Mao on 'contradictions'

[RNK]

On second thought, there's no need to indundate the forum with several threads about the same topic (that would just be unforum-like).

Besides the fact that I see you are a mod in Philosophy, and that people are accusing you of editing and removing posts of people you are "debating" with, it's become very obvious why you were so keen on me starting a thread here and so desperately opposed talking Maoist dialectics in the thread in Learning.

Nice try. I almost fell for it.

Since you're a mod of this forum, you can delete this thread, and we can discuss Maoist dialectics in the thread in Learning.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Just like other dialecticians, Mao is thoroughly confused:


"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute."* [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted in my Essays. Bold emphasis added.]

Here are a few more confused DM-worthies:


"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels* (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] internally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

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

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58. Emphases in the original.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

All this seems to suggest that objects and processes not only change because of their internal opposites, but that they change into them (and, according to Lenin, they change into all of them!), and that they also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change. As we shall see, all this presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches.

To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus changes as a result.

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

And it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it now becomes what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there in the present to make that happen!

But, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'changes' into not-O*, how can it do this if not-O* already exists? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears. Thus, O* does not change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it.

At the very least, this account of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

It cannot have come from O*, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the negation of the negation) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism; FL = Formal Logic.]

Now, it could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes into fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, the above argument is entirely misguided -- or so it could be claimed.

In that case, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows. Hence, if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, where then is the change? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears.

Thus, O* does not change into not-O* it is just replaced by it, since not-O* already exists!

The only way to read this to avoid the above difficulty is to argue that despite this, O* still 'develops' into not-O*. But that cannot work, for not-O* must already exist for this to happen, and that would mean that there would now be two not-O*s where once there was only one!

It would also mean, incidentally, that all the while not-O* must remain the unchanged (which denouement would violate the DM-thesis that all things are always changing, and changing onto one another!).

Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*. But if that were so, while it was happening, these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process" while that is taking place". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective' once more.

But even this will not work. Let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change into an intermediary, but not into not-O* (which is, as we saw above, O**), contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier.

No, O* would have to change into an intermediary -- say O*1 --, and it would remain in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*1 in existence to make it change any further.

Anyway, even if O*1 were to change into not-O*1 itself (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems would reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*1 already exists to make it happen. But not-O*1 cannot already exist, for O*1 has not changed into it yet!

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into one, as the above claims. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists. Or so it could be claimed.

Maybe so, but according to the DM-worthies above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

Furthermore, John's 'opposite' is whatever he becomes (if he is allowed to develop naturally). But, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist or John would not need to become him!

So, in ten or fifteen years, John will not just become any man, he will become a particular man. Let us call the man that he becomes Manj. In that case, this opposite must exist now or John will not change into him (if the DM-worthies above are to be believed). But, if that is so, John cannot become Manj since he already exists!

[This is, of course, just a concrete example of the argument above.]

Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100oC (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam? It must do so if the above DM-worthies are to be believed. So, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens according to these wise old dialecticians is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy, and turn the gas off!

Let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it we shall call it W1, and the steam molecule it turns into S1. But, if the DM-worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it. But if that is so, where does S1 disappear to? In fact, according to the above worthies, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific theory, steam is turning back into the water you have just boiled, and at the same rate!

One wonders therefore how kettles manage to boil dry.

This must be so, otherwise, when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists or W1 could not change -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other examples of change).

None of this, of course, is to deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

Whichever way we try to re-package this 'Law' we end up with insuperable problems.

However, Mao attempted to revise Hegel, Engels and Lenin by the invention of principle and secondary contradictions (arguably to allow him to indulge in class-collaboration with the Goumindang):


'For instance, consider the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Take one aspect, the Kuomintang. In the period of the first united front, the Kuomintang carried out Sun Yat-sen's Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party, and assistance to the peasants and workers; hence it was revolutionary and vigorous, it was an alliance of various classes for the democratic revolution. After 1927, however, the Kuomintang changed into its opposite and became a reactionary bloc of the landlords and big bourgeoisie. After the Sian Incident in December 1936, it began another change in the direction of ending the civil war and co-operating with the Communist Party for joint opposition to Japanese imperialism.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-1/mswv1_17.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm)

But how can contradictions themselves change? Presumably, if they do, they too must be UO's.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

Let us assume then that the 'Primary' contradiction P1 changes into 'Secondary' contradiction S1.

But what brings about this change?

[MAD = Materialist Dialectics.]

Given the DM-theory of change, P1 must itself be composed of at least two further opposites, say: P* and P**, one of which P1 must turn into (since, as we saw, it is part of this MAD-theory that all things change into their opposites).

Hence, P1 turns into, say, P**.

[But do not try asking what happened to P*! As we will see, it's not that simple.]

But, once more: why did P1 change into P**?

Well, this must be because there is a 'contradiction' between P* and P** (or, perhaps, between P1 and P**).

But, in that case, if all things turn into their opposites, P* must change into P**, too! [But, P** already exists, so how can anything turn into it?]

There must therefore be two P**'s -- say P**a and P**b, for both of these to turn into, collectively or severally.

So, P1 and P* turn into one or other of P**a or P**b, while P** remains the same (or, it becomes one of these two, too).

But, that means that P** is either changeless (shock! horror!) or it too changes into one of the options that have already been selected for P* or P1 to become.

But, once more, P**a and P**b already exist, so P** cannot change into either of them!

Putting that 'difficulty' to one side for now, this can only mean that P1, which used to be made up of at least P* and P**, turns into P**, while P* turns into P**, too --, or it turns into something else (but into what and how?), or it disappears, or it does not change.

So, either P1 and P* merge into one entity (as they both become P**) or they turn into one or other of P**a or P**b -- or, third P** possibility (say, P**c) pops into existence as they (both?) change into it!

But if this is so, it is not easy to see how P1 could be part of the action. It must contain all these things (as internal opposites) if it is to turn into them, and yet that can only mean that it turns into one of its own parts! Once more, how can it do that if they too already exist?

Putting this to one side, too: the changes wrought in P1 and P* could not have been the result of a 'struggle of opposites', since this new opposite (i.e., P**c) does not yet exist!

On the other hand, if that opposite does exist (so that it can 'struggle' with one or both of the other two, and thereby cause the given change), neither P1 nor P* could change into it, since it already exists, too! So, these two cannot change, either.

Either that or there must be something else for one or both to change into -- but even then the same problems would simply return.

In that case, this 'theory' seems to imply that things either merge, disappear, or are created ex nihilo -- or they do not change!

Anyway, why should anything change from a P-type contradiction into an S-type, to begin with?

On this theory, this would only happen if, say, P1 already contained an S-type contradiction for it to change into. [Recall that on this 'theory', internal opposites cause change and things change into their opposites!] But where on earth did that S-type contradiction come from?

Given the above reasoning, for this to happen, P** (from earlier) must be an S-type contradiction, otherwise P1 (or P*) could not change into it. But, as we saw, P** already exists, so nothing can change into it!

Once more, these seem to be the only options available to MIST's: either P1 (or P*) merges with P**, or it (they) disappear into thin air -- or there are at least 3 versions of P** (P**a, P**b and P**c) for one or other to change into.

But these three (P**a, P**b and P**c) cannot exist, since if they did, P* and P1 could not change into them. But if they don't exist, they cannot struggle with anything in order to bring about the required change!

So, yet again, nothing actually changes (or nothing causes it!).

In that case, not only can this scenario not work, we still do not know why anything should alter from the one into the other sort of contradiction, or into anything whatsoever.

And these difficulties do not go away if concrete examples are substituted for the schematic letters used above. So, for example, why did the "primary contradiction" between China and Japan (referred to by Mao) change? On sound MAD-lines, it could only do so as a result of its own 'internal contradictions'. In that case, this "primary contradiction", C/J, must have had internal opposites C/J* and C/J**; the rest follows as before.

[MIST = Maoist Dialectician.]

More details can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

and here:

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

More specifically here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNL: check out the Mao post above, and weep...

I am in fact a global mod, so it does not matter where this appears, it just fits in with this section better.

[RNK]

And weep? :lol: Chauvanistic much?


At the very least, this account of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

The wording in given conditions should be enough to turn on your light bulb; internal change and contradictions can and are created by external processes (for instance the material conditions of China, and of Japan, and the Soviet Union and the USA and Britain). Nor is a given object or process composed only of two opposing contradictions or variables; the social, economic, political and military aspects of China alone can account for dozens of contradictions.


So, for example, why did the "primary contradiction" between China and Japan (referred to by Mao) change?

Most of the above examples of contradictions and opposites deal with a very limited number of variables, through which it is easy enough to debase. However, it must be considered that the entirety of Chinese society, its internal and external contradictions, number, most likely, in the hundreds of thousands. The "primary contradiction" between China and Japan are wholly an on-going process made up of a considerable amount of secondary factors.

Take, for example, the contradiction between the KMT and the Communist Party, and the back-and-forth trajectory of their relationship.

Originally the KMT began as an anti-fuedalist bourgeois movement, akin the the thousands of others that took place throughout the past two centuries. The eventual "change" in the nature of contradictions of the KMT is not so much an internal change, but a change brought forth by the Communist Party; the KMT did change, largely as the logical conclusion of the eradication of fuedalism and the empowerment of bourgeois ideas, as well as the inevitable process of time.

But, going back to the original topic, why did the nature of the relationship between the KMT and the CP change? Why did the nature of the KMT itself change (or its contradictions)? First, the process of the KMT's anti-fuedal campaign changed as it dragged on and material conditions of that campaign changed. First, fuedalism suffered massive defeats at the hands of the KMT and CP; the KMT itself grew and prospered during this time; the CP, even as early as the 20s, underwent internal change, partially through internal processes and contradictions but also external factors such as pressure from the COMINTERN and Moscow. I'd beg to differ with Mao, however, in his analysis that the nature of the KMT changed; while it was in the process, most of it was, instead, the nature of the perspective of the CP. With the conclusion of the bourgeoisie's revolution, the nature of the Communist movement naturally changed from that of collaboration with bourgeois to that of outright hostility. Again, this was brought about by factors in Chinese society and the economy.

Thank you for taking the time to actually write something quite large and thought-out (it's a nice change from the trollishness you protrayed throughout the other thread). It actually gives me something concrete to work with and learn from (as it's important, to me atleast, that all debate and discussion must be learned from). I have not "delved" into dialectical materialism much before. I look forward to engaging with you about it. But I have to ask you to please keep childishness checked at the door.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


The wording in given conditions should be enough to turn on your light bulb; internal change and contradictions can and are created by external processes (for instance the material conditions of China, and of Japan, and the Soviet Union and the USA and Britain). Nor is a given object or process composed only of two opposing contradictions or variables; the social, economic, political and military aspects of China alone can account for dozens of contradictions.

That does not affect the argument I posted.

You need to address that, and not introduce an irrelevance.


Most of the above examples of contradictions and opposites deal with a very limited number of variables, through which it is easy enough to debase. However, it must be considered that the entirety of Chinese society, its internal and external contradictions, number, most likely, in the hundreds of thousands. The "primary contradiction" between China and Japan are wholly an on-going process made up of a considerable amount of secondary factors.

Once again, this alleged change may or may not be correct, but one thing is for sure dialectics cannot account for it, as my argument shows.

Again: address my actual argument.


Thank you for taking the time to actually write something quite large and thought-out (it's a nice change from the trollishness you protrayed throughout the other thread). It actually gives me something concrete to work with and learn from (as it's important, to me at least, that all debate and discussion must be learned from). I have not "delved" into dialectical materialism much before. I look forward to engaging with you about it.

Good luck; no one has been able to figure this mystical theory out now for 200 years.

I doubt you will be able to.


I look forward to engaging with you about it. But I have to ask you to please keep childishness checked at the door.

Ok, I won't let your childishness in.

[RNK]

You need to address that, and not introduce an irrelvance.

Rosa, you can't simply call a very important factor "irrelevent" and carry on discussing the topic from what has become an illigitimate standpoint. It is relevent, as it completely changes the nature of the arguement. You're attempting to exclude the statement of "in given circumstances" in order to conclude some universality to your beliefs, when really, there is no universality.


Once again, this alleged change may or may not be correct, but one thing is for sure dialectics cannot account for it, as my argunent shows.

Your arguement shows very little, actually; in your first example, you took only two paragraphs from Mao, and, citing "lack of explanation", concluded that his statements have some mystical "creation from thin air".

The change is quite easy to account for. For instance, take the change in the nature of the relationship between China and Japan. What caused it? For one, it probably started back at the turn of the century, when Japan abandoned its seclusiveness, embraced western imperialism, and set down the road to imperialism (please don't ask me to explain how *that* change occured; at this rate, you'll have me going back to the theory of the creation of the universe). It's growing population lead to increased strain on Japan's economy and source of resources, which is a quite general factor for the change in the relationship. Japan adopted imperialism, and invaded China, and the rest of Asia, because the material conditions in Japan led the Emperor to believe this was necessary.

Thus the internal contradictions within Japan -- Seclusion and Imperialism -- changed again because of external factors (Economic), and, due to the extreme autocratic nature of Japan's imperial system, due to the conflictions of successive Emperors.


Again: address my actual argument.

What arguement? The arguement that the explanations for change, that you failed to include, do not exist?


Ok, I won't let your childishness in.

I'm going to ask one more time to stop your infantile trollish shit.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Rosa, you can't simply call a very important factor "irrelevent" and carry on discussing the topic from what has become an illigitimate standpoint. It is relevent, as it completely changes the nature of the arguement. You're attempting to exclude the statement of "in given circumstances" in order to conclude some universality to your beliefs, when really, there is no universality.

None of that affects the logic of my argument, for it takes into account every conceivable circumstance,


What argument? The arguement that the explanations for change, that you failed to include, do not exist?

This:


All this seems to suggest that objects and processes not only change because of their internal opposites, but that they change into them (and, according to Lenin, they change into all of them!), and that they also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change. As we shall see, all this presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches.

To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus changes as a result.

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

And it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it now becomes what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there in the present to make that happen!

Hence, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'changes' into not-O*, where then is the change? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears. Thus, O* does not change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it.

At the very least, this account of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

It cannot have come from O*, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the negation of the negation) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

[FL = Formal Logic.]

Now, it could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes into fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, the above argument is entirely misguided -- or so it could be claimed.

In that case, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows. Hence, if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, where then is the change? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears.

Thus, O* does not change into not-O* it is just replaced by it, since not-O* already exists!

The only way to read this to avoid the above difficulty is to argue that despite this, O* still 'develops' into not-O*. But that cannot work, for not-O* must already exist for this to happen, and that would mean that there would now be two not-O*s where once there was only one!

It would also mean, incidentally, that all the while not-O* must remain the unchanged (which denouement would violate the DM-thesis that all things are always changing, and changing onto one another!).

Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*. But if that were so, while it was happening, these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process" while that is taking place". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective' once more.

But even this will not work. Let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change into an intermediary, but not into not-O* (which is, as we saw above, O**), contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier.

No, O* would have to change into an intermediary -- say O*1 --, and it would remain in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*1 in existence to make it change any further.

Anyway, even if O*1 were to change into not-O*1 itself (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems would reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*1 already exists to make it happen. But not-O*1 cannot already exist, for O*1 has not changed into it yet!

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into one, as the above claims. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists. Or so it could be claimed.

Maybe so, but according to the DM-worthies above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

Furthermore, John's 'opposite' is whatever he becomes (if he is allowed to develop naturally). But, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist or John would not need to become him!

So, in ten or fifteen years, John will not just become any man, he will become a particular man. Let us call the man that he becomes Manj. In that case, this opposite must exist now or John will not change into him (if the DM-worthies above are to be believed). But, if that is so, John cannot become Manj since he already exists!

[This is, of course, just a concrete example of the argument above.]

Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100oC (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam? It must do so if the above DM-worthies are to be believed. So, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens according to these wise old dialecticians is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy, and turn the gas off!

Let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it we shall call it W1, and the steam molecule it turns into S1. But, if the DM-worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it. But if that is so, where does S1 disappear to? In fact, according to the above worthies, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific theory, steam is turning back into the water you have just boiled, and at the same rate!

One wonders therefore how kettles manage to boil dry.

This must be so, otherwise, when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists or W1 could not change -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other examples of change).

None of this, of course, is to deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

Whichever way we try to re-package this 'Law' we end up with insuperable problems.

However, Mao attempted to revise Hegel, Engels and Lenin by the invention of principle and secondary contradictions (arguably to allow him to indulge in class-collaboration with the Goumindang):


[b]'For instance, consider the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Take one aspect, the Kuomintang. In the period of the first united front, the Kuomintang carried out Sun Yat-sen's Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party, and assistance to the peasants and workers; hence it was revolutionary and vigorous, it was an alliance of various classes for the democratic revolution. After 1927, however, the Kuomintang changed into its opposite and became a reactionary bloc of the landlords and big bourgeoisie. After the Sian Incident in December 1936, it began another change in the direction of ending the civil war and co-operating with the Communist Party for joint opposition to Japanese imperialism.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-1/mswv1_17.htm

But how can contradictions themselves change? Presumably, if they do, they too must be UO's.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

Let us assume then that the 'Primary' contradiction P1 changes into 'Secondary' contradiction S1.

But what brings about this change?

[MAD = Materialist Dialectics.]

Given the DM-theory of change, P1 must itself be composed of at least two further opposites, say: P* and P**, one of which P1 must turn into (since, as we saw, it is part of this MAD-theory that all things change into their opposites).

Hence, P1 turns into, say, P**.



But, once more: why did P1 change into P**?

Well, this must be because there is a 'contradiction' between P* and P** (or, perhaps, between P1 and P**).

But, in that case, if all things turn into their opposites, P* must change into P**, too!

There must therefore be two P**'s -- say P**a and P**b, for both of these to turn into, collectively or severally.

So, P1 and P* turn into one or other of P**a or P**b, while P** remains the same (or, it becomes one of these two, too).

But, that means that P** is either changeless (shock! horror!) or it too changes into one of the options that have already been selected for P* or P1 to become.

But, once more, P**a and P**b already exist, so P** cannot change into either of them!

Putting that 'difficulty' to one side for now, this can only mean that P1, which used to be made up of at least P* and P**, turns into P**, while P* turns into P**, too --, or it turns into something else (but into what and how?), or it disappears, or it does not change.

So, either P1 and P* merge into one entity (as they both become P**) or they turn into one or other of P**a or P**b -- or, third P** possibility (say, P**c) pops into existence as they (both?) change into it!

But if this is so, it is not easy to see how P1 could be part of the action. It must contain all these things (as internal opposites) if it is to turn into them, and yet that can only mean that it turns into one of its own parts! Once more, how can it do that if they too already exist?

Putting this to one side, too: the changes wrought in P1 and P* could not have been the result of a 'struggle of opposites', since this new opposite (i.e., P**c) does not yet exist!

On the other hand, if that opposite does exist (so that it can 'struggle' with one or both of the other two, and thereby cause the given change), neither P1 nor P* could change into it, since it already exists, too! So, these two cannot change, either.

Either that or there must be something else for one or both to change into -- but even then the same problems would simply return.

In that case, this 'theory' seems to imply that things either merge, disappear, or are created ex nihilo -- or they do not change!

Anyway, why should anything change from a P-type contradiction into an S-type, to begin with?

On this theory, this would only happen if, say, P1 already contained an S-type contradiction for it to change into. [Recall that on this 'theory', internal opposites cause change and things change into their opposites!] But where on earth did that S-type contradiction come from?

Given the above reasoning, for this to happen, P** (from earlier) must be an S-type contradiction, otherwise P1 (or P*) could not change into it. But, as we saw, P** already exists, so nothing can change into it!

Once more, these seem to be the only options available to MIST's: either P1 (or P*) merges with P**, or it (they) disappear into thin air -- or there are at least 3 versions of P** (P**a, P**b and P**c) for one or other to change into.

But these three (P**a, P**b and P**c) cannot exist, since if they did, P* and P1 could not change into them. But if they don't exist, they cannot struggle with anything in order to bring about the required change!

So, yet again, nothing actually changes (or nothing causes it!).

In that case, not only can this scenario not work, we still do not know why anything should alter from the one into the other sort of contradiction, or into anything whatsoever.

And these difficulties do not go away if concrete examples are substituted for the schematic letters used above. So, for example, why did the "primary contradiction" between China and Japan (referred to by Mao) change? On sound MAD-lines, it could only do so as a result of its own 'internal contradictions'. In that case, this "primary contradiction", C/J, must have had internal opposites C/J* and C/J**; the rest follows as before.

[MIST = Maoist Dialectician.]

Perhaps you missed it.

I can undesrtand you trying to ignore my unanswerable refutation, but you needn't pretend to be so ignorant.


[b]I'm going to ask one more time to stop your infantile trollish shit.

Just copying you, the master.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A longer and more detailed version of the argument presented above can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change)

[Dros]

I can undesrtand you trying to ignore my unanswerable refutation, but you needn't pretend to be so ignorant.

Wow. You are so awesome! You presented an irrefutable argument! I guess I'm going to change myself into a Rosa Luxembourgist now.

In all seriousness, your argument is based on your own gigantic misreading of Mao and silly suppositions that make no sense. Perhaps you can go back and explain the silly assertions you made and then we can have a sensical argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

dross:


You presented an irrefutable argument! I guess I'm going to change myself into a Rosa Luxembourgist now.

I hope not, since she has nothing to do with me.


In all seriousness, your argument is based on your own gigantic misreading of Mao and silly suppositions that make no sense. Perhaps you can go back and explain the silly assertions you made and then we can have a sensical argument.

A 'misreading'? In what way?

If Mao says everything turns into its opposite, then where is my misreading?

What you really mean is that you have never given this loopy 'logic' any thought at all.

Which helps explain your second emotional response.

You have been caught out accepting a croc... :blush:

[Dros]

I hope not, since she has nothing to do with me.

Forgive me. I confused you with a revolutionary.


A 'misreading'? In what way?

Mao stated that under certain circumstances, a thing can change into its opposite. Very simple. Very true.


What you really mean is that you have never given this loopy 'logic' any thought at all.

Which helps explain your second emotional response.

You have been caught out accepting a croc... :blush:

I will no longer dignify your sad, obnoxious, self satisfied flaming with a response.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera, unable to respond, now attacks my integrity:


Forgive me. I confused you with a revolutionary.

Yes, you sounded confused.


Mao stated that under certain circumstances, a thing can change into its opposite. Very simple. Very true.

Unfortunately for you he said:


All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted here. Bold emphasis added.]

All processes, you will note; and it is "absolute"

In this Mao agreed with Lenin, among others:


[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]

But, even if you were right, and Mao believed that only under certain circumstances do opposites change into one another, as I have shown, nothing can change into its opposite, under any circumstances, in the way imagined by you mystics.

So, even though Mao disgreed with you, had he not done so, and had he agreed with you, his 'theory' would still not have worked.


I will no longer dignify your sad, obnoxious, self satisfied flaming with a response.

Your surrender is accepted.

[Dros]

All processes, you will note; and it is "absolute"

In this Mao agreed with Lenin, among others:

Links please.



But, even if you were right, and Mao believed that only under certain circumstances do opposites change into one another, as I have shown, nothing can change into its opposite, under any circumstances, in the way imagined by you mystics.

That is the most absurd and laughable claim of all time. Has there ever been a war? Has there ever been a time in a certain place where there wasn't a war? Again, perhaps you should make an argument. Better luck next time.

EDIT:
now attacks my integrity

1.) I am perfectly able to respond. You are incapable of making real arguments.
2.) Where in my last post have I attacked your integrity? You are obnoxious and rude but I have not attacked your integrity. That is a fairly serious allegation and I suggest you back it up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


Links please.

Look, you have already proved to everyone's satisfaction that either a) you can't read, or b) you need new glasses, or c) both --, so you can stop trying to provide us with more evidence of that sad fact.

[The links were given above, and the references.]


That is the most absurd and laughable claim of all time.

Not quite, but I am trying to descend to your level of idiocy, so be patient with me. :)


Has there ever been a war? Has there ever been a time in a certain place where there wasn't a war?

But what has that got to do with what I said?


Again, perhaps you should make an argument. Better luck next time.

Better luck with the new glasses, for the ones you have on are distorting your vision.

--------------------------------------


1.) I am perfectly able to respond. You are incapable of making real arguments.

2.) Where in my last post have I attacked your integrity? You are obnoxious and rude but I have not attacked your integrity. That is a fairly serious allegation and I suggest you back it up.

You seem incapable of responding to my long, or my short argument.

But you are good at bluster.

I am obnoxious to those who worship mass murdering monsters like Mao (and we all know that being obnoxious is far far worse than murdering millions of peasants, etc.), and to those who cast doubt on my revolutionary persona.

Here, in your own words:


Forgive me. I confused you with a revolutionary.

[Dros]

I'm pretty sure you were obnoxious prior to my mistaking your name.


I am obnoxious to those who worship mass murdering monsters like Mao (and we all know that being obnoxious is far far worse than murdering millions of peasants, etc.), and to those who cast doubt on my revolutionary persona.

:lol: :lol: :lol: you make me laugh...


You seem incapable of responding to my long, or my short argument.

I will deal with it presently.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


I'm pretty sure you were obnoxious prior to my mistaking your name.

To quote a semi-divine member of RevLeft:


Links please.


you make me laugh.

It's called 'whistling in the dark'.


I will deal with it presently.

I am quaking in my non-dialectical boots. :o

[Dros]

To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus changes as a result.

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists!

Why? That is a rediculous assertion.


If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

And it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it now becomes what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there in the present to make that happen!

Fundementally misunderstanding what is going on. See #1 below.


But, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'changes' into not-O*, how can it do this if not-O* already exists?

Nonsensical assertion.


All that seems to happen is that O* disappears. Thus, O* does not change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it.

If that change occurs in side a finite and definite system, then it is a change.


At the very least, this account of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

Unity of Opposites. See #1 below.


It cannot have come from O*, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the negation of the negation) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

#1


Now, it could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes into fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, the above argument is entirely misguided.

True.


In that case, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows. Hence, if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, where then is the change? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears.

#1.)


Thus, O* does not change into not-O* it is just replaced by it, since not-O* already exists!

1


The only way to read this to avoid the above difficulty is to argue that despite this, O* still 'develops' into not-O*. But that cannot work, for not-O* must already exist for this to happen,

Assertion and 1.)


and that would mean that there would now be two not-O*s where once there was only one!

1


It would also mean, incidentally, that all the while not-O* must remain the unchanged (which denouement would violate the DM-thesis that all things are always changing, and changing onto one another!).

#2 Below.


Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*. But if that were so, while it was happening, these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process" while that is taking place". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective' once more.

1


But even this will not work. Let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change into an intermediary, but not into not-O* (which is, as we saw above, O**), contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier.

a.) irrelevant
b.) assertion
c.) Show the contradiction.


No, O* would have to change into an intermediary -- say O*1 --, and it would remain in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*1 in existence to make it change any further.

See #2.


Anyway, even if O*1 were to change into not-O*1 itself (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems would reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*1 already exists to make it happen. But not-O*1 cannot already exist, for O*1 has not changed into it yet!

2 and 1


It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change.

Duh...


For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into one, as the above claims. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists. Or so it could be claimed.

Maybe so, but according to the DM-worthies above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

1


Furthermore, John's 'opposite' is whatever he becomes (if he is allowed to develop naturally). But, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist or John would not need to become him!

1


So, in ten or fifteen years, John will not just become any man, he will become a particular man. Let us call the man that he becomes Manj. In that case, this opposite must exist now or John will not change into him (if the DM-worthies above are to be believed). But, if that is so, John cannot become Manj since he already exists!

1 and 2


Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100oC (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam?

1


It must do so if the above DM-worthies are to be believed. So, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens according to these wise old dialecticians is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy, and turn the gas off!

Let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it we shall call it W1, and the steam molecule it turns into S1. But, if the DM-worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it. But if that is so, where does S1 disappear to? In fact, according to the above worthies, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific theory, steam is turning back into the water you have just boiled, and at the same rate! One wonders therefore how kettles manage to boil dry.

#3
Also there is no reason why it would occur at the same rate.


This must be so, otherwise, when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists or W1 could not change -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

1,2, and 3


Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other examples of change).

None of this, of course, is to deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

Whichever way we try to re-package this 'Law' we end up with insuperable problems.

However, Mao attempted to revise Hegel, Engels and Lenin by the invention of principle and secondary contradictions (arguably to allow him to indulge in class-collaboration with the Goumindang):


'For instance, consider the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Take one aspect, the Kuomintang. In the period of the first united front, the Kuomintang carried out Sun Yat-sen's Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party, and assistance to the peasants and workers; hence it was revolutionary and vigorous, it was an alliance of various classes for the democratic revolution. After 1927, however, the Kuomintang changed into its opposite and became a reactionary bloc of the landlords and big bourgeoisie. After the Sian Incident in December 1936, it began another change in the direction of ending the civil war and co-operating with the Communist Party for joint opposition to Japanese imperialism.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-1/mswv1_17.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm)

But how can contradictions themselves change? Presumably, if they do, they too must be UO's.

Are you seriously argueing that contradictions don't change?!


Let us assume then that the 'Primary' contradiction P1 changes into 'Secondary' contradiction S1.

But what brings about this change?

Given the DM-theory of change, P1 must itself be composed of at least two further opposites, say: P* and P**, one of which P1 must turn into (since, as we saw, it is part of this MAD-theory that all things change into their opposites).

2


Hence, P1 turns into, say, P**.

[But do not try asking what happened to P*! As we will see, it's not that simple.]

But, once more: why did P1 change into P**?

Well, this must be because there is a 'contradiction' between P* and P** (or, perhaps, between P1 and P**).

But, in that case, if all things turn into their opposites, P* must change into P**, too! [But, P** already exists, so how can anything turn into it?]

1 and 2


There must therefore be two P**'s -- say P**a and P**b, for both of these to turn into, collectively or severally.

So, P1 and P* turn into one or other of P**a or P**b, while P** remains the same (or, it becomes one of these two, too).

But, that means that P** is either changeless (shock! horror!) or it too changes into one of the options that have already been selected for P* or P1 to become.

But, once more, P**a and P**b already exist, so P** cannot change into either of them!

Putting that 'difficulty' to one side for now, this can only mean that P1, which used to be made up of at least P* and P**, turns into P**, while P* turns into P**, too --, or it turns into something else (but into what and how?), or it disappears, or it does not change.

So, either P1 and P* merge into one entity (as they both become P**) or they turn into one or other of P**a or P**b -- or, third P** possibility (say, P**c) pops into existence as they (both?) change into it!

1,2, and 3 so many times I didn't want to apply them to all the errors.


But if this is so, it is not easy to see how P1 could be part of the action. It must contain all these things (as internal opposites) if it is to turn into them, and yet that can only mean that it turns into one of its own parts! Once more, how can it do that if they too already exist?

Once more, 1.


Putting this to one side, too: the changes wrought in P1 and P* could not have been the result of a 'struggle of opposites', since this new opposite (i.e., P**c) does not yet exist!

2


On the other hand, if that opposite does exist (so that it can 'struggle' with one or both of the other two, and thereby cause the given change), neither P1 nor P* could change into it, since it already exists, too! So, these two cannot change, either.

1


Either that or there must be something else for one or both to change into -- but even then the same problems would simply return.

In that case, this 'theory' seems to imply that things either merge, disappear, or are created ex nihilo -- or they do not change!

Anyway, why should anything change from a P-type contradiction into an S-type, to begin with?

On this theory, this would only happen if, say, P1 already contained an S-type contradiction for it to change into. [Recall that on this 'theory', internal opposites cause change and things change into their opposites!] But where on earth did that S-type contradiction come from?

This last bit is nonsensical.


Given the above reasoning, for this to happen, P** (from earlier) must be an S-type contradiction, otherwise P1 (or P*) could not change into it. But, as we saw, P** already exists, so nothing can change into it!

1 and 2


Once more, these seem to be the only options available to MIST's: either P1 (or P*) merges with P**, or it (they) disappear into thin air -- or there are at least 3 versions of P** (P**a, P**b and P**c) for one or other to change into.

But these three (P**a, P**b and P**c) cannot exist, since if they did, P* and P1 could not change into them. But if they don't exist, they cannot struggle with anything in order to bring about the required change!

So, yet again, nothing actually changes (or nothing causes it!).

Better brush up on your Engels.


In that case, not only can this scenario not work, we still do not know why anything should alter from the one into the other sort of contradiction, or into anything whatsoever.

And these difficulties do not go away if concrete examples are substituted for the schematic letters used above. So, for example, why did the "primary contradiction" between China and Japan (referred to by Mao) change? On sound MAD-lines, it could only do so as a result of its own 'internal contradictions'. In that case, this "primary contradiction", C/J, must have had internal opposites C/J* and C/J**; the rest follows as before.

And those did not exist?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????

1.) The unity of opposites does not mean that one opposite literally "contains" the other. It means that the one can not exist or is defined by the other. So peace is defined by the existence of war.
2.) Silly, mechanistic methodology. Your thinking assumes a closed and finite system which does not exist and is frankly absurd and totally inapplicable to reality.
3.) You forget that this occurs only under certain conditions (or very slowly it could be argued).

Seriously, that's right up there with Hegel in terms of being unmaterialistic.

And then you attack us Maoists for going on longwinded diatribes that the masses wouldn't read... oh the irony.

================================================== ============


semi-divine

Only semi?!


I am obnoxious to those who worship mass murdering monsters like Mao

I love how unsectarian you are!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


Why? That is a rediculous assertion.

You failed to say why you think this is so (which comment applies to most of the content of this latest post of yours).

As the quotations show, an opposite has to exist so that it can 'struggle' with its other half. So, capitalists have to exist at the same time as workers.

If so, then they cannot turn into one another. So, dialectics cannot explain change.


Nonsensical assertion.

Why?


If that change occurs in side a finite and definite system, then it is a change.

Maybe so, but dialectics cannot explain it.


a.) irrelevant
b.) assertion
c.) Show the contradiction.

a) Why?

b) No less so than Mao's 'assertions' -- all made without proof/argument, unlike mine.

c) Done it. You need to wake up.


Also there is no reason why it would occur at the same rate.

So?


Are you seriously argueing that contradictions don't change?!

1) I deny they are 'contradictions'.

2) Even if they were, and even if they could change, Mao's 'theory' could not explain it.


This last bit is nonsensical.

May I suggest you stop posting such stuff then?


Better brush up on your Engels.

Done, it; his 'theory' does not work either.


1.) The unity of opposites does not mean that one opposite literally "contains" the other. It means that the one can not exist or is defined by the other. So peace is defined by the existence of war.

2.) Silly, mechanistic methodology. Your thinking assumes a closed and finite system which does not exist and is frankly absurd and totally inapplicable to reality.

3.) You forget that this occurs only under certain conditions (or very slowly it could be argued).

1) Nobody seems to know what the 'contain' metaphor actually means, so I do not know how you can say this. I, in fact, have explored every alternative, and none of them work.

And if they exist at the same time, they cannot change into one another, as I pointed out.

On the other hand, if they do not exist at the same time, then one of them cannot change.

[In fact, peace can be 'defined' without war. So your example fails too.]

2) Not so. This is just another of your 'assertions'.

3) Whether or not this is so, dialectics cannot explain it.


Seriously, that's right up there with Hegel in terms of being unmaterialistic.

You are the one who has accepted a mystical theory derived from the work of that logical incompetent, Hegel, whereas I reject all he had to say.


And then you attack us Maoists for going on longwinded diatribes that the masses wouldn't read... oh the irony.

Well, the 'masses' do not read them, unless forced to.


I love how unsectarian you are!

Thanks; can't say the same about you, though.


Only semi?!

You are a little too dim for full divine status.

[Zurdito]

dialectics is pretty simple in what it means to a marxist: that we inheret circumstances out of our control, interact with them based on our own decisions but limited by those circumstances, and that way create new circumstances for the future. that's dialectical materialism to me anyway, and it's kind of self-evident.

the rest of this rambling about O* and O** is pretty much missing the point. Also, if Engels or Mao once wrote something confusing or incorrect and called it dialectics, how does that in itself make dialectical materialism rubbish?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


dialectics is pretty simple in what it means to a marxist: that we inheret circumstances out of our control, interact with them based on our own decisions but limited by those circumstances, and that way create new circumstances for the future. that's dialectical materialism to me anyway, and it's kind of self-evident.

And the Gospels are pretty simple to all naive believers, too.


the rest of this rambling about O* and O** is pretty much missing the point. Also, if Engels or Mao once wrote something confusing or incorrect and called it dialectics, how does that in itself make dialectical materialism rubbish?

Ah, but these two jokers wrote nothing but rubbish on dialectics.

And, I note your incapacity to respond to my demolitioin of this part of dialectics -- or rather, your indirect admission you can't by your use of the vague term "rambling", which is always a dead giveaway.

Just as I note that you have yet to tell us (just as anyone has yet to tell us) what precisely is the point is that I am missing.

Of course, Engels, Lenin and Mao's confused thoughts in this area follow directly from the idea that everything in reality is a unity (or perhaps identity) of opposites, and that all change is a result of 'internal contradictions', and an 'inner struggle'.

If now you want to abandon this mystical idea, Z, that's fine by me.

[For my part, I am glad my expose has helped clear yet another mystical notion from your mind.

But, a 'thank you' now and then would not go amiss...]

[Zurdito]

Rosa,

I would like to know whether you agree with this or not:

"we inheret circumstances out of our control, interact with them based on our own decisions but limited by those circumstances, and that way create new circumstances for the future."

Anything else is rambling, yes, because this is the important thing to a marxist. I agree you are probably correct that when social science tries to revise physics, chemistry or biology in its own model, then there will be problems. I suppose you do deserve credit for emphasising that fact. However I've never really based my marxism on that premise. And certainly not on anything Mao wrote. :)

[Dros]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 13, 2007 04:34 am
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change)
Your whole post came off that website.

[Volderbeek]

Haven't we seen this before Rosa? I mean, I know all too well of your penchant for repetition, but don't you usually just drop links to the old topics?

Anyway, let's go over this again...might find something new:


Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)All this seems to suggest that objects and processes not only change because of their internal opposites, but that they change into them (and, according to Lenin, they change into all of them!), and that they also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change. As we shall see, all this presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches.[/b]

Yes, if everything can be conceived as binary oppositions (as Unity of Opposites asserts it can), then how else could things change?

And let's not forget that internal opposites don't cause change as Mao pointed out here:


Originally posted by Mao Tse-tung+--> (Mao Tse-tung)Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.[/b]


Rosa [email protected]
To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus changes as a result.

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

After all that fuss in the other topic about Hegel's use of obscure terms, it's rather hypocritical of you to use "existence" here. This is a central topic in philosophy, and there's certainly no consensus as to what it means.

The opposite exists as potential, much like potential energy in physics.


Rosa Lichtenstein
Maybe so, but according to the DM-worthies above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

For that matter, why doesn't John change back into a boy afterwards? Or even better, why doesn't John change into a girl and back again continuously? The answer is that the dialectical process is not "things changing into their opposites." That's simply the way to explain Unity of Opposites. Considering your earlier claim that you've studied dialectics for 20+ years, it's hard to believe you really didn't know this. We have to assume you're intentionally misleading us.

The dialectical process occurs via what is called sublation. The two opposites are sublated, meaning each is both preserved and changed. Of course, it's implicit in the concept that the amount each is preserved and changed is completely variable and inversely proportional. So it's entirely possible that everything is preserved and nothing is changed, or that nothing is preserved and everything changes.

So, John is, in fact, constantly being sublated but not necessarily changing. John is a boy, but also a not not boy, a not not not not boy, and so on.

And if you think manhood never struggles with boyhood, then you've never heard of adolescence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


"we inheret circumstances out of our control, interact with them based on our own decisions but limited by those circumstances, and that way create new circumstances for the future."

Too vague.

Anyway, dialectics is about a specific sort of change, not a cleaned-up, banalised, vague sort of change that even George W Bush could agree with.

And it is that sort of change (through the 'struggle of opposites') that is thoroughly confused.


Anything else is rambling, yes, because this is the important thing to a marxist. I agree you are probably correct that when social science tries to revise physics, chemistry or biology in its own model, then there will be problems. I suppose you do deserve credit for emphasising that fact. However I've never really based my marxism on that premise. And certainly not on anything Mao wrote.

Or on Lenin, Engels, and Plekhanov (who all said the same as Mao)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


Your whole post came off that website.

Well done; you see you can think for yourself. :o

Only problem is that that is my site! :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Haven't we seen this before Rosa? I mean, I know all too well of your penchant for repetition, but don't you usually just drop links to the old topics?

And well done to you, too, comrade!

I had thought that the Hermetic virus had nuked all your brain cells, but now see that that was a little too hasty on my part.

[You do know that this is the original thread from which I derived material for our earlier 'debate', and that this new 'debate' has been initiated by 'drosera' trying to make all the old mistakes again.]

Anyway, given the highly repetitive nature of dialectics, I'd have thought that you would be right at home with continual repetition.


Yes, if everything can be conceived as binary oppositions (as Unity of Opposites asserts it can), then how else could things change?

1) Not everything, or even most things are such binaries.

2) There are countless other ways in which things change.

3) Dialectics can explain none of them, for the reasons I have given.


And let's not forget that internal opposites don't cause change as Mao pointed out here:

Yes, I am aware of that; I devoted a 40,000 word essay to debunking that stupid idea too:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

But even if this were so, and even if it were comprehensible, it would still not answer the problems I raised. Whether these 'opposites' are 'internal' or 'external', no object or process can turn into its 'opposite' in the way Mao and the other dialectical prophets imagined.


After all that fuss in the other topic about Hegel's use of obscure terms, it's rather hypocritical of you to use "existence" here. This is a central topic in philosophy, and there's certainly no consensus as to what it means.

I was in fact using the ordinary term 'existence', here, not the philosophical term.

But, you choose the term you prefer, and I will show it does not work, either.


For that matter, why doesn't John change back into a boy afterwards? Or even better, why doesn't John change into a girl and back again continuously? The answer is that the dialectical process is not "things changing into their opposites." That's simply the way to explain Unity of Opposites. Considering your earlier claim that you've studied dialectics for 20+ years, it's hard to believe you really didn't know this. We have to assume you're intentionally misleading us.

Good questions, and I note dialectics cannot explain these either.

But, you take me to task for saying this or that, but you will also note that I am merely taking the dialectical holy books at their word, for Mao does say what you now tell us dialectics is not about:


"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted in my Essays. Bold emphasis added.]

Processes involve things too.

Anyway, I am careful to qualify my words, in a way you deliberately ignored:


To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus changes as a result.

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

And it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it now becomes what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there in the present to make that happen!

But, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'changes' into not-O*, how can it do this if not-O* already exists? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears. Thus, O* does not change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it.

Now, if you want to revise this loopy theory of yours as a result of my demoiltion of it, no problem. Let's hear what it is (if we can above the hysterical cries of "Revisionism!" that will greet it)

[I'll very kindly demolish the new theory too. :) ]


The dialectical process occurs via what is called sublation. The two opposites are sublated, meaning each is both preserved and changed. Of course, it's implicit in the concept that the amount each is preserved and changed is completely variable and inversely proportional. So it's entirely possible that everything is preserved and nothing is changed, or that nothing is preserved and everything changes.

Yes, I know about 'sublation', and I deal with that in the rest of the Essay from which this snippet this was taken.

Bad news, too: that obscure notion does not work either.

[The proof of that assertion takes on a similar form to the one given above, except all one has to do is modify the O* and the not-O* to cater for this latest delaying tactic of yours.]


So, John is, in fact, constantly being sublated but not necessarily changing. John is a boy, but also a not not boy, a not not not not boy, and so on.

Once more, this cannot work, either -- and for the same reasons. I'll leave the details for you to work out -- if you are up to it.


And if you think manhood never struggles with boyhood, then you've never heard of adolescence.

So, you believe that concepts can 'struggle', eh?

As I suspected, you are an Idealist. :o

[But, what 'struggles' with adolescence?]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades who thought that the dialectical prophets had been misrepresented by me, or who tried to argue that only one or two of them said the ridiculous things I alleged of them, should check out the following quotations for a representative sample, drawn from right across the dialectical spectrum, of the loopy opinions I have helpfully demolished in this thread:


"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Hegel (1975), p.174.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and. their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., p.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

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

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

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

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing [tone], each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285. The translation in the edition I have consulted reads differently from the one Lenin used; Hegel is referring to "tones" here, not "things", as the reference to "harmony" indicates.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature....

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes." [Stalin (1976b), pp.836, 840.]

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end....[Ibid, pp.311-18.]

"The second dialectical law, that of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the essentially contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a hundred years ago….

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite.” [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

"Movement and change result from causes inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions….

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, ex pressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.' [Rob Sewell.]

References and links can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change

It would not be difficult to double or even treble the length of this list of quotations (as anyone who has access to as many books and articles on dialectics as I have will attest).

Comrades will note how mind-numbingly repetitive these dialectical worthies are, just as they will note that the above comrades are hoplessly confused about whether they believe (1) that all change is a result of a "struggles" of "opposites", or (2) that objects/processes change into their "opposites", or (3) that they produce these "opposites" when they change, precisely as I argued above

As I have demonstrated, none of these can be true together.

[Zurdito]

Anyway, dialectics is about a specific sort of change, not a cleaned-up, banalised, vague sort of change that even George W Bush could agree with.

He could agree with it, but he would not apply it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


He could agree with it, but he would not apply it.

Don't be silly, no human being could survive without being able to 'apply' the sort of change you describe.

Once more, dialectical change is change through contradiction, not just any old change.

And that is why it cannot work.

[Zurdito]

Don't be silly, no human being could survive without being able to 'apply' the sort of change you describe.

And no human being could survive without understanding and applying the importance of material wealth, however, this isn't the same as openly and consciously acknowledging it and developing a generalised rule.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


And no human being could survive without understanding and applying the importance of material wealth, however, this isn't the same as openly and consciously acknowledging it and developing a generalised rule.

What has this got to do with dialectics, which is, once more, a special sort of change, and not the watered-down, wishy-washy variety you are trying to sell us.

And, the rule you are trying to sell us is so bland that I suspect once more that even Geroge W could develop it as a "generalised rule":


"we inheret circumstances out of our control, interact with them based on our own decisions but limited by those circumstances, and that way create new circumstances for the future."

This is the bland kind of stuff you get in Cosmo!

[patient persuasion]

Rosa, I appreciate your effort but - coming from a somewhat average reader - your writing can be somewhat impossible to digest. How do you expect a worker to get anything from out of what you write? You obviously dedicate a lot of your life to it, so just wondering . . .

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patient Persuasion:


Rosa, I appreciate your effort but - coming from a somewhat average reader - your writing can be somewhat impossible to digest. How do you expect a worker to get anything from out of what you write? You obviously dedicate a lot of your life to it, so just wondering . . .

How can we expect workers to digest Das Kapital, but they do.

The passage you were referring to was highly technical.

Try this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Anti-D...ummies%2001.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm)

[Volderbeek]

1) Not everything, or even most things are such binaries.

2) There are countless other ways in which things change.

3) Dialectics can explain none of them, for the reasons I have given.

1. Right, most things are a complex assortment of binaries. Regardless, everything can be reduced to them.

2. See 1.

3. The only "reason" you gave was some obscure notion of existence. As I said, opposites exist as potential.




And let's not forget that internal opposites don't cause change as Mao pointed out here:Yes, I am aware of that; I devoted a 40,000 word essay to debunking that stupid idea tooNow you're just calling it stupid? You're not even trying anymore! :lol:

And I imagine it must take 40,000 words to describe how a stone can turn into a chicken.



But even if this were so, and even if it were comprehensible, it would still not answer the problems I raised.Assuming for no reason that it tried too... [that part was about cause and effect]



Whether these 'opposites' are 'internal' or 'external', no object or process can turn into its 'opposite' in the way Mao and the other dialectical prophets imagined.Yeah, they imagined it in some special mystical way that they're not telling us. :rolleyes:




After all that fuss in the other topic about Hegel's use of obscure terms, it's rather hypocritical of you to use "existence" here. This is a central topic in philosophy, and there's certainly no consensus as to what it means.I was in fact using the ordinary term 'existence', here, not the philosophical term.Whaaaat?! That's some of the best circular reasoning I've ever seen. The whole point of philosophy is to clarify and pinpoint just what we mean in "ordinary" use.




For that matter, why doesn't John change back into a boy afterwards? Or even better, why doesn't John change into a girl and back again continuously? The answer is that the dialectical process is not "things changing into their opposites." That's simply the way to explain Unity of Opposites. Considering your earlier claim that you've studied dialectics for 20+ years, it's hard to believe you really didn't know this. We have to assume you're intentionally misleading us.Good questions, and I note dialectics cannot explain these either.

But, you take me to task for saying this or that, but you will also note that I am merely taking the dialectical holy books at their word, for Mao does say what you now tell us dialectics is not about:


"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted in my Essays. Bold emphasis added.] Processes involve things too.I "take you to task" for presenting the weakest arguments at face value, and then claiming dialectics has been "demolished."

As for Mao, it's hard to tell whether he really didn't get sublation, or if he was just presenting it in a strange way.



Yes, I know about 'sublation', and I deal with that in the rest of the Essay from which this snippet this was taken.

Bad news, too: that obscure notion does not work either.

[The proof of that assertion takes on a similar form to the one given above, except all one has to do is modify the O* and the not-O* to cater for this latest delaying tactic of yours.]Considering how that alleged refutation didn't work, I don't see how this one could be any better off. [/Rosa-style argument]



So, you believe that concepts can 'struggle', eh?Of course, I do believe in thought autonomy.



As I suspected, you are an Idealist. :o Depends on what you mean by idealist. If you mean someone who rejects the existence of an objective world, then most certainly not.



[But, what 'struggles' with adolescence?]Well, there's adolescence as such, then there's...oh, nevermind... :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


1. Right, most things are a complex assortment of binaries. Regardless, everything can be reduced to them.

Not so; try reducing the relation between speed, distance and time, say, to just binaries. Or, try reducing quarks to binaries, to take another example.

And I thought you mystics were anti-reductionists.


2. See 1.

That's no help, since most things cannot be reduced in the way you say.


3. The only "reason" you gave was some obscure notion of existence. As I said, opposites exist as potential.

Then they cannot have any influence on each other.


Now you're just calling it stupid? You're not even trying anymore!

Yes, I suppose arguing with someone like you, who has not tried from the start, is having a bad effect on me.


And I imagine it must take 40,000 words to describe how a stone can turn into a chicken.

Good job then that I remained focussed on the key issues, and refused to be distracted like you, then, isn't it?


Assuming for no reason that it tried too... [that part was about cause and effect]

Eh? :blink:


Yeah, they imagined it in some special mystical way that they're not telling us.

You (as a card-carrying mystic) might be excused for thinking this, but the Dialectical Holy Books tell another story --, which does not work anyway, as I demonstrated.


Whaaaat?! That's some of the best circular reasoning I've ever seen. The whole point of philosophy is to clarify and pinpoint just what we mean in "ordinary" use.

I can only speak for myself. That is how I was using this term. If you do not like it, in your infinite wisdom, you tell us what it wrong with it.

Anyway, here is what arch dialectician Gollobin had to say:


"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels. Bold added.]

Reference at my site, here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change)

You will notice that neither he, nor Engels, nor any other dialectician, speaks about your odd sort of 'potential'. Gollobin is quite specific; these opposites "exist" together. So is Engels.

Hence, my argument is quite sound; dialectics cannot explain change.


I "take you to task" for presenting the weakest arguments at face value, and then claiming dialectics has been "demolished."

As the long post above shows, this is not the 'weakest' argument, but the core argument.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292436469 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70981&view=findpost&p=1292436469)

You just object to having been caught out, and are rapidly trying to make pathetic on the hoof repairs in a theory to which you have never given much thought, but have meekly accepted, just because it was in the Holy Books, and it is traditional for you mystics to accept what you are told by the prophets.


Considering how that alleged refutation didn't work, I don't see how this one could be any better off. [/Rosa-style argument]

Well, you haven't yet shown my argument does not work, but you have raised a few irrelevant points about 'existence' (which word, as it turns out, appears in the Dialectical Gospels anyway), and you substituted for this 'potentials', which can have no influence on anything.

So, your 'theory' is, if anything, even worse.

As for the rest of my argument, it is all the same to me if you stay ignorant, and remain wedded to a theory that does not work; please, do not read it. I would hate to think I had in any way been responsible for helping you wave goodbye to your self-inflicted nescience.


Of course, I do believe in thought autonomy.

As I said: you are an idealist.


Depends on what you mean by idealist. If you mean someone who rejects the existence of an objective world, then most certainly not.

Hegel did not reject this either, but he was an idealist, nonetheless.


Well, there's adolescence as such, then there's...oh, nevermind...

I take it that you were about to say that it does not exist in an adolescent as a potential, but is actual, thus destroying the point you tried to sell us earlier. [The use of the verb 'to be' gave you away, highlighted in bold.]

I can now see why you stopped dead in your non-dialectical tracks.

[Herman]

How can we expect workers to digest Das Kapital, but they do.

A minority of workers can digest "Das Kapital". Most of them don't even read the three volumes and fewer understand it.

What i'm trying to say is that you should be careful with your wording and not make it too complicated for the newcomers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Herman:


What i'm trying to say is that you should be careful with your wording and not make it too complicated for the newcomers.

Thanks for that H, but, you know what happens when I 'dumb' things down, the dialectical mystics accuse me of 'superficiality'. When I go into detail, they moan about complexity, or call it a 'rant', or a 'diatribe'.

Now, this is the Philosophy section, so one should expect some complications; simpler formuale can be reserved for the 'learning' section.

Having said that, you will note that when debating with less experienced comrades, I generally try to keep my sentences etc. simple and straightforward. Last year, I even spent a month writing a specially simplified essay at the request of such comrades, and then another recently (which was even simpler still).

You will also note that our mystical friends are quite happy to appropriate complicated terminology from Hegel (or Sartre, or some other obscurantist), and use it liberally, and no one bats an eye.

However, as soon as I introduce a little rigour into the debate, comrades start to moan.

I realised long ago that in dealing with such mystics, I cannot win whatever I do, so I now do my own thing, and if they do not like it, they can lump it.

[Dros]

You failed to say why you think this is so (which comment applies to most of the content of this latest post of yours).

You just stated it as a fact with no analysis, something I've noticed you do often.


As the quotations show, an opposite has to exist so that it can 'struggle' with its other half. So, capitalists have to exist at the same time as workers.

Yes. In order for the notion of a "working class" to have any meaning, there needs to be a group that is not a working class. That is why Communists are out to destroy the proletariat as a class by destroying the production relations that define them.


Maybe so, but dialectics cannot explain it.

Ummm... Yes. It can.


1) I deny they are 'contradictions'.

You deny that contradictions exist?


2) Even if they were, and even if they could change, Mao's 'theory' could not explain it.

Yes. It can.



1.) The unity of opposites does not mean that one opposite literally "contains" the other. It means that the one can not exist or is defined by the other. So peace is defined by the existence of war.

2.) Silly, mechanistic methodology. Your thinking assumes a closed and finite system which does not exist and is frankly absurd and totally inapplicable to reality.

3.) You forget that this occurs only under certain conditions (or very slowly it could be argued).

1) Nobody seems to know what the 'contain' metaphor actually means, so I do not know how you can say this. I, in fact, have explored every alternative, and none of them work.

And if they exist at the same time, they cannot change into one another, as I pointed out.

On the other hand, if they do not exist at the same time, then one of them cannot change.



2) Not so. This is just another of your 'assertions'.

3) Whether or not this is so, dialectics cannot explain it.

1.) I do. I thought I'd explained it simply enough. Here it goes again: In order for a concept or thing to have any meaning, there needs to be something that is not that. So, in order for the notion of "white" to be meaningful, there must be colors.
2.) In what way is this an assertion? Your "logic" assumes a static system.
3.) Yes it can. Your whole critic is based on the idea that dialectics argues for sponteneous change.

Fine. Peace as a concept could not exist without violence. It would be meaningless.

There are some things I forgot to post in my first critic of your argument.

1.) Materialist dialectics is not a theory. It is a method for understanding [i]complex systems and processes. It is rather unuseful to apply it to things like ageing (although it can be done).
2.) As such, even if your critic of dialectics is correct (which it clearly is not), then you still would not have debunked Maoism as a revolutionary theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, the true believer is back.

Drosera:


You just stated it as a fact with no analysis, something I've noticed you do often.

Mao does it even more than me. :o

In fact, this is called hypothetical reasoning; one assumes something true for the purposes of an argument, just to see where it leads.

In this case, into umremitting confusion.


Yes. In order for the notion of a "working class" to have any meaning, there needs to be a group that is not a working class. That is why Communists are out to destroy the proletariat as a class by destroying the production relations that define them.

So, according to Mao, the entire working class will turn into its opposite: the capitalist class!

Bonkers! :wacko:


Yes. It can.

Well, that remains in doubt until you answer my criticisms, as opposed to just brushing them aside.


You deny that contradictions exist?

I go further: it makes no sense to suppose they do.


Yes. It can.

Well, we already know you are a true believer, who would say black was white if Mao had told you to, but you are going to have to do more than just repeat these pathetic confessions of faith to convince us materialists that Mao is not an idiot.

Until you show how something/process can change into its oppooste if that opposite already exists, all your bleating is to no avail.

This is not to deny change, only to argue that dialectics cannot explain it.


1.) I do. I thought I'd explained it simply enough. Here it goes again: In order for a concept or thing to have any meaning, there needs to be something that is not that. So, in order for the notion of "white" to be meaningful, there must be colors.

For something to have meaning, such opposites do not have to exist. Your choice of colour is rather special, since they exist in a colour space.

Try the same with: The second man to swim the Atlantic. This means something, but what is its opposite? And does that opposite exist?


2.) In what way is this an assertion? Your "logic" assumes a static system.

Not so; my logic can work with things that change, and those that do not. Here is an example of one branch of this logic (one that you mystics seem to know nothing about):

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

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/

Incidentally, this logic was invented by Diodorus Cronus (340-280 BC).

You will also find plenty of examples of how my logic can handle change here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm


Peace as a concept could not exist without violence. It would be meaningless.

You asserted the opposite was war earlier. Make your mind up.

Now I admit that some opposites have to be apparent/actual if some of our concepts are to make sesne, but not all.

It is a dogmatic assertion you mystics make with no proof. I merely doubt its truth.

Have you got a general proof that this must always be the case? If not, stop asserting it dogmatically.

[You might like to begin with my 'The second man to swim the Atlantic", from earlier.]


1.) Materialist dialectics is not a theory. It is a method for understanding complex systems and processes. It is rather unuseful to apply it to things like ageing (although it can be done).

Well the dialectical prophets certainly thought it was a scientific and a philosophical theory.

I am now glad to find out that they were wrong about that too.

And as far as a method goes, if we needed one, materialist dialectics would not even make the reserve list of viable candidates.


2.) As such, even if your critic of dialectics is correct (which it clearly is not), then you still would not have debunked Maoism as a revolutionary theory.

This is like saying: even if my criticism of Newton's derivation of his laws is correct, that would not invalidate his theory.

The two are integral to each other. That is why I can assert with some confidence that, since I have shown that Mao's dialectic is far too confused to be assessed for its correctness, Maoism is a bogus theory.

Good job then that history has refuted it too.

[Dros]

In fact, this is called hypothetical reasoning; one assumes something true for the purposes of an argument, just to see where it leads.

I was referring to a conclusion. That is not an example of hypothetical reasoning.



Yes. In order for the notion of a "working class" to have any meaning, there needs to be a group that is not a working class. That is why Communists are out to destroy the proletariat as a class by destroying the production relations that define them.

So, according to Mao, the entire working class will turn into its opposite: the capitalist class!

Again. Something does not always change into its opposite. Why do you insist on making the same errors over and over again?


Well, that remains in doubt until you answer my criticisms, as opposed to just brushing them aside.

I have answered them and you seem totally unable to defend them.


I go further: it makes no sense to suppose they do.

So is there a contradiction between the way the world is run and the interests of the proletariat?


Until you show how something/process can change into its oppooste if that opposite already exists, all your bleating is to no avail.

New wars can start (ie peace can change into war) even if wars are already happening. Wow. That was hard.


Not so; my logic can work with things that change, and those that do not. Here is an example of one branch of this logic (one that you mystics seem to know nothing about):

Your logic assumes that we are dealing with something that is contained. For instance, you assume we can look at "process A" in isolation from processes B through Z and have it make sense. This is not the way the world works. Sorry.


It is a dogmatic assertion you mystics make with no proof. I merely doubt its truth.

Provide a (sensical) counter example to refute it. I have shown why it is true.


[You might like to begin with my 'The second man to swim the Atlantic", from earlier.]

This example further illustrates your misunderstanding of materialist dialectics. As I have pointed out dialectics is a methodology that is used to understand complex systems and processes so applying it here wouldn't be useful (but is still possible). The term "the second man to swim the Atlantic" only makes sense when there are other men. Thus, it is defined by its opposite.


This is like saying: even if my criticism of Newton's derivation of his laws is correct, that would not invalidate his theory.

The two are integral to each other. That is why I can assert with some confidence that, since I have shown that Mao's dialectic is far too confused to be assessed for its correctness, Maoism is a bogus theory.

Why? You obviously don't understand Maoism. Materialist dialectics was the process used to come to the conclusions about the world (ie communism is necessary). Explain why your "proof" invalidates the mass line for instance.

If Maoism is totally built on this faulty logic than so is your Trotskyism. And how do you justify accusing me of factionalism or sectarianism or whatever for being a Maoist and then call yourself a trot?


history has refuted it too.

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl ahblahblah

[Still waiting for Rosa to make an actual argument.]

Revolutions lead by Maoists: 10+
Revolutions lead by Trots:0

How has history refuted Maoism again?

[this is not an attack of Trotskyism as an ideology but a fact that needs to be addressed if Rosa is going to continue to make such absurd claims.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Drosera:


I was referring to a conclusion. That is not an example of hypothetical reasoning.

You need to make your mind up, since you had said this:


You just stated it as a fact with no analysis, something I've noticed you do often.

And now some Revisionism! :o


Something does not always change into its opposite. Why do you insist on making the same errors over and over again?

According to the Holy Man Mao, they do:


"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted in my Essays. Bold emphasis added.]

But even if in the entire history of the universe, only one object/process had ever turned into its opposite, it could not do so dialectically, and dialectics could not account for it.

So, neither Mao's theory, nor your Revisonist alternative work.


I have answered them and you seem totally unable to defend them.

Well we can continue in this vein for some time. I am happy to let the good readers of RevLeft decide.

But, I will note that you still cannot explain change along Maoist lines.


So is there a contradiction between the way the world is run and the interests of the proletariat?

That is not a contradiction, howsoever much we deplore it and want to change it.


New wars can start (ie peace can change into war) even if wars are already happening. Wow. That was hard.

Where do I deny change? I merely claim that your 'theory' cannot acount for it.

I argued that if things change because of a struggle of opposites, and those opposites have to exist for that struggle to take place, they cannot change into those opposites for they already exist.

You have danced around this issue, and have tried to distract attention from the fact that it destroys your 'theory', but you have yet to expalin where the error is.


Your logic assumes that we are dealing with something that is contained. For instance, you assume we can look at "process A" in isolation from processes B through Z and have it make sense. This is not the way the world works. Sorry.

Not so, all these processes can be interlinked, but no object/process can change into its opposite on dialectical lines.

I note, however, that you have now retreated from your earlier claim:


Your "logic" assumes a static system.

You are quite happy to assume things about 'my logic' when you know nothing about 'my logic'. I at least quoted Mao. Where are the quotations from my Essays that support your allegations?

You mystics all say the same things about logic, since you do not know any. And that is why you accept dialectics -- you know no better.


Provide a (sensical) counter example to refute it. I have shown why it is true.

I must have missed your 'proof'; where was it?


This example further illustrates your misunderstanding of materialist dialectics. As I have pointed out dialectics is a methodology that is used to understand complex systems and processes so applying it here wouldn't be useful (but is still possible). The term "the second man to swim the Atlantic" only makes sense when there are other men. Thus, it is defined by its opposite.

But what is the opposite of "The second man to swim the Atlantic"?

This would make sense if there were no other men, if he were the only man left alive.


You obviously don't understand Maoism. Materialist dialectics was the process used to come to the conclusions about the world (ie communism is necessary). Explain why your "proof" invalidates the mass line for instance.

What you Maoists mean by 'understanding Maoism' is 'totally agreeing with Maoism'.

And the 'mass line' is a joke; the masses were never asked.


If Maoism is totally built on this faulty logic than so is your Trotskyism. And how do you justify accusing me of factionalism or sectarianism or whatever for being a Maoist and then call yourself a trot?

Absolutely, that is why I am trying to rid it of dialectics too.

I am glad you are on board with me here.

Ah, yet more 'Materialist Dialectics':


blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl ahblahblah

Yes, that proves history has not refuted Maoism. :rolleyes:

Unfortunatley history disagrees with this complex dialectical argument of yours.


Still waiting for Rosa to make an actual argument

Don't need to; history has saved me the job.

Your irrational response suggests you suspect I am right.


Revolutions lead by Maoists: 10+
Revolutions lead by Trots:0

All failed.

Dialectical Marxism, in its Maoist, Stalinist or Trot versions, has been refuted by history.


How has history refuted Maoism again?

One look at that 'model' socialist state -- China -- is all the proof anyone needs.


[this is not an attack of Trotskyism as an ideology but a fact that needs to be addressed if Rosa is going to continue to make such absurd claims.]

And if you keep ignoring history.

[kromando33]

Revolutions lead by Maoists: 10+
Revolutions lead by Trots:0
Too true comrade, for all their incessant 'critiquing' and whinging, Trots and their anarcho friends have done nothing to bring about revolution and the proletarian dictatorship. Trotskyism and it's variants is nothing but impractical idealistic tripe which can be changed very quickly depending on opportunistic political situations.

[black magick hustla]

Too true comrade, for all their incessant 'critiquing' and whinging, Trots and their anarcho friends have done nothing to bring about revolution and the proletarian dictatorship. Trotskyism and it's variants is nothing but impractical idealistic tripe which can be changed very quickly depending on opportunistic political situations.


That is a fucking stupid observation.

The bourgeosie has led dozens, if not hundreds of revolutions. The Imperialists have led hundreds of military victories, etc. Your observation shows nothing but a fetishization of violence, as if a military victory always is positive.

[kromando33]

That is a fucking stupid observation.

The bourgeosie has led dozens, if not hundreds of revolutions. The Imperialists have led hundreds of military victories, etc. Your observation shows nothing but a fetishization of violence, as if a military victory always is positive.
No, my position in innately Marxist because Marx observed that no class has given up it's power without violence. Your position clearly shows you to reject class struggle and revolution out of a desperate opportunistic attempt to conform to the bourgeois states for personal power.Such reactionism has no place in Marxist theory. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted communists against the bourgeoisie imperialist machine, isn't it? While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, we must endlessly seek the liberation of all the working masses, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kromando:



Too true comrade, for all their incessant 'critiquing' and whinging, Trots and their anarcho friends have done nothing to bring about revolution and the proletarian dictatorship. Trotskyism and it's variants is nothing but impractical idealistic tripe which can be changed very quickly depending on opportunistic political situations


All failures, as I noted.

You seem constitutionally incapable of seeing when a theory has been demolished (by me), or refuted (by history).

That probably explains why you cling to this 'theory' long past its demise -- it's your opiate; it gives you the sort of consolation Marx identified among the religious too.

[black magick hustla]

No, my position in innately Marxist because Marx observed that no class has given up it's power without violence. Your position clearly shows you to reject class struggle and revolution out of a desperate opportunistic attempt to conform to the bourgeois states for personal power.Such reactionism has no place in Marxist theory. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted communists against the bourgeoisie imperialist machine, isn't it? While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, we must endlessly seek the liberation of all the working masses, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

I think you need sturdier material for your strawman!

What I was trying to say, is that even if maoists had more military victories, it doesn't means that they were socialist revolutions. Its much easier to have a military victoriy than a socialist revolution buddy.

[Comrade Rage]

No, my position in innately Marxist because Marx observed that no class has given up it's power without violence.History also vindicates your position.

While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, we must endlessly seek the liberation of all the working masses, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.Not only is it ridiculous, it will bring about severe hardship for the proletariat, after the revolution is defeated (that is, if we go along with such pacifistic cack).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Too true comrade, for all their incessant 'critiquing' and whinging, Trots and their anarcho friends have done nothing to bring about revolution and the proletarian dictatorship. Trotskyism and it's variants is nothing but impractical idealistic tripe which can be changed very quickly depending on opportunistic political situations.

yeah but we all have the same goal it only hurts the movement to try to strain differences between tendencies. Revolutionaries should accept criticism which attempts to better the position of the working class

[kromando33]

yeah but we all have the same goal it only hurts the movement to try to strain differences between tendencies. Revolutionaries should accept criticism which attempts to better the position of the working class
To a degree I agree with you, but 'unity' with the social-democratic, liberal and other bourgeois elements is not acceptable, Lenin made this perfectly clear. 'Unity' can only come from democratic centralism within the Marxist-Leninist parties. Your line of 'strain of different tendencies' is fundamentally incorrect because it assumes all 'tendencies' of socialist are equal and should be given due representation. In actual fact the Trotskyist and liberal elements are just as anti-communist as the bourgeois themselves, and we cannot collaborate with them. Socialism can only come through liberation of the working class through class struggle, the dictatorships of the proletariat and bourgeois will always fight until communism is achieved, this is because the interests of both classes are mutually exclusive, Marx makes this pretty clear.

Also, on this topic, the reason I am not responding to Rosa should be pretty clear. It's quite obvious by the time spent on attacking Marxist theory and promoting sectarianism in the working class that he has no interest in revolutionary politics. To look at his blog, his signature, and content of his post, it's pretty clear he has more interest in 'critiquing' 'stalinism' to satiate his ego rather than being practical about revolutionary politics. More pointless idealism and ultra-leftist intellectualism, no practicality. Can anyone say champagne socialist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kromando:


"Also, on this topic, the reason I am not responding to Rosa should be pretty clear."

It sure is; like all other dialectical mystics, you do not know any logic.

Which explains why you have swallowed all that Hegelian guff (inverted or not).



"It's quite obvious by the time spent on attacking Marxist theory and promoting sectarianism in the working class that he has no interest in revolutionary politics. To look at his blog, his signature, and content of his post, it's pretty clear he has more interest in 'critiquing' 'stalinism' to satiate his ego rather than being practical about revolutionary politics. More pointless idealism and ultra-leftist intellectualism, no practicality. Can anyone say champagne socialist?"


1) I am working class, and a trade union rep (unpaid). I have in fact been a revolutionary for longer than you have been alive.

2) I attack Troskyists dialecticians as much as I attack Stalinists and Maoists, perhaps more.

[Shows how much attention you paid to what you read.]

3) It is easier for you to make personal (and baseless) attacks on me than it is to respond to my arguments and evidence.

4) 'He'?

Just like other mystics here, you simply cannot defend your pet 'theory', can you?

In your case, your pathetic cowardice is hidden behind several layers of trollish bluster and abuse.

[kromando33]

Even so, you shouldn't even be voicing your criticisms in the overt and divisive public way you do, that only breeds that kind of sectarianism, that's why us Marxists have democratic party functions which ensure disputes are handled but the majority line is upheld publicly in the cause of unity. Any criticisms you have should be done in this way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

K:


Even so, you shouldn't even be voicing your criticisms in the overt and divisive public way you do, that only breeds that kind of sectarianism, that's why us Marxists have democratic party functions which ensure disputes are handled but the majority line is upheld publicly in the cause of unity. Any criticisms you have should be done in this way.


Marxism is not a religion, with a set of dogmas we all have to accept; it is a science. And if I believe that this theory is partly to blame for our long-term lack of success, I am sure as hell going to say so.

Your suggestion would mean that this board would be turned into an arena where we only ever agree. This seems to indicate that you would like this board to turn into an extension of those stage managed communist party 'conferences', where everyone acts like a robot, mindlessly applauding everything spouted at them.

Moreover, Marxism is already just as sectarian as any religion is. Certainly Trotskyism is. Stalinism and Maoism are not quite as bad, but that is nothing to crow about. In those traditions, when in power, Stalinists and Maoists imprison and murder those who disagree with the 'official line', thus nipping sectarianism in the bud.

And this theory is also partly to blame for this, for it encourages the belief that Marxism is a set of revealed truths that have to be accepted and must never be questioned. So, rival gurus set themselves up as true prophets, and quickly turn personal and political arguments into doctrinal and 'dialectical' differences -- aka 'Revisionism'. This is because any conclusion you care to name can be derived from this 'theory' -- and has been.

You can find the evidence justifying that allegation here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

By the way, from which work of Badiou's is your signature derived?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's OK; I have located this source -- a journal article from 2005, co-authored with Alberto Toscano.

It is an odd quotation, for it suggests that it is 'false' to try to conserve Marx's writings!

But, that's Diabolical Logic for you...

[Volderbeek]

Not so; try reducing the relation between speed, distance and time, say, to just binaries. Or, try reducing quarks to binaries, to take another example.

This is a rather tall order. Perhaps I'll get to it later...if I feel like it.



And I thought you mystics were anti-reductionists.

You can say what you want, but I don't consider myself a mystic in any way.



Then they cannot have any influence on each other.

Potential can't influence what can or cannot happen? That's just plain ridiculous. (Let's keep in mind the external causes thing)



Yes, I suppose arguing with someone like you, who has not tried from the start, is having a bad effect on me.

I'm not gonna put that much effort into defending my lack of effort.



Good job then that I remained focussed on the key issues, and refused to be distracted like you, then, isn't it?

The key issue of how stones turn into chickens?



You (as a card-carrying mystic) might be excused for thinking this, but the Dialectical Holy Books tell another story --, which does not work anyway, as I demonstrated.

I hardly see how being confused (allegedly) makes them mystical.



I can only speak for myself. That is how I was using this term. If you do not like it, in your infinite wisdom, you tell us what it wrong with it.

You make a lot of assumptions when using the term existence, and appealing to "common" use is hardly sufficient in revealing them.



Anyway, here is what arch dialectician Gollobin had to say:

Reference at my site, here:

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels. Bold added.]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change)

You will notice that neither he, nor Engels, nor any other dialectician, speaks about your odd sort of 'potential'. Gollobin is quite specific; these opposites "exist" together. So is Engels.

Hence, my argument is quite sound; dialectics cannot explain change.

Yes, they exist together as potential and realized potential. Unity of opposites (what is being described there) is about existence not change. That is where sublation comes in.

[Anyway, I'll get to the rest later.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



This is a rather tall order. Perhaps I'll get to it later...if I feel like it.


I accept your capitulation.

You might then like to try your hand at four-fold, and then n-fold relations.

Examples in my Essays.

This alone shows you have not thought through the implications of this dotty 'theory' of yours.


You can say what you want, but I don't consider myself a mystic in any way.

Good, then that must mean you have abandoned this mystical theory.


Potential can't influence what can or cannot happen? That's just plain ridiculous. (Let's keep in mind the external causes thing)

Go on then, smarty pants; explain how a potential can have an influence on something without being actualised.

However, once it is actualised, that potential will become one of those actual opposites that are subject to my refutation.

So, if A is composed of at least two internal opposites, O and O*, and one of them is merely a 'potential' then, if A is to change, O must interact with an actualised O*, and according to the dialectical prophets, O must change into its opposite O*.

But it cannot do that, for now actualised O* already exists (in any way you want to define this word).

The same refutation applies to external causes (but, you might need my help to work these details out; your mystically-occluded brain does not seem up to the task).



I'm not gonna put that much effort into defending my lack of effort.


Well at least you are a consistently sloppy 'thinker'.


The key issue of how stones turn into chickens?

Yes dear, now take the nice medicine the nice doctor gave you...



I hardly see how being confused (allegedly) makes them mystical.

This is a necessary not a sufficient condition.

If you want the latter, you only have to beg.


You make a lot of assumptions when using the term existence, and appealing to "common" use is hardly sufficient in revealing them.

You made this allegation before, and I said I was using it in its ordinary sense --, in the sense that you (I hope!) exist (and not as a potential).

But, what the hell; you tell me how you want to define the word, and I'll adapt my refutation to suit that.



Yes, they exist together as potential and realized potential. Unity of opposites (what is being described there) is about existence not change. That is where sublation comes in.


This is not what Gollobin says, as well you know.



"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels. Bold added.]


As the underlined sections indicate, Engels and Gollobin agree with my interpretation of this 'theory'. For example, you do not walk with 'potential' legs, nor cut paper with 'potential' scissors.

But, even so: potentials can have no effect on each other unless they are actualised.

I refer you back to my amended refutation above.

And a potential, in order to change into an actualisation, will do so dialectically, or it will not.

If the former, then that potential will change because of a struggle of opposites, and it will turn into that opposite.

So, let us assume potential P is undergoing change as a result of the contradiction between two opposites (internal or external), O and O*. But O cannot change into O*, for it already exists (in any way you like to define the term). So P cannot change dialectically.

On the other hand if P changes non-dialectically, it changes non-dialectically.

Either way, P changes non-dialectically.

Hence, your retreat into making a desperate appeal to these these ghostly 'potentials' (which no dialectical classicist refers to, and neither does Hegel -- it's your own panic-induced invention) is no help to you or your beleaguered 'theory'.

[Volderbeek]

[And now, the thrilling conclusion to my latest reply!]


As the long post above shows, this is not the 'weakest' argument, but the core argument.

I guess I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they understood that Unity of Opposites alone doesn't describe change, but I also don't think you've proven that they didn't.



You just object to having been caught out, and are rapidly trying to make pathetic on the hoof repairs in a theory to which you have never given much thought, but have meekly accepted, just because it was in the Holy Books, and it is traditional for you mystics to accept what you are told by the prophets.Actually, I didn't know much about dialectics (other than how it was behind Marx's theory of history) until I started posting here and saw all your stuff about it. I thought I'd look into it more to see both sides, and was rather impressed. So far from "meekly accepting" anything, my interest in this topic was spawned in opposition (and contradiction) to you. I'm also representing it as I understood it - from selected parts of Engels, Hegel, and Marx.


Well, you haven't yet shown my argument does not work, but you have raised a few irrelevant points about 'existence' (which word, as it turns out, appears in the Dialectical Gospels anyway), and you substituted for this 'potentials', which can have no influence on anything.

So, your 'theory' is, if anything, even worse.As much as I'd like to take credit for those amazing theoretical accomplishments, I just can't. I had no part in forming these theories; I'm just interpreting them.


As I said: you are an idealist.I consider myself a dialectical monist, but if you want to consider one side of the existence dialectic, it's up to you.


I take it that you were about to say that it does not exist in an adolescent as a potential, but is actual, thus destroying the point you tried to sell us earlier. [The use of the verb 'to be' gave you away, highlighted in bold.]

I can now see why you stopped dead in your non-dialectical tracks.Actually, I was about to start using Hegelian jargon like "adolescence-as-such" and "determinate adolescence" but I lost interest in the joke.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V (who studiously ignores anything for which he has no reply):



I guess I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they understood that Unity of Opposites alone doesn't describe change, but I also don't think you've proven that they didn't.



Well, if you read what they actually say, as opposed to living in your own little dream world, you will see that they did indeed believe this (Lenin even called this an 'absolute', as did Mao).

Don't believe me? Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1041886&postcount=27


Actually, I didn't know much about dialectics (other than how it was behind Marx's theory of history) until I started posting here and saw all your stuff about it. I thought I'd look into it more to see both sides, and was rather impressed. So far from "meekly accepting" anything, my interest in this topic was spawned in opposition (and contradiction) to you. I'm also representing it as I understood it - from selected parts of Engels, Hegel, and Marx.


Your 'on the hoof repairs' made it pretty obvious you did not know what you were talking about.


I'm just interpreting them.


And not too well.



I consider myself a dialectical monist,


I think there is an "a" missing from "monist" here.


but if you want to consider one side of the existence dialectic, it's up to you.


"the existence dialectic"?

WTF is that?



Actually, I was about to start using Hegelian jargon like "adolescence-as-such" and "determinate adolescence" but I lost interest in the joke.


And I fell asleep while reading about it...

[Volderbeek]

Go on then, smarty pants; explain how a potential can have an influence on something without being actualised.

Just like I said, it determines what something can or cannot be. An egg can change into a chicken, but a stone can't (regardless of what your 40,000 word essay says).


However, once it is actualised, that potential will become one of those actual opposites that are subject to my refutation.When it is actualized, its opposite is then the potential.


You made this allegation before, and I said I was using it in its ordinary sense --, in the sense that you (I hope!) exist (and not as a potential). And you continue to appeal to some "common" or "ordinary" definition. My potential is different from, say an egg, because I will not turn into a chicken.


This is not what Gollobin says, as well you know.


"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels. Bold added.]As the underlined sections indicate, Engels and Gollobin agree with my interpretation of this 'theory'. For example, you do not walk with 'potential' legs, nor cut paper with 'potential' scissors.It all looks like a description of Unity of Opposites to me; the scissors have the potential to cut, and the leg fulfills its potential to move forward.


So, if A is composed of at least two internal opposites, O and O*, and one of them is merely a 'potential' then, if A is to change, O must interact with an actualised O*, and according to the dialectical prophets, O must change into its opposite O*.What do you know, you actually came up with something new for a change. This debate is moving in spirals finally! This also makes me realize that I left out one crucial point (in this context at least). Here's Mao:


Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.When something changes into its potential, this happens internally; it is the basis of change. External causes don't occur this way. Actualized external cause (E if you will) interacts with and changes internal opposites O and potential O* to change into each other. So does that mean that the external interaction happens non-dialectically? Yes, but that just shows the recursive nature of dialectics.

[Volderbeek]

V (who studiously ignores anything for which he has no reply):

What?! I've gone out of my way to respond to every relevant point. I only ignore the repetitive and irrelevant.


Well, if you read what they actually say, as opposed to living in your own little dream world, you will see that they did indeed believe this (Lenin even called this an 'absolute', as did Mao).

Don't believe me? Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1041886&postcount=27

If anything, looking through that has removed the doubt that any of them were referring to sublation. Negation of negation was only mentioned twice: once in clear contrast to Unity of Opposites and this is the other:


The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law….This literally tells us that change happens through the "working out of contradictions" and not anything changing into its opposite.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



An egg can change into a chicken, but a stone can't (regardless of what your 40,000 word essay says).


Maybe so, but dialectics cannot explain why.

And you'd know the answer to that if you tried to disabuse yourself of your ignorance, and read the actual argument in my essay.


When it is actualized, its opposite is then the potential.

Once more, you are reduced to making stuff up on the hoof.

Once more: if A changes because of an interaction with its opposite A* (whether external or internal), it can only do so if A* is actualised, and not a potential.

But, then A cannot change into A* for A* now exists, actualised.

And A* cannot change from a potential to an actual A* unless acted upon by its opposite (according to the dialectical prophets). But wtf is this 'opposite'? It cannot be another potential, for that is not actualised.

It is quite clear you are grasping at straws trying to save this drowning 'theory', but each straw is turning into a millstone.



It all looks like a description of Unity of Opposites to me; the scissors have the potential to cut, and the leg fulfils its potential to move forward.


The point of Gollobin's comment is that these 'united opposites' are the two blades of the scissors, which must exist at the same time in order to cut, but according to the dialectical prophets these united opposites must turn into one another.

Have you ever seen the blades of a pair of scissors do that?

Another millstone.


What do you know, you actually came up with something new for a change. This debate is moving in spirals finally! This also makes me realize that I left out one crucial point (in this context at least).

It seems to me that you are just turning a blind eye to this refutation, and cannot answer my argument. So, you just make sarcastic comments.

I saw a film the other day called 'Reaping the Whirlwind', about the famous Scopes 'Monkey Trial'. The creationist lawyer was put on the stand and questioned about discrepancies in the Bible (like where Cain got his wife), and he simply refused to think about them. His simple faith was enough, he said.

You are just like that Fundamentalist.

You invent 'potentialities' (that can have no effect on anything, so they cannot cause change) and when I show they won't work, you adopt a fall back position: your simple faith in the sacred dialectical word, and you stop thinking (or, rather, you start invetning).



Here's Mao:

Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.


My argument covers both sorts of change, as I indicated.

You seem not to be able to see stuff that you do not want to see.



When something changes into its potential, this happens internally; it is the basis of change. External causes don't occur this way. Actualized external cause (E if you will) interacts with and changes internal opposites O and potential O* to change into each other. So does that mean that the external interaction happens non-dialectically? Yes, but that just shows the recursive nature of dialectics.

But, how can something 'change into its potential' without an 'opposite' to make that happen? And if that opposite is already there to bring that about, then it cannot change into that 'opposite'.

Now your attempt to introduce an external cause of change won't work either, for the dialectical holy books tell us the following:



"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] internally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other ….

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

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

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

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing [tone], each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite."

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Mao, p.109.]

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.] Bold emphases added.


As Lenin makes clear, he agrees with Hegel that these 'opposites' are 'internal', they are logical, interpenetrated 'opposites'. They are not 'external, adventitious 'opposites'.

But, let's go with your cobbled-together-on-the-hoof 'theory'.

How was E 'actualised? It must have been in 'struggle' with its own opposite E*, and must have turned into it.

But it cannot do so, since E* already exists.

Another non-dialectical brick wall.

Leaving that to one side, what about this:



Actualized external cause (E if you will) interacts with and changes internal opposites O and potential O* to change into each other. So does that mean that the external interaction happens non-dialectically? Yes, but that just shows the recursive nature of dialectics.

In this case, it is not the struggle of internal opposites that causes change, but the intervention of an outside agency, E.

[Of course, on this view, capitalism will not collapse because of its own internal 'contradictions', but will need an outside force, aliens perhaps, to cause it to do so.]

And I like your 'revisionism' here:



So does that mean that the external interaction happens non-dialectically?

This flatly contradicts Lenin (and Mao, and a host of other dialectical gurus):



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

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.] Bold emhases added.

Lenin is quite clear: the "self- movement of "everything existing".

He even contrasts this dialectical approach with your dead non-dialectical externalist 'theory' (which implies the universe needed an external cause, as Lenin also points out):



"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, [I]mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

"In the first conception of motion, [I]self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self-movement'.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new." Bold emphasis added.[Ibid.]

So, according to Lenin, your theory is "pale and dry...", and implies there is a 'god'!



Yes, but that just shows the recursive nature of dialectics.

On the contrary, this shows how shifty you mystics really are; you will say anything to save this sinking 'theory', no matter how many more holes it punches in its hull.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



What?! I've gone out of my way to respond to every relevant point. I only ignore the repetitive and irrelevant.


I repeat them because you ignored them (and, among other things, failed to notice that I dealt with your 'externalist' argument, and your 'potential' ruse).


If anything, looking through that has removed the doubt that any of them were referring to sublation. Negation of negation was only mentioned twice: once in clear contrast to Unity of Opposites and this is the other

I am sorry, that is as clear as mud.



This literally tells us that change happens through the "working out of contradictions" and not anything changing into its opposite.


As I said you like to ignore stuff that contradicts your simple faith (which seems to be based on very little knowledge of your own theory!).

As Mao himself said (and how many more time will I have to post this?):



"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Mao, p.109.]

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.] Bold emphases added.


The other quotes say the same thing.

Contradiction is just these united opposites in struggle. That is what Hegel 'derived' and what Lenin says he accepted; and so did Mao.

I do not believe in this guff, but you seem to know less about it than me!

[Volderbeek]

[Having some trouble with the new board software are we?]



As I said you like to ignore stuff that contradicts your simple faith (which seems to be based on very little knowledge of your own theory!).

As Mao himself said (and how many more time will I have to post this?):


"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Mao, p.109.]
In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.] Bold emphases added.

The other quotes say the same thing.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Potential is not some abstract thing, it's very much real and concrete.

As to the thing about processes, he's merely explaining how unity of opposites is manifested in the real world.


Contradiction is just these united opposites in struggle. That is what Hegel 'derived' and what Lenin says he accepted; and so did Mao.If the opposites are already united, how can they struggle? Sublation (negation of negation) and unity of opposites, though similar and related, are not the same.


I do not believe in this guff, but you seem to know less about it than me!Well, considering you've claimed to study it for 20 years and I've studied it (leisurely at that) for around half a year, I would certainly hope so.

[Volderbeek]

Maybe so, but dialectics cannot explain why.

Not precisely, but it can abstractly.


Once more, you are reduced to making stuff up on the hoof.
Once more: if A changes because of an interaction with its opposite A* (whether external or internal), it can only do so if A* is actualised, and not a potential.A* is the basis of change; it determines just what A can turn into. There is no interaction unless it's external.


The point of Gollobin's comment is that these 'united opposites' are the two blades of the scissors, which must exist at the same time in order to cut, but according to the dialectical prophets these united opposites must turn into one another.It sounds to me like he is just using an example to explain reciprocal action, which is crucial to understanding unity of opposites.


It seems to me that you are just turning a blind eye to this refutation, and cannot answer my argument. So, you just make sarcastic comments.1. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was legitimately relieved to see you make an actual new argument rather than your usual tactic of throwing out a random ad hom attack (perhaps related to what we were debating, perhaps not) and repeat and/or link to your original point.

2. You really have to take the whole response together; that part was only the preliminary comment.


As Lenin makes clear, he agrees with Hegel that these 'opposites' are 'internal', they are logical, interpenetrated 'opposites'. They are not 'external, adventitious 'opposites'.
Right, the external cause is not necessarily an opposite (though it can be).


How was E 'actualised? It must have been in 'struggle' with its own opposite E*, and must have turned into it.

But it cannot do so, since E* already exists.
E would also have something external to it, as would O be external to something else.


In this case, it is not the struggle of internal opposites that causes change, but the intervention of an outside agency, E.
Internal opposites are the basis and external ones the condition. It's a different view of "cause".


[Of course, on this view, capitalism will not collapse because of its own internal 'contradictions', but will need an outside force, aliens perhaps, to cause it to do so.]
Even with internal contradictions, capitalism won't ever collapse if everyone on Earth (and not in black helicopter UFOs) supports it and tries to maintain it.


This flatly contradicts Lenin (and Mao, and a host of other dialectical gurus):

Lenin is quite clear: the "self- movement of "everything existing".

He even contrasts this dialectical approach with your dead non-dialectical externalist 'theory' (which implies the universe needed an external cause, as Lenin also points out):

So, according to Lenin, your theory is "pale and dry...", and implies there is a 'god'!
Comments like these make me think you don't really understand how Unity of Opposites works. I'm not making up my own "externalist" theory. I agree with everything Lenin says there. I'll try to explain: If you conceive of the entire universe (or multiverse if you follow one of those theories) as one thing or object, then everything is internal and would require something transcendent (God for instance) to cause it. With dialectics though, it would be both internal and external (as every singularity is also a duality) and would cause itself (self-movement).


On the contrary, this shows how shifty you mystics really are; you will say anything to save this sinking 'theory', no matter how many more holes it punches in its hull.I think you used the word shifty because it looks just like shitty...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Having some trouble with the new board software are we?

I do not know, Your Royal Highness, are you?


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Potential is not some abstract thing, it's very much real and concrete.

They are when they are actualised, otherwise they are not.

For example, you have the potential to burst into flames under certain circumstances, but that should not make you sit around all day in a bucket of water. This shows you that not even you believe this about 'potentialities'.

Unfortunately, when they do actualise, my objections apply.

Even so, if they are to actualise, according to the dialectical prophets, they can only do so (they can only change) because of their own internal opposites; but wtf are these?

Now, as soon as you identify the internal (or external) opposites of one of your 'potentialities', my objections will apply to them too.

There is no way out for your loopy 'revisionist' theory of yours.


As to the thing about processes, he's merely explaining how unity of opposites is manifested in the real world.

Unfortunately for you he is actually saying what I alleged, that everything changes into its opposite:


"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.] Bold emphases added.

This is in line with what Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and a host of lesser dialectical mystics also said (and, it follows from Hegel's 'Logic', about which you seem to know nothing).

I do not wonder you keep trying to deny this, since this 'theory' cannot work, and for the reasons I said.

Your only defence seems to be to deny what your eyes tell you, and what everyone else can see -- that Mao actually believed this tripe (as did all the others I quoted).


If the opposites are already united, how can they struggle?

Ah, at last the penny is beginning to drop.

but, don't pick a fight with me over this; that is precisely what these logical incompetents repeatedly say.


Sublation (negation of negation) and unity of opposites, though similar and related, are not the same.

Who said they were? But Hegel derived all these notions from his insecure grasp of Aristotelian logic -- an outline of the details you will find if you follow the links in this recent post of mine:


Coggy, I have dissected Hegel's 'Logic' here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...97&postcount=2

A slightly fuller account can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/..._errors_01.htm

A greatly extended demolition can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm#What-Are-Dialectical-Contradictions



Well, considering you've claimed to study it for 20 years and I've studied it (leisurely at that) for around half a year, I would certainly hope so.

And yet you seem quite happy to keep making a fool of yourself in public...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I had several problems posting this last night, so I had to start several new threads, which I then had to merge.

It was the only way the system would allow me to post.

V:


Not precisely, but it can abstractly.

As my 'abstract' argument shows, it can't even do that.


A* is the basis of change; it determines just what A can turn into. There is no interaction unless it's external.

Ah, yet more desperate, half-baked, panic-induced repairs!

Even if it were external, A cannot change into A*, for A* is already actual -- it has to be this to make A change. That was the point of Gollobin and Engels's examples (quoted earlier).

And, of course, you are once again ignoring the dialectical prophets here -- who all tell us that it's the struggle between internal opposites that drives change.


Right, the external cause is not necessarily an opposite (though it can be).

Looks like you are slowly changing into a 'vulgar' mechanical materialist here, for this is what Lenin said (this has already been quoted several times, so you are simply ignoring stuff you do not like):


"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self-movement'

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new." Bold emphasis added.[Ibid.]

Lenin is, of course, not alone, practically every dialectical mystic like him says the same thing.

You will no doubt also notice that Lenin says:


The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites...

This blows your 'external cause are not opposites' idea out of the water, for Lenin speaks about 'all phenomena and process in nature' being contradictory and opposite --, and that must include external causes (unless you think they are not 'in nature').

[There are dozens of references to that effect in Essay Eight Part One, at my site.]


E would also have something external to it, as would O be external to something else.

It matters not, the same objections still apply.

Of course, if you are indeed turning into a crude materialist, then that would be a marked improvement, but you mustn't for one moment think that what you have posted here is a defence of 'materialist dialectics'.

As an experiment, run these comments of yours past the Maoist of your choice, and then take cover, for you will receive the sort of invective I have to put up with, except you will be called a 'revisionist', for your pains.


Comments like these make me think you don't really understand how Unity of Opposites works. I'm not making up my own "externalist" theory. I agree with everything Lenin says there. I'll try to explain: If you conceive of the entire universe (or multiverse if you follow one of those theories) as one thing or object, then everything is internal and would require something transcendent (God for instance) to cause it. With dialectics though, it would be both internal and external (as every singularity is also a duality) and would cause itself (self-movement).

[I have devoted a 40,000 word Essay to this very topic at my site, so you can drop the 'you don't understand' crap.]

Ah, but that then raises the question, what external causes began the universe?

You are now caught in the same trap as Christians, for if you allow 'external' causes', then this question naturally arises, and cannot now be answered.

That is precisely why Lenin concentrated on internal opposites, to avoid this trap.

You have fallen right into it.

And, once more, it does not matter if change is the result of external or internal causes, my objections demolish both of these 'dialectical' options.


I think you used the word shifty because it looks just like shitty...

Think what you like, you lot are still shifty. You'll say anything, think anything, in some cases kill anything -- contradict yourselves as much as it takes -- just to save your precious 'dialectic'.

I do not know why, since it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

[Well, I do know why -- it's a quasi-religion to you, and provides you with much needed consolation for all that failure.]