The Great Debate: On Dialectics

[ComradeRed]

This is one of the contraversial areas of Marxism within itself, ironically enough. The neo-Marxists oppose it, while the Orthodox Marxists adopt it. I am sure if Marx had been alive 50 years earlier, it would have been reason he'd employ(as opposed to "revalation").

At any rate, Hegel created a philosophic idea. He then tried to apply to other fields in the most bombastic manner. But Marx, in the words of Redstar2000, "was a product of his intellectual era...in his case, his youthful studies took place at a time when philosophy was under the shadow of that Prussian charlatan Hegel." Marx applied what he learned from "his youthful studies" to Political Economy and the Social Sciences.

Of course, this all combined into the belief of Marxism. Does it really matter, at this point, whether we accept dialectics as opposed to reason?

People have misused dialectics, wielding them as tools for voodoo; however, that is not their purpose. The purpose of dialectics is a specific form of reason, just like logic.

Yet is it accpetable to totally reject dialectics? Hegel's main points are common sense(now). His thesis-antithesis-synthesis relation is as reasonable as logic. Why reject it?

[Djehuti]

I think that the construction of the dialectic logic was very important, since all logic before Hegel suffered from a very big problem - it could not handle movement (hence all those stupid problems that the logics of old battled, like Achilleus and the turtle, the arrow that never reaches its target, the river of Herakleitos, etc).


1: Dialectics taught us movement and process. It taught us that change is possible,
that the only thing that never changes is that everything changes.

2: Dialectics also taught us not to divide existence in static oppositions, wich we give an almost teological dignity, like:
Black - white, good - evil, masculin - feminin, etc. Ofcource these oppositions exist in reality in some way or another.

The problem is that we make metaphysics out of them, wemix up image with model, we start to believe that our contradictions is reality, and not defective verbal models of an enormously more concrete, complex, shifting and ambiguous reality. Basicly, the difference between dialectic thoughts and non-dialectic thoughts is the same as between materialism and idealism. In this deeper sense, dialectics is a obligation to a concrete analysis, an obligation not to dismiss reality by putting an old label on it.

Even though many people today accept many parts of dialectics as common sence,
I still believe that it still has alot of uses to us.

[redstar2000]

To make a thorough analysis of the "place" of "dialectics" in intellectual history is undoubtedly a task beyond my limited abilities.

No doubt a case could be made that Hegel's "dialectics" played an initially progressive role in spreading the general idea of human social evolution -- that things don't just "happen" in some chaotic fashion without direction.

And perhaps this supplied a crucial "scaffold" which Marx could use to erect his own theories of the "laws" of history.

But frankly, I think by the time of the Communist Manifesto if not a few years earlier, Marx had moved beyond philosophy and into the realm of scientific investigation of social reality.

Defenders of "dialectics" will argue, of course, that just because Marx had stopped writing about philosophy doesn't mean that a "dialectical understanding" didn't inform the real work of his maturity.

This may even be, technically speaking, a true statement.

What I have argued is that he didn't need to do that.

That everything Marx had to say about the evolution of human societies in the real world could have been said using the common scientific language of his day and ours. The idea that the world changes was already gaining ground in his time...even among circles who'd never heard of Hegel. The new science of geology, in particular, was convulsed in a heated debate between "gradualists" and "catastrophists" (in the end, we've learned that both sides were right).

Even evolution in animals and plants was widely discussed -- the pressing difficulty was discovering a plausible mechanism for making it happen.

That was then; this is now.

What I still await is a convincing demonstration of the "special utility" of "dialectics".

Specifically, I want to see...

1. Someone use "dialectics" to demonstrate a hither-to unsuspected property of some real-world phenomenon.

2. Having done this, then prove that this property is real with ordinary scientific methodology.

3. And finally and most importantly, demonstrate that there was no other path to this discovery except "dialectics".

Science does not care about the source of your ideas -- you can "use" "dialectics", astrology, or "divine revelation" if you wish. It only cares if your ideas can be demonstrated to be true.

In other words, you can't get away, in science, with suggestions that "dialectical truths" are "higher" than ordinary truths and "therefore" not subject to ordinary empirical verification.

Nor can you reply to your critics in lofty tones, "you have simply failed to grasp the dialectic."

In the 20th century, various Leninist leaders and parties claimed, quite seriously, to be able to "use" "dialectics" to predict the future in useful detail...Lenin himself did so, in fact.

Occasionally, they got one right -- usually they were wrong and sometimes badly wrong.

Any device or formula that will generate random outcomes can also be "used" to "predict the future in useful detail"...and will have the same outcome. Occasionally right...but usually wrong.

If "dialectics" appeals to you, try the tarot or the I Ching -- they are probably more fun to "use"...and just as reliable.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

Nor can you reply to your critics in lofty tones, "you have simply failed to grasp the dialectic."
But what if we dont'? What if we don't use dialectics to predict, or anything of the sort, but simply to explain the way change happens. Taking dialectics for what it is, a model of change in flowing societal systems, rather than some sort of catch-all tool or formula to predict the future.

The idea that small changes and events accumulate until they precipitate massive change, revolution, can still be used. Not to predict anything, when that revolution will come or anything of the sort, but to always interpret our small victories as one step forward. Quantitative changes add up until they trigger something entirely new, a qualitative change.

It's not a scientific formula, merely a way to explain how revolutions are a natural part of our history. It's use is more for propaganda in my mind, than it is as a scientific fromula. Obviously without necessarily mentioning the word "dialectics" to most people, merely the ideas, that's what's important. Being able to explain that history has always been a clash between classes, that minor conflicts build and build until they become revolutionary conflicts.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[ComradeRed]

I think that the construction of the dialectic logic was very important, since all logic before Hegel suffered from a very big problem - it could not handle movement (hence all those stupid problems that the logics of old battled, like Achilleus and the turtle, the arrow that never reaches its target, the river of Herakleitos, etc).
Well, philosophically speaking, I would call it "dialectic reasoning" as opposed to logic for several reasons: 1) "Logic" is premised reasoning with the goal to discover validity, not truth! That is very important which I cannot stress enough. 2) Dialectics can be used for anything, even if it isn't what they were "designed" for.

However, you make a point: dialectics explain for "movement" in reasoning. This is where other forms of reasoning fail!


Even though many people today accept many parts of dialectics as common sence, I still believe that it still has alot of uses to us. I don't agree. There are certain uses to it which haven't been used before. But, it cannot be used for voodoo! Previous dialecticians took it as a theory for everything...including the supernatural! That is the realm of bull shit, and not one form of reason could explain it.


Originally posted by Redstar2000
Defenders of "dialectics" will argue, of course, that just because Marx had stopped writing about philosophy doesn't mean that a "dialectical understanding" didn't inform the real work of his maturity.

This may even be, technically speaking, a true statement.

What I have argued is that he didn't need to do that.
This is a tricky arguement, largely because neither of us know whether it was Marx's genius which gave him his theory or his dialectics...or both! He may have been able to do so with or without dialectics, but we will never know!


That everything Marx had to say about the evolution of human societies in the real world could have been said using the common scientific language of his day and ours. The idea that the world changes was already gaining ground in his time...even among circles who'd never heard of Hegel. The new science of geology, in particular, was convulsed in a heated debate between "gradualists" and "catastrophists" (in the end, we've learned that both sides were right).
The idea that the world changes was woven into the fabric of society; it wouldn't matter if the people didn't know who Hegel was or what his dialectics were, because it blended into the fabric of society.


Even evolution in animals and plants was widely discussed -- the pressing difficulty was discovering a plausible mechanism for making it happen. Yes, the methods which I have read about were cartoonish and absurd; like Lamack's belief of the giraffes who stretched their necks and passed it off to their offspring. Pre-Darwinist Evolution was then known as Lamarckism. It could have been Darwin but it could also have been his Reasoning. We'll never know!


What I still await is a convincing demonstration of the "special utility" of "dialectics".

Specifically, I want to see...

1. Someone use "dialectics" to demonstrate a hither-to unsuspected property of some real-world phenomenon.

2. Having done this, then prove that this property is real with ordinary scientific methodology.

3. And finally and most importantly, demonstrate that there was no other path to this discovery except "dialectics".

Science does not care about the source of your ideas -- you can "use" "dialectics", astrology, or "divine revelation" if you wish. It only cares if your ideas can be demonstrated to be true. So you want a dialectician to "discover" something which logic cannot create, but science does not care if dialectics are used or not? And this is the grounds you reject dialectics on? What difference would it matter if you rejected it or didn't? Using dialectics is like using the freeway to get from LA to New York, whereas logic takes surface streets. Its just a matter of method.


In the 20th century, various Leninist leaders and parties claimed, quite seriously, to be able to "use" "dialectics" to predict the future in useful detail...Lenin himself did so, in fact. Think for a moment: what has Leninism EVER interpreted correctly from Marxism??

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)Quantitative changes add up until they trigger something entirely new, a qualitative change.[/b]

Yes, that happens sometimes. And sometimes quantitative changes "cancel each other out" and nothing very important happens.

Not to mention the difficulty of identifying the crucial "quantitative" change that will "break the camel's back".

Imagine over the next few years or even a decade that the U.S. dollar more or less steadily drops against the value of other major currencies...but it does so in small increments -- it doesn't just drop like a rock.

