Historical and Dialectical Materialism [Archive]

Guest1

14th October 2006, 21:51

1. Define 'Historical Materialism'

The application of the marxist method of dialectical materialism to the evolution of human social production.

2. Define 'Dialectical Materialism'

The marxist method of dealing with issues by looking at all the processes involved, the many directions each is pulling in, and the breaking point at which one direction is decided.

3. Where do these two views overlap?

Historical materialism is just an application of dialectical materialism to society.

4. How do these two views of history differ?

They don't. One is a framework for investigating the world in its entirety, the other is the result of the application of that framework to investigating the processes of human society.

5. Which different historical leftist movements have adopted which view of history? why? with what result?

Here is where the false dichotomy comes in. Liberal academic interpretations of Marxism have emptied it of its essential content, how change occurs, how to look at the relations between opposing trends, etc... What is left is what they consider a "liberation" of historical materialism from the "mystical" ideas of dialectical materialism. What we are left with are the forms of society Marx spoke of, as rigid forms with no understanding of their content.

6. Do these two Marxist views of history propose different conceptions or views of history and how to look at the world? Can you elaborate on those differences or similarities?

Here we're again talking about the false historical materialism, as interpreted without dialectical materialism. The difference is, the lack of understanding of the qualitative differences between capitalism in its period of ascendancy, where feudalism was still competing and capitalism was a revolutionary force, and capitalism in its periods of decline and decay. Today's capitalism represents the same rules of social interaction as before, but those same dynamics play out differently in a period where massive expansion, massive progress and production, and massive profit opportunities were one and the same.

Now, profit comes almost purely from cutting production, destroying social institutions, and firing those who produce and consume the products that make capitalism profitable.

A good, short explanation of dialectical materialism, from a marxist perspective, is The ABC of Materialist Dialectics (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/ABC.html).

Conghaileach

14th October 2006, 22:30

Historical materialism is the philosophy that our consciousness is determined primarily by the time and place in which we live, as opposed to being determined by some deity or being somehow independent of the objective conditions around us.

Dialectical materialism is, well, there's no way I'm touching that one. There have been plenty of debates on this board on that subject. Try out the Theory (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=6) and Philosophy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=23) forums.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th October 2006, 03:37

Myself and other posters have taken dialectical materialism apart here (there are many more, but these will do):

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55101

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54908

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45761

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48119

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45871

Guest1

15th October 2006, 21:48

Ok, now that's over the top.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th October 2006, 03:26

Che, I refuse to get into an argument with you on this, since we patched things up a few months ago.

We agree on about 95% of things, and this should not be allowed to divide us.

Guest1

16th October 2006, 03:40

Then why get over the top like that? This is the learning forum, there's no need to bury people in links.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th October 2006, 12:43

Che, you are right. So I will edit down!

which doctor

18th October 2006, 03:35

So, without linking me to any threads or essays what problems do people find within Dialectical Materialism?

Keep it simple.

18th October 2006, 04:16

You're asking for one side of the debate? Wouldn't you want to hear both sides before coming to a conclusion?

which doctor

18th October 2006, 04:22

I don't care who answers that question, it could be Rosa or CyM. To be honest with you, I don't really see anything wrong with dialectics, but I'm really not all that knowledgeble on them. Since I get practically nothing out of reading the threads I thought someone could give me a simple answer.

18th October 2006, 04:27

Wouldn't it be better to ask an unbiased question, then?

Guest1

18th October 2006, 07:09

Thanks, rosa.

FoB, the problem with it is the same as everything else in Marx and Engels' works, an overbearing bureaucracy turned it into a religion and an excuse to justify every reactionary step they took. Just as China says their Capitalism is "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", Russian bureaucrats would accuse the opposition of practicing "metaphysical" (non-dialectical) philosophy. But just as the Chinese bureaucrats can only get away with calling Capitalism "Socialism" because there isn't enough of an understanding of it or enough people calling them on it, the same can be said of the Russian bureaucrats.

Instead of dumping Marxism, we reclaim it from the bureaucrats and show exactly what it's supposed to mean. That includes dialectics.

Okocim

23rd October 2006, 09:21

If each process contains the seeds of its own distruction then how come communism doesn't?

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd October 2006, 22:40

Good question, and its not the only thing that does not contain the seeds of its own destruction.

Protons and electrons do not.

Neither do photons....

Guest1

24th October 2006, 19:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 04:21 am
If each process contains the seeds of its own distruction then how come communism doesn't?
If you wanna think of communism as a process, then it does. Communism as movement grows into communism as dictatorship of the proletariat, grows into communism as the historic abolition of capitalism, which grows into economics taking a backseat and new frontiers of culture and science taking our attention.

When communism is reality, people in general won't consider themselves "communist" or "capitalist", it's just the way things are. The communist movement won't go on forever, it will be replaced by other movements. The movement to abolish the state for one (as in abolishing arms, not organized economics), the various artistic movements, the movement to abolish work, etc...

As for Rosa, protons, electrons and photons are brought together by process I don't have much knowledge of, but I do know they are not "wholes", there are lower levels making them up. Molecules on the other hand, are brought together in a process which contains the seeds of its own destruction, tip the balance a certain way, and the thing tears apart. Same with atoms, if I'm not assuming too much, that's how atomic explosions work, right? External influence that tips the balance towards tearing the atom apart, right?

All of that being said, dialectical materialism is not meant to force everything to that framework, it just means you look for the processes in what you are examining. If it's more easily explained in formalistic language (as a teaspoon of sugar being equal to a teaspoon of sugar for example), then there's no need to avoid formalistic language out of some ridiculous application of dialectics.

Okocim

24th October 2006, 22:17

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+October 24, 2006 07:46 pm--> (Che y Marijuana @ October 24, 2006 07:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 04:21 am
If each process contains the seeds of its own distruction then how come communism doesn't?
If you wanna think of communism as a process, then it does. Communism as movement grows into communism as dictatorship of the proletariat, grows into communism as the historic abolition of capitalism, which grows into economics taking a backseat and new frontiers of culture and science taking our attention.

When communism is reality, people in general won't consider themselves "communist" or "capitalist", it's just the way things are. The communist movement won't go on forever, it will be replaced by other movements. The movement to abolish the state for one (as in abolishing arms, not organized economics), the various artistic movements, the movement to abolish work, etc...[/b]

hummmm....a very good point and nice way to counter anti-communists. Thank you. :)

Che y [email protected] 24, 2006 07:46 pm
As for Rosa, protons, electrons and photons are brought together by process I don't have much knowledge of, but I do know they are not "wholes", there are lower levels making them up. Molecules on the other hand, are brought together in a process which contains the seeds of its own destruction, tip the balance a certain way, and the thing tears apart. Same with atoms, if I'm not assuming too much, that's how atomic explosions work, right? External influence that tips the balance towards tearing the atom apart, right?

true: quarks.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th October 2006, 00:17

Electrons are changeless, and not only self-identical, they are all identical with one another (and over billion of years), contrary to what Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky asserted.

So are photons (and quarks); on this see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

There you will see that certain atoms are identical with one another, too.

A photon is a whole photon, and an electron is a whole, too. So they are wholes, as are the above atoms.

And many molecules remain stable for hundreds of million of years, and need external 'forces' to change them.

So, they do not contain the seeds of their own destruction, and even if they did, they would change in a host of different ways, and not the result of 'internal contradictions' (an anthropomorphic phrase of indeterminate meaning).

And modern physics has done away with forces, and replaced them with exchange of momentum, as Engels himself predicted:

"When two bodies act on each other…they either attract each other or they repel each other…in short, the old polar opposites of attraction and repulsion…. It is expressly to be noted that attraction and repulsion are not regarded here as so-called 'forces', but as simple forms of motion." [Engels ‘Dialectics of Nature’, p.71.]

As Professor Wilzcek, of MIT said:

"The paradox deepens when we consider force from the perspective of modern physics. In fact, the concept of force is conspicuously absent from our most advanced formulations of the basic laws. It doesn't appear in Schrödinger's equation, or in any reasonable formulation of quantum field theory, or in the foundations of general relativity. Astute observers commented on this trend to eliminate force even before the emergence of relativity and quantum mechanics.

"In his 1895 Dynamics, the prominent physicist Peter G. Tait, who was a close friend and collaborator of Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell, wrote

"'In all methods and systems which involve the idea of force there is a leaven of artificiality...there is no necessity for the introduction of the word 'force' nor of the sense−suggested ideas on which it was originally based.'"

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-10/p11.html

And Professor Max Jammer underlined:

"[The eliminability of force]...is not confined to the force of gravitation. The question of whether forces of any kind do exist, or do not and are only conventions, ha[s] become the subject of heated debates....

"In quantum chromodynamics, gauge theories, and the so-called Standard Model the notion of 'force' is treated only as an exchange of momentum and therefore replaced by the ontologically less demanding concept of 'interaction' between particles, which manifests itself by the exchange of different particles that mediate this interaction...." [M. Jammer 'The Concept of Force', p.v.]

And as Woods and Grant also admited:

"Gravity is not a 'force,' but a relation between real objects. To a man falling off a high building, it seems that the ground is 'rushing towards him.' From the standpoint of relativity, that observation is not wrong. Only if we adopt the mechanistic and one-sided concept of 'force' do we view this process as the earth's gravity pulling the man downwards, instead of seeing that it is precisely the interaction of two bodies upon each other." [Woods and Grant ‘Reason in Revolt’, p.156.]

http://www.marxist.com/science/relativityt....html#Relations (http://www.marxist.com/science/relativitytheory.html#Relations) Between Things

No forces, no ‘internal contradictions’.

