dialectics

[jaycee]

dialectics has taken some ill founded criticisms on this site.

Dialectics has become twisted and defigured by stalinists, maoists and other state capitalists in order to put a marxist veneer on their reactionary agendas. in the USSR scientists made theories up to suit this twisted view of dialectics.

The mistake people make is both that that they take any of these 'versions' seriously when they are pure ideology used to justify the class rule of the stalinist bourgeoisie.

Dialectics is simply part of historical materialism. The dialectic in history is the fact that change comes from the relation of contending classes. I don't see how this can be doubted without doubting marxism in general.

Hegel had the idea of progress of ideas coming from the conflict between ideas where as marxism is materialist and therefore looked to the material bases of change. 'the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle.' This is a dialectical statement and is a corner stone of basic marxism.

[Publius]

The 'point' dialectics makes is asinine.

Dialectics is a 5th wheel.

You don't need 'historical materialism and dialectics' to understand the world, you just need history.

I don't need dialectics or a dialecitician to tell me that there is contention between the 'slave class' and the 'slave owning class'.

Do you?

[Hegemonicretribution]

No I don't, but if it is something than can help explanations or make them clearer or more complete then I am all for it. If not then perhaps they can explain to a particular section of society that would otherwise not understand. If not still, then they are a waste of time.

I don't condone how dialectics have been used in the most part, but use my simplistic and basic understanding of them ocassionally in explanations. Nithing more, nothing less.

[Publius]

Dialectics must not be a very good intellectual field if it can be so easily manipulated and misunderstood.

You never see a Stalin or a Mao using math, or the scientific method to justify their beliefs, do you?

Those philosophical methods can't really be twisted around to say "It's a good idea to kill these people."

Is that, perhaps, a flaw in dialectics? An asset in other theories?

I mean, sure 'science' has been used to justify things like racism, but those were examples of 'bad science'.

Were Stalin and Mao practitioners of 'bad dialectics'? Lenin too?

Can you, or anyone, really differentiate 'good' from 'bad' dialectics, dialectically? Or must you rely on some other (implicity, better) system?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:22 AM
Dialectics must not be a very good intellectual field if it can be so easily manipulated and misunderstood.

You never see a Stalin or a Mao using math, or the scientific method to justify their beliefs, do you?

Those philosophical methods can't really be twisted around to say "It's a good idea to kill these people."

Is that, perhaps, a flaw in dialectics? An asset in other theories?

I mean, sure 'science' has been used to justify things like racism, but those were examples of 'bad science'.

Were Stalin and Mao practitioners of 'bad dialectics'? Lenin too?

Can you, or anyone, really differentiate 'good' from 'bad' dialectics, dialectically? Or must you rely on some other (implicity, better) system?
And bang. He hits the nail on the head.

This is why dialectics is bunk.

[encephalon]

History has proven that dialectics is shit and formal logic is the shit. Historical Materialism does not need dialectics, nor did it ever. It needs history and it needs materialism within a logical framework, and that's it.

When all of you pseudo-science dialecticians start coming to this board with computers that run on dialectics rather than logic, let me know. Then I'll be interested.

[jaycee]

u completely miss the point, dialectical materialism is historical materialism (there the same thing).

tHe dialectic is the struggle between classes, do u believe that history developes out of the struggle between classes and the modes of production which accompanies them or not?

If u do, you believe in dialectics

if u don't your not a marxist.

also give me an example of dialectics being proven wrong

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:16 AM




u completely miss the point, dialectical materialism is historical materialism (there the same thing).


I thought 'materialism' was the rejection of hokey bullshit?


tHe dialectic is the struggle between classes, do u believe that history developes out of the struggle between classes and the modes of production which accompanies them or not?

Somewhat, yes.

But I don't see how 'dialectics' plays any role in this.

It's simple logic.

Dialectics, as I understand it, is 'the study of opposing forces' or whatever, and it's maintained that all forces have an equal, opposite force.

That is bullshit.

If 'dialectics' just means 'class struggle, why not say 'class struggle'? You think you impress people with 'dialectics'?



If u do, you believe in dialectics

'Since 2+2 =4, logic is true, and since God made logic, you believe in God if you believe 2+2= 4'

Note the logic error?



if u don't your not a marxist.

I'm not a Marxist.



also give me an example of dialectics being proven wrong

Alright.

Marx thought the revolution would happen before or around 1900. He thought this because of a dialectical 'class conciousness'.

We now realize that was bullshit.

Dialectics was wrong.

PRove to me, dialectically, when the revolution will happen, or when anything will happen.

[jaycee]

firstly marx could be said to correct in that it was around this time that the revolution in russia in 1905 and workers set up its organs of revolution which answered previous questions as to how the workers state would be organised.

but most impotantly it was around this time that capitalism ceadsed to be progressive in any way and the choice for humanity became one of 'socialism or barbarism.'

even if marx was wrong this wouldn't invalidate the general principle that there are many contradictions within capitalism which it cannotovercome and which have become even more clear inits decadent phase.

[LSD]

I rarely find myself agreeing with Publius, but on this issue he is spot-on correct.

