Dialectical Materialism

[LtnMarxist]

Article from November Issue of Socialism and Liberation Magazine

Fundamentals of Marxism
What is dialectical materialism?

By Shawn Garcia

Since the beginning of recorded history, people have been striving to answer essential questions about nature and human society.

In earlier times, almost all events in nature were attributed to divine beings or a godlike force. The existing social order that governed the relations between people was explained as part of the same natural order. Things were as the gods or god wanted them to be. While this message may have been beneficial for the ruling classes whose clergy preached that the division between the haves and have-not was god’s will, mystical, impalpable concepts don’t shed any scientific light on human existence or why things actually happen.

Marxism is the science of revolutionary social, economic and political change. As with any science, the theory behind it—the formulas and calculations used to form scientific conclusions—is important to understand. Dialectical materialism is the theoretical foundation of Marxism.

“For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher,” Fredrick Engels wrote in “The End of Classical German Philosophy.”

Dialectical materialism as a methodology is the combination of dialectics and materialism. It shows that changes in society are not necessarily linear, that history moves forward in fits and starts. Understanding this term necessitates an examination of its component parts.

What is materialism?

Materialism argues that the actual reality of the surrounding world determines the way people think and what they believe. In contrast to religious and other “idealist” philosophies, Marx’s materialist conception of history asserted that: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Karl Marx, Introduction to “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” 1859).

Historical materialism is the philosophical opposite of idealism. It is directly opposed to idealism, the notion that material reality is created by what people (or god) believe or perceive in their minds. Marx also asserted that in all class societies—at least until the time of the revolution—the dominant ideas are the ideas of its ruling class. Racism, sexism, homophobia and national chauvinism are the ideas that the masses of people assimilate from the ruling class, which benefits from the promotion of those ideas.

We’ve all heard the basic idealist argument: society won’t change until people’s ideas change. On that line of thinking, activists need to do only educational work or teach in schools.

Materialism shows that the process of humanity’s social development is tied directly with the development of production and technology. Production is the expression of humanity’s ongoing relationship with the world. It is a manifestation of the never-ending battle for survival. Every living organism struggles to survive and thrive, whether simply defying cold weather, eluding predators, searching for food or working in a factory.

Of course, not everyone’s material reality is the same. For the working class, the struggle for basic needs occupies a greater part of life. For the capitalist class of owners, material reality consists of luxury gained by virtue of their social position within the exploitative capitalist economy.

This material reality, according to the materialist worldview, determines how people think about the world.

Materialists would reply to those activists who want to change people’s ideas: yes, we want to change people’s ideas. But the only way to do that is to change the material conditions—the way society is organized. In the process of engaging in revolutionary struggle, and eventually in building a new society, people’s ideas definitely will change.

The laws of change

Dialectical thought is merely the reflection of objective dialectics: laws governing the development of nature, the laws of uninterrupted change or, as Darwin discovered, the laws of evolution. According to this view, change occurs in the struggle between opposites. Nothing exists without opposition. When opposites confront each other, changes occur.

A central law in dialectics is the transformation of “quantity into quality”—that a change of the amount (quantity) will eventually bring about a material change in the whole make-up of something (quality).

One of the most practical examples of the transformation from quantity into quality can be seen in nature with water. A change in the temperature of water is a change in quantity. If the temperature gets colder, but still above freezing, the water stays in liquid form. As the temperature continues to drop, the water eventually will freeze. At that point, the water has changed to ice—from liquid to a solid state. The cause of the change is the drop in temperature; the change from liquid to solid is a qualitative change. In the other direction, when water heats and boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit it passes through a qualitative alteration and becomes steam.

In society, social change occurs in the conflict between opposing classes—in capitalist society, between the working class and the capitalist class. The conflict breaks out on a day-to-day basis—protests, strikes, pickets, etc. But when these protests come together in a united political movement against the capitalist class, a quantity of struggles can change to a qualitative change—a revolution.

The analysis incorporated in dialectics, combined with materialism, is the basis for the Marxist view of the world.

Dialectical materialism: a science of revolutionary change

Marxism is a living science, made of both theory and practice. Its theoretical underpinnings can be applied not only to history, but to current events to show Marxism’s continuing validity and relevance as a way of analyzing the world.

Both liberals and conservatives argue that people have to work within the capitalist system to try to salvage it. They don’t want people to destroy the system and make something new. Religion similarly argues that people are powerless to effect change because of divine power. But dialectical materialism shows that both notions are false.

Marxists understand that the material conditions in the United States, as elsewhere, shape political consciousness. And yet political consciousness is not mechanically and statically determined. As the contradictions in capitalist society grow quantitatively, large numbers of people are compelled to fight back. The catastrophic war in Iraq and the “natural” catastrophes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for instance, compel people to go into the streets and struggle for change. When this happens, revolutionary organizations can help shape a new consciousness that breaks with the rotten, racist and corrupt ideology of the capitalists.

We strive to point out that it is material contradictions that exist under capitalism that lead to the dialectical resolution of these contradictions. The capitalists themselves create the conditions necessary for the socialist revolution that will bring about better social conditions for people here and all over the world.

[redstar2000]

I have discussed that wretched intellectual fraud known as "dialectics" at interminable length...and hope very much that I may avoid it unless some new arguments are offered on its behalf.

This seems unlikely. Among Leninists, "dialectics" has the approximate status of transubstantiation...a "miracle beyond human understanding".

Particularly irritating are the clumsy efforts of the "dialecticians" to cloak themselves in shreds and tatters of "scientific" costuming. They are, in fact, no more "scientific" than astrologers!

If you wish to plunge into the muck and see for yourself, here are the links...

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Disputing Dialectics (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087002057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Dizzy with "Dialectics" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1103040986&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

"Dialectical" Drivel (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1124072310&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Here are some more good links:

A Few Words On Dialectics. Two Revolutions (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/r.htm) Lenin

The ABC of Materialist Dialectics (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm) Trotsky

On Dialectics (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1878/05/dialectics.htm) Engels

Dialectics of Nature (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm) Engels

Dialectics (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch02.htm) Engels

Dialectical and Historical Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm) Stalin

Dialectics of Abstract & Concrete in Marx’s Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm) Ilyenkov

Dialectical Logic (http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/index.htm) Ilyenkov

Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/index.htm) Ilyenkov

[RevolverNo9]

The manner in which dialectics have been used has been without doubt abusive and offensive. The notion that a human being with the merest trickle of historical understanding has the authority to make serious and wild conjecture about the future is one of the most harmful to social science.

Yet without dialectical logic on what does Marxism stand? In any class society we see a relatioship that is inconsistant and inadequate. Each element depends on the other for definition, is unified and yet is in opposition (we cannot understand dark without light, nor can we conceive of a working class without the bourgeoisie). It is the realisation, the consciousness of the inconsistancy in a social relatioship that causes its resestablishment. It is the process of becoming that makes this real. If one is to deny these tenets, how is a Marxist approach to proceed? If there is no inherent, moving inconsistancy, how does the Marxist not only explain historical change, but also posit the existence of a material absolute, in which antagonism is eliminated?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RevolverNo9
Yet without dialectical logic on what does Marxism stand?

Empirical observation of material reality, of course. That's what the word science means!


...we cannot understand dark without light, nor can we conceive of a working class without the bourgeoisie.

Typical "dialectical" mysticism. We observe the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie based on their conflicting material interests.

We can see that no compromise in the long run is possible.


If there is no inherent, moving inconsistency, how does the Marxist not only explain historical change, but also posit the existence of a material absolute, in which antagonism is eliminated?

Historical change is based fundamentally on changes in the means of production...and those changes result from the fact that humans are inherently innovative in their "struggle with nature" to make a living.

Changes in the means of production change consciousness. Our "mental picture" of "what is possible" in the real world changes as our understanding of the real world grows more accurate.

To inject "dialectics" into this process simply generates endless confusion...and temporarily pumps up the reputation of intellectual con-men like Hegel and his contemporary heirs.

Marx and Engels did not realize that their best insights into human history did not need "dialectics"...it was an accidental "fifth-wheel" resulting from Marx's German education at a time when Hegel enjoyed far more intellectual esteem than he deserved.

Surely we have now advanced far enough to scrape away from Marxism the irrelevant encrustations of 19th century romanticist philosophy.

Hegel himself was a reactionary windbag...and his methodology shows it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Guest1]

This book, available online for free, is probably the best case for dialectical materialism out there.

Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp)

There is a difference between philosophy in the process of reasoning itself, and the old roles philosophy used to fulfill, which have been replaced by science.

The attempt to pretend that there is no philosophy in science has left us with a mess. Again, the big bang, gradualist evolution, space-time singularities, the big crunch, the copenhagen interpretation, all are examples of what happens when a rational approach to the process of reasoning is ignored.

Philosophical empiricism and formal logic have their roles, but often cannot be relied upon when we venture beyond the abstract perfect models. Reality is contradictory by nature, and this contradiction is an essential feature of change, rather than an exception to the perfect models many think describe reality.

[karmaradical]

I too have noticed the massivly uneessecary hard-on all the communists have for dialectial materialism.

Actually i should say the word itself. I see it as basically an overpumped version of the scientific method.

[redstar2000]

It's interesting and may even be significant that this thread was moved to the Philosophy forum.

Properly speaking, it's really where it belongs...for what is "dialectics" but a footnote to the history of philosophy?

Those who wish to argue over the merits of this footnote -- and perhaps even elevate it to the main body of the text -- are free to do so here without bothering people who have more important things to concern themselves with.

Enjoy! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

I think redstar is pissed off at the fact that he couldn't understand/grasp what dialectics really is.

Being the defeatist that he is he just threw it all away.

[RevolverNo9]

Either way, despite his convincing argument, debate is not worth it.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:13 PM
It's interesting and may even be significant that this thread was moved to the Philosophy forum.

Properly speaking, it's really where it belongs...for what is "dialectics" but a footnote to the history of philosophy?

Those who wish to argue over the merits of this footnote -- and perhaps even elevate it to the main body of the text -- are free to do so here without bothering people who have more important things to concern themselves with.

Enjoy! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I moved it here because dialectical materialism is a philosophy, not a political theory :huh:

I would be interested in what response you would have to the book I linked however, which makes an argument for a conscious, materialist philosophy in our approach to the world, particularly science.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 6 2005, 01:32 AM
The attempt to pretend that there is no philosophy in science has left us with a mess. Again, the big bang, gradualist evolution, space-time singularities, the big crunch, the copenhagen interpretation, all are examples of what happens when a rational approach to the process of reasoning is ignored.
Exactly how do these things represent a "problem" for science? As far as I know, work is proceeding on these things using conventional logic.

And what has dialectics to offer that conventional logic can't?


Philosophical empiricism and formal logic have their roles, but often cannot be relied upon when we venture beyond the abstract perfect models. Reality is contradictory by nature, and this contradiction is an essential feature of change, rather than an exception to the perfect models many think describe reality.

Philosophical empiricism and formal logic have formed part of the backbone of science for the past 300 years. That computer you're using is a product of science, not dialectics. I think science is way ahead of dialectics in the sense of actually achieving something worthwhile and not simply providing a voluminous supply of hot air for obfuscationists.

[Vanguard1917]

According to Redstar, Marxism is merely:


Empirical observation of material reality, of course. That's what the word science means!

Marxism is not merely an empirical science - it is a theory to change the world. Marxists do not study society while detached from society - Marxists intervene in society. As Marx writes in the Thesis on Fuerbach, in his criticism of the materialism of his time, men must prove the truth. Theory and practice are bound together in dialectical unity. If we believe that Marxism is the truth, then we Marxists must prove the truth. This is the true scientific method: science that is not proved through practical experimentation and intervention is merely speculation. Marxism without social intervention can only be a mere academic hobby, a fancy, a leisure pursuit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what do you think science does if not change the world? have you been living in a cave the past three centuries?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:01 PM
Exactly how do these things represent a "problem" for science? As far as I know, work is proceeding on these things using conventional logic.
Exactly.

Every one of those is the result of an idealist approach to the world. Not a single one is a rational development in science. Singularities posit that time and space simply "don't exist" in certain areas of the universe, that in these areas in fact, all laws of science and reason cease to exist.

What is this based on? Nothing. Mathematical models and speculation. It is not established by observation or experiment, but rather the few observations done surrounding it (which almost entirely contradict this idea) are forced into the preconceived mathematical model. If reality disproves your perfect model, move the goalposts and say "oh, then this must mean there's something we haven't taken into account". Rather than saying "oh, then this must mean the mathematical model is flawed".

The big bang and the big crunch come out of the same metaphysical method, it is simply an attempt to sneak back the creation and armagaddon. Matter is not "created out of nothing". Neither is energy, particularly not the massive amount required for this explosion. Hence, rather than dump this theory, these metaphysicians decide there must be "cold dark matter" in the universe, aka, matter that cannot be seen, felt, measured, or proven in anyway. It just conveniently accounts for the 90% of matter that is missing to make their calculations correct. Asked what proves it, they answer the big bang. Asked what proves the big bang, they answer cold dark matter.

Gradualist evolution is a load of crock. It is the perfect example of formal logic. Darwin's mistake lay in this same method. He took a look at the fossil record, and noting that it did not support a purely gradual evolution, concluded that the record was incomplete. Well, the reality is that gradualist evolution just doesn't stand up to evidence. Life began with a bang, not a slow growth, new species were often formed with bangs, with periods of catastrophic extinctions intertwining with explosions of new life. The evidence points to punctuated equilibrea. Things gradually build up until they reach a breaking point, and then tumble into a new equilibrium on a higher level. Evolution leads to revolution, which leads to a new stage of evolution. That is dialectics.

The copenhagen interpretation is the worst of the lot, it basically argues that the indeterminancy theory means that causality itself is called into question. That any "appearance" of causality is simply a convenient lie. It is basically solipsism with a scientific degree. I can only know that I exist and all that crap. Idealism has invaded science because science refuses to adopt a consciously materialist philosophy. Hence, science begins to reflect the decay in capitalist society, and all the intellectual filth floating about in it.


And what has dialectics to offer that conventional logic can't?
Conventional logic can't deal with change or contradiction. Conventional logic is useful, but has limits. Once you begin to deal with complex phenomena, conventional logic breaks down. The best minds amongst chaos theorists credit the dialectical method that was taught in the USSR for the soviet advancements in chaos and complexity theory. The USSR began work on those fields 10 to 20 years before any work was being done in the west.

Despite the shitty way it was taught under the bureaucrats, scientists still made great advances based on that philosophy.

Dialectical materialism as a philosophy looks at things as processes, rather than individual components. It takes a complete look at the subject, rather than looking at it as a perfect snap shot in time. To understand the development of language, society, consciousness amongst humans, you can't just look at linguistics, sociology, and psychology. You have to look at history, anthropology, biology. It is only that approach that brings us to the logical conclusion, that labour led to consciousness, cooperation (society), language, etc...

Formal logic is also based on the law of identity, which again, cannot accept change. A is not always A in the world of particle physics. Things aren't just either random or determined. They can be both. Looking at all the particles in a cloud of gas, you cannot predict with any accuracy the location of any of the specific particles. They can be described as being random. But look at the generality, the cloud itself, and you find you can predict with a significant degree of accuracy its location and movement. Formal logic cannot deal with this idea of deterministic chaos. Deterministic chaos, and the tendency of matter to self-organize out of chaos into ever more complex arrangements (a very clear tendency), is where life comes from. If formal logic cannot deal with life properly, it clearly has failure points.

Formal logic takes its axioms as universally true, and apriori true. In otherwords, it defies its own laws when it comes to those very laws. The axioms and catagories of formal logic are meant to be independent of material reality, the idea comes first. This is the fundamental flaw of formal logic, as a useful philosophy draws its categories from the real world.


Philosophical empiricism and formal logic have formed part of the backbone of science for the past 300 years. That computer you're using is a product of science, not dialectics. I think science is way ahead of dialectics in the sense of actually achieving something worthwhile and not simply providing a voluminous supply of hot air for obfuscationists.
This is a false dichotomy. Science is not in competition with dialectics. Dialectics is a philosophy. It is a method of reasoning and interpretation. Formal logic simply fails when it comes to complex processes. It is mechanistic, and a relic of the past. It has now clearly begun to lead to absolutely false conclusions. It is also as a result of formal logic that the sciences have become so artificially divided, though chaos and complexity have shown a potential rebellion against that formalistic approach.

In this very response, you seem to be denying that philosophy plays a role in science, and yet you confirm it by referring to formal logic. It seems you are equating the two, and that's quite unfortunate, as well as ignorant. Science is not formal logic, formal logic is not science. Formal logic is a method of interpretation used in science, as is dialectical materialism in many of the examples I have shown. This confusion is caused by the problem I mentioned earlier, scientists have so attempted to distance themselves from philosophy that they have simply absorbed the philosophy of the day as opposed to having a conscious and developed materialist philosophy. Without such a conscious philosophy, it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate between what you arrive at through science, and your approach to those results and to the research itself, which is heavily influenced by your philosophy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Good grief, you dialecticians sure know how to fill up pages.


Every one of those is the result of an idealist approach to the world. Not a single one is a rational development in science. Singularities posit that time and space simply "don't exist" in certain areas of the universe, that in these areas in fact, all laws of science and reason cease to exist.

If you mean quantum singularities, then their existance has not yet been confirmed.


What is this based on? Nothing. Mathematical models and speculation. It is not established by observation or experiment, but rather the few observations done surrounding it (which almost entirely contradict this idea) are forced into the preconceived mathematical model. If reality disproves your perfect model, move the goalposts and say "oh, then this must mean there's something we haven't taken into account". Rather than saying "oh, then this must mean the mathematical model is flawed".

Mathematical models are inherently flawed and any mathematician worth their salt knows that and takes it into account.



The big bang and the big crunch come out of the same metaphysical method, it is simply an attempt to sneak back the creation and armagaddon. Matter is not "created out of nothing". Neither is energy, particularly not the massive amount required for this explosion. Hence, rather than dump this theory, these metaphysicians decide there must be "cold dark matter" in the universe, aka, matter that cannot be seen, felt, measured, or proven in anyway. It just conveniently accounts for the 90% of matter that is missing to make their calculations correct. Asked what proves it, they answer the big bang. Asked what proves the big bang, they answer cold dark matter.

This is a misrepresentation of Big Bang theory and Dark Matter. How can you possibly claim that Big Bang theory and the as yet undetermined fate of the universe are attempts to sneak Christian theology through the back door? Haven't you heard of a little thing called Intelligent Design?
Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed post Big Bang, this is true. However, conditions before the Big Bang could well have been very different.
Dark Matter is an explanation for the anomalous rotation rates of galaxies - Dark matter can be measured because it still has mass.
It is merely a possible explanation for some discrepencies and not a vital underpinning of Big Bang theory.
What proves the Big Bang is not cold dark matter but universal expansion confirmed by astronomical observations.


Gradualist evolution is a load of crock. It is the perfect example of formal logic. Darwin's mistake lay in this same method. He took a look at the fossil record, and noting that it did not support a purely gradual evolution, concluded that the record was incomplete. Well, the reality is that gradualist evolution just doesn't stand up to evidence. Life began with a bang, not a slow growth, new species were often formed with bangs, with periods of catastrophic extinctions intertwining with explosions of new life. The evidence points to punctuated equilibrea. Things gradually build up until they reach a breaking point, and then tumble into a new equilibrium on a higher level. Evolution leads to revolution, which leads to a new stage of evolution. That is dialectics.

And how did scientists reach this explaination of punctuated equilibrium? Using normal science, of course. If you wanted to prove that evolution is "dialectical" then what exactly is the point if normal science describes it adequately enough?


The copenhagen interpretation is the worst of the lot, it basically argues that the indeterminancy theory means that causality itself is called into question. That any "appearance" of causality is simply a convenient lie. It is basically solipsism with a scientific degree. I can only know that I exist and all that crap. Idealism has invaded science because science refuses to adopt a consciously materialist philosophy. Hence, science begins to reflect the decay in capitalist society, and all the intellectual filth floating about in it.

So much bluster, so little substance. Once you care to point out the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation then I will be listening.
Also, take note that such things only apply on the quantum level and only have philosophical ramifications if you happen to be smaller than an electron.



Conventional logic can't deal with change or contradiction. Conventional logic is useful, but has limits. Once you begin to deal with complex phenomena, conventional logic breaks down. The best minds amongst chaos theorists credit the dialectical method that was taught in the USSR for the soviet advancements in chaos and complexity theory. The USSR began work on those fields 10 to 20 years before any work was being done in the west.

I wonder if those chaos theorists do any mathematics? You see, mathematics is pretty much pure distilled logic.


Despite the shitty way it was taught under the bureaucrats, scientists still made great advances based on that philosophy.

And chaos theory has produced what exactly?


Dialectical materialism as a philosophy looks at things as processes, rather than individual components. It takes a complete look at the subject, rather than looking at it as a perfect snap shot in time. To understand the development of language, society, consciousness amongst humans, you can't just look at linguistics, sociology, and psychology. You have to look at history, anthropology, biology. It is only that approach that brings us to the logical conclusion, that labour led to consciousness, cooperation (society), language, etc...

Normal logic can do the same. Just strip away all the occlusive dialectical bullshit and voila! there you have it!


Formal logic is also based on the law of identity, which again, cannot accept change. A is not always A in the world of particle physics. Things aren't just either random or determined. They can be both. Looking at all the particles in a cloud of gas, you cannot predict with any accuracy the location of any of the specific particles. They can be described as being random. But look at the generality, the cloud itself, and you find you can predict with a significant degree of accuracy its location and movement. Formal logic cannot deal with this idea of deterministic chaos. Deterministic chaos, and the tendency of matter to self-organize out of chaos into ever more complex arrangements (a very clear tendency), is where life comes from. If formal logic cannot deal with life properly, it clearly has failure points.

Again, all I see is conventional logic with the label "dialectics" slapped onto it.


Formal logic takes its axioms as universally true, and apriori true. In otherwords, it defies its own laws when it comes to those very laws. The axioms and catagories of formal logic are meant to be independent of material reality, the idea comes first. This is the fundamental flaw of formal logic, as a useful philosophy draws its categories from the real world.

Science knows that the real world is not always rigid and unyielding. This should be obvious.

What can dialectics possibly add to this?:


Originally posted by The scientific method

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Plan experiment
5. Do experiment and collect data
6. Analyze data
7. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
8. Communicate results



This is a false dichotomy. Science is not in competition with dialectics. Dialectics is a philosophy. It is a method of reasoning and interpretation. Formal logic simply fails when it comes to complex processes. It is mechanistic, and a relic of the past. It has now clearly begun to lead to absolutely false conclusions. It is also as a result of formal logic that the sciences have become so artificially divided, though chaos and complexity have shown a potential rebellion against that formalistic approach.

You haven't actually shown that this is so. Science as used in a non-dialectical way deals fine with complex processes. There is no deep philosophical crisis in science as far as I can see, science is doing just fine without dialectical mysticism.

It seems my prediction was true. Dialectics is a load of hot air!

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:54 AM
I have discussed that wretched intellectual fraud known as "dialectics" at interminable length...and hope very much that I may avoid it unless some new arguments are offered on its behalf.

This seems unlikely. Among Leninists, "dialectics" has the approximate status of transubstantiation...a "miracle beyond human understanding".

Particularly irritating are the clumsy efforts of the "dialecticians" to cloak themselves in shreds and tatters of "scientific" costuming. They are, in fact, no more "scientific" than astrologers!

If you wish to plunge into the muck and see for yourself, here are the links...

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Disputing Dialectics (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087002057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Dizzy with "Dialectics" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1103040986&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

"Dialectical" Drivel (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1124072310&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
The work at http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp uses modern science to confirm dialectics. Your anti-dialectical claims are baseless, and they more than likely come from not understanding what dialectics is.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by NoXion+Nov 8 2005, 06:56 AM--> (NoXion @ Nov 8 2005, 06:56 AM) Science knows that the real world is not always rigid and unyielding. This should be obvious. [/b]
But it isn't. This becomes clear if you look at any of the massive mistakes that are being made today.


What can dialectics possibly add to this?:


The scientific method

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Plan experiment
5. Do experiment and collect data
6. Analyze data
7. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
8. Communicate results

Nothing, you are once again ignorantly equating science with its philosophy. The scientific method is fine, but defining the question, gathering information and forming a hypothesis, as well as interpretation are all influenced by philosophy.

The question is, do we want an idealist philosophy which attempts to eliminate contradictions and dismisses them as "outliers", or one that sees those contradictions as an essential part of the whole, and looks at what role they play in that process?


And how did scientists reach this explaination of punctuated equilibrium? Using normal science, of course. If you wanted to prove that evolution is "dialectical" then what exactly is the point if normal science describes it adequately enough?
Once again, you are either ignorant, or purposefuly attacking strawmen. It's convenient for you of course to frame it as "science vs. dialectics", but it's an immature approach. Once again, formal logic applied to science led to gradualist evolution. It has now been proven that in fact, the process was dialectical, and Gould himself credits Engels for having known that so long ago.


You haven't actually shown that this is so. Science as used in a non-dialectical way deals fine with complex processes. There is no deep philosophical crisis in science as far as I can see, science is doing just fine without dialectical mysticism.

It seems my prediction was true. Dialectics is a load of hot air!
I have shown you many examples of why science needs a consciously materialist, as well as dialectical philosophy. I have shown you the errors that have been made as a result of not having one. I have shown you the results of an environment where there was one. The only thing I can conclude is that you aren't interested in anything but proving how "post-hegelian" you are.

Read the link I provided, it doesn't leave room for your deliberate misrepresentations.


So much bluster, so little substance. Once you care to point out the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation then I will be listening.
Also, take note that such things only apply on the quantum level and only have philosophical ramifications if you happen to be smaller than an electron.
I did, the copenhagen interpretation seeks to deny the existance of causality, as well as that of an objective universe, based on the "indeterminancy" theory.

[Guest1]

A good article on the copenhagen superstition crap is here:

http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-c...hagen130705.htm (http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm)

And I didn't address chaos above, I don't think. Yes, chaos theorists use math, but it is the kind of math where the square root of negative one and infinite numbers are absolutely necessary for common operations. Not very beautiful math, very contradictory math in fact. This is happening across the board in mathematics, the beautiful, abstract shapes of geometry are being torn down by the developments in topology.