According to "dialectics" these small changes will, at some point, generate a "qualitative" change. International capitalists will suddenly rush, lemming-like, to dump dollars at any price and the value of the dollar will drop like a rock!

But, oddly enough, you don't need "dialectics" to figure out that something like that might well happen...because it's happened before.

Many times.

A layman's knowledge of history is more than sufficient to raise that possibility for any currency that declines in value in small increments over a period of time.


...that minor conflicts build and build until they become revolutionary conflicts.

That also sometimes happens...but mostly it doesn't. There's a constant "background noise" of class struggle in capitalist societies -- for reasons that no one understands, this "background" occasionally becomes the "foreground" and a massive struggle erupts that may even become revolutionary.

But "dialectics" doesn't tell you why it happens when it does and why it doesn't happen most of the time.

To say that a series of minor conflicts suddenly generated a major conflict may be true enough...but it explains nothing.

On the other hand, "dialectics" can make you sound very "wise" and even "scientific" to the uninitiated...as if you had access to "specialized knowledge" that was utterly beyond the common sense of the "rabble".

"Leaders" find this useful.


ComradeRed
This is a tricky argument, largely because neither of us know whether it was Marx's genius which gave him his theory or his dialectics...or both! He may have been able to do so with or without dialectics, but we will never know!

Actually, we could know...though not, of course, with absolute certainty.

Someone could take the corpus of today's bourgeois economic "wisdom" along with some good summaries of how capitalist economies have actually performed over the last two or three decades and see if it is possible to derive Marx's economic "laws" using ordinary scientific methodology and reasoning.

I'm 99.999% certain that it could be done...though it would be a task far beyond my talents to accomplish. It might even take a team of energetic, young and very bright Marxists to pull it off...and perhaps some very sophisticated "modeling" software.

Marx was a real genius...right up there with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. It would take a lot to "equal" him.

But I think we "merely talented" mortals could do it too...and without any regard to the "laws of dialectics" whatsoever.

Certainly any serious student of history could derive historical materialism from the evidence alone.

Class struggle is an obvious phenomenon, as is technological innovation, changes in class structure, etc. People were getting glimpses of this even years before Marx's birth.


The idea that the world changes was woven into the fabric of society; it wouldn't matter if the people didn't know who Hegel was or what his dialectics were, because it blended into the fabric of society.

Not before 1789 it wasn't -- indeed, there was vigorous argument throughout the 19th century on whether change was a "real" or an "apparent" phenomenon.

Indeed, it continues to this day...in arguments over "human nature", for example.

I suppose a supporter of "dialectics" could attempt to argue that humans "think dialectically" but they are usually "not conscious" of doing so.

But I don't find that a very compelling "argument" -- we could be a "whole bunch of things" and just usually "not conscious" of being those things.

"Brains in vats", for example.


What difference would it matter if you rejected it or didn't? Using dialectics is like using the freeway to get from LA to New York, whereas logic takes surface streets. It's just a matter of method.

No, I think your analogy is very misleading.

It is, in fact, the scientific method that is "the freeway" -- the road that takes you where you want to go in the minimum amount of time and with the minimum number of possible errors.

"Dialectics" is not only a complicated network of surface streets...but you have to name each street yourself. Neither social nor natural phenomena come with little tags attached -- "major contradiction", "minor contradiction", "thesis", "antithesis", "synthesis", etc., etc.

Even worse, there's no independent check on your "map" -- some other "dialectician" could show up with a completely different "map".

In fact, it's a rather sobering thought: two people who want to drive from LA to New York using only "dialectics" to find their way. :o It wouldn't surprise me if they ended up in Panama! :lol:

Finally, let me clarify a point I made at the end of my previous post.

I said that science doesn't care what method you use to come up with an idea -- a hypothesis...it only cares if your idea actually works; can be demonstrated scientifically to be true.

Some methods, however, are more "respectable" than others. If you inform your colleagues that your latest hypothesis originated as a product of a tarot reading, a personal message from the "Virgin Mary", or a "dialectical" consideration of the problem, you may find it difficult to get your idea taken seriously.

What working scientists actually do is "reason backward" -- construct a chain of logical reasoning that shows "why" the new idea originated in previous research and discovery. Even if the truth is that they got the idea from something their 5-year-old said. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

I was always sort of undecided as to the usefulness and validity of dialectics. Recently however, I have found it to be very useful.

I found myself having what I considered to be rather complex problems and really had no idea how to sort through them. Using dialectics, I was able to break the problem down into parts that made it easier to understand and analyze. I come to a decision, and it seems to have been the right one (I apologize for being vague here, it was personal problems I was having that I don't want to get into).

However, I cannot see how anyone can think of dialectics as a science. Did I find it useful and helpful? Yes. Did I still have to scientifically investigate the merits of the conclusion I reached? Of course.

So, while dialectics can be a useful supplement, I agree with RS2k that it is so substitute for real science.

[ComradeRed]

I'll be taking it a little out of order this time...


I said that science doesn't care what method you use to come up with an idea -- a hypothesis...it only cares if your idea actually works; can be demonstrated scientifically to be true.

I believe we both can agree here that when a thing is demonstrated scientifically, it is repeatable. We can demonstrate the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc. through repeatable tests.



Someone could take the corpus of today's bourgeois economic "wisdom" along with some good summaries of how capitalist economies have actually performed over the last two or three decades and see if it is possible to derive Marx's economic "laws" using ordinary scientific methodology and reasoning.

I'm 99.999% certain that it could be done...though it would be a task far beyond my talents to accomplish. It might even take a team of energetic, young and very bright Marxists to pull it off...and perhaps some very sophisticated "modeling" software. And this is where my first point comes in: economics is not repeatable because humans won't react the same way in the same situation. It is impossible for economics to use the scientific method.


Marx was a real genius...right up there with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. It would take a lot to "equal" him. No contest here from that notion. But the ideas Marx "created" were affected by his reasoning. The dialectical "method" "creates" different ideas than Aristotlean logic.


Certainly any serious student of history could derive historical materialism from the evidence alone. Well, its easier to say that now as opposed to 300 years ago. The ideas of materialism is considerably influential since Marx's era, it too has been woven into the fabric of society.


Not before 1789 it wasn't -- indeed, there was vigorous argument throughout the 19th century on whether change was a "real" or an "apparent" phenomenon.

Indeed, it continues to this day...in arguments over "human nature", for example.
Touché. It was Rousseau, if I am not mistaken, that sparked this. But he held strong points on the issue of nurture, which Hegel was fascinated by.

But by that time, it was John Locke's ideas of "tabula rasa" which, in turn, affected Rousseau.

Rousseau was merely restating Locke's ideas in a different perspective, which aggrevated the supporters of Human nature. It was already entrenched in the scene before either Rousseau or Hegel came to it.


I suppose a supporter of "dialectics" could attempt to argue that humans "think dialectically" but they are usually "not conscious" of doing so.

But I don't find that a very compelling "argument" -- we could be a "whole bunch of things" and just usually "not conscious" of being those things.
I don't agree, human nature of any kind is bull shit.


It is, in fact, the scientific method that is "the freeway" -- the road that takes you where you want to go in the minimum amount of time and with the minimum number of possible errors. First, are you siding with inductive reasoning or Aristotlean logic?

Second, I see your point. And its a damn good one. In retrospect the two should be switched, yet it should be noted that Dialectics figure out every nook and cranny. As a matter of fact, you once "simplified" Das Kapital into about 10 points.

But, the problem is there is more than that! For example, you left out the circulation of commodities, the variable capital, etc. Those ideas are fairly substantial in the books.

You "could" go from "given" to "prove" in two steps, but with dialectics you figure everything out! As a matter of fact, Marx theorized the formula which the Chicago Skool of Vulgar Economics is famous for in vol. I of Das Kapital(!). Of course, he could have simplified it and said those 10 points you stated...but he was looking to understand capitalism, not just explain why its unjust.


Some methods, however, are more "respectable" than others. If you inform your colleagues that your latest hypothesis originated as a product of a tarot reading, a personal message from the "Virgin Mary", or a "dialectical" consideration of the problem, you may find it difficult to get your idea taken seriously. Actually, more than 9 times out of 10 I'd guerantee the scientist would ask "Oh? What is that?"

I was a volunteer at NASA a few years back(a requirement to graduate school), and the scientists didn't seem to really care about philosophy...either because they have better things to do or they haven't studied it. More often than not it was the former, they don't care how you get the idea so long as you got it!


What working scientists actually do is "reason backward" -- construct a chain of logical reasoning that shows "why" the new idea originated in previous research and discovery. Even if the truth is that they got the idea from something their 5-year-old said. Yes, one "could" do that with dialectics...I did it during a philosophical debate differentiating truth from validity. True, it is not science, but it can be done.

[ComradeRed]

So, while dialectics can be a useful supplement, I agree with RS2k that it is so substitute for real science. I did not know that it was "supposed to be" a science, I always thought of it as a form of reasoning, like deductive reasoning. Perhaps that's why RS2k and I do not meet eye to eye on the issue...