There is simply no need for "dialectical materialism" in logical analysis, nor is there any room for "the dialectic" in materialism.

jaycee, this issue has been addressed numerous times; personally, I would suggest that you start by reading the following 8-page thread:

Dialectical materialism, WTF is it? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48119)

[Publius]

firstly marx could be said to correct in that it was around this time that the revolution in russia in 1905 and workers set up its organs of revolution which answered previous questions as to how the workers state would be organised.

You clearly understand nothing about Marxist theory, or are actively twisting information to suit your position.

Marx claimed there would be a worldwide, proleterian revolution, caused by a shift in the class conciousness.

THat did not happen.

I maintain it will never happen.



but most impotantly it was around this time that capitalism ceadsed to be progressive in any way and the choice for humanity became one of 'socialism or barbarism.'


Umm, capitalism around 1900 was probably its most 'barbarous' period.

'The Gilded Age'? Remember all that?

It was much better in the '20s and from the '50s on.




even if marx was wrong this wouldn't invalidate the general principle that there are many contradictions within capitalism which it cannotovercome and which have become even more clear inits decadent phase.

Umm, it's dealt them for nearly a 150 years.

Things have actually improved, significantly.

Either the problems are becoming more minor, that is, less likely to spawn revolution, or don't exist in the first place.

[Publius]

I view dialectics the same way I view 'postmodernism' or 'deconstructionism': meaningless bullshit.

[nickdlc]

Marx claimed there would be a worldwide, proleterian revolution, caused by a shift in the class conciousness.

Well it certainly seemed like there could have been worldwide revolution with revolutions happening in russia, germany, hungary, and spain. Within these revolutions their were certainly major shifts in class conciousness, but these revolutions were crushed from within (russian) or from outside force (spain)


I maintain it will never happen.

Yep capitalism is the end of history just like apologists for slavery and fuedalism would have said the systems they lived within were the end of history.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
Marx claimed there would be a worldwide, proleterian revolution, caused by a shift in the class conciousness.

Not exactly...he considered that such a revolution would begin in the most advanced capitalist countries. He even listed them: England, France, the United States, and Germany.

We might amend that list slightly now...to include Italy and Japan, for example. But it has to happen in those places first...or else the Marxist paradigm is wrecked beyond repair.


I view dialectics the same way I view 'postmodernism' or 'deconstructionism': meaningless bullshit.

Indisputable. :D

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

[encephalon]

u completely miss the point, dialectical materialism is historical materialism (there the same thing).


No, they are not. Marx spoke of historical materialism, but dialectical materialism came later.



tHe dialectic is the struggle between classes, do u believe that history developes out of the struggle between classes and the modes of production which accompanies them or not?


As publius said (strangely, we agree): that is filled to the brim with logical fallacies. But of course, dialecticians don't "believe" in logic, so why would you care?

Class struggle exists. Dialectics was an attempt to interpret that struggle, not the other way around. You're committing a causal fallacy.



If u do, you believe in dialectics
if u don't your not a marxist.


Said like the truest of leninists :lol:



also give me an example of dialectics being proven wrong


The thing is, it isn't up to me to prove it wrong; it's up to you to give evidence enough that it is right--which has not happened. Nor do I have to prove that the christian god doesn't exist, or any other for that matter: the one making the claim is the one that has to prove its validity.

Logic, on the other hand, has proven the biggest success story in the history of mankind. Leave hegel and dialectics where he and it belongs--in the past.

[jaycee]

first of all i'm not a 'lenninist' that was an ideology made up by stalinists later to maintain the idea that continuaty between october and the stalinist dictatorship. I'm a left communist if you must know.

also with regards to things getting better. tHe 20s and 50s were in some countries times of economic boom, but this was a direct result of ww1 and ww2. these were periods of reconstruction. Capitalism left to its own during its decadent phase would collapse under the weight of its own contradiction, as was shown definately by the wall st crash and the depression. After this all countries realised the need for massive state control of the economy. IT was this and the economic boom after ww2 which seemed to give a new lease of life to capitalism. Since the 70s when the period of reconstruction ended the economy has been slowly deteriating since.

Most importantly, you haven't answered the fact that dialectics simply means the study of class antagonisms and relationships. THis is a simple fact that can't be disputed.


Nick is also right that your view that there will never be a revolution means you have followed your rejection of dialectical materialism to its conclusion. If capitalism is diferent to all past societies and will never become a barrier to progress or (will never become decadent) then there is no need of revolution. In fact revolution is almost impossible becuase as Marx said no system has ever been overthrown until it became a barrier to progress.

THe fact that the continuation of capitalism for another century would almost definately mean the destruction of humanity or at least civilasation as we know it, might make you think that a revolution would be nice.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by jaycee
The fact that the continuation of capitalism for another century would almost definately mean the destruction of humanity or at least civilization as we know it, might make you think that a revolution would be nice.

Capitalism has already managed to "destroy civilization as we knew it" a century ago. Look at the "civilization" of 1906 and tell me how much of it still remains standing.

And how useful it is that so much of it has been destroyed beyond repair.

I expect capitalism to continue its "good work" for another century -- though maybe somewhat less -- chopping away at all the pre-capitalist crap that we are still cursed with. There is still much reactionary shit that needs flushing down the "toilet of history".