But that's not the point, this is not a debate over whether or not to use math. It's about how to use it, same as how to use science. Chaos begins with an understanding of contradiction. Order and disorder interweave in nature, and that is the basis of the new chaos science.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)I think redstar is pissed off at the fact that he couldn't understand/grasp what dialectics really is.[/b]

Possibly true...everyone who professes to support "dialectics" always claims that it has some mysterious "inner truth" that escapes the grasp of mere mortals like myself.

Unfortunately, their claimed "mastery" of this "inner truth" doesn't seem to help them much in the real world.

On the contrary, they "blunder along" just like the rest of us...seeking truth about objective reality through empirical investigation.

Unless, of course, they choose to regard the real world as irrelevant to their philosophical priorities. It's an "occupational hazard" when one begins to take theological questions seriously.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Marxism is not merely an empirical science - it is a theory to change the world.

Of course it is...but so is the entire scientific project.

Scientists may not be aware of this in the course of their own labors. But real science does change the world.

When you understand how "nature" works, then it becomes possible to change it to suit human preferences.

And make no mistake about it, human societies are just as much a part of nature as atoms or galaxies.

We've had close to a century for all the Leninist "masters of the dialectic" to show us what their "better way of thinking" can produce in the way of real change.

Results: 0.0000

Meanwhile, look at what science has achieved over the same period of time. Consider how human life has changed since 1917.


Che y Marijuana
Conventional logic can't deal with change or contradiction.

Except, of course, that it does so in the real world every minute of every day.

Your dissatisfaction with many of the "standard models" that are widely accepted by contemporary scientists may, someday, be justified by further developments.

But those new models in science will necessarily involve large amounts of empirical research...a project in which "dialectics" will play no role at all.

The people who, for example, actually figure out "why the big bang theory is wrong" will have never heard of "dialectics". Instead, they will point to problems with the mathematical models that "big bang" proponents can't "fix". They will discover observable phenomena that make it impossible for any version of "big bang" theory to be true.

To be sure, much of "cutting edge" science these days consists of mathematical speculation. Why are scientists predisposed to favor such "speculations"?

It has nothing to do with philosophical idealism. Quite the contrary!

The history of science contains a remarkable number of examples where such "speculations" turned out to be true as soon as our instruments had developed enough to test those "speculations" against the real world.

The math said "something should exist" even though there was no empirical evidence to support that particular something's existence.

Once we knew "where to look" and had some hypothetical idea of "what to look for" and, most of all, the instruments that might actually find it, then...we found it!

Right where the mathematical "speculation" said it would be!

It's kind of ironic, when you stop and think about it. All the alleged powers to comprehend reality that the supporters of "dialectics" claim...well, those "powers" do exist.

In the realm of mathematics!

Both "dialectics" and mathematics can be used to make predictions about the future behavior of real world phenomena.

The "dialecticians" (after Marx and Engels) have all been spectacular failures.

The "math geeks"...well, they've posted some rather impressive successes.

Indeed, I think there's a strong probability that the "next Marx" will be a "math geek".

He or possibly she will "re-cast" Marxist theory in rigorous mathematical terms based on equally rigorous empirical data.

And perhaps by then we will have heard the last of all "dialectical" babbling.

At least we can hope so!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Guest1]

The impossibility of having a reasoned debate on this issue is quite clear.

No one is arguing against science, or against math, and dialectics is not complicated or mystical.

Read the book, that's all that I have to say anymore, since you insist on not reading what I have to say.

[Comrade Marcel]

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mrodden/study/furthermarx.htm

Class 1

Dialectical Materialism (I)



· Understanding Dialectics

· Dialectical Process of Analysis and debate

· Dialectical Materialism

· Materialist Vs. Idealist outlook

· Critique of Metaphysics



Readings:



Main:

1) Philosophy of Marxism: Dialectical Materialism - http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/marxism1.html (I)

2) Dialectics - http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/dialectics.html (I)

3) Summary of Dialectics, Lenin - http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...gic/summary.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/summary.htm) (I)



Extra:

1) On the Question of Dialectics - http://www.marx2mao.org/Lenin/QD15.html (X)

2) On Practice - http://www.marx2mao.org/Mao/OP37.html (A)

3) On Contradiction - http://www.marx2mao.org/Mao/OC37.html (A)



Reference:

1) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Dialectics - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics (B)

2) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Dialectical Materialism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm...cal-materialism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism) (B)

3) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Historical Materialism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm...cal-materialism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism) (B)

4) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Materialism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#materialism (B)

5) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Idealism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#idealism (B)

6) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Metaphysics - http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...htm#metaphysics (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/glossary.htm#metaphysics) (B)



Class 2

Historical Materialism (A)



· The Materialist understanding of History;

· Vs. the Idealist understanding of History

· Historical background



Readings:



Main:

1) DIALECTICAL AND HISTORICAL MATERIALISM - http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/DHM38.html (A)

2) Marxism Made Simple: History - http://www.marxismmadesimple.esmartweb.com/mainpage.htm (Click on "History") (B)



Extra:

1) The Communist Manifesto - http://www.marx2mao.org/M&E/CM47.html (A)

2) MAO ZEDONG: THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE IDEALIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY - http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/ICH49.html

3) Theory and Practice From The Standpoint of Dialectical Materialism, Nikolai Bukharin - http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works...iamat/index.htm (http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1931/diamat/index.htm) (A)



Reference:

1) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Dialectics - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics (B)

2) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Dialectical Materialism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm...cal-materialism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism) (B)

3) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Historical Materialism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm...cal-materialism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism) (B)

4) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Materialism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/a.htm#materialism (B)

5) Encyclopedia of Marxism: Idealism - http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/d.htm#idealism (B)

[Comrade Marcel]

Also see Bertel Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/books/dd.php)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 9 2005, 04:33 PM
The impossibility of having a reasoned debate on this issue is quite clear.

No one is arguing against science, or against math, and dialectics is not complicated or mystical.

Read the book, that's all that I have to say anymore, since you insist on not reading what I have to say.
As you wish. It seems to me that I responded very specifically to some of the points that you raised...and I could elaborate further if required.

But I do confess that I don't have much time for "holy books" any more.

If you wish to wallow in such muck, suit yourself. Consult the enormous list of pure blather posted by Comrade Marcel...some of which I've actually had the misfortune of wasting my time reading.

Better you than me! :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 8 2005, 08:58 PM
A good article on the copenhagen superstition crap is here:

http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-c...hagen130705.htm (http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm)

And I didn't address chaos above, I don't think. Yes, chaos theorists use math, but it is the kind of math where the square root of negative one and infinite numbers are absolutely necessary for common operations. Not very beautiful math, very contradictory math in fact. This is happening across the board in mathematics, the beautiful, abstract shapes of geometry are being torn down by the developments in topology.

But that's not the point, this is not a debate over whether or not to use math. It's about how to use it, same as how to use science. Chaos begins with an understanding of contradiction. Order and disorder interweave in nature, and that is the basis of the new chaos science.
This looks very interesting. I will have to look into this further, and it should be a good update and futher insight toward aspects of science from Reason in Revolt, vol. 1 (I have not had time to read vol. 2 yet, but I do have a copy of it on hand).

[SonofRage]

DIALECTICS OF AMBIGUITY: THE MARXIST THEORY OF HISTORY (http://www.utopianmag.com/PDFs/RonDialMarx.pdf) by Ron Taber

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 03:29 PM
This looks very interesting. I will have to look into this further, and it should be a good update and futher insight toward aspects of science from Reason in Revolt, vol. 1 (I have not had time to read vol. 2 yet, but I do have a copy of it on hand).
I wasn't aware that the second volume was out yet?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:32 AM
As you wish. It seems to me that I responded very specifically to some of the points that you raised...and I could elaborate further if required.
Perhaps, but you continue to set the limits of the debate in such a way as to make all your arguments truisms.

Yes, any Philosophy that attempts to replace mathematics or science, is mystical and useless. That is not being argued.


But I do confess that I don't have much time for "holy books" any more.
Case in point. You define the debate as one of religion against science, and so there is no room for debate here.

I suggest the book because I can't make a comprehensive case for dialectics, as that would require explaining why it is needed (with copious citations and examples), what formal logic has done in science (with copious citations and examples), and tie that in to a history of science that shows all of the old schools and the debates between them and the progress and regression within that process.

That's what the book does. It's not holy, it simply has all the citations to make this into a rational debate.


If you wish to wallow in such muck, suit yourself. Consult the enormous list of pure blather posted by Comrade Marcel...some of which I've actually had the misfortune of wasting my time reading.
I haven't read what Marcel has posted, but I do know that there is a huge amount of ridiculous material purporting to describe, explain, or apply dialectical materialism. Much as there is a huge amount of ridiculous parties purporting to represent Marxism.

Yet I haven't seen you shun the class struggle because of Kim Jong-Il yet.

[gilhyle]

It is worth noting how different the response of dialectical materialists is to science, compared to the response of scientistic viewpoints to dialectics. Dialectical materialism neither challenges or denies the legitimacy of science, bar Lysenko-type nonsnese.

There is something strange, then, in persons who insist that science has no need of dialectics...as if someone had said the opposite.

What this is about is whether a revolutioanry politics can rely on the science produced by Capitalist society (valid and all as that science is) as a SUFFICIENT basis for the kind of theorising necessary to inform the practice of revolutionary politics.

[There is a second question as to whether a revolutionary politics within a capitalist society can fund the theorising involved, but I ignore that issue for now.]

If we know that the cohesiveness of our society facilitates certain thinking and blocks other types of thinking, we have to ask ourselves if the hypothesised scientific method (which btw the philosophy of science has been unable to model in a manner consistent with the history of science), can inform political practice where that practice is revolutionary. There are difficult questions at the margin of the thinking our society facilitates which prove important to revolutionary practice. Te kinds of questions that have come up concern things like medium term political-economic perspectives (e.g. over three years/under fifty), the characterisation of transitional societies, the relationship between means and ends in political practice, the meaning of the concepts of class and cause in the conceptualisation of historical change.

These are difficult questions. Look at Roemers entirely failed attempt to formalise some fundamental concepts for a left wing political economy using conventional scientific methods. The dominant forms of science are not conducive to effective revolutionary thinking.

What dialectical materialism does is to use an arbitary materialist rule (the assumption of the primacy of the material in the determination of the long term course of events) and concepts of totalities to affirm characterisations which are not available from empirically observed relations between discreete objects. It does this for a political purpose, a purpose which will not allow us just to wait for the unfolding of social contradictions to make social and natural relations transparent to us.

Dialectical materialism is, for that reason, entirely critical in character. It is not systematic or scientific (in the sense of authoritatively timeless - I haven't expressed this well; I'll come back to it if it matters). It is scientific in the German idealist sense of being an organised and disciplined body of thinking which aspires to self-criticism and consequential development.

What characterises it at its essence, is its own transitional character. IN other words dialectical materialism is the kind of 'short-cut' methodological aide that is actually familar to any working scientist. But in this case the science in question is the disciplined practice of revolutionary politics. I grant quite happily that this provisional character of dialectical materialism is often ignored - see for example the separate thread on Mao's On Contradiction, which lauds metaphysical speculation is an unjustified way. But Mao and Stalin are not the whole story.

The contrasting of 'science' and dialectics is quite beside the point. Hidden within that insistent contrast - but an aspect brought out by someone like Max Eastman, who supported this scientistic view - is the somewhat incredible claim that science can - and maybe even will - provide a sufficient basis for revolutionary politics while funded by the academia of capitalism. With all due respect to the continuing achievements of science, I think not.

There can be no revolutionary politics without ways of thinking that go beyond what the academy lauds.

Whether there can be a revolutionary politics is of course still a question even if that is accepted. I say only that the method of materialist dialectical critique is a necessary condition for the effective self =consciousness of a revolutionary movement.

I am reading at the moment Bukharin's failed attempt in Philosophical Arabesques to learn to be dialectical in his thinking. His failure is a reflection of how difficult this all is.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)Perhaps, but you continue to set the limits of the debate in such a way as to make all your arguments truisms.[/b]

Well, would you prefer "falsisms"?

I try to "get it right" as best I can...what more can anyone do?


You define the debate as one of religion against science, and so there is no room for debate here.

It does strike me as I hear the "arguments" in support of "dialectics" that they have a theological character.

Reality "is dialectical" because we say so.

When I see "dialecticians" attempt to use natural phenomena to "show the truth of dialectics", it reminds me of theologians "using nature" to "prove" the "wisdom" of "God's designs".

In the last analysis, they are all metaphorical "arguments"...that tell us nothing really useful about nature at all.

And accordingly, it is my wish to strongly discourage the wasting of people's time and energy in such futile mental gymnastics.


gilhyle
There is something strange, then, in persons who insist that science has no need of dialectics...as if someone had said the opposite.

Dialecticians, like theologians, are not required to be consistent.

But it does seem to be the general consensus among them that "only dialectics" is "really scientific".

Empiricism, formal logic, experimentation, etc., are all condemned as "static" or "partial" or in some other way distinctly "inferior" methods of understanding objective reality.

This sort of thing is implied even when it's not explicitly stated. Any scientist who figures something out correctly is, at once, praised for his "dialectical thinking". A scientist who reaches an erroneous conclusion must have "failed to grasp the dialectic".

The fact that a scientist who "got it right" and a scientist who "got it wrong" both never heard of "dialectics" goes conveniently unmentioned.


What this is about is whether a revolutionary politics can rely on the science produced by Capitalist society (valid and all as that science is) as a SUFFICIENT basis for the kind of theorising necessary to inform the practice of revolutionary politics.

Well, it's all we have that works.

At such time as we wish to develop a revolutionary theory, it can only be based on the best available empirical evidence.

There's just no substitute for that!

The fact that the origins of modern science are closely associated with the rise of modern capitalism cannot exclude the fact that the scientific method works...while all other methods of both investigating reality and changing it have been abysmal failures.

As Marxists, we "discount" bourgeois "social science" and bourgeois "economics" for obvious reasons. The class bias and ideological prejudice make much of it completely useless.

But some of the data might be useful if carefully examined from a Marxist perspective.

That was, when you stop and think about, Marx's own approach. He carefully examined every scrap of empirical evidence he could locate on how capitalism actually worked.

What, then, of "dialectics"? It cannot have escaped your attention that it is precisely in the realm of "informing revolutionary practice" that all of the past and present "masters of the dialectic" have been ignominious failures!

Hell, even astrologers probably have a better "track record" than "dialecticians" do.

And no rational person thinks that there's anything "scientific" about astrology, right?

So yes...the revolutionary project demands the scientific method.

Nothing less will do.


If we know that the cohesiveness of our society facilitates certain thinking and blocks other types of thinking, we have to ask ourselves if the hypothesised scientific method (which btw the philosophy of science has been unable to model in a manner consistent with the history of science), can inform political practice where that practice is revolutionary.

Well, the history of actual scientific practice shows the impact of a multitude of material and ideological factors...so one would not expect it to closely conform to the details of an abstract model.

But "we know it when we see it"...and when we don't!

When the capitalist class attempts to justify its dominant position by arguing that their domination is "scientifically justified", we know that they've "hired some hacks" to do some very bad "science".

Likewise, when some "Great Leader" tells us that "the science of dialectics" upholds the "historical necessity" of his personal despotism, we know that this sort of self-serving bullshit has nothing in common with science at all.

Science is not an "oracle", of course. It does not necessarily provide "infallible" answers. On occasion, it can be grossly mistaken.

But what I've called the "scientific attitude" really is, I think, an absolute requirement for informed revolutionary practice.

We must be skeptical of "revealed truths" or anyone who speaks "as if" such things exist. We must demand empirical evidence and rational argument in support of any proposed course of revolutionary practice.

In particular, we must demand transparency in all forms of revolutionary decision-making.

And therefore we must decisively reject all notions of "masters of the dialectic" who "know better than us" because they "think better" than we do.


The dominant forms of science are not conducive to effective revolutionary thinking.

That may be true...but the required response to "bad" science is better science and not the mystical banalities of 19th century German romanticism.


It ["dialectics"] is scientific in the German idealist sense of being an organised and disciplined body of thinking which aspires to self-criticism and consequential development.

Some astrologers say the same thing!


Hidden within that insistent contrast - but an aspect brought out by someone like Max Eastman, who supported this scientistic view - is the somewhat incredible claim that science can - and maybe even will - provide a sufficient basis for revolutionary politics while funded by the academia of capitalism.

That may have been Eastman's view but it's not mine. The results of academic research may be useful to us...but it's not the "only science" there is.

Can we not "do science" to develop revolutionary theory?

Especially given the vast amounts of empirical data available on the internet?

Perhaps that sounds "too hard".

But it beats the hell out of flopping on our bellies before some Hegelian con-man, doesn't it???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[gilhyle]

Your argument about theology is itself, of course, metaphorical.

As Feuerbach pointed out, metaphor is a legitimate way, within societal constraints, for the inexpressable to be expressed.

I agree with a lot of the aspirations to disciplined, progressive thinking in the second half of your message and the distaste for dialectical commonplaces masquerading as legitmitate arguments from authority.

But I think that leaves something unresolved that needs recognition as an issue for Marxists who are interested in political action rather than either academic debate or just instinctive political practice. THat is that it is not practical to think of Marxists JUST using the best science.

I strongly believe in using the best science. Thus, I would argue that the best academic history writing is better than so-called Marxist history writing and is a real resource (disciplined by the academic community's mutual criticism) for Marxists to rely on. I am sure this is true in other areas too. Certainly, in the areas of theory of evolution, medicine, sociology, economics and literary criticism that I would have some familiarity with, that is true.

But it remains the case that when you use these resources you hit a limit beyond which the academic science will not help you. Yet revolutionary politics lacks the financial and cultural resources to fund and support the kind of original scientific work, dislocated from the dominant practice that is then required.

Short cuts must be taken. Politics is an insistent reality. I strongly believe that a careful study of the dialectical tradition (hard to get) will give you indispensable assistance in taking those short-cuts without loosing your way and that revolutionary politics can support its theoreticians to that extent.

This is an esoteric sounding argument. It comes from a long, problematic history of trying to make Marxist theory politically useful, with no great success - but with enough to have had a glimpse of how this can work.

[Lenin Marx The Spot]

I like the article on Dialectical Materialism, there are alot of good links posted too.

To me Dialectical Materialism is a way of looking at society, using scientific methods, this is a socio-political form of sociology, which in turn is a social science.

The idea of a ruling class influencing the ruled class in capitalist scociety makes sense to me especially from a economical view. Products and produced by and for the masses, people are influenced and also influence each other with popular opinion.

the old saying comes to mind "you are what you eat" if you eat macdonalds you are a consumer, if you eat the dialectic you are a marxist-leninist commie.

but hey, what do I know?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gillhyle+--> (gillhyle)Yet revolutionary politics lacks the financial and cultural resources to fund and support the kind of original scientific work, dislocated from the dominant practice that is then required.[/b]

At this particular time, you are unquestionably correct. But must/will it "always be so"?

In our era, revolutionaries in the "west" are few and scattered...and rather incoherent as well.

What will be possible in 2015? Or 2025?

If we have as our objective an empirical understanding of social reality, I think we can and will do far more than we think is "possible" now.


Short cuts must be taken. Politics is an insistent reality. I strongly believe that a careful study of the dialectical tradition (hard to get) will give you indispensable assistance in taking those short-cuts without losing your way and that revolutionary politics can support its theoreticians to that extent.

I disagree. There is no "short-cut", in my experience, to informed political action. "Dialectics" can't "fill in" for not knowing what you're doing.

The history of revolutionary groups in the 20th century illustrates this quite convincingly, in my opinion.

Worse, anyone who becomes convinced that "dialectics" is an "acceptable substitute" for empirical knowledge is vulnerable to any political con-man who can manipulate "dialectical language" to his own advantage.

"Dialectics proves that you should flop on your belly when I speak!"

"Dialectics proves that you need people like me to lead you."

"Dialectics proves that we must sometimes ally ourselves with reactionaries in order to achieve real progress in the future."

And, for that matter...

"Dialectics proves that we should store our groceries in the stove and cook our food in the refrigerator."

:lol:

I caution you and all readers of this discussion to be especially skeptical of anyone who promises you a "short-cut" to liberation from wage-slavery...especially if they're frantically waving the "magic wand" of "dialectics".

They are probably up to no good.

At least, not your good.


Lenin Marx The Spot
...but hey, what do I know?

Not very much at this point. :(

A condition from which we all suffer...and for which the cure is both known and readily available.

There is already critical discussion of "dialectics" on my site. A new site is presently under construction featuring the works of a young graduate student far more knowledgeable about philosophy than myself...which I will start plugging as soon as material begins to be posted there.

The main thing is not to be distracted by mere claims -- measure what the "dialecticians" claim against the value of what they actually produce...both in theory and in practice.

That's how we really learn.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Guest1]

Or, choose redstar's method and just discount the evidence with some comparisons to religion and whatnot.

A truism, despite your rhetoric, is a statement that is so inherently true as to say absolutely nothing at all. However, it is internally consistent and coherent, so it gives the appearance of a perfectly useful addition to the debate. This, by the way, is perfectly acceptable under the structures of formal logic. Formal logic, as its name implies, is interested more in form than in content. Materialists, are interested more in whether or not a statement is true, and whether or not it adds anything meaningful at all to the dialogue, than whether it is a neat formula which looks great but has absolutely no value whatsoever.

If you define it as a debate between religion and science, then sure, your position makes absolute sense. The problem is, this is not the debate, you simply define it as such and avoid the whole annoying little detail of addressing the issue as a consequence. The debate is one about how best to reclaim science from the mumbo-jumbo of the "selfish gene" and gradualist evolution crap, by approaching it with a different philosophy perhaps. So your very own approach to this issue proves the point, science needs to take a consistent philosophy interested in content rather than form, process rather than snapshot. A hollistic approach which reclaims science from academic huffing and puffing and places it firmly back in the realm of the concrete, thereby opening it up to those in the factories and the streets and preventing political opportunists from muddling the issues.

That includes the "dialecticians" you speak of, whose misrepresentations of Marxism itself have not caused you to abandon Marxism. In the same way, natural phenomena and discoveries in science have consistently backed the dialectical philosophy, and so to abandon it to those who misrepresent, muddle and misuse it would be to ignore facts on the ground. Which afterall, is a part of the scientific method you're claiming to adhere to.

The debate is not one of scientific method, it is one of interpretation, and philosophy. Things which, whether you admit to it or not, are already heavily a part of science, and always will be. It is simply a question of adopting a consciously materialist philosophy when interpreting results, or formulating your questions.

[Quota 76 denial]

The dialectic is rationally powerful tool in understanding complex systems that have various effects. Take an institution like science or religion, can any of you guys adequately describe these systems with out some adherence to these systems? The dialectic forces one to be consciously aware of what the possibile effects of these systems might emit. That is why Marx's dialectical materialism is so important in describing the current social logic, materialism. Marx's theories derive from this because most people are not socially aware of the fetishes of commodities. That is why conscious raising is important.
The dialectic is often misconstrued as the following, a dualism between polar opposites, with a synthetic resolution. Science resists this explaination of the dialectic because it forces the abstraction of objective and subjective to be answered through each other. Science only seeks the objective truth. But this is not the dialectic, the dialectic is not observation but potential, science barely describes power as such. Also religion does the same thing it forces the dialectic to appear subjective. Subjectivity is the potential analysis of a system from one's own bias, so in this respect it fails also.

[gilhyle]

I agree with Redstar about two things, but things that noone seriously engaged with dialectics would question:

- a reference to a dialectical form cannot amount to a proof

- a healthy scepticism (not using the term in its technical sense) is essential.

Didn't Marx use the motto - 'Doubt everything'

Dialectics is justified by the primacy of practice, dialectics justifies nothing.

[KC]

Originally posted by marxists.org

Dialectics is the method of reasoning which aims to understand things concretely in all their movement, change and interconnection, with their opposite and contradictory sides in unity.

Dialectics is opposed to the formal, metaphysical mode of thought of ordinary understanding which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes. For example formal thought would explain: ‘a fish is something with no legs which lives in the water’.

Darwin however, considered fish dialectically: some of the animals living in the water were not fish, and some of the fish had legs, but it was the genesis of all the animals as part of a whole interconnected process which explained the nature of a fish: they came from something and are evolving into something else.

Darwin went behind the appearance of fish to get to their essence. For ordinary understanding there is no difference between the appearance of a thing and its essence, but for dialectics the form and content of something can be quite contradictory – parliamentary democracy being the prime example: democracy in form, but dictatorship in content!

And for dialectics, things can be contradictory not just in appearance, but in essence. For formal thinking, light must be either a wave or a particle; but the truth turned out to be dialectical – light is both wave and particle. (See the principle of excluded middle)

We are aware of countless ways of understanding the world; each of which makes the claim to be the absolute truth, which leads us to think that, after all, “It’s all relative!”. For dialectics the truth is the whole picture, of which each view make up more or less one-sided, partial aspects.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)The debate is one about how best to reclaim science from the mumbo-jumbo of the "selfish gene" and gradualist evolution crap, by approaching it with a different philosophy perhaps.[/b]

Would you like to "frame the debate" in these terms? That's fine with me!

Accordingly, I assert that the remedy for bad science is better science!

You cannot refute the "selfish gene" nonsense or any other example of "bad science" that you might have in mind with philosophy.

You must produce evidence that Dawkins and his co-thinkers are objectively wrong about the genetic sources of human behavior.

This process is already under way even as we speak. For example...

Alas, Poor Darwin; Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose

Just "waving the dialectical wand" is as utterly pointless in this controversy as it is in any other. You will not convince any rational person that Dawkins is wrong by simply asserting that he is "undialectical".


It is simply a question of adopting a consciously materialist philosophy when interpreting results, or formulating your questions.

The scientific method is "consciously materialist" (setting aside the small number of "scientists" who like to sprinkle godbabble through their published articles in order to secure a grant or prize from some religious group).

A reputable scientific journal would not publish an article that even hinted at non-material "causes" or "factors" in a natural phenomenon.

