@nti-dialectics Made Easy

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Several months ago (in 2006), a handful of comrades asked me to publish an Essay that made my objections to dialectical materialism more accessible to the absolute novice.

I have now written that Essay.

Recall it is confined to very basic ideas (all of which are greatly expanded upon at my site), and that many of the links to other sites on the internet have been ommited in this copy of part of it (references also at my site).

DM = Dialectical Materialism.


Logic

Dialecticians do not tell the truth about Formal Logic [FL]; instead, they regularly say things like this:

"Formal logic regards things as fixed and motionless." [Rob Sewell.]

"Formal categories, putting things in labelled boxes, will always be an inadequate way of looking at change and development…because a static definition cannot cope with the way in which a new content emerges from old conditions." [Rees (1998), p.59.]

However, I have yet to see a single quotation from a logic text (ancient or modern) that supports such allegations -- certainly dialecticians have so far failed to produce even one.

And no wonder: it is completely incorrect.

Indeed, Formal Logic uses variables -- that is, it employs letters to stand for named objects, designated expressions (some of these are called "predicates"), and the like -- all of which can and do change.

This handy device was invented by the very first logician we know of (in the West): Aristotle (384-322BC). He experimented with variables approximately 1500 years before the same tactic was extended into mathematics by Muslim Algebraists -- who in turn used them several centuries before René Descartes (1596-1650) began employing them in the 'West'.

However, Engels said the following about that particular innovation:

"The turning point in mathematics was Descartes' variable magnitude. With that came motion and hence dialectics in mathematics, and at once, too, of necessity the differential and integral calculus…." [Engels (1954), p.258.]

No one doubts that modern mathematics can handle change, so why dialecticians deny this of FL is something of a mystery.
With very little variation between them, dialecticians also like to assert things like the following:

"The basic laws of formal logic are:

1) The law of identity ('A' = 'A').

2) The law of contradiction ('A' does not equal 'not-A').

3) The law of the excluded middle ('A' does not equal 'B')." [Woods and Grant (1995), p.91. Quotation marks have been altered to conform to the conventions adopted here.]

Even a cursory examination of a handful of logic texts will show that not only are the above claims incorrect, but not even Aristotle's logic was based on these so-called 'laws'!

Sure, dialecticians claim that Aristotle founded his logic on such principles, but they have yet to produce the evidence. In fact, Aristotle knew nothing of the 'Law of Identity' [LOI], which was a medieval invention.

The LOI will be examined presently, but the 'Law of Contradiction' [LOC] merely says that if one proposition is true then its contradictory is false, and vice versa -- or, in some versions found in mathematical logic, it' says that no contradiction can be true, but must be false. The LOC says nothing about "equality", or the lack of it.

The criticism advanced above by Woods and Grant, and by most other dialecticians, is in fact a descendant of ideas put forward by Hegel (1770-1831), who committed a series of logical blunders which dialecticians have, even to this day, failed to notice. But these errors are the only way that Hegel's 'system' can be made to seem to work. [His ideas are destructively analysed here. A far easier summary of this material can be found here.]

In that case, the 'logic' underlying 'Materialist Dialectics' was bogus from the start.

Likewise, the 'Law of Excluded Middle' [LEM] says nothing about objects being identical, or otherwise, merely that any proposition has to be either true or false; there is no third option.

[Some claim that Quantum Mechanics [QM], among other things, has refuted this 'law', but QM has merely forced us to reconsider what we should count as a scientific proposition.]

Contrary to what we are often told, this 'law' does not deny change, nor is it incapable of handling it. Indeed, we are only capable of studying change if we are clear about what is or is not true about whatever is changing.

The LOI is equally badly handled in DM-texts; this is because dialecticians have unwisely copied the above errors from Hegel's Logic. [On this, see here.]

The basic idea behind the hackneyed criticism of the LOI seems to be this:

"There are three fundamental laws of formal logic. First and most important is the law of identity. This law can be stated in various ways such as: A thing is always equal to or identical with itself. In algebraic terms: A equals A.

"...If a thing is always and under all conditions equal to or identical with itself, it can never be unequal to or different from itself. This conclusion follows logically and inevitably from the law of identity. If A equals A, it can never equal non-A." [Novack (1971), p.20.]

Fortunately, this is incorrect. The LOI does not preclude change, for if an object changes, then anything identical to it will change equally quickly. Moreover, if a thing changes, it will no longer be identical with its former self. So, far from denying change, this 'law' allows us to determine if and when it has occurred.

These criticisms now remove the main motivating point of Dialectical Logic. Hegel's system is based on a series of logical blunders, and hence, so is 'Materialist Dialectics'. Small wonder then that when it has been tested in practice, practice has refuted it.

Motion

According to Hegel, motion is 'contradictory'; unfortunately, dialecticians have bought into this rather odd idea, too.

Almost as if they are singing from the same hymn sheet, they like to argue alongside Engels as follows:

"...[A]s soon as we consider things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence on one another[,] [t]hen we immediately become involved in contradictions. Motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical change of place can only come about through a body at one and the same moment of time being both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it. And the continuous assertion and simultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely what motion is." [Engels (1976), p.152.]

This is an age-old confusion derived from a paradox invented by an Ancient Greek thinker called Zeno (490?-430?BC).

As seems obvious, all objects (which are not mathematical points) actually occupy several places at once. So, for example, while you are sat reading this Essay, your body is not compressed into a tiny point!

Hence, material bodies can be in one place and in another, in the first but not wholly in the second, at the same time, and stationary all the while.

For example, a car could be parked half in, half out of a garage. Here the car is in one and the same place and not in it, and it is in two places at once (in the garage and in the yard), even while it is at rest relative to a suitable frame of reference.

In that case, this 'contradiction' does not distinguish moving from stationary bodies. So, this alleged contradiction has more to do with linguistic ambiguity than it has with anything in material reality.

Any attempt to circumvent this objection with the counter-claim that moving objects occupy regions of space equal to their own volumes (hence a moving object will occupy two of these regions at the same time, occupying and not occupying each at once) cannot work either. This is because such a re-description would clearly depict a moving body occupying a region greater than its own volume -- in which case, such objects would, of course, expand!

Worse still, Engels's account depicts objects moving between locations outside of time (that is, with time not having advanced an instant), otherwise the said objects could not be in two places at once. This is impossible to reconcile with a materialist (or even with a comprehensible) view of nature.

Finally, as noted above, this 'contradiction' was created by notorious ambiguities in Zeno's (and thus in Hegel and Engels's) use of certain words (like "moment", "move", and "place"), which means that when these have been resolved, the alleged 'contradiction' simply disappears. [This is carried out here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2005.htm).]

DM: Imposed On Nature

Has dialectics been read from nature, or imposed on it?

It seems the former must be correct, since we regularly encounter these seemingly modest disclaimers in the writings of dialecticians:

"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. However, the on-line translation uses "building...into" in place of "superimposing".]

Why is this important? As dialecticians themselves admit, the reading of certain doctrines into reality is a hallmark of Idealism and dogmatism. If DM is to live up to its materialist credentials, its theorists must take care to avoid doing this.

As, George Novack points out:

"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.]

Here is Communist Party theoretician, Cornforth:

"Marxism, therefore, seeks to base our ideas of things on nothing but the actual investigation of them, arising from and tested by experience and practice. It does not invent a 'system' as previous philosophers have done, and then try to make everything fit into it…." [Cornforth (1976), p.15. Bold emphasis added.]

However, when we examine what dialecticians actually do, as opposed to what they say they do, we find that the exact opposite is the case. For example, Engels himself went on to claim the following of motion:

"Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be…. Matter without motion is just as inconceivable as motion without matter. Motion is therefore as uncreatable and indestructible as matter itself; as the older philosophy (Descartes) expressed it, the quantity of motion existing in the world is always the same. Motion therefore cannot be created; it can only be transmitted…." [Engels (1976), p.74. Bold emphasis alone added.]

Had this observation been derived from the facts available in Engels's day (a policy to which he had just sworn allegiance), he would have expressed himself perhaps as follows:

"Evidence so far suggests that motion is what we call "the mode of existence of matter". Never anywhere has matter without motion been observed, but it is too early to say if this must always be the case…. Matter without motion is not inconceivable, nor is motion without matter, we just haven't witnessed either yet…." [Re-vamped version of Engels (1976), p.74.]



As is easy to demonstrate, all dialecticians do the same (the evidence for this can be found here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2002.htm)). First, they disarm the reader with the 'modest' sorts of claims we saw rehearsed above; then, sometimes on the same page, or even in the very next sentence, they proceed to do the exact opposite, imposing dialectics on nature.

Why they do this (and what significance it has) will be examined below.

Traditional Thought

In the West, since Ancient Greek times, traditional theorists have been imposing their theories on nature (as Cornforth noted). This practice is so widespread, and has penetrated into thought so deeply, that no one notices it, even after it has been pointed out to them. Or, rather, they fail to see its significance. [More on that below, too.]

Now, if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought. As is well-known, this tactic has been used for millennia; hence we have Theology and other assorted ruling-class ideologies. All of these were imposed on reality (plainly, since they cannot be read from it).

Indeed, this is how Marx depicted things:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it...."[The German Ideology.]

However, as Marx also noted, members of the ruling-class often rely on other layers in society to concoct the ideas they use to try to con the rest of us into accepting their system.

In Ancient Greece, with the demise of the rule of Kings and Queens, the old Theogonies and myths were no longer relevant. So, in the newly emerging republics and quasi-democracies of the Sixth Century BC, far more abstract, de-personalised ideas were needed.
Enter Philosophy.

From its inception, Philosophers constructed increasingly baroque abstract systems of thought. These were invariably based on arcane terminology, impossible to translate into the material language of everyday life -- which they then happily imposed on nature.

As Marx also noted:

"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

"...The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970), p.118.]

Philosophers felt they could do this, since, for them, nature was Mind (or, indeed, the product of Mind). In that case, the human mind could safely project its thoughts onto reality --, of which true thoughts were a reflection, anyway. "As above, so below", went the old Hermetic saying. The microcosm reflected the macrocosm. The doctrine of Correspondences thus came to dominate all ancient and modern theories of knowledge -- in which case, all true, 'philosophical' knowledge corresponded with 'essences' that underpinned the world of experience. These 'essences' were impossible to detect in any way whatsoever (meaning that the 'uneducated' could not raise any doubts as to their existence), and were accessible by thought alone.

All this was based on the idea that language (but not the vernacular) was a secret code by means of which each thinker (with the 'right sort of education' and class position, of course) could represent the 'Mind of God', or the underlying 'secrets' of nature, to him/herself. Language was thus viewed as a representational device (which was later interpreted individualistically) -- and not as a means of communication (as Marx and Engels had argued).

Naturally, this view of discourse had profound ideological implications, connected with the legitimation of class power. [More on this below.]
This ancient tradition has changed many times throughout history, as different Modes of Production rose and fell, but its main strategy and core rationale remained basically the same: the dogmatic promulgation of abstract theories that were said to reveal the underlying rational structure of reality, conveniently hidden away from the disconfirming gaze of working people -- which is why they were, and still are, inexpressible in ordinary language --, again, as Marx noted. [More on this below, too.]

So, just like Theology, but in this case in a far more abstract and increasingly secularised form, subsequent philosophies came to reflect the 'essential' structure of reality, one that supposedly underpinned and rationalised alienated class society, mystified now by the use of increasingly baroque terminology and technical jargon.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, modern dialectics was invented by a quintessentially Idealist Philosopher working in this tradition (Hegel), and it was appropriated by Marxist classicists before the working class could provide a materialist counter-weight. DM was thus born out of Idealism, and, as we will see, it has never really escaped from its clutches -- despite the materialist flip dialecticians claim to have inflicted upon it.

And that is why dialecticians happily impose their ideas on nature; it is quite traditional to do so. Moreover, since their theories are based on ancient and idealised abstractions, they plainly cannot be derived from the non-abstract material world, but must be read into it.

But, in doing this dialecticians are (unwittingly) identifying themselves with a tradition that was not built by working people and which does not serve their interests.

Furthermore, since dialectics is not based on material reality it cannot be used to help change it.

Small wonder then that it has failed our movement for so long.

Hence, for all their claim to be radical, DM-theorists are thoroughly conservative when they try to philosophise.

Indeed, despite the fact that DM-theorists appear to be challenging traditional ideas, their practice reveals they are part of a tradition that is quite happy to derive fundamental truths about nature from thought alone, just as ruling-class theorists have always done.

The Laws of Dialectics

This age-old tactic (of imposing theses onto nature) can be seen if we examine the use made of Engels's so-called 'Three Laws of Dialectics':

"Dialectics as the science of universal inter-connection. Main laws: transformation of quantity into quality -- mutual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes -- development through contradiction or negation of the negation -- spiral form of development." [Engels (1954), p.17.]

All dialecticians (who accept these 'Laws') impose them on nature (the evidence for this can be found here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2002.htm) and here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm)). What little data dialecticians supply to substantiate these 'Laws' is not only woefully insufficient, it is highly contentious -- to say the least.

Anyone who has studied and practiced genuine science will know the lengths to which researchers have to go to alter even minor aspects of current theory, let alone justify major changes in the way we view nature.

In stark contrast, and without exception, dialecticians offer a few paragraphs of trite (and over-used) clichés to support their claims. Hence, all we find are hackneyed references to things like boiling water, balding heads, plants 'negating' seeds, Mamelukes fighting the French, a character from Molière suddenly discovering that he speaks prose, and the like, all constantly retailed. From such banalities, dialecticians suddenly derive universal laws, applicable everywhere and at all times.

Even at its best (for example, in Woods and Grant (1995), which is one of the most comprehensive defences of classical, hard-core DM to date, and in Gollobin (1986), which is in fact an up-market version of Woods and Grant), all we encounter are perhaps a few dozen pages of secondary and tertiary information, extensively padded out with repetition and bluster (much of which is taken apart here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm)). Contrary evidence (of which there is much) is simply ignored. This is indeed Mickey Mouse Science.

In many ways, this endeavour to substantiate Engels's 'Laws' resembles Creationist attempts to show that the Book of Genesis is correct: it is heavily slanted, repetitive, selective and contentious.

The First 'Law', the alleged change of quantity into quality, ignores the many cases in nature where change is not "nodal":

"Hegel invented the nodal line of measure relations, in which small quantitative changes at a certain point give rise to a qualitative leap. The example is often given of water, which boils at 100oC at normal atmospheric pressure. As the temperature nears boiling point, the increase in heat does not immediately cause the water molecules to fly apart. Until it reaches boiling point, the water keeps its volume. It remains water, because of the attraction of the molecules for each other. However, the steady change in temperature has the effect of increasing the motion of the molecules. The volume between the atoms is gradually increased, to the point where the force of attraction is insufficient to hold the molecules together. At precisely 100oC, any increase in heat energy will cause the molecules to fly apart, producing steam." [Woods and Grant (1995), p.49.]

But, not everything in nature changes in this way; consider melting glass, metal, rock, butter and plastic. No nodal points anywhere in sight, here. Do Woods and Grant (or any other DM-theorists) consider these counter-examples? Are you kidding? [More details here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm).]

And not every change in quality is produced by quantitative differences (contrary to what Engels said):

"...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. Bold emphasis added.]

There are in fact countless changes in quality that are not determined in this way. For example, there are certain molecules that have exactly the same material content and energy level as one another, but are qualitatively dissimilar because of the different spatial arrangement of their constituent atoms. These are called 'Stereoisomers'. [More examples here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm).]