Dialectical Materialism is thus a dead duck; no wonder it has presided over 130 years of failure.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

Hit The North

25th October 2006, 10:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 09:21 am
If each process contains the seeds of its own distruction then how come communism doesn't?
According to Marx, all class societies contain the seeds of their own destruction. Communism, as a classless society does not therefore contain the seeds of its own destruction.

Che:

The communist movement won't go on forever, it will be replaced by other movements. The movement to abolish the state for one (as in abolishing arms, not organized economics), the various artistic movements, the movement to abolish work, etc...

Isn't it the case that the abolition of the State is a precondition for Communism?

Faceless

25th October 2006, 15:24

Electrons are changeless, and not only self-identical, they are all identical with one another (and over billion of years), contrary to what Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky asserted.

The difference between a human society and, say, the speed of light, or the mass of an electron, etc. is that human society at any period depends entirely upon its history. Dialectics is the study of historical phenomenon, not of timeless constants.

However, when we consider your interpretation of quantum mechanics, we see that infact your statement is pretty damned hollow.

Go to that link on "Identical particles" and read:

Even if the particles have equivalent physical properties, there remains a second method for distinguishing between particles, which is to track the trajectory of each particle. As long as we can measure the position of each particle with infinite precision (even when the particles collide), there would be no ambiguity about which particle is which.

The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the principles of quantum mechanics. According to quantum theory, the particles do not possess definite positions during the periods between measurements. Instead, they are governed by wavefunctions that give the probability of finding a particle at each position.
You have determined this indistinguishability as meaning identical. I won't argue with these particles being indistinguishable. They have fixed charges, and their wave functions overlap. However, if I had two red sweets which you could not distinguish by eye, and kept switching them between my hands (with my hands behind my back!) except to occasionally show you each hand with a sweet in it, you would also say that those sweets were, to you, completely indistinguishable, and you couldn't say if the sweet shown to be in my left hand the second time was the same sweet I showed you in my left hand previously. You can then interpret what you have seen in two ways:
a) Only by my measuring the position of the sweet does the sweet obtain a fixed, definate position. Meanwhile it is somehow occupying a place in both hands or is somehow "spread" between them with multiple positions.
or
b) Their is an underlying causality which leads to the probability distributions (and the wavefunctions?) associated with the positions of the sweets.

The former is an idealist interpretation which states that the position of the particle is only determined by the act of observation.
The latter is a materialist interpretation which allows the sweet to have a position independent of the observer whilst accepting that we do not know what causes the particle to have a certain position and not another, even if we can say with a good degree of accuracy, what the probability of it being in a certain place is

So why have I laboured through all this? Well, either you are referring to
1) a number of natural constants being self-identical, which have no history and as such their is no "dialectic" to them or
2) you are saying that the above described particles are infact "identical" and not merely indistinuishable; attributing our lack of understanding of the electron to the electron itself.
If you are suggesting (1), do you mean to use this and the fact that light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum and that the force of gravity always acts with a certain strength between two bodies of fixed mass and distance; ie that there are ahistorical constants (as far as we know) in physics; to dismiss all theories which try to come to some generalised understanding of historical phenomenon? Or if you meant (2), are you not a total idealist who is merely hashing over dialectics by pointing to the least understood of natural phenomenon which it is possible we can not divide into a unity of two opposites because infact we do not have the means to observe such scales? After all, it was generally accepted that the proton and neutron were wholes before they were then divided.

The rest of your post is riddled with contradictions (of the absurd and not the dialectical variety)

And many molecules remain stable for hundreds of million of years, and need external 'forces' to change them.
contradicts:

No forces, no ‘internal contradictions’.
Now take those quotations which you have obscenely taken out of context:
I will start with Ted Grant,
The point is not that the term "force" is useless, but that infact the idea that a man falling to the ground is being attracted by the "external" force of gravitation is infact wrong. The force is entirely mutual and the falling man infact attracts the whole of the Earth towards him. This is a classical example of a unity of opposites. That not one force of the two reciprocal forces can exist without the other.

Now the quotation by the MIT fella and Engels:
Force can be eliminated from many equations, this is because infact it is easier to talk about force in terms of what it really is: A function of the motion of a particle. Force infact can simply be shown to be rate of change of momentum, and it is generally easier to use rate of change of momentum because momentum pops up in other places also (most fundamentally and central to any advanced understanding of mechanics is the "conservation of momentum"). However, Energy is merely a function of momentum, position etc. and doesn't represent a tangible thing either. That does not make the whole of Newtonian mechanics useless because they talk of forces and energy. In fact you could have said

No forces, no ‘newtonian mechanics'.

and made a lot more sense! :D

Faceless

25th October 2006, 15:36

And on a more serious note:

According to Marx, all class societies contain the seeds of their own destruction. Communism, as a classless society does not therefore contain the seeds of its own destruction.
class-less society existed at man's pre-history, but people became differentiated into classes due to the fact that these societies stopped merely creating enough stuff for subsistence but started to also to produce a surplus which could be appropriated by people who were in a position in the division of labour suited to doing so (maybe "wise men", priests or chieftains? I dunno enough about it). Of course contradictions caused by some development could cause a reemergence of class in a classless society. Who knows? With any luck these contradictions will take millions of years to break out.

Hit The North

25th October 2006, 16:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 03:36 pm
And on a more serious note:

According to Marx, all class societies contain the seeds of their own destruction. Communism, as a classless society does not therefore contain the seeds of its own destruction.
class-less society existed at man's pre-history, but people became differentiated into classes due to the fact that these societies stopped merely creating enough stuff for subsistence but started to also to produce a surplus which could be appropriated by people who were in a position in the division of labour suited to doing so (maybe "wise men", priests or chieftains? I dunno enough about it). Of course contradictions caused by some development could cause a reemergence of class in a classless society. Who knows? With any luck these contradictions will take millions of years to break out.
True for the first part. But I always assumed that it was the production of a surplus within a norm of scarcity which led to the formation of classes. The point being that Communism would be of such a higher level of production that abundance would be the norm.

A decline in the productive base of a future communist society would perhaps lead to its degeneration into a class based society.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th October 2006, 18:00

Faceless:

The difference between a human society and, say, the speed of light, or the mass of an electron, etc. is that human society at any period depends entirely upon its history. Dialectics is the study of historical phenomenon, not of timeless constants.

Not according to Hegel, Lenin, Engels, Plekhanov, Stalin, Trotsky, Cornforth, Woods and Grant....

[Details at my site.]

You have determined this indistinguishability as meaning identical.

It is a criterion Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky used. So, if you disagree with them, perhaps you would like to define ‘identity’ for us so that we know what you are talking about, and then explain whether your definition of it is identical with real identity – if it is then you must accept the law of identity applies here, at least; if not, then you will have mis-defined it.

I can live with either outcome.

However, if I had two red sweets which you could not distinguish by eye, and kept switching them between my hands (with my hands behind my back!) except to occasionally show you each hand with a sweet in it, you would also say that those sweets were, to you, completely indistinguishable, and you couldn't say if the sweet shown to be in my left hand the second time was the same sweet I showed you in my left hand previously. You can then interpret what you have seen in two ways:

Not my example, so this is irrelevant.

1) a number of natural constants being self-identical, which have no history and as such their is no "dialectic" to them or

Not so; electons are eminently material.

2) you are saying that the above described particles are infact "identical" and not merely indistinuishable; attributing our lack of understanding of the electron to the electron itself.

See above.

If you are suggesting (1), do you mean to use this and the fact that light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum and that the force of gravity always acts with a certain strength between two bodies of fixed mass and distance; ie that there are a historical constants (as far as we know) in physics; to dismiss all theories which try to come to some generalised understanding of historical phenomenon? Or if you meant (2), are you not a total idealist who is merely hashing over dialectics by pointing to the least understood of natural phenomenon which it is possible we can not divide into a unity of two opposites because in fact we do not have the means to observe such scales? After all, it was generally accepted that the proton and neutron were wholes before they were then divided.

I am suggesting exactly what I said: dialectical materialism is useless for helping us understand the world, or how to change it.

Nothing in what I said about 'natural constants'.

And you dialectical mystics are the idealists here; imposing your a priori schemas onto reality; in fact, it was decided that reality was dialectical long before scientists declared that such things as protons never change.

The rest of your post is riddled with contradictions (of the absurd and not the dialectical variety)

So you say, but if you accept the loopy logic you find in Hegel, that automatically disqualifies you from passing an informed opinion on anything logical.

That you know no modern logic merely confirms this.

Exhibit A:

QUOTE
And many molecules remain stable for hundreds of million of years, and need external 'forces' to change them.

contradicts:

QUOTE
No forces, no ‘internal contradictions’.

Why do you think I put “forces” in scare quotes, smarty pants?

Go on, fire up a few brain cells, and figure it out for yourself.

The point is not that the term "force" is useless, but that in fact the idea that a man falling to the ground is being attracted by the "external" force of gravitation is in fact wrong. The force is entirely mutual and the falling man in fact attracts the whole of the Earth towards him. This is a classical example of a unity of opposites. That not one force of the two reciprocal forces can exist without the other.

Well, there is no unity here, for there are no forces.

As Woods and Grant noted, but which point you clearly missed.