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:40 PM

So, while dialectics can be a useful supplement, I agree with RS2k that it is so substitute for real science. I did not know that it was "supposed to be" a science, I always thought of it as a form of reasoning, like deductive reasoning. Perhaps that's why RS2k and I do not meet eye to eye on the issue...
Many Leninists, Maoists in particular, treat it as a real science.

[Guest1]

First, let me clarify I'm already having some issues being able to keep up with this debate, because of the philosophical undercurrent in it, and my limited understanding of both that field and "the dialectic" itself.

That being out of the way. I wasn't speaking of dialectics as a science either. I said let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, in otherwords there are some things that need to be thrown out.

And I said I believe it cannot, and should not, be used as a tool of prediction.

Rather, it should be used as a method of understanding the dynamics of change. Nothing more, nothing less.

The idea that opposing forces are constantly interacting in society is integral to Marxism, and the ideas that class war Socialists advocate.

Of course, in order to keep up with you guys, I had to look up "dialectics for kids" (it does exist) :lol: This is what I found, and it kind of explains just why it's so confusing to debate this. Because we aren't talking about one idea.


One--Every thing (every object and every process) is made of opposing forces/opposing sides.

Two--Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other.

Three--Change moves in spirals, not circles.
(from "what the heck is dialectics?" (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm))

I don't see anything wrong with the above statements, especially if we limit ourselves to using it as an explanation of the process by which society changes. Not predicting, explaining. Loose example, that strikes build together until they lead to general strikes, which build into factory occupations, which is the basis of our revolution.

Not to say this is how it will happen, or that this always happens, but to set out our tasks, and explain just how it is that these changes that seem impossible actually are attainable.

Furthermore, even when it does fail, it still moves us forward. History is on our side, because despite the ebbs and flows of progressive and radical movements, history is not circular but spiral. So we are still moving in the right direction.

Anyways, without using big words, without even using the words "dialectic" or "thesis", it can be useful merely as a way of explaining our way of seeing history and conflict. It is the basis for class analysis really. And the more widespread the understanding of it is, the less elites can claim to know better than us, right? Knowledge is the best way to fight that kind of tyranny is it not?

Sites like that, explaining how simple it is, are especially useful :P

Though... it does leave me with the question of what dynamic of opposites would exist in post-revolutionary society... since classes will be abolished...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed) And this is where my first point comes in: economics is not repeatable because humans won't react the same way in the same situation. It is impossible for economics to use the scientific method.[/b]

No, I think that's far too limited a view. After all, evolution is not "repeatable" and yet no one would deny that scientists use the scientific method when studying evolution.

Granted, we don't have it as "easy" as physical scientists -- human societies and interactions are far more complicated than physical processes.

And we'll probably never understand them in the sense that we've learned to understand physical processes in nature.

But try we must.


As a matter of fact, you once "simplified" Das Kapital into about 10 points.

No, you give me too much credit. :P

Marx actually wrote two "popular summaries" of his economic ideas, Wage Labour and Capital and Value, Price and Profit.

They are far more instructive than anything I could write.


I did not know that it was "supposed to be" a science, I always thought of it as a form of reasoning, like deductive reasoning.

That's one way to look at "dialectics" and far superior to treating it as "the key to hidden mysteries" like the Leninists do.

But it's still inadequate -- how can we reasonably expect the complexities of human societies to neatly fall into only two opposing forces?

Why not "trialectics"? Or "quadrilectics"?

In practical terms, how many times have you run into a complex problem and had to put up with some dummy demanding that you "choose" either "this" or "that"? When you knew damn well that there were a substantial number of possible solutions, several of which were deserving of further investigation.

Even Das Kapital is, in a sense, an over-simplification -- there are complexities in class structure and inter-class struggle that go far beyond a simple struggle between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat".

One outstanding example of this occurred in Germany in the 1920s. For a half-dozen years or so, there was a "working alliance" between Social Democracy and those German industries that were export-oriented.

I'm sure a "dialectical" "explanation" of this unusual phenomenon could be constructed after the fact...but, in fact, neither the "dialecticians" in the KPD or the Comintern even noticed.

Trying to "cram" the real world into a "dialectical frame" is, in my opinion, a waste of time and energy that would be better spent on more productive efforts.


what the heck is dialectics
One--Every thing (every object and every process) is made of opposing forces/opposing sides.

Two--Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other.

Three--Change moves in spirals, not circles.

Why just "two" opposing forces? Why not three? Or 577?

Why don't "brief, sharp changes" (as opposed to "gradual changes") lead immediately to even briefer and sharper changes?

Why "spirals"? Perhaps they look "neat" and even "mathematical"...but then that wouldn't be a very good reflection of what change looks like in the real world, would it?

The real world is "messy" and changes are sloppy and partial most of the time.

If we stand far enough back and look at "the big picture" we can see some "order" in what has happened over the last 60 or 70 centuries of recorded history. That's "some", not "perfect".

I think it very unlikely that a "best fit" of the data points would generate a spiral. In fact, I think you'd end up with a "curve" requiring dozens of dimensions to accurately express.

The world is "divisible" by many more numbers than two.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A Site About Communist Ideas

[ComradeRed]

That's one way to look at "dialectics" and far superior to treating it as "the key to hidden mysteries" like the Leninists do.

But it's still inadequate -- how can we reasonably expect the complexities of human societies to neatly fall into only two opposing forces?

Why not "trialectics"? Or "quadrilectics"? Because you can divide anything into two. You can keep dividing into two until you decide to stop.

Its easy to stop after one division and say "Society is composed of two classes", but you can keep on dividing! The bourgeois and the petit bourgeois form the bourgeois class. The petit bourgeois can be divided even further! The managers, the meager politicians would constitute the petit bourgeois...and we can divide even further!


Why don't "brief, sharp changes" (as opposed to "gradual changes") lead immediately to even briefer and sharper changes? Those "brief, sharp changes" could be viewed as a form of gradual changes, which would lead to changes briefer and sharper than the first.


Why "spirals"? Perhaps they look "neat" and even "mathematical"...but then that wouldn't be a very good reflection of what change looks like in the real world, would it?

The real world is "messy" and changes are sloppy and partial most of the time. Well, spiral in this sense is meaning moving...as opposed to circles repeating itself. Like when a plane spirals out of control, it doesn't glide in circles until it crashes...it spins in a non-circular motion.


Though... it does leave me with the question of what dynamic of opposites would exist in post-revolutionary society... since classes will be abolished... When there is no thesis, there won't be an antithesis.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
Because you can divide anything into two. You can keep dividing into two until you decide to stop.

Or three. Or four. Or 577!

What's the "holy significance" of "2"?

Hegel couldn't count any higher? :lol:

I'm sorry but I see no "special" significance in the number two except that it's small and even...and perhaps easier for some folks to grasp.

That doesn't mean it has any unique usefulness in explaining the real world. Some problems can be usefully reduced to "either/or"...but many others cannot.

Except in words, of course. I've yet to run into a "dialectician" who proposes that wave-particle duality is a case of "the unity of opposites"...but I'm confident that one will try.


Well, spiral in this sense is meaning moving...as opposed to circles repeating itself.

But no one (by now!) questions the fact of movement; what is in dispute is that if you plotted a large number of "points" describing that movement, would you indeed get a "spiral-looking" diagram as a "best fit curve" for the data?

It's possible...but I would be shocked speechless if it actually turned out that way!

People who assert that it is now are just offering a "declaration of faith"...in a particularly improbable divinity.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

Or three. Or four. Or 577!

What's the "holy significance" of "2"?
Well, here are my answers to that question(others may not agree with me on this issue):

In dialectics every thing has opposites...you could have more than one opposite, but one can't reason 577 things at once(consciously). You could take one at a time.

Two is the first prime number, and also a construct of man; and as you pointed out, its even...yeah, that's not much of a reason, is it? :lol:




what is in dispute is that if you plotted a large number of "points" describing that movement, would you indeed get a "spiral-looking" diagram as a "best fit curve" for the data? What "data" are you talking about? It's not the "scientific" "UFT" the Leninists make it out to be, it's a form of reason.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
What "data" are you talking about? It's not the "scientific" "UFT" the Leninists make it out to be, it's a form of reason.

Well, this is getting to be pretty thin air for me.

What does it literally mean to say "things move in spirals"?

Doesn't it mean, in ordinary language, that if you plot the points of movement, the figure that will emerge is a spiral?

On the other hand, if you're just talking about "thoughts"...then isn't it simply a matter of arranging things so that they "look like mental spirals"?

In science, we say something like: under initial conditions A, the presence of phenomenon B will, over time, result in the emergence of phenomenon C.

And then we can plot that movement on a chart (at least in principle).

What do the "dialecticians" say? It varies, but I suppose it would run something like: Every phenomenon will, over time, split into opposing phenomenon, one of which will eventually dominate the other. Once dominant, then it too will split.

That's the Maoist version, anyway. If you diagrammed it, it would look like an evolutionary bush with species constantly going extinct.

But it's not a spiral -- there's no "intrinsic higher quality" to any particular point in the process. You could plot it in two dimensions.

(Note that Stephen J. Gould, who was very much a student of "dialectics", proposed exactly this model for understanding evolution -- not a "tree of ascending life" but a "sprawling bush of life". The problem with his model, in my view, is that it really ignores the emergent property of complexity.)