The "supernatural" is no longer legitimate in the eyes of modern science.

This is, of course, as it should be.

As to whether "dialectics" may be "useful" in formulating questions, conducting research, or interpreting results...I think only a very small number of working scientists claim to have found it so. (In fact, I've heard of only two in the U.S....but there may be a few others.)

But science does not care about your "philosophy" -- it is only concerned with the empirical validity of your research and its conclusions.

And this is also as it should be.


Originally posted by Quota 76 denial+--> (Quota 76 denial)The dialectic is [a] rationally powerful tool in understanding complex systems that have various effects.[/b]

No...it confers the self-delusion that you "understand" a complex system without the tedious labor required to really understand it.

To really grasp what is happening in a complex system is hard work...perhaps lasting a lifetime.

"Summarizing" what you imagine "must be happening" in "dialectical terminology" is easy and can be done by an experienced "master of the dialectic" before lunch.

And who will have the nerve to call you on it? Who's going to stand up and say flatly that you don't know what the fuck you're babbling about!?

Surely not the real scientists who are actually doing the real research. They don't have time to waste on "philosophic" babblers.

Neither do we!


[email protected]
Dialectics is justified by the primacy of practice, dialectics justifies nothing.

Precisely! And all the practice derived from "dialectics" has not amount to a warm puddle of piss!


Lazar
For formal thinking, light must be either a wave or a particle; but the truth turned out to be dialectical – light is both wave and particle.

I knew it!

Sooner or later, I predicted, some "dialectician" would claim that wave-particle duality "proves that reality is dialectical".

Very well...let's speak a little about wave-particle duality.

First of all, let it be understood that the scientists who discovered this were trained in "formal logic" and "empirical research"...none of them ever heard of "dialectics".

Secondly, let's at least mention something of what it is we're actually talking about here.

It was learned back in the 1920s that light will display "particle-like" properties or "wave-like" properties depending on how an experiment was designed and what it was designed to detect/measure.

As the decades of the last century passed, this turned out to be true (in varying degrees) of all matter/energy at the atomic/sub-atomic level.

Crudely put, the more massive an atomic/sub-atomic entity is, the more "particle-like" and less "wave-like" it is.

At the atomic/sub-atomic level, it is really incorrect to speak of "particles" or "waves" -- the term wavicle has actually been proposed as a substitute.

But, most important of all, the only way to speak accurately about "wavicles" is in the language of mathematics.

Words, even "dialectical words", are simply not good enough!

Now imagine trying to understand anything as complicated as human societies and how they change in accurate detail.

"Dialectics" is about as useful as teats on a bull!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Nov 10 2005, 09:38 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Nov 10 2005, 09:38 PM)
[email protected] 10 2005, 03:29 PM
This looks very interesting. I will have to look into this further, and it should be a good update and futher insight toward aspects of science from Reason in Revolt, vol. 1 (I have not had time to read vol. 2 yet, but I do have a copy of it on hand).
I wasn't aware that the second volume was out yet? [/b]
I know that it is out in the USA, at least; I got a special offer on it, as the copy of volume II I had was supposed to be bundled with volume I at a special offer from the WIL. They ran out of volume I copies, and had some volume II ones leftover, so I managed to get it at a decent price, around $15.00, I think.

However, I can't seem to find copies of it anywhere, except for really expensive copies at abebooks.com Perhaps you should send an e-mail to [email protected] I got my copy of volume II through him.

I find it odd how anti-dialecticans refuse to even read works on it, yet they continue to argue about it anyway. That is about as bad as the cappies are at debating (they keep attacking Marxism without even knowing anything about it).

[KC]

First of all, let it be understood that the scientists who discovered this were trained in "formal logic" and "empirical research"...none of them ever heard of "dialectics".


You don't have to know about dialectics in order to use them, redstar.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:54 PM

To really grasp what is happening in a complex system is hard work...perhaps lasting a lifetime.
A bit of empirical research to establish whether Bulls have teats might be useful - but I'll leave that to the scientists - too dangerous for us philosophers

The scientists who discovered all that wave/particle stuff often had heard of dialectics - but nothing hangs on that. I mention it only out of 'divilment'. I admit that I did wince slightly at the Marxist.org article. It does contain remnants of the kind of metaphysical gloss that does not serve dialectics well.

Scientists are usually materialists, true. The materialist side of dialectical materialism embodies the critique of religion, rather than the critique of science.

Scientists don't usually rely on a conscious use of dialectics, quite right. But methodological rules of thumb to restrict and guide empirical research are common. The Roses (Hilary and Steven) are an imperfect example - often relying on holism to close down what are sometimes empirical debates.

Actually I think philosophy of science has played a critical role in countering Dawkins. The extent to which Dawkins is refutable by any empirical research is quite limited, since at the heart of his work is a conceptual conceit rather than an empirical claim.

The first point about finding dialectical taxonomies in the conceptual patterns of science is not to show that scientists have a dialectical methodology, but to show the impracticality of producing useful ideas which comply with the formal principles of identity and non-contradiction. Thus it is merely a way of refuting the most crass anti-dialectical arguments. There is a second purpose. Sometimes science needs to be critiqued when it is abused as in sociobiology and such critques need to be carried out not only within the scientific community and within its langorous timescales, but also more widely in society for reasons to do with the cultural standing of science that should be too obvious to need articulating.

I don't agree that dialectics has produced nothing. There is some evidence that at a critical point in the development of Capital, Marx relied on a re-reading of Hegel's logic that pushed his work forward in crucial ways. Kautsky relied on dialectics as he understood it, in developing his best work that informed a generation of socialists. Lenin relied on his studies of Hegel to inform the April theses. Trotsky undoubtedly consciously relied on dialectics in his attemtpts to understand the character of the USSR. These are only the famous examples. The abuse of dialectics not only recurs in the history of terrorisation of the socialist movement, but dialectics also recurs throughout its positive and constructive moments. The theory of evolution does so also, of course. But, by contrast, there is almost no history of any significant scientific work generated within the socialist movement.

I do still agree that dialectics has produced little of value. It is actually much easier today than it has been for over 100 years to assess Hegel's legacy and appreciate dialectics for what it is. For most of that period dialectics was impenetrable to most Marxists - not out of stupidity but because of the whole cultural and political dynamic of the period.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:54 AM
Would you like to "frame the debate" in these terms? That's fine with me!

Accordingly, I assert that the remedy for bad science is better science!

You cannot refute the "selfish gene" nonsense or any other example of "bad science" that you might have in mind with philosophy.

You must produce evidence that Dawkins and his co-thinkers are objectively wrong about the genetic sources of human behavior.

This process is already under way even as we speak. For example...

Alas, Poor Darwin; Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose

Just "waving the dialectical wand" is as utterly pointless in this controversy as it is in any other. You will not convince any rational person that Dawkins is wrong by simply asserting that he is "undialectical".
Absolutely, it is necessary to empirically disprove such ridiculous claims as Dawkins puts forward. However, it would be even better if people weren't so inclined to make such ridiculous hypotheses in the first place, and those are formed out of more than just the available data, but the philosophy of the observer in question.

That's what this is about. Someone who believes everything is gradual, or linear, will make hypotheses that tend to reject contradictions in systems, reject qualitative leaps as outliers.

The laws of formal logic, the laws of identity, the excluded middle, etc... clearly reject such contradictory ideas as "wavicles".

A philosophy informed by the enormous body of evidence that things are in fact in constant movement and change, that that change is not gradual but slips back and forth between build-ups and explosions, and that the changes are caused by contradicting forces that lie in every system, will tend towards such hypotheses.



The scientific method is "consciously materialist" (setting aside the small number of "scientists" who like to sprinkle godbabble through their published articles in order to secure a grant or prize from some religious group).

A reputable scientific journal would not publish an article that even hinted at non-material "causes" or "factors" in a natural phenomenon.

The "supernatural" is no longer legitimate in the eyes of modern science.

This is, of course, as it should be.
Well clearly this is not the case, as the copenhagen interpretation has a reasonable following amongst scientists and it's a quite blunt example of crude subjective idealism, pretty much denying the existance of an objective universe, or objective forces in the universe.

Similarly, the big bang speaks of the creation of matter and energy, singularities speak of the end of all the laws of physics and the end of time, etc...


As to whether "dialectics" may be "useful" in formulating questions, conducting research, or interpreting results...I think only a very small number of working scientists claim to have found it so. (In fact, I've heard of only two in the U.S....but there may be a few others.)
Sure, as has a small number of historians in reference to historical materialism. Yet we both know that historical materialism is useful and describes history fairly accurately, or else we would not have had any debate about the "inevitability" of class war leading to revolution in that other thread.

The point should not be whether or not people have adopted it, it should be "is there an advantage to adopting dialectical materialism as a philosophy to guide hypotheses and interpretations?"


But science does not care about your "philosophy" -- it is only concerned with the empirical validity of your research and its conclusions.

And this is also as it should be.
Science is not an independent actor. The personal philosophies of scientists help determine their focus in a large way, because no matter how objective they attempt to be, they are still human beings.

No scientist can look at the subject/research they are dealing with from every angle. They always choose an angle. The question is, does that angle provide the best possible picture of the subject? After the angle is chosen, the rest is pretty straightforward until interpretation, when again, their philosophy comes into play. A coherent, conscious philosophy relying on the factors I stated above is needed in these areas.

[ComradeRed]

These comments on logic and science forced me to write something, it was the least I could do!



The laws of formal logic, the laws of identity, the excluded middle, etc... clearly reject such contradictory ideas as "wavicles". Look up constructivist logic, it is formal logic that rejects the Aristotlean excluded middle. It really is better than classical or dialectical logic. Or better, look up dynamic logic or process (pi) calculus if you want to get rid of the "static" aspect of formal logic.



Well clearly this is not the case, as the copenhagen interpretation has a reasonable following amongst scientists and it's a quite blunt example of crude subjective idealism, pretty much denying the existance of an objective universe, or objective forces in the universe. Here you are wrong; the copenhagen appears more popular at first sight because it is the only school taught at universities. That is unless you go to somewhere like M.I.T. for grad school, in which case you'll find rational interpretations of quantum theory (e.g. causal quantum mechanics).

Or why not the "Many Worlds" interpretation? Is this not idealistic enough? Not subjective enough? Or maybe because it is just bullshit with a collection of algebra as "proof"?

The copenhagen theory has a huge number of problems which people in quantum computing are trying to sort out. It is not accurate, by Dirac's formulation, von Neumann's formulation, or anyone else's mathematical formulation; it is plain wrong.



The scientists who discovered all that wave/particle stuff often had heard of dialectics - but nothing hangs on that. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement.

First off, the various other interpretations (including Isham's very very recent work) shrug this off relatively easily. As a matter of fact, there is some speculation that the wave (on the scale of 10^-33 centimeters) is actually a gravitational disturbance (due to the electron's mass and the force between it and the nuclei and whatnot); so both the wave and the particle are real.

Is this really an "interpenetration of the negation of the negation"? No, it is a rational explanation by "metaphysical" formal logic and math.


After the angle is chosen, the rest is pretty straightforward until interpretation, when again, their philosophy comes into play. Again I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I've worked on theoretical physics (under Thorne indirectly, checking math basically) and when you start thinking about things such as quantum gravity you throw all that shit out the window. The "philosophy of science" is, in short, useless bullshit; stuff that makes philosophers feel as though they were actually scientific.


I find it odd how anti-dialecticans refuse to even read works on it, yet they continue to argue about it anyway. I've actually read the Science of Logic which caused me to become anti-dialectical. Hegel's book was such a head ache, not because it was "profoundly deep" but because it was profoundly wrong! If you have enough time, I say look into dynamic logic (if you want to look at the logic of change) or topos (if you want to ditch formal logic's rules); it's well worth the trouble.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)I find it odd how anti-dialecticians refuse to even read works on it, yet they continue to argue about it anyway.[/b]

Come now! I was exposed to that crap back in the 1960s and 1970s...I was even in a "study group" that read and discussed Mao "on dialectics" at interminable length.

It was just awful! :o

Now I would regard being compelled to read anything defending "dialectics" as cruel and unusual punishment!

The reason I participate in threads on this subject is to actively discourage young revolutionaries from wasting a fucking second of their valuable time on that useless crap.

There is so much to learn about the real world that it's almost criminal to see the "dialecticians" still spreading their 19th century superstition here...as if it were some kind of "super-highway to truth".

And not the dead end that it actually is!


Originally posted by Lazar+--> (Lazar)You don't have to know about dialectics in order to use them, redstar.[/b]

Nor, we are told, do we need to know about the "Holy Spirit" to be "moved by it" and "do God's Will".

Is this not fantastic??? A "mode of superior thinking" that one "doesn't have to know about" in order to "use it"?

Why all the persistent pestering then? Why all the incessant bullying of us: if you don't understand dialectics, then you can't possibly figure out how to make a revolution, blah, blah, blah!


[email protected]
Sometimes science needs to be critiqued when it is abused as in sociobiology and such critiques need to be carried out not only within the scientific community and within its languorous timescales, but also more widely in society for reasons to do with the cultural standing of science that should be too obvious to need articulating.

I quite agree...but what is the best way to do that?

The "dialecticians" would presumably suggest that the masses be informed of the "undialectical shortcomings" of ideologies like "sociobiology".

I prefer an explicit political criticism, myself. It was obvious at the time that "sociobiology" was fundamentally "racial science rebranded" for the "modern consumer" (of racism).

Now it's called "evolutionary psychology"...and has the same ideological purpose.

It is no more "scientific" than a 15th century feudal lord's "theory" of "noble blood".

I think this is a criticism that "everyone" could understand. To combat modern racist mysticisms with 19th century "dialectical" mysticisms seems to me to be inherently self-defeating.


There is some evidence that at a critical point in the development of Capital, Marx relied on a re-reading of Hegel's logic that pushed his work forward in crucial ways.

I cannot imagine how something like that could be known unless Marx explicitly said so...in a letter to Engels, perhaps.

I suspect -- though I do not know, of course -- that Capital would have been a much clearer work had Marx been educated in France or England...free from the Hegelian obscurantism that permeated German universities of his time.

That's my "hypothesis", at any rate. Perhaps some brilliant young Marxist will someday re-write Capital in modern language, using contemporary evidence, and purge it of all "dialectical" mysticism.

Imagine the impact of that great work if people could actually read and understand it.


Kautsky relied on dialectics as he understood it, in developing his best work that informed a generation of socialists.

The "verdict of history" suggests that misinformed might be a better choice of words.


Lenin relied on his studies of Hegel to inform the April theses.

Could not anyone who took the trouble to look see that the Petrograd masses were more revolutionary than the vanguard party?


Trotsky undoubtedly consciously relied on dialectics in his attempts to understand the character of the USSR.

And missed badly, didn't he?


Che y Marijuana
However, it would be even better if people weren't so inclined to make such ridiculous hypotheses in the first place, and those are formed out of more than just the available data, but the philosophy of the observer in question.

At the risk of seeming to take refuge in "vulgar Marxism", it seems to me that the making of such "ridiculous hypotheses" has nothing to do with philosophy of any kind.

In science, one is taught more than just "advanced physics" or "advanced chemistry" or "advanced biology" in graduate school and in "post-graduate" positions.

Scientists are just as aware of the need to "get a good job" as any of the rest of us. People communicate, formally and informally, about "who is researching what" and "what kind" of person they're "looking for".

And I expect that "ideological preferences" are fairly explicit.

Scientific hypotheses, like all other ideas, do not "fall out of the sky" but have their roots in the material world.

To be crude, no one is going to get a research grant to study the benefits of cigarette smoking. Not even the tobacco companies would put up the money.

But there's money "out there" and "available" for "research" of a rather dubious character...and scientists, like the rest of us, have to eat.

Dawkins' thesis, put in plain language, is that existing elites "really are genetically superior"...language "too plain" for him to actually use in public. But his publishers, his university colleagues, and those who give him grants for his research and writing know damn well what his message really is...and they whole-heartedly approve of it.

So why wouldn't he come up with a "hypothesis" that would please his masters?

Surely not "because" it would be "undialectical"? :lol:


The point should not be whether or not people have adopted it, it should be "is there an advantage to adopting dialectical materialism as a philosophy to guide hypotheses and interpretations?"

None that I can see...or even imagine.

But I am not a working scientist myself...and you'd have to ask them if they thought there was anything to it.

And as we have seen over the course of this and previous threads on "dialectics", I think they would conclude -- as I have -- that there's nothing to it at all.

If you'd like to put this to an empirical test, I recommend that you join these two message boards composed of bright young scientists and ask them what they think of "dialectics".

PhysOrg Forums (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=idx)

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum (http://www.bautforum.com/)

I "predict" that they will think the whole idea absurd...but hey, see for yourself. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:40 AM
If you'd like to put this to an empirical test, I recommend that you join these two message boards composed of bright young scientists and ask them what they think of "dialectics".

PhysOrg Forums (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=idx)

Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum (http://www.bautforum.com/)

I "predict" that they will think the whole idea absurd...but hey, see for yourself. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I think this should be done as soon as possible, actually. If none of the dialecticians here will do it, I will.

[Martin Blank]

So, I've been looking through this thread, seeing if there was anything interesting in it. And then, this little comment by RedStar jumps out at me:


Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:19 AM
Indeed, I think there's a strong probability that the "next Marx" will be a "math geek".

He or possibly she will "re-cast" Marxist theory in rigorous mathematical terms based on equally rigorous empirical data.

Before I get into anything about the value of materialist dialectics as a scientific method (not a science, a scientific method), let me ask RedStar: What is your view on "chaos theory"?

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 16 2005, 02:40 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 16 2005, 02:40 AM)
Axel1917
I find it odd how anti-dialecticians refuse to even read works on it, yet they continue to argue about it anyway.

Come now! I was exposed to that crap back in the 1960s and 1970s...I was even in a "study group" that read and discussed Mao "on dialectics" at interminable length.

It was just awful! :o
[/b]
Well, shit!, RedStar. That just about explains everything. I'd probably despise "diamat" too if I had to sit through that.

Miles

[KC]

Nor, we are told, do we need to know about the "Holy Spirit" to be "moved by it" and "do God's Will".

Is this not fantastic??? A "mode of superior thinking" that one "doesn't have to know about" in order to "use it"?

Why all the persistent pestering then? Why all the incessant bullying of us: if you don't understand dialectics, then you can't possibly figure out how to make a revolution, blah, blah, blah!


I'd expect more from you than appealing to peoples sentiments about religion. You don't have to know what empiricism is in order to use it. But since religious freaks claim that you can "be touched by the Holy Spirit" without knowing it, then everything that can be used without its knowledge must be bad, right? :rolleyes:

[gilhyle]

Maoism in the 60s - God bless you, you poor put-upon bastard - all is forgiven.

[Yeah he did say it in a letter - borrowed Bakunin's copy, if I recall.]

[Quota 76 denial]

The "verdict of history" suggests that misinformed might be a better choice of words.
Let me ask you this, redstar, how do you choose your words, are all the sayings you suggest are scientifically verifyable? Do you as an individual only speak the truth, alla science. I'm curious do you say "thank you" or even "Hello" to people? Because what comes after these responses is dialectical thinking. Ahh, but this interaction is crap because science has not even attempted to define it. So why do you think of things that science cannot define? Tell me objectivist, tell me. Then let's verify what is crap? we will see what really matters for truth. Scientifically what does it mean when you blatantly announce something is misinformed? and a further question what does it mean to have a "verdict of history"? choose your words, i only want science.

[Lamanov]

I have to admit that my personal interpretations of dialectical materialism were somewhat different from anything I've encountered ...well ...anywhere, for that matter. After reading these lines I won't be affraid to ask: what type of logic is such that can drive us to just proclaim some method as the unmistaken doctrine for predicion in itself?

I have a big question for the dialecticians:

Let's think for a moment that science really proves dialectics...

...where does the dialectics without the science stand, that is, what can we "do" with it "within itslef"?

When Marx openly rejected "mysticism" in dialectics and turned it "upside down" still he had to admit that his method is "in reverse" with Hegel's. What turned out to be "in reverse" is exactly the reversion which I've used on this simple example: Hegel himslef says it: "logic is the science of the pure idea, idea in the abstract form of thinking." What is the idea then the reflection of reality? What is the "science of idea" then the expression of practical science itself? Where does the practical science itself stand? On "negation of negation"? I don't think so. Marx could have used such methods of reasoning such as "negation of negation" only as soon as he empirically observed the laws and dynamics of capitalsim it its raw reality.

When he used these dialectical "laws" still he couldn't have reached predicions which can tell us what exactly is going to happen to capitalism.

Problem with dialectics is that it is trying to operate on certain "laws" which by itself have no real and objective possibility of being proved. When one uses "dialectical" methods "in reverse" with Hegel's (so called 'dialectical matherialsm'), he must observe the whole "totality" in it's reality, rather then in it's spiritual reflection, which in itself is always subdue to everchanging reality.

In example, Georg Lukacs, in his "dialectical" critique of Rosa Luxemburg's standpoind on the spontainety of the masses used his "dialectical" methods in order to prove the necessity of the "class party" and it's "subjective" practice and leadership. All seemed so undeniable and scientific in all of its dialectical mystical bullshit. But all of this did not mean shit when Lukacs failed to empirically observe the fact that party itself is the instrument of parliamentarism, and that parliamentarism is the intrument of the bourgeois class rulem, thus, party itself can never be the external expression of the class subjective action, no matter how subjective action is needed or not needed in any relation to the objecive reality and conditions.


In short, to "grasp" at dialectical materialism, we must "grasp" at the whole "totality" of things in order to understand it's dynamics to the fullest. But where does the dialectics stand without science then??


Science itself, I have to admit, is overcoming it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)Before I get into anything about the value of materialist dialectics as a scientific method (not a science, a scientific method), let me ask RedStar: What is your view on "chaos theory"?[/b]

I have only a "layman's" understanding of "chaos theory" at this time.

As I understand it, it offers two propositions for our consideration.

1. The outcome of "chaotic phenomena" is highly dependent on initial conditions. Differences in those conditions -- even ones that are "too small to measure" -- will produce wildly varying outcomes over time.

2. There appears to be, at least in a limited sense, a kind of "order" that "spontaneously emerges" in "chaotic phenomena".

I do not know if anyone has yet attempted to "apply chaos theory" to human societies and "how they change over time". It may be that the theory is "too new" to be useful for that purpose.

But there is a small body of empirical evidence that seems to be supportive of the general concept...and I look forward to further developments with interest.

I also note that some "popular" accounts of chaos theory are clearly absurd. The movements of butterfly wings in China do not "cause" hurricanes in the Caribbean.

I've said elsewhere that there certainly are a host of "micro-causes" in history that are responsible for many or even most of the details in historical events. Perhaps "chaos theory" might someday prove useful in explaining how these micro-causes produce "a Napoleon" or "a Hitler".

But I don't think "chaos theory" is a "challenge" to the Marxist paradigm with regard to the "big causes" in human history.


Well, shit!, RedStar. That just about explains everything. I'd probably despise "diamat" too if I had to sit through that.

Personal experience does have a marked tendency to "drive a lesson home". :lol:

But I think my criticisms of "dialectics" rest on more serious arguments than simply having an unhappy encounter with its "masters".

And, after all, if the Maoists are "not real masters of the dialectic", who is?

Who "understands" the "dialectical method" so thoroughly and comprehensively that they can "use it" to produce consistently reliable and useful results?

If we are to "cultivate" a "new way of thinking", then is it unreasonable for us to demand that this "new way of thinking" produce better outcomes than our "normal" way of thinking?

We know, for example, that science is better than revelation in producing consistently reliable and useful results.

Where is today's "master of the dialectic" who consistently comes up with better ideas than his "undialectical" rivals?

Or any useful ideas at all?


Originally posted by [email protected]
You don't have to know what empiricism is in order to use it. But since religious freaks claim that you can "be touched by the Holy Spirit" without knowing it, then everything that can be used without its knowledge must be bad, right?

Empiricism is a "self-evident" method for investigating reality. It's one of those things that may really be "in our genes" -- all mammals exhibit pronounced curiosity about their environments.

When "dialecticians" argue that people use "dialectics" "unconsciously", then I am, admittedly, deeply suspicious of such claims.

It looks to me like an easy way to "claim credit" for any discovery that turns out to be true.

Just as the superstitious claim that "any good thing" that happens is "evidence for" a "benevolent" and "loving deity".

:lol:


Quota 76 denial
Let me ask you this, redstar, how do you choose your words, are all the sayings you suggest scientifically verifiable?

I wish!

I attempt to speak within the context of what is presently known to be "scientifically" true.

That doesn't make me any "smarter" or "more learned" than anyone else...but it often does turn out that I have a more accurate explanation for phenomena than those who steadfastly assert that "science doesn't/can't know everything".

You see the problem? Those who claim that there are "other and better" sources of truth than science end up with propositions that turn out to be self-evidently false.

And, on occasion, a lot worse than "just false".

Scientifically speaking, there's no such thing as a "witch". To assert otherwise is false.

But when you consider what was done to people (mostly women) charged with "witchcraft", then you should understand that we are not simply dealing with "a difference of opinion" or an "intellectual controversy".


I'm curious; do you say "thank you" or even "hello" to people? Because what comes after these responses is dialectical thinking. Ahh, but this interaction is crap because science has not even attempted to define it. So why do you think of things that science cannot define? Tell me objectivist, tell me. Then let's verify what is crap? We will see what really matters for truth. Scientifically what does it mean when you blatantly announce something is misinformed? And a further question. What does it mean to have a "verdict of history"? Choose your words, I only want science.

The general tone of your post suggests that it is not science that you "want". What you wanted to do was rant...and I think you achieved your goal.

The "short" answers to your questions...

Someone is "misinformed" when they perpetuate error in the name of truth. Kautsky, for example, was fundamentally wrong about a host of things in the period after 1914...in fact, he ended up as nothing more than a vulgar quisling for the German bourgeoisie.

That's "the verdict of history".

A "verdict of history" refers to the common consensus among serious historians about "what really happened" and "why".

Of course there are many historical controversies...and new evidence is always being searched for and new interpretations of existing evidence are always possible.