Force infact can simply be shown to be rate of change of momentum, and it is generally easier to use rate of change of momentum because momentum pops up in other places also (most fundamentally and central to any advanced understanding of mechanics is the "conservation of momentum"). However, Energy is merely a function of momentum, position etc. and doesn't represent a tangible thing either. That does not make the whole of Newtonian mechanics useless because they talk of forces and energy.

So, forces are not real, they are useful calculating devices deployed in college physics, but which more advanced scientists than you appear to be have learnt to wave goodbye to, because of their animistic origins (as even Engels noted).

In fact you could have said

QUOTE
No forces, no ‘Newtonian mechanics'.

and made a lot more sense!

Well, if you knew your history of science, you would know that Newton could not account for these forces, and neither could subsequent Newtonians – and that is why modern physics has pensioned them off.

So; no forces – no dialectical contradictions (even if we are ever told what the latter are).

Faceless

26th October 2006, 12:39

Not according to Hegel, Lenin, Engels, Plekhanov, Stalin, Trotsky, Cornforth, Woods and Grant....
I can't find it on your site, why don't you prove it here? Dialectics in nature, as dialectics in human society, is the study of things in their process of change.

It is a criterion Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky used. So, if you disagree with them, perhaps you would like to define ‘identity’ for us so that we know what you are talking about, and then explain whether your definition of it is identical with real identity – if it is then you must accept the law of identity applies here, at least; if not, then you will have mis-defined it.

I can live with either outcome.

You have taken these quantum particles to be identical because you can not distinguish between them. I will call upon you to prove to me that infact the criterion for identity, as laid down by Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky (apparently), is that you are incapable of distinguishing between two things due to an uncertainty in their position. Honestly, I doubt you'll be able to.

Not my example, so this is irrelevant.
No, but quantum particles were your example, and you dodged the question. The fact is you brought up an example of a physical phenomenon which is at the very boundaries of our knowledge. You did not deny that infact it may happen that these "fundamental" particles will prove to not be so fundamental after all. In fact you didn't deal with any of the content of my post, but spent your time dealing with semantics. And the sweets could easily be replaced by quantum particles which are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. However, like the sweets, this need not make them identical. And infact, with advances in technology the sweets may turn out to have distinguishing features, as may quantum particles.

I don't know how you can alledge identity between quantum particles and not admit identity for these sweets, unless you are confident in your logic.

Why do you think I put “forces” in scare quotes, smarty pants?

Go on, fire up a few brain cells, and figure it out for yourself.
Why did you put it in inverted commas, when you obviously mean something? The fact is, Rosa, you are running yourself round in circles because their are "forces", even if these forces are functions of other variables. Would it have been better to use "rate of change of momentum"? Would you have put that in inverted commas Rosa?

So you say, but if you accept the loopy logic you find in Hegel, that automatically disqualifies you from passing an informed opinion on anything logical.
:huh: You mean that somewhere Hegel wrote that "When Rosa makes absurd contradictions Faceless will be unable to pass an informed opinion on anything logical". I must have missed the bit where he wrote that.

So, forces are not real, they are useful calculating devices deployed in college physics, but which more advanced scientists than you appear to be have learnt to wave goodbye to, because of their animistic origins (as even Engels noted).
:o One minute I "clearly missed" the fact that there is no force (there is no spoon either) and now you are quoting me against myself. Forces are functions of real, measurable phenomenon. And no scientist in their right mind would entirely dismiss forces. For simple phenomenon such as a pendulum on a string, physicists would still uses one sided netonian concepts such as "force", simply because for all intents and purposes these calculating devices are useful. However, Newtonian mechanics has its limits and at a certain point it becomes more useful to speak of momentum and position and fields and potential wells. I've learnt to "wave goodbye" to forces when it ceases to be useful and when I would sooner speak about the electric field, E(x), instead of stating the force due to some charges at every single point in space.

Anyway, I'm signing out now. Your style is one of talking down to people Rosa, I'm a physics student, and I know very well that it is easier to speak of other calculating devices than forces, but that does not mean that there is no force (there is zero force?), just that the concept of a force (and, incidentally, a dialectician would not speak of "a" force, as the idea of some external...

you know what, i give up

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th October 2006, 15:36

Faceless:

I can't find it on your site

Oh dear.

But I am sorry that I seem to know your 'theory' better than you do.

And now you show that you think repetition is the same as proof:

You have taken these quantum particles to be identical because you can not distinguish between them.

I merely quoted scientists and theorists who said this; pick a fight with them.

And since you have yet to tell us what you think identity is, I can help you no further.

is that you are incapable of distinguishing between two things due to an uncertainty in their position. Honestly, I doubt you'll be able to.

What I can or cannot do is scientifically irrelevant; as I said, your beef is with those scietists who have shown that this aspect of dialectics is unscientiifc.

[Not that we ever thought it wasn't.]

No, but quantum particles were your example, and you dodged the question

As I said, not my example; pick a fight with yourself (your identical self, that is).

And the sweets could easily be replaced by quantum particles which are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. However, like the sweets, this need not make them identical. And infact, with advances in technology the sweets may turn out to have distinguishing features, as may quantum particles.

Not so, when you can find a scientist who says the things you are trying to establish (if we could ever figure that out), I might consider it.

In contrast to you I have shown that this has been scientific knowledge for well over 100 years; the fact that it undermines your mystical theory is what you do not like. Hence, you change the subject.

In your impossible position, I think I would too.

I don't know how you can alledge identity between quantum particles and not admit identity for these sweets, unless you are confident in your logic.

Once more, pick a fight with those scientists; and good luck.

Ah, progress at last:

Why did you put it in inverted commas, when you obviously mean something?

Right -- now at this rate, I think you might hit on the answer for yourself in, oh, a couple of years.

Keep at it.

The fact is, Rosa, you are running yourself round in circles because their are "forces", even if these forces are functions of other variables. Would it have been better to use "rate of change of momentum"? Would you have put that in inverted commas Rosa?

Again, pick a fight with modern science (I suspect that you have done just enough Physics to be able to cope with college science); forces have been edited out of nature (I am sorry if this is news to you), and for the reasons Engels himself said: they originated in an anthropomorphic view of reality --, and no one could account for their operation in physical terms. [Schelling is very good on this. References at my site, in these essays: Essay Eight Parts One and Two.]

You mean that somewhere Hegel wrote that "When Rosa makes absurd contradictions Faceless will be unable to pass an informed opinion on anything logical". I must have missed the bit where he wrote that.

Eh?

I suspect that if you say the following another 100 more times, I will have to agree that repetition equals proof:

Forces are functions of real, measurable phenomenon. And no scientist in their right mind would entirely dismiss forces. For simple phenomenon such as a pendulum on a string, physicists would still uses one sided netonian concepts such as "force", simply because for all intents and purposes these calculating devices are useful. However, Newtonian mechanics has its limits and at a certain point it becomes more useful to speak of momentum and position and fields and potential wells. I've learnt to "wave goodbye" to forces when it ceases to be useful and when I would sooner speak about the electric field, E(x), instead of stating the force due to some charges at every single point in space.

Oh dear, more sophomoric physics.

Fine if this sort of unscientific stuff keeps you happy, who am I to disabuse you of it.

Your style is one of talking down to people Rosa

Only to those who pontificate in ignorance.

Ah, this explains it:

I'm a physics student,

Clearly, a beginner.

LoneRed

26th October 2006, 17:38

why do you still hang around? and why do the other admins and Malte let you?

you are clearly anti-revolutionary, and do not even understand dialectics. Marx did turn hegel on its head, he took out the mysticism, its easy to see

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th October 2006, 22:12

Lone Ranter:

why do you still hang around?

The secret is out: just to annoy you.

you are clearly anti-revolutionary, and do not even understand dialectics. Marx did turn hegel on its head, he took out the mysticism, its easy to see

It's not easy to see, since, as I have shown on other threads, Marx abandoned Hegel, just like me.

And, seeing as you cannot defend your mystical beliefs, I think I have won the argument.

Finally, I am happy to admit I do not understand your loopy theory --, and in this I am in good company -- no one understands it (just like no one understands the Christian Trinity -- indeed Hegel's Hermetic theory hails from the same source in Plotinus).

Throw as many tantrums as you like, Lone Moaner, you mystics have been rumbled.

For, I am here to stay.

You lot have screwed with the workers' movement long enough.

LoneRed

26th October 2006, 22:18

Please, do tell me how my views are mystical, and keep out the academic verbage, speak in plain english, why my views are mystical. Oh yes, people like me screwed the workers movements, i'd check my sources if i were you.

Nice play on words, lone moaner, lone ranter, haha is that what you have to resort to to get people to listen to you?

Most people who pay attention do know where my beliefs are, it seems that only you dont.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th October 2006, 23:46

Lone:

Please, do tell me how my views are mystical, and keep out the academic verbage, speak in plain english, why my views are mystical. Oh yes, people like me screwed the workers movements, i'd check my sources if i were you.

Because they are based on the Hermetic ideas of Hegel.

More details at my site.

And, you are the sort of comrade who would have said to Marx (and/or Hegel):

"and keep out the academic verbage, speak in plain english"

Oops, no Das Kapital, no 'Logic'.

Oh yes, people like me screwed the workers movements,

Glad we agree.

i'd check my sources if i were you

Since you give none, I can't.

Nice play on words, lone moaner, lone ranter, haha is that what you have to resort to to get people to listen to you?

No, I do it to piss you off.

Most people who pay attention do know where my beliefs are, it seems that only you dont.

Trouble is, not only can you not defend them, you cannot explain them.

That is because they are mystical.

