Anti-dialectic dialectic

[red_che]

In my reading of Ms. Lichtenstein's essays, I see no interesting and new ideas being presented. In fact, it is more like a bourgeois academic criticism of dialectical materialism and resurrecting the old lines of thought prevailing before the emergence of Marxism - plus, she uses contemporary language.

First point:

The entirety of Ms. Lichtenstein's essays presents no significant practical value to the proletarian movement. Its so-called "demolition" of dialectical materialism didn't at all demolish dialectical materialist thought, even at the philosophical level. While Ms. Lichtenstein went into very small details in her vain attempt to contradict "DM," she was unable to shake the very foundations of dialectics.

Her tactic in those essays seems to be "atack-and-attack" throughout all of it. But did she present any alternative? None. And she went into those very small details at great length and compassion just for the sake of attacking it, vainly, even if she wasn't able to prove anything. While the most pressing issues of the day were left untouched.

As for me, I should be more interested in that work of her if she'd concentrated in the DM's analysis of the social, economic and political aspects.

If in her essays she have dealt with the most practical aspect of DM, like for example Marx's analysis in Das Kapital or his and Engels' and Lenin's analysis of the capitalist mode of production, which are very dialectic and materialist and that which puts Dialectical Materialism into practice, that I think would be most interesting. But I doubt if she will do that. She will cover herself in using very technical terms and languages just to impress her readers and get them to believe in her thoughts.

Or how could the proletariat win the revolution or what will they do to end the capitalist exploitation and oppression and finally liberate themselves from these? None was said about this. Her principle is "attack dialectics and attack it through just for the sake of it."

As for now, I won't get into details yet since I haven't finish reading the essays (even if I'm only pushing myself hard to read them due to my lack of interest, and as I sbegin to read, my drive to read them becomes slower and slower :( ). But, just for the sake of my promised responses, I'll finish it. I'll make follow-up comments as soon as I am done reading her essays. :)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Or how could the proletariat win the revolution or what will they do to end the capitalist exploitation and oppression and finally liberate themselves from these?

I replied to your objection in this post. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46027&view=findpost&p=1292017359)


But did she present any alternative?

I think the "alternative" to "dialectics" is strongly implied if not directly stated in Rosa's essays: ordinary scientific reasoning.

Consider an ordinary auto mechanic faced with the problem of an engine that refuses to start. Does s/he stop to "dialectically analyze" the "contradiction" between open valves and closed valves or the "unity of opposites" between pistons constantly "in motion" or the "negation of the negation" in engines that run and don't run???

Of course not! :lol:

S/he knows from practical experience what the causes are of engines that won't start...from simple problems that are quick and easy to repair to really complex problems that involve major engine work that will take many days to accomplish. S/he uses the proper tools and instruments to investigate the material causes of why the engine won't start, discovers the causes, and then repairs them appropriately.

All this without giving a thought to "dialectics".

Why can't we apply this "common sense" attitude towards problems of revolution?

We know from historical experience that some strategies don't work at all and other strategies will work only in specific historical circumstances.

Why not use that experience in a straight-forward manner to guide our practice?

Thus it makes sense to be a Maoist in the Philippines because of material conditions similar to those of pre-revolutionary China.

It's quite possible that it makes sense to "imitate Lenin" in a place like Turkey or even Iran...because of material conditions similar to those of pre-revolutionary Russia.

It looks more and more like social democracy is working in Venezuela...a "tropical Sweden" c.1930 or so.

You don't need "dialectics" to figure out this sort of thing...any more than you need it to instantly grasp that all the old "left" strategies are completely irrelevant to material conditions in the "old" capitalist countries.

Granted, we have not yet discovered what will work in the "old" capitalist countries...a very serious "gap" in revolutionary theory.

But what is to be gained by losing ourselves in a "dialectical" fog? The way to begin the job of filling that "gap" is to look at those few examples of some kind of proletarian rebelliousness in the "old" capitalist countries and try to figure out why they happened and how they could be encouraged to happen again on a wider scale.

When you get right down to it, learning from practical experience is the real "master key" to understanding social reality or anything else.

Yes, theory is important -- not least because it saves us enormous amounts of time and energy.

But theory that doesn't rest on real world practical experience is...well, generally useless. Occasionally, a really bright individual might hazard a theoretical "shot in the dark" that, by sheer chance, actually hits the target.

But relying on that sort of thing is just plain foolish.

And that's what "dialectics" does! In the last analysis, it's no more intellectually respectable or practically useful than fortune-telling.

And given some of the things that I've seen in "left" politics, it's rather difficult to avoid the conclusion that "dialecticians" should properly be regarded as no more than political "phone psychics"...opportunistic hustlers fleecing the gullible.

Not exactly "revolutionary", eh? :lol:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che, as I predicted, you dialecticians cannot come to terms with the fact that your 'theory' is not just bogus, it is an affront to the workers' movement.

So, you try to deflect attention onto my alleged failings.

Fine, but it was all expected.

I have seen this many times over in the last twenty years or so.

As apostles of change, you do not alter much. And as believers in change through internal contradiction, you dismiss the ones I have introduced from inside the movement.

So, you are all a walking disproof of your own ideas.

I do not expect to convince you dialectical clones, as I indicated in my Introductory Essay.

It is no matter to me if you continue to believe this 'theory', or not. My aim is not to try to cure you, but to expose the theoretical fraud you adhere to.

If you wish to remain in the swamp, that is your affair. But do you really think that anyone thrown into doubt about DM by my arguments is going to be helped by your dialectical sulk? Your response, and those of other dialectical comrades, is actually helping me, just as, say, the irrational response to Galileo helped him, 400 years ago

On the contrary my aim is to try to prevent the further spread of this crazy doctrine; if I can put just one young comrade off dialectics, the last eight and a half years of hard work on this project will have been worth it.

A few of your, shall we say, 'fibs':


(1) "But did she present any alternative?"

Yes, Historical Materialism.

I thought you could read.


(2) "If in her essays she [had] dealt with the most practical aspect of DM..."

It has none. That is why I do not mention any.

You assert that dialectics has some connection with the emancipation of the working class.

But they have already delivered their message. They are not interested in your sort of mysticism. Please do not expect me to try to help you bamboozle them any more. It is enough if you dialecticians do this all on your own.

The larger the working class, the less influence you Dialectical Druggies have on them. This is one material fact that shows I am right.

You can't hear them, nor can you appreciate this point, since your head is deep in the Sahara.

And the way you dialectical mystics are going, your influence can only get less with time.

That's OK too, since it will leave room for us genuine materialists to assist the class in its own self-emancipation.



(3) "…resurrecting the old lines of thought prevailing before the emergence of Marxism"


Since you do not say what these are, I suspect you are just reading from a script, having copied this empty claim from other attempts to defend DM. It clearly saves you the trouble of having to respond. A well-tried DM-tactic.

However, and on the contrary, I raise issues never before aired, anywhere. Prove that wrong; go on, I dare you.

To take one example: just find me one instance from the past or the present where an anti-dialectician has posed the 'Dialecticians' Dilemma', posted elsewhere on this board. It is original to me. And I bet you cannot answer it.

To take a few more: who precisely has raised the issues I do from Modern Logic, and shown how dialecticians have fabricated a straw man in this area? Or shown that modern logic (and ancient logic) can cope with change? Or, shown in detail how Engels's three laws do not work. Or, demonstrated in detail not only how motion is not contradictory, but how Zeno's paradoxes make no sense. Or shown, again in detail, how Hegel and Lenin's attack on the Law of Identity back-fires. Or shown that Lenin cannot account for the objectivity of human knowledge? Or shown how and why abstraction has crippled dialectics? Or show how and why metaphysics arose, and how it has hobbled the minds of great revolutionaries? Or shown how Marx and Engels’s comments on differential calculus do not work. Or that wholes are not greater than their parts?

Which of these ideas pre-dated Engels? Which has been advanced before, and by whom?

My ideas may or may not be right -- time will tell. But they are almost all completely original to me.

Prove otherwise, I challenge you.

I note, however, you are totally incapable of defending your ideas.

At least we have established that.

I therefore recommend that you keep your head in the sand, comrade; it not only suits you and your dialectical mates, it leaves the field open to us genuine materialists.

[red_che]

Preserve your responses. I have many things to refute in your essays. Just wait till I've finished reading and examining them. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I can't wait.

If they are as convincing as other things you have described in such terms, I think I can put my feet up.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 01:28 AM
If they are as convincing as other things you have described in such terms, I think I can put my feet up.

Just be sure to note the "dialectal contradiction" of such an action! :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Amusing, I am sorry you have lost me here.

What contradiction is this? A literal one, a metaphorical one, or just a jokey sort of one?

Your smiley suggests the latter, but I still do not see it.


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[vox_populi]

I would appreciate if you could write a "simplified" version of your critique. Because English isn't my first language and I have trouble understanding your essays.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vox, I must apologise if my use of English is too difficult for you.

I have been writing this stuff now for over eight years, six of the last have been devoted to making the difficult ideas I refer to accessible. This material has been written and re-written well over fifty times (no exaggeration).

My guiding thought throughout has been; "If an ordinary worker cannot understand this, re-write it!"

Now I do not think I will ever achieve that level of clarity, but I do try. So, I apologise once again for failing to do so, and for failing you!

In my defence, however, you need to remember that I am challenging ideas that have fooled some of the greatest minds in human history -- for my attack is not just against dialectics, but against all traditional philosophy (of which dialectics is just a rather poor relation), which I identify as a major branch of ruling-class ideology. So I am dealing with some very complex and deep problems, ones that are not easy to sum up in a few sentences.

The level of confusion that has developed in this area of human thought is so great that I have to set the stage for every argument in great detail, or risk my attack failing.

Many of the 'laws' and principles of dialectics seem so obvious to comrades because these 'laws' trade on errors that other theorists (outside Marxism) have been making for centuries -- these are very deep errors, and are based on several fundamental mistakes over the meaning of words.

Now, put like that, no one would accept this approach, so I have to dissect each problem to reveal the deep errors involved, thus removing their 'magic' and the grip it has on comrades.

Once you see that all of Philosophy (including dialectics) is based on little more than verbal trickery, it loses its hold. Until then, because these notions are based on language, and not on scientific facts, they are impossible to correct, except in the way I am trying.

Now this is not easy to do, which is why it has held sway for so long, and why these 'ruling ideas' have ruled for thousands of years.

I claim no originality here; I base my ideas on those of Marx (in the German Ideology, etc.) and on the method of dissolving philosophical 'problems' developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein just over 50 years ago.

However, I have tried to summarise my ideas here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm)

You might find these of some help. If not, I am not really sure what I can do to assist you any further.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10 2006, 12:27 PM
What contradiction is this? A literal one, a metaphorical one, or just a jokey sort of one?

Your smiley suggests the latter, but I still do not see it.

I was "pulling your leg". :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, a dialectical joke that was funny and not funny all at once.

[vox_populi]

In my defence, however, you need to remember that I am challenging ideas that have fooled some of the greatest minds in human history -- for my attack is not just against dialectics, but against all traditional philosophy (of which dialectics is just a rather poor relation), which I identify as a major branch of ruling-class ideology. So I am dealing with some very complex and deep problems, ones that are not easy to sum up in a few sentences.


So, I apologise once again for failing to do so, and for failing you!

No Problem! I understand the need of "complicated" language when dealing with complicated matters. :D

I think that one of the biggest problems with Socialism is that the greatest Socialist thinkers use pretty advanced language...and that makes their ideas hard to grasp for common people (to whom the ideology is made for).

But the real problem is that i'm Swedish and that your essays are written in English :D

Do you mind if I ask you some kind of "simple" questions about your theories?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No problem!

You will notice, however, that I avoid using technicalities wherever I can, and I certainly avoid the obscure language you find in much left-wing philosophy.

[vox_populi]

I'll send you the questions as PM's Ok?

[red_che]

As promised, here is the continuation of my series of responses to Ms. Lichtenstein’s essays.

Second point:

In her Essay 2, Ms. Lichtenstein started by saying this:


Dialecticians frequently insist that their theory has not been imposed on nature, simply read from it.1 But, it is far from clear how any theory could be read from nature -- at least, clearly and unambiguously so.

It can already be clearly seen here that Ms. Lichtenstein wants to obscure several issues.
And going through the rest of her Essay 2, she really obscured more the issue being presented here: that whether DM imposes idea on nature.

Mao, in his Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?, said:


They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment.

Mao further explained:


Countless phenomena of the objective external world are reflected in a man's brain through his five sense organs-the organs of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. At first, knowledge is perceptual. The leap to conceptual knowledge, i.e., to ideas occurs when sufficient perceptual knowledge is accumulated. This is one process in cognition. It is the first stage in the whole process of cognition, the stage leading from objective matter to subjective consciousness, from existence to ideas.

In this first process, man gathers data from the material world. It is during this process that man make “ideas”, this means man’s brain processes the data collected through our five senses and produces “ideas.”

Mao went on to say:


Whether or not one's consciousness or ideas (including theories, policies, plans or measures) do correctly reflect the laws of the objective external world is not yet proved at this stage, in which it is not yet possible to ascertain whether they are correct or not. Then comes the second stage in the process of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back to matter, from ideas back to existence, in which the knowledge gained in the first stage is applied in social practice to ascertain whether the theories, policies, plans or measures meet with the anticipated success. Generally speaking, those that succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect, and this is especially true of man's struggle with nature.

And further, he says:


In social struggle, the forces representing the advanced class sometimes suffer defeat not because their ideas are incorrect but because, in the balance of forces engaged in struggle, they are not as powerful for the time being as the forces of reaction, they are therefore temporarily defeated, but they are bound to triumph sooner or later. Man's knowledge makes another leap through the test of practice. This leap is more important than the previous one. For it is this leap alone that can prove the correctness or incorrectness of the first leap, i.e., of the ideas, theories, policies, plans or measures formulated in the course of reflecting the objective external world. There is no other way of testing truth. Furthermore, the one and only purpose of the proletariat in knowing the world is to change it. Often, a correct idea can be arrived at only after many repetitions of the process leading from matter to consciousness and then back to matter, that is, leading from practice to knowledge and then back to practice. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge, the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.

It can now be said that ideas are simply those that are in the minds of man. That it cannot independently exist from the material world. And further, those ideas are not imposed on nature. That man gathers ideas simply because man can think. That one thinks and rationalizes so that one would know what s/he can or cannot do. And to know it, one must have “ideas.” Man is not a tree without brains. Man is a thinking being. So you can’t take away ideas from a man.