One could argue that this is "not" what Hegel (or Marx) had in mind. In fact, trying to "pin down" the "laws of dialectics" seems to be a fairly convoluted endeavor. What does one make of "the negation of the negation", for example?

If anyone really has their heart set on learning to "reason dialectically", there probably isn't anything I could say that will discourage them.

But when they emerge from their study and offer descriptions of or proposals for actions that relate to the real world, then I will challenge them according to the methods of scientific reasoning.

What is the evidence for your hypothesis?

And they'd better have real answers as I flatly refuse to be intimidated by "dialectical" flim-flam.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

First, my name is "ComradeRed" not "RedComrade".

Second, I must confess that I had to go to "dialectics for kids" as I am still working and weaving my way through The Science of Logic.


Do changes go around and around like day and night, winter and summer, always coming back to where they started? Or is there really a spiral, sort of like a circle, but not coming back to the same place.

The example was cited: "An Acorn falls in the woods. It sprouts into a tree that eventually makes new, and different Acorns." 25 other schmaltzy examples. (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/spiralaz.htm)

For a more "adult explanation" they cited:
But we can see that many cycles do come around to a different place --children are not the same as their parents, even if they are a lot alike. People go to school and learn; when they return home, they are no longer the same. And, like it or not, you are a bit older with every breath.
And now...its time for dialectics: the musical! (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/music2.htm) :lol:

[redstar2000]

Sorry about the mistake in your username -- I corrected it.

But I didn't really make the error -- it was Windows XP© that did it. :lol:



It seems to me that human history cannot be realistically portrayed as either linear, exponential, or spiral-like...although those metaphors may have a certain limited utility in discussing specific social changes.

The problem of history is to figure out, on the basis of incomplete evidence, what really happened and why.

Mathematical metaphors of any kind are just not very helpful...and worse, give the impression of "precision" where none, in fact, exists and may not even be possible.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)


A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

Your refering to dialectical materialism, I presume. If not, just ignore this post...

Frankly, dialectical materialism is putting two philosophical concepts into the cosmic blender to create a concept which requires not intellectual acrobatics, but an intellectual circus. Materialism(valid philosophic idea on its own) + Dialectics(valid philosophic concept on its own) = Dialectical Materialism(most fucked up Leninist philosophic concept ever).

Dialectical Materialism is, at most, as valid as Historical Materialism...if someone prefers one method, one may knock oneself out with it. It's like choosing between two bicycle, one red, the other green, and asking which one will go faster...they'll go just as fast as each other at best.

However, dialectical materialism is not the same as dialectics...one was thought up by a Russian crackpot, the other a German one. The German one, though, got a few things right...the Russian is, thus far, getting a score of zero-everything.

[Guest1]

Once again, Dialecticalism is just a method of interpreting reality, not a science.

Kind of like having a whole shitload of data you could try to interpret case by case, but it becomes easier to notice general trends when you break it up into general opposites, political spectrums, etc.

It is a philosophy, nothing more. It is not a replacement for science, it just makes trends and understanding them easier. Philosophy, not science (though it can help establish trends to be researched scientifically if one were so inclined).

Negation of the negation (shown metaphorically by the spiral):

Traditional reasoning: A becomes not A, not A becomes not not A. Not not A = A

Dialectical reasoning: A becomes not A, not A becomes not not A, not not A = something entirely new

That's the spiral metaphor, that change upon change is not a reversion back. It is a rejection of circular thinking, that is all. It is not meant to be a scientific plot. It is a philosophical idea really, just a way to see things in one's life and the world around you. It's a worldview that coincides with Marxism in that it defines the world by the very process of change in which it is involved. I've found it kind of interesting actually, though to attempt to create science out of it, rather than use it simply as an intellectual framework by which to breakdown scientific facts into understandable processes of change, would be lunacy.

It is preferable to other philosophical methods because of its emphasis on change, which is very much compatible with both the scientific method and our revolutionary ideas.

Just as class society is not just made up of "proletarians against the bourgeoisie", neither is the world made up of just these opposites. But it makes corrctly understanding complex systems much easier by splitting it up in such a way merely for understanding what forces of change are involved, and what direction things move.

I know I sound very vague and whatever, but that's the point. It's not science. It's a framework. And anything created from that framework but not based on real evidence rightfully deserves your deepest scorn as the lie that it would be. Just as with any other intellectual framework.

As for it being unintelligeable, like I said "negation of the negation" is the spiral thingy, and it's just a 3 part framework, nothing more to it.

[Guest1]

Feel free to tear into that by the way, I'm still trying to get back on my feet philosophically :P

The traditional logic thing, ComradeRed would probably know what I'm referring to and if it's tru, please correct me if I'm wrong. That's just the way it's been explained to me.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Materialism(valid philosophic idea on its own)

Certainly. In fact, any other postulate that something exists beyond material reality, even if it weren't absurd, is ultimately useless. It serves only to complicate a model of understanding without offering any explanations. If I am to talk about "God" or "Soul" I might as soon base my life around any flight of fancy? And to what end? The reality of daily life is best approached as such: the reality of daily life.


Dialectics(valid philosophic concept on its own)

Are you on crack? How familiar are you with Hegel? An idealist philosophy based on the silly postulate of metaphisical constructs dualing it out, and forcing humanity forward to the end of history? Hell, on top of the fact that dialectic can't be valid if we assume materialism to be valid, it's been revealed, and rather obviously, to be just plain wrong (The Austro-Hungarian Empire really wasn't the end of historical development! Whaddaya know?).


Dialectical Materialism

Is vague enough that it's not wrong, it's just fairly useless.
It's also difficult to show that history develops in any given direction. Certainly, the facts of human social relations develop, but to read into them any particular direction in the sense of a forward-process is . . . well, it suggests there's still a bit too much of Hegel's idealism kicking around in Marx(ism/ist circles/, the church of/etc.).

[redstar2000]

To assert that "dialectics" is "just another form of reasoning" raises questions.

One of them is: is it "better" than ordinary scientific reasoning?

No one has ever demonstrated that it is.

Another is: is it "just as good" as ordinary scientific reasoning?

No one has ever demonstrated that, either.

Why then do we talk about it at all? Because Marx and Engels took it seriously, "therefore" there "must" be "something to it"?

Oh?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail)In fact, any other postulate that something exists beyond material reality, even if it weren't absurd, is ultimately useless.[/b] Philosophically speaking, all postulates are useless...of course, realistically speaking, they're still useless!


Are you on crack? Shhh!!!! Don't tell anyone :D


How familiar are you with Hegel? I am fairly "knowledgeable" with his writings...depending on the writing, of course. I think, however, it's not Hegel's writings but my interpretation of it.


It's also difficult to show that history develops in any given direction. Certainly, the facts of human social relations develop, but to read into them any particular direction in the sense of a forward-process is . . . well, it suggests there's still a bit too much of Hegel's idealism kicking around in Marx(ism/ist circles/, the church of/etc.).Well, I am not talking about historical materialism but the leninist distortion of dialectical materialism. The latter is dead wrong.


An idealist philosophy based on the silly postulate of metaphisical constructs dualing it out, and forcing humanity forward to the end of history? Hell, on top of the fact that dialectic can't be valid if we assume materialism to be valid, it's been revealed, and rather obviously, to be just plain wrong (The Austro-Hungarian Empire really wasn't the end of historical development! Whaddaya know?). I didn't say Hegel's philosophy was correct, I am saying that the dialectical method is correct.


Originally posted by [email protected]
One of them is: is it "better" than ordinary scientific reasoning? I hate to ask, but what do you exactly mean by "ordinary scientific reasoning"?


Che Y Marijuana

The traditional logic thing, ComradeRed would probably know what I'm referring to and if it's tru, please correct me if I'm wrong. That's just the way it's been explained to me. Well, here is how "traditional logic"(i.e. logic before Hegel) works: draw a circle, then draw points on the circle. Traditional logic would have you go from point to point.

Take Dialectics as the other example. Draw yet another circle. Find its center and make it a point tangent to another circle with the same radius as the first. Do the same in the second circle, and then the third, and so on and so forth. That is what Dialectics "do".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
I hate to ask, but what do you exactly mean by "ordinary scientific reasoning"?

That stuff that ordinary scientists (and people who share their methodology) "do".

They may take the history of past observations, formulate a theoretical explanation, and test that theory against new observations.

Or they may simply begin with observations, accumulate data, and then formulate a theory to explain them.

Or they may perceive a problem in existing theory, create new observations designed to examine that specific problem, and consequently generate a brand new theory.

And so on.

Of course, they do have their "dogmas"...they assume from the start that events have causes and that causes are material; they rule out all imaginable supernatural "explanations"; they assume that the "arrow of time" is unidirectional; etc.

Far from having a "static" view of things, scientists assume that change does take place...and they want to know why -- what's the mechanism?

The "dialectician" grandly informs us that "A transforms itself into B"...but a real scientist would want to know how that happens. Under what limiting conditions? And is it "always" B or is it sometimes C or even occasionally D?

"Dialectics" deals with platitudes...ordinary scientific reasoning deals with the real world -- and how to change it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[CmrdIan]

I am new to these boards so bear with me if I go over topics people have already addressed. Unfortunately, this is a bit longer than expected

WHY DIALECTICS MATTER:

"Dialectics is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought." (Engels, Anti-Dühring.)