Louis Pio

26th October 2006, 23:51

Why is everything a threadmill with you Rosa? Although I don't believe in Deja Vu's I experience several reading your posts, maybe because they are identical...

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th October 2006, 23:56

T:

Why is everything a threadmill with you Rosa?

'Threadmill'? Sorry, lost me.

Although I don't believe in Deja Vu's I experience several reading your posts, maybe because they are identical...

You will note that the things DM-fans say to me are practically all the same, so they ellicit a standard response from me.

In other words, they do not want a debate, so I do not give them one.

Just a drubbing.

Louis Pio

27th October 2006, 00:00

Or maybe people are put off by overly academic language, just a thought. Anyway how's your crusade going, gotten any national coverage?

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 00:06

T:

Or maybe people are put off by overly academic language, just a thought

Then, as I said to Lone, they would not read Marx or Hegel.

And I do try to keep it down to a minimum. But I am dealing with very profound problems in philosophy, ones that have sailed over the heads of some of the best minds in human history, so it is not easy to make my ideas simple.

You will find what I have to say infinitely easier to undersatnd than, say, Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre....

Anyway how's your crusade going, gotten any national coverage?

International: people from all over the wortld visit it; from China to Brazil, Canada to New Zealand, India to the UK, the USA to Finland, Korea to Italy....

Louis Pio

27th October 2006, 00:16

Hmm Marx is not really hard to read. Engells maybe but not really Marx, Hegell yeah. Still Rosa I always get the impression that you could write a 100 pages on the mysticism of a stone.

International: people from all over the wortld visit it; from China to Brazil, Canada to New Zealand, India to the UK, the USA to Finland, Korea to Italy....

Good for you, the impact is lacking though.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 00:30

T:

Still Rosa I always get the impression that you could write a 100 pages on the mysticism of a stone.

95 perhaps.... :)

Good for you, the impact is lacking though.

Well, as I note, because this 'theory'is held on to for quasi-religious reasons, then, just like religion, it will take the conditions that create the need to accept such a theory to be eradicted before that theory dies away. This echo's Marx's analysis of religious consolation. DM-fans cling onto DM since it provides consolation for the fact that 99.9% of workers ignore them, and from the fact that their theory has been refuted by history.

In other words, it will take a confident working class to kill it off.

And there is nothing much I can do to create those conditions.

All I am aiming to do is destroy its credibility (but, I have to say, that among those who know Philosophy, it never really had any, that is why no philosophcial heavyweight has ever bothered to attack it; it is too pathetic for that, a bit like Kant picking on, say, David Icke), and perhaps help innoculate a few younger comrades so they do not catch this Hermetic Virus.

I have no illusions I will ever alter a single dialectically-confused comrade; In over 20 years debating with them, they all say the same things, respond in the same way, and then bury their heads in the sand.

Hence my standardised answers to them.

Max Eastman was right:

"Hegelism is like a mental disease--you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it."

Louis Pio

27th October 2006, 00:34

What defines "philosophical heavyweight"? And please don't say the academic world.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 00:47

T:

What defines "philosophical heavyweight"?

Those who have made a significant contribution to the subject.

I could give you a lsit.

Louis Pio

27th October 2006, 00:57

Nah had a brief encounter with uni, think I know who you would put on.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 01:01

Fine, so we might be agreed on that.

Louis Pio

27th October 2006, 01:07

Maybe, but am an evil DM cultist so maybe not.

LoneRed

27th October 2006, 01:08

Arguing on a message board and reading das kapital or two entirely different things. Here, it should be easier to understand what people think and are saying. Thats a main reason no one wants to argue with you, you use big words to sound sophisticated.

What dont you understand about turning the mystical claims of hegel into one used in the real world, albeit Dialectical materialism, ??

about the sources i said "Id check my sources IF i were You"

meaning , if i were you Id check my own sources, as In you should check your sources, as your not backing up your argument, your only linking to your site. Give us something "credible"

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 08:34

Lone:

Arguing on a message board and reading das kapital or two entirely different things.

Sure, and show me where I have committed the heinous crimes you speak of and we can together look at the context to see if what I say is appropriate.

Check out the simple language I use here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=55101&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55101&st=0)

Thats a main reason no one wants to argue with you, you use big words to sound sophisticated.

Words like....

What dont you understand about turning the mystical claims of hegel into one used in the real world, albeit Dialectical materialism, ??

Oh I understand alright, what you do not, that Hegel cannot be de-mystified.

meaning , if i were you Id check my own sources, as In you should check your sources, as your not backing up your argument, your only linking to your site. Give us something "credible"

Done it; check out these links (to Rev Left, and elsewhere):

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55101

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54908

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45761

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48119

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45871

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43292

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42399

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46027

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46840

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47104

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44721

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42534

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46633

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47163

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44445

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46970

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46148

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44759

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46087

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48388

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48412

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48214

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49004

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49913

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50075

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50889

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51580

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52154

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51742

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=2137.0

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=1441.15

Happy hunting.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 08:35

T:

Maybe, but am an evil DM cultist so maybe not.

Watch out for a strong and confident working-class then; they will terminate that cult.

Louis Pio

27th October 2006, 15:02

More likely terminate the academic plague only spending time on lofty issues

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 18:18

T:

More likely terminate the academic plague only spending time on lofty issues

I am sorry, this reads like a crossword clue.

If you mean that workers will end academic persuits, I have to say that that is up to them; but since, as Marx said, Capitalism serves a civilising mission, I rather suspect they will not.

But as a working class person myself, what do I know....?

Louis Pio

27th October 2006, 19:11

Of course academic discussions won't end. But let's hope the pointless ones will.
It's just you have a way of obscuring your own position and that of others which kinda equals useless discussion

But as a working class person myself, what do I know....?

So u work and spend the rest of the time on the net? Hmm rewarding...

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 20:50

T:

So u work and spend the rest of the time on the net? Hmm rewarding...

I hold a full-time job down, and I am a trade union rep (unpaid) at my place of work.

I am also active in the Stop the War Movement.

LoneRed

27th October 2006, 20:57

Im not here to put you on trial, but most working class people, dont have the time nor energy to write as much as you have

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th October 2006, 22:10

Lone:

Im not here to put you on trial, but most working class people, dont have the time nor energy to write as much as you have

If you had been keeping up, you would know that I have been working on this for nigh on 20 years, and I began writing it in July 1998.

So, nice try -- only it wasn't.

And I suppose you'd have said that to Tommy Jackson, who wrote a 600 page book on dialectics (most of it rubbish, but that's not the point) -- he was working class; and of Dietzgen (who wrote many books -- he was allegedly working class), and of Fred Casey, and Robert Tressell, and.....

Funny how little you mystics know about, and how disdainful you are of, us workers.

No wonder we pay no attention to you any more.

LoneRed

28th October 2006, 00:46

of "us" workers. HA

who is this we you talk of, the redstar vulgar marxist gang, how delightful.

Prove Im a mystic

ComradeRed

28th October 2006, 02:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 03:46 pm
of "us" workers. HA

who is this we you talk of, the redstar vulgar marxist gang, how delightful.

Prove Im a mystic
You know, I spent 14 hours solving one equation, and it made more sense than you. Use proper grammar!

"who is this we you talk of, the redstar vulgar marxist gang, how delightful."

NO NO NO!

Who is this "we" you speak of? The Redstar Vulgar Marxist gang? How delightful...

HOW THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND YOU?!? :huh:

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 03:10

Lone Mystic:

of "us" workers. HA

As I said:

Funny how little you mystics know about, and how disdainful you are of, us workers

Getting desperate now:

who is this we you talk of, the redstar vulgar marxist gang, how delightful.

Why ask the question if you want to answer it?

Prove Im a mystic

No, I'd rather just bait you; it's more fun for us materialists that way.

LoneRed

28th October 2006, 04:16

Your argument that you are a member of the working class is moot. Members of the league are members of the working class.

Whats your point.

You'd rather bait me because its easy for you, you dont gotta do shit

which doctor

28th October 2006, 04:42

I have a question.

Do dialectics and the post-structuralist movement contradict eachother?

LoneRed

28th October 2006, 07:23

I really don't know what post-structuralism is, I could try to help though,
unless you are asking a certain person

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 12:45

Lone:

Whats your point.

You have sold out to ruling-class ideology then.

You'd rather bait me because its easy for you, you dont gotta do shit

On the contrary, I bait all mystics since that is what they deserve -- especially the working-class sell-out variety.

Taboo Tongue

28th October 2006, 18:38

Although I personally don't use dialectics as a method of solving anything. Occasionaly I will think (just using basic logic) that "there are two (or three) opposing sides, how can I make sure mine wins out," but that's as close as I get to using them. I can see how some people could use it to solve some things, but surley not all. Like why does sour candy taste sour, does it have to do with two opposing sides colliding in sourness being the result (two-into-one), or is it just because there acidicy in the candy. I for one and satisfied with the latter. The best point I've heard on the subject was actually one of RedStar's more moderate points on the subject

Originally posted by RedStar2000
The fact is that ordinary "generic" historical materialism and ordinary logic are really all you need to understand Marxism. "Dialectics" is like chrome hubcaps on a racing car...the vehicle will move neither faster nor slower because of their presence.Some people wear boxers, some people wear breifs; some people don't use dialectics, some do. I don't care which you do as long as what you're saying relies on reasonable and understandble evidence.

LoneRed

28th October 2006, 18:42

a working class sellout eh. thats ones for the books, Ive heard various things from fascists and capitalists, but never from so called "marxists".

You blame dialectics for the sectarianism eh. In fact it is people like you that are spreading the sectarianism, look at this thread, anybody can see the shit you're pulling

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 19:39

LoneR:

a working class sellout eh. thats ones for the books

Write it in capital letters, too.

You blame dialectics for the sectarianism eh

No.

In fact it is people like you that are spreading the sectarianism, look at this thread, anybody can see the shit you're pulling

Whatever they can or cannot see, one thing is for sure, you cannot sustain a single argument against me.

Rosa Lichtenstein

28th October 2006, 19:43

Taboo, check this out; you will see it does make a difference:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

LoneRed

29th October 2006, 04:00

You and RS, have repeated that dialectics cause sectarianism, but what you and the rest of the Vulgar "marxists" put forth is nothing but sectarianism, and a baseless sectarianism at that

Martin Blank

29th October 2006, 04:03

It should be noted for the record that Rosa's "arguments" are never once made against the "father" of the method of materialist dialectics: Marx. Instead, she picks on intellectual lightweights from her own leftwing sect, the British SWP, and presents their musings as the last word on dialectical methodology.

While for some of us Rosa's class position is questionable, it is somewhat irrelevant due to the fact that she has consciously chosen to represent the ideology of the ruling class here. Mechanical materialism is as much a bourgeois method of analysis as is metaphysical idealism.

Anyone interested in actually talking about dialectical method in an environment that is not polluted by Rosa and her fellow agents is welcome to come over to our discussion forum: http://www.communistleague.org/forum/

Miles

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 10:24

Lone Red:

You and RS, have repeated that dialectics cause sectarianism, but what you and the rest of the Vulgar "marxists" put forth is nothing but sectarianism, and a baseless sectarianism at that

I can't speak for RedStar2000, but find me one place where I have said this, and I will recant and then repent in sackcloth and ashes.

And, as to your slur, all I can say is that you still cannot defend your ideas, so slurs are all you have left.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 10:51

Miles:

It should be noted for the record that Rosa's "arguments" are never once made against the "father" of the method of materialist dialectics: Marx. Instead, she picks on intellectual lightweights from her own leftwing sect, the British SWP, and presents their musings as the last word on dialectical methodology.

That is because I have shown here that Marx rejected Hegel -- you missed all the fun, as your mystical allies could not answer my devastating proof to that effect.

And I am not in the SWP.

Most of them agree with you mystics anyway about Dialectical Mayhem.

And you are good at allegation, Miles, but not so good at proof:

While for some of us Rosa's class position is questionable, it is somewhat irrelevant due to the fact that she has consciously chosen to represent the ideology of the ruling class here. Mechanical materialism is as much a bourgeois method of analysis as is metaphysical idealism

As I have shown, it is you mystics that have bought into ruling-class ideology. Perhaps you missed that when you spent 5 minutes skim-reading one of my early essays.

And it was Plato who invented non-mechanical materialism.

Nice company for you, eh?

Plato, the ruling-class ideologue; he invented your form of mystical materialism.

Read his dialogue, Parmenides, you will see him do just that.

And I reject mechanical materialism too; I accept historical materialism, though.

You should give it a try.

But, what galls you is that you cannot answer a single one of my arguments, so you just assert things.

I'll visit your forum too, later, just to see how repetitive you mystics are: you like your creeds don't you?

But, none of you can take me on, that is why you have to go into a little huddle in your own sectarian backyard.

Added on re-edit:

Right I visited your 'forum', and spent about as long there as you did at my site, Miles, say, two minutes.

To quote a famous sectarian you might know: "I wasn't impressed".

No philosophy anywhere in sight; I am not sure whether to complain or rejoice.

And remember: stay dialectical and stay small and ineffectual.

LoneRed

29th October 2006, 19:10

Rosa, the dialectics of the SWP, Marx, or any other group arent all the same, you seem to be equating them, which is just plain wrong.

Im not on trial Rosa. You made claims about me, you go ahead and try to back them up.

You do know that movements arent made over night? Well i guess to those that really dont care about the class basis. He said that there can be debate if you dont want nonsense like what you're spewing out Rosa

More Fire for the People

29th October 2006, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 09:42 pm
I have a question.

Do dialectics and the post-structuralist movement contradict eachother?
No. Foucault himself was a dialectician. In fact, post-structuralism grew out of a Marxist critique of Marxism. For instance, a dialectical post-structuralist could analyze the dialectical development of identity.

LoneRed

29th October 2006, 19:29

what? all that jibber sounds like rosa, but yours make more sense

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 20:16

Lone:

Rosa, the dialectics of the SWP, Marx, or any other group arent all the same, you seem to be equating them, which is just plain wrong.

One brand of mysticism is the same as the next, as far as I can see.

Im not on trial Rosa. You made claims about me, you go ahead and try to back them up.

No, I 'd rather just keep baiting you.

You do know that movements arent made over night? Well i guess to those that really dont care about the class basis. He said that there can be debate if you dont want nonsense like what you're spewing out Rosa

Eh?

all that jibber sounds like rosa, but yours make more sense

You have descended into incoherence in your last few posts, Lone; looks like diabolical logic has addled your brain.

LoneRed

29th October 2006, 21:29

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2006 08:16 pm
Lone:

Rosa, the dialectics of the SWP, Marx, or any other group arent all the same, you seem to be equating them, which is just plain wrong.

One brand of mysticism is the same as the next, as far as I can see.

Im not on trial Rosa. You made claims about me, you go ahead and try to back them up.

No, I 'd rather just keep baiting you.

You do know that movements arent made over night? Well i guess to those that really dont care about the class basis. He said that there can be debate if you dont want nonsense like what you're spewing out Rosa

Eh?

all that jibber sounds like rosa, but yours make more sense

You have descended into incoherence in your last few posts, Lone; looks like diabolical logic has addled your brain.

One brand of mysticism is the same as the next, as far as I can see.

two things wrong with this, you automatically label all of it as mysticism, and secondly, you think they are all the same, which is the bigger error here

of course its easier to "bait", but in the eyes of others it makes you seem foolish, something most posters here have already noticed. Its quite immature

I was referring to the Leagues message board, Miles never said there is a in depth discussion, but that there could be if more people showed up that wanted to actually talk about dialectics instead of ignorantly attacking them. In the real world, movements dont happen over night. the reason why there arent that many members on the message board.

The Feral Underclass

29th October 2006, 21:50

Rosa clearly knows what she's talking about.

All of the responses to her in this thread are so unbelievably lacking in content, I'm actually shocked that she'd take the time to reply. None of you have addressed any of her extensive points, choosing instead to ignore her requests for real engagment on the issue and also attacking her ad hominem.

Patience of a saint that woman!

Can someone please answer this question:

Originally posted by FoB
Do dialectics and the post-structuralist movement contradict eachother?

black magick hustla

29th October 2006, 22:03

does not understanding this thread makes me retarded
(y/n)

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 22:05

Lone:

two things wrong with this, you automatically label all of it as mysticism, and secondly, you think they are all the same, which is the bigger error here

You all labelled yourselves 'mystics' the day you believed a single thing Hegel said, inverted or not.

Good thing Marx himself saw through this.

of course its easier to "bait", but in the eyes of others it makes you seem foolish, something most posters here have already noticed. Its quite immature

I agree, thinking this of me is quite immature; you should advise them to stop it forthwith.

I was referring to the Leagues message board, Miles never said there is a in depth discussion, but that there could be if more people showed up that wanted to actually talk about dialectics instead of ignorantly attacking them. In the real world, movements dont happen over night. the reason why there arent that many members on the message board.

Good job I know what I am talking about then; nothing but informed attacks from me.

To which you still have no coherent response, have you?

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 22:11

TAT, thank you for those comments; I have had to face this sort of stuff for nigh on 20 years; so one becomes inured to it.

Sorry I can't help you with that question, since I know very little about 'post-structuralism'. I deliberately avoided it!

But I'd be very surprised if they did contradict one another. To contradict something, whatever it is has to be capable of being true or false.

Dialetics is so confused, it does not make it that far.

Rosa Lichtenstein

29th October 2006, 22:12

Marmot:

does not understanding this thread makes me retarded

No in the least -- Lone Red is out of his depth too -- in fact he'd be out of his depth in a teaspoon.

LoneRed

30th October 2006, 00:38

Rosa, is that the best you can come up with, get over yourself

The Feral Underclass

30th October 2006, 01:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 01:38 am
Rosa, is that the best you can come up with, get over yourself
Well, what else do you expect when you come up with nothing.

Let's see you defend your position with an argument supported by logic...

LoneRed

30th October 2006, 03:47

I havent come up against an argument supported by logic, as I've argued with you quite a bit.

The Feral Underclass

30th October 2006, 10:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 04:47 am
I havent come up against an argument supported by logic, as I've argued with you quite a bit.
I mean, seriously what is this post? What is the point? Are you trying to upset me or something?

This is the extent of your ability to reason! You simply have no knowledge, enough to engage on this issue and instead of admitting it, you create these personal attacks as a substitute.

Why can you not just admit that you don't know what you're talking about and then perhaps you can learn. The whole notion that Rosa has not presented you with an argument is patently absurd.

I'm a little surprised that you could even attempt to maintain that. It's bordering on weird!

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th October 2006, 11:39

Lone:

Rosa, is that the best you can come up with, get over yourself

No, I can do better, but it will depend on how you shape up over the next few weeks.

So, if you show massive signs of improvement, I think we can promote you to the level of a soup spoon (i.e., Lone would be out of his depth in a soup spoon), and with effort you might one day make the ladle level.

If however, you continue to allow this hermetic virus to colonise your 'brain', we might have to demote you to the glass slide level (as in: Lone would be out of his depth in the minute droplets on a microcsope slide).

Sorry I did not do better earlier.

LoneRed

30th October 2006, 18:22

No wonder people get dissatisfied with RL, its full of people like Rosa.

Rosa Instead of "baiting" come up with something to back up your claims about my mysticism. Marx turned Hegel on his head, he took dialectics out of the mystic realm and used it to explain reality. Explain how Marx is a mystic.

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th October 2006, 20:01

Lone Mystic:

No wonder people get dissatisfied with RL, its full of people like Rosa.

Yes, you mystics were hoping for yet more Idealism, and got pissed off that RevLeft is full of us materialists.

Rosa Instead of "baiting" come up with something to back up your claims about my mysticism. Marx turned Hegel on his head, he took dialectics out of the mystic realm and used it to explain reality. Explain how Marx is a mystic.

Nope, Marx all but abandoned Hegel, check this out (links and references at my site):

Lenin argued as follows:

"It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!" [Lenin (1961), p.180. Bold emphases added.]

However, Marx certainly laid down no such preconditions for understanding his work. In fact, if anything he tended to play down Hegel's influence. However, so deep has Lenin's myth sunk into the collective Dialectical Mind that that particular comment will elicit immediate disbelief. But it is nonetheless true for all that. And this is why:

Marx himself pointed out that the relevance of Hegel's Philosophy could be summarised in a few printers' sheets:

"What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel's Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified." [Marx to Engels, 16/01/1858; MECW, Volume 40, p.248; copy here.]

Needless to say, Marx never supplied his readers with such a précis. From this we may perhaps draw the conclusion that in the end Marx did not think Hegel's method was all that significant. So, despite all the millions of words he committed to paper, he did not consider it important enough to write out these relatively few pages. Meanwhile, and in contrast, Marx spent a whole year of his life banging on about Karl Vogt, but still he could not be bothered with this 'vitally important' summary. [This obscure work of Marx's has so far been deemed unfit to publish on the Marx Internet Archive, so poor is it.]

Even had Marx done so, it would still have meant that only a tiny fraction of Hegel's work is relevant to understanding Capital: a few pages!

Attentive readers too will have noticed that Marx says he encountered Hegel's Logic by "accident"; this hardly suggests he was a constant or avid reader of that work. Indeed, he did not even possess his own copy of Hegel's Logic and had to be given one as a present by Freiligrath!

Much has been made of certain references to Hegel in Marx's later work. However, a close reading of these reveals a picture that is different from the standard one retailed by DM-apologists. The scattered remarks about Hegelian Philosophy (outside his analysis of Hegel's political ideas) found in Marx's published works are inconclusive. Cf., Carver's remarks noted above, in Note 6.

Marx himself declared:

"...I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him." [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]

His use of the word "coquetted" also suggests Hegel's Logic had only a superficial influence, merely confined to certain "modes of expression", and limited to just a few sections of his great work. And as far as Marx "openly" avowing himself a pupil of Hegel, he pointedly put this in the past tense:

"I criticised the mystificatory side of the Hegelian dialectic nearly thirty years ago, at a time when is was still the fashion. But just when I was working on the first volume of Capital, the ill-humoured, arrogant and mediocre epigones who now talk large in educated German circles began to take pleasure in treating Hegel in the same way as the good Moses Mendelssohn treated Spinoza in Lessing's time, namely as a 'dead dog'. I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him."

This is hardly a ringing endorsement, and is equivocal at best; Marx does not say he is now a pupil of Hegel, but that he once was. Of course, it might still have been the case that he was such when the above was written, but there is nothing here to suggest that Marx viewed the link between his own and Hegel's work as Lenin did.

Now, John Rees attempts to neutralise this devastating admission (that the extent of the influence on Marx of Hegel's Logic was no more than a few bits of jargon, used only in places, and with which Marx "coquetted"), arguing as follows:

"Remarkably, this last quotation is sometimes cited as evidence that Marx was not serious about his debt to Hegel and that he only or merely 'coquetted' with Hegel's phraseology, and that he really did not make any further use of the dialectic. That this interpretation is false should be obvious from this sentence alone. The meaning is clearly that Marx was so keen to identify with Hegel that he 'even' went so far as to use the same terms as 'that mighty thinker' not that he 'only' used those terms." [Rees (1998), p.100.]

Well, if this is so, why did Marx put his praise of Hegel in the past tense, and why did he say that:

"...even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him." [Marx (1976, p.103. Bold emphasis added.]

This is quite clear, Marx himself (not me, not Peter Struve, not James Burnham, not Max Eastman...), [i]Marx himself says that he "coquetted" (hardly a serious use of the Logic!) with Hegelian phraseology, and only in places ("here and there"), confined to "the chapter on the theory of value".

This is the extent of the rational kernel in this mystic theory: the non-serious use of bits of Hegelian jargon, here and there, and only in one chapter of his most important work!

DM-fans might not like this, but they should pick a fight with Marx for destroying their illusions, not me.

Indeed they do not like this, witness the reception an earlier version of this part of the present Essay received at RevLeft. Reality is one thing dialectically-distracted comrades are not used to confronting.

Woods and Grant note that Lenin argued that Marx did leave behind a his own version of Hegel's Logic, namely Das Kapital [Woods and Grant (1995), p.76.] but Marx's own words (that he merely "coquetted" with Hegelian terminology) shows that this is more than an "exaggeration" on Lenin's part, it's a fabrication.

However Terrell Carver, a noted critic of the 'orthodox' view (that Engels and Marx saw eye-to-eye on everything, and that Hegel exerted a profound influence on Marx), has back-tracked a little, as far as I can see (in Carver (2000)). But, his reasoning is uncharacteristically obscure. Fortunately, John Rosenthal has neutralised this argument; for more details, see Rosenthal (1998).

Finally, it could be argued that the Grundrisse (i.e., Marx (1973)) is living disproof of much of the above. Well, it would have been had Marx seen fit to publish it, but he didn't, and so it isn't.

But he did publish this:

"...I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him." [Marx (1976), p.103. Bold emphasis added.]

So, whatever it was that happened to Marx's thinking between the writing of the Grundrisse and Das Kapital, it clearly changed his view of Hegel's Logic -- to such an extent that its phraseology became something with which he merely wished to "coquette".

In that case, Lenin should have said:

"It is possible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, merely by coquetting with the phraseology of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later anyone who is capable of coquetting will understand Marx!!" [Edited misquotation of Lenin (1961), p.180.]

That is the extent of the rational core of Hegel, a few bits of terminology, and "coquetted" with in only one Chapter of Kapital.

Marx's words; not mine.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

Read it and weep.

LoneRed

31st October 2006, 00:36

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2006 06:39 pm

You blame dialectics for the sectarianism eh

No.

uhhh. yes

"it will also show how Hegel's influence has helped corrupt our movement from top to bottom (fomenting splits and sectarian in-fighting)" taken directly from your site, you know the one yo linked to?

So what is it, do you believe it does or it doesnt, You have said both, that alone is enough for me to stop listening to your garbage

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 11:01

Lone Abusive:

So what is it, do you believe it does or it doesnt, You have said both, that alone is enough for me to stop listening to your garbage

If you ask nicely, I might tell you.

And I note you ignored yet another of my devastating and myth-busting posts.

"it will also show how Hegel's influence has helped corrupt our movement from top to bottom (fomenting splits and sectarian in-fighting)" taken directly from your site, you know the one yo linked to?

Notice the word 'help'; you need to think about that word, and then get back to me.

By the way, how's life in that teaspoon?

Still keeping your head above water, I hope?

Marsella

31st October 2006, 15:00

Rosa would you please give a brief summary of your views on how history progresses ( I don't have the time or intelligence to read your long essays).

You seem to be anti-dialectic yet I just read you support historical materialism. Isn't that logically impossible?

I'm not pretending to know everything Marxism so don't tear my head off as you seem to be doing to everyone else.

And don't criticise me as a 'mystic.' In my opinion the obscurity of yours and others writings ensures that Marxism will be nothing more than the opium of academics.

Be nice, I'm just trying to learn :D

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 16:15

Martov:

Rosa would you please give a brief summary of your views on how history progresses (I don't have the time or intelligence to read your long essays).

I do not go into this in my Essays, since I accept Historical Materialism in its entirety (once the Hegelian concepts have been excised).

So, to answer your question: history progresses because of the class war, and the complex relationship between the forces and relations of production.

The rest you can find in Marx.

Isn't that logically impossible?

No, Hegel got his historicist ideas from, among others, the Scottish historical materialists (Fergusson, Millar, Smith and Hume); he just mystified everything.

Marx also learnt from them, but had absorbed too much jargon from Hegel.

Edit out the Hegel, factor in Marx's economics, and the rest we have learnt since then, and you'd have a nicely workable Historical Materialism again.

I'm not pretending to know everything Marxism so don't tear my head off as you seem to be doing to everyone else

I do not have a go at people who do not have a go at me (there has been a running battle with me and Lone Red, and a few others, here for months -- they bad mouth me and I wipe floor with them --, and they keep coming back for more pain -- I should charge for my services).

So, there is no chance we tearing your head off.

And don't criticise me as a 'mystic.' In my opinion the obscurity of yours and others writings ensures that Marxism will be nothing more than the opium of academics.

Well, I am not an academic (I am in fact a trade unionist (unpaid)), and Hegel was perhaps the most obscure academic in human history.

I note no one has a go at him for that, just me.

Even if I tried, I could not be 1% as obscure as he was.

In this (short) Essay, I try to be clear, and I try also to keep my ideas simple:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

LoneRed

31st October 2006, 17:13

oh yes, wiping the floor, another one of Rosa's great posts

Historical materialism, of all words is dialectically tied to DM, they are inseparable. to separate them, is to destroy the analysis of Marx.

Marsella

31st October 2006, 17:35

OK Rosa thank you for your (clear) reply

history progresses because of the class war, and the complex relationship between the forces and relations of production.

Hegel saw that history was driven by competing ideas- this was his dialectic. For instance, slavery versus freedom. Marx turned this idea upside down by claiming that contradictions between the forces of production and property relations drove history. For example, in the feudal era, the rising middle class could not exist without abolishing the feudal property relations. How could the middle class accumulate mass wealth when everything was leased by the king? Thus, dialectic materialism is the conflict between forces of production and property relations i.e. who own what.

Thus dialecic materialism describes the inherent contradictions in the prevailing economic systems. Based on my understandings, dialectic materialism is really the same thing as historical materialism. *Side Note: what is the contradiction in capitalism? Is this it:

The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones.

It seems to be that by examing the contradictions in capitalism we advance a great step to its overthrow.

Am I missing an important step here? Or am i confusing my terminology? I will read your essay soon (It's 2:00 AM here though)

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 18:19

Lone Raver:

oh yes, wiping the floor, another one of Rosa's great posts

You can't cope with them, but still you come back for more pain.

A Dialectical Masochist if ever I saw one.

And now, when all else fails (except in your case, this 'all else' is just a series of pathetic whimpers), you declare your simple faith in that mystical credo you have so naively swallowed:

Historical materialism, of all words is dialectically tied to DM, they are inseparable. to separate them, is to destroy the analysis of Marx.

So, you say, but the evidence and my arguments say differently.

In so far as you cannot answer any of this, the only conclusion possible is that you'd rather cling on to your faith than confront the world scientifically.

You should join the Moonies. They need people like you.

No wonder Marxism has been so unsuccessful for so long.

With numpties like you, it would be a surprise if the opposte were the case.

Marsella

31st October 2006, 18:21

God you two really despise one and other :lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 18:35

Martov:

Hegel saw that history was driven by competing ideas- this was his dialectic. For instance, slavery versus freedom. Marx turned this idea upside down by claiming that contradictions between the forces of production and property relations drove history. For example, in the feudal era, the rising middle class could not exist without abolishing the feudal property relations. How could the middle class accumulate mass wealth when everything was leased by the king? Thus, dialectic materialism is the conflict between forces of production and property relations i.e. who own what.

Well, this is what the brochure says, but in reality none of this Hegelian mumbo jumbo works.

But note, I am not denying the historical materialist details you mentioned, just questioning the tradition in which you set it.

And since the forces and relations of productions are not intelligent, cannot argue and are not items of language, they cannot contradict one another.

I know Marx used this word, but just like Newton, he borrowed a few too many words from the mystics, words to which it is impossible to give a materialist sense.

That short Essay will explain a little of my ideas on this, but the main part of my argument against these mystical 'contradictions' is contained in Essays Four to Eight Parts One and Two (approximately 250, 000 words!).

You will find summaries of even those Essays here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-4-5-6.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-7-14.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-8.htm

These reason I go into such depth and detail is that I want to kill this theory off so that it can do no more damage to revolutionary socialism, and that means it has to a thorough job.

Had it not been, numpties like (Lone Red – you will notice how he does not argue, he merely snipes from a position tainted as much by blind faith as it is by total ignorance; but he is typical of the know-nothing approach of DM-fans at RevLeft, and elsewhere) would have complained about their superficiality. As it is they moan about their length, forgetting of course that Marx wrote far more than me, and so did Hegel, Lenin and Engels.

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 18:39

Martov:

God you two really despise one and other

In fact I merely pity the simple soul and his almost peasant-like faith in the gods of DM

It keeps him happy; it is his opiate, so bad luck to 'him'.

In his almost total state of ignorance he is less danger to the working class.

So, I hope he keeps his head in the sand, and stays rationally-challenged.

Marsella

31st October 2006, 18:47

Thanks for your reply- I understand the effort you have put into your essays so I won't criticise them until I have read them and fully understood them.

I see no reason to challenge what Marxists today understand, let alone the theories of Marx, Lenin and co. (poor Engels never gets a mention)

Thanks for the links- but first off, what is the best text, by Marx, discussing historical materialism (or his worded equivalent)? Thesis on Feurbach? German Ideology?

Thanks for all your help by the way!

Marsella

31st October 2006, 18:55

And since the forces and relations of productions are not intelligent, cannot argue and are not items of language, they cannot contradict one another.

Are you basically arguing that its really not that simple, that the 'contradictions', because they are not intelligent by themselves, are not an inherent contradiction. Are you arguing that its not as simple that: A cannot exist with B, B exists therefore A must cease?

Maybe I have misunderstood. But whilst we can point to the contradictions it is up to us to exploit them- revolutionary praxis. I think a strict adherence to economic determinism- that all we have to do is 'sit back' is very unhealthy to the movement.

Don't laugh if I'm making an arse of myself! :o

LoneRed

31st October 2006, 18:57

"In fact I merely pity the simple soul and his almost peasant-like faith in the gods of DM"

It would be funny it it wasnt so sad.

keep resulting to baseless insults, It gives me a chuckle, while you write essay after essay about the "abomination" of dialectics, the real communists will be getting shit done. You're welcome to help out, but it seems that it doesnt suite your fancy

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 22:18

Martov, I do not think there is a 'best' text on Historical Materialism by Marx; practically everything he wrote was not only excellent but apposite.

Are you basically arguing that its really not that simple, that the 'contradictions', because they are not intelligent by themselves, are not an inherent contradiction. Are you arguing that its not as simple that: A cannot exist with B, B exists therefore A must cease?

No, they are not contradictions to begin with.

Just because something ends something does not mean a contradicton has occured; in fact contradictions have nothing to do with what does or does not exist, or does or does not happen.

In ordinary language a contradiction is the gainsaying of something someoe else has said.

In logic it is, in its simplest form, the conjunction of a proposition with its negation.

Hegel confused contradictions with objects (and propositions are not objects), and how they relate to one another, and passed this simple error onto to his mystical epigones, who, believing all they read in the 'old man', copied this error.

And that is how it got in Marxism.

So, unless the forces and relations of production can argue with one another, or they are items of language, they cannot contradict anything.

And I am not a determinist of any sort, least of all an economic determinist; check out this thread to see where I stand on this:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57667

And I never laugh at honest comrades like yourself.

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 22:25

Lone Saddo:

It would be funny it it wasnt so sad.

Yes, it must be awful to waste your time in that tiny sect of yours that is going nowhere.

keep resulting to baseless insults, It gives me a chuckle, while you write essay after essay about the "abomination" of dialectics, the real communists will be getting shit done. You're welcome to help out, but it seems that it doesnt suite your fancy

I give as good as, or better than, I get, so if you want them to stop, stop bad-mouthing me.

And I agree, you do get shit done; it all comes out of your rear, and it does not smell too good.

It's called 'Dialectical Muck', and the stench drives workers away.

I do not think you need any help to screw things up any better. You are doing fine on your own, all two dozen of you.

And once more, I note that this 'class warrior' cannot defend his naive faith.

LoneRed

31st October 2006, 22:44

Rosa, Rosa Rosa.

I recall that it was you who started the insults, with calling me a mystic without anything to back it up, except your own writings, how unbiased.

By Tiny sect you meant the league i suppose. You cleary have no idea of what you are saying.

Rosa, what group are you a member of, what have you been getting done. It is very foolish of you to attack the league, when you know Nothing on the subject.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 22:57

Lone Insulter:

I recall that it was you who started the insults, with calling me a mystic without anything to back it up, except your own writings, how unbiased.

The insults from you bagan months ago.

Here is your first post on this thread:

why do you still hang around? and why do the other admins and Malte let you?

you are clearly anti-revolutionary, and do not even understand dialectics. Marx did turn hegel on its head, he took out the mysticism, its easy to see

And you are the one who branded yourself a mystic when you decide to accept Hegel's Hermetic ideas.

You cleary have no idea of what you are saying.

Oh, I am sorry, is it three dozen?

Rosa, what group are you a member of,

The biggest revolutionary group in human history: the working-class.

You should join it.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

Stop doing it then.

LoneRed

31st October 2006, 23:04

firstly, I am a part of the working class. and its obvious that you are ashamed of the party, or group you work (or dont work) with. That was my first post but was not the type of insult which involved baseless attacks. I called you out on your positions and in return you resorted to such attacks as above. Just because I believe in DM does NOT make me a mystic

Rosa Lichtenstein

31st October 2006, 23:33

Lone worker:

firstly, I am a part of the working class. and its obvious that you are ashamed of the party,

As I said earlier: what a sell-out, accepting mystical ideas from the ruling-class.

Just because I believe in DM does NOT make me a mystic

Your beliefs say differently.

LoneRed

1st November 2006, 00:18

Dialectical Materialism is not a ruling class ideology.

You only criticize contemporaries of dialectical thought. Most of which are petty-bourgeois and do not represent marxism, or what marxists believe in

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st November 2006, 06:18

Lone:

Dialectical Materialism is not a ruling class ideology.

The facts say differently.