So, here we have a change in quality produced by change in geometry.

Other qualitative changes in nature and society can be produced by different timing or by a different ordering of the relevant events -- or even by altering their context.[Again, examples are given here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm).]

Moreover, this 'Law' only appears to work because of the vague way that both "quantity" and "quality" have been characterised by DM-theorists. In fact, they seldom if ever bother to define these terms (I have yet to find an example where this has been done).

Can you imagine this happening in [I]genuine science?

This allows DM-theorists to see changes in quality 'caused' by changes in quantity whenever and wherever they please, just as it 'permits' them to ignore the many cases where this does not happen, introducing an element of subjectivity into what is supposed to be an 'objective law'.

The other 'Laws' fare no better. Change though 'internal contradiction' will be examined in the next sub-section, but the "Negation of the Negation" [NON] depends for its 'plausibility' on the confusion of linguistic with material categories in a thoroughly traditional manner. [Again, more details here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm).]

Hence, solely on the basis that we have a negative particle in language, it is assumed that negation is a real process in nature. On that basis, of course, one would be justified in believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Indeed, since the veracity of the NON depends on the truth of the second 'Law', it is to that I now turn.

Internal Contradictions

Mechanical materialism holds that all things are set in motion by an external 'push' of some sort. In contrast, dialecticians claim that because of their 'internal contradictions', objects and processes in nature and society are "self-moving".

Lenin expressed this idea as follows:

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

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

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58.]

There are a number of serious problems with this passage, not the least of which is that it clearly suggests that things are self-moving. In fact, Lenin did more than just suggest this, he insisted upon it:

"Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90.]

Other Marxists talk the same way; here are comrades Woods and Grant (readers will note, I am sure, how they happily impose this doctrine on nature):

"Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions.... Dialectics is the logic of contradiction....

"So fundamental is this idea to dialectics that Marx and Engels considered motion to be the most basic characteristic of matter.... [Referring to a quote from Aristotle] [t]his is not the mechanical conception of motion as something imparted to an inert mass by an external 'force' but an entirely different notion of matter as self-moving....

"The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based on contradiction.... Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the unity and interpenetration of opposites....

"The universal phenomena of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change -- the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"...Matter is self-moving and self-organising." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-45, 47, 68, 72.]

But, if this were so, nothing in nature would or could have any effect on anything else. Hence, while you might think that it is your kick that moves a ball, according to the above, the ball moves itself.

Now, in order to avoid such absurd consequences, some dialecticians have had to allow for the existence of "external contradictions", which are somehow also involved in such changes.

But, as seems obvious, this makes a mockery of the idea that all change is internally-generated, just as it undermines the contrast drawn above between mechanical and 'dialectical' theories of motion. Indeed, what becomes of Lenin's "insistence" if everything that changes in fact violates his caveat?

Also, DM-theorists appeal to "internal contradictions" in order to undercut theism (there was a flavour of this too in the Woods and Grant quotation above); here is Cornforth:

"The second dogmatic assumption of mechanism is the assumption that no change can ever happen except by the action of some external cause.

"Just as no part of a machine moves unless another part acts on it and makes it move, so mechanism sees matter as being inert -- without motion, or rather without self-motion. For mechanism, nothing ever moves unless something else pushes or pulls is, it never changes unless something else interferes with it.

"No wonder that, regarding matter in this way, the mechanists had to believe in a Supreme Being to give the "initial push"....

"No, the world was not created by a Supreme Being. Any particular organisation of matter,* any particular process of matter in motion, has an origin and a beginning.... But matter in motion had no origin, no beginning....

"So in studying the causes of change, we should not merely seek for external causes of change, but should above all seek for the source of change within the process itself, in its own self-movement, in the inner impulses to development contained in things themselves." [Cornforth (1976), pp.40-43.]

But, if external causes are now permitted, in order to stop this theory becoming absurd (as we saw above), then that will simply allow 'god' to sneak back in through a side door.

Of course, all this is independent of whether or not it makes sense to say that anything in nature or society can be described as a "contradiction". Dialecticians, following Hegel, certainly believe they can, but up until now they have merely been content to assert this for a fact, forgetting the proof. Hegel's authority -- that of an Idealist -- is sufficient apparently. And it is worth recalling that Hegels' use of this term was based on a crass piece of sub-Aristotelian logic.

But even if all objects and processes in fact possessed "internal contradictions", exactly as DM-theorists suppose, this would still not explain why anything actually moved or changed.

In fact, as is easy to confirm, dialecticians have been hopelessly unclear as to:

(1) Whether things change because of their internal contradictions (and/or opposites), or

(2) Whether they change into these opposites, or, indeed,

(3) Whether they create such opposites when they change.

Of course, if the third option were the case, the alleged opposites could not cause change, since they would be produced by it, not the other way round. Moreover, they could scarcely be 'internal opposites' if they were produced by change.

If the second alternative were correct, then we would see things like males naturally turning into females, the capitalist class into the working class, electrons into protons, left hands into right hands, and vice versa, and a host of other oddities. [On this, see here.]

And as far as the first option is concerned, it is worth making the following points:

[1] If objects/processes change because of already existing internal opposites, and they change into these opposites, then plainly they cannot change, since those opposites must already exist.

So, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of A and not-A, and it 'changes' into not-A, where then is the change? All that would seem to happen here is that A disappears. [And do not ask where it disappears to!]

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

[It cannot have come from A, since A can only change because of the operation of not-A, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past will merely reduplicate this problem.]

[2] Exactly how an (internal) opposite is capable of making anything change is somewhat unclear, too. Given the above, not-A does not actually alter A, it merely replaces it!

[This argument is worked out in greater detail here, where several obvious objections are neutralised.]

Now, in order to answer such questions, dialecticians have appealed to forces (of attraction and repulsion) to explain how and why these obscure 'contradictions' are capable of actually moving bits of matter about the place.

Unfortunately, the nature of forces is a mystery even to this day; this is one reason why scientists have abandoned them, preferring to talk about exchange of energy and momentum instead.

Of course, in popular and school physics, people still talk about forces, but since there is no way of giving them any sort of physical sense (other than as part of a vector field, etc.), advanced physics translates forces in the way indicated in the previous paragraph. Indeed, in Relativity Theory, the 'force' of gravity has been replaced by the movement of objects along "geodesics".

Even Woods and Grant concede this point:

"Gravity is not a 'force,' but a relation between real objects. To a man falling off a high building, it seems that the ground is 'rushing towards him.' From the standpoint of relativity, that observation is not wrong. Only if we adopt the mechanistic and one-sided concept of 'force' do we view this process as the earth's gravity pulling the man downwards, instead of seeing that it is precisely the interaction of two bodies upon each other." [Woods and Grant (1995), p.156.]

However, Woods and Grant failed to tell us how such a "relation" can make anything move; still less do they reveal how these items are 'opposites', let alone 'internal opposites'.

As Max Jammer notes:

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

"In quantum chromodynamics, gauge theories, and the so-called Standard Model the notion of 'force' is treated only as an exchange of momentum and therefore replaced by the ontologically less demanding concept of 'interaction' between particles, which manifests itself by the exchange of different particles that mediate this interaction...." [Jammer (1999), p.v.]

This is re-iterated by Professor Wilzcek (of MIT):

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

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

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

This is probably why Engels himself said the following:

"When two bodies act on each other…they either attract each other or they repel each other…in short, the old polar opposites of attraction and repulsion…. It is expressly to be noted that attraction and repulsion are not regarded here as so-called 'forces', but as simple forms of motion." [Engels (1954), p.71. Bold emphasis added. A copy of this can be found here.]

But, if there are no classical forces, then there can't be any (dialectical) contradictions in nature --, 'external' or 'internal' (or, at least, none that could make anything happen).

Hence, even if there were such 'contradictions' in nature, they would do no work, and DM, the erstwhile philosophy of change, would not be able to account for it!

Faced with this, some DM-apologists have tried to argue that modern science is either dominated by 'positivism', or is 'reactionary'. In other words, to save their theory, they are prepared to cling on to an animistic view of nature, one that even Engels was ready to abandon.

[However, this is a complex issue; for more details I can only refer the reader to my extensive discussion here and especially here.]

Totality

Dialecticians believe that everything is interconnected:

"Dialectics is the science of universal interconnections…." [Engels (1954), p.17.]

"Nothing exists or can exist in splendid isolation, separate from its conditions of existence, independent from its relationships with other things…. When things enter into such relationships that they become parts of a whole, the whole cannot be regarded as nothing more than the sum total of the parts…. [W]hile it may be said that the whole is determined by the parts it may equally be said that the parts are determined by the whole….

"Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away....

"Dialectical materialism considers that…things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection….

"The dialectical method demands first, that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always in their interconnections with other things…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.46-48, 72.]

Readers are invited to check, but we are never told what this "Totality" actually is! [More details here.]

This is, of course, a doctrine that dialecticians share with all known mystical systems of thought (see, for example, here and here). As Glenn Magee notes:

"Another parallel between Hermeticism and Hegel is the doctrine of internal relations. For the Hermeticists, the cosmos is not a loosely connected, or to use Hegelian language, externally related set of particulars. Rather, everything in the cosmos is internally related, bound up with everything else.... This principle is most clearly expressed in the so-called Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, which begins with the famous lines "As above, so below." This maxim became the central tenet of Western occultism, for it laid the basis for a doctrine of the unity of the cosmos through sympathies and correspondences between its various levels. The most important implication of this doctrine is the idea that man is the microcosm, in which the whole of the macrocosm is reflected.

"...The universe is an internally related whole pervaded by cosmic energies." [Magee (2001), p.13.]

But, the vast majority of mystical systems account for change by appealing to unities of interpenetrating opposites. Consider these examples:

"The Taoists saw all changes in nature as manifestations of the dynamic interplay between the polar opposites yin and yang, and thus they came to believe that any pair of opposites constitutes a polar relationship where each of the two poles is dynamically linked to the other. For the Western mind, this idea of the implicit unity of all opposites is extremely difficult to accept. It seems most paradoxical to us that experiences and values which we had always believed to be contrary should be, after all, aspects of the same thing. In the East, however, it has always been considered as essential for attaining enlightenment to go 'beyond earthly opposites,' and in China the polar relationship of all opposites lies at the very basis of Taoist thought." [Fritjof Capra.]

"Buddhist enlightenment consists simply in knowing the secret of the unity of opposites -- the unity of the inner and outer worlds....

"Hindus envision the cosmic process as the growth of one mighty organism, the self-actualization of divinity which contains within itself all opposites." [This has been taken from here.]

"Sufism is usually associated with Islam. It has developed Bhakti to a high point with erotic imagery symbolising the unity of opposites. The subtle anatomy and microcosm-macrocosm model also found in Tantra and Taoism is used by it, dressed in its own symbols. Certain orders use ecstatic music and/or dance which reminds one of the Tantric celebration of the senses. Sometimes, the union of opposites is seen as a kind of gnosis. This is similar to Jnani Yoga." [Quoted from here.]

"The great Fourth Hermetic Principle-the Principle of Polarity-embodies the truth that all manifested things have "two sides"; "two aspects"; "two poles"; a "pair of opposites," with manifold degrees between the two extremes. The old paradoxes, which have ever perplexed the mind of men, are explained by an understanding of this Principle. Man has always recognized something akin to this Principle, and has endeavoured to express it by such sayings, maxims and aphorisms as the following: "Everything is and isn't, at the same time"; "all truths are but half-truths"; "every truth is half-false"; "there are two sides to everything"; "there is a reverse side to every shield," etc., etc. The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that the difference between things seemingly diametrically opposed to each is merely a matter of degree. It teaches that "the pairs of opposites may be reconciled," and that "thesis and antithesis are identical in nature, but different in degree''; and that the ''universal reconciliation of opposites" is effected by a recognition of this Principle of Polarity...." [The Kybalion, reputed by some to be the third most important book of Hermeticism, quoted from here.]

It would not be difficult to extend this list indefinitely to establish the fact that practically every mystic who has ever walked the earth thinks 'dialectically'.

Once again: the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class.

[Notice, too, how both the arguments and examples used by the above mystics are broadly similar to those found in DM-texts. Mystics, it seems, also use Mickey Mouse science to support their 'theories'.

Why both types of mystics (i.e., the traditional sort and dialectical variety) do this is explained in Essay Nine Part Two, and Essays Twelve and Fourteen (summaries here and here).]

However, the only obvious difference between these overt mystics and the covert Dialectical-Marxist Tendency lies in the extent to which the former employ openly religious language. Even so, both are quite happy to use obscure jargon lifted from traditional Philosophy, and then impose the results on nature.

Nevertheless, and on a different tack, exactly how Dialectical Marxists know that everything is interconnected they have kept annoyingly to themselves (save the excuse that they pinched this idea from Hegel, who likewise copied it from his mystical forebears).

And it is no use dialecticians appealing to modern Physics to support this idea; the latter merely hypothesises that everything was once connected (in the alleged 'Big Bang'), not that everything is now interconnected. Indeed, certain theoretical considerations suggest that most things cannot even be connected, let alone be interconnected.



Moreover, the BBT is associated with the 'Block View'* of time (wherein everything is part of a four-dimensional manifold); in such a set-up nothing changes. Or, rather, change is no more than a subjective view of how things seem to alter. So, given this theory, objective reality is in fact changeless. In that case, this aspect of modern Physics is no friend of DM. [More on this here and here.]

[And an appeal to "Quantum Entanglement" cannot help either; at best, experimental evidence shows that certain states of matter are interlinked locally, not across billions of light years, nor indeed with the past. This is quite apart from the fact that there are Scientific Realists who question the validity of this anti-realist aspect of modern Physics.]

But, even if DM-theorists were correct, the thesis of universal interconnection is incompatible with change through 'internal contradiction', for if all change is internally-induced then no object or process could be interconnected. Alternatively, if everything is interlinked, then interconnection can play no causal role in change (or change would not be the result of 'internal contradictions', once more).

Naturally, this would lead to the rather odd result that the Sun, for example, does not ripen fruit, it ripens itself!

Or, of course, if the Sun actually does the ripening, then that would not be the result of 'internal contradictions' in fruit.

We have already seen that DM-theorists try to get around this fatal consequence of their theory by appealing to both alternatives (i.e., on the one hand claiming/insisting that everything is a sealed unit --, and is thus "self-moving" --, while on the other, asserting that everything is interconnected, and thus 'full of holes' for external causes to sneak back in), which is a rather fitting 'contradiction' in itself.

Now, dialecticians are fond of pointing to the contradictions in other, rival and thus allegedly defective systems of thought (the evidence for this allegation can be found in Essay Eleven Part One, here) as a reason for rejecting them, but the above contradiction is of such prodigious proportions that it dwarfs any they have so far found in rival theories. Indeed, it is bizarre enough to make the usual pronouncements of "peace freedom and democracy" --, which slip off the forked tongues of US imperialists just before they invade the next 'Third World' country to steal their wealth and install 'business-friendly' regimes --, look honest, straight-forward and true in comparison.

Think about it: how can everything be maximally-interconnected and causally isolated all at the same time? And, how is it possible for everything to be internally-driven yet externally-defined (or "mediated", to use the jargon) as part of a unified Totality?

Practice

Is Marxism true? How can we tell? Dialecticians have a direct answer: the validity of revolutionary socialism must be tested in practice.

But, what if it turns out that in practice they themselves reject this criterion?

Indeed, but worse: what if it should turn out that practice has refuted Dialectical Marxism?

Do we abandon the criterion of practice as a test of truth, or bury our heads in the sand and hope no one notices?

