koran, it can only do so because of its own internal contradictions.
Aren't P* and P** two poles of a same. Shouldn't they represent a contradiction , one tendency being P* and one P** , which represent a contradiction of one big P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

4 Leaf:


So class society could not be abolished , since a class couldn't abolish it's own class status , because non-class is already there. ?

Not at all. What made you think that?

The point is that if Dialectical Materialism [DM] were true, nothing at all would happen.

So, it's a good job Historical Materialism is true and does not need DM.


Aren't P* and P** two poles of a same. Shouldn't they represent a contradiction , one tendency being P* and one P** , which represent a contradiction of one big P

Well, P* and P** could only be contradictory of one another if they were indicative sentences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood), and one was the negation of the other -- as in:

1) P*: George Bush is a war monger.

2) P**: George Bush isn't a war monger.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Well, P* and P** could only be contradictory of one another if they were indicative sentences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood), and one was the negation of the other -- as in:

1) P*: George Bush is a war monger.

2) P**: George Bush isn't a war monger.

Therefore proletariat can have its own p* tendency and p** tendency ?

Anyways i'm one of those who think that Dialectical theory is not as wrong , as it is useless. Yes , aim of phylosophy is truth , since truth is process , there will never be correct , and ultimate philosophical thought , and it certainly wont materialize sine it shows everything but discover nothing. Therefore we should abandon it as a revolutionary weapon

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

4 Leaf:


Therefore proletariat can have its own p* tendency and p** tendency ?

Maybe so, but they still wouldn't be contradictions.

And even if they were, as I have shown, this would imply change is impossible.


Anyways i'm one of those who think that Dialectical theory is not as wrong , as it is useless. Yes , aim of phylosophy is truth , since truth is process , there will never be correct , and ultimate philosophical thought , and it certainly wont materialize sine it shows everything but discover nothing. Therefore we should abandon it as a revolutionary weapon

I'd go even further, and point out that no philosophical theory can be true.

Here is why:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

[syndicat]

why and how does A turn into non-A etc... ? What triggers the change and how it happens ?

this is a request for an "explanation" for all change. there is not likely to be a single answer to that since change is quite various.

certainly "dialectics" is of no use here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Indeed, and in ordinary language we have countless words that allow us to explain changes of every sort, and in limitless detail/sophistication when combined with the languages of mathematics, science and historical materialism. Practically every verb and adverb attests to that fact.

[Palingenisis]

I love this part. Where Rosa posts her usual tendentious baloney and I don't even have to read it, since she's on my ignore list.

It was stupid of me not thinking of doing that....I hate the way she wrecks so many threads with preaching dogmatic analytical philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Palingenesis:


I hate the way she wrecks so many threads with preaching dogmatic analytical philosophy.

1) What form of 'dogmatic' analytic philosophy do I preach?

2) Dialectical materialism [DM] is in fact dogmatic. However, unlike you, I can substantiate my allegation:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1929811&postcount=44

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1930047&postcount=46

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

3) Which threads have I 'wrecked'?

[S.Artesian]

See how much fun this is? You know she's out there spouting her usual garbage and you have spared yourself the time and irritation involved in subjecting yourself to her repetition compulsion.

If there was any content to the trolls argument she would point out the "errors," the differences in the content of Marx's analysis of capital in his pre- volume 1 phase, as opposed to his volume 1 analysis. But she can't point to a single substantive difference in Marx's analysis of capital, the one place that Marx claimed was the most determined by, demonstrative of dialectic.

Indeed, because there is no substantive difference pre-volume 1 and volume 1.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA (still ignoring me by not ignoring me; a rather nice non-dialectical contradiction for the faithful to contemplate):


See how much fun this is? You know she's out there spouting her usual garbage and you have spared yourself the time and irritation involved in subjecting yourself to her repetition compulsion.

Ironically, a point you seem compelled to keep repeating, perhaps because you can't respond effectively to my posts.


If there was any content to the trolls argument she would point out the "errors," the differences in the content of Marx's analysis of capital in his pre- volume 1 phase, as opposed to his volume 1 analysis. But she can't point to a single substantive difference in Marx's analysis of capital, the one place that Marx claimed was the most determined by, demonstrative of dialectic.

And that's because Marx's dialectic owes nothing to Hegel, as I have shown.

Of course, if you can find a passage, published by Marx that was contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your attempt to re-mystify his work, let's see it.

Oh wait -- there isn't!


Indeed, because there is no substantive difference pre-volume 1 and volume 1.

Except, as Marx tells us, he has dropped the Hegelian gobbledygook that still has you in its grip.

And, there would be no substantive difference to Newton's work if we edited out all his mystical guff, too.