But that's what it means to be "scientific" about historical events.

If you are uncomfortable with this approach, you may always retreat into the "comfort" of the traditional alternatives -- "great man theory" or "divine intervention", for example.

Or "dialectics". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Guest1]

It seems we're once again back to ignoring what the difference between philosophies of logic or science and science itself is.

You demand of philosophy the requirement that it attempt and succeed in fulfilling the role of science. It is your requirement, not the claims of the adherents of that philosophy, which make such a ridiculous attempt to replace science with a philosophical outlook.

As for chaos theory, a butterfly cannot cause a hurricane obviously, but the example is meant merely to express this: that when a system reaches a certain point, anything, no matter how accidental, could become the "straw that broke the camel's back". If it's not one grain of sand that makes the pile collapse, it could be any other, but the pile definitely reaches a point were even one more would make that jump from quantitative to qualitative and set the whole system out of equilibrium.

That is dialectics pure and simple, whether described as such or not. It is no wonder that despite the grotesque mysticism in teaching dialectics in the USSR, it was Russian scientists taught to think in such terms who discovered and refined chaos theory ten to twenty years before their western counterparts began even the most basic attempts to tackle this science. Science does the work, philosophy tells us what work is most important. This is the role philosophy plays, it can guide and direct our inquiries, a dialectical philosophy led to scientists concentrating in the right places quicker.

[Lamanov]

How can we really USE dialectics?
What are it's methods, really?

[gilhyle]

Let me try and suggest brief answers to some questions (without requoting)

1. Dialectics 'without science' is a methodology of summation and critique, which relies on the recurrence of a particular taxonomy within an argument to suggest that it is probably false;

2. Dialectics 'proves' nothing - ever, it is not a first order logic.

3. Marx's argument againts empiricism in the 1857 Introduction to the Grundrisse should not need to be laboured here. The concept of 'empirically observed' is naive and doesn't reflect the reality of either a) the actual practice of science or (more importantly) b) the requirements off revolutionary practice.

4. Maoism's understanding of dialectics was abysmal, with the exception of Derek Sayers The Violence of Abstraction (was he still a Maoist then - I dunno) The concept of a 'Master of dialectics I take to come from Maoism, its not a concept I recognise.

5. THere is extensive 'chaos theory' based work on everything in human society from personality to market prices. But I more or less agree, it is no real challenge to Marxism.

6. Marx's Critique of Political Economy as worked up in Capital did not seek to predict the detail of the future pattern of capitalism.

7. I don't think the 'hello' and 'thank you' comment was a rant - the point I think was the variety of forms of communication that humans engage in and the need for methodologies for all of them and not only for descriptive propositions.

8. I am tempted to balance the comments on Kautsky. I will resist. Its off-topic.

9. It is worth acknowledging the interesting USSR work of Illyenkov and others on dialectics - the abuse of dialectics was concentrated in Stalin's own rants (probably written for him by others)

10. I think 'critique' is a better category than 'philosophy' for Marxists.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)As for chaos theory, a butterfly cannot cause a hurricane obviously, but the example is meant merely to express this: that when a system reaches a certain point, anything, no matter how accidental, could become the "straw that broke the camel's back".[/b]

But in what sense is such a re-statement of the obvious really useful to us?

I'm sure the idea of "so much and no more" was part of the pragmatic understanding of the proto-engineers of ancient Egypt. As soon as you start to build anything more complicated than a mud hut, you run into the concept of stresses and load-bearing capacity. By "trial and error" you learn that you can pile on "this much weight"...but more than that and the structure will collapse.

Only in the 20th century have scientists learned how to use the tools of mathematics to actually calculate "how much is too much". And even those calculations are still primitive -- we still have structural failures due to excessive loads or stresses.

But at least what we do have in this regard is real knowledge that is actually useful in practice.

Chaos theory would seem to suggest that "tipping points" are much smaller than we are accustomed to considering. That it really is "a straw" that "breaks the camel's back" and not another 200 kilograms of rugs for the royal palace in Istanbul.

Perhaps this is true in some aspects of material reality.

But is it a "cosmic truth" that "prevails throughout reality"? Is it really an "example" of the "universality" of "dialectics"?

It seems most unlikely to me.



gilhyle
Marx's argument against empiricism in the 1857 Introduction to the Grundrisse should not need to be laboured here. The concept of 'empirically observed' is naive and doesn't reflect the reality of either a) the actual practice of science or (more importantly) b) the requirements off revolutionary practice.

Well, I consulted the Introduction to the Grundrisse. The interested reader may find it here...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...drisse/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm)

It certainly does criticize the "naive empiricism" of the political economists of his era.

But it seems to be equally harsh -- if not more so! -- on those who, with Hegel, think that concrete reality "arises from ideas".

It would be a very foolish "empiricist" who would try to argue that a simple "inspection of reality" conveys "all we need to know" about anything. Scientists construct paradigms -- coherent theoretical frameworks in which to arrange empirical data in an orderly fashion -- precisely for the purpose of determining "what we really know now" and "where to look for additional knowledge".

Marxism is just such a scientific paradigm...or perhaps it would be more correct to say that it is a potential paradigm -- provided, of course, that it can be purged of all its turgid 19th century German philosophical romanticism...like "dialectics".

I see nothing to stand in the way of achieving that goal...except that curious "faith in dialectics" that lingers among those who "want to be Marxists".

Historical materialism -- Marx's greatest intellectual achievement in my opinion -- can stand alone without "dialectical assistance".

It "meets the test" of empirical confirmation in a fashion that's simply "unthinkable" for "dialectics".

As to "the requirements of revolutionary practice", what "more" do we need aside from the accumulated body of knowledge within the historical materialist paradigm?

It would be incredibly useful to be able to make "short-term" political and economic predictions with a high degree of reliability.

"Dialecticians" claim to be able to do this...but we know how that's turned out.

It seems to me that if we are ever to discover methods to do this that actually work, then they will only be found through a rigorous investigation of empirical reality.

"Dialectical" banalities are irrelevant to such a project.


Maoism's understanding of dialectics was abysmal...

Perhaps...but who then "got it right"? Who has told us something useful that they could only have used "dialectical reasoning" to discover?


Marx's Critique of Political Economy as worked up in Capital did not seek to predict the detail of the future pattern of capitalism.

Except in very general terms.

I don't see how it could be reasonably disputed that Marx had a fairly clear idea of the "future path" that capitalism would "inevitably" follow...leading to its own destruction.

That's a "falsifiable" proposition...if capitalism does not land itself in a "final crisis" that it cannot surmount, then Marx was wrong.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:47 AM
I have only a "layman's" understanding of "chaos theory" at this time.

As I understand it, it offers two propositions for our consideration.

1. The outcome of "chaotic phenomena" is highly dependent on initial conditions. Differences in those conditions -- even ones that are "too small to measure" -- will produce wildly varying outcomes over time.

2. There appears to be, at least in a limited sense, a kind of "order" that "spontaneously emerges" in "chaotic phenomena".

I do not know if anyone has yet attempted to "apply chaos theory" to human societies and "how they change over time". It may be that the theory is "too new" to be useful for that purpose.

But there is a small body of empirical evidence that seems to be supportive of the general concept...and I look forward to further developments with interest.

I also note that some "popular" accounts of chaos theory are clearly absurd. The movements of butterfly wings in China do not "cause" hurricanes in the Caribbean.

I've said elsewhere that there certainly are a host of "micro-causes" in history that are responsible for many or even most of the details in historical events. Perhaps "chaos theory" might someday prove useful in explaining how these micro-causes produce "a Napoleon" or "a Hitler".

But I don't think "chaos theory" is a "challenge" to the Marxist paradigm with regard to the "big causes" in human history.
I have to admit, in my view, what I asked was a loaded question. For me, "chaos theory" is a way of explaining natural phenomenon that is wholly in line with dialectical theory. The two propositions you outline, for example, can also be expressed in materialist and dialectical terms.

For example, your first proposition points out two relevant postulates of materialist dialectics. 1) Dialectical method points out how contradictions in a thing determine its motion. You put it as "differences in those [initial] conditions ... will produce wildly varying outcomes over time." This is an allegory (I believe that's the right word) to the dialectical postulate about the unity and interpenetration of opposites -- the "differences in those [initial] conditions". 2) Dialectical method also takes into consideration that the relations (the unity and interpenetration...) of contradictory elements within a single thing will affect the quantitative and qualitative changes that thing experiences. You express it when you talk about the differences producing "wildly varying outcomes".

As well, the second proposition can also be expressed in dialectical terms. The development of "a kind of 'order' that 'spontaneously emerges' in 'chaotic phenomena'," as you put it (and I can gather that your use of quotation marks is somewhat ironic and implies your recognition that the "chaos" and "spontaneity" expressed is neither), is the essence of what practicioners of dialectical theory refer to as the negation of the negation -- the development of a new kind of "order" "emerging" from previously "chaotic phenomena".

You may not like this fact, but the reality is that you presented the propositions put forward through chaos theory in a generally dialectical manner -- and in a clearer manner than most "logical" scientists do.

I agree with you about the so-called "butterfly effect"; it is a gross oversimplification of the theory, and actually would imply a more "ordered" development than the theory implies. As well, I also agree with you that chaos theory is not a "challenge" to the "Marxist paradigm", by which I figure you mean dialectical theory. On the contrary, I find chaos theory a confirmation of the validity of dialectical theory, as I show above.

Finally, as for the application of chaos theory to human society, we can only hope that the bourgeoisie will never be able to accomplish this task. In the view of the C.C. of the League, which has made a study of precisely this issue, if the capitalists were able to apply chaos theory to management of human society, it would mean the development of social control on a never-before-seen level.

Micromanagement of human societal development would be possible through the prediction of the "chaos" of daily life. The bourgeoisie would be able to determine, with a high level of accuracy, how intensive and extensive both exploitation and oppression could become before leading to social explosions, and also how to adjust those levels through minute changes here and there.

For a while, we suspected that the Federal Reserve may be trying to use chaos theory to manage the capitalist economy. But recent mistakes by the FOMC, as well as their inability to prepare for events like the Delphi bankruptcy, showed us that, if they were trying to use chaos theory, they didn't have it down to a science, so to speak.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:47 AM
Personal experience does have a marked tendency to "drive a lesson home". :lol:

But I think my criticisms of "dialectics" rest on more serious arguments than simply having an unhappy encounter with its "masters".

And, after all, if the Maoists are "not real masters of the dialectic", who is?

Who "understands" the "dialectical method" so thoroughly and comprehensively that they can "use it" to produce consistently reliable and useful results?

If we are to "cultivate" a "new way of thinking", then is it unreasonable for us to demand that this "new way of thinking" produce better outcomes than our "normal" way of thinking?

We know, for example, that science is better than revelation in producing consistently reliable and useful results.

Where is today's "master of the dialectic" who consistently comes up with better ideas than his "undialectical" rivals?

Or any useful ideas at all?
I hear what you're saying, RedStar. But I think it's a rather subjective question to ask who are the "real masters of the dialectic". That is because virtually any comrade here who is a member of an organization that claims to utilize dialectics as a method will say their theoreticians are "masters".

For example, I would argue that the comrades of the League who are well-versed in dialectical theory have proven their "mastery".

Economically speaking, these comrades accurately predicted the end of the 1990s "boom" and beginning of the 2000 recession -- in fact, right down to the month it began. They predicted the Delphi bankruptcy months in advance of its happening, and the fact it would be the spark for a new economic downturn that is only about four months away from hitting society at large. They also predicted that this downturn would lead to Alan Greenspan heading for the hills.

Politically speaking, these comrades predicted the outcome of both the 2002 and 2004 elections, the development of the antiwar movement in 2004 and 2005 (including the rise of a "focal-point figure", who we now know as Cindy Sheehan), and the rise of a new trend in the broader socialist movement oriented toward exclusively proletarian organizations.

I would say that they have been pretty consistent in their ability to see what was going to happen, as well as to understand what has happened. But then, I'm biased. What would you expect me to say?

Ultimately, though, history and the proletariat itself are the judges of who or what movement has acted "masterfully" in the application of dialectical theory. That will be determined in the course of struggle, not in a thread on RevLeft.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
You may not like this fact, but the reality is that you presented the propositions put forward through chaos theory in a generally dialectical manner -- and in a clearer manner than most "logical" scientists do.

I blush at such praise...perhaps I am destined to be the next unconscious "master of the dialectic".

My "verbal empiricism" merely disguises the "deeply dialectical" character of my thought. :o

It is monstrously unfair to argue in this fashion. For what is to keep a Christian theologian from libeling me in a similar way.

Redstar2000 claims to be a "Marxist revolutionary" but he's really just translating the Christian Message into secular terminology

And how could I coherently reply to that?

Aaarrrgh!!! :o


As well, I also agree with you that chaos theory is not a "challenge" to the "Marxist paradigm", by which I figure you mean dialectical theory.

No. As I said explicitly before, the Marxist paradigm is one of historical materialism and has no need of "dialectics".


Finally, as for the application of chaos theory to human society, we can only hope that the bourgeoisie will never be able to accomplish this task.

Well, that may turn out to be a vain hope...if it turns out that chaos theory will provide useful insights into social behavior.

The thing about real science is that anyone can use it who takes the trouble to learn it.

The purposes for which they use it can differ widely...and class is often a or even the crucial consideration in this regard.

For what it's worth, my impression is that the American ruling class is "turning away from science" with regard to social policy. Their old "faith in reason" seems to be "coming apart".

Indeed, their most strident ideologues descend almost to the level of fascist mysticisms when they "lay out their plans" for the future of the Empire.

I'm not sure that they're capable of "rational policy-making" any more.

Thus, even if "chaos theory" did have practical social uses, they might not be able to "use it".

Perhaps the working class will be able to use it. Once a computer program is written that will "do the math", who knows?


But I think it's a rather subjective question to ask who are the "real masters of the dialectic".

How is it different than asking, for example, "who are the leading evolutionary scientists of our time and how is what they have said measured up against empirical discoveries?".

That question has real answers that can be checked against indisputably accurate historical data.

We'd find that those guys have excellent "track records"...their ideas are "robust".

To be sure, asking "who are the real masters of dialectics" is, as well, a "loaded question".

It deliberately implies an equation...

mastery of "dialectics = revolutionary success

And since that success does not exist anywhere today in any significant sense, I already "know the answer" and am inviting the reader to reach the same conclusion that I have.

"dialectics" = 0.0000 revolutionary success


That is because virtually any comrade here who is a member of an organization that claims to utilize dialectics as a method will say their theoreticians are "masters".

Well you did...and others might. But that invites the question: where's the success?

All "dialectical" organizations in the U.S. today put together wouldn't fill up a minor league ballpark. If they are so "good at dialectics" then how is it that they've performed so poorly?

As I recall, the old American Communist Party could, at one time (the late 1930's), fill up New York's old Madison Square Garden (a sports arena) with its supporters. Were they "masters of the dialectic"?

When an SDS-organized student strike at Harvard University took place (1969 or 1970), they had to hold their meetings in a football stadium.

Was "dialectics" responsible?


Ultimately, though, history and the proletariat itself are the judges of who or what movement has acted "masterfully" in the application of dialectical theory. That will be determined in the course of struggle, not in a thread on RevLeft.

An appeal to real world experience is always in order. Up to now, the "best" that can be said about "dialectics" is that no one has "applied it correctly".

It is at least possible in principle that someone or some group will emerge that reverses this long chain of failures and "gets it right"..."proves" that they "know what they're doing" by their successful practice.

But after what has happened during the last century of "dialectical practice", I ain't holding my breath on this one.

My expectation is that the next risings of the "western" proletariat will take place in complete ignorance of "dialectics".

It will, by then, have becomes as meaningless as "post-modernism", "evolutionary psychology", or any other once fashionable intellectual fad.

Threads on RevLeft don't "decide" anything at all...but they are "part of the revolutionary process" nevertheless. Every genuine revolution is preceded by a period of intense discussion about "the shape of the future"...and that is known to have some effect on what actually happens.

Right?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[gilhyle]

You are still on about this 'Masters of Dialectics' nonsense!

CommunistLeague may think his organisation has members who have mastered dialectics and (therefore?) can predict the future. I can't respect that opinion. I ask again, is this some Maoist nonsense ?

WHy keep disproving something the serious supporters of dialectics never claim ? Dialectics proves nothing. Dialectics guarantees nothing. That is not what it is for. It is a critical aid to clearer thinking, which IMPROVES the capacity of revolutionary organisations and theoreticians to formulate ideas that express the dynamic of capitalist society and critique the multitude of fethisizations in the dominant ideology.

Your claim that the materialist conception of history is capable of a non-dialectical formulation which retains Marx's key ideas is itself subject to effective (if complex) empirical falsification by the convoluted history of analytical Marxism, which tried just that and could not retain Marx's key ideas in an analytical format. To go into it here would be a completely different thread.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle
You are still on about this 'Masters of Dialectics' nonsense!

I regret that my neologism does not commend itself to you.

The coinage is mine...and probably originates from phrases commonly heard in Maoist circles in the 1960s.

In order to be good communists, we must "master the dialectical method".


It ["dialectics"] is a critical aid to clearer thinking, which IMPROVES the capacity of revolutionary organisations and theoreticians to formulate ideas that express the dynamic of capitalist society and critique the multitude of fetishizations in the dominant ideology.

But that is precisely what is in dispute. Where is the evidence for your statement?

The "dialecticians" do not write clearly...and I read that as evidence that they do not think clearly.

Engels, for example, was a remarkably clear writer...until he decided to write "about dialectics". The turgid "Germanic" prose of Dialectics of Nature may not be as utterly impenetrable as Hegel...but it tries!

And you've perhaps run across the German idiom describing such books...in English, it could be translated as They do not permit themselves to be read.


Your claim that the materialist conception of history is capable of a non-dialectical formulation which retains Marx's key ideas is itself subject to effective (if complex) empirical falsification by the convoluted history of analytical Marxism, which tried [to do] just that and could not retain Marx's key ideas in an analytical format.

Here, you have the "advantage" of me...I am not a "student of philosophy" in the academic sense of that word. Your assertion about the failures of "analytic Marxism" cannot be refuted by me due to my own ignorance.

But that's a separate discussion (among those more learned than myself) and has no relevance to my criticisms of "dialectics".

Historical materialism looks valid in my eyes. "Dialectics" appears to be an intellectual fraud used by those who seek to establish their "credentials" for rulership over the "vulgar rabble".

Not on my planet!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:10 AM
[QUOTE=gilhyle]

In order to be good communists, we must "master the dialectical method".


It ["dialectics"] is a critical aid to clearer thinking, which IMPROVES the capacity of revolutionary organisations and theoreticians to formulate ideas that express the dynamic of capitalist society and critique the multitude of fetishizations in the dominant ideology.

But that is precisely what is in dispute. Where is the evidence for your statement?

The "dialecticians" do not write clearly...and I read that as evidence that they do not think clearly.

I am not a "student of philosophy" in the academic sense of that word. Your assertion about the failures of "analytic Marxism" cannot be refuted by me due to my own ignorance.

But that's a separate discussion (among those more learned than myself) and has no relevance to my criticisms of "dialectics".

Historical materialism looks valid in my eyes. "Dialectics" appears to be an intellectual fraud used by those who seek to establish their "credentials" for rulership over the "vulgar rabble".

Not on my planet!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Now you are at the nub of the question.

THere is an entirely benign interpretation of what you suggest which simply observes that specialist material is turgid and unclear to the non-specialist.

For me, for example, much conventional economics is profoundly unclear and turgid. The insistence on formalisation is very difficult for me to follow (I can, just about, with effort), it is ideologically driven and contributes to preventing these writers saying anything nuanced. Yet I respect the scientific discipline and I will not judge their work by that impression.

FOr you Philosophy, particularly dialectics is similar in character.

For me that is not so - but in this regard I benefit from doctorate-level specialisation in German Idealism. Thus, after years of work, I can read Hegel with RELATIVE ease. (I don't want to overstate this !!) But I can't read Einstein to save my life.

O.K. I'm labouring quite a straightforward point, but only to get it out of the way.

Now, if that is so, then it is perfectly reasonable that many a good communist (if only there were 'many' candidates for that status !), not only could but must be so with little or no knowledge of dialectics.

Then on to the (possibly) empirically verifiable idea that dialectics does help, when available. Showing this is very difficult. You and I would have to agree on what was an admirable and complex set of ideas that Marxism advocates and then test whether dialectics contributes to that. Here the issue becomes circular, because the 'value of an idea' is not a simple verifiable test.

If, for example, I say that the archittecture of Marx's Capital is inescapably dialectical , in order to test that we would have to agree on the content and value of Capital (particularly Volume Three). But what happens with people who oppose dialectics is that they fall into Ricardian interpretations of Capital to avoid its dialectical methodology - vicious circle.

Only practice resolves this dead end.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle
There is an entirely benign interpretation of what you suggest which simply observes that specialist material is turgid and unclear to the non-specialist.

For me, for example, much conventional economics is profoundly unclear and turgid. The insistence on formalisation is very difficult for me to follow (I can, just about, with effort), it is ideologically driven and contributes to preventing these writers saying anything nuanced. Yet I respect the scientific discipline and I will not judge their work by that impression.

For you Philosophy, particularly dialectics, is similar in character.

For me that is not so - but in this regard I benefit from doctorate-level specialisation in German Idealism. Thus, after years of work, I can read Hegel with RELATIVE ease. (I don't want to overstate this !!) But I can't read Einstein to save my life.

Yes, it is a commonplace observation that "specialist material is turgid and unclear to the non-specialist".

The justification for this statement is often painfully obvious. I have read Stephen Hawking but I would never be so bold as to claim I understood what he was saying. His thinking is of an altogether higher level than my own and I am not even marginally fluent in his language...which is mathematical.

But here we are not speaking of anything so esoteric as cosmology or particle physics.

We are speaking of human societies and how they change over time. One important thing that distinguishes history from many other disciplines is the relative absence of specialized terminology. It is accessible to the "non-specialist" in a way far different from modern physics, etc.

"Dialectics" is proposed as a way to understand human history...and even to "guide us" in shaping the future.

I do not accept this claim...nor can I see any compelling reason to accept an additional claim that my lack of familiarity with their "specialized material" invalidates my rejection.

The record of human history is readily accessible for critical assessment...one need not "learn a whole new language" in order to "see what actually happened".

Granted that it took a genius -- Marx -- to develop a coherent paradigm for understanding human history. Once formulated, it became "obvious" to anyone who thought at all seriously about the matter. By now, every competent historian is a materialist -- and pays tribute (sometimes most reluctantly) to the existence of classes and the struggles that take place between them.

In the same sense that every competent biologist is an evolutionist.

I do not see why "dialectics" cannot be challenged to meet the same test. And if it is so challenged, then it seems to me to have failed that test.

If "dialectics" was really "the key" to "understanding reality", then everyone by now would be consciously "using" it. Some would be better at it than others -- and, for all I know, might legitimately claim to be "masters of the dialectic".

But it would be part of the "common understanding" of humanity...at least in all those parts of the world where people are taught to read and write and not to be afraid of ghosts and witches.

Not only is that not the case but I see no evidence that it will ever be the case. Only people still working within the Leninist tradition even care about "dialectics" any more...and, of course, they continue to fail in practice.

As to "Philosophy" in general, I don't have a high opinion of it as a "pathway" to understanding. It does not seem to me that they've accomplished all that much...though I concede that here and there, one of them made a "lucky guess" that later scientific research actually confirmed.

Philosophy was "what humans used" before we had science. It was self-evidently superior to revelation.

But now?


Then on to the (possibly) empirically verifiable idea that dialectics does help, when available. Showing this is very difficult. You and I would have to agree on what was an admirable and complex set of ideas that Marxism advocates and then test whether dialectics contributes to that. Here the issue becomes circular, because the 'value of an idea' is not a simple verifiable test.

What I would want to see demonstrated is that the "valuable idea" could not have been thought of without "dialectics".

It's my view that Marx's basic ideas could have been conceived without "dialectics" at all. Indeed, I think "dialectics" got in the way when he sat down to express what he had discovered.

As if a modern physicist wrote a paper for a professional journal but "just for the hell of it" decided to format his numbers in Babylonian "base 60" mathematics. The numbers would "still be right"...but even his peers would have considerable (and unnecessary) difficulty in grasping his point.


If, for example, I say that the architecture of Marx's Capital is inescapably dialectical, in order to test that we would have to agree on the content and value of Capital (particularly Volume Three).

That is, in part, a historical question. We know that only Volume I of Capital was finished in Marx's "own hand". Volumes II and III were put together by Engels from the enormous number of notes, sketches, etc. that Marx left when he died.

I'm not sure if any scholar has ever actually "deconstructed" the authorship of Volumes II and III -- how much of Engels is "in" those two volumes and how much is what Marx himself actually thought.

Those two guys worked so closely together throughout their lives that "most" of Volumes II and III almost certainly reflect Marx's views.

But one wonders?

Particularly about Volume III.


But what happens with people who oppose dialectics is that they fall into Ricardian interpretations of Capital to avoid its dialectical methodology...

If you say so. :lol:

But if you are hinting at the problems associated with the "labor theory of value", I don't think "dialectics" is "the issue".

The problem appears to be that Marx's equations don't work mathematically. Something's wrong...and no one has discovered yet how to correct it or even if it is something that can be corrected.

"Dialectics" (once more!) is completely irrelevant to this very important problem in Marxist theory.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 18 2005, 01:22 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 18 2005, 01:22 PM)I blush at such praise...perhaps I am destined to be the next unconscious "master of the dialectic".

My "verbal empiricism" merely disguises the "deeply dialectical" character of my thought. :o

It is monstrously unfair to argue in this fashion. For what is to keep a Christian theologian from libeling me in a similar way.

Redstar2000 claims to be a "Marxist revolutionary" but he's really just translating the Christian Message into secular terminology

And how could I coherently reply to that?[/b]

Personally, I really don't give two shits about whether you think it's fair or unfair to argue this way. It does not change the facts.

Does it make you a "master of the dialectic"? No. But it does show that you cannot escape from dialectical thought, no matter how much you try to shit on the floor as you depart. I note with great irony that you completely ignore the fact that your "two propositions" were presented in a dialectical manner.