The "destruction of humanity" is hype, of course...usually comes from the primitivists and not to be taken seriously.

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

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I expect capitalism to continue its "good work" for another century

Are you being pro-capitalist here or just expressing that capitalism better than its predecessors?


There is still much reactionary shit that needs flushing down the "toilet of history".

Like what? Religion? If it's theorized that capitalism was suppose to erode these types of things, then how and why has religion endured through time? It seems to me that Marx was wrong in this instance?

[jaycee]

yeah i am just paranoid, capitalism is really a nice and rational system which poses no danger for humanitys future.

world war is no longer an issue because capitalism is more peaceful than ever.

nuclear weapons aren't spreading and pose no danger because capitalism has no internal drive to war.

the economy isn't really surviving on a mass of debt, state manipulation and imperialism.

global warming is completely under control and those nice capitalists won't let it destroy the planet in any way at all.

oil plays a tiny role in the world economy and there will be no difficaulty in switching to environmentally friendly fuels.


Oh by the way i was being sarcasitic.


ALSO the 'good work' of capitalism ?

does this include 2 World Wars, wiping out of indigenous populations, famine and malnutrition on a scale more peramanent and widespread than ever seen before.


why do i get the feeling that you include the gennocide of the native americans as eradicating pre-capitalist rubbish.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Are you being pro-capitalist here or just expressing that capitalism [is] better than its predecessors?

"Pro-capitalist" in the same sense that Marx was...seeing it as a system that, like a powerful acid, continuously eats away at all the traditions that have kept us down for many thousands of years.


If it's theorized that capitalism was suppose to erode these types of things, then how and why has religion endured through time?

The whole point is that capitalism has steadily eroded the power and influence of all forms of superstition everywhere in the world...the bloodthirsty fanaticism of religion's most ardent supporters is a sign of their desparation. They know they are in "deep shit" and that all the major trends are running against them. They howl like the proverbial "stuck pigs"...to no avail.

And, of course, whenever they still get the chance, they behave like fascist assholes! Digging their own graves even deeper.

The irony of it all is that even when capitalists try really hard to encourage religious belief, they do so by turning it into a modern business...thus accelerating the modern cynicism over the whole enterprise. :lol:

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

[Publius]

also with regards to things getting better. tHe 20s and 50s were in some countries times of economic boom, but this was a direct result of ww1 and ww2. these were periods of reconstruction.

Broken Window fallacy.

Ricardo refuted this a very long time ago.


Capitalism left to its own during its decadent phase would collapse under the weight of its own contradiction, as was shown definately by the wall st crash and the depression.

There were actually bigger economic crashes before that one.

The reason the 'Great Depression', as we know it happened is because countries put up tarrifs to restrict trade. Remember the Smoot-Hawley tarrif?

Also, the central bank drastically decreased money supply; they caused deflation during a depression.

Neither of those are 'capitalism' problems.


After this all countries realised the need for massive state control of the economy. IT was this and the economic boom after ww2 which seemed to give a new lease of life to capitalism. Since the 70s when the period of reconstruction ended the economy has been slowly deteriating since.


That's so riddled with fallacies and logical leaps I don't know where to begin.

Is this what passes for scholarship among communists?

'IT' (I presume you mean 'information technology') didn't start until the 1970s. That alone is contradictory, and destroys your argument.



Most importantly, you haven't answered the fact that dialectics simply means the study of class antagonisms and relationships. THis is a simple fact that can't be disputed.


Of course it can.

We have no need of a special field of study for things that simple logic can determine.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:10 AM








Not exactly...he considered that such a revolution would begin in the most advanced capitalist countries. He even listed them: England, France, the United States, and Germany.

We might amend that list slightly now...to include Italy and Japan, for example. But it has to happen in those places first...or else the Marxist paradigm is wrecked beyond repair.

The problem is, these are the countries in which such revolution is least likely; they are the rich ones.

The 'Revolution' won't happen in rich countries and it can't happen in poor ones.

Hmm.

I guess you could claim these countries will become immiserated, but of course that's the claim Marx originally made, and we see how right he was.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

I'm not banking on the fact that modern capitalism will exist forever, but I'm certainly not presupposing that I do or can know what will come after it.

To me that seems arrogant and more than a little conceited, espescially in light of certain failures.


Indisputable. :D

Try reading the Wikipedia page on deconstructionism and tell me if you understand it any better after reading it.

The people who purvey that bullshit have no know it's bullshit.

Even they don't understand it.

[LoneRed]

each day the vulgar marxists have more in common with the capitalists in their attacks on dialectics, It really shows where they stand.

[encephalon]

each day the vulgar marxists have more in common with the capitalists in their attacks on dialectics, It really shows where they stand.

Keep it up with the defensive polemics. We're all still waiting for some evidence of your mystical voodoo; and more importantly, evidence that logic doesn't work.

[jaycee]

well obviously the IT was a typo i ment It.

apart from that you didn't argue against me at all.

so the great depression was nothing to do with capitalism hey?

[jaycee]

Red star, so am i right in thinking you put support for the myth of bourgeois demoracy and other bourgeois views as better than the myth of religion.

[Publius]

apart from that you didn't argue against me at all.

Because it's demonstrably untrue.