To begin, I’d like to focus on some comments by redstar2000 that I think have been used to incorrectly frame the discussion. Take the examples:


Everything Marx had to say about the evolution of human societies in the real world could have been said using the common scientific language of his day and ours

or


But, oddly enough, you don't need "dialectics" to figure out that something like that might well happen… A layman's knowledge of history is more than sufficient.

There are numerous other examples, but I think that these two are sufficient to demonstrate that to redstar2000, dialectics is divorced from the scientific method and “layman’s” thinking—only the initiated can even practice dialectical thought according to him. Though he attempts to paint dialectics as an unnatural method of thinking in an attempt to discredit the philosophy, the most casual observer could easily show that one does not need to have read Hegel or Marx to think dialectically. Trotsky illustrates how the laws of dialectics are often used entirely unconsciously:

“Every individual is a dialectician to some extent or other, in most cases, unconsciously. A housewife knows that a certain amount of salt flavors soup agreeably, but that added salt makes the soup unpalatable. Consequently, an illiterate peasant woman guides herself in cooking soup by the Hegelian law of the transformation of quantity into quality.”

The idea that only those who have read Hegel or Marx use dialectics is just as absurd as the idea that before Aristotle, nobody could use logic.

But why can’t we just use “scientific thought” instead of this dialectical philosophy to “figure out…what really happened and why?” asks redstar2000.

“Scientific Thought”

If this method of “scientific thought” is good enough for science, why do Marxists (and perhaps more specifically, those “fucked up Leninists” (--ComradeRed)) persist in using their own special philosophy?

Once again, we face the problem of the question being framed completely wrong. “Scientific thought” is hardly the antithesis of dialectics. Take the theory of evolution, an example that has already been touched upon by redstar2000. First, Darwin’s theory of evolution was unconsciously dialectical in the first place. By studying different Galapagos finches, Darwin came the conclusion that they had common ancestors and had evolved to fill a particular niche in their ecosystem. Though this was a perfectly rational conclusion based upon the evidence he was witnessing, it was in stark contradiction to one of the laws of formal logic: “A does not equal B” (formal logic takes things in static isolation and is incapable of expressing motion or change). Darwin’s unconscious use of non-formal logic (i.e. dialectical) produced one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of biology—indeed the very concept of evolutionary change mirrors that of the dialectical law of “negation of the negation”. However, because Darwin did not consistently use dialectical thought, he supported a theory of ‘gradualism.’ Almost a century ago, the Russian Marxist Plekhanov correctly “revolted against such a misshapen conception of evolution” (to use Plekhanov’s own words) by citing Hegel himself:

“Changes in being consist not only in the fact that one quantity passes into another quantity, but also that quality passes into quality, and vice versa. Each transition of the latter kind represents an interruption in gradualness, and gives the phenomenon a new aspect, qualitatively distinct from the previous one.”

Today, the biologist Stephen J. Gould’s accepted theory of “Punctuated Equilibria” is entirely consistent with Plekhanov’s criticism.

I encourage anyone interested in learning more about the relationship between science and dialectics to read Reason In Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp) by Alan Woods and Ted Grant, which is available in full online for free.

Historical Materialism or Dialectical Thought in Practice

I consider myself fairly familiar with Marxism, but I must say I was absolutely astounded to see people on this board not only trying to disassociate dialectics from Marx, but even proclaiming that Historical Materialism had nothing in common with dialectics—frankly, I had never before read ostensible Marxists argue anything of the sort. The reason is undoubtedly because of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

As Lenin points out:

“If Marx did not leave behind him a ‘Logic’ (with a capital letter), he did leave the logic of Capital, and this ought to be utilised to the full in this question. In Capital, Marx applied to a single science logic, dialectics, and the theory of knowledge of materialism which has taken everything valuable in Hegel and developed it further." (LCW, Vol. 38).

That is to say, that though Marx was occupied with “Capital” and unable to write a comprehensive work on Dialectical Materialism, it by no means indicated that he had underwent a radical departure from his numerous earlier works that had begun to develop Marx’s dialectical materialist philosophy (such as “Anti-Duhring”, “The German Ideology”, or “Theses on Feurbach”). Even more damaging to the revisionist lie that Marx gave up dialectics is the fact that Marx’s closest collaborator, Engels, had on his death, left a pile of manuscripts, which he intended to work up into an account of dialectics, the laws of motion of nature, human society and human thought. These were published as “The Dialectics of Nature,” and despite being unfinished, are a brilliant example of dialectical materialism and its relation to science. Furthermore, Marx’s greatest work, “Capital” is itself a masterpiece in the application of dialectics to society. It would be too time consuming to elaborate on this here, but a good summary of how Marx used the Dialectical Materialist method in Capital can be found in the “Dialectical Materialism” chapter in the book, Reason in Revolt, which is already linked to above.

Likewise Marx’s Historical Materialism is clearly dialectical. The transitions between different social epochs (i.e. slave society to feudalism to capitalism) correspond directly with the dialectical concept of “Negation of the Negation” as contradictions within an existing social system (say feudalism) eventually result in its replacement by a new system (in this case, capitalism)—however, the new system (capitalism), is built from the remains of the previous system (feudalism), which in turn had been built upon the remains of a system before that (slave society), therefore the newer systems are on a higher level of social development than the old.

Incidentally, it should be mentioned that Marxists do not chose to characterize history as a progressive spiral because of any “mathematical neatness” as has been suggested (remember the spiral idea counters the view that history progresses in a linear fashion—something which would have been incomparably more “mathematically neat” if that was the objective of Marxists). That generalization is drawn directly from the law of Negation of the Negation and historical observation.

Conscious and Unconscious Application of Dialectics

It has been shown above that dialectical thought is often unconscious. However, if this is so, why is it necessary to familiarize oneself with the general laws of dialectics if you may unconsciously use them anyways? The answer lies in the process of abstraction.

In order to draw conclusions about phenomena (such as their relationships or causes) one cannot simply make an appeal to “stick to the facts.” Anyone could come up with tons of data about even the simplest event, but in order to analyze that event, it is necessary to decide which facts are more important than others, how the collected data is related, etc—that is, it is necessary to draw general conclusions from specific data. The more variables involved, the more difficult this becomes. Therefore it is much more difficult to generalize why a nation is ignited in revolution than it is to generalize why wood is ignited in a fire.

The laws of dialectics are used as guides so that it is easier to recognize the relationship between different events, something which formal logic often becomes incapable of expressing when the complexity increases. By having a thorough knowledge of dialectics, it becomes much easier to recognize social trends. It is even possible to extrapolate on trends using dialectical laws in order to make generalizations about the future. The skillful application of the dialectical method is a thousand times more accurate than mysticism (as has been suggested), but dialectical “predictions” are necessarily of a highly conditional character. Undoubtedly there will be errors of judgment, but an even greater understanding may be achieved by re-analyzing faulty logic.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Engels+--> (Engels)Dialectics is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought.[/b]

It has not been disputed that both Marx and Engels held a lofty opinion of "dialectics".

What is in dispute is: were they right or wrong?


CmrdIan
There are numerous other examples, but I think that these two are sufficient to demonstrate that to redstar2000, dialectics is divorced from the scientific method and “layman’s” thinking—only the initiated can even practice dialectical thought according to him.

Well, that's what the "dialecticians" claim...at least most of the time. Their's is a "higher form of reason" that yields "superior truths" to "vulgar pragmatism".


Though he attempts to paint dialectics as an unnatural method of thinking in an attempt to discredit the philosophy, the most casual observer could easily show that one does not need to have read Hegel or Marx to think dialectically. Trotsky illustrates how the laws of dialectics are often used entirely unconsciously:

“Every individual is a dialectician to some extent or other, in most cases, unconsciously. A housewife knows that a certain amount of salt flavors soup agreeably, but that added salt makes the soup unpalatable. Consequently, an illiterate peasant woman guides herself in cooking soup by the Hegelian law of the transformation of quantity into quality.”

No kidding! The part that her taste buds played in the process of adding salt to soup was just "irrelevant"...she could have "reasoned" the whole thing out "dialectically" if she'd only read Hegel.

And the suggestion that we are all "unconscious dialecticians" is just precious; perhaps we all have "souls" but we're just not "conscious" of their existence.


If this method of “scientific thought” is good enough for science, why do Marxists (and perhaps more specifically, those “fucked up Leninists”) persist in using their own special philosophy?

You're asking that question rhetorically, of course. But let's consider that a real question. Why do the Leninists take "dialectics" seriously? Why do they try to cram the complexities of social reality into this sterile terminology? What do they have to gain from it?

As a vulgar pragmatist, I see a couple of "advantages" in pumping up "dialectics" as a "theory of everything".

First, of course, is indeed the claim of "intellectual superiority" and "higher understanding". Just as a Christian preacher claims a "dedicated line" to "understanding God's will", the dialectician can claim a "deeper insight" into the "ultimate goals of history". This is very helpful in defending positions that are, by ordinary reasoning, indefensible.

For example, "dialectics" is very useful in "justifying" abrupt and otherwise inexplicable changes in the Leninist party's line...especially when the party is moving in a rightwards direction. When the membership "can't understand" why yesterday's "reactionary enemy" has become today's "progressive ally", baffle them with "dialectical" bullshit and intimidate them with your "deeper understanding".