For all the garbage you attempt to heap on dialectical theory, your inability to argue against the fact that even you had to phrase your explanation in generally dialectical terms -- your whining about "libel" notwithstanding -- speak volumes against your argument.

You make my case for me, RedStar. Even you have to resort to dialectics to explain complex scientific processes.

"Aaarrrgh", indeed!


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
No. As I said explicitly before, the Marxist paradigm is one of historical materialism and has no need of "dialectics".

Historical materialism is itself an application of the dialectical method. You can deny it all you want, but you cannot escape from it. I would suggest going back and reading Marx's German Ideology or Plekhanov's Development of the Monist View of History, both of which explain how dialectics is applied to historical development.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
Well, that may turn out to be a vain hope...if it turns out that chaos theory will provide useful insights into social behavior.

The thing about real science is that anyone can use it who takes the trouble to learn it.

The purposes for which they use it can differ widely...and class is often a or even the crucial consideration in this regard.

The problem is that, in order to apply the lessons of chaos theory to social conditions, there would have to be a leap in consciousness among those responsible for carrying out this project. They would have to accept dialectical methodology in order to make it work properly.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
For what it's worth, my impression is that the American ruling class is "turning away from science" with regard to social policy. Their old "faith in reason" seems to be "coming apart".

Indeed, their most strident ideologues descend almost to the level of fascist mysticisms when they "lay out their plans" for the future of the Empire.

I'm not sure that they're capable of "rational policy-making" any more.

Thus, even if "chaos theory" did have practical social uses, they might not be able to "use it".

Perhaps the working class will be able to use it. Once a computer program is written that will "do the math", who knows?

Who knows? :blush:

I'm not sayin' nothin'.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
To be sure, asking "who are the real masters of dialectics" is, as well, a "loaded question".

It deliberately implies an equation...

mastery of "dialectics = revolutionary success

And since that success does not exist anywhere today in any significant sense, I already "know the answer" and am inviting the reader to reach the same conclusion that I have.

"dialectics" = 0.0000 revolutionary success

What a pathetically simplistic and linear method you're applying here. I've seen more complex thought from a six-year-old playing with Legos.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
Well you did...and others might. But that invites the question: where's the success?

All "dialectical" organizations in the U.S. today put together wouldn't fill up a minor league ballpark. If they are so "good at dialectics" then how is it that they've performed so poorly?

As I recall, the old American Communist Party could, at one time (the late 1930's), fill up New York's old Madison Square Garden (a sports arena) with its supporters. Were they "masters of the dialectic"?

When an SDS-organized student strike at Harvard University took place (1969 or 1970), they had to hold their meetings in a football stadium.

Was "dialectics" responsible?

Your cynicism is getting the better of you -- as usual. If you're looking for a measurement for gauging success, it would be better to relate the development of class consciousness (both in quantitative and qualitative terms) to those who are seeking to promote those elements of education. It would have to be a relative equation, and more of a calculus than an algebraic formula.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
An appeal to real world experience is always in order. Up to now, the "best" that can be said about "dialectics" is that no one has "applied it correctly".

It is at least possible in principle that someone or some group will emerge that reverses this long chain of failures and "gets it right"..."proves" that they "know what they're doing" by their successful practice.

But after what has happened during the last century of "dialectical practice", I ain't holding my breath on this one.

OK, so it seems you've given up. If that is the case, then do us all a favor and move aside, and let those of us who haven't given up continue our work.


Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
My expectation is that the next risings of the "western" proletariat will take place in complete ignorance of "dialectics".

It will, by then, have becomes as meaningless as "post-modernism", "evolutionary psychology", or any other once fashionable intellectual fad.

That you can lump these doctrines into one category exposes the central failing of your own doctrine: a generally classless approach to theory.


[email protected] 18 2005, 01:22 PM
Threads on RevLeft don't "decide" anything at all...but they are "part of the revolutionary process" nevertheless. Every genuine revolution is preceded by a period of intense discussion about "the shape of the future"...and that is known to have some effect on what actually happens.

The difference, though, is that those "intense discussions" take place in the real world, among people actually engaged in struggle, not among terminal jockeys trying to prove their cyber-penis is larger than all others.

Miles

[gilhyle]

There we have what your criticism of dialectics is about.

It would take us totally away from the point in all sorts of directions, but briefly:

- your first point is a claim about an entirely personal biographacal contingency about Marx ( tha he could have developed the materialist conception of history anyway. While accounts of Marx's development vary, my own suspicion is that it is ONLY by using a metaphor of the inversion of Hegel that Marx developed the materiialist conception of history; and let us be clear that despite the welcome materialism of the modern capitalist science of history, historians neither accept (nor need) the materialist conception of history;


- your second point seems to be that in some sense we should be able to think clearly about society in a manner that is commonly accesible. Given the complexity of human society this is quite improbable and given our complex, varying self-interest in the conclusions wrought it is doubly unlikely that thinking about human society could be that straighforward; as religion once threw up intense questions of method (leading to philosophy), so too does society today;


- your third point about some of Marx's maths not working (except for a trivial and insignificannt error of addition) isn't the case and a writer like Ben Fine has long since argued (persuasively to me) that the accusation hides a difference of methodology.


It would be a much simpler world if capitalism was capable of generating a mainstream scientific practice capable of seeing capitalism for what it is and how to can be replaced. But how incredibly unstable such a social formation would be, quite unlike capitalism has proven to be in that regard. The science of revolution must be controversial, dissident, marginal, precarious, estimated - that is part of the nature of capitalism.

Your rejection of dialectics is an aspiration to the doctrine of the Enlightenment.

Dead end again.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle+--> (gilhyle)Your rejection of dialectics is an aspiration to the doctrine of the Enlightenment.[/b]

I thought that this, in a way, is one of the most interesting and revealing criticisms of my views.

For one thing, we associate that historical period with the emergence into social prominence of the capitalist class...the entry of "commoners" onto "the stage of history".

It was asserted that not only did "commoners" possess the capacity for reason but that they could use it to change the world.

This idea was bitterly attacked by resentful aristocrats and clerical obscurantists as soon as it was first articulated.

But all of the 19th century reactionaries hated it as well. In our own time, even the bourgeoisie have largely abandoned the "enlightenment project".

And what is the Leninist paradigm, after all, but an "anti-enlightenment project?"

Let us costume our aristocratic superiority in "dialectical" drag...and the commoners will follow us.

Except, it's not working.

Indeed, the further the discussion proceeds, the more "dialecticians" resort to theological assertions -- such as "Historical materialism is itself an application of the dialectical method".

And "Jesus really is God". :lol:

Or simply become abusive...


CommunistLeague
The difference, though, is that those "intense discussions" take place in the real world, among people actually engaged in struggle, not among terminal jockeys trying to prove their cyber-penis is larger than all others.

People who come here and criticize "dialectics" are "really" just trying to prove "their cyber penis is larger than all others".

A proposition that illustrates the "real power" of the "dialectical method", no doubt. :lol:

I think you fellows have just run out of any arguments more sophisticated than it's true because I say so.

And I'm "just a cynic" for disputing the weight of your "intellectual authority".

Ok, have it your way.

But, as long as I physically can, I will "blow the whistle" on your "dialectical" conceits and fabrications every time I catch you trying to pass off that absurd superstition as "revolutionary theory" on this board.

And when I get "too old and feeble", I think there will be plenty of young comrades to take my place.

The janitor is, after all, a crucial figure in the development of revolutionary theory.

Someone has to take out the trash! :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Red Powers]

This is a little troubling for me. Redstar and Communist League have been the people I most enjoy reading on this board. They are each very hardcore about self emancipation of the working class.

But here arises a difference over dialectical materialism and we get name calling and a fair amount of vitriol. I just reread this exchange and I can't really see what sent CL into "I don't give two shits" mode except that he couldn't get RS to admit that he described chaos theory in dialectical terms. Well he didn't. He described it as best he knew how and then CL translated it into dialectical terminology.

And the fact is that phenomena can be translated into dialectical terminology, that much is clear. But I, like Redstar, do not find it generally helpful. Years ago I read a small book by G. Spencer Brown called The Laws of Thought. It was a logical treatise that began with the injunction "draw a distinction." From there it advanced a whole series of insights into how we think. What I got from that is that the distinction (contradiction) is in our minds. A few years later when I came into contact with Maoists (maybe this is a generational thing, I'm a few years younger than RS) I confronted the whole dialectical apparatus. It didn't help me to think better. Historical materialism helped, ideas borrowed from Brown or Bateson helped. But the specific terminology of dialetics was not helpful to someone trying to understand the world and how to change it.


Now, you can counter that those were Maoists, but I still find a statement like "things turn into their opposites" kind of useless. I read CL's translation of RS's comments on chaos theory and RS's comments make more sense. Interpenetration of opposites and the negation of the negation have no meaning until they are applied and to apply them you have to describe the phenomena in some other terminology. It doesn't work for me.

And finally, you can throw a lot of epithets at Redstar but you loose my respect when you call him cynical. As far as I can gather he has been struggling on these boards against Leninists, Maoists, Anarchists, Trotskyists, Liberals, Believers etc. with a consistent line of self-emancipation of the proletariat, with the goal of communism. And apparently he's been involved in this struggle for years. He hasn't given up.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2005, 02:01 AM
This is a little troubling for me. Redstar and Communist League have been the people I most enjoy reading on this board. They are each very hardcore about self emancipation of the working class.

But here arises a difference over dialectical materialism and we get name calling and a fair amount of vitriol. I just reread this exchange and I can't really see what sent CL into "I don't give two shits" mode except that he couldn't get RS to admit that he described chaos theory in dialectical terms. Well he didn't. He described it as best he knew how and then CL translated it into dialectical terminology.

And the fact is that phenomena can be translated into dialectical terminology, that much is clear. But I, like Redstar, do not find it generally helpful. Years ago I read a small book by G. Spencer Brown called The Laws of Thought. It was a logical treatise that began with the injunction "draw a distinction." From there it advanced a whole series of insights into how we think. What I got from that is that the distinction (contradiction) is in our minds. A few years later when I came into contact with Maoists (maybe this is a generational thing, I'm a few years younger than RS) I confronted the whole dialectical apparatus. It didn't help me to think better. Historical materialism helped, ideas borrowed from Brown or Bateson helped. But the specific terminology of dialetics was not helpful to someone trying to understand the world and how to change it.


Now, you can counter that those were Maoists, but I still find a statement like "things turn into their opposites" kind of useless. I read CL's translation of RS's comments on chaos theory and RS's comments make more sense. Interpenetration of opposites and the negation of the negation have no meaning until they are applied and to apply them you have to describe the phenomena in some other terminology. It doesn't work for me.

And finally, you can throw a lot of epithets at Redstar but you loose my respect when you call him cynical. As far as I can gather he has been struggling on these boards against Leninists, Maoists, Anarchists, Trotskyists, Liberals, Believers etc. with a consistent line of self-emancipation of the proletariat, with the goal of communism. And apparently he's been involved in this struggle for years. He hasn't given up.
I'm sorry if I'm letting my frustrations get the better of me in this. The coarse language is not meant to be either belittling or denigrating, but rather an honest expression of how I feel when confronted by someone who is doing their level best to deny reality.

And that is precisely the point here: RedStar is denying reality. He is denying the reality that even he has to resort to dialectical thought to talk about a complex scientific process like chaos theory. Yes, he may express it in terms that are more "popularized" or less "jargon", but the fact remains that he is using dialectics to understand what is going on.

And here is what bothers me the most about this. In his great struggle to denounce dialectics, RedStar presents himself as attempting to develop a "new word" -- a new method of looking at the world. He may not be fully conscious that he is doing this, but nevertheless he is. Everything he is doing is aimed at attacking dialectics, while at the same time promoting his own "new" method.

But here's the kicker: It's not "new", and it's not an alternative to dialectics. IT IS DIALECTICS -- REDSTAR STYLE! Or, more to the point, it is dialectics without being called dialectics and without any reference to those who pioneered the development of this method. In a sense, what we have in RedStar's "new word" can best be called post-modernist dialectics: dialectics without any historical or societal underpinnings.

While it might seem harmless to do somthing like this, there are often more sinister undertones to the development of such "new words". Historically, when others have attempted to recast philosophical doctrines as "new", without any reference to their forebearers, it is often for the purposes of presenting themselves as the new guru of a movement. I don't think this is necessarily RedStar's goal, but I also don't think it matters what his intentions are. Such movements are not always organized top-down, so to speak, but emerge from those who take the philosopher's ideas and propagate them.

In this sense, it could be said -- and this may also see as "unfair" -- that you could take the RedStar out of the cult of personality, but you could not take the cult of personality (or, more to the point, the method of the cult of personality) out of RedStar. As much as he is attacking the Maoists and others for their penchant toward personality cults and great leaders, he has set himself up for such a role by attempting to recast dialectical theory in his own image.

This is the method I see at work here, and, yes, it angers and frustrates the hell out of me. If my expressions of that anger and frustration offend you or anyone else, then I am sorry. But it is honestly how I feel about this. If you lose respect for me as a person because of this honesty, then I don't know what else to say.

Finally, as for the comment on "giving up", I understand that it was something harsh to say, and may have been out of line. But what has he done, outside of the Internet, to put his ideas into practice? I think we all agree that all of this talk about theory is nice, but it is not a substitute for actually organizing and building a movement for self-emancipation of working people. But what has RedStar done on this issue outside of RL and his own website -- i.e., in the real world? I think it's a legitimate question.

If he is so keen on presenting his own theories as an alternative to dialectics, what has he done to subject them to the test of history? After all, RedStar says he's a materialist, so I would gather that he understands the need to take such a struggle off of the Internet and take it into his community and/or workplace. Has he done that? I'm asking honestly.

It seems that he has not. Instead, he is spending all of his time casting himself as a cyber-janitor (which is an ... interesting ... formulation that I've heard before) who "has to take out the trash" -- the "trash" being those of us who utilize dialectical theory. And, in such an endeavor, he gleefully twists and mangles the arguments of his opponents to prove their "religious" quality. (In this sense, he reminds me of Severian, who regularly and consistently misquotes, misinterprets and misstates his opponents' views in order to fit his own pre-conceived notion of what they believe.)

"Epithets", indeed! "Vitriol", indeed!

Yes, there may be a lot of shit being thrown around, but that was going on before I got here. If I've learned one thing from reading RedStar's writings, it is that he has a wide streak of dishonesty when it comes to dealing with political opponents on this issue. Perhaps that, too, has been a source of frustration; I guess I should not come to such debates as this expecting from some people more than they are willing to give.

Miles

[JC1]

Redstar just got pwned.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:12 AM


.......But, as long as I physically can, I will "blow the whistle" on your "dialectical" conceits and fabrications every time I catch you trying to pass off that absurd superstition as "revolutionary theory" on this board. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I find Redstars conclusion as promising as anyone could reasonably expect.

There is, of course, a danger that a determination to weed out posturing will become a substitute for tackling the issues of substance. Dialectical terminology is not necessarily worth attacking if it is incidental to the issue at hand, and merely reflects the manner of thinking of the poster.

But I am quite happy to accept that the explicitly dialectical form of expression is sufficiently off-putting that it is constantly a matter for the dialectical writer to re-illuminate the usefulness of that mode of expression, if others are to take it seriously.

In my naivety I had thought this debate generally well-mannered. But any call to heighten the level of civility is one I would agree with. It certainly helps me in my wish to listen to and learn from others.

It is worth recalling Lenin's criticism of Stalin's impoliteness. :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
And here is what bothers me the most about this. In his great struggle to denounce dialectics, RedStar presents himself as attempting to develop a "new word" -- a new method of looking at the world. He may not be fully conscious that he is doing this, but nevertheless he is. Everything he is doing is aimed at attacking dialectics, while at the same time promoting his own "new" method.

But here's the kicker: It's not "new", and it's not an alternative to dialectics. IT IS DIALECTICS -- REDSTAR STYLE! Or, more to the point, it is dialectics without being called dialectics and without any reference to those who pioneered the development of this method. In a sense, what we have in RedStar's "new word" can best be called post-modernist dialectics: dialectics without any historical or societal underpinnings.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who wants to write (if you haven't already learned it. :lol:).

Nothing is more common than to be monumentally misunderstood...no matter how clearly you attempt to make your points.

At no time, of course, have I ever suggested that there's anything "new" about "my way" of looking at the world. I completely rely on my understanding of the scientific method...as developed over the last three centuries.

Empirical evidence, rational arguments, theories that are both plausible and coherent, etc.

Nothing "special"; nothing that I personally "invented"; nothing that anyone can't inspect and judge for themselves...provided they are willing to make the effort to "learn the basics" of a particular controversy.

In fact, I have frequently had the experience of discovering that something that I thought might be "new" with me was often anticipated by some historical political figure.

I'm not an "innovative genius" of any kind whatsoever.

My "strength" (if such it really is) is as a critical reader...I demand that political ideas make sense and absolutely will not accept "erudite" obscurantism as a "substitute" for rational argument.

This upsets some people now and then...but so be it.


Historically, when others have attempted to recast philosophical doctrines as "new", without any reference to their forebearers, it is often for the purposes of presenting themselves as the new guru of a movement. I don't think this is necessarily RedStar's goal, but I also don't think it matters what his intentions are. Such movements are not always organized top-down, so to speak, but emerge from those who take the philosopher's ideas and propagate them.

Of course such are not "my intentions" nor have I ever sought to be regarded as a "philosopher".

Needless to add (one would think!), the last thing I would ever want to happen is for people to go around saying "Redstar2000 is the red sun in our hearts" or any such stupidities.

What I would want to see, and try to encourage in every way I can, is a proletariat characterized by a deeply critical attitude towards all aspects of social reality.

I don't think we have to "be Marx" to do this...we nearly all have the potential capability to "think like he did".

Indeed, our "educational" system goes to considerable efforts to discourage us from ever doing that.

But it's not working as well as it used to...and the rise of the internet is promoting the acceleration of critical thinking.

Sure, it's mostly still "crap"...but I contend that in the contest between accurate perceptions and crap, it's the crap that loses in the long run.

Indeed, I've seen that happen on this board...much to the dismay of those who defended crap. I see no reason why that will not happen everywhere.


As much as he is attacking the Maoists and others for their penchant toward personality cults and great leaders, he has set himself up for such a role by attempting to recast dialectical theory in his own image.

But if "dialectics" was "really true", what difference would its "image" make?

It's not true at all, of course. Anyone who tried to cast me as "their source" for "dialectical understanding" would be guilty of misunderstanding at best and outright lying at worst.

Looking back on all the deliberate and conscious distortions of Marx's ideas, I suppose that if it happened to someone as great as him, why shouldn't it happen to an ordinary guy like me. :o

Perhaps I should hope that I will never become "important enough" to be deliberately lied about. :lol:


But what has he done, outside of the Internet, to put his ideas into practice? I think we all agree that all of this talk about theory is nice, but it is not a substitute for actually organizing and building a movement for self-emancipation of working people. But what has RedStar done on this issue outside of RL and his own website -- i.e., in the real world? I think it's a legitimate question.

Well, you know that I'm an "old guy" now and my physical limitations essentially make an active role in the struggle no longer possible.

My period of active involvement in the struggle lasted from about 1962 to about 1985. It would have lasted longer than that...but I was unable, despite my best efforts, to locate a political group that I felt comfortable with (and who felt comfortable with me). I did have a series of brief encounters with some groups in San Francisco from 1985 up until 1992...but it became clear in the course of those meetings that we "would not get along together".

You may attribute this "inactivity" to any cause that occurs to you -- I can only say that I was never one to passively tolerate nonsense simply because it was costumed and perfumed to "look revolutionary".

Since the mid-1990s or so, my age (or mis-spent youth! :lol:) has "caught up with me" and I am no longer physically able to maintain the "pace" of active political work.

What I can still do is pass on what I've learned to the new generation of revolutionaries. There's no "dialectical law" that says that they "must repeat" the mistakes that I made...or that were made by others during my life in radical politics.

This seems to me to be a "fitting way" to spend the last years of my life.

My critics can take heart in the realization that those years will almost certainly be very limited in number. Indeed, one more big hurricane should "finish me"...and I am still only 35 miles from the gulf coast.

But they will still be disappointed even when I am no longer around to "plague them". Younger and healthier revolutionary critics of "dialectics" have already emerged and they will be heard.

No "con" works "forever". :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

Not that many conversations on philosophy interest me, but this one really had me engrossed. I'd like to say thanks to the comrade who started the topic, I'll be passing that piece onto the RSYM for discussion and thank you also to CyM, Redstar and CL for making this a thought-provoking issue to reflect upon.

[Red Powers]

I just now scanned the Communist League's Basic Principles document and although I may have missed it I didn't see a single reference to dialectics or dialectical materialism. Point #22 came close in discussing pragmatism as an ideological tool of the bourgeoisie but didn't mention dialectics. What I don't understand in this debate is; if dialectics are not a basic principle of your organization why would you be drawing such sharp lines over this? "Sinister" and "personality cult" are not, in my book, words used with a comrade.

Does Redstar's refusal to validate dialectics invalidate his status as a communist? That'd be pretty harsh I think. It seems to me that Redstar's position with regard to dialectics arises not from some devious motives but rather from long experience with pompous red blowhards using dialectical terminology to pump themselves up. I know I sure have seen enough of that.

In my experience dialectics served mainly as a way for certain comrades to rise a little bit above the rank-and-file. And I further found, like Redstar, that science and historical materialism were better bets for understanding the world.


Interestingly enough I recently got hold, through interlibrary loan the publications from the split in the RCP in 1977(?). What's interesting for this debate is the fact that each side accuses the other of being "undialectical"(among other things) and each side applies dialectics to the situation then in China and comes up with diametrically opposed viewpoints! How is someone supposed to make sense of this?


The strange thing about these publications is that the split group, the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters was totally wrong about China, but they predict quite accurately that Avakian would become exactly what he has become (actually even they didn't predict the slavishness of the followers). On the other side, who knows what the Gang of Four represented, the RCP apparently moved out of working class work. I didn't read the China papers (do you blame me!) but it was clear that these people were trying to use dialectics. I think an example like this indicates the limits of dialectical thinking. Partial correctness on both sides indicates that dialectics doesn't always work. I'm convinced that the things that people got right in this split had more to do with science and historical materialism.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red Powers+Nov 20 2005, 09:05 PM--> (Red Powers @ Nov 20 2005, 09:05 PM)I just now scanned the Communist League's Basic Principles document and although I may have missed it I didn't see a single reference to dialectics or dialectical materialism. Point #22 came close in discussing pragmatism as an ideological tool of the bourgeoisie but didn't mention dialectics. What I don't understand in this debate is; if dialectics are not a basic principle of your organization why would you be drawing such sharp lines over this? "Sinister" and "personality cult" are not, in my book, words used with a comrade.[/b]

It's not in the Basic Principles, that is true. But not everything I talk about here is strictly League line. I have my own opinions, and I have the right to put them forward ... and defend them. If I just stuck to talking about things where the League has taken a position, I wouldn't be doing much posting here. After all, a lot of the discussion that takes place on RL is related to unfolding events or historical questions.

Also, I think you might be getting a little overly sensitive about the language. I think both RedStar and I are mature enough to handle a measure of coarse language. At the very least, he certainly seems to be willing to give as much as he gets.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2005, 09:05 PM
Does Redstar's refusal to validate dialectics invalidate his status as a communist? That'd be pretty harsh I think. It seems to me that Redstar's position with regard to dialectics arises not from some devious motives but rather from long experience with pompous red blowhards using dialectical terminology to pump themselves up. I know I sure have seen enough of that.

We all have had those experiences. But, according to RedStar, that's not the reason he opposes dialectics. He opposes dialectics going back as far as Marx himself.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2005, 09:05 PM
In my experience dialectics served mainly as a way for certain comrades to rise a little bit above the rank-and-file. And I further found, like Redstar, that science and historical materialism were better bets for understanding the world.

Again, I've had those experiences too. But, again, this is not why RedStar opposes dialectics.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 20 2005, 09:05 PM
Interestingly enough I recently got hold, through interlibrary loan the publications from the split in the RCP in 1977(?). What's interesting for this debate is the fact that each side accuses the other of being "undialectical"(among other things) and each side applies dialectics to the situation then in China and comes up with diametrically opposed viewpoints! How is someone supposed to make sense of this?

They're not. That's the point. When it comes to such "struggles", the reader is usually right to suspect that both sides are abusing dialectics for their own ends. But is this a rational reason to swear off dialectical theory? Or is it a kneejerk reaction?


Red [email protected] 20 2005, 09:05 PM
The strange thing about these publications is that the split group, the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters was totally wrong about China, but they predict quite accurately that Avakian would become exactly what he has become (actually even they didn't predict the slavishness of the followers). On the other side, who knows what the Gang of Four represented, the RCP apparently moved out of working class work. I didn't read the China papers (do you blame me!) but it was clear that these people were trying to use dialectics. I think an example like this indicates the limits of dialectical thinking. Partial correctness on both sides indicates that dialectics doesn't always work. I'm convinced that the things that people got right in this split had more to do with science and historical materialism.

Here's the problem with what you're saying here. On the one hand, you say that "the things that people got right in this split had more to do with science and historical materialism". But, on the other hand, you say that "partial correctness on both sides indicates that dialectics doesn't always work". But historical materialism in the sense we're talking about is dialectical in its foundations. So how does that explain them getting some elements rights and other elements wrong? I suppose that the best way to look at it is to remember the old adage about a stopped clock being right twice a day.

I have the same literature about the 1977 RCP split that you do. In my recollection, it was already clear in the mid-1970s that the RCP was going to develop an Avakian cult. For the RWHQ comrades to have said so was no great revelation, and it certainly was not "proof" of their knowledge of dialectics. But this does open up a question about the application of method that few talk about.