The trend, since the '50s, hasn't been 'more regulation', it's been less, and living standards have been increasing worldwide.

It's irrefutable fact.



so the great depression was nothing to do with capitalism hey?

Only ostensibly.

It was caused by a policy of low interest by the central bank and worsened by a bad government tarrif and idiotic monetary policy.

Essentially, the Federal Reserve system failed.

So no, it wasn't caused by 'market capitalism'.

[amanondeathrow]

It was caused by a policy of low interest by the central bank and worsened by a bad government tarrif and idiotic monetary policy.

Essentially, the Federal Reserve system failed.

So no, it wasn't caused by 'market capitalism'.

That’s still capitalism. The reformism that forced America further into the depression still kept political and economic power in the hands of corporations; it was all an attempt to improve short term conditions and the appetence of the system.

Just because a few new tariffs are introduced doesn’t mean that capitalism has been abandoned.

The effects of the depression could have been just as bad had the government taken more extreme rightist measures, but instead they choose the other road so we will never know.

[Publius]

That’s still capitalism.

:rolleyes:



The reformism that forced America further into the depression still kept political and economic power in the hands of corporations; it was all an attempt to improve short term conditions and the appetence of the system.

It was an attempt to make things better, yes, but it wasn't 'capitalistic'.



Just because a few new tariffs are introduced doesn’t mean that capitalism has been abandoned.

I didn't say it was.

I said the tarrifs, not capitalist market transactions, 'capitalism', caused the problem.



The effects of the depression could have been just as bad had the government taken more extreme rightist measures,

No they couldnt have been.

The tarrifs effectively stopped international trade.

That was the problem.


but instead they choose the other road so we will never know.

Unless we analyze it for all of 5 seconds.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)The problem is, these are the countries in which such revolution is least likely; they are the rich ones....

I guess you could claim these countries will become immiserated, but of course that's the claim Marx originally made, and we see how right he was.[/b]

Yes, Marx had the "time-frame" wrong. :)

The "old" capitalist countries are now seeing the opening stages of capitalist immiseration according to Marx. The big welfare programs are being dismantled. Class privilege looms larger with every passing year. Wages are stagnant or declining; consumer debt exploding; weekly hours expanding; etc.

What is most striking about the "old" capitalist countries is the malaise...the "end of hope". More and more people have caught on to the realization that "everything is a racket."

Even the most ardent neo-conservatives cannot muster up anything in the way of "inspiring" rhetoric. All they can do is piss and moan about the equally demoralized liberal wing of capitalist politics.

The new capitalists in Asia and Latin America believe in the future...even when they borrow socialist terminology to make it a little more palatable.

Ain't so where we live.


Try reading the Wikipedia page on deconstructionism and tell me if you understand it any better after reading it.

Even the Wikipedia editors want to it be entirely re-written. :lol:

Marxists have been using what might be called a "soft deconstructionism" for a long time. It simply means reading a pro-capitalist text in such a way as to expose the unstated assumptions.

"Hard" deconstructionism appears to deny any core meaning to any text. Read it any way you like as "all meanings are equally meaningless". :lol:

You've heard the one about the "deconstructionist Mafia"? They make people offers that they can't understand. :lol:


jaycee
Red star, so am I right in thinking you put support for the myth of bourgeois democracy and other bourgeois views as better than the myth of religion.

Yes, bourgeois mythologies are clearly superior to pre-capitalist mythologies...because they are far more grounded in the real material world.

That does not mean that we as communists "must support them" in their struggles against pre-capitalist mythologies...but it's certainly a grotesque error to take the opposite position -- that we "must support" pre-capitalist mythologies "because" they are "anti-capitalist".

Consider the great Danish Cartoon War. The bourgeois myth of "free speech" vs. the pre-capitalist myth of Islam. From the communist standpoint, it was a furious battle between reactionaries...and served principally to discredit both mythologies.

That's a "good thing" for us! It wasn't so good for the "lefties" who felt like they had to "choose sides"...ending up making them look like vulgar opportunists and gullible suckers.

The only time we really have to put our energies into opposing pre-capitalist mythologies is when they assume a political form that threatens our own objectives; Christian Fascism in the U.S. being a primary example. The "left" here has thus far failed abysmally to mount any kind of serious anti-fascist movement against those bastards!

Unless that changes soon, I really expect the worse here. People have an entirely unjustified faith that "bourgeois legality" will "protect them" from Christian repression.

Hah! :angry:

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

[Floyce White]

Hey Comrade Jaycee! Are you still banned to the dog house? Unfair.

At least I can type this over a leftoid photo of Guevara!

By the way, the reason someone accused you of being a "Leninist" is because RAAN currently has an intervention going against this site. They and their quasi-semi-hemi-demi-anarchist sympathizers here are "witnessing" against communists by accusing them of being "Leninists." In the simple-minded world of the anarchist mind, that's supposed to get other teenagers to cringe from being unpopular, and is supposed to box us into replies they already have canned answers for.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 19 2006, 05:23 AM
In the simple-minded world of the anarchist mind, that's supposed to get other teenagers to cringe from being unpopular, and is supposed to box us into replies they already have canned answers for.
Floyce are you sure it's not your "canned" ideology that we have answers to?

