Stalin on Materialism

[jacobin1949]

Natural Quantitative Change Leads to Qualitative Change

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of development as a simple process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open' fundamental changes' to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:

"Nature," says Engels, "is the test of dialectics. and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle. but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years." (Ibid., p. 23.)

Describing dialectical development as a transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:

"In physics ... every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it. For example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises or falls, a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water is converted in one case into steam and in the other into ice.... A definite minimum current is required to make a platinum wire glow; every metal has its melting temperature; every liquid has a definite freezing point and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we are able with the means at our disposal to attain the required temperatures; finally, every gas has its critical point at which, by proper pressure and cooling, it can be converted into a liquid state.... What are known as the constants of physics (the point at which one state passes into another – J. St.) are in most cases nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement causes a qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 527-28.)

Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:

"Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies as the effect of changes of quantitative composition. his was already known to Hegel.... Take oxygen: if the molecule contains three atoms instead of the customary two, we get ozone, a body definitely distinct in odor and reaction from ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the different proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively different from all other bodies !" (Ibid., p. 528.)

Finally, criticizing Dühring, who scolded Hegel for all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient world to the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic matter to the kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new state, Engels says:

"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations in which at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap, for example, in the case of water which is heated or cooled, where boiling point and freezing point are the nodes at which – under normal pressure – the leap to a new aggregate state takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 45-46.)
d) Contradictions Inherent 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.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.

"In its proper meaning," Lenin says, "dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 265.)

And further:

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, p. 301.)

Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist dialectical method.

It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.

If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.

The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system

The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.

Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.

It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.

Further, if the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that there can be no "immutable" social systems, no "eternal principles" of private property and exploitation, no "eternal ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.

Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.

Hence, we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.

In the eighties of the past century, in the period of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population, whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken; for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not backward.

Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Hence, the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.

Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of the "growing" of capitalism into socialism.

Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.

As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.
2) Marxist Philosophical Materialism

The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows:
a) Materialist

Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."

"The materialistic outlook on nature," says Engels, "means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, p. 651.)

Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 318.)
b) Objective Reality

Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error. Engels says:

"The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 329.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jacobin 1949, as I have shown repeatedly, not only does none of the stuff you have posted work, it is riddled with confusion and error.

Details here:

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

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

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

[Herman]

There are many things Stalin was, but being a philosopher was not one of them.

There isn't much you can learn on marxism if you read his works (his works being a bunch of essays).

[gilhyle]

I dont understand your point Jacobin....maybe quantity is inversely related to quality in this case. :D

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 09:40 pm
Jacobin 1949, as I have shown repeatedly, not only does none of the stuff you have posted work, it is riddled with confusion and error.

Details here:

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

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

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm
ok I took up your challenge.


Engels outlined this 'Law' as follows:

"...the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63. Emphasis added.]

But, exactly how Engels knew that it was impossible to "alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion" he annoyingly kept to himself. It can't have been based on the limited evidence available in his day, for that could not have show that it was "impossible" to do what he says. Even the vast quantity of data extant today can't show that this is an "impossibility".

you can't prove a negative, science can only make those assertions based on the lack of any evidence for the claim. you are claiming that it's possible for a physical entity to qualitatively change without anything being done to it. but what scientist backs you up? Engels example is self-evident, it seems to me.


These include the following: melting or solidifying plastic, metal, rock, sulphur, tar, toffee, sugar, chocolate, wax, butter, cheese, and glass. As these are heated or cooled, they gradually change (from liquid to solid, or the reverse). There isn't even a "nodal point" with respect to balding heads!

A balding head is not a change to a physical susbtance any more than taking clothes off a body is. No-one would claim it's comparable to boiling water.

As for melting plastic, or anything else: the point is that the substances have a melting point. as you heat them up to the melting point, the change is qualitative - they get hotter but they aren't melting. Once they begin to melt, they enter into a qualitative change. Then once they are completely liquid, the change is complete. That's dialectical you see - the substance goes through a period of change, then becomes something else, which is a result of that change. Some changes will be smoother than others of course but there comes a point when the qualitative change itself begins - ie the melting point. 100 litres of water don't instantly turn to steam at 100 degrees either do they, so you might as well have used that example.


Another recent favourite example is Steven Jay Gould's theory of "Punctuated Equilibria". Unfortunately, amateur dialectical palaeontologists have failed to notice that the alleged "nodal" points here last tens of thousands of years, at least. This is a pretty unimpressive "leap" -- it's more like a painfully slow crawl. Indeed, snails on downers move faster!

hohoho, I see you don't jsut reserve your great sense of humour for Revleft then. ;)

If we're observing phenomena that occur over millions of years, and you could prove that changes occur in ten-thousand year bursts, then that would be a dramatic leap within that context. to deny that is the kind of anti-science I'd expect from the reactionary right. Let's look at wikipedia:

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5]
The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_eq...#Tempo_and_mode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibria#Tempo_and_mode)

Not that different to the transition to communism, then.


Now, the difficulties the first 'Law' faces do not stop there. For example, when heated, objects change in quality from cold to warm and then to hot, with no "nodal" point separating these particular qualitative stages.

Cool to Warm to Hot are not qualitative changes, they are quantitative, because the substance remains the same. they only become qualitative at melting, freezing or boiling points, which come as a result of those qualitative changes. And it's scientific fact that all substances have metling, freezing and boiling points, which come AFTER and AS A RESULT OF changes from cool to warm to hot.



As we devote more thought to this 'Law' problems mount up: for example, the same number of molecules at the same energy level can exhibit widely differing properties/qualities depending on circumstances. Think of how the same amount of water can act as a lubricant, or have the opposite effect, say, on wet clothes; the same amount of sand can help some things slide, but prevent others from doing so; the same amount of poison given over a short space of time will kill, but given over a longer period (in small doses) it could benefit the recipient -- Strychnine comes to mind here.

no no no :wacko: the qualities of the substance don't change just because you change the way you use them. I could hit you with a bottle (I wouldn't) or place it in your hand, its effect on you would be different but its objective physical qualities would not change. Likewise cold water on wet clothes or on a dry hand may have a different effect, but so what, this doesn't retrospectively change the physical qualities of that water before contact.


However, other recalcitrant examples rapidly spring to mind: if the same colour is stared at for several minutes it can undergo a qualitative change into another colour (several optical illusions are based on this fact).


the "colour" doesn't undergo a qualitative change, the colour is not a physical object but just something you percieve due to the interaction (dialectial interaction? :P) between your eyes and the way the object reflects light. your perception of this colour changing would be the result of a change in your eyes due to staring at the object for too long it would not be because the object changed the way it reflects light. Here, change which would occur quantitively if you observe how your pupils shrink and grow depending on light, stress placed on them etc., This quantitative change would then result in the qualitative change of you percieving a different colour.


For instance, Isomeric molecules (studied in stereochemistry) are a particularly good example here, especially those that have chiral centres (i.e., centres of asymmetry). In such cases, the spatial ordering of the constituent atoms, not their quantity, affects the overall quality of the resulting molecule (something Engels said could not happen); here, a change in molecular orientation, not quantity, effects a change in quality.

Wrong, engels talked about boiling water - this itself is a change in molecular orientation and not in quantity of molecules - no new substance is added. You are vulgarising the term "quantity" to mean that simply more or less molecules are added - all it means is that the molecules begin to move their positions and distance from one another (quantity of molecules in a certain space if you like) an addition of motion derived from the addition of heat, before that distance changes to such a point that the substance itself becomes a different one.


To take one example of many: ®-Carvone (spearmint) and (S)-Carvone (caraway); these molecules have the same number of atoms (of the same elements), and the same bond energies, but they are nonetheless qualitatively distinct because of the different spatial arrangement of the atoms involved. Change in geometry --, change in quality.

I looked this up...


Would you like spearmint or caraway flavor? That's a strange choice, but believe it or not, they are the same thing. Well, almost. Spearmint and caraway both contain a molecule called carvone with the empirical formula C10H14O, or rather 10 carbon atoms, 14 hydrogen atoms, and 1 oxygen atom. The thing that makes them taste different is that one is left-handed and the other is right-handed. In order for something to have a left or right-handedness, it must be chiral.

Chiral molecules contain the same atoms arranged as mirror images that are non-superimposable. Examples of chiral objects are your hands. Your left hand is the same as your right hand, but they are not interchangeable. Your right hand cannot be replaced by your left hand just as you cannot put your left glove on your right hand. In fact, if you look at your right hand in the mirror, the image you would see would be a left hand. They are mirror images of each other that are non-superimposable; therefore they are 'chiral'. Superimposable objects are things such as balls, cubes, and baseball bats. They are not chiral. When you look at their reflection in a mirror, it looks just like the actual object.

http://www.scienceiq.com/ShowFact.cfm?ID=287

http://www.scienceiq.com/Images/FactsImages/CarawaySpearmint.gif

I don't see your point here. if it was not "chiral" (a word I just learnt) then a quantitative change would be, theoretically, the molecule "flipping over" from left to right - imagine the pictures are 3D and you will picture it.. once it passed the centre point, the QUANTITATIVE change inherent in that moveent would become a QUALITATIVE change. look at the picture - how does the picture on the left become the picture on the right? your brand of "science" suggests it could just magically appear as its mirror image without first moving. oh dear.

as it is "chiral", then the two molecules cannot change from one to the other, so dialectical analysis doesn't apply. also, for all your complicated language, you didn't even notice the very obvious example of a left hand and a right hand as used in the text, yet it would have served your purposes just as well. this makes me doubt your ability to see to the heart of any concept, and instead makes it seem like you use extremely complex language to describe banal concepts.

However to answer your question, the answer is just an extension of the answer I gave above. If you could say change a model of an object into it's chiral mirror image by re-ordering models of the atoms or molecules, but still within the framework of each peice of the toy being interlinked like beans on an abacus, you would have to move each individual atom or molecule in regards to another, until they crossed. moving towards one another, motion, would be a qualitative change. once they cross, their position in regards to one another changes, and becomes qualitative. Once the first two "atoms" or "molecules" cross, then a qualitative change in the substance has taken place. the transition to the eventual desired result - the mirror image - takes place only once the final atom has been moved into the position it would be in the mirror image. Kind of like the difference between a degenerate workers state and a communist society, if you like.

Your essay was too long for me to read beyond that point, but basically what I read was all wrong. You should stop trying to confuse young minds with your propaganda, you call others sectarians yet you're trying to undermine the very basis of revolutionary politics with pseudo-science just so comrades will join your Cliffite sect and unlearn marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: From what you have posted at the end, it is clear that you did not read my Essay in its entirety (for I deal with many of the points you raise at length in footnotes and later on), and you obviously only skim-read those parts you did consult:


"you can't prove a negative"

Not so. This is a clichéd response made by those who know very little logic (which helps explain why you like the Stone Age 'logic' Hegel used), or who cannot think for themselves

But, it is very easy to prove a negative in science, mathematics, logic and everyday life.

You mean, "You can't prove a falsehood."

Example 1: I claim it is not raining. You look outside and tell me "Yes, you are right. It's not raining."

Example 2: A scientist claims the story in Genesis is not correct. Along comes Darwin, and proves her right; Genesis is incorrect.

Example 3: A mathematician claims that the primes are not finite in number. Pythagoras comes along and prove her right too. The primes are not finite.

There are countless more of these.


but what scientist backs you up? Engels example is self-evident, it seems to me.

More to the point, what scientists back Engels, especially when it is unclear what he is claiming -- but you'd know that if you had read my Essays carefully.

And I do not need any scientist to 'back me up'; all I need do is appeal to facts established by scientists and common understanding -- like the ones I used.

Some changes in 'quality' (but Engels left this term undefined, as you have, too) are caused by changes in quantity, but many are not -- so it can't be a law.

And many changes are not nodal, or do not happen in 'leaps'. I gave dozens of examples.

You try to deal with a few of them (more on that later)


A balding head is not a change to a physical substance any more than taking clothes off a body is. No-one would claim it's comparable to boiling water.

I agree, but then you should pick a fight with dialecticians who use this example, not me.


As for melting plastic, or anything else: the point is that the substances have a melting point. as you heat them up to the melting point, the change is qualitative - they get hotter but they aren't melting. Once they begin to melt, they enter into a qualitative change. Then once they are completely liquid, the change is complete. That's dialectical you see - the substance goes through a period of change, then becomes something else, which is a result of that change. Some changes will be smoother than others of course but there comes a point when the qualitative change itself begins - i.e. the melting point. 100 litres of water don't instantly turn to steam at 100 degrees either do they, so you might as well have used that example.

But, a melting point is not part of a qualitative change. From what little detail some dialecticians give, qualitative change is substantial change (Hegel got this idea from Aristotle). But, either side of the melting point, substances remain the same substance -- so it's not even a qualitative change!

For example, iron is still iron whether its a solid or a liquid, so is glass, plastic and water (and practically everything, for that matter).

And, I quote sources that tell us that many such changes are slow, and non-nodal. You skipped past those (how convenient!).


If we're observing phenomena that occur over millions of years, and you could prove that changes occur in ten-thousand year bursts, then that would be a dramatic leap within that context. to deny that is the kind of anti-science I'd expect from the reactionary right. Let's look at wikipedia:

I dealt with this at length; you need to address the points I made, not ignore them.

The problem is that you are dealing with a term (i.e., 'nodal change') which is undefined. And you do not define it, either. That allows you to use it subjectively, and to ignore or re-interpret cases you do not like. So, one minute a node is a few seconds, the next it is tens of thousands of years

I call this "Mickey Mouse science"; now we see why.


Not that different to the transition to communism, then.

If that transition is non-nodal, maybe so. But, since Engels's law is entirely subjective, and dialecticians apply it selectively, then it cannot be a law, and you cannot know whether the transition to communism will be one of the exceptions or not. If the transition is like that of most melting substances, then capitalism will be the same on the other side of the change!


Cool to Warm to Hot are not qualitative changes, they are quantitative, because the substance remains the same. they only become qualitative at melting, freezing or boiling points, which come as a result of those qualitative changes. And it's scientific fact that all substances have melting, freezing and boiling points, which come AFTER and AS A RESULT OF changes from cool to warm to hot.

There is a qualitative difference between cold water and hot water. So it is a qualitative change.

The problem is, once again, you are dealing with a term that is left undefined, and that allows you (and me!) to make these subjective points.

So, once more this not a law, and where it applies it applies only subjectively.

The melting point example is not a happy one, for as I pointed out above, either side of it the substances in general stay the same.


the qualities of the substance don't change just because you change the way you use them. I could hit you with a bottle (I wouldn't) or place it in your hand, its effect on you would be different but its objective physical qualities would not change. Likewise cold water on wet clothes or on a dry hand may have a different effect, but so what, this doesn't retrospectively change the physical qualities of that water before contact.

Some do, as I pointed out. Merely denying what I say is not enough, I am afraid.


the "colour" doesn't undergo a qualitative change, the colour is not a physical object but just something you perceive due to the interaction (dialectical interaction? ) between your eyes and the way the object reflects light. your perception of this colour changing would be the result of a change in your eyes due to staring at the object for too long it would not be because the object changed the way it reflects light. Here, change which would occur quantitatively if you observe how your pupils shrink and grow depending on light, stress placed on them etc., This quantitative change would then result in the qualitative change of you perceiving a different colour.

Once more, you are working with an ill-defined notion of 'quality'; until it is defined clearly, no one will know who is right. So, it's still not a law.

Now, dialecticians have been using these sloppy terms for 200 years -- and no one, literally no one, has defined this term clearly.

Now, you tell us colour is this or that, but you simply take that for granted. I deny it is what you say it is.

When a scientist, for example, tells us Copper Sulphate is blue, she is not describing her own perceptions.

Mickey Mouse theory as I said.


Wrong, Engels talked about boiling water - this itself is a change in molecular orientation and not in quantity of molecules - no new substance is added. You are vulgarising the term "quantity" to mean that simply more or less molecules are added - all it means is that the molecules begin to move their positions and distance from one another (quantity of molecules in a certain space if you like) an addition of motion derived from the addition of heat, before that distance changes to such a point that the substance itself becomes a different one.

Again, you are helping yourself to 'quality', but object when I apply it in certain ways you do not like. You do not like the subjective way you seem to think I have approached things, but you are quite happy to be subjective yourself.

Until you define it clearly, my counter-example still stands.

Now, Engels says this:


"...the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63. Emphasis added.]

Notice that: matter and energy added or subtracted, just as I indicated.

So, you cannot even get Engels right!

My example shows that change in geometry causes change in quality, contrary to Engels, and this can be achieved with an energy neutral budget between cases.

Plus you are working with a loose definition of a system, and of energy inputs (more Mickey Mouse science!); for example, are these systems thermodynamically open or closed?

But, you would have seen this point had you read my Essay with more care.


I don't see your point here. if it was not "chiral" (a word I just learnt) then a quantitative change would be, theoretically, the molecule "flipping over" from left to right - imagine the pictures are 3D and you will picture it.. once it passed the centre point, the QUANTITATIVE change inherent in that movement would become a QUALITATIVE change. look at the picture - how does the picture on the left become the picture on the right? your brand of "science" suggests it could just magically appear as its mirror image without first moving. oh dear.

Once more you miss the point; a change in geometry here within an energy neutral budget causes a qualitative change, contradicting Engels.

Now I do not deny qualitative change (an odd idea you seem to attribute to me); all I deny is that Engels got it right.

Change in nature is far more complex than Engels imagined; for goodness sake, science has moved on in the last 140 years! No wonder he got things wrong.


as it is "chiral", then the two molecules cannot change from one to the other, so dialectical analysis doesn't apply. also, for all your complicated language, you didn't even notice the very obvious example of a left hand and a right hand as used in the text, yet it would have served your purposes just as well. this makes me doubt your ability to see to the heart of any concept, and instead makes it seem like you use extremely complex language to describe banal concepts.

Once more, you are applying your ideas subjectively, and deciding before you look at nature what you are going to accept as 'dialectical'. That is, you are [i]not doing this:


"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels (1976), p.13. Bold emphasis added.]

But you are doing this:


"A consistent materialism cannot proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason, intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source. Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in practice...." [Novack (1965), p.17. Bold emphasis added]

[References at my site.]

You even use the word 'self-evident'!

Now, I quote dialecticians (including Engels) who use similar arguments to mine to try to prove the opposite to me, that this law correct.

You take exception to my use of similar arguments used the other way.

Once more, this 'law' only works because of the sloppy 'definitions' you (plural) use (or rather, you do not even bother to define things), and the subjective way you apply the vague notions found in Hegel.


Your essay was too long for me to read beyond that point, but basically what I read was all wrong. You should stop trying to confuse young minds with your propaganda, you call others sectarians yet you're trying to undermine the very basis of revolutionary politics with pseudo-science just so comrades will join your Cliffite sect and unlearn marxism.

Ah! The sweet voice of sectarian point-scoring emerges at the end. You just cannot resist it can you? [And I like the way you use Ted Grantisms, here. As I said, you cannot think for yourself.]

I explain why you mystics are like this in Essay Nine Part Two:

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

But, the SWP (of which I am not a member) agree with you, and disagree with me.

So, if they are a sect, and they accept this mystical theory, and you do, what does that make you?

And I will continue to rescue 'young minds' from the grip of a theory that has presided over 150 years of failure, which relies on Stone Age 'logic', a sloppy use of language -- and one invented by an arch mystic.

If that upsets you, I am sure I can live with that.

And, as I noted above, you have skim-read part of my Essay, and somehow think you have refuted me.

What would you think if I said I had read a few pages of Kapital, made a few superficial points, and then claimed I had refuted Marx?

Well, we both know what you'd say.

And that is what I say about you.

You do not have to read my Essays, but you need to resist the temptation to make a fool of yourself in public like this, and on the basis of such an amateurish reply.

Come back when you are prepared to treat this with the seriousness it merits, otherwise, don't waste my time.

[Zurdito]

Rosa:

"Notice that: matter and energy added or subtracted, just as I indicated.

So, you cannot even get Engels right!"


He said matter OR motion. Therefore, adding or subtracting matter is not a necessity. My language in saying "adding energy" may be mickey mouse, but in fact, heating something up adds motion to the molecules, which is both solid science and what Engels said.

As for hot water - cold water being qualitative just like water - gas, again I think you're being either misinformed or deliberately dishonest. Any chemistry class will teach you that any substance can exist in three forms - solid, liquid or gas, and that the properties of each are clearly defined and objectively different. They will not tell you the same about a hot and cold version of a substance in the same form.

As for reading your entire essay, I read it for a long time and only got a fraction of the way down, and already noticed numerous errors. You then tell me you correct those errors later on, but you don't quote examples to show where. This is strange seeing as you are keen for people to read your essay; I'd think you would want to make as much of it read as possible.

And yes, dialectical materialism is the philosophical foundation of Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


He said matter OR motion. Therefore, adding or subtracting matter is not a necessity. My language in saying "adding energy" may be mickey mouse, but in fact, heating something up adds motion to the molecules, which is both solid science and what Engels said.

I do not deny this, but you had taken me to task for an objection of mine that involved the addition of matter, indicating that you didn't even understand Engels, let alone me.


As for hot water - cold water being qualitative just like water - gas, again I think you're being either misinformed or deliberately dishonest. Any chemistry class will teach you that any substance can exist in three forms - solid, liquid or gas, and that the properties of each are clearly defined and objectively different. They will not tell you the same about a hot and cold version of a substance in the same form.

Once again, you (just like Engels) are operating with no definition of 'quality'. This allows you to be subjective and inconsistent about what you count as a 'qualitative change'.

I brought this out by being equally subjective (but I do not need to define 'quality' since it is your Mickey Mouse theory, not mine), and you complain.

So, this theory of yours will remain subjective until and unless you tell us very clearly what a 'quality' is, and what 'qualitative change' is.

I do not expect an answer from one as ignorant as you since philosophers have been struggling with that one since before Plato was a lad, and to no avail.

We just do not have a clear notion of 'quality' let alone 'qualitative change'. It is no surprise therefore to see you struggling.

[The standard attempts to 'define' it depend on an ancient and mystical notion of 'essences' -- Hegel merely copied it, put it into obscure jargon (as 'determinate being' (wtf is that?!)), and so did Engels (except he dropped the jargon). You, Mickey Mouse, deep thinker that you are, just ignore the problem!]

Moreover, your analogy with the change to communism means that either side of the change, capitalism will stay capitalism (it will just change its phase), just as water stays water when it is boiled or frozen, or plastic stays plastic when it is a solid or a liquid.

On the other hand, if you argue that something new emerges after a revolution. based on this ill-defined 'law', then my objection stands, since nothing qualitatively new emerges when you melt say, iron; it stays the same substance -- there is no qualitative change here.

Either way, your Mickey Mouse 'law' fails. Engels screwed up; you fell for it.

But he had an excuse; he was working with obsolete science, and out-dated 'logic'.

We cannot absolve you quite so easily.


As for reading your entire essay, I read it for a long time and only got a fraction of the way down, and already noticed numerous errors. You then tell me you correct those errors later on, but you don't quote examples to show where. This is strange seeing as you are keen for people to read your essay; I'd think you would want to make as much of it read as possible.

You do not have to read my essays, but, and once more, you need disabuse yourself of the idea that you have refuted me based on such a superficial and amateurish reply.

And the 'errors' you have spotted turn out to be screw-ups on your part (many of which were handled in the parts of the essay you skipped, and in my reply).

I do not "correct" those errors, since they are not errors (and I did not say that I had "corrected" them later -- you need to learn to read). What I do, and what I say I did, is that I tackle the sort of brainless objections you have come up with, and neutralised them. You would have seen this had you read on.

In that Essay, I have taken on (mostly in the end notes) every objection that has ever been raised in the history of Marxism to defend this 'law', and every single one that I have faced in the 20 odd years that I have been working on this project, and every conceivable objection (many that you have not thought of) to the sort of attacks I have mounted on it, and I have neutralised them all (that is why the Essay is as long as it is -- in its final state in ten years time, it will be at least twice as long).

So you are not likely to have discovered something new to throw at me.

Now, I am prepared to put the work in, you are not. I have read countless thousands of pages of amateurish science and philosophy churned out by you mystics (the vast bulk of it equally poor, if not worse, but all of it repetitive), including that written by the following:

Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Bukharin, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Smith, Bertell Ollman, Sean Sayers, Chris Arthur, August Thalheimer, David Hayden Guest, Christopher Caudwell, John Bernal, Levins and Lewontin, Woods and Grant, Ira Gollobin, Spirkin, Oizerman, Ilyenkov, Kharin, Afanasyev, Naletov, Spirkin, Mandel, John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Novack, Shirokov, Tommy Jackson, Henry Levy, John Lewis, John Somerville, Maurice Cornforth, Kuusinen, Yurkovets, Henri Lefebvre...

So, I have done my homework --, you have not.

Once more we both know what you'd say to someone who thought they had found 'errors' in the first few pages of Das Kapital, and who made a fool of themselves in public by announcing the fact they had refuted Marx, and refused to read any further.

You are just as big a fool.

My advice: stay out of the big league sonny unless you are prepared to do some genuine work, and/or you are ready to start thinking for yourself, for a change.


And yes, dialectical materialism is the philosophical foundation of Marxism.

Then no wonder Dialectical Marxism has been such a long term failure.

We need to reverse that by ditching a theory that history has already refuted.

[Marsella]

Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Bukharin, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Smith, Bertell Ollman, Sean Sayers, Chris Arthur, August Thalheimer, David Hayden Guest, Christopher Caudwell, Bernal, Levins and Lewontin, Woods and Grant, Ira Gollobin, Spirkin, Oizerman, Ilyenkov, Kharin, Afanasyev, Naletov, Mandel, John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Novack, Shirokov, Tommy Jackson, Levy, John Lewis, John Somerville, Cornforth, Kuusinen, Yurkovets, Henri Lefebvre...

Not that I know half of these people, but was there any reason you excluded Marx?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, since he slowly abandoned this 'theory', so that by the time he got to Kapital he says he merely 'coquetted' with a few Hegelian terms of art, and even then only in a few places in that great work.

So, I do not include him among the dialectical mystics.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:32 pm

Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Bukharin, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Smith, Bertell Ollman, Sean Sayers, Chris Arthur, August Thalheimer, David Hayden Guest, Christopher Caudwell, Bernal, Levins and Lewontin, Woods and Grant, Ira Gollobin, Spirkin, Oizerman, Ilyenkov, Kharin, Afanasyev, Naletov, Mandel, John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Novack, Shirokov, Tommy Jackson, Levy, John Lewis, John Somerville, Cornforth, Kuusinen, Yurkovets, Henri Lefebvre...

Not that I know half of these people, but was there any reason you excluded Marx?
Because the only way Rosa can oppose dialectics (and all those Marxists she includes in her list) and retain a Marxist identity is to falsely claim that Marx explicitly abandoned the method.

Her evidence for this? Her own interpretation of one passage in a forward to Capital which is contradicted by subsequent statements by Marx. His confession that he "coquetted" with a few Hegelian terms is made to do a tremendous amount of work in Rosa's analysis: no less than signal the complete abandonment of dialectics.

Now, we could produce another, altogether more puny list of Marxists (Bernstein, Eastman, etc.) who abandoned dialectics. Unfortunately for Rosa, almost without exception, they ended up abandoning Marxism itself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Because the only way Rosa can oppose dialectics (and all those Marxists she includes in her list) and retain a Marxist identity is to falsely claim that Marx explicitly abandoned the method.

But, we managed to prove I was correct on this in an earlier thread.

Is your memory going?


Her evidence for this? Her own interpretation of one passage in a forward to Capital which is contradicted by subsequent statements by Marx. His confession that he "coquetted" with a few Hegelian terms is made to do a tremendous amount of work in Rosa's analysis: no less than signal the complete abandonment of dialectics.

Ah, but we need not speculate, for Marx very kindly added a summary of "his method", in which not one atom of Hegel is to be found.

Since you have forgotten it so quickly, here it is again:


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

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

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted here.]

And, if that passage is read with more care than Z can manage, the reader will note that there are no 'contradictions', changes of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation" or "unities of opposites", and the only indirect input Hegel is allowed is restricted in the following manner:


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

Glad I could clear that up again for you, Z -- this is only the 20th time I have had to help you out here; I suspect we might need another 20 before it sinks in. :o


Now, we could produce another, altogether more puny list of Marxists (Bernstein, Eastman, etc.) who abandoned dialectics. Unfortunately for Rosa, almost without exception, they ended up abandoning Marxism itself.

But, the Stalinists use the dialectic, and they are counter-revolutionaries.

So, this contradictoiry 'theory' of yours can be used to justify anything -- and has been used to justify anything (precisely because it is contradictory).

In that case, there are considerably more anti-revolutionary dialecticians (the Stalinists and Maoists) than there are 'revolutionary' ones, and, as if to rub it in, the Stalinists and Maoists have presided over more revolutions etc. than us Trots.

So, the dialectic is not super-glued to 'revolutionary orthodoxy'.

[And it is nice to see you, Z, agreeing with the Stalinists and Maoists on this theory -- that should make you stop and think -- er, sorry, you do not do that...]

But, all three are abject failures, and all three accept dialectical materialism

Conclusion: dialectical materialism has been refuted by history.

[Hit The North]

R:
But, we managed to prove I was correct on this in an earlier thread.

No, you managed to convince yourself that you were correct. Not much of a feat in itself and I doubt you convinced anyone else.


[And it is nice to see you, Z, agreeing with the Stalinists and Maoists on this theory -- that should make you stop and think -- er, sorry, you do not do that...]


No, I agree with the Marxists. The only people who agree with your anti-dialectics is a handful of anarchists on this site. So you are the one who needs to reflect on who your friends are.

[Herman]

But, the Stalinists use the dialectic, and they are counter-revolutionaries.

Seeing Stalin in a positive light does not make you counter-revolutionary. Remember that.

You may hate Stalin, you may throw garbage in his face, but whoever sees him as another "true" socialist leader is not counter-revolutionary. There are many fine people who sincerely believed in Stalin.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


No, you managed to convince yourself that you were correct. Not much of a feat in itself and I doubt you convinced anyone else.

You have the survey results I presume?

Or are you just substituting guesswork/wishful-thinking for facts again?


No, I agree with the Marxists. The only people who agree with your anti-dialectics is a handful of anarchists on this site. So you are the one who needs to reflect on who your friends are.

In fact, you agree with the Stalinists and the Maoists (and a few libertarian anti-Leninist Marxists).

With your head so deep in the sand I am not surprised you cannot see this.

But, it is enough to know that you disagree with Marx. He, on the other hand, saw things my way -- as I proved in earlier threads

And, even if you were right, not one of you brave mystics can win a single argument against me. But still you adhere to your safe little doctrines, which provide you with much needed consolation (as you admitted last year). You are clearly quite fond of this 'comfort blanket'.

And, as you should know, innovative work in every sphere of human endeavour is often rejected by traditionalists like you.

So, even if I were the only person on the planet who thought this way, that would not make me wrong.

But, you seem to think truth is arrived at by counting the heads of mystical sheep.

In your case it has clearly put you to sleep.

Dream on...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have split from this thread all those posts that relate to 'tolerating' Stalin and Stalinsism, and moved them to a thread of that name in History.

If you want to comment on that, please go there.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Rosa

And, even if you were right, not one of you brave mystics can win a single argument against me.

A seed falls from a tree. (Thesis) Quantity
Water, temperature, sunlight, soil (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
The seed grows into a new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation
The new tree. (Synthesis becomes the new Thesis) Quantity
Birds, bees, wind, pollen (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
Fertilized seeds fall from the new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation of the Negation

There, I proved how dialectics is applied to a materialist basis, and how matter moves in spiraling motion.

How you still cannot understand this process perplexes me...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise Some Things Sometimes:


A seed falls from a tree. (Thesis) Quantity
Water, temperature, sunlight, soil (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
The seed grows into a new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation
The new tree. (Synthesis becomes the new Thesis) Quantity
Birds, bees, wind, pollen (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
Fertilized seeds fall from the new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation of the Negation

Oh dear, more Mickey Mouse 'Science'! :o

This sort of 'proof' would be laughed out of kiddie school.


There, I proved how dialectics is applied to a materialist basis, and how matter moves in spiraling motion.

How you still cannot understand this process perplexes me...

1) You clearly need to check on what the word 'proof' means in science and/or philosophy.

2) Check this out, and then tell me this 'theory' of yours is explicable:

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

3) I go further than claim I do not understand this 'process', I claim that no one does, not Engels, not Lenin, not Mao, not Stalin, not you.

4) All you have done is list a few items that seem to fit, you have not even considered the many that do not, nor have you explained even how these fit.

Now, I have shown that these 'laws' you refer to are far too vague and confused to be considered 'laws', and whatever they seem to mean, the evidence refutes them.

You need to address my arguments and evidence, not keep repeating tired, old, and failed formulae.

5) The Thesis-Anti-thesis-Synthesis triad you use is not even Hegel's (and Lenin rejected it too). Even if it were correct, it would suggest nature is mind -- for what else can advance theses like this?

On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292097892 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51512&view=findpost&p=1292097892)

Now, please, just for once, try to live up to your name, and start to think for yourself.

Give it a go; you might get to like it...

[The Author]

Actually, I do think for myself.

What bugs you is the fact that I (and many others) don't subscribe to your narrow-minded philosophy.

See, you don't want me to "think for myself," you want me to think like you do.


I'd like to see a better response from you than "Mickey Mouse Science," or spamming in another link to your website- which, by the way, I'll never bother to read because

1. I think for myself

2. Because it's long-winded, boring, and lacking in substance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise Some Things Sometimes, and even then Make Sure You Get Them Wrong:


What bugs you is the fact that I (and many others) don't subscribe to your narrow-minded philosophy.

Considering the fact that I do not have a philosophy, but you do (and one that you cannot defend), well done, this was within a couple of parsecs of being accurate (the "What" bit, that is -- the rest you can keep).


See, you don't want me to "think for myself," you want me to think like you do.

Not necessarily, but it would help if you stopped regurgitating the tired old formulae and examples you copied off Engels etc.

Now if you stopped doing that, we might just begin to believe you actually can think for yourself.


I'd like to see a better response from you than "Mickey Mouse Science," or spamming in another link to your website- which, by the way, I'll never bother to read because

Of course you would, and you will get just such a response when you post something that does not rely on Mickey Mouse Science.

So, it's up to you; the question is, can you think for yourself enough to be able to rise to that daunting challenge?

I for one refuse to believe the sceptics who say that even if we wait until the Sun cools, that will never happen.

I on the other hand put it down to a few hundred thousand years, at most.

You could even be the very first Stalin-oholic ever to do this.

Please do not let me down... :(


Because it's long-winded, boring, and lacking in substance.

How do you know if, as you say, you have not read my work?

On the other hand I have read the even longer and still more boring works of Stalin.

Yes, I know the question you are dying to ask: how did I manage to stay awake past page one of volume one?

Now, if you ask really nicely, I'll tell you so that you too can make it to page two.

How's that for a deal?

[Volderbeek]

One thing I don't get about Stalin's, as well as Lenin's and Mao's, writings about dialectics is how they oppose it to metaphysics. I was under the impression that it was a kind of metaphysics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


One thing I don't get about Stalin's, as well as Lenin's and Mao's, writings about dialectics is how they oppose it to metaphysics. I was under the impression that it was a kind of metaphysics.

Along with Hegel, Plekhanov and Engels,

All a priori dogmatism.

Into Hume's bonfire with the lot.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 22, 2007 12:08 am
R:
But, we managed to prove I was correct on this in an earlier thread.

No, you managed to convince yourself that you were correct. Not much of a feat in itself and I doubt you convinced anyone else.


[And it is nice to see you, Z, agreeing with the Stalinists and Maoists on this theory -- that should make you stop and think -- er, sorry, you do not do that...]


No, I agree with the Marxists. The only people who agree with your anti-dialectics is a handful of anarchists on this site. So you are the one who needs to reflect on who your friends are.
I am not an anarchist and I agree that dialectics is bunk.

I admit I have coquetted with dialectical rhetoric, but I never regarded it as a law. I don't understand why marxists are so into it.

I don't think you can resolve any practical problem with dialectical materialism. In fact, I don't think you can resolve any problem with at all.

I would argue that most of the people who came up with good ideas through "Dialectics" came actually to those conclusions with a different approach--and only later embellished it with dialectical rhetoric.

Dialectical buzzwords look really nice on paper--but thats it.

[patient persuasion]

What would Rosa say about Althusser's essays on how Marx refuted his Hegelian tendencies (via Feuerbach)?

[jacobin1949]

DiaMat oppositions to gradualist Darwinist theories of evolution which seemed ridiculous in the 1900s have been confirmed by recent paleo discoveries.

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

It confirms that not only does DiaMat explain the physical world, it has actually made scientific predictions centuries before its time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes and you Diamat fans should no more be believed than Fundamentalist Christians who claim the same for the book of Genesis.

[The Author]

jacobin1949's comment about dialectical materialism's refutation of Darwinian gradualism. (Thesis) Quantity
Rosa's comment about dialectical materialism being akin to "religious dogma." (Anti-Thesis) Quantity
Pointless circle debate. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation


I hope you anti-dialecticians are taking notes...

Now, looking at the dialectic analysis above and the direction this thread is going, we can assume the following:

Either Rosa will make another attempt to be "witty,"

Or she will say nothing.

We shall see what happens soon enough.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise Some Things Sometimes, and Make Sure You Ignore Refutations of Pet Theories While you do it:


jacobin1949's comment about dialectical materialism's refutation of Darwinian gradualism. (Thesis) Quantity

Rosa's comment about dialectical materialism being akin to "religious dogma." (Anti-Thesis) Quantity

Pointless circle debate. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation

You have already had it pointed out to you that even Lenin rejected this typology (Thesis, Anti-thesis, blah blah), and it is only based on an error Marx made when he was young (or rather one he was taught at University by a professor who misconstrued Hegel's schema), which Marx never repeated.

Now please, check your facts before you try to regale the rest of us with your dogatic theses in future.

I have taken the trouble to pin the relevant information here, just for guys like you (i.e., those who cannot think for themsleves, but have to copy everything off Engels, Stalin, or Mao):

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292097892 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51512&view=findpost&p=1292097892)

Moreover, you were asked to try to say what 'quality' meant'. Until you do, you might as well use a randomly typed string of letters -- in fact, that will probably make more sense. :o

Give it a go... :)


I hope you anti-dialecticians are taking notes...

Sure, but unlike you, us genuine materialists actually criticise things, especially mystical stuff like this.

Again, you should give that a try, too. :)


Either Rosa will make another attempt to be "witty,"

Or she will say nothing.

We shall see what happens soon enough.

In fact, I am constantly being accused of saying too much.

Now, let me make a prediction, too, if I may: Criticise Some Things Sometimes will continue to ignore anything he does not like, cannot refute, or which does not fit in with his dogmatic view of reality.

[It's a safe bet folks, since he has done this several times already.]

[The Author]

Either Rosa will make another attempt to be "witty,"

Or she will say nothing.

We shall see what happens soon enough.

So, Rosa BullshitArtistStein made another attempt to be "witty." Which I had predicted, based on previous posts of hers (that's the material) from where I got my analysis.

Therefore,

the Synthesis (Pointless circle debate) becomes the new Thesis (Quantity)

The Anti-Thesis was Rosa's comment about CEA's so-called ignorance, dogmatism, lack of facts, etc. (Quantities)

So the new Synthesis (Quality) is that this is now a pointless circle debate that includes somebody's interpretations of the thoughts of the communists. The old state of affairs where this had been endless discussion on nothing is no more, it has been negated, and replaced by a new state of affairs. Where in this case, now it has become an endless discussion about the philosophy behind thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. Thus, the Negation of the Negation.


You have already had it pointed out to you that even Lenin rejected this typology (Thesis, Anti-thesis, blah blah), and it is only based on an error Marx made when he was young (or rather one he was taught at University by a professor who misconstrued Hegel's schema), which Marx never repeated.

Now please, check your facts before you try to regale the rest of us with your dogatic theses in future.

I have taken the trouble to pin the relevant information here, just for guys like you (i.e., those who cannot think for themsleves, but have to copy everything off Engels, Stalin, or Mao):


In an essay by Nicolai Hartmann on Aristoteles und Hegel, I find the following additional confirmation of all the other witnesses to the misinterpretation of Hegel's dialectic: "It is a basically perverse opinion (grundverkehrte Ansicht) which sees the essence of dialectic in the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." The legend was spread by Karl Marx whose interpretation of Hegel is distorted.

No, Marx's interpretation of Hegel is not distorted. Marx took Hegel's dialectic out of idealism and put it into the materialist conception because Hegel's conception of the dialectic was distorted. Obviously, the person who wrote this is trying to misinform the reader. The author is trying to misinform the reader, because it is his intention to dupe the reader into thinking that Marx is mistaken and Hegel is correct in order to lead people into idealism by calling dialectical materialism "dogma." And to emasculate the entire theoretical character of the revolutionary movement.


It is Marxism superimposed on Hegel. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, Marx says in Das Elend der Philosophie, is Hegel's purely logical formula for the movement of pure reason, and the whole system is engendered by this dialectical movement of thesis, antithesis, synthesis of all categories. This pure reason, he continues, is Mr. Hegel's own reason, and history becomes the history of his own philosophy, whereas in reality, thesis, antithesis, synthesis are the categories of economic movements.

Oh, but I thought this "typology" was erroneous!

Yet here it is! Here is the dialectic! And where does it come from? A materialist basis! This, in opposition to Hegel's view of the dialectic in terms of idealism. Dialectic is the process of change through opposites, and using a materialist basis, Marxists use dialectical materialism to study the changes of society in order to correctly predict how to change it.

After all, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." And how can one change the world if they do not understand the process of how the world changes? That's where the dialectic comes in. Because once Marx saw how society with its contradictions had changed through a dialectic process, he used the dialectic to apply it to materialist conditions.

But of course, anti-dialecticians are against change, or studying the nature of change. They want to live in their fantasy world indicative of the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia and they don't want the working class to get too smart for its own good to the point of casting the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia on its ass. "Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."


But Karl Marx was at, that time a student at the university of Berlin and a member of the Hegel Club where the famous book was discussed. He took the hunch and spread into a deadly, abstract machinery.

Years of research in the political movements in Europe, America, and the world, years of research and application of theory to the development of capitalist economics and understanding the nature of the capitalist social system to prepare the working class for its overthrowing of this old system, all of this is "deadly, abstract machinery." Especially for a writer enjoying his pay and his comfortable living from the bourgeoisie.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise Some Things Sometimes and Think Up Crap Abusive Names In Reply:


So, Rosa BullshitArtistStein made another attempt to be "witty." Which I had predicted, based on previous posts of hers (that's the material) from where I got my analysis.

Well, one of us has to show some signs of intelligence; too bad it has to be me every time. :)


Therefore,

the Synthesis (Pointless circle debate) becomes the new Thesis (Quantity)

The Anti-Thesis was Rosa's comment about CEA's so-called ignorance, dogmatism, lack of facts, etc. (Quantities)

So the new Synthesis (Quality) is that this is now a pointless circle debate that includes somebody's interpretations of the thoughts of the communists. The old state of affairs where this had been endless discussion on nothing is no more, it has been negated, and replaced by a new state of affairs. Where in this case, now it has become an endless discussion about the philosophy behind thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. Thus, the Negation of the Negation.

Yes, and if repetition won arguments, you'd be the man.

But it doesn't.

[I might have to repeat that, though. The message is not getting through.]

As I have told you several times, this schema does not work, nor is it part of dialectics -- no wonder Lenin rejected it.

But you are welcome to keep repeating it, now that no one is listening to you.


No, Marx's interpretation of Hegel is not distorted. Marx took Hegel's dialectic out of idealism and put it into the materialist conception because Hegel's conception of the dialectic was distorted. Obviously, the person who wrote this is trying to misinform the reader. The author is trying to misinform the reader, because it is his intention to dupe the reader into thinking that Marx is mistaken and Hegel is correct in order to lead people into idealism by calling dialectical materialism "dogma." And to emasculate the entire theoretical character of the revolutionary movement.

Unfortumately for you, the facts say otherwise.

Go and check them for yourself...er, sorry, you do not do that, do you. :(

My apologies for even suggesting you should begin to think for yourself. :blush:


Oh, but I thought this "typology" was erroneous!

Ok, I admit it, you can sometimes think.

I do get some things wrong -- you should not sneak up on me like that!

I am just not used to it. It is most unfair of you, lulling me into a false sense of security, and then suddenly starting to think. People have been restricted for less.

[May I suggest you try to read this material with some care, for the authour is criticising Marx, not agreeing with him!]

Oh dear, another declaration of simple faith, and back into his non-thinking shell goes Criticise Some Things Sometimes:


Yet here it is! Here is the dialectic! And where does it come from? A materialist basis! This, in opposition to Hegel's view of the dialectic in terms of idealism. Dialectic is the process of change through opposites, and using a materialist basis, Marxists use dialectical materialism to study the changes of society in order to correctly predict how to change it.

This does not work, as you would know if you checked the thread I linked to earlier.

Or, even better, try this:

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


After all, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." And how can one change the world if they do not understand the process of how the world changes? That's where the dialectic comes in. Because once Marx saw how society with its contradictions had changed through a dialectic process, he used the dialectic to apply it to materialist conditions.

Yes we know you can type-out stuff you have had rammed down your throat -- but, as any rational human being would have told you had you bothered to ask one, that does not make it true.


But of course, anti-dialecticians are against change, or studying the nature of change. They want to live in their fantasy world indicative of the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia and they don't want the working class to get too smart for its own good to the point of casting the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia on its ass. "Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."

But it is you mystics who won't change. You are super-glued to a 'theory' you can only keep on repeating, long after it has been shown not to work.

A bit like Catholics, in fact, who keep saying their Hail Mary's etc., when faced with death or danger.

Far be it from me to stop you repeating this mantra of yours if it makes you feel better.


Years of research in the political movements in Europe, America, and the world, years of research and application of theory to the development of capitalist economics and understanding the nature of the capitalist social system to prepare the working class for its overthrowing of this old system, all of this is "deadly, abstract machinery." Especially for a writer enjoying his pay and his comfortable living from the bourgeoisie.

Now, since you seem to be the General Secretary for Stating the Bleeding Obvious (your winning entry kindly posted anbove), could you perhaps help us out with these nasty brain teasers?

1) What is the colour of grass?

2) Where is the Sky?

3) After they have breathed in, what do the vast majority of human beings then go on to do?

4) Fill in the missing letter: A, B, C,..., E, F.

5) Stalin was a mass murdering... what:

a) Bastard, b) Bastard, or c) Bastard?

[Do not rush Q5, it's not easy.]

Now, after my peerless demonstration, I hope you see how you too can start criticising things.

Glad I could help...

[The Author]

Think Up Crap Abusive Names In Reply

Don't pick on my username then.

Which is what you've been doing for more than a year now.

And you're a Mod too and you're resorting to such lows.


Well, one of us has to show some signs of intelligence; too bad it has to be me every time.

What's the point of debating with you if this is how you think?

"I'm right all the time"?

Get a grip.

Ironic coming from someone telling me I don't know how to criticise (sic).

If this is your way of reasoning, don't expect me to respond to any future posts of yours either in this thread, or in others. From now on, after this post, I shall simply ignore you.


[I might have to repeat that, though. The message is not getting through.]

I thought I was allowed to "think for myself"? Instead, all I see is you making an effort to force your views on me.

And I don't like that.

Don't lecture people, Rosa. That's a very good way to turn them off to what you have to say.


I am just not used to it. It is most unfair of you, lulling me into a false sense of security, and then suddenly starting to think. People have been restricted for less.

Now you're threatening me? What the fuck is this? I criticize some piece of literature which you cited, and you're telling me I'm in danger of being restricted?


stuff you have had rammed down your throat

It wasn't rammed down my throat. I've been studying Marxist philosophy and historiography for nearly four years, all on my own initiative. Like I said earlier in this thread, you don't like the fact that my philosophy is totally contradictory to yours. You want to mold me into a "Rosaist."


As I have told you several times, this schema does not work, nor is it part of dialectics -- no wonder Lenin rejected it.

He most certainly did not.


Originally posted by V.I. Lenin+ "What the 'Friends of the People' Are"--> (V.I. Lenin @ "What the 'Friends of the People' Are")That this formulation of D&uumlhring's views applies fully to Mr. Mikhailovsky is proved by the following passage in his article "Karl Marx Being Tried by Y. Zhukovsky." Objecting to Mr. Zbukovsky's assertion that Marx is a defender of private property, Mr. Mikhailovsky refers to this scheme of Marx's and explains it in the following manner. "In his scheme Marx employed two well-known tricks of Hegelian dialectics: firstly, the scheme is constructed according to the laws of the Hegelian triad; secondly, the synthesis is based on the identily of opposites -- individual and social property. This means that the word 'individual' here has the specific, purely conditional meaning of a term of the dialectical process, and absolutely nothing can be based on it." This was said by a man possessed of the most estimable intentions, defending, in the eyes of the Russian public, the "sanguine" Marx from the bourgeois Mr. Zhukovsky. And with these estimable intentions he explains Marx as basing his conception of the process on "tricks"! Mr. Mikhailovsky may draw from this what is for him the not unprofitable moral that, whatever the matter in hand, estimable intentions alone are rather inadequate.[/b]


V.I. [email protected] "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back"
In each of these stages the circumstances of the struggle and the immediate object of the attack are materially different; each stage is, as it were, a separate battle in one general military campaign. Our struggle cannot be understood at all unless the concrete circumstances of each battle are studied. But once that is done, we see clearly that development does indeed proceed dialectically, by way of contradictions: the minority becomes the majority, and the majority becomes the minority; each side passes from the defensive to the offensive, and from the offensive to the defensive; the starting-point of ideological struggle (Paragraph 1) is "negated" and gives place to an all-pervading squabble ; but then begins "the negation of the negation", and, having just about managed to "rub along" with our god-given wife on different central bodies, we return to the starting-point, the purely ideological struggle; but by now this "thesis" has been enriched by all the results of the "antithesis" and has become a higher synthesis, in which the isolated, random error over Paragraph 1 has grown into a quasi-system of opportunist views on matters of organisation, and in which the connection between this fact and the basic division of our Party into a revolutionary and an opportunist wing becomes increasingly apparent to all. In a word, not only do oats grow according to Hegel, but the Russian Social-Democrats war among themselves according to Hegel.


5) Stalin was a mass murdering... what:

a) Bastard, b) Bastard, or c) Bastard?

[Do not rush Q5, it's not easy.]

Nothing concrete in this remark. Merely sectarian provocativeness and puerility at its best.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Criticise Some Things Sometimes, and then Throw a Tantrum:


Don't pick on my username then.

Well, with the one you chose, coupled with the fact that you can't think for yourself, it would be criminal of me not to.


And you're a Mod too and you're resorting to such lows.

It is very good of you to say so. To upset Stalinist mystics is one of the main goals of my life.


What's the point of debating with you if this is how you think?

You are incapable of 'debating', so the only thing left for me to do is wind you up.

You are good at pontificating, though.


Get a grip.

Only on the necks of Stalinists.


Ironic coming from someone telling me I don't know how to criticise (sic).

I'll admit it if you will.


If this is your way of reasoning, don't expect me to respond to any future posts of yours either in this thread, or in others. From now on, after this post, I shall simply ignore you.

Oh dear; how will I ever survive the blow?


I thought I was allowed to "think for myself"? Instead, all I see is you making an effort to force your views on me.

Well, you allow others to ram ideas down your throat, so I might as well try, too.


And I don't like that.

So, start thinking for yourself...


Don't lecture people, Rosa. That's a very good way to turn them off to what you have to say.

You were turned off before you learnt what I had to say (since you already know the Truth, and the Truth has set you free). As soon a comrades know I am trying to demolish the holy 'dialectic', they attack me, and bad-mouth my ideas without ever reading them -- as you did. So I go on the attack straight away

But, what they do not like, and what you do not like, is that I give far worse than I get.

You mystics like to dish out the abuse, but you can't take it when it's returned with interest.

Earlier in this thread, after I had advised you to try to think for yourself, you replied:


What bugs you is the fact that I (and many others) don't subscribe to your narrow-minded philosophy.

See, you don't want me to "think for myself," you want me to think like you do.

And you posted that without knowing what my essays say and in ignorance of the fact that I do not have a philosophy, nor do I want one.

When I see that sort of accusation, I go into attack mode straight away.

Here is why (this is from the opening page of my site, referring to a page also at my site that records all the abuse I have received over the years):


How Not To Argue 101

This page contains links to forums on the web where I have 'debated' this creed with other comrades:

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

For anyone interested, check out the desperate 'debating' tactics used by Dialectical Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas.

You will no doubt notice that the vast majority all say the same sorts of things, and most of them pepper their remarks with scatological and abusive language. They all like to make things up, too, about me and my beliefs.

25 years (!!) of this stuff from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now take an aggressive stance with them every time -- I soon learnt back in the 1980s that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did not alter their abusive tone, their propensity to fabricate, nor reduce the amount of scatological language they used.

So, these days, I generally go for the jugular from the get-go.

Apparently, they expect me to take their abuse lying down, and regularly complain about my "bullying" tactics.

So, these mystics can dish it out, but they cannot take it.

Given the damage their theory has done to Marxism, and the abuse they all dole out, they are lucky this is all I can do to them.

25 yers of abuse -- just think about that for a minute.

So, if you do not like my response, I should care.


Now you're threatening me? What the fuck is this? I criticize some piece of literature which you cited, and you're telling me I'm in danger of being restricted?

I see, my 'joke' was a little too threatening, was it? Can't you recognise hyperbole when you see it?


It wasn't rammed down my throat. I've been studying Marxist philosophy and historiography for nearly four years, all on my own initiative. Like I said earlier in this thread, you don't like the fact that my philosophy is totally contradictory to yours. You want to mold me into a "Rosaist."

Odd then that you just regurgitate the dialectical mantra all the time, almost word for word as it appears in the sacred dialectical holy books.

And it is even odder that it is quite apparent that you have not really thought much about what you have read.

For example, I directed you to a page where the dialectical 'theory' of change has been thoroughly demolished, and using very simple ideas that should have occurred to you had you given it a moment's thought.

What did you do? You ignored it. Like the other mystics here, you just turn a blind eye to stuff that challenges the dialectical gospel.

So, you do not want a debate, you just want to spread the glad tidings you found in the sacred texts.

And thanks for that quote from Lenin, but you chose a passge from his early work. in his mature work, he rejected this schema.

In his Philosophical Notebooks he wrote this:


NB: the "triplicity" of dialectics is its external superficial side - but, he [Hegel] says, that is already "an infinite merit of Kant's philosophy" that it at least (even if without any concept) demonstrated this.

Hegel savagely attacks formalism, tedious and idle play with dialectics. (page 229)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work....htm#LCW38_230a (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm#LCW38_230a)

Even in the work you quote, Lenin said this:


And so, the materialists rest their case on the “incontrovertibility” of the dialectical process! In other words, they base their sociological theories on Hegelian triads.[36] Here we have the stock method of accusing Marxism of Hegelian dialectics, an accusation that might be thought to have been worn threadbare enough by Marx’s bourgeois critics. Unable to advance any fundamental argument against the doctrine, these gentlemen fastened on Marx’s manner of expression and attacked the origin of the theory, thinking thereby to undermine its essence. And Mr. Mikhailovsky makes no bones about resorting to such methods. He uses a chapter from Engels Anti-Dühring[37] as a pretext. Replying to Dühring, who had attacked Marx’s dialectics, Engels says that Marx never dreamed of “proving” anything by means of Hegelian triads,

Quoted from here:

http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1894/f...zz99h-131-GUESS (http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1894/friends/01.htm#v01zz99h-131-GUESS)

So Lenin was a little more clued-in than you seem to be.

Plekhanov said more or less the same:


But where is the famous triad, he asks, the triad which is, as is well known, the whole essence of Hegelian dialectics? Your pardon, reader, we do not mention the triad for the simple reason that it does not at all play in Hegel’s work the part which is attributed to it by people who have not the least idea of the philosophy of that thinker, and who have studied it, for example, from the “text-book of criminal law” of Mr. Spasovich. [6] Filled with sacred simplicity, these light-hearted people are convinced that the whole argumentation of the German idealists was reduced to references to the triad; that whatever theoretical difficulties the old man came up against, he left others to rack their poor “unenlightened” brains over them while he, with a tranquil smile, immediately built up a syllogism: all phenomena occur according to a triad, I am faced with a phenomenon, consequently I shall turn to the triad. [7] This is simply lunatic nonsense, as one of the characters of Karonin [3*] puts it, or unnaturally idle talk, if you prefer the expression of Shchedrin. Not once in the eighteen volumes of Hegel’s works does the “triad” play the part of an argument, and anyone in the least familiar with his philosophical doctrine understands that it could not play such a part. With Hegel the triad has the same significance as it had previously with Fichte, whose philosophy is essentially different from the Hegelian. Obviously only gross ignorance can consider the principal distinguishing, feature of one philosophical system to be that which applies to at least two quite different systems.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/...monist/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/monist/ch04.htm)


Nothing concrete in this remark. Merely sectarian provocativeness and puerility at its best.

As I said; you are incapable of independent thought.

[Herman]

It's best if you just forget dialectics. Learning about it will not help you. Forgetting it will relieve you of a burden from your mind.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Herman, you are very sweet, but if you think that fans of the dialectic are going to do what you say, you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Big Foot.

They are super-glued to that theory since, as Marx noted, it provides them with the same sort of consolation (for their long-term failure) that religion provides believers.

Plus, since they also believe 'appearances' are 'contradicted' by underlying 'essences', it 'allows' them to argue that the long-term appearance that Dialectical Marxism has been monumental failure is 'contradicted' by the underlying essence that tells us the opposite.

In that way, they can ignore anything that I say, or any facts that history throws their way.

They can also dismiss the fact the billions of workers ignore their mystical creed.

It allows them to invent silly names like 'Criticise Everything Always' when they have no intention of doing that.

Finally, it guarantees they never learn from the past, which means we can now look forward to another 150 years of failure -- that is, if the planet lasts that long!