Up until now DM-fans have opted for the latter strategy.

But, is this conclusion as hasty as it is unfair?

As we will see, it is neither of these.

In order to substantiate this latest allegation, we need to back-track a little.

Lenin asserted the following:

"From living perception to abstract thought, and from this to practice, -- such is the dialectical path of the cognition of truth, of the cognition of objective reality." [Lenin (1961), p.171.]

He was, of course, merely underlining ideas that all dialecticians hold in common. Hence, in their view, it is not enough for Marxists to try to develop the right sort of theory to explain the world, their ideas must be tested and refined in practice if they are to succeed in changing society. Indeed, no theory could be 'correct', or 'objective', without an intimate, long-term and 'dialectical' connection with political activity -- or, at the very least, with some form of material practice.

Unfortunately, as hinted at earlier, the results of "practice" have not been too kind to Marxists of every stripe. Indeed, they have been even less kind to Trotskyists (comrades not known for their 'mass following').

And they are not alone; practice has not looked at all favourably on our side as a whole for close on a hundred years. All Four Internationals have failed (or have vanished), and the 1917 revolution has been reversed. Indeed, we are no nearer (and arguably much further away from) a workers' state now than Lenin was in 1918. Practically all of the former 'socialist' societies have collapsed (and not a single worker raised his or her hand in their defence). Even where avowedly Marxist parties can claim some sort of mass following, this is passive and electoral --, and those parties themselves have openly adopted reformism (despite the contrary-sounding rhetoric).

So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has delivered a rather clear verdict: "materialist dialectics" does not work, so it cannot be true.

But, when confronted with such disconcerting facts, dialecticians tend to respond in one or more of the following ways:

1) They flatly deny that Marxism has been an abject failure.

2) If they admit to failure, they blame it on "objective factors", or on other Marxist parties.

3) They simply ignore the problem. Or:

4) They say it is too early to tell.

Now, there doesn't seem to be much point in dialecticians claiming that their theory guides all they do, avowing that truth is tested in practice, if when that practice reveals its disappointing and long-term verdict, that verdict is denied, ignored or 'explained' away. In that event, what sort of practice could possibly constitute a test of dialectics if, whatever the results, DM is always excused/exonerated? What exactly is being tested if the results of every test are ignored or re-configured as a success?

Hence, dialectics is not so much not tested in practice, as dialecticians are practiced at not testing it.

Taking each excuse, one at a time:

1) Those who think Marxism is a ringing success have so far failed to show where and how it enjoys this blessed state. [Presumably there is a Workers' State on the outer fringes of the Galaxy?]

Hardcore denial of reality of this order of magnitude is difficult to counter -- just as it is difficult to counter Christian Scientists who claim that matter is the error of mortal mind; there is no debating with this sort of Idealism, one that re-interprets the material world to suit a comforting idea, and then buries its head in its own idea of sand.

Anyone who can look at the international situation and fail to see that the vast majority of workers have not been seized by Marxism* (and never have been) is probably a danger to him/herself.

[This should not be taken to mean that I think that things cannot change!]

So, when Marx said:

"The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." [Marx (1843), p.251; quoted from here.]

the only conclusions possible are that 1) he was wrong, or that 2) dialectics has not even so much as lightly hugged the masses.

[There is a more involved explanation for the selective blindness that afflicts revolutionaries in Essay Nine Part Two, which has yet to be published (summary here).]

2) Certainly objective factors have hindered the revolutionary movement (such as a relatively well-organised, rich, powerful and focussed ruling-class, nationalism and sectionalism among workers, a growing economy, etc., etc.), but the above comrades were quite specific: the veracity of a theory can only be tested in practice, and since the latter requires the subjective input of active revolutionaries, this aspect of practice has badly failed.

Often revolutionaries recognise this, but they depict it as a failure of 'revolutionary leadership', failing to note the input of dialectics. But if this theory is as central to Marxism as these comrades believe, then DM cannot be unconnected with this long-term lack of success.

So, whether or not there have been 'objective factors', practice itself has refuted the subjective side of Marxism: dialectics.

Now, since the Essays at this site show that DM is not so much false as far too confused even to be assessed for its truth or falsity, the long-term failure of Marxism is no surprise. And since this theory arose from the brains of card-carrying ruling-class theorists (like Hegel), this is doubly no surprise.

3) This is probably the safest option for dialecticians to adopt: ignore the problem. It is certainly the best one that inadvertently helps preserve the interests of the ruling-class, since it prevents the serious theoretical problems our movement faces from being addressed, guaranteeing another century of failure.

Indeed, the bosses could not have designed a better theory to screw with our heads (and initiate a monumental waste of time as our best theorists try to grapple with Hegel's fluent Martian and make sense of it) if they tried.

All this is quite apart from the fact that practice cannot distinguish between a correct and an incorrect theory. Incorrect theories can often work (and they can do so for many centuries -- for example, Ptolemaic Astronomy was highly successful for over a thousand years, and it became increasingly accurate with age), and correct ones can fail (for example, Copernican Astronomy predicted stellar parallax, which failed to be observed until the 1838, after the work of Friedrich Bessel). [More examples of both are given in Essay Ten (summary here).]

And even if this were not so, and success were indeed a criterion of truth, since there is as yet no socialist society on earth, we will only know if Marxism is correct after the event. So, this criterion cannot tell us whether Marxism is correct now. Indeed, the following declaration could come true:

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." [Marx and Engels (1848), pp.35-36. Bold emphasis added.]

According to this, the "contending classes" could wipe each other out --, or at least the class war could result in the "common ruin" of both (which denouement is not easy to square with the NON). Of course, should that happen, it would declare all theories false (if, that is, the criterion that truth is tested in practice is itself correct -- and the way that dialecticians ignore the deliverances of practice suggests that even they do not accept this criterion, in practice).

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

Unfortunately, pragmatic theories (like this one) are hostages to fortune; those who adhere to them should feign no surprise if history takes little note of their hermetically-compromised day-dreams, and delivers decade after decade of refutation.

There are other (and much better, materially-based) ways of confirming the validity of HM -- these will be explored in an Essay to be published later at the main site.

All this means that if we want our practice to be more successful, we will have to remove the theory that dropped our movement into this Hermetic quagmire: DM.

The full Essay (along with its missing links and references) can be found here:

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

Edited November 2007:

The above is partly an earlier version of this Essay. I have updated most of the sections except for that dealing with practice.

Further sections dealing with how 'materialist dialectics' has damaged Marxism and why dialecticians cling on to this failed theory have also been ommitted.

I would greatly appreciate it if anyone thinks I have still not made things clear, that they tell me exactly where I have failed, and I will put it right, if it is my fault.

[In the original Essay at my site, all the technical terms I use are linked to dictionaries and internet sites where they are clearly explained.]

[hoopla]

E.g. what would an open marxist, say about dialectics ( :huh: ), or marcuse, or Tran Duc Thao (I'm going to read this sometime this month) can you comprehensively trash that?

Thanks

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Oh that’s excellent Rosa!

Thank you loads

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCS, no problem; I wrote it for comrades like yourself....

[stevensen]

hey rosa have u gone through trotsky's abc of dialectics?? seems as it is most often with you, you have gone through it and understood nothing...his treatment of the laws of logic is quite explanatory..

[which doctor]

I don't think anti-dialectics will ever be made easy...

[JimFar]

stevensen wrote:


hey rosa have u gone through trotsky's abc of dialectics?? seems as it is most often with you, you have gone through it and understood nothing...his treatment of the laws of logic is quite explanatory..

I take it that you haven't read much on Rosa's anti-dialectics (http://www.anti-dialectics.org/1.html) website, have you?
If you had, you would find that Rosa has read through nearly of Trotsky's (and Lenin's and Engels') philosophical writings, including their writings on dialectics and logic, more times than anyone here would ever care to do in a lifetime. You would also learn that Trotsky, despite his great intelligence and general learning, was not up on the developments in modern logic. His knowledge of logic basically ended with Hegel, he was not up in the developments in logic that came with Frege and his successors(i.e. Russell, Schröder, Peano, Peirce, Whitehead, or Gödel). Admittedly, a lot of this is pretty technical stuff, but Trotsky's ignorance of most of this work, left him at a loss in considering the relationships between formal logic and dialectics. In fact as Rosa show a lot of dialectical thinking as passed down to us by Hegel is literally nonsensical. And yet Trotsky (and people like George Novack, Ted Grant etc.) seemed to have swallowed many of Hegel's ideas concerning a supposed "dialectical logic," wholesale.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevenson:


hey rosa have u gone through trotsky's abc of dialectics?? seems as it is most often with you, you have gone through it and understood nothing...his treatment of the laws of logic is quite explanatory..

Thanks for that, and yes I have, as Jim notes. There is practically nothing that has been published in English on this 'theory' that I have not read (I certainly know of nothing I have not consulted), and several times – for my sins (I must have been a relative of George Bush in a ‘previous life’!)

Forgive me for saying this, but Trotsky's comments on the 'dialectic' are among the worst I have read, ever.

He is ill-informed about logic (as are 99.9% of dialecticians), and his 'reasoning' is a joke. And that is being far too kind to him.

[And I say this even though I am a Trotskyist. Fortunately, I have nothing but deep respect for his political writings, and revolutionary leadership (in the civil war, etc.).]

Check these out if you think otherwise:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FOB:


I don't think anti-dialectics will ever be made easy...

You may be right, who can say.

I'd welcome your comments on how to make my ideas easier, though.

Got any?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, as usual, thanks for those comments.

I can always rely on you to be fair.

I wish I could say the same for Mr D.

Check out my latest sand-bagging of him here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Dumain%2001.htm

[However, you may need those ear-plugs again.

I am not a pleasant person with idiots.]

[Hit The North]

Rosa writes:


He is ill-informed about logic (as are 99.9% of dialecticians), and his 'reasoning' is a joke. And that is being far too kind to him.

[And I say this even though I am a Trotskyist. Fortunately, I have nothing but deep respect for his political writings, and revolutionary leadership (in the civil war, etc.).]


So the mystery returns*: another who's political theory and actions you broadly agree with, who is, nevertheless, a staunch dialectician.

Thus with Trotsky, as with Lenin and the SWP leadership, we have an example of the 'affect' this pernicious bourgeois mysticism has on revolutionary theory and practice - by your own admission, not very much.

Perhaps the question isn't if anti-dialectics will ever be easy (and if it's the simple elimination of an incomprehensible, mystifying approach - dialectics - from Historical Materialism - then it should be easier to understand than dialectical histomat) but whether it'll ever be relevant.

*The mystery is why you're spending so many words and so much energy on what is seemingly a non-problem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Thus with Trotsky, as with Lenin and the SWP leadership, we have an example of the 'affect' this pernicious bourgeois mysticism has on revolutionary theory and practice - by your own admission, not very much.

I am sorry, BTB, but have too many years of reading ruling-class mystical ideas affected your reasoning; I failed to discern here a point, let alone one worth responding to.


Perhaps the question isn't if anti-dialectics will ever be easy (and if it's the simple elimination of an incomprehensible, mystifying approach - dialectics - from Historical Materialism - then it should be easier to understand than dialectical histomat) but whether it'll ever be relevant.

Well, I have to say that, unlike you, I do not confine myself to bald assertion.

Of course, if you were a deity of sorts, that would be enough for us all to marvel at your sagacity, and indeed fear to contradict you.

As you are not, I think you are going to have to earn such reverence.

However, your continual sniping suggests you still have far to go.


The mystery is why you're spending so many words and so much energy on what is seemingly a non-problem.

So you say, but you forgot to note which mountain this pearl of non-wisdom descended from.

Mount boll*cks perhaps?

[JimFar]

The thing about Trotsky and modern logic is that when he was in Mexico, he had as one of his secretaries and bodyguards, the young Jean van Heijenoort who had studied mathematics and was already very much interested in mathematical logic. In fact accordong to his biographer, Anita Burdman Feferman, while working for Trotsky, van Heijenoort was ordering books on the subject, apparently on Trotsky's dime. So if Trotsky had been so inclined, and had had the time to spare, he could learned at least the rudiments of the subject from his young assistant. Anyway, as I am sure Rosa knows, when van Heihenoort later left the Trotskyist movement in the late 1940s, he returned to graduate school, earned a doctorate in mathematics and went on to a distinguished career in mathematical logic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For sure, Jim, and he confirms this sort of thing in his own autobiography With Trotsky In Exile. From Prinkipo To Coyoacán.


Anyway, as I am sure Rosa knows, when van Heihenoort later left the Trotskyist movement in the late 1940s, he returned to graduate school, earned a doctorate in mathematics and went on to a distinguished career in mathematical logic.

Indeed, I had to use his From Frege To Gödel. A Source Book In Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931 in my own studies, as an excellent resource.

As were several of his other works:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00245...45.html#series1 (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00245/cah-00245.html#series1)

His Essay on Engels and mathematics is priceless:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/write.../works/math.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/heijen/works/math.htm)

As I am sure you know, Jim.

[Hit The North]

R:


I am sorry, Z, but have too many years of reading ruling-class mystical ideas affected your reasoning; I failed to discern here a point, let alone one worth responding to.


The point, dear Rosa, is that you fail to convince the reader why dialectics is a problem for the workers movement, given that proponents of dialectics such as Lenin, Trotsky and the SWP nevertheless pursue(d) political lines which you agree with.

Now, I'm willing to agree that the attachment to dialectics amongst those above may be a mere affectation as they merely 'coquette' with philosophy but do not in actual fact apply that philosophy when they formulate concrete political strategy.

In other words, I'm open to the idea that DM, like all philosophy, is useless. Nevertheless, your voluminous work is based on the assumption that DM is positively harmful to the workers movement.

My point, is that you not only fail to show how, but by extolling the political virtues of avowed proponents of dialectics, you actually undermine your own assumption.

To put it in the bluntest, most proletarian terms: Even if DM is bollocks, why should anybody, who isn't trying to carve out an academic reputation through combining Marx with Wittgenstein, actually give a fuck?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


The point, dear Rosa, is that you fail to convince the reader why dialectics is a problem for the workers movement, given that proponents of dialectics such as Lenin, Trotsky and the SWP nevertheless pursue(d) political lines which you agree with.

So, you speak for everyone else do you?

[Is your middle name 'Stalin' by any chance? Or Zdanov?]

But, to address your feeble point, since you have not read the evidence I have amassed (since it has not yet been published), you are in no position to know.

And since you prefer Stone Age Logic, you are in no state to pass judgement.


Now, I'm willing to agree that the attachment to dialectics amongst those above may be a mere affectation as they merely 'coquette' with philosophy but do not in actual fact apply that philosophy when they formulate concrete political strategy.

In other words, I'm open to the idea that DM, like all philosophy, is useless. Nevertheless, your voluminous work is based on the assumption that DM is positively harmful to the workers movement.


I refer the honourable mystic to my response above.


My point, is that you not only fail to show how, but by extolling the political virtues of avowed proponents of dialectics, you actually undermine your own assumption.

No, I 'sublate' it, at a higher level.

[If you can appeal to crap logic like this, why can't I?]


To put it in the bluntest, most proletarian terms: Even if DM is bollocks, why should anybody, who isn't trying to carve out an academic reputation through combining Marx with Wittgenstein, actually give a fuck?

To put it even blunter: why should anyone listen to a logically-challenged ignoramus like you?

[Hit The North]

R:


So, you speak for everyone else do you?

[Is you middle name 'Stalin' by any chance?

That's uncanny! How did you know?