Marxism have already explained that ideas are simply a reflection from the material world and processed by human brain. Unlike what the idealists think that ideas are superior and that ideas determine the correctness of man’s actions.

Now, in Ms. Lichtenstein’s arguments that DM imposes ideas on nature. She is simply wrong. As clearly seen in the explanations of Comrade Mao, it is practice that determines the correctness of man’s actions, not ideas. That man only gathers them (ideas) from the material world so that man can know what s/he can do. And that “ideas,” alone, cannot exist independently, much less could it be imposed on nature.

I will continue on examining her essays, this is all for now. I’ll get back as soon as I have ascertained the rest of those quotes she copied there in Essay 2. I’m still looking for that one regarding John Reese. Ms. Rosa, don’t be so in a hurry. Like what I said, I’m only reading your essays bit by bit because I don’t have that luxury of time to read your essays. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well Red Che, if this is a sign of things to come, I think I will enter you for a prize in fiction:

"It can already be clearly seen here that Ms. Lichtenstein wants to obscure several issues.
And going through the rest of her Essay 2, she really obscured more the issue being presented here: that whether DM imposes idea on nature."

The Essay you lifted that sentence from is well over 20,000 words long, 75% of which is taken up with quotations from almost every branch of dialectical materialism, and highly representative (I would have quoted Mao too, if I had wanted that essay to be even longer!), all of which was aimed at proving that this is what you DM-fans do: you impose your theses on nature just like traditional thinkers.

You need to address that, rather than bluster on about 'obscuring' the issues (which issues - I set the agenda in that essay: to show that you lot do not do what you say -- how can i cloud it if I quote you all against yourselves?).

Then you quote Mao:

"They come from social practice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social practice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and scientific experiment."

But he just assumes this; where's his proof? More a priori foistings, Red Che. Thanks, we can add this to the list.

But I specifically tackled this response in that essay. You need to show where my argument goes wrong, instead of ignoring it.

Can you?

If your past form is anything to go by, I think not.

The rest of your 'response' consists of more quotes from the god-man Mao, but they do not address anything I said.

That is all you DM-fans can do, isn't it: reel off more passages from the 'scriptures'?

Not an original thought in your heads.

How can this have been derived from what mao says?


"Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be…. Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself…." [Engels (1976), p.74. Bold emphases added.]

Or this:

"'Fundamentally, we can know only the infinite.' In fact all real exhaustive knowledge consists solely in raising the individual thing in thought from individuality into particularity and from this into universality, in seeking and establishing the infinite in the finite, the eternal in the transitory…. All true knowledge of nature is knowledge of the eternal, the infinite, and essentially absolute…. The cognition of the infinite…can only take place in an infinite asymptotic progress." [Engels (1954), pp.233-35.]

Or this:


"Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development…. Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)….

"[D]ialectical logic holds that 'truth' is always concrete, never abstract, as the late Plekhanov liked to say after Hegel." [Lenin (1921), pp.90, 93. Bold emphasis added.]


Or this:

"Flexibility, applied objectively, i.e., reflecting the all-sidedness of the material process and its unity, is dialectics, is the correct reflection of the eternal development of the world." [Lenin (1961), p.110. Bold emphasis added.]

Or this gem:

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [E]ach thing (phenomenon, process, etc.)…is connected with every other…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute….

"To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common, etc., [sic] with any proposition...: [like] John is a man…. Here we already have dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognized): the individual is the universal…. Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes), etc. Here already we have the elements, the germs of the concept of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say John is a man…we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other….

"Thus in any proposition we can (and must) disclose as a ‘nucleus’ (‘cell’) the germs of all the elements of dialectics, and thereby show that dialectics is a property of all human knowledge in general." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58, 359-60.]

How can any of this be derived from 'images in the brain' derived from experience?


"I will continue on examining her essays, this is all for now..."

Do me a favour, Red Che -- don't bother. You might as well confine your 'examination' of my essays to the back of bus tickets for all the care and attentiuon you pay to what I say.

Just who do you think you are kidding? Do you honestly thnk that anyone thrown into doubt by my arguments is going to have their minds put at rest by your irrelevant quotations from Mao?

The problem is: I think you do.

Head still stuck in the Gobi desert comrade? You are just making a fool of yourself.

[red_che]

Well, I'm not aspiring to be one of those Great Philosophers, actually. And I don't have that halluciantion that I change the minds of your followers, if there were any. It's just that I want to respond to your essays. And I want to expose the hypocrisies in those essays of yours. Unfortunately, I don't have that much time since I have more important things to do.

But I'll do it still, exposing your hypocrisy, that is. This would take a bit long, however. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che, don't bother. I am not interested in you quoting more holy dialectical scripture at me.

That seems to be your only tactic. In fact, it is your only tactic.

In fact, since I have been reading this stuff for well over twenty-five years, and have had to study it line by line for my work, it would be very cruel of you to quote any more back at me.

If you want to stay in your benighted state, happy with your simple dialectical faith, that's fine.

Both myself and the vast majority of the working class are not listening to this mystical rubbish.

You (and other DM-fans) have yet to wake up to this fact.

So turn over, and go back to sleep.

I am sorry I disturbed you.

[red_che]

Third point:

Ms. Rosa falsely and maliciously stated that:


Dialecticians claim that even though their system has been derived from Hegel's AIDS, the materialist flip they say they have imposed on it means that their theory is not the least bit Idealist, but thoroughly materialist, and tested in practice.

Ms. Lichtenstein is quite tricky in her usage of words here.

She instantly imposed that Absolute Idealism is Dialectics without the reader noticing it. And worse, she claims that Marxism is derived from Hegel. So, in this sense, she was successful in the imposition of her other thoughts and effectively ignoring the points which Marx clearly differentiated in his dialectical materialism as opposed to Hegel's dialectical idealism.

Marx stated that: "My dialectics is different with Hegel's, in fact, it is its direct opposite."

Here, Marx makes the distinction of his dialectics in opposition to Hegel's dialectics. Hegel's is Idealist. It is not rooted from material objects. Fundamentally, Hegel's dialectics is Idealist, that which he says everything is just a product of idea. While Marx's dialectics, his philosophy, is materialist.

Ms. Lichtenstein, obviously wants to confuse the readers. She is contradicting two concepts which aren't actually contradictory.

It is Idealism that contradicts Materialism, while on the other aspect, Metaphysics contradicts Dialectics.

It must be made clear that Metaphysics suggests that every particular object is independently existing and does not have relationship with other things. While Dialectics contradicts this thought which states that matters are related to each other and that this relationship produces contradiction that brings about changes.

While the two other contradicting philosophies were materialism and idealism. Idealism asserts that ideas come first and it is decisive in the development of things. While Materialism puts forward the thought that material objects come first and it is the decisive factor in development.

Marx clearly establishes that both dialectics and materialism were correct and that makes it the philosophy of Marxism.

So, we can see here that Ms. Lichtenstein was attacking not just Dialectical Materialism but Marxism itself. That what she wants us to do is not to think at all. That we just let everything evolve "peacefully" and "harmoniously" without us doing anything because, in her mind, it just alters nature. As if things themselves were not contradicting and producing new objects.

I'll continue again next time. This will be all for now. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More holy scripture:

"Marx stated that: "My dialectics is different with Hegel's, in fact, it is its direct opposite.""

I specifically left Marx out, so why you are quoting him, I do not know.

But even if it were relevant, how would this show that DM-fans do not impose their ideas on nature?

All the evidence is in my essay. It is no matter to me if you ignore it -- I predicted you would.

"I'll continue again next time. This will be all for now..."

Why bother. Just cut and paste the same stuff you have been posting. It will be just as irrelevant.

Add another star to your 'three-star fool label' -- for that is what you are.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
(1) "But did she present any alternative?"

Yes, Historical Materialism.

Hmm. Over-optimistic would be to think that to a party clone, a petty dogmat, a follower of the church of communism and their holy leaders (feel free to throw in some more), either would be useful in any way then in in the "exercise" of their dogmatic mind.

Even if you "make them realize" that "dialectical materialism" is bullshit, and present them the alternative in the scientific form of "historical materialism", they'd still quote Mao, like fellow red_che here.

You think that Historical science means shit to someone who thinks that USSR was a "workers' state"?

The essence of the problem may not be in the "dialectical materialism" itself, as you insist in your essays (please, correct me if I'm wrong). The reasons are quite deeper. This Plekhanovite "philosophy of thuggery" (as Cyril Smith called it) would be only an emanation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DJ-TC
The reasons are quite deeper. This Plekhanovite "philosophy of thuggery" (as Cyril Smith called it) would be only an emanation.

Would this be "Big Cyril Smith", the obese Liberal MP?

Or some other guy?

"Philosophy of thuggery" seems a bit "thick". :huh:

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

[Lamanov]

No. Cyril Smith (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/smith-cyril/index.htm), former Trot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ-TC:

I think you are right. DM-fans hold onto DM for psychological reasons.

To paraphrase Marx: the more alienated they feel they are from the working class the more they put into their 'god-like' figures.

Anyone who can quote Mao as an authority on anything (other than how to oppress the chinese working class, of course) is already too far gone for anyone to help.

We both know what Marx himself would have made of this crowd.

Red (as in Red Star 2000): Cyril Smith is the guy who wrote that piece in Hegel and Hermeticism you linked to a few weeks ago, from the Marx Internet archive.

[redstar2000]

Pretty grim stuff. :(

I tried this one...

Marx versus Historical Materialism (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyril_01.htm)

It seems to me that he reduces Marx to a utopian. :o

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, yes; I did not recommend him, but his essay on the Hermetic influence on Hegel was a step in the right direction. But he failed to see the implications.

[red_che]

Until now, Ms. Lichtenstein did not debunct any of my previous points. What she is doing is merely branding those as “hallucinations” without having any point of refutal. Since that is what Ms. Lichtenstein has been doing, I’ll continue on exposing her fallacies and hypocrisies.

Fourth point:

I saw here again another example of Ms. Lichrenstein’s misleading concepts:


But, even if we take into account all the available evidence (which evidence isn't conducive to DM, anyway, as we shall see in later Essays), the inference that "reality itself" is dialectically structured goes way beyond this. The claim that reality itself is dialectically structured -- and not just those parts scientists have studied so far -- could only ever amount to a reading into nature of something that it might not have. This is especially so if we take into account the fact that DM-authors also claim that human knowledge is not only incomplete, it will only ever be partial. In fact, since DM-theorists believe that the pursuit of knowledge is an infinite quest, humanity will only be in a position to agree with dialecticians about "reality itself" at the end of an infinite epistemological journey.

In this quote to John Reese, Ms. Lichtenstein intentionally misleads the reader by saying that when DM says everything is dialectically structured, she imposed that everything is unmoving and therefore no more changes. Here, Ms. Lichtenstein confused dialectics for what it really is: that dialectics means changes through contradictions. So, when this statement was made by John Reese, he certainly meant to say that everything are changing and producing new fundamental things, and they are changing because of contradictions. Hence, DM is an infinite philosophy.

As I have already explained in my previous post, metaphysics asserts that everything is absolute, that it can no longer be possible to change it. This is what dialectics had opposed and will continue to do. Maybe, Ms. Lichtenstein was so confused that she can no longer differentiate between metaphysics and dialectics. Or that she uses these two concepts interchangeably to confuse the reader and get their approval. So, when she arrive at this conclusion:


Now, it is plain, I take it, that Rees has not yet completed such a task, nor is he ever likely to (and neither is humanity), so the conclusion that realty itself is dialectically structured cannot be part of human knowledge, and it never will be; which means it must have been imposed on reality.

She apparently is no longer on the correct path or line of thinking, thus, producing such a ridiculous conclusion. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Waste of time said:


"Until now, Ms. Lichtenstein did not debunct any of my previous points."

Well. that is because you merely quotet fron sacred dialectical scripture, and since I am not a religious person, I ignored it.

When you have something useful to say, let me know.

More distortion:


"Here, Ms. Lichtenstein confused dialectics for what it really is: that dialectics means changes through contradictions."

I have a whole essay on this, where I show this 'theory' is too confused to call a theory.

More imposition on nature: how do you know that change is always change "through 'internal contradiction'?

Oh, sorry, Hegel and Lenin told you so. Scientific knowledge for you begins and ends with leafing through Hegel's logic or Lenon's writings -- as I said in that essay you 'read'.



"As I have already explained in my previous post, metaphysics asserts that everything is absolute that it can no longer be possible to change it."


You really do not know much philosophy, comrade do you?

And that sentence makes no sense. What is the 'it' referring to?


"This is what dialectics had opposed and will continue to do."

Well, maybe so, but you dialecticians are just as happy to impose your ideas on nature as metaphysicians are.



"Maybe, Ms. Lichtenstein was so confused that she can no longer differentiate between metaphysics and dialectics."


Since dialectics is also metaphysical, no one, not even I, can tell the two apart.



"Or that she uses these two concepts interchangeably to confuse the reader and get their approval."


Again, you complain about my failure to distinguish the two, but then you proceed to do exactly what metaphysicans do: impose your ideas on nature.

In that respect dialectics and metaphysics are one.

Thankyou once again for helping me prove my point.

[Axel1917]

Redstar2000, Rosa Lichtenstein, and other such anti-Marxists are still going at it? A word of advice to dialecticians: ignore them. They are dogmatists. When you present evidence to back up dialectics, they just skip it while dogmatically repeating the same crap over and over again (just like how capitalist supporters do when one argues with them!). They don't even know what dialectics is, and they have not even taken the time to try and understand the subject at hand. Many have tried to explain the basics to them, yet in their dogmatic arrogance, they just brushed aside the refuations and kept on ranting. That is why no one bothers even explaining such things to them. It is fruitless to debate with a dogmatist that refuses to think.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:02 AM
Redstar2000, Rosa Lichtenstein, and other such anti-Marxists are still going at it? A word of advice to dialecticians: ignore them. They are dogmatists. When you present evidence to back up dialectics, they just skip it while dogmatically repeating the same crap over and over again (just like how capitalist supporters do when one argues with them!). They don't even know what dialectics is, and they have not even taken the time to try and understand the subject at hand. Many have tried to explain the basics to them, yet in their dogmatic arrogance, they just brushed aside the refuations and kept on ranting. That is why no one bothers even explaining such things to them. It is fruitless to debate with a dogmatist that refuses to think.

I knew it from the beginning, but out of courtesy, I tried wasting some of my precious time to answer this trashy work which they were protecting and even putting up on top of a pedestal of their own.

And it seems that this debate would not go anywhere since they are all ganging up on trying to evade, get away and mislead the discussion, I think what I have presented was enough to disarm their so-called "demolition" on dialectics - even if what I have discussed so far were the basics and I was just almost halfway through her Essay 2.

