Dialectics for Kids

[which doctor]

I initially became familiar with this program through the movie Half Nelson (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468489/). For those who haven't seen the movie, the main character is a teacher who teaches a social studies class through dialectics. He teaches junior high kids, which is what I thought strange. I don't even fully understand dialectics, what on earth is he doing teaching inner-city junior high kids dialectics. Through further research I discovered the movie is actually using a program called Dialectics for Kids.

The program has a website which advocates the teaching of dialectics through pre-school on up. This might be a good site for people with no base in philosophy to begin to comprehend dialectics.

Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling) teaches each of Engel's three laws of dialectics in the class. He even numbers them on the blackboard:
1- Opposites,
2 - Turning points,
3 - He doesn't name the third law of dialectics on the board, but he describes it in class, saying "change moves in spirals, not circles"

Although I think a lot of it may be a bit oversimplified, I find most of it easy to understand and well thought out.

http://www.dialectics4kids.com/

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FOB, this is one of the worst sites I have ever seen on dialectics (and that is saying something!).

I e-mailed its owner to tell him all his ideas had been trashed at my site.

Why you are recommending it beats me. :huh:

[Aurora]

Thanks FoB :)

[Janus]

This site has actually been one of the recommended sites for dialectics in the RL dictionary for quite some time.

RevLeft dictionary (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

[Pawn Power]

This is the Revleft info on dialectics.

Dialectics

A science used to explain the way nature and societies change. Karl Marx used dialectics to explain his theories on historical materialism. Marx's theory is often refered to as Dialectical Materialism.

Further Reading

What the heck is dialectics?
Dialectics for kids
Dialectics of Nature - Frederick Engels
What is Dialectical Materialism - Rob Sewell
Dialectical Materialism - John Pickard

Yeah, Rosa I don't see your web site on the list for understanding dialectics or, I guess, negating dialectics. :o :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PP, yes I see you are right. :o

Must fix that!!! :angry:

Thanks for the tip-off! :)

[blake 3:17]

I love it!

[FOREVER LEFT]

Cool site. Very sweet.


http://www.dialectics4kids.com/

[bolshevik butcher]

The last two are actually pretty good for displaying the basis of dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I disagree; it is based on entirely discredited philosophy.

None of the 'logical' arguments work, and the facts it quotes do not support dialectical materialism.

It is quite the worst site I have seen on this bogus theory.

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)

[bolshevik butcher]

Can we not turn this into another anti-dialectics debate? It's been done and gone round in cirlces a million times. If you're not going to debate weather this is useful in relation to learning about dialectics can we have the discussion elsewhere?

[Janus]

Merged.

[Rawthentic]

Is it safe to do away with dialectics if Marx was a dialectician? His earlier writings prove this, and it is a crucial part of his later writings, mainly Capital.

He uses the Hegelian dialectic in a real, concrete manner than a mystical one no?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:26 am
Is it safe to do away with dialectics if Marx was a dialectician?
Yes, unless you're some dogmatic wankbag that takes Marx's writings to be holy writ and the man himself to be infallible.

[Rawthentic]

Not at all; I am very vague as to what dialectics are.

I'll take a peek at Rosa's Essays.

[which doctor]

I wouldn't suggest reading Rosa's essays unless you are proficient in philosophy and/or dialectics. I don't even understand them. Someone should make an antidialectics4kids.com. Not that I'm necessarily anti-dialectics, but I think people should look at both sides.

[Rawthentic]

True dat.

But its so abstract and confusing that I just feel like not reading it at all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BB:


Can we not turn this into another anti-dialectics debate? It's been done and gone round in cirlces a million times. If you're not going to debate weather this is useful in relation to learning about dialectics can we have the discussion elsewhere?

No chance!

These mystics have got away with this boll*cks for far too long.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HastaV:


Is it safe to do away with dialectics if Marx was a dialectician? His earlier writings prove this, and it is a crucial part of his later writings, mainly Capital.

Except, Marx himself says that in Capital he merely "coquetted" with Hegelian jargon, and even then only in a few places (especially in chapter one).

That is the extent of the 'rational' kernel: a few bits of jargon.

So, whatever Marx did in his earlier work, by the time he came to write Capital, he had come to see things the way I do

So, he agreed with me; only I go further.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FOB:


I wouldn't suggest reading Rosa's essays unless you are proficient in philosophy and/or dialectics. I don't even understand them. Someone should make an antidialectics4kids.com. Not that I'm necessarily anti-dialectics, but I think people should look at both sides.

Done it, here:

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

If that is too difficult, let me know, and I will make it simpler!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hasta:


But its so abstract and confusing that I just feel like not reading it at all.

And yet you read Capital, which is far more difficult!

To say nothing of Hegel's 'Logic', which Lenin tells us you will have to master to understand Capital!

[Lenin is wrong on that, by the way.]

[coda]

Salute to Rosa

for peeling back tbe crap to get to the truth!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12, 2007 04:51 am
HastaV:


Is it safe to do away with dialectics if Marx was a dialectician? His earlier writings prove this, and it is a crucial part of his later writings, mainly Capital.

Except, Marx himself says that in Capital he merely "coquetted" with Hegelian jargon, and even then only in a few places (especially in chapter one).


In Capital Marx also writes:


My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite.

So there is definitive evidence that Marx considered his work in Capital to be dialectical (although not reliant on the Hegelian method as later generations of Marxists have argued).

