How Karl Marx Almost Escaped

[redstar2000]

Here is an extract from Chapter 5 of The Holy Family written by Marx in 1844.

It is a very sharp criticism of speculative philosophy...so much so that, in my opinion, Marx almost escaped the mystical swamp of Hegelian "dialectics".

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

If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea "Fruit”, if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea "Fruit”, derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then in the language of speculative philosophy — I am declaring that "Fruit” is the "Substance” of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be a pear is not essential to the pear, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea — "Fruit”. I therefore declare apples, pears, almonds, etc., to be mere forms of existence, modi, of "Fruit”. My finite understanding supported by my senses does of course distinguish an apple from a pear and a pear from an almond, but my speculative reason declares these sensuous differences inessential and irrelevant. It sees in the apple the same as in the pear, and in the pear the same as in the almond, namely "Fruit”. Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is "the substance" — "Fruit”.

Having reduced the different real fruits to the one "fruit" of abstraction — "the Fruit", speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from "the Fruit", from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea "the Fruit" as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction.

The speculative philosopher therefore relinquishes the abstraction "the Fruit", but in a speculative, mystical fashion — with the appearance of not relinquishing it. Thus it is really only in appearance that he rises above his abstraction. He argues somewhat as follows:

If apples, pears, almonds and strawberries are really nothing but "the Substance", "the Fruit", the question arises: Why does "the Fruit" manifest itself to me sometimes as an apple, sometimes as a pear, sometimes as an almond? Why this semblance of diversity which so obviously contradicts my speculative conception of Unity, "the Substance", "the Fruit"?

This, answers the speculative philosopher, is because "the Fruit" is not dead, undifferentiated, motionless, but a living, self-differentiating, moving essence. The diversity of the ordinary fruits is significant not only for my sensuous understanding, but also for "the Fruit" itself and for a speculative reason. The different ordinary fruits are different manifestations of the life of the "one Fruit"; they are crystallisations of "the Fruit" itself. Thus in the apple "the Fruit" gives itself an apple-like existence, in the pear a pear-like existence. We must therefore no longer say, as one might from the standpoint of the Substance: a pear is "the Fruit", an apple is "the Fruit", an almond is "the Fruit", but rather "the Fruit" presents itself as a pear, "the Fruit" presents itself as an apple, "the Fruit" presents itself as an almond; and the differences which distinguish apples, pears and almonds from one another are the self-differentiations of "the Fruit" and make the particular fruits different members of the life-process of "the Fruit". Thus "the Fruit" is no longer an empty undifferentiated unity; it is oneness as allness, as "totality” of fruits, which constitute an "organically linked series of members”. In every member of that series "the Fruit" gives itself a more developed, more explicit existence, until finally, as the "summary” of all fruits, it is at the same time the living unity which contains all those fruits dissolved in itself just as it produces them from within itself...

Speculative philosophy has as many incarnations as there are things, just as it has here in every fruit an incarnation of the Substance, of the Absolute Fruit. The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary fruits and to say in some mysterious way that there are apples, pears, almonds and raisins. But the apples, pears, almonds and raisins that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of apples, semblances of pears, semblances of almonds and semblances of raisins, for they are moments in the life of "the Fruit", this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind. Hence what is delightful in this speculation is to rediscover all the real fruits there, but as fruits which have a higher mystical significance, which have grown out of the ether of your brain and not out of the material earth, which are incarnations of "the Fruit", of the Absolute Subject. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, "the Fruit", to real natural fruits, you give on the contrary the natural fruits a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of "the Fruit" in all the manifestations of its life — the apple, the pear, the almond — that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits, how in each one of them "the Fruit" realises itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a raisin to its existence as an almond. Hence the value of the ordinary fruits no longer consists in their natural qualities, but in their speculative quality, which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of "the Absolute Fruit".

The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind "the Fruit", i.e., by creating those fruits out of his own abstract reason, which he considers as an Absolute Subject outside himself, represented here as "the Fruit". And in regard to every object the existence of which he expresses, he accomplishes an act of creation.

It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, "the Fruit"

In the speculative way of speaking, this operation is called comprehending Substance as Subject, as an inner process, as an Absolute Person, and this comprehension constitutes the essential character of Hegel's method.
--------------------------------------------

Everything in italics is from Marx. The bold emphasis is mine.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ly/ch05.htm#5.2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch05.htm#5.2)

We can only wonder how things would have been different had Marx vigorously pursued this line of reasoning. We might never have had any concern with the supernatural abstractions of "dialectics" at all. :)

For a much more philosophically sophisticated explication of this point, see abstraction -- part one: the heart of the beast (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm) by Rosa Lichtenstein.

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:30 PM
Here is an extract from Chapter 5 of The Holy Family written by Marx in 1844.

It is a very sharp criticism of speculative philosophy...so much so that, in my opinion, Marx almost escaped the mystical swamp of Hegelian "dialectics".

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

If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea "Fruit”, if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea "Fruit”, derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then in the language of speculative philosophy — I am declaring that "Fruit” is the "Substance” of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be a pear is not essential to the pear, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea — "Fruit”. I therefore declare apples, pears, almonds, etc., to be mere forms of existence, modi, of "Fruit”. My finite understanding supported by my senses does of course distinguish an apple from a pear and a pear from an almond, but my speculative reason declares these sensuous differences inessential and irrelevant. It sees in the apple the same as in the pear, and in the pear the same as in the almond, namely "Fruit”. Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is "the substance" — "Fruit”.

Having reduced the different real fruits to the one "fruit" of abstraction — "the Fruit", speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from "the Fruit", from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea "the Fruit" as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction.

The speculative philosopher therefore relinquishes the abstraction "the Fruit", but in a speculative, mystical fashion — with the appearance of not relinquishing it. Thus it is really only in appearance that he rises above his abstraction. He argues somewhat as follows:

If apples, pears, almonds and strawberries are really nothing but "the Substance", "the Fruit", the question arises: Why does "the Fruit" manifest itself to me sometimes as an apple, sometimes as a pear, sometimes as an almond? Why this semblance of diversity which so obviously contradicts my speculative conception of Unity, "the Substance", "the Fruit"?

This, answers the speculative philosopher, is because "the Fruit" is not dead, undifferentiated, motionless, but a living, self-differentiating, moving essence. The diversity of the ordinary fruits is significant not only for my sensuous understanding, but also for "the Fruit" itself and for a speculative reason. The different ordinary fruits are different manifestations of the life of the "one Fruit"; they are crystallisations of "the Fruit" itself. Thus in the apple "the Fruit" gives itself an apple-like existence, in the pear a pear-like existence. We must therefore no longer say, as one might from the standpoint of the Substance: a pear is "the Fruit", an apple is "the Fruit", an almond is "the Fruit", but rather "the Fruit" presents itself as a pear, "the Fruit" presents itself as an apple, "the Fruit" presents itself as an almond; and the differences which distinguish apples, pears and almonds from one another are the self-differentiations of "the Fruit" and make the particular fruits different members of the life-process of "the Fruit". Thus "the Fruit" is no longer an empty undifferentiated unity; it is oneness as allness, as "totality” of fruits, which constitute an "organically linked series of members”. In every member of that series "the Fruit" gives itself a more developed, more explicit existence, until finally, as the "summary” of all fruits, it is at the same time the living unity which contains all those fruits dissolved in itself just as it produces them from within itself...

Speculative philosophy has as many incarnations as there are things, just as it has here in every fruit an incarnation of the Substance, of the Absolute Fruit. The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary fruits and to say in some mysterious way that there are apples, pears, almonds and raisins. But the apples, pears, almonds and raisins that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of apples, semblances of pears, semblances of almonds and semblances of raisins, for they are moments in the life of "the Fruit", this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind. Hence what is delightful in this speculation is to rediscover all the real fruits there, but as fruits which have a higher mystical significance, which have grown out of the ether of your brain and not out of the material earth, which are incarnations of "the Fruit", of the Absolute Subject. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, "the Fruit", to real natural fruits, you give on the contrary the natural fruits a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of "the Fruit" in all the manifestations of its life — the apple, the pear, the almond — that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits, how in each one of them "the Fruit" realises itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a raisin to its existence as an almond. Hence the value of the ordinary fruits no longer consists in their natural qualities, but in their speculative quality, which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of "the Absolute Fruit".

The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind "the Fruit", i.e., by creating those fruits out of his own abstract reason, which he considers as an Absolute Subject outside himself, represented here as "the Fruit". And in regard to every object the existence of which he expresses, he accomplishes an act of creation.

It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, "the Fruit"

In the speculative way of speaking, this operation is called comprehending Substance as Subject, as an inner process, as an Absolute Person, and this comprehension constitutes the essential character of Hegel's method.
--------------------------------------------

Everything in italics is from Marx. The bold emphasis is mine.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ly/ch05.htm#5.2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch05.htm#5.2)

We can only wonder how things would have been different had Marx vigorously pursued this line of reasoning. We might never have had any concern with the supernatural abstractions of "dialectics" at all. :)

For a much more philosophically sophisticated explication of this point, see abstraction -- part one: the heart of the beast (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm) by Rosa Lichtenstein.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
There is a big difference between Marxist and Hegelian philosophy, you know. Misinterpreting quotations is not going to get you anywhere. Hegel, despite his errors, being limited by the time in which he lived, made a very huge contribution to philosophy, and Marx was able to pick up where he left off, fix those mistakes, move on, and put forth scientific socialism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
Misinterpreting quotations is not going to get you anywhere.

Oh?

Why don't you explain how I "misinterpreted" this lengthy quotation?

You can't, can you? :lol:

That's ok...I freely admit that I have no academic background in philosophy at all and find 99.999% of it completely incomprehensible.

What I liked about this extract is that it is comprehensible. Marx is attacking the very thing that I most dislike about philosophy...the idea that you can effectively describe reality merely by the "correct" manipulation of words.

Which is, of course, exactly what "dialecticians" do.

I think it's a tragedy that Marx and Engels did not "follow through" with this line of attack. Had they done so, then "dialectics" would be properly relegated to some dusty little village museum in Germany.

And our overall theoretical level might be considerably higher than it unfortunately is at present.

Imagine what all those "smart people" in the last century might have done had they not wasted their time and energy on "magical mystery tours" of the "realm of the dialectic".

It's really sad. :(

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 7 2006, 08:59 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 7 2006, 08:59 AM)
Axel1917
Misinterpreting quotations is not going to get you anywhere.

Oh?

Why don't you explain how I "misinterpreted" this lengthy quotation?

You can't, can you? :lol:

That's ok...I freely admit that I have no academic background in philosophy at all and find 99.999% of it completely incomprehensible.

What I liked about this extract is that it is comprehensible. Marx is attacking the very thing that I most dislike about philosophy...the idea that you can effectively describe reality merely by the "correct" manipulation of words.

Which is, of course, exactly what "dialecticians" do.

I think it's a tragedy that Marx and Engels did not "follow through" with this line of attack. Had they done so, then "dialectics" would be properly relegated to some dusty little village museum in Germany.

And our overall theoretical level might be considerably higher than it unfortunately is at present.

Imagine what all those "smart people" in the last century might have done had they not wasted their time and energy on "magical mystery tours" of the "realm of the dialectic".

It's really sad. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Marx and Engels were referring to Hegel's concept of the Absolute Idea, not of dialectics. Why don't you actually read what Marx and Engels had to say about dialectics?

We can also see that scientific advances have been dialectical in some cases, such as Punctuated Equilibrea developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge.

If it were not for dialectics, Marx and Engels would never have been able to develop their theories! Why don't you actually read up on it and study it, given that it is perhaps the hardest thing to learn about Marxism, instead of devoting lenghty rants against it? You are just going to be laughing stock to any serious Marxist if you don't.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:30 PM
Here is an extract from Chapter 5 of The Holy Family written by Marx in 1844.

It is a very sharp criticism of speculative philosophy...so much so that, in my opinion, Marx almost escaped the mystical swamp of Hegelian "dialectics".

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

If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea "Fruit”, if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea "Fruit”, derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then in the language of speculative philosophy — I am declaring that "Fruit” is the "Substance” of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be a pear is not essential to the pear, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea — "Fruit”. I therefore declare apples, pears, almonds, etc., to be mere forms of existence, modi, of "Fruit”. My finite understanding supported by my senses does of course distinguish an apple from a pear and a pear from an almond, but my speculative reason declares these sensuous differences inessential and irrelevant. It sees in the apple the same as in the pear, and in the pear the same as in the almond, namely "Fruit”. Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is "the substance" — "Fruit”.

Having reduced the different real fruits to the one "fruit" of abstraction — "the Fruit", speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from "the Fruit", from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea "the Fruit" as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction.

The speculative philosopher therefore relinquishes the abstraction "the Fruit", but in a speculative, mystical fashion — with the appearance of not relinquishing it. Thus it is really only in appearance that he rises above his abstraction. He argues somewhat as follows:

If apples, pears, almonds and strawberries are really nothing but "the Substance", "the Fruit", the question arises: Why does "the Fruit" manifest itself to me sometimes as an apple, sometimes as a pear, sometimes as an almond? Why this semblance of diversity which so obviously contradicts my speculative conception of Unity, "the Substance", "the Fruit"?

This, answers the speculative philosopher, is because "the Fruit" is not dead, undifferentiated, motionless, but a living, self-differentiating, moving essence. The diversity of the ordinary fruits is significant not only for my sensuous understanding, but also for "the Fruit" itself and for a speculative reason. The different ordinary fruits are different manifestations of the life of the "one Fruit"; they are crystallisations of "the Fruit" itself. Thus in the apple "the Fruit" gives itself an apple-like existence, in the pear a pear-like existence. We must therefore no longer say, as one might from the standpoint of the Substance: a pear is "the Fruit", an apple is "the Fruit", an almond is "the Fruit", but rather "the Fruit" presents itself as a pear, "the Fruit" presents itself as an apple, "the Fruit" presents itself as an almond; and the differences which distinguish apples, pears and almonds from one another are the self-differentiations of "the Fruit" and make the particular fruits different members of the life-process of "the Fruit". Thus "the Fruit" is no longer an empty undifferentiated unity; it is oneness as allness, as "totality” of fruits, which constitute an "organically linked series of members”. In every member of that series "the Fruit" gives itself a more developed, more explicit existence, until finally, as the "summary” of all fruits, it is at the same time the living unity which contains all those fruits dissolved in itself just as it produces them from within itself...

Speculative philosophy has as many incarnations as there are things, just as it has here in every fruit an incarnation of the Substance, of the Absolute Fruit. The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary fruits and to say in some mysterious way that there are apples, pears, almonds and raisins. But the apples, pears, almonds and raisins that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of apples, semblances of pears, semblances of almonds and semblances of raisins, for they are moments in the life of "the Fruit", this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind. Hence what is delightful in this speculation is to rediscover all the real fruits there, but as fruits which have a higher mystical significance, which have grown out of the ether of your brain and not out of the material earth, which are incarnations of "the Fruit", of the Absolute Subject. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, "the Fruit", to real natural fruits, you give on the contrary the natural fruits a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of "the Fruit" in all the manifestations of its life — the apple, the pear, the almond — that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits, how in each one of them "the Fruit" realises itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a raisin to its existence as an almond. Hence the value of the ordinary fruits no longer consists in their natural qualities, but in their speculative quality, which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of "the Absolute Fruit".

The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind "the Fruit", i.e., by creating those fruits out of his own abstract reason, which he considers as an Absolute Subject outside himself, represented here as "the Fruit". And in regard to every object the existence of which he expresses, he accomplishes an act of creation.