[jaycee]

thank you comrade White for the solidarity

Red Star on the point of religion, you are right in that we can't support either side (religion or democracy) but to see capitalist views as still some how progressive i think is a mistake. bourgeois views were only superior to pre capitalist views when capitalism was itself progressive. This is no longer the case and therefore bourgeois views are now just as much a barrier to progress as religion was under feudalism.

we are now seeing the 'opening stages of immiseration'?

so the whole first half of the 20th century was nothing to worry about.

anyway we can start another thread to debate if capitalism is decadent but the mere fact that you seem to maintain some understanding of the fact that capitalism will become decadent means you must agree with at least some aspects of dialectics.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:41 PM
anyway we can start another thread to debate if capitalism is decadent but the mere fact that you seem to maintain some understanding of the fact that capitalism will become decadent means you must agree with at least some aspects of dialectics.
Oh snap! True that.

[jaycee]

come on redstar wat do you say to that

and another thing!!!!

i think redstars rejection of dialectics shows itself with his almost bourgeois view of 'progress.' this is because he sees progress as simply being a matter of 'how much you can produce or how scientificly advaced the society is.

But history and progress doesn't work like that, if he saw the dialectical method properly he would see that every time you progress forward you also loose something.

For example the move from primitive communism to early class society and slavery was historically necessary to develope production on a higher level, however we obviously lost alot in this move. We lost the equality and freedom associated with primitive society as well the phsychological effects of the particular society.

Also the move from slave society to feudalism was necessary and gave a lot more freedom to the exploited classs, being a serf was better than being a slave. Howver we lost a lot of tecnological ability etc.

The move from feudalism to capitalism is no differernt. what was gained in science and productivity was lost in other ways, such as the alienating role of capitalistic labour as well as the problems associated with urbanisatio in general such as the loss of community and the pollution cuased by capitalism.

[jaycee]

come on.....

[Publius]

But history and progress doesn't work like that, if he saw the dialectical method properly he would see that every time you progress forward you also loose something.

So then why progress forward at all?

Why progress to communism if we're going to 'lose something' that we may want?



For example the move from primitive communism to early class society and slavery was historically necessary to develope production on a higher level, however we obviously lost alot in this move. We lost the equality and freedom associated with primitive society as well the phsychological effects of the particular society.

'Equality'? Equality in the sense that dogs are equal. No tahnks.

'Freedom'? The freedom to day in your early 40s, perhaps.

What 'psychological effects'?



Also the move from slave society to feudalism was necessary and gave a lot more freedom to the exploited classs, being a serf was better than being a slave. Howver we lost a lot of tecnological ability etc.

No we didn't.

We gained 'technolgical' ability.

Drop the ignorant dogma and use your brain.



The move from feudalism to capitalism is no differernt. what was gained in science and productivity was lost in other ways, such as the alienating role of capitalistic labour as well as the problems associated with urbanisatio in general such as the loss of community and the pollution cuased by capitalism.

And that was an exact, 1 to 1 'loss' vs. 'gain'?

We're equally as well off now as we ever were?

What a crock of shit.

[jaycee]

first of all the move to communism will be the end of this problem, becuase communism will develope with the sole purpose of meeting all huamn needs and will be free to take certain aspects of primitive communism, such as working roughly only 2 hours a day, having a real sense of community and living in tune with mans real nature and nature in general. While keeping aspects of capitalism such as technology and medicine. Technology will finally be used to liberate mankind rather that oppress and destroy as it often does in capitalism. THis is the phsychological effects of communism (primitive as well as advanced) that we will be free from alienation and repression.

Secondly, you obviously wouldn't understand my point about equality becuase you are to put it nicely a capitalist fool. However equality in the sense of having no classes and no rulers should sound good to alot of people, as well as prodction for need and not profit.

Also the life expectancy in most primitive communist societies was a lot higher than in the middle ages for example.

Which brings me on to my next point, how the hell did we gain tcnology during feudalism, your telling me the middle ages (the DARK AGES), was more technologically advanced than Rome or Greece or Egypt.


I didn't say we were equally wll off now as during feudalism but that we lost certain things in the ADVANCE made by capitalism.

[Tungsten]

jaycee

the move to communism will be the end of this problem,

communism will develope with the sole purpose of meeting all huamn needs

working roughly only 2 hours a day

having a real sense of community

and living in tune with mans real nature and nature in general

Technology will finally be used to liberate mankind

THis is the phsychological effects of communism (primitive as well as advanced) that we will be free from alienation and repression.
I'm fascinated to know where you get these figures from or how you know/intend to go about/guarantee this. There is a detailed plan, I trust?


Secondly, you obviously wouldn't understand my point about equality becuase you are to put it nicely a capitalist fool.
I don't consider equality to be intrisically "cool" or a goal worth of pursuit.

[Publius]

first of all the move to communism will be the end of this problem, becuase communism will develope with the sole purpose of meeting all huamn needs and will be free to take certain aspects of primitive communism, such as working roughly only 2 hours a day, having a real sense of community and living in tune with mans real nature and nature in general.

Oh, well in that case...