But, to address your feeble point, since you have not read the evidence I have amassed (since it has not yet been published), you are in no position to know.


Since you've not read the demolition of your evidence (which you have not yet published) because I have not yet wrote it, you remain ignorant of how wrong your position really is. :wacko:

[stevensen]

dear rosa you seem to be an amzing person, indeed the most unusual anti dialectic basher if i may say so. you claim that you are a leninist and yet you think his philosophical assetions are nonsense. the point is this.. if lenin truly beleived that his political writings and strategies which you seem to have some respect for, then he was hopelessly foolish for he was applying a 'method' that was not a method and yet coming up with the corect answers most of the times. the second option is that lenin was merely a bastard who was pretending to apply dialectics to problems he usually solved otherwise.
in both cases rosa, lenin is either a god damn fool, he doesnot realises that his 'method' is pure bull shit, in which case he cant be such a wise political strategiser as you may admit he was, thereby you shouldnot be a leninst. who the hell wants to folow such a fool?
in the second case, he was a liar and a horrible pretender. he knew dialectics was shit but tried to build it up as something essential. no use following such a man...
and yet you are a leninist!!!
and jim i never said rosa has not read trotsky, if you see my initial post i explicitly mention that i believe that rosa has read trotsky but i also believe that hers is the dtermination not to understand dialectics and that mirrors her analysis whomever she reads. as i said she has never really fully understood dialectics and so she thinks it is crap, the problem is with her attitude not dialectics

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevenson, thanks again for those comments.

This is what I wrote (at my site) about one or two things you have said:


(4) Some might wonder how I can count myself as both a Leninist and a Trotskyist while making such profound criticisms of the ideas that both of these comrades regarded as fundamental to Marxism.

Well, we can recognise Newton's genius while we ignore his Alchemical and Kabbalistic writings, just as we can severely criticise him for wasting his time on such worthless pursuits. The same applies to the writings of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Hence, even though I hold their works on politics, economics and history in the highest esteem, I am equally critical of the mystical gobbledygook they introduced into our movement.

In fact, and on the contrary, a slavish acceptance of everything these great comrades had to say on dialectics -- just because they said it, and just because the vast majority of comrades think highly of it --, would be to spit on their graves.

Marxism, if it is anything, is not a personality cult. Or if it is, then Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would have been the first to have turned their backs on it.
The radical tradition was built on a lack of respect for tradition. No less so here.

Second, I claim that neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor anybody, can use dialectics, despite what they say, to decide on a political strategy (except negatively).

I admit this is controversial, but I think I can make the case.

I won't do that here, but you have to recall that many incorrect theories produce the 'right' results (and correct theories can fail), as I note in the short essay I posted above -- a more detailed account will appear later at my site.


in both cases rosa, lenin is either a god damn fool, he doesnot realises that his 'method' is pure bull shit, in which case he cant be such a wise political strategiser as you may admit he was, thereby you shouldnot be a leninst. who the hell wants to folow such a fool?

in the second case, he was a liar and a horrible pretender. he knew dialectics was shit but tried to build it up as something essential. no use following such a man...

Well not so, again, if you want to know why I say such things, you will have to read what I do say (in longer essays at my site).

Here is a brief acount I put at the end of that Essay I partially posted above:


Why Do Revolutionaries Cling on to DM Like Grim Death?

No matter how deep or how devastating the refutations history serves up, and despite the cogent arguments railed against it, the DM-faithful remain entranced by this 'theory'.

Why is this so? And why have revolutionaries of the stature of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky sold their radical souls to this conservative thought-form?

The historical origin of the Philosophy underlying DM is not in doubt (a summary can be found here), and neither are the social origins of DM-classicists (like Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky), hence this theory has eminently impressive alien-class roots.

Are these accusations enough to condemn DM? Clearly not on their own. DM is demonstrably flawed from end to end (as my Essays show); hence, the dubious origins of DM only serve to show why it has had deleterious effects on militant minds.

Marxists are aware that in defeat, the tendency (even among revolutionaries) is to turn to mysticism as a means of consolation. This was indeed one of the main reasons why Lenin wrote Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

However, Marxism has faced little other than defeat and set-back. And, the theory that helped provide an important subjective factor in engineering all this, also enables its adherents to ignore these results. It does this in at least two ways.

1) The NON informs believers that any and all retreats are only temporary, and the onward march of Marxism is assured by the underlying logic of history.

2) DM-epistemology teaches that appearances contradict underlying "essences" -- that is, how things appear to be is the opposite of what they really are. This being so, what might seem to the dialectically untrained eye to be a defeat, is really a success, or a success about to happen.

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

Hence, the theory that helps engineer defeat also says that these have not really happened.

Anyone who doubts this should try telling any randomly-selected dialectically-distracted comrade that Marxism is highly unsuccessful. Unless they are extraordinarily unlucky, they can then sit back and admire the convoluted explanation as to why, when 95% of the working class ignores Marxism, and has done so for many generations --, and all four Internationals have failed, and the vast majority of former, alleged socialist states have gone into reverse, and Marxist parties everywhere are a by-word for splits and divisions (indeed they are a standing joke in this regard, witness the scenes in Monty Python's Life of Brian)), and how practically every communist party on the planet has embraced open reformism, and how we are now no nearer a Workers' State than the Bolsheviks were in 1928 --, that none of this has actually happened, or is really now happening, or is a part of their 'tradition'. Nevertheless, you might then be told that the latest stunt/intervention/split/expulsion that their 'party' have just pulled (or are about to pull) in fact heralds the long-awaited turning point for the international workers' movement. This comrade, no doubt, speaking on behalf of 0.00001% of humanity, at best (some of whom are about to be expelled anyway from the 'Worker's Party' -- no doubt for failing to 'understand' dialectics).

[Those familiar with Marxist/revolutionary papers will already know of their unsinkable optimism, and how each one claims to be leading the class, and that Capitalism is once again entering its 'final crisis'.]

Marxists cling onto this theory because without it their entire world-view would fall apart and their sole means of consolation would vanish. In short, they cleave to dialectics for the same reason that religious folk cling onto their faith. [More on this here.]

That, of course, explains its mind-numbing repetitiveness, the irrational fear of the 'R' word ("Revisionism"), the sacred books, the heroic pictures of the dialectical saints carried on parades (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Kim Jong-il, etc., etc.) and the inexplicable adherence to the Stone Age Logic of a thinly-disguised work of mystical theology that celebrates the goings on of an invisible 'Being' (i.e., Hegel's 'Logic').

If this wasn't so serious, you'd laugh.

Ruling-Class Theory

One of the main reasons why I reject not just DM, but all forms of traditional Philosophy, is that, as Marx noted above, it represents a ruling-class view of the world.

In earlier times, the vast majority of Philosophers were either members of various ruling-classes, or were patronised by them. These theorists saw the state as an earthly embodiment of the cosmic order, so that just as society was ruled by law, so was reality. In class society, rulers frame laws as well as order minions about the place, so it became natural for them (and their leisure-soaked hangers-on) to think the 'gods' did the same with the universe. Early creation stories record this fact; the 'gods' spoke, and everything came into existence or did as it was told. Reality was thus controlled by language or was constituted by it. I call this doctrine "Linguistic Idealism". [LIE]

Hence, those theorising about reality would naturally think that, if the status quo on earth was the product of language (deliberately or accidentally hiding the realities of class power behind this 'benign' set-up), then it was possible that thought alone could reveal the hidden nature of existence. Thus was born Philosophy, the most abstract form of ruling-class ideology.

To these thinkers (and to most since), empirical knowledge (that is, knowledge based on material evidence) was (is) unreliable, since it reflected the debased experience and lives of ordinary folk. [This is brought out very well in Conner (2005).] So, from its inception, Philosophers have denigrated the material language (the vernacular) of workers, and undervalued their view of the world. [Dialecticians do the same (some even deny ordinary language exists; how they think workers communicate with one another is therefore a mystery).]

Traditional Philosophers have sought to derive or invent a priori theses that reveal the underlying 'essence' of reality -- fundamental features of existence unavailable to the senses, and hence irrefutable by material means. In every case, because they saw the world as 'condensed language', Philosophers derived these theses from words alone -- either from specially-concocted jargon (like "Being", "Entelechy", "Substance", "Nothing"), or from suitably distorted ordinary terms (such as "cause", "law", "determined"). These theses were then imposed on nature, and were not only held to be true everywhere and every-when, they determined the principles that must apply to any and all possible worlds. Because they were derived from language alone, they were 'self-evident', which meant that anyone who went in for this sort of theorising found them impossibly difficult to disbelieve.

This approach to knowledge is well summarised by James White, in this case in relation to modern German Philosophy (which directly influenced the formation of DM):

"Already with Fichte the idea of the unity of the sciences, of system, was connected with that of finding a reliable starting-point in certainty on which knowledge could be based. Thinkers from Kant onwards were quite convinced that the kind of knowledge which came from experience was not reliable. Empirical knowledge could be subject to error, incomplete, or superseded by further observation or experiment. It would be foolish, therefore, to base the whole of knowledge on something which had been established only empirically. The kind of knowledge which Kant and his followers believed to be the most secure was a priori knowledge, the kind embodied in the laws of Nature. These had been formulated without every occurrence of the Natural phenomenon in question being observed, so they did not summarise empirical information, and yet they held good by necessity for every case; these laws were truly universal in their application" [White (1996), p.29.]

It is worth noting here how the word "law" has been lifted from legal theory and projected onto nature (which term now suggests that reality is governed by a cosmic will). So, if nature has an underlying, rational structure, then justification for the status quo could be found, and all those who seek to rebel against it can be opposed on 'legitimate' grounds. Law, specialised language and cosmic harmony; a neat Trinity.

The above is further amplified by the following two authors:

"Empirical, contingent truths have always struck philosophers as being, in some sense, ultimately unintelligible. It is not that none can be known with certainty…; nor is it that some cannot be explained…. Rather is it that all explanation of empirical truths rests ultimately on brute contingency -- that is how the world is! Where science comes to rest in explaining empirical facts varies from epoch to epoch, but it is in the nature of empirical explanation that it will hit the bedrock of contingency somewhere, e.g., in atomic theory in the nineteenth century or in quantum mechanics today. One feature that explains philosophers' fascination with truths of Reason is that they seem, in a deep sense, to be fully intelligible. To understand a necessary proposition is to see why things must be so, it is to gain an insight into the nature of things and to apprehend not only how things are, but also why they cannot be otherwise. It is striking how pervasive visual metaphors are in philosophical discussions of these issues. We see the universal in the particular (by Aristotelian intuitive induction); by the Light of Reason we see the essential relations of Simple Natures; mathematical truths are apprehended by Intellectual Intuition, or by a priori insight. Yet instead of examining the use of these arresting pictures or metaphors to determine their aptness as pictures, we build upon them mythological structures.

"We think of necessary propositions as being true or false, as objective and independent of our minds or will. We conceive of them as being about various entities, about numbers even about extraordinary numbers that the mind seems barely able to grasp…, or about universals, such as colours, shapes, tones; or about logical entities, such as the truth-functions or (in Frege's case) the truth-values. We naturally think of necessary propositions as describing the features of these entities, their essential characteristics. So we take mathematical propositions to describe mathematical objects…. Hence investigation into the domain of necessary propositions is conceived as a process of discovery. Empirical scientists make discoveries about the empirical domain, uncovering contingent truths; metaphysicians, logicians and mathematicians appear to make discoveries of necessary truths about a supra-empirical domain (a 'third realm'). Mathematics seems to be the 'natural history of mathematical objects' [Wittgenstein (1978), p.137], 'the physics of numbers' [Wittgenstein (1976), p.138; however these authors record this erroneously as p.139, RL] or the 'mineralogy of numbers' [Wittgenstein (1978), p.229]. The mathematician, e.g., Pascal, admires the beauty of a theorem as though it were a kind of crystal. Numbers seem to him to have wonderful properties; it is as if he were confronting a beautiful natural phenomenon [Wittgenstein (1998), p.47; again, these authors have recorded this erroneously as p.41, RL]. Logic seems to investigate the laws governing logical objects…. Metaphysics looks as if it is a description of the essential structure of the world. Hence we think that a reality corresponds to our (true) necessary propositions. Our logic is correct because it corresponds to the laws of logic….

"In our eagerness to ensure the objectivity of truths of reason, their sempiternality and mind-independence, we slowly but surely transform them into truths that are no less 'brutish' than empirical, contingent truths. Why must red exclude being green? To be told that this is the essential nature of red and green merely reiterates the brutish necessity. A proof in arithmetic or geometry seems to provide an explanation, but ultimately the structure of proofs rests on axioms. Their truth is held to be self-evident, something we apprehend by means of our faculty of intuition; we must simply see that they are necessarily true…. We may analyse such ultimate truths into their constituent 'indefinables'. Yet if 'the discussion of indefinables…is the endeavour to see clearly, and to make others see clearly, the entities concerned, in order that the mind may have that kind of acquaintance with them which it has with redness or the taste of a pineapple' [Russell (1937), p.xv; again these authors record this erroneously as p.v, RL], then the mere intellectual vision does not penetrate the logical or metaphysical that to the why or wherefore…. For if we construe necessary propositions as truths about logical, mathematical or metaphysical entities which describe their essential properties, then, of course, the final products of our analyses will be as impenetrable to reason as the final products of physical theorising, such as Planck's constant."

DM-theorists do something similar: from a few words they derive a set of a priori theses which they then proceed to impose on nature. And this is not the least bit surprising since, as we have seen, their ideas emerged from the tradition outlined above --, and without exception, all of the DM-classicists were not workers.

So, DM is based on and has aped the thought-forms of an alien class. No wonder it has presided over failure, splits and divisions.

[The dynamics of this process are outlined here.]

[b]Conclusion

And that is why I am implacably opposed to DM.

In fact, it is difficult for me to understand why most revolutionaries are not.


as i said she has never really fully understood dialectics and so she thinks it is crap, the problem is with her attitude not dialectics

And I claim to be in good company here, since no one understands this 'theory' -- not because it is too difficult, but because like the Christian Trinity, (which originated from the same Hermetic source as dialectics) it is incomprehensible.

Or if they do, they have hidden that fact extremely well for over 130 years.

Again, I substantiate this allegation at my site.

And yes, I am proud to be a Leninist -- and I am a more convinced Leninist than I was 23 years ago when I first became one -- partly because I think I know how to improve it (in the above way).

So far from my anti-dialectical stance taking me away from revolutionary socialism, the opposite is the case.

[stevensen]

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

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

99% of people have never heard of dialectics, so even if it's wrong, I don't see anyway how it could affect the Revolutionary Movement.


Dialectical Materialism (DM) has been the official philosophy of active revolutionary socialists for over a hundred years. During that time, Marxism has 'enjoyed' spectacular lack of success. Given the fact that dialecticians assure us that truth is tested in practice, and that "materialist dialectics" is the main-spring of all they do, this can only mean that their 'theory' has been tested and shown to fail.



From what I have seen, the core of Revolutionaries have not been using Dialectics -they have been using hardline political and realistic tactics in the past, and have enjoyed large degrees of sucess with them...

I see Dialectical Materialism as just a side note, not really important to the core of socialism.

World Communism still could come with dialectical materialism in its full reign

[Hit The North]

R:


Well, we can recognise Newton's genius while we ignore his Alchemical and Kabbalistic writings, just as we can severely criticise him for wasting his time on such worthless pursuits. The same applies to the writings of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Hence, even though I hold their works on politics, economics and history in the highest esteem, I am equally critical of the mystical gobbledygook they introduced into our movement.