It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, "the Fruit"

In the speculative way of speaking, this operation is called comprehending Substance as Subject, as an inner process, as an Absolute Person, and this comprehension constitutes the essential character of Hegel's method.
--------------------------------------------

Everything in italics is from Marx. The bold emphasis is mine.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ly/ch05.htm#5.2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch05.htm#5.2)

We can only wonder how things would have been different had Marx vigorously pursued this line of reasoning. We might never have had any concern with the supernatural abstractions of "dialectics" at all. :)

For a much more philosophically sophisticated explication of this point, see abstraction -- part one: the heart of the beast (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm) by Rosa Lichtenstein.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
What are trying to say then?

I didn't see anything wrong in the criticism of Marx here. As one reads the entire text (the complete text), one could understand very well what Marx was trying to say here.

It completely disabled idealism and put forward the scientific method of dialectical materialism.

Dialectical materialism is outrightly opposite to idealism, can&#39;t you actually see that? <_<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
If it were not for dialectics, Marx and Engels would never have been able to develop their theories&#33;

Yes, I&#39;ve heard that claim before.

It&#39;s not a testable hypothesis as stated.

But let&#39;s suppose, for the sake of discussion, that it&#39;s "true". Marx and Engels needed "dialectics" as a kind of scaffolding from which to erect their theories.

It&#39;s my proposition that their theories can now stand on their own and the scaffolding can be torn down and disposed of.

We can use ordinary logic, empirical investigation, and the axioms of the historical materialist paradigm to explain social reality without any "need" for "dialectics".

In fact, it&#39;s my opinion that Marx and Engels "could" have "done without dialectics" altogether...and still reached the same conclusions that they did.


You are just going to be laughing stock to any serious Marxist...

Here is something that you might want to think about. It does not matter who "laughs at you". What matters is that you search for the truth no matter where it takes you.

Marx made a favorable reference to Dante on the first page of Das Kapital...Follow your own course and never mind what others say.

I&#39;m doing my best to do that. :P

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 10 2006, 06:21 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 10 2006, 06:21 AM)
Axel1917
If it were not for dialectics, Marx and Engels would never have been able to develop their theories&#33;

Yes, I&#39;ve heard that claim before.

It&#39;s not a testable hypothesis as stated.

But let&#39;s suppose, for the sake of discussion, that it&#39;s "true". Marx and Engels needed "dialectics" as a kind of scaffolding from which to erect their theories.

It&#39;s my proposition that their theories can now stand on their own and the scaffolding can be torn down and disposed of.

We can use ordinary logic, empirical investigation, and the axioms of the historical materialist paradigm to explain social reality without any "need" for "dialectics".

In fact, it&#39;s my opinion that Marx and Engels "could" have "done without dialectics" altogether...and still reached the same conclusions that they did.


You are just going to be laughing stock to any serious Marxist...

Here is something that you might want to think about. It does not matter who "laughs at you". What matters is that you search for the truth no matter where it takes you.

Marx made a favorable reference to Dante on the first page of Das Kapital...Follow your own course and never mind what others say.

I&#39;m doing my best to do that. :P

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I believe that I have on several occasions put forth proof for dialectics:

http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp

Without dialectics, Marx/Engels could have never examined the inteneral contradictions that drive society forward, as the existence of contradictions is a part of dialectics (a basic one: an organism is living and dying at the same time; unlike a rock, it is alive, yet every second of life is one second closer to death). Engels, and later Lenin had also noted that Capital is rigorously dialectical in content, pointing out numerous contradictions within capitalism itself.

How can you think that we can continue to observe contradictory phenomena by "abandoning the scaffolding" and ceasing to look at such contradictions? Does water graudally cool into a gel, and then freeze? No. Gradual temperature decreases will cause a sudden change in when it will become ice (dialectics, quantity into quality). The communism of the future is a return to primitive communistic systems, but on a much higher, qualitative level (Negation of the negation), etc.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
Without dialectics, Marx/Engels could have never examined the internal contradictions that drive society forward...

Yes, they would have avoided a useless hypothesis.

In the historical materialist paradigm, societies are "driven forward" not by "internal contradictions" but by changes in the means of production.

Those changes stress the existing relations of production...and eventually cause their replacement with new relations of production.

In my opinion, Marx and Engels could have made that discovery even if they&#39;d never heard of Hegel.


...an organism is living and dying at the same time; unlike a rock, it is alive, yet every second of life is one second closer to death...

But in real life, we treat living organisms differently from the way we treat dead organisms.

Would you care to be buried at this moment because "in the long run you&#39;re dialectically dead"???

Thus your "dialectical labels" reduce to a quip...that no one in practice takes at all seriously.


Engels, and later Lenin had also noted that Capital is rigorously dialectical in content, pointing out numerous contradictions within capitalism itself.

Well, if they said it then it "must be true", right? :lol:

I am not competent to make that call myself. But it does seem to me that Capital would be a far more accessible work minus its baroque "dialectical" flourishes.


How can you think that we can continue to observe contradictory phenomena by "abandoning the scaffolding" and ceasing to look at such contradictions?

Because those "contradictions" don&#39;t exist except in the heads of "dialecticians". Real physics tells us all we need to know about the behavior of water under certain conditions.


The communism of the future is a return to primitive communistic systems, but on a much higher, qualitative level (Negation of the negation), etc.

Who cares? The "case for communism" does not rest in any sense on the forms of pre-class society anymore than it rests on "primate nature".

Communism is a prediction based on a historical materialist analysis of how capitalism works. It may turn out to be a good prediction or a bad one...the jury is "still out".

But suggesting that it&#39;s "dialectically inevitable" does not "confirm" the prediction.

Only the actual establishment of a working communist society in real life can confirm that Marx was right.

It can&#39;t be done by mere words.

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

[red_che]

In the historical materialist paradigm, societies are "driven forward" not by "internal contradictions" but by changes in the means of production.

That is exactly what internal contradiction is. The changes in the means of production. Or to be more apt, changes in the mode of production. Adding to that factor, the class contradiction sums up all the contradictions in a society. Changes in the means of production happen only when class contradiction resulted in a revolution for which one class overthrows the other and makes the necessary changes in the mode of production in order to "move forward" society.

I think you merely are confusing things here. Obscuring it, in fact. Dialectics is simply the scientific method of analysing the contradictions for which changes/development occur.

Things don&#39;t just happen and develop without contradictions. It is a result of the actions, interactions, reactions within itself and its environment. All matters are interrelated and interact. That is the dialectics.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are just going to be laughing stock to any serious Marxist if you don&#39;t.


I don&#39;t think we could live with such torture&#33;

Being snickered at by every kid with a patchy goatee wearing 12 different shades of black during open mic night at the coffee houses.

Lucky for me I exchanged coffee houses for pubs in 1985; otherwise I could have suffered severe emotional truama.

The horror......The horror......


I think it&#39;s a tragedy that Marx and Engels did not "follow through" with this line of attack. Had they done so, then "dialectics" would be properly relegated to some dusty little village museum in Germany.

We could not have been so lucky. Once political theory is combined with absurd philosophical garbage it may take centuries to filter out the trash....nevermind, it already has.

[Red Powers]

from red Che

Changes in the means of production happen only when class contradiction resulted in a revolution for which one class overthrows the other and makes the necessary changes in the mode of production in order to "move forward" society.


I think you mean "relations of production." changes in the means of production happen constantly without revolution.

[red_che]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11 2006, 05:18 AM
from red Che

Changes in the means of production happen only when class contradiction resulted in a revolution for which one class overthrows the other and makes the necessary changes in the mode of production in order to "move forward" society.


I think you mean "relations of production." changes in the means of production happen constantly without revolution.
I only "copied" it from redstar&#39;s post. But, if you read it entirely, I emphasized there that society can move forward only when its mode of production is changed (when the contradiction between the forces of production and relations of production is resolved). And this change can happen only through a revolution by the oppressed class overthrowing the ruling class.

Also, changes in the means of production is in itself a revolution. However, what I am talking here of a revolution is a social revolution, the overthrow of one class by the other.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I stumbled upon a little gem for the "anti-dialecticians" earlier and thought I should share (with this thread being particularly relevant)....


Originally posted by Francis Wheen&#39;s biography of [email protected] page 224
The revolt by Sepoy soldiers against British rule in India added to his troubles, since the Tribune naturally expected a lengthy analysis from its expert. Fortunately Marx had learnt enough artful dodging from the late lamented Musch to bluff hi way out. &#39;As to the Delhi affair,&#39; he confided to Engels, &#39;it seems to me that the English ought to begin their retreat as soon as the rainy season has set in real earnest. Being obliged for the present to hold the fort for you as the Tribune&#39;s military correspondent, I have taken it upon myself to put this forward...It&#39;s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way.&#39;

(Italics Wheen&#39;s, bold mine.)

Unfortunately, the full transcript of this letter from Marx to Engels, dated 15 August 1857, is not available from the letters archive -- Letters of Marx and Engels: 1857 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/letters/index.htm) -- but an interesting observation (and admission) from Marx himself.

[redstar2000]

As I&#39;ve had occasion to note before, Marx and Engels made a lot of "off hand" remarks in their private correspondence that I imagine they&#39;d hate to have been "held to account for" publicly.

Here I think we have an awareness on Marx&#39;s part of the potential for fraud in "dialectics".

You can "use" it to say anything...provided that you&#39;re careful to allow for any possible outcome.

How useful is that?

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

[angus_mor]

NOTE: the following is irrellevant to the discussion of dialectics.

Whether or not dialectics was fundamental to the development of Marxism, the theories and literature are there; so is this thread really necessary?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:12 PM
NOTE: the following is irrellevant to the discussion of dialectics.

Whether or not dialectics was fundamental to the development of Marxism, the theories and literature are there; so is this thread really necessary?
Not if you think "dialectics" is "ok".

If you think it must be criticized and even entirely rejected then this and similar threads in the future are obviously "necessary".

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

[pandora]

To me it surpasses Hegel by a different term, that of Hegel&#39;s limited dialectics of using the family as a model. By refering back to the fruit as seperate from its family isn&#39;t he also refering to the seperation of the self from the family.

This seems pertinent in that Hegel based many of his interpretations of the state on his interpretations of the family. To move beyond this would in a sense make Marx more post-modern as to see the self seperate from the state from wence it came to be its own absolute self able to therefore change the state to something different from wence it came.

[Red Powers]

Red Che, I&#39;m sorry I thought you just made a mistake. I did read your whole post and I thought it was confused. When I went back and looked at it I realized that the only thing copied from Redstar was the words "means of production."

Your statement, which you repeat so:
Also, changes in the means of production is in itself a revolution. However, what I am talking here of a revolution is a social revolution, the overthrow of one class by the other,

is just wrong. Capitalists constantly revolutionize the means of production while maintaining their class rule and the basic relations of production -- wage labor/capital.

Changes in the means of production in no way requires a revolution. I&#39;ve seen it myself in the last decades.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 11 2006, 11:58 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 11 2006, 11:58 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 02:12 PM
NOTE: the following is irrellevant to the discussion of dialectics.

Whether or not dialectics was fundamental to the development of Marxism, the theories and literature are there; so is this thread really necessary?
Not if you think "dialectics" is "ok".

If you think it must be criticized and even entirely rejected then this and similar threads in the future are obviously "necessary".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
And you obviously reject it in favor of Bourgeois philosophy. Good job. :rolleyes:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Axel1917+Jan 11 2006, 10:40 PM--> (Axel1917 @ Jan 11 2006, 10:40 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:58 PM

[email protected] 11 2006, 02:12 PM
NOTE: the following is irrellevant to the discussion of dialectics.

Whether or not dialectics was fundamental to the development of Marxism, the theories and literature are there; so is this thread really necessary?
Not if you think "dialectics" is "ok".

If you think it must be criticized and even entirely rejected then this and similar threads in the future are obviously "necessary".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
And you obviously reject it in favor of Bourgeois philosophy. Good job. :rolleyes: [/b]
"In the historical materialist paradigm, societies are "driven forward" not by "internal contradictions" but by changes in the means of production."

How is that bourgeois logic? ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
And you obviously reject it in favor of Bourgeois philosophy. Good job.

The rise of modern science corresponds with the rise of the bourgeoisie...no question about it.

The sustained and largely successful rebellion against clerical mysticism and metaphysical philosophies was one of the great victories of the human species.

And the bourgeoisie paid for it...out of the surplus value they extracted from our labor power.

It was about the only damn decent thing they ever did with our money&#33;

And it may be coming to an end...an American capitalist these days could be more likely to fund some fucking superstition factory than anything resembling scientific research.

A young and vigorous capitalist class has a different outlook...

From Sweatshop to Laboratory (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,393615,00.html)

Meanwhile, what are we to make of your label "bourgeois" philosophy? To be scientific is to "be bourgeois", perhaps? :lol:

Whereas to "be proletarian" is to tenaciously cling to 19th century metaphysics??

Inspite of its demonstrated uselessness???

In any contest between science and metaphysics, metaphysics will lose.

As the Leninists have consistently lost since 1975.

Indeed, "all you base belong to capitalists". :lol:

If I cannot dissuade you from "going down" with the "dialectical" ship, that&#39;s too bad.

But if I can convince the revolutionaries of this century not to waste their time with that crap, then I will have done them a great service.

Dumping metaphysical illusions is always a step forward. :)

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

[red_che]

Red Che, I&#39;m sorry I thought you just made a mistake. I did read your whole post and I thought it was confused. When I went back and looked at it I realized that the only thing copied from Redstar was the words "means of production."

Well, what I really intend to say is that, the change in the mode of production is the material precondition in order to change society to an entirely new and higher form. And this can be done only through revolution. That is an example of a dialectical and historical materialist viewpoint.


Capitalists constantly revolutionize the means of production while maintaining their class rule and the basic relations of production -- wage labor/capital.

Changes in the means of production in no way requires a revolution. I&#39;ve seen it myself in the last decades.

That&#39;s exactly what I mean revolution in the means of production. Not the revolution that is one of a class revolution.

Redstar, I am still waiting for your reply on my last comment on your post. ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Redstar, I am still waiting for your reply on my last comment on your post.

This the one?


Things don&#39;t just happen and develop without contradictions. It is a result of the actions, interactions, reactions within itself and its environment. All matters are interrelated and interact. That is the dialectics.

The most recently fashionable version is "everything is connected to everything else".

If that is true, it&#39;s a trivial truth. It doesn&#39;t tell us anything useful about anything.

Someone claims, for example, that simulated violence in computer games "causes" computer game players to be "more aggressive".

Violent computer games may make people more likely to act aggressively, a study says. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/4594376.stm)

I can see a "dialectician" saying at once: this reveals the "dialectical contradiction" between...

Between what?

Between anything he pleases. If "everything is connected to everything else", then violence in computer games "must" be connected to real physical violence.

Not to mention the gravitational influence of the Crab Nebula. :lol:

In science, just to assert that something is "connected" -- "dialectically" or otherwise -- is not sufficient. Science looks for causal links...Phenomenon X happens because of this specific property of cause Y.

Suppose it could be demonstrated that playing a violent computer game generated a specific response in the human brain...one that could easily be measured. Suppose then it could be shown that this response is also generated when people actually engage in physical violence. And suppose finally that it could be shown that this response is "learned"...the more often it is generated, the more readily it appears -- whether the stimulus is "virtual" or real.

Now, you&#39;d have something that could be said scientifically.

Playing violent computer games causes people to be more violent because they arouse and reinforce the same brain response that appears in people who actually engage in violent behavior.

How has "dialectics" helped us arrive at this conclusion? No matter what "dialectical" labels were pasted on the various aspects of this question, how would that have assisted us in arriving at a scientific conclusion?

The "grunt work" -- actual research -- would still have to be done to say anything useful on the subject.

Thus "dialectics" is like a mail-order diploma...it permits the pretense of knowledge without actually knowing anything.

Except how to write a check. :lol:

After someone has done the research and arrived at what looks to be a valid scientific conclusion, any "dialectician" can walk behind him and paste on the "dialectical" labels.

What does that achieve in the way of additional insight?

As far as I can tell, not a damn thing.

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 12 2006, 03:28 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Jan 12 2006, 03:28 AM)
Axel1917
And you obviously reject it in favor of Bourgeois philosophy. Good job.

The rise of modern science corresponds with the rise of the bourgeoisie...no question about it.

The sustained and largely successful rebellion against clerical mysticism and metaphysical philosophies was one of the great victories of the human species.

And the bourgeoisie paid for it...out of the surplus value they extracted from our labor power.

It was about the only damn decent thing they ever did with our money&#33;

And it may be coming to an end...an American capitalist these days could be more likely to fund some fucking superstition factory than anything resembling scientific research.

A young and vigorous capitalist class has a different outlook...

From Sweatshop to Laboratory (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,393615,00.html)

Meanwhile, what are we to make of your label "bourgeois" philosophy? To be scientific is to "be bourgeois", perhaps? :lol:

Whereas to "be proletarian" is to tenaciously cling to 19th century metaphysics??

Inspite of its demonstrated uselessness???

In any contest between science and metaphysics, metaphysics will lose.

As the Leninists have consistently lost since 1975.

Indeed, "all you base belong to capitalists". :lol:

If I cannot dissuade you from "going down" with the "dialectical" ship, that&#39;s too bad.

But if I can convince the revolutionaries of this century not to waste their time with that crap, then I will have done them a great service.

Dumping metaphysical illusions is always a step forward. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I have posted an online trasnscription of a book, of which uses modern science to confirm dialectical materialism.

You are not going to convince any real revolutionaries of this century. Given your anti-dialectical attitude, as well as your anti-Leninist points (when analyzed, it becomes clear that Marxism, Leninism, and Trotskyism are the same thing) you may end up capituating to the Bourgeois during some future revolution&#33; You have repeatedly ignored evidence that refutes your points, as pro-capitalists tend to do when one agues with them.

[red_che]

In science, just to assert that something is "connected" -- "dialectically" or otherwise -- is not sufficient. Science looks for causal links...Phenomenon X happens because of this specific property of cause Y.

Suppose it could be demonstrated that playing a violent computer game generated a specific response in the human brain...one that could easily be measured. Suppose then it could be shown that this response is also generated when people actually engage in physical violence. And suppose finally that it could be shown that this response is "learned"...the more often it is generated, the more readily it appears -- whether the stimulus is "virtual" or real.

Now, you&#39;d have something that could be said scientifically.

Playing violent computer games causes people to be more violent because they arouse and reinforce the same brain response that appears in people who actually engage in violent behavior.

How has "dialectics" helped us arrive at this conclusion? No matter what "dialectical" labels were pasted on the various aspects of this question, how would that have assisted us in arriving at a scientific conclusion?

Yeah, definitely your example above is one of scientific analysis. But dialectical materialism isn&#39;t simply such kind of analysis. What makes it different from all other scientific approach of analysis is that it looks from those contradictions for means to change the entire thing and produce a better thing.

As for social conditions, dialectical materialism (and for that matter, historical materialism) do not simply interpret why the proletariat is in contradiction with the bourgeoisie. Or how did this contradiction happen and then wait &#39;till this contradiction will arrive at its most violent, destructive stage, just as your own kind of thinking.

What separates dialectical materialism from all the rest of philosophies, ideologies or theories is that it would look for a way on how to put an end to such contradiction based on the actual material conditions and replace it with a better more advanced social system out of that old society. And whenever a new kind of contradiction arises out of the new society (which is only natural) again, it would analyze how that contradiction came into the scene and look for ways to solve it. Just as the same way it changed the older society.

Marx have already told this, and I will quote him again, "Philosophers only interpreted the world, but the point is, it must be changed." :marx:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)When analyzed, it becomes clear that Marxism, Leninism, and Trotskyism are the same thing.[/b]

I&#39;m well aware that this is "an article of faith" with you.

That don&#39;t mean it&#39;s true.


You have repeatedly ignored evidence that refutes your points, as pro-capitalists tend to do when one argues with them.

I cannot "ignore evidence" when none is offered. I have repeatedly requested a demonstration of the actual utility of "dialectics". I have repeatedly received nothing but unsubstantiated assertions.

Consider this one from your Maoist colleague...


red_che
What separates dialectical materialism from all the rest of philosophies, ideologies or theories is that it would look for a way on how to put an end to such contradiction based on the actual material conditions and replace it with a better more advanced social system out of that old society.

But it has not found one.

The feudal war-lords did not need "dialectics" to overthrow ancient despotisms. The emerging bourgeoisie did not need "dialectics" to overthrow the feudal aristocracy.

It&#39;s in the material class interests of a new ruling class to overthrow an old one.

If Marx was right about how capitalism would develop, then it&#39;s in the material class interests of the proletariat in late capitalist society to overthrow the old bourgeoisie.

You don&#39;t need "dialectics" to figure that out. It "logically follows" from the axioms of historical materialism.

As for "dialectics" as a "guide to action", it sucks&#33; The concrete results of your "applied dialectics" have been catastrophic&#33;

And your Trotskyist colleagues have done even worse.

I&#39;m amazed that all you "dialecticians" have the nerve to show your faces in public with the same old claims that have been repeatedly discredited.

All of you claim a Leninist "mastery of the dialectic"...and none of you have squat to show for it.

It&#39;s as if Ken Lay (Enron) were to go on tour seeking venture capital on the grounds of his "executive experience". :lol:

Outside of some backward country where people really didn&#39;t know any better, who the hell would trust you to run a hot dog stand...much less a revolution&#33;

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

[red_che]

But it has not found one.

Or maybe, you haven&#39;t found it.


The feudal war-lords did not need "dialectics" to overthrow ancient despotisms. The emerging bourgeoisie did not need "dialectics" to overthrow the feudal aristocracy.

Well, who knew they didn&#39;t? They won&#39;t even tell if they do. :(

Dialectics is one logical way of thinking. It&#39;s just that Marx used the term more often than logic.


It&#39;s in the material class interests of a new ruling class to overthrow an old one.

If Marx was right about how capitalism would develop, then it&#39;s in the material class interests of the proletariat in late capitalist society to overthrow the old bourgeoisie.

You don&#39;t need "dialectics" to figure that out.

The material class interests are the material basis for class actions, yeah it is. But a clearer picture of that material class can&#39;t be simply grasped if not being analysed dialectically, that is, discovering the hidden truths behind those class contradictions. And not just the face/outside appearance of those contradictions.

And dialectics, and Marx, have already made a clear picture and discovery of those contradictions and that it needs to be put to an end now.


It "logically follows" from the axioms of historical materialism.

Historical materialism itself is dialectical materialism applied into social conditions.


As for "dialectics" as a "guide to action", it sucks&#33; The concrete results of your "applied dialectics" have been catastrophic&#33;

Really? And what your "redstar2000 theory" had proven on the contrary?

Let me make a picture of your "theory".

You say that the working class can&#39;t act or do a revolution now because the material conditions do not permit it. Wait until all of humanity have been drained of their energy and realized that "oh, we&#39;re all fucked up&#33; We should act now&#33;". It&#39;s certainly like, don&#39;t change your underwear until it&#39;s really worn out. I bet you do that. You won&#39;t change your underwear until all its threads were gone and can&#39;t support your balls anymore. Or until some kind of insect or animal bites your balls that you realize your underwear has only one thread left on it now. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Huh&#33; That&#39;s your theory? Well, keep it to yourself.

[Axel1917]

From redstar2000:


I&#39;m well aware that this is "an article of faith" with you.

That don&#39;t mean it&#39;s true.

It is actually confirmed by a study of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.


I cannot "ignore evidence" when none is offered. I have repeatedly requested a demonstration of the actual utility of "dialectics". I have repeatedly received nothing but unsubstantiated assertions.

Go back and look at that link I put forth.




The feudal war-lords did not need "dialectics" to overthrow ancient despotisms. The emerging bourgeoisie did not need "dialectics" to overthrow the feudal aristocracy.

It&#39;s in the material class interests of a new ruling class to overthrow an old one.

Not seeing dialectics does not mean that it does not exist.


If Marx was right about how capitalism would develop, then it&#39;s in the material class interests of the proletariat in late capitalist society to overthrow the old bourgeoisie.

If this is so simple as you say, then how did one of the four greatest Marxist theoreticians of all time screw up on something that should be so obvious, as you continue to "point out?"


You don&#39;t need "dialectics" to figure that out. It "logically follows" from the axioms of historical materialism.

As for "dialectics" as a "guide to action", it sucks&#33; The concrete results of your "applied dialectics" have been catastrophic&#33;

Okay, is there even any proof you have to back this up?.


And your Trotskyist colleagues have done even worse.

And how is that so? Trotsky had even predicted the USSR&#39;s collapse, either by going back to capitalism, complete with a massive decline in agriculture, industry, culture, etc., or that it would be taken over by a second Bolshevik revolution against the Stalinists.


I&#39;m amazed that all you "dialecticians" have the nerve to show your faces in public with the same old claims that have been repeatedly discredited.

Yes, Bourgeois methods have really discredited us, let me tell you.


All of you claim a Leninist "mastery of the dialectic"...and none of you have squat to show for it.

You claim that you have a mastery over how Marx/Engels and Lenin/Trotsky were wrong, yet you have squat to show for it&#33;


It&#39;s as if Ken Lay (Enron) were to go on tour seeking venture capital on the grounds of his "executive experience". :lol:

Outside of some backward country where people really didn&#39;t know any better, who the hell would trust you to run a hot dog stand...much less a revolution&#33;

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

Who the hell would trust you with a revolution? You would not know what is going on, and then it would happen and catch you off guard&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Let me make a picture of your "theory".

You say that the working class can&#39;t act or do a revolution now because the material conditions do not permit it. Wait until all of humanity have been drained of their energy and realized that "oh, we&#39;re all fucked up&#33; We should act now&#33;". It&#39;s certainly like, don&#39;t change your underwear until it&#39;s really worn out. I bet you do that.[/b]

I don&#39;t want to shock you...but I don&#39;t wear any underwear at all. Like "dialectics", I don&#39;t need it. :D

It was indeed Marx&#39;s idea that an old form of class society is not overthrown until its productive possibilities had been exhausted.

That&#39;s one of the crucial reasons why he thought that proletarian revolution would take place first in the most advanced capitalist countries...because capitalism in those countries would have become senile.

Indeed, if you look at the differences between China and the U.S., you can actually see the differences between a rising self-confident bourgeoisie and a decaying bourgeoisie "on the way out".

Once more, you don&#39;t need "dialectics" to do that.

It&#39;s obvious&#33;

I don&#39;t know from what metaphysical orifice you plucked the notion of "humanity drained of their energy".

An aging ruling class does indeed appear to be "drained of energy". That&#39;s one of the material conditions required for successful proletarian revolution.

If you examine the landed aristocracies of Russia or France in the decades prior to their overthrow, you can actually see their confusion, their lassitude, their growing inability to rationally act in their own class interests. They "lost themselves" in dreams of their "glorious past" and were simply incapable of meeting the revolutionary challenge that grew up right in front of them.

I think this tendency can already be seen in the American bourgeoisie. It&#39;s still "small" and there remains some vigor in the ruling class here...but I think the "motion" is in the direction of senility.

Once again, here I am considering "motion" in history without using "dialectics".

I don&#39;t need it.

Neither does anyone else. :)


Axel1917
Go back and look at that link I put forth.

Be serious. Do you think I have time for the Gospel According to Alan & Ted?

What is that work really except an "updated" version of the lamentable Dialectics of Nature?

Pasting retroactive labels on scientific phenomena is not evidence for "dialectics".


Not seeing dialectics does not mean that it does not exist.

At the very moment you were posting this "insight", some semi-literate godsucker in the Religion subforum was writing:

u dont have to see sumthing to believe in it.. do u see atoms? dont u believe they exist?&#33; the thing is... u can prove it without seeing it&#33;&#33;&#33;

He&#39;s talking about "Allah". :lol:

Other than basic literacy, what&#39;s the difference between you and him?


Okay, is there even any proof you have to back this up?

Just the whole history of 20th century Leninism. Are you intending to argue otherwise? :lol:


You claim that you have a mastery over how Marx/Engels and Lenin/Trotsky were wrong, yet you have squat to show for it&#33;

Ah...but I&#39;m just starting out...I&#39;ve only been posting these ideas for three years. Leninist "dialectics" has had around a century to "deliver the goods".

Results: zip&#33;

If anti-Leninist Marxism purged of all traces of "dialectical" mysticism has produced nothing by 2100, then your response will be pertinent.

I don&#39;t see how we could do any worse than you have...but I must admit that it&#39;s possible that I could be wrong.

On the other hand, it looks to be impossible for the "dialecticians" to "ever" be wrong...at least as they tell it.

All their manifest failures are "dialectically transformed" into "brilliant successes"...at least in words. :lol:


Who the hell would trust you with a revolution?

Irrelevant...as I have never asked anyone to do that. I do not pretend to some "special understanding" that&#39;s "beyond" ordinary working people.

What I tell people is comprehensible...and people can accept it or reject it depending on whether or not they think it makes sense.

You "dialecticians" are the ones who claim to have a "special understanding" and demand that ordinary working people "trust you" to "lead a revolution" and "run the show afterwards".

But your track record conclusively demonstrates that your "special understanding" ain&#39;t worth a puddle of piss.

No one should "trust you"...ever&#33;

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

[Axel1917]

From redstar2000:


Be serious. Do you think I have time for the Gospel According to Alan & Ted?

You should. I like how you spend so much time at the rant site, The Redstar Papers, yet you have no time to even read a citation.


What is that work really except an "updated" version of the lamentable Dialectics of Nature?

You obviously did not even understand the Dialectics of Nature


Pasting retroactive labels on scientific phenomena is not evidence for "dialectics".

You didn&#39;t even read it. What do you know?


At the very moment you were posting this "insight", some semi-literate godsucker in the Religion subforum was writing:

u dont have to see sumthing to believe in it.. do u see atoms? dont u believe they exist?&#33; the thing is... u can prove it without seeing it&#33;&#33;&#33;

He&#39;s talking about "Allah".

There is clearly a rational difference between the two. We can&#39;t see existent things (atoms, bacteria, etc.) with our naked eyes. Why don&#39;t you read up on it?


Other than basic literacy, what&#39;s the difference between you and him?

It is massive. Why don&#39;t you look into it?


Just the whole history of 20th century Leninism. Are you intending to argue otherwise?

You don&#39;t even know what Leninism is. You only listen to what Chairman Bob has to say about it.


Ah...but I&#39;m just starting out...I&#39;ve only been posting these ideas for three years. Leninist "dialectics" has had around a century to "deliver the goods".

Starting out? Ah, like Hegel once said, "From nothing. Through nothing. To nothing."&#33;

Leninsim/Trotkyism has been delivering the goods for well over a hundred years. You obvioulsly don&#39;t understand dialectics, why the USSR degenerated into Stalinism, etc. (you just keep spreading BOURGEOIS lies to "prove" your point here.).


Results: zip&#33;

On your behalf.


If anti-Leninist Marxism purged of all traces of "dialectical" mysticism has produced nothing by 2100, then your response will be pertinent.

Anti-Marxist Marxism? What an odd and nonsensical term.


I don&#39;t see how we could do any worse than you have...but I must admit that it&#39;s possible that I could be wrong.

Then why don&#39;t you look into it?


On the other hand, it looks to be impossible for the "dialecticians" to "ever" be wrong...at least as they tell it.

No one has successfully proven us to be wrong as of yet.


All their manifest failures are "dialectically transformed" into "brilliant successes"...at least in words.

This is nonsense here.


Irrelevant...as I have never asked anyone to do that. I do not pretend to some "special understanding" that&#39;s "beyond" ordinary working people.

What I tell people is comprehensible...and people can accept it or reject it depending on whether or not they think it makes sense.

Anyone can tell Formal Logic. Why not take it a step further and study dialectics. It is very hard (I actually came close to what you think of the subject at hand at first, but I kept studying and realized that dialectics is true).


You "dialecticians" are the ones who claim to have a "special understanding" and demand that ordinary working people "trust you" to "lead a revolution" and "run the show afterwards".

We will win them over by participating in traditional workers&#39; parties (unfortunatley, one does not exist here in the USA yet), unions, etc. History shows that you can&#39;t really have a revolution without a revolutionary party&#33;


But your track record conclusively demonstrates that your "special understanding" ain&#39;t worth a puddle of piss.

No one should "trust you"...ever&#33;

This nonsense is on par with the Anarchists and the Bourgeoisie&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
We will win them over by participating in traditional workers&#39; parties (unfortunatley, one does not exist here in the USA yet), unions, etc.

The Leninist "big guns"...parliamentary cretinism and trade union tail-ism.

Which you will "dialectically transform" into a "road to revolution"...at least verbally.

If Lenin was an epigone of Marx, he&#39;s been followed by a crowd of "super-epigones". :(

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

[red_che]

It was indeed Marx&#39;s idea that an old form of class society is not overthrown until its productive possibilities had been exhausted.

That&#39;s one of the crucial reasons why he thought that proletarian revolution would take place first in the most advanced capitalist countries...because capitalism in those countries would have become senile.

Yeah, Marx was all correct in that sense. But that was before capitalism developed into Imperialism. But now, since the advent of Financial oligarchy, the heavy concentration of production into several countries only, i.e most advanced countries, and the world being divided and was redivided by these Imperialist countries after the two world wars, proletarian revolution ought to take place not just in the most advanced capitalist countries but also even in the semi-feudal societies. Such revolutions would need to take two stages, first a democratic revolution and then right after, a socialist revolution. There is absolutely no need for these semi-feudal societies to build a capitalist society since capitalism had already been exhausted by the Imperialist countries.

All they must do during the democratic revolution is to seize political power, bring down the imperialist dominion over their society and thereafter start the socialist construction. They will industrialize their mode of production, without instituting the capitalist relations but instead socialize such relations of productions.

While in the capitalist societies, socialist revolution must be carried away already.


An aging ruling class does indeed appear to be "drained of energy". That&#39;s one of the material conditions required for successful proletarian revolution

But you don&#39;t seem to know that such condition is now present. You really don&#39;t seem to know the fact that today, as of this moment, the capitalist system prevailing in the US, UK, France, etc. are now aging. You must have been overwhelmed by the current technological advances in these countries. As such, you seem to be one of those people who were blinded by such bourgeois propaganda. :lol:

So what with such technological advances, anyway?

The truth of the matter is that such advances can be made, or even more, in a socialist society. The only difference is that, such advances in technology in a socialist society is that it would be an advancement not to replace human labor but to be used as a tool, an updated tool to replace the old tools, for production.


Once again, here I am considering "motion" in history without using "dialectics".

That is why you seem to have lost track of the all-round current developments. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Proletarian revolution ought to take place not just in the most advanced capitalist countries but also even in the semi-feudal societies.

Won&#39;t happen. What Leninists can actually do is make a bourgeois revolution -- and their efforts to "construct socialism" simply clear the way for the emergence of a new bourgeois ruling class.

That&#39;s what has happened.

What you call "revisionism" in the 20th century is simply a different label for what had to be a new bourgeoisie.


There is absolutely no need for these semi-feudal societies to build a capitalist society since capitalism had already been exhausted by the Imperialist countries.

You are not even trying to think seriously about this stuff. Do you imagine that if you parrot Lenin and Mao often enough that everyone will just "forget" what happened?

Capitalism is not "exhausted" in China, it is booming. And there are quite a few other "new" capitalist countries where things are going quite well.

Latin American capitalist countries, for example, are entering their "age of reform"...like the U.S. back in the 1930s and 1940s.

The problem with Lenin -- and you -- is that you think the whole world is "on the same page".

That&#39;s not even remotely true.


They will industrialize their mode of production, without instituting the capitalist relations but instead socialize such relations of productions.

For a little while...and then they&#39;ll be ready to openly restore capitalism and enter the world market as a real "player".

There is no "dialectical recipe" for "instant communism". There&#39;s no version of real communism that&#39;s "micro-wave ready".

It takes generations of working class struggle under capitalism before they are ready to overthrow that system.

And when they are ready, they won&#39;t need the "leadership" of a "vanguard party". Such an idea will just strike them as old-fashioned.


You really don&#39;t seem to know the fact that today, as of this moment, the capitalist system prevailing in the US, UK, France, etc. are now aging.

I currently suspect that might be the case. Clearly the "age of reform" for the old capitalist countries is over. I think Marx is going to look "very strong" in western Europe and North America as this century ages.

But that&#39;s not the same thing as saying that working people are going to start following you...or any other Leninist anachronism.

We are not peasants looking for a "great leader" to "save us" from the landlords.

Nor are we an "army" looking for "generals" to lead us into battle.

Those are ideas that are no longer relevant in the "senile" capitalist countries.

We are finally beginning to "catch up with Marx"...

The emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves&#33;

You need to look for a new job; your "revolution industry" is about to disappear. :lol:

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

[Commie Rat]

Shouldn&#39;t Dialetics be in thoery?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 17 2006, 08:54 PM
Shouldn&#39;t Dialetics be in thoery?
As the mod of the Theory forum, I&#39;ve decided to move all "dialectics" threads to the Philosophy forum.

That&#39;s a temporary decision; eventually, I think they&#39;ll all be moved to the Religion subforum because of the intrinsically metaphysical character of the whole idea.

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 17 2006, 04:43 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 17 2006, 04:43 AM)
Axel1917
We will win them over by participating in traditional workers&#39; parties (unfortunatley, one does not exist here in the USA yet), unions, etc.

The Leninist "big guns"...parliamentary cretinism and trade union tail-ism.

Which you will "dialectically transform" into a "road to revolution"...at least verbally.

If Lenin was an epigone of Marx, he&#39;s been followed by a crowd of "super-epigones". :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Refusal to participate in trade unions and traditional workers&#39; parties is sectarian cretinism. How do you expect to reach the workers by walling yourself in away form them? Marx and Engels opposed such nonsense.

You are transforming things into a "road to revolution," merely in words.

Lenin was not an epigone of Marx, but rather a follower of him that made vital updates to Marxist theory.

And seriously, read up on what Lenin actually thought and did, instead of listening to Bourgeios and Stalinist lies about him. There is no revolution without a revolutionary party.

[red_che]

Won&#39;t happen. What Leninists can actually do is make a bourgeois revolution -- and their efforts to "construct socialism" simply clear the way for the emergence of a new bourgeois ruling class.

How would you know? Have you been through a revolution yourself?


What you call "revisionism" in the 20th century is simply a different label for what had to be a new bourgeoisie.

Exactly, the revisionists were the new bourgeoisie in the era of proletarian revolution. That&#39;s why when those revisionists came into power, the march to socialism was interrupted and have turned into the capitalist road.


You are not even trying to think seriously about this stuff. Do you imagine that if you parrot Lenin and Mao often enough that everyone will just "forget" what happened?

On the contrary, what happened in Russia and China were all kept in our thoughts that we are very careful now not to be infiltrated again by revisionists.


Capitalism is not "exhausted" in China, it is booming. And there are quite a few other "new" capitalist countries where things are going quite well.

So shall we wait for it to be exhausted before anything should be done? Well, you don&#39;t have to answer this because I already know your answer, "we have to wait". Yes, that&#39;s all you can say. :lol:


The problem with Lenin -- and you -- is that you think the whole world is "on the same page".

No. It is you who wants everything to be on the same page first before "anything must be done". On the contrary, what we, or myself, would say is that let&#39;s not wait for Zimbabwe to take the same course as US had before its peoples and proletariat should revolt. US has already demonstrated and still is demonstrating the evils of capitalism, so why should other countries follow its path? :angry:

As ever, Lenin&#39;s thoughts are valid. He never have deviated Marxism, only, he made Marx live in our times.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
How do you expect to reach the workers by walling yourself in away from them?

Who suggested a "wall"? I think the best way to "reach workers" is to tell them the truth in whatever ways are practical to do that.

Something that contemporary Leninists generally find "horrifying".

If not totally unimaginable.

How could a Leninist run for political office or try to grab a "leading role" in a trade union if they told workers the truth about those institutions?

So you don&#39;t tell the truth, you lie...and hope that no one will catch you at it.

You say in words that you "oppose" the parliamentary "road to socialism"...but you hustle your ass off to get elected to parliament.

You say in words that trade unions are "not revolutionary"...but you positively drool over the chances of leading one.

Do you imagine that your duplicity goes entirely unnoticed by the working class?

It doesn&#39;t.


There is no revolution without a revolutionary party.

Have it made up as a bumper sticker. :lol:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
On the contrary, what we, or myself, would say is that let&#39;s not wait for Zimbabwe to take the same course as US had before its peoples and proletariat should revolt. US has already demonstrated and still is demonstrating the evils of capitalism, so why should other countries follow its path?

Because objective material conditions leave them no choice in the matter.

You speak as if there was some kind of "moral choice" involved here. That people in backward countries could "avoid the evils of capitalism" provided only that they were morally uplifted (by Maoists) to "make the right choice".

Yet another demonstration of how far the Maoist variant of Leninism has departed from historical materialism.


[Lenin] made Marx live in our times.

And next...resurrection?

Even your language becomes more and more religious. :lol:

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

[red_che]

Because objective material conditions leave them no choice in the matter.

You speak as if there was some kind of "moral choice" involved here. That people in backward countries could "avoid the evils of capitalism" provided only that they were morally uplifted (by Maoists) to "make the right choice".

Your wrong. The objective material condition already provides for their industrialization/modernization/urbanization without the correspondence of a capitalist relations&#33; Without wage slavery&#33; Was it just because the first capitalist societies turned out to be one and the the others should follow it blindly? Because it is the where the head car of the train goes? Hell, no. I don&#39;t think so&#33;

The present condition already provides these semifeudal societies with enough materials to create a socialist society. The technology is there already. They can industrialize and modernize their society while at the same time get rid of the capitalist relations of production. Call it shortcut, but the objective condition now really provides for that. ;)


Even your language becomes more and more religious.

Metaphors, that&#39;s all it is.

[Axel1917]

From redstar2000:
Who suggested a "wall"? I think the best way to "reach workers" is to tell them the truth in whatever ways are practical to do that.[/quote]

And where are these workers when they participate in the class struggle? In the unions&#33; In their traditional workers&#39; parties&#33;. You must enter those unions, parties, work side-by-side with them, of which will help show them how to participate in the class struggle, patiently explain things to them in such organizaitons, etc.



Something that contemporary Leninists generally find "horrifying".

And what do you mean by "contemporary Leninist?"


If not totally unimaginable.

The workes getting a better way of life, as well as making the revolution, is not possible without entering such organizations.


How could a Leninist run for political office or try to grab a "leading role" in a trade union if they told workers the truth about those institutions?

And what is the truth about these institutions? That they are worthless? That is nonsense. History shows that workers always try to solve things in their traditional unions, parties, etc. You enter them and then patiently explain the truth to them, and transform that party/union into an organziation of socialist struggle.


So you don&#39;t tell the truth, you lie...and hope that no one will catch you at it.

Whatever. Strong words from someone that has not read or understood a single thing that Lenin said.


You say in words that you "oppose" the parliamentary "road to socialism"...but you hustle your ass off to get elected to parliament.

Again, such parties/unions are where the class struggle takes place, largely. Enter, work side-by-side, patiently explain, and turn that union/party into an organization of socialism&#33;


You say in words that trade unions are "not revolutionary"...but you positively drool over the chances of leading one.

Didn&#39;t Marx once remark that the unions were the only way the workers could fight against worsening conditions under capitalism?


Do you imagine that your duplicity goes entirely unnoticed by the working class?

It doesn&#39;t.

There is no such "duplicity." You merely made it up in your head and then attributed it to me.


Have it made up as a bumper sticker. :lol:

Seriously, study your history.

Oh, and for capitalism booming in certain places, remember that a slump follows a boom under capitalism as night follows day.

Perhaps this thread will one day more appropriately entitled How redstar2000 and Co. drowned in the swamp of formalism&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
And what is the truth about these institutions? That they are worthless?

Whatever utility they may have once had, yes, they are now worthless.

They can do nothing to either "make life better" for workers under capitalism or prepare workers for proletarian revolution.

What you hope they will do is get your bottom into a plush official chair...but I expect they&#39;re going to fail at that task as well.

Professional reformists have been out-maneuvering Leninists (amateur reformists) for the last five decades. I don&#39;t see why that should change.


Oh, and [as] for capitalism booming in certain places, remember that a slump follows a boom under capitalism as night follows day.

The new capitalist economies will follow the same path as the old ones did. A vigorous expansive youth, a "middle age" of reform, and an old age of reaction.

Not unlike Leninist parties, come to think of it. :lol:

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Axel1917
And what is the truth about these institutions? That they are worthless?

From redstar2000:


Whatever utility they may have once had, yes, they are now worthless.

The people of the USA are just beginning to wake up. It is only a matter of time before we see such militancy back in the days of the CIO in the 1930&#39;s, Labour Uprising of 1877, etc. If these organizations are so worthless, then where do you plan to find the workers? If we refuse to work in these organizations, [i]we will leave those workers behind, making them vulnerable to Bourgeois politics and the "labour aristorcracy."


They can do nothing to either "make life better" for workers under capitalism or prepare workers for proletarian revolution.

If the workers can&#39;t even make life better in the trade unions, as you say, what makes you think that they can successfully overthrow capitalism? Revolution is impossible by your logic, it seems.


What you hope they will do is get your bottom into a plush official chair...but I expect they&#39;re going to fail at that task as well.

Bourgeois and Anarchist libel here.


Professional reformists have been out-maneuvering Leninists (amateur reformists) for the last five decades. I don&#39;t see why that should change.

Do you even understand why there has been such a lag in conciousness ever since the end of WWII? You don&#39;t seem to.


The new capitalist economies will follow the same path as the old ones did. A vigorous expansive youth, a "middle age" of reform, and an old age of reaction.

Not necessarily. Remember, China was immune to so many capitalistic problems because of her planned economy. She willl be open to booms and slumps now. The possibilty of China becoming a capitalist superpower is still somewhat questionable (I read somewhere that it would take 20 years of uninterrupted growth (no slumps, serious overproduction etc.) before it could become as such.)).


Not unlike Leninist parties, come to think of it. :lol:

The parties of the past (Mao, Stalin, etc.) and the parties of today (Chairman Bob, etc.) are not Leninist at all. They are about as Leninist as Ronald Reagan. Lenin&#39;s ideas have been given a double dose of slander/libel by both the Bourgeois and the Stalinist "Marxist-Leninists"&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
If the workers can&#39;t even make life better in the trade unions, as you say, what makes you think that they can successfully overthrow capitalism?

The logic of historical materialism suggests that a regime in which reform is no longer possible becomes one in which revolution is inevitable.

This is only a hypothesis, of course. :)

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 22 2006, 05:10 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 22 2006, 05:10 AM)
Axel1917
If the workers can&#39;t even make life better in the trade unions, as you say, what makes you think that they can successfully overthrow capitalism?

The logic of historical materialism suggests that a regime in which reform is no longer possible becomes one in which revolution is inevitable.

This is only a hypothesis, of course. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
History has rigorously shown that the struggle begins in such traditional parties. In many places, especially over here in the USA, they say "If it ain&#39;t broken, don&#39;t fix it." They will have an attitude like that to start with, and they will try to solve such things in such places. People over here in the USA are just starting to wake up, and they will inevitably try reformist measures and such when they finally realize that the Democrats are no different than the Republicans. That will be a time to enter such organizations and win workers over.

[red_che]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 22 2006, 05:10 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Jan 22 2006, 05:10 AM)
Axel1917
If the workers can&#39;t even make life better in the trade unions, as you say, what makes you think that they can successfully overthrow capitalism?

The logic of historical materialism suggests that a regime in which reform is no longer possible becomes one in which revolution is inevitable.

This is only a hypothesis, of course. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
You don&#39;t propose any clear and particular step here, redstar. You are only making a vague, general proposition.

Or are you just ashamed to admit that Axel is right? :P

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
You don&#39;t propose any clear and particular step here, redstar.

Looking for someone to tell you what to do?

Ask Bob Avakian. :lol:

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

[red_che]

Looking for someone to tell you what to do?

No. I was just asking what you think. Here let me quote that one again.


The logic of historical materialism suggests that a regime in which reform is no longer possible becomes one in which revolution is inevitable.

This is only a hypothesis, of course.

Because this statement sounds like, "the fate of the proletariat is communism and nothing can be done about it." That sounds idealistic and metaphysical.

What are your propositions then in order for that hypothesis to be proven?

Really, I&#39;m curious. :unsure:

[RevolverNo9]

Some assumptions here are so outrageous I feel I must interject.


(Axel1917)
When analyzed, it becomes clear that Marxism, Leninism, and Trotskyism are the same thing.


Er, on the contrary, it becomes more than apparent under analysis that all four individuals proposed quite different things.

Engels, like many of our 19th century dialecticians here, always held the Young Hegelian analysis of Hegel, different to Marx&#39;s own criticism.

Engels and the YH&#39;s stated that Hegel&#39;s was a radical philosophy constrained in a conservative form, quite unlike Marx&#39;s insistance that Hegel should be &#39;stood on his head&#39;, or more acurately, &#39;set the right way up&#39;. This should set off any reasoned individual&#39;s &#39;idealist alarm bells&#39; straight away.

The philisophical underpinnings to Marx&#39;s work were reached by the first generation of Marxists (the Social Democrats and Bolsheviks) entirely in the works of Engels, those truly extraodrinary pieces where dialectics are proved by chemical formulae and statements such as motion is the existence of one object at two places at the same time. Yes, well.

It conflicts utterly with Marx&#39;s own written philisophical foundation, the material of which wasn&#39;t published until the 1920, much to the bewilderment of contemporary Marxists weened on Engels and Lenin, who just assumed it was the work of an immature man. Analysis, however, reveals that his philisophical &#39;early&#39; works are not contradicted by his later writings devoted to politicas and the economy (however much Althusser might have moaned).

Amusing how much the ideas behind their professed ideology embarrassed Leninists&#33;

As for Lenin, any dispassionate observer can see that his ideology constitutes a seismic break with Marxism. Blanquism-Leninism might perhaps have been a more appropriate term.

The very fact that Leninists insist that Leninism is simply a continuation of Marxism is a psychological exposure of its phallacy. A Leninist should argue for the validity of their ideology purely on the basis of its own terms. That it has to be corroborated with a canon of Marxist writing treated like religious scripture demonstrates the desperate need to impart authority and legitimation on to a revisionist tendency.


QUOTE
The feudal war-lords did not need "dialectics" to overthrow ancient despotisms. The emerging bourgeoisie did not need "dialectics" to overthrow the feudal aristocracy.



Well, who knew they didn&#39;t? They won&#39;t even tell if they do.

What&#33;? How the hell has MarryMao&#33; been allowed to get away with such an absurd statement? I can assure you that there is NO evidence for illiterate knights sitting in their forts arguing about the negation of the negation of the Frankish state. The reasons for their ascendency as a class are to do with their growth as a power militarily, the diminishing economic feasibility of slave maintanance, the growth of the efficiently superiour agricultural model of the enfeoffed peasent family and the neccessary dependency of lower social orders on knights for economic and social security.

As for the bourgeoisie, I hazard to propose that they also did not create a revolution using dialectics. Unsurprisingly, they wished for a society compatable to their economic interests, and acted accordingly.

All these classes corrected the inherent inconsistancy in contemporary society by acting in self-interest, not by making hilarious arguments about the dialectical hatching of chickens.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)The logic of historical materialism suggests that a regime in which reform is no longer possible becomes one in which revolution is inevitable.[/b]


red_che
Because this statement sounds like, "the fate of the proletariat is communism and nothing can be done about it."

What are your propositions then in order for that hypothesis to be proven?

First of all, we&#39;ve observed the fate of regimes which "ruled out reform".

Secondly, we&#39;ve likewise observed the emergence and growth of a modern proletariat...and the fact that it struggles in its own perceived self-interest against the bourgeoisie.

Thirdly, we observe that the willingness of the bourgeoisie to make "concessions" (reforms) to the proletariat is visibly diminishing in the "old" capitalist countries. In fact, the "great reforms" of the period 1930-50 are being dismantled.

I assume, in line with Marx, that this behavior is a product of "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time". A "young" and vigorous capitalism can "afford" reforms; a "senile" capitalism cannot...and must more and more rely on rigid repression to remain in power.

Finally, we observe that "rigid repression" opens up an abyss between what the ruling class "thinks" is going on and what is really happening. A severely repressive ruling class is increasingly unable to rationally act in its own class interests...because it no longer has an accurate understanding of the real world.

Look at the Bush regime floundering around in Iraq like a "beached whale". I expect that&#39;s only the first catastrophe of many more to come.

It&#39;s quite possible, in fact, that a future American president will make "the Czar&#39;s mistake"...get into a war that will strain American capitalism to the point of collapse.

The Marxist hypothesis is that this will be followed by proletarian revolution and communism (not "socialism").

But this hypothesis still awaits empirical confirmation.

We could end up with a "socialist" despotism or a military dictatorship or even being conquered by younger and stronger capitalist powers...should they desire to occupy a continent full of rubble and corpses.

We cannot predict the future in useful detail.

Not even with "dialectics". :lol:

Historical materialism can give us a "big picture"...but how things will play out in detail always remains to be seen.

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

[Axel1917]

RevolverNo.9, see a bit of the stuff at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp before you go shooting your mouth off, thereby spouting out Boureois lies about Lenin.

[angus_mor]

Hey Redstar,

As much as you want to believe that Dialectics doesn&#39;t exist, guess what? It does, now, I could do what you and the rest of the people here at RL are doing, and "assert a position", or I could simply say that whether you recognise Dialectics or not, you&#39;re using them to back up your point. You accept that there is a Bourgeoisie, and a Proletariat, and according to Marx, or even Hegel, that&#39;s a Dialectic. Hell, even now, there is a Dialectic which backs up the very reason this thread is here; myself, and you.

Now, we can continue upon this path of perpetual Dialectic, or we can accept that there are Dialectics, and do what we as Marxists came here to do; eliminate Dialectics. It&#39;s not that Marx was merely looking for a science to back up his bogus theory, he hated Dialectics too, and in order to figure out how to end it, he needed to analyze it and those involved; the Capitalists and the Proles. He studied Capitalism to no end, and should have focused upon the Proletariat as well, which he did little. Why? We don&#39;t know, he died far too soon, I&#39;m sure he would&#39;ve if he had the time. So is Karl Marx dead? I&#39;d say not; for we talk of him, we praise his work, and he would be very sad to see his face blocking the proletariats path.

So instead of wasting our time upon such a debate, which is fun, don&#39;t get me wrong, I&#39;m enjoying typing this very much, we can work to end this. We have the power to pick up where Marx left off, but not simply Marx, or Engels, or VI Lenin, but everyone who has tried before, and bring not only ourselves, but those we feel are in the way together to end the madness.

So whadaya say?

[red_che]

The Marxist hypothesis is that this will be followed by proletarian revolution and communism (not "socialism").

Your "Marxist hypothesis" isn&#39;t quite Marxist. :o

Marx didn&#39;t just "hypothesize" communism as the society that will replace capitalism simply being as that. He got into that "hypothesis" through dialectical and historical materialist analysis of society. Historical materialism, on the one hand, dictates that every society rises and then will fall. And dialectical materialism, on the other hand, provides the hypothesis of the new society that will emerge after the old dies.

If Marx isn&#39;t dialectical in his analysis, a different society coud&#39;ve been his "hypothesis". It could be another class-based society. It could be another portion of the proletariat owning privately the means of production. Still, it&#39;s a class-based society and a new relations of production based on private-ownership. :(

But you know what? He didn&#39;t get into that conclusion. Instead, he arrived at the conclusion of communism simply because he correctly recognized that the root cause of class-based society is private ownership of the means of production and exchange. And so, he concluded, that to be able to end a class-based society, smashing up all kinds of private ownership of the means of production must be done. Hence, communism replacing capitalism. Very dialectical in his analysis, right? :P

Do you recognize these words in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle"? Isn&#39;t that dialectics? :)

And it is not a simple thing to say that after capitalism, communism replaces. There would be a long period of revolutionary transition, an entire epoch in history itself. Marx says that "between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Isn&#39;t that socialism? ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Historical materialism, on the one hand, dictates that every society rises and then will fall. And dialectical materialism, on the other hand, provides the hypothesis of the new society that will emerge after the old dies.

So if communism does supplant capitalism, that will "prove" that "dialectics works"???

Well, putting ourselves in Marx&#39;s shoes for the moment, what other outcome could he have hypothesized had he known nothing of "dialectics"?

What class existing in his own time "looked like" it could supplant the rising bourgeoisie?

The peasantry? Visibly declining.

Artisans? Being replaced by industrial manufacturing.

The petty-bourgeoisie? Desired only to replace the existing bourgeoisie as successful capitalists.

The old feudal aristocracy? Visibly incompetent.

Seems to me that if he didn&#39;t like the proletariat&#39;s chances of overthrowing capitalism, then the only option left would be capitalism as "the end stage" of human society.

Or, I suppose, a precipitous decline into barbarism with the "cycle" starting all over again.

But historical materialism, without "dialectics", is still not "friendly" to those latter two options. Capitalism didn&#39;t have "the look and feel" of a "final stage". And the whole thrust of historical materialism argues against "cyclical" interpretations of history.

Thus I think it quite likely that Marx would have settled on the proletariat as the future "revolutionary class" even if he&#39;d never heard of Hegel.


There would be a long period of revolutionary transition, an entire epoch in history itself.

Leninist rubbish...without any support in the Marxist paradigm at all.

Marx and Engels hailed the Paris Commune as the world&#39;s first "dictatorship of the proletariat"...and noted as one of its important characteristics that it was visibly shrinking the state apparatus.

"Entire epoch" my ass&#33; :lol:

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

[red_che]

So if communism does supplant capitalism, that will "prove" that "dialectics works"??

Precisely. :D

Were you surprised that it really does? :lol:


Well, putting ourselves in Marx&#39;s shoes for the moment, what other outcome could he have hypothesized had he known nothing of "dialectics"?

What class existing in his own time "looked like" it could supplant the rising bourgeoisie?

The peasantry? Visibly declining.

Artisans? Being replaced by industrial manufacturing.

The petty-bourgeoisie? Desired only to replace the existing bourgeoisie as successful capitalists.

The old feudal aristocracy? Visibly incompetent.

Seems to me that if he didn&#39;t like the proletariat&#39;s chances of overthrowing capitalism, then the only option left would be capitalism as "the end stage" of human society.

Or, I suppose, a precipitous decline into barbarism with the "cycle" starting all over again.


Definitely. Had it not Marx dialectically anaylsed capitalism, he might have thought of the peasants as the leading class, I suppose. Or the other classes besides the bourgeoisie.

But Marx have spoken himself. That dialectical materialism is his tool in his analysis. Do you have problems with that? :lol:



But historical materialism, without "dialectics", is still not "friendly" to those latter two options. Capitalism didn&#39;t have "the look and feel" of a "final stage". And the whole thrust of historical materialism argues against "cyclical" interpretations of history.

Thus I think it quite likely that Marx would have settled on the proletariat as the future "revolutionary class" even if he&#39;d never heard of Hegel.

You know, that is your problem. You are pitting dialectics against historical materialism while the fact is, these two were not actually at odds against each other. They do not contradict. In fact, Marx have used these two concepts in his his theories. And he was able to grasp the proletarian revolution by using dialectical materialism and its conception to history, historical materialism.


Marx and Engels hailed the Paris Commune as the world&#39;s first "dictatorship of the proletariat"...

Yeah. Nobody argues against it. But the short duration of Paris Commune could clearly show that communism can&#39;t be built right after power is seized from the bourgeoisie. There must be a revoutionary transition. Even Marx acknowledged that. So, the lesson of the Paris Commune is clear, build socialism as the first phase of communism. And that transition would take long, not one day or one year or even a decade. It would be an epoch in mankind&#39;s history. ;)

[gilhyle]

WHile it adds little to the debate, I just thought it worth reminding people that the text quoted by Redstar was a rearticulation by Marx of the philosophy of universals of Feuerbach. Marx&#39;s dialectical view is in the 1857 Introduction to the Grundrisse. Both the similarlities and the differences are interesting.

Noone was more relieved than Marx that he did not escape dialectics and did not fall into the progressive but hardly subtle dead-end of Feuerbachian materialism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gilhyle+--> (gilhyle)While it adds little to the debate, I just thought it worth reminding people that the text quoted by Redstar was a rearticulation by Marx of the philosophy of universals of Feuerbach.[/b]

Why then did Marx specifically make critical reference to Hegel and not Feuerbach???


Marx&#39;s dialectical view is in the 1857 Introduction to the Grundrisse.

The reader can see the notebooks published under that title here...

Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/index.htm)

It is, if you will, a kind of "first draft" of Das Kapital.

What is most curious with regard to gilhyle&#39;s claim is that there is no "introduction" as such...the first notebook plunges immediately into a discussion of production.

The text is here...

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

I scanned the text rather quickly for any references to "dialectics" and found this...


Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx) (5) Dialectic of the concepts productive force (means of production) and relation of production, a dialectic whose boundaries are to be determined, and which does not suspend the real difference.[/b]

And there appears this sentence which could be interpreted as critical of "dialectics"...


[email protected]
As if this rupture had made its way not from reality into the textbooks, but rather from the textbooks into reality, and as if the task were the dialectic balancing of concepts, and not the grasping of real relations&#33;

Otherwise, there are a number of critical remarks regarding Hegel&#39;s approach to economic questions scattered through the text...but nowhere did I find any specific claim that "dialectics" was "imperative" or "required" for the contents of Marx&#39;s discussions.

As will come as no surprise to the student of Marx, it appears to emphasize the historical specificity of economic "categories" and how they "work".

The 19th century "academic prose" could stand much improvement for the modern reader...but it&#39;s clear enough compared to modern economic writers.

There may, of course, be some other favorable reference to "dialectics" in the remainder of this massive work...but I lack the patience to search for it myself.


gilhyle
No one was more relieved than Marx that he did not escape dialectics and did not fall into the progressive but hardly subtle dead-end of Feuerbachian materialism.

As I understand it, Feuerbach&#39;s materialism was abstract...it did not deal with "earthly" matters like how people actually make a living in the real world.

Good enough for a philosopher...but Marx was much more than that. :)

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

[red_che]

Why then did Marx specifically make critical reference to Hegel and not Feuerbach???


Otherwise, there are a number of critical remarks regarding Hegel&#39;s approach to economic questions scattered through the text...but nowhere did I find any specific claim that "dialectics" was "imperative" or "required" for the contents of Marx&#39;s discussions.

As will come as no surprise to the student of Marx, it appears to emphasize the historical specificity of economic "categories" and how they "work".

The 19th century "academic prose" could stand much improvement for the modern reader...but it&#39;s clear enough compared to modern economic writers.

There may, of course, be some other favorable reference to "dialectics" in the remainder of this massive work...but I lack the patience to search for it myself.

Redstar, you are creating more confusion rather than clarifications of things&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

Or, rather, you are so confused that you can&#39;t differentiate what Marx&#39;s dialectical materialism is as against dialectical idealism of Hegel.

Marx&#39;s dialectics is different with Hegel&#39;s&#33; In the same manner as Feuerbach&#39;s materialism is mechanical as opposed to Marx&#39;s historical materialism.

Marx&#39;s is dialectical materialism. Marx himself told this. "My dialectics is different with Hegel&#39;s, in fact, it is its direct opposite."


(5) Dialectic of the concepts productive force (means of production) and relation of production, a dialectic whose boundaries are to be determined, and which does not suspend the real difference.

In this point, Marx wants us to clearly recognize the as to where and when can contradictions arise and end. He wants us to recognize the periods of existence and material foundations of every definite social relations. His dialectics is bound up by material realms, not of boundless idealism.

[RevolverNo9]

(Axel1917:)
RevolverNo.9, see a bit of the stuff at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp before you go shooting your mouth off, thereby spouting out Boureois lies about Lenin.

Haha&#33; How does granting links to the sub-intellectual rants of an aged Trotskyite and your Holy Cow, Ted Grant, substitute for actual argumentative engagement? Notice how you react to any criticism of Lenin as if I&#39;d made a blasphemous joke. Talk about personality cult. :rolleyes:

What makes my &#39;lies&#39; bourgeois? As you well know, this is an entirely a priori assumption; rather appropriate I suppose for your philisohpical angle. It&#39;s also rather amusing to call a leftist criticism of a power that took power away from the workers (remember? the ones we&#39;re, you know, trying to emancipate... ?) as bourgeois. I&#39;d laugh, but it&#39;s too worrying.

But yes, thankyou for so deftly rebutting my supported claim that Engels wholly misunderstood Marxism and misinformed a generation of revolutionaries. I look forward to your future debates with similar anticipation.

[Chrysalis]

If I may jump in here and go back to the passage in the opening post---I&#39;d like to say something about that passage, I have not read the book The Holy Family, but having read Marx&#39;s other works, the passage alone is good enough to comment on what Marx was trying to do here.

Marx is clearly a particularist, or more specifically, a nominalist in his metaphysical/ontological framework. That means, he believes that individuals things, humans, or objects alone exist, and that the essence or nature of each individual object lies in exactly this concrete, definite, actual manifestation. From these concrete particulars we can generalize or form ideas about universals. Not the other way around. In other words, we experience first, and understand first, the everyday, sensible things ("things" includes individual human beings), then make abstractions or generalizations based on these. That we are able to perceive or experience them as they are in real, actual world precede our generalizations, or abstractions, or ideas about them.


Originally posted by Marx+--> (Marx)The diversity of the ordinary fruits is significant not only for my sensuous understanding, but also for "the Fruit" itself and for a speculative reason. [/b]


Marx
The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind "the Fruit", i.e., by creating those fruits out of his own abstract reason, which he considers as an Absolute Subject outside himself, represented here as "the Fruit". And in regard to every object the existence of which he expresses, he accomplishes an act of creation.
So, why does Marx makes such a big deal against the Universalists? First, he endorses the Common Sense philosophy----the things around us are fully real and that what we experience is fully real and verifiable. He is a realist, but a particularist and a common sense philosopher at the same time. Second, as the quote above clearly indicates, his metaphysical/ontological framework is not borne out of agreement with the Ockham&#39;s razor: principle of simplicity in forming a theory. Rather, out of the dislike of the triviality of speculative philosophy or the philosophy of too much theorizing and putting significance or importance in the abstract rather than the ordinary or everyday things readily perceptible and understood by the common senses. I think it can be inferred from the passage that Marx believes that the universalists aren&#39;t saying anything new or important that does not utilize first the ordinary experience.

And all these are laying the foundation for his Historical Materialism.

It makes sense to me what he&#39;s trying to do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis, I could not have put it better myself.

If you think like this, you will love the Esays at my site.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Chrysalis]

Rosa:

I like your analyses/critique of the (Hegelian) Abstraction and DM. Thanks. I shall go back and read some more.


Red che:

Marx&#39;s dialectics is different with Hegel&#39;s&#33; In the same manner as Feuerbach&#39;s materialism is mechanical as opposed to Marx&#39;s historical materialism.

Marx&#39;s is dialectical materialism. Marx himself told this. "My dialectics is different with Hegel&#39;s, in fact, it is its direct opposite."
I like that last quoted line. Yeah. I think this is important----we should be able to distinguish between Marx&#39;s historical materialism and the other DM. In fact words like "antagonism", "conflicts", "contradiction" should be Marx&#39;s mark---it has a ring of real, actual relations between individuals, groups, classes, even ethnics clashes in a society. In fact, these are observations based on what took place in history, and that they give us a pretty good measure to posit what could possibly take place in the future.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis: Ok let me know what you think.

I have just uploaded a new version of the Essay on Abstraction tonight. Did you read that, or the earlier one?

The second half of that Essay mounts a robust defence of ordinary language (not that it needs defending), which is a theme that runs through all the essays.

[red_che]

That means, he believes that individuals things, humans, or objects alone exist, and that the essence or nature of each individual object lies in exactly this concrete, definite, actual manifestation. From these concrete particulars we can generalize or form ideas about universals. Not the other way around. In other words, we experience first, and understand first, the everyday, sensible things ("things" includes individual human beings), then make abstractions or generalizations based on these. That we are able to perceive or experience them as they are in real, actual world precede our generalizations, or abstractions, or ideas about them.


So, why does Marx makes such a big deal against the Universalists? First, he endorses the Common Sense philosophy----the things around us are fully real and that what we experience is fully real and verifiable. He is a realist, but a particularist and a common sense philosopher at the same time. Second, as the quote above clearly indicates, his metaphysical/ontological framework is not borne out of agreement with the Ockham&#39;s razor: principle of simplicity in forming a theory. Rather, out of the dislike of the triviality of speculative philosophy or the philosophy of too much theorizing and putting significance or importance in the abstract rather than the ordinary or everyday things readily perceptible and understood by the common senses. I think it can be inferred from the passage that Marx believes that the universalists aren&#39;t saying anything new or important that does not utilize first the ordinary experience.

I belive Marx is both a Universalist and Paricularist, in this sense, but not idealist.

If we analyse further Marx&#39;s thinking, he went from particulars and then generalizing them. However, at the same time, he also concludes, based on the universal character of a thing, why such a particular thing occurs.

Let&#39;s take for example his analysis of capitalism. Marx knows, beforehand, that the universal characteristics of class contradiction exist in the entire class-based society (slavery, feudalism and capitalism.) Taking that cue, Marx now uses those universal principles of class contradiction in his analysis of the particular epoch/character of capitalism.

Marx studied, or mostly based his analysis of the capitalist system, from three of the most developed capitalist countries of his time (England, France and Germany.) He studied the specific characteristics of these three countries where he based his generalizations of the capitalist system. He studied England&#39;s political economy where he derived most of his economic analysis of the capitalist system. He studied the class conflicts in France where he derived his analysis of the political structure of the capitalist system. And he studied the most advanced German thoughts of that time where he derived his analysis of the bourgeois ideology. And from those Marx was able to show us the clear picture of the capitalist society.

Upon his formation of the general/universal character of capitalism, he now was able to understand more clearly how each particular contradictions occur in every capitalist society. But such universal characteristics of capitalism is a mere particular aspect in relation to the entire history of mankind&#39;s society.

In his formations of thoughts, he do not consider things, objects or humans unrelated to each other. He always looks for that relationships (universal features) common in all his subjects.

I say, Marx forms his thoughts both ways, from the universal features of things (i.e. primary and common traits found on every particular object) to the particular, and vice versa.

Maybe, the word "abstraction" only make this thing confusing since the idealists always makes or produces "abstracts" in place or above the material, concrete objects.

[Chrysalis]

Rosa:

I read your essay, Part I: Abstraction--the Heart of the Beast. So far, I like your analycity. I have no objection. Easy to follow reasoning. I still have to finish reading, though.




Red che:

Once again you point out what I think are pertinent questions/issues with Marx&#39;s philosophy. Not only that, the concerns you mention can be explained in the sense of metaphysics/ontology. And I think this is great because this is one of my favorite philosophical topics. The comment I made was an attempt to frame Marx&#39;s ideas (in the passage) metaphysically. However, there is another explanation to his objection against the Universalists, and this is the political sense. I will try to explain this below.

Note: Truly, they are called Metaphysical Realists, but for expediency purposes I call them Universalists. When I referred to Marx as a Realist, I meant in the epistemological sense.

Now, I realize that this topic could get really complex, we&#39;ve only scratched the surface. But for now, I&#39;ll try to address some issues, and hopefully, we can make some sense out of it all, and have fun in the process.


I belive Marx is both a Universalist and Paricularist, in this sense, but not idealist.
A particularist is necessarily opposed to the Universalists by virtue of being opposed to the idea that universals have independent existence apart from the concrete particulars. So, we can&#39;t really say that a philosopher is at once a particularist and a universalist at the same time. It would not make any sense. To say that there are universals is to say that Freedom, Justice, Equality exist, and that they are pre-supposed each time we refer to concrete particulars such as an individual being Just, or Free, or enjoying Equal treatment. That they are pre-supposed means that they exist prior to our noticing that concrete particulars share attributes.

One more time: The universalists want to say that "Bill Gates is free", "Jose (the day laborer) is free", and "Professor Laursen is free" are all true statements because there exists a universal concept Free or Freedom that we can refer to, apart from the objects "Bill Gates", "Jose", and "Professor Laursen" we can point to in the real world. In other words, Freedom or Free is an attibute or property or condition that can be shared by different particulars or individuals by virtue of them being human beings or members of a society, or part of mankind. They reason from universals to particulars. The only reason we understand the nature of the particulars is because there exist attributes or properties or kinds that they exemplify. The concrete particulars are mere instantiations of the real thing: the universals. Upon close examination, there really aren&#39;t particulars that cannot be reduced further to basic entities, and that these entities are what make our statements or conclusions true.

Have you noticed anything "problematic" with this explanation? What Marx considers to be true is not being fulfilled. What does he want? He wants to recognize that individuals have definite, actual existence, have definite material life, have a definite epoch in history. He wants a materialist picture of reality. Universals are many layers removed from common sense and from the materialist conception of reality. A proletariat, as long as he is a proletariat, can never share the universal Freedom, the universal Justice, the universal Equality with the bourgeoisie. Hence, he must necessarily deny that there are universal truths. He must deny that there are eternal truths. He must deny that the bourgeois society, the bourgeois rule, can play god and create, out of sheer intuition these eternal laws that can be shared by all, that will outlast many epochs in history, that have been existing long before humans have existed, that have been the only reason why we understand reality, if we understand at all.

This is the political reason why I think Marx would, and should, deny universal concepts of Freedom, Equality, and Justice.

[redstar2000]

I am rather strongly inclined to agree with Chrysalis here.

The outstanding characteristic of Marx&#39;s analyses is historical specificity...and such "universals" that he draws from them are likewise only larger but still historically specific conclusions.

I could be wrong, but I don&#39;t think Marx ever talks about abstract universals except to ridicule them.

Properly so.

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

[red_che]

A particularist is necessarily opposed to the Universalists by virtue of being opposed to the idea that universals have independent existence apart from the concrete particulars. So, we can&#39;t really say that a philosopher is at once a particularist and a universalist at the same time. It would not make any sense. To say that there are universals is to say that Freedom, Justice, Equality exist, and that they are pre-supposed each time we refer to concrete particulars such as an individual being Just, or Free, or enjoying Equal treatment. That they are pre-supposed means that they exist prior to our noticing that concrete particulars share attributes.

Let me attempt to make my argument clearer.

It is true that particulars form the whole. That the whole cannot be formed without its parts. But when the whole was completed, it is now this whole that shows what the particulars are, in relation to their common features. Such that a human society is composed of men. And when we talk of that society of men, we are talking of its "universal" appearance or existence (or whatever word may describe it).

And in that "universal" society, each particular man is bound by the society&#39;s general laws.

This is how I want to explain to you why I said that Marx is both a particularist and a universalist.

I am not referring to "idea" as the "Universal" and the "material world" as the "Particular."


One more time: The universalists want to say that "Bill Gates is free", "Jose (the day laborer) is free", and "Professor Laursen is free" are all true statements because there exists a universal concept Free or Freedom that we can refer to, apart from the objects "Bill Gates", "Jose", and "Professor Laursen" we can point to in the real world. In other words, Freedom or Free is an attibute or property or condition that can be shared by different particulars or individuals by virtue of them being human beings or members of a society, or part of mankind. They reason from universals to particulars. The only reason we understand the nature of the particulars is because there exist attributes or properties or kinds that they exemplify. The concrete particulars are mere instantiations of the real thing: the universals. Upon close examination, there really aren&#39;t particulars that cannot be reduced further to basic entities, and that these entities are what make our statements or conclusions true.

Have you noticed anything "problematic" with this explanation? What Marx considers to be true is not being fulfilled. What does he want? He wants to recognize that individuals have definite, actual existence, have definite material life, have a definite epoch in history. He wants a materialist picture of reality. Universals are many layers removed from common sense and from the materialist conception of reality. A proletariat, as long as he is a proletariat, can never share the universal Freedom, the universal Justice, the universal Equality with the bourgeoisie. Hence, he must necessarily deny that there are universal truths. He must deny that there are eternal truths. He must deny that the bourgeois society, the bourgeois rule, can play god and create, out of sheer intuition these eternal laws that can be shared by all, that will outlast many epochs in history, that have been existing long before humans have existed, that have been the only reason why we understand reality, if we understand at all.

This is the political reason why I think Marx would, and should, deny universal concepts of Freedom, Equality, and Justice.

Well, in this case, the universal concept of Freedom, Equality and Justice is not exercised and therefore does not apply.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And what is this?

"It is true that particulars form the whole. That the whole cannot be formed without its parts. But when the whole was completed, it is now this whole that shows what the particulars are, in relation to their common features. Such that a human society is composed of men. And when we talk of that society of men, we are talking of its "universal" appearance or existence (or whatever word may describe it)."

Yet more &#39;substantive&#39; truths about nature derived from the supposed meaning of a few words.

One more example to add to the ever-growing list of attempts made by DM-heads to impose their ideas on nature.

How do you know that a whole cannot be formed without its parts?

A whole photon, for example, has no parts. Neither has a whole electron. Two examples, straight off the top of my head showing your a priori thesis is not generally true.

How do you know there aren&#39;t othjer examples like this in nature? [Notice, I said &#39;nature&#39;, not society.]

And how does a "whole that show what the particulars are, in relation to their common features"? Does it do a little demonstration for us, and lead us through the details, explaining them to us?

How do you know this works right throughout nature, without exception?

Are you a god?

Check this out:

"DM-holism has more holes in it than a New Labour Intelligence Dossier. TAR depicts this doctrine as follows:

"In a dialectical system, the entire nature of the part is determined by its relationships with the other parts and so with the whole. The part makes the whole, and the whole makes the parts…. In this analysis, it is not just the case that the whole is more than the sum of the parts but also that the parts become more than they are individually by being part of a whole…. [F]or dialectical materialists the whole is more than the simple sum of its parts." [Rees (1998), pp.5, 77.]

However, DM-holism rests on little more than a few trite and superficial maxims (such as "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts", etc.); in this case, therefore, profound truths about nature have been derived from a handful of catch phrases. Not only do these home-spun proverbs fall apart on examination, they are not even empirically true -- many examples are given in Essay Eleven where material parts are greater than wholes.

One or two instances will suffice here:

(1) If a set of non-zero forces is aligned in a couple so that their resultant is zero, then each part is greater than the whole (which is zero), and on one view the whole is equal to, but not greater than the sum of the parts. On another, it is less than the sum of the parts (the whole being zero).

(2) Imagine a rope that is made from, say, 1000 strands of material and each strand is, say, 0.5 metres long. Assume that these strands overlap one another for approximately 90% of their length. Collectively, because of this overlap, the fibres stretch (as part of the whole rope) for only 50 metres. However, the sum of the lengths of these strands taken individually is 500 metres -- which would be their total length had they not been woven into that rope. Here the whole is considerably less than the sum of the parts (even if the strength of the rope is equal to but not greater than the sum of the strengths of the parts).


Indeed, every item of clothing is a counter-example to this trite rule, for in each case the total length of all the strands of fibre constituting any garment is greater than the length of that garment as a whole. And what goes for garments goes for most manufactured goods, as well, just as it applies to the parts of organisms: hence, the total length of all the muscle fibres in a wombat, say, is greater than the length of a whole wombat. And we need not stop at fury rodents: the total length of all the xylem tubes in a tree is greater than the length of that tree, and so on.

Finally, the universe is equal to, but not greater than the sum of its parts.

The extremely vague use of terms in dialectics allows these counterexamples to stand. Of course, if the definitions dialecticians use is tightened to exclude these and other examples, we would once again have a DM-thesis made true (in a thoroughly traditional way) by yet more linguistic tinkering.

Furthermore, it is not too clear how the very same part can be "more" than it used to be before it was incorporated into the whole of which it is a part -- if this were true, it would not be the same part. Of course, if "the entire nature of the part is determined by its relationships with the other parts and so with the whole", then it cannot be the same part anyway, or even remotely like it.

Moreover, it is also far from clear how anything could become "more" than it used to be before it was incorporated into the whole of which it is a part, since everything is always part of the Totality, and since its "entire nature" is "determined by its relationships with the other parts and so with the whole", its entire nature must determined by its relation to the Totality either side of incorporation into any sub-whole.

In addition, it is not easy to see how a whole could be greater than the sum of its parts if that whole did not exist before the parts became its parts. It is not as if the whole was a certain size (or whatever) before it had any parts, but then grew larger (or whatever) when it gained them. But, if not, then what is the force of words like "greater" or "more", here? What becomes "greater", or "more", and in what respect?

Of course, those committed to a belief in this sort of Holism often appeal to the existence of organic composites wherein the parts interconnect, so that, for example, a heart in a living organism is "more" than it would have been had it not been part of that organism.

But, in nature, no actual heart is related to organisms in this way; all normal hearts are parts of such animals from day one. No one supposes that hearts somehow sneak into living bodies and thus become "more" as a result. So how can such hearts be "more" if they were never "less"? And, when invasive surgery (etc.) is taken into account, are we to say that a heart waiting transplantation into a new body, for instance, is less of a heart? Why transplant it then? Or that blood waiting transfusion is not really blood? Where do we stop? Are artificial legs not legs until they are attached? Is a coat not a coat until it is worn?

The few examples DM-Holists produce in support of their theory are also shown to fail (as we saw with respect to the heart example, above). Indeed, if the entire nature of each part were dependent on the whole, and vice versa, human beings would experience significant changes every time they had their hair cut, teeth drilled or nails trimmed.

Worse still, mundane events like these would have profound effects on distant stars and galaxies (if everything is interconnected and if the entire nature of each part is dependent on the whole, and vice versa). Does anyone believe this? If not, what is the point of asserting the trite maxims beloved of DM-holists? Are they merely being whimsical?

...


When a wider selection of examples is considered, further fundamental weaknesses in DM-Holism soon emerge. Consider, for instance, a car. Do its parts cease to be what they once were if they are removed from that vehicle? Does a wheel, for instance, cease to be a wheel if it comes off its axle? Is it any less of a wheel? Indeed, does the axle cease to be an axle when it loses a wheel? Is it, too, any less of an axle? What happens if, in the case of a lorry with four doubled-up rear wheels, it loses one while the other three remain on the axle? Would they still be wheels, and would they still be on an axle if the entire nature of a part is determined by its relation others, and to the whole? It seems not.

In a similar vein, consider the following unlikely conversation in the Parts Department of garage:

A: "Can I have a fan belt?"

B: "Sorry, mate, you can&#39;t because fan belts are only fan belts when they are attached to the cooling system of an engine."

Or, another in a café:

C: "Can I have a slice of cake?"

D: "No, but you can have a slice of non-cake, which used to be cake when it was attached to the whole cake before we sliced it up for you."

If a part is only a part -- and its nature is fully determined in the said manner when it is incorporated in a whole --, the Parts Department in the above example is mis-named. It should be called the "Non-parts Department" -- or, perhaps even:

P1: "The-Less-Than-Parts-Until-They-Are-Attached-To-The-Rest-Of-The-Vehicle Department."

Or, maybe even:

P2: "The-Unknown-Objects-Whose-Real-Natures-Remain-Obscure-Until-They-Are-Later-Determined-By-Their-Attachment-To-Another-Something-Or-Other-That-Is-Itself-Indeterminate-This-Side-Of-The-Aforementioned-Union-Into-A-Whole Department."

It could be objected that things like fan belts are what they are because they have been designed to fit cars, and that it is this intended role that makes them parts of the wholes they later join. But, this would make the part/whole relation impossibly vague, for in that case we would not know what was part and what was whole -- or how they were connected -- until some intention or other had been ascertained. Worse still, this new twist might have untoward teleological implications for the parts of plants and animals, to say nothing of the rest of the Universe.

In addition, consider cases wherein objects retain their identity (designed or not) even though they feature in a temporary/semi-permanent whole for which they were not actually designed. Examples here would include instances where, say, ordinary tools (such as hammers) were used in non-standard ways -- to prop open doors, deter a rioting Policeman, or smash the windows on buses carrying scabs. Or, where a house brick might be used to weigh some papers down, frighten some more scabs, or re-configure a few Nazis. In the latter instance, the brick clearly remains a brick throughout; the fact that it won&#39;t lose any of its usual properties if it enters into, say, a new brick/damaged Nazi whole will be one of the reasons why it would be used, if it is. But, are Nazis any more scum-like (or brick-like) when they are in a new Nazi/brick whole? Would this brick be more of a brick when lobbed at a scab, than when it was thrown at the BNP? Does the said scab get a similar &#39;Wholistic promotion&#39; because the brick knocks him out? If parts and wholes are entirely determined in the way specified, all or most of these should be true.

Take, for instance, a seat from an old car: it could still be used apart from that car as a seat in a house, or as an ornament (but only because it is a seat), or as a display in a museum, or as part of a barricade, still serving as a seat for the barricaders to use. If the properties of parts actually changed as a result of their separation from the wholes they were &#39;meant&#39; to fit (as this theory implies they should) a seat would no longer be of any use in new surroundings like these.

And, we do not have to think up weird and wonderful counter-examples taken from human interaction: consider those cases where animals commandeer parts taken from other animals and use them in the same way that their former owners once used them. Here, one is thinking of the following: hermit crabs who use the shells of other sea creatures as protection; holes in the ground (successively occupied by rabbits, foxes and badgers) used as &#39;homes&#39; -- does a hole become "more" of a hole whole when part of, say, a new fox hole whole, or maybe even a mole hole whole?

Think, too, of wool and feathers gathered by birds to line their nests used for warmth and padding, and so on. Again, consider the way that human beings use animal skins to keep warm, employing the latter in the same way their former owners used them. Does wool, for example, become more of an insulator when it forms part of a new child/pullover whole? Does it become more wool-like when used as part of a scarf/worker composite?"

More details at:


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/

But especially at:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-11.htm

[Chrysalis]

Redstar:

The outstanding characteristic of Marx&#39;s analyses is historical specificity...
Yes. This is the key.


Red che:

It is true that particulars form the whole. That the whole cannot be formed without its parts. But when the whole was completed, it is now this whole that shows what the particulars are, in relation to their common features. Such that a human society is composed of men. And when we talk of that society of men, we are talking of its "universal" appearance or existence (or whatever word may describe it).
The problem is, Red, universalists aren&#39;t called universalists just because they generalize about particular objects. We all make generalizations about everyday things. That does not make us metaphysical realists. The claim MRs make is not just putting together parts to make a coherent idea of a whole thing. That is what you are tying to say. This is not metaphysical realism. What you are doing is making a statement with particulars in mind as point of reference. Meaning, you don&#39;t really believe nor claim that there exists, independently and prior to your observing that individuals make up a society, a universal concept called "society". If you are a (metaphysical) realist, your claim includes the stipulation that "society" may or may not be instantiated, yet still the concept "society" is a universal truth.

Another example: Solon is wise.

An MR would say: That statement is true just in case there exist a concept wisdom, and an object Solon. "Wisdom" may be instantiated or exemplified, may be not. But there exist a universal Wisdom with which men not only partake, as in Plato&#39;s Form, but also that to which we refer, to understand a shared attribute of being wise by individual human beings. Wisdom exists prior to our observing that Solon is wise.

A particularist would say: That statement is true just in case Solon, the person actually existing is wise. The reference is a particular, nothing else.




And in that "universal" society, each particular man is bound by the society&#39;s general laws.

This is how I want to explain to you why I said that Marx is both a particularist and a universalist.
In this case, you aren&#39;t really talking about what it means to be a universalist. What you are referring to is still a particularist view of reality.

[red_che]

Rosa:


A whole photon, for example, has no parts. Neither has a whole electron. Two examples, straight off the top of my head showing your a priori thesis is not generally true.

Really? Or that protons and electrons are so small that its parts can no longer be identified or deduced and can no longer be given a "specific name"? Because if it has no parts, then how can it exist?

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

It seems what you are suggesting is that man should stop thinking because everything that man thinks are a priori, or that it is an imposition on nature when man does what he "thinks".

That what man has to do is not to think at all&#33; :huh: And that man should stop making hypothesis, because he is only imposing it on nature.

I think, the gist of your "materialism" were those that I have mentioned above. You want man to act only on its insticts, like a dog who does not think but just let everything as it is and not do anything on it.

Well, if that&#39;s what you are, then we can certainly not agree on anything. All I can say about this kind of "thinking" is that it is not materialism at all, not even idealism, but just nothing. So, there is really no philosophy, no thought and no progress. It reduces man to the level of irrationality.

But just to be fair, if you were saying that DM is false, then what is true? If DM is a traditional philiosophy and not a revolutionary philosophy, than what have you to offer?

I really want to respond one-by-one to all the examples you have stated here, but lack of time prevents me so. They all are repetitive, anyway. Now to cut short our debate, let me know then what you really want to say. I mean, what is the gist of your philosophy. And what then are you putting into here as the alternative to DM? Because I see none in particular.

Chrysalis:


Another example: Solon is wise.

An MR would say: That statement is true just in case there exist a concept wisdom, and an object Solon. "Wisdom" may be instantiated or exemplified, may be not. But there exist a universal Wisdom with which men not only partake, as in Plato&#39;s Form, but also that to which we refer, to understand a shared attribute of being wise by individual human beings. Wisdom exists prior to our observing that Solon is wise.

A particularist would say: That statement is true just in case Solon, the person actually existing is wise. The reference is a particular, nothing else.

The trouble for me here is that I am not familiar with the jargon or the words you are using in this forum. In my understanding, there are only two contradicting philosophy, Idealism and Materialism.

That, Idealism claims ideas are superior and exist first before material objects.

While on the other hand, Materialism states that it is the material objects that are the decisive factor and that it must exist first before ideas can be drawn.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:

"Or that protons and electrons are so small that its parts can no longer be identified or deduced and can no longer be given a "specific name"?"

No they are theoretically and physically simple objects.

"It seems what you are suggesting is that man should stop thinking because everything that man thinks are a priori, or that it is an imposition on nature when man does what he "thinks"."

No, I explain what I am saying at great length, and in the simplest language I can find. If you cannot follow my reasoning, there is not much more I can do to help you.

" if you were saying that DM is false, then what is true?"

No, I am going much further -- DM is too confused even to call false.

And, how many more times do I have to tell you I fully accept HM as a correct scientific theory, one that has not been imposed on nature, either.

If you can&#39;t grasp that simple point (one that I have had to remind you about many times, one that Red Star 2000 has reminded you about many times, too) then I think there must be a problem with your short-term memory.

"I mean, what is the gist of your philosophy."

You can&#39;t have read anything I have said at my site very carefully if you have to ask this.

Let me put it very plainly then: I have no philosophy; I do not want one; I am in fact trying to bring an end to the subject (like the early Marx).

The reason: philosophy is and always has been an important part of ruling-class ideology.

I make this very clear in the pre-amble to Essay Two, and in the summary to Essay Twelve.

In Marxism we do not need a philosophy since we have an excellent scientific theory: HM.

Period

[Chrysalis]

Red che:


The trouble for me here is that I am not familiar with the jargon or the words you are using in this forum. In my understanding, there are only two contradicting philosophy, Idealism and Materialism.
Well, actually, since this is the Philosophy Forum, the words I use are really appropriate and aren&#39;t esoteric, if this is what you mean. The passage lifted from Marx&#39;s work, posted in the opening post, is clearly Marx&#39;s critique of the metaphysical realism, beginning with Plato. If you aren&#39;t familiar with metaphysics in general, then I can understand why you wouldn&#39;t be familiar with what I&#39;ve been saying at all. To get to know how Marx defends materialism, you need to be familiar with metaphysics. I think Marx&#39;s works are interesting because they aren&#39;t just political and sociological in nature, but he does add his criticism of metaphysics.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by red che
Really? Or that protons and electrons are so small that its parts can no longer be identified or deduced and can no longer be given a "specific name"? Because if it has no parts, then how can it exist?

To be accurate, electrons are indeed fundamental particles however protons like neutrons can be broken down into smaller particles called quarks.

If you really want to know "how can it (fundamental particle) exist", I suggest you finally dump your obsession with the mystical garbage dump known as dialectics and ask a real scientist who practises real science.


They all are repetitive, anyway.

Considering that you consider yourself a student of dialectics and belong to the RCP, repetition should be the last thing you complain about.

[red_che]

Rosa:


Let me put it very plainly then: I have no philosophy; I do not want one; I am in fact trying to bring an end to the subject (like the early Marx).

The reason: philosophy is and always has been an important part of ruling-class ideology.

I make this very clear in the pre-amble to Essay Two, and in the summary to Essay Twelve.

In Marxism we do not need a philosophy since we have an excellent scientific theory: HM.

So if you don&#39;t have any theory/philosophy, what then do you have?

As I said, you did not put any perspective here. All you have made is confuse everybody. In fact, you are still ignoring my point, that what you are suggesting here actually is that man should stop thinking. You haven&#39;t made any response to this, even just deny this for the sake of having a response. It seems that in this case, I am correct. That&#39;s why your complete silence or non-response to this is very evident.

This early, I can now conclude that what you are against is not philosophy but, actually, against Marxism itself or to be more accurate, you don&#39;t want men to do any kind of thinking because you don&#39;t consider men to be thinking beings. Man, in your analysis, are mere material objects incapable of correct thinking and must not do anything on nature because it only alters nature. Is that what you are saying?

Well, for the sake of this debate then let&#39;s go on. If you are saying that HM is your theory, please do me a favor, can you explain it to me then? How did it differ with DM and please try to connect it as close as possible to the actual situation/condition of the proletarian struggle. Let us go away, in the meantime, with these very minute details like protons or neutrons or a wheel of a car or that sort of things, even just for a moment.

Let&#39;s try to discuss how DM, in your analysis, confuses the proletarian movement.

Because as for me, Marxism can&#39;t be Marxism without its philosophy, without its dialectical materialist philosophy. Marx and Engels couldn&#39;t have "created" Marxism without dialectical materialism.

As can be seen in all of their writings and works, they always use dialectical materialism in their analysis. So, to remove DM is equal to removing it&#39;s "brain". That makes Marxism into nothing but empty words.

So, Ms. Lichtenstein, just state then that you are against Marxism. Stop posturing to be Marxist while in fact you are not.

I think, I don&#39;t have to read your essays anymore because we are already discussing it now. Even if I don&#39;t have to read them, we can discuss your thoughts here now. :rolleyes:

So, let&#39;s continue this in this thread, instead.

Don Cicio:


To be accurate, electrons are indeed fundamental particles however protons like neutrons can be broken down into smaller particles called quarks.

If you really want to know "how can it (fundamental particle) exist", I suggest you finally dump your obsession with the mystical garbage dump known as dialectics and ask a real scientist who practises real science.

What I really want to know is what this proton, in its actual existence, has in relationship to the other things, like electron, neutron, etc. Were there any dialectical relations or none? And how could it be the same with the actual situation of the proletarian movement.

If you could answer those for me, I will be greatly pleased. If you can say that proton does not have any dialectical relations with electrons and neutrons in order to produce something, like electricity perhaps, then please say so. Just as how each particular worker can be of relationship with other workers in advancing the proletarian movement.

We are not discussing here of mere existence because I assume everybody knows that such things do exist. What we are discussing here is whether these things relate and contradict with other things and, on the other hand, if dialectical materialism do impose ideas on nature or does it merely analyse such events or conditions and then hypothesizes on it. ;)


Considering that you consider yourself a student of dialectics and belong to the RCP, repetition should be the last thing you complain about.

Are you sure that I belong to the RCP?

How certain are you? :lol:

I think you need to investigate further before making any conclusions. :lol: :lol:

Chrysalis:


Well, actually, since this is the Philosophy Forum, the words I use are really appropriate and aren&#39;t esoteric, if this is what you mean. The passage lifted from Marx&#39;s work, posted in the opening post, is clearly Marx&#39;s critique of the metaphysical realism, beginning with Plato. If you aren&#39;t familiar with metaphysics in general, then I can understand why you wouldn&#39;t be familiar with what I&#39;ve been saying at all. To get to know how Marx defends materialism, you need to be familiar with metaphysics. I think Marx&#39;s works are interesting because they aren&#39;t just political and sociological in nature, but he does add his criticism of metaphysics.

Well, in my understanding, your previous post seems to say this:

That a "Particularist" is a materialist, and a "Universalist" is an idealist. If this is so, then I am with you in this sense, like when you stated this:


In this case, you aren&#39;t really talking about what it means to be a universalist. What you are referring to is still a particularist view of reality.

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

Metaphysics suggests that every particular thing is not connected with eah other and they don&#39;t have any relationship with each other. That they exist independently and develop/change independently without any connection or relation with any other thing. Metaphysics directly contradicts dialectics.

This, Marx criticised and outrightly disposes by saying that all things are dialectically related. That in every particular matter, there is this internal contradiction and external contradiction, and that the primary or decisive factor is the internal contradiction in bringing about changes. That there is motion which creates contradiction. That there are two opposing forces internally and externally that "changes" this particular thing into a fundamentally new object.

That is why I made an example of the "society" where I can be more convenient to discuss and easily understand. And so that we can easily observe the contradictions and motions which brings contradiction.

In this sense, we can easily grasp how dialectics and materialism was combined by Marx and Engels in criticizing idealism and metaphysics at the same time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che, get your eyes tested as a matter of urgency&#33;

I state that I have no philosophy, and that I accept HM, and you turn it into this:

"So if you don&#39;t have any theory/philosophy, what then do you have?"

I specifically said I accepted HM as a scientific theory.

Is that clear enough?

Read it again very slowly, and carefully please (I know that is not easy for you, but give it a go&#33;).

Why is this so difficult for you to even see?

The rest of what you say is either irrelevant or the product of a feverish brain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Don Cicio,

Thanks for confirming what I said.

But, as you will no doubt have noted, Red Che is in a world of &#39;his/her/its&#39; own. Unless it is to be found in the holy dialectical scriptures, anything you say goes right over &#39;his/her/its&#39; head.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don Cicio,

Thanks for confirming what I said.

But, as you will no doubt have noted, Red Che is in a world of &#39;his/her/its&#39; own. Unless it is to be found in the holy dialectical scriptures, anything you say goes right over &#39;his/her/its&#39; head.


No problem Rosa.

If you think this cat&#39;s "uniquely assinine", you should see when a whole mess of loopy Maoists get together to babble about this ridiculous crap.

It amazes me that they can even find their way out of the building without having to both "dialectly anazyse" the location of the exit in relation to the proletarian struggle and decide on who gets to go first&#33;

What a dialectical dillema that can be&#33;

Forgive me but I am going to intentionally lose a few moments of my life by responding to our dialectical superhero red che here:


Originally posted by Dialectical Elvis {most definitely the &#39;77 248 lb Elvis not the cool &#39;68 comeback special Elvis}+--> (Dialectical Elvis {most definitely the &#39;77 248 lb Elvis not the cool &#39;68 comeback special Elvis})What I really want to know is what this proton, in its actual existence, has in relationship to the other things, like electron, neutron, etc. Were there any dialectical relations or none? And how could it be the same with the actual situation of the proletarian movement.[/b]

A proton is a byronic (made from 3 quarks) hadron that together with neutrons form the nucleus of an atom; combined with electrons they form atomic particles.

Since the rest of your question is to absurd to even go into I will now remind you that your original "dialectical" assertion of:
Originally posted by DM Godzilla+--> (DM Godzilla)Because if it has no parts, then how can it exist?[/b] is completely inconsistant with actual science.

We, whom have ventured outside of the mystical realm of DM, refer to this "strange and marvelous" science as "physics".

And we ain&#39;t coming back to the nest, sonny-boy.


Originally posted by Dialectatollah Khomeini
If you can say that proton does not have any dialectical relations with electrons and neutrons in order to produce something

I believe I&#39;ve already said it.


[email protected]
We are not discussing here of mere existence because I assume everybody knows that such things do exist

Need I have to remind you a third time that if you "assume" that "everybody knows these things (fundamental particles) exist", why exactly you had to make the gross
scientific blunder "because if it has no parts, then how can it exist?"


Nuovo DialectaMao
Are you sure that I belong to the RCP?


If you don&#39;t, then I recommend you joining up ASAP.

With any luck, after a few short years of fetching Bobby&#39;s "coffee and red-sprinkled donut of the people" he may allow you to pin on his cape.

Dialectically of course.

[red_che]

Rosa:

It seems that you really are evading my questions. You are not giving any particular explanation of your HM, except that you criticise DM.

C&#39;mon&#33; Give an explanation of HM, independently from your criticism of DM.

I am too interested to know what is that HM of yours you are talking here. I don&#39;t know that "theory".

If you can explain it to me, maybe you can convince me to join your group, even if I&#39;m just this "unique assinine" boy referred by a certain Great Don Cicio.

Don Cicio:


A proton is a byronic (made from 3 quarks) hadron that together with neutrons form the nucleus of an atom; combined with electrons they form atomic particles.

Uh-huh. So what? How does it contradict dialectics?

So, proton exists because it is made from 3 quarks. Is that it? :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

"It seems that you really are evading my questions."

No, in fact I hope you go away, since you have nothing new to contribute to this debate, except quotations from your Holy Books -- tedious, innacurate and repetitive material I have read so often I need large doses of Prosac to recover,

You are a total of time.

As I said on page one of my site, I have no interest in debating with anyone who cannot engage honestly with what I have to say -- you cannot even read what I have to say.

"Give an explanation of HM, independently from your criticism of DM. I am too interested to know what is that HM of yours you are talking here. I don&#39;t know that "theory".

No point, you&#39;d misread that too.

And you can stop pretending to be interested; you are fooling no one.

So, roll over and go back to sleep.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Red Che+--> (Red Che)Uh-huh. So what? How does it contradict dialectics?

So, proton exists because it is made from 3 quarks. Is that it?

[/b]

Everything "contradicts" dialectics because it&#39;s absolute crap with no basis in reality.

Now, back to the topic that you are conveniently ignoring. Stop being a fucking coward and and either address it or relent that you can&#39;t.

You said:


Originally posted by Red Che+--> (Red Che)Because if it has no parts, then how can it exist?[/b]

Funtamental particles have no parts yet they still exist.

You also said:


Red [email protected]
It is true that particulars form the whole. That the whole cannot be formed without its parts. But when the whole was completed, it is now this whole that shows what the particulars are, in relation to their common features. Such that a human society is composed of men. And when we talk of that society of men, we are talking of its "universal" appearance or existence (or whatever word may describe it).

It is absolutely not true that the "whole cannot be formed without its parts"; proven by the existence of fundamental particles.

The whole point of me even wasting moments of my life talking to you is to get you to come up with something better than:


Red Che
Really? Or that protons and electrons are so small that its parts can no longer be identified or deduced and can no longer be given a "specific name"?.

If you bothered to research the topic of fundamental particles, you would already know that quarks are already too small to see; their existence has been proven both mathmatically and with experimental observation.

The very same way general relativity was proven.

The real meat of why I&#39;m even bothering with you is that your argument in this case was completely dependent on a mistake that any 100 level physics student wouldn&#39;t have made.

How much credibility does that leave you with sonny?

Care to ask?

Edit:

Don&#39;t bother, I&#39;m done with you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Don Cicio -- if it isn&#39;t in the holy books of dialectics, it cannot be true, according to our scientifically-challenged friend.

You see, Hegel knew more than modern Physicists.

So, throw away your textbooks, and scrap the large Hadron collider (etc), and confine your studies from now on to Engels&#39;s Dialectics of Nature, Lenin&#39;s Notebooks, and Hegel&#39;s Logic.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14 2006, 11:51 AM
Don Cicio -- if it isn&#39;t in the holy books of dialectics, it cannot be true, according to our scientifically-challenged friend.

You see, Hegel knew more than modern Physicists.

So, throw away your textbooks, and scrap the large Hadron collider (etc), and confine your studies from now on to Engels&#39;s Dialectics of Nature, Lenin&#39;s Notebooks, and Hegel&#39;s Logic.
No kidding.

The best part is that were not even talking about true modern physics; fundamental particles are old news in the world of physics.

You would think that a century of failure would be enough evidence for modern DM mysticists to deduce that dialectics does not do what it is "says" it does.

Perhaps another 100 years of dialectically marching up and down the square is all these cats really want.

After all, if the revolution did happen, they may actually have to do something besides get the perfect colour in little Bobby&#39;s "people&#39;s coffee".

[Chrysalis]

Red che:

Okay. Quick answer today because I&#39;d be busy in a short while. Happy valentine&#39;s day, btw. :P


Well, in my understanding, your previous post seems to say this:

That a "Particularist" is a materialist, and a "Universalist" is an idealist. If this is so, then I am with you in this sense, like when you stated this:


In this case, you aren&#39;t really talking about what it means to be a universalist. What you are referring to is still a particularist view of reality. = Chrysalis
No, no. It isn&#39;t that simple to equate nominalism (particularist) and materialism. The claim of the latter is much too severe. There are important differences. You need to think in terms of epistemology on the one hand, and metaphysics on the other. And a universalist is really a (metaphysical) realist, which is not an idealist. In fact, realism is opposed to idealism. If you&#39;d like, we can start a new thread about this. Let me know, as this is, I think, a great topic.


Metaphysics suggests that every particular thing is not connected with eah other and they don&#39;t have any relationship with each other. That they exist independently and develop/change independently without any connection or relation with any other thing. Metaphysics directly contradicts dialectics.
Waaah. Red, where in the world did you get this idea? No. Nominalism (particulars) never deny the relationship of objects to each other. There is something else that, fundamentally, nominalists deny: it&#39;s the existence of universal qualities, attributes, properties, relationships apart from and prior to the objects themselves.

Hence, this is uncalled-for:


This, Marx criticised and outrightly disposes by saying that all things are dialectically related.
Wronghh, Red. Not even close to what I&#39;ve been trying to say. But, if you want me to clarify some more let me know.

Okay. Ciao.

[red_che]

Chrysalis:

I guess, it would be better to start new thread about this because, I think, so many were discussed here in this thread that seems to go anywhere else but common understanding.

Start it and I&#39;ll just respond.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, Red Che, your boss Axel has called you off.

You do not want to negate that negator do you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bill, quite right&#33;

But a philosophy that looks to a &#39;logic&#39; book that was already out-of-date before it was written two hundred years ago, and that also takes its main ideas from Hermetic Theology (written another 1500 years earlier still) cannot be expected to take note of science that is a mere 100 years old.

Come on&#33; Get real&#33;

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16 2006, 12:55 AM
Bill, quite right&#33;

But a philosophy that looks to a &#39;logic&#39; book that was already out-of-date before it was written two hundred years ago, and that also takes its main ideas from Hermetic Theology (written another 1500 years earlier still) cannot be expected to take note of science that is a mere 100 years old.

Come on&#33; Get real&#33;
Ain&#39;t it just goofy?

I&#39;d actually give these cats a bit of repect if they tossed out Dialectical Mysticism for even, say -- Dudley "booger" Dawson&#39;s strategy of just "blowing their fucking houses up"

Damn Stan and those dastardly Alpha Betas&#33;

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Red che
Start it and I&#39;ll just respond.
Okay. I&#39;ll try to think of something else to say about this topic that we haven&#39;t talked about.

[Much Commie Love]

Well? We&#39;re waitining, with baited breath :blush:
P.S., Rosa, what&#39;s with the double-postin&#39;? Meh, don&#39;t waste the page-space..thas&#39; nos&#39; necessary, is it? Try&#39;ta merge&#39;re post&#39;s this and next coming times, okay? :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks MCL, but I have already been alerted to the edit button (which I had not noticed&#33;&#33;), so the double posts will stop.

Honest.

[LoneRed]

damn, you got busted :blink:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone:

"damn, you got busted..."

Eh?