You only criticize contemporaries of dialectical thought. Most of which are petty-bourgeois and do not represent marxism, or what marxists believe in

Not so, as you would know if you had read what I have written.

Still can't repond to anything I have argued, can you?

Tekun

1st November 2006, 23:25

I've always had a hard time understanding historical materialism in modern terms....how would we apply historical materialism to lets say, WW1?
For example

bezdomni

1st November 2006, 23:41

Dialectical Materialism is not a ruling class ideology.

The facts say differently.

Oh please. Out of all the arguments you make against DM, this is certainly the weakest.

Ayn Rand uses "A=A" to justify bourgeois thought. Systems of logic don't necessarily belong to any particular class, its their use that is defined by class outlook.

I guess using your impeccable logic, we can conclude that calculus is a "ruling class outlook" because it was formulated by Newton and Leibniz, who were obviously not proletarian and somehow managed to leak their class interests into a means of observing the universe.

Hell, even "anti-dialectics" is ruling class because there certainly are members of the ruling class who have always opposed dialectics.

By defining a particular system of logic as inherently ruling class, you talk yourself into a hole.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd November 2006, 00:37

Soviet Underwear:

Oh please. Out of all the arguments you make against DM, this is certainly the weakest.

Have you actually read the argument, posted at my site, or, like other DM-fans, are you merely content to mouth-off in total ignorance?

I do not know why you dredged Ayn Rand up; what has she got to do with anything?

Systems of logic don't necessarily belong to any particular class, its their use that is defined by class outlook.

The evidence, and the argument, proves otherwise.

I guess using your impeccable logic, we can conclude that calculus is a "ruling class outlook" because it was formulated by Newton and Leibniz, who were obviously not proletarian and somehow managed to leak their class interests into a means of observing the universe.

The metaphysics behind it was, but the mathematics wasn't.

Why?

Since the mathematics was based on a material interaction with the world, but the metaphysics wasn't.

You'd save yourself asking such simplistic questions if you actually read what I have said, rather than passing comment in total ignorance, like other DM-fans.

Hell, even "anti-dialectics" is ruling class because there certainly are members of the ruling class who have always opposed dialectics.

Correct, but I oppose all forms of philosophy, of which brood dialectics is the runt, since they are all based on a ruling-class view of reality (which I can prove).

So, my work is totally unique in this regard.

By defining a particular system of logic as inherently ruling class, you talk yourself into a hole.

We can now see that you are talking out of your hole.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd November 2006, 00:40

Tekun:

I've always had a hard time understanding historical materialism in modern terms....how would we apply historical materialism to lets say, WW1?
For example

Depends on what you want to apply it to; WW1 is a huge topic.

So, your question is like asking "How can we apply mathematics, say, to reality?"

bezdomni

2nd November 2006, 01:34

Soviet Underwear:

How old are you?

Have you actually read the argument, posted at my site, or, like other DM-fans, are you merely content to mouth-off in total ignorance?

I was unaware that posting at your site was a prerequisite for critical thinking.

I obviously have read the argument, otherwise I'd be responding to nothing (which is what the argument essentially is anyway.)

I do not know why you dredged Ayn Rand up; what has she got to do with anything?
She uses "classical logic" in order to defend a bourgeois ideology. This shows that just because you believe that "A=A" does not make you a revolutionary. Logic is inherently working class or inherently ruling class.

The evidence, and the argument, proves otherwise.
What evidence?

The metaphysics behind it was, but the mathematics wasn't.

Why?

Since the mathematics was based on a material interaction with the world, but the metaphysics wasn't.

You'd save yourself asking such simplistic questions if you actually read what I have said, rather than passing comment in total ignorance, like other DM-fans.

So the mathematics beind it is "working class" and the mysticisim is "ruling class"? Your dichotomy makes no sense.

You'd save yourself a lot of credibility if you didn't go off on a tangent of ad hominems when somebody challenges your ideas. It shows weakness.

Correct, but I oppose all forms of philosophy, of which brood dialectics is the runt, since they are all based on a ruling-class view of reality (which I can prove).

So, my work is totally unique in this regard.

Being anti-philosophy is unique in the sense of the word that Wittgenstein has already done it?

I am not arguing with you that Dialectical Materialism is a correct or incorrect outlook, that's already been done ad naseum. I am simply arguing that it is pointless to say DM is inherently a "ruling class" outlook for two reasons.

1) You can't boil down every world outlook to inherenlty working class or inherently ruling class.

2) Even if you could, "Classical Logic" can be and has been used by the ruling class. This does not mean it is inherently ruling class, because logic can obviously be applied to class struggle. Similarly, DM is not inherently ruling class just because it is based on Hegelian mysticism.

We can now see that you are talking out of your hole.
Good one.

ComradeRed

2nd November 2006, 02:15

She uses "classical logic" in order to defend a bourgeois ideology. This shows that just because you believe that "A=A" does not make you a revolutionary. Logic is inherently working class or inherently ruling class.
Just to interject here, Ayn Rand's system actually begins with a tautology (a=a is a tautology, eat it with a fork). Anything deduced from that is also a tautology (this is demonstrated by the beta congruence of lambda calculus, in nerd speak it's isomorphic to all tautologies if you create a category of tautologies (i.e. all the arrows in said category is an isomorphism)).

Yet her next deduction "Existence exists" or "There exists existence" does not follow from A=A as it's not a tautology (with the category, it's not an isomorphism rather an epimorphism), so there is a contradiction in the foundations of her system using "simple" category theory (A.K.A. "generalized abstract nonsense").

bezdomni

2nd November 2006, 02:29

I know. My point was that people of the ruling class use classial logic to justify their backwards ideologies, therefore it is pointless to say that any form of logic inherently belongs to one class or another.

Tekun

2nd November 2006, 02:31

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2006 12:40 am
Tekun:

I've always had a hard time understanding historical materialism in modern terms....how would we apply historical materialism to lets say, WW1?
For example

Depends on what you want to apply it to; WW1 is a huge topic.

So, your question is like asking "How can we apply mathematics, say, to reality?"
Let's say, what caused WW1
How would historical materialism explain the causes of WW1?
How would we apply it in order to explain why WW1 happened?

Like I said, I know the basics, but its hard to put it to use

ComradeRed

2nd November 2006, 02:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 06:29 pm
I know. My point was that people of the ruling class use classial logic to justify their backwards ideologies, therefore it is pointless to say that any form of logic inherently belongs to one class or another.
Well, logic (as described by the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy[1]) simply refers to inference that is formalized; that formalism would be cast by the material conditions of the times.

But note that mathematical logic is logic that is derived from material interaction with the world and subject to change. Dialectics, on the other hand, is not of the same origins.

Instead it comes from (depending how far back you want to go, the Greeks or) the German idealists of the early 19th century. Dialectics is the toy of idealists, that's it's history; somewhat like post-modernism.

Trying to make dialectics grounded in materialism is like trying to make post-Modernism grounded in materialism: a foolhardy and naive endeavor at best.

Footnotes:
[1]Rather it [logic] deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations

LoneRed

2nd November 2006, 04:28

grow up Rosa, someone brings a rational argument to the table, and you resort to petty word foolery, and straw man fallacies.

And you Are NOT unique in any sense of the word, you've been preaching what many have done before, bound to failure just like them.

It is impossible to be anti-philosophy, that is philosophy in itself, you cant escape it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd November 2006, 08:12

Soviet U:

How old are you?

Old enough not to choose a dopey name.

I was unaware that posting at your site was a prerequisite for critical thinking.

It is for avoiding making ill-informed remarks about what I do or not not think.

I obviously have read the argument, otherwise I'd be responding to nothing (which is what the argument essentially is anyway.)

Clearly not well enough, or your comments would not have been so sophomoric.

She uses "classical logic" in order to defend a bourgeois ideology.

No, she used the same bowdlerised logic as Hegel, and she imposed it on the world in the same way, as all idealists do (including the DM-sort like you).

But, there is enough in what she wrote to suggest she never consulted Aristotle, or did so only superficially -- a bit like Hegel and subsequent DM-fans.

So, once more: what has she got to do with 'classical logic'?

This shows that just because you believe that "A=A" does not make you a revolutionary.

Who said it did?

[That alone shows you have read/absorbed nothing much from anything I have written.]

What evidence?

The material that went over your head, or you did not read.

So the mathematics beind it is "working class" and the mysticisim is "ruling class"? Your dichotomy makes no sense.

Who said it was?

Why are you making stuff up?

I gave you a criterion, one that distinguishes science from metaphysics, and suddenly you bring in the working class.

Are you capable of reading anything with any accuracy?

Or is that a requirement for being a DM-fan: an incapacity to read or think?

You'd save yourself a lot of credibility if you didn't go off on a tangent of ad hominems when somebody challenges your ideas. It shows weakness.

I am sorry, I foolishly copied your methods.

Being anti-philosophy is unique in the sense of the word that Wittgenstein has already done it?

No.

Try again, only this time with your brain engaged.

1) You can't boil down every world outlook to inherenlty working class or inherently ruling class.

I follow Engels: there are two ways of looking at the world -- idealism/ruling-class thought -- or materialism.

You clearly disagree.

2) Even if you could, "Classical Logic" can be and has been used by the ruling class. This does not mean it is inherently ruling class, because logic can obviously be applied to class struggle. Similarly, DM is not inherently ruling class just because it is based on Hegelian mysticism.

I made this point months ago, but in essays written nearly 9 years back.

I suggest you mouth-off less, and learn to read more carefully.