dialectics

[sukirti]

Contradiction versus dialectical contradiction

A search for the dialectical contradiction is essential for understanding the workings of a particular form of development and predicting its eventual outcome, of course any change in the objective conditions may lead to a significant subjective change and vise versa, which may ultimately forever change the particular form of development.

At this point of time, it becomes necessary to distinguish between contradiction and dialectical contradiction. It is a most dangerous error to identify any contradiction as dialectic, it then leads to a wrong understanding of the basic forces of a particular form of development which in turn leads to the adoption of wrong strategies and which in the last analysis leads to catastrophe. So what distinguishes a dialectical contradiction from a contradiction, indeed what exactly do we mean by the terms contradiction and dialectical contradiction? A clear answer to this question will itself resolve the dilemma of identification between contradiction and dialectical contradiction.

A contradiction is the existence of any and every opposing force in a particular form of development. The forces themselves may be qualitative like two conflicting philosophical viewpoints or purely quantitative, like a difference in the deployment of number of soldiers in opposing troops. When such a difference occurs, we say that there exists a contradiction in the viewpoint of the two philosophers or the two generals as the case may be. A dialectical contradiction is something entirely different. It is the most basic contradiction. It is the contradiction that gives rise to all other contradictions in a particular form of development or system. Indeed all other contradictions are a result, are mere external symptoms of the dialectical contradiction, which is at the base of the two opposing theories or viewpoints. In the examples cited above, the dialectical contradictions involved in the cases would be as follows.

In the case of the philosophical contradictions, it would be necessary to know what impact the two theories would have on the materialistic aspect of man. That will reveal the true opposing forces that have given rise to these two different philosophies. An example is the contradiction between the religious philosophers and bourgeoisie philosophers. The dialectical contradiction is not between church hegemony and the forces ranged against the same.

To understand the real, the basic, the dialectical contradiction it is necessary to understand the material impact each of the two above contradictions have on man. The church hegemony domination would mean a prosperous life for the clergy and the religious men, a life of unquestioned domination by the religious men. The bourgeoisie contradiction is precisely an attempt by the bourgeoisie to deny the same to the church. The bourgeoisie in control of trade and industry realize that they are in control of the most vital and most important aspects of society. It makes no sense to gift the clergy the upper hand under such circumstances. It is the clergy who is dependent on the bourgeoisie trade and industry and not the other way round.

Thus the two opposing philosophical viewpoints are nothing but a desperate attempt by a fading out class to hang on to their once exalted position of dominance and the opposing tendency of the new dominant class to assert their dominance on the basis of the control of the vital material elements that is necessary for the existence of a society. That is the dialectical contradiction involved all other contradictions and there surely are many, are just symptoms, external manifestations of the basic dialectical contradiction governing the development of the bourgeoisie as a dominating class and the withering away of the church-monarchy axis as a dominant class.

How the bourgeoisie came into the possession of the most vital, material aspects of the society can only be understood by understanding the dialectics involved in the production and more importantly the relationship involved between production and the means of production ever since the appearance of the first traders and the first nascent industries upon the world horizon. No class likes to be shoved aside from the position of dominance it once achieves over society but equally no class can stop their own downfall for the very process that builds such dominance also builds the material conditions for the downfall.

It can be shown that under the material conditions and the existing relation of production to the means of production, no force on earth could have changed the course otherwise, no one could have stopped the bourgeoisie from taking over from the clergy one day.

The second case of a discrepancy in the number of opposing troops similarly can only be understood by correctly gauging the material discrepancy in the quantity and quality of the arms available to each of the two troops. How and why should one set of troop come into possession of more superior arms than the other in turn can be explained only by studying the material development of the respective regions of the two opposing troops. The great basic contradiction is not between the differing generals, not even in the difference in material arms available to the two opposing troops, but between the material conditions that were responsible for the different development of the two regions that the opposing troops belong to. That would be the dialectical contradiction between the two generals’ viewpoint.

If a particular form of development is to be understood in its entirety in the last instance, in the final analysis, the basic dialectical contradiction must be correctly identified. To decide proletarian strategy it is most essential to understand the dialectical contradiction between the classes which themselves are nothing but a result of the dialectical contradiction between the production and the means of production. It may and most certainly will vary from industry to industry. The tactics employed must vary from region to region even in similar industries because in the last analysis the tactics are fully dependent on the material available in each region. Understand from what material available in a particular region, in a particular industry can the proletarians most benefit. This will be the arm of proletarian dialectical contradiction. The greatest danger lies in taking any contradiction, any opposing viewpoint to be the general dialectical contradiction involved and deducing the wrong strategy form therein, which can yield nothing but catastrophe for the proletarians.

Flexibility is the most fundamental demand of Marxist strategy. It is not important to understand what strategy Stalin applied or what strategy Fidel applied. It is of utmost importance to know under what circumstances, under what dialectical contradiction were the above strategies applied. The thing to learn is how the great basic dialectical contradiction was identified by successful proletarian campaigns and how the choice of suitable strategies strengthened the proletarian dialectical arm. Conditions will never ever clone any given epoch in history. At best, they can resemble but never be identical. Mere application of erstwhile successful strategies as set formulae can only result in an unprecedented annihilation of proletarian forces. That is the greatest danger that faces us today from a band of rote Marxists.

Only that movement is destined to succeed whose leaders are able to see beyond the simple contradictions into the actual dialectical contradictions, which give rise to these contradictions. That is most important today. The future of the movement is at stake.

Dogma can only lead us to extinction and a correct understanding of material dialectical contradiction to victory.

[Severian]

Have you considered using paragraph breaks?

[sukirti]

sorry it is my first post..i copied from word and posted ..somwhow paragraph breaks got merged.....

[Severian]

Nothing's stopping you from going back and editing. That's assuming you want anybody to actually read all that without their eyes exploding.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:05 AM
Nothing's stopping you from going back and editing. That's assuming you want anybody to actually read all that without their eyes exploding.
Jerk.

Miles

[ioncannon152]

Originally posted by Severian
Nothing's stopping you from going back and editing. That's assuming you want anybody to actually read all that without their eyes exploding.
Give him time, he probably spent countless sleepless nights producing this magnificent essay! :)

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Severian, is there any reason why your sig says Homage to Caledonia instead of Homage to Catalonia?

[sukirti]

i have applied paragraph breaks...hope it is sufficient..sorry once again

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:31 PM
i have applied paragraph breaks...hope it is sufficient..sorry once again
Apologies to sukirti...I did the same thing. :P

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by sukirti
It is a most dangerous error to identify any contradiction as dialectic, it then leads to a wrong understanding of the basic forces of a particular form of development which in turn leads to the adoption of wrong strategies and which in the last analysis leads to catastrophe.

This seems to be a kind of built-in "escape clause" for "dialectics".

That is, the failures of a Leninist party can always be "excused" by the incorrect identification of the "dialectical contradiction".

And likewise, if a "dialectician" turns out to be wrong about something, that again must "result" from incorrect identification.

On the other hand, any successes that turn up must be "because" the "real dialectical contradiction" was "successfully identified".

Why couldn't the High Priestess of Apollo at Delphi make the same argument? If things work out successfully, it's because you "correctly understood the prophesy". And if things don't work out, it's because you "misinterpreted what the god actually said".

How is a "real dialectical contradiction" to be "successfully identified"? What are the objective criteria?


A dialectical contradiction is something entirely different. It is the most basic contradiction. It is the contradiction that gives rise to all other contradictions in a particular form of development or system. Indeed all other contradictions are a result, are mere external symptoms of the dialectical contradiction, which is at the base of the two opposing theories or viewpoints.

Ok, that's what it "is".

But how do we know we've "found it"?


To understand the real, the basic, the dialectical contradiction it is necessary to understand the material impact each of the two above contradictions have on man.

How is this to be determined...particularly ahead of time?


To decide proletarian strategy it is most essential to understand the dialectical contradiction between the classes which themselves are nothing but a result of the dialectical contradiction between the production and the means of production. It may and most certainly will vary from industry to industry. The tactics employed must vary from region to region even in similar industries because in the last analysis the tactics are fully dependent on the material available in each region. Understand from what material available in a particular region, in a particular industry can the proletarians most benefit. This will be the arm of proletarian dialectical contradiction.

Apparently, it depends on "material"...but this term goes undefined and who could say what it actually consists of?

Not me.


The thing to learn is how the great basic dialectical contradiction was identified by successful proletarian campaigns and how the choice of suitable strategies strengthened the proletarian dialectical arm.

Unfortunately, they don't tell us...except afterwards if they win.

And as you admit yourself, we can't just "copy them" because conditions are always different.

Suppose we have two Leninist parties and each one offers us a different identification of the "real dialectical contradiction".

How do we tell which one is right?

Do we just wait and see who wins???

If both lose, does that mean that neither one of them correctly identified the "real dialectical contradiction"?

Or, once again, suppose they both identify the same contradiction as the "real dialectical contradiction"...but they propose different strategies.

Which one is right? How do we decide?


Only that movement is destined to succeed whose leaders are able to see beyond the simple contradictions into the actual dialectical contradictions, which give rise to these contradictions.

So the rest of us have to guess which of our rival leaders is "really seeing beyond" and which ones are just befuddled by "superficial contradictions"?

Do we "flip a coin" or what?

Your post illustrates, I think, what happens when someone tries to take "dialectics" seriously.

It sounds like you're talking about something "real"...but when one tries to grasp it, it just melts into air.

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

[Martin Blank]

Sukriti, you should know before going further that RedStar2000 is a purveyor of bourgeois ideology, primarily pragmatism, who tries to present himself as a communist. Caveat emptor.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:14 PM
Sukriti, you should know before going further that RedStar2000 is a purveyor of bourgeois ideology, primarily pragmatism, who tries to present himself as a communist. Caveat emptor.

Miles
So you say. :lol:

But how about a substantive response to sukirti's post?

Is he "out of your league"? :lol:

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

[Red Powers]

Communist League

Who appointed you Doctrinal Purity Police?

Or did you catch some pompous blowhardry
working with World Can't Wait. :D

[Martin Blank]

To both RedStar and Red Powers: Tell me what it is that I wrote that is false or one-sided.

RedStar, you yourself said in the first thread on dialectical materialism that you advocate pragmatism. Remember? And do you not try to present yourself as a communist? Maybe it was the "caveat emptor" at the end of my comment that rubbed you the wrong way. Fair enough.

Perhaps I should have just acted like Rosa Lichtenstein and spew ad hominems? Would that have made you more comfortable?

And finally, Red Powers, no one appointed me "Doctrinal Purity Police". And besides, where did I say something, beyond "caveat emptor", that passed judgment on RedStar's politics?

For the two of you, I'm sorry if you think I'm giving you hell about this. But that's your problem. I am only telling the truth. If not, point it out.

Miles

[sukirti]

dear all i will reply to the queries raised by redstar..may i request us all not to become personal and instead focus on issues that are raised?
lets have a spirit of healthy debate..come on

[encephalon]

RedStar, you yourself said in the first thread on dialectical materialism that you advocate pragmatism.

There are two definitions of pragmatism. One is a particularly american political flare, the other is the act of being pragmatic; that is, being practical. While I may be wrong, I'm assuming redstar claims adherence to the latter definition rather than the former.

A good theory is a theory that scientifically describes current affairs as well as accurately predicts future events before those events come to pass. While many adherents are quite adept at superimposing a dialectical explanation after the fact, it's another thing to say that dialectics has predicted anything in a practical fashion; that is, something we can use.

[redstar2000]

Maybe it would sound better if I called it "proletarian pragmatism" or even "revolutionary pragmatism".

I'm interested in theories that work...that generate reasonable explanations for historical events and on which one can rely to make reasonable short-term predictions.

"Dialectics" doesn't meet my minimum standards of workability...as I indicated by my questions to sukirti.

That does not make me "bourgeois", does it? :lol:

Well, in your eyes perhaps it does...but I don't think you're going to get a whole lot of takers on the proposition here.

What you would have to demonstrate to people is that my renunciation of "dialectical" mysticism has political consequences -- that, for example, I would consistently show up on the "more rightest" side of every political controversy on the board.

I don't think you can do that.

Want to try? :)

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

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 AM
What you would have to demonstrate to people is that my renunciation of "dialectical" mysticism has political consequences -- that, for example, I would consistently show up on the "more rightest" side of every political controversy on the board.

I don't think you can do that.

Want to try? :)
You've already done it for me in many of the discussions on this board. But, if I have the time this coming week, I'll pull out some of the articles from your vanity website and reinforce my point.

Miles

[Hiero]

I have read Redstar2000's anti dialectical essay, and i don't understand what he has against.

To my current understanding, dialectics is just looking at objects in all their relations rather then thinking the object is abstract. I don't see why Redstar would be against.

Then again i believe redstar is against this because he is a anarchist. So he has the political reason why he is against Communist, he just needs the theoritical. He found his theoritical reason, being dialetcics.

[sukirti]

in defense of dilaectics
I would like to answer the points raised by redstar in his article.
1) That dialectics has a built in escape clause, namely all failures are attributed to the failure in the identification of the dialectical contradiction and all successes result because the dialectical contradiction was correctly identified.
Dialectics is a science, which when applied correctly never produces the wrong results. Let us take an example. Mechanics is something that is commonly taught in advanced science courses. Mechanics is science. Yet, given the same numerical problem some students come up with the wrong solutions in spite of attending the same classes or referring to the same text books, why? Off course because they did some mistake in applying the basic fundamentals of mechanics. The students who solve the problem correctly do so because they apply the principles right. We can extend this argument to all science, especially mathematical sciences. The point is this. If a student solves a problem wrongly by improper application of a mechanical principle is that principle in mechanics invalid? If the statement is made by an instructor to students thus: apply the fundamental principles (may be say, the force diagram acting on a system) correctly, failing which you will get the wrong answer, does that amount to an escape clause for mechanics? The failure here lies on part of the student, not on part of the basic theory of forces; exactly same is the argument on application of dialectics. Even the crash of a spaceship due to improper application of say, air friction principles will never invalidate that air friction is a theory that is correct. Same is the case with application of dialectics.
2) How to know when we have actually found the main dialectical contradiction and what are the objective criteria to identify the same?
To know that you have reached the correct dialectical contradiction you must satisfy one condition, that you have correctly identified the material forces representing the two opposing views. The objective criterion is the two different material forces that are in opposition to each other and the dialectical contradiction is represented in the two forces formed by the two forces.
Since redstar talks of examples I offer one:
Why is Islamic terrorism spreading?
Let us apply dialectics to this.
Objective criteria:
The material wealth and prospects of the Islamic religious clergy dominating the scene in such nations in opposition to the material forces of the business organizations (typically western) that are trying to remove the Islamic clergy from this exalted position.
Dialectical contradiction:
Material wealth of religious Islamic forces gives rise to the class hegemony of the religious Islamic clergy in opposition to the class forces represented by the western imperialist forces (western military intervention is merely a representation of the greater class aims of the western business class)
3) What is material?
Any such commodity that increases the economic domination of one class over another.
In the above example, it is to be noted that most Islamic terrorist organizations are built on wealth of people who feel threatened by the western companies trying to barge in. the larger aim is to thwart the entry of foreign business. All foreign intervention will eventually lead to foreign domination of business.
4) That identification of the correct dialectical contradiction happens only after a Leninist party has actually won.
Again coming back to my example of science. Until a spaceship is launched can one definitely say that all principles involved in the science of gravity and or thrust have been correctly applied? The answer is no mission till date can claim to be hundred percent scientifically correct pre launch. It is only after the mission is successful that one can successfully say that all basic principles were correctly applied. Is that a case of retrospective validation of the broader scientific principles concerned? No, they merely indicate human errors and human limitations in applying science, which if applied with precision will prevent catastrophe.
Similar is the case with dialectics. Some men are exceptional at applying dialectics; in much the same way as some men are excellent scientists only because they are more clearer in understanding the basic concepts of the concerned science. Just because we can not grasp the theory of relativity as finely as brilliant scientists do, it does not become unreal, it does not ‘melt into air’.
Men like Lenin were master dialecticians in much the same way as Einstein was a master in space- time theories. But both had limitations. Both were wrong more than once. The difference lies in the fact they were right on more occasions than most men and on more complex situations in their field.
Their errors do not mean the negation of the scientific bases they developed.
Dialectics appears to melt into thin air when it is tried to be applied without perfect understanding of the science. I dare say if we talk about relativity to the lay man on the street he will also find it to ‘sound like something but melting into thin air’.
Dialectics is not a star gazing ball, rather it is a science that dictates how your actions and strategies should be in the future, a strategy that requires constant monitoring at all times because situations change rapidly.
Still to react to encephalon, one example of a correct prediction of future events before they happen to pass as he calls it would be this:
In 1904 Lenin advocated revolutionary defeatism; in 1917 he advocated power seizure, why?
Because by a correct application of dialectics he realized that the material in his disposal (popular support in numbers) was insufficient to wage a full blown seizure campaign in 1904. In 1917 he realized that it was the other way round.
How did he know that? Definitely because of field reports from underground Bolsheviks about the growth in the numbers of the masses in support of a change in regime in 1917. The point at which he realizes that a majority want and are willing to participate in a regime change is the moment Lenin realizes that in the given dialectical contradiction his arm is stringer (an objective criteria, number of supporters).
Much as in sciences like physics, dialectics can only be mastered through constant practice and familiarity, reading and efforts dedicated truly to understanding the laws of dialectics. It can not be mastered by discussion or wishing for a magic formula, in the event it will only appear to ‘sound like something real but when one tries to grasp it, it just melts into air’

[Red Powers]

from Miles

And besides, where did I say something, beyond "caveat emptor", that passed judgment on RedStar's politics?

Oh, I don't know. I thought the following had something to say about Redstar's politics.


RedStar2000 is a purveyor of bourgeois ideology, primarily pragmatism, who tries to present himself as a communist.

I think you're wrong about this but it's not the substance that "gave me hell" :lol:
rather the pompous way you jump in to "warn" sukirti about Redstar. I like most of what you have to say and I'm very interested in the CL and you can call Severian a jerk all you want but I think in your warning comment (caveat emptor indeed!) you come off as an asshole. That's alright we all do it from time to time.

What are you trying to present yourself as?

As far as the topic goes, I could stand some more discourse on dialectics but I've already seen the pissing contest movie.

[ComradeRed]

Speaking from the mathematical perspective, dialectics fails to deliver anything. "Contradiction creates change!" dialecticians cry. OK, great, in what way and how?

The response I have gotten (from live discussions with friends) is "There is change!" and nothing more.

Heck, even "deterministic" Hamiltonian dynamics (or "quantum" Hamiltonian dynamics!) provides a better basis to observe change at a precise rate. Further, Hamiltonian dynamics provides for change (and an infinite number of variations thereof) better than any philosophy.


A dialectical contradiction is something entirely different. It is the most basic contradiction. It is the contradiction that gives rise to all other contradictions in a particular form of development or system. Indeed all other contradictions are a result, are mere external symptoms of the dialectical contradiction, which is at the base of the two opposing theories or viewpoints. In the examples cited above, the dialectical contradictions involved in the cases would be as follows. And...?

Why does this make dialectics important? There is no precision, there is no rigor, there is no method of proving anything, there is nothing of any use to anyone of science.

As a matter of fact, I question the very basis of its "materialism". This is self evidently a rationalist-idealist construct decoupled from any reality.

Arguably, some may assert the same for math. This may very well be true; however, what those dialectical saints don't realize is that math IS rigorous, able to prove something, and very precise.

It may very well be "regurgitating tautologies", but this "regurgitation" has deduced a great deal more precise information on material reality than "dialectics" ever claimed to. Face it, Engels and Hegel manhandled the "Holy dialectical trinity" onto nature and history.


Dialectics is a science, which when applied correctly never produces the wrong results. Let us take an example. Mechanics is something that is commonly taught in advanced science courses. Mechanics is science. Yet, given the same numerical problem some students come up with the wrong solutions in spite of attending the same classes or referring to the same text books, why? Off course because they did some mistake in applying the basic fundamentals of mechanics. The students who solve the problem correctly do so because they apply the principles right. We can extend this argument to all science, especially mathematical sciences. The point is this. If a student solves a problem wrongly by improper application of a mechanical principle is that principle in mechanics invalid? If the statement is made by an instructor to students thus: apply the fundamental principles (may be say, the force diagram acting on a system) correctly, failing which you will get the wrong answer, does that amount to an escape clause for mechanics? The failure here lies on part of the student, not on part of the basic theory of forces; exactly same is the argument on application of dialectics. Even the crash of a spaceship due to improper application of say, air friction principles will never invalidate that air friction is a theory that is correct. Same is the case with application of dialectics. This is all rather misleading. Mechanics is a precise thing! If one comes and says "Oh, I got this wrong, I wonder why?" another can easily and quickly reply "Ah, you did this rather than that."

With dialectics, there is nothing of the sort. There is no good medium to discuss dialectics. Science on the other hand has math, which is perhaps the best medium for communicating anything; further, in regards to your quip on mechanics, there are precise mathematical constructs (viz. Lagrangians and Hamiltonians) that can be manipulated.

If dialectics could do any of those things, it would be least ways have grounds to be considered a remotely half-baked idea. Thus far, there is no grounds to accept it, there is no precision.

The analogy with mechanics is even worse becaues mechanics has all of these things! I can tell you what to do precisely in order to understand mechanics. Apparently no dialectician can coherently explain what to do in order to precisely use dialectics.

Could it be that there is no union of precision and dialectics?



To know that you have reached the correct dialectical contradiction you must satisfy one condition, that you have correctly identified the material forces representing the two opposing views. The objective criterion is the two different material forces that are in opposition to each other and the dialectical contradiction is represented in the two forces formed by the two forces. Why only two? Even mechanics acknowledges the fact that there are many more influences than that on a body!

There is no sensical reason to accept such a proposition that there are two contradictory forces. Why?

Worse, the example you gave of Islamic clergy could have been done much simpler and quicker with Redstar's logical (egads! The heretical!) "tools of Marxism" with the same (if not, superior) precision and less work and hastle! Speaking from the scientific point of view, that is one more for logic over dialectics.

Better, one could formulate such tools of Marxism in math to provide precise tools of class analysis! Curiously the Leninists oppose such a measure! Could it be that their reactionary side is showing?!

One part of the piece oddly enough predicts facts: "Dogma can only lead us to extinction". Alas, such is the story of the Leninists!

[encephalon]

Still to react to encephalon, one example of a correct prediction of future events before they happen to pass as he calls it would be this:
In 1904 Lenin advocated revolutionary defeatism; in 1917 he advocated power seizure, why?
Because by a correct application of dialectics he realized that the material in his disposal (popular support in numbers) was insufficient to wage a full blown seizure campaign in 1904. In 1917 he realized that it was the other way round.
How did he know that? Definitely because of field reports from underground Bolsheviks about the growth in the numbers of the masses in support of a change in regime in 1917. The point at which he realizes that a majority want and are willing to participate in a regime change is the moment Lenin realizes that in the given dialectical contradiction his arm is stringer (an objective criteria, number of supporters).
Much as in sciences like physics, dialectics can only be mastered through constant practice and familiarity, reading and efforts dedicated truly to understanding the laws of dialectics. It can not be mastered by discussion or wishing for a magic formula, in the event it will only appear to ‘sound like something real but when one tries to grasp it, it just melts into air’


This is a causal fallacy; simply because lenin was a dialectician coupled by the fact that the change in circumstances led him to a change in action is not proof of a dialectical process. Nor did the bolsheviks have popular support amongst the masses.

This is the same as saying the George Bush knew he should go to war because god told him to do so; and since he did indeed go to war, god indeed must have told him to go to war; therefore, bush's conception of a spiritual world dictating the material world must be correct.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Perhaps the Communist League would be interested in this piece -- Why dialectics is not vacuous (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/general/dialecticnotvacuous.html) -- I stumbled upon it earlier and found it most amusing....


Originally posted by MIM
I'm going to take some quotes from Internet persynality Redstar2000 and discuss the thing Marx wanted us not to discuss and just be done with--philosophy.

It seems that redstar has had quite an impact on them, he's mentioned in four of their pieces -- http://www.google.com/custom?q=redstar2000...h=www.etext.org (http://www.google.com/custom?q=redstar2000&sa=Google+Search&cof=L%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.etext.org%2FPolitics%2FMI M%2Fmimhead.gif%3BAH%3Acenter%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fw ww.etext.org%2FPolitics%2FMIM%3BAWFID%3Adc8a2fce71 7a5b1c%3B&domains=www.etext.org&as_epq=inurl%3APolitics+MIM&sitesearch=www.etext.org) -- I wonder if the RCP have started their "polemics" yet.

What's most amusing is that MIM (a supposedly "revolutionary movement") take so much interest in an individual who posts on message boards, you'd think they'd have bigger fish to fry.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)To my current understanding, dialectics is just looking at objects in all their relations rather then thinking the object is abstract. I don't see why Redstar would be against [that].[/b]

I'm not "against" it...I find it incomprehensible.

"All their relations"? How is that to be defined?

Do we "take into account" the gravitational pull of the Crab Nebula?

Or is it just the "really significant" relations that count?

Where is the line to be drawn and by what criteria?

How do you decide when someone has actually done what you claim "dialectics" can "do" and when they're just blowing smoke out of their ass?

Just wait and see "who wins"??? :lol:


Then again I believe redstar is against this because he is an anarchist.

Self-evidently nonsensical. For one thing, I'm not an "anarchist" in spite of all the Leninist efforts to label me such.

But more to the point, I think one could easily construct an "anarchist" version of "dialectics"...if there was any point in bothering.

It would just emphasize a different set of "contradictions" and a unity of different "opposites" and a "negation" of different "negations", etc.

It wouldn't tell them anything more useful than it tells you...but it would make them sound more profound and erudite.

For what that's worth. :lol:


sukirti
Dialectics is a science, which when applied correctly never produces the wrong results.

How is it then that nearly everyone who claims to "use it" almost always gets the wrong answer?

We've had many hundreds of "Leninist vanguard parties" and every one of them claimed to use "dialectics" and indeed, went so far as to claim that their "mastery" of the "dialectical method" guaranteed success "in the long run".

But their track record is abysmal.

In the most advanced capitalist countries, the Leninist parties have all dwindled into insignificance...save only a few that openly embrace reformism.

In fact, the list of "masters of the dialectic" is extremely short -- Lenin, Tito, Mao, and Ho.

Did I miss any? :lol:

Not even Marx and Engels "make the cut"...because they didn't lead any successful revolutions, did they?

What kind of "science" can only be "mastered" by four guys in over a century?

Even worse, none of those four guys were able to teach even one of their followers "how to do it". All of the revolutions that they made through their "mastery" of "dialectics" are now as dead as the dinosaurs.

What kind of "science" is this???

You cite "mechanics" as a parallel to "dialectics"...but thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of people master that subject every year. And while all or nearly all of them make occasional errors, nearly all of them get "the right answer" nearly all of the time.

In fact, that's true of all real sciences...you expect to get "the right answer".

Getting "the wrong answer" with any consistency is often a fruitful indication that something is "missing" and needs to be "looked for".

Only "dialectics" claims to be a "science" in which getting "the wrong answer" is the norm.

In fact, history suggests that the best course of action is to ask the recommendation of a self-proclaimed "dialectician"...and then go out and do the exact opposite!

Unfortunately, that path is blocked as well...because one can always find another "dialectician" who advises a different course of action. Like fortune-tellers, they're on every side of every controversy...and ordinary mortals lacking psychic powers are left to either pick one at random or steer clear of them altogether.

Guess what I recommend? :lol:


To know that you have reached the correct dialectical contradiction you must satisfy one condition, that you have correctly identified the material forces representing the two opposing views.

But what might those "material forces" be and how do we know that we have "correctly identified them"?

After all, the world contains many material forces that represent the interests of many classes and even "sub-classes".

On occasion, some of these material forces are present with particular clarity...but usually we see a "jumble" of material forces acting in many directions.

Trying to pick out the ones "that really count" looks to me like drawing names out of a hat.

After a sequence of historical events has unfolded, it is certainly possible in retrospect to see that this material force or this combination of these particular material forces made that sequence of events inevitable.

That's what historical materialism does...and does better than any other form of historical analysis.

But all historical materialism can offer on future events is simple extrapolation.

The U.S. is an imperialist state in an expansionist phase...it will go on to do more of the same.

I think that's plausible...but I'd hesitate to stake my "full faith and credit" on it. There may be or may emerge material forces that make that further expansion impossible.

"Dialectics" does not help with this...even if it "could" reliably identify all the "significant material forces". It doesn't tell us which ones will prevail.

Consider your own example of "Islamic terrorism". In my view, it is the response of pre-capitalist elites to not only western imperialism but also the rise of a native "modernizing" bourgeoisie in the Muslim world.

Some of those bourgeois elements will support "Islamic terrorism" as a weapon against "foreign competition"...but others find "Islamic terrorists" to be an obstacle to profit maximization.

It's a complicated situation.

Historical materialism rather strongly suggests that the "modernizers" will prevail in the long run...and that Islamic fundamentalism will fade in importance.

That seems to me to be a "sound prediction" for 2100...but says nothing at all in any immediate sense.


What is material?

Any such commodity that increases the economic domination of one class over another.

I think we have a language problem with this one; you're not using the word "commodity" in the Marxist sense here.

At least I don't think you are.

Commodities are products that are produced for sale rather than use by the producers.

In and of themselves, they don't "increase" or "decrease" the "economic domination" of one class over another.

I think you mean "something else" here...but I don't know what it could be.

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:14 PM
Sukriti, you should know before going further that RedStar2000 is a purveyor of bourgeois ideology, primarily pragmatism, who tries to present himself as a communist. Caveat emptor.

Miles
Definitely true. Beware of such renegades.

I like how redstar2000 claims that he does not have time to read "holy books" when one presents evidence backing up dialectical materialism (the work I cited uses modern science to do as such), yet he seems to pour a lot of time and energy into his rant site, The Redstar2000 Papers.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Red Powers+Jan 6 2006, 11:23 AM--> (Red Powers @ Jan 6 2006, 11:23 AM)
And besides, where did I say something, beyond "caveat emptor", that passed judgment on RedStar's politics?

Oh, I don't know. I thought the following had something to say about Redstar's politics.


RedStar2000 is a purveyor of bourgeois ideology, primarily pragmatism, who tries to present himself as a communist.

I think you're wrong about this but it's not the substance that "gave me hell" :lol:
rather the pompous way you jump in to "warn" sukirti about Redstar.[/b]

There's nothing pompous about this. I happen to think that comrades looking to talk about dialectics are entitled to know that there is, in my opinion, a group of petty-bourgeois radicals (RedStar, Rosa Lichtenstein, Comrade Red) who are committed to discouraging young and working people from learning and talking about dialectical theory in a non-hostile environment.

Given the level of personal abuse, arrogance and ridicule these three heap on people who support dialectics as a valid and useful method, I would argue that these three are little more than petty-bourgeois bullies on this issue. As far as I am concerned, I have been far too kind when dealing with these three conduits for bourgeois ideology.

Look, the League takes the issue of the influence of bourgeois ideology within the ranks of the proletariat very seriously -- so much so that we have an entire point on the issue in our Basic Principles. Now, that point may not be explicit about upholding dialectics, but most members of the League are supporters of that method -- and we attribute our ability to be "ahead of the curve" on many issues to that fact.

It should also be pointed out that the dialectics that many of us practice is not the Engels model, as expressed in Dialectics of Nature. I would say that our method is more multi-faceted and more akin to the dialectical theory elaborated by C.L.R. James.


Originally posted by Red [email protected] 6 2006, 11:23 AM
I like most of what you have to say and I'm very interested in the CL and you can call Severian a jerk all you want but I think in your warning comment (caveat emptor indeed!) you come off as an asshole. That's alright we all do it from time to time.

What are you trying to present yourself as?

As someone sick and tired of petty-bourgeois know-it-alls who use personal abuse and ridicule to intimidate working people into knowing "their place", which is, in effect, NOT studying dialectics, NOT challenging these three's theoretical "authority" -- which is, by extension (and by virtue of what they are advocating), the bourgeoisie's societal "authority" in the realm of method and ideology.

These three are welcome to complain about this assessment of their practice to their heart's content. It will not change the facts of what they are doing any more than it will change the course of what they are doing. And, I have to admit, I have come to question what are the true motivations of these three -- especially RedStar -- based on what I have seen.


Red [email protected] 6 2006, 11:23 AM
As far as the topic goes, I could stand some more discourse on dialectics but I've already seen the pissing contest movie.

You call it a pissing contest. At this point, I call it a facet of the cultural/ideological class struggle.

Miles

[ComradeRed]

Given the level of personal abuse, arrogance and ridicule these three heap on people who support dialectics as a valid and useful method, I would argue that these three are little more than petty-bourgeois bullies on this issue. As far as I am concerned, I have been far too kind when dealing with these three conduits for bourgeois ideology. Yes, you've been like Merry Poppins.

Look the only request I am and always been asking is to formulate dialectics in a coherent manner that demonstrates its effectiveness. This is "petit bourgeois heracy" (of course!).

Why? What is there to hide? Is it too much to ask to see this "super logic" in action? Is it too much to see it explained coherently? This "valid and useful method" has been proven to be neither...apparently it is wrong to point out the nakedness of the emperor.

Such is the cost of being scientific...so be it. However, this is "wrong" since it is "undialectical" and therefore "unscientific". Reason is the "idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie", which is why I am asking for empirical and material explanations.

Every explanation of dialectics (from the "Allmighty" Engels to his prophet C.L.R. James) leaves a feeling of "So what?" There is absolutely no significance of dialectics compared to, say, anything else.

The usefulness and validity of a method is not something that one can say "Well, it's self evident thus I need not to explain anything." That's simply laziness or bullshit (or both!). Everything needs to be proven.

That is my mantra, "everything needs to be proven". If that is the "heart and soul" of the "petit bourgeois ideology", how could anyone not be both scientific and petit bourgeois?

But I'm a Marxist. So I will give strictly a Marxist analysis of dialectics. It, like all "ruling ideas", are a mirror of the ruling epoch of early 19th Century Prussia: reactionary feudalism. Dialectics are thus the reactionary form of reasoning, ironically the petit bourgeois (indeed, medieval-esque superstituous) form of reasoning.

There is no reason to accept such a method; there has been no reason to accept such a method, but there has been "reasons" as to why we should keep it. By "reasons" I mean things along the lines of "Only petit bourgeois reactionaries don't use dialectics, therefore we must continue to use them." The track record of dialectics is remniscent of the Texas Sharpshooter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)

Alas the entire argument for accepting dialectics is a fallacy: appeal to authority. That is the history of the effectiveness of dialectics: a collection of fallacies.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+Jan 7 2006, 12:45 AM--> (ComradeRed @ Jan 7 2006, 12:45 AM)Yes, you've been like Merry Poppins.[/b]

I never claimed to be a Mary Poppins on any issue. And, to be blunt, you three deserve the scorn you get.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
Look the only request I am and always been asking is to formulate dialectics in a coherent manner that demonstrates its effectiveness. This is "petit bourgeois heracy" (of course!).

It has been explained to you -- by me, by Che y Marijuana and by others. But you refuse to listen; you refuse to accept those coherent and understandable explanations. The only heresy here is your willful blindness. It is unbecoming.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
Why? What is there to hide? Is it too much to ask to see this "super logic" in action? Is it too much to see it explained coherently? This "valid and useful method" has been proven to be neither...apparently it is wrong to point out the nakedness of the emperor.

See above. As the old axiom goes: There is none so blind as one who refuses to see.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
Such is the cost of being scientific...so be it. However, this is "wrong" since it is "undialectical" and therefore "unscientific". Reason is the "idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie", which is why I am asking for empirical and material explanations.

Oh, poor you! You're sooooo neglected! Give me a fucking break.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
Every explanation of dialectics (from the "Allmighty" Engels to his prophet C.L.R. James) leaves a feeling of "So what?" There is absolutely no significance of dialectics compared to, say, anything else.

Except that, in the context of this discussion, there are many of us who see it as a useful method of analyzing the world. But, no, there is no mysticism in our support for dialectics as a method. You may be looking for the "God Theory"; I am not.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
The usefulness and validity of a method is not something that one can say "Well, it's self evident thus I need not to explain anything." That's simply laziness or bullshit (or both!). Everything needs to be proven.

As far as I am concerned, dialectics has proven itself. The only laziness and bullshit in this discussion comes from you three. (Well, maybe not always laziness. There is something to be said about class and how those material experiences affect the ability to comprehend a method of analysis.)


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
That is my mantra, "everything needs to be proven". If that is the "heart and soul" of the "petit bourgeois ideology", how could anyone not be both scientific and petit bourgeois?

"Everything needs to be proven". Interesting. There is much that can be said of such a simplistic and absolutist mantra. I figure it was this kind of thinking that gave us the Big Bang Theory, "dark matter", and a myriad of other failed theories. After all, the real issue among you petty-bourgeois academics is not that "everything" needs to be proven, but that one thing must be proven. Or, as a comrade of mine is fond of saying: Never let a small fact stand in the way of a Big Lie.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
But I'm a Marxist.

I can just guess how Marx himself would respond to this self-proclamation.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
So I will give strictly a Marxist analysis of dialectics. It, like all "ruling ideas", are a mirror of the ruling epoch of early 19th Century Prussia: reactionary feudalism. Dialectics are thus the reactionary form of reasoning, ironically the petit bourgeois (indeed, medieval-esque superstituous) form of reasoning.

What ahistorical sophistry! What petty idealism! What falsification! All you've shown here is exactly how unserious you really are.


[email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 AM
There is no reason to accept such a method; there has been no reason to accept such a method, but there has been "reasons" as to why we should keep it. By "reasons" I mean things along the lines of "Only petit bourgeois reactionaries don't use dialectics, therefore we must continue to use them." The track record of dialectics is remniscent of the Texas Sharpshooter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)

Alas the entire argument for accepting dialectics is a fallacy: appeal to authority. That is the history of the effectiveness of dialectics: a collection of fallacies.

So says an "authority" whose entire argument against both dialectics and those who have explained it is both unserious and based on a very real collection of fallacies. You're welcome to blather on all day about "The Texas Sharpshooter". I consider it nothing more than big talk from a student of the School of Falsification (http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/). Luckily for the rest of us, you're running low on paint for your airbrush.

Miles

[stevensen]

i will be back with my replies to the questions raised. it seems more and more like a differnce in views , however i will clarify the points raised.some of them to me seem repetetive. anyway give me some time i will be back. btw stevensen and sukirti are one and same.iwas advised not to use real name due to security reasons

[redstar2000]

I think the "best course" here is to respond to the arguments that sukirti raises.

He, at least, seems to want to have a serious discussion of the matter.

Unlike Miles, who seems to only be capable of sputtering outrage that anyone should have the "poor taste" to publicly comment on the remarkable transparency of the emperor's garments. :rolleyes:

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

[encephalon]

this may be slightly off-topic, but are there any communist organizations that outright reject dialectics as their basis for action?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:47 AM
this may be slightly off-topic, but are there any communist organizations that outright reject dialectics as their basis for action?
Not any more. Every self-described communist organization that rejected dialectics ended up hurtling itself into the camp of the bourgeoisie, without exception.

I have seen your future, RedStar, and it doesn't work. Just ask James Burnham.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:40 AM
Unlike Miles, who seems to only be capable of sputtering outrage that anyone should have the "poor taste" to publicly comment on the remarkable transparency of the emperor's garments. :rolleyes:
I would suggest that you take off those X-Ray Specs you bought in the back of a comic book. They're making you see things.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:47 AM
this may be slightly off-topic, but are there any communist organizations that outright reject dialectics as their basis for action?
Not yet...but I could be wrong about that.

It's the "halo effect". Marx compiled a truly remarkable track-record of being right about so many things that people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries just assumed that he "must have been right" about "dialectics".

And after Lenin's successful coup, it just became "impossible" to mount a "respectable" attack on that wretched metaphysical construct.

As you can see from Miles' indignation, it was thought that to be "anti-dialectical" was the same as "signing up with the bourgeoisie".

It's only the fading of Leninism that now permits "dialectics" to be exposed for the fraud that it is. There are no significant remaining Leninist parties to "banish" the critic of "dialectics" to "bourgeois perdition".

Attempts to do that now -- from folks like Miles or some of our resident Trotskyists or Maoists -- just provoke laughter.

Indeed, sukirti is rather unusual in that he actually seems to want to offer some serious arguments in defense of "dialectics". I'm looking forward to his posts...because I think he will provide additional opportunities to expose "dialectics" as useless.

When non-Leninist Marxism -- that is, real Marxism -- becomes a "force to be reckoned with", I think "dialectics" will be a dead issue.

And politically revolutionary message boards like this one will banish any discussion of the subject to the Religion subforum.

Or just delete them entirely. :)

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

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:17 AM
And politically revolutionary message boards like this one will banish any discussion of the subject to the Religion subforum.

Or just delete them entirely. :)
Oops! You just let your mask slip, RedStar.

I guess this axiom is also true: Scratch the surface of a petty-bourgeois leftist, find a totalitarian servant of the bourgeoisie underneath.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

A Post Script to my post above: In a previous posting, RedStar wrote:


Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 AM
What you would have to demonstrate to people is that my renunciation of "dialectical" mysticism has political consequences -- that, for example, I would consistently show up on the "more rightest" side of every political controversy on the board.

I don't think you can do that.

Want to try? :)

I contend that your desire to restrict communists who support the method of dialectics to Opposing Ideologies (the implication behind your explicit wish to "banish any discussion of the subject to the Religion subforum") or, as you so bluntly put it, "delete them entirely" (complete with smileyface emoticon), shows precisely how your "renunciation of 'dialectical' mysticism has political consequences".

It's a good thing this is only a discussion board and not a real country. If you had state power to play with, all of us would be off to the gulag. Comrade Stalin smiles upon you, RedStar.

You are exposed for the fraud you are.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Actually, Miles, I have some of "Comrade Stalin's" powers now. As an admin, I could delete all your posts, IP ban you and anyone who ever spoke up in your defense, etc., etc.

Make you into a "nonperson". :lol:

I could do the same to any of my critics.

So how come I never do any of that stuff or even try to?

Because that's not what people want here.

If I wanted to banish "dialectics" to the Religion subforum, I'd start a poll in the Commie Club...and only if a majority supported that move would I start doing it.

I do think that will happen...maybe by 2015 or so and maybe even a little sooner than that.

There's no hurry. :)

"Stalin-like" behavior on this board would not make practical sense anyway...anything one admin could do could be undone by another admin -- except restore deleted posts.

So you are quite safe from my "power-mad" lusts. :lol:

What you're not safe from is my relentless attack on your superstition.

In fact, I can promise you that it's going to get worse! Should you persist in your metaphysical madness, people here will start thinking about you the way they think about MIM. :o

Not exactly something pleasant to contemplate, eh? :lol:

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

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 7 2006, 05:32 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 7 2006, 05:32 AM)Actually, Miles, I have some of "Comrade Stalin's" powers now. As an admin, I could delete all your posts, IP ban you and anyone who ever spoke up in your defense, etc., etc.

Make you into a "nonperson". :lol:[/b]

Laugh it up, Koba. Yes, you do have the ability to do everything you've said above. That is why it has to be taken seriously. We've seen an admin abuse his privileges on this board before. You are not above such "drunken" fits.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:32 AM
I could do the same to any of my critics.

So how come I never do any of that stuff or even try to?

Because that's not what people want here.

No. It's because it would be almost immediately undone by other admins.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:32 AM
If I wanted to banish "dialectics" to the Religion subforum, I'd start a poll in the Commie Club...and only if a majority supported that move would I start doing it.

I do think that will happen...maybe by 2015 or so and maybe even a little sooner than that.

There's no hurry. :)

Somehow, I doubt you will wait that long. You can take the RedStar out of the New Orleans Maoist Collective, but you apparently take the New Orleans Maoist Collective out of RedStar. (By the way, a side question: Was your NOMC the same one that helped to found COUSML back in the early 1970s? Just curious.)


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:32 AM
"Stalin-like" behavior on this board would not make practical sense anyway...anything one admin could do could be undone by another admin -- except restore deleted posts.

So you are quite safe from my "power-mad" lusts. :lol:

For the moment, anyway. The fact is, though, that I should not have to worry about your "Stalin-like" behavior at all. That is the issue here.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 05:32 AM
What you're not safe from is my relentless attack on your superstition.

The only thing that's keeping you in this "fight" is the fact that I do not have enough time at the moment to write the response that is required. The real world is keeping me busy enough. You and your clique are not high enough on my priorities list yet to warrant setting aside the time.

Maybe after I'm done with my organizing work for the League, participating in actions with the Delphi workers, helping IWPA comrades with their activities and organizing, participating in the union work I do, etc., etc., etc., etc., you'll rate high enough to get a few pages of response. Until then, however, you'll just have to continue listening to the sound of your one hand clapping.


[email protected] 7 2006, 05:32 AM
In fact, I can promise you that it's going to get worse! Should you persist in your metaphysical madness, people here will start thinking about you the way they think about MIM. :o

Not exactly something pleasant to contemplate, eh? :lol:

Not exactly something I have to worry about contemplating, actually. Politically speaking, you're closer to them than I am. In terms of your rejection of Marx and communism in general, you're also much closer to the anti-worker, totalitarian MIMmite than I'll ever be.

You've already done a good job of letting me know who and what you really are. It's all a matter of time now ... for you, that is. This is much bigger than a discussion on dialectics. Both you and I know that. There are a lot of ... historical incidents ... that have resided in the fog of time -- historical incidents that both of us know about, but you know better than I, since you were a part of them. But I now know enough of that history, too -- more than you perhaps realized until now.

Contemplate that for a while, RedStar.

Miles

[Hiero]

When non-Leninist Marxism -- that is, real Marxism -- becomes a "force to be reckoned with", I think "dialectics" will be a dead issue.

How can you be a "real Marxist" and be anti dialectical?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:29 AM

When non-Leninist Marxism -- that is, real Marxism -- becomes a "force to be reckoned with", I think "dialectics" will be a dead issue.

How can you be a "real Marxist" and be anti dialectical?
I guess that's RedStar's dialectical contradiction. :lol:

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:29 AM

When non-Leninist Marxism -- that is, real Marxism -- becomes a "force to be reckoned with", I think "dialectics" will be a dead issue.

How can you be a "real Marxist" and be anti dialectical?
You concentrate on historical materialism -- the stuff that you can actually verify.

Remember that Hegel was fundamentally a reactionary...and while Marx made a valiant effort to strip "dialectics" of its reactionary character, he just couldn't do it.

If he "couldn't do it", who could?

The answer is no one can.

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

[More Fire for the People]

And yet redstar2000, how is historical materialism verifiable?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 7 2006, 12:32 PM
And yet redstar2000, how is historical materialism verifiable?
Shhhh! Don't confuse him! He might get upset and threaten to send you to the gulag, too.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Diego Armando+Jan 7 2006, 12:32 PM--> (Diego Armando @ Jan 7 2006, 12:32 PM) And yet redstar2000, how is historical materialism verifiable? [/b]
By examination of what really happened.

To be sure, there are many heated controversies in the course of such efforts. New evidence turns up and must be integrated into "the big picture".

Links must be discovered between what people said and the material realities that made those "ideas" sound plausible.

It is as difficult as any science...and can require a lifetime of work.

But it is, in principle, comprehensible. Ordinary people can read good history and understand it.

Things do not happen because of "great men" or "great ideas" or "divine intervention" or the "self-realization of the world-spirit" or any of that crap.

They happen because they are the inevitable consequence of human innovation in the means of making a living.

Of all the things Marx wrote, this may be the most original...

Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)

Yes, it is "partial" and "incomplete" and "preliminary".

But consider...


Marx
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. -- emphasis added.

No one ever said that before...at least to the best of my always limited knowledge.

It is the "E=mc-squared" of history as a science.

And it has been verified on countless occasions.

I trust you'll notice that there's not a word about "dialectics" in this brilliant observation of how social reality actually works. :)

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 5 2006, 10:08 AM
Severian, is there any reason why your sig says Homage to Caledonia instead of Homage to Catalonia?
Freud would say there must be. But I couldn't tell ya what it is.

Thanks.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 03:35 AM
....
To understand the real, the basic, the dialectical contradiction it is necessary to understand the material impact each of the two above contradictions have on man. The church hegemony domination would mean a prosperous life for the clergy and the religious men, a life of unquestioned domination by the religious men. The bourgeoisie contradiction is precisely an attempt by the bourgeoisie to deny the same to the church. The bourgeoisie in control of trade and industry realize that they are in control of the most vital and most important aspects of society. It makes no sense to gift the clergy the upper hand under such circumstances. It is the clergy who is dependent on the bourgeoisie trade and industry and not the other way round.
.....
The second case of a discrepancy in the number of opposing troops similarly can only be understood by correctly gauging the material discrepancy in the quantity and quality of the arms available to each of the two troops. How and why should one set of troop come into possession of more superior arms than the other in turn can be explained only by studying the material development of the respective regions of the two opposing troops. The great basic contradiction is not between the differing generals, not even in the difference in material arms available to the two opposing troops, but between the material conditions that were responsible for the different development of the two regions that the opposing troops belong to. That would be the dialectical contradiction between the two generals’ viewpoint.

.....
Flexibility is the most fundamental demand of Marxist strategy. It is not important to understand what strategy Stalin applied or what strategy Fidel applied. It is of utmost importance to know under what circumstances, under what dialectical contradiction were the above strategies applied. The thing to learn is how the great basic dialectical contradiction was identified by successful proletarian campaigns and how the choice of suitable strategies strengthened the proletarian dialectical arm. Conditions will never ever clone any given epoch in history. At best, they can resemble but never be identical. Mere application of erstwhile successful strategies as set formulae can only result in an unprecedented annihilation of proletarian forces. That is the greatest danger that faces us today from a band of rote Marxists.
Thanks.

If I understand what you're saying, it seems to be pretty general and the kind of thing almost anyone here would agree with....in principle anyway.

For example: it's necessary to look at the most basic, deepgoing cause of conflicts of interest. Strategy and tactics depends on the particular situation, and it's more important to understand how a strategy was chosen in a particular situation, rather than copying it.

Even Redstar's objection seems to be more to the word "dialectical" than to anything in the content of your post. That seems to be typical; it's rare to see a real criticism of the content of the dialectical method. Probably because those who oppose it tend to be those who don't understand it.

The hard thing is to apply the method in practice, and the real disagreements arise when we get down to cases.

As Marx once put it, "the truth is always concrete."

***

Redstar, if the method Marx used to draw his conclusions was wrong, then weren't his conclusions wrong too? If you've discarded the method, why claim to be sticking with the conclusions?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Redstar, if the method Marx used to draw his conclusions was wrong, then weren't his conclusions wrong too? If you've discarded the method, why claim to be sticking with the conclusions?

Because science doesn't care "how" you reached your hypotheses...only whether or not your conclusions are valid.

I think Marx could have -- and possibly even did -- use "ordinary" logic and observation to reach his conclusions. Certainly it does not require "dialectics" to verify that he was right...to an extent that no prior or subsequent theory of history has matched.

On the other hand, anyone trying to verify a "dialectical" hypothesis has simply jumped "into a swamp". Someone has taken some empirical data, labeled different parts according to the "rules" of "dialectics", and "out pops an answer".

But material forces don't come with "dialectical labels" attached. A rival "dialectician" could attach completely different labels to the same data in order to get a completely different "answer".

And how are we to choose between them? On what basis?

A historical materialist analysis yields a series of basically "yes" or "no" conclusions.

Did the petty-bourgeoisie as a class support the rise of Nazism in Germany? That's something we can find out by examining the evidence.

Was this support the consequence of a "dialectical contradiction" between the German petty bourgeois fear of being proletarianized and the German ruling class's failure to restore "good business conditions" for the petty bourgeoisie?

Who the fuck could say? In fact, who could say what statements like that even mean?

"Dialectics", like "God", works in "mysterious ways".


Probably because those who oppose it tend to be those who don't understand it.

Easy enough to say. Some of the superstitious in the Religion subforum say that atheists "don't understand" religious belief because we "don't know the grace of God".

Those who say they do understand "dialectics" give us a whole range of contradictory conclusions...nearly all of which fail the test of "concrete" reality.

Just as astrologers cannot agree on a "correct forecast". :lol:

I'm just as capable as you of reading the "three laws of dialectics".

I understand what they say.

But, unlike real sciences, there's no methodological consistency that yields consistently reliable results.

In principle, you or I or anyone could learn even the most difficult science...and after gaining experience, we'd each examine a thorny problem and get the same answer (or very close to the same answer) -- and our answers could be tested and proved or falsified.

How do you prove or falsify a "dialectical answer"?

Just wait and see "who wins"? :lol:

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

[ComradeRed]

If I understand what you're saying, it seems to be pretty general and the kind of thing almost anyone here would agree with....in principle anyway. This is exactly what I am talking about...this dialectical analysis is vague and general (no offense).

It doesn't really have a significan analysis...more of a disappointed state asking: "So what?"

Most dialectical analysis ends up in such a state. I don't mean to be rude, but dialectics appears as more of a hastle than its worth.

That is in comparison to math, which can be double checked by another mathematician easily. The same isn't true for dialectics; which leads me to ponder its consistency. Severian acknowledges this "The hard thing is to apply the method in practice, and the real disagreements arise when we get down to cases."

I do have a respect for dialectics though. It can create an intellectual framework, which is an impressive feat. But this respect is very much like a general would respect Napolean for his ingenuity, but not so much as to use the identical weapons, uniforms, tactics, etc.

It is for the reason of efficiency that I oppose dialectics. Math can set up precise conditions, explanations, deductions, and so on. It has a rigorous framework, and creates efficient, precise models. Dialectics cannot do this, the best I have seen it do (without understanding what has been done) is create a loose outline.

But dialectics is contextually dependent (or so I hear). Good news then! There are branches of math that are context dependent and contextually specific. Why not merge the two?

The problem is that the math is the hardest I've seen. Not hard as in "Calculus is hard" but hard as in "Hegel/Heidegger/Sartre is hard." The math is actually fairly easy (a precalculus student could do the math of it) but the conception of it is difficult.

The payoff would be that dialectics would have an unrivalled precision. Yet dialecticians oppose this (I have even been called a "reactionary petiut bourgeois swine" for proposing it!). What's there to lost? What's there to hide?

Dialectics is just too sloppy in its current state. Either that needs to be repaired or dialectics needs to be replaced. I don't really care, do what you will; but there really is no reason to keep it over logic (at least, for dialectics in its current state).

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:46 PM
But dialectics is contextually dependent (or so I hear). Good news then! There are branches of math that are context dependent and contextually specific. Why not merge the two?
I think the question of making Marxism more quantitative is an interesting one. It's not the same question as dialectics, though it's probably related...in part because a a recognition that social reality is constantly changing helps define the problem...see below.

If we could make a more quantitative analysis of social phenomena, that would be a great step forward, clearly. Quantitative analysis has been a big part of the bourgeois social "sciences" efforts to make themselves more scientific. Can't say they've had a great success with it...even the "hardest" of them, economics, has pretty limited predictive power.

The problem, IMO, is relatively straightforward: Garbage In, Garbage Out. It's very hard to get the kind of quantitative data it would take to meaningfully begin any social analysis that's not hopelessly simplistic.

Social phenomena are hugely complex, much more complicated than even ordinary biological processes, let alone ordinary chemical and physical processes - they involve the interactions of millions of people, each of whom is complex even as an individual. Raise that individual complexity to the power of 6 billion.....no ordinary social statistics would begin to cover it.

It won't be within the means of revolutionary movements or even revolutionary workers' governments anytime soon. Marxist thought will remain approximate and therefore more intuitive than quantitative. Which is why different people considering themselves Marxist get different results, depending in part on our class and political biases.

(Those biases also affect people's attempts to introduce innovations to Marxism, which is why I tend to be sceptical of such attempts. They usually reflect the pressures of non-proletarian social classes.)

Besides the problem of resources, there's also the question of need. Marxist theory really hasn't advanced that much since Marx....in part because Marx took it well beyond the immediate needs of the class struggle. The more important advances since have been in the analysis of new phenomena like 20th-century monopoly capitalism, and new challenges produced by the experience of proletarian revolutions. Probably the next major advances will also be in response to new challenges and opportunities, not the product of pure reason.

Declaring yourself opposed to dialectics doesn't help you with any of those problems.

I suppose it is more "efficient" not to think dialectically...in the sense that it's simpler to think of things as belonging to fixed categories. Rather than having to keep in mind not only what something is, but what it's becoming, its direction of motion....

I tend to think it's one of those things you either get, or you don't. Not worth having a huge wrangle over. For anyone who hasn't read it, though, the Encyclopedia of Marxism has a decent brief explanation of
and [url=http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism]dialectical materialism. (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:40 PM
Was this support the consequence of a "dialectical contradiction" between the German petty bourgeois fear of being proletarianized and the German ruling class's failure to restore "good business conditions" for the petty bourgeoisie?
Why is this a question? Dialectics is a method of inquiry, not the subject of inquiry.


Easy enough to say. Some of the superstitious in the Religion subforum say that atheists "don't understand" religious belief because we "don't know the grace of God".
The religious usually accuse atheists of a lack of faith, not a lack of understanding. That's the content of the bit about grace of God you mention.

On the other hand, it's commonly said - I think accurately - that those who oppose the theory of evolution by natural selection are mostly those who don't understand it.


But, unlike real sciences, there's no methodological consistency that yields consistently reliable results.

You're right. Marxism isn't a science in the sense of Popper's definition. I'd argue nothing dealing with social phenomena really is, yet. See my response to Comrade Red - also for some of your other points I don't directly respond to here.


In principle, you or I or anyone could learn even the most difficult science...and after gaining experience, we'd each examine a thorny problem and get the same answer (or very close to the same answer) -- and our answers could be tested and proved or falsified.

How do you prove or falsify a "dialectical answer"?

Just wait and see "who wins"? :lol:

Yes. That's how you test any theory of history: make a prediction and see how it turns out. Which takes time, unavoidably since we're not talking about chemicals in a test tube here.

And any method is justified by its usefulness and results.

How is the scientific method justified, by example? Not by its own standards, that'd be circular. I'd say it's by the usefulness of the knowledge uncovered using the scientific method. Which is tremendous, compared to the products of any other method of inquiry.

Similarly, the method of dialectical materialism is justified by the accuracy of the analyses made with it. IMO pretty decent, better than anyone else's...with the stipulation I'm talking about genuine Marxism here.


I'm just as capable as you of reading the "three laws of dialectics".

You and I recently had a discussion on what you mean by "read", and how it doesn't appear to involve actually reading. Here it is. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43998&st=75&#entry1291998381) I don't specially see why you'd be any better at reading a description of dialectics than anything else.

[encephalon]

This argument over dialectics strangely reminds me of an argument I had (and quickly ended) over whether the swastika symbolized two "S" shapes interwined to represent "socialism."

My argument was: you have no verifiable evidence. Any theory requires evidence! With theories that go beyond the past and into the future workings of the world, a theory also has to provide evidence before it's already happened. Einstein had to deal with this, every scientist has had to deal with it. It's the crux of progress.

As communists, we shouldn't just want proof of any specific theory; we should demand proof.

And as a communist, I demand proof of dialectics.

It has never, in a before-the-fact verifiable manner, accurately predicted future happenings. It has, in fact, developed a long and extensive history of failure.

I would go as far as to say some natural processes do in fact resemble dialectics in the sense that quantity does transfer into quality; however, this does not mean that it always happens. Assuming as such is a logical fallacy. Snow, for instance, will build upon itself on a mountain face until quantity changes to quality on earth; however, the dialectician easily forgets that this is due to gravity when it suits his interests.

All any of us ever ask for is valid evidence. If you cannot provide any, then I'm sorry to say that you won't convince anyone to cast off their "bourgeoisie logic." At least, you won't convince any more people than the christian telling us all that we just "don't understand the perfection of christ."

You aren't convincing anyone by saying "there's a ton of proof that I've said before, you just refuse to accept it." If there's proof, and you sincerely believe that dialectics is the answer and that society won't be "saved" until you convince us all of its validity, then you should have no problem reposting any argument you've made before. Your refusal to do so reflects badly on you, not those with whom you disagree.

As for a non-dialectical communist organization: I say the historical conditions are ripe for one to start, and it's nigh time we abandon the medieval architecture of the dialectic school of thought. Anyone up for creating one?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
I tend to think it's one of those things you either get, or you don't.

So is "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior".

But the "dialecticians" all say otherwise. According to them, it's a "special way" of grasping social reality that's "superior" to "bourgeois logic" and "bourgeois empiricism".

To them, rejecting "dialectics" is the equivalent of "preferring" to remain in the "dark ages" of pre-scientific thought.

And failing to "master dialectics" is an "admission" of "stupidity", "laziness", or both.


Not worth having a huge wrangle over.

Again, that's not what we are told by the "dialecticians" themselves.

As we've seen on this board, to them it's the "fundamental line" that divides "Marxism" from everything else.

They would regard an "undialectical Marxism" as an oxymoron. Even if you can't make heads or tales out of their "dialectics", you are expected to pay respectful lip-service to the concept...or else be the target of all manner of unsavory labels yourself.


Dialectics is a method of inquiry, not the subject of inquiry.

This is precisely the terrain on which I challenge the "dialecticians".

Is their "method of inquiry" useful? Does it yield fruitful results?

Does it get the right answer?

With a frequency better than chance?


On the other hand, it's commonly said - I think accurately - that those who oppose the theory of evolution by natural selection are mostly those who don't understand it.

Well, that could be true...but I think it's at least equally plausible that Christian ideologues understand enough of it to see it as a deadly threat to their own paradigm.

Indeed, evolution is such a successful paradigm -- coming up over and over again with answers that make sense -- that Christians are hopelessly embarrassed by the inadequacies of their own "explanations".

As intellectually shoddy as "Intelligent Design" is, it does represent an effort by the Christians to "explain away" the indisputable evidence produced by evolutionists. Their "God" is now a supernatural entity that had to "learn" how to "make" humans...and took over 4 billion years to "get it right". :lol:

I think "dialectics" could well be thought of as a version of "Intelligent Design"...at least that's how Hegel seemed to think of it. A "world-spirit" manifesting itself in human thought? Slipping "new ideas" into our heads whenever it decides that "it's time" for the "next step forward"?

Marx did indeed attempt to rid "dialectics" of this metaphysical twaddle...but by retaining the form, he simply allowed the idealist content to re-emerge bearing "materialist" labels.

What was Lenin's basic thesis? That a small group of "wise men" could change history...because "dialectics" permitted them to "understand history better" than ordinary people could ever hope to do "on their own".

Their "special understanding" permitted them to make the "correct strategic and tactical decisions" that would lead them to power inspite of the fact that they were, of necessity, a small minority of the total population.

If that's what "dialectics" is "supposed" to "accomplish", then it has almost universally failed.

And even in those cases (Russia, China, Yugoslavia, and Vietnam) where "dialectics" supposedly did lead a small group of "wise men" to power, it did not permit them to remain in power.


Marxism isn't a science in the sense of Popper's definition.

I think it could be reasonably argued that historical materialism is a "historical science" like evolution. It gives us answers that can, in principle, be falsified (in the Popperian sense) by appeal to evidence.

But faced with contradictory claims by competing "dialecticians", we are all helpless.

No one has ever seen a "dialectical contradiction"...or heard, tasted, smelt, or touched one. There are no instruments that allow us to perceive one...or even display results that suggest that "there must be one" even if we can't directly observe it. I don't think there's any form of mathematics that suggests "it ought to be there" even if we "can't find it in the real world yet".

Inspite of the "scientific" claims of the "dialecticians", "dialectics" remains completely disconnected from all other sciences.

It stands "above science", say some "dialecticians"...it's a kind of "meta-science" that subsumes all forms of real science.

In fact, claim the "dialecticians", you "can't" even do "real science" properly "unless" you've mastered the "dialectical method of inquiry".

Even though 99.999% of real working scientists have never heard of "dialectics" and would probably find its "laws" to be meaningless babble.

The only "connection" that "dialectics" has with real science is hindsight...a "dialectician" takes some scientific result and pastes a "dialectical" label on it -- and claims that this "proves" the "scientific nature" of "dialectics".

Why bother?

Because otherwise it would become obvious that "dialectics" is just metaphysical twaddle without any connection to the real world at all!

Finally, it occurs to me that some "dialecticians" might claim an "intuitive" understanding of "dialectics". Their brains work differently (and "better") than ours so they just have a natural intuitive grasp of the "dialectical nature" of reality that allows them to perceive "dialectical contradictions" that the rest of us "just can't see".

All well and good...but how would we distinguish those making such a claim from those who tell us that they can "see demons" because they are more "spiritually advanced" than we are?

I've never heard any "dialecticians" actually make such a claim...but it would be a logical extension of the claims they do make.

Once you start down the road of "special understanding" that's "beyond ordinary understanding", where's the limit?

Aside from the limits of your own imagination, what can't you claim?


Similarly, the method of dialectical materialism is justified by the accuracy of the analyses made with it. IMO pretty decent, better than anyone else's...with the stipulation I'm talking about genuine Marxism here.

By "genuine Marxism" you refer to the Trotskyist variant of Leninism, of course.

Very well, let's assume you're right about that...just for the sake of discussion. :)

How then is the abysmal failure of Trotskyism (all versions) in the "west" to be explained? With their "mastery of the dialectic", why aren't they in power?

In fact, why were they even less successful than the Stalinists? You would presumably argue that the Stalinists knew "nothing" of "dialectics", right?

Are you going to blame "Stalinist perfidy"? How could that overcome the people whom you consider the "real masters of the dialectic"?

If Lenin's "dialectics" could defeat the Mensheviks, why didn't Trotsky's "dialectics" defeat the Stalinists?

Of course you could reply that a "dialectical analysis" of the 20th century "shows" that the "western" working class was simply "too weak" and the capitalist class was simply "too strong".

But I could say the same thing...and drop the word "dialectical" as unnecessary!

That's the cue for that guy with the razor. :lol:

If ordinary "generic" historical materialism can explain a sequence of events without invoking the "dialectic", then the "dialectic" is unnecessary.

The simplest explanation that actually explains is to be preferred.

If someone challenges my analysis of some sequence of events on the basis that I've "left out dialectics", I can only echo that French scientist back during the enlightenment.

I had no need for that hypothesis.

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

[Red Powers]

Someone,

Define "dialectic," "contradiction," "quantity." "quality," and "opposite."

It's not very easy and I'm interested to see if someone can actually do it.

It occurs to me that a term like "opposite" doesn't actually describe anything in a material reality. CyM spoke about light and dark as opposites (I think in this thread) but are they really? If I experience only light is that experience changed by adding dark to the experience. Perhaps it's only the words that are considered opposites. We might agree that rich is the opposite of poor, but is the bourgeoisie the opposite of the proletariat? Or are they the opposite of the aristocracy? Can one "thing"(this is another term that cries out for a definition) be the opposite of two or more other things?


There are problems of meaning like this with every single term listed above. I can't even accept them as provisional axioms to see what if anything they can generate. What do you mean by quality? In the famous ice-water-steam example the water changes "quality" but the molecules of H2O merely rearrange themselves. And the quantity of H2O remains the same!!

And even if I grant that yes, heat added to ice will gradually raise the temp. up to 32 degrees F and then plateau etc. How do we know that this is a law to be applied in other situations. Can we be certain that the leadership of a small communist party will change their "quality" as the membership increases? Will it get better?


Whatever dialectics is it is not science and the opposite of science is....

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 8 2006, 05:57 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 8 2006, 05:57 AM)
Severian
I tend to think it's one of those things you either get, or you don't.

So is "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior".

But the "dialecticians" all say otherwise. [/b]
What am I, chopped liver?


According to them, it's a "special way" of grasping social reality that's "superior" to "bourgeois logic" and "bourgeois empiricism".

Yes, I think it's superior to formal logic. And also that some people get it, and some don't. What's the problem?


And failing to "master dialectics" is an "admission" of "stupidity", "laziness", or both.

I'm not sure who says that....Miles was accusing you of being reactionary, not stupid or lazy. And there you go using quote marks when you don't seem to be quoting anybody, again.

You also do some misrepresentation and made-up quotes for Lenin in this post, and mistaken assumptions about what I mean, apples and oranges stuff, repetition of refuted points, etc. Not particularly worth correcting all of them.



Not worth having a huge wrangle over.

Again, that's not what we are told by the "dialecticians" themselves.

As we've seen on this board, to them it's the "fundamental line" that divides "Marxism" from everything else.

Oh, I don't mean it's unimportant. Miles had a point about Burnham. Just that little's accomplished by the wrangle.

That's true of a lot of things, of course, that few people's minds are changed by the argument. But it's marginally more useful to have the debate over particular cases.

When you and I argue about political events, we're debating the method used to arrive at conclusions. 'Course it usually turns out in practice that you and I disagree over materialism, not just dialectics: only one of us attempts to demostrate that a conclusion's based on facts about the material world.


I think it could be reasonably argued that historical materialism is a "historical science" like evolution. It gives us answers that can, in principle, be falsified (in the Popperian sense) by appeal to evidence.

Sorry, no. Discarding dialectics doesn't make your version of, well, historical pseduo-materialism any closer to a testable scientific method. If you knew anything about science you'd realize how far you are from it.

I don't think I've ever seen you put forward a testable theory, hypothesis of prediction. Certainly yours are no better than any other purported Marxists', or the dialecticians you deride.

You do make predictions, of course, but they're not testable in the unambiguous way that the predictions of scientific hypotheses are. For one thing, there's no date attached.

Marxism doesn't lend itself to putting a date on its predictions because it's not very quantitative. Comrade Red's on to something there...but he hasn't been able to fix the problem either. IMO the material conditions don't exist for such a difficult advance in the theory of complex social phenomena.

As I said before, any method of inquiry or reasoning is justified by its results. Has discarding dialectical materialism enabled you to make better analyses and predictions? Certainly they're not any more scientific.

And I think I've demonstrated in detail in numerous threads why your various particular analyses and predictions aren't worth much.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 8 2006, 01:43 PM
Someone,

Define "dialectic," "contradiction," "quantity." "quality," and "opposite."
There's no shortage of stuff explaining this. See the Encyclopedia of Marxism entries I linked earlier.


Whatever dialectics is it is not science and the opposite of science is....

Science has one and only one opposite? Earlier you were questioning whether opposite has a meaning.

Dialectical materialism is a logical method. Logic is a subject within philosophy.

The scientific method is not the only useful way of thinking about reality. Where it's been successfully applied, it's shown tremendous power. But of course we all make decisions every day without conducting scientific studies to determine the best action. And nobody has been all that successful - so far - in rigorously applying the scientific method to complex social phenomena, or at least the overall development of society.

Heck, even math isn't a science, but that doesn't mean that it should be thrown out the window in the name of science. In fact, it's necessary to science. So is logic.

Something which claims to be science, but isn't, is pseudoscience. But Redstar's the only one who claims (a suitably modified version of) Marxism can meet the current definition of science.

The current definition, formulated by Karl Popper, didn't exist when Engels coined the term "scientific socialism", so he can hardly be blamed for not meeting it. Present-day Marxists continue to use the terminology in a way that's become traditional.....

Stephen J. Gould, the late well-known biologist, had some interesting comments of the uses of dialectical thinking in his essay "Episodic Evolutionary Change", which you can find in his book "The Panda's Thumb."

Here's an excerpt:

If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternate philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change - the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly
punctuational. They speak, for example, of the "transformation of quantity into quality." This may sound like mumbo jumbo, but it suggests that change occurs in large leaps following a slow accumulation of stresses that a system resists until it reaches the breaking point. Heat water and it eventually boils. Oppress the workers
more and more and bring on the revolution. Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian paleontologists support a model very similar to our punctuated equilibria."

I emphatically do not assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a grandiose notion would border on the nonsensical. Gradualism sometimes works well. (I often fly over the folded Appalachians and marvel at the striking parallel ridges left standing by gradual erosion of the softer rocks surrounding them). I make a simple plea for
pluralism in guiding philosophies, and for the recognition of such philosophies, however hidden and unarticulated, constrain all our thought. The dialectical laws express an ideology quite openly; our Western preference for gradualism does the same more subtly."

Nonetheless, I will confess to a personal belief that a punctuational view may prove to map tempos of biological and geologic change more accurately and more often than any of its competitors - if only because complex systems in steady state are both common and highly resistant to change.

The last is a particularly interesting point from the political viewpoint; it is the conservativism of the human mind and human societies which produce revolutions. By resisting change, societies produce a pent-up demand for change, like an earthquake fault-line resisting the slippage of continental drift.

[encephalon]

I emphatically do not assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a grandiose notion would border on the nonsensical. (my bold)

There's a statement I wholly agree with. And, without exclusivity, the metaphysical construct of dialectics falls apart.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
But Redstar's the only one who claims (a suitably modified version of) Marxism can meet the current definition of science.

Or should be able to.

Granted that there is a lot of "Marxist" writing that clearly doesn't measure up.

I just don't think we should accept that any more.

As the bourgeoisie begins to "drift away" from a scientific outlook, I think it's all the more urgent for us to cultivate a scientific outlook.

Proletarian revolution, in the last analysis, is a war of civilization against barbarism!

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:11 AM
As the bourgeoisie begins to "drift away" from a scientific outlook, I think it's all the more urgent for us to cultivate a scientific outlook.
Oh, yes. But making pseudoscientific claims isn't "cultivating a scientific outlook." Debunking them is.

[ComradeRed]

Well let me just begin by saying this: the future of Marxism lies in rigorous mathematics if it is to become capable of fending off bourgeois criticisms. It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about dialectics, that's the plain fact of the situation.

If Marxism is to make it in the 21st Century, it needs math and it needs to be overly critical of bourgeois social "sciences". There is, however, an "antinomy" between math and dialectics...and in such a scenario, mathematics should always be chosen over dialectics for the simple reason of precision.


Originally posted by Severian

The current definition, formulated by Karl Popper, didn't exist when Engels coined the term "scientific socialism", so he can hardly be blamed for not meeting it. Speaking from the point of view of a physical scientist, I highly contest this perspective.

Most of theoretical physics is not "falsifiable"...there are other means which tells us that it is a science (the materialism, for one thing, is a minor indicator!).

How is string theory falsifiable? How is loop quantum gravity falsifiable? And how could black hole thermodynamics be falsifiable?

Now what do these things have in common? They're based in reality (i.e. scientific materialism), and they abuse a large quantity of mathematics! Not to mention, of course, that it isn't dogmatic (compared it to vulgar economics).

As Einstein pointed out, the "Development of Western science is based on two great achievements: the invention of the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the possibility to find out causal relationships by systematic experiment (during the Renaissance). In my opinion one has not to be astonished that the Chinese sages have not made those steps. The astonishing thing is that those discoveries were made at all."


Heck, even math isn't a science, but that doesn't mean that it should be thrown out the window in the name of science. In fact, it's necessary to science. So is logic. Huh? Using your logic theoretical physics isn't "science" (all it is nowadays is applied mathematics).

But mathematics is based in experimentation, at least the pure mathematical part involving conjectures. We "could" go with the Kantian notion that math is "a priori"...but let's also look to Hume.

Where does the "a priori" come from? Where does the "a priori" concept of a "gold mountain" come from? From the experience of "gold" and "mountains" of course! Where does math come from? From the experience of quantity, structure, space, and change.


Dialectics is a method of inquiry, not the subject of inquiry.
Why? Why can't a dialectician dialectically analyse dialectics itself?

A mathematician can mathematically analyse mathematics, a logician can logically analyse logic, yet a dialectician cannot even "inquire" about his own method?! Something's not right here.


Marxism doesn't lend itself to putting a date on its predictions because it's not very quantitative. Comrade Red's on to something there...but he hasn't been able to fix the problem either. IMO the material conditions don't exist for such a difficult advance in the theory of complex social phenomena. Well let's see the scorecard for math and dialectics thus far in Marxism (we'll ignore how phenomenally well math has done in natural science compared to dialectics).

Math has fixed the labor theory of value problem; dialectics...has done nothing.

Theoretically speaking (the details still need to be done) math could explain historical materialism in terms of booleans and bundles; dialectics...has actually opposed this. Dialecticians want to keep a philosophical form of historical materialism.

It pretty much continues like that.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 9 2006, 11:11 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 9 2006, 11:11 AM)
Severian
But Redstar's the only one who claims (a suitably modified version of) Marxism can meet the current definition of science.

Or should be able to.

Granted that there is a lot of "Marxist" writing that clearly doesn't measure up.

I just don't think we should accept that any more.

As the bourgeoisie begins to "drift away" from a scientific outlook, I think it's all the more urgent for us to cultivate a scientific outlook.

Proletarian revolution, in the last analysis, is a war of civilization against barbarism!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Did you even pay attention to what Stephen Jay Gould said in that citation?

Oh, and there is a good deal of evidence for dialectics at:

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:23 PM
Well let me just begin by saying this: the future of Marxism lies in rigorous mathematics if it is to become capable of fending off bourgeois criticisms. It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about dialectics, that's the plain fact of the situation.
Well, that's fine. But just saying so ain't doing it. Do you have some quantitative analysis to show us?

And frankly, "fending off bourgeois criticisms" is not the most important thing to do in Marxist theory. Arguing with Dr. Pangloss, who is paid to say everything is for the best under the best of all possible systems...

Marxist theory should be improved in order to help us figure out how to change the world. Changes made under pressure of "bourgeois criticism", i.e. under the pressure of hostile class forces, are unlikely to be changes for the better.


There is, however, an "antinomy" between math and dialectics

How?




The current definition, formulated by Karl Popper, didn't exist when Engels coined the term "scientific socialism", so he can hardly be blamed for not meeting it. Speaking from the point of view of a physical scientist, I highly contest this perspective.

From the rest of your post, you seem to be challenging Popper's definition. I'm not married to that definition, though I think it has its uses...I brought it up because it is the most commonly used current definition of science. And Redstar seems to be using it.


Most of theoretical physics is not "falsifiable"...there are other means which tells us that it is a science (the materialism, for one thing, is a minor indicator!).

Yes, a minor one. If materialism alone made something a science, then dialectical materialism would be one.


How is string theory falsifiable?

Potentially there are experiments that would verify or disprove string theory. The theory has just run far ahead of experimental technique. I'm currently partway through "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene where he makes this point in response to some physicists who question whether string theory is science.


Now what do these things have in common? They're based in reality (i.e. scientific materialism), and they abuse a large quantity of mathematics! Not to mention, of course, that it isn't dogmatic (compared it to vulgar economics).

By itself, that's not enough to make anything science. Wolfram's "New Kind of Science", for example, isn't. At best it's a not-so-new kind of math.

And of course a lot of scientists are dogmatic about their pet theories. Even hear the saying "Science advances, funeral by funeral"? Dogmatic or not, simply isn't part of a useful definition of science.

The more esoteric physics theories must ultimately stand or fall on repeatable observation and experiment, not merely the elegance of their math. Whether string theory is science, will depend on whether it is capable of re-grounding itself in experiment and observation.



Heck, even math isn't a science, but that doesn't mean that it should be thrown out the window in the name of science. In fact, it's necessary to science. So is logic. Huh? Using your logic theoretical physics isn't "science" (all it is nowadays is applied mathematics).

What do you mean, "huh?" If you're saying math is a science, you're the only mathematician or scientist who does. So I'm the one who gets to say "huh", and you're the one who has to explain yourself.


But mathematics is based in experimentation, at least the pure mathematical part involving conjectures.

The heck it is. Thought experiments, maybe. My dad is a mathematician. I've seen him do his work with a legal pad and a pen in a dentists' waiting room. No experimentation required.


We "could" go with the Kantian notion that math is "a priori"...but let's also look to Hume.

Where does the "a priori" come from? Where does the "a priori" concept of a "gold mountain" come from? From the experience of "gold" and "mountains" of course! Where does math come from? From the experience of quantity, structure, space, and change.

Fine, the axioms come from a certain relationship to material reality. Math, however, does not check its conclusions by experiment. It is a priori regardless of where the priori come from.

Einstein showed that Euclidean geometry is not actually true in the material universe, remember? But I still learned it in school, and not as a disproved obsolete theory.



Dialectics is a method of inquiry, not the subject of inquiry.
Why? Why can't a dialectician dialectically analyse dialectics itself?

A mathematician can mathematically analyse mathematics, a logician can logically analyse logic, yet a dialectician cannot even "inquire" about his own method?! Something's not right here.

Fine, you can if you want. Why did it arise historically, all that. But it's not the main subject of inquiry.

Redstar's point "how can you prove the existence of a dialectical contradiction" is apples and oranges. It's like saying that nobody has ever seen or measured a hypothesis. The question is, the results.



Marxism doesn't lend itself to putting a date on its predictions because it's not very quantitative. Comrade Red's on to something there...but he hasn't been able to fix the problem either. IMO the material conditions don't exist for such a difficult advance in the theory of complex social phenomena. Well let's see the scorecard for math and dialectics thus far in Marxism (we'll ignore how phenomenally well math has done in natural science compared to dialectics).

Math has fixed the labor theory of value problem; dialectics...has done nothing.

That's hardly the kind of thing I'm talking about. In one of the threads on the labor theory of value, you did an abstract quantitative analysis of a hypothetical simplified economic model. Of an imaginary world where there were only 3 or 4 commodities. Fine.

The question is, can you do a quantitative analysis of the real world that lets you do better analyses and predictions than others can?


Theoretically speaking (the details still need to be done) math could explain historical materialism in terms of booleans and bundles; dialectics...has actually opposed this. Dialecticians want to keep a philosophical form of historical materialism.

Well, dialecticians may "oppose" it, but they can't stop you from doing it. If you do it, and apply it to the real world, and come up with better analyses and predictions than anyone else, then you'll have something.

'Til then, all you have is a rhetoric about how great it would be if you could do that. I agree...it would be great.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Redstar's point "how can you prove the existence of a dialectical contradiction" is apples and oranges. It's like saying that nobody has ever seen or measured a hypothesis.

"Hypothesis" is a word that has a specific non-material meaning. We could just as well substitute the word guess.

This is my guess about what's going on in the material world.

To be scientific, of course, it must be testable and, in principle, falsifiable.

A "dialectical contradiction" is proposed as a property of matter...it's supposed to be "something" that "everything has."

Well, if "everything has one", where is it?

How does it differ from a "soul" which the superstitious claim that "everyone has"...but which has defied all efforts to locate.

If we say that X is a property of matter, then it necessarily follows that we must be able to detect the presence of X in all the matter that we can examine.

Not just "in our heads" but in real actual matter subject to some form of direct examination.

Consider the statement that "all matter is composed of quarks". To my knowledge, a "naked quark" has never been detected. But the behavior of matter in particle accelerators provides indirect evidence that quarks must exist...otherwise, that behavior is simply inexplicable.

If "dialectics" was truly a useful "method of inquiry", then there ought to be at least some kind of indirect material evidence that "dialectical contradictions" really "exist"...as a "force", a "field", something.

And there's nothing...except, of course, words.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:57 PM
But the behavior of matter in particle accelerators provides indirect evidence that quarks must exist...otherwise, that behavior is simply inexplicable.
More accurately, quarks are the best explanation so far for the observed behavior of matter. The theory that includes quarks is the best predictor of experimental results.

As I said in my earlier post - right after the part you quoted - "The question is, the results."

[red_che]

A "dialectical contradiction" is proposed as a property of matter...it's supposed to be "something" that "everything has."

Well, if "everything has one", where is it?

When an egg is incubated (incubated by the mother chicken or placed in a mechanical incubator) it will hatch and there a chick is produced. Why was it so?

Because of the dialectical contradiction that is within it. The chemical reactions inside the egg plus the outside factor, the heat. That is the dialectical relationship of things. That is the dialectical contradiction.

In social conditions, dialectical contradiction is that contradiction arising between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble.

Dialectics is a scientific method of analysing contradictions or the relationship between and among things. As Marx puts it, dialectics is the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought.

[Connolly]

I wouldnt like to take a particular side on this matter yet, but simply to understand both sides of the argument first.


In social conditions, dialectical contradiction is that contradiction arising between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble.

Yes, but, as mentioned many a time, notably in Rosa's Essay's, this is a priori. It has been imposed on nature (and I must say, in this and other examples, it seems to fit in quite nicely)

Sorry to repeat some of Rosa's arguments here, but,

Where is the PROOF though? - scientific proof that contradictions, and contradictions alone are the driving force of progression, universally.

How do we know matter is unchanging, when all we have to go on is our narrow understanding of the universe?

Wild claims and generalisations have been made by dialecticians about "matter in motion", when they are neither qualified to make those claims, or have insufficient universal evidence to make "whopper" generalisations.


Those in opposition to dialectics, it seems (including me), are not saying that dialectics are true or false - but simply - to understand it, and, if not scientific as claimed, reject it. Our understanding cannot progress if we do not question everything - those who question are "Petty-bourgeoisie" according to some.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
When an egg is incubated (incubated by the mother chicken or placed in a mechanical incubator) it will hatch and there a chick is produced. Why was it so?

Because of the dialectical contradiction that is within it. The chemical reactions inside the egg plus the outside factor, the heat. That is the dialectical relationship of things. That is the dialectical contradiction.

External heat source vs. internal chemical reactions = "dialectical contradiction", right?

In what sense does an external heat source "contradict" a chemical reaction?

The chemical reactions associated with terrestrial carbon-based life forms generally speed up with the application of heat.

When you say that such-and-such natural phenomenon "contradicts" such-and-such other natural phenomenon, all you are doing is pasting a couple of labels on these phenomena and then asserting that the labels "contradict" each other.

Some other "dialectician" could make up a different set of labels...and how would we ordinary mortals be able to distinguish the "correct dialectic" from the "incorrect dialectic"?

Moreover, you don't need a "dialectical explanation" for why an egg plus heat gives rise to a chicken. We've known for a long time now that chickens, like all living organisms, derive from DNA...they are "built" from a "plan".


In social conditions, dialectical contradiction is that contradiction arising between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble.

Certainly the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are two classes with conflicting interests.

That's something that could be shown by simple observation...you don't need any "dialectical" assumptions to observe that plain fact.

What then is gained by pasting the label "dialectical contradiction" on the phenomenon?


As Marx puts it, dialectics is the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought.

Yes, he said that...but he was wrong. There does not appear to be any such thing as "general laws of motion" that "apply to everything"...although there do seem to be "laws of motion" for specific phenomena under specific conditions.

Those "laws" are all different from each other.

And none of them come with neatly printed "dialectical" labels attached.

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

[ComradeRed]

First off, let me just say certain parts may be too unavoidably technical (largely the sections dealing with physics), and I'm sorry if that confuses some.



Well, that's fine. But just saying so ain't doing it. Do you have some quantitative analysis to show us?
What sort would you like? I'm working on a fine piece proving the labor theory of value correct, lemme finish it and link it here.



And frankly, "fending off bourgeois criticisms" is not the most important thing to do in Marxist theory. Arguing with Dr. Pangloss, who is paid to say everything is for the best under the best of all possible systems...

Marxist theory should be improved in order to help us figure out how to change the world. Changes made under pressure of "bourgeois criticism", i.e. under the pressure of hostile class forces, are unlikely to be changes for the better. How do you expect these changes to happen when these "Ph,D."s of economics are telling people what is "scientifically sound"?

I'm not saying we should debate rightists...what I am saying is that if we do what we have been doing, communism will look worse and worse as time progresses. This is very bad.

Since communists are seeking the emancipation of the working classes by the workers themselves, it would be in the best interest of not only ourselves but the workers if we present a sound paradigm (in the Kuhnian sense of the word).

The dialectical way of thinking has caused more problems than it has solved; and hasn't really proven itself useful (despite the wishes of Communist League and other Leninists). I've frequently asked to see dialectics solve a geometry problem (something that "metaphysical logic" does easily), yet this is an impossible task! For a "logical method" it sure fails to do logical tasks.



How [is there an antinomy between math and dialectics]?
Simple, we're given the definition of dialectics (via Lenin in his Philosophical notebooks (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/subject/philosophy/index.htm), more specifically here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/summary.htm)) as: 1) The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be considered in its relations and in its development]; 2) the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon; 3) the union of analysis and synthesis. Such apparently are the elements of dialectics.

I define abstract algebra (as opposed to elementary algebra, which is "y=mx+b") as the field of mathematics concerned with determining, analysing, and creating algebraic structures (such as fields, groups, etc.).

That is, admitedly, a "pure" mathematical construct and "thus" "a priori" (just as dialectics fashioned by Hegel are an "a priori" means of "apprehending" reality).

I also define category theory as the math concerned with mathematical structures and the relationships between them. Thus category theory is thought of as "applied abstract algebra through graphs".

Categories is used (as I said) as an extension of graph theory in the sense that it creates structures, it analyses structures, and it "determines" structures. This is directly contrary to Lenin's definition of dialectics.


From the rest of your post, you seem to be challenging Popper's definition. I'm not married to that definition, though I think it has its uses...I brought it up because it is the most commonly used current definition of science. And Redstar seems to be using it. Redstar seems to use the following definition:

[Scientific Logic is] That stuff that ordinary scientists (and people who share their methodology) "do".

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

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

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

But we can't take this as his definition of science (he'll have to define science for us to think of it as his definition rather than our extrapulation thereof).

Regardless, this is science. All my examples in theoretical physics are dealing with the last most example within his definition of scientific logic; math seems to follow that as well.



Yes, a minor one. If materialism alone made something a science, then dialectical materialism would be one. If we ignore the inconsistency of an empirically "a priori" method, then yeah dialectical materialism "would" be one; however, since there is no way of making dialectics a science via that definition without creating an inconisistent method that would then be infinitely inferior to everything else.

Remember, from an inconsistency anything can be withdrawn as true, which is why everything else would be a better method (and dialectical materialism both agrees and disagrees with that analysis).



Potentially there are experiments that would verify or disprove string theory. The theory has just run far ahead of experimental technique. I'm currently partway through "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene where he makes this point in response to some physicists who question whether string theory is science. I'm giving you fair warning now that I am a physicist that dislikes string theory, and the following may confuse some.

Now the ultimate proof of string theory is irrelevant. The axioms used in deducing the consequences of string theory (viz. the absurd number of dimensions) is unjustified and all implications thereof are also unjustified.

If we compare string theory to something else, say Loop Quantum gravity or canonical gravity, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. For one thing, string theory is background dependent (which contradicts Einstein's general relativity; which incidently has empirical evidence supporting it).

For another, there are no testable predictions with it. There is no way to tell if it is correct besides checking the math, method, and assumptions. From that perspective, it remains wrong with its burden to prove the existence of however many dimensions they claim existing.

Further, it predicts the existence of fictional particles (gravitino?); and superstring theory (and all these "new" string theories like M-theory or F-theory, "f" for failure) have done even worse! There is no justification for their absurd assumptions!



The more esoteric physics theories must ultimately stand or fall on repeatable observation and experiment, not merely the elegance of their math. Whether string theory is science, will depend on whether it is capable of re-grounding itself in experiment and observation. Not true; if we check the premises and we check the steps, then verify the outcome via the steps, we can conclude whether a theory is scientific or not.

We can conclude string theory is unscientific based on the unsound math and premises. That is a powerful indicator that it is unscientific.

But this surely is too reliant on "a priori" math, right? Where does math come from? It simply falls from the sky? No, the need for math comes from reality. Geometry was created by Ancient Greek and Egyptian mathematicians who needed to measure land; arithmetic came from the exchange of currency and goods; algebra comes from the the extension of arithmetic (viz. in China, as part of trade); and so on. Historical materialism works on all things.

Math is derived from this material need. Some, like mathematical logic, has been done to mirror the material conditions (viz. the latter part of the Enlightenment, and then the death of idealistic Romanticism).

How is this not a science? THere was a problem and solutions were given based on observation.


Math, however, does not check its conclusions by experiment. It is a priori regardless of where the priori come from. Not necessarily true. Remember that a science has its experiments verified empirically (as you suggested)?

If I measure out x yards, then construct a square, how much area does that square have?

We can verify the answer, we can check it empirically. It passes, by the given definition of science, as a science.


Einstein showed that Euclidean geometry is not actually true in the material universe, remember? But I still learned it in school, and not as a disproved obsolete theory. Well, there is some contest over that proposition. There is something called Euclidean Quantum Gravity, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_quantum_gravity) Euclid may have been onto something here.

On another hand, using Regge calculus with quantized spacetime (that is, there are spacetime "particles"), Euclid is correct: on an infinitesmal surface of the order of 10^-33 centimeters, Euclidean geometry is correct.

It is a highly contestable assertion whether Euclidean Geometry is "falsified" yet or not.


The question is, can you do a quantitative analysis of the real world that lets you do better analyses and predictions than others can? So you want me to compete with bourgeois economists in making predictions using math?


Well, dialecticians may "oppose" it, but they can't stop you from doing it. If you do it, and apply it to the real world, and come up with better analyses and predictions than anyone else, then you'll have something.

'Til then, all you have is a rhetoric about how great it would be if you could do that. I agree...it would be great. Not necessarily. My logic is quite simple: dialectics as a method hasn't been verified as a good or proper (i.e. working) method. Rather than waste productive energy on proving such an impossible thing, why not use it to study math?

But "rhetoric" doesn't describe what math does (in the applied sense of the word)...at least in comparison to the deeds of dialectics.

Look, if we were to compare the two methods, we have to take into account the following: Verifiability by others working with the method
Accuracy of the method
Precision of the method and its predictions
Demonstrating each step of the implemented method
And so on.

Dialectics has trouble with a great deal (I would daresay all) of these. This leads me to conclude that it is a poor method.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Banner, keep an eye on my site.

In one of the Essays I will be posting in the next few months you will find a comprehensive disproof of the mystical idea that things (like eggs, for goodness sake!) change because of 'internal contradictions' (presumably in this case it is "chicken and not chicken", or is it "egg and not egg" that produces the chick?).

On the basis of such trite mis-observations the 'impressive' science of dialectics is raised; so now everything in the universe changes because of 'internal contradictions' (more a priori superscience here!), which means that nothing changes because of the influence of outside forces.

So, if someone throws a brick at a window, the window does not break because of the brick, but because of the internal contradictions in the glass.

Hence, if a policeman clubs you over the head, it is not the policeman who should be arrested, but your head for bruising itself!

No wonder workers ignore Marxism with brilliant logic like this!

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Axel1917]

From redstar2000:


In social conditions, dialectical contradiction is that contradiction arising between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble.


Certainly the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are two classes with conflicting interests.

That's something that could be shown by simple observation...you don't need any "dialectical" assumptions to observe that plain fact.

What then is gained by pasting the label "dialectical contradiction" on the phenomenon?

This "simple observation" of the class contradictions is a simple example of dialectics! Some of the most basic dialectial phenomena happen to be simply observed! This phenomenon deserves to be called what it really is, a dialectical contradiction. It is, of course, in this form, a very simple one that is easily observed.

Also, dialectics does not negate Formal Logic, i.e. common sense. It merely supplements it when Formal Logic happens to break down, and therefore becomes helpless to describe certain phenomena. A main flaw of some anti-dialecticians is that they incorrectly assert that dialectics and Formal Logic cannot exist together in our world.

[Red Powers]

Axel 1917 I think you've really misread Redstar's post.

From Red Che

In social conditions, dialectical contradiction is that contradiction arising between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble.


Redstar's answer

Certainly the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are two classes with conflicting interests.

That's something that could be shown by simple observation...you don't need any "dialectical" assumptions to observe that plain fact.

What then is gained by pasting the label "dialectical contradiction" on the phenomenon?

He's right you don't need dialectics to observe the simple fact of two classes with conflicting interests.

Red Che says "If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble." I would suggest that he is in big trouble because he has never seen a contradiction either. What does one look like? Where do I look for it?

Your "simple observation" is not so simple. Redstar talks of observing a simple fact, you translate it into "simple observation of class contradictions," not the same thing at all.

The longer this discussion goes on the stronger Redstar's take on it seems to me. The arguments for dialectics have been mostly arguments from authority. Or arguments about what happens to people who don't uphold dialectics ie they will be laughed at by serious Marxists, they will end up as Burnhamites, or they are already petite bourgeois ideologues. Nobody has explained what I need dialectics for in a convincing manner.

[red_che]

Red Powers:
Red Che says "If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble." I would suggest that he is in big trouble because he has never seen a contradiction either. What does one look like? Where do I look for it?

If you can see logic in flesh, then I would praise you the same way Christians and Catholics praise Jesus. Much more, if you can show me a body/flesh or whatever kind of solid matter of logic, then I would gladly kiss your ass, the same way slaves kiss the asses of their masters.

Dialectics is a method of analysis, a method for analysing how things or contradictions happen and how changes/developments can be done, don't you understand that? :angry:


External heat source vs. internal chemical reactions = "dialectical contradiction", right?

No, the method of analysing how such occurrence is dialectical materialism. :)

And how contradictions in societies happen and why and how to effect changes in society is dialectical materialism.

And how to have a concrete grasp of social conditions is dialectical materialism.

And how Marxism became Marxism is dialectical materialism....

Got that? ;)

[Red Powers]

Yes, I understand it. Am I still in big trouble if I can't "see" the contradiction?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11 2006, 03:46 AM
Axel 1917 I think you've really misread Redstar's post.

From Red Che

In social conditions, dialectical contradiction is that contradiction arising between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble.


Redstar's answer

Certainly the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are two classes with conflicting interests.

That's something that could be shown by simple observation...you don't need any "dialectical" assumptions to observe that plain fact.

What then is gained by pasting the label "dialectical contradiction" on the phenomenon?

He's right you don't need dialectics to observe the simple fact of two classes with conflicting interests.

Red Che says "If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble." I would suggest that he is in big trouble because he has never seen a contradiction either. What does one look like? Where do I look for it?

Your "simple observation" is not so simple. Redstar talks of observing a simple fact, you translate it into "simple observation of class contradictions," not the same thing at all.

The longer this discussion goes on the stronger Redstar's take on it seems to me. The arguments for dialectics have been mostly arguments from authority. Or arguments about what happens to people who don't uphold dialectics ie they will be laughed at by serious Marxists, they will end up as Burnhamites, or they are already petite bourgeois ideologues. Nobody has explained what I need dialectics for in a convincing manner.
I like how people tend to ignore evidence when I bring it to the table, as Redstar has done repeatedly, proving himself to be a dogmatist. Even if it is simply observed, it does not change the fact that it is a dialectical phenomenon that has been observed!

[Red Powers]

Axel 1917 is this the "evidence" I'm ignoring,


This "simple observation" of the class contradictions is a simple example of dialectics! Some of the most basic dialectial phenomena happen to be simply observed! This phenomenon deserves to be called what it really is, a dialectical contradiction. It is, of course, in this form, a very simple one that is easily observed.

because, to my thinking these are just general assertions they don't really have value as evidence. And further, I'm beginning to have problems with all the visual metaphors -- "see" the contradiction, simply "observe" the class contradiction, easily observed etc. I know this is the way we talk about abstractions but I feel it imparts a materiality to contradictions and dialectics that can be quite misleading.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:38 AM
Even if it is simply observed, it does not change the fact that it is a dialectical phenomenon that has been observed!
Why is it dialectical? How could we tell the difference between something that's dialectical and something that's not dialectical? What falsifiable predictions has dialectics made? Has any of them come true?

[red_che]

because, to my thinking these are just general assertions they don't really have value as evidence. And further, I'm beginning to have problems with all the visual metaphors -- "see" the contradiction, simply "observe" the class contradiction, easily observed etc. I know this is the way we talk about abstractions but I feel it imparts a materiality to contradictions and dialectics that can be quite misleading.

You will really have problem with visual metaphors if you keep insisting on looking for material or solid form of dialectics, contradictions, or whatever that is you're looking for.

Don't let yourself to be dragged onto the proposition that there must be first a solid form of dialectics before you believe on it. Because dialectics is a method, as I have been saying here.


Why is it dialectical?

Because it studies the contradictions.


How could we tell the difference between something that's dialectical and something that's not dialectical?

When some analysis/theories deny the existence of contradiction and instead puts forward the thought that this thing happened because it happened and did not look into the matters and circumstances surrounding it, that is not dialectical.


What falsifiable predictions has dialectics made?

Dialectics never predicts, it puts hypothesis based on the outcome of a contradiction.


Has any of them come true?

Dialectics never predicts, as I have said.

Communism isn't even a prediction. It is an inevitable outcome of a class-based society.

[Connolly]

Red Banner, keep an eye on my site.

In one of the Essays I will be posting in the next few months you will find a comprehensive disproof of the mystical idea that things (like eggs, for goodness sake!) change because of 'internal contradictions' (presumably in this case it is "chicken and not chicken", or is it "egg and not egg" that produces the chick?).

You can count on it.

Very good work, and im looking forward to your remaining essays.

Although, I would like to see those more "qualified" philosophically than myself, using quotes from your essays, in an attempt to argue against the points you raise.

The best comment I have seen so far has been "your essays dont impress me".

As if that is an argument.!!

Maybe they just couldnt be bothered reading your essays - it might shake what they held so dearly as "gospel".

TRB

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 06:57 PM

The question is, can you do a quantitative analysis of the real world that lets you do better analyses and predictions than others can? So you want me to compete with bourgeois economists in making predictions using math?
Not a bad idea, if you can do it. If somebody does succeed in making a social theory that's scientific in the same sense as the physical sciences, certainly they would be able to do that, and beat the bourgeois economists and other social "scientists" in an empirical way.

But you missed my point, along with all the other points I was making.

What I meant is: compete with those who use dialectical materialism at analyzing social and political events, and predicting them....as a tool for fighting to change the world.

That is what Marxism's for, after all.

Redstar at least tries to analyze the world and make proposals for changing it; but not so successfully IMO. See numerous threads in the Politics and History forums where Redstar and I have debated numerous topics, each of us using...rather different logical methods.

Looking over your posts, you don't much seem to try, even. You make posts about dialectics, about theory in the most abstract way, but not about the material world.

And now we've got "Rosa Lichtenstein", who according to her website is writing a book against dialectics. How is she at analyzing social phenomena, and figuring out how to change society?


Dialectical Materialism (DM) has been the official philosophy of Marxism for over a hundred years. During that time, Revolutionary Socialism has enjoyed spectacular lack of success. Given that dialecticians assure us that truth is tested in practice, this can only mean that DM has been tested and found badly wanting.

How d'you like that syllogism? Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. It might not be a bad idea to master formal logic at least before setting out to destroy dialectics.

(Leaving aside the highly debatable premise that "During that time, Revolutionary Socialism has enjoyed spectacular lack of success." It's true that Utopia has not arrived; but in terms of the living class struggle, considerable advances have been made, in a "two steps forward, one step back" kinda way.)

But that's all minor, really.

The main problem is that historical materialism has clearly been thrown out along with dialectics, when it comes to analyzing cases. Hm. Redstar does that too, though usually not so blatantly.

In this case: the cause of a major social event - the survival so far of capitalism as a world-dominating system - is....bad philosophy! Doesn't get much more idealist than that.

As for the next step, acting on that analysis....as has been pointed out, there's no political group claiming to be Marxist which is explicitly anti-dialectical. Contrary to Redstar's expressed hope, that's not because it doesn't "yet" exist....since at least the 30s, various "Marxist" thinkers have been throwing dialectics overboard...preparatory to ditching any pretense of any kind of Marxism or communism.

Not sure which way the causation runs, though. Miles might be wrong when he implies that ditching dialectics led Eastman, Burnham and others to reactionary political conclusions....it mighta been more of an early symptom of the direction somebody's headed for other reasons.

***

Marxist theory, and Marxism's philosophical method, are certainly not perfect. I fully expect that they will someday be replaced by a more accurate view of social reality.

But meanwhile, the world goes on turning, and politics goes on happening. We need a tool for understanding and responding to events, so we can think, speak, and act in politics today.

If you're going to propose discarding dialectics, you need to show - by example - that your method enables us to do these things better.

I'm certainly not going to throw away an imperfect tool because a New and Improved Version is advertised to go on sale Real! Soon! Now!

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 12 2006, 03:22 AM
The best comment I have seen so far has been "your essays dont impress me".

As if that is an argument!!

Maybe they just couldnt be bothered reading your essays - it might shake what they held so dearly as "gospel".

That was my comment, and I stand by it. I read all of Rosa's turgid tome. It doesn't impress me because anyone, including me, can both pick on the weakest explanations of dialectics and set up easily-defeated strawmen. And the fact that this is the best that the Three Stooges (RedStar2000, Rosa Lichtenstein, Comrade Red) can come up with speaks volumes.

Miles

P.S.: I'm still waiting on the reply to my last set of comments to you in this thread, RedStar.

[Connolly]

That was my comment, and I stand by it. I read all of Rosa's turgid tome. It doesn't impress me because anyone, including me, can both pick on the weakest explanations of dialectics and set up easily-defeated strawmen. And the fact that this is the best that the Three Stooges (RedStar2000, Rosa Lichtenstein, Comrade Red) can come up with speaks volumes.

Miles

P.S.: I'm still waiting on the reply to my last set of comments to you in this thread, RedStar.

Understandably you may be busy, but, why not extract some quotes from Rosa's essays and hammer them for all to see, if you find the weakest elements of her arguments.

To make remarks about her essays, and not actually quote and give explainations as to why you disagree is not an argument.

And truly, from a person who would not like to take a definite position on dialectics yet, I see the pro dialectic camp as giving very weak arguments. It is, for the pro dialectic camp, to prove that their theory is right - if they cannot prove it is right, it can be rejected - without a necessary replacement.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Miles+--> (Miles)I'm still waiting on the reply to my last set of comments to you in this thread, RedStar.[/b]

Aside from your sputtering outrage and some rather obscure references to groups in New Orleans in the 70s, this was the last thing you had to say to me...


Miles
The only thing that's keeping you in this "fight" is the fact that I do not have enough time at the moment to write the response that is required.

So write it and I'll respond to it.


In passing, I'll just let you know that I pretty much abandoned Maoism -- and all forms of Leninism -- during the year 1970. I was never a member of the "New Orleans Maoist Collective".

I did "flirt" with IS for a few months.

But you know how it goes when you're "dancing with Trotskyists". :lol:

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

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 12 2006, 03:41 AM
Axel 1917 is this the "evidence" I'm ignoring,


This "simple observation" of the class contradictions is a simple example of dialectics! Some of the most basic dialectial phenomena happen to be simply observed! This phenomenon deserves to be called what it really is, a dialectical contradiction. It is, of course, in this form, a very simple one that is easily observed.

because, to my thinking these are just general assertions they don't really have value as evidence. And further, I'm beginning to have problems with all the visual metaphors -- "see" the contradiction, simply "observe" the class contradiction, easily observed etc. I know this is the way we talk about abstractions but I feel it imparts a materiality to contradictions and dialectics that can be quite misleading.
The evidence I was citing can be found at http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp

[Red Powers]

Alright the following is taken from the website you cite, the section on quantity into quality


from Axel 1917's link

The transformation of quantity into quality was already known to the Megaran Greeks, who used it to demonstrate certain paradoxes, sometimes in the form of jokes. For example, the "bald head" and the "heap of grain"—does one hair less mean a bald head, or one grain of corn a heap? The answer is no. Nor one more? The answer is still no. The question is then repeated until there is a heap of corn and a bald head. We are faced with the contradiction that the individual small changes, which are powerless to effect a qualitative change, at a certain point do exactly that: quantity changes into quality.

Rather than evidence of the law of quantity into quality, this seems more like evidence that we can fool ourselves with words. When a head becomes bald is an entirely subjective matter. Was Lenin bald? Did he think so? When my brother was going bald he was quite reluctant to admit it. What about a combover, is the guy still bald? It's a gradual process -- "I'm losing my hair," "I'm going bald," "I'm bald." And is baldness really a "quality" of the head? It's really only the appearence that changes isn't it?

The thing with the grain seems even stranger to me. I don't see any change in "quality" whatsoever. This appears to be a case of quantity into quantity. We just use different words for different quantities -- a few, some, many, lots, a pile, a heap(I don't even know if a heap or a pile is bigger). Yes the pile has grown large enough to be called a heap but what has changed qualitatively?

Now, if you are looking for examples of quantity into quality these might fit the bill, but is that what is really happening when someone looses their hair or grain is gathered into heaps?

[red_che]

Redstar, I am waiting for your reply to my last comments on your post in this thread. I will be very happy if you respond. :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Redstar, I am waiting for your reply to my last comments on your post in this thread.

And I'm waiting for the defenders of "dialectics" to at least say something interesting.

Not like this...


And how contradictions in societies happen and why and how to effect changes in society is dialectical materialism.

And how to have a concrete grasp of social conditions is dialectical materialism.

And how Marxism became Marxism is dialectical materialism....

How is one supposed to respond to this list of sheer assertions?

They all translate into: label is label or word is word.

You might say, with equal certainty, that "the communion wafer is the Body of Christ".

Except that assertion could be and has been disproved.

Your assertions just hang up in the air...with total disdain for anything so grubby as actual usefulness down here on Earth.

You claim that you want to "change the world"...but how can you possibly do that when your method of "understanding the world" is hopelessly metaphysical?

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

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Severian
What I meant is: compete with those who use dialectical materialism at analyzing social and political events, and predicting them....as a tool for fighting to change the world. Well, the problem I have with this (and it is a minor one) is that if we are to compare the predictions of the two side by side, the mathematician can show each step and justify it via theorems and axioms. The dialectician doesn't have this constraint, and upon an error can reply "That was only practice!"

For an analogy to physics, it is sort of like Gravity prob B. It is in an orbit around the Earth where it can tell whether all acceleration is caused by gravity or not (that is, it tests Einstein's equivalence principle). It does this with extremely delicate gyros.

Well, if the data returned tells us that Einstein is wrong, scientists will say "We must have made a mistake, and Einstein's still correct." On the other hand, if it confirms Einstein's hypothesis, scientists will say "Woopdy-do, let's move on."

That is why I suggested that dialectics should do something as primitive as perform a geometric proof. It would be a sort of Litmus test to indicate the effeciency of the two methods; better, it could help one analyze the method used so one can verify the results.

With something as wily as social reality, that would be impossible to verify whether it was the method or a lucky guess. It is uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

One of my concerns though is that a mathematical criticism of dialectics would be neither understood nor appreciated, thus defeating the entire purpose. It is something that I have been working on, regardless, and I'll try to finish it up as soon as possible.

Further there is no coherent definition or example of dialectics...making it rather difficult to critize. I've picked up a book by C.L.R. James though I doubt this would help; so this is the only problem slowing down my criticisms.

[red_che]

How is one supposed to respond to this list of sheer assertions?

They all translate into: label is label or word is word.

Or maybe, you simply can't respond. :lol:


You claim that you want to "change the world"...but how can you possibly do that when your method of "understanding the world" is hopelessly metaphysical?

I get bored with these kinds of responses.

An assertion which is vague. And to get away with the topic and make a graceful excuse just so it won't be obvious that he can't give a better argument.

Can you come up with a better comment instead? ;)

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13 2006, 03:16 AM
Alright the following is taken from the website you cite, the section on quantity into quality


from Axel 1917's link

The transformation of quantity into quality was already known to the Megaran Greeks, who used it to demonstrate certain paradoxes, sometimes in the form of jokes. For example, the "bald head" and the "heap of grain"—does one hair less mean a bald head, or one grain of corn a heap? The answer is no. Nor one more? The answer is still no. The question is then repeated until there is a heap of corn and a bald head. We are faced with the contradiction that the individual small changes, which are powerless to effect a qualitative change, at a certain point do exactly that: quantity changes into quality.

Rather than evidence of the law of quantity into quality, this seems more like evidence that we can fool ourselves with words. When a head becomes bald is an entirely subjective matter. Was Lenin bald? Did he think so? When my brother was going bald he was quite reluctant to admit it. What about a combover, is the guy still bald? It's a gradual process -- "I'm losing my hair," "I'm going bald," "I'm bald." And is baldness really a "quality" of the head? It's really only the appearence that changes isn't it?

The thing with the grain seems even stranger to me. I don't see any change in "quality" whatsoever. This appears to be a case of quantity into quantity. We just use different words for different quantities -- a few, some, many, lots, a pile, a heap(I don't even know if a heap or a pile is bigger). Yes the pile has grown large enough to be called a heap but what has changed qualitatively?

Now, if you are looking for examples of quantity into quality these might fit the bill, but is that what is really happening when someone looses their hair or grain is gathered into heaps?
I believe by bald that it was generally meant to have no hair at all.

Quality changes in the grain too: a gradual change of grains will trasnform it, say from a small pile of grain, to a heap of it.

Cooling water will also do as such; it does not gradually cool into a gel, and then as a solid, as Hegel pointed out. It reaches a sudden, critical state, in which it is suddenly transformed into ice from a gradual loss of heat.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
I get bored with these kinds of responses.

Do you imagine I don't?

I would be delighted if the "dialecticians" would respond to my criticisms with something besides platitudes, assertions, and a fog of verbiage.

But that seems to be "the best you can do".

And, in fact, that demonstrates even better than my criticisms the total uselessness of "dialectics". You really can't say anything coherent on the subject...because "dialectics" is intrinsically incoherent.

Dialectics means whatever I want it to mean and it says whatever I want it to say.

Do you imagine that modern revolutionaries are going to eat that shit???

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

[ComradeRed]

For the dialecticians in the room...

A Mathematical Critique of Dialectics (pdf) (http://www.nrg.to/crr/dialectics.pdf)

Please right click and select "save as..." then download it :)

I'll post a revised/updated/elucidated version later.

[Red Powers]

from Axel 1917

I believe by bald that it was generally meant to have no hair at all.

Quality changes in the grain too: a gradual change of grains will trasnform it, say from a small pile of grain, to a heap of it.

Cooling water will also do as such; it does not gradually cool into a gel, and then as a solid, as Hegel pointed out. It reaches a sudden, critical state, in which it is suddenly transformed into ice from a gradual loss of heat.


I thought for sure that you would back up off of these, blame them on the Greeks or something. But no, you're charging ahead with them.

So let me ask, what's the "qualitative" difference between a head with no hair and a head with one hair? Besides the label "bald" which you misapply anyway. Lenin was bald, so's my brother.


With the grain I think you've gone completely off the rails. Let me translate what you've written above -- the addition of grains to a pile (or a heap) will make it bigger. Do we need dialectics for that? Nothing about the grains' "quality" changes. I don't think anybody (even you) really believes that adding a bushel to a pile(or a heap) of grain does anything but make it bigger, which is a quantitative change by definition.


As far as the water goes there are qualitative differences there, but the water undergoes no quantitative change. And the heat which is the quantitative element remains qualitatively uniform throughout the process.


So you see, this doesn't really count as evidence of a law of quantity into quality. It's mostly pasting labels (bald, pile, heap) on a process and then claiming a "transformation" nothing more.

[Red Powers]

from Red Che (emphasis added)

If you can't see that contradiction, then you really are in big trouble.


from Red Powers


because, to my thinking these are just general assertions they don't really have value as evidence. And further, I'm beginning to have problems with all the visual metaphors -- "see" the contradiction, simply "observe" the class contradiction, easily observed etc. I know this is the way we talk about abstractions but I feel it imparts a materiality to contradictions and dialectics that can be quite misleading.

from Red Che
You will really have problem with visual metaphors if you keep insisting on looking for material or solid form of dialectics, contradictions, or whatever that is you're looking for.

Don't let yourself to be dragged onto the proposition that there must be first a solid form of dialectics before you believe on it. Because dialectics is a method, as I have been saying here.


Well Red Che which is it? Am I in big trouble if I don't see that contradiction or not. The truth is I'm not looking for a solid form of dialectics but I think that your use of visual metaphors is problematic. You know I can simply observe the tree in my backyard. Not so with a class contradiction. First I have to abstract the concept of class from the people that compose it, then I have to observe the facts that demonstrate opposing class interests, and then I can, perhaps, talk about class contradictions.

But you seem to think that the contradiction exists "out there" and is plainly visible for all to see.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 14 2006, 03:33 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 14 2006, 03:33 AM)
Axel1917
I get bored with these kinds of responses.

Do you imagine I don't?

I would be delighted if the "dialecticians" would respond to my criticisms with something besides platitudes, assertions, and a fog of verbiage.

But that seems to be "the best you can do".

And, in fact, that demonstrates even better than my criticisms the total uselessness of "dialectics". You really can't say anything coherent on the subject...because "dialectics" is intrinsically incoherent.

Dialectics means whatever I want it to mean and it says whatever I want it to say.

Do you imagine that modern revolutionaries are going to eat that shit???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I am short on time. I don't have time to post hundreds of posts. Why don't you read that online book I posted? I like you claim that we offer nothing to prove our arguments, yet whenver we actually make a citation, you simply brush it aside and continue ranting!


From Red Powers:


I thought for sure that you would back up off of these, blame them on the Greeks or something. But no, you're charging ahead with them.

So let me ask, what's the "qualitative" difference between a head with no hair and a head with one hair? Besides the label "bald" which you misapply anyway. Lenin was bald, so's my brother.

The difference is the having of a full head of hair or not having that full head, in the definition of baldness. It is a different state of things, as liquid water and frozen water are. The workers consciousness changes qualities when so many hardships have accumulated, providing a sudden leap (i.e., from protesting to revolution).



With the grain I think you've gone completely off the rails. Let me translate what you've written above -- the addition of grains to a pile (or a heap) will make it bigger. Do we need dialectics for that? Nothing about the grains' "quality" changes. I don't think anybody (even you) really believes that adding a bushel to a pile(or a heap) of grain does anything but make it bigger, which is a quantitative change by definition.

It slowly gets bigger until it suddenlly meets the criteria to be a pile or heap of grain. You need to do more reading, preferably the whole book.


As far as the water goes there are qualitative differences there, but the water undergoes no quantitative change. And the heat which is the quantitative element remains qualitatively uniform throughout the process.

The quantitative change would be the temperature of the water, measured in degrees.



So you see, this doesn't really count as evidence of a law of quantity into quality. It's mostly pasting labels (bald, pile, heap) on a process and then claiming a "transformation" nothing more.


Not at all. I would recommend more reading for you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Severian, you pull out a quote from my opening page and accuse me of confusing correlation with causation.

You neglected to note that I also point out that dialecticians like you constantly tell us that your theory has been tested in practice; if so, and if revolutionary Marxism is a huge failure (which it is), then the inevitable conclusion is that dialectics has been tested, and has failed.

3 billion workers cannot be wrong. Marxism is not seizing the masses.

Now, in a later essay I will show there is a causal link here. Perhaps you cannot wait; well I address this in the introductory page. If you can follow the argument (you might need to concentrate though, think you can do that?) there you will see an outline of what I will endeavour to prove later.

In the meantime I am happy to continue to trash your precious dialectics in a way it has never been trashed before. If you do not believe me -- well, I should worry.

Not even you (or perhaps I judge you too leniently?) will expect me to prove everything in one paragraph. Perhaps Marx should have condensed Capital down to a few one-liners in your concise universe?

I also said that it would be an insult to comrades if I attempted to trash dialectics in a page or two; but you object that I failed to do it in one paragraph!

Now I do not mind if philosophical light-weights like you (you even confuse a paragraph of mine with a syllogism, for goodness sake - that shows you have not even read Aristotle!!) -- philosophical light-weights like you ignore what I have to say. If you can’t understand a complex argument, or cannot construct one in response, that, sonny, is your problem. Only, leave the real philosophy to us grown-ups.

In which case, do me a favour: please do not read a single thing I have posted at my site from today onward. Once more: as I note on page one, I do not want to engage the minds of philosophical clowns like you.

And put that head of yours back in the sand. The material world is too scary for you dialecticians; that’s why you have to make stuff up.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Red Powers]

Axel, Axel Axel,




The difference is the having of a full head of hair or not having that full head, in the definition of baldness.

What is the definition of baldness? You said it was no hair at all. OK fine. Now what is the "qualitative" difference between a bald head and one with a single hair? Your definition of "quality" already incorporates a quantitative measure (no hair) how can it be a demonstration of quantity into quality



It is a different state of things, as liquid water and frozen water are. The workers consciousness changes qualities when so many hardships have accumulated, providing a sudden leap (i.e., from protesting to revolution).

No it's not. A bald head has less hair this is purely a quantitative measure. And if you can't understand this there is absolutely no way I'm buying your pronouncements on workers' consciousness.



It slowly gets bigger until it suddenlly meets the criteria to be a pile or heap of grain. You need to do more reading, preferably the whole book.


I do need to do more reading but I'll pass on that particular book. You, however, need to read more carefully and maybe try some thinking along with it.

Let me ask you, what is the criteria to be a heap or a pile of grain? Is it the number of grains, the weight or the volume? If it is any of these you've again defined your "qualitative" change in terms of quantity and you're just fooling yourself. Do you have some other criteria?



And finally,
The quantitative change would be the temperature of the water, measured in degrees.

No, I would contend that in a common sense reading, whether water is cold or hot is a "quality" of the water. After all you can have a gallon of cold water and a gallon of hot water -- same quantity but with a qualitative difference.

What I was getting at is that in the classic example of melting ice the quantity of H2O ice-water-steam never changes so it is unlike the example of a bald head or a pile of grain.

If these were all demonstrations of the same law then larger or smaller quantities of ice would melt just as larger or smaller quantities of hair and grain "transform" heads and heaps. But it doesn't work that way does it?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16 2006, 06:46 PM
Severian, you pull out a quote from my opening page and accuse me of confusing correlation with causation.

You neglected to note that I also point out that dialecticians like you constantly tell us that your theory has been tested in practice; if so, and if revolutionary Marxism is a huge failure (which it is), then the inevitable conclusion is that dialectics has been tested, and has failed.
Why stop with philosophy? That would make more sense as a reason for abandoning the political program of revolutionary Marxism, if you've concluded that revolutonary Marxism is a failure. Why continue (falsely) claiming to be a Marxist?

All you can reasonably demand of a method of logic, like dialectics, is that it produce good analyses, not that it magically change the course of world history. (Those analyses, in turn, are a tool for changing the world, of course.)

All I ask of your method is that it produce better analyses and predictions that dialectics....something you've declined to give examples of. I don't ask you change the world in order to prove your logical method is better.


3 billion workers cannot be wrong.

Another well-known logical fallacy - the argument from numbers. How can you read so much about logic...and yet not be able to apply any of it?

(And again the premise is questionable...what belief is it exactly which is held by 3 billion workers?)


I also said that it would be an insult to comrades if I attempted to trash dialectics in a page or two; but you object that I failed to do it in one paragraph!

I object that your first paragraph contains a glaring logical fallacy.

And that you trash dialectics without showing that you have anything better.


The material world is too scary for you dialecticians; that’s why you have to make stuff up.

Heh. There is nothing about the material world in any of the stuff you've written. My point here was primarily to suggest you ought to show how your method is better at analyzing the material world than dialectics.

Basically your post is just name-calling. Not the response of someone who's ideas can stand on their merits.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+Jan 13 2006, 04:55 PM--> (ComradeRed @ Jan 13 2006, 04:55 PM)
Severian
What I meant is: compete with those who use dialectical materialism at analyzing social and political events, and predicting them....as a tool for fighting to change the world. Well, the problem I have with this (and it is a minor one) is that if we are to compare the predictions of the two side by side, the mathematician can show each step and justify it via theorems and axioms. The dialectician doesn't have this constraint, and upon an error can reply "That was only practice!" [/b]
You're right...that is a minor objection. It's possible to compare predictions, regardless of how they're arrived at.

The difference you suggest is only one of figuring out why an error was made.

Perhaps your method would be more rigorous in this respect...but you haven't been able to show an example of applying it to the real world, so how can anyone know?

I suspect that if you, Redstar, and Rosa Lichtenstein were to attempt to apply your non-dialectical materialism to the same real-world problem...you would come up with three different opinions, just as you complain dialectical materialists often do.

Maybe that's one reason you and Rosa L so scrupulously avoid politics, to keep that kind of disagreement from coming out in the open?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Banner, you can see from the irrational response from several comrades here that we are dealing with an emotional attachment to a set of simplistic dogmas enshrined in dialectical materialism (DM). Simplistic arguments in support of Engels’s ‘Three Laws’ they trot out and then extrapolate to all of reality, for all of time (based on such a narrow evidential base) -- this is what makes DM a joke. The fact that none of their arguments work, as I show in detail at my sight, suggests that my prediction that such comrades are happy to preside over another 100 years of failure rather than drop this lamentably bad ‘theory’.

The fact that Severian can take me to task for an introductory remark, alleging that there is no connection between DM and the long-term failure of Marxism shows how logically-challenged such comrades are. Here we have a comrade who believes all things are interconnected except the link between DM and Marxism’s hopeless record. So the only things in the entire universe that are not interconnected are these. So don’t expect any joined up thinking from Dialectical Muppets like these. Of course, he now has a choice to make:

1) Abandon the idea that all things are interconnected; or:

2) Abandon the idea that DM is unconnected to the failure of Marxism.

A nice dialectical mess, and no mistake.

However, I was persuaded to publish material from my thesis on the internet (mainly by RedStar2000, but also by Lenin at Lenin’s Tomb) so that I could communicate my ideas to comrades who, like Marx, still value a scientific approach to knowledge (like yourself, and a few others I could mention), one that recognises when a theory is failing, and begins to look again at the roots of that failure. I resisted dong this because long experience ‘debating’ with these irrational clones has taught me that they are deaf to reason, but these comrades won out since they thought it would do a lot less harm than good. Well, since I put my site up in late November, I have had over 1300 hits, and several comrades like yourself have expressed appreciation of the serious drubbing DM is getting at my hands – long overdue. Others now see that they do not need to wrestle with Hegel to be good revolutionaries; in fact the opposite is the case (whatever Lenin said).

The naïve faith shown by some comrades in DM (which is why I call them Dialectical Monks) is preventing them from addressing the real problems Marxism faces, ones partly down to the fact that our movement has imported idealist theories (with scant empirical support, and no logic to them) and now insists that without them you cannot be a militant materialist; and this is a movement that seeks to communicate with very materially-orientated workers. No wonder they ignore Marxism.

I will show later on how dialectics has encouraged sectarianism and splits in our movement, making revolutionary parties small and ineffectual. Hence, the few workers that know about Marxism associate it with splits, dogma, anti-democratic party cabals, dialectical gurus who cannot be questioned, unreasonableness (so Miles is in good company, and boringly consistent), this batty theory, sectarian infighting and worst of all Stalin’s (and Stalinist’s) use of dialectics to justify a pact with Hitler, the oppression of the Russian working class and the execution of the core of the Bolshevik Party.

As I said, no wonder 3 billion workers ignore us.

Do not expect, however, rational argument from these Monks; they are on a drug: Dialectical Methadone. Clarity of vision is not their forte; another hit of the same old stuff is what they seek. Hence they all repeat the same old formulas (ones that were badly out-of-date even as they were being written) as if they were fresh and new, or even persuasive. And they keep their heads in the sand, and imagine that the wrecked state we see out movement in is the picture of health.

That is proof alone of how drugged up they are. They cannot even register properly what their senses are telling them.

We have to stop the rot, and quick. I aim to continue to trash that joke of a theory (dialectical materialism) so that we can re-build revolutionary politics on a rational foundation.

So, this weekend (all being well) I will be publishing a complete take-down of Trotsky’s ‘criticism’ of the law of identity (and hence also one of Hegel’s, Lenin’s, Plekhanov’s, and a host of other lesser dialectical luminaries’ critiques – surprise, surprise, they all say the same ridiculous things).

One more rotten plank in this moth-eaten theory will disappear in a few days.

After that, I will systematically dissect the idea that change is produced by ‘internal contradictions’ and the odd idea that opposing forces can be viewed as contradictions. That material should appear on my site by early February. Then I am not sure what will follow; probably some more stuff on Epistemology to follow up the material in Essay Three; then maybe I will reduce the DM ‘Totality’ to rubble, along with the (mystical) idea that everything is interconnected, and that parts and wholes condition each other. That should be up at my site before the Spring.

You wonder whether those knowledgeable in Philosophy will respond to what I have written. Don’t hold your breath. Academic dialecticians will dismiss it as misdirected (they already have done in e-mails to me), since it does not address their concerns (which are not those of the class struggle – hence my calling them “w*nkers”), and non-dialectical professional Philosophers will dismiss it as superficial (if they bother to read it even!). To the last, I plead guilty; I am trying to refashion a tradition in Marxist philosophy that is now 200 years out of date (could you say the same for any of the genuine sciences?), mainly addressing comrades like Severian who appear to know very little Philosophy (and Miles who knows very little manners). A technical work (such as my thesis itself) would be of no use to ordinary comrades.

There is one philosopher whose work seriously challenges mine at the edges, that of Graham Priest. He is a master of modern logic, and uses it to try to show that real contradictions exist in nature and society. I devote a whole Appendix to his work in my thesis.

However, at Lenin’s Tomb, several comrades (who did know some philosophy) have talked me on this over the last year or so, but to no avail. This is because they were arguing in ignorance of my views (they had not been published then) and in the end one and all fell back on repeating dogma, just like here. The Dialectical Mantra -- like so many Hail Mary’s -- is all that such comrades know, I’m afraid, when you get down to it. A Simple faith, which would be touching if it weren’t so pernicious.

Anyway, as you will see, I am mounting an attack on all forms of traditional thought; so my aim is far more radical than it seems. I plan to show how and why philosophy began in ancient Greek, and then trace this ruling-class form of thought right down to Hegel, then Engels etc. This will provide the theoretical background to demonstrate the connection between the failures noted above and the substitutionist ideology that dialectics brings in its train. It will also account for the anti-democratic nature of the parties that adhere to this form of ruling-class thought; the natural progression to democratic forms the class struggle forces on workers does not work on dialecticians. I can explain why. That is one more reason why workers turn a deaf ear to Dialectical Monks. They treat it like the religion it is.

Dialectics – you know it does not work.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Severian:

“Why stop with philosophy? That would make more sense as a reason for abandoning the political program of revolutionary Marxism, if you've concluded that revolutionary Marxism is a failure. Why continue (falsely) claiming to be a Marxist?”

Well, this would be a good criticism if Marxism was just a set of unquestionable dogmas (as you seem to think it is); but I rather think it is a science, and genuine scientists rethink their ideas from time to time. Especially when the old ideas led to failure.

You dogmatists apparently do not think like this. It’s your problem; you deal with it.

“All you can reasonably demand of a method of logic, like dialectics, is that it produce good analyses, not that it magically change the course of world history. (Those analyses, in turn, are a tool for changing the world, of course.)”

I agree; but it is possible to show that the logic you depend on is flawed from beginning to end, and from that the conclusion follows that the practice that flows from this is flawed too, hence the long-term failure of Marxism. [Which is a fact, not an invention.] Now, DM is not the only reason why Marxism is now little better than a joke, but it is (as I can show) a large part of it.

“Another well-known logical fallacy - the argument from numbers. How can you read so much about logic...and yet not be able to apply any of it?”

Well it would be if that was my argument. Since it is not, it ain’t. My argument is simply this:

1) Marxism is tested in practice (so it is claimed).

2) Its acceptance (howsoever that is judged) by the majority of the working class would amount, minimally (note the “minimally”) at least, to a success.

3) The vast majority of workers know nothing of Marxism, and when they have they have overwhelmingly ignored it, or have been screwed (oppressed or killed) by those claiming to be Marxists, or they have rejected it. Another fact.

4) So, either truth is not tested in practice or DM has been tested and it has failed.

In have at least 2-3 billion data items attesting to the latter of these two options.

Beat that.

“what belief is it exactly which is held by 3 billion workers?”

Well you are the one who mentioned beliefs. I did not.
Workers actions speak louder than imputed beliefs. So far, they are not seized by your crazy theory. So, in practice they refute your theory. See, no beliefs anywhere in sight.

If you know different, let’s see your data (about actions not beliefs).

In contrast, all I need to point to is the risible support Marxist parties now ‘enjoy’ around the planet, the thoroughly reformist or centrist nature of the few who do enjoy some sort of success (which will lead to the perpetuation of wage slavery, etc.) the many failed revolutions, the appalling record of Stalinist parties in power, the sectarian nature of all Marxist parties, the anti-democratic behaviour of practically all revolutionary groups, etc., etc. Not a pretty picture.

I can account for most of this by an appeal to the ruling-class theory you lot have swallowed: DM. Because of that it would be a surprise if Marxism were a success.

“I object that your first paragraph contains a glaring logical fallacy.”

Well I did not attempt to derive a conclusion in what I said, I merely asserted something. The fact that you cannot even recognise an argument structure when you see one (or do not, in this case) suggests that my claim that you are a philosophical light-weight is not far from the truth. Recall, you were the one who saw a “syllogism” where there was none. I suspect therefore that all you know about Aristotle is what you have read in dubious books on dialectics.

So, you can’t have a logical fallacy unless you have an argument.

No argument, no fallacy.

Copy that out 100 times.

Treat that as your first lesson in logic from Rosa.

“And that you trash dialectics without showing that you have anything better.”

Ah, but I do: a de-Hegelianised Historical Materialism (HM). Vastly superior. It’s not mystical clap-trap for starters.

“Heh. There is nothing about the material world in any of the stuff you've written. My point here was primarily to suggest you ought to show how your method is better at analyzing the material world than dialectics.”

Given that DM cannot cope with the material world (I give the proof at my site), then anything I suggest (even magic) must work better than DM. The fact that I propose HM, as well as an HM-dominated account of material science, means that, if my ideas are adopted, Marxism could account for material reality far better than the Hermetic Mysticism you lot have swallowed.

“Basically your post is just name-calling. Not the response of someone who's ideas can stand on their merits.”

Well, comrade, I give as good as I get, and often worse. So, stop abusing me, and I will treat you far better.

Head back in the sand yet?

Dialectics: for those who like a high [i]silicate diet….

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 17 2006, 02:34 AM
Axel, Axel Axel,




The difference is the having of a full head of hair or not having that full head, in the definition of baldness.

What is the definition of baldness? You said it was no hair at all. OK fine. Now what is the "qualitative" difference between a bald head and one with a single hair? Your definition of "quality" already incorporates a quantitative measure (no hair) how can it be a demonstration of quantity into quality



It is a different state of things, as liquid water and frozen water are. The workers consciousness changes qualities when so many hardships have accumulated, providing a sudden leap (i.e., from protesting to revolution).

No it's not. A bald head has less hair this is purely a quantitative measure. And if you can't understand this there is absolutely no way I'm buying your pronouncements on workers' consciousness.



It slowly gets bigger until it suddenlly meets the criteria to be a pile or heap of grain. You need to do more reading, preferably the whole book.


I do need to do more reading but I'll pass on that particular book. You, however, need to read more carefully and maybe try some thinking along with it.

Let me ask you, what is the criteria to be a heap or a pile of grain? Is it the number of grains, the weight or the volume? If it is any of these you've again defined your "qualitative" change in terms of quantity and you're just fooling yourself. Do you have some other criteria?



And finally,
The quantitative change would be the temperature of the water, measured in degrees.

No, I would contend that in a common sense reading, whether water is cold or hot is a "quality" of the water. After all you can have a gallon of cold water and a gallon of hot water -- same quantity but with a qualitative difference.

What I was getting at is that in the classic example of melting ice the quantity of H2O ice-water-steam never changes so it is unlike the example of a bald head or a pile of grain.

If these were all demonstrations of the same law then larger or smaller quantities of ice would melt just as larger or smaller quantities of hair and grain "transform" heads and heaps. But it doesn't work that way does it?

Axel, Axel Axel,

What is the definition of baldness? You said it was no hair at all. OK fine. Now what is the "qualitative" difference between a bald head and one with a single hair? Your definition of "quality" already incorporates a quantitative measure (no hair) how can it be a demonstration of quantity into quality

Why don't you check a dictionary if you are having so much trouble with definitions? Again, read up on it.



It is a different state of things, as liquid water and frozen water are. The workers consciousness changes qualities when so many hardships have accumulated, providing a sudden leap (i.e., from protesting to revolution).


No it's not. A bald head has less hair this is purely a quantitative measure. And if you can't understand this there is absolutely no way I'm buying your pronouncements on workers' consciousness.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Clearly, you oppose dialectics, yet you have not even taken the trouble to read up on what it is all about.


I do need to do more reading but I'll pass on that particular book. You, however, need to read more carefully and maybe try some thinking along with it.

I have done that. I think you should take your own advice for once.


Let me ask you, what is the criteria to be a heap or a pile of grain? Is it the number of grains, the weight or the volume? If it is any of these you've again defined your "qualitative" change in terms of quantity and you're just fooling yourself. Do you have some other criteria?

From general visibility, it would be the number of grains, and that could be measured in weight/volume if you wanted to. Either way, the gradual accumulation of grains (quantity) will continue until a sudden point is reached when you have a heap (qualitative change).


No, I would contend that in a common sense reading, whether water is cold or hot is a "quality" of the water. After all you can have a gallon of cold water and a gallon of hot water -- same quantity but with a qualitative difference.

Uh, I believe that it is generally stated that water being hot or cold is a qualitative difference.


What I was getting at is that in the classic example of melting ice the quantity of H2O ice-water-steam never changes so it is unlike the example of a bald head or a pile of grain.

There are lots of examples that prove dialectics. It is not just restricted to a pile of grain or water.


If these were all demonstrations of the same law then larger or smaller quantities of ice would melt just as larger or smaller quantities of hair and grain "transform" heads and heaps. But it doesn't work that way does it?

What on Earth are you talking about? Again, read up on and understand the ABC's of Marxism before criticizing them. Your only "refutation" is a feeble game of playing with semantics.

[Comrade-Z]

Whoa, hehehe, while browsing through my old files on my computer I came up with this gem on "The Dialectic Contradictions Inherent in Bush's Mission to End Tyranny". I wrote this about a year ago shortly after Bush's State of the Union Address. You can really sense my political and theoretical naiveté in this piece (like where I regard Elanor Clift as an authority on political thought. Yikes!) I was only 17 years old and had just started investigating anarchism and marxism about 3 months previously. At this point I still had "faith" (that's what it should rightfully be called) in the more liberal democrats. Ugh!



THE DIALECTIC CONTRADICTIONS INHERENT IN BUSH'S MISSION TO END TYRANNY

In his recent inaugural address Bush (or rather, Bush’s writers) focused the vast majority of the rhetoric on the new mission of the U.S. to support democracy and end tyranny all around the world.* It has become necessary for Bush to justify the occupation of Iraq as part of a wider mission to spread democracy because most of the initial reasons for launching the invasion have turned out the be erroneous.* Actually, insinuating that they only discovered the flaws in their initial justifications after the invasion is misleading.** The administration knew that its intelligence was nowhere near “actionable,” as it has now been discovered.* But that’s another story.* What’s interesting to note is that, because of its recent emphasis on democracy, the Bush Administration has now become even more vulnerable to a potentially devastating internal contradiction.

Marx believed that concentrations of power and societal structures crumble primarily due to internal contradictions.* For this reason Marxists concern themselves largely with discovering internal contradictions in an opposing structure or power and examining the best way in which to expose and exploit those contradictions.*

The contradiction that the Bush Administration faces that that the more it is forced to rely on the rationale of promoting democracy in its campaign(s) in the Middle East, the more it is forced to itself adopt anti-democratic measures.* As its challenges domestically increase, the Bush Administration must rely increasingly on its mission to promote democracy around the world in order to garner domestic support.* However, widening its mission of “promoting democracy” creates more enemies abroad and at home.* To compensate for this, the Bush Administration must either institute a draft or be more ruthless in its operations.* Both courses of action make the Bush Administration even more anti-democratic.* As the administration is forced to deal with increasing domestic opposition (as the gulf between rhetoric and reality becomes more apparent), the administration is forced to adopt increasingly anti-democratic measures to deal with the domestic dissent and opposition.

Thus, the tactical imperative is to draw as much attention as possible to this contradiction between the Bush Administration’s self-proclaimed determination to spread democracy and its own anti-democratic policies.* This analysis is nothing new.* For instance, Eleanor Clift is just one of many to point out the gaping rift between the Bush Administration’s rhetoric and reality.* But it’s interesting, nevertheless, to see how this connects with Marxist theory.


I came very close to falling into the "dialectical swamp" now that I think about it. I remember that I wanted to analyze other issues in a similar way and find their "dialectical contradictions." Fortunately, I lost interest in dialectics and focused on much more self-evidently rewarding theory.

The funny thing about the whole process was that it made me feel really smart, the fact that I could fit what I was seeing into this nifty theoretical framework with all of this nifty terminology. But in reality "thinking dialectically" was useless. I had already discovered the central insight of the piece (that Bush's rhetoric was a load of crap and totally opposite of his real intentions--and how it would be wise to expose this to people) before ever trying to fit it into the dialectical framework. In reality I didn't have a clue as to how "dialectical logic" worked. Heck, I still don't have a clue how it is supposed to work. I had just begun reading some marxist literature, and this "dialectical materialism" sounded kind of nifty to me. So I thought it would be cool to try to construct a dialectical argument, even though I hadn't read anything about how those arguments were supposed to work. I thought I knew how to construct a dialectical argument, but I hadn't yet heard of the "negation of the negation" or the change of "quantity into quality" or whatever. But lo and behold, I was able to do it anyways! In short, I simply gained the major idea of the piece, the main insight described above, through ordinary reasoning and just "pasted on" dialectical terminology. It didn't tell me anything useful or new (although it gave me an inflated ego for about a day).

I especially liked this line:


What’s interesting to note is that, because of its recent emphasis on democracy, the Bush Administration has now become even more vulnerable to a potentially devastating internal contradiction.

With dialectical rhetoric like that, I could write for the RCP! :lol: Really, it's not difficult to write absolute bullshit with dialectical reasoning, it seems to me from looking back over this. You just need to be able to parrot some clever catch phrases--"...devastating internal contradiction." Anybody can stupify the masses with one's "superior system of logic that is dialectical materialism." A new advertising slogan for the dialecticians: "You too can bullshit your way to the top--with dialectical materialism!©"

[Red Powers]

This horse has been beaten to death, Axel but I just want to make one last point.


from Axel 1917

The quantitative change would be the temperature of the water, measured in degrees.

To which I replied, "No, I would contend that in a common sense reading, whether water is cold or hot is a "quality" of the water. After all you can have a gallon of cold water and a gallon of hot water -- same quantity but with a qualitative difference".

Which gets this response:


Uh, I believe that it is generally stated that water being hot or cold is a qualitative difference.

???? Great dialectical thinkers at work.

[Red Powers]

Sorry Horse I coudn't let this go.


Your only "refutation" is a feeble game of playing with semantics.

This is not semantics. You were arguing for dialectics. You linked a book that you claimed as "evidence." I went to that link and found examples of supposed demonstrations of the law of quantity into quality. Neither of them fit the bill as far as I am concerned. In both cases you have to define (not in a dictionary sense but in a logical sense) your "qualitative" change in terms of quantity -- numbers of hair removed, numbers of grain added to the pile. There is no transformation. In both cases it is a strictly quantitative procedure.

Maybe if you could state the law for me it might help my understanding but as it stands now it doesn't seem to me to hold much water or ice or steam. :rolleyes:

[red_che]

Red Powers:


Well Red Che which is it? Am I in big trouble if I don't see that contradiction or not. The truth is I'm not looking for a solid form of dialectics but I think that your use of visual metaphors is problematic. You know I can simply observe the tree in my backyard. Not so with a class contradiction. First I have to abstract the concept of class from the people that compose it, then I have to observe the facts that demonstrate opposing class interests, and then I can, perhaps, talk about class contradictions.

But you seem to think that the contradiction exists "out there" and is plainly visible for all to see.

Okay, well I forgot to add this thing, contradictions are really there for everyone to see without much difficulty. But the thing is, as for dialectical materialism, such contradictions aren't there just for us plainly to see or observe. What I am proposing, and for that matter dialectical materialism, is that such contradictions must be resolved.

The entire dialectical process doesn't end in simply knowing the contradictions. In the understanding of dialectical materialism, such contradictions should result into a radical and violent process of changing the entire thing. Dialectical materialism proposes an action. It won't just look at those things develop all by themselves.

To be more precise, let's apply it into society. Society have contradictions, and we all know it. Marx described those basic contradictions as the contradictions between the forces of production and the relations of production, the contradiction between the old (remnants of the old society) and the new (the emerging society), and class contradictions. Such contradictions don't resolve peacefully, and gradually. It must be resolved through an action of violent revolution. As long those contradictions were already present, then a revolutionary means must be employed right away to resolve it, and that's what makes dialectical materialism different from all other theories.

Those old theorists didn't think of that way. They simply interpret the world, and let it go through its slow pace of motion. While Marx's (dialectical and historical materialism) was different. He proposes an action.

And the current philosophers and theorist-pretenders such as redstar who deviates, or in his word gets rid of dialectics, weren't really modern theorists. They just went back into the pre-Marx era way of thinking.

[redstar2000]

The dialectician's lament...


Originally posted by red_che
They simply interpret the world, and let it go through its slow pace of motion. While Marx's (dialectical and historical materialism) was different. He proposes an action.

Alas, the world moves but not quickly enough. Let's do something that will "make it move faster".

Like booster rockets mounted on the earth's equator to make it spin faster. :lol:


And the current philosophers and theorist-pretenders such as redstar who deviates, or in his word gets rid of dialectics, weren't really modern theorists. They just went back into the pre-Marx era way of thinking.

You demonstrate an odd inability to grasp the difference between "past tense" and "present tense" in English grammar...which may lie at the root of your "dialectical" confusion. :lol:

In a moment of gloom, the "pre-Marxist" Albert Einstein once said, "Mankind is very stupid and progress is very slow".

This is a subjective impression that results from an objective material condition: the human life-span is very short compared to the times required for large-scale social change.

Imagine a revolutionary bourgeois in Cromwell's "New Model Army" (c.1640CE) sincerely believing that "a new world was at hand". Would "dialectics" have helped him realize that the formal triumph of the English bourgeoisie was still over two centuries in the future?

Would understanding "dialectics" have made that happen any faster?

So it is for us. We can "do things" that will assist in a small way the progress towards a proletarian revolution. But "macro-history" involves the actions of enormous numbers of people spread out over a long period of history.

And "dialectics" is not some kind of philosophical "rocket fuel" that will "accelerate history" to "escape velocity".

Things just don't work that way.

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

[red_che]

Alas, the world moves but not quickly enough. Let's do something that will "make it move faster".

You dumbfool! :lol:


You demonstrate an odd inability to grasp the difference between "past tense" and "present tense" in English grammar...which may lie at the root of your "dialectical" confusion.

:lol: :lol:

You didn't understand what I have posted, right? I said your way of thinking is much like the pre-Marx era, something like Hegel's or Feuerbach's, got it? :)


Imagine a revolutionary bourgeois in Cromwell's "New Model Army" (c.1640CE) sincerely believing that "a new world was at hand". Would "dialectics" have helped him realize that the formal triumph of the English bourgeoisie was still over two centuries in the future?

Did I ever say Communism is in the near future now? Or what I have been repeating here is that the revolution must be ongoing now. As for the complete victory of the proletarian revolution, that I wasn't in a hurry. :)


So it is for us. We can "do things" that will assist in a small way the progress towards a proletarian revolution.

Since when did you helped in "assisting the progress towards a proletarian revolution"? The fact is, you are very much helpful in prolonging its development.

[Red Powers]

from Red Powers

Well Red Che which is it? Am I in big trouble if I don't see that contradiction or not.

Red Che

Okay, well I forgot to add this thing, contradictions are really there for everyone to see without much difficulty


Okay, so I guess I am in BIG TROUBLE. But wait what is Red Che's next sentence?

Red Che

But the thing is, as for dialectical materialism, such contradictions aren't there just for us plainly to see or observe.

"Contradictions are really there," "such contradictions aren't there," never mind your problems with tense, this is a serious logical inconsistency.

[red_che]

"Contradictions are really there," "such contradictions aren't there," never mind your problems with tense, this is a serious logical inconsistency.

Well, I guess your problem isn't my "logical inteconsistency" but the way you comprehend my writing. I'm sorry if I'm not that good writer. Anyhow, what that sentence would mean is that contradictions are not there for us to simply look at it or even gloat at it in amazement because it happened. These contradictions must be resolved. Am I clear now? Or you still have problems with the way I write?

Or, may I say, read my entire post so you could understand. And I suggest that you don't look only at the grammatical errors. Just try to comprehend.

[Axel1917]

From Red Powers:


This horse has been beaten to death, Axel but I just want to make one last point.

To which I replied, "No, I would contend that in a common sense reading, whether water is cold or hot is a "quality" of the water. After all you can have a gallon of cold water and a gallon of hot water -- same quantity but with a qualitative difference".

By what I was stating, the state is one quality of what water can be. Of course, there are others, such as hot and cold, and I am surprised that you even need to bring that up. You must of course have a different quantity, say units, nodal points of temperature, to get those different qualities (to get hot or cold). The same amount of water, but with different qualities and different quantitative temperature nodal points to make those different qualities.


???? Great dialectical thinkers at work.

And of course, you can't even get the obvious right, now can you. Great formalistic, anti-Marxist thinkers at work!

Not to mention that you have not even bothered trying to study dialectics!


This is not semantics. You were arguing for dialectics. You linked a book that you claimed as "evidence." I went to that link and found examples of supposed demonstrations of the law of quantity into quality. Neither of them fit the bill as far as I am concerned. In both cases you have to define (not in a dictionary sense but in a logical sense) your "qualitative" change in terms of quantity -- numbers of hair removed, numbers of grain added to the pile. There is no transformation. In both cases it is a strictly quantitative procedure.

Yes, it is. You got into a bunch of twaddle of trying to determine what baldness really is. Read a dictionary if that is too hard for you to figure out. Again, you have never even bothered to read anything on the subject at hand, and the book uses more evidence than that later.


Maybe if you could state the law for me it might help my understanding but as it stands now it doesn't seem to me to hold much water or ice or steam.

Perhaps you should read up on that book, as well as what people like Hegel, Marx/Engels and Lenin/Trotsky had to say about it.

[Red Powers]

Claro hombre.

I'm sorry but I just couldn't resist your "contradictory" sentences.

But here's a dictionary definition of Contradiction:



Main Entry: con·tra·dic·tion Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'dik-sh&nFunction: noun1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a : logical incongruity b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

Now perhaps the act in definition 1 could be seen, but I have never seen a contradiction. It appears that a contradiction is a relationship between things --factors, actions -- that are contradictory, but are they "really there for everyone to see without much difficulty"?


How would you define "contradiction?"

[red_che]

Now perhaps the act in definition 1 could be seen, but I have never seen a contradiction. It appears that a contradiction is a relationship between things --factors, actions -- that are contradictory, but are they "really there for everyone to see without much difficulty"?


How would you define "contradiction?"

Oh, pardon me for my being such a person of low comprehension. I don&#39;t really know what you are pointing at.

I&#39;m sorry for being a damn fool. :(

I don&#39;t know if you really don&#39;t get what I was trying to say, or are you just trying to piss me off.


It appears that a contradiction is a relationship between things --factors, actions -- that are contradictory

Oh, so you know what is it anyway, do you have a problem with the way I said "you could see contradictions"? I would be willing to rephrase it if you like. How do you want me to rephrase my words? :huh:

[Red Powers]

Red Che

I don&#39;t know if you really don&#39;t get what I was trying to say, or are you just trying to piss me off.

I&#39;m not trying to piss you off and I do get what you are trying to say. I just don&#39;t agree with the way you look at these things.

It&#39;s obvious from many of your posts that I&#39;ve read that you think in terms of formulas -- the idea that the proletariat is revolutionary through every moment of it&#39;s existence comes to mind. Here, the formula is "contradictions are really there to be seen" and I am questioning that. If that pisses you off I don&#39;t think that can be helped.