Most comrades who think of themselves as "dialecticians" follow the dictum that you go from the general to the particular when doing analysis. And, to the extent that this goes, they are correct. However, it is also necessary to then go from the particular to the general again, in order to analyze where a thing is going. In the case of the RWHQ, and this is confirmed by reading their materials, you see that when they attempt to make this final transition, they lapse into idealism. This is why it was easy for them to "predict" the rise of the Avakian cult, but not understand what was taking place in China; they were good at understanding what was in people's heads, but had lost sight of material reality. Conversely, the RCP leadership, in their effort to make this second transition, fell into vulgar materialism. Their predictions about the path of development of China confirm this, as does their inability to gauge their own contradictions and development -- as well as that of the RWHQ.

Miles

[encephalon]

The problem with dialectics is that too many microcosmic variables exist to accurately predict a macrocosmic event. While everything can be boild down into two variables (binary.. e.g. the basis of logic itself), it is difficult to observe in media res exactly which cause will have what effect. While you can macrocosmically determine certain events without a specific timeframe, the actual events themselves are virtually unpredictable unless you know each and every variable involved in the final outcome.

You might refer to chaos theory in conjunction to dialectics (something that they couldn't have possibly considered in the early 20th century). To use a clicheand sincerely overused maxim (see: jurassic park), consider the butterfly effect. A butterfly flapping its wings in japan will have a definite effect on a hurricane in cuba, but there are so many variables involved that we have absolutely no idea what that effect will be.

All that we can conclude is that there's a chance that the butterfly's wing-flapping will have an effect on the weather system, significant or not, and through logical deduction we can conclude that a billion butterfly flaps will eventually culminate into a very chaotic weather system, or perhaps a hurricane of immense proportions (if we have sufficient data). We can't, however, say when this will be due to unforeseen circumstances outside of the butterfly's flapping. It's simply too much microcosmic data--which eventually manifests into the macrocasm--to compute with our current means. I suspect we'll never have the means to fully compute it, although predictions (like meteorology) will become more accfurate with time.

[Martin Blank]

This discussion on dialectics has been going on for a while now, and it seems like as good a time as any to step back and take in the "big picture".

As part of my process of taking a step back, I decided to reacquaint myself with RedStar's writings against dialectics. And, as I read more of RedStar's comments, I found myself asking one question: Exactly what, in terms of dialectical theory, does he disagree with?

According to RedStar's own writings, he believes that dialectical methodology is unnecessary and even a hindrance. For him, materialism provides enough of a grounding to understand the world. To an extent, he is right; materialism can be all that is needed in order to understand past, historical events -- i.e., things that have already happened. But what about things that are currently in process -- i.e., things happening now? Moreover, what about the future development of things?

On these last two points, RedStar offers a strange silence -- that is, when he is not attacking his opponents as "religious", "con artists" or just "crap". It seems that the only answer that RedStar can offer to those wanting to analyze what is happening or what will happen is to ... not bother. That is, wait until it happens, and then apply "historical materialism".

This fits nicely into his own method of misunderstanding the world. RedStar ambles from one theory to another, switching them in and out like a coach switches players on the playing field. At once, he will appeal to his "postmodernist dialectics" (which he passes off as his own brand of "historical materialism"), "neo-classical" pragmatism, mechanical materialism and -- in his own words -- cynicism. He attempts to muster all of these methods against dialectics. And when this effort fails, he resorts to tried and true ... ridicule.

He even goes so far as to conscript a British academic who, like him, see dialectics as "mysticism", but, like him, fails to see her own bourgeois idealism and impressionism.

But for all the vituperation -- for all the cheap attacks and personal digs against his opponents -- the only real argument he has against dialectics is that those who have claimed to use the method have failed in their efforts, and therefore the theory itself must be junked. If we were to extend the logic of this argument, then not only should dialectics be junked, but also the concept of the class struggle, the overthrow of capitalist rule, the view that the working class is the only really revolutionary class, the struggle for liberation from exploitation and oppression, etc. After all, this same crop of "losers" that RedStar uses as his justification for scrapping dialectics also adhered to these concepts.

If RedStar was honest, his next steps would be the repudiation of these concepts as well. For Marx, dialectical theory helped him to understand these concepts. And since RedStar sees dialectics as the root of all failures, then -- if he is an honest philosopher and not just a pandering wannabe guru looking for a new generation of converts to carry on his legacy -- he should take a hard look at these other tenets of "failed" Marxism and draw appropriate conclusions.

Miles

[Red Powers]

Miles,

I grew up in Brooklyn so I'm not at all sensitive to language in a prudish sense. You make it sound as though I only listen to censored versions of Rap, not true. But I am sensitive to language in the sense that if I were in a bar and two of my comrades were discussing say dialectics and suddenly they were cursing each other out I might inject some comment to bring it back down. Purely out of self-interest of course. I don't want to have to interrupt my drinking to break up a fight. So yeah sensitive in that way.


About the Basic Principles. Of course you can argue about whatever you like here. All I was saying is don't let dialectics become the line of division. Presumably, if dialectics is not a basic principle of your organization you are willing to work with comrades who have not taken a stand on the issue and it's conceivable (though not likely I think) that someone with Redstar's position could join the CL. But of course if you guys are just sparring or having a pissing contest maybe I'll just order another drink and go back to being a spectator.



They're not. That's the point. When it comes to such "struggles", the reader is usually right to suspect that both sides are abusing dialectics for their own ends. But is this a rational reason to swear off dialectical theory? Or is it a kneejerk reaction?



Probably, any discussion of this split deserves its own thread or would be better taken aside but I will address this point. It is certainly not a knee-jerk reaction. These events happened thirty years ago. We can see what developed from them. I do indeed think it is rational to be suspicious of a method that allows two diametrically opposed results. You jump over this dilemma by saying simply that both sides are "abusing" dialectics. But how can you tell? What's to prevent somebody from accusing you of abusing dialectics? Sooner or later you have to resort to historical materialism, what's really happening. And you have to use the scientific method to come to conclusions.



The point I was making about partial correctness was that the RWHQ had material knowledge about Avakian but about China all they had was Peking Review (lots of luck). They also seemed to have a little better knowledge of what work in the proletariat entailed. The RCP on the other hand seemed to have jumped to the conclusion almost immediately that that was a coup. I would submit that this was beacause the Chairman knew (or thought he knew) what was going on because he did read all those Peking Reviews. People were correct where they had concrete knowledge (or could interpret PR) and incorrect where they didn't. And we don't really know if the RCP was correct as far as the Gang of Four representing a revolutionary line do we?


And finally, I think of the RCP as the idealists and the RWHQ ( for their brief existence) as the more materialist group. But then things do turn into their opposites don't they?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Communist League
According to RedStar's own writings, he believes that dialectical methodology is unnecessary and even a hindrance. For him, materialism provides enough of a grounding to understand the world. To an extent, he is right; materialism can be all that is needed in order to understand past, historical events -- i.e., things that have already happened. But what about things that are currently in process -- i.e., things happening now? Moreover, what about the future development of things?

It is precisely in this arena that the claims of the "dialecticians" have been decisively falsified

Ordinary "generic" historical materialism is, by the way, the only useful tool we have for analyzing what is going on "right now"...even though we are hindered in that effort by the possible lack of crucial information.

But predict the future in useful detail?

The "track record" of the "dialecticians" is no better than that of bourgeois economists, astrologers, or any other bunch of con-men.


...the only real argument he has against dialectics is that those who have claimed to use the method have failed in their efforts, and therefore the theory itself must be junked.

Yes, that's the test of a real science...theories that fail get junked!

That's why science is better than all other "paths to truth".


If we were to extend the logic of this argument, then not only should dialectics be junked, but also the concept of the class struggle, the overthrow of capitalist rule, the view that the working class is the only really revolutionary class, the struggle for liberation from exploitation and oppression, etc. After all, this same crop of "losers" that RedStar uses as his justification for scrapping dialectics also adhered to these concepts.

I make a distinction between Marx's "core ideas" and all the crap grafted onto his ideas by Lenin and all of his self-designated heirs.

Yes, I think the whole Leninist paradigm turned out to be wrong...in the advanced capitalist countries, of course.

And it should be junked!

On the other hand, I think there is considerable empirical evidence that Marx was right in his analysis of capitalist economics, class struggle, the working class as the only revolutionary class, the possibilities of abolishing wage-slavery altogether, etc.

What Marx did not realize was "how long things would take" before material conditions matured to the necessary degree to make proletarian revolution and communism possible.

He lived through the birth of modern capitalist societies and did not foresee the "long life" ahead of this "new form" of class society.

I think he was right about how they will die...but at least a century or two wrong about the "time-frame".

Considering the 80-100 centuries of class society, an error of a century or two may reasonably be considered marginal. :lol:


RedStar ambles from one theory to another, switching them in and out like a coach switches players on the playing field.

Quite true...and I consider this "criticism" to actually be a compliment.

I have no "special regard" for anyone's "special theory". To me, like to that coach, my concern is which theoretical model is most useful for dealing with this particular problem.

What theory gives me an answer that I can actually use which will really work?

I need not elaborate further on the failures of "dialectics" in particular or Leninism in general.

Their "answers" do not work.

Indeed, I think they are both examples of what happens to theories that have become "disconnected" from material reality altogether. They become superstitions...believing that mere words can "change" reality.

As if something that's "true in words" must be true in reality.

We know that reality is "dialectical" because Marx said so.

Marx really did say that...but that doesn't make it a true statement.

We know that the working class requires the leadership of a vanguard party to become emancipated because Lenin said so.

Lenin really did say that...but that doesn't make it a true statement.

And so on.

My critics have made much of my "cynicism"...that is, my flat refusal to accept statements from "recognized authorities" as "inherently valid".

I am indeed guilty of this "crime" and decline to show any "remorse" whatsoever.

"Worse", I think everyone should do likewise!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red Powers+Nov 21 2005, 10:37 AM--> (Red Powers @ Nov 21 2005, 10:37 AM)I grew up in Brooklyn so I'm not at all sensitive to language in a prudish sense. You make it sound as though I only listen to censored versions of Rap, not true. But I am sensitive to language in the sense that if I were in a bar and two of my comrades were discussing say dialectics and suddenly they were cursing each other out I might inject some comment to bring it back down. Purely out of self-interest of course. I don't want to have to interrupt my drinking to break up a fight. So yeah sensitive in that way.[/b]

I understand what you're saying here. I've found that, in many ways, when communists argue, it's often like a scene out of Star Trek -- when the Klingons get together and party before they go off to battle. They beat the hell out of each other in order to steel themselves for the real fight ahead. There will always be a little blood on the floor, but never too much.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21 2005, 10:37 AM
About the Basic Principles. Of course you can argue about whatever you like here. All I was saying is don't let dialectics become the line of division. Presumably, if dialectics is not a basic principle of your organization you are willing to work with comrades who have not taken a stand on the issue and it's conceivable (though not likely I think) that someone with Redstar's position could join the CL. But of course if you guys are just sparring or having a pissing contest maybe I'll just order another drink and go back to being a spectator.

I'll readily admit there is a bit of a pissing contest going on here. A discussion like this about dialectics is not going to change the world. It's when we leave our comfortable confines and head out into the world that the method matters. I've found dialectics to be very useful as a means of analyzing the world as it develops, especially in seeing how the dynamics of current society will develop in the immediate period to come. In fact, I would venture to say that the things that comrades find intriguing, positive and attractive about the League is a product of members' use of dialectics -- including our view on class.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21 2005, 10:37 AM
Probably, any discussion of this split deserves its own thread or would be better taken aside but I will address this point. It is certainly not a knee-jerk reaction. These events happened thirty years ago. We can see what developed from them. I do indeed think it is rational to be suspicious of a method that allows two diametrically opposed results. You jump over this dilemma by saying simply that both sides are "abusing" dialectics. But how can you tell? What's to prevent somebody from accusing you of abusing dialectics? Sooner or later you have to resort to historical materialism, what's really happening. And you have to use the scientific method to come to conclusions.

In terms of the RCP-RWHQ fight, you're talking about past events, and historical materialism serves a useful role in analyzing those events. Why? Because the dynamics have already been laid out and charted. There is not much need for the dialectical method when it comes to dealing with static phenomena, which past events generally fall into. This is why it looked like I "jumped over" the issue. The value of dialectical thought rests in living, developing events -- things happening now, or on the verge of happening. This was the point I was making in my last post.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21 2005, 10:37 AM
The point I was making about partial correctness was that the RWHQ had material knowledge about Avakian but about China all they had was Peking Review (lots of luck). They also seemed to have a little better knowledge of what work in the proletariat entailed. The RCP on the other hand seemed to have jumped to the conclusion almost immediately that that was a coup. I would submit that this was beacause the Chairman knew (or thought he knew) what was going on because he did read all those Peking Reviews. People were correct where they had concrete knowledge (or could interpret PR) and incorrect where they didn't. And we don't really know if the RCP was correct as far as the Gang of Four representing a revolutionary line do we?

We would have to go back through the materials and attempt to properly reconstruct the dynamics that both the RCP and RWHQ saw in order to answer that question.


Red [email protected] 21 2005, 10:37 AM
And finally, I think of the RCP as the idealists and the RWHQ (for their brief existence) as the more materialist group. But then things do turn into their opposites don't they?

Well, yes and no. I saw contradiction moving in both an idealist and vulgar materialist direction coming from both. But, looking at the conclusions each drew from their analyses, I see more of an idealist bent in the RWHQ's analysis of China (taking the word of the Dengists as good coin) and more of a vulgar materialist bent in the RCP's analysis (drawing a crude line based on the arrest of the Gang of Four).

Miles

[Red Powers]

From Communist League

In terms of the RCP-RWHQ fight, you're talking about past events, and historical materialism serves a useful role in analyzing those events. Why? Because the dynamics have already been laid out and charted. There is not much need for the dialectical method when it comes to dealing with static phenomena, which past events generally fall into. This is why it looked like I "jumped over" the issue. The value of dialectical thought rests in living, developing events -- things happening now, or on the verge of happening. This was the point I was making in my last post.(emphasis added)


You and I, of course, are talking about past events but the authors of those publications were working in "real time" precisely the time frame where you claim dialectics is most useful. That is why I brought this issue into the thread. My point is basically that here you have two wings of what was the largest group in the New Communist Movement, each of which must have had some dialecticians, trying to figure out what was going on in China. The result, in this application of dialectics, is two opposite answers. They couldn't both be right, although it occurs to me they could both be wrong. And if one side was correct, were they just the better dialecticians or did they get lucky? Or maybe, as you suggest, they were both "abusing dialectics." That is entirely possible, I assume, but it nevertheless fails to recommend dialetics to me.

[Martin Blank]

I must be some kind of masochist. Why I keep putting up with RedStar's abuse -- of me, of Marx, of history and of the real world -- I do not know.


Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 21 2005, 11:36 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 21 2005, 11:36 AM)Ordinary "generic" historical materialism is, by the way, the only useful tool we have for analyzing what is going on "right now"...even though we are hindered in that effort by the possible lack of crucial information.

But predict the future in useful detail?

The "track record" of the "dialecticians" is no better than that of bourgeois economists, astrologers, or any other bunch of con-men.[/b]

In detail enough to prepare for what's likely to come, yes. We've been doing it with considerable success. You may find something in there to warrant another screed of abuse, but you can only use that tactic for so long.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:36 AM
Yes, that's the test of a real science...theories that fail get junked!

That's why science is better than all other "paths to truth".

According to the "Intelligent Design" people, evolution is a failed theory that deserves to get junked. Draw your own conclusions.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:36 AM
On the other hand, I think there is considerable empirical evidence that Marx was right in his analysis of capitalist economics, class struggle, the working class as the only revolutionary class, the possibilities of abolishing wage-slavery altogether, etc.

Finding empirical evidence after the dialectically-guided predictions were made and confirmed means nothing.


Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 11:36 AM
Considering the 80-100 centuries of class society, an error of a century or two may reasonably be considered marginal. :lol:

You may laugh, but the statement is nevertheless true.


[email protected] 21 2005, 11:36 AM
I have no "special regard" for anyone's "special theory". To me, like to that coach, my concern is which theoretical model is most useful for dealing with this particular problem.

In other words, the underpinning for all of your ecclecticism and sophistry is pragmatism -- "whatever works", even if it really doesn't.

That answers all of the questions I might have had about you.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21 2005, 02:08 PM
You and I, of course, are talking about past events but the authors of those publications were working in "real time" precisely the time frame where you claim dialectics is most useful. That is why I brought this issue into the thread. My point is basically that here you have two wings of what was the largest group in the New Communist Movement, each of which must have had some dialecticians, trying to figure out what was going on in China. The result, in this application of dialectics, is two opposite answers. They couldn't both be right, although it occurs to me they could both be wrong. And if one side was correct, were they just the better dialecticians or did they get lucky? Or maybe, as you suggest, they were both "abusing dialectics." That is entirely possible, I assume, but it nevertheless fails to recommend dialetics to me.
I've seen more brutal abuse of other philosophical methods than what I've seen from the abusers of dialectics. "Social Darwinism" pops first into my mind.

In the final analysis, history was the best arbiter of the fight between these two Maoist groups. The RWHQ blinked out of existence; the RCP became precisely what they were predicted to become: a personality cult (which is, in many ways, a fate worse than death). Neither side won; thus, neither side was correct.

History's greatest contradiction is that it is a zero-sum game. Every movement in one direction has an opposing force interacting with it. And, in the end, the greatest advance is nothing without its opposite to define it.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
I must be some kind of masochist. Why I keep putting up with RedStar's abuse -- of me, of Marx, of history and of the real world -- I do not know.

Perhaps it's a taste for self-dramatization. Every reader of this thread knows I have not "abused" you in any way whatsoever.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Your serious article on what happened in the USSR actually won my explicit praise and I posted a link to it in the Resources Forum.

The reference is here...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291853658 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=34666&view=findpost&p=1291853658)

It probably helped a lot that you made no explicit reference to your "dialectical understanding" in the text. :lol:


In detail enough to prepare for what's likely to come, yes. We've been doing it with considerable success. You may find something in there to warrant another screed of abuse, but you can only use that tactic for so long.

Rather than "abuse", I will simply ask for a demonstration of your claim.

You know the drill. A text that can be reliably dated prior to the predicted event and an objective account of the event itself.

Moreover, you can't just do it "once" (because that could be a lucky guess). You have to put up a consistent "track record" of "getting it right" over an extended period of time.

When "psychics" are confronted with this test, they probably claim they are being "abused". :lol:

I suggest a "benchmark" to measure your success. Consider the record of the National Hurricane Center in predicting the course and intensity of hurricanes.

They are very good at what they do...and even when they miss, the margin of error is small. In place of "dialectics", they use nine different (and rather elaborate) computer models to process the empirical data gathered by aircraft, satellites, ground weather stations, and ships at sea.

Those models are based on hurricane data gathered over the last 20 or 30 years...empirical descriptions of what each hurricane did under specific weather and water conditions.

Human societies in their actual day-to-day existence are far more complicated than hurricanes, of course. It would not be fair to hold your own "dialecticians" to the high standards set by the National Hurricane Center.

But if "they're as good" as you claim they are, we should see some evidence to support that claim...and, over time, a "track record" that begins to approach the performance of the NHC.

By the way, if your "dialecticians" really do put together an impressive record, they should prepare themselves to be anointed as celebrities by the mainstream media. Indeed, they will receive some fabulous offers from corporations that could make money from accurate forecasts of political and economic events.

They may "lose interest" in proletarian revolution. :lol:


According to the "Intelligent Design" people, evolution is a failed theory that deserves to get junked.

If the evidence supported their assertion, then they'd be right!

It doesn't.


Finding empirical evidence after the dialectically-guided predictions were made and confirmed means nothing.

Ah, would that I could rise "above" such earthly concerns as evidence and breath the Olympian air of "pure truth".

Then I too could dismiss evidence as a meaningless consideration...utterly beneath the dignity of a "real philosopher".

Alas, I am "unqualified" for such a lofty residence. I persist in my vulgar conviction that one really competent engineer is worth more than 10,000 philosophers.

You know...that stuff about "changing the world". :lol:


In other words, the underpinning for all of your eclecticism and sophistry is pragmatism -- "whatever works", even if it really doesn't.

Yes, I believe the technical term is "vulgar American pragmatist"...best spoken in as scornful tones as you can manage.

I have been "put in my place" by experts...you seem to be a "beginner" at this sort of thing.

Well, I can no more "rise above" my own specific historical experiences than anyone else. I was born in the U.S. and have always lived here. I absorbed the lesson from childhood: what works is better than what doesn't work.

Capitalism didn't work very well for me...and thus I began my search for a better way.

You may find such a motive "alien" to your own concerns...that's not something I can do anything about.

But I think when you actually talk to ordinary working people about what you propose to do and how you propose to do it, you should prepare yourself for the question.

Will this work?

It's "a part of the culture" here and is unlikely to "just go away".

I don't think it should. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 22 2005, 07:26 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 22 2005, 07:26 AM)Every reader of this thread knows I have not "abused" you in any way whatsoever. Quite the contrary, in fact. Your serious article on what happened in the USSR actually won my explicit praise and I posted a link to it in the Resources Forum.[/b]

That was yesterday (well, actually, months ago). Today, according to you, I'm a "con artist" peddling "religion" and other assorted "crap".


Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:26 AM
It probably helped a lot that you made no explicit reference to your "dialectical understanding" in the text. :lol:

Which only exposes your own prejudice against dialectical theory -- not the first instance of prejudicial attitudes you have exhibited.


Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:26 AM
Rather than "abuse", I will simply ask for a demonstration of your claim. You know the drill. A text that can be reliably dated prior to the predicted event and an objective account of the event itself.

Moreover, you can't just do it "once" (because that could be a lucky guess). You have to put up a consistent "track record" of "getting it right" over an extended period of time.

I do not intend to publish the minutes of internal discussions that take place in the League. Sorry, RedStar. If you want to use this as an excuse to ridicule me and the League, be my guest. Personally, I really don't care what you think at this point.


Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:26 AM
If the evidence supported their assertion, then they'd be right!

It doesn't.

From their perspective, the "evidence" does support their assertions. Similarly, from your perspective,...


Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:26 AM
Yes, I believe the technical term is "vulgar American pragmatist"...best spoken in as scornful tones as you can manage.

I have been "put in my place" by experts...you seem to be a "beginner" at this sort of thing.

Considering that I am not here to put you or anyone "in their place", your whinging and whining is unfounded. Go throw your pity party somewhere else.


[email protected] 22 2005, 07:26 AM
But I think when you actually talk to ordinary working people about what you propose to do and how you propose to do it, you should prepare yourself for the question. Will this work?

What fun! When all else fails, attempt to class-bait. :lol: Pathetic, RedStar. Pathetic.

Miles

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:40 AM


From Redstar2000:


Come now! I was exposed to that crap back in the 1960s and 1970s...I was even in a "study group" that read and discussed Mao "on dialectics" at interminable length.

This study group must have not known very much, and as for Mao, well, I would not consider a Stalinist to be the most reliable source on the subject at hand.


It was just awful! :o

They must have been awful if they could not even teach basic dialectic.


Now I would regard being compelled to read anything defending "dialectics" as cruel and unusual punishment!

Reading parts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky constitute cruel and unusual punishment? You say that you don't have time to read "holy books." Keep in mind that dialectics is an a rather lengthy subject, and I must point out that I don't have time to write books.


The reason I participate in threads on this subject is to actively discourage young revolutionaries from wasting a fucking second of their valuable time on that useless crap.

So you actively discourage the ABC of Marxism.


There is so much to learn about the real world that it's almost criminal to see the "dialecticians" still spreading their 19th century superstition here...as if it were some kind of "super-highway to truth".

A good deal of scientific discoveries that have happened recently have dialectical aspects to them.


And not the dead end that it actually is!

You seem to be stuck in a dead end.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
Today, according to you, I'm a "con artist" peddling "religion" and other assorted "crap".

No, I did not accuse you personally of being a "con-artist" peddling "religion"...at least specifically.

I do think that the people you are defending may well be worthy of such descriptive nouns...though I have no way of knowing "for sure".

We can't see "inside people's heads" -- not even "dialectically" -- and know when they are guilty of well-meaning error and when more dubious motives lie beneath their assertions.

I am completely convinced that Hegel was a no-good proto-fascist bastard, for example. And I think his "dialectics" are a perfect reflection of his mystical opposition to any form of emancipation of the "vulgar masses"...

Slaves deserve to be slaves because they are incapable of risking their lives to become masters!

This is just one example of his vile anti-enlightenment "philosophy".

The attempts by Marx and Engels to purge "dialectics" of its reactionary attributes were both commendable and symptomatic of the "intellectual era" in which they lived and worked.

Not all that different, if you stop and think about it, from a couple of bright kids in our own era who might attempt to put together a "Marxist version" of "post-modernism".

Could we condemn their "good faith" effort "out of hand"?

Or would it be necessary to patiently explain why it's not possible to "transform" a reactionary philosophy into a progressive one...not even "dialectically".

Perhaps my own attempts at "patient explanation" are "not patient enough". Perhaps my harsh condemnation of "dialectics" has simply made some comrades feel like I am "attacking them personally" as "conscious frauds".

Perhaps this more "impersonal" critique of "dialectics" by Rosa Lichtenstein will "get past" your personal feelings...

The Three Laws of Dialectics (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm)


I do not intend to publish the minutes of internal discussions that take place in the League.

Why not? Surely they could be edited to disguise the identities of the participants and any information that would be "sensitive" -- references to specific workplaces could be altered or deleted, etc.

Has it escaped your notice that the era of "secret meetings" where people "really speak their minds" is "withering away"?

In fact, someone has already raised the demand for "political transparency" in the revolutionary movement...and others have agreed.

This is not a call for naive carelessness with regard to personal information or details that should not be brought to the attention of the agents of repression.

Instead, it says that ordinary people have the right to know how a revolutionary movement decides political questions! What kinds of arguments were raised...and refuted or accepted?

Needless to add, the absence of any confirming evidence for your League's "dialectical" predictions amounts to asking us to accept your "claims of success" on faith.

Want to speculate on how far you're going to get with that these days? :lol:


When all else fails, attempt to class-bait.

I was not "class-baiting" you and, in fact, I'm generally opposed to that line of "argument".

I was making a simple empirical observation drawn from my own direct experience.

American working people, by and large, have a distinct bias in favor of practicality. They are, for the most part, "pragmatists like me" and want to know "will this work?".

Even on this board, there have been a surprising number of threads in the Theory forum and elsewhere on "how will we do X in a classless society?".

Even though most of these discussions must perforce be speculative at the present time (we don't know yet what the conditions near, during, and immediately after proletarian revolution will actually be like) -- I think they usually reflect a healthy outlook.

No one is satisfied any more with answers based on faith...not even "dialectical" faith.

What do we want to do and how do we propose to do it?

Will it work?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Entrails Konfetti]

Dialectics makes sense in argument form.

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Its simply looking at the bigger picture, what is opposed to your thesis, then you answer the anti-thesis with the synthesis.

However I don't understand the three catagories, they all seem so similar if not alike.

*Negation-of the Negation.

*Quantity transforms over-all quality.

*the interpenetration of opposites.

My aging for example. Youth becomes closer to senior citizen, daily (negation of the negation, and interpenetration of opposites). The number of days I live, the more my body wear out (quantity transforms over all quality)

I don't understand why an intertwining spiral pattern is needed.

Whats wrong with the simple thesis-antithesis-synthesis?

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 23 2005, 03:03 AM
Dialectics makes sense in argument form.

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Its simply looking at the bigger picture, what is opposed to your thesis, then you answer the anti-thesis with the synthesis.

However I don't understand the three catagories, they all seem so similar if not alike.

*Negation-of the Negation.

*Quantity transforms over-all quality.

*the interpenetration of opposites.

My aging for example. Youth becomes closer to senior citizen, daily (negation of the negation, and interpenetration of opposites). The number of days I live, the more my body wear out (quantity transforms over all quality)

I don't understand why an intertwining spiral pattern is needed.

Whats wrong with the simple thesis-antithesis-synthesis?
Help.

Can you explain to me what this means in the real world?

[ComradeRed]

Well I suppose there are really "two" dialectics. One is the Ancient Greek dialectic, which is essentially a rational discourse or discussion.

The other is the Hegelian dialectic which is longwinded, dull, and pointless.

The Ancient Greek dialectic, in my opinion, is merely an extension of the "geometric proof" logic.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Nov 22 2005, 10:03 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Nov 22 2005, 10:03 PM)However I don't understand the three catagories, they all seem so similar if not alike.

*Negation-of the Negation.

*Quantity transforms over-all quality.

*the interpenetration of opposites.

My aging for example. Youth becomes closer to senior citizen, daily (negation of the negation, and interpenetration of opposites). The number of days I live, the more my body wear out (quantity transforms over all quality)

I don't understand why an intertwining spiral pattern is needed.[/b]

More or less, you already have the understanding. You demonstrate that in your statement about aging. And, yes, they seem so similar because all three are interconnected. But, for the sake of those who do not see the real-world meaning, let's go through them.

Unity and Interpenetration of Opposites -- To start, let's talk about the meaning of "opposites" here, because this is often misunderstood. It is more accurate in the English language to use a formulation like "opposing forces" instead of "opposites". This is because the latter term implies polar opposites, which in turn is translated into only two opposing forces. But we often find more than two opposing forces contained in a single thing.

The unity and interpenetration of opposites can also be understood in the mathematical formulation: A equals A and Not-A. That is, a thing is at once how you're defining it at the moment, as well as something that is changing into something else. Daytime is also Not-Daytime, because day is in the process of changing into night. A Chair is also a Not-Chair, because the wood or metal is in the process of changing. This relationship also excludes the concept of a "pure" anything. You cannot have pure light; you need its opposites -- shadows and highlights -- to define what kind of light you have.

The corrollary to this is that contradiction is the basis for motion. That is, the existence of these opposing forces within a thing is what puts it into motion and guides its process. The fact that a Chair, for example, is made of wood -- which degrades over time due to age, weather, use, etc., and transforms into something else -- puts that object in motion in a given direction -- toward becoming sawdust, kindling, a pile of splinters, etc. The organic contradictions within the wood put it into motion.

In your example, it would be the growth, development and decay of human cells, which defines aging in an organic sense, that sets the contradiction within a newborn baby into motion.

The Transformation of Quantity into Quality -- As things develop, they undergo both quantitative changes (changes by degree) and qualitative changes (fundamental changes). The best example of this is found in the changing states of water.

As we all know, water at sea level becomes a solid at 32F/0C and a gas at 212F/100C. It does not become part-gas/part-liquid at 167F/75C; likewise, it does become part-solid/part-liquid at 77F/25C. In fact, water remains a liquid up to 211F/99C and 33F/1C, respectively. Those quantitative changes do not aggregate into a gradual transformation. However, add or subtract one more degree to these two respective amounts of water, and a qualitative transformation takes place -- from liquid to water vapor or ice.

(Note carefully that I specify "water at sea level". This is intentional. The boiling and freezing points of water can be shifted due to the pressure placed on it by the atmosphere. As the pressure drops, so does the boiling point. This is due to the interrelationship of air and water -- the unity and interpenetration of opposites.)

The Negation of the Negation -- This postulate is often misinterpreted to mean that something becomes what it was, but on a higher level. But we all know that is not always true. In fact, to say something has underwent the process of negation of the negation is to say that a thing that was transformed into one thing has again transformed into something that is in opposition to its previous state. (Again, we have to discern between "opposites" and "opposing forces".)

For this, we can go back to the example of water. The transformation of water-ice to water-liquid is a negation because liquid and solid are two opposed states of being. Similarly, the transformation of water-liquid to water-vapor is a negation of the negation because liquid and gas are two opposed states, as gas and solid are also two opposed states.

And this gets into your question below.


EL [email protected] 22 2005, 10:03 PM
Whats wrong with the simple thesis-antithesis-synthesis?

The problem with the "thesis-antitheses-synthesis" formulation is that it implies only two states of oppostion -- thesis and antithesis -- and only one form of outcome -- synthesis. As we can see from the water example, there is more than one "antithesis" to each state, and there is no real "synthesis" delineated.

Finally, in terms of the concept of an "intertwining spiral pattern", that is something that is only helpful to a point -- generally, when you're only dealing with a limited number of variables. For example, Mendeleyev's Periodic Table of Elements, which deals with a relatively limited number of definitions of atoms -- atomic weight, number of neutrons, etc. -- is sometimes graphically represented as an upward-moving, ever-widening, conical spiral. And, for that, it is a useful representation. But not all of the transformations in nature and society follow such a simple path.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Applying "dialectics" to natural phenomena is not without humor.


Originally posted by CommunistLeague
The transformation of water-ice to water-liquid is a negation because liquid and solid are two opposed states of being.

Emphasis added.

We use the words "liquid" and "solid" to describe two different possible states of matter.

But can one say -- with a straight face -- that those states are "opposed" to each other???

Does matter in a solid state "struggle" with matter in a liquid state until one decisively overcomes the other?

Does it make any kind of sense to "personify" inanimate matter in such terms?

Only to "dialecticians". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 11:50 AM
But can one say -- with a straight face -- that those states are "opposed" to each other???

Does matter in a solid state "struggle" with matter in a liquid state until one decisively overcomes the other?

Does it make any kind of sense to "personify" inanimate matter in such terms?
Laugh all you want, RedStar. It only punctuates your own ignorance.

Water-ice and water-liquid are opposed states, and not complimentary states, because they negatively interact with each other. Water-liquid at 50F/20C melts water-ice at 30F/-2C; it does not make it more solid. The interaction is in opposition because one does not reinforce the qualities of the other.

As for "struggle", I never used that term. That's something that was, unfortunately, introduced into the lexicon of dialectics by those who came after Marx and Engels, and I have no use for the word in this context.

Your comment on "personifying" inanimate objects makes no sense, either, unless you think that when someone refers to a "state of being", that automatically means it has animation (as opposed to motion, which all things have). Perhaps you'd prefer if I use the term "existence"?

Miles

[ComradeRed]

Water-liquid at 50F/20C melts water-ice at 30F/-2C... Umm, no; maybe my training as a physicist has "corrupted" my thinking, but ice melts (according to empirical data) at any temperature above 0C.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:42 PM

Water-liquid at 50F/20C melts water-ice at 30F/-2C... Umm, no; maybe my training as a physicist has "corrupted" my thinking, but ice melts (according to empirical data) at any temperature above 0C.
I shorthanded a little. I was stating the initial temperatures before they begin to directly interact. Apologies for the confusion.

Miles

[Entrails Konfetti]

Miles,
When a dialectician knows of a change being introduced within society or the environment, they directly use those three vehicles of the materialist dialectic?

For instance, say many Socialists and Communists were voted into offices, and their first measure of agitation is to call for the repealment of the Taft-Hartley Act: The dialectician, would observe what has happened, and what will happen using the three laws?

So the establishment of the three laws are practical, and the conclusions made within the structure of the materialist dialectic, makes it easier to form conclusions?

Can the materialist dialectic only be used if you are knowledgeable about the objective conditions reguarding a specimen, or variable?

So you have to understand social-sciences or biology, to use the dialectic within the given field?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
For instance, say many Socialists and Communists were voted into [U.S.] offices, and their first measure of agitation is to call for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act: The dialectician, would observe what has happened, and what will happen using the three laws?

"Dialectics" might indeed be quite "useful" for discussing purely imaginary situations.

The strange notion that bourgeois elections are "fair and honest" with regard to parties that even claim some sort of pro-working class bias is a metaphysical concept...something that someone might put into a novel.

In the real world, "Taft-Hartley" will only be "repealed" when millions of workers defy it!

Indeed, it's been pretty much the case since the end of World War II that any major "reform" originates as a consequence of massive protest and defiance...not in the "hearts and minds" of "progressive" legislators.

Bourgeois "democracy" is fake...something that historical materialism can easily demonstrate.

You need not be a "dialectician" to "predict the future" of impossibilities. :lol:

There will never be a time when "many Socialists and Communists are voted into offices", period. We will never "take over" the existing government and "use it for our purposes".

There will come a time when all those "offices" and the entire state apparatus of which they are a part will be completely demolished.

I don't know when that will happen...but then again, neither do all the "masters of the dialectic".

But after it happens, I expect that the few remaining "dialecticians" will all claim to have "predicted the whole thing". :lol:

Don't believe them. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

Apparently Marx didn't use the term "dialectical materialism" himself. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Nov 24 2005, 02:41 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Nov 24 2005, 02:41 PM)When a dialectician knows of a change being introduced within society or the environment, they directly use those three vehicles of the materialist dialectic?[/b]

A person who practices dialectical theory uses those three postulates to analyze the whole situation, including new elements that are introduced.


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 24 2005, 02:41 PM
For instance, say many Socialists and Communists were voted into offices, and their first measure of agitation is to call for the repealment of the Taft-Hartley Act: The dialectician, would observe what has happened, and what will happen using the three laws?

Would that such a scenario could happen! On this point, RedStar is partially right: There is no way that the bourgeoisie will let "many Socialists and Communists" into elected office. If voter fraud didn't work to keep them out, then they'd use the weapons of the state -- the police and military -- to do so.

However, getting back to the scenario, yes, someone using dialectics would look at each of the changes you mention -- the outcome of the election, who was elected, what they propose to do, what they actually can do, etc. -- and analyze both what happened and what is likely to come (or what is to come, without the qualifier, if there is reasonable certainty).


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 24 2005, 02:41 PM
So the establishment of the three laws are practical, and the conclusions made within the structure of the materialist dialectic, makes it easier to form conclusions?

Generally speaking, yes. What dialectics allows an analyst to do is formulate a dynamic -- a path of development -- that can be used to form conclusions both about what has happened and what is likely to happen. The latter aids us in our work, as a guide to action; it makes it possible to subject ourselves to the test of history.

This is the central failing of those who blithely dismiss dialectical theory: They are reactionaries in the literal sense of the word. They only react to events; they do not attempt to fundamentally influence and shape them. In short, they have no proactive means of changing the world.


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 24 2005, 02:41 PM
Can the materialist dialectic only be used if you are knowledgeable about the objective conditions reguarding a specimen, or variable?

It certainly helps. The more information and knowledge -- empirical data, as RedStar puts it -- you have, the more comprehensive is your analysis. You can do "cold" analyses, with only a limited amount of information, but the margin of error is much greater.


EL [email protected] 24 2005, 02:41 PM
So you have to understand social-sciences or biology, to use the dialectic within the given field?

Again, it helps. And the more complex the scientific field, the more it is helpful to know the field.

Miles

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Communist League' (and the rest of the dialectical comrades who post here): you need to check my site out before you post any more wild comments about dialectical materialism; there you will find I am building a comprehensive refutation of it.

[I hasten to add, I fully accept the scientific nature of Historical Materialism.]

http://anti-dialectics.org/

[Guest1]

Clearly not, historical materialism and dialectical materialism are inseperable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Che, so you say, but where's your proof.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 06:11 PM
'Communist League' (and the rest of the dialectical comrades who post here): you need to check my site out before you post any more wild comments about dialectical materialism; there you will find I am building a comprehensive refutation of it.

[I hasten to add, I fully accept the scientific nature of Historical Materialism.]

http://anti-dialectics.org/
Oh, look! RedStar brought in a ringer!

Sorry, Rosa, but I already read through your site (including the two pieces you recently added). You have yet to impress me. I guess, though, if I was looking to John Rees as an "expert" on dialectics, any critique I would write wouldn't be that impressive, either. Something about fish and barrels.

Same is true for Engels' Dialectics of Nature, which is a horrible attempt to explain the method.

Miles

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Communist League, well can I thank you for that devastating reply!

As you will have noticed (if you did in fact read what I posted), I predicted that you dialectical druggies would cling onto this mystical doctrine since it helps shield you from the fact that dialectics has been tested in practice and found wanting.

This sad doctine is indeed the opiate of the party; you lot cling onto it as avidly as believers cling onto Christianity.

However, you will need to produce a few arguments to rebut what I say (rather than merely declare you are not impressed), even if only for your own peace of mind.

It cannot be pleasant knowing that all you have by way of reply is "I'm not impressed".

You would not, I take it, accept that as an adequate response by me to anything you posted here, or elsewhere, if I merely said I was not impressed. What are we to do now, determine the future of scientific advance by how it impresses you?

Of course, if you are a dialectical guru, in touch with the a priori structure of reality by some as yet unexplained means, then I must apologise and bow down before your lack of being impressed.

How foolish of me to think I could impress a dialectical deity, such as you.

Ok, what are you now going to say if I declare I am not impresssed by your lack of being impressed?

If you thought your lack of being impresed would shut me up, perhaps mine will work like wonders on you?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Nov 25 2005, 08:33 PM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Nov 25 2005, 08:33 PM)Communist League, well can I thank you for that devastating reply![/b]

You're welcome. Given your view of those of us who uphold the dialectical theory, you got the response you deserved.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
As you will have noticed (if you did in fact read what I posted), I predicted that you dialectical druggies would cling onto this mystical doctrine since it helps shield you from the fact that dialectics has been tested in practice and found wanting.

I noticed. In fact, I probably noticed more than you about both the subject at hand and what you took from it.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
This sad doctine is indeed the opiate of the party; you lot cling onto it as avidly as believers cling onto Christianity.

See my comments to RedStar about "Intelligent Design".


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
However, you will need to produce a few arguments to rebut what I say (rather than merely declare you are not impressed), even if only for your own peace of mind.

It would take a hideously long period of time to write up all of the problems with just the parts of your book that you have online now. What was that phrase the Old Man used? "Every sentence a gem!"


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
It cannot be pleasant knowing that all you have by way of reply is "I'm not impressed".

Unpleasant for whom? Me or you? As I said, I've read your documents. I find them a mish-mash of sophistry and idealism, at best. You can poke holes in the worst of the writings on this subject, I'll give you that. But that's all you get.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
You would not, I take it, accept that as an adequate response by me to anything you posted here, or elsewhere, if I merely said I was not impressed. What are we to do now, determine the future of scientific advance by how it impresses you?

I don't really care. You see, I have no ego to either bruise or feed. If you are unimpressed by what I write, that is your business and your right. You are welcome to take it or leave it as you see fit.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
Of course, if you are a dialectical guru, in touch with the a priori structure of reality by some as yet unexplained means, then I must apologise and bow down before your lack of being impressed.

How foolish of me to think I could impress a dialectical deity, such as you.

Oh, now you're just being silly.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
Ok, what are you now going to say if I declare I am not impresssed by your lack of being impressed?

That's your right. I see no need to appeal for a second opinion from a petty-bourgeois academic who learned from an even more abhorrent petty-bourgeois academic. After all, being the "dialectical druggie" that I am, I have to keep chasing after that "fix" we like to call the real world. I don't have time to stroke your ego, one way or the other.


Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 08:33 PM
If you thought your lack of being impresed would shut me up, perhaps mine will work like wonders on you?

Hey, you're more than welcome to say what you want. You may be used to having such debates in the Tony Cliff School of Bureaucratic Centralism, but you'll not find any of that here. You're in a new world, now, Rosa. Hope you brought a map and a compass.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Nov 25 2005, 06:11 PM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Nov 25 2005, 06:11 PM) 'Communist League' (and the rest of the dialectical comrades who post here): you need to check my site out before you post any more wild comments about dialectical materialism; there you will find I am building a comprehensive refutation of it.

[I hasten to add, I fully accept the scientific nature of Historical Materialism.]

http://anti-dialectics.org/ [/b]
Hi, Rosa, and welcome to RevLeft! :)

I know that you are far too busy with your serious work to post here on a frequent basis.

But your voice will be a welcome one whenever we require someone to help us cut through the "night and fog" of "dialectical" mysticism.

For example...


Che y Marijuana
...historical materialism and dialectical materialism are inseparable.

And the communal wafer "really is" the "body of Christ". All the popes said so so it "must be true". :lol:

The fact that chemical tests prove otherwise can be dismissed as a presumptuous effort by mere mortals to comprehend a "divine mystery".

Just as any skeptical inquiry into the alleged "merits" of "dialectics" is, perforce, unforgivable effrontery!

If not downright "reactionary". :lol:

What you will find especially amusing, Rosa, is that should your arguments prove especially difficult to refute, you will be "accused" of "thinking dialectically" yourself. :o

As if Darwin had been accused by his enemies of being a "closet Christian". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, yet another Dialectical Monk in rapid retreat:

"It would take a hideously long period of time to write up all of the problems with just the parts of your book that you have online now. What was that phrase the Old Man used? "Every sentence a gem!""

Well, you would say that wouldn't you? [Still hiding behind the settee? Safe there is it?]

I have been ‘debating’ with you Dialectical Mystics for over twenty five years, and you all say the same. [As living proof of the law of identity, I suppose.] As erstwhile prophets of the original mystic, Heraclitus, you don’t change, do you?

You all refuse to argue, you just divert attention. I do not think a single one of you can string an argument together.

You all declare that this or that classic text (from Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, whoever] is rubbish.

You all say that you have no time to respond. Blah, blah…

Excuse after excuse.

But what is this?

“See my comments to RedStar about "Intelligent Design".”

Guess what? I wasn’t impressed.

[Do you now see what a devastating reply that is?]

And now, an incisive question at last:

“Unpleasant for whom? Me or you?”

Both of us. For me to have to point this out to you, and for you to have to exist in such an impoverished world that ‘lack of being impressed’ is your strongest argument.

[Oh, apart, that is, from ‘it would take too long….’]

“I don't really care.”

No, I suspected as much.

You are not a serious opponent CL. I sincerely apologise for thinking otherwise.

“Oh, now you're just being silly.”

Well, I was impressed with that riposte. It’s a really powerful response. I take back what I said above; you are not to be messed with. [Still, you failed to say how you know so many a priori truths about reality. Trade secret, is it?]

“I don't have time to stroke your ego, one way or the other.”

Such a busy comrade! So much to do! So much indeed that you spend your time here making nearly 500 posts. I hope someone is impressed.
Not me….

“You're in a new world, now, Rosa. Hope you brought a map and a compass.”

Oh, you mean one where a comrade’s strongest argument is “I am not impressed” and where they are all so busy posting that they can’t quite find time to string together a half-way decent response?

Is that the world you meant?

If so, I do not think I need a map and compass so much as the Dialectical Druggy’s Guide to avoiding the issue.

Can I borrow yours?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hi, Red.

Thanks for those thoughts. It's nice to meet someone who is not a Dialectical Meanderer.

You will note, however, how mercilessly CL is laying waste to my pathetically weak arguments.

I have certainly met my match in 'him'.

However, here’s a nice conundrum for him:

Since all appearances contradict reality, and ‘he’ appears to disagree with me, does that mean that ‘he’ really agrees with me?

If so, I am right.

If not, then the dialectical mantra that all appearances contradict reality is not true, and I am right.

Either way, I am right.

See how ‘he’ “tickles my ego” even when ‘he’ isn’t doing it.

But that’s Diabolical Logic for you!

Can I leave you to hold the non-dialectical fort? It’s 02:47 here in the UK!

[Oh, and please tell our friend that I am not a petty-bourgeois academic. If ‘he’ had in fact read the posts at my site, as ‘he’ said ‘he’ did, ‘he’ would have seen that I came from the working-class, and I am still working-class. It shows ‘his’ contempt for my class that ‘he’ thinks workers can’t argue.

I just got a very good education in between. Which is unusual for those from my class, and that is probably why Dialectical Monks like him have been able to get away with such rubbish for years.

The party is over, they’ve been rumbled.

I’m off to bed….

[Entrails Konfetti]

"Dialectics" might indeed be quite "useful" for discussing purely imaginary situations.

Who doesn't bring up hypothetical situtations on any topic on any of these message boards?

I've seen you do it too, Redstar.


What is this calling people "dialectical monks" nonsense?

Materialist dialectics doesn't take place of science, its a type of reasoning based on science. I'm not an aspiring monk of any sort. I see that learning the materialist dialectic as a way of understanding Marxist theory because Marx used it himself. You can argue to say it was a vechicle of explaination for his time, or its like silver hubcaps on car--yet I still fail see any proof how or why its useless. Your going to have to spend a rediculous number of years trying to refute that in detail, instead of using similies or blatantly telling your audience that such and such method forsaw this or that insident occuring.



'Communist League' (and the rest of the dialectical comrades who post here): you need to check my site out before you post any more wild comments about dialectical materialism; there you will find I am building a comprehensive refutation of it.

Of course, if you are a dialectical guru, in touch with the a priori structure of reality by some as yet unexplained means, then I must apologise and bow down before your lack of being impressed.

You asked us to check out your site, no one wished to, or they didn't wish to refute you,because were already arguing Redstars site, you'll have to wait your turn--since we told you that--you became upitty. Start your own thread;be kind.

Now, Redstar wants to piss and moan about how dialecticians predict future events with their "metaphysical" method.

Who doesn't come up with an idea what future events will occur using the knowledge they have?

I guess if Redstar puts his pop-corn in the microwave too long, it doesn't burn--even though it's burned in the past when he's cooked it too long.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El Kablamo:

“What is this calling people "dialectical monks" nonsense?”

I use this term because (as the ‘debate’ with Miles shows) fans of ‘materialist dialectics’ desperately cling onto their doctrine despite all the evidence and argument against it, happy merely to repeat the same old doctrines they have copied word for word from the dialectical holy books. I have been reading the dialectics threads here for the last year or so, and you lot all say the same things. It’s like a catechism to you. Much quantity; precious little quality.

Dialectics serves you dialectical druggies as an opiate, in compensation (and as consolation) for the fact that the vast majority of working-class people the world over have ignored Marxism (even when they have heard of it), and will continue to do so unless you mystics can be persuaded to abandon your ‘theory’. [And I say this as a working-class Marxist myself; indeed, I am a Trade Union rep.]

And you dialecticians are really hopeless at defending your ideas. Miles’s attempts are quite embarrassing; in fact he prefers to stick his head in the sand. I suspect that the diabolical logic you lot have imbibed over the years has addled your brains, preventing you piecing together a single coherent argument.

This leaves you all with just a simple faith in the holy word passed down to you from the prophets of old (odd sort of science that!); so much so, you all begin to resemble naïve Roman Catholics.

So, the epithet “Dialectical Monk” fits rather well, I think.

“You can argue to say it was a vechicle of explaination for his time, or its like silver hubcaps on car--yet I still fail see any proof how or why its useless. Your going to have to spend a rediculous number of years trying to refute that in detail”

Well, I have spent the last eight years doing just that; I am progressively posting some of the results at my site:

But, dialectics is not useless, far from it: it helps split our movement (fostering sectarianism and monumental unreasonableness (witness Miles’s response to me) - you will find an outline of how it does this on page 1 of my site, in the Background Essay (here), and later in the Opiate of the Party Page, Essay Eight); it drives working-class people away from the movement and it saddles Marxism with a crazy, mystical doctrine that is holding up the scientific development of Marxism.

So it does have its use (for the ruling-class!).

“You asked us to check out your site, no one wished to, or they didn't wish to refute you, because were already arguing Redstars site, you'll have to wait your turn--since we told you that--you became upitty. Start your own thread;be kind.”

Well, I have has at least 90 hits from here since last week, so you are wrong.

And if you want to keep your head in the sand, that’s your affair.

As for starting my own thread, no need to; you can browse my site, and then e-mail me your comments (click on “Contact” here).

And, as to whether you or anyone else has told me “to wait my turn”, perhaps you can point me to the post that advises me thus?

Finally, you allege that I have become “uppity”; you do know the origin of that word, don’t you? It derives from upper-class commentators accusing the ‘lower orders’ of adopting attitudes and manners way above their station in life.

A nice Freudian slip there I think comrade! But it fits nicely fits in with the material I will be posting in Essay Eight: how dialectical materialism is the ideology of substitutionist elements in Marxism, those who think they are so superior to working-class people (like me) who do not ‘understand dialectics’, and who must have socialism brought to them from above (by reformism, Russian tanks, professional revolutionaries, etc.).

It allows your sort to treat my sort as the objects of theory not the subjects of history.

So, forgive me if I remain “uppity”. I for one have had enough of your crazy doctrine ruining Marxism.

Your days are numbered my friend; dialectics has been tested now in practice for over a hundred years, and has failed.

So, you have nothing to lose but your small and steadily shrinking pond.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So, forgive me if I remain “uppity”. I for one have had enough of your crazy doctrine ruining Marxism.