But the big reason is that "dialectics" lies at the very heart of Leninism itself.

What is the Leninist hypothesis in ordinary language?

The path to the emancipation of the working class must first pass through the despotism of the vanguard party.

To free ourselves, we must first enslave ourselves.

Sounds wacko, doesn't it? But "dialectics" comes to the rescue: you see, comrade, the greater the despotism, the closer we get to liberation. Ultimate despotism "must transform itself" into ultimate liberation. It's a "law of history".

By the same "law", of course, we'd cook our meals in the freezer and store our ice cream in the oven. :lol:


Once again, we face the problem of the question being framed completely wrong.

I hear this complaint a lot from "dialecticians"...perhaps it's justified. Since I don't bother to arrange my questions so that they'll "fit" the "dialectical framework", my "dialectical" critics must "recast" them in a form that they can use.

In fact, you want to know a "secret"? You can re-phrase anything in "dialectical terminology" and reach any conclusion that appeals to you. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer to any question from the standpoint of "dialectics".

In a way, Hegel was the first "post-modernist". :lol:


First, Darwin’s theory of evolution was unconsciously dialectical in the first place.

Well, now, isn't that a brilliant insight? Anytime scientists observe nature and draw correct conclusions, it "must be" because they are "unconsciously dialectical"...or perhaps guided by divine inspiration.

But if scientists draw the wrong conclusion, then it's because they are "inconsistently dialectical"...or perhaps were misled by the "devil".


I consider myself fairly familiar with Marxism, but I must say I was absolutely astounded to see people on this board not only trying to disassociate dialectics from Marx, but even proclaiming that Historical Materialism had nothing in common with dialectics—frankly, I had never before read ostensible Marxists argue anything of the sort.

Times change...as I shouldn't have to remind you.


Even more damaging to the revisionist lie that Marx gave up dialectics is the fact that Marx’s closest collaborator, Engels, had on his death, left a pile of manuscripts, which he intended to work up into an account of dialectics, the laws of motion of nature, human society and human thought. These were published as “The Dialectics of Nature,” and despite being unfinished, are a brilliant example of dialectical materialism and its relation to science.

Aside from Chapter One of Capital -- which Marx himself admitted that he deliberately cast in "dialectical" terminology to annoy his critics -- the remainder of that monumental work was written (by and large) in the ordinary scientific language of the 19th century and relied on ordinary reasoning, empirical evidence, etc.

Engels' book, on the other hand, was just an embarrassment...and should have been buried with him.


Likewise Marx’s Historical Materialism is clearly dialectical.

But it did not have to be so. You can draw the same conclusions without concerning yourself as to which "negation" is being "negated".

Or the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.


The laws of dialectics are used as guides so that it is easier to recognize the relationship between different events, something which formal logic often becomes incapable of expressing when the complexity increases. By having a thorough knowledge of dialectics, it becomes much easier to recognize social trends. It is even possible to extrapolate on trends using dialectical laws in order to make generalizations about the future. The skillful application of the dialectical method is a thousand times more accurate than mysticism (as has been suggested), but dialectical “predictions” are necessarily of a highly conditional character. Undoubtedly there will be errors of judgment, but an even greater understanding may be achieved by re-analyzing faulty logic. -- Emphasis added.

In other words, "we can see the future" but if we're wrong "we can correct our mistakes in hindsight".

Any astrologer could make the same claim...with equal justification.

None!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. How can something be unconsciously dialectical? The very idea is absurd because the dialectic, as a method of understanding, has to be consciously applied! One isn't an unconcious Christian every time they obey one of the ten commandments - it's the active and willing application of the Christian myth-framework that makes somebody a Christian! Similarly, if I reach the same conclusions as a dialectician by different methods I'm not a dialectician, because it is the method of dialectics is the base of the thing!

2. Dawkins fucking OWNS Gould!

[ComradeRed]

I am sorry for the lateness of my reply, I was seriously delayed for the past two days.


Originally posted by Redstar2000+--> (Redstar2000)That stuff that ordinary scientists (and people who share their methodology) "do".

They may take the history of past observations, formulate a theoretical explanation, and test that theory against new observations.

Or they may simply begin with observations, accumulate data, and then formulate a theory to explain them.

Or they may perceive a problem in existing theory, create new observations designed to examine that specific problem, and consequently generate a brand new theory.

And so on.[/b]So, it requires some form of observation(of past events or of experiments, whichever), and creating an explanation. Of course, there could be more, as you noted tackling a pre-existing problem, etc.. Stop here and tell me I'm wrong, if I am.

But if I am correct, why couldn't one use dialectics to explain the observations? Marx did it in Das Kapital, Darwin did it in The Origin of Species, are they unscientific because they used dialectics?


Of course, they do have their "dogmas"...they assume from the start that events have causes and that causes are material; they rule out all imaginable supernatural "explanations"; they assume that the "arrow of time" is unidirectional; etc. Uhm...the last time I checked, I thought dialectics had those "dogmas" too...


Far from having a "static" view of things, scientists assume that change does take place...and they want to know why -- what's the mechanism?

The "dialectician" grandly informs us that "A transforms itself into B"...but a real scientist would want to know how that happens. Under what limiting conditions? And is it "always" B or is it sometimes C or even occasionally D? I see what you're getting at now, correct me if I am wrong, you want dialectics to explain what science cannot...not just theorize something which science cannot.


"Dialectics" deals with platitudes...ordinary scientific reasoning deals with the real world -- and how to change it. I beg to differ(of course!) Science explains "When action A occurs, what is the result?" Dialectics is not a method to accumulate knowledge...it is a method of reason.

You can have dialectical science, but science does not equal dialectics(nor vice-versa)...science is a method of explanation using reason(any form of reason) and observation, dialectics is a form of reason.


Virgin Molotov Cocktail
How can something be unconsciously dialectical? The very idea is absurd because the dialectic, as a method of understanding, has to be consciously applied!I actually realized in High School Mathematics that I reason subconsciously(which is what I think you meant...), when I saw a math problem I consciously knew the answer, but not how to get it! As you might guess, it caused some problems.


One isn't an unconcious Christian every time they obey one of the ten commandments - it's the active and willing application of the Christian myth-framework that makes somebody a Christian! Improper analogy. If one lives according to the ten commandments without knowing them, (and presupposing that was the only requirement to be a Christian for the sake of simplicity) that person wouldn't counsciounciously take oneself to be a Christian.



2. Dawkins fucking OWNS Gould!
1. Who the hell is Dawkins or Gould?
2. What kind of arguement is that? "You got owned!"? Freakin'-slang-cheese-eating-surrender-monkey!

And CmrdIan you don't understand the true nature of dialectics.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
But if I am correct, why couldn't one use dialectics to explain the observations? Marx did it in Das Kapital, Darwin did it in The Origin of Species, are they unscientific because they used dialectics?

You could...but why would you want to?

Marx had, as it were, a "vested intellectual interest" in promoting "dialectics"...but we don't.

For modern revolutionaries, "dialectics" is a nothing but a "verbal style" that "has" to be learned to "sound cool" -- or at least what some people think "sounds cool".

To me, it sounds like unnecessary babble.


Uhm...the last time I checked, I thought dialectics had those "dogmas" too...

Uhm, Hegel's "dialectics" are decidedly non-materialist.


I see what you're getting at now, correct me if I am wrong, you want dialectics to explain what science cannot...not just theorize something which science cannot.

Well, if the "dialecticians" ever managed such a feat, that would certainly constitute definitive evidence that they really had something...that "dialectics" wasn't just philosophical "smoke and mirrors".

I don't ever expect to see such a thing.


Dialectics is not a method to accumulate knowledge...it is a method of reason.

If you say so...I can't see the utility of any form of "reason" that does not allow us to "accumulate knowledge" about the real world.

If you wanted to argue that "dialectics" is really a kind of "verbal art form" and is not supposed to actually "mean anything", I would not dispute the point.


Who the hell is Dawkins or Gould?

Richard Dawkins is a biologist whose main theory is that natural selection operates exclusively on the genetic level (not on the level of the individual organism).

Stephen J. Gould was a paleo-biologist whose main idea is called "punctuated equilibrium" -- that species are stable over geological eras but change abruptly over geologically brief periods.

I disagree that "Dawkins owns Gould"...punctuated equilibrium is widely respected if not yet completely accepted among evolutionary scientists today. Dawkins' idea is much more controversial...although he is "fashionable" among political reactionaries at the present time.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

Did dawkins have anything to do with the idea of "the selfish gene"?

[redstar2000]

Yes, CyM, The Selfish Gene was the title of one of Dawkins' most famous books...and the one in which he articulated his theory of natural selection operating exclusively at the level of the gene itself.

It should be added that Dawkins was and is a much better writer than Gould...who had a bad habit (like Marx!) of "showing off his erudition".

Because Dawkins makes his points in a straight-forward way, he can "appear" to have a "stronger case" than Gould.

Which is too bad, in my opinion, as I think Gould was the superior scientist.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

You could...but why would you want to? You catch every niche and cranny.

As you pointed out in your summary of Das Kapital, there were really only 10 points needed to make; Marx made thousands of pages of remarks!