The attempt to re-conceptualize the 'rational kernel' of Marx's method to a mere coquetting with Hegelian jargon gets us nowhere in trying to come to terms with Marx's dialectical method and applying it to our own needs.

[coda]

<<My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite>>

Different & opposite because Hegel was an idealist and Marx a materialist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, we have been through this before; he qualified this with the immortal words, which you ignore, that all he did was to "coquette" with a few bits of Hegelian jargon, and only in a few places in Capital.

So, he limits his &#39;dialectical&#39; method to parodying Hegel -- that is why it is the opposite of his.

Hegel took it seriously, Marx did not.

You do, too, since you ignore what Marx said. [And for other reasons outlined below.]

And since you admit never having read Hegel, that explains why you can&#39;t see what a load of boll*cks Hegel&#39;s logic really is.


The attempt to re-conceptualize the &#39;rational kernel&#39; of Marx&#39;s method to a mere coquetting with Hegelian jargon gets us nowhere in trying to come to terms with Marx&#39;s dialectical method and applying it to our own needs.

Translated this means: &#39;we must ignore Marx&#39;s own declaraction that the &#39;rational kernel&#39; is just a few bits of jargon, with which he merely "coquetted", and only in a few places in Capital, since to admit otherwise would destroy our faith in this mystical theory.&#39;

So, my uncomfortable reminder (to you) is not aimed at assisting you use the &#39;dialectic&#39;, but to help consign it to Hume&#39;s bonfire.

And this will save you from ever having to study Hegel, which, if Lenin were right, you should be doing on a daily basis.

The fact that you do not follow Lenin&#39;s advice, and have never studied Hegel, suggests you are not a serious dialectician, but are content with the &#39;Dummies&#39; version. -- which is pitched a little above the kids&#39; version at the site we are discussing

Now that in itself can be no guide, even if the dialectic worked (which history has shown it does not).

Now you can stay happy with the idiots&#39; version of Hegel, if you want, but that just brands you an insincere critic of mine.

But we knew that already.

[For example, you demanded of me a few months back proof that formal logic does not rule out change, and then when this was presented to you on a plate, you went all silent. You are like all DM-fans at this site: amateur mystics (you are not even good at what you do), to a man/woman/robot, and dishonest ones at that. You refuse to devote hard thought to this area of theory, happy with the failed banalities of the past -- and that is because DM provides you with a quasi-religious faith in the future. It works as an opiate -- hence your irrational response to my ideas.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NYA:


Different & opposite because Hegel was an idealist and Marx a materialist.

That is partly right: but it is because Marx parodied Hegel, as he said: he merely "coquetted" with Hegelian jargon, and in only a few places in Capital.

But, yes, he was a materialist, and that is why he turned away from Hegel.

I am just finishing the job.

[Hit The North]

This is a larger extract of the text which Rosa likes to quote as evidence that Marx disregarded the dialectic:


Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., 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 modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

You can find the full text HERE (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm)

Comrades like NYA should read it and ask themselves whether Marx is really arguing that his use of dialectics is a mere parody of Hegel, or whether Marx is arguing that his method is a material dialectic.

Comrades should also ask themselves why Rosa insists that she is on the same side as Marx on this issue, when Marx&#39;s own words refute her claim.

[coda]

i do believe he applied Hegel&#39;s dialectical method and put a materialistic spin on it. all good there. however, what i question is Why? the application works fine in regard to class struggle. But a major flaw when applying it in sustaining a communist society. According to dialectical materialism a communist society will eventually always negate itself in cyclic negations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Comrades like NYA should read it and ask themselves whether Marx is really arguing that his use of dialectics is a mere parody of Hegel, or whether Marx is arguing that his method is a material dialectic.

And they should, unlike Z here (who is afraid to look upon my essays), read the full argument at my site -- Essay Nine Part One:

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


Comrades should also ask themselves why Rosa insists that she is on the same side as Marx on this issue, when Marx&#39;s own words refute her claim.

And they should do this just before they read Marx&#39;s own words, that his dialectical method (his &#39;materialist dialectics’) amounted to his merely "coquetting" with a few bits of Hegelian jargon, and then only in a few places in Capital.

Then they might also make a note of the fact that Marx put his praise for Hegel in the past tense (a theorist Z himself has admitted to never having read, so unimportant is he, even to Z&#33;)

And then they should read this sentence:


Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?

which Marx wrote in response to this passage, which Z (‘accidentally’) left out:


After a quotation from the preface to my “Criticism of Political Economy,” Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

“The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own. ... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx’s book has.”

Here, not a single Hegelian idea occurs, and nor do any appear in it that could have come from the writings of later dialecticians which other non-dialecticians (and anti-dialecticians) could not also have used.

So, no mention of &#39;contradictions&#39;, &#39;unity of opposites&#39;, &#39;negation of the negation&#39;...&#33;

Hence, as Marx says: this is his dialectical method – with Hegel completely removed, as I have been arguing.

Then right after that, comrades might like to ask Z himself why he has been dodging all the difficult questions I have been posing to him now for nearly a year (the ones he ignores here are just the latest), not a single one of which he has responded to successfully, but still he clings to this non-Marxist &#39;method&#39;.

And then, I suspect, it will become apparent to one and all that he is responding in the same irrational way to my arguments that these idiots do to sceptics and scientists who question the existence of &#39;God&#39;:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

The parallels between the way dialecticians handle my objections to them are uncannily like the responses of the above creationists/fundamentalist Christians to science and reason.

In short, we have here in Z exactly what I alleged in my last post but one: a dishonest quasi-religious nut, who clings to this mystical creed because it provides him with some form of consolation for the fact that this &#39;theory&#39; has helped make Dialectical Marxism the long-term failure we see today.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

nya:


i do believe he applied Hegel&#39;s dialectical method and put a materialistic spin on it. all good there. however, what i question is Why? the application works fine in regard to class struggle. But a major flaw when applying it in sustaining a communist society. According to dialectical materialism a communist society will eventually always negate itself in cyclic negations.

As my last post shows, if you still believe this, then you will have adopted a different form of Marx&#39;s method (a mystical, not a materialist version, too) from that of Marx himself.

This is because he describes his method as exactly that which is summarised by the commentator quoted by Marx, reproduced above, in which the Hegelian terms -- like the ones you quote -- are nowhere to be seen.

Hence, negations do not apply to society (communist or otherwise), but to sentences.

A negation is a linguistic act, not a process in reality.

[Hit The North]

Also comrades need to ask why, despite my many protestations to the contrary (even admitting to never having read Hegel&#33;), Rosa still insists on caricaturing my arguments as being in defense of Hegel&#39;s idealist dialectic.

Rosa,

Marx irrefutably refers to his method in these passages as "my dialectic method". What does he mean by this, do you think?

Also his work is littered to with reference to the contradictions of capitalism. What does he mean by this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Also comrades need to ask why, despite my many protestations to the contrary (even admitting to never having read Hegel&#33;), Rosa still insists on caricaturing my arguments as being in defense of Hegel&#39;s idealist dialectic.

This from the master caricaturist, at whose feet I am but a novice&#33;


Marx irrefutably refers to his method in these passages as "my dialectic method". What does he mean by this, do you think?

Why speculate? He says he means this:


After a quotation from the preface to my “Criticism of Political Economy,” Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

“The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own. ... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx’s book has.”

Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?

Z now asks:


Also his work is littered to with reference to the contradictions of capitalism. What does he mean by this?

Well, that word occurs here and there in Capital, but Marx was quick to help us out; for he then added (perhaps with Z in mind):


and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him.

So, he tells us that his &#39;dialectical method&#39; need have no Hegelian concepts in it (and can be summarised as that reviewer did), and those terms he himself uses, well, he merely "coquetted" with them, and only in a few places.

And no wonder; no literal or metaphorical sense can be of the use of this word to account for change.

Apologies if this undermines your faith in a theory even you have not read, Z -- and pulls the rug from underneath your need for consolation. :(

But that&#39;s the kind of girl I am.... :P

[Hit The North]

But it is Marx who mention &#39;his dialectic method&#39;, not the author whom he quotes.

Why use the word &#39;dialectic&#39; at all and then remind us of his differences with Hegel, if he didn&#39;t want to preserve some notion of his scientific method being, um, dialectical in some sense?

Why does Marx then go on a triumphal rant about how the dialectic "In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors"?

And then given that it is equally a "scandal and abomination" to you, Rosa, how should we then classify your allegiance on these matters?

[coda]

Well, my caution against the DM theory in itself is that trying to apply it to a sustainable communist society the theory then falls apart --- it will absolutely negate the negation. I&#39;m sure you are right that if he did &#39;coquette&#39; with it and than drop it --- then he must have been aware of the innate flaw it has too. But, I&#39;m such as i&#39;m not an avowed marxist disciple, whether he worked out DM himself or DM was just attributed to him by somebody else matters little to me, although it probably better if he and Dm were not associated since it is such a spectacular mistake.

Really though, i must read your works Rosa, quite a scholarly feat. but so large as to be intimidating. Should i start with page 1?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


But it is Marx who mention &#39;his dialectic method&#39;, not the author whom he quotes.

Right, and he also says that what this author has written is his method.


Why use the word &#39;dialectic&#39; at all and then remind us of his differences with Hegel, if he didn&#39;t want to preserve some notion of his scientific method being, um, dialectical in some sense?

It&#39;s an ancient Greek form of argumnent; and if used that way, I would have no problem with it.

Indeed, my method is dialectical in that sense.


Why does Marx then go on a triumphal rant about how the dialectic "In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors"?

Because when the Hegelian rubbish is removed, it is a threat to their position.


And then given that it is equally a "scandal and abomination" to you, Rosa, how should we then classify your allegiance on these matters?

Given my comments above, it is indeed a scandal that you cling to the stuff Marx abandoned.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NYA, no begin here:

http://anonym.to/?http://anonym.to/%3Fhttp...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://anonym.to/?http://anonym.to/%3Fhttp://anonym.to/%3Fhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

[Hit The North]

Given my comments above, it is indeed a scandal that you cling to the stuff Marx abandoned.

Except that I don&#39;t.


Because when the Hegelian rubbish is removed, it is a threat to their position.

That is the least controversial statement I&#39;ve read by you. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Except that I don&#39;t.

Well, we already know you ignore what Marx said. [And we know you do it for quasi-religious reasons.]

No need to brag about it.

[coda]

thanks rosa. i saw that link posted a couple times a few pages back. I&#39;ll actually be reading all the essays and skipping over any calculus parts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NYA, there is very liltte mathematics in my essays, and I have cut the technicalities to a minimum, for obvious reasons.

[Axel1917]

The site is good for learning basics on dialectical materialism. Probably not the most in-depth thing around, but a good start nonetheless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel&#39;s advice should be taken by anyone who is keen to learn about a failed theory (refuted by me, but more importantly, by history), one based on the ideas of a 17th century mystic, Jakob Boehme, the guy from whom Hegel pinched many of his ideas.

[stevensen]

i seriously dont need rosa to trash dialectics. i believe in it, rosa doesnot. does rosa have the right to select my opinions? and yes, she did not answer me when i asked her to defend her leninist position given her claim that dialectics is shit and lenin said it was important....and yet she is a leninist.... rosa herself was silent when i asked her this . maybe u can concentrate on ur plate, rosa before advising others.
i dont need a joker like her to teach me to be antidialectic, because only a joker can be leninist and anti dialectician at the same time

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 11:07 pm
FOB, this is one of the worst sites I have ever seen on dialectics (and that is saying something&#33;).

I e-mailed its owner to tell him all his ideas had been trashed at my site.

Why you are recommending it beats me. :huh:
what&#39;s your site?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

RPAS its the top link in her signature.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen:


does rosa have the right to select my opinions?

You have every right to believe boll*cks.

What makes you think I want someone like you to change? You are a very timely warning to others, given your ignorant state of mind.

However, the fact that you (and the other dialectical faithful who post here) cannot defend your mystical beliefs puts you (lot) in the same category as born again Christians.


when i asked her to defend her leninist position given her claim that dialectics is shit and lenin said it was important....and yet she is a leninist.... rosa herself was silent when i asked her this . maybe u can concentrate on ur plate, rosa before advising others.

In fact, here is what this comrade said:


rocha

i think repeater is right. lenin was a human and he made mistakes, doesnot mean whatever he said and leninism was wrong. if you start from a position that you will hate dialectics no one can make you realise what you are missing. to the layman the theories of relativity are also incomprehensible, i guess going by your logic relativity is bull shit because most people do not comprehend it.... and yet if you spend enough time to master the theories of relativity and if you have the brains enough it seems logically consistent, does it not?

i think you should have a look at marx&#39;s preface to capital, where he admits that the for a beginer the starting is difficult as it is indeed in any science but once mastered his way of analysis becomes simple. additionally you might see john stachy&#39;s quote[the intellectual effort to master marxism is enpurmous but equally the effort so applied can never go waste] i suggest instead of reading your 60,000 word essay you should try and read up hegel...there are many aspects that you will find strikingly similar...even his errors will make you think as to why and how his thought process faltered..that is education in itself....

just because you dont undersatand dialectics doesnot mean its hog wash..
and about lenin. if he had confined himself to bull shit and writing 60,000 words of hig wash my dear rosa i think he would have been in your place and not the sucsessful leader of a revolution.

rosa rememeber how small you are in front of lenin...dont jump on a phrase of his and try out absurd projects.

read lenin. try to understand what he writes about and you will certainly be more benefittted.

Here is my reply to him (but there are more details in the posts above, which he just ignores):


Stevenson:


I think repeater is right. lenin was a human and he made mistakes, doesnot mean whatever he said and leninism was wrong.

1) It does not matter what you or I, or even Repeater, think; the evidence shows that Lenin was wrong, and Das Kapital was not based on Hegel&#39;s &#39;Logic&#39;, and hence that Lenin totally wasted his time studying that execrable book (by Hegel), and we should totally disregard Lenin&#39;s Philosophical Notebooks -- and indeed that subsequent theorists have been thoroughly mistaken in following Lenin&#39;s advice, and have studied the &#39;Logic&#39; too.

2) I say nothing about Leninism being in error -- and I would not either since I am a Leninist.


if you start from a position that you will hate dialectics no one can make you realise what you are missing.

I start from a position of knowing (and being able to prove) that dialectics is in error, and I challenge you to show me what I am &#39;missing&#39;.

[In fact, I already know what I am &#39;missing&#39;: a mystical theory that derives from an ancient ruling-class form of thought: Hermetic Philosophy.]


to the layman the theories of relativity are also incomprehensible, i guess going by your logic relativity is bull shit because most people do not comprehend it

Not so; the only thing preventing ordinary human beings understanding relativity is an adequate education and enough time; no one (expert and layman alike) understands dialectics -- and they find it impossible to explain it to one another, or to anyone else.

Or, if they can explain it, they have been remarkably secretive about it.

Prove me wrong.


i think you should have a look at marx&#39;s preface to capital, where he admits that the for a beginer the starting is difficult as it is indeed in any science but once mastered his way of analysis becomes simple.

Since Marx did not use Hegel&#39;s &#39;Logic&#39; (except for a few bits of jargon with which he &#39;coquetted&#39;, to use his own words), I do not see the relevance of your comment.


i suggest instead of reading your 60,000 word essay you should try and read up hegel

It&#39;s 600,000, and will be over 1.5 million words long when finished -- and I have read and studied both of the Hegelian &#39;logics&#39;, many times, and will continue to do so.

However, it is still nonsensical no matter how many times I, you, or Uncle Tom Cobbley, study it.

I challenge you to show otherwise.


and about lenin. if he had confined himself to bull shit and writing 60,000 words of hig wash my dear rosa i think he would have been in your place and not the sucsessful leader of a revolution..

What is it with you dialectical Mystics, when you feel you can comment on my work without having read it?

Don&#39;t read it for all I care, but stop pontificating about it if you do not intend to go near it.

[And you need to note that the revolution failed.]


rosa rememeber how small you are in front of lenin...dont jump on a phrase of his and try out absurd projects.

Marxism is not a religion; you seem to be treating it like one. Lenin is not a god (even you note that). So &#39;size&#39; does not matter when it comes to science.


read lenin. try to understand what he writes about and you will certainly be more benefittted..

Done it; his works on politics, strategy, party organisation etc., I fully respect. That is why I am a Leninist.

His work on Philosophy is fourth-rate, at best.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53615&hl=

He did not like this reply, and has been sulking ever since, repeatedly making the same claim that I did not answer him.

Comrades can read his other irrational replies to me at the abive thread, and if they search his posts.

This is but the latest example of the same:


i dont need a joker like her to teach me to be antidialectic, because only a joker can be leninist and anti dialectician at the same time

Note Stevenon&#39;s incapacity to argue.

Typical quasi-religionist.

A veritable health warning of the deleterious effects of Hegel on the brain.

Look and learn.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS, begin here:

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

[stevensen]

firstly rosa try to get my name right. at least u r capable of not muddling that i hope. and heres my last post which u did not answer so stop lying and check on the posts properly:

Posted: August 31, 2006 02:03 pm


Guerrillero


Group: Member*
Posts: 51
Member No.: 13774
Joined: January 05, 2006




although i gave you two good reasons why you cannot be a leninist i see aside from producing an excerpt about why people cling to DM you have not answered my question. that is not what i had asked for. and if you are proud to be a leninist what are you proud of?
1) that he thought he found a method which according to you is bull shit. then nothing to be proud of here.
2) or if he is lying and all his correct decisions came from any other method save DM then he is a big liar....nothing to be proud of here too...
you cant be something which is so obviously false or which as you say was cooked up and painted in good colors by lenin. either he is someone who did not understand what he was doing or he was a big liar...which lenin are you proud of rosa?

no replies for this...so stop lying...

from one of ur posts....u say u first came into contact into dialectics and immediately disliked it....this shows that u had already formed a opinion which u r now trying to uselessly demonstrate through the rubbish u write in ur web site. i can wrtie 4 million word about the &#39;monkey&#39; philosophy still it would be &#39;monkey&#39; philosophy only.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:45 pm
i do believe he applied Hegel&#39;s dialectical method and put a materialistic spin on it. all good there. however, what i question is Why? the application works fine in regard to class struggle. But a major flaw when applying it in sustaining a communist society. According to dialectical materialism a communist society will eventually always negate itself in cyclic negations.
nya,

Sorry, your point should have been addressed earlier.

For Marx, historical change is driven by a combination of increased technological mastery over nature and the conflict inherent in modes of production based on class division. It is real, material class relations which provide the dialectic of history. Accordingly, a communist society, based as it is on the abolition of class, will not be subject to the same dialectic.

This is one of the reasons why I reject the over-arching, ahistorical conception of a dialectic of nature. It fails to understand the historically emergent and limited nature of the material dialectic as posited in Marx&#39;s (but not Rosa&#39;s) version of Historical Materialism.

[R_P_A_S]

ok while you guys are debating this shit. the people are out there engaging in real battles and struggles. ask them if they give a fuck about dialectics and anti-dialiectis... i love u guys and the discussions, time and effort put into the arguments. very informative indeed ...but sometimes this shit can really get in the way all together..

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen, still sulking:


firstly rosa try to get my name right. at least u r capable of not muddling that i hope. and heres my last post which u did not answer so stop lying and check on the posts properly:

You have been saying the same thing on and off now for the last eight or nine months, and seem not to be able to read any of my replies to you.

If you do not like my replies, tough....

If you cannot read them, get some glasses,

If you cannot understand them, then I blame the mystical theory that has colonised your brain.


no replies for this...so stop lying...

from one of ur posts....u say u first came into contact into dialectics and immediately disliked it....this shows that u had already formed a opinion which u r now trying to uselessly demonstrate through the rubbish u write in ur web site. i can wrtie 4 million word about the &#39;monkey&#39; philosophy still it would be &#39;monkey&#39; philosophy only.

You seem incapable of putting a coherent sentence together.

[I went back and corrected my mis-spelling of your name, but as you can see from your own posts, your ability to spell is nothing to boast about.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


It fails to understand the historically emergent and limited nature of the material dialectic as posited in Marx&#39;s (but not Rosa&#39;s) version of Historical Materialism.

We have already established that Marx sees things my way, and that you are incapable of reading his words.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RPAS:


ok while you guys are debating this shit. the people are out there engaging in real battles and struggles. ask them if they give a fuck about dialectics and anti-dialiectis... i love u guys and the discussions, time and effort put into the arguments. very informative indeed ...but sometimes this shit can really get in the way all together..

Correct, but I seem to see you debating here too.

Oops&#33;

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 06:07 pm
RPAS:


ok while you guys are debating this shit. the people are out there engaging in real battles and struggles. ask them if they give a fuck about dialectics and anti-dialiectis... i love u guys and the discussions, time and effort put into the arguments. very informative indeed ...but sometimes this shit can really get in the way all together..

Correct, but I seem to see you debating here too.

Oops&#33;
I&#39;m not trying to say that I&#39;m not. just happened to realize this.. as I read the post and I found my self replying. Yet I&#39;m interested.. there&#39;s no denying that. I want to read about both sides I would like to make my own judgement, generate a conclusion from both arguments. Other wise I wouldn&#39;t be asking you for your site and for info.

But this debate made me realize a few things. that I would post about later.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fair enough, but the reason I am devoting so much time to detroying dialectical materialism is that it has hepled preside over 150 years of failure, and we are likely to see another 150 it is left standing.

[stevensen]

muddle headed rosa, wonder why u cant paste the reply to my last post on @nitdialectics made easy that i pasted....precisely because u had not replied and hence u cant say anything about it...admirable... my spelling is better than urs dear rosa. and u did not reply to my unmasking of ur biased opinion on dialectics which is based on a priori conclusion made by u some 30 years ago.....and yes, rosa is going to change 150 years of muddling with dialectics.....how many converts have u made rosa with the help of ur 4 million word nonsense???
gimme a break..rosa is going to change 150 years of dialectics....ha&#33; ha&#33; wonder why ur name is so well known amongst the greatest philosophers of this age&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;u r so brilliant indeed&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen:


muddle headed rosa, wonder why u cant paste the reply to my last post on @nitdialectics made easy that i pasted....precisely because u had not replied and hence u cant say anything about it...admirable... my spelling is better than urs dear rosa. and u did not reply to my unmasking of ur biased opinion on dialectics which is based on a priori conclusion made by u some 30 years ago.....and yes, rosa is going to change 150 years of muddling with dialectics.....how many converts have u made rosa with the help of ur 4 million word nonsense???
gimme a break..rosa is going to change 150 years of dialectics....ha&#33; ha&#33; wonder why ur name is so well known amongst the greatest philosophers of this age&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;u r so brilliant indeed&#33;&#33;&#33;

More gobbledygook from the comrade keen to prove (as if we needed more&#33;) that dialectical logic nukes the brain cells of all whom it colonises.

I note you cannot respond to any of my arguments (posted in my Essays), for all your incapacity to type, and all your incoherent bluster.

[stevensen]

why does everyone have to go through ur essays ..i went through the initial parts....which were so stupid and biased...it shows what u have written....as i said earlier any one can wrtie trash and challenge people to read that trash and come up with replies....i guess u place ur work on the same platform as mrax&#39;s...so brilliant that people who read the initial bits will be impressed and go on....one reads a work only when one is convinced that it has some value...why waste time reading ur trash which ur intial opening aptly displays it to be...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen:


why does everyone have to go through ur essays ..i went through the initial parts....which were so stupid and biased...it shows what u have written....as i said earlier any one can wrtie trash and challenge people to read that trash and come up with replies....i guess u place ur work on the same platform as mrax&#39;s...so brilliant that people who read the initial bits will be impressed and go on....one reads a work only when one is convinced that it has some value...why waste time reading ur trash which ur intial opening aptly displays it to be...

No one has to read my Essays, but if you (or they) are to pass an informed comment on them, that is surely a necessary pre-requisite.

Otherwise, say nothing about them.

And, how do you know they are &#39;trash&#39; if you have never read them?

The plain fact is that you do not know this, but you are still happy to malign my work in total ignorance, like all the other dialectical mystics who post here.

And where do I place my work on the same level as that of Marx?

In fact, as I have shown, he and I see eye-to-eye on the dialectic (that is why he left it out of Kapital).

You say that I began this work disbelieving in dialectics. Indeed that is true.

I also began by disbelieving in other forms of mysticism.

Would you accept the same sort of response from a theist? That is, that you do not believe in &#39;god&#39;, and accept that as a legitimate excuse for his/her ignoring what you had to say?

I think not.

Now, I have read Hegel, Lenin, Engels, Plekhanov, Mao, Stalin and host of other dialecticians you have never heard of, and can prove that all they say about this mystical theory is misguided at best, thoroughly confused at worst.

Now, you can stay in a state of pre-scientific confusion if you want, I careth not.

But, you need to stop slagging my work off if you haven&#39;t read it.

Any more stuff like this I will delete.

Of course, if you have something worthwhile to say, by all means say it.

But just repeating the same old rubbish, I will count as spam.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:46 pm
i seriously dont need rosa to trash dialectics. i believe in it, rosa doesnot. does rosa have the right to select my opinions? and yes, she did not answer me when i asked her to defend her leninist position given her claim that dialectics is shit and lenin said it was important....and yet she is a leninist.... rosa herself was silent when i asked her this . maybe u can concentrate on ur plate, rosa before advising others.
i dont need a joker like her to teach me to be antidialectic, because only a joker can be leninist and anti dialectician at the same time
Heh. This is true indeed. This "Leninist" happens to be hanging out with all kinds of anti-Leninist types (anarchists, ultra-lefts, etc.). I wouldn&#39;t worry about her nonsense. No serious revolutionary is ever going to listen to her.

I wonder who these "bigger amounts of people liking her website" are. Punkie-hippies? Ultra-lefts? redstar2000 worshippers?

Her anti-dialectical stuff is nothing new either. I have read that such stuff has been floating around Britain for some time. And none of it has ever yielded any fruits. I like how she rants and raves about "Dialectics always failing" when her precious allies (anarchists and ultra-lefts) have literally had no successes since they started (and Prodhoun is contemporary with Marx, so her rants of "160 years of failures" are downright hypocritical&#33;).

She also has a long history of being evasive, so don&#39;t expect her to answer anything in a satisfactory manner.


why does everyone have to go through ur essays ..i went through the initial parts....which were so stupid and biased...it shows what u have written....as i said earlier any one can wrtie trash and challenge people to read that trash and come up with replies....i guess u place ur work on the same platform as mrax&#39;s...so brilliant that people who read the initial bits will be impressed and go on....one reads a work only when one is convinced that it has some value...why waste time reading ur trash which ur intial opening aptly displays it to be...