So, Ms. Lichtenstein, I think you can sleep very well now since I will finally end this debate. Hope you got something from me. :)

[Red Powers]

Oh Look! It's Axel1917 someone who knows all about dogmatic arrogance and writes a pretty good rant as well.

But then he refuses to define anything and claims he sees a qualitative transformation when a "pile" of grain becomes a"heap" by the addition of a single grain. It's astounding really. I'd link you all to the thread but why bother?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel:


"A word of advice to dialecticians: ignore them..."

A modern-day version of the reaction to Galileo here:

Comrades, do not under any circumstances look down that telescope.

And, Axel, I hope your dialectical druggie friends take your advice. For three reasons:

1) It will confirm my prediction that you would.

2) It will underline the fact that you have no answer. Red Che's pathetic attempts so far (which amount by and large to quoting holy dialectcial scripture) is ample proof of that.

3) It will leave the field open to us genuine materialist to innoculate the next generation against this Hermetic virus, the one that now controls your brain.


"They don't even know what dialectics is..."

Well, we are in good company, since no one understands this crazy doctrine.

The 'heroic' attempts to 'explain' it, that you refer to, are also proof of that.

Your 'explanations' make no sense.


"When you present evidence to back up dialectics..."

You mean that anecdotal stuff, a half page here, a paragraph there?

That's not evidence. If you want to know what evidence is, pick up a copy of, say, the journal Nature to see what genuine scientific evidence is.

But, from a few balding heads (badly described), a pan of boiling water (also badly described), and a hand-ful of other trite anecdotes, you have 'evidence' that proves a 'law' that is supposed to operate right throughout the entire universe.

As I have noted, you lot are quite happy to impose dialectics on reality based on a handful of 'thought experiments', anecdotal 'evidence' and an excess of arm waving. No wonder you have to repeat holy scripture all the time.

And your examples do not work, as I have shown at my site.

But please do not check to see; I think your state of wilful ignorance means that your influence on the working-class will be near to zero.

And that will benefit them greatly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


"what I have presented was enough to disarm their so-called "demolition" on dialectics..."

Still fast asleep eh, and dreaming.

All you did was quote a few sacred thoughts of Chairman Mao, and add a few lines just rebutting some of my allegations.

You did nothing to show where I was wrong, you just said I was.

Now, you may be a prophet in your own eyes, and expect us mere mortals to accept your every word, but we don't.

So, put up or shut up.

Better still, shut up.


"Hope you got something from me."

Yes: confirmation of the fact that you Dialectical Monks cannot defend your faith.

But why did you listen to Axel?

I told you not to bother replying to me, since I did not want to have to read any more of that tedious material from the holy books you all seem impelled to inflict on us.

We shall have to get Axel to remove your batteries much earlier in future.

But, I hope you learnt nothing from me.

The reason?

The same as that I appended to the end of my reply to Axel:



"I think your state of wilful ignorance means that your influence on the working-class will be near to zero.

And that will benefit them greatly."

[red_che]

Rosa:


All you did was quote a few sacred thought of Chairman Mao, and add a few lines just rebutting some of my allegations.

So, you still want this debate? Then I will resume.


You did nothing to show wher i was wrong, you just said I was

Huh,... What a nice scapegoat and damage-control effort... :lol:

Don't worry, I'll get back. Just took a quick look today, I have some things to do now. But I'll get back... ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che, I suspect you find it hard to read English.

I have made it perfectly clear that I do not want a 'debate' with you since you are incapable of following an argument, or of letting go of the idea that quotations from the Holy Books of Dialectics is enough to refute what I have to say.

Exhibit One for the prosecution:


"What a nice scapegoat and damage-control effort..."

You see, you still think that a paragraph or two, a handful of quotations from the Holy Scriptures, and flat denials of some of the things I say is an adequate response to my Essays.

That is why I have called you a waste of time.

You still are.

So, we have at least one thing in the universe that does not change: you.


"I'll get back."

Don't bother.

I'll just re-read what you have already posted, since you are incapable of saying anything new.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16 2006, 03:28 AM
Oh Look! It's Axel1917 someone who knows all about dogmatic arrogance and writes a pretty good rant as well.

But then he refuses to define anything and claims he sees a qualitative transformation when a "pile" of grain becomes a"heap" by the addition of a single grain. It's astounding really. I'd link you all to the thread but why bother?
Get back to me when you actually bother reading works on dialectical materialism. Seriously. That work I cited has gone into a Cuban edition, of which has been released, it has been translated into multiple languages, and Hugo Chavez is amongst its admirers (I have read of it being referred to as one of "Chavez's books.").

You have been alive for how much longer than I have, and yet you have not used any of that time construvtively?

The genuine Marxists will build the revolutionary party and future, while the anti-Marxists, of whom ignore citations and claim that one "only put a paragraph" and will either get nowhere or become disguntled and side with the reactionary Bourgeoisie. They don't want to look through that damned telescope!

I would also consider those that have proven that they know Marxism by decades of experience of theory and practice than a small group of people that just sit around and make rant sites on the Internet, of whom despise critical thinking.

But anyway, back onto reading the humor section made by adamant anti-Marxists! :lol: Let them rot in their idealist fabrications of "reality." There is a reason why everyone has started ignoring these dogmatic fools! I mean seroiusly, like they will ever gain any influence! The only influence they may gain will be a few teenagers that are just becoming curious to Marxism. They seem to compose most of this board, but unlike redstar2000 and Co., I am confident that some of them will be able to learn something in the future!

I think it is safe to take leave of this thread now, as the anti-dialecticans cannot escape metaphysical nonsense, nor can they even think clearly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel 1066:


"I think it is safe to take leave of this thread now..."

And given the quality of your reasoning, don't come back.

[kurt]

Get back to me when you actually bother reading works on dialectical materialism. Seriously. That work I cited has gone into a Cuban edition, of which has been released, it has been translated into multiple languages, and Hugo Chavez is amongst its admirers (I have read of it being referred to as one of "Chavez's books.").
Christians are usually particularly fond of metaphysical babble.


I would also consider those that have proven that they know Marxism by decades of experience of theory and practice than a small group of people that just sit around and make rant sites on the Internet, of whom despise critical thinking.
How have these people "proven" their knowledge of Marxism(in your case "dialectical materialism")? They've failed just as miserably as everyone else. If their practice hasn't produced anything worthwhile, it's time to look at their theory.



But anyway, back onto reading the humor section made by adamant anti-Marxists! :lol: Let them rot in their idealist fabrications of "reality." There is a reason why everyone has started ignoring these dogmatic fools! I mean seroiusly, like they will ever gain any influence!
Idealist fabrications of reality? Do you even know what the word idealist means, or do you like to just throw it out there, hoping no one will notice? Although people may call you an idealist when you trying preaching your non-sense, it's not a cuss word; they're just identifying you, correctly.


I think it is safe to take leave of this thread now, as the anti-dialecticans cannot escape metaphysical nonsense, nor can they even think clearly.
Once again, do you even know what the hell you're talking about? Let's look at something you said in another thread.


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.
Aside from the fact that water doesn't "suddenly" transform into ice, what was the point of saying this? All you did was take an event which can be easily observed empirically, and say it was "dialectical".


Originally posted by "red_che"
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.
Once again, more patching of dialectical terminology onto events that can be observed empirically.


Her tactic in those essays seems to be "atack-and-attack" throughout all of it. But did she present any alternative? None. And she went into those very small details at great length and compassion just for the sake of attacking it, vainly, even if she wasn't able to prove anything. While the most pressing issues of the day were left untouched.
First off, one isn't required to provide an alternative when a criticism has been made. And of course if she wants to actually provide an argument against dialectical materialism she's going to go into small details "just for the sake of attacking it".

Although I can clearly see your problem with her style of argumentation, she actually says something useful, while you just post utter crap such as this.

I've been reading these "arguments" coming from you dialecticians for months. I've read sources that you've "cited", but didn't find anything much of substance. It's like you feel special somehow for being able to magically transform a regular event into something "dialectical".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comradekurt: thankyou for those comments. When I have posted stuff like this, it just went right over their heads -- if they ever bothered to read it, that is:



"Engels depicts his first 'law' as follows:

"...the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63; emphasis added.]

Exactly how Engels knew that it was impossible to "alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion" he annoyingly kept to himself. However, he did at least try to deny that his "laws [have been] foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced from them". [Ibid., p.62.] But, this precipitous deduction of a necessary law (i.e., one that uses the word "impossible") from only a handful of examples (largely drawn from chemistry) appears to be a neat trick only dialecticians are capable of performing. Less partisan observers might be forgiven for concluding that Engels either did not know what the word "foisted" meant, or he hoped no one would notice when he indulged in a little of it himself.

However, we have encountered this sort of a priori Idealism many times in other essays posted here. Indeed, it's the main topic of Essay Two....

But, many things in nature change qualitatively without going through a DM-inspired "nodal point" (Anti-Dühring, p.160); for example, melting and solidifying plastic, metal, rock, sulphur, tar, toffee, sugar, chocolate, wax, butter, cheese, and glass -- there isn't even a nodal point with respect to balding heads (which is another example dialecticians use to illustrate this law, as indeed TAR does, p.9)! In fact, it is difficult to think of many phase transformations from solid to liquid (or vice versa) that exhibit just such "nodal points" -- and that includes the transition from ice to water (and arguably the condensation of steam, too).1 Even the albumen of fried or boiled eggs changes slowly (but non-nodally) from clear to opaque white while they are being cooked.

Furthermore, when heated, objects change from cold to warm and then to hot, with no nodal point separating these qualitative stages. Moving bodies similarly speed up from slow to fast (and vice versa) without nodal punctuation marks. In like manner, the change from one colour to the next in the normal colour spectrum is continuous, with no nodal points evident at all; sounds, too, change smoothly from soft to loud, and back, in a node-free environment. Something similar happens to their pitch as the frequency changes. In fact, with respect to wave-governed phenomena in general, change seems to be continuous rather than discrete, which means that, since the majority of particles/objects in nature move in such a manner, most things in reality seem to disobey this aspect of Engels's alleged 'law' -- at least at the macroscopic level. [Quantum phenomena are another matter, and will be dealt with in detail in my thesis.]

In that case, the 'nodal' aspect of this law is only partially true. However, if we now mischievously apply this non-nodal aspect of the first 'law' to Capitalism (as dialecticians themselves do, but only as it applies to the liquid/gas phase change, in a bid to illustrate by analogy the revolutionary transformation from one mode of production to another, as quantity allegedly builds into quality), then since Capitalism is clearly not a liquid, but a solid of sorts, the transition to socialism should it seems go rather smoothly. Interpreted that way, it looks as if the first 'law' is of little use to revolutionaries, since it suggests that they are not needed and that Capitalism can be reformed away non-discontinuously -- a bit like the way rock, say, can slowly melt to form lava, or heads slowly turn bald as they lose hair....

In fact, as we shall see, there are so many exceptions to this 'law' that it would be wise perhaps to demote it and reassign it to a more appropriate category -- maybe alongside trite rules of thumb that sometimes work, such as: "An apple a day keeps the doctor away"? Indeed, given the fact that this 'law' has no discernible mathematical content it is rather surprising it was ever called a law.

Nevertheless, the situation is even worse than the above might suggest; there are many examples where significant qualitative change can result from no obvious quantitative change. These include the qualitative differences that exist between countless different isomeric molecules (studied in stereochemistry), in particular those that have chiral centres (i.e., centres of asymmetry). Here the spatial ordering of the constituent atoms, not their quantity, affects the overall quality of the resulting molecule (something Engels said could not happen). To take one example of the many: ®-Carvone (spearmint) and (S)-Carvone (caraway); these molecules have the same number of atoms (and they are of the same elements), the same bond energies, but they are nonetheless qualitatively distinct because of the different spatial arrangement of the atoms involved.

This un-dialectical aspect of matter is especially true of the so-called “Enantiomers” (i.e., symmetrical molecules that are mirror images of each other). These include compounds like ®-2-clorobutane and (S)-2-chlorobutane, and so-called L- and D-molecules, which rotate the plane of polarised light the left (laevo) or the right (dextro)) -- such as, L- and D-Tartaric acid. What might appear to be small energy-neutral differences like these have profound biochemical implications; a protein with D-amino acids instead of L- will not work in living cells since all life on earth uses L-organic molecules. These compounds not only have the same number of atoms in each molecule, there are no apparent energy differences between them; even so, they have easily distinguishable physical qualities.

Furthermore, if two or more forces are aligned differently, the qualitative results are invariably different (even when the overall magnitude of each force is held constant). Consider one particular example: let forces F1 and F2 be situated in parallel (but not in the same line of action), but diametrically opposed to each other. Here these two forces will exercise a turning effect on an appropriately positioned body. Now, rearrange the same two forces in like oppositional manner so that they are still parallel, but now acting along the same line. In this case, as seems clear, these forces will have no turning effect on that same body. Change in quality here with no change in quantity. Since there are many ways to align forces (as indeed there are with other vector quantities, such as velocities and accelerations, etc.), there are countless counter-examples to this rather pathetic first 'law' here alone.

Perhaps more significantly, this 'law' takes no account of qualitative changes that result from the many (energetically-neutral) ordering relations that are found in nature and society. Here, identical physical structures/processes can be ordered differently to create significant qualitative changes. A familiar example is that found in music where an alteration to a sequence of the same notes in a chord or in a melody can have a major qualitative impact on harmony, with no quantitative change anywhere apparent. So, the same seven notes (i.e., tones and semi-tones) arranged in different modes (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aolean and Locrian) sound totally different to the human ear. Of course, there are other ways of altering the quality of music in an energetically neutral environment over and above this one (such as timing).

Another example along the same lines concerns the ordering principles found in language, where significant qualitative changes can result from the re-arrangement of parts of speech. For instance, the same number of letters jumbled up can either make sense or no sense, as the case may be: as in "dialectics" and "csdileati" (the latter is "dialectics" scrambled; but, which one of these makes more sense I will leave to the reader to decide). Perhaps more radically, the same words can mean something qualitatively new if sequenced differently, as in, say: "The cat is on the mat" and "The mat is on the cat"; or even "Reason in Revolt" and "Revolt in Reason".

There are many other examples of this phenomenon, but a few more should suffice for the purposes of this web site: a successful strike (one that is, say, planned first then actioned second) could turn into its opposite (if it is actioned first and planned second). Now even though the total energy budget here would be ordered differently in each case, the overall energy of the system (howsoever this is characterised) need not be any different. So, the addition of no extra matter or energy here can turn successful action into disaster if the order of events is reversed. Of course, we can all imagine situations where this particular example could involve different energy budgets, but this is not necessarily always the case, which is all I need.