Uhm, Hegel's "dialectics" are decidedly non-materialist.
Well, this is my take on it, aren't dialectics a form of the rationalist school(the antithesis of empiricism) of epistemology?


Well, if the "dialecticians" ever managed such a feat, that would certainly constitute definitive evidence that they really had something...that "dialectics" wasn't just philosophical "smoke and mirrors". I maintain, however, that Dialectics are a form of reason. One cannot reason gravity without empirical observations. It is explained through reason. Dialectics is a form of reason, and therefore theoretically feasible to explain empirical observation.


If you say so...I can't see the utility of any form of "reason" that does not allow us to "accumulate knowledge" about the real world. Well, I'd be interested in a person who can use reason alone to build a fire...without observations!


If you wanted to argue that "dialectics" is really a kind of "verbal art form" and is not supposed to actually "mean anything", I would not dispute the point.No, I am arguing dialectics is of the rationalist school of epistemology. Scientific Logic is the synthesis of the empirical and rationalist schools of epistemology. Thus, Scientific Logic could incorporate dialectics...not necessarily Hegelian dialectics!


I disagree that "Dawkins owns Gould"...punctuated equilibrium is widely respected if not yet completely accepted among evolutionary scientists today. Dawkins' idea is much more controversial...although he is "fashionable" among political reactionaries at the present time. I'll have to investigate this, but from this I completely agree with Redstar2000.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

a) I meant that as a joke, but, for the record, Dawkins doesn't disagree with punctuated equilibrium, but suggests that, first, the species-selection element of PE's advocates theories are ill-defended, and, second, that punctuated equilibrium doesn't actually conflict with any traditional ideas on evolution.

b) Out of curiosity, how does Dawkins appeal to reactionaries? I'm going to assume you've read something I haven't, because my reading thus far (admittedly limited) seems fairly apolitical in its applications. I mean, Dawkins himself says I think it is not helpful to apply Darwinian language too widely. Conquest of nation by nation is too distant for Darwinian explanations to be helpful. Darwinism is the differential survival of self-replicating genes in a gene pool, usually as manifested by individual behavior, morphology, and phenotypes. Group selection of any kind is not Darwinism as Darwin understood it nor as I understand it. There is a very vague analogy between group selection and conquest of a nation by another nation, but I don't think it's a very helpful analogy. So I would prefer not to invoke Darwinian language for that kind of historical interpretation. The only points he really seems to harp with social relevence are a materialist world view, and memetics . . .
Anywhom, tell us stories about the right and Dawkins, grandpa RedStar!!

[redstar2000]

I did not mean to imply that Dawkins "disagrees" with Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium"...sorry if I gave that impression.

On the other hand, Gould thought that natural selection operates "all over the place" -- genes, individual organisms, and even species...and Dawkins thinks that's a load of crap.

Dawkins himself is very careful to avoid drawing any "social conclusions" from his idea that natural selection operates on the level of individual genes themselves. Perhaps he wishes to avoid the fate of E.O. Wilson. :lol:

But the implications of Dawkins' idea are "not good". He sees humans (and all organisms) as large "robots" that were created by coalitions of genes to serve their purpose of unlimited reproduction.

Thus we only imagine that our behavior is governed by "rational purposes"...we behave the way we do to serve our "genetic masters".

And it's a very small step from that assumption to the conclusion that human behavior is genetically determined.

The world of human societies is the way it is "because humans can't be any other way".

And this is all the reactionaries need to run wild with...a "scientific justification" for every idiotic prejudice in their libraries.

The next time you read a story about some charlatan who's "discovered the gene for shyness" or "assertiveness" or "empathy" -- remember that in the background is Dawkins.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I suppose I see how that could be done, but I think it's applying Dawkins' work incorrectly. I was under the impression that it might be used more to explain certain potentials, etc. - like Chomskian internal grammar. That is, Dawkins argues that genetics might account for certain abilities, but that specific behaviors come out of social conditions. In particular, as the grad-daddy of memetics Dawkins shows how behavior and ideas arise in the social sphere, and are subject to change, emphasizing, in particular, like religion (A memetic virus), are stupid, and must change.



. . . why am I defending Dawkins?

[Guest1]

I don't know :P

I have heard dawkins applied in a reactionary fashion, though I don't know if that's a reflection upon him, or the vagueness of his ideas.

Basically, I was told, by a left wing biology student I considered for a while to be brilliant and progressive that Communism couldn't work because at the genetic level, our genes act selfishly. Killing off other genes to procreate themselves.

Idiotic.

I don't understand how people can delude themselves like that.

[Faceless]

RedStar asked:

Another is: is it "just as good" as ordinary scientific reasoning?

No one has ever demonstrated that, either.

And then defined scienctific methodology as:

That stuff that ordinary scientists (and people who share their methodology) "do".

They may take the history of past observations, formulate a theoretical explanation, and test that theory against new observations.

Or they may simply begin with observations, accumulate data, and then formulate a theory to explain them.

Or they may perceive a problem in existing theory, create new observations designed to examine that specific problem, and consequently generate a brand new theory.
And, within that brilliant definition of scientific methodology lies the very answer to the question.
One thing which people have not dwelt long enough on:
dialectics demands that we consider things from the perspective of the totality and their place in that totatlity.
And it is this which defines the dialectical method from the empiricist, "scientific" method of bourgeois society.
But, no doubt you'll want to ask, how does this perspective pervert the accuracy of a scientific investigation? The question is only made harder because the statistical and empiricist method is made to blur with the occasional elements of totality found in natural sciences; "scientists" do not care to define their perspectives. Lorenz did not define his theory of chaos as being a dialectical theory which considers the totality as being the only truth. Nor do chemists point to the "transformation of quantity into quality" at the equivalence point of an acid-base reaction.

The statistician though "simply begin with observations, accumulate data, and then formulate a theory to explain them". The observations are necessarily partial and do not encompass a view of the totality of the system in which they exist. The theory created is based upon the the idea that these observations are true. Their partial nature makes them equally untrue.
In natural sciences the systems in question are often much less sensitive than those of the social sciences. The dialectical method, when applied to the society, runs head long into capitalist ideology and so does not have such an easy existence. Their is a much bigger motive to lie and create false and partial logics.

But where has it been applied successfully to the social sciences?
To start with I would rather look at where "scientific" methodology is applied disasterously. The division of intellectual labour is the necessary conclusion of the "scientific" method. The accumulation of so called "facts" concerning economic phenomenon needs no concern for political "facts" or they for legal "facts". And yet this is the basis for scientific methodology and the theorys derived therefrom.

Dialectics is important to overcome these problems. For instance, the fettishism of commodities comes from not understanding the commodity in its full context of totality.

"A Negro is a Negro. He becomes a slave in certain relations. A cotton-spinning jenny is a machine for spinning cotton. It becomes capital only in certain relations. Torn from these relations it is no more capital than gold is in itself money or sugar the price of sugar."

So the commodity not held in view of the totality is commonly misunderstood to have an exchange value as an inherent property. And what can dialectics then do for you? It can bring you out of these horrible mythologies and allow you only then to perceive a human sociology emerging from political economy.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Faceless
One thing which people have not dwelt long enough on: dialectics demands that we consider things from the perspective of the totality and their place in that totality

Indeed, but what if the totality is unknown?

Which it usually is.

When faced with a complex problem, real scientists try to "take it apart", break it down into simpler problems which can be understood. At some point, if all goes well, the simple processes can be combined into a totality...which is now really understood in all its dimensions.

No doubt it's a lot easier to claim "understanding of the totality" with "dialectical" banalities.

But, for some odd reason, this fails to satisfy real scientists.

Or me.


The theory created is based upon the the idea that these observations are true. Their partial nature makes them equally untrue.

No, the partial observations are, at least potentially, partially true.

When the Greek-Egyptian astronomer Ptolemeus created his terra-centric cosmology, it was a very good summary of what the heavens would look like if the earth was "at rest". You could use it to make predictions about the future positions of the planets...and fairly good ones.

"Dialectics" would have been of no help to him at all; what he needed was an empirical question -- if the heavens are always moving, why am I assuming that the earth is not?

In fact, "dialectics" would have misled him even further -- suggesting some kind of philosophical justification for an earth at rest "opposed" by a "heaven in motion".


To start with, I would rather look at where "scientific" methodology is applied disastrously. The division of intellectual labour is the necessary conclusion of the "scientific" method. The accumulation of so called "facts" concerning economic phenomena needs no concern for political "facts" or they for legal "facts". And yet this is the basis for scientific methodology and the theories derived therefrom.

Fair enough.

But is this due to the inherent limitations of empirical investigation or is it due to something else entirely: namely, that the bourgeoisie are not willing to pay for the critical examination of their own social reality at all!

The academic careers of critical social scientists have not, by and large, prospered. The research conducted by bourgeois social "scientists" suffers from severe ideological constraints...to say too much about the "totality" can be a ticket to early retirement.

On the other hand, theories that serve to ideologically strengthen the prevailing order ("evolutionary psychology" is a good example) are always well received...even if they are palpably absurd.

We are free, of course, to borrow what useful empirical data that bourgeois social "scientists" have come up with and draw our own conclusions from that data.