It&#39;s also not a question of rephrasing your language although using something like "recognize" instead of "see" would be better. Because contradictions are not concrete nouns, but rather abstractions, they can&#39;t really be "seen." In this thread, though, one of the things in dispute is exactly that. Are contradictions things that can be seen and have an independent existence, or are they abstractions, ideas that we apply to reality to make sense out of it?

This is why I keep asking for definitions. Of course I could look them up as I did above, but the way dialecticians use these words is different than the general usage. I&#39;m also trying to get people to think about what they mean by "contradiction," "opposite," "quality," etc.




Oh, pardon me for my being such a person of low comprehension. I don&#39;t really know what you are pointing at.

What I&#39;m pointing at is that a contradiction is a relationship and thus cannot be "seen."


I&#39;m sorry for being a damn fool. :(


No need to apologize, sometimes it can&#39;t be helped :lol:

[red_che]

It&#39;s obvious from many of your posts that I&#39;ve read that you think in terms of formulas -- the idea that the proletariat is revolutionary through every moment of it&#39;s existence comes to mind. Here, the formula is "contradictions are really there to be seen" and I am questioning that. If that pisses you off I don&#39;t think that can be helped.

It&#39;s also not a question of rephrasing your language although using something like "recognize" instead of "see" would be better. Because contradictions are not concrete nouns, but rather abstractions, they can&#39;t really be "seen." In this thread, though, one of the things in dispute is exactly that. Are contradictions things that can be seen and have an independent existence, or are they abstractions, ideas that we apply to reality to make sense out of it?

This is why I keep asking for definitions. Of course I could look them up as I did above, but the way dialecticians use these words is different than the general usage. I&#39;m also trying to get people to think about what they mean by "contradiction," "opposite," "quality," etc.

I don&#39;t know why you made too much of a great deal with the word "see" and then saying that I should have used the word "recognize". Those two words were synonymous, anyway. I don&#39;t see any big deal with that. If I wrote "see" and you understood what I was saying, then I think that would be it. As that is the way I write, I think that deserves to be respected. I believe we should deal on the matter being discussed and not on the way I write.


What I&#39;m pointing at is that a contradiction is a relationship and thus cannot be "seen."

If I wrote "seen", what&#39;s the problem with that? Is the word "seen" not synonymous with the word "recognized" or "observed"? I wrote "see" because it&#39;s simpler. Got a problem with that? :)

Now, if you cannot "see" a contradiction, how can you know then that there is a contradiction between, let&#39;s say, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? You might say, you cannot see it but you just can observe it, and recognize it. Oh, what a great difference it made with what I have said. <_<


Are contradictions things that can be seen and have an independent existence, or are they abstractions, ideas that we apply to reality to make sense out of it?

The way you posed the question is problematic. You made it more complicated because you have made a big deal with just the word "see". It&#39;s a rather nonsense question.

As I have said, I am really clear when I said that contradictions are there, they&#39;re happening, and everybody can "see" it or "recognize" it. If the word that would suit your mind is that contradictions are ideas, then so be it. They are ideas borne out of the actual movements of matters that our senses could feel, see, hear, smell and taste, or our mind could observe.

[Axel1917]

From Red Powers:


It&#39;s also not a question of rephrasing your language although using something like "recognize" instead of "see" would be better. Because contradictions are not concrete nouns, but rather abstractions, they can&#39;t really be "seen." In this thread, though, one of the things in dispute is exactly that. Are contradictions things that can be seen and have an independent existence, or are they abstractions, ideas that we apply to reality to make sense out of it?

They do in fact exist, objectively, and can be observed if we try to lay things bare. For example, in capitalism, production becomes increasingly social. However, capitalism still means the retention of private property. This retention of private property contradicts the social character of production, therefore making an antagonistic clash of interests between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. On the one hand, the Proletariat wants to live better, and they are estranged from their labour (they work so hard to make all of those commodities, yet the capitalist gets the money and rights to those commodities). On the other hand, the capialist wants to continue to exploit surplus-value from the workers, and guide things by his private interests instead of a general, social interest of the workers. That basic contradiction, the social character of production against the retention of private property, is an objective phenomenon, and it unfolds as capitalism continues to exist, and we can see when things get tense when it comes to strikes, the capitalist sacking workers, cutting pay, etc.


This is why I keep asking for definitions. Of course I could look them up as I did above, but the way dialecticians use these words is different than the general usage. I&#39;m also trying to get people to think about what they mean by "contradiction," "opposite," "quality," etc.

It would be best to get some reading done. I am very short on time, and therefore, I have only been able to type short posts, of which are probably a bit insufficient and lacking in clarification at times.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:07 AM
Somehow, I doubt you will wait that long. You can take the RedStar out of the New Orleans Maoist Collective, but you apparently take the New Orleans Maoist Collective out of RedStar. (By the way, a side question: Was your NOMC the same one that helped to found COUSML back in the early 1970s? Just curious.)
Y&#39;know, Miles (Communist League) has a point here, that Redstar&#39;s current politics are marked by his Maoist past. And I&#39;ve asked Redstar myself which group he belonged to - he won&#39;t say, but I&#39;d guess PL based on their straight-to-communism line which Redstar still holds, and a few other things.

But the funny thing is...that Miles is also marked by his political past, I&#39;d guess in some group similiar to the Spartacist League. You can see in this thread, Miles using the style of argument of a Spart yelling insults on a street corner.

Anyway, when I asked Miles about it, he basically accused me of being a police spy. I&#39;m glad to see he&#39;s changed his mind, and now considers this kind of question legitimate. Maybe now he&#39;ll explain which group he received his early political training in?

[Red Powers]

Red Che,

The words "seeing" and "recognizing" are not synonyms. Recognize has cognition or thinking as a root and seeing is visual having to do with sight and the eyes.

[ComradeRed]

Ahem, A mathematical criticism of dialectics, (http://www.nrg.to/crr/dialectics.pdf) isn&#39;t any dialectician going to pay any attention whatsoever to it?

[redstar2000]

The "dialecticians" reflexively assert that "only dialectics" can "deal with change" while ordinary language can "only" deal with "static identities".

Rosa Lichtenstein has another new essay up on her site in which she skewers this pompous nonsense with a simple list demonstrating the incredible richness of ordinary language in dealing with change...


Here is a greatly shortened list of ordinary words (restricted to modern English) that allow speakers to refer to changes of unbounded complexity:

Vary, alter, adjust, amend, mutate, transmute, modify, develop, expand, swell, flow, differentiate, fast, slow, rapid, hasty, melt, harden, drip, cascade, fade, is, was, will be, will have been, had, will have had, went, go, going, gone, lost, age, flood, crumble, disintegrate, erode, corrode, flake, tumble, cut, crush, grind, shred, fall, rise, spin, oscillate, rotate, wave, quickly, slowly, instantaneous, suddenly, gradually, rapidly, sell, buy, lose, win, ripen, rot, perish, grow, decay, more, less, fewer, steady, steadily, jerkily, slowly, quickly, very, extremely, exceedingly, intermittent, continuous, continual, push, pull, jump, break, charge, assault, dismantle, replace, undo, reverse, repeal, quash, hour, minute, second, instant, destroy, annihilate, boil, freeze, thaw, liquefy, evaporate, solidify, condense, protest, challenge, expel, eject, remove, overthrow, expropriate, defeat, strike, revolt, riot, march, demonstrate, rebel, campaign, agitate and organise….

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

The utter poverty of the language of "dialectics" stands revealed.

The "dialecticians" are linguistic panhandlers...and a flagrant nuisance on the streets of public discourse.

They ought to go get a job&#33; :lol:

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

[Red Powers]

from Axel 1917

They do in fact exist, objectively, and can be observed if we try to lay things bare. For example, in capitalism, production becomes increasingly social. However, capitalism still means the retention of private property. This retention of private property contradicts the social character of production, therefore making an antagonistic clash of interests between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. On the one hand, the Proletariat wants to live better, and they are estranged from their labour (they work so hard to make all of those commodities, yet the capitalist gets the money and rights to those commodities). On the other hand, the capialist wants to continue to exploit surplus-value from the workers, and guide things by his private interests instead of a general, social interest of the workers. That basic contradiction, the social character of production against the retention of private property, is an objective phenomenon, and it unfolds as capitalism continues to exist, and we can see when things get tense when it comes to strikes, the capitalist sacking workers, cutting pay, etc.

Upthread a ways you claimed that contradictions could be "simply observed." What you&#39;ve written here is neither simple nor an observation. It is an analysis using quite a few abstractions to get behind the appearance of things. I have no problem with that, this is what Marxists do. But it is not a simple observation. That&#39;s more like -- "Look&#33; A dog."



I also have taken your urgings to read more (which I find quite amusing since I had read much of this material before you were born) and went to the Manifesto to see how Marx describes your contradiction.

Oddly, Marx doesn&#39;t use the word contradiction to describe the realtionship of forces and relations of production. And yet you claim it is objectively there. Did Marx not "see" it? Is he in big trouble? :unsure:

Here&#39;s what he does say:

Karl Marx Communist Manifesto

...the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters



The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered,
and so soon as they overcome these fetters they bring disorder into into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.


Three uses of "fetter" to describe the relationship between forces and relations of production and not a single use of contradiction in that whole section. What am I to make of this. Could Marx be blind to the objective existence of contradictions?
Maybe the guy calling himself "trotskyist oddball" knows better than Marx. He sure seemed to know his stuff about heaps of grain and bald heads. :lol:

I think that Marx uses fetter because that descibes the relationship much more precisely than contradiction (whatever that means. no one will tell me). A fetter is a chain put on a horse&#39;s legs so it doesn&#39;t run off. No doubt they were much more common in 1848 than they are today but the idea that relations are "holding back" forces becomes crystal clear once you know the word. Not so with the word contradiction. Is there a sense of something being held back? Are the two elements equal in force in a contradiction? What does it mean to say:


retention of private property contradicts the [I]social character of production

Does it falsify it somehow? You know I think I&#39;ll stick with Marx. He&#39;s much clearer.

[Axel1917]

From Red Powers:


Upthread a ways you claimed that contradictions could be "simply observed." What you&#39;ve written here is neither simple nor an observation. It is an analysis using quite a few abstractions to get behind the appearance of things. I have no problem with that, this is what Marxists do. But it is not a simple observation. That&#39;s more like -- "Look&#33; A dog."

Well, in the sense that one observes the unfolding phenomena of such a contradiction.


I also have taken your urgings to read more (which I find quite amusing since I had read much of this material before you were born) and went to the Manifesto to see how Marx describes your contradiction.

Interesting how you claim to read so much, yet you don&#39;t seem to have learned much in those past decades.


Oddly, Marx doesn&#39;t use the word contradiction to describe the realtionship of forces and relations of production. And yet you claim it is objectively there. Did Marx not "see" it? Is he in big trouble? :unsure:

Let us see:


Here&#39;s what he does say:

Karl Marx Communist Manifesto
[QUOTE]...the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters

He did explain that systems do become fetters when they are no longer able to advance the productive forces like they used to, but there are indeed contradictions:

Seehttp://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm



The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered,
and so soon as they overcome these fetters they bring disorder into into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.



Three uses of "fetter" to describe the relationship between forces and relations of production and not a single use of contradiction in that whole section. What am I to make of this. Could Marx be blind to the objective existence of contradictions?
Maybe the guy calling himself "trotskyist oddball" knows better than Marx. He sure seemed to know his stuff about heaps of grain and bald heads. :lol:

I believe that he refers to contradictions and such in his work, Capital. I have not had time to read the three volumes of it due to work and a busy schedule.


I think that Marx uses fetter because that descibes the relationship much more precisely than contradiction (whatever that means. no one will tell me). A fetter is a chain put on a horse&#39;s legs so it doesn&#39;t run off. No doubt they were much more common in 1848 than they are today but the idea that relations are "holding back" forces becomes crystal clear once you know the word. Not so with the word contradiction. Is there a sense of something being held back? Are the two elements equal in force in a contradiction? What does it mean to say:

[quote]Does it falsify it somehow? You know I think I&#39;ll stick with Marx. He&#39;s much clearer.

Nothing has been falsified, and Lenin himself had pointed out such a contradiction as I had mentioned.

From redstar2000:


The "dialecticians" reflexively assert that "only dialectics" can "deal with change" while ordinary language can "only" deal with "static identities".

Rosa Lichtenstein has another new essay up on her site in which she skewers this pompous nonsense with a simple list demonstrating the incredible richness of ordinary language in dealing with change...

QUOTE
Here is a greatly shortened list of ordinary words (restricted to modern English) that allow speakers to refer to changes of unbounded complexity:

Vary, alter, adjust, amend, mutate, transmute, modify, develop, expand, swell, flow, differentiate, fast, slow, rapid, hasty, melt, harden, drip, cascade, fade, is, was, will be, will have been, had, will have had, went, go, going, gone, lost, age, flood, crumble, disintegrate, erode, corrode, flake, tumble, cut, crush, grind, shred, fall, rise, spin, oscillate, rotate, wave, quickly, slowly, instantaneous, suddenly, gradually, rapidly, sell, buy, lose, win, ripen, rot, perish, grow, decay, more, less, fewer, steady, steadily, jerkily, slowly, quickly, very, extremely, exceedingly, intermittent, continuous, continual, push, pull, jump, break, charge, assault, dismantle, replace, undo, reverse, repeal, quash, hour, minute, second, instant, destroy, annihilate, boil, freeze, thaw, liquefy, evaporate, solidify, condense, protest, challenge, expel, eject, remove, overthrow, expropriate, defeat, strike, revolt, riot, march, demonstrate, rebel, campaign, agitate and organise….


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

The utter poverty of the language of "dialectics" stands revealed.

The "dialecticians" are linguistic panhandlers...and a flagrant nuisance on the streets of public discourse.

They ought to go get a job&#33;

Uh, are you aware that one of the most basic aspects of dialectics happens to be that the universe is in a constant state of change and flux? Rosa hasn&#39;t proven anything.

Of course, redstar2000 and Co. could not deal with taking the trouble of trying to learn dialectics. Such people often end up becoming renegades that end up abandoning Marxism altogether

[Red Powers]

Axel 1917

Well, in the sense that one observes the unfolding phenomena of such a contradiction.

WTF??? This isn&#39;t even a sentence. Does this make sense to anyone?



Interesting how you claim to read so much, yet you don&#39;t seem to have learned much in those past decades.


Well, I&#39;ve learned that there is no qualitative change as you add one more grain to a pile or a heap so I&#39;m ahead of you. BTW, awesome comeback dude, I was crushed :lol:



He did explain that systems do become fetters when they are no longer able to advance the productive forces like they used to, but there are indeed contradictions:

Seehttp://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm


Not systems but relations of production become fetters. Do you guys have something against using language in a precise way??


But there are indeed contradictions.

And there&#39;s a Santa Claus and Jesus is really present in the communion wafer.

How do we know that "there are, indeed, contradictions"? Well, marxists.org has a glossary listing called Contradictions in Capital&#33; Indeed&#33;



I believe that he refers to contradictions and such in his work, Capital. I have not had time to read the three volumes of it due to work and a busy schedule.



I can&#39;t dispute you because I also have not read the complete work. But I&#39;d be careful about believing things without checking them out.




Such people often end up becoming renegades that end up abandoning Marxism altogether


Translation: If you heretics don&#39;t learn your cathechism and quit asking questions, you are all going to hell. :lol:


And finally,


Lenin himself had pointed out such a contradiction as I had mentioned.


The unassailable argument from authority. When all else fails quote (well not exactly quote. More like allude to something that might have been said or written somewhere.) from Lenin or whoever. As they say in New York, "that an&#39; two bucks&#39;ll getcha on the subway."

[red_che]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21 2006, 08:47 PM
Red Che,

The words "seeing" and "recognizing" are not synonyms. Recognize has cognition or thinking as a root and seeing is visual having to do with sight and the eyes.
Whatever.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
Of course, redstar2000 and Co. could not deal with taking the trouble of trying to learn dialectics. Such people often end up becoming renegades that end up abandoning Marxism altogether.

In your understandable eagerness to predict a grim future for the "dialectically challenged", you unwittingly make a crucial concession.

Your sentence implies that there can be people who "don&#39;t learn dialectics" and yet who are nevertheless Marxists.

Otherwise, how could they end up "abandoning Marxism altogether"?

Next step: who makes the better analysis, the "dialecticians" or the historical materialists?

Think about that one for a while. :D

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:26 AM
Next step: who makes the better analysis, the "dialecticians" or the historical materialists?
Why yes, that&#39;s what I keep asking.

For the opponents of dialectics, we have:

Comrade Red, who makes no attempt to analyze real-world society.

Rosa L, who makes little attempt and whose one gesture in that direction contains a glaring fallacy even from the standpoint of formal logic.

Redstar2000, who posts a lot about politics, but whose posts really shouldn&#39;t be called "analyses." "Assumptions" and "preconceptions" would be better. They do not survive any contact with facts. Which is not so materialist.

There&#39;s little else to point to, off this board; there&#39;s no well-known Marxist thinkers - unless you count James Burnham as Marxist - and no organized tendency still claiming to be Marxist which reject dialectical materialism.

And then there&#39;s dialectical materialism.

It&#39;s the method used by Marx, Engels and others to develop the whole of Marxist politics and theory. All of the Marxist classics are examples of dialectical materialism applied to the understanding of social and political events.

For a more recent example, you can go back through the last ten years of the Militant (http://www.themilitant.com) online and see how the analyses and predictions hold up. Even better, pick up New International in paper form; more in-depth. New International #11, with its often-dismissed thesis that "U.S. Imperialism has lost the Cold War" for example; all but one of its major predictions, made in 1990, have held up. And that one - the rising economic power of German imperialism - was inconsistent with the others, as an editorial note points out.

OK, there&#39;s a certain asymmetry there; maybe I should be pointing to posters on this board for example, as I did with the opponents of dialectics. But I chose those examples because there&#39;s little little else to point to, for this alleged non-dialectical historical materialism.

And I do think my posts, for example, compare favorably to Redstar&#39;s as an analysis of the world. That&#39;s not immodest; it&#39;s a pretty low standard.


Your sentence implies that there can be people who "don&#39;t learn dialectics" and yet who are nevertheless Marxists.

Yes, that is implied by his sentence; and perhaps it&#39;s true.

You certainly can&#39;t be considered a Marxist, though, nor were you ever one. That&#39;s based on your politics.

And of course Rosa L openly proclaims that "revolutionary Marxism has failed." Do you consider that a successful application of historical materialist analysis?

[Axel1917]

From Red Powers:


WTF??? This isn&#39;t even a sentence. Does this make sense to anyone?

The contradiction is observed in the sense that one goes through the process of analyzing the antagonstic contradiction in the capitalist sytem, and then analyzes the unfolding of that contradiction in society itself.


Well, I&#39;ve learned that there is no qualitative change as you add one more grain to a pile or a heap so I&#39;m ahead of you. BTW, awesome comeback dude, I was crushed :lol:

Actually, there comes a critical point after a gradual accumulation, in which one grain will make it into a heap, as after a gradual accumulation of snow, one snowflake will make an avalanche at a critical point.


Not systems but relations of production become fetters. Do you guys have something against using language in a precise way??

By system, I meant an economic system/relation of production.


And there&#39;s a Santa Claus and Jesus is really present in the communion wafer.

You obviously don&#39;t know a thing about materialism, now do you?


How do we know that "there are, indeed, contradictions"? Well, marxists.org has a glossary listing called Contradictions in Capital&#33; Indeed&#33;

Any experienced Marxist will know that such contradictions exist.


I can&#39;t dispute you because I also have not read the complete work. But I&#39;d be careful about believing things without checking them out.

I have been told as such by those with far more experience than I have.


Translation: If you heretics don&#39;t learn your cathechism and quit asking questions, you are all going to hell. :lol:

Nein.


The unassailable argument from authority. When all else fails quote (well not exactly quote. More like allude to something that might have been said or written somewhere.) from Lenin or whoever. As they say in New York, "that an&#39; two bucks&#39;ll getcha on the subway."

Everyone quotes some kind of authority in many cases, such as citing evidence and works of other scientists when one is writing a book on a particular branch of science.

From redstar2000:


In your understandable eagerness to predict a grim future for the "dialectically challenged", you unwittingly make a crucial concession.

Your sentence implies that there can be people who "don&#39;t learn dialectics" and yet who are nevertheless Marxists.

Otherwise, how could they end up "abandoning Marxism altogether"?

Next step: who makes the better analysis, the "dialecticians" or the historical materialists?

Think about that one for a while.

I admit that the previous post was poorly worded, as like most of my posts, it was rushed (I rarealy get time online). I meant to say that those that abandon dialectics end up abandoning the other aspects of Marxism, of which they claim to follow and know. It is not possible to understand many aspects of society without dialectical understanding.

[Red Powers]

I keep telling myself that I&#39;m swearing off this thread but then, like in the Godfather they keep pulling me back in.

Axel 1917

The contradiction is observed in the sense that one goes through the process of analyzing the antagonstic contradiction in the capitalist sytem, and then analyzes the unfolding of that contradiction in society itself.


You know, I don&#39;t know what to say about this. I think if the word "observe" is to retain any usefullness it cannot be understood in this sense. But beyond that it seems as though material reality has disappeared behind a barrage of dialectical terminology.

Also, I&#39;m not convinced that these contradictions are there and in fact it seems as though you are describing a process that goes on inside your head. And what does "the unfolding of that contradiction" mean? Is it like a flower?





Not systems but relations of production become fetters. Do you guys have something against using language in a precise way??



By system, I meant an economic system/relation of production.



Look, I don&#39;t really care about your imprecision but it really is quite simple. If you mean "relations of production" use those words. If you mean "economic system" then use those words. I have no idea what you mean by "economic system/relation of production."



Any experienced Marxist will know that such contradictions exist.

How will they know? Is knowledge of contradictions gained through their experience or through reading, which you keep suggesting is the remedy for my insistence that I don&#39;t "see" contradictions.

[red_che]

How will they know? Is knowledge of contradictions gained through their experience or through reading, which you keep suggesting is the remedy for my insistence that I don&#39;t "see" contradictions.

Going back to that one Marx literature posted by redstar on another thread, the one having the example of "the fruit".

On that literature, Marx explained the difference of the Hegelian nonsense as against dialectical materialism.

Let me share my own "understanding" of that literature. Here.

Marx says that the Hegelian nonsense think of "the Fruit" as an abstract. That it exists independently above the apple, the pear, the almond, etc., as an idea, the Absolute Idea.

Here, the Hegelian nonsense did not differ itself from the religious, let&#39;s say the Catholics. Because they both have, in a sense, the same line of thinking. The religious thought of God as a superior being existing above and independently of Man. That, in fact, it is God who decides everything on Man. The Hegelian nonsense on the other hand thought of an Absolute Idea as existing above and independently inside the Man&#39;s brain. That it is this Absolute Idea that decides all what the Man thinks.

Now, regarding "the Fruit," it will now be said that "the Fruit" does not exist independently of an apple, or a pear, or a mango, etc. It exists through these real fruits. When you ask a 5-year-old boy what a fruit is, what he visualizes is an apple or any kind of fruit or all fruits that he can think of, and he sees in them the fruit. That emphasizes that "the Fruit" exists not independently of those and not just an abstract. While if you ask that boy what God is, he can&#39;t think of a particular thing simply because there is no material form of a God. What he thinks of God is what his parents, or anybody around him, told of what a God is.

That same line of argument can be said of contradiction. Contradiction is not an abstract and does not exist independently or above those events that make up the contradiction. Contradictions exist in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This violent struggle is what makes up the contradiction between them.

That event can be clearly "seen." That kind of contradiction exists before our very eyes. If you still want a material form of contradiction existing above or independent of such struggle or event for you to "see" what a contradiction is, I suggest you follow Hegel&#39;s thought. In Hegel&#39;s thinking, everything exists, including God. So, you may "see" God also, through Hegel. Good luck. :lol:

[Red Powers]

Whatever&#33;&#33; :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che, but why do you want to call this a &#39;contradiction&#39;? It bears no relation to one.

&#39;Antagonism&#39; is OK, so are &#39;struggle and &#39;conflict&#39; -- but &#39;contradiction&#39;, if it means anything, just means an argument (it literally means &#39;to gain-say&#39;).

Surely you don&#39;t think workers just argue with bosses?

Sure, workers and bosses have aims and interests that are inconsistent with each other (in the sense that both sides cannot bring both about). But the class war has nothing to do with contradictions.

Try telling a worker on strike that all they have to do is contradict the boss, and everything will be fine.

I realise that you DM-fans use this word in a new sense, but since you fail to tell us what this new sense is, you are just mouthing empty phrases.

As far as observing &#39;contradictions&#39; is concerned, you might interpret what you see along certain lines (having borrowed a special sense (still unexplained) of the word &#39;contradiction&#39; from that Idealist, Hegel -- imposing it on reality), but that no more proves contradictions are objective features of the world than it would do if someone, say, saw the love of &#39;god&#39; manifested in a natural disaster (as some say they do).

With crazy ideas borrowed from mystics and Idealists, you will be able to &#39;see&#39; all manner of wierd and wonderful things, if you want to.

However, us materialists are not so easily fooled.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[red_che]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 02:33 AM
Red Che, but why do you want to call this a &#39;contradiction&#39;? It bears no relation to one.

&#39;Antagonism&#39; is OK, so are &#39;struggle and &#39;conflict&#39; -- but &#39;contradiction&#39;, if it means anything, just means an argument (it literally means &#39;to gain-say&#39;).

Surely you don&#39;t think workers just argue with bosses?

Sure, workers and bosses have aims and interests that are inconsistent with each other (in the sense that both sides cannot bring both about). But the class war has nothing to do with contradictions.

Try telling a worker on strike that all they have to do is contradict the boss, and everything will be fine.

I realise that you DM-fans use this word in a new sense, but since you fail to tell us what this new sense is, you are just mouthing empty phrases.

As far as observing &#39;contradictions&#39; is concerned, you might interpret what you see along certain lines (having borrowed a special sense (still unexplained) of the word &#39;contradiction&#39; from that Idealist, Hegel -- imposing it on reality), but that no more proves contradictions are objective features of the world than it would do if someone, say, saw the love of &#39;god&#39; manifested in a natural disaster (as some say they do).

With crazy ideas borrowed from mystics and Idealists, you will be able to &#39;see&#39; all manner of wierd and wonderful things, if you want to.

However, us materialists are not so easily fooled.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org
Well, madame, after all you&#39;ve said, I realised that you were merely opposing the word, not its definition. Okay, if you want to be satisfied try to look in your dictionary and look if the word "contradiction" has significant difference with the words "struggle" or "antagonism" or "conflict" or whatever word that suits you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che, I am not sure I understood your innovative use of the English language.

Nevertheless, I was merely questioning why you and other dialecticians (following the Idealist lead of Hegel) insist on using this word, which has anthropomorphic overtones when applied to objects and events in nature, and is totally misleading when used to depict the class struggle.

If you can&#39;t justify it, fine. Just admit it.

But, then a whole section of dialectics will have to be abandoned.

So, why you want me to look in a dictionary is something of a mystery.

But, like the good &#39;madam&#39; that I am, I have done as I was told, and I found this (but it did not surprise me, since I understand English):

"contradict
verb
(of people) to state the opposite of what someone else has said, or (of one fact or statement) to be so different from another fact or statement that one of them must be wrong:
If you&#39;re both going to lie, at least stick to the same story and don&#39;t contradict each other&#33;
[R] He kept contradicting himself when we were arguing - I think he was a bit confused.
How dare you contradict (me)&#33;
Recent evidence has tended to contradict established theories on this subject."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...16733&dict=CALD (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=16733&dict=CALD)

"And:

Main Entry: con•tra•dic•tion
Function: noun
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Contradiction

You will notice that the word is strictly applicable to [i]verbal wrangles (and derivatively to aims and interests that cannot all be realised at once) -- as I noted above.

You dialecticians surely do not think the class struggle is just a verbal dispute, do you?

Or that the forces of production argue with the relations of production?

But your use of this word suggests you do.

I suspect you have all been led astray by the Hermetic Philosophy you all naively copied from Hegel. In his system it makes some sort of crazy sense to have the world spirit argue with itself (as its inner concept develops -- I trace these mystical ideas at my site).

But no materialist sense can be given to such ramblings.

That accounts for the deadly silence we always get from dialecticians when they are pressed on this question: what on earth do you mean by your use of the word "contradiction"?

You are just the latest punter to come unstuck.

In fact, you dialecticians have more in common with these guys than you have with us materialists:

http://www.hermetic-philosophy.com/

On Hegel&#39;s impressive Hermetic credentials, check these out:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...ks/en/magee.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm)

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/hegel.htm

And this just about says it all:

http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/east-west.htm


And don’t forget to check out my site regularly; there you will see me systematically take this crazy doctrine apart over the coming months.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Red Powers]

Rosa, you won&#39;t get anywhere with this tack as I&#39;m sure you are aware.

I&#39;ve tried already with this post:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...c=44759&st=100# (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44759&st=100#) above and got this response from R Che:

Red Powers


Now perhaps the act in definition 1 could be seen, but I have never seen a contradiction. It appears that a contradiction is a relationship between things --factors, actions -- that are contradictory, but are they "really there for everyone to see without much difficulty"?


How would you define "contradiction?"


Red Che


Oh, pardon me for my being such a person of low comprehension. I don&#39;t really know what you are pointing at.

I&#39;m sorry for being a damn fool.



????

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Red, but I have been &#39;debating&#39; with dialectical clones for over twenty years, and have also been down this route several times. They all say same the same sort of thing. If I believed in alien abduction, I&#39;d offer that as an explanation -- something or someone has re-programmed them all. Dialectical Moonies perhaps?

No worries, I have this base well and truly covered.

See what happens if he tries that avoidance tactic on me.

[red_che]

Well, I&#39;m just a new "Marxist" then compared to your length of experience in "debating with dialecticians". And I find your articles something "new." Let me read them first and I will get back to our "debate".

I guess I have to deal with you pretty soon, even if I&#39;m not yet done "demolishing" redstar&#39;s views. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che, I think you also have problems understanding the word "demolish", and not just "contradiction".

I can live with your sort of "demolition"; it would be like being savaged by a dead sheep....

You will probably need to learn a little logic first though.

[Zak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:57 AM
How do you prove or falsify a "dialectical answer"?

The main point I think. It can&#39;t be called a science because it&#39;s not falsifiable. Dosen&#39;t mean it isn&#39;t true, but it&#39;s not scientificaly viable thoery.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zak, I tend to agree with you, but I am not a falsificationist.

However, unless there is some way of testing what a theorist says, other than an appeal to yet more theory, and more speculation, and ad hoc hypotheses, what he or she says would be no different from religious belief (or fantasy).

The point here is that, dialectical contradictions are confused concepts at best, derived from an idealist theory, which when inverted to apply to material reality, carry with them inappropriate anthropomorphic connotations, and can be given no physical sense at all. That is why dialecticians prevaricate and dissemble when asked to say what they are.

My point about lack of verification etc. was merely to highlight the weaknesses in the arguments of those who do think they can be (I give references at my site).

Speaking for myself, I think every single dialectical thesis is far too confused to make it as far as being even a candidate for testing.

To give you an analogy: if someone were to say that light is the result of the operation of schmotons, but could not say what schmotons were, how they are formed, what they do, or what form they take, or what any of their physical properties were, then this &#39;sub-hypothesis&#39; would be too obscure/confused to test.

Same with &#39;dialectical contradictions&#39;.

How can you test whether nature is arguing with itself? For that is what the word "contradict" means.

Tape it? Record it on a DVD? Film it? What?

You would not know where to begin, or even what you were looking for.

[Of course, if this word is given another sense, all well and good; but dialecticians are very coy about what that is, even though they insist it is linked to the Formal Logic [FL] version of this word, but surpasses it, despite the fact that the FL-version does connect this word with human beings arguing. Sure they use the word &#39;conflict&#39; but that is no less anthropomorphic, and it lacks the logical connotations dialecticians themselves appeal to.]

And when dialecticians tell us that their &#39;contradictions&#39; are special, but then systematically confuse them with contraries, paradoxes, puzzles, unexpected or irrational events, and a whole host of other things (and fail to spot this, even when it is pointed out to them), you soon begin to realise that they haven&#39;t the slightest idea themselves. They just haven&#39;t given it any thought at all. Hence they bluster still more.

So, the fact that &#39;dialectical contradictions&#39; can or cannot be confirmed in reality is of minor concern.

They do not even make it that far.

[Zak]

"They do not even make it that far."



Damn thats cold :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zak:

"Damn thats cold."

But accurate.

My site is devoted to showing that diealctics is a joke; it is not even third-rate philosophy.

One of the reasons why professional philosophers have ignored it for 150 years (apart from a few isolated examples) is that they regard it as just such a joke; those who know me (and my training) tell me I am wasting my time doing this. "It&#39;s a bit like writing a detailed refutation of flat-earth &#39;science&#39;." they say.

So, dialectical-adepts think their &#39;theory&#39; is the bees knees because no heavy guns have been trained on it.

Well that stops here.

I aim to keep attacking DM until I shuffle of this mortal.

I am sick of the ruling-class ideas that have helped cripple our movement and the comrades who cooperate with this still.

So get used to the new cat on the block.

[LoneRed]

Redstar from my long time reading your posts, I must say that what you expound in no way advances the cause of proletarian democracy. You seem to want to have a break through of your own, so people will look back at you and be like, ya that was that guy that "disproved" dialectics, when in fact you have done nothing in the sort. when you take the dialiectics out of Marxism, its like taking the steel pillars out from under a bridge, it collapses. Dialectics is a core principle of marxism, you have failed to disprove it, as well as many people here dont even want to get into a debate with you, as many are still in highschool, and dont know a two dimes worth of what you are saying. Even many in college dont wanna sort through your jargon

[LoneRed]

"But the class war has nothing to do with contradictions."

Rosa this is quite funny, as these two classes wouldnt even come up if it werent due to the inherently contradictory nature of capitalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone:

"Rosa this is quite funny, as these two classes wouldnt even come up if it werent due to the inherently contradictory nature of capitalism."

"Funny..."??

Well, like all other dialecticians, you help yourself to the word "contradictory" but fail to say what it means in this context.

Recall, I am not denying conflict or struggle, but I hope you are not suggesting that these two classes came into existence because someone denied something that some else had said -- which is what the word "contradiction" means.

Or that members of these two classes merely argue? Or that capitalism is fundamentally argumentative? Again, this is what this word implies.

Of course not.

But then what do you mean?

And it is no use using "conflict" here, since I alredy accept this word, as I noted above.

So why use "contradictory" -- it does not help, it confuses the issues, and it saddles Marxism with a mystical notion derived from Hermetic Philosophy -- one that is then used to depict change in the natural world, and which thus populates it with &#39;intelligences&#39; that cause change by arguing among themselves.

Naturally, you can re-define words to suite yourself, but you would not, I hope, allow the class enemy to &#39;re-define&#39; Capitalism as "fair", and them accept their claim that because of that it did not need replacing.

So, the laugh is on you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And, as to your claim, made against RedStar 2000, that Marxism needs &#39;dialectics&#39;, it needs it like a hole in the head.

If a theory is tested in practice, as you dialectics fans like to think, then clearly your pet theory has been, and shown to fail.

So, work it out for yourself.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 3 2006, 01:39 PM
Zak:

"Damn thats cold."

But accurate.

My site is devoted to showing that diealctics is a joke; it is not even third-rate philosophy.

One of the reasons why professional philosophers have ignored it for 150 years (apart from a few isolated examples) is that they regard it as just such a joke; those who know me (and my training) tell me I am wasting my time doing this. "It&#39;s a bit like writing a detailed refutation of flat-earth &#39;science&#39;." they say.

So, dialectical-adepts think their &#39;theory&#39; is the bees knees because no heavy guns have been trained on it.

Well that stops here.

I aim to keep attacking DM until I shuffle of this mortal.

I am sick of the ruling-class ideas that have helped cripple our movement and the comrades who cooperate with this still.

So get used to the new cat on the block.
You have caught my eye again; are you saying that you support professional philosophers? They happen to be agents enlisted by the Bourgeoisie in the struggle against Marxism, you know. If you support them, you will drive the final nail into the coffin of your "arguments," proving red che&#39;s remark about you really being some type of reformist or other stripe of service to the reactionary Bourgeoisie.

[LoneRed]

Rosa, thanks for the reply and two make sure we are on the same page, this is the definition I am using

contradiction

n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas

www.dictionary.com


Now i could rant on and on about the nature of capitalist society, and how it brings about two opposing classes, but within the framework of a contradiction, Im quite sure i dont have to lay out why it is a contradiction. If i still do, I will be more than happy

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LoneRed
Redstar from my long time reading your posts...

"Long time"? You joined the board yesterday&#33;

You&#39;ve also made 20 posts in that time period...have you had the time to read even one of the lengthy threads on "dialectics" in this forum?

One of your posts in another forum made this rather astonishing claim...


Bakunin doesn&#39;t understand a word Marx says, as is evident from his writing.

Perhaps you&#39;ll be as surprised as I was to learn that Marx entrusted Bakunin to do the first translation of Das Kapital into Russian.

Insofar as Bakunin ever wrote on economic questions, he freely borrowed from Marx.

Odd behavior for a guy that "didn&#39;t understand a word of what Marx wrote". :lol:


You seem to want to have a breakthrough of your own, so people will look back at you and be like, yeah that was that guy that "disproved" dialectics, when in fact you have done nothing in the sort.

Yes, fame and fortune await the guy who finally "disproves dialectics" for all time. :lol:

Rosa and I are really looking forward to the festivities in Stockholm when we receive our Nobel Prizes. :lol:

Not to mention the movie&#33; :lol:


When you take the dialectics out of Marxism, it&#39;s like taking the steel pillars out from under a bridge, it collapses.

Metaphorically challenged, are we?

Ok, how about this one?

Marxism "needs dialectics" like a fish needs a bicycle.


...many people here don&#39;t even want to get into a debate with you, as many are still in high school, and don&#39;t know a two dimes worth of what you are saying. Even many in college don&#39;t wanna sort through your jargon.

"Jargon"?

An odd reproach...as I have been both praised and criticized for my "plainspokenness" and use of "ordinary language".

I think there are a lot of bright high school students who have no problem at all with my arguments or my language.

If there are people here who "don&#39;t want" to argue with me about "dialectics", could that possibly be due to the fact that I simply decline to accept metaphysical assertions as "fact"?

Like imaginary bridges that "collapse" after their imaginary steel pillars are "removed"?

Of course, if you were a structural engineer who actually knew something useful about bridges and what actually causes them to collapse...and could talk about that subject without resorting to pasting "dialectical" labels on ordinary engineering terminology...well, then you might have something interesting to say.

But that&#39;s "asking too much", isn&#39;t it?

Because, in fact, you don&#39;t know "two dimes worth" about bridges, do you?

And little more about "dialectics", is that not so?

It&#39;s just a pathetic "Article of Faith" with you, isn&#39;t it?

That&#39;s ok...most of the people who come here to defend "dialectics" have little more to offer than "Marx & Engels said it so it must be true."

Yeah, right. :lol:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1917:

"are you saying that you support professional philosophers?"

How you can infer that from anything I have written, only your dialectically-inventive eyes can tell.

In fact, if you bothered to read the Essays at my site (sorry(&#33;), I know that is far too scary to even mention), you will see that I aim to show that every philosophical theory (and that includes the fourth-rate ones found in DM) represnet ideas conducive to ruling-class interests.

So I am an anti-philosopher, not just an implacable anti-dialectician.

So, once agian, you make a dialectical fool of yourself, Axel 1906 -- i.e, your foolishness is all self-caused.



The materialist fight-back starts here:


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone: thanks for that, but I was aware that certain dictionaries have smuggled this in, but you need to recall that dictionaries are repositories of usage, and as such you will find they will &#39;define&#39; things in ways that you yourself will disagree with.

For example:

"God

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man."

So, they record ideology as much as they record meaning.

That is why I did not quote a dictionary &#39;definition&#39;, and the points I make still stand.

Which is why I proceeded to argue along these lines in the summary to Essay Eight (the full essay will be posted in a month or so), after showing that change cannot be the result of internal contradictions:

"Forces and Contradictions

In this part of Essay Eight it is argued at length that there is no way that "contradictions" can be interpreted as "opposing forces".

In fact, since most of the motion in the universe is governed by the action of only one central force (i.e., in classical Physics, the force of gravity, which governs the motion of planets around stars, and stars around galactic centres of mass, etc.), classical DM cannot account for most of the bulk changes that take place in nature. Now, even if these were regarded as the result of the complex inter-relation between gravitational fields, change in motion would still be caused by only one force: the resultant. No contradiction has just one term.

Of course, if General Relativity had its way (where gravity has been replaced by the motion of bodies along geodesics and world-lines, forces having been edited out of the picture) most of the bulk motion in the universe would take place under the action of no forces at all. Naturally, that would mean that most of the changes of this sort could not be the result of "contradictions" -- if the latter are still to be regarded as opposing forces.

Nevertheless, let us assume that two forces (say, F1 and F2) do in fact &#39;contradict&#39; one another; if so, one of the following options would, it seems, have to obtain: (1) F1 must prevent F2 from acting, or (2) F1 must impede F2, perhaps stopping it from producing its usual effects.

In the first case, F2 must either: (1a) cease to exist, or (1b) confront F1 directly (as force on force) while it exists -- if it is to be affected by F1, or if it is to be prevented from operating. However, if in (1a) F2 ceases to exist, it cannot contradict or be contradicted by anything, since it would no longer exist to do anything.

Assuming, on the other hand, that F2 is contradicted by F1 up until it ceases to exist, then option (1a) would become (1b). In the latter case, therefore, the alleged contradiction between F1 and F2 must see these forces as directly oppositional in some way. If so, these two forces must confront one another as forces of attraction and/or repulsion (or as a &#39;dialectical&#39; mix of the two).

But, once again, it is not easy to see how this configuration could be a contradiction in anything other than a figurative sense. If a literal interpretation were still insisted upon here (although it is impossible to see how that would work: since to contradict literally means "to gain-say", then are we to imagine that forces engage in conversation, or in argument?), this sort of confrontation between forces could only take place if they were particulate in some way -- that is, if they registered some sort of resistance to one another. If, on the other hand, they are not particulate, it is equally hard to see how they could interact at all, let alone &#39;contradict&#39; each other. Continuous media have no rigidity and no impenetrability to exert forces of any sort (except, of course, as part of a figurative extension to particulate interaction, after all).

Now, there are well-known classical problems associated with the idea that forces are particulate (these are fully referenced in Essay Eight) -- not the least of which is that if forces are particulate then they could only interact if they exerted still other forces (contact forces, cohesive forces, forces of reaction, and so on) on other particulates, initiating an infinite regress. That is, in order to account for the ability of particles to resist one another, we would need to appeal to forces internal to bodies to do that, to stop one body penetrating the other, or to prevent distortions tearing that body apart, etc. But, if the forces internal to bodies are particulate too, we would thus need further forces to account for the coherence of these new particles, and so on. Alternatively, If they are continuous, they would not be able to provide such inner coherence.

In the end nothing would be accounted for, since at each level there would be nothing to provide the required resistance/coherence.

So, reducing the interaction between forces to that between bodies means that particles could not &#39;contradict&#39; one another without exerting non-particulate forces on their operands -- which would once again mean that such entities were incapable of exerting forces, having no rigidity to do so.

[Even the exchange of particles (in QM) would succeed in exerting forces only if there were reaction forces internal to bodies which were themselves the result of rigidity, cohesion, contact, etc. Of course, Physicists appeal to Fields, energy gradients and the like, but if these are continuous, the above problems just re-emerge. If they are particulate, this merry-go-round merely takes another spin around the floor. Some Physicists recognise this problem; many just ignore it.]

[QM = Quantum Mechanics.]

Of course, it could be objected that the above adopts an out-dated mechanistic view of interaction, and hence is completely misguided. However, the &#39;modern&#39; mathematical approach surrenders any possibility of giving a causal or physical account of forces, or at least one that does not depend on a figurative use of the verbs we use in everyday life to give such an account in the macro-world. So, if a particle is seen as a &#39;carrier of a force&#39; and that &#39;force&#39; can be given no physical bite, but it is still regarded as being capable of making things happen, forcing particles to divert their course of action (etc.), then these words must lose contact with words like "make", "force", "divert" as they are used to depict macro-phenomena. Now there is no problem with this, but then such an account becomes merely descriptive (or at best predictive), not causal. Differential equations and vectors cannot make things move, or alter their paths. (More details on this can be found in the full Essay.)]

If problems like these are put to one side for the moment, it would seem that forces could interact only by affecting the motion of bodies that are already under the control of other forces. In that case, (1b) would now reduce to the action of F1 on the effects of F2, or vice versa -- thus becoming option (2).

That being so, these forces would &#39;contradict&#39; one another by preventing the normal effects of one or both of them from occurring. But, once more, if the latter are prevented from happening, they would not exist to be contradicted, and we would be back at square one.

If this set of inferences is rejected for some reason, then if F1 does indeed succeed in &#39;contradicting&#39;, say, the velocity of any body under the control of F2 (call this velocity V2), we would have a conflict between two unlike terms: F1 and V2. Clearly, given this scenario, the original contradiction between two forces will have disappeared to be replaced by a new relationship between a force and a velocity (which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "contradictory", since the operating force merely alters a velocity -- in many cases it might even augment it, or merely deflect it).

Nevertheless, for a force to alter the velocity of a body, the force would have to be particulate, too, meaning that inter-particulate forces would come into play once again. As already noted, continuous media have no inner coherence to alter anything -- save they are viewed as particulate, once more. This would then collapse this scenario back into option (1) once more, with all its associated classical/figurative problems. Either way, the alleged contradiction here would evaporate for want of terms.

This criticism would still apply if the word "contradiction" were replaced by "conflict"; clearly, things cannot conflict if they don&#39;t exist, nor can they conflict with what they have prevented from taking place.

Also, the word "conflict" lacks the logical multiplicity that the word "contradiction" possesses. [What exactly is the &#39;inner conflict&#39; here that supposedly makes things move? A metaphysical battery of some sort?] The whole point of using the word "contradiction" in DM is to emphasise the limitations of FL, which then allows dialecticians to argue that contradictory states of affairs can exist simultaneously. That was the thrust of the DL-claims examined earlier that "A and not A" could be true. In this case, since "A" and "not A" are logically connected (in that, if propositional, ordinarily the truth of one would imply the falsehood of the other), which allows dialecticians to point to the superiority of DL over FL.

If now the meaning of the word "conflict" is imported to do duty in place of "contradict", that logical connection would be severed, and the alleged superiority of DL over FL would vanish, since no Formal Logician of any sense would deny that things can conflict -- nor indeed reject the claim that two propositions expressing conflict cannot both be true (or false) at once. [Indeed, that would be tantamount to them admitting that "conflict" was not synonymous with "contradict".]

On the other hand, if the old logical connections possessed by the word "contradiction" were exported and glued onto the word "conflict", then the meaning of the latter must change accordingly. In that case, this particular DM-thesis would have been made true solely as a result of yet more linguistic tinkering, and that would mean that another DM-&#39;fact&#39; had been created by linguistic fiat, confirming DM&#39;s status as a form of LIE. Thus from (doctored) language, superscientific &#39;truths&#39; would have followed once again.

[LIE = Linguistic Idealism.]

And finally, since only agents are capable of conflicting, this term may be used literally by those prepared to personalise nature.

[This topic is discussed at more length in the full version of Essay Eight. Also, see here.]

That might help explain why Engels modified his ideas, declaring that:

"It is expressly to be noted that attraction and repulsion are not regarded here as so-called &#39;forces&#39;, but as simple forms of motion." [Engels (1954), p.71.]

In other words it seems that forces should be regarded as "useful fictions". Engels was aware of the anthropomorphic origin of the scientific concept of force. So, for once his scientific intuitions seem to have been working correctly.

But, even if this were a viable option, it is not easy to see how on DM-grounds one form of motion could in fact &#39;contradict&#39; another form of motion. Classically, if one body alters another&#39;s motion, it would have to exert a force on it, which would introduce the very things Engels tried to eliminate.

So, despite what Engels said, DM needs forces; it cannot do without them. It requires them to provide the dialectical &#39;connective tissue&#39; (as it were) and the motive power of the universe; without them there would be nothing internal to bodies which would be able to connect their motion to that of others, and nothing to interlink processes in the "Totality". In their absence, DM would look little different from "crude materialism". Indeed, without forces, dialecticians could not even pretend to explain why things moved.

In that case, dialecticians cannot afford to take heed of this rare example of Engelsian good sense.

On the other hand, if we accept that forces do in fact exist -- that is, that they are more than just the complex ways of speaking about the interaction of bodies (and thus if we reject Engels&#39;s advice) --, then the DM-account would still not work. This is because changes are in fact produced by a single resultant force operating in the system, not by two contradictory forces.

In that case, if nature must be populated with forces -- and if the present author is allowed for a moment to indulge in some insincere a priori Superscience of her own --, change would then be the result, not of struggle, but of the cooperation, unity and harmony between forces as they naturally combine to produce change, helpfully assisting particles on their way. If so, we should rather raise an analogy here with logical tautologies -- not contradictions -- and argue alongside other ancient mystics (following the excellent precedent set by Hegel) that nature is indeed governed by forces of empathy, affection and love.

The conclusion seems quite plain: since resultant forces cause every change in nature (given the truth of the classical account), movement in general must be the result of dialectical tautologies. This new &#39;theory&#39; has at least the advantage of being consistent with classical Physics, and every known observation. The same cannot be said of DM.

[Naturally, those critical of this particular flight-of-fancy would do well to turn an equally sceptical eye on the similarly suspect anthropomorphic moves made by dialecticians all the time.]

Alternatively, if it is now argued that both of the &#39;contradicted&#39; forces (i.e., F1 and F2) still exist even while they interact with one another, change would then be the result of the operation of at least three forces (the original two and the resultant); that would, of course, create energy from nowhere.

[Needless to say, if this is so, there is a pressing need for revolutionaries to identify this &#39;third force&#39; since (on this view) it seems to be the one that will put paid to Capitalism.]

Of course, all this depends on whether the equation of forces with contradictions makes any sense to begin with. Clearly, the forces that operate in Capitalism are not vectors. It makes little sense to suppose that the forces of production are, say, orthogonal to the relations of production, or that the &#39;contradiction&#39; between use- and exchange-value has an inner product, a grad, div or curl. If not, it is difficult to see why anyone would want to call such things (or the relations between them) "forces" (or even less, "contradictions"). What do they have in common with the forces found in Physics?

In that case, it would seem that the word "force" -- as it is used in DM-propositions -- must be figurative, too. It thus seems that DM can only be made to work if we adopt a poetic view of nature.

On the other hand, if it should turn out that these forces are reminiscent of those found in mystical religious systems (which personify &#39;god&#39;, or carry out &#39;His&#39; orders (in ancient astronomy, these were the angels who supposedly pushed the planets about the place; in Newton they were the direct action of &#39;God&#39;), etc.) then it would make eminent good sense to suppose they could &#39;contradict&#39; one another (i.e., &#39;argue&#39; among themselves).

It is no surprise, therefore, to find once again that this is precisely from where this &#39;dialectical&#39; notion was lifted. This we know for a fact.

As such, DM clearly represents the re-enchantment of nature and society. Modern science banished will and intelligence from nature; DM simply re-introduced them.

Furthermore, it is difficult to picture any of the above elements as opposites; the forces of production, it would seem, are no more the opposite of the relations of production than a diesel engine is the opposite of the person using it.

Up until now DM-theorists have been more intent on merely asserting that forces are contradictory than they have been with providing any evidence or argument to show that they are -- or with clarifying what it could possibly mean to assert that they are. Once again, it is clear that DM-theorists have been quite happy to derive yet more a priori Superscience from a set of inappropriate concepts and dubious analogies, compounded by a poetic view of the assorted antics of ancient mystical intelligences, all subsequently confused with a precise logical principle.

Standard examples DM-theorists regularly wheel-out to illustrate the analogy between forces and contradictions are considered in detail in Essays Seven and Eleven, and shown to be misconceived. For instance, the alleged UO between the north and south poles of a magnet (or even that between positive and negative electrical charges) fails to illustrate the opposition between attractive and repulsive forces. In a magnet, two north poles, or two south poles (i.e., two likes), repel -- whereas two opposites (a north and a south pole), attract. So, if anything here, non-opposites &#39;contradict&#39; (i.e., &#39;conflict&#39; -- two Norths or two Souths repel each other), while actual opposites do not (North and South attract). Instead of struggle between opposites here we see harmony once more, confirming that change is indeed the result of those aforementioned &#39;internal tautologies&#39;.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

Finally, several examples of "real material forces" supposedly at work in Capitalism are considered in detail in Essays Eight and Eleven. Under close scrutiny none of them turn out to be contradictions in any meaningful sense of the term. In fact, they all turn out to be one or more of the following: discursive paradoxes, unexpected events, complex inter-relationships, injustices, irrationalities, contraries or mistakes.

Of course, if DM-theorists intend the word "contradiction" to be taken in a special sense, all well and good (but see below); however, to date, they have signally failed to say clearly what this &#39;special&#39; sense is. Or, perhaps more accurately, they have in fact sought to equate it with "conflict", which verbal &#39;solution&#39; does at least have the advantage of making overt the covert animism in DM -- for only if inanimate matter were sentient or intelligent could it enter into conflict with itself (internally), or with anything else (externally).

As will be argued in detail in Essay Twelve (this is summarised below), the tendency to see conflict in linguistic, moral or conceptual terms (in traditional thought) was a direct consequence of the way that leisure-dominated Greek Philosophers fetishised both language and the natural world, populating it with surrogate discursive terms to give sense to their own mode of being. No surprise, therefore, to see this traditional view reappear in DM.

On the other hand, if DM-theorists aim to re-define the word "contradiction" as "conflict" then their theory would merely be a form of stipulative conventionalism -- since there is nothing in the meaning of either the everyday word "contradiction", or in its logical twin that remotely suggests such a connotation; nor is there vice versa with "conflict".

In that case, it is now clear that this word has been re-defined just to make DM work. But, we should be no more convinced of the acceptability of that manoeuvre than we would be if, say, an apologist of Capitalism &#39;defined&#39; it as "natural" and "beneficial to all". If the re-definition of terms provided a "royal road" to truth, those with the best dictionaries would surely win Noble Prizes."

-----------

"Im quite sure i dont have to lay out why it is a contradiction."

In view of the fact that you can now no longer equate &#39;forces&#39; with &#39;contradictions&#39;, I suspect you will not be able to honour this rather reckless boast.

You need to recall, too, that I do not deny there are social forces that cause change, I just object to calling them &#39;contradictoy&#39;, for the reasons I have given.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[LoneRed]

ok then Rosa, which definition of contradiction suits you best then, as youve thrown out that definition to merely suite your ends.


and to redstar, does me being a new member make me any less intelligent with those with thousands of posts? No

Ive been reading things on this site for quite awhile, as well that i have a history in marxian/socialist politics. no need to debase my claims based on post counts.


When i put that he didnt understand a word marx wrote apparently no one understood my exaggeration i used to get my point across, in so far as he didnt understand Marx&#39;s claim of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I do realize he translated it into russian, but does this mean he understood it? Nope

Have fun turning the communist movement into some pragmatist dream. where do find back up for your "proletarian" pragmatism, show me how dialectics has failed in real life

many of your posts in other threads are quite easy to read. but why do you think there are only a few people discussing philosophy, and dialectics, take out the small number who arent interested, its because of the language its written in. as this talk with the long diatribes against dialectics, does not keep many people interested, nor have any use to change things in society, the very thing you are hoping to accomplish

and i dont say dialectics is true because marx and engels said it, i say it because it turns out to be true

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone:

"ok then Rosa, which definition of contradiction suits you best then, as youve thrown out that definition to merely suite your ends."

I did not throw it out to suit my ends, I merely pointed out that you should not believe everything you read in dictionaries.

Well, in ordinary language the word neither has nor needs a definition; I am quite happy to use the negative particle as ordinary people do (indeed, as workers do). If anything, it means literally "to gain say", but it depends on context.

In FL, things are different; the word has a technical sense most DM-fans get wrong.

But, you are asking me questions I have covered in detail at my site; so to save me having to type it all again, here is part of what I said (in note one to Essay Five; the references you can check here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2005.htm):

"It is not easy to form a clear picture of the claim that reality is fundamentally contradictory. With respect to DM at least, this is primarily because the whole topic has been discussed (by dialecticians) with the utmost lack of clarity -– the work of Graham Priest excepted, of course.

In Essays Four, six, Eight and Eleven I hope to demonstrate that while DM-theorists avowedly use the term "contradiction" in their attempt to illustrate the limitations of FL, most of them have little or no understanding of either or both. Nevertheless, this has not prevented dialecticians from claiming that their understanding of contradictions is superior to that of Formal Logicians.

According to them, their broader view (and wider application) of this term allows them to account for motion and change, while those who confine themselves to the &#39;laws&#39; of FL cannot. However, as we will see in this Essay, this particular claim is inaccurate -- at least with respect to motion. Indeed, the rest of this site aims to show that not only can DL not account for change, dialectical logicians in fact struggle to account for something as mundane as a bag of sugar&#33;

[DL = Dialectical Logic; LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction; FL = Formal Logic.]

Clearly, the term "contradiction" is employed in FL in a technical sense, one that is widely misunderstood by DL-aficionados. More on this in Essays Four, Eight and Eleven.

As far as ordinary language is concerned, one of the ways in which we speak about change involves employing a rule (that many also misconstrue as a logical truth (i.e., the LOC)), which enables us to draw inferences from the relationship that holds between contradictory propositions. [Of course, this is not the only means we have at out disposal in the vernacular.] Thus, if two putatively contradictory sentences are held true at different times, then (given certain other constraints) speakers of that language would normally conclude that the subject of those sentences had changed. For example, consider the following:

C1: NN is not a member of Respect.

C2: NN is a member of Respect.

A change like this would usually be recorded more directly, either by the use of a tensed verb or by the employment of some other form of paraphrase, as in: "NN has joined Respect", or "NN wasn&#39;t in Respect last year, but now she is", etc. This means that contradictions -- and wider uses of negation -- are integral to our ordinary notion of change.

Now if this is so, the idea that ordinary language and FL cannot account for change is bizarre; in fact, without the resources provided by the vernacular, human beings would not be able to conceptualise change at all. And that observation applies to dialecticians, as well. Again, is demonstrated here, ordinary language can handle change far better than the wooden terminology used by metaphysicians; this is especially true of the jargon found in Hegel.

In that case, if dialecticians undermine the use of such everyday terms, their theory cannot help but become incomprehensible, which is what this essay will demonstrate with respect to Engels&#39;s &#39;analysis&#39; of motion.

Now, as far as FL is concerned, two propositions are contradictory just in case they cannot both be true and cannot both be false at once. [This latter condition is almost invariably ignored by DM-critics of FL. Its importance will emerge later.] Naturally, this characterisation represents the simplest form of contradiction in FL; a more complex contradiction would be either of the following:

C1: ~[(P→Q)v(P→R)↔(P→(QvR))]

C2: ~[~(Ex)(Fx&~Gx)↔(x)(Fx→Gx)].

[Here, "E" is the existential quantifier, "~" stands for the negation operator, "↔" is a biconditional sign, "(x)" is the universal quantifier, "&" stands for "and", "v" is the inclusive "or", "~" stands for negation, "→" is the conditional sign, "P", "Q", and "R" are propositional variables, "F" and "G" are one-place, first-level predicate letters, and "x" is a second-level predicate-binding variable. More details at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_predicate_calculus.]

These, of course, are just two of the potentially infinite number of logical contradictions that it is possible to generate in MFL. DM-theorists would be hard-pressed to find space even in their quirky universe for contradictions such as these.

[MFL = Modern Formal Logic; LEM = Law of the Excluded Middle; PB = Principle of Bivalence.]

Moreover, DM-writers often confuse the LEM, the PB -- and particularly the LOC -- with such things as opposites, inconsistencies, contraries, paradoxes, oddities, irrationalities, struggles, oppositional processes, forces and events that run contrary to expectations. In fact, they are so ready to see contradictions everywhere, they have had to alter the meaning of the word so that it becomes synonymous (for them&#33;) with "struggle", "conflict" and "opposition". [More details on these and other dialectical confusions are given in Essays Four, Six and Eight.]

Nevertheless, as DM-theorists themselves are quick to point out, their interest lies not so much with contradictory propositions as with real material forces, which express or even constitute conflicts in nature and society, ones that have been verified empirically or in practice. Furthermore, since they also believe that reality itself is fundamentally contradictory, any proposition accurately describing the world ought to be contradictory, or it should reflect the contradictions that exist in the world. But, because propositions are linguistic expressions they are plainly not material forces, which must mean that they are not themselves oppositional per se -- even though they can reflect at some level the dynamic nature of objects and processes in reality, especially if they have been phrased correctly. Conversely, if they are oppositional, this could only be in a derivative sense, perhaps. In any case, the idea appears to be that while objects and processes in nature are contradictory and subject to change, any language that depicts this must reflect this fact it if it to be accurate.

On the other hand, the principles that underlie FL merely commit us to the view that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true and cannot both be false at the same time. Hence, on that basis, any claim that two allegedly contradictory propositions are both true at once (or are both false at once) would automatically be regarded as mistaken in some way. Indeed, this fact alone could provide sufficient grounds for questioning whether one or both of the alleged contradictory propositions were in fact propositions to begin with. To be sure, if it is unclear what is being proposed, any sentences involved cannot be proposing anything. [Examples are given below.]

Several factors might contribute to this state of affairs: the said &#39;propositions&#39; could contain typographically similar words that have different denotations; they could harbour ambiguous, vague, or figurative expressions; they might have been taken from different areas of discourse. Thus, from such a perspective the presumption would always be that an alleged &#39;contradiction&#39; could only be held true by someone in the grip of some form of linguistic or interpretative confusion. &#39;Contradictions&#39; that had been generated this way would not normally be regarded as capable of revealing fundamental truths about the nature of reality; they would perhaps convey more about the linguistic naivety of the one so easily taken in. Hence, one would expect the disambiguation or clarification of these alleged &#39;contradictions&#39; to eliminate the problem. Only an exceedingly naive person would conclude that just because certain sentences appeared to be contradictory, nature must be so too.

Indeed, this particular approach should strongly suggest itself to materialists if the alternative view (that there were indeed contradictions in reality) had itself been invented by mystics, and which suggested that the natural world possessed properties rightly attributable only to human beings -- i.e., the ability to converse and to disagree (&#39;contradict&#39;). In addition, and to its credit, this austere approach to the existence of contradictions should help counter the acceptance of the traditional doctrine that theses about fundamental aspects of reality may be derived from the logical properties of language alone -- or, in this case, from the crass mistakes that dialecticians themselves make about contradictions, outlined a few paragraphs back.

Naturally, DM-apologists will view claims like these with some suspicion; to them they might even appear dogmatic and aprioristic. Not only that, it could be argued that this obsession with the fine detail of linguistic usage must itself collapse into LIE in that it presumes to offer a linguistic solution to what are in fact a philosophical, scientific or practical problems.

[LIE = Linguistic Idealism.]

However, the opposite of this is in fact the case; the approach adopted here seeks to undermine the traditional metaphysical belief (which dialecticians share) that truths about reality may be inferred from both contingent and logical aspects of language. Manifestly, it is the world that makes what we say true of false; it is not what we say that determines fundamental aspects of reality.

[As Essay Seven argues, DM-contradictions cannot be verified by experience, nor can they be confirmed in any other way. In Essay Twelve, the ideological motivation for the contrary belief is exposed.]

Nevertheless, it is important to be able to recognise when the descriptive capacities of language begin to break down. This is especially relevant in connection with theses found in DM, since the latter invariably turn out to be confused, ambiguous or nonsensical. As several Essays posted at this site show, DM-theses break down alarmingly easily.

Moreover, it is equally important to be able to distinguish spurious pictures of reality from the genuine article. Indeed, DM-theorists do this themselves when they point out the confused and/or self-contradictory nature of rival theories and advocate their rejection on that basis. [This allegation is substantiated in Essay Eleven.]

Clearly, DM-theorists believe that their analysis begins with reality (albeit mediated by the conceptual/practical resources to hand); they then require that our linguistic habits adapt accordingly. On this view, if nature is contradictory, and ordinary language and FL cannot accommodate that fact, then we must conclude that both are limited or are defective in some way.

In response to this it is not easy to appear un-dogmatic. Language has been moulded throughout its history by an evolving set of social norms and conventions, which have themselves been refined by countless factors at work across diverse Modes of Production. Because of this it is possible to argue that, when faced with situations that appeared to be &#39;contradictory&#39;, human beings could have developed DL-type categories. However, given other conventions that have in fact been adopted in practice -- no one supposes that overt decisions were taken --, this is highly unlikely.

As the word itself suggests, to contradict someone is to gain-say or deny what they say is true (or false, which is an everyday option DM-theorists seem to be unaware of -- in their theoretical deliberations, at least). This use of language (which apparently goes back as far as records last) means that our ancestors clearly failed to take the DL-route; and it is not difficult to see why. In fact, given the concepts we now have (and the social practices from which they have arisen), we can make no sense of the claim that a contradiction could be true. Indeed, we would fail to comprehend anyone who claimed that in a dispute (where someone gain-said what someone else had said) both sides could be speaking the literal truth. In cases where disputants might seem to be doing this, the most likely response (then as now) would be to try to disambiguate their claims, in order to resolve the serious problems that &#39;true contradictions&#39; would create in every day life.

And this can be asserted with some confidence because, as noted above, the conventions we now have prevent us from understanding how contradictions could be true. Not only that, but they prevent us from understanding anyone who might think otherwise. Worse still, they also prevent us from understanding how humanity could ever have developed alternative conventions, or how we could now make sense of anyone who supposed that they could have. This is one intellectual river we cannot now step back into even once -- to paraphrase Cratylus.

These claims are as bold as they are controversial, so I shall defend each in turn.

Take the first, which was that we should fail to understand anyone who believed a contradiction could be true, and that we would seek to disambiguate it (or them) in order to make sense of what it or (they) said. Consider the following example:

B1: John Rees wrote and did not write The Algebra of Revolution.

B1a: John Rees wrote The Algebra of Revolution.

B1b: John Rees did not write The Algebra of Revolution.

Let us suppose someone asserted that B1 was true, or that both B1a and B1b were true. Faced with this, we would find it difficult to take that person or what they said literally or seriously; this is because both halves of B1 could not be true, nor could they be false.

However, if B1a and B1b were still held true, then we could only make sense of the contradiction they seem to express by noting the ambiguous use of the word "write". In one sense of that term it could imply that John Rees was the author of the said work; in another quite ordinary sense it might suggest that the book was not hand-written, but was perhaps word-processed. In that case, B1 would be expressing the fact that although John Rees authored the said book he did not hand-write it. Hence, B1 would then only seem to be contradictory because of such an elementary equivocation. We would not automatically think that there were real material forces at work behind the struggle to produce Rees&#39;s book, no matter how well confirmed each half of B1 happened to be. [Naturally, this indicates that empirical checks in such cases are not relevant to what is in fact a logical issue.]

Some might object, arguing that the above line of attack reveals the LIE implicit in the logical caveats this Essay lays down, for it seems to restrict the nature of reality by appealing to a controversial logical/linguistic pre-condition. But this would be to mistake the approach adopted here for its opposite. The strategy employed here seeks to undermine the idea that substantive truths about reality can be derived from logical or contingent features of language. In this particular case, it does this by basing itself on what we would now do (independently of any theory) to interpret &#39;contradictions&#39; as and when they might arise. In that case, this Essay appeals to rules (i.e., normed social practices) we already use, and not to truths that can be inferred from a misconception of the nature of such rules.

Indeed, it is the opposite view to that taken here that tails off into LIE for it confuses linguistic/logical rules with empirical (or Superempirical) truths. In DM, this is done, for example, when dialecticians treat the LOC as a truth which they think could be (and often is) false. This leads them to argue that contradictions themselves could be true (since the law debarring them, the LOC, is false when applied to change, say). But if the LOC is in fact a rule, or if it merely formalises a rule we ordinarily use, it cannot be either true or false.

[Further ruminations on this theme will be resumed in Essay Twelve; there it will be argued in detail why the aforementioned confusion of rules (i.e., social practices, historically conditioned by the material world) with substantive truths is a characteristic feature of ruling-class thought (since it undermines the communally-motivated aspects of ordinary language and thus the experience of working people); from such confusion metaphysics (and now dialectics) emerged.]

Admittedly, the example quoted above (in B1) is glaringly trite, but it was deliberately chosen so that the strategy of disambiguation should be clear to all. Nevertheless, and against this, it could be objected that DM-theorists are more concerned with an analysis of the forces affecting Capitalism so that they can assist in its demise; in that case, simplistic examples like B1 are not even remotely relevant.

In order to counter this response, the sorts of contradictions to which DM-theorists regularly refer will be analysed elsewhere on this site, and in considerable detail. There it will be shown that even the prime examples dialecticians use to illustrate "real material contradictions" turn out not to be contradictions at all (in any sense of that word) -- and they cannot be turned into them howsoever they are interpreted or &#39;surgically enhanced&#39;.

With respect to the other assertion made above -- that we would fail to understand alternative conventions given the ones we already have --, the key point is that as social beings we may only succeed in understanding something when it is represented in a language and a form with which we are familiar. And this can be asserted with some confidence since the word "understand" is (patently) in ordinary language already. But, discourse is not a free-floating phenomenon; its invention and evolution were and are functions of our social and material development. Not only that, but the use of language is subject to constraints we have inherited from previous generations, ones which we clearly had no hand in shaping, but these are constraints into which we had to be socialised by our parents, carers and peers (etc.). We manifestly did not socialise ourselves.

Moreover, we demonstrate our mastery of this complex socio-linguistic facility when we begin to communicate with others, and we cannot think beyond these limits (except by extending language). Hence, while we can form thoughts as we please, we cannot do so under logico-linguistic conditions of our own choosing (to paraphrase Marx).

Now, it is tempting to think that such limitations are physical -- or at least that they represent merely contingent constraints on the use of language --, but that would be a serious mistake. There are physical and contingent boundaries to language, but these are not the limitations alluded to above. This topic is discussed in more detail in my thesis. However, the points made in this Essay are not dependent on the validity of these seemingly dogmatic claims. Doubters need only think about how they would interpret B1 (or indeed B2, below), and the point should become a little clearer.

Of course, we can translate other languages (ancient or modern) into our own, but we may only do so if we act within the constraints operating on us now -- unless we restrict ourselves to mere transliteration. This means therefore that because we cannot make sense of contradictory speech now, we cannot even comprehend the supposition that contradictions could ever have been held true by anyone in the past. Indeed, we are equally incapable of translating any language (ancient or modern) into our own in comprehensible terms while attempting to depict its users using contradictory speech, holding contradictions to be true in any form we could now understand. We may be able to record the fact that certain people spoke in paradoxical ways in the past, but given what we now mean by the words we use, we would be able to make no sense of what it was that these ancient &#39;paradoxes&#39; presented to their alleged &#39;believers&#39;.

[The various &#39;true contradictions&#39; DM-theorists appeal to will be examined elsewhere on this site; Graham Priest&#39;s more sophisticated attempts to picture &#39;true contradictions&#39; are criticised at length in my thesis.

Incidentally, these limitations are not seen here as ones that words exercise upon us, but how we collectively -- through our socialisation -- understand the words we already have. To suppose otherwise would be to fetishise language.]

Consider this example:

B2: This four thousand year old inscription says that its author wrote and did not write it.

Now, despite the fact that dialecticians assure us that reality is contradictory, not even they would attempt to understand B2 literally. This is not because that would be especially hard to do, but that any claim to the contrary would undermine the meaning of the word "literally".

But, even supposing a few die-hard dialecticians could be found who attempted to do this, they would find it impossible to explain to anyone else in literal terms what sense they made of B2 (other than by trying to disambiguate it in ways similar to those outlined above, for instance).

As noted earlier, trite examples like these have been deliberately chosen to illustrate a point that is all too easily missed: when faced with the paradoxical things people sometimes say, we automatically try to disambiguate their words and their actions; we adopt what Donald Davidson once called a "principle of charity" when trying to grasp what they say. [Davidson (2001).] Hence, confronted with someone who asserted an apparent contradiction we would normally employ this policy (saving trivial examples, of course). This does not mean that the result would be a distortion of what was said; it is rather that we would not be able to understand them if we did not do this, and we would be unable to make any sense of anyone who did not do this -- or who rejected this principle in practice.

In any case, DM-rejectionists would be hard-pressed to explain to anyone else what they themselves took the sense of a true contradiction to be, as the rest of this site aims to show.

Clearly, this does not mean that we shouldn&#39;t exercise some degree of sensitivity toward other belief systems (past or present), but we may only do so in terms of current protocols. If confronted with what appeared to be weird or paradoxical beliefs, we would not be able to translate or interpret them literally and claim we understood them. And, if anyone claimed that they could do this, it would automatically throw into doubt the validity of their translation (unless the meaning of the word "translate" itself had changed) -- always supposing, of course, that they hadn&#39;t merely transliterated instead. However, if what had been translated were still held to be literally true but still paradoxical, then whatever else we could make of the translated passage, we would have to abandon all talk of its literal truth. Either that, or once again we would have to understand the word "literal" non-literally.

This is a topic still under intense debate; on his see Creary and Read (2000), especially Chapter 12: Cerbone (2000). see also Conant (1991), and Forster (1998).

Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that contradictions do not depict reality in any meaningful sense. Now, it is important to note that this is not being asserted because reality does not contain contradictions, or because the world either is or is not as an allegedly &#39;true contradiction&#39; might seem to depict things, or because contradictions are always false (which is the classical view). To argue thus would be to fall into the same trap that ensnares DM-theorists, and would amount to the derivation of yet another a priori truth about realty from a linguistic convention. On the contrary, contradictions fail to depict the world not because they are false, but because they are not depictions to begin with. They represent the disintegration of description, since they violate materially-grounded linguistic rules we already have for picturing reality.

Finally it could be argued that the above comments beg the question since dialecticians do not question the general application of principles drawn from FL, such as the LOC, they merely point to their limitations when it comes to accounting for change. Now, that particular claim will be put under severe pressure in this Essay, where it will be shown that it is dialectics that cannot account for motion, and hence change.

[General logical issues are discussed in Essay Four, and other related topics (such as the "interpenetration of opposites" and change through "internal contradiction") are reviewed in Essays Seven and Eight.]"


Check out my post on Formal Logic (posted here at Rev Left), where I go into more detail on certain aspects of the DM-criticism of FL.

I will respond to other things you say later.

Got to dash....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone, I see that the other things you said were directed at Red Star, but what you need to realise is that both of us attribute the long term failure of Marxism to the tradition you are defending.

Now, you may or may not agree; that is up to you (and you&#39;d be in the majority of traditionalists, if you disagreed), but I try to explain at my site why we put this down partly to DM.

Of course, you can ignore all this, that is up to you.

But at some point you are going to have to pull your head out of the sand.

Or not....

And, Red Star is not a pragmatist; he is as much in favour of the right theory as you or I. But, like me, he just requires that theory to have some sort of practical impact on the class struggle, other than negative.

You DM-fans constantly tell us truth is tested in practice, but when we demand to know the (positive) practical impact dialectics has, we are accused of being pragmatists.

It&#39;s your criterion.

You cannot blame us if the last 150 years shows your theory has enjoyed long term failure.

So, either abandon the criterion that truth is tested in practice, or admit DM has been tested, and the results are not too flattering.

[LoneRed]

now, since its final time, it will take me a bit longer to look through what you wrote in your first reply. Let me make this clear right now, I do think you and redstar as comrades in so far(in my belief) that you are on the right track, given i believe in dialectics and you two dont.

yes i know it has to have some practical impact, but dialectics is what gives the base for the class struggle, its not like every comrade fighting in the revolution has to know dialectics to fight in the revolution, just that they need to know how the class struggle and how it came to be. dialectics, scientifically shows the need and the necessity of the socialist revolution. It shows why these two classes are antagonistic, and how that the proletariat taking power is the necessary consequence of capitalism.

I take it that you are using Russia,China etc.. as examples for the failure of Dialectics, I can go into this if you wish, but just because those failed doesnt mean marxism, or dialectics failed. In russia and china they tried to complete socialist revolutions(later went back, well lenin did) and said that they need the bourgeois revolution. The peasantry isnt a revolutionary class. The peasantry cant overthrow the bourgeois and implement socialism, they dont have the necessary conditions of this antagonism.

if thats not what you mean when talking about failure, please do explain

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone, well you do not need the dialectic to explain why classes are antagonistic, you only need Historical Materialism (with the meaningless Hegelian phraseology removed, that is).

And, of course there were reasons why Russia and China (and everything else dialectical Marxists have put their hands to) have failed.

But, if you are going to make practice the criterion of truth, it is no use excusing your theory every time it fails, for then practice is not the criterion you pretend, is it?

There are many reasons why the major revolutions you mentioned failed, but one significant reason is that the political parties involved tried to substitute themselves for the working class (the latter of which was not involved in China in the revolution anyway -- so no wonder it has been a socialist disaster, and now a capitalist heaven).

And you cannot build a socialist society without the active involvement of the proletariat; they have to change the world, not the party. In Russia, most of the working class were killed by the civil war, and the party then had to substitute itself for the class, since it no longer existed (anyway the proletariat was in the minority to begin with).

And the reason why Leninist parties have an inner tendency to substitute themselves for the working class (and thus to become the new ruling-class) is the ruling-class theory they have borrowed from Hegel (after having given it a non-existent materialist flip); they have a contradictory theory at the heart of their ideas which allows them to justify anything at all since no one really understands it (or can explain or defend it -- which makes it resemble religious faith), hence any leader can claim anything they like for it (and be hopelessly inconsistent, and excuse that on the basis that the dialectic requires it, since it sees contradiction everywhere), and then accuse anyone who disagrees of &#39;revisionism&#39; and have them shot (etc) or expelled.

So such parties are neurotically un-democratic, suffer from leadership cults and the working class end up being oppressed and exploited all over again.

Now that the working class has rumbled the fact that Leninist parties are led by clones of the ruling-class, they are terminally unpopular, and it seems they will remain in this condition unless someone flushes the ruling-class ideology out of the system.

In the meantime, Leninist parties are small, divisive, sectarian, even more unsuccessful, and still highly unreasonable (they spend most of their time attacking one another -- just as in Monty Python&#39;s Life of Brian (a film which captures quite nicely the image most ordinary people have of Marxist parties).

The bigger the working class, the smaller the impact of dialectical Marxism. Just think about that.

Now I go into all this at my site (where I give it a materialist, class analysis, based on Historical Materialism). I explain why prominent Marxists adopted this theory and how it has corrupted the workers&#39; movement ever since.

Dialectics also prevents comrades from examining the failed history of our movement objectively; it insulates their minds from material reality because of its Idealist roots and Idealist form.

It is because I am sick of this that I am trying my level best to alter things.

As you can see from the reception I have had here from the dialectical clones who have responded to my Essays (largely by failing to read them carefully, or at all), I stand very little chance of ridding Marxism of this virus, but I hope to inoculate a few younger comrades so that the next generation can help form a genuine revolutionary proletarian party.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 7 2006, 12:45 PM
Excuse 1917:

"are you saying that you support professional philosophers?"

How you can infer that from anything I have written, only your dialectically-inventive eyes can tell.

In fact, if you bothered to read the Essays at my site (sorry(&#33;), I know that is far too scary to even mention), you will see that I aim to show that every philosophical theory (and that includes the fourth-rate ones found in DM) represnet ideas conducive to ruling-class interests.

So I am an anti-philosopher, not just an implacable anti-dialectician.

So, once agian, you make a dialectical fool of yourself, Axel 1906 -- i.e, your foolishness is all self-caused.



The materialist fight-back starts here:


http://www.anti-dialectics.org
I find it interesting how you must make reference to the professional philosophers, i.e. some of the least credible people out there.

Dialectical Materialism and all philosophy being conducive toward ruling class ideology? You have really proven yourself to be a quack here, Rosa. Your method is already dead. History has proven it in the past, and it will prove it again in the future.

And now Rosa has a new "history" of the Russian revolution. She completely fails to understand the role of an iron Bolshevik discipline (Lenin explained many times that those opposing such an iron discipline are those that are in favor of disarming the proletariat in the interests of the Bourgeoisie. She has not understood anything of his). She does not even analyze the isolation of the revolution in a backward country that led to the Stalinist counterrevolution. Again, she is about as Trotskyist as Ronald Raegan.

As for sectarianism, it is a common problem. Virtually every organization out there is sectarian. CWI, SWP, Communist League, you name it. There are those of us that are not sectarian, though, and considering that you do nothing but sit behind a computer ranting all day and all night, not entering traditional workers&#39; organizaitons to win them over, not even advocating it, etc., you seem quite sectarian yourself. Struggle is inevitable, and the nonsectarians will overcome the sectarians (we are already having an effect in Venezuela, for example). The sectarians are getting nowhere. They can&#39;t get anywhere. They are obstacles in the way. They have nothing, and theyw will end up with nothing. Your inability to think and understand dialectics and tactics will ensure that you will also end up nowhere, with all of the sectarians.

History will prove that you are wrong. Your "HM" is really a rehash of Bourgeois philosophical criticisms against Marxism in the guise of "eliminating the crap from Marxism."

You stand no chance of getting rid of the "virus." The real virus is you. You are quite a harmless one, in fact. The Marxist immunse system is not being stopped by Stalinists/Maoists, sectarians, Bourgeois criticisms, so what makes you think that you can bring the whole thing down?

I have also put forth scientific evidence that proves dialectics. Rosa doesn&#39;t want anyone seeing it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse, 1917:

"I find it interesting how you must make reference to the professional philosophers"

And Hegel was a coal miner was he?


I deal with your other &#39;arguments&#39; later; have to dash.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1917:

"Dialectical Materialism and all philosophy being conducive toward ruling class ideology?"

Well, if you won&#39;t read my reasons for saying this, you can stay in your self-induced state of ignorance, for all I care.

"As for sectarianism, it is a common problem..."

Exactly: and the common factor is -- your mystical theory.

Thanks for verifying it.

"History will prove that you are wrong."

Which is more than you can do, apparently.

But history has already refuted your &#39;theory&#39;.

"I have also put forth scientific evidence that proves dialectics..."

No, you gestured at an anecdotal sub-list of a few allegedly supporting &#39;facts&#39;, none of which turned out to work.

You would not even make it through school science with &#39;evidence&#39; like that.

"Rosa doesn&#39;t want anyone seeing it. "

Well, since you were the one who was warning people off my site not a few weeks ago, and since you will not find a single sentence anywhere that I have authored that even so much as suggests this, we can only conclude that you now have to resort to invention to try to save your already drowned &#39;theory&#39;

Very familiar dialectical tactics, these.

You must really be getting desperate, Excuse 1918

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 8 2006, 01:35 PM
Excuse, 1917:

"I find it interesting how you must make reference to the professional philosophers"

And Hegel was a coal miner was he?


I deal with your other &#39;arguments&#39; later; have to dash.
The professional philosophers of today are clearly Bourgeois in their outlook, and they have contributed nothing to philosophical development.

I don&#39;t need to read your "reasoning," given your poor use of logic, evasiveness, and your failure to convince anyone with that site.

Sectarianism is not caused by Dialectical Materialism, but rather by not understanding proper tactics, in addition to not knowing how the masses even move (by the logic of the sectarians, socialism is impossible, for even getting somewhere in the basic trade unions is impossible according to them).

History has not refuted dialectical materialism. It has confirmed it many times. Even Hegel showed the limits of your beloved Formal Logic.

You clearly never read that work, now did you? You have ignored scientific data, of which is much more credible than your rant site. Even Gould went as far as to complement some works of Engels.

The only person that is resorting to invention is you, and that is proven alone by every post you make.

Of course, Rosa is resorting to her usual invention, evasion, and abusive ad hominems. Nothing new here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1920:

"The professional philosophers of today are clearly Bourgeois in their outlook, and they have contributed nothing to philosophical development."

I agree, that is why I condemn these professionals, as well as the rank amateurs who dreamt up dialectics.

Glad we agree.

"I don&#39;t need to read your "reasoning,""

Sure, I believe you, but I suspect everyone else has rumbled you.

All mouth and no brain, I can hear them saying.

No, no -- he really does not need to read a single thing I have written. He knows all, sees all.

He is a Dialectical Magus, and they are gods.

Doubters can get stu**ed.

Oh dear, he has feet of clay; more invention (Excuse 1921, you should write intelligence dossiers for Blair and Bush&#33;):

"Sectarianism is not caused by Dialectical Materialism..."

I never said it was (you made that up, didn&#39;t you, you naughty boy??); what I do assert, and I even manage to prove this too -- but you won&#39;t read it, so dangerous is it to your cosy DM-view of the world -- is that it is the ideology of substitutionist elements in our movement.

Oh dear, Excuse 1922&#39;s head goes back in the sand, comrades:

"History has not refuted dialectical materialism."

Unfortunately, history disagrees with your day-dream.

"You clearly never read that work, now did you?"

As one (like you) who refuses to read stuff, this is a bit rich.

And yes, I have studied Hegel for my sins, that is why I loathe his work, and despise his ignorance of logic.

Since you know no logic at all, you are in no position to judge.

But, hey, pontificate all you like. You are only impressing yourself, and the few dialectical know-nothings who swallow all you say.

More baseless assertion:

"The only person that is resorting to invention is you..."

Details please....

Or did you make this up too?

Please tell me you did not.

I can&#39;t believe you just invent stuff.

Ah, at last -- some honesty about yourself:

"Nothing new here"

You know, I am beginning to like you.

Hugs

Rosa

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 8 2006, 07:07 PM
Excuse 1920:

"The professional philosophers of today are clearly Bourgeois in their outlook, and they have contributed nothing to philosophical development."

I agree, that is why I condemn these professionals, as well as the rank amateurs who dreamt up dialectics.

Glad we agree.

"I don&#39;t need to read your "reasoning,""

Sure, I believe you, but I suspect everyone else has rumbled you.

All mouth and no brain, I can hear them saying.

No, no -- he really does not need to read a single thing I have written. He knows all, sees all.

He is a Dialectical Magus, and they are gods.

Doubters can get stu**ed.

Oh dear, he has feet of clay; more invention (Excuse 1921, you should write intelligence dossiers for Blair and Bush&#33;):

"Sectarianism is not caused by Dialectical Materialism..."

I never said it was (you made that up, didn&#39;t you, you naughty boy??); what I do assert, and I even manage to prove this too -- but you won&#39;t read it, so dangerous is it to your cosy DM-view of the world -- is that it is the ideology of substitutionist elements in our movement.

Oh dear, Excuse 1922&#39;s head goes back in the sand, comrades:

"History has not refuted dialectical materialism."

Unfortunately, history disagrees with your day-dream.

"You clearly never read that work, now did you?"

As one (like you) who refuses to read stuff, this is a bit rich.

And yes, I have studied Hegel for my sins, that is why I loathe his work, and despise his ignorance of logic.

Since you know no logic at all, you are in no position to judge.

But, hey, pontificate all you like. You are only impressing yourself, and the few dialectical know-nothings who swallow all you say.

More baseless assertion:

"The only person that is resorting to invention is you..."

Details please....

Or did you make this up too?

Please tell me you did not.

I can&#39;t believe you just invent stuff.

Ah, at last -- some honesty about yourself:

"Nothing new here"

You know, I am beginning to like you.

Hugs

Rosa
You certainly seemed to imply that dialectics causes sectarianism, and you seem to blame the USSR&#39;s degeneration to Stalinism for it. However, you continue to be evasive (like the dictionary defintion), and you have clearly not understood a single thing that even Hegel had stated. You have not refuted anyone. Your site poses no threat to the internaitonal socialist movement. I am in an organization that is having influence in Venezuela and around the world. Chavez is an admirer of Reason in Revolt. What on Earth is your sectarian and nonsensical site doing for the working class. Your denial of contradictions is denial of the existence of the class struggle. Everyone knows this basic flaw of your "reasoning." Why do you think that no one takes you seriously (with the exception of the Bourgeois ideologue, redstar2000)? Why do you think that I don&#39;t even bother going into an in-depth rebuttal of your points?

Abusive ad hominems, attacking everything that Marxism stands for with vulgar philosophy, idealism, etc., anger, thinking that she has found what seems to be a final and ultimate truth....Mein Gott&#33; Herr Dühring lebt&#33; :o

[LoneRed]

Your denial of contradictions is denial of the existence of the class struggle

I couldnt agree more, Taking the DM out of marxism, thus consequently makes a large hole in it, making it unable to give proper reason for the working classes overthrow of capitalism. without dialectics there wouldnt be me, you, or the class struggle. There wouldnt be the necessity of the overthrow of the bourgeois, nor of the working class taking power. Historical materialism is nothing but shallow words without dialectics

you still have failed to show that dialectics has shown its "failure" in the past

[red_che]

Rosa the Modern Day God-Philosopher:


I did not throw it out to suit my ends, I merely pointed out that you should not believe everything you read in dictionaries.

Now she was even going against the dictionaries. Next time, I bet, she&#39;ll throw out other references except her work just to suit her ends.

She doesn&#39;t believe anything other than her own "superior ideas".


And yes, I have studied Hegel for my sins, that is why I loathe his work, and despise his ignorance of logic.

Surely, you&#39;re barking at a wrong tree. Dialectical materialists also loathe Hegel just as Marx threw away his (Hegel&#39;s) idealist pretensions.

But as I tell once more, your criticisms to Hegel is coated as criticisms to DM.

If one reads your work (that cobweb-type of work that refers from one part of essay to another part of another essay and so on just to explain something ridiculuous) which you produced and glorify, one can know that you are criticising Hegel&#39;s ideas. Although you quoted from dialecticians, your criticisms are mostly anti-Hegelian dialectics, not against dialectical materialism. And you confuse these two, evaded the radical difference between the two, and blew out of proportion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
I am in an organization that is having influence in Venezuela and around the world.

Woo-hoo&#33; :lol:

Caracas (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today denounced Rosa Lichtenstein and redstar2000 as enemies of the dialectic.

Holding aloft a plastic doll with the features of Leon Trotsky, he kissed it repeatedly while telling television audiences throughout the country that Axel1917 was the only real socialist at the RevLeft message board.

Thousands of angry citizens poured into the streets of Venezuela&#39;s capital city, carrying large posters of Trotsky while burning effigies of Lichtenstein and redstar2000.

This surprising move from Venezuela&#39;s erratic president may have backfired, however, as demands for Spanish translations of anti-dialectics.org (http://anti-dialectics.org/1.html) and the redstar2000papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/) have unexpectedly skyrocketed.

Axel1917 told foreign correspondents that he was proud to be a member of a group which had such great influence in Venezuela and around the world.

Next up: Axel1917 unable to fit head through doorway. :lol:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Real Cheap:

"Now she was even going against the dictionaries."

So you belive everything a dictionary says, do you?

Check out what it says about &#39;neagtion&#39;, and come back to me.

I suspect you will have changed your confused mind by then.

"She doesn&#39;t believe anything other than her own "superior ideas"."

Coming from someone who allows &#39;his&#39; thinking to be controlled by Lenin, Engels and Hegel, this is an interesting comment.

And of course, I beleive what evidence and logic tell me, unlike you. You believe what you read.

[By the way, are you under 16? I only ask, because you argue like a child.]

But thankyou anyway for saying my ideas are "superior".

I knew you we would agree on something sooner or later.

"Surely, you&#39;re barking at a wrong tree."

According to you, trees talk to one another (or at least they argue), so I suspect that I have got the right tree and you are not quite sober.

"But as I tell once more, your criticisms to Hegel is coated as criticisms to DM."

I do not criticise Hegel -- you will know when I do, I will say so.

So, wrong again, muddle-head.

And more baseless assertion:

"Although you quoted from dialecticians, your criticisms are mostly anti-Hegelian dialectics, not against dialectical materialism. And you confuse these two, evaded the radical difference between the two, and blew out of proportion."

Evidence please....

Er, sorry -- you don&#39;t believe in it -- you like to invent, instead.


See for yourself what Red Che cannot grasp (and why he has to invent to cover up his ignorance) at:


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1925:

"You certainly seemed to imply that dialectics causes sectarianism..."

Your logic is so poor, I am surprised you did not say "You certainly seemed to imply that dialectics causes VD".

"However, you continue to be evasive (like the dictionary defintion)..."

No, I was quite open.

Excuse 1925, I know I make fun of your logically-parlous state, but have you got a problem too with the English language? You seem to be all over the place.

"and you have clearly not understood a single thing that even Hegel had stated."

Again, I am in good company -- no one understands Hegel (or if they do, they have kept it quiet for nearly 200 years).

"You have not refuted anyone...."

As I noted earlier, you would not know; you are so confused you think things in nature argue among themselves (&#33;&#33;).

So, as far as grasping an argument is concerned, I think we can call you the "George W Bush" of logic.

"Your site poses no threat to the internaitonal socialist movement..."

You would not know anyway -- your head is too far up Woods and Grant&#39;s A**e.

"I am in an organization that is having influence in Venezuela and around the world."

Oh yes, the rump end of the Militant Tendency (after they kicked Woods and Grant out -- I presume you are in the kicked-out part). I remember them. They used to fantasise about the revolution just around the corner too, back in the 1980&#39;s, and how they were poised to take over the Labour Party. How significant they were, blah, blah. Big fish, and all that crap. [Not looking too clever now....]

Looks like you lot are still in La La land. Small fry in a small pond. And, what is even more amusing, you can&#39;t see it.

I blame it on the rot caused to your brain by dialectics.

"Chavez is an admirer of Reason in Revolt."

If so, the he is a bigger fool than I have so far taken him for.

But, Excuse 1927, why tell me this? Did you think I would say "Oh no&#33; How wrong I have been...&#33;"

You think quoting this reformist is going to impress me?

I can see you lot in Ex-Militant still have illusions in reformism.

No change there, then.

For fans of DM, you do not change much, do you?

In fact, you are living disproof of your own ideas.

Long may you stay the same.


Check out the threat to mystical-Marxism Excuse 1928 is too scared to read at:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

By the way, RedStar, nice piss-take.

But DM-fans have no sense of humour.

All their &#39;inner contradictions&#39; just screw them up.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 9 2006, 01:00 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 9 2006, 01:00 PM)
Axel1917
I am in an organization that is having influence in Venezuela and around the world.

Woo-hoo&#33; :lol:

Caracas (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today denounced Rosa Lichtenstein and redstar2000 as enemies of the dialectic.

Holding aloft a plastic doll with the features of Leon Trotsky, he kissed it repeatedly while telling television audiences throughout the country that Axel1917 was the only real socialist at the RevLeft message board.

Thousands of angry citizens poured into the streets of Venezuela&#39;s capital city, carrying large posters of Trotsky while burning effigies of Lichtenstein and redstar2000.

This surprising move from Venezuela&#39;s erratic president may have backfired, however, as demands for Spanish translations of anti-dialectics.org (http://anti-dialectics.org/1.html) and the redstar2000papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/) have unexpectedly skyrocketed.

Axel1917 told foreign correspondents that he was proud to be a member of a group which had such great influence in Venezuela and around the world.

Next up: Axel1917 unable to fit head through doorway. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
You seriously have no idea what the organization has done there, now have you? The funny part came when there was a "big demand" for anti-dialectics.org and the redstar rant papers. Seriously, you guys, tell me the impact you are having in Venezeula and the world. I mean, if you are so smart, you must have met with Chavez, and he must be a great admirer of your rant sites. I am sure that your sites are attracting all sorts of workers&#33; :rolleyes:

Rosa, I am also not a reformist. You clearly have not understood (or perhaps not even read&#33;) Lenin&#39;s Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder. That book is probably on some banned literature list of the sectarians. You also attack our tactics and methods without even understanding them, how a good deal of the Militant (now the CWI) are now nothing more than worthless sectarians (they have even falsified parts of their site to make it look like they understood the Bolivarian Revolution from the beginning, while they were really making only sectarian attacks when I checked it about a year ago or so). But of course, you show your refusal to understand the most basic of things.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Earlier, I asserted that DM is the ideology of substitutionist elements in Marxism (it allows them to substitute social, military and class forces for the working class, such as Russian Tanks, Maoist guerillas, reformist leaders, etc., etc.), and straight-away Excuse 1929 goes and proves it.

More illusions in yet another third-world reformist, a &#39;tactic&#39; excused by dopey dialectics, eh?

Has the scrag-end of the Militant Tendency learnt nothing from the days when it swore blind that entryism into the UK Labour Party was a good idea?

Clearly not.

I&#39;ll add this to the file, Excuse 1930; thanks&#33;

[LoneRed]

how does it allow those things to be substituted? oh wait.. they dont. Dialectics is the logic of change, all marxists know that the proof of this is the very instances you say go against this. The bourgeois revolutions in China and Russia have shown the failure of the petty-bourgeois doctrines of maoism, and some key principles in leninism. obviously comrades disagree. but it also shows that socialism can NOT come from feudalism. The process of change(dialectics) is what made feudalism go to capitalism, they werent ready for socialism. the means of production werent advanced enough to create a large pool of industrial proletariat. The theories that you are saying goes against dialectics, actually in fact reaffirm it, because with a theory comes many more that try to either change, disprove, or manipulate it. you have proven nothing. :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Loon:

"how does it allow those things to be substituted?"

Well, if you won&#39;t read my reasoning (all laid out in nice simple terms for know-nothings like you to be able to follow), then you can stay in your self-induced state of ignorance.


"Dialectics is the logic of change..."

Well, it&#39;s not even a logic; and change proceeds quite nicely without it.

And thankyou for underlining how unsuccessfull Dialectical Marxism is.

Dialectics -- we know it does not work.

Ask Loon Red.

[LoneRed]

oh great, multiple insults in one paragraph, yet you still havent proven it, i dont feel like rummaging through pages of anti-dialectics nonsense, lay your proofs out here, or is it all philosophical nonsense that has no meaning in the real world?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:01 AM

Your denial of contradictions is denial of the existence of the class struggle

I couldnt agree more, Taking the DM out of marxism, thus consequently makes a large hole in it, making it unable to give proper reason for the working classes overthrow of capitalism. without dialectics there wouldnt be me, you, or the class struggle. There wouldnt be the necessity of the overthrow of the bourgeois, nor of the working class taking power. Historical materialism is nothing but shallow words without dialectics

you still have failed to show that dialectics has shown its "failure" in the past
I know. She wants us to read the 99999999999999999999 pages at her site, when in fact, her "theories" have been broken right here, at one of the weakest links.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Loon:

"multiple insults in one paragraph..."

Thanks&#33;

"yet you still havent proven it..."

You wouldn&#39;t know anyway, since you know no logic.

Yet another know-nothing who won&#39;t look down the telescope (it threatens his childish beliefs so much):

"rummaging through pages of anti-dialectics nonsense..."

Fine, spend your time:

"rummaging through pages of dialectical nonsense..."

It suits you better, I think.

"all philosophical nonsense that has no meaning in the real world..."

Again, you wouldn&#39;t know since you refuse to check.

But that does not stop you doing your own personal, and I must say impressive, impersonation of the Pope.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1935 (two more errors):


"She wants us to read the 99999999999999999999 pages at her site..."

1) I do not want you to do anything different; in your current, logically-challenged state you are no threat (except to yourself).

So, please, promise me you will stay error-prone, ignorant and obtuse.

I&#39;d hate to disturb your natural state.

2) There are only 99999999999999999998 pages at my site.

Can&#39;t you get anything right?

[red_che]

Well, Rosa, if you think you,ve proven anything, you are only fooling yourself.

Nothing in your essay made sense. As I said, it is some sort of a cobweb that confuses and traps a reader. Nothing in there explains anything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:

"Well, Rosa, if you think you,ve proven anything, you are only fooling yourself."

Once again, since you know no logic at all, you are in no position to judge.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:25 PM
Well, Rosa, if you think you,ve proven anything, you are only fooling yourself.

Nothing in your essay made sense. As I said, it is some sort of a cobweb that confuses and traps a reader. Nothing in there explains anything.
Again, she proves nothing. By her logic, accepting the law of noncontradiction as an absolute truth, she thinks that the class struggle does not exist&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1936:

"Again, she proves nothing."

And coming right back at ya: since you know about as much logic as George W Bush does, you are in no position to judge.

"accepting the law of noncontradiction as an absolute truth..."

Wrong. It is not a truth, and you will be hard-pressed to find anything I have posted here, or anywhere else, that even so much as remotely suggests I think it is a truth (of any sort).

Exactly what I think it is I will leave you in the dark about (mainly because you seem to have great difficulty with the easiest and most basic of logical concepts, it would be a mercy to spare you any more public humiliation).

The fact that you think I think it is a truth (of any sort) shows how out of your depth you are.

But, if all else fails, produce another DM-lie:

"she thinks that the class struggle does not exist&#33;"

Find me one place where I have so much as even suggested this.

Go on, wimp, find just one.

[Since you seem fond of re-posting most of my comments, I rather think you would have already done this if I had said it.]

[red_che]

Once again, since you know no logic at all, you are in no position to judge.

The only logic I don&#39;t know is your kind of logic. And because I don&#39;t know your logic, I am in a position to judge whether you prove nothing or anything. And in many cases, you&#39;ve proven nothing.


Find me one place where I have so much as even suggested this.

The fact that you accepted the law of noncontradiction, that means you don&#39;t believe in class struggle. Stop confusing, lady. You are not going anywhere with your posts.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11 2006, 11:14 PM
Excuse 1936:

"Again, she proves nothing."

And coming right back at ya: since you know about as much logic as George W Bush does, you are in no position to judge.

"accepting the law of noncontradiction as an absolute truth..."

Wrong. It is not a truth, and you will be hard-pressed to find anything I have posted here, or anywhere else, that even so much as remotely suggests I think it is a truth (of any sort).

Exactly what I think it is I will leave you in the dark about (mainly because you seem to have great difficulty with the easiest and most basic of logical concepts, it would be a mercy to spare you any more public humiliation).

The fact that you think I think it is a truth (of any sort) shows how out of your depth you are.

But, if all else fails, produce another DM-lie:

"she thinks that the class struggle does not exist&#33;"

Find me one place where I have so much as even suggested this.

Go on, wimp, find just one.

[Since you seem fond of re-posting most of my comments, I rather think you would have already done this if I had said it.]
Then why do you continue to deny the existence of dialectical contradictions if you don&#39;t think of it as a truth?

The class struggle is that of two main contradictory forces - the interests of the proletariat and the interests of the Bourgeoisie. True, not everything in a dictionary is accurate, but that definition of contradiction happens to be true (the one when you responded to the poster (can&#39;t remember which one) that he/she should not trust everything in a dictionary.

And why are you so angry all of the time? Rarely can one find a post of yours that does not contain abusive use of ad hominems. Such an attitude is not going to win the workers over. Settle down.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:

"The only logic I don&#39;t know is your kind of logic."

Thanks for admitting it.

"And in many cases, you&#39;ve proven nothing."

I refer you to your own admission: you would not know.

You are like someone pontificating about brain surgery who knows no anatomy.

"The fact that you accepted the law of noncontradiction..."

Are you incapable of reading, or have you begun to confuse fact with fantasy? Where have I accepted this?

"Stop confusing, lady."

Am I confusing you?

But you keep promising that you will stop replying to me -- so you even confuse yourself.

"You are not going anywhere with your posts."

Again, you would not know -- you are easily confused.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1937:

"Then why do you continue to deny the existence of dialectical contradictions..."

I do not deny they exist. I go much further than this (as you would know if you could summon up enough courage to read my Essays); I claim that the idea that there are such things is too confused to begin to claim anything of it.

In other words, you might as well have written that phrase in Martian, for all the sense it makes.

"The class struggle is that of two main contradictory forces..."

I do not deny the class war, or that the classes are in struggle, I claim that the word &#39;contradicxtory&#39; makes no sense here.

According to you, the class stuggle is no more than the two classes involved arguing with each, just contradicting what the other says.

Try telling that to workers on strike.

"but that definition of contradiction happens to be true..."

Well, I have given you my reasons for saying the opposite (i.e., for contradicting you); you need to address them rather than keep repeating yourself.

"And why are you so angry all of the time?"

All the time? I have a few minutes off now and then. So, you are wrong yet again.

"Rarely can one find a post of yours that does not contain abusive use of ad hominems."

That&#39;s very good of you to say so; I promise to make this even rarer, wimp.

In return, you must also promise to keep screwing up; at present you only manage to do it in 99% of your posts. Go for that elusive 100% -- a know-nothing like you should find that easy.

"Such an attitude is not going to win the workers over..."

According to you they are all ignoring me anyway, so what are you worried about?The fact that they aren&#39;t?

And are you really trying to help me put my anti-dialectical case over better?

You are begining to sound as confused as Red Che.

"Settle down."

Already married.

But thanks for the offer.

[Axel1917]

I do not deny they exist. I go much further than this (as you would know if you could summon up enough courage to read my Essays); I claim that the idea that there are such things is too confused to begin to claim anything of it.

Too confused to begin with? Basic analysis would prove otherwise. Unfortunately, you have never made such an analysis, proven by your posts.


In other words, you might as well have written that phrase in Martian, for all the sense it makes.

It makes more sense than your whole site could possibly make.


I do not deny the class war, or that the classes are in struggle, I claim that the word &#39;contradicxtory&#39; makes no sense here.

Anyone that has actually understood Marxist basics knows otherwise&#33;


According to you, the class stuggle is no more than the two classes involved arguing with each, just contradicting what the other says.

You clearly have not understood anything Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky said for the past 23 years, now have you?


Try telling that to workers on strike.

Why would I resort to such a falsehood?


Well, I have given you my reasons for saying the opposite (i.e., for contradicting you); you need to address them rather than keep repeating yourself.

Again, anyone that knows basic Marxism knows otherwise. Try studying sometime.


All the time? I have a few minutes off now and then. So, you are wrong yet again.

You don&#39;t seem to be able to know what is meant by basic sentence context.


That&#39;s very good of you to say so; I promise to make this even rarer, wimp.

Wonderful. :rolleyes:


In return, you must also promise to keep screwing up; at present you only manage to do it in 99% of your posts. Go for that elusive 100% -- a ow-nothing like you should find that easy.

History will prove which of us will screw up, Rosa. Don&#39;t be surprised if you don&#39;t like the results.


According to you they are all ignoring me anyway, so what are you worried about?The fact that they aren&#39;t?

I am showing you a reason why you will never win them over.


And are you really trying to help me put my anti-dialectical case over better?

Help you out? Right....................


You are begining to sound as confused as Red Che.

You are the one that is confused, given your evasiveness and throwing out certain pieces of information to suit your ends.


Already married.

But thanks for the offer.

You need to relax and not be so angry in your posts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I&#39;ll respond to this later.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excuse 1941:

"Basic analysis would prove otherwise."

And once again: your grasp of logic is far too weak for you to know.

"Unfortunately, you have never made such an analysis..."

Ah, but you will not allow your tender eyes to read my analyses (at my site) -- which is probably a good thing, since I suspect you would soon be out of your depth.

"It makes more sense than your whole site could possibly make."

Well we can go on like this till what is left of your brain finally melts down: you would not know since you are too wimpish to check for yourself.

"Anyone that has actually understood Marxist basics knows otherwise&#33;"

Says who?

Oh, sorry, I forgot: you are god.

Anyway, I assert the opposite.

There, another internal contradiction; so if you are true to your theory, you should now change your views.

Of course, if you do not, then internal contradictions do not cause change.

Either way, I am right.

"You clearly have not understood anything Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky said for the past 23 years, now have you?"

Clearly, and on the contrary, far more than you. You still think light bulbs can change themselves.

I am sure Marx would not have believed this.

"Why would I resort to such a falsehood?"

Well, in my own imperfect way, I am copying you. Ok, sue me for plagiarism.

Sincere apolgies if I cannot quite match your level of dissembling. I will try harder.

"Try studying sometime..."

Dubious advice from someone who is a stranger to logic.

"You don&#39;t seem to be able to know what is meant by basic sentence context."

Well even if that were true, I&#39;d put that down to all those books on dialectics I have had to &#39;read&#39; over the years; beginning to rot even my brain.

Goodness knows what it has doen to yours.

Er..., sorry, it is quite clear what it has done to yours. You think that pots and pans, clouds and trees, can argue. And you point your logically-challenged finger at me&#33;

"Wonderful."

Now, stop trying to flatter me.

"History will prove which of us will screw up..."

Once again, we do not need to wait, it has already delivered it&#39;s verdict: DM has been tried out, and the working class has rejected it (that is if they have ever heard of it).

But I can understand your need to whistle in the dark to keep your spirits up.

It can&#39;t be easy belonging to a movement that is even less succesful than Stalinism, or Maoism (or even less than Labourism).

You need your myths like any other failed religion. And it&#39;s clear that the Hermetic myths you lot have swallowed are doing a good job insulating your minds from reality.

Perhaps you should try to build a Fifth International. Who knows, fifth time lucky?

The last four were flops.

But, according to you, four flops amounts to a ringing success.

No wonder you think light bulbs can change themelves.

"I am showing you a reason why you will never win them over."

You mean like you have succeeded in winning over all three billion workers?

Or, is it only the dozen in the scrag-end of Militant, now that the majority booted you out?

Another ringing success this, was it?

With your track record, you would think you&#39;d learn a little modesty.

So, thanks anyway, but I&#39;d rather take advice from a piece of wet string.

"You are the one that is confused..."

Well, we can&#39;t take your word for it: you think light bulbs can change themselves.

If denying that is being confused, let&#39;s hope I stay that way.

More help from the Excuse-meister (so you do want me to succeed, you naughty boy):

"You need to relax and not be so angry in your posts."

Well, I will if you can explain how light bulbs actually manage to change themselves.

I just can&#39;t see it.

Thank goodness I do not understand dialectics.

[red_che]

Rosa:


you would not know.

Had your "logic" been logical, I should have been convinced. I read your essay an with open mind, but in the end it proved to be nothing. I wasn&#39;t convinced.


You are like someone pontificating about brain surgery who knows no anatomy.

I considered myself a student yearning to learn when I read your essay in the hope that you would have something educational, but I learned nothing from your essay. And it turned out, your work is a crap.


Are you incapable of reading, or have you begun to confuse fact with fantasy? Where have I accepted this?

Well, yeah you said this once in another thread:


Contradiction is something human beings do, and they do it in language.

See? You reduced contradiction into something non-violent. Which is completely altering the entire context of which it was used in a sentence when we say "class contradiction."

But I looked at the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradiction) and it says:

contradiction

n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas

And at the Thesaurus (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=contradiction) where it says:

Main Entry: contradiction
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: variance
Synonyms: bucking, conflict, confutation, contravention, defiance, denial, difference, disagreement, discrepancy, dispute, dissension, gainsaying, incongruity, inconsistency, negation, opposite, opposition

You can see it is not simply verbal disagreement. It is an act or state of conflict, of disunity, of opposition, of dispute. It is a struggle.

And the mere fact that you say that it is just verbal disagreement you are also saying and reducing the violent character of class contradiction, and therefore reduces the act of revolutionary struggle, into mere verbal exchanges between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

You are advocating nothing but peaceful transition to socialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:

"Had your "logic" been logical..."

Well, you do not know enough logic to be able to tell the difference between a convincing argument and a load of rubbish -- which is why you accept a theory that says light bulbs can change themselves.

And I am not trying to convince any of you DM-addicts; you are all lost causes. You will see I say that in those Essays you &#39;carefully&#39; read. [So much for paying attention.]

"I considered myself a student yearning to learn when I read your essay in the hope..." [Yeah, right&#33;]

Well, the way you misread my Essays says otherwise.

"You reduced contradiction into something non-violent."

Well, since arguments can be violent, you are still lost in the mists of confusion.

Well your impressive research, through the dictionaries and Thessaurii written by non-Marxists (whose authors record all manner of mystical and incoherent ideas associated by the radically confused, like you, with certain words) is to no avail. [But well done, it shows you can read.]

Unless you are prepared to accept everything in such books, you can&#39;t use them in the piecemeal way you are presently doing.

So are you prepared to accept everything in the dictionary (etc.)?

If not, stop quoting them.

If so, start believing that God is the supreme being (and check out what it says about negation).

"You are advocating nothing but peaceful transition to socialism."

Still banging on about this?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said. If that wasn&#39;t good enough for you, I should care.

But, when are you going to honour your terrifying threat (made several times) to stop replying to me?

I am quaking in my high heels.

[red_che]

Well, since arguments can be violent,

Can you give an example of an argument that is violent?


Unless you are prepared to accept everything in such books, you can&#39;t use them in the piecemeal way you are presently doing.

Your criticisms on DM is done in a piecemeal way. You criticise Engel&#39;s dialectics, but not Marx&#39;s.

Unless, you can show the difference between their thoughts. In your essays, there were none. As I&#39;ve said, you&#39;ve confused Hegel&#39;s dialectics with that of DM. And you coat your criticism on Hegel as criticism on DM.


"My dialectic method," wrote Marx, "is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite
Can you say something about this quote?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:

"Can you give an example of an argument that is violent?"

If you need me to do this for you, you are clearly in no position to decide anything.

"You criticise Engel&#39;s dialectics..."

Since I say this in my opening Essay, that tells me all I need to know about the care with which you have &#39;read&#39; them.

"As I&#39;ve said, you&#39;ve confused Hegel&#39;s dialectics with that of DM."

No, I assert, and then show, that there is no difference (despite what you DM-clones say).

If you missed it, I suggest you try to remain alert when reading difficult Philosophy in future.

"Can you say something about this quote?"

Marx was not god.

Why do you treat his writings like the Bible, or the Koran?

[red_che]

If you need me to do this for you, you are clearly in no position to decide anything.

You can&#39;t show an argument that is violent, aren&#39;t you?

Because there are none.

Only actions can be violent, not arguments.


Marx was not god.

If so, then why not show us in detail the correct and wrong ideas of Marx?

Not just this kind of silly statements which are not substantive, without any proof.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:

"You can&#39;t show an argument that is violent, aren&#39;t you?"

This question does not make sense; come back to me when you have figured out what you want to say.

"Only actions can be violent, not arguments."

What makes you think arguments are not actions?

Try an experiment; try saying something (anything) without moving a muscle.

That will be enough to refute your crazy assertion.

"If so, then why not show us in detail the correct and wrong ideas of Marx?"

No need to; when I have killed off the Hegelian elements in Historical materialism, the rest will be OK.

"Not just this kind of silly statements which are not substantive, without any proof."

Well, once again (&#33;), you would not know, since you know no logic.

[Led Zeppelin]

I stumbled upon this:


Originally posted by Freud
The other opposing Weltanschauung is to be taken far more seriously, and in this case I very deeply regret the insufficiency of my knowledge. I dare say that you know more about this subject than I do and that you have long ago taken up your position for or against Marxism. The investigations of Karl Marx into the economic structure of society and into the influence of various forms of economic organisation upon all departments of human life have in our day acquired an authority that cannot be denied. How far they are right or wrong in detail, I naturally do not know. I gather that it is not easy even for better informed people to decide. Some of the propositions in Marx’s theory seem strange to me, such as that the evolution of forms of society is a process of natural history, or that the changes in social stratification proceed from one another in the manner of a dialectical process. I am by no means certain that I understand these statements rightly; moreover, they do not sound ‘materialistic’ but like traces of the obscure Hegelian philosophy under the influence of which Marx at one time passed.
Emphasis added.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/.../freud.htm#Marx (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud.htm#Marx)

Apparently RS and RL are affected by Freudian psychology.

:P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invention, the last resort of the dialectical die-hards:

"Apparently RS and RL are affected by Freudian psychology..."

No need to make stuff up like this about who has &#39;affected&#39; the ideas of DM-fans: Hegel and his Hermetic/mystical theory.

[Led Zeppelin]

My post was meant to be taken sarcastically, hence the &#39; :P &#39; at the end.

And I&#39;m not a &#39;dialectical die-hard&#39;, my position on dialectics:


On dialectical materialism I have yet to start a study, but unlike theoretical defeatists like RS I do not completely disregard it simply because I don&#39;t understand it yet. Is it not idealist to believe a science can be correct without knowing that science? No, it is most certainly not. I highly doubt most atheists know everything there is to know about the theory of evolution, still they believe in it because it is a generally accepted theory to the atheist community. The same is the case with dialectical materialism, I do not know everything there is to know about it, yet it is a generally accepted science in the Communist community, therefore I believe it is most likely correct. Of course I do recognize the fact that it could be incorrect, it would be unMarxist for me not too, I can only respond adequately to this discussion when I have conducted a study of the science. I am not like RS and co. who proclaim a science dead without having studied it.

[JimFar]

As long as we are on the subject of formal logic and dialects, I once wrote the following in another forum, concerning how this issue was treated in the Soviet Union following the "thaw" under Khrushchev:


Concerning the relationship between dialectics and
formal logic, the hitherto official Soviet position which
treated the two as constituting two logics, one formal and
one dialectical began to be questioned as early as 1956.
The Soviet logician, K.S. Bakradze contended that there
could not be two logics both operating with distinct
laws and in part actually contradictory of one another.
For Bakradze formal logic could not be understood to
deal with the simple, abstract relations while dialectical
logic devoted itself to concrete and complex relations.
Instead, he contended that there is only one logic which
has as its object the investigation of the rules of
inference governing propositional operations. Dialectical
logic in his view was not a theory of the laws of valid
inference. He cited Lenin&#39;s identification of dialectical
logic with dialectics and epistemology ("logic, dialectics
and the theory of knowledge of materialism [are] one and
the same thing. . . ." Therefore, for Bakradze, dialectics
was to be understood to be concerned with formulating
the most general empirical laws governing processes
in nature. In effect his treatment of the relations
between dialectics and formal logic treated dialectical
logic as an epistemology rather than as a logic per se.

The Czech-Soviet philosopher Ernest Kol&#39;man attempted to formulate
a conception of dialectical contradictions that would
be consistent with formal logic. He presented his
conception at a conference organized by the Institute
of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
in April, 1958, "On the Question of Dialectical Contradictions
in the Light of Contemporary Science and Practice."
Kolman who had earlier achieved prominence for his
work in mathematical logic argued that no judgement
concerning real contradictions could be forthcoming unless
the notion of "contradiction" was defined with some
specificity. He discussed various instances of contradictions
in nature (i.e. between living and dead matter, between
repulsion and attraction, between positive and negative
charges etc.) and he contended that all these real
contradictions within nature could only be adequately
described in language which conformed to the principle
of non-contradiction of formal logic. He asserted that
"the laws of formal logic, including the law of
non-contradiction, are binding upon dialectical logic."
"Although...it reflects reality, formal logic is not
concerned with reality itself but with propositions concerning
reality. Thus the interdiction of formal logic against
affirming contradictions concerns propositions, not
contradictions which obtain between two different aspects
of reality." Thus, for Kol&#39;man, Lenin&#39;s description of
the atom as a contradictions was not a violation of the
laws of formal logic. The contradictions that Lenin
perceived as existing in the atom (between positive
and negative charges) did not constitute formal contradictions.

Kol&#39;man applied this analysis to the examples that Engels
had given of contradictions within nature in *Anti-Duhring*
and hid *Dialectics of Nature*. For Kol&#39;man none of these
examples required that one commit contradictions of
formal logic in describing them. One was not ascribing
contradictory attitudes to one and the same entity
in one and the same sense at one and the same instant.
Rather the ascriptions were made to different components
of one and the same entity.

Kol&#39;man&#39;s treatment of the relations between dialectics
and formal logic soon became the predominant Soviet
view, at least among sophisticated Soviet philosophers
and mathematicians. Thus, the Soviet philosopher
F.V. Konstantinov maintained that "All the laws of formal logic must
necessarily be observed in all thinking with respect
to objects." Likewise, Meliujin wrote: "Objective
[dialectical] contradictions can and must be conceived
as noncontradictory from the point of view of logic."
This view also took root in the rest of Eastern Europe
as well with the Poles, K. Adjukiewicz, A. Ossowski,
and S. Schaff and the Czeck, J. Bartos holding that
Engels had been in error in maintaining
that motion involved literal contradictions and that
its description required the affirmation of the
conjunction of mutually exclusive propositions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apologies for not understanding your heavy sarcasm, but:

"it would be unMarxist for me not to..."

Well, Marx&#39;s favourite saying, according to one of his daughters, was "Doubt all things...."

Given the (literally) hundreds of problems I have exposed in classical Dialectical Mysticism, er, sorry, Materialism (DM), you would be highly Marx-like if you began to doubt DM.

But, as I am sure you are aware, revolutionary socialism is nothing if it isn&#39;t radical; I have just extended this radicalism into Philosophy, and I claim to have found in DM more than enough evidence to show that by incorporating it in Marxism, DM-theorists have invited into our movement a whole clutch of ruling class/mystical ideas.

These now rule our movement, as Marx said they would (&#39;the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class&#39;); this accounts for the long-term failure we have witnessed in our movement.

DM: tested in practice, shown to fail.

Hence, my claims have 150 years of practice to back them up. The opposite camp has precious little it can point to.

Thus, it would be un-Marxist of you not to throw this theory out, root and branch.

We can&#39;t keep on allowing &#39;tradition&#39; (in the shape of DM) to hold up the scientific development of our ideas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks for that; I was aware of these developments; however, I am not convinced that the &#39;reformers&#39; you mentioned knew enough modern logic (despite what you imply) to be able to conclude what they did (indeed, many of the things they said about the &#39;two logics&#39; would count as sufficient evidence that they did not).

For example, according to your summary of what Kolman (a Stalinist toady if ever there was one) said:

"He discussed various instances of contradictions
in nature (i.e. between living and dead matter, between
repulsion and attraction, between positive and negative
charges etc.) and he contended that all these real
contradictions within nature could only be adequately
described in language which conformed to the principle
of non-contradiction of formal logic. He asserted that
"the laws of formal logic, including the law of
non-contradiction, are binding upon dialectical logic."
"Although...it reflects reality, formal logic is not
concerned with reality itself but with propositions concerning
reality. Thus the interdiction of formal logic against
affirming contradictions concerns propositions, not
contradictions which obtain between two different aspects
of reality." Thus, for Kol&#39;man, Lenin&#39;s description of
the atom as a contradictions was not a violation of the
laws of formal logic. The contradictions that Lenin
perceived as existing in the atom (between positive
and negative charges) did not constitute formal contradictions."

Anyone who uses the word &#39;contradiction&#39; to depict such things (as Lenin did) has already made an serious error. It is this error that forced these Stalinist hacks into the convoluted &#39;explanations&#39; you report -- surely reminiscent of similar contortions Roman Catholic philosophers indulged in, in trying to recocile Aristotle&#39;s belief in the eternity of the world with the Bible&#39;s story of creation.

Solution?

Ignore everything Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov and Trotsky (and a host of others) ever wrote on philosophy.

It is not just garbage, it is sub-standard garbage.

And demonstrably so.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Anyone who uses the word &#39;contradiction&#39; to depict such things (as Lenin did) has already made an serious error. It is this error that forced these Stalinist hacks into the convoluted &#39;explanations&#39; you report -- surely reminiscent of similar contortions Roman Catholic philosophers indulged in, in trying to recocile Aristotle&#39;s belief in the eternity of the world with the Bible&#39;s story of creation.

The Soviet reformers were, of course, operating within the straightjacket of official Soviet ideology, so they attempted to present their work as a clarification of diamat. Thus, they felt impelled to retain much of the traditional language of dialectics, while revising some of the concepts. Thus, they retained the notion of dialectical contradictions while carefully distinguishing between that concept and the concept of contradicition as it exists in formal logic. Some of these people, like Kol&#39;man did have a mathematics background, so I think they were quite aware of developments in formal logic. Even under Stalin, some Soviet mathematicians managed to pursue research in that subject, even though it was basically offlimits for Soviet philosophers at that time.

And you&#39;re right about Kol&#39;man. Under Stalin, he was one of the chief enforcers of orthodoxy in the academic world. Then under Khrushchev, he became one of the academic "reformers," sort of like the General Secretary himself, who had been one of Stalin&#39;s top henchmen. As I recall, Kol&#39;man in his later years came to find life in the Soviet Union intolerable and he eventually defected to Sweden.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks again for that; you are absolutely right about the constraints operating on theorists in the old USSR (an undemocratic state of affairs partly the result of the application of dialectics to the idea that you could build socialism in one country).

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


you are absolutely right about the constraints operating on theorists in the old USSR (an undemocratic state of affairs partly the result of the application of dialectics to the idea that you could build socialism in one country).

In that regards, it is interesting to take a look at later Soviet philosophical writings, such as work done in the Breshnev era or later, when the restraints that had been imposed during Stalin&#39;s time were relaxed but Soviet philosophers were still required to genuflect before the altar of diamat. For example, if one takes a look at say Igor Naletov&#39;s Alternatives to Positivism (http://autodidactproject.org/other/naletov0.html) or Lektorsky&#39;s Subject, Object, Cognition (http://autodidactproject.org/other/lektorsky0.html), one sees works, much of which read almost like Western works of analytical philosophy, but invariably in the later chapters, the authors take great pains to show their works constitute vindications of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. In other words that all the working out of ideas derived from Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Popper, Quine etc. is said in the end to really show that Engels and Lenin had been right after all, on matters philosophical.

[red_che]

Rosa:
Contradiction is something human beings do, and they do it in language.

Rosa:
Try an experiment; try saying something (anything) without moving a muscle.

Rosa:
Well, since arguments can be violent

Rosa:
since "instrument(s) of production and private property" cannot argue, they cannot contradict.

Rosa:
[Hint: they are not alive.]

It seems that in Rosa&#39;s mind, contradiction is something only humans do, and only verbally. But she admits it as well as a non-verbal action.

And other things (living and non-living as long as they cannot argue) do not contradict. Only humans abstracted them as "contradiction."

Nonsense&#33;

Rosa:
An Exclusively Linguistic Issue?

I think, she is the one who confuses herself with this.


Anyone who uses the word &#39;contradiction&#39; to depict such things

See? She denies it as just a linguistic issue.

But it is her who keeps on refusing the word "contradiction" in a linguistic sense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:

"It seems that in Rosa&#39;s mind, contradiction is something only humans do, and only verbally."

Amazing, you can read&#33;

[I not only said this in the Essays you &#39;said&#39; you read, I have been saying this here for some time. So why you now think this news, only you can tell.]

"But she admits it as well as a non-verbal action."

Er, no. Where do I say that?

Any verabal action is, obviously, an action.

That was the point of the questions I posed.

Clearly your grasp of langauge is not as good as it should be.

"Only humans abstracted them as "contradiction.""

Evidence please....

"She denies it as just a linguistic issue."

You can only make this lie work by ignoring the rest of the sentence.

Fine, but we can all do that:

Red Che:

"Only humans did not abstract them as "contradiction.""

See, you agree with me now.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Excuse 1937:

"Then why do you continue to deny the existence of dialectical contradictions..."

I do not deny they exist. I go much further than this (as you would know if you could summon up enough courage to read my Essays); I claim that the idea that there are such things is too confused to begin to claim anything of it.

In other words, you might as well have written that phrase in Martian, for all the sense it makes.

"The class struggle is that of two main contradictory forces..."

I do not deny the class war, or that the classes are in struggle, I claim that the word &#39;contradicxtory&#39; makes no sense here.

According to you, the class stuggle is no more than the two classes involved arguing with each, just contradicting what the other says.

Try telling that to workers on strike.

"but that definition of contradiction happens to be true..."

Well, I have given you my reasons for saying the opposite (i.e., for contradicting you); you need to address them rather than keep repeating yourself.

I think it should be evident, that when the terms "contradiction" or "contradictory" are used by Marxists to describe the relatationship between the bourgeosie under capitalism, or when Marxists assert that there exists "contradictions" between the forces of production and the social relations of production, that the terms "contradiction" and "contradictory" are being used in senses quite different from the senses that these terms have in formal logic. To the extent that there is any connection between the senses these terms have in formal logic and the senses that these terms might have when they are being used by Marxists to analyze social phenomena, the connection is metaphorical in character. From the standpoint of formal logic, it is nonsensical to say that there is a contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production or that there exists contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. When Marxists use those terms to describe these phenomena, what they really are saying are the relations between the bourgeoisie and proletariat or the relations between the forces of production and the relations of production are antagonistic in nature.
And that such antagonisms can under the right conditions lead to a transfomation of the mode of production.

What Marxists call "contradictions" have little in common with contradictions, as that concept is understood in formal logic. It is the failure to understand this point that has given rise to such confused notions like the thesis that there is such a thing as a dialectical logic that can displace or is superior to formal logic. Either Marxists should consider dropping these terms or at least they should making an effort to make it clear that when they do use these terms, they are using them in a sense that is quite different from the one that is given to them in formal logic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks again for those comments, but I am aware that when the word &#39;contradiction&#39; is used to try to account for the relation between the things you say, it is not used in the same way as it is used in Formal Logic.

I am not sure &#39;contradiction&#39; is being used metaphorically in the way you say, or if it is, that the metaphor is a good one. Is there really any sort of figurative connection between the way we use negation in language and the way that the forces of production relate to the relations of production?

But, even if you are right, what is the physical pay-off here? As you will see from my earlier post at Rev Left, I deal with this in detail (in my summary to Essay Eight at my site -- the full Essay, when it is posted later this year, will be about ten times longer):

"In this part of Essay Eight it is argued at length that there is no way that "contradictions" can be interpreted as "opposing forces".

In fact, since most of the motion in the universe is governed by the action of only one central force (i.e., in classical Physics, the force of gravity which governs the motion of planets around stars, and stars around galactic centres of mass, etc.), classical DM cannot account for most of the bulk changes that take place in nature. Now, even if these were regarded as the result of the complex inter-relation between gravitational fields, change in motion would still be caused by only one force: the resultant. No contradiction has just one term.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism; DL = Dialectical Logic.]

Of course, if General Relativity had its way (where gravity has been replaced by the motion of bodies along geodesics and world-lines, forces having been edited out of the picture) most of the bulk motion in the universe would take place under the action of no forces at all. Naturally, that would mean that most of the changes of this sort could not be the result of "contradictions" -- if the latter are still to be regarded as opposing forces.

Nevertheless, let us assume that two forces (say, F1 and F2) do in fact &#39;contradict&#39; one another; if so, one of the following options would, it seems, have to obtain: (1) F1 must prevent F2 from acting, or (2) F1 must impede F2, perhaps stopping it from producing its usual effects.

In the first case, F2 must either: (1a) cease to exist, or (1b) confront F1 directly (as force on force) while it exists -- if it is to be affected by F1, or if it is to be prevented from operating. However, if in (1a) F2 ceases to exist, it cannot contradict or be contradicted by anything, since it would no longer exist to do anything.

Assuming, on the other hand, that F2 is contradicted by F1 up until it ceases to exist, then option (1a) would become (1b). In the latter case, therefore, the alleged contradiction between F1 and F2 must see these forces as directly oppositional in some way. If so, these two forces must confront one another as forces of attraction and/or repulsion (or as a &#39;dialectical&#39; mix of the two).

But, once again, it is not easy to see how this configuration could be a contradiction in anything other than a figurative sense. If a literal interpretation were still insisted upon here (although it is impossible to see how that would work: since to contradict literally means "to gain-say", then are we to imagine that forces engage in conversation, or in argument?), this sort of confrontation between forces could only take place if they were particulate in some way -- that is, if they registered some sort of resistance to one another. If, on the other hand, they are not particulate, it is equally hard to see how they could interact at all, let alone &#39;contradict&#39; each other. Continuous media have no rigidity and no impenetrability to exert forces of any sort (except, of course, as part of a figurative extension to particulate interaction, after all).

Now, there are well-known classical problems associated with the idea that forces are particulate (these are fully referenced in Essay Eight) -- not the least of which is that if forces are particulate then they could only interact if they exerted still other forces (contact forces, cohesive forces, forces of reaction, and so on) on other particulates, initiating an infinite regress. That is, in order to account for the ability of particles to resist one another, we would need to appeal to forces internal to bodies to do that, to stop one body penetrating the other, or to prevent distortions tearing that body apart, etc. But, if the forces internal to bodies are particulate too, we would thus need further forces to account for the coherence of these new particles, and so on. Alternatively, If they are continuous, they would not be able to provide such inner coherence.

In the end nothing would be accounted for, since at each level there would be nothing to provide the required resistance/coherence.

So, reducing the interaction between forces to that between bodies means that particles could not &#39;contradict&#39; one another without exerting non-particulate forces on their operands -- which would once again mean that such entities were incapable of exerting forces, having no rigidity to do so.

[Even the exchange of particles (in QM) would succeed in exerting forces only if there were reaction forces internal to bodies which were themselves the result of rigidity, cohesion, contact, etc. Of course, Physicists appeal to Fields, energy gradients and the like, but if these are continuous, the above problems just re-emerge. If they are particulate, this merry-go-round merely takes another spin around the floor. Some Physicists recognise this problem; many just ignore it.]

[QM = Quantum Mechanics.]

Of course, it could be objected that the above adopts an out-dated mechanistic view of interaction, and hence is completely misguided. However, the &#39;modern&#39; mathematical approach surrenders any possibility of giving a causal, or physical account of forces, or at least one that does not depend on a figurative use of verbs we use in everyday life to give such an account in the macro-world. So, if a particle is seen as a &#39;carrier of a force&#39; and that &#39;force&#39; can be given no physical bite, but it is still regarded as being capable of making things happen, forcing particles to divert their course of action (etc.), then these words must lose contact with words like "make", "force", "divert" as they are used to depict macro-phenomena. Now there is no problem with this, but then such an account becomes merely descriptive (or at best predictive). Differential equations and vectors cannot make things move, or alter their paths. (More details on this can be found in the full Essay.)]

If problems like these are put to one side for the moment, it would seem that forces could interact only by affecting the motion of bodies that are already under the control of other forces. In that case, (1b) would now reduce to the action of F1 on the effects of F2, or vice versa -- thus becoming option (2).

That being so, these forces would &#39;contradict&#39; one another by preventing the normal effects of one or both of them from occurring. But, once more, if the latter are prevented from happening, they would not exist to be contradicted, and we would be back at square one.

If this set of inferences is rejected for some reason, then if F1 does indeed succeed in &#39;contradicting&#39;, say, the velocity of any body under the control of F2 (call this velocity V2), we would have a conflict between two unlike terms: F1 and V2. Clearly, given this scenario, the original contradiction between two forces will have disappeared to be replaced by a new relationship between a force and a velocity (which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "contradictory", since the operating force merely alters a velocity -- in many cases it might even augment it, or merely deflect it).

Nevertheless, for a force to alter the velocity of a body, the force would have to be particulate, too, meaning that inter-particulate forces would come into play once again. As already noted, continuous media have no inner coherence to alter anything -- save they are viewed as particulate, once more. This would then collapse this scenario back into option (1) once more, with all its associated classical/figurative problems. Either way, the alleged contradiction here would evaporate for want of terms.

This criticism would still apply if the word "contradiction" were replaced by "conflict"; clearly, things cannot conflict if they don&#39;t exist, nor can they conflict with what they have prevented from taking place.

Also, the word "conflict" lacks the logical multiplicity that the word "contradiction" possesses. [What exactly is the &#39;inner conflict&#39; here that supposedly makes things move? A metaphysical battery of some sort?] The whole point of using the word "contradiction" in DM is to emphasise the limitations of FL, which then allows dialecticians to argue that contradictory states of affairs can exist simultaneously. That was the thrust of the DL-claims examined earlier that "A and not A" could be true. In this case, since "A" and "not A" are logically connected (in that, if propositional, ordinarily the truth of one would imply the falsehood of the other), which allows dialecticians to point to the superiority of DL over FL.

[FL = Formal Logic.]

If now the meaning of the word "conflict" is imported to do duty in place of "contradict", that logical connection would be severed, and the alleged superiority of DL over FL would vanish, since no Formal Logician of any sense would deny that things can conflict -- nor indeed reject the claim that two propositions expressing conflict cannot both be true (or false) at once.

On the other hand, if the old logical connections possessed by the word "contradiction" were exported and glued onto the word "conflict", then the meaning of the latter must change accordingly. In that case, this particular DM-thesis would have been made true solely as a result of yet more linguistic tinkering, and that would mean that another DM-&#39;fact&#39; had been created by linguistic fiat, confirming DM&#39;s status as a form of LIE. Thus from (doctored) language, superscientific &#39;truths&#39; would have followed once again.

[LIE = Linguistic Idealism.]

And finally, since only agents are capable of conflicting, this term may be used literally by those prepared to personalise nature.

[This topic is discussed at more length in the full version of Essay Eight.]

That might help explain why Engels modified his ideas, declaring that:

"It is expressly to be noted that attraction and repulsion are not regarded here as so-called &#39;forces&#39;, but as simple forms of motion." [Engels [i]Dialectics of Nature(1954), p.71.]

In other words it seems that forces should be regarded as "useful fictions". Engels was aware of the anthropomorphic origin of the scientific concept of force. So, for once his scientific intuitions seem to have been working correctly.

But, even if this were a viable option, it is not easy to see how on DM-grounds one form of motion could in fact &#39;contradict&#39; another form of motion. Classically, if one body alters another&#39;s motion, it would have to exert a force on it, which would introduce the very things Engels tried to eliminate.

So, despite what Engels said, DM needs forces; it cannot do without them. It requires them to provide the dialectical &#39;connective tissue&#39; (as it were) and the motive power of the universe; without them there would be nothing internal to bodies which would be able to connect their motion to that of others, and nothing to interlink processes in the "Totality". In their absence, DM would look little different from "crude materialism". Indeed, without forces, dialecticians could not even pretend to explain why things moved.

In that case, dialecticians cannot afford to take heed of this rare example of Engelsian good sense.

On the other hand, if we accept that forces do in fact exist -- that is, that they are more than just the complex ways of speaking about the interaction of bodies (and thus if we reject Engels&#39;s advice) --, then the DM-account would still not work. This is because changes are in fact produced by a single resultant force operating in the system, not by two contradictory forces.

In that case, if nature must be populated with forces -- and if the present author is allowed for a moment to indulge in some insincere a priori Superscience of her own --, change would then be the result, not of struggle, but of the cooperation, unity and harmony between forces as they naturally combine to produce change, helpfully assisting particles on their way. If so, we should rather raise an analogy here with logical tautologies -- not contradictions -- and argue alongside other ancient mystics (following the excellent precedent set by Hegel) that nature is indeed governed by forces of empathy, affection and love.

The conclusion seems quite plain: since resultant forces cause every change in nature (given the truth of the classical account), movement in general must be the result of dialectical tautologies. This new &#39;theory&#39; has at least the advantage of being consistent with classical Physics, and every known observation. The same cannot be said of DM.

[Naturally, those critical of this particular flight-of-fancy would do well to turn an equally sceptical eye on the similarly suspect anthropomorphic moves made by dialecticians all the time.]

Alternatively, if it is now argued that both of the &#39;contradicted&#39; forces (i.e., F1 and F2) still exist even while they interact with one another, change would then be the result of the operation of at least three forces (the original two and the resultant); that would, of course, create energy from nowhere.

[Needless to say, if this is so, there is a pressing need for revolutionaries to identify this &#39;third force&#39; since (on this view) it seems to be the one that will put paid to Capitalism.]

Of course, all this depends on whether the equation of forces with contradictions makes any sense to begin with. Clearly, the forces that operate in Capitalism are not vectors. It makes little sense to suppose that the forces of production are, say, orthogonal to the relations of production, or that the &#39;contradiction&#39; between use- and exchange-value has an inner product, a grad, div or curl. If not, it is difficult to see why anyone would want to call such things (or the relations between them) "forces" (or even less, "contradictions"). What do they have in common with the forces found in Physics?

In that case, it would seem that the word "force" -- as it is used in DM-propositions -- must be figurative, too. It thus seems that DM can only be made to work if we adopt a poetic view of nature.

On the other hand, if it should turn out that these forces are reminiscent of those found in mystical religious systems (which personify &#39;god&#39;, or carry out &#39;His&#39; orders (in ancient astronomy, these were the angels who supposedly pushed the planets about the place; in Newton they were the direct action of &#39;God&#39;), etc.) then it would make eminent good sense to suppose they could &#39;contradict&#39; one another (i.e., &#39;argue&#39; among themselves).

It is no surprise, therefore, to find once again that this is precisely from where this &#39;dialectical&#39; notion was lifted. This we know for a fact.

As such, DM clearly represents the re-enchantment of nature and society. Modern science banished will and intelligence from nature; DM simply re-introduced them.

Furthermore, it is difficult to picture any of the above elements as opposites; the forces of production, it would seem, are no more the opposite of the relations of production than a diesel engine is the opposite of the person using it.

Up until now DM-theorists have been more intent on merely asserting that forces are contradictory than they have been with providing any evidence or argument to show that they are -- or with clarifying what it could possibly mean to assert that they are. Once again, it is clear that DM-theorists have been quite happy to derive yet more a priori Superscience from a set of inappropriate concepts and dubious analogies, compounded by a poetic view of the assorted antics of ancient mystical intelligences, all subsequently confused with a precise logical principle.

Standard examples DM-theorists regularly wheel-out to illustrate the analogy between forces and contradictions are considered in detail in Essays Seven and Eleven, and shown to be misconceived. For instance, the alleged UO between the north and south poles of a magnet (or even that between positive and negative electrical charges) fails to illustrate the opposition between attractive and repulsive forces. In a magnet, two north poles, or two south poles (i.e., two likes), repel -- whereas two opposites (a north and a south pole), attract. So, if anything here, non-opposites &#39;contradict&#39; (i.e., &#39;conflict&#39; -- two Norths or two Souths repel each other), while actual opposites do not (North and South attract). Instead of struggle between opposites here we see harmony once more, confirming that change is indeed the result of those aforementioned &#39;internal tautologies&#39;.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

Finally, several examples of "real material forces" supposedly at work in Capitalism are considered in detail in Essays Eight and Eleven. Under close scrutiny none of them turn out to be contradictions in any meaningful sense of the term. In fact, they all turn out to be one or more of the following: discursive paradoxes, unexpected events, complex inter-relationships, injustices, irrationalities, contraries or mistakes.

Of course, if DM-theorists intend the word "contradiction" to be taken in a special sense, all well and good (but see below); however, to date, they have signally failed to say clearly what this &#39;special&#39; sense is. Or, perhaps more accurately, they have in fact sought to equate it with "conflict", which verbal &#39;solution&#39; does at least have the advantage of making overt the covert animism in DM -- for only if inanimate matter were sentient or intelligent could it enter into conflict with itself (internally), or with anything else (externally).

As will be argued in detail in Essay Twelve (this is summarised below), the tendency to see conflict in linguistic, moral or conceptual terms (in traditional thought) was a direct consequence of the way that leisure-dominated Greek Philosophers fetishised both language and the natural world, populating it with surrogate discursive terms to give sense to their own mode of being. No surprise, therefore, to see this traditional view reappear in DM.

On the other hand, if DM-theorists aim to re-define the word "contradiction" as "conflict" then their theory would merely be a form of stipulative conventionalism -- since there is nothing in the meaning of either the everyday word "contradiction", or in its logical twin that remotely suggests such a connotation; nor is there vice versa with "conflict".

In that case, it is now clear that this word has been re-defined just to make DM work. But, we should be no more convinced of the acceptability of that manoeuvre than we would be if, say, an apologist of Capitalism &#39;defined&#39; it as "natural" and "beneficial to all". If the re-definition of terms provided a "royal road" to truth, those with the best dictionaries would surely win Noble Prizes.

To be sure, certain dictionaries say the following sort of thing:

"contradiction, n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas...."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradiction

However, it is worth recalling that dictionaries are repositories of usage (and they are merely recording the fact that DM-fans use this word in this obscure way); they are neither normative nor prescriptive. Indeed, they &#39;define&#39; many things dialecticians would disagree with.

For example:

"God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god...."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God

And:

"negation n 1: a negative statement; a statement that is a refusal or denial of some other statement 2: the speech act of negating 3: (logic) a proposition that is true if and only if another proposition is false."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=negation

No mention here of "sublation" or the NON, but does that force dialecticians into accepting this &#39;definition&#39;? Of course not; they pick and choose when it suits them.

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

In that case, dictionaries record ideology as much as they record use or meaning.

As the above shows, since no literal sense can be made of the equation of forces and contradictions, dialecticians should not believe all they read in dictionaries."

So, even though dialecticians use this word (&#39;contradiction&#39;) to do the things you say, no meaning can be attached to it when used either literally or metaphorically.

Finally, we do not need this word (which is a carry-over from mystical Hermetic Philosophy, which saw invisible forces opposing one another running the universe), there are plenty of down-to-earth materialist terms in ordinary language that do the job far better.

So your option (the we should drop this term) sounds like an excellent idea to me.

[red_che]

Rosa:


Contradiction is something human beings do, and they do it in language.


Any verabal action is, obviously, an action.

If a verbal action is an action, then a contradiction is an action.

And therefore, contradiction can also be applied to any action that constitutes opposition of two forces, whether by man or anything else that oppose each other.

And therefore, contradiction is also conflict, and can be used interchangeably in a sentence.

So, what seems to be the problem when "contradiction" is used as the word to describe the opposition or relationship between things (whether living or non-living)? It is this sense that is being used in those statements.


Fine, but we can all do that:

Red Che:

"Only humans did not abstract them as "contradiction.""

See, you agree with me now.

Who&#39;s doing dirty tricks now? :(

You think this trick of yours will work? :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:

"If a verbal action is an action, then a contradiction is an action."

In your logically-challenged state, you (least of all) can ill afford to your lose concentration when reading something a little more challenging than the logical porridge you dialecticians are used to consuming.

Contradiction is something human beings do in language, so to contradict (notice the verbal use of the word here) is something we do: we gain-say one another.

What you are doing is identifying that action with what people achieve by means of that action, which is about as stupid as identifying, say, the fact that fires go out with the action of putting them out.

"And therefore, contradiction can also be applied to any action that constitutes opposition of two forces..."

How do you get this from what you said earlier?

Even if it were correct that a contradiction were an action (which bald assertion I dispute) how do you get from this to: [i]any action that constitutes the opposition of two forces?

I can understand that the Stone Age logic you DM-fans hold so dear might allow you to accept all manner of weird and wonderful things (like, beer cans can argue with lamp-posts, and flat tyres can mend themselves), but this &#39;inference&#39; from some S is P to all S&#39;s are P is a new form of loopiness we can brand the Che Fallacy in your honour.

[So, from some comrades are tall we should be able infer that all are tall, given your loopy logic.]

"And therefore, contradiction is also conflict.."

Even if this were so (which I dispute), it would not show that all conflict is contradiction. Of course, if you think the two are the same (that is, you think they are identical) -- as I pointed out to you before, but you &#39;conveniently&#39; ignored it -- that would make you an odd sort of DM-fan -- i.e., one who accepts the dread law of identity.

So, you seem only to be able to defend one aspect of DM with loopy logic that also undermines another aspect of it.

[These internal contradictions you are generating in your own thinking should, if your theory is right, make you change your mind about DM -- but the fact that they won&#39;t shows that not even you accept your own &#39;theory&#39; of change&#33;]

This is not even impressive fiction, let alone logic (still less is it impressive science).

“So, what seems to be the problem when "contradiction" is used as the word to describe the opposition or relationship between things (whether living or non-living)?”

Again, if you need to have it explained to you one more time (given the fact that the last twenty attempts failed to get through), I suggest you do one or more of the following:

1) Enrol on a crash course in proper logic.

2) See a doctor about your short-term memory problems.

3) Go back to school to learn to read.

4) Pray for a miracle.

5) Or, you could try to read my Essays with your eyes open this time.

If these do not work, I reckon my earlier diagnosis of you as a lost cause will have been amply confirmed.

“Who&#39;s doing dirty tricks now?”

Well, I suppose this means that you acknowledge that my open and honest attempt to copy your tactics in unfair argument means that you now admit you were engaged in “dirty tricks” yourself.

This circumlocuitous admission of guilt on your part I accept.

“You think this trick of yours will work?”

Given the above, you clearly fell into the trap.

[I note you have now ignored Lenin’s clear commitment to the amazing capacity light bulbs have, in your DM-fantasy world, of changing themselves.]

[red_che]

Contradiction is something human beings do in language, so to contradict (notice the verbal use of the word here) is something we do: we gain-say one another.

And that word cannot be used to describe other things? It is exclusively for human verbal activity? You have a very restrictive sense of this word, huh. :huh:

What you ignore is the relationship that the word "contradiction" connotes. While it is this relationship that was described when that word is being used.


I note you have now ignored Lenin’s clear commitment to the amazing capacity light bulbs have, in your DM-fantasy world, of changing themselves.

I did not ignore, I just want to settle first the questions I asked on you. I&#39;ll deal with this some other time. Or, I&#39;ll deal with this on my next post. I&#39;ll look for the text first.

[Chrysalis]

Are you guys still on Marx&#39;s contradiction? :ph34r: Because I thought we&#39;ve all settled this already. So, no? not yet?


Btw:
Rosa, forgive me for noting this: Stone Age logic. It made me laugh. It reminds me of that Fed-ex commercial.

Man 1 : You should have used Fed-ex.
Man 2 : *grins* Fed-ex hasn&#39;t been invented yet&#33;
Man 1 : Not my problem.


Okay, sorry.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:

"And that word cannot be used to describe other things?"

You can use any word to do whatever you like, but, in most cases, one would chose not to do so to prevent confusion.

Here, it would suggest that things like factories can argue with electricity pylons, or flowers can dispute with rocks and trees.

If you are Ok with this idea, go ahead and use this word this way, but don&#39;t be surprised if comrades like me accuse you of holding dotty beliefs.

"I did not ignore, I just want to settle first the questions I asked on you."

[Yeah, right.]

Now I believe you, but I would not like to defend you in a court of law. In fact, I&#39;d advise you to plead guilty and throw yourself on the mercy of the judge.

Remember, Lenin demanded that dialectrical logic should treat objects in self-movement.

So, light bulbs should be able to change themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis, you are right, we haven&#39;t settled this because Red Che is a stranger to:

1) Logic;

2) Reading;

3) The DM-classics (he did not seem to know that Lenin thought that light bulbs can change themselves).

So it is not easy to get him to see even the most basic of things (as you can see from his &#39;reasoning&#39;).

Thanks for the Fed-Ex joke, though.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 01:16 PM


I agree with you about capitalist "theories". It is in the best interest of capitalism to view (social and political) relationships in terms of function rather than conflict. And the problem with this, if we all subscribe to this idea, is, we will accept that everything "works" the way it should be, naturally. But I think the likely consequence is that it will inhibit the motivation to change things, the status quo.

Marxism must lay out social (and political) interactions as conflicts or antagonisms. Because the assumption is that the motivation to change life is founded on perceived conflict: one class dominating and controlling the other.

Just a thought.


Thanks for the Fed-Ex joke, though.
:)

[red_che]

Rosa:


You can use any word to do whatever you like, but, in most cases, one would chose not to do so to prevent confusion.

Here, it would suggest that things like factories can argue with electricity pylons, or flowers can dispute with rocks and trees.

I guess you are the one who is really confused.


Remember, Lenin demanded that dialectrical logic should treat objects in self-movement.

So, light bulbs should be able to change themselves.

Many non-Marxists who have read the books written by dialecticians did not interpret such "self-movement" to mean that "light bulbs can change themselves."

I guess only you and your bunch of fellows think this way. So, I guess you are confused by your own "linguistic and mental m-----bations." :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:

"I guess you are the one who is really confused."

Once more, since you believe such dotty things, you are in no position to judge.

"Many non-Marxists who have read the books written by dialecticians did not interpret such "self-movement" to mean that "light bulbs can change themselves."&#33;"

More fool them, then, especially if Lenin says your &#39;logic&#39; demands this.

But I note you have ceased to try to defend Lenin.