But, there are countless thousands of everyday examples of such qualitative differences (with no obvious quantitative differences), in this category alone, so many in fact that Engels's 'law' begins to look even more pathetic as a result. Who for example would put food on the table then a plate on top of that? A change in the spatial ordering here would constitute a qualitatively different act. Which of us would jump out of a plane first and put their parachute on second -- or cross a road first, look second? Is there a sane person on the planet who goes to the toilet first and gets out of bed second? And, only an idiot would pour 500mls of water slowly into 1000mls of concentrated Sulphuric Acid, whereas, someone who knew what they were doing would readily do the reverse. But all of these have profound qualitative differences if performed in the wrong order (for the same total amount of energy in the system). How could Engels possibly have missed examples like these? Is Dialectical Myopia so crippling that it prevents dialecticians using their common sense?"


A small section, taken from:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm)

Where I also take apart the few examples DM-fans quote to support their 'law' (such a boiling water, balding heads, Mendeleyev's table, etc.).

DM-accolytes are not interested in evidence, they are only intent on holding on to their simple faith in DM revealed truth.

[red_che]

comradekurt:


Once again, more patching of dialectical terminology onto events that can be observed empirically.

So, what could be the problem with that? Is dialectical observation make it not true? Tell me, what is false in my statement which you have quoted and responded to here?


First off, one isn't required to provide an alternative when a criticism has been made.

No, it is required. When you make a criticism, that is only half of the argument, the other half would be what you think is right. In this case, Ms. Lichtenstein just made half of her argument, and it seems that all she's got. She cannot provide alternative, much less to explain her "alternative" to dialectical materialism.

I would appreciate it if just how detailed her attacks were against DM would also be the same with her explanations of her so-called "HM".


And of course if she wants to actually provide an argument against dialectical materialism she's going to go into small details "just for the sake of attacking it".

She went into details under an already fallacious main arguments, just like what I have explained so far.


I've been reading these "arguments" coming from you dialecticians for months. I've read sources that you've "cited", but didn't find anything much of substance. It's like you feel special somehow for being able to magically transform a regular event into something "dialectical".

Now I see. It's really a waste of time debating with your kind. You really seem to say that nothing in this world is worth thinking ofand so it follows that nothing in your mind is worth taking into consideration. For in your belief, even if you seem not to think at all, nothing can be done about nature because everything is already done. And nothing man can do about it but just to alter it and will merely impose his thought on nature if he does try do something. So, in a word, everything that scientists have invented were mere alterations to nature. And everything, in your thought, man did to his society were just plain accidents. It seems you are the most conservative and most traditional persons ever lived on Earth.

Rosa:

Here you go again. You really don't get what I mean. Here let me quote this one:


"Engels depicts his first 'law' as follows:

"...the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63; emphasis added.]

Exactly how Engels knew that it was impossible to "alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion" he annoyingly kept to himself. However, he did at least try to deny that his "laws [have been] foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced from them". [Ibid., p.62.] But, this precipitous deduction of a necessary law (i.e., one that uses the word "impossible") from only a handful of examples (largely drawn from chemistry) appears to be a neat trick only dialecticians are capable of performing. Less partisan observers might be forgiven for concluding that Engels either did not know what the word "foisted" meant, or he hoped no one would notice when he indulged in a little of it himself.

However, we have encountered this sort of a priori Idealism many times in other essays posted here. Indeed, it's the main topic of Essay Two....

But, many things in nature change qualitatively without going through a DM-inspired "nodal point" (Anti-Dühring, p.160); for example, melting and solidifying plastic, metal, rock, sulphur, tar, toffee, sugar, chocolate, wax, butter, cheese, and glass -- there isn't even a nodal point with respect to balding heads (which is another example dialecticians use to illustrate this law, as indeed TAR does, p.9)! In fact, it is difficult to think of many phase transformations from solid to liquid (or vice versa) that exhibit just such "nodal points" -- and that includes the transition from ice to water (and arguably the condensation of steam, too).1 Even the albumen of fried or boiled eggs changes slowly (but non-nodally) from clear to opaque white while they are being cooked.

Furthermore, when heated, objects change from cold to warm and then to hot, with no nodal point separating these qualitative stages. Moving bodies similarly speed up from slow to fast (and vice versa) without nodal punctuation marks. In like manner, the change from one colour to the next in the normal colour spectrum is continuous, with no nodal points evident at all; sounds, too, change smoothly from soft to loud, and back, in a node-free environment. Something similar happens to their pitch as the frequency changes. In fact, with respect to wave-governed phenomena in general, change seems to be continuous rather than discrete, which means that, since the majority of particles/objects in nature move in such a manner, most things in reality seem to disobey this aspect of Engels's alleged 'law' -- at least at the macroscopic level. [Quantum phenomena are another matter, and will be dealt with in detail in my thesis.]

You see? You missed entirely the point of Engels here and ran wild into going somewhere else in your explanations!

So, how exactly can change (qualitative) then occur? Wasn't motion involved? Was heat not a quantitative addition of energy to the matter that's why it turns from cold to warm to hot? And were there no motion involved?

Let us continue further in your explanations:


In that case, the 'nodal' aspect of this law is only partially true. However, if we now mischievously apply this non-nodal aspect of the first 'law' to Capitalism (as dialecticians themselves do, but only as it applies to the liquid/gas phase change, in a bid to illustrate by analogy the revolutionary transformation from one mode of production to another, as quantity allegedly builds into quality), then since Capitalism is clearly not a liquid, but a solid of sorts, the transition to socialism should it seems go rather smoothly. Interpreted that way, it looks as if the first 'law' is of little use to revolutionaries, since it suggests that they are not needed and that Capitalism can be reformed away non-discontinuously -- a bit like the way rock, say, can slowly melt to form lava, or heads slowly turn bald as they lose hair....

See? In the end, you are advocating peaceful evolution....

When a solid turns into liquid, was it really smooth?

And using that kind of false contention, you now conclude that the transition from Capitalism to Socialism must be peaceful.

Hahaha.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now everybody can see who really is metaphysical, idealist and bourgeois ideologue here....

If the transition from solid to liquid is smooth, how can the solid be turned into a liquid? I fail to see that one! Maybe if you are referring to an ice cube from your fridge and observes it, yuo say it is smooth because it so small an example that you can't feel the motion involved, the contradiction that occurred. However, when one observes the clouds transforming into rain, one can see, feel, recognize how violent that transformation would occur, the contradiction that occur. The process maybe slow, but there is contradiction, there is motion, there is violent struggle.

Now, as to your explanation of the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, one could obviously conclude that you are no different with the Utopian Socialists and Soc-Dems and other else here who were dreaming of a peaceful evolution of Socialism.

Well, I advise you, Ms. Lichtenstein, to remove your mask now. You stop posturing as a Marxist, or a revolutionary or a so-called Historical Materialist theoretician. Historical Materialism is one that uses dialectical analysis of history, and you are obviously not one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More invention from Red Cheat:



"Ms. Lichtenstein just made half of her argument, and it seems that all she's got. She cannot provide alternative, much less to explain her "alternative" to dialectical materialism."


As I said, you cannot read; I do have an alternative to Dialectical Mayhem, its called Historical Materialism.

You should give it a try sometime.


"You missed entirely the point of Engels here and ran wild into going somewhere else in your explanations!"

Well, since you cannot explain the point I am supposed to have missed, I suspect there isn't one to have been missed.


"In the end, you are advocating peaceful evolution...."

Again, you cannot follow an argument -- diabolical logic has rotted your brain.

I am not advocating peaceful anything; I am merely drawing out the consequences of Engels's theory, and alleging that if you lot are consistent (fat chance!), that is what you should be advocating, since that is what your theory implies.


"When a solid turns into liquid, was it really smooth?"

Yes, you should check.

But, many processes in nature are smooth, I gave you a list; if you cannot handle it, be honest and admit it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I had to log off and do something more useful for a minute or two.



"Now everybody can see who really is metaphysical, idealist and bourgeois ideologue here...."



Nice of you to own up.


"If the transition from solid to liquid is smooth, how can the solid be turned into a liquid?"

Easy to see: just heat up any metal and watch it slowly soften and slowly turn to a liquid, and vice versa. You may not believe your eyes, but then you suffer from dialectical myopia.

Same with rock, plastic, butter, cheese, toffee, chocolate, glass, sugar. These 'reactionary substances' all change smoothly from solid to liquid. All are annoyingly undialectical.

Perhaps they are CIA operatives?

Since most of the earth, and indeed the universe, is made of rocks/metals, most of the universe is anti-dialectical (as is most of the working class -- an odd coincidence, don't you think?).

Red Cheat, you have obviously picked the wrong theory: matter does not like your 'theory'. Neither does the working-class. So, only you and a dwindling band of dialectical muppets swallow this stuff. Bad move!

That will teach you to listen to the a priori speculations of that Hermetic idiot, Hegel.

In your case, perhaps not.


"However, when one observes the clouds transforming into rain, one can see, feel, recognize how violent that transformation would occur..."

I do not deny there are violent transformations in nature, but there are smooth ones too, and many more smooth than violent. So Engels's 'Law' cannot be a law if most things do not obey it.

Get used to it. Matter did, billions of years ago.


"the contradictions that occur."

What contradictions?

There are none.


"The process maybe slow, but there is contradiction, there is motion, there is violent struggle."

There you go, personifying nature again.

I thought humanity learnt long ago that intelligences do not move things about the place in this universe.

Are you therefore human?

And, atoms do not argue (i.e., contradict), since they do not have a language.

Your education must have been defective at some point, if you think that rain and stones and rivers and planets argue among themselves.

I wonder, when you look at the rain, can you hear 'voices'?

Professional help suggests itself in your case.

Contradiction is something human beings do, and they do it in language.

I am sorry if this is news to you. On this planet, that is how we do things.

What you do on yours is up to you.


"Well, I advise you, Ms. Lichtenstein, to remove your mask now."

No need to, I am not wearing one.

I am perfectly open about my materialism: I do not take advice (unlike you) from Hermetic mystics like Hegel.

Hence, if I have a mask, it is material. Yours is clearly ideal.


"Historical Materialism is one that uses dialectical analysis of history..."

So you keep saying, but you get so much wrong that I reckon that even if you told us that four followed three in the counting system, we'd all want to check.

Go back to sleep Red Cheat; I am sorry I awoke you from your dialectical slumber, and threatened your safe and simple mystical world with my materialist reminders.

Remember, dialectics is the theory history has already refuted -- a fact, of course, only of interest to us materialists.

You Idealists can ignore this material fact -- as you do.

[Chrysalis]

Hi Rosa and Red che:

Perhaps, there is a way to salvage this debate, I mean, it doesn't have to be either-or?


Originally posted by Rosa
Contradiction is something human beings do, and they do it in language.

This is a good comment. Wittgenstein made similar comments about idealism---it is done on paper, it cannot be shown empirically. I suppose what he means is, idealism can be argued, linguistically, because it is the context that the problem of idealism is asked.

However, Marx's observation of "contradiction" is of a kind that actually happens within the practical existence of individuals. As such, contradiction, in Marx's book, is a fact, like what Wittgenstein would consider facts, which are experienced-based. In logic, contradiction is of the form p and not-p. But this is when we talk about formal logic. So, on the one hand, there are the facts, about which Marx wants to say contradiction exists, and on the other, there is the formal formulation of contradictory statements, p and ~p.

:( I hope this helps.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis, thanks for those comments, but you judge Red Che far too highly.

As you can see, 'he' does not debate, 'he' misreads, invents and quotes holy writ, thinking that solves everything.

As far as your comments on contradictions are concerned I wasn't too sure I understood them.


"As such, contradiction, in Marx's book, is a fact, like what Wittgenstein would consider facts..."

I am not too sure how a contradiction can be a fact, unless we confuse the physical signs expressing a contradiction with a fact.

But, that is no more interesting than someone who might confuse gold with the word "gold", say.

And, it is worth noting that Wittgenstein regarded contradictions as senseless (Sinnloss), in his early work, hence incapable of expressing facts. In his later work he treated them differently, according to context.

But I think you will find it difficult to show he thought they were facts (a term he tended to avoid in later life, anyway).

So, for me, at least, it does have to be either-or (if I understand you aright).

[red_che]

Sorry for not responding for several days.

Rosa:


I had to log off and do something more useful for a minute or two.

Maybe to review your notes again and see where you can make alterations to your "theory" which was refuted already... :D :D


Easy to see: just heat up any metal and watch it slowly soften and slowly turn to a liquid, and vice versa.

Now you are the one who can't see or observe this process which you have just stated.

Does heating does not add up to the contradiction?

Does heating, and consequently the slow process of the solid material turning into liquid, not a process of contradiction and thereby a dialectical relations of which the solid matter turns into liquid?

Is that not a contradiction?

The process maybe slow, yes, I do not object that. But what I, and other dialecticians have been putting forward, is that there is contradiction no matter how slow or how fast that is.


Since most of the earth, and indeed the universe, is made of rocks/metals, most of the universe is anti-dialectical (as is most of the working class -- an odd coincidence, don't you think?).

Where in the world did you get this idea???

You may have just made it up!!!

I don't know where on earth did you get this idea!!!


I do not deny there are violent transformations in nature, but there are smooth ones too, and many more smooth than violent. So Engels's 'Law' cannot be a law if most things do not obey it.

Now you are admitting that there are contradictions. But did I say, or Engels perhaps or anyone else, that violent contradictions must be fast? I don't think so.

Those you are stating as smooth transformations maybe smooth only because of the finer particles involved. However, when we talk of society's transformation, it cannot be as smooth as what you are talking here. I, and for sure everybody else here, interpreted your idea as that the bourgeoisie must not be violently overthrown. And that is a very unMarxist, metaphysical, idealistic, out-of-this-world theory. That theory is espoused only by the bourgeoisie, and because of that theory of yours, you, I think, belong to them.


I thought humanity learnt long ago that intelligences do not move things about the place in this universe.

Hahaha... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Who says that I moved those things through my mind???

I only interpreted them as I see them.


And, atoms do not argue (i.e., contradict), since they do not have a language.

So you mean that objects must learn to speak first before they could contradict? Is that what you're saying?

Oh, what a @$#*!!!

What kind of thinking do you have?


Your education must have been defective at some point, if you think that rain and stones and rivers and planets argue among themselves.