As I noted earlier, historical materialism is "flexible" and "open" to new data derived from empirical investigation. It is an "expanding totality".

Meanwhile, the fusty "dialecticians" are still mumbling over their ritual formulas..."unity of opposites", "negation of the negation", etc.

*yawns*

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

Indeed, but what if the totality is unknown?
And so we get to the crux of the problem, to reiterate;
"how do we make a theory about a system that we can not comprehend? Dialectics is no good there!"

Theories based upon such an understanding will be partially incorrect. Am I saying they would be useless? No. Am I saying that they will have no element of truth? No.




When faced with a complex problem, real scientists try to "take it apart", break it down into simpler problems which can be understood. At some point, if all goes well, the simple processes can be combined into a totality...which is now really understood in all its dimensions.

Let me take a few examples of such "real" scientists.

The best, and most relevant are the concepts derived by Ricardo, possibly the most brilliant of bourgeois economists.

Here we have a scientist who considered economic processes from the perspective of the individual capitalist and the way in which he manipulates his resources. His method is based capitalist economics. This is a creation of human productive activity. Surely then it is also something for which this hypothetical "totality" can be understood by humans? Ricardo's perspective was that of the individual capitalist. He was not making a class analysis of the capitalists nor of the proletariat. If any mode of thinking neglected the perspective of totality then, it was his. From his position he had the need only to create one division in the character of capital. That was the division between fixed capital and circulating capital. Within circulating capital is included both labour and stock. Fixed capital includes the factory and, to some extent, the machines. Such a division is the only concievably relevant division from the perspective of the bourgeois economist. Thus it was left to a communist who's perspective WAS one which recognised the proletarian class as a totality in society to make the division between constant and variable capital; dependent upon the different social functions of the two categories. And it is from here that surplus value theory and finally the historically relevant and true analysis was formed.

Despite the undialectical or non-total methodology of Ricardo, his theories still had some significance, as partial truths! For instance, they helped capitalists to achieve a certain sense of control in an economic order which remained mystical and clouded in its nature. It also served capitalist ideology by making a riddle out of economics instead of a set of theories which, despite Ricardo's relative innocence, capitalist idealogues would more consciously manipulate later.

Another not so often thought of example:
Social Psychology. More often than not it is utter bullshit because of its "scientific" method. It is common practice to take a few willing individuals off the street, subject them to a test, and then draw some conclusion about "human nature". An example I'm making up would be to give two subjects a gift, one of high value, one of little value and then to draw a conclusion about the way envy makes someone react to a situation. The problems with this method are numerous and obvious. For a start, if it is applicable, it is only applicable to a certain stage in the development of capitalism as the subjects are both victims of commodity fettishism. Secondly, if within the confines of a lab a person objects, even in jest, to the difference in the prizes or gifts, then this is no measure of how envy would effect them say if they were given christmas presents in the real world which were subject to envy. The PLACE WITHIN THE TOTALITY of the individuals is radically altered. And thus a false scientific method has given rise not just to bad theories but entirely unfounded areas of study like psycho-analysis.

Trust me when I say I could bore you all day with examples.

So, back to understanding the totality, well, in the social sciences the chances are that we do understand the totality, as we are agents of it. Thus the method capable of giving us a truthful version of science is very much applicable.


In fact, "dialectics" would have misled him even further -- suggesting some kind of philosophical justification for an earth at rest "opposed" by a "heaven in motion".
In fact it is true, the relative motion of the two bodies is very much a truth within this system. Dialectics truly is child-like in its simplicty! So why this "mystical" language? Because, in spite of its simplicity and in spite of the fact that it has achieved rightful status as science in some fields, in others it remains absent. And when dialectics IS missing, it becomes a chilling factor in the confusion of the masses and upholds otherwise laughable capitalist ideology.

[ComradeRed]

OK Redstar, I see why you have your position on dialectics now. And I can't blame you!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Faceless
In fact it is true, the relative motion of the two bodies is very much a truth within this system. Dialectics truly is child-like in its simplicity! So why this "mystical" language? Because, in spite of its simplicity and in spite of the fact that it has achieved rightful status as science in some fields, in others it remains absent. And when dialectics IS missing, it becomes a chilling factor in the confusion of the masses and upholds otherwise laughable capitalist ideology.

If I understand your point correctly, you seem to be saying that "until" some "dialectician" arrives to "grasp the totality", empirical investigations will only yield a growing number of "partial truths".

Were Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton "dialecticians"?

Was Einstein?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

If I understand your point correctly, you seem to be saying that "until" some "dialectician" arrives to "grasp the totality", empirical investigations will only yield a growing number of "partial truths".

Were Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton "dialecticians"?

Was Einstein?
OK, yes.
:lol:
Einstein showed that there is a wave-particale duality about light (extended by deBroglie) which is a unity of opposites. The properties are seemingly mutually exclusive and yet they exist in conctradiction. And the truth in Newton's discovery was that it was applicable to all systems, be they the interactions of planets or of apples n the ground. There is also an element of untruth, later exposed by Einstein.

I am not saying that there is NO use in looking at empirical data in a formalistic manner but the more complex the system, the less useful it becomes.

I dont need here to express the dialectical method in these examples though, it is obvious! And so I think I understand how you can yawn at these formulae, they have already been discovered and applied. But in a similar way there are fields of study which have fallen victim to an undialectical world-view, and have suffered very substantially.


OK Redstar, I see why you have your position on dialectics now. And I can't blame you!
why not?


anyway, enough of your questioning me, I have put forward a set of reasonable reasons, connected with dialectics, that explain how capitalist ideology maintains itself inspite of its incorrect nature. I have also given examples and yet...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Faceless
I don't need here to express the dialectical method in these examples though, it is obvious!

What's obvious to me is that you, like other "dialecticians" I've run into, will happily "take credit" for any "successful" understanding of a totality, even if the people that did the work never heard of "dialectics".

That is, whenever someone gets "the right answer", it's "because" they were consciously or unconsciously "thinking dialectically".

You know as well as I that there's no rational response possible to such an assertion -- you may as well be talking about "God's grace", something that can also not be measured.

But here is the fundamental objection: if "dialectics" is such a "powerful instrument", how is it that all those who've claimed to "master" it have come to grief?

Marx and Engels made predictions in their own lifetimes -- we can check on the outcome. A few of them were correct -- although even then, the time-scale was wildly inaccurate. Others were absurdly wrong...proven untrue even while they were still alive.

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc. down to the leaders of today's remaining Leninist sects also made predictions. They got a few right...and heaping piles wrong.

Was everyone who claimed to "use dialectics" lying? Or totally incompetent?

Or what???

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

What's obvious to me is that you, like other "dialecticians" I've run into, will happily "take credit" for any "successful" understanding of a totality, even if the people that did the work never heard of "dialectics".
For fucks sake redstar, thats not even close!

All im saying is, dialectics is a simple concept that is sadly neglected in capitalism. Its not a very good tool for looking at science because its glaringly obvious and applied like second nature by scientists who are much better than me at their jobs. :lol:
The point is that abandoning this scientific method has led to years of confusion in the social sciences, with a slight cross over into natural sciences where it is socially relevant, because the social circumstances of the study of these sciences necessitated it. By recognising this as the missing factor, regardless of the rhetoric which may go along with this, it is only then that we can overcome it. And Marx was the first to overcome it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Faceless
For fucks sake redstar, that's not even close!

All I'm saying is, dialectics is a simple concept that is sadly neglected in capitalism. It's not a very good tool for looking at science because it's glaringly obvious and applied like second nature by scientists who are much better than me at their jobs.

This is getting pretty funny.

Ok, we have all these scientists for whom dialectics is "second nature" (whatever that's supposed to mean)...and sooner or later, they get the right answer.

But the people who actually study "dialectics" and claim to "consciously apply it" just fuck up all the time and rarely get the right answer...ever.

So it would seem from your logic that the "best" thing we revolutionaries could do is consciously forget everything about "dialectics" and just let our "second natures" take over.

"Then", maybe we'd get some right answers too.

For a change.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

So it would seem from your logic that the "best" thing we revolutionaries could do is consciously forget everything about "dialectics" and just let our "second natures" take over.
excuse the lateness of my reply; food poisoning.
"second nature" in the natural sciences is enough. Scientists just arent stupid enough to try and comprehend the insignificant gravity of a single hydrogen (and quantum gravity is hardly understood anyway) atom and its equally insignificant internal energy to discover the likely life-cycle of a star on the basis that it is a helluva lot of individual hydrogen atoms. They understand concepts such as centres of mass, accretion from binary systems and a whole lot more. In the social sciences, and dont confuse my reference to this again if you wouldnt mind, capitalist ideology is the equivalent of the absurd scenario previously mentioned. Simply, you have to point out the difference, as patronising as you claim it looks and as already "obvious" concepts such as totality seem (as you insisted in pointing out), because it IS the difference between capitalist ideology in the social sciences and the bare truth and many clever people are believers in this ideology as science.


But the people who actually study "dialectics" and claim to "consciously apply it" just fuck up all the time and rarely get the right answer...ever.
I can see you have a closed mind.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Faceless
I can see you have a closed mind.

As I've often had to point out in the Religion subforum, we are not "obligated" to have an "open mind" to self-evident nonsense.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas