The limitations of directly materialist analysis

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:

"I understand that Rosa has set a trend on RevLeft that whenever anyone uses the word dialectical they are branded as "mystical". Nevertheless, comrade, I'd be interested in understanding what you think is "a bit mystical" in my post above."

Simple: when pressed, these 'dialectical' terms you use will resist explanation, and will thus be as deep a mystery to you as they are to anyone.

[Hit The North]

Z:

"I understand that Rosa has set a trend on RevLeft that whenever anyone uses the word dialectical they are branded as "mystical". Nevertheless, comrade, I'd be interested in understanding what you think is "a bit mystical" in my post above."

Simple: when pressed, these 'dialectical' terms you use will resist explanation, and will thus be as deep a mystery to you as they are to anyone.

So in what way (taking out the mode of expression peculiar to DM) do you disagree with my assertion that:
isn't it the case that a historical materialist analysis should take into account all these things you list as interacting in a dialectical unity? In other words, isolating any of the phenomena, whether material conditions, active individuals, ideologies and available or contingent organizations, from each other provides an incomplete picture.

So to address your substantive claim: although organization is important, it has to be located within the totality of the historical milieu. The concrete is the result of many determinations. For historical materialists, the material conditions have a decisive influence, nevertheless, the other factors are not merely passive.?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



So in what way (taking out the mode of expression peculiar to DM) do you disagree with my assertion that:


You know that we agree over 99.9% of things outside of this mystical theory that has colonised your brain, so what can I tell you?

Drop the word 'dialectical', for you might just as well use 'Jabberwockian unity', for all the good it does.

[Hit The North]

Z:



You know that we agree over 99.9% of things outside of this mystical theory that has colonised your brain, so what can I tell you?

Drop the word 'dialectical', for you might just as well use 'Jabberwockian unity', for all the good it does.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, you largely agree with the substance of my comments, but you object to the form in which they're made?

So are we just at loggerheads over terminology?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



So are we just at loggerheads over terminology?


Not unless you too are merely 'coquetting' here.

[Luís Henrique]

Citizen Zero and Rosa Liechtenstein, if you want to bicker about dialectics, please do it in the Philosophy Forum.

Further posts about in such line will be split into a separate thread.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH -- don't tell me that dialectics has nothing to do with materialism! :confused:

I refuse to believe it. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Hit The North]

Citizen Zero and Rosa Liechtenstein, if you want to bicker about dialectics, please do it in the Philosophy Forum.

Further posts about in such line will be split into a separate thread.

Luís Henrique

1) Why, doesn't the material dialectic have anything to do with Marxist theory?
2) Doesn't it have relevance to the topic of this thread?
3) Are we bickering?
4) You're not the boss of me.:p

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, looks like you are going to have to become a splitter!

[Luís Henrique]

1) Why, doesn't the material dialectic have anything to do with Marxist theory?

Maybe, but this is obviously derailing into a discussion of Hegel, and Hegel has nothing to do with Marxist theory.


2) Doesn't it have relevance to the topic of this thread?

I think it is a major hijack.


3) Are we bickering?

Are you not? :eek:


4) You're not the boss of me.:p

Thankfully...! ;)

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Oh well...

Rosa, you might as well trash this stump of a thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, it's worth leaving in, I think.