Well, I'm sorry I don't have that Ph.D. like yours. :( But I'm glad I didn't have it. Because I may have ended up something like you if I had that Ph.D. :o

However, I don't think rocks, rivers, planets, etc. need not have mouths to contradict. But their nature dictate that. I believe you should go to the sun, there you can see how things there contradict without having to speak. And there you would know how small particles contradict and violently oppose each other.

Chrysalis:

Thanks for your attempts to make some sort of middle ground or common unity. However, when Marxism and anti-Marxism collided, just as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, there is no middle ground, I'm afraid. There has to be either-or. By the way, I have not yet responded to that topic you have created. I have been busy these past days. But I'll reply there as soon as I can. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:


"your "theory" which was refuted already... "

That shows how little attention you pay to what you read; since I have propounded no theory, how can you have 'refuted' it?

Nor will I propound a scientific theory, since I have no need to; Marx did that when he set up Historical Materialism.

And I certainly won't propound a philosophical theory, since I do not accept that any make sense.


"Does heating does not add up to the contradiction?"

Again, what contradiction?

Are you still hearing those voices? Are the flames now talking to you?

[Are you on acid?]

Perhaps in your eagerness to refute me, you typed this wrong; the above sentence of yours makes little sense.

Well, no more than usual.


"and other dialecticians have been putting forward, is that there is contradiction no matter how slow or how fast that is."

That simply shows that these 'other dialecticians' are as confused as you, since they too have failed to say what this contradiction is.

Are you all on some sort of drug? Is that why you can hear nature contradicting itself?


"Where in the world did you get this idea???"

It's called "science".

You should learn some.


"Now you are admitting that there are contradictions."

More invention.

Unless you tell us what these alleged 'contradictions' are, your accusations will only ever amount to fantasy.

That's OK; it confirms that you can only make your dopey theory work if you indulge in fantasy.

Rather like simple religious folk, once more.


"I, and for sure everybody else here, interpreted your idea as that the bourgeoisie must not be violently overthrown."

Well, you perhaps have, but then you have a tenuous grip on reality at the best of times -- you hear nature arguing with itself, after all.

But, once again you failed to grasp the parody of your 'theory' I was using: I was extrapolating from your confused theory to show that this is what you lot should believe. I was not advocating this myself. I certainly accept Marx's theory of revolution.

But I suppose I can now deny this till your sanity returns, it will do no good.

So, believe what you like about me, if it makes you feel any better.


"Who says that I moved those things through my mind???"

Perhaps those voices you keep hearing?


"So you mean that objects must learn to speak first before they could contradict?"

Well, that seems to be your theory. Contradict means "gain say"; you work it out for yourself.

[In view of the next point, I rather think that this will never happen.]


"Well, I'm sorry I don't have that Ph.D. like yours."

And yet in your simple state of ignorance, you believe everything in the dialectical Holy Books, everything the prophets tell you, just because it is in the tradition. Just like the Catholic Church, dialectics feeds off ignorance. I wonder you don't say your rosaries too.



"I believe you should go to the sun, there you can see how things there contradict without having to speak."


So you have been to the sun? Perhaps that explains why your brain has been fried, and has turned to dialectical mush.

Even when you sober up, I defy you to see a single contradiction in nature. You might hear one between two people arguing. You might even see one printed on the page. But, short of that, unless you are in the grip of some sort of personality disorder, you cannot see them in nature. Nature cannot speak, and it cannot write.

I suspect the Sun is also educationally-challenged in the same respect.

Perhaps you know where it learnt to speak, or write? Is this the source of those voices? Are you a closet Sun-worshipper?

That might help account for your rather odd beliefs about nature.


"There has to be either-or."

Ah, some common sense at last! Here we have the 'either-or' of Formal Logic.

The sinner has repented...

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Rosa
Chrysalis, thanks for those comments, but you judge Red Che far too highly.

:) Rosa, I like reading your and Red che's posts. ' Has nothing to do with me thinking highly of Red, though I might be. But Red and I have disagreed, and I was, and still is, new here, yet I feel I could keep coming back and discuss or debate with him. Same with you.


As you can see, 'he' does not debate, 'he' misreads, invents and quotes holy writ, thinking that solves everything.
My interpretation: he is passionate. :blush: I tend to be optimistic about Red.


As far as your comments on contradictions are concerned I wasn't too sure I understood them.

"As such, contradiction, in Marx's book, is a fact, like what Wittgenstein would consider facts..."

I am not too sure how a contradiction can be a fact, unless we confuse the physical signs expressing a contradiction with a fact.

But, that is no more interesting than someone who might confuse gold with the word "gold", say.
When I say contradiction is a fact according to Marx, I mean Marx is speaking in terms of socio-political perspective, note that this already presupposed "people": we look at society and the way people interact to achieve their goals, whatever these goals are. And according to Conflict theorists like Marx, antagonisms or conflicts are the unavoidable reality of human interaction, so long as people live in a heirarchical arrangement where there are the dominanat class and the oppressed class. Call this contradiction. And there are quite a few examples of these contradictions, in Marx's view, that we could observe happening in actuality. Hence, a fact according to Marx. They aren't just what we say to each other, like: I contradict what you say, or I deny what you say. Contradiction is an observable phenomena.

As accumulation of wealth increases, the number of property owners (property as means of production, maintained only for profit, not personal property like a car or a house) decreases, and the number of propertyless workers increases. Marx sees this as a contradiction. For it is intuitively reasonable to suppose that as wealth increases, so does the number of people who enjoy this wealth. But quite the contrary is happening, at least according to Marx's view.

"Dialectic" is simply a term, rather a philosophical/techinical term, given to Conflict perspective. Whether or not this view could be extended to physical phenomena (physics) is another question. (Here you can disagree with Hegel, for example) But, I think Marx only meant conflict within human interaction, a phenomenon that is a characteristic of societies in general. The Dm is only one of many such views as picture of the world or reality. And so is the HM.

There is, for example, the Functionalist view which purports that things work according to order and stability, and that members, or parts, of this picture of reality are interrelated and interdependent to each other, not in an antagonistic way, but rather as contributing members to the whole system.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chrysalis, as usual, your comments are both welcome and illuminating.


"I tend to be optimistic about Red."

Well, I have had these sorts of 'debates' (with dozens of dialectical dunces) now for over twenty years. They all say the same thing and adopt the same tactics.

So please forgive me if I am little more cynical, and a lot less tolerant.

As far as your comments on Marx are concerned, I have no problem with words like "conflict" and "struggle" (or even with "contradictory aims and interests"), but I do with the equation of "conflict" with "contradiction". I can see no reason why you need the latter term. It does not mean the same as "conflict" and it saddles HM with mystical notions drawn from Hermetic Hegelianism.


"Contradiction is an observable phenomena..."

Well, you see people contradicting, but do you see a contradiction? Do you see a "p and not-p"?

Well, if you equate seeing their words (as part of a print-out, or sound-track), then I suppose you do, but as I said earlier, that would be like confusing gold with a picture of gold, or with the word "gold".


"Marx sees this as a contradiction."

Perhaps he does, but then he must have been using this word in a new, and as yet unexplained way.

And that is bad science.

As far as the other things you say are concerned, since I reject every use of philosophical terms (but not just to be awkward -- I explain why at my site, see the link below), I can make little sense of it.

Remember this is just a summary of my views:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm)

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Rosa
So please forgive me if I am little more cynical, and a lot less tolerant.
Rosa, I like your being cynical and less tolerant. :D At least you take your position seriously when you argue.


Well, you see people contradicting, but do you see a contradiction? Do you see a "p and not-p"?

Well, if you equate seeing their words (as part of a print-out, or sound-track), then I suppose you do, but as I said earlier, that would be like confusing gold with a picture of gold, or with the word "gold".
No, no. The contradiction that Marx refers to consists in the material basis of existence of the individuals. It (the contradiction) manifests itself as these:

1) the existence of the dominant class and the oppressed class
2) the existence of accumulated wealth and the increased of propertyless mass
3) the existence of increased wealth and reduced number of people who own it. etc.

Like I said, the word "contradiction" simply refers to the existence of antagonistic or conflicting conditions faced by the individuals in a society.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that, but I am well aware of the background to the use of this word. I just think it is a serious error.

Why call these contradictions?

They have nothing to do with them.

You might, with equal justification, call them tautologies.

In addition, they saddle Marxism with Hermetic/ruling-class notions, which, as I show here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm

have helped cripple our movement.

[bezdomni]

I'm interested in the growing anti-dialectic movment.

I have a question though, preferably an answer from a coherent dialectician and then one from either Rosa or Redstar.

To what extent would the communist movement change if the dialectic were indeed false? The majority of Marxists accept the dialectic, and it would be a seemingly fundamental change. What of Marx should we keep and what should we throw out? What about Lenin and Trotsky? Has all hitherto revolutionary ideology been ultimately wasted?

Ultimately, what is the significance and impact of dialectics being either true or false in the grand scheme of worker's revolution? We are all working for a similar goal.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA, if I may call you this (!).

I have to say, that I for one cannot answer this question. And it is hardly for me to say.

It has to be discussed democratically within the movement.

It will affect Communists differently from Trotskyists like me, and it will be different for Maoists too.

However, I have little doubt that dialectics will remain in place, and my arguments ignored.

It has sunk far too deep for one individual like me (or even a few on the Internet) to remove it.

I suspect a new generation of activists/theorists will abandon it one day (especially as the class struggle unfolds, and Marxism experiences decreasing influence), but I am just whistling in the dark on that one.

Much of Historical Materialism will remain unaffected, though.

So, politically things will not change much, except, revolutionaries will find it much harder to justify substitutionism, anti-democratic party structures, over-the-top adulation of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, a scriptural approach to theory, sectarianism and irrational changes in tactics (which are at present justified on the ground that the dialectic requires the party to be contradictory!), etc etc.

More than that, I cannot say....

[redstar2000]

Try this...

Marxism Without the Crap (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

To be honest, I don't really expect any of the groups that still lay claim to Lenin's Throne to abandon "dialectics"...it's deeply embedded in their "sub-culture".

I think Rosa's influence will most be felt among young revolutionaries who are interested in Marx but indifferent to Lenin.

In the last century, people were almost "compelled" to accept "dialectics" if they thought Marx's views had any merits at all. It was "part of the package" according to the Leninists. Sort of the way it is now when you buy a personal computer -- you have to buy (and pay for!) the latest version of Windows© even if you are a Linux expert and think Microsoft has never produced a useful product in its entire history.

The "ideological market" was "locked up" by "dialectics". :(

Now that the Leninists have lost their 20th century "prestige" -- that is, they can't rely on the "winner effect" anymore -- it's possible to take a "fresh look" at the whole corpus of revolutionary theory. We're moving "out of the shadows" of 20th century theory and practice.

In the clear light of day, "dialectics" looks and feels archaic...it "smells musty" to the modern reader -- like something from the "rare books collection" in an old university library.

People have noted (with astonishment!) how much of Marx's writings "sound so modern"...but no one would ever say that about Hegel or about those parts of Hegel that Marx copied. Indeed, an 18th century historian like Gibbon sounds far more contemporary than anything Hegel ever wrote.

In every field of human thought, we are so far beyond Hegel's era that taking him seriously now would be rather like trying to practice medicine according to Galen.

It's a tragedy that Marx and Engels succumbed to "dialectics" when it was "fashionable" and the "latest thing"...though I don't think they actually used "dialectics" all that much in their serious writing. That is, when they actually sat down to write about something, I think they were most inclined to use ordinary language, ordinary scientific logic, etc. as those things were understood in their era.

"Dialectics" was a very bad paint job on a very good "car".

The "car" has actually "improved with age"...Marx's paradigm looks "better than ever" when used to explain contemporary social reality.

But the "paint job" has aged very badly indeed...it's mostly just rust now.

What I hope to see among young revolutionaries is a willingness to scrape off the rust and then use the vehicle.

That way we might actually get somewhere. :D

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

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 09:47 PM

It will affect Communists differently from Trotskyists like me, and it will be different for Maoists too.


The way this is worded, I am assuming you are a Trotskyist (as I am also).

How does being an anti-dialectic and anti-Leninist Trotskyist work out? It seems almost (forgive the irony)...contradictory.

Also as I recall, RedStar has an essay or two against Trotskyism...although he doesn't seem to despise Trotsky nearly as much as he does Lenin.

Yes, you may call me CPA. :-p

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA: well, I am pretty open about my Trotskyism at my site, but this is from the opening page:



"Some might wonder how I can count myself as both a Leninist and a Trotskyist while making such profound criticisms of the ideas that both Lenin and Trotsky regarded as fundamental to Marxism.

Well, we can recognise Newton's genius while we ignore his Alchemical and Kabbalistic writings, just as we can severely criticise him for wasting his energy on such worthless pursuits. The same applies to the writings of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Hence, even though I hold their writings on politics, economics and history in the highest esteem, I am equally critical of the mystical rubbish they saddled us with.

In fact, and on the contrary, a slavish acceptance of everything these great comrades had to say on dialectics, just because they said it, and just because the vast majority of comrades think highly of it, would be tantamount to spitting on their graves.

Marxism, if it is anything, is not a personality cult. Or if it is, then Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would have been the first to resign.

The radical tradition was built around its lack of respect for tradition. No less so here."


So not quite so contradictory, after all.

I am merely doing to them what Feuerbach did to Hegel, only more so -- a lot more so.

[bezdomni]

I had read some of the things you said about Marxism, but not the Lenin/Trotsky thing.

I will read what I can of your stuff when I get a chance.

I was expecting you (for some reason) to be another anti-Leninist like RedStar. This gets interesting.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 08:18 PM

Why call these contradictions?


My understanding is that the common sense use of the word is quite, literally, this: if something, A, exists that opposes the natural state or condition of B, then A and B contradict each other.

I think the way Marx arrives at this conclusion is through some assumptions, which he does make explicit in his theory: that there is a natural state of the material existence of the individuals, and that Marx identifies this natural state to be where the very means of human subsistence is found, and that capitalism contradicts this very existence.

[red_che]

Well, Rosa's replies to my last post are full of inconsistencies and outright evasion to the main points I have given. Admitting this thing one day and then denying it the next day. I feel it is really a waste of time replying to her even if some people, and most notably redstar, regard her too high.

I guess I can no longer keep replying to her. In the first place I was just a small pigmy into her eyes with those arogant words of her.

I admit I am just new here, but I can say I did not learn a thing from her.

But still I cannot refuse the temptation of replying to some of her last posts. But this will be my last response to her.


As far as your comments on Marx are concerned, I have no problem with words like "conflict" and "struggle" (or even with "contradictory aims and interests"), but I do with the equation of "conflict" with "contradiction". I can see no reason why you need the latter term.

Well I don't know why she is making such a big issue with the word "contradiction". There was not even a big or signifricant difference with these two words! They are synonymous anyway!


Well, you see people contradicting, but do you see a contradiction? Do you see a "p and not-p"?

Well, you see people also conflicting, but do you see conflict?

I can say that you are too much philosophising these words (just to make a contradictory position to dialectical materialism) even if they are really not needed to be philosophised so much.

It doesn't make any sense!

Crownpenisanarchy:


To what extent would the communist movement change if the dialectic were indeed false? The majority of Marxists accept the dialectic, and it would be a seemingly fundamental change. What of Marx should we keep and what should we throw out? What about Lenin and Trotsky? Has all hitherto revolutionary ideology been ultimately wasted?

As for me, I don't think dialectics, particularly Dialectical Materialism, must be removed out of Marxist theory. It is, in my view, the main tool for analysis utilized by Marx in analyzing history, society, capitalism and all and every aspect of the working class struggle. I could say that dialectical materialism is the brain of Marxism.

The anti-dialecticians, in my observation, were only against Hegelian dialectics. But it seems that they can't rid away themselves of this anti-Hegelianism by dragging it even on Marxist dialectics. That whenever they hear or read anything about dialectics, even if it is a Marxist dialectics (Dialectical Materialism), they immediately associate this with the Hegelian dialectics without differentiating the two. It's as if dialectics is the private property of Hegel and that nobody can revise it, even Marx.

What I want to point out here is that everybody must know the difference of this two directly opposite dialectical philosophy. And from there, everybody must know what to pick up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:


"Well, Rosa's replies to my last post are full of inconsistencies and outright evasion..."

Since you are a skilled adept in these evasive dialectical arts, I bow to your expertise: it takes a master like you to advise a novice like me.


"Admitting this thing one day and then denying it the next day..."

Like what?

And, since your theory thinks everything is contradictory, even if the above accusation were true, I'd have thought you would be the first to praise me for doing this.

Or have you now decided that contradictions are not a good thing?

Or, even: have you now added to your earlier acceptance of the Law of Excluded Middle an equally welcome acceptance of the Law of Non-contradiction?

So, you see: even you Dialectical Muddle-heads cannot live with contradictions.

I am glad to welcome you back into the human race.


"I guess I can no longer keep replying to her."

1) I never wanted you to (in fact I have repeatedly told you not to bother -- or, failing that, it would save a lot of time if you just copied and pasted your old comments as your new comments because you have nothing new to add), since you quickly showed you were incapable of reading anything accurately, and that you were a stranger to logic (like your fellow DM-acolytes).

2) No one will notice the difference. In fact, a totally blank space will argue far more effectively against me than anything you have so far posted.

3) Your randomly typed 'responses' will not be missed.


"Well I don't know why she is making such a big issue with the word "contradiction"."

No, most things go right over your head. No less so here.

Hark now! The dialectical deity who controls language speaketh:


"There was not even a big or significant difference with these two words! They are synonymous anyway!"

You mean they are identical. So, now you accept the Law of Identity too!?!

And you call yourself a dialectician?

Tut, tut.


"Well, you see people also conflicting, but do you see conflict?"

You have not yet established these terms are the same. But let us suppose they are, just to embarrass you: I will accept there are contradictions between people if you accept the Law of Identity. Deal?

No? Why ever not?

You have already admitted these words are the same.

Well, if they are not I am right and “contradiction” is not the same as “conflict”.

If they are the same I am right again, because the Law of Identity is correct.

[Neat stuff this Formal Logic, isn’t it?]

So, if the Law of Identity is sound, then change cannot arise through 'internal contradictions'. In that case, I can now withdraw my recent concession, since it was made on a false premise, and one we now both agree on.

Conclusion: you now accept the Law of Excluded Middle, the Law of Identity and probably the Law of Non-contradiction, too.

Well, done Red Cheat; we will make a materialist of you yet!

[Piece of advice: never pick a fight with a Logician.]


"I can say that you are too much philosophising these words (just to make a contradictory position to dialectical materialism) even if they are really not needed to be philosophised so much."

But contradictions are good. According to your dopey theory, they power change. The more I engender, the better, surely?

Or: is this more proof you are coming to see they are not all that wonderful?

I suspect so. And this is all down to Rosa's incisive logic.

And what thanks do I get for saving your pre-Aristotelian ass?


"It doesn't make any sense!"

Maybe not to you, but that is because you know no logic, precious little philosophy, and cannot read.

Next Numpty please....

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
I could say that dialectical materialism is the brain of Marxism.

Please don't! :o


It's as if dialectics is the private property of Hegel and that nobody can revise it, even Marx.

Yes, if Hegel and Marx were both alive today, Hegel might have an excellent legal case against Marx for copyright infringement and maybe even patent violation.

What we should properly say is "Dialectics" © Hegel, Inc. :lol:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA, I am sorry, for some reason I did not see your reply to me:

"I was expecting you... to be another anti-Leninist like RedStar."

Well, Red and I have our differences, but we are both 100% behind the idea that the emancipation of the working class will be an act of the working class, and that gives us more than enough common ground to be getting along with for now.

I have been a Leninist/Trotskyist for nigh on 23 years (and a common or garden Marxist for slightly longer); if you read this you will understand a little more about where I am coming from:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2001.htm

[red_che]

Rosa:

You are praising yourself so much, huh! :huh:

You think as if you are so smart and that all what you say are infallible. And you want to be relegated to a status of a God (without admitting it :rolleyes: , c'mon don't be ashamed! :lol: )

Well, you remind me of my professor in college just several years ago. Whenever he is refuted, he kinda say something to the effect that: "I am not a doctor for nothing! You are just students while I have studied these things for years!". Those kind of arrogant words, you know. And he goes on to praise himself with all those years of his studying this Masteral course and then that Doctoral degree, etc.

I guess that's how Ph.D.'s and other Doctors of blah-blahs nowadays act whenever they are refuted by pigmies like me. :lol:

Arrogance come their way.

I don't want this debate to get personal but Dr. Lichtenstein (that Doctor of Philosophy who claims to have no philosophy, how ironic and contradicting :rolleyes: ) was the first to hit below the belt (personal attacks and name-callings).

That is how a Ph.D. would debate. Take note of it so next time, you will know how to relate with them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:


"You think as if you are so smart and that all what you say are infallible."

Well, it is enough for me to show you continually screw-up.


"I don't want this debate to get personal but Dr. Lichtenstein...was the first to hit below the belt (personal attacks and name-callings)."

Just so long as I won that competition too, I can live with it.


"That is how a Ph.D. would debate. Take note of it so next time, you will know how to relate with them."

1) I do not have a PhD, which you would know if you had read what I have posted (sorry, you can't read....).

2) You might like to check you know what the word 'debate' means before you decide to randomly bash away at your keyboard in future.

I suspect you think it means something like "Make the same banal points, quote Holy Dialectical Writ, and then claim to have refuted a whole new set of arguments you have never seen before."

As I said earlier: you would be better off just posting a blank space.

That would be a far more effective response to me than anything you have so far managed to dredge up.

Think you are up to it?

Or will you screw that up too?

[red_che]

Rosa:


I do not have a PhD

What do this statement in your Essay 1 means?


I studied for a BA Honours in Philosophy at The University of XXXX in the late-1970's, then for a PhD in the early 1980's (and later for a Mathematics degree).

Are you just making this up so you can gather as many readers as you want?

Were you just lying here? If so, then you are a liar.

In Essay 3 Part 1, Ms. Lichtenstein again confuses Hegelian dialectics with that of Marxist dialectics. Here, she says:


Again, the claim that concepts are not 'static' but develop and change was central to Hegelian Idealism. After I became involved in revolutionary politics in the mid-1980's, I decided to write at some point a thorough-going refutation of Dialectical Materialism [DM], having come to appreciate the pernicious influence this doctrine has had on revolutionary socialism over the last 130 years. The publication of John Rees's book in 1998 provided the final impetus I needed.

A thorough examination of Hegel’s dialectics, while it is true that Hegel says change and development occurs naturally, shows that Hegel’s idea of change occurs not as a matter of material contradiction but as a product of a superior preexisting abstract idea contradicting the “essence” of that matter.

While on the other hand, Marxian dialectics correctly analyzed that change/development occurs as a result of internal and external contradictions in matters.

In this analysis of Lichtenstein, she (as I have said in one of my previous post here that anti-dialecticians were mainly anti-Hegelian but confuses this in order to attack even Marxist dialectics) once again showed her anti-Marxist character and effectively using her anti-Hegelian criticisms just so to discredit Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Real Cheap:


"What do this statement in your Essay 1 means?"

Once again you prove you cannot read; it says I "studied" for these, not that I was awarded them.

To put the record straight (but I have no doubt you will misread this too), I did receive my BA, but serious family illness prevented me completing my PhD; and then I went and got myself a mathematics degree.

I am now trying to finish my PhD, but my full-time job, union responsibilites and numpties like you are not helping.

So, now you read one sentence from my introduction and take that to be everything I have to say on the matter?


"While on the other hand, Marxian dialectics correctly analyzed that change/development occurs as a result of internal and external contradictions in matters."

More idealism; you obviously think that nature argues with itself.

Is your next appointment with the psychiatrist overdue?

And now, your best weapon: more bluster, and this from the soon-to-be-crowned king of obfuscation:


"In this analysis of Lichtenstein, she (as I have said in one of my previous post here that anti-dialecticians were mainly anti-Hegelian but confuses this in order to attack even Marxist dialectics) once again showed her anti-Marxist character and effectively using her anti-Hegelian criticisms just so to discredit Marxism."

What analysis?

I haven't posted an analysis of Hegel yet.

With your well-honed ability to see what is not there, I wonder you are not a danger to yourself. Do you see fairies and ghosts, too?

----------

Once more: why do you keep saying that you will stop responding to me, only to keep making the same baseless points over and over again?

Save yourself time (and everyone else a good laugh) and just post an empty space.

At least that will be more honest, and a lot more accurate.

[red_che]

Rosa:


it says I "studied" for these, not that I was awarded them.

Well, you made some good confusion there. It's good I brought out that matter so everybody would know. Had I not seen this, you may have fooled so many people.


you obviously think that nature argues with itself.

The truth is, it saddened me to know that while you had finished several degrees, you are somewhat narrow-minded. You cannot know the distinction of argument and contradiction. I think what you would like to say here is that contradiction and argument are the same. But you would not accept that conflict and contradiction are the same. I guess you are too confused that you cannot know or get what these words mean when they are used in a sentence.

And I am surprised that you are taking such words very literally. While you are almost praising yourself here like a God.


The relationship between DL and FL has not been without its problems. (Essay 4: Formal Logic)

Again, one wonders if there really are some problems between Logic and Dialectics. I guess, only you anti-Marxists create these problems. One cannot see any conflict between these two philosophies. In fact, what one can see is that these two philosophies often are helpful with each other.

I say that you create these problems in order to confuse the working class and lead them away from revolution.

In fact, in these words of yours:

then since Capitalism is clearly not a liquid, but a solid of sorts, the transition to socialism should it seems go rather smoothly
you are attempting to confuse what a revolution should be. Historically, never have been there a "peaceful revolution" that resulted into fundamental changes in society. Well, your "smooth" attempt here to confuse wasn't so smooth after all ;) .

I guess, you stop sowing confusion and stop your hypocricies and instead reveal your true character: that you are not Marxist.

These foolishness of yours are what make me want to answer your posts, even if I had mentioned that I would like to end this "debate" (which it seems to me you really wanted to now but you can't help but to respond to my every post). I just want to show you that you cannot fool everybody. Bob Marley said in one of his songs, "you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." Yes that's true, if you think people accept your thoughts just like that, you're wrong. Because everybody knows what Marxism is, and what anti-Marxism is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Real Cheat:


"Well, you made some good confusion there."

In your case, one does not have to try too hard.


"The truth is, it saddened me to know that while you had finished several degrees, you are somewhat narrow-minded."

Well, you are right for once, my education foolishly taught me not to believe that pots and pans, trees and flowers can argue and contradict one another.

What a waste of a couple of degrees!


"But you would not accept that conflict and contradiction are the same."

As I said before: if they are the same, then the law of identity works here, and Lenin and Hegel were wrong to dismiss it.

If they are different, then I am right anyway.

And you are just assuming they are the same, with no proof, and without giving any thought to the anthropomorphic consequences of thinking that nature can argue with itself.


"And I am surprised that you are taking such words very literally."

As I said to Axel 1917 when he tried this cop out, I can live with the idea that you are using these words non-literally; in that case, are you just offering us poetry dressed up a science??

Or, just as we do not take the Brothers Grimm seriously or literally, we should not take the brothers Hegel and Lenin seriously or literally. Is that what you are saying?

And just like Christians do when faced with the scientific evidence, they tell us that the book of Genesis is all 'metaphor', and not to be taken literally.

That's OK. In fact it is more than OK, for it confirms how much like religious belief (or, indeed, the Brothers Grimm) dialectics is.


"While you are almost praising yourself here like a God."

Well, you dialectical 'God-seekers' would know, wouldn't you?


"I guess, only you anti-Marxists create these problems."

Well, I suggest you stop doing it at once.

And especially since it is clear you all know practically nothing about FL.

So how you know that DL and FL are two different things, or that if one is correct the other is not, when you know no FL, is a mystery.

Were you merely guessing?

Or just copying what others have said (again)?


"I say that you create these problems in order to confuse the working class and lead them away from revolution."

Well, you say tend to say any random thing that comes into your head, don't you?

I've no doubt it will be "BuBuBu" next.

And yet again you prove you cannot understand the simplest of arguments:


"you are attempting to confuse what a revolution should be. Historically, never have been there a "peaceful revolution" that resulted into fundamental changes in society. Well, your "smooth" attempt here to confuse wasn't so smooth after..."

Read the entire passage again, and you will see (er, sorry, you won't, but other less purblind comrades will) that I am drawing out the consequences of DM, not expressing my own beliefs.

I certainly do not believe the transition to socialism will be smooth, or non-violent.

But, based on DM, and Engels's loopy first 'Law', and the fact that most solids change into liquids quite slowly, you lot should.


"I just want to show you that you cannot fool everybody."

Well, you cannot fool a fool, and in that area you are a self-made 'man'.


"Because everybody knows what Marxism is, and what anti-Marxism is."

So, Marxism does not change, it stays the same despite the advances in science and logic, does it?

It is the only thing in the universe that defies Heraclitus, and has no 'internal contradictions' (not even the dozens I reveal); and it is the only theory not subject to Lenin's claim that all knowledge it relative and temporary?

Is that what you believe?

If so, I suggest that you change your name to 'True Blue Cheat', it would suit you more.


"I would like to end this "debate" (which it seems to me you really wanted to now but you can't help but to respond to my every post)."

1) It isn't a 'debate', not if you cannot read, or will not read.

However, and on the contrary, I read everything you post with care -- I need the laughs.

2) But, you said weeks ago that you were stopping -- so you don't even read what you yourself have randomly typed.

Whereas, I can recall every detail of your mystical ramblings.

3) Speaking for myself, I won't stop until I am dead. I aim to kill off this crazy theory, or die in the attempt.

You dialectical frauds have got away with your Mickey Mouse science for far too long.

You have been rumbled.

Get over it....

Or don't.

I careth not.



Question: how many dialecticians does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: According to Lenin, none at all; the bulb changes itself.

Get your anti-dialectics jabs at:


http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[red_che]

Rosa:

It is evident in many of your responses to me that you would accept that there is contradiction only if nature argues itself.

Now in that sense, then Marx would be wrong here:


in big industry the contradiction between the instrument of production and private property appears from the first time and is the product of big industry; moreover, big industry must be highly developed to produce this contradiction. (The German Ideology)(italics, mine)

So, would you then say that the instrument of production and private property argues since they have contradiction?

And would you say that Marx was wrong in his analyses such as this?:


The form of intercourse determined by the existing productive forces at all previous historical stages, and in its turn determining these, is civil society. The latter, as is clear from what we have said above, has as its premises and basis the simple family and the multiple, the so-called tribe, the more precise determinants of this society are enumerated in our remarks above. Already here we see how this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states.(Ibid..)

And this:


History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and, on the other, modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity.(Ibid...)

And this:


The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.(Communist Manifesto)

(Italics are mine.)

And many, many more?

And would you say that Marx was just hallucinating in all his works because he is dialectical?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey Red Cheat, is this how you desist from replying to me, by replying to me?

A sort of dialectically contradictory promise?

But where is the superior logic of the empty space I advised you to post in place of your usual random 'thoughts'?

I really give up with you; I try to help you improve your argument with useful suggestions like "Post a blank space instead" and what notice do you take?

Concerning yuor quotation from Holy Writ: Marx was not God -- I am sorry if you thought he was.

Just because he said it, that does not make it so. Even he would have told you that.

But, anyway: since "instrument(s) of production and private property" cannot argue, they cannot contradict.

How many more times do you need telling?

As an excercise, just to see if we can kick any of your brain cells into life, try to answer this: Why can't the "instrument(s) of production and private property" even so much as struggle?

[Hint: they are not alive.]

So, is that all you have to offer, yet more quotes form the Bible? Reached the bottom of the barrel now, have we?

You should buy a prayer mat, Red..., not only is it the only thing that could help save your dopey 'theory', it will be more honest of you (in that it will openly advert to your religious frame of mind).

Remember, an empty space from now on, Red -- even I can't reply to that!

------


Return to sanity at:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[red_che]

Rosa the Philosopher:


is this how you desist from replying to me, by replying to me?

I think you've really lost your mind... :lol:


Marx was not God -- I am sorry if you thought he was.

Just because he said it, that does not make it so. Even he would have told you that.

But, anyway: since "instrument(s) of production and private property" cannot argue, they cannot contradict

I am more inclined to say that all the published works of Marx are more reliable than your ridiculuous statements.

And I can say with certainty that he is a lot more knowledgeable than you. So stop pretending to be smarter than him.

I won't believe you, anyway, because you are having some sort of mental degeneration.


But, anyway: since "instrument(s) of production and private property" cannot argue, they cannot contradict.

In your world, maybe. Maybe you still think that you are in Camelot, and that you are King Arthur's famous thinker. And there are no contradictions between instruments of production and private property because King Arthur owns that and you are his most trusted custodian... :lol:


try to answer this: Why can't the "instrument(s) of production and private property" even so much as struggle?

It's you who brought this up, so you answer it. Because as for me, Marx already explained it and I am satisfied with that exlpanation since it really is the fact. No need for me to invent my own explanations.


You should buy a prayer mat, Red..., not only is it the only thing that could help save your dopey 'theory', it will be more honest of you (in that it will openly advert to your religious frame of mind).

:lol: No, I thik, it's you who needs it. You need it more, much much more than anybody else do. Because somebody might not listen to you. :lol: :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Real Cheap:


"I think you've really lost your mind..."

Even so, I am still only catching you up; after all you had an unfair start over me by believing everything you read in Lenin and Engels on dialectics.


"I am more inclined to say that all the published works of Marx are more reliable than your ridiculuous statements."

But, since you are clearly incapable of proving this, you have to fall back yet again on your naive faith.

As I said, we need not draw this out: I accept your capitulation.


"I won't believe you, anyway, because you are having some sort of mental degeneration."

Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you will be sent to a mental hospital, is that it, all wise one who must not be questioned?

Of course, that is the way religious nuts have always dealt with those who rumble their mysticism; kill or brand. That is their only defence.

Its your only defence now, too: brand all who can prove you wrong deranged.

Sub-pathetic.


"In your world, maybe..."

Are you now committed to the view that instruments of capital (factories, railway lines, etc) can argue with each other?

If so, its you who needs the treatment not I.


"Because as for me, Marx already explained it and I am satisfied with that exlpanation since it really is the fact."

Please do not saddle Marx with your dotty idea that things can struggle.

And I note, once again your naive faith -- only this time it is faith in your own fantastic interpretation of Marx, but not in anything Marx said.

Not doing too good are you?


"Because somebody might not listen to you."

Beginning to ramble now, are you?

That's Ok, your thrashing around for something even vaguely coherent to say is quite amusing.

Back to sanity at:

http:///www.anti-dialectics.org

[red_che]

Rosa, the God-Philosopher:

Here are some more of Marx's dialectical statements/analyses, and since you are claiming to be the all-knowing thinker of nothing, explain why Marx was wrong.


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.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.(Critique of Political Economy))


The conflict does not take place between utility and estimation; it takes place between the marketable value demanded by the supplier and the marketable value supplied by the demander. The exchange value of the product is each time the resultant of these contradictory appreciations.(The Poverty of Philosophy)

Okay. I am expecting that Rosa the Thinker of All would explain her answers to my query. I hope that no more of that evasive and confusing resopnses would be given.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:


"Here are some more of Marx's dialectical statements/analyses, and since you are claiming to be the all-knowing thinker of nothing, explain why Marx was wrong."

Still living in your own little fantasy world, Cheat?

I cannot show Marx wrong here, nor would I want to since I agree with him.

So, why you have quoted this passage, only your tiny mind knows.


"I hope that no more of that evasive and confusing resopnses would be given."

Well, your wish will become true the moment you stop doing these things, won't it?

[Much Commie Love]

Hey, you people. Not to interfere in this highly and utterly important struggle of pro-Dialectics vs Anti-Dialectics, but there is certainly no time to get personal. Although theory-disagreement is healthy on the left (And on the right... I suppose...) to get better consciousness of direction, name-calling will serve NOTHING but split..and definately not "glue".

I suggest both of you stop it, right now...pretty please?
With sugar on the top? No matter who started it - That would be nice. Ok? ;)

(Personally, I would say you're both giving dialectics FAR too much attention..as both an acessory and an obstacle. Who cares? I don't! Aslong as it's not translates into something MATERIAL challenging to the revolution...meh!)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MCL, thankyou for that appeal, but I suspect we have gone too far too take much note of it.

[red_che]

Rosa:


I cannot show Marx wrong here, nor would I want to since I agree with him.

Now, you agree with him. I thought you said that dialectics is wrong? So, why is Marx not wrong in those quotes I posted? He is very dialectical in those quotes! You're some sort of a selective criticiser huh! :huh:

While on the first quotes I posted in my past replies, you categorically said he's wrong and that he's not God?

C'mon, get real! If you say dialectics is wrong, be consistent, not selective.

Okay, to give you a chance, I'll quote some more. Let me know if these dialectical statements were wrong:


The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself – geological, hydrographical, climatic and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.

Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.

The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

This production only makes its appearance with the increase of population. In its turn this presupposes the intercourse [Verkehr] of individuals with one another. The form of this intercourse is again determined by production.


At this time, however, the capitalist mode of production, and with it the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, was still very incompletely developed. Modern Industry, which had just arisen in England, was still unknown in France. But Modern Industry develops, on the one hand, the conflicts which make absolutely necessary a revolution in the mode of production, and the doing away with its capitalistic character – conflicts not only between the classes begotten of it, but also between the very productive forces and the forms of exchange created by it. And, on the other hand, it develops, in these very gigantic productive forces, the means of ending these conflicts. If, therefore, about the year 1800, the conflicts arising from the new social order were only just beginning to take shape, this holds still more fully as to the means of ending them. The “have-nothing” masses of Paris, during the Reign of Terror, were able for a moment to gain the mastery, and thus to lead the bourgeois revolution to victory in spite of the bourgeoisie themselves. But, in doing so, they only proved how impossible it was for their domination to last under the conditions then obtaining. The proletariat, which then for the first time evolved itself from these “have-nothing” masses as the nucleus of a new class, as yet quite incapable of independent political action, appeared as an oppressed, suffering order, to whom, in its incapacity to help itself, help could, at best, be brought in from without or down from above.

The above quotes are good examples of dialectical materialist method of historical analysis. Now, tell me and explain why these are wrong.

Much Commie Love:

Thanks for the reminder. Now you can recognise I stopped the petty name-calling in this post, even if I wasn't the one who started it. I hope you'll appreciate this "debate" even if it already went way beyond comradely "debate". :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:



"I thought you said that dialectics is wrong? "


Well done, you have almost got something right!

In fact, I say that dialectics is far too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect.*

Please quote more Marx, though; it's only the 1000th time I have read it.

And it obviously makes you feel better.



"You're some sort of a selective criticiser huh!"



Only an amateur next to you, though.

I will try harder.



"categorically said he's wrong and that he's not God?"


So you do think he is god?



"If you say dialectics is wrong, be consistent, not selective."


I refer you to my earlier reply*.


"Now, tell me and explain why these are wrong."

I refer you to my earlier reply*.

[red_che]

I refer you to my earlier reply*.

Oh, I see...


I cannot show Marx wrong here, nor would I want to since I agree with him.Is this what you refer an earlier reply?

Well, why not answer my question?

You have been so detailed in your "Essay". Why not be so detailed now as to Marx's writings?

Are you afraid you'll screw up? :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cheat:



"Oh, I see..."


And about time, too.

But, this makes no sense:



"Is this what you refer an earlier reply?"


Even so, zero is a lot more sense than that joke theory you have swallowed makes.



"Well, why not answer my question?"


I have. Is it my fault if you can't read?



"Why not be so detailed now as to Marx's writings?"


No need to; Marx did an excellent job himself.



"Are you afraid you'll screw up?"


Only if I copy your example.

[red_che]

I have.

Is this your way to stop me from replying?

You haven't explained anything.

Those last quotes I posted were from Marx and Engels.

Now, will you be kind enough to tell whether those quotes were myth or not, based on your "logic"?


No need to; Marx did an excellent job himself.

So, Marx did an excellent job. Engels and others didn't.

Now, again, tell me what are the difference between those last two quotes. How Marx did a good job, and how Engels didn't. How the dialectics of Engels was wrong, while Marx's dialectics was right.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


"Is this your way to stop me from replying?"

Well since you keep making empty threats to stop replying, this is something you should ask yourself.



"You haven't explained anything."


So you keep saying, but since you think that light bulbs can change themselves, you are hardly in a position to judge.


"Now, will you be kind enough to tell whether those quotes were myth or not, based on your "logic"?"

You do not seem to be able to get past this point, and I am at a loss as to why.

I suggest you seek help.



"Engels and others didn't."


How many times do I need to say it?



"How the dialectics of Engels was wrong, while Marx's dialectics was right."


All dialectics is far too confused to be counted as right or wrong (whoever 'writes' it), so I am not sure what to say here. You would fail to read it carefully enough, yet again.

You need to get over this mental block of yours.

[red_che]

Well since you keep making empty threats to stop replying

You can't get away with this kind of reply huh, well, I changed my mind. I want to reply as long as you don't answer my questions.


So you keep saying, but since you think that light bulbs can change themselves

Can you show me where I said this?

You keep accusing me of something I didn't say.

Show me where I said this thing.


You do not seem to be able to get past this point, and I am at a loss as to why.

Because you haven't given a substantive answer, just answer it so we can move on to other points.

If you say you already told something about this, then can you repeat it again? Just to clarify it to me.


"How the dialectics of Engels was wrong, while Marx's dialectics was right."

Including Marx's? Is that so? Then why not answer the questions I've asked, particularly on those quotes by Marx that I have posted?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:



"I changed my mind"


And you did so as a result of an external contradiction, courtesy of moi.

Dialectics takes yet another body blow.


"Can you show me where I said this?"

This follows from your belief that everything is self-moving (according to Lenin).

Of course, if you now want to reject this idea (and thus disagree with Lenin), that's Ok.

I will, in that case, be happy to accept your capitulation on yet another dotty DM idea.

You can now join the rest of the human race, and accept the fact that light bulbs are not the least bit dialectical.

Again, this change in you was produced by external contradictions posed by me.



"Because you haven't given a substantive answer..."


Well, since you read my Essays (clearly) with your eyes shut, you missed my answers.

That's Ok, since they were not written to persuade lost souls like you (and especially you, since you cannot read, and know no logic).


"then can you repeat it again?"

No -- and I refer you to the previous sentence for the reason why.

I do not want to help you at all. [I have given you no hint that I do (and every suggestion that I do not), so why you think I am trying to help you, escapes me.]

You can stew in your own mystical juices; I careth not.


"Including Marx's? Is that so? Then why not answer the questions I've asked, particularly on those quotes by Marx that I have posted?"

I am sorry, this is nearly as confused as dialectics is; so I cannot follow your meandering questions here.

Try again when sober.

[red_che]

This follows from your belief that everything is self-moving (according to Lenin).

And you took it literally. :o Huh, is that what your "logic" told you? To take things very literally? Without analysing further what is said?


No -- and I refer you to the previous sentence for the reason why.

Get real Rosa, admit it. You can't criticise Marx. You criticise Engels, but not Marx, even if what they both say mean the same.

You're afraid you will lose your "followers" (if there were any) when you criticise Marx. Because you know you'll screw it up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


"And you took it literally."

As I said to you before (!!), you lot are like the Christians, who, when a literal reading of the Bible fell foul of science, insisted that the book of Genesis, for example, should not be taken 'literally'.

[Can we do what you now say with everything Lenin said? Or do we have to wait for you to tell us which bits are not literal, and which are? And how on earth do you know? Are you in contact with Lenin right now?]

However, I can understand your reaction to being caught out here; it must really be embarassing to find out that someone whose opinions you respect (like Lenin) held views that are just plain balmy, and so to 'rescue' him from such lunacy, you have to read his words 'non-literally'. But where do you stop? Indeed, where do you start? And can anyone do this to save their favourite Guru from a similar fate?

And yet Lenin held many such odd ideas (for example, he regarded the existence of the 'Ether' as "objective" -- his word; was this word being used by him literally, or figuratively?); do we now say he was only joking, or that his words were just 'allegorical' (a set of tactics theologians use to bail out Holy Scripture, as noted above)?

However, your attempt to allegorise Lenin's literal beliefs away cannot in this case work, for he went on to say (nay, 'demand') the following:


'Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in "self-movement" (as Hegel sometimes puts it)….' [Lenin (1921), p.90. Emphasis added.]

{Lenin, (1921), 'Once Again On The Trade Unions, The Current Situation And The Mistakes Of Comrades Trotsky And Bukharin', reprinted in Lenin (1980), pp.70-106.

Lenin, (1980), On The Question Of Dialectics (Progress Publishers).}

What is the point of 'demanding' something that is not literal? What exactly was he demanding? An allegory? A myth? A metaphor?? Try to make a non-literal demand yourself. How is it done?

[Of course, the 'literal' meaning of what Lenin said actually follows from his belief that everything is a Union of Opposites (UO, was this non-literal, too?), and that it is the tension between these that changes things -- so naturally he went on to assert that things change themselves (and if the UO doctrine is literal, so is the idea that objects change themselves -- which means that his ideas imply that light bulbs should be able to change themselves (indeed, Dialectical Logic demands this!)). If this is denied then the idea that everything is a UO, and that change results from their inter-relation, must also go with it. You can't have both.]

So, I reckon you are going to have to ignore Lenin's 'demand' here to save yourself from believing that light bulbs change themselves.

That's OK; the more of the dialectical classics you ignore, the better.

I can live with that.


"You can't criticise Marx."

Why should I want to if I agree with him?

Again, this is the 100th time I have had to say this to you.

You wonder why I keep saying you cannot read.


"You criticise Engels, but not Marx, even if what they both say mean the same."

So you say, and I'll agree with you when you manage to prove you are a divine being, and your word is law. [Can you?]

Until then, I refuse to believe that two mature human beings (such as these) held exactly the same beliefs as one another on every single topic. That would indeed be a minor miracle. And an insult to both (the idea that they just copied off one another, and never held their own individual, unique views on anything). If you believe they saw eye-to-eye on everything, you are more foolish than your posts have hitherto suggested.




"You're afraid you will lose your "followers""

Eh?

[Are you still slightly drunk? If you are sober, I reckon you need to take those boxing gloves off before you begin to type in future.

I do not mean to be rude, but this is the only way I can account for the odd things you keep posting. Surely, 'dialectical logic' has not totally destroyed your brain, has it?]

What 'followers'? Not only have I none that I am aware of (nor do I seek any -- unlike you dialectical clones, I do not suffer from a 'leader complex'), I'd disown any who turned up.


"Because you know you'll screw it up."

Again (this is like a stuck record!!): you would be the last person here capable of judging, anyway; not only do you know no logic, your 'theory' commits you to the belief that things like plants, rocks, cats and empty beer cans can argue with one another -- and that light bulbs can change themselves (er... 'metaphorically').

[I]You are the one with the batty theory, not me.

So, the screw-up is that person who looks back at you when you look in the mirror each day, my fine bumbling friend -- you are just cross that you have been caught out by little old moi.

[red_che]

I would also like to see your proof that they did.

Okay, here's one:

Marx, German Ideology:
The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.


Engels, Anti-Duhring:
In order to understand these details we must detach them from their natural or historical connection and examine each one separately, its nature, special causes, effects, etc. This is, primarily, the task of natural science and historical research: branches of science which the Greeks of classical times on very good grounds, relegated to a subordinate position, because they had first of all to collect the material.

And another one:

Marx, German Ideology:
The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life.

Engels, Anti-Duhring:
Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we are dealing with here is solely forms of being, of the external world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting-point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to nature and human history, but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid in so far as they are in conformity with nature and history. That is the only materialist conception of the matter...

And a lot more...

Now, what I am trying to point out is that when you said:


In fact, I say that dialectics is far too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect.

Therefore, DM is "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect."

And therefore, since Marx is a DM, all his works are also "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect."

Is that what you are telling us?

Then why not specifically point those works of Marx which are "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect."? ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I asked for proof that Marx and Engels saw eye-to-eye on everything, and you give me another set of your irrelevant quotations. How does a single one prove these two thought exactly the same as each other on everything?

Once more: you wonder why I keep querying your ability to read.


""And therefore, since Marx is a DM[-fan?], all his works are also "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect.""

Once again, I deny that Marx was stupid enough to think like you dialectical muddle-heads (and believe, for example, that light bulbs can change themselves, like Hegel, Lenin and you do).

But, please, feel free to post a few more irrelevant quotations from your Bible; it seems to calm your nerves.

Who am I to come between you and your opiate?


""Then why not specifically point those works of Marx which are "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect."?"

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

How many more times do I need to say this?

Twice more?

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Not enough?

How about this?

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Once again, I cannot, because Marx was not the least bit confused.

Enough?

[I suspect not...]

[red_che]

:lol:

Cool down a little bit, lady. ;)


I asked for proof that Marx and Engels saw eye-to-eye on everything, and you give me another set of your irrelevant quotations. How does a single one prove these two thought exactly the same as each other on everything?

You asked for proof, I showed you some. Now, what you did is you simply ignored it and went on to your "blastering" arrogance.


Once again, I deny that Marx was stupid enough to think like you dialectical muddle-heads (and believe, for example, that light bulbs can change themselves, like Hegel, Lenin and you do).

Do I need to remind you that most of Marx's major works were done in collaboration with Engels? To name a few; The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, German Ideology, and these documents constitute and define the basic principles of Marxism. Unless, you again would say that infamous allegation that "these are just Holy Scriptures". :(


Once more: you wonder why I keep querying your ability to read.

It seems you are the one who doesn't know how to read, or, because of your highly immovable arrogance, you simply wouldn't care to give any answer.

You think your intelligence is godly and I am a pigmy, so I quoted some for you to clarify to me, but you didn't.

Or you just wouldn't like to respond to me now. You're just making these silly comments to make me stop from replying. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


"Cool down a little bit, lady."

I could ask you to concentrate in return, gentleman, but that would be a waste of time.

I also asked you for a proof that Marx and Engels thought exactly the same on everything, and, true to your logically-parlous state, you quoted a few passages of tenuous relevance.

That is why I suggested you learnt some logic before you tried to grapple with even simple ideas.


"Do I need to remind you that most of Marx's major works were done in collaboration with Engels? "

And how does that prove they agreed on every single thing?


"Unless, you again would say that infamous allegation that "these are just Holy Scriptures". "

It is quite plain that that is how you regard them.

Stick to your opiate, gentleman; see if I care.


"It seems you are the one who doesn't know how to read..."

If so, I can only put that down to your bad influence on me.

But, of course, we have ample evidence here as to your malignant incapacity in this regard.



"You think your intelligence is godly and I am a pigmy..."


Well, if I am such a 'giant' in comparison to you, I think we can put that down to your own self-imposed ignorance.

Please keep making me look good by staying that way.


"You're just making these silly comments to make me stop from replying."

Well, I do not profess to believe that light bulbs can change themselves, so you should stop believing such loopy things.

But, as I noted above, I hope you cling on to them.

It makes me look good, after all.

[Guest1]

I love how the people who most whine about dialectics preventing Marxists from achieving anything for the working class, do nothing for the working class themselves.

What have you organized lately, Rosa?

On a more serious note though, you really think that Marx and Engels would have written collaborative works if they were in such fundamental disagreement on them?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

"What have you organized lately, Rosa?"

Well, even if I felt inclined to answer a question that would make me seem to be the centre of attention in the class struggle, and even if the answer to that were "Nothing", or yet "a general strike", that would have nothing to do with the overwhelming case I have constructed (and am still constructing) against this ruling-class theory some of you are still trying to defend -- most of which you lot(and especically you) are just ignoring, hoping I'll go away (which I won't).

I could be the worst ever organiser in Marxist history, or the best, or somewhere in between; whatever mayhem, or inaction (or otherwise) I could cause would pall into insignificance next to the 150 years of failure your 'theory' has helped inflict on the workers' movement worldwide.

So, stick to the point comrade.


"On a more serious note though, you really think that Marx and Engels would have written collaborative works if they were in such fundamental disagreement on them?"

I did not assert that they weren't in agreement. I merely challenged Red Che to show they thought exactly alike on every single issue (an implausible idea at best -- so no wonder he was floundering about the place pretty quickly).

Is he the only one here who can rightly be accused of not being able to read, Che Y M, I wonder?

[Guest1]

Nope, you could easily be accused opf the same thing, as I don't see anywhere anyone saying they thought exactly the same.

Yet, to say that Marx was not responsible for dialectics implies more than just modest disagreement, it implies that Engels took Marx's works in a completely new direction. Which means they could not possibly have collaborated, with such competing visions.

Your attempts to seperate Marx from Engels are no better than your attempts to seperate historical materialism from dialectical materialism, of which it is merely the social application.

They're also no better than your excuses for your ivory tower attitude, sitting all day throwing 30 page essays at people accusing them of achieving nothing, instead of going out and organizing.

[red_che]

Rosa:


I also asked you for a proof that Marx and Engels thought exactly the same on everything, and, true to your logically-parlous state, you quoted a few passages of tenuous relevance.

You did nothing but to evade my questions. Just answer.

Of course, they might not have the same ideas on everything, but they agree on everything fundamental in the Marxist paradigm. Such as DM.

Marx is an intelligent fellow. If he thinks that an idea if "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect", he would not let it pass unnoticed. And to think that Engels wrote Anti-Duhring, Dialectics of Nature and others at a time that Marx was still alive, it is impossible for Marx to let these documents to be published if he thinks these are "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect." He would have commented on those, like he did with other thinkers who have ideas that are "too confused to make it onto the list of things that could be considered remotely correct or incorrect".


And how does that prove they agreed on every single thing

If you think that two men should agree on every single idea before they could do collaborative works is possible, then you are living on a different world. Here on Earth, no two people agree on every single issue at all times. Please tell me what planet you live in, I'd like to go there and see if everybody in your place agree on every single issue. It must be a peaceful place to live in. :D


Please keep making me look good by staying that way.

Okay then, if that helps you calm your nerves. But I am more inclined to say this: I am an amateur Marxist, and you are a professional anti-Marxist. How do you like it? ;)


I did not assert that they weren't in agreement. I merely challenged Red Che to show they thought exactly alike on every single issue (an implausible idea at best -- so no wonder he was floundering about the place pretty quickly).

Okay, let me challenge you also then. Show me that Engels and Marx thought exactly the opposite on every single issue. Or, count every single issue they agree and every single issue they disagree, I bet the number is a lot higher on their agreements than on their disagreements. And I bet they agree on DM too. :)

Going back to the questions I posed which you have failed to answer until now or hace conveiniently ignored for fear of being isolated, I am inclined to say that:

1) You cannot show that Marx and Engels disagree on the most fundamental things, such as Dialectical Materialism.

2) That your criticisms on DM and Engels are in fact attacks on the very basic principles of Marxism, and that if you are successful in getting away DM out of Marxism, you would be successful in destroying Marxism.

3) That my contention before that you are an anti-Marxist is now substantiated. You are only afraid to get it to Marx itself, because you can be easily isolated out of the proletarian movement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


"You did nothing but to evade my questions. Just answer."

This is rich coming from the master of evasion.



"but they agree on everything fundamental in the Marxist paradigm. Such as DM."


And your proof is what? Or, have they been in contact with you again via a spirit medium?


"If you think that two men should agree on every single idea before they could do collaborative works is possible, then you are living on a different world."

You are right, I live in the real world. Not even you dialectcians agree on everything, that is why you have all those splits and schisms, factions and sects.

So, once again, you are the last ones to be able to judge on agreement.


"I am an amateur Marxist, and you are a professional anti-Marxist."

Well done, one word correct here: "amateur".

That is one more than you usually manage: zero.


"Show me that Engels and Marx thought exactly the opposite on every single issue."

You really cannot handle the simplest of inferences, can you?

If I assert that Marx and Engels did not agree on everything, that does not imply I think they disgreed on everything.

Now, please, enroll on that crash course in basic thinking. Do yourself a big favour, and deliver us an even bigger mercy.


"You cannot show that Marx and Engels disagree on the most fundamental things, such as Dialectical Materialism."

No need to, Marx never mentioned it.


"you would be successful in destroying Marxism."

Nearly right; it should be:


"you would be successful in destroying Mysticism."


"That my contention before that you are an anti-Marxist is now substantiated."

Once more, since you find it hard to follow even basic inferences (and you are responsible for a few 'innovative' ones of your own -- you think that 'some S is P' implies 'every S is P', for example; now you think that 'it is not the case that Every S is P' implies, 'No S is P', or perhaps even 'Every S is not P'), you are the last to judge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Che Y M:



"Nope, you could easily be accused of the same thing, as I don't see anywhere anyone saying they thought exactly the same."


Honesty at last.

In that case, you need to have a word with Red Che, he seems to be lost in his own private dream world.


"Yet, to say that Marx was not responsible for dialectics implies more than just modest disagreement, it implies that Engels took Marx's works in a completely new direction. Which means they could not possibly have collaborated, with such competing visions."

Correct, then incorrect.

But, well done for being half correct.


"Your attempts to seperate Marx from Engels are no better than your attempts to seperate historical materialism from dialectical materialism, of which it is merely the social application."

No better? Well I can live with "equally excellent" then.


"They're also no better than your excuses for your ivory tower attitude, sitting all day throwing 30 page essays at people accusing them of achieving nothing, instead of going out and organizing."

Well, if you had read my Essays, instead of pontificating in the usual ignorant DM-manner, you would have seen that not only do I hold down a full-time job, I am a union organiser at my place of work, which role I fulfill without being paid.

So, if you can't keep up with my capacity to organise and theorise ([I]and to an extent you will not have seen before anywhere, even if you disagree with what I say), that says more about you than me.

But we knew that from your very first post....