So I guess you're arguing that Newton's genius or his real science can be isolated from the alchemy and kabbalistic ramblings - that the scientific insight is not informed by the mystical nonsense he held in another part of his brain? Likewise, the politics, economics and historical writings of Engels, Lenin & Trotsky are equally uncontaminated by the DM mysticism they propound when they turn to philosophy. Is that right?

If so, once again, I wonder what the problem is - short of your monomania with the subject.

But let's take some of your objections to DM and it's influence in our movement:


However, Marxism has faced little other than defeat and set-back. And, the theory that helped provide an important subjective factor in engineering all this, also enables its adherents to ignore these results. It does this in at least two ways.

How has 'the theory' engineered our defeat? In which major class struggle where marxism dominated workers organisations did the imposition of DM lead to the struggle's defeat? Let's have some concrete details.


1) The NON informs believers that any and all retreats are only temporary, and the onward march of Marxism is assured by the underlying logic of history.


It's a truism of historical materialism that history does not proceed in a smooth linear manner, that it is riven with false-starts, sudden surges forward and sudden retreats. This is because history is driven by the class struggle and the class struggle will exist so long as classes do. Does this come from the Negation of the Negation? Good. I now understand its utility.

Of course, you might want to deny that all retreats are temporary, that, in fact, the proletariate is royally and historically fucked - but I wouldn't wanna hear any of your pep talks at the branch meeting!


2) DM-epistemology teaches that appearances contradict underlying "essences" -- that is, how things appear to be is the opposite of what they really are. This being so, what might seem to the dialectically untrained eye to be a defeat, is really a success, or a success about to happen.


Would you prefer a shallow positivist approach which mistakes symptom for cause and the 'spectacle' for real social movement?

If appearence and reality are the same thing, how do you account for ideology?


Hence, the theory that helps engineer defeat also says that these have not really happened.


Give some concrete examples of how DM engineered a single defeat and we'll talk.


Marxists cling onto this theory because without it their entire world-view would fall apart and their sole means of consolation would vanish. In short, they cleave to dialectics for the same reason that religious folk cling onto their faith.

That's a big claim. If DM really is that central to the thinking of Marxists, that their "entire world view would fall apart" without it, then if it is gobbledygook, so must Marxism itself be. Except we still have the mysterious examples of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, staunch dialecticians who nevertheless were exemplary Marxists (perhaps the best ever, according to the author?).

But I forget. Rosa argues that, like with Newton, we can ignore the mystical foibles of these individuals because it provides no harmful input into their theory and practice.

But now I'm confused because we have a force in history - DM - which is both irrelevant to the practice of major revolutionary movements but also accounts, at least partially, to the defeat of those movements.

Once again I stress that this argument would be greatly illuminated with some concrete examples. Problem is, Rosa, you're too much of a philosopher to prioritise actual empirical data above the professional need to create waffle and engage in convoluted arguments of a technical nature which the average proletarian (who you claim to speak for) finds impenetrable and could not care less about.

I'm not necessarily denying the veracity of your work - but it's presentation relies more on the conventions of philosophy than marxism.

A marxist would produce a hypothesis: that DM can account for the defeat of workers struggles. Would then produce evidence of how and when this was the case. Would finally turn to an explanation of this - why DM had this effect. Instead, with you, we get:


since you have not read the evidence I have amassed (since it has not yet been published),

And that is so frustrating.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB, who appplies far higher strictures to everything I write than he has ever done to the confused thought of dialecticians:


So I guess you're arguing that Newton's genius or his real science can be isolated from the alchemy and kabbalistic ramblings - that the scientific insight is not informed by the mystical nonsense he held in another part of his brain? Likewise, the politics, economics and historical writings of Engels, Lenin & Trotsky are equally uncontaminated by the DM mysticism they propound when they turn to philosophy. Is that right?

Make of it what you will, I care not.


If so, once again, I wonder what the problem is - short of your monomania with the subject.

Oh, you are now a qualified psychologist, too?


How has 'the theory' engineered our defeat?

If you can't be bothered to read the full account at my site, then these words apply to you:


I have taken great care with these Essays; they have been distilled from work I have been doing for just over ten years, but I have been mulling over the ideas they contain for over twenty-five. Literally thousands of hours have gone into writing, re-writing and re-thinking this material. In addition, I have spent more money than I care to mention obtaining obscure books, theses and papers on a whole range of topics directly and indirectly connected with DM. In that case, anyone who cannot bring to this discussion the seriousness it deserves is encouraged to go and waste their time elsewhere. I am not interested in communicating with theoretical clowns.

And, now we have:


Give some concrete examples of how DM engineered a single defeat and we'll talk.

I refer Bozo to the comment above.


Would you prefer a shallow positivist approach which mistakes symptom for cause and the 'spectacle' for real social movement?

No, your wafer-thin ones will do.


If appearence and reality are the same thing, how do you account for ideology?

Wouldn't you like to know?


That's a big claim. If DM really is that central to the thinking of Marxists, that their "entire world view would fall apart" without it, then if it is gobbledygook, so must Marxism itself be.

One word missing here, so I will add it:


That's a big claim. If DM really is that central to the thinking of Marxists, that their "entire world view would fall apart" without it, then if it is gobbledygook, so must Dialectical Marxism itself be.

Satisfied?


But now I'm confused

I suggest you give up dialbolical logic then.


Problem is, Rosa, you're too much of a philosopher to prioritise actual empirical data above the professional need to create waffle and engage in convoluted arguments of a technical nature which the average proletarian (who you claim to speak for) finds impenetrable and could not care less about.

The problem is, you mouth off too easily.


A marxist would produce a hypothesis: that DM can account for the defeat of workers struggles. Would then produce evidence of how and when this was the case. Would finally turn to an explanation of this - why DM had this effect.

The evidence, at my site, says this is the reverse of the truth.


And that is so frustrating.

Since you refuse to read my essays, anyway -- tough.

So, Bozo, I hope the pie in the face act goes well, and don't forget the whoopee cushion....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevenson:


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

Look, if you can't except my claim that I am a Leninist, I should care.

I gave you my reasons.

If you want more, read my Essays.

If you don't want to read them, well fine too.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 03:49 PM
Citizen Z, who appplies far higher strictures to everything I write than he has ever done to the confused thought of dialecticians:


So I guess you're arguing that Newton's genius or his real science can be isolated from the alchemy and kabbalistic ramblings - that the scientific insight is not informed by the mystical nonsense he held in another part of his brain? Likewise, the politics, economics and historical writings of Engels, Lenin & Trotsky are equally uncontaminated by the DM mysticism they propound when they turn to philosophy. Is that right?

Make of it what you will, I care not.


If so, once again, I wonder what the problem is - short of your monomania with the subject.

Oh, you are now a qualified psychologist, too?


How has 'the theory' engineered our defeat?

If you can't be bothered to read the full account at my site, then these words apply to you:


I have taken great care with these Essays; they have been distilled from work I have been doing for just over ten years, but I have been mulling over the ideas they contain for over twenty-five. Literally thousands of hours have gone into writing, re-writing and re-thinking this material. In addition, I have spent more money than I care to mention obtaining obscure books, theses and papers on a whole range of topics directly and indirectly connected with DM. In that case, anyone who cannot bring to this discussion the seriousness it deserves is encouraged to go and waste their time elsewhere. I am not interested in communicating with theoretical clowns.

And, now we have:


Give some concrete examples of how DM engineered a single defeat and we'll talk.

I refer Bozo to the comment above.


Would you prefer a shallow positivist approach which mistakes symptom for cause and the 'spectacle' for real social movement?

No, your wafer-thin ones will do.


If appearence and reality are the same thing, how do you account for ideology?

Wouldn't you like to know?


That's a big claim. If DM really is that central to the thinking of Marxists, that their "entire world view would fall apart" without it, then if it is gobbledygook, so must Marxism itself be.

One word missing here, so I will add it:


That's a big claim. If DM really is that central to the thinking of Marxists, that their "entire world view would fall apart" without it, then if it is gobbledygook, so must Dialectical Marxism itself be.

Satisfied?


But now I'm confused

I suggest you give up dialbolical logic then.


Problem is, Rosa, you're too much of a philosopher to prioritise actual empirical data above the professional need to create waffle and engage in convoluted arguments of a technical nature which the average proletarian (who you claim to speak for) finds impenetrable and could not care less about.

The problem is, you mouth off too easily.


A marxist would produce a hypothesis: that DM can account for the defeat of workers struggles. Would then produce evidence of how and when this was the case. Would finally turn to an explanation of this - why DM had this effect.

The evidence, at my site, says this is the reverse of the truth.


And that is so frustrating.

Since you refuse to read my essays, anyway -- tough.

So, Bozo, I hope the pie in the face act goes well, and don't forget the whoopee cushion....
What an astonishing reply.

Have you recently quit smoking?

Surely, even that should not prevent you answering at least one question.

It's very comical that you would bother to start this thread and then refuse to engage with any questions that arise.

What's up? Can't you be bothered with the rank and file?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:20 PM
99% of people have never heard of dialectics, so even if it's wrong, I don't see anyway how it could affect the Revolutionary Movement.
You miss the point. 99% of people don't count, because the Revolutionary Movement isn't made by 99% of the people, but by the 1% who have heard about dialectics.

Those latter are divided in two groups:

- revolutionaries, who believe they understand dialectics (though they do not, since dialectics are ununderstanble), believe they base their politics in dialectics (though they don't, because there is no way to base revolutionary politics in dialectics), and are, in practice, able to maintain their brains free from the influence of dialectics. Examples: Lenin and Trotsky.

- stalinists, who also believe they understand dialectics and that they base their politics in dialectics. But those are unable to maintain their brains free from the influence of dialectics, and so their politics is actually based on dialectics. And, as dialectics cannot base revolutionary politics, their politics is reformist or counter-revolutionary. Examples: Stalin, and whomever disagrees with Rosa.

Now, taking a look at my Dialectical Crystal Ball™, I hereby prophecise that Rosa is going to call me some names. But, allas, my Dialectical Crystal Ball is mystical and misty, and doesn't make me able to foresee which those names are going to be... perhaps bozo? perhaps Comrade Koba? or theoretical clown?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I hereby prophecise that Rosa is going to call me some names

This isn't a name: it's a verb: LH is waffling.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 04:17 PM
This isn't a name: it's a verb: LH is waffling.
If my Dialectical Crystal Ball™ sayd it would be a name, then it must be a name.

I wonder what "a waffling" is?

Luís Henrique

[namepending]

Rosa is intollerant
====================
I'm wondering if her or one of her cronies might do a interview for the reason that there is none anywhere I can find on her site: No joke:

*Anwser with up to two sentances each, three if your crazy, keep short as possible*

She's a girl right?

How old is she, or what decade was she born in?

When did she become radical (?)?

Why is she so authotarian?

Why does she operate off of "Revolutionary Left.com" when she appears to have it all worked out?

Does she have any published books?

Is she apart of any movement?

Does she head that movement?

Is she more than a keyboard activist, I.E. is she involved with radical sorts of things around the country?

Is she from the South, North, West or so, or does she not live in the United States?

Does she live on Pluto?

Why does she consider her beliefs unquestionable and that anyone who questions them must be degenerate?

Is she a feminist?

If so, how much?

Does she enjoy writing with a pencil or on the keyboard?

Does she like to read?

Does she like Baseball or does she like a bad sport that is not Baseball?

Is she colorblind?

If not, what is her favourite color.

Does she consider herself, a popular person, a recluse or in between in the middle or inbetween near one of those first two.

Does she eat Meat?

Is she religious?

Did she say the Pledge in School?

Does she invoke God's name often or occasionally or by accident sometimes or is careful not to ever invoke it?

Has she had a bad experience with clowns, particularly, circus ones who throw pies?

What's her theory on why the sky is blue?

Does she believe in Aliens, Ghosts or Vampires or all of them?

Is she a vampire?

If so, do you like young blood relative to old blood, do you lure your victims or ambush them, and can you stand up to a really fancy cross like the new vampires you see in movies?

Do you think Teddy Roosevelt was just another imperialist, or was he O-K, what about Franklin? What about Abe Lincoln? Truman, Kennedy? Clinton?

What do you think about the Labor Party in Britian?

What do you think about Hezbollah?

What do you think about beer, should it be banned?

Speaking of banned, my favourites are Pink Floyd, the Who, Alan Parsons Project and Genesis (old), among others, I wonder, do you love and respect them too?

If not, as Jimi Hendrix said "well fuk ya'"

Don't you think the Ipod is a pathetic dilution of music technology, considering it compresses music?

Are you in solidarity with me against rap, hip-hop and all popular music?

You better be.

Do you like the Simpsons, the longest running show in US history?

What corporate news station do you watch when you have too?

Do you have a wide range of intrests or are you rather constricted to antsy(over)dialectics?

Are you fun?

Are you really old?

Do you have faith that communism will ever occur in the way we suspect it as the radical portion of society? Or will it happen beyond our control? Do most radicals really want to lead society, or even participate in revolution? Many of us are relatively content, physically, if not mentally.

Do you use the invision default background/layout or this site's custom grey and black and very slow layout?

What do you like better, Times New Roman, or Arial font?

Would you mind very much if everything was in Courier New forever?

Would you cheer if the internet suddenly had only two colors, black and white, and was all uncluttered, with 0 images, 0 graphics and a default layout, as well as just one font with one size? Or are you color-clutter-responsive?

that concludes the interview.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


His Essay on Engels and mathematics is priceless:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/write.../works/math.htm

I have read that essay before and I am still amazed by his assessment of Engels' understanding of mathematics. In terms of his general knowledge of the natural sciences, Engels' reading and knowledge of the subject was very broad and often very deep. The philosopher Hilary Putnam has characterized Engels as having been the "most learned man of the nineteenth century." And yet despite his great general learning, Engels' understanding of mathematics, especially modern mathematics, was appallingly deficient, to the point where he sometimes made silly statements regarding the status of imaginary and complex numbers in mathematics. And as van Heijenoort shows, Engels understanding of the foundations of the calculus was nearly a century out of date. What is most interesting here, is how van Heijenoort was able to trace many of Engels' errors and misunderstandings of mathematics directly to Hegel. I suppose that one would be hard put to find a better example of Hegel ruining a great mind than that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spot on, as usual Jim.

I cannot understand, either, how anyone could possibly describe Engels as the "most learned man of the nineteenth century" (what, even above Marx!!??, and Schopenhauer??, and Nietzsche??, and....).

Sure he read a lot, but so what? I do not mean to demean Engels, since I have enormous respect for his other work, but in science, philosophy and particularly mathematics, he was 'confused', to say the least.

They say love is blind, but so is hagiography.

Anyway, I thought this was Haldane's description?

Go here:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj79/bookwatc.htm

And search for 'Haldane'.

On re-edit: Opps, I just did that, and the author says the same as you!! But his quote qualifies it to "scientifically learned" (what, above Darwin, Maxwell, Cuvier...??).

[You might know Phil Gasper, the author of that article; he used to be in the US branch of the UK-SWP, until the latter booted the former out a few years back, for reasons that still mystify me. I am trying to prove that dialectics had a hand in this, since it is part of my thesis that this divisive theory is the well-spring of much of our movement's sectarianism. No luck so far!]

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:52 PM
...Engels as having been the "most learned man of the nineteenth century."
I think it safe to say that there are no chances of a modern reedition of Da Vinci or Michelangelo.

No more "seven tools" people. Stalin was just a charicature (and J. Posadas was just a charicature of that charicature).