Exactly&#33; Her posts break at such weak links, so there is no need to read that stuff. I seriously doubt that her followers have even read it; her followers were anti-dialectical in the first place, and they just think that someone that posts 999999999999999999999999 pages of stuff and agrees with them therefore just appears to be smart. I mean, by her logic, water graudually cools to a gel first, and then turns to ice&#33; LOL&#33; I wouldn&#39;t worry about her nonsense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel:


No serious revolutionary is ever going to listen to her.

Translated, this means: "I cannot respond to her arguments and evidence, so I have to re-define what a &#39;serious revolutionary&#39; means to disguise that fact."


I wonder who these "bigger amounts of people liking her website" are. Punkie-hippies? Ultra-lefts? redstar2000 worshippers?

They are people who are not afraid of new ideas on the left -- they are called honest Marxists, who, like Marx, treated his theory as a science --, not a set of dogmas to be defended as if this were a religion (like you do).

And like a science it is not afraid to be challenged.

Unlike you and your tiny sect -- safe in your cosey little world of simple ideas (that you cannot defend -- not even at your own forum&#33;).


Her anti-dialectical stuff is nothing new either. I have read that such stuff has been floating around Britain for some time. And none of it has ever yielded any fruits. I like how she rants and raves about "Dialectics always failing" when her precious allies (anarchists and ultra-lefts) have literally had no successes since they started (and Prodhoun is contemporary with Marx, so her rants of "160 years of failures" are downright hypocritical&#33;).

You would not know, since, even now, after more than a year, you have not read any of it.

But, as I noted, just like Stevensen here, you pontificate about my ideas in total ignorance.

And, you seem not to have noticed that Dialectical Trotskyism is still an almost total failure -- so, if truth is tested in practice, your &#39;theory&#39; is false.

[Moreover, I suspect Stevenson, with whom you agree over this mystical thoery, is an anti-Trot (a Stalinist of some sort), one whom you&#39;d brand a &#39;counter-revolutionary&#39;; so dialectics is accepted by anti-revolutionaries -- some recommendation, Axel&#33;]


She also has a long history of being evasive, so don&#39;t expect her to answer anything in a satisfactory manner.

1) I answered him (take a look above).

2) I always answer you. Want a set of links that proves this?

3) You are the one who avoids things, since, in your present state of knowing no logic, and even less philosophy, you cannot debate with me.

So you tell lies like this.


Her posts break at such weak links, so there is no need to read that stuff.

What weak links?


so there is no need to read that stuff.

You could not cope with it anyway -- still less could you respond.

So, back in the sand goes your head.


I seriously doubt that her followers have even read it;

You were told a year ago that I had no &#39;followers&#39;, do not want any, and that if ever I gained any, I&#39;d disown them all.


I mean, by her logic, water graudually cools to a gel first, and then turns to ice&#33; LOL&#33; I wouldn&#39;t worry about her nonsense.

Well, smarty pants, what happens to plastic, metal and glass?

They all melt and solidify slowly -- no &#39;nodal point&#39; anywhere in sight.

And since metals form a large proportion of the universe, much of the material world disobeys Engels&#39;s &#39;law&#39;.

[And even ice melts slowly.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen, I deleted this spam of yours, as I said I would.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 07:52 pm
Stevensen, I deleted this spam of yours, as I said I would.
And this isn&#39;t spam?:


:


It fails to understand the historically emergent and limited nature of the material dialectic as posited in Marx&#39;s (but not Rosa&#39;s) version of Historical Materialism.


We have already established that Marx sees things my way, and that you are incapable of reading his words.



Seems pretty much like an abuse of your power to delete the posts of comrades you&#39;re debating with, given that you often resort to the tactic of spamming your interlocutors.

How predictable was it that you&#39;d soon turn into a tin-pot Stalinist once you&#39;d been given the powers of a moderator? :rolleyes:

[stevensen]

sorry i forgot moderator rosa can delete any posts she considers to be spams...
some general rejoinders however from rosa&#39;s own posts:

No one has to read my Essays, but if you (or they) are to pass an informed comment on them, that is surely a necessary pre-requisite.

Otherwise, say nothing about them.

And, how do you know they are &#39;trash&#39; if you have never read them?


as axel has pointed out i have read the initial parts of her essays...the point is this, suppose someone were to write a 4 million word essay claiming life formed on the earth due to a spell cast by god....am i supposed to read through that 4 million word trash before forming my opinion or is going through 10 pages enough for me to conclude the quality of writing? the same applies to rosa&#39;s essays...


In fact, as I have shown, he and I see eye-to-eye on the dialectic (that is why he left it out of Kapital).
yes and i also asked her why then is her work so &#39;well&#39; known in modern philosophy...no replies.... as she says she has demonstrated that she sees eye to eye with marx on dialectics....who says so? rosa herself, the writer is the reviewer as well as the judge...so...


You say that I began this work disbelieving in dialectics. Indeed that is true.

I also began by disbelieving in other forms of mysticism.

Would you accept the same sort of response from a theist? That is, that you do not believe in &#39;god&#39;, and accept that as a legitimate excuse for his/her ignoring what you had to say?

I think not.


she herself admits her priori conclusion on dialectics. now if i agree that night is not formed by batman casting his cloak over the world, i am disbelieving in mysticism...if on the other hand i try to debunk say the general theory of relativity without reading it merely classifying it as mysticism..well then it means i am literate but not educated....


Now, I have read Hegel, Lenin, Engels, Plekhanov, Mao, Stalin and host of other dialecticians you have never heard of, and can prove that all they say about this mystical theory is misguided at best, thoroughly confused at worst.



i remember a physics prof of mine telling his students, it does not matter how many books on mechanics u have read...it matters only how much u have grasped..rosa might have read and heard more on dialectics.....but the difference is understanding it....she can read all her life and yet she will never be able to grasp the basics of dialectics because she has not understood them..its pretty simple actually and just as in science....its the grasp on fundamentals that matters...not the number of books..so is it here....understand rosa merely dont read


1) I answered him (take a look above).

no u have not when challenged by me to produce the reply to my last post u did not produce it because it does not exist....so who&#39;s the liar u or axel?

and as i have said if ur essays are so wothwhile where does ur name stand among modern philosophers? surely one who has put dialectics to rest, not to mention the one who sees eye to eye on marx with dialectics (the one&#33;) merits a place amongst modern philosophers...but i cant find rosa&#33;&#33; how surprising......hope some of u see this post before rosa deletes it as spam because she cant answer it

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, defending this numpty now are you?


Seems pretty much like an abuse of your power to delete the posts of comrades you&#39;re debating with, given that you often resort to the tactic of spamming your interlocutors.

This character has shown no desire to debate, as you can see from the above.


How predictable was it that you&#39;d soon turn into a tin-pot Stalinist once you&#39;d been given the powers of a moderator?

How typical of you to jump to the defence of a genuine Stalinist who posts little else but abuse.

As I have said to you before, you will descend to any level to &#39;defend&#39; this mystical theory of yours.


And this isn&#39;t spam?:

QUOTE Z:
It fails to understand the historically emergent and limited nature of the material dialectic as posited in Marx&#39;s (but not Rosa&#39;s) version of Historical Materialism.

Rosa:

We have already established that Marx sees things my way, and that you are incapable of reading his words.

I can quite understand why you would want to classify as spam something you cannot answer, and have not been able to answer for nearly a year.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen:


as axel has pointed out i have read the initial parts of her essays...the point is this, suppose someone were to write a 4 million word essay claiming life formed on the earth due to a spell cast by god....am i supposed to read through that 4 million word trash before forming my opinion or is going through 10 pages enough for me to conclude the quality of writing? the same applies to rosa's essays...

Which is about as sensible as judging all that Marx wrote from the first couple of pages of Kapital.

Once more, you do not have to read a word of what I have published, but if you are going to pass an infromed comment on my essays (some hope!), then you need to read them, or stop whining.

Like Axel here, who is too frightened to read my essays in case they blow apart his simple faith, you too are scared of what you will find. So you confine your remarks to badly typed abuse. [Do you also write letters in green ink, I wonder?]

So, stay away from my essays. See if I care.

I would hate to think that I had reduced your profound state of ignorance in any way.


yes and i also asked her why then is her work so 'well' known in modern philosophy...no replies....

Why is that at all relevant?

How many years was it before Marx was well known?

My essays have only been around for 18 months, and many for less than a year.


as she says she has demonstrated that she sees eye to eye with marx on dialectics....who says so? rosa herself, the writer is the reviewer as well as the judge...so...

Well, if you can see a flaw in my argument, big mouth, or a hole in my evidence (something no one has been able to find up to now, including you), let's hear it.

Go on: put your arguments/evidence where that hole in your face is.

[Prediction: motor mouth here will ignore this.]


she herself admits her priori conclusion on dialectics. now if i agree that night is not formed by batman casting his cloak over the world, i am disbelieving in mysticism...if on the other hand i try to debunk say the general theory of relativity without reading it merely classifying it as mysticism..well then it means i am literate but not educated....

As I also admit to my a priori rejection of mysticism.

You seem to like Dialectical Mysticism, and yet you cannot defend it.

But you are good at bluster....


i remember a physics prof of mine telling his students, it does not matter how many books on mechanics u have read...it matters only how much u have grasped..rosa might have read and heard more on dialectics.....but the difference is understanding it....she can read all her life and yet she will never be able to grasp the basics of dialectics because she has not understood them..its pretty simple actually and just as in science....its the grasp on fundamentals that matters...not the number of books..so is it here....understand rosa merely dont read

Well, once more, if you can find a flaw in my argument, then let's hear it.

If not, your comments amount to little more than whistling in the dark.


no u have not when challenged by me to produce the reply to my last post u did not produce it because it does not exist....so who's the liar u or axel?

Once more, I have answered your questions.

If you do not like my answers...tough.


and as i have said if ur essays are so wothwhile where does ur name stand among modern philosophers? surely one who has put dialectics to rest, not to mention the one who sees eye to eye on marx with dialectics (the one!) merits a place amongst modern philosophers...but i cant find rosa!! how surprising......hope some of u see this post before rosa deletes it as spam because she cant answer it

Why are you so concerned about my standing among 'modern philosophers'?

99% of them are bourgeois.

Once more, what is the standing of Marx among modern philosophers?

You might not know it, but I can tell you, it is pretty low.

But so what? Do we care what they think?

But somehow you think their opinion of my work is important.

Why?

Philosophy is not a popularity contest, it is about arguments.

If you have any that show my ideas are wrong, let's hear them.

However, I suspect that you are well out of your depth here, and like Axel, all you can do is thrash about for bogus reasons to rubbish my work.

Stay ignorant.

See if I care.

And, as I said, if all you can do is post spam on this thread, I will delete it.

[I left the above undeleted since you did at least try to put together a very weak 'argument'.]