While keeping

Contradiction. What are we losing?


aspects of capitalism such as technology and medicine. Technology will finally be used to liberate mankind rather that oppress and destroy as it often does in capitalism.

???


THis is the phsychological effects of communism (primitive as well as advanced) that we will be free from alienation and repression.

'Alienation' is the human condition; welcome to existentialism.

'Repression' will always exist.



Secondly, you obviously wouldn't understand my point about equality becuase you are to put it nicely a capitalist fool.

And yet I'm able to find the 'Shift' key more than 3 times in the course of a post.

Hmm.



However equality in the sense of having no classes and no rulers should sound good to alot of people, as well as prodction for need and not profit.


I guess if meaningless agitprop sounded pleasing to you, you would like those slogans.



Also the life expectancy in most primitive communist societies was a lot higher than in the middle ages for example.


By 'a lot higher', I hope you mean 'a lot lower'.

In primitive societies it was common to die in the 30s and you were lucky to make it to the 40s. Very lucky.



Which brings me on to my next point, how the hell did we gain tcnology during feudalism, your telling me the middle ages (the DARK AGES), was more technologically advanced than Rome or Greece or Egypt.


"The Dark Ages" are not "The Middle Ages".

I also wasn't aware that there was widespread feuadlism during the Dark Ages; I think you're making that up.



I didn't say we were equally wll off now as during feudalism but that we lost certain things in the ADVANCE made by capitalism.

Things such as what? Our 3rd nipple?

[Epoche]

'Alienation' is the human condition; welcome to existentialism.

No, no, Pubs. Existentialism was a condition that originated during the industrial period which created the first class divisions. The anxiety that Kierkegaard turns into a giant existential mantra is none other than, that's right, you guessed it......alienation before the Other.

[jaycee]

well with regards to how i can gurantee these aspects of communism.

Working a lot less will deffinately extremely likely, firstly when there is no unemplyment, no pointless jobs (military, police, politicians, the whole financial sector) and much more effective means of producing things this will obviously help alot.

Secondly, in capitalism because you can't get any extra profit from a machine a lot of jobs which could be automised are not.

The 2 hour estimate was based on my knowledge of primitive communist work patterns.

The remarks about people getting in touch with nature and there real nature is based on many things, firstly in a society in which peolpe are free to develope to their full potential then humanity will develope itself and its understanding of the universe and phsychology and a lot more, such as the eternal questions about mans relation to the universe .

also when people are free from the phsychological ill effects of capitalist and class society, they will be phsychological more healthy. This includes the ability to overcome alienation, not only in labour but in our general lives.

The sense of community will obviously be part of a society of COMMUNism.

Technology in a liberated society will be like everything else in communism, used to serve mankind. technology now is used for destruction (nukes etc) and oppression (CCTV etc) and expoit (factory equipment).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jaycee, I would have replied earlier, but I was unaware this discussiion was on-going up until the site went down, and then I could not post anything.

You asked for someone to disprove dialectical materialism; look no further than here:

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

where I am systematically taking that 'theory' apart.

[I explain why here:

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

The site is about 30% finished; a new Essay will be published there in the next few days (taking apart the analogy DM-fans draw between 'contradictions' and 'opposing forces').

You will see from the fact that that Essay alone is nearly 40,000 words long that my attack on dialectics is not the least bit superficial.

[By the way, it is worth noting that I accept Historical Materialism 100%, once the mystical Hegelian concepts have been excised, that is.]

Summaries of my ideas can be found here:

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

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:14 PM




No, no, Pubs. Existentialism was a condition that originated during the industrial period which created the first class divisions. The anxiety that Kierkegaard turns into a giant existential mantra is none other than, that's right, you guessed it......alienation before the Other.

There is no way to live a human life without feeling alienated, because there is no fundamental meaning to that life.

[Epoche]

An adequate understanding of mortality and the human condition makes it impossible to feel alienated from Others because we all die, and therefore there is no human quality unique to individuals in that respect; nobody is better than another.

Forms of alienation meanwhile are sociological and have nothing to do with the "fundamental meaning of life," whatever that means.

[jaycee]

well Marx saw alienation in terms of labour. This was because he saw creating and producing the means of sustinance is central to human nature. In class society this is an oppressive and exploitative experience and therefore we are alienated from something which is central to our being.

I think Marx may have ignored other factors, such as the environment we are brought up in etc, in bringing a sense of alienation. I think here Freuds theory of repression is very important because the repression of desire of all kinds is forced on us from an early age. The barrier between our concsous self and our unconcsious self is also a factor in our feeling of alienation.

In communism the economic need to repress our desires and the alienating form of labour will be transpassed. Therefore while repression may still exist, becuase it is a general mechnaism to help our development and therefore will probably have to always exist to some extent. It will be drematically decreased, it will also be better understood in a more advanced society as well as the fact that as communism is a society based soley on producing human happiness and fullfilment the solving of these problems will be a central part of everyones life.

Rosa i will read your textx soon and get back to you.

[Epoche]

well Marx saw alienation in terms of labour. This was because he saw creating and producing the means of sustinance is central to human nature. In class society this is an oppressive and exploitative experience and therefore we are alienated from something which is central to our being.