Luís Henrique

[RevolverNo9]

Yes... that the impression that comes across.

And thank you for this abreviated essay, I've e-mailed it to a Trotskyist friend who casually drops Ted Grant masterclasses about water and ice into conversation. (Though thankfully I don't think he's yet wedded to the thoery.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

REV, its amazing how such trite examples are used over and over in this branch of Mickey Mouse science; can you imagine any branch of genuine science where hackneyed examples like this are all you ever get?

Or, are swallowed so meekly, because it's the 'tradition'?

Dialecticians here cross question me about every single detail, yet they gulp down this sort of stuff without even blinking. :lol:

And even this example only works because DM-fans refuse to define 'nodal' points, or 'quantity' and 'quality'.

[RevolverNo9]

REV, its amazing how such trite examples are use in this branch of Mickey Mouse science; can you imagine any branch of genuine science where hackneyed examples like this are all you ever get?

Or, are swallowed so meekly, because it's the 'tradition'?

Dialecticians here cross question me about every single detail, yet they gulp down this sort of stuff without even blinking.

And even this example only works because DM-fans refuse to define 'nodal' points, or 'quantity' and 'quality'.

You commented somewhere on the similarity between 'scientific' studies of dialectical-materialism and works attempting to rationalise Creationism, a comparision which I also made a while ago - the resemblance is worrying! As you say, a few cliched and specious examples get battered around ad nauseam, hopefully linked to a recent 'scientific discovery' in the hope that this will lend its psuedo-scientific theories the necessary (and much lacked) authority it needs!

[RevolverNo9]

Rosa,

The comrade I e-mailed actually replied - with an argument! I should say he was impressed and presented his rushed-together opinions (before jokily feigning a split with the Socialist Party...) as tentative, stating he would investigate your site at a later date.

Anyway, thought you might like to see this, it's not all imbecilic I don't think (though I find it frustrating that people continue to think that without dialectical logic any attempt at a Marxist critique of history will fail...)

Leon Grants:

'- The law of identity stuff: I think the writer is wrong to say that A does indeed equal A because an identical object will change in the same way. The law is about something being equal to ITSELF, because nothing is truly equal to anything else, so nothing will change in the same way. She seems not to understand the fact that everything in the universe is constantly moving and movement does imply that any given point is in two places at the same time. Don't believe me? I challenge you to find the grid somewhere in space that all particles move along in ordered little jumps. The point is that anything moving can be scrutinised in infinite detail and at no point will it be standing still: the change is constant so it is always occupying more than one 'position'. At a fundamental level we have found through quantum mechanics that the smallest particles do not even have a position until this are measured, with the act of measurement effectively producing the position. This situation has confirmed the basic dialectical materialist premise that you can never fully represent in abstract the material world, and this includes movement. The concept of a variable is a highly useful one, but it is always to some degree extrapolated from a series of measurements as an abstract idea, it can never actually represent the real properties of a particle because of the essential "fuzziness" of the universe already described; as time can be divided into infinitely small chunks, the constantly changing A is never truly identical to A. I think Engels meant 'moment' and 'place' in an infinitely small sense.

- On quantity into quality: I guess the best way to define them is in relation to each other. Quantitative change is change within a quality, qualitative change is change between qualities, brought on by quantitative change. You could never isolate a single moment where quantity becomes quality, because of the whole infinite division thing and the subjectivity of such a judgement. When does a reformist party become revolutionary? When a revolutionary programme is put forward, perhaps, but political change is 'molecular', so perhaps when a revolutionary majority forms in the membership or the leadership, depending on how organically they are connected. The point is that the law of quantity into qualitity dialectically links different states of being in a way that is more satisfactory than the alternative - graduated change. Graduated change does not allow us to discern ANY real states of being - it would for example find no real difference between a planet moments before a comet hit it and moments after, it's all part of a single process of accretion. To understand this process, like any process, we need to distinguish between and dialectically connect the period of quantitative change and an imperfectly defined moment of qualitative change. Dialectical materialism does not claim to perfectly represent reality, it IS imperfect, but this rule for all it's problems qualitative measurement an indispensable tool to human understanding, tested constantly by human experience. It allows me to type a single letter at a time rather thannnnn...or avoid burning my tongue on boiling tea. Glass may not seem to change qualitatively - to us it appears like a solid but in fact slowly flows like a liquid, indicating it is somewhere between the two states. But categories and states are based on an abstraction of observed experience. Glass is useful to us within certain boundaries as a "solid", and within other boundaries as a "liquid". The states themselves are scientific categories and are not perfect descriptions of the reality - we will never describe reality beyond the means of our theoretical understanding, practical observation and sense perception.

- It appears that the writer suffers from the same limited idea of the universe in relation to the dichotonomy she sets up between internal contradictions that drive all motion and external forces. You need to see that every system can be divided into infinitely small (or large parts). There is no contradiction between the sun ripening a fruit and the fruit supposedly ripening itself. Dialectical processes take place within the fruit to ripen it because of its relationship to everything around it, such as the photons raining down on it, the flow of water molecules into and out of it etc. All of these changes are driven by dialectical contradictions, but to set up an artificial boundary between those internal to the object and those external to it is ridiculously - the universe is one infinitely large object or an infinite number of infinitely small objects or anything in between.

- As to all the mystical shit by John Rees I agree it is a bit stupid to attempt to draw parallels between ancient forms of rationality and newer ones - our rationality is based on our experience on the material world which is heavily dependent on our technology as a means of perceiving it, no Zen monk could have become a dialectical materialist! John Rees, of course, has deviated far from the path of "genuine" Marxism by abandoning his orientation toward the working class in favour of opportunism and in believing the movement is more important than the revolutionary party. Ted Grant had gone pretty mental by the time he wrote the book quoted with Alan Woods, spending so much time on an attempt to understand vastly complex scientific ideas while there were burning political issues to address (he also held rather horrible and un-Marxist views on homosexuality). Woods too, in his uncritical support for Chavez, has abandoned Marxist principles, which has actually lead to the recent disintegration of Socialist Appeal's Venezuelan section, who have dropped from several hundred members to a handful because the members could see no point in cheerleading Chavez rather than arguing for genuine workers' democracy. So perhaps these failed Marxists are not the best examples of dialeticians to use.

- I agree with dialectical materialism as a philosophy but I am not a scientist or quantum mechanics theorist and do not pretend to be. My general understanding is that QM confirms a lot of dialectical suppositions and I have attempted to spend a bit of time defending it here, but I can only really use and apply the philosophy to understanding human society and political struggle. If I were to abandoning looking at things in terms of their relationships and internal contradictions how would I explain why in some revolutionary situations the police take the side of the workers and in others the army do, or how organised religion can be either a repressive or revolutionary force? Marxism may have failed as yet to produce a democratic workers' state, but to learn how to understand the world and carry through successful campaigns and revolutions to who else can we turn to but Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky (who are some of the few people in history to apply Marxist thought in a truly Marxist way and carry through a successful revolution). Marxism has endured as the only serious alternative form of rationality to the irrationality of the capitalism, and without dialectical materialism as its basis we would be unable to apply Marxism to a continually changing reality.

- If you want you are entitled to say we have got it all wrong, to wait around and play no real role in building consciousness and to allow a system based on horrific suffering and misery to continue, maybe excusing its great crime against humanity by charitable works and certainly making its justification easy by offering no viable alternative strategy, this is your decision. For now, it is not mine.

Cheers, and sorry for any mistakes in this, I didn't have the time to check it thoroughly. '

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Revolver, but I specified in that shortened article that the points I made were all extensively covered in the longer Essays, including the ones you have kindly posted here. I wish I had a dollar/pound for every time I've heard this stuff!

I'll come back to these 'arguments' a little later, I have to go off and take care of an annoying chore right now.

Right:


I think the writer is wrong to say that A does indeed equal A because an identical object will change in the same way. The law is about something being equal to ITSELF, because nothing is truly equal to anything else, so nothing will change in the same way.

1) Well how does he know (I assume he's a 'he'!)?

Dialectics is supposed to be read from the facts not imposed on them.

In fact there are countless trillions of identical particles in each cubic millimetre of matter: electrons. Photons, too, are all identical.

Here is what I say in Note 11 to Essay Six (aimed at contradictiong Trotsky's claim that workers know (but 'unconsciously'!) that it is impossible to make two identical objects):


However, it is very easy to make two identical objects.

Physicists tell us that every photon, for example, is identical to every other photon. This how Steven French puts things:

'It should be emphasised, first of all, that quantal particles are indistinguishable in a much stronger sense than classical particles. It is not just that two or more electrons, say, possess all intrinsic properties in common but that -- on the standard understanding -- no measurement whatsoever could in principle determine which one is which.' [S. French, 'Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory', p.5, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2000 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.); available here.

[Accessed 27/06/06.]

And Paul Dirac put the same point this way:

'If a system in atomic physics contains a number of particles of the same kind, e.g., a number of electrons, the particles are absolutely indistinguishable. No observable change is made when two of them are interchanged….' [P. Dirac, The Principles Of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University Press, 4th ed., 1967), p.207.]

In that case, each time a worker turns on a light, he or she makes countless trillion identical objects -- which must mean that such workers are "unconscious" anti-dialecticians.

Naturally, contentious claims like these can only be neutralised by an a priori stipulation to the effect that every photon in existence (past, present and future) must be non-identical -- despite what scientists tell us, and in abeyance of the almost infinite amount of data that would be needed to support such an ambitious claim. At this point, perhaps, even hardnosed dialecticians might just be able to see in this a blatant attempt to impose DM on reality.

A recent discussion of these issues can be found in Brading and Castellani (2003), and Castellani (1998). An even more recent discussion can be found in Saunders (2006).

See also the Wikipedia entry at:

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

[Accessed 17/08/05.]

It could be objected that Trotsky would surely have been unaware of these recent developments in physics, but as the references given show, such facts were largely true of classical particles; quantum particles merely present a more extreme form of strict identity. And Lenin it was who reminded us that science is ever revisable; hence no dialectician (who agrees with Lenin) could consistently rule out the possibility that scientists would one day discover identical particles -- as indeed they have.

And some things are changeless, and stay self-identical for unimaginably long; here is what I say in Note 12 to the same Essay:


It is now thought that certain sub-atomic particles are equal to themselves for unimaginably long periods of time. Protons, for instance, have an estimated half-life in excess of 10 to the power of 36 years. [Apparently, electrons are even less 'dialectical'.] During that time protons do not change (as far as is known), and as such they are surely equal to themselves.

Of course, it could be objected that particles such as protons (i.e., hadrons) are composed of even more fundamental particles, which do enjoy a contradictory life of their own 'inside' each host 'particle'; their machinations would therefore mean that apparently changeless protons are in fact changing 'internally' all the time. But, this response simply pushes the problem further back, for these other, more fundamental particles (i.e., quarks), are themselves changeless, as far as is known. Moreover, since protons are baryons -- i.e., they are made up of three quarks --, it is not easy to interpret their inner lives as in any way "contradictory" (with three terms?). Even more difficult to account for dialectically are electrons and photons (which are leptons and gauge bosons respectively), since they have no known internal structure. Unless acted upon externally, their 'lifespan' is, so we are told, infinite; if they change, it is not because of any "internal contradictions".

If so, it seems that the picture of reality painted by dialecticians is more a Jackson Pollock than it is a Van Eyck.

On protons, see:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../proton.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html#c1)

See also:

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

and:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/decays.html

[All accessed: 02/09/05.]

On electrons, see:

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

[Accessed: 17/08/05.]

See also:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/leptons.html

[Accessed: 02/09/05.]

On photons, see:

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

[Accessed 17/08/05.]

On this topic in general, see Perkins (2000). Also see Saunders (2006).

Naturally, dialecticians might want to object to the above on the lines that electrons, for example, are not really particles, or that they are probability waves, or that they are this or that. Perhaps so, but then again whatever they are, they are identical with that, and they change equally quickly as they themselves do.

The internet links and references can be found in the original:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

3) Trotsky confused the Law of Identity with the principle of equality (you can see this by the way that he talks about those letter "A"'s being equal).

[Hegel did not make this mistake, but he did make other even more serious ones -- more details in Essay Eight Part Two.]

Equality and identity are not the same.

Now this traps DM-fans in a dilemma: they can disagree with this claim and assert that identity is the same as equality (thus using the law of identity to make that very point)!

Oops!

Or, they can accept Trotsky's criticism of this law and admit that no two things are identical, including these two principles, thus underlining the fact that Trotsky criticised the wrong target!

Oops once more.

More details in Essay Six.


She seems not to understand the fact that everything in the universe is constantly moving and movement does imply that any given point is in two places at the same time.

Well, nothing I have ever said even so much as remotely implies this, but what has that got to do with anything?

If two objects are identical, and thus change at the same rate, or even stay the same at the same rate, then they can move all over the place and that would not affect this point.


I challenge you to find the grid somewhere in space that all particles move along in ordered little jumps

I could not see the relevance of this.

But even if this were so, it is an a priori imposition on nature (in the standard fashion, the way that ruling-class thinkers since Greek times have been doing).

How does he know that billions of light years away, things do not behave like this?

One can admit to universal change (as did Aristotle even!!), but still not accept that DM can explain it to us, or even describe it at all well.

More in a few minutes. I have to take a meal out of the oven!!!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

To return to an earlier point; when I asserted:


The LOI does not preclude change, for if an object changes, anything identical to it will change equally quickly. Moreover, if a thing changes, it will no longer be identical with its former self. So, far from denying change, this 'law' allows us to determine when or if it has occurred.

It is quite plain that I speak about change here (so how your friend could draw the conclusion that I am oblivious of it beats me). The point is that howsoever quickly something changes, because it is identical with itself, and changes at the same rate as it itself does, it remains identical with itself as it changes.

So this 'law' is no enemy of change.

To continue:


At a fundamental level we have found through quantum mechanics that the smallest particles do not even have a position until this are measured, with the act of measurement effectively producing the position. This situation has confirmed the basic dialectical materialist premise that you can never fully represent in abstract the material world, and this includes movement.

Again this is not relevant to anything I said, but even if it were, I deny that dialectics can describe anything, let alone anything that takes place in quantum mechanics.

Dialecticians cannot even get Aristotle right for goodness sake, let alone this complex theory (more details in Essay Four, Note 23):

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


The concept of a variable is a highly useful one, but it is always to some degree extrapolated from a series of measurements as an abstract idea, it can never actually represent the real properties of a particle because of the essential "fuzziness" of the universe already described; as time can be divided into infinitely small chunks, the constantly changing A is never truly identical to A. I think Engels meant 'moment' and 'place' in an infinitely small sense.

Once again, note the a priori argument.

But, the point is that if mathematics can handle change (which even Engels admits), then so can logic.

Indeed, it handles change far better than DM. And modern logic (in the form of temporal logic) handles it even better.

DM-fans either do not know about temporal logic, or they ignore it. More details in that Essay.


Quantitative change is change within a quality

DM-fans get away with this sort of vagueness because they refuse to define these terms (notice how he ignores the non-nodal examples I listed?), plus they ignore the many cases where qualitiative change is the result of no quantitative change. Here is how I put this point in Essay Seven:


In fact, there are so many exceptions to this 'Law' that it would be wise to demote it and consign it to a more appropriate category, perhaps along with the trite rules of thumb that sometimes work -- a bit like "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", or even "A watched kettle never boils". Indeed, given the fact that this 'Law' has no discernible mathematical content it is rather surprising it was ever called a "law" to begin with.

Nevertheless, the situation is even worse than the above might suggest; there are countless examples where significant qualitative change can result from no obvious quantitative difference. These include the qualitative dissimilarities that exist between countless different chemicals for the same quantity of matter/energy. Isomeric molecules (studied in stereochemistry) are a particularly good example, especially those that have chiral centres (i.e., centres of asymmetry). Here, the spatial ordering of the constituent atoms, not their quantity, affects the overall quality of the resulting molecule (something Engels said could not happen); a change in molecular orientation, not quantity, affects a change in quality.

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.
This un-dialectical aspect of matter is especially true of the so-called "Enantiomers" (i.e., symmetrical molecules that are mirror images of each other). These include compounds like ®-2-clorobutane and (S)-2-chlorobutane, and the so-called L- and D-molecules, which rotate the plane of polarised light the left (laevo) or the right (dextro)) -- such as, L- and D-Tartaric acid. What might appear to be small energy-neutral differences like these have profound biochemical implications; a protein with D-amino acids instead of L- will not work in living cells since all life on earth uses L-organic molecules. These compounds not only have the same number of atoms in each molecule, there are no apparent energy differences between them; even so, they have easily distinguishable physical qualities. Change in quality, identical quantity.4

Moving into Physics: if two or more forces are aligned differently, the qualitative results are invariably different (even when the overall magnitude of each force is held constant). Consider one particular example: let forces F1 and F2 be situated in parallel (but not in the same line of action), diametrically opposed to one another. Here these two forces can exercise a turning effect on a suitably placed body. Now, arrange the same two forces in like manner so that they are still parallel, but act along the same line. In this case, as seems clear, these forces will have no turning effect on the same body. Change in quality with no change in quantity, again. Since there are many ways to align forces (as there are with other vector quantities, like velocities and accelerations, etc.), there are countless counter-examples to this rather pathetic First 'Law' here alone.4a

Perhaps more significantly, this 'Law' takes no account of qualitative changes that result from (energetically-neutral) ordering relations in nature and society. Here, identical physical structures and processes can be ordered differently to create significant qualitative changes. One example is the different ordering principles found in music, where an alteration to a sequence of the same notes in a chord or in a melody can have a major qualitative impact on harmony, with no quantitative change anywhere apparent. So, the same seven notes (i.e., tones and semi-tones) arranged in different modes (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aolean and Locrian) sound totally different to the human ear. Of course, there are other ways of altering the quality of music in an energetically neutral environment over and above this (such as timing).

Another example along the same lines concerns the ordering principles found in language, where significant qualitative changes can result from the re-arrangement of the same parts of speech. For instance, the same number of letters jumbled up can either make sense or no sense -- as in "dialectics" and "csdileati" (which is "dialectics" scrambled up; but, which one of these makes more sense I will leave to the reader to decide).

Perhaps more radically, the same words can mean something qualitatively new if sequenced differently, as in, say: "The cat is on the mat" and "The mat is on the cat". Or, even worse: "It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic", compared with "It is impossible to understand Hegel's Logic, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Marx's Capital." Here there is considerable qualitative difference with no quantitative change at all.

[What are the odds that Engels would have tried to alter his First 'Law' to counter that awkward fact?]

There are many other examples of this phenomenon, but a few more should suffice for the purposes of this web site: a successful strike (one that is, say, planned first then actioned second) could turn into its opposite (if it is actioned first and planned second). Now even though the total energy input here would be ordered differently in each case, the overall energy budget of the system (howsoever this is characterised) need not be any different. So, the addition of no extra matter or energy here can turn successful action into disaster if the order of events is reversed. Of course, we can all imagine situations where this particular example could involve different energy budgets, but this is not necessarily or even always the case, which is all I need.

There are literally thousands of everyday examples of such qualitative differences (with no obvious quantitative changes), so many in fact that Engels's First 'Law' begins to look rather pathetic in comparison. Who for example would put food on the table then a plate on top of it? A change in the order here would constitute a qualitatively different (and more normal) act: plate first, food second. Which of us would jump out of an aeroplane first and put their parachute on second -- or cross a road first, look second? And is there a sane person on the planet who goes to the toilet first and gets out of bed second? Moreover, only an idiot would pour 500 ml of water slowly into 1000 ml of concentrated Sulphuric Acid, whereas, someone who knew what they were doing would readily do the reverse. But all of these have profound qualitative differences if performed in the wrong order (for the same energy budget).5

How could Engels have missed examples like these? Is dialectical myopia so crippling that it prevents dialecticians using their common sense?

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

More to follow.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Much of the paragraph from which this is taken did not help, in that it failed to make this terminally vague 'law' any the clearer.

But:


Dialectical materialism does not claim to perfectly represent reality, it IS imperfect, but this rule for all it's problems qualitative measurement an indispensable tool to human understanding, tested constantly by human experience. It allows me to type a single letter at a time rather thannnnn...or avoid burning my tongue on boiling tea. Glass may not seem to change qualitatively - to us it appears like a solid but in fact slowly flows like a liquid, indicating it is somewhere between the two states. But categories and states are based on an abstraction of observed experience. Glass is useful to us within certain boundaries as a "solid", and within other boundaries as a "liquid". The states themselves are scientific categories and are not perfect descriptions of the reality - we will never describe reality beyond the means of our theoretical understanding, practical observation and sense perception.

It is indeed imperfect and maximally so: even now, 130 after its invention by Engels and Plekhanov all of its ideas are as clear as mud.

Notice, however, the attempt to deny the non-nodal nature of the change in the qualitative state of glass by bluring the distinctions. [Can I do the same by claiming that liquid water is just highly repressed steam??).

Let's see him do this with metals and plastics!


It appears that the writer suffers from the same limited idea of the universe in relation to the dichotonomy she sets up between internal contradictions that drive all motion and external forces. You need to see that every system can be divided into infinitely small (or large parts). There is no contradiction between the sun ripening a fruit and the fruit supposedly ripening itself. Dialectical processes take place within the fruit to ripen it because of its relationship to everything around it, such as the photons raining down on it, the flow of water molecules into and out of it etc. All of these changes are driven by dialectical contradictions, but to set up an artificial boundary between those internal to the object and those external to it is ridiculously - the universe is one infinitely large object or an infinite number of infinitely small objects or anything in between.

In Essay Eight Parts One and Two, I spend over 80,000 words covering such responses!

But note once again the shifty logic: everything is self-moving except when it isn't!

And note the sloppy use of the word 'contradiction', and the anthropomorphism involved (as if things argue among themselves!), as well as its a priori nature.

How does he know that everything is driven by contradictions?

This is exactly as I predicted: DM-fans claim that they derive their ideas from nature, and then in the next breath they impose them on reality!

And they all cannot see this (and deny it even) because it is part of a 2500 year old ruling-class tradition wherein this has always been done -- imported into Marxism via Hegel's a priori idealsim.

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class....

And then we get the usual declaration of 'faith':


If you want you are entitled to say we have got it all wrong, to wait around and play no real role in building consciousness and to allow a system based on horrific suffering and misery to continue, maybe excusing its great crime against humanity by charitable works and certainly making its justification easy by offering no viable alternative strategy, this is your decision. For now, it is not mine.

How many times have I heard that!!

So, the theory that has presided over at least 80 years of failure (and tested in practice to destruction in Trotskyism, the most abject and dismal failure in Marxism), which tells its accolytes that it is eminently successful, should be adhered to because there is nothing better.

No philosophical theory at all would have been better!

[But, once again, notice how you can predict the response: it's our tradition and we resent you non-DM infidels corrupting the youth....]

You can just imagine Roman Catholic theologians saying that to Galileo!

So, the theory that sees change everywhere is unchanging.

Nice 'contradiction'!

[RevolverNo9]

Thanks a lot for this Rosa, I really appreciate the time you take to engage with others. (Clearly communists can't cope with 'ivory towers'!)

I'll be interested to see how it is received as well.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver, thanks for that!

According to the web hosting company that publishes my site, my ideas are being read all over the world, from N Korea to Brazil, Canada to New Zealand, Europe to America, and India to Australia.

At the beginning, I was getting 300 hits a month, now it is nearly 600. Not bad for such an intense site.

The responses have been mixed too; many comrades, like yourself, welcome the freeing effect of knowing they do not need to know an ounce of Hegel to be excellent revolutionaries, and are quite taken aback by how lamentably poor a theory dialectics is, and the extent of my objections to it.

Those who are still in its thrall I never expected to win over (25 years 'debating with DM-fans has told me it would be easier to win over Christian Fundamentalists -- since DM-fans have an even more intense and irrational faith in its miraculous powers).

So, I do not think a single DM-fan has been 'won over', but this is mainly because they refuse to read my work, for all kinds of reasons. This is understandable in a way: there is a tradition in Marxism stretching back now over 130 years that is nigh on impossible to countermand; any attack on dialectics is seen as an attack on Marxism itself (when it is the opposite), and it threatens the revolutionary ego. So it is resisted with all the irrationalism you sometimes witness here.

This is because these comrades, unlike most workers, have entered the socialist movement by and large as a result of personal commitment, as an expression of their rebellious personality, or because of personal alienation from the system (or other contingent causes), but not as a direct result of the class war (i.e., through collective action).

This means that from the beginning (again, by and large), such comrades act and think as individuals; they are committed to the revolution as an idea -- as an ideal even --, they are not revolutionaries for materialist reasons, that is as a result of their direct experience of working-class action, or as a consequence of a collective response to exploitation.

Once these comrades encounter DM it is 'natural' for them to latch onto its a priori theses (for the reasons given in that Essay, and at my site); this response now connects dialectics with the revolutionary ego, for it is this theory that guarantees (for them) that their existence is not for nought, but is capable of assuming cosmic significance if it is engaged in revolutionary activity, and in a movement that could fundamentally alter the course of human history.

This now provides this layer with well-known social psychological motives, inducements and reinforcements, convincing them, for example: (1) that their personal existence is not meaningless; (2) that they as individuals are key figures in helping to decide what direction history will take, and (3) that whatever it was that caused their alienation from bourgeois society, it can be rectified (redeemed?) through the right sort of acts, thoughts and deeds -- somewhat reminiscent of the way that Pelagian forms of 'muscular Christianity' teach that salvation can be had through pure thoughts, good works, and the severe treatment of the body.

Dialectics takes over now from Divinity, giving cosmic significance to these petty-bourgeois individuals/comrades. Social atoms like these need the internally-unifying force of ideas (imposed by themselves on themselves), but ideas like these can only come from a traditional source -- from ruling-class theories --, since these are the ideas to which this layer are most susceptible, but which were the only ones around when Marxism was in its infancy.

In contrast, material forces in society can only unify those involved in collective labour (which dialectical comrades by and large are not) --, forcing workers to unite; these forces do not persuade workers to unite as a result of some theory, they compel them to do so out of necessity. This type of unity is thus externally imposed on workers, and by material forces the ruling-class cannot control, which thus constrain workers to organise against them. More importantly, these material forces are not linked to the revolutionary ego, nor to ruling ideas, but to a collective identity.

Dialectics now replaces militant labour activism/struggle as a unifying force for these petty-bourgeois elements in Marxism; without this theory the reason why such comrades feel they stand at the political centre of the dialectical universe would vanish. Moreover, because DM supplies a coherent internal picture of reality (i.e., as an idea), it provides each dialectician as an individual with a unique motivating factor, which then serves to divide 'dialectical comrades', from one another (for reasons spelled out at my site). But, in a political party, collective discipline is paramount, while petty-bourgeois militants are not used to this form of discipline, and fights quickly break out, often over personal issues, which are thus easy to re-present as political differences in this atomised climate. The desire to impose one's own views on others becomes irresistible; doctrinal control (the control of inner, privatised ideas in each atomised head) now acts as a surrogate for outer control by material forces. Because the party cannot copy the class struggle, and force unity on its cadres externally, it can only control ideas by insisting of doctrinal purity (i.e., they get inside your head!). An authoritarian personality thus emerges to enforce orthodoxy (and 'tradition'), which now becomes the watch-word to test the loyalty of all those who might stray from the narrow path leading the few to revolutionary salvation. Small thus becomes beautiful -- nay desirable --, since it allows for greater control.

Democratic accountability is thus the first casualty of this part of the class war.

No wonder then that such dialectical-clones cling onto DM like grim death, just like religionists (of whom they are the secular mirror-images); it now dominates and shapes their personal integrity. Any attack on this sacred doctrine is an attack on the glue that holds this sort of comrade together.

The implication of all this is that, in their own eyes, these professional (petty-bourgeois) revolutionaries are special; they live -- no they embody -- the revolution. They have caught the tide of history, they must keep the faith. Commitment to the revolution on these terms soon creates militants who, for all the world, appear to suffer from the dialectical equivalent of a personality disorder -- chief among which is the Leader Complex.

So, the class war drives these comrades apart, which encourages Marxism to fragment, leading to our political impotence; on the other hand it makes workers unite. Dialectics just provides the former with an ideological fig leaf....

I could go on, indeed I do so here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...(stitutionists) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm#Sub(stitutionists))

[gilhyle]

Funny experience: I looked up some of Rosa's links and read a few pages of her railing against Trotsky and others for confusing identity and equivalence and for failing to cite any logic text books. I then took out Alonzo Church's classic Introduction to Mathematical Logic and looked up 'identity' in the index, where it says......'see equality'. :P

[gilhyle]

Much amused, I then looked up Rudolf Carnap's Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications (another classic) and I quote:

"17a Identity. The sentence 'a=b' is taken to mean that a and b are identical, i.e. a is the same individual as b. The sign '=' is called the identity sign. In our present symbolic language A we shall use the identity sign only between individual expressions......."

In languages B and C as Carnap explains elsewhere he uses the '=' sign between functions and predicate expressions in order to try and approximate more closely to ordinary language.

He then differentiates between having an equivalent meaning, equivalent extension and equivalent properties.

I point to this only to illustrate that the concept of equivalence/identity is a complex one within logic.

Look, the point is that Trotsky and other dialectical writers are patently pointing to the fact that a single term in ordinary language usage does not always have the same meaning as itself. The examples they use usually function in their examples as names and the point is usually illustrated by pointing out that the reference point of that name can change.

Of course you might say that logic is aware of this and doesnt make a mistake on this point. Granted. But that is not the point. The point is that humans require to alter the meaning of terms in order to think effectively. This is one of many reasons why symbolic logic cannot map ordinary effective thinking.

Now, is that really so silly ? And do we require to state these points with the spurious precision of analytical philosophy......not really. Particularly, given how trivial the point is for those Rosa calls 'dialecticians' themselves. Its just not very important.

[afrikaNOW]

"This means that from the beginning (again, by and large), such comrades act and think as individuals; they are committed to the revolution as an idea -- as an ideal even --, they are not revolutionaries for materialist reasons, that is as a result of their direct experience of working-class action, or as a consequence of a collective response to exploitation." !!!

Can this explain why so many white middle class / petty bourgeoisie are on this site and are "leftists"?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by afrikaNOW
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

It continues. But the way it looks, for the most part, the petit bourgeoisie will appear as a revolutionary force...yet when the revolution comes, it would be otherwise because they are only trying to become the haut bourgeoisie.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


Funny experience: I looked up some of Rosa's links and read a few pages of her railing against Trotsky and others for confusing identity and equivalence and for failing to cite any logic text books. I then took out Alonzo Church's classic Introduction to Mathematical Logic and looked up 'identity' in the index, where it says......'see equality'.

And if you bother to read the full Essay you will see that I note that this is a common error, one that is only now being addressed by logicians (and I provide the references).

[Equality and identity have always been distinguished in ordinary language. I give scores of examples in that longer Essay.]

And if you think that identity is identical with equality then you, like others who have tried to make this point, will have used the law of identity to make that point.

Oops!

On the other hand, if you agree with me that they are not the same, then you will also agree that Trotsky screwed up (as have many others).

You need to learn to check your facts.

The rest of what you say is either dealt with in that longer essay or is irrelevant.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

[hoopla]

:lol: This is still going then :rolleyes: ;)

Yeah, do you think that all understanding can be reduced to facts?

I think your scientism, is a bit elitist, too, probably. Technocratic nightmare without philosophy. Science is not a place for democracy, yet there is such a thing as liberal democracy. And, not sure that you can have a value-free sceince, yet.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Yeah, do you think that all understanding can be reduced to facts?

Not only do I not think this, nor imply it in anything i have said, I do not in any way connect 'understanding' with 'facts', nor attempt to reduce anything to anything.

How you can get that from anything I have written -- well, we are probably going to need professional advice to fathom.

As for this:


I think your scientism, is a bit elitist, too, probably.

How on earth do you manage to link me with 'scientism'?

If anything, I am anti-scientistic.

I suggest that, even now, after approximately six months of your inventing stuff to label me with, you make some attempt to read what I post more carefully.

Failing that, copy a few pages from any randomly selected work of fiction, paste it here, and attribute its contents to me.

It will probably be more accurate.

Finally, can I once again plead with you to find out what the word 'relevant' means; that will at least save you posting any more of this sort of blather:


Technocratic nightmare without philosophy. Science is not a place for democracy, yet there is such a thing as liberal democracy. And, not sure that you can have a value-free sceince, yet.

[hoopla]

Finally, can I once again plead with you to find out what the word 'relevant' means; that will at least save you posting any more of this sort of blatherYou will tell us, when we say something relevent, won't you Rosa?

Anyway, I'll take your word on it, I guess.

How do you demarcate philosophy, from valid work?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


You will tell us, when we say something relevent, won't you Rosa?

In your case, if I do, you will, like as not, interpret whatever I say to be a comment on the price of haddock.


How do you demarcate philosophy, from valid work?

Too vague.

[gilhyle]

Rosa

You miss my point. My point is this. The sign of identity is used in logic to cover a range of different kinds of equivalences and substitutability. Granted work may be on-going on aspects of this - what else is new. But the variability in meaning of these terms you rely on to criticise Trotsky is long since recognised - for example by Carnap as quoted. There is nothing new in it, nor nothing particularly problematic.

Furthermore, the use of A=A as a shorthand for the law of identity has long since been and in modern logic is still commonly used and does not indicate anything fundamentally wrong in what Trotsky was doing.

It was and is well understood by readers for what it is. What I deny is that any reasonably intelligent, unbiased reader would misunderstand Trotsky's use of A=A as a symbolisation of the law of identity.

Now if it were the case that the complexity in the relationship between identity and equivalence were partciularly problematic as used by dialecticians then identifying a pattern of unclarity in the reference by dialecticians to the law of identity could prove useful. I give you that.

But since you never actually isolate correctly (in the pages I read) what the dialecticians thesis is with regard to the law of identity - to continue with that example - it is impossible for anyone to know whether the unclarities (to coin a term) that you find in Trotsky's formulations are merely trivial or contribute to cretaing an impression of forceful argument by Trotsky where there is none.

Anyone wanting to criticise another writer can go through their work and find looseness of phrase and rail against that. Many minor writers in philosophy with nothing to say have persuaded themselves that they are giant killers by finding such infelcities of phrase.

The point being made by dialecticians about the law of identity is relatively trivial, straightforward and uncontroversial for many logicians themselves. You suggest that dialecticians claim that belief in the LOI precludes all capacity to understand change. Wrong dialecticians dont claim that. So your whole argument is a failuresince you dont understand what is being claimed.

Nor, btw, is it an answer to to tell me or anyone else to read your website. I judge you mainlyby what you post here. that is how a board works. Im sure you are very proud of your website - all credit to you for the effort spent......but that is not the point.

[hoopla]

Ok. How do you demarcate philosophy from science (including sociology, psychology)? Philosophy from everyday non-reactionary activities (talking to a friend about football e.g.)? Phliosophy from history? Philosophy from politics (e.g. the sort of historical materialism you will be creating)?

Just philosophy from non-reactionary activities. As they are mutually exclusive, you would think that it was possible :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


But the variability in meaning of these terms you rely on to criticise Trotsky is long since recognised - for example by Carnap as quoted. There is nothing new in it, nor nothing particularly problematic.

And what has this got to do with anything I have said?


Furthermore, the use of A=A as a shorthand for the law of identity has long since been and in modern logic is still commonly used and does not indicate anything fundamentally wrong in what Trotsky was doing.

Well, this might be acceptable if that were all that Trotsky did with this 'shorthand', but as I argue at length, everything he says indicates he screwed up here.


But since you never actually isolate correctly (in the pages I read) what the dialecticians thesis is with regard to the law of identity - to continue with that example - it is impossible for anyone to know whether the unclarities (to coin a term) that you find in Trotsky's formulations are merely trivial or contribute to cretaing an impression of forceful argument by Trotsky where there is none.

Well, in that case I defy you to fill in the gaps.

There is nothing comprehensible that Trotsky, Hegel or Lenin said on this score. Once more, I challenge you to find something, anything, that makes a single thing they say an ounce clearer.

So, my alleged failure to 'isolate' what dialecticians say is therefore not my fault. They fail to say what it is that they mean. I merely expose this sorry state of affairs.

Hence, if I am attacking straw men, it is because there are only straw men there to attack.


Anyone wanting to criticise another writer can go through their work and find looseness of phrase and rail against that. Many minor writers in philosophy with nothing to say have persuaded themselves that they are giant killers by finding such infelcities of phrase.

As my essays show, there are only 'loose phrases', and nothing but 'loose phrases', in the writings of dialecticians (saving perhaps those of Graham Priest).

In fact, calling them 'loose phrases' would be to praise them far too highly.


The point being made by dialecticians about the law of identity is relatively trivial, straightforward and uncontroversial for many logicians themselves. You suggest that dialecticians claim that belief in the LOI precludes all capacity to understand change. Wrong dialecticians dont claim that. So your whole argument is a failure since you dont understand what is being claimed.

This is not what Hegel believed, as Essay Eight Part Two establishes. And I give dozens of quotatons in Essay Six that show that lesser dialectical luminaries disgree with you.

And, once more, I defy you to say 'what is being claimed'.


Nor, btw, is it an answer to to tell me or anyone else to read your website. I judge you mainlyby what you post here. that is how a board works. Im sure you are very proud of your website - all credit to you for the effort spent......but that is not the point.

Fine, but then stop attributing to me things I do not believe, nor claim; and stop saying I am unaware of stuff when I am not.

It is not possible to cover every nuance, every argument and counter-argument at this forum. If you dip into my essays (as you clearly have done), and then raise a point that has been more than adequately covered later in that essay, I think it is legitimate of me to point this failing out.

Whether you go back to that essay is up to you.

Whether I point this failing out to you is up to me.

So, stop moaning.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 03:28 PM
There is nothing comprehensible that Trotsky, Hegel or Lenin said on this score.
That is the point - you dont understand Hegel's Science of Logic. So how could you refute it?

Now while I accept that the dominant philosophical ideology in the UK and the US made it difficult to understand hegel in the 20th century; commentary on Hegel has recently improved significantly. Writers like Pippin have made great progress in this area.

The idea that Hegel had fallen into meaningless rambling, promoted at one point by analytical philosopy, is increasingly abandoned.

Frankly, you should wonder at the idea that so many people, who have admired Hegel, have fallen into gibberish. That is a far cry from so many people being wrong - which is quite common and quite credible. But the idea that they have all propounded ideas that make no sense at all would be quite an unlikely phenomenon (although I accept not impossible).

But if you read someone like Hyppolite (Logic and Existence) yu see an elucidation of a complex but mostly coherant theory. What you do not get (as Lenin pointed out) is an articulation of dialectics which is adequate for a materialist theory, but that is a significantly lesser problem - although a real one.

If I thought that a careful articulation of an abstract concneptualisation of dialectics leading to a materialist conception of dialectics, I would happily engage in the project - but I dont actually beleive at this political conjuncture a general articulation of dialectics would make much difference at all. Frankly its not worth the effort to provide those one or two printed sheets that Marx promised on dialectics

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


That is the point - you dont understand Hegel's Science of Logic.

Well, I am in good company, since no one understands this badly misnamed book.

Perhaps you'd like to explain it to an eagerly waiting humanity (for the first time in 200 years)?


Writers like Pippin have made great progress in this area.

Yes, I subject his 'attempt' to unravel Hegel's fluent Martian to destructive criticism in Essay Twelve.

You can choose to ignore that too.


The idea that Hegel had fallen into meaningless rambling, promoted at one point by analytical philosopy, is increasingly abandoned

Even if it were true (which I doubt), so what?

Or do you think that philosophical fashion is an arbiter of truth?


Frankly, you should wonder at the idea that so many people, who have admired Hegel, have fallen into gibberish. That is a far cry from so many people being wrong - which is quite common and quite credible. But the idea that they have all propounded ideas that make no sense at all would be quite an unlikely phenomenon (although I accept not impossible).

The ruling ideas have always been those of the ruling class.


But if you read someone like Hyppolite (Logic and Existence) yu see an elucidation of a complex but mostly coherant theory. What you do not get (as Lenin pointed out) is an articulation of dialectics which is adequate for a materialist theory, but that is a significantly lesser problem - although a real one.

Grade A, platinum-coated, 23 carat gobbledygook. I had to study this b*llocks once; only a heavy-duty shot gun would motivate me to do so now.

And so we have yet another dialectical cop out:


If I thought that a careful articulation of an abstract concneptualisation of dialectics leading to a materialist conception of dialectics, I would happily engage in the project - but I dont actually beleive at this political conjuncture a general articulation of dialectics would make much difference at all. Frankly its not worth the effort to provide those one or two printed sheets that Marx promised on dialectics

Fine! Keep this mystical secret to yourself and the brotherhood.

I am well shut of it.

[gilhyle]

Nah Rosa, your just arguing in the wrong place.

The kind of theory you are trying to defend, namely that metaphysical thinking fall into meaninglessness, was dealt with withn analytical philosophy decades ago.

By making the argument to people who aren't in a position to rehearse the arguments that prove you wrong, you create a false sense of strength for your own position.

Go off and have the debate with analytical philosophy....but I suspect you know what will happen to your ideas in those fora. Here all you are doing is exploiting the fact that this is not a specialist philosophy site.

All kinda sad really.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


Nah Rosa, your just arguing in the wrong place.

Eh?


The kind of theory you are trying to defend, namely that metaphysical thinking fall into meaninglessness, was dealt with withn analytical philosophy decades ago.

That shows how much attention you have been paying: I am not defending any theory at all, except Historical Materialism. I reject all philosophical theories as non-sensical, dialectics being perhaps bargain basement nonsense.

And, as far as 'analytic philosophy' doing this or that is concerned, you should know (but perhaps you do not) that there are as many versions of analytic philosophy as there are philosophers who admit to belonging to that tradition. Many are metaphysicians, sure. Some are not.

I am not; and you need to address my arguments (posted in the summary to Essay Twleve), which are entirely novel, but not a figment of you own imagination. I can show that metaphysics is non-sensical. The question is, can you defend a single one of your beliefs? So far you have blustered, prevaricated, asserted, diverted attention, and moaned continuously about all manner of irrelevances way beyond your fair share.

But, have you produced a single counter-argument? If so, it was very well-camouflaged.


By making the argument to people who aren't in a position to rehearse the arguments that prove you wrong, you create a false sense of strength for your own position. Go off and have the debate with analytical philosophy [eh?]....but I suspect you know what will happen to your ideas in those fora. Here all you are doing is exploiting the fact that this is not a specialist philosophy site.


Quite apart from the fact that I was invited here (by RedStar2000), I rehearse my ideas here in order to influence revolutionaries. There would be no point doing that on a non-revolutionary board.

However, I suspect that the above is an admission on your part that you cannot argue against me.

Ok, I accept your latest capitulation.


All kinda sad really.

Well, I think you are, since you cannot defend your ideas, but are quite happy to pontificate like the Vicar of Rome.

[hoopla]

Yeah, but, all my questions have just been ignored, really. How do you demarcte philosophy from non-reactionary stuff?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Yeah, but, all my questions have just been ignored, really. How do you demarcte philosophy from non-reactionary stuff?

According to well-placed sources:


Fish market prices

The supply for cod and haddock has increased in Faroes and in Iceland. Prices for
cod are rising in Faroes and in Grimsby but are going down in Iceland and in
Hanstholm. Prices for haddock are rising in all markets. The supply for saithe in
Hanstholm has decreased however the supply for saithe has increased in Faroes and
in Iceland. The price for saithe rises in all markets. The supply for redfish is
increasing where as prices have gone down in Iceland but up in Faroes.

The supply was best for cod II in Grimsby yesterday as well as haddock II. The
numbers listed in the table show yesterday's average price and total supply. In
Faroes the supply was best for cod IV, haddock III, saithe III and redfish II. In Iceland
the supply was best for redfish II, saithe III, haddock II and cod II however in
Hanstholm the supply was best for saithe IV and cod IV. The supply in Hanstholm
yesterday was rather week and no numbers has been listed on Bremerhaven's
website. Notice that the average price for saithe in Hanstholm is around 1.54 EUR
which is 40% higher last week's average price.

Estimated quantity in Grimsby today is around 20 tons of cod and 40 tons of
haddock. The price for cod varies from 3.02 EUR for cod III to 4.36 EUR for cod I.
The highest price for haddock today is for haddock IV where the price varies from
4.13 EUR to 4.36 EUR however price for haddock I varies from 3.26 EUR to 3.39
EUR.

http://www.interseafood.com/ifx/?MIval=dis...d&id_news=14856 (http://www.interseafood.com/ifx/?MIval=dispatch&pg=newsview&news_action=read&id_news=14856)

Happy hunting....

[gilhyle]

On reflection, my last comments were somewhat intemperate - sorry.

I note the following from Rosa's site: "Professional Philosophers will find much here, therefore, that will irritate them. That, however, is their problem."

While no longer a professional philosopher, Im happy to admit I fell into that space when reading Rosa's material. If I preface my reading with her acknowledgement that her stance derives from a quite particular WIttgensteinian view, it all makes more sense.

The sustainability of it, however, rests on the sustainability of that neo-Wittgensteinian view, although the view itself would not see it that way.

I still consder the key theses Rosa has propounded as false and I remain unwilling to get into the debate in detail for this reason : unlike Rosa, I do not think that dialectics is a significant cause of sectarianism in Trotskyist Groups; although in the WRP, for example it was the form in which sectarianism has imposed its vitriolic working methods - that was merely opportunism and based on distorting dialectics into an essentialist doctrine when in fact dialectics invovles the rejection of essentialism : hence, btw, the doctrine of Essence of which the comentary on the LOI is a very small part.

Sectarianism within Trotskyism has political and - ultimately - material causes. If it were the case that overcoming sectariaism could be significantly aided by either a) rejecting dialectics or b) clarifying dialectics (as I would prefer) then it would indeed be an important node of intellectual struggle. But it isnt.

This point is illustrated by 'Party yyyy', (as she nobly calls it) to which Rosa refers and which is I assume the British SWP (but maybe not) - a coherenat formulation of dialectics would have absolutely no