So Marx "ruined" his own theories then?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
You can argue to say it was a vehicle of explanation for his time, or it's like silver hubcaps on car--yet I still fail see any proof how or why it's useless.

A bit "fuzzy" on the scientific method, are we?

Ok, here's how it works.

Whenever someone makes a positive assertion about objective reality, the burden of proof rests on the person who made the assertion...not on those who are skeptical of the assertion's validity.

"Dialecticians" assert that "reality is dialectical".

The alleged "proof" of this assertion consists entirely of "recasting" ordinary materialist explanations of natural and social phenomena into "dialectical" terminology.

By simply using different words, you claim to have discovered a "new way of thinking", a "new understanding of reality", even a way "to reliably predict future events in useful detail", etc., etc., etc.

When we turn to look at the actual performance of all those who've claimed to have "mastered the dialectic", what do we find?

Their "predictions" were just plain wrong. Their political practice was, for the most part, a succession of blunders. Their "superior understanding" of social reality was hopelessly inadequate.

Only the prestige of Marx's name has kept "dialectics" still "on the table"...otherwise it would rest undisturbed in the dusty corner of a German village museum.

Marx was a mortal man...and even geniuses can make mistakes. Don't forget that Isaac Newton actually took the Book of Revelations seriously. :o

But modern physicists, however much they respect Newton's genius, do not sit around trying to "calculate when Jesus will return".

Is it so much to expect, then, that modern revolutionaries who respect the real discoveries that Marx made, should not discard his follies?

So that's your real problem. "Dialectics" has been demonstrated in real world practice to be utterly wrong and therefore useless.

More precisely, useless for revolutionary purposes.

It does have "other uses"...verbally intimidating those unfamiliar with its terminology, for example.

Old-fashioned royalty used to proclaim their decisions "in the Name of God".

Leninist royalty in the 20th century proclaimed their decisions "in the name of the dialectic".

Both were lies!

So, it's time to "blow the whistle". People who sincerely want to understand Marxism and engage in revolutionary practice are having their time and energy wasted by a big fake!

That should no longer be permitted.


You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Vulgar mythology...though perhaps typical of "dialecticians".

Scientific research had demonstrated that "old dogs" (like me! :lol:) can learn "new tricks".

It simply takes us a bit longer. :P

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CompaneroDelLibertad

"So Marx "ruined" his own theories then?"

Well, he certainly was influenced by Hegel (who could doubt it?), but he seems never to have bothered with the so-called 'Dialectics of Nature'. Those who think otherwise have to try to scrape together a few ambiguous remarks from his voluminous writings, taken out of context, and from marginal comments, asides and footnotes. Even Engels had to admit he read Anti-Dühring to Marx (that would have taken days, and Marx was in rapid decline at that point). Why read it to him?

This is not to accuse Engels of lying, he might have meant he read parts of it to him. But given the centrality of dialectical materialism to the ideas of subsequent Marxists, you'd think Marx would have said something significant about this 'key doctrine' somewhere in the tens of millions of words he wrote. After all, he couldn’t even be bothered to fulfil the promise he made to summarise Hegel’s method in a few pages!

So it was not all that important to him. Quite unlike Historical Materialism.

And, Marx’s Historical Materialism came from the Scottish school of Historical Materialists (Fergusson, Millar, Smith and Hume). Hegel's mystical ideas just messed things up.

His economics came from his criticism of Smith and Ricardo (as I am sure you are aware); his socialism from the French and from his relationship with European revolutionaries and working-class communists, etc.

So his basic ideas (his economics, his historical materialism and the revolutionary socialism he got from sources other than Hegel) were not ruined only muddied somewhat.

In that case, Marxism does not need anything from Hegel (apart, perhaps, from Hegel's Moral Philosophy, which is quite profound - but even then, you can get most of that from Rousseau and Kant.).

That partly accounts for my hostility toward this crazy doctrine.

http://anti-dialectics.org

[ComradeRed]

I still haven't seen a single example from the defenders of the dialectical orthodoxy of how dialectics work.

Personally, I am very much interested in how they work beyond creating incomprehenisble excuses. Show me a mathematical example, an equation that exemplifies dialectics, mathematical logic formulated into a dialectical method...anything involving math as the explaining element!

Something, at least, without arm waving as the explanation coupled with an elementary math problem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Red, did you get my e-mail?

What do you make of these?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ripts/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/index.htm)

[ComradeRed]

Comrade Red, did you get my e-mail? Yep, PM-ing me is ussually faster though (I check email once or twice a day).


What do you make of these?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ripts/index.htm It actually looks like the calculus book I learned from. It gives examples and speaks incoherently.

I have read the first chapter before. The rest I expected to be the same; I'll have to give it another glance.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Finally, you allege that I have become “uppity”; you do know the origin of that word, don’t you? It derives from upper-class commentators accusing the ‘lower orders’ of adopting attitudes and manners way above their station in life.

Uptight I meant, just turn everything into a drama, okay.


Well, I have spent the last eight years doing just that; I am progressively posting some of the results at my site:

I was reffering to Redstar. But your his ringer.


So it does have its use (for the ruling-class!).
You're saying were stupid?
Only the upper-class can understand the dialectic. NICE!


It allows your sort to treat my sort as the objects of theory not the subjects of history.

You don't know where I stand on the social-ladder,assume, assume, assume!
Create a diversion from what selfish act you just did, "You must look at my site, because I know everything"--and you accuse me of being condescending?
That really makes me want to look at your site.


Your days are numbered my friend; dialectics has been tested now in practice for over a hundred years, and has failed.
Oh, so the materialist dialectic is a conspiracy plot designed by alleged-upper-class Marxists?
Damn, you hit the nail on the head, stay away from my underground liar--I must escape to planet Remulak!

Redstar, some of the ''predictions" (as you like to call them) have been right, as well as wrong. Theres nothing mythic about it, its comming up with an idea on what the future will look like with the knowledge you have; unless some people decide to twist it into being mythic.

The only proof you have brought Redstar is that 20th century Russian bureaucrats said they did this or that "in the naaaaame of the dialectic, and therefore its true". I guess everyone else who uses the dialectic tries to be mythic aswell.

But lets focus on the negative, shall we.


That should no longer be permitted.
Sir, yes sir! Whatever you say! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Vulgar mythology...though perhaps typical of "dialecticians".

Taking quotes out of context ; pigeon hole-ing someone, typical of Redstar2000.
I guess I should remain ignorant of the materialist dialectic before I'm critical of it.


I still haven't seen a single example from the defenders of the dialectical orthodoxy of how dialectics work.
Opponents of the dialectic haven't presented any decent examples. They just want all the youngsters on here to disreguard it without even knowing what it's about.

Whatever, I'd rather beat Avakian and his drones, than fart with redstar and his friend all day.

[ComradeRed]

Opponents of the dialectic haven't presented any decent examples. They just want all the youngsters on here to disreguard it without even knowing what it's about. I don't think you understood my request.

"Show me a mathematical example, an equation that exemplifies dialectics, mathematical logic formulated into a dialectical method"

Marx gave some arm waving as the explanation coupled with an elementary math problem.

That is nothing. Show me the proof!

[edit] Actually, show me a geometric proof done dialectically. Any old geometry proof -- givne p prove q, step 1, blah blah blah -- done dialectically.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El Kamblamo:

“Uptight I meant, just turn everything into a drama, okay.”

Too late, your Freudian slip gave you away.

And “everything”? Was that conclusion really based on a few alleged examples?and from that you extrapolate to “everything”?

Not too good a science, are you, comrade?

“You're saying were stupid? Only the upper-class can understand the dialectic.”

Well, as I argue on my site (the one you will not allow your tender eyes to see), the dialectic is based on the sort of a priori thought-forms invented by ruling-class hacks (in ancient Greece and beyond, and finally by Hegel – it allowed them (and now you lot) to derive a few superscientific theses from the meanings of a few words, like “negation”, “contradiction”, “opposites” and “being”, etc.)), and as such it allows you dialecticians to think you can substitute yourselves for the working-class. They allegedly cannot grasp the dialectic so you have to change the world for them (using Russian tanks if necessary). And if that contradicts Marx’s belief that the emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class, no big deal, since everything is contradictory.

So, yes you are doing the bosses work for them. And I can prove it. But you won’t get to see this proof since you are quite happy in your safe, faith-based world of dialectical monkery, and won’t look at it.

It’s a little too dangerous.

“You don't know where I stand on the social-ladder, assume, assume, assume!”

True, but by “your sort” I was of course referring to you dialectical mystics, as the context indicated.

And now you resort to good old-fashioned invention:

"You must look at my site, because I know everything"

Well I did not know that….

Well, while I might not know everything (in fact I might know very little), but I do know that you do not know why dialectical mysticism is true. And that is why I referred you to my site. There you will see me pull apart the laughably few (alleged) proofs you dialectical theologians have appealed to, to support your ‘theory’.

Too scared to look? I should worry. If you are happy in your safe little world, don’t let me upset you. Only please stop calling what you do ‘scientific’. There is no science that is beyond question and none at all that refuses to be criticised (or whose acolytes refuse to look at contrary evidence).

“Oh, so the materialist dialectic is a conspiracy plot designed by alleged-upper-class Marxists?”

Well, once again I spend quite some time on my site denying this, but you would have known that had you not mouthed-off ignorantly like this.

Since the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class, you dialectical mystics have, in accepting a crock of Hermetic ideas from Hegel, unwittingly introduced into revolutionary politics ruling-class ideas. So, for all your avowed radicalism, you are all highly conservative philosophers.

So it’s not a plot, it’s just that you dialectical monks have accepted ideas the pedigree of which you failed to note. I outline these at my site, and in a later essay I will provide much more detail.

Too bad your head is in the sand, or you might have learnt something. But that is your problem.

“Whatever, I'd rather beat Avakian and his drones, than fart with redstar and his friend all day.”

I’d rather you produced less hot air, too.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+--> (EL KABLAMO)I was reffering to Redstar. But your his ringer.[/b]

As everyone can see, "dialectics" is also useless with regard to correctly spelling words in the English language.

So let's try it again...


EL KABLAMO
I was referring to Redstar. But you're his ringer.

I see. Rosa Lichtenstein is not an individual "in her own right" who happens to have intensively studied philosophy probably longer than you've been even able to read and write at all (understanding that you obviously still have some distance to cover in that regard).

Instead, she's "my ringer"...someone I just "called in" to "fight my battles".

Do you have any idea of how condescending such a remark is?

Well no, you probably don't. Perhaps in the circles you move in, women are expected to "remain silent" while men are speaking.

We have different expectations at RevLeft.


Redstar, some of the ''predictions" (as you like to call them) have been right, as well as wrong.

Of course they have. Every so often a "celebrity psychic" actually "gets one right". Make enough random "predictions" and you'll "get one right" too.

Just pick out the number on the roulette table that you're "dialectically certain" will "come up next" and put all your chips on that little square.

Good luck! :lol:


Whatever, I'd rather beat Avakian and his drones, than fart with redstar and his friend all day.

"Farting" is, in my opinion, a reasonably accurate description of your contribution to this thread.

And, by the way, Avakian's "drones" would eat your lunch. Some of them have had nearly three decades of experience in formulating "dialectical" babble...in an hour or two they'd "dialectically prove" to you that the sun really does shine out of Avakian's ass. :lol:

Better stay away from them. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Wow! What self-conceit. I guess I should expect as much from a conscious agent of bourgeois ideology. And, let's be clear here: Both Rosa Lichtenstein and RedStar are promoting varieties of bourgeois ideology.


Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Nov 25 2005, 09:29 PM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Nov 25 2005, 09:29 PM)"It would take a hideously long period of time to write up all of the problems with just the parts of your book that you have online now. What was that phrase the Old Man used? "Every sentence a gem!""

Well, you would say that wouldn't you?[/b]

Considering the extent of the idealist crap you've written so far, yes. There's a lot of garbage to deal with there if one wishes to undertake a point-by-point refutation. So, yes, it would take a hideously long time.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
[Still hiding behind the settee? Safe there is it?]

Settee? Who the fuck owns a settee nowadays? Your class is showing. :lol:


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
I have been ‘debating’ with you Dialectical Mystics for over twenty five years, and you all say the same. [As living proof of the law of identity, I suppose.] As erstwhile prophets of the original mystic, Heraclitus, you don’t change, do you?

Oh, yes. We change. It's part of that negation of the negation thing.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
You all refuse to argue, you just divert attention. I do not think a single one of you can string an argument together.

Similarly, this is because of the whole unity and interpenetration of opposites: we cannot seem to produce a counterargument because you cannot produce an argument ... that isn't mere insult and vitriol, that is.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
You all declare that this or that classic text (from Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, whoever] is rubbish.

I take it that I am not the first to tell you that picking on Engels' Dialectics of Nature has something to do with those fish in the barrel I mentioned earlier.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
You all say that you have no time to respond. Blah, blah…

Excuse after excuse.

Hey, not all of us are sterile academics playing radical leftie on the Internet. Some of us have jobs and political work to do. It's a question of priorities, and you and your bourgeois ideology are a low priority.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
But what is this?

“See my comments to RedStar about "Intelligent Design".”

Guess what? I wasn’t impressed.

[Do you now see what a devastating reply that is?]

Oh, I'm swooning from the incisiveness of your rapier-like wit. :lol:


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
And now, an incisive question at last:

“Unpleasant for whom? Me or you?”

Both of us. For me to have to point this out to you, and for you to have to exist in such an impoverished world that ‘lack of being impressed’ is your strongest argument.

[Oh, apart, that is, from ‘it would take too long….’]

Are you so damned egotistical that you need to be spoon-fed accolades?


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
“I don't really care.”

No, I suspected as much.

You are not a serious opponent CL. I sincerely apologise for thinking otherwise.

Again, the interpenetration of opposites thing: I'm just a reflection of my interlocutor.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
“Oh, now you're just being silly.”

Well, I was impressed with that riposte. It’s a really powerful response. I take back what I said above; you are not to be messed with. [Still, you failed to say how you know so many a priori truths about reality. Trade secret, is it?]

Yeah. Trade secret. That's the ticket.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
“I don't have time to stroke your ego, one way or the other.”

Such a busy comrade! So much to do! So much indeed that you spend your time here making nearly 500 posts. I hope someone is impressed.
Not me….

Sure beats spending all my time on a vanity website where I demonstrate my inability to understand the world around me.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
“You're in a new world, now, Rosa. Hope you brought a map and a compass.”

Oh, you mean one where a comrade’s strongest argument is “I am not impressed” and where they are all so busy posting that they can’t quite find time to string together a half-way decent response?

Is [i]that the world you meant?

No. It's a world where no one kisses your arse, and personal insults cannot substitute for actual debate. I've posted plenty here, on this thread, that you could have responded to. However, you have chosen to simply call names and proclaim your own intellectual superiority. ("Yeah! She's a genius! Just ask her! She's a hero in her own mind.")


Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:29 PM
If so, I do not think I need a map and compass so much as the Dialectical Druggy’s Guide to avoiding the issue.

Can I borrow yours?

No. You might get lost. After all, my Guide leads to the working class and the real world, not to your ivory tower.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25 2005, 09:44 PM
Oh, and please tell our friend that I am not a petty-bourgeois academic. If ‘he’ had in fact read the posts at my site, as ‘he’ said ‘he’ did, ‘he’ would have seen that I came from the working-class, and I am still working-class. It shows ‘his’ contempt for my class that ‘he’ thinks workers can’t argue.
Let's see:...

A postal worker from 1969 to 1971 versus an academic since "the late-1970s", with, from what I can gather, several BAs and PhDs.

You don't need a university degree to see that if you were originally from the working class you have since joined the petty bourgeoisie.

Miles

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:29 PM
As everyone can see, "dialectics" is also useless with regard to correctly spelling words in the English language.


The work of a desperate person; attack spelling, and grammar. Like you never use elipses' inappropriatly.


I see. Rosa Lichtenstein is not an individual "in her own right" who happens to have intensively studied philosophy probably longer than you've been even able to read and write at all (understanding that you obviously still have some distance to cover in that regard).

Yes I'm apart of the stupid youth of today, trying to keep the redflag flying. I should dogmatically listen to you, seeing that you represent the older generation of communists on this board. I must disreguard dialectics altogether without even knowing what it is.
" Hey Eekay, why are you kicking, and punching that book of dialectics down the road?"
Me: " Because I was told its useless, it doesn't matter if I know what is in it, it's useless!"


Do you have any idea of how condescending such a remark is?


Well no, you probably don't. Perhaps in the circles you move in, women are expected to "remain silent" while men are speaking.

You're merely taking advantage of the fact your friend is female, I'd act the same way towards your friend if they were male; how sexist you are being!


Of course they have. Every so often a "celebrity psychic" actually "gets one right". Make enough random "predictions" and you'll "get one right" too.
Oh you mean like you? You mean you have absolutely no idea what future events will look like with the knowledge you have? Are you not in the least bit curious?


"Farting" is, in my opinion, a reasonably accurate description of your contribution to this thread.
Me out fart you? Nah I'm too young, and golly-gosh so nieve!


And, by the way, Avakian's "drones" would eat your lunch. Some of them have had nearly three decades of experience in formulating "dialectical" babble...in an hour or two they'd "dialectically prove" to you that the sun really does shine out of Avakian's ass. :lol:

Actually I already defeated all of them, and Bobby ain't all that; thats why I'm back here. Man, level 3 was fucking hard, but I got through it alright! I don't understand why I only recieved a score of 8,500 points when I beat the game.
I think computer games are more fun than having a pissing contest with you.
Go on, you can have the last word.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Amidts all of this name-calling, would it be unfair of me to ask the dialecticians to actually provide some specific examples of their method working (And by that I mean dialectics actually being used, not normal scientists "thinking dialectically" - an underhand tactic if I ever saw one) and not simply some vague references?

Or would that be too much to ask?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It’s Mr ‘I’m not impressed, Miles’, back for more punishment (glad he could spare the time):

“We change. It's part of that negation of the negation thing.”

So, I expect you will change this soon, yes? May I suggest “Negation of the negation is Idealist rubbish”?

Or are you going to keep to the original, in defiance of Heraclitus?

“you cannot produce an argument”

As I noted, you lot wouldn’t recognise an argument if it slapped you in the face.

“picking on Engels' Dialectics of Nature”

Ah, now that shows you haven’t read my essays. I pick on everyone from Lenin to Stalin, and many, many more.

Since they all say practically the same, it was, as you rightly suggest, like shooting fish in a barrel. I read your deep thoughts on the dialectic a page or so back. More repetition of stale old falsehoods; and you have the cheek to criticise Engels.

“Some of us have jobs and political work to do.”

More failures to organise, thanks to dialectics, eh?

“Oh, I'm swooning from the incisiveness of your rapier-like wit…”

Well, you are very easily impressed.

“Are you so damned egotistical that you need to be spoon-fed accolades?”

No, you can e-mail me a few. My address is at my site.

More gobbledygook:

“Again, the interpenetration of opposites thing…”

But what is this? The mystic finally confesses:

“Trade secret.”

So you are a Hermetic Magus?
“Sure beats spending all my time on a vanity website where I demonstrate my inability to understand the world around me.”

Look sonny, if you can’t understand the world, you should stop snorting any more of that dialectical cocaine. And, it does not help if you waste you time at this vanity website:

http://www.communistleague.org/

You’d be better off here, nice and easy for you to grasp:

http://www.noddy.com/flags.html

“It's a world where no one kisses your arse…”

Too busy kissing yours, eh?

“Guide leads to the working class and the real world…”

And the working class continue to ignore you. The fact that you haven’t noticed that yet just about says it all.

As I noted; dialectics, tested in practice -- a proven failure.

You can now stick your head back in the sand and dream of the mass party you haven’t got, Miles.

Enjoy the Silicates….

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Miles_out_of_his_depth:

"You don't need a university degree to see that if you were originally from the working class you have since joined the petty bourgeoisie."

I am in fact a trade union rep, and in a bona fide working-class union.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a sensible response, if I were you.

You are dealing with comrades who treat their theory like a religion.

They repeat its simple theses endlessly, ignore anything that disproves what they say, and abuse anyone who questions them. Or they quote you a few passages from their holy books. They should go door-to-door.

The dialectic has convinced them that not just history, but the entire universe is on their side.

With that sort of heavy-duty wish-fulfilment and cosmic significance, you will never get through to them. God, …er , sorry, the dialectic is on their side.

I have been asking them your sort of question for over 20 years (admittedly, in the UK, bit it looks like you set of zombies is little different).

All I get are Miles-like clones.

They never change, unlike the world they fail to understand.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I am in fact a trade union rep, and in a bona fide working-class union.


:lol:

That doesn't make you working class -- more than likely it makes you an aristocrat of labor.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:58 PM

I am in fact a trade union rep, and in a bona fide working-class union.


:lol:

That doesn't make you working class -- more than likely it makes you an aristocrat of labor.

Actually there are still quite a few proper Unions in Britain. They might not be as militant as they used to be, but they still do a good job.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________

By the way, what's with all the class baiting recently? ....it's incredibly childish.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Companero:

"That doesn't make you working class -- more than likely it makes you an aristocrat of labor."

And now we get a priori class categorisation from another dialectical myth-maker.

Well, just so long as the working-class keep ognoring you mystics, that is all I ask.

Dialectics: you know it doesn't work.

Ask 3 billion workers....

[JC1]

You know what would be interesting, guy's ? If Rosa Lichtenstien/RS2K responded to Miles argument's.

It's unfair that RL came in, posted a link, and got away with baiting the worker's and got away with ignoring everying Miles posted before hand.

petit-bourgoise charlatan's.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 02:45 PM
You know what would be interesting, guy's ? If Rosa Lichtenstien/RS2K responded to Miles argument's.

It's unfair that RL came in, posted a link, and got away with baiting the worker's and got away with ignoring everything Miles posted before hand.

petit-bourgeois charlatan's.
I have responded to Miles' arguments at considerable length. You might want to consider reading the thread before making such an "off-hand" comment.

It's true that Rosa did not respond explicitly to each of Miles' posts...but you should at least attempt to read what she has written and posted on her site. Unlike myself, she is a real student of philosophy and her critiques of "dialectics" are extremely detailed and analytical.

Aside from the bourgeois neo-Hegelians, my understanding is that no modern schools of philosophy even bother to take "dialectics" seriously at all. So you should, in fact, welcome the attentions of someone who takes it seriously enough to write about it in such detail.

As Miles has pointed out, I am a "pragmatist"...I rejected "dialectics" because I observed that it simply had no relationship to the real world and consequently didn't work.

Rosa explains why it doesn't work...in exhaustive detail! She exposes the conceits and fabrications of "dialectics" in a way that I've never seen anyone do before.

Those who believe in "dialectics" react, as one might expect, in a hostile fashion and resort to vulgar personal abuse in place of argument.

You might want to ask yourself: who are the real charlatans here?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JC1, when you sober up, you will see that it is Miles who has failed to respond to what I have written.

At my site I have posted well over 50,000 words outlining a series of devastating objections to the dialectical mish-mash Miles has fallen for (including the watery-'philosophy' he posted a few pages back).

Check it out for yourself if you doubt me:

http://anti-dialectics.org/

And I will be posting a whole lot more over the coming months.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2005, 05:12 PM
JC1, when you sober up, you will see that it is Miles who has failed to respond to what I have written.
Y'know, I have to point out something here. I have noticed that any person who is a proponent of dialectics is, to Rosa, a "druggie", drunk or a "monk". Such personal abuse is something that is common among petty-bourgeois managers, or their "trade union" kapos.

Also, am I the only one who notices that 99 percent of her posts are this kind of personal abuse, and the other 1 percent is spam (links to her website)?

Personally, I think that, if it wasn't for the fact that RedStar needs Rosa to bail his arse out of this debate, she would have been restricted to OI some time ago for these reasons.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:44 PM
I have responded to Miles' arguments at considerable length. You might want to consider reading the thread before making such an "off-hand" comment.
RedStar, if you consider that litany of personal abuse you spewed out a "response", then I guess I can understand why you see Rosa as a "real student of philosophy".

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 07:58 AM
That doesn't make you working class -- more than likely it makes you an aristocrat of labor.
Or a kapo for the bosses, like the union bureaucrats in the U.S.

Miles

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2005, 07:02 PM
Companero:

"That doesn't make you working class -- more than likely it makes you an aristocrat of labor."

And now we get a priori class categorisation from another dialectical myth-maker.

Well, just so long as the working-class keep ognoring you mystics, that is all I ask.

Dialectics: you know it doesn't work.

Ask 3 billion workers....
The great part about that is I'm not a "dialectician" in any sense of the word.

I'm a "fence rider" on the issue. I think whatever method works best for the person/people using it should be used.

I don't have a fetish for doctrines or "philosphical methods" .. I try to help our class in the struggle that was forced on us. I'd rather know what works than what doesn't.

Maybe you can do something other than dishing out insults followed by spamming of your website (MIM style) in your next post.

Thanks

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Actually there are still quite a few proper Unions in Britain. They might not be as militant as they used to be, but they still do a good job.

That doesn't change the class character of their leaderships.

And what exactly do they "do a good job" at?



By the way, what's with all the class baiting recently? ....it's incredibly childish.

"Class baiting" or class analysis?

People seem to be so affraid of class analysis here and on the left generally. What are they affraid of?

[Entrails Konfetti]

What I like is how they(Redstar, Rosa) discourage people who are new to Marxism from reading material on the dialectic, and at the same time they want us to be against it. But the minute someone dare sayeth " How can I be against something, if I'm not sure what it is". They label you a monk.

[LSD]

OK, everyone in this thread needs to calm down.

Enough with the class-baiting and personal attacks. This is a thread to debate the validity of Dialectical Materialism not to engage in another round of "I'm more proletarian than thou".

Pretty much everyone here has insulted and been insulted, some worse than others on both counts, but it has to stop somewhere so it stops here.

You want to debate philosophy? Good.
You want to accuse each other of being "drunks" and "kapos", take it somwhere else.

Anyone who continues this juvenile flame-war will recieve warning points, even if they feel "provoked". Be the "bigger person" and let it go.

Let's all start behaving like adults.

[Guest1]

I suggest this thread be locked, and a new, serious one started to discuss the philosophy.