Well put. I envisage this as the final development for communism. But to argue what or what is not "central to our being" seems another issue all together. Classes don't always have to be opposed or subordinate to each other and still maintain a hierarchy of order. The hypothetical state of communism can be generalized as the idea of no division between social and political wealth and the real possibility of no opposing parties, and if this exists merely as a majority vote, it cannot achieve its ideal. So classes remain as parties unless there is some form of dictation by a central rule.

In theory democracy makes sense, but in politics, only in the case where there is no possibility for opposing parties to arise can there be the elimination of class alienation. This "control" must be keep or the communism evolves out of its ideal form and becomes an aristocracy of sorts. Ruling parties emerge through propaganda-- parties claim to have a "better way" as opposed to the present policies.

The control kept is in the distribution of wealth so that ruling is the collective force of the power of the workers. Workers are not politicians, but politicans get no more than the workers. Here there are two classes or castes but they are in no way opposed to the other, and is in conjunction with it.

"True" democracy can only mean "...if it is a majority," because there is never a case of complete consensus unless there are no parties in opposition...no need to vote.

This is quite the feat, I think. The dissolution of the dictatorship of the proletariat is by no means a sudden event.

[Publius]

An adequate understanding of mortality and the human condition makes it impossible to feel alienated from Others because we all die,

That's where the alienation comes from.

We all die alone.


and therefore there is no human quality unique to individuals in that respect; nobody is better than another.

Yes, nobody is better than anybody because they're all worthless.



Forms of alienation meanwhile are sociological and have nothing to do with the "fundamental meaning of life," whatever that means.

There is no way to exist, as a human, and not feel alienated in a universe with no meaning; our universe.

Communism is like some sort of virus that completely fucks with your understanding of everything else.

Compartmentalize.

It has nothing to do with a 'class struggle' or any of that bullshit, it has do with the fact that we are cosmic accidents that are going to; that we are no more important and valuable than rocks, and can never be more valuable than that unless we say we are: existentialism.

[Publius]

well Marx saw alienation in terms of labour.

Which is why he was a terrible philosopher.


This was because he saw creating and producing the means of sustinance is central to human nature.

No it isn't.

It's no more 'central' to our nature than any base act.

We may have to do it to survive, but it's not fundamental to our 'nature' (as in meaning).


In class society this is an oppressive and exploitative experience and therefore we are alienated from something which is central to our being.

Nonsense.

Do you honestly feel 'alienated' from the products of your labor?

Do you miss them?

Do you wish you had them?

If you kept the products of your labor, would you feel better about yourself?

I don't understand any of this.

Why would a person desire what he produces? It seems metaphysical to me.



In communism the economic need to repress our desires and the alienating form of labour will be transpassed. Therefore while repression may still exist, becuase it is a general mechnaism to help our development and therefore will probably have to always exist to some extent. It will be drematically decreased, it will also be better understood in a more advanced society as well as the fact that as communism is a society based soley on producing human happiness and fullfilment the solving of these problems will be a central part of everyones life.

Humans can never be happy, as a rule.

Happiness is relative.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:33 PM
each day the vulgar marxists have more in common with the capitalists in their attacks on dialectics, It really shows where they stand.
Exactly. They have now moved their attacks to opposing ideologies to get more support from capitalists themselves. Talk about opportunism! :rolleyes:

[Epoche]

That's where the alienation comes from.

We all die alone.


Not really...we just die "over there" or "over here," be we are never truelly alone from the human condition, this condition has nothing to do with distance....dying is a situation, we all die over there or over here. An existential map has "you are here" written all over it, I think the saying goes. I want you to concentrate and think happy thoughts, Pubs.


Yes, nobody is better than anybody because they're all worthless.

Thank you. That's the nicest thing anybody has said to me all day, except for my sweetheart in PM cognito.

What you need is love, Publius. Or at least try to think you are in love. Lie to yourself if you aren't. If you are ugly...that's fine, there are plenty of ugly people out there. There's got to be a Publiann somewhere.


There is no way to exist, as a human, and not feel alienated in a universe with no meaning; our universe.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I carried Being and Nothingness around with me like it was the frickin bible for three years, so cry me a river. I've been through the pre-marxist Sartre, buddy, and that ain't no easy trip. Spare me the slogans and please tell me you grew out of that phase.


Communism is like some sort of virus that completely fucks with your understanding of everything else.

Well, acording to you, Communism is no more worthless than capitalism, so whadaya *****in about?

(Pubs, listen to me. You have to be extremely careful when you use evaluations from within a relativist perspective. Avoid the self-referential paradoxes at all costs, and stay away from truth claims all together, if you wish to stay alive.)


it has do with the fact that we are cosmic accidents

That's okay. We have jazz music. We'll be alright.

[jaycee]

epoche i didn't really understand your point about politicians, it seemed to suggest that politicians aren't enemies of the working class and don't defend the status quo.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:


Exactly. They have now moved their attacks to opposing ideologies to get more support from capitalists themselves. Talk about opportunism!

And you once again miss another golden opportunity to defend your mystical theory infront of non-Marxists. But what do you do, you moan once more.

So: you can't defend your ideas on hone territory at the 'Grantist' discussion board (YFIS), you can't defend it here on other sections of RevLeft where you might have found some support, and now you can't defend it in front of the enemies of Marxism.

