Dialectical materialism split from nuclear crisis in Japan thread

[Robespierre Richard]

I think nuclear power is a great achievement in man's dialectical relationship with nature. Japan may have shown problems in its execution but history marches on.

[Robespierre Richard]

Kiroff:



1. There is no such thing as a 'dialectical' relationship with nature. But we can discuss that in Philosophy.

2. History marches nowhere. The capitalist class inflicted this curse on us, and it's up to us to put it right.

That the relationship with nature is dialectical is no question, as Marx himself put it in the first chapters of Capital. It is rather simple, we are both affected by nature (thesis) and transform it ourselves in response (antithesis). However, the result of the transformation on us (synthesis) affects us once again prompting a continuation of the cycle. Nuclear power is a great example of man righting nature to his own needs not with the hackjob of a solution that wind and solar energy provide, killing birds with its monstrous blades and overheating the planet with its silicon elements, but by splitting the atom, the most basic and safest element of what nature provides.

Again, history marches on. Of course the capitalist class has become the ruling class in this stage of it but it holds much less of a stranglehold than did the feudal or the emperors of empires of antiquity. Otherwise, would human development ever have accelerated at this pace, to quote Marx and Engels, "in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kiroff:


That the relationship with nature is dialectical is no question, as Marx himself put it in the first chapters of Capital.

Well, that isn't proof.


It is rather simple, we are both affected by nature (thesis) and transform it ourselves in response (antithesis). However, the result of the transformation on us (synthesis)

This isn't Hegel's or Marx's method, but Kant and Fichte's. On that see here:

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


Nuclear power is a great example of man righting nature to his own needs not with the hackjob of a solution that wind and solar energy provide, killing birds with its monstrous blades and overheating the planet with its silicon elements, but by splitting the atom, the most basic and safest element of what nature provides.

But, you have yet to show how this is in any way 'dialectical'.

Now, the moderators here take a dim view of threads being de-railed, so if you want to discuss this further, please take it into the Philosophy section.


Again, history marches on.

You seem to think history has legs.


Of course the capitalist class has become the ruling class in this stage of it but it holds much less of a stranglehold than did the feudal or the emperors of empires of antiquity. Otherwise, would human development ever have accelerated at this pace, to quote Marx and Engels, "in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages."

Maybe so, but how does that show nuclear power is safe?

[Robespierre Richard]

Well, that isn't proof.

Sure it is.


This isn't Hegel's or Marx's method, but Kant and Fichte's. On that see here:

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

It is a simplification of terms but it's close enough.


But, you have yet to show how this is in any way 'dialectical'.

Do not derail and misconstrue what I say. It is definitely dialectical as I successfully demonstrated.


You seem to think history has legs.

It's a metaphor.


Maybe so, but how does that show nuclear power is safe?

That addresses your second point and not the first. If you wanted to talk about the safety of nuclear power you would not get tangled up in some confusions you appear to have about the power of dialectics, and instead address it directly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kiroff, did you not see this?


the moderators here take a dim view of threads being de-railed, so if you want to discuss this further, please take it into the Philosophy section.

I'll be happy to debate this with you in the philosophy section.

Would you like me to start a thread there?

[Robespierre Richard]

Kiroff, did you not see this?



I'll be happy to debate this with you in the philosophy section.

Would you like me to start a thread there?

If you have no doubts about the safety of nuclear energy then alright, because that's what my post was mostly about until you started splitting it up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, you are the one who used the word 'dialectical', not me.

[Robespierre Richard]

Do you have a problem with the way I see things, Rosa? Because if you do you should have responded separetely. This thread is about nuclear power issues and Japan.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have told you what the problem is, and if you want to defend your 'dialectical' view, then there is a place to do it, and that's not here.

[bcbm]

Of course the capitalist class has become the ruling class in this stage of it but it holds much less of a stranglehold than did the feudal or the emperors of empires of antiquity.

how so?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kiroff:


Sure it is.

Well, it's proof only if Marx is a divine and omniscient being. Now, I'm a Marxist, but not even I believe this. Do you?


It is a simplification of terms but it's close enough.

It's not close, and it's a method that Marx parodied for its crudity, and so did Plekhanov and Lenin.

But, let us suppose you are right:


It is rather simple, we are both affected by nature (thesis) and transform it ourselves in response (antithesis). However, the result of the transformation on us (synthesis)

This could only be true if nature is Mind, and was capable of forming a thesis.


It is definitely dialectical as I successfully demonstrated.

You asserted it, but did not demonstrate it.


It's a metaphor.

In that case it's an inapt metaphor.


If you wanted to talk about the safety of nuclear power you would not get tangled up in some confusions you appear to have about the power of dialectics, and instead address it directly.

1. The only 'power' dialectics has is to confuse things.

2. You are the one who mentioned 'dialectics' not me.

3. I did address this in my replies to other comrades.

--------------------------------------

MarxSchmarx, thanks for splitting this from Science.

[ChrisK]

That the relationship with nature is dialectical is no question, as Marx himself put it in the first chapters of Capital. It is rather simple, we are both affected by nature (thesis) and transform it ourselves in response (antithesis). However, the result of the transformation on us (synthesis) affects us once again prompting a continuation of the cycle. Nuclear power is a great example of man righting nature to his own needs not with the hackjob of a solution that wind and solar energy provide, killing birds with its monstrous blades and overheating the planet with its silicon elements, but by splitting the atom, the most basic and safest element of what nature provides.

I'm sorry, but how at all is that dialectical? I fail to see any contradiction between nature and human production.


Again, history marches on. Of course the capitalist class has become the ruling class in this stage of it but it holds much less of a stranglehold than did the feudal or the emperors of empires of antiquity. Otherwise, would human development ever have accelerated at this pace, to quote Marx and Engels, "in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages."

I think you are misunderstanding Marx and Engels. If anything, the capitalist class has the ultimate strangle hold by having private ownership of the means of production. In other systems outlined by Marx and Engels, such as oriental despotism, the idea was there was communal property that was owned by the emperor, but that everyone had a stake in it.

Clearly private ownership is a far greater hold than communal ownership.

[greenwarbler]

You seem to think history has legs.

I was led to believe history was an extra-dimensional being with infinite number of appendages and which breathes fire. Did I go wrong, somewhere?