I'd call you pathetic, but that would be to praise you too highly.

I on the other hand will attack dialectics wherever I find it, since it is one of the reasons Marxism is held in derision by its enemies (and one of the reasons why it has been a lamentable failure now for over 120 years).

Once again, prove me wrong, if you can....

[Another deafening silence falls over the Axel/Volkov corner.]

[jaycee]

i'm gonna say this one more time, do you think history developes out of contradictions between opposing social forces, i.e classes and modes of production?

[Epoche]

jaycee,


epoche i didn't really understand your point about politicians, it seemed to suggest that politicians aren't enemies of the working class and don't defend the status quo.

I think in the last stage of communism, if it follows Marx's predictions, will exist without "politicians" since there will be no parties. Imagine that in the socialist phase a hierarchy of government is kept although legislation is run and owned by the workers. Politics will consist of competeting parties that are democratically elected from within the masses...basically legalized "campaigning" and the right to run for office.

The central dictatorship is not s single man but a commitee of people who were elected through a majority vote; this is a democratic proletarian dictatorship, but it is not a true communism because it functions by way of a ballad system and therefore creates "losers."

Political turbulence can occur and result in, say, tiny revolutions within the newly developing socialism, throwing it back into unstable conditions.

The goal is to eliminate "voting" completely and prevent the gonvernment from becoming or resembling a despotism, monarchy, aristocracy, or any other form of elitist rule.

From within one class of people the "leaders" emerge, and are given terms in office. I did not mean to say that politicans are a class in themselves, but that the role is necessary and a form of "work." Some people do not have the intelligence to perform economy analysis or open heart surgery....but that doesn't mean they have no political control. A politician is a social scientist and his function is as necessary as sanitation "officer," and he is on the same payroll.

Remember that half of the impact of the consumerist nostalgia in noticing "class difference" is in the actual financial status of individuals...and not necessarily their "jobs."

All jobs are necessary, but I think we agree that many are extremely overpaid, and that is the issue that needs to be dealt with. We are feeling alienated from our peers and other races because of the consumerist discourse that generates a great deal of psychological stress.....but none of this has anything to do with work for its own sake.

The weight of the pressure felt by the lower classes is the alienation from financial similiarity and privilege that the other class has. This is not produced from otherwise natural inclinations to be suspicious of the other man or the other race. The product discourse is everything. Personages are what are "bought" is this society, and for each class there is a cultural bias attributed to that status...that value determined by ones property. A secondary catalyst results from this; financial wealth denotes security, security is attractive to women...therefore, certain status as a property owner results in greater success with women. Just one more catalyst effecting social interaction in consumerist society.

My god....the upperclass is stealing our women, comrades. I've never thought about it. Derek or Bret would be his name. He's got soft hands and a gold pen that costs $75.95, sheathed in a leather pocket protector he was given at an award ceremony. He pulls up to the stop light in his Hummer, and pretends to be busy on his cell-phone. Your girlfriend looks over at him sitting in his Hummer.....you watch her carefully and you can see it. You can certainly see it. Your shiny black boots and sex pistols t-shirt just doesn't do it for her any more. She wants him, comrade. ("Bret"...what kind of a fucking name is that?) But she looks away because she knows you are watching her.

Nonetheless, the proletariat is not angry at the politician, but only the size of his wallet. In an economy where credit and money did not exist, neither would these sentiments.

[Epoche]

'm gonna say this one more time, do you think history developes out of contradictions between opposing social forces, i.e classes and modes of production?


I do not believe in a Hegelean dialectic. What is contrary in nature is not opposed to nature, but only opposed to a theoretical ideal. "Social forces" are ideals and what we describe as a "lower class" and an "upper class" is not a natural dialectical case; it is a postulate, an invented evaluation.

There is no "contradiction" in the natural course of economic class division and the conditions we find here in capitalism....there is no "mistake" in nature such that reconciliation must occur between what we posit as "opposed forces."

Everything that exists is absolutely determined and natural.

It doesn't take dialectics to predict an economic collapse or a likely uprising in a country in conditions X, Y, and Z.

History develops nonteleologically...there is no "plan" which is transcendent to its existence and so there is no "contradiction."

[jaycee]

but progress occures when one class overthrows another, one opposing force overcomes another. All ideologies and theories are part of this class relationship, the ruling class has ideas which defend their own class rule, the revolutionary class has views which can pose a threat to this class rule.

with regards to economic crisis, a society will only be overthrown when it can no longer give hope of progress and becomes a fetter on development. That is to say when the social relation comes in to CONFLICT with the productive capabilities.

The capitalist relation is (and has been for around 100 years) in conflict with productive capabilies and is now a fetter on further develoment. For example while capitalism can produce more than enough food billions are still malnutritioned and millions starve. Food is destroyed everyday because no one can buy it, overproduction is now a constant strain on the capitalist economy.

This is a result of another dialectical contradiction, capitalism needs to spread and expand all the time, but once it expands to a certain level it can only expand at the cost of other capitalist rivals (hence imperialism).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jaycee, if you check out my site, you will see that my latest Essay has just trashed this idea, that forces can be modelled by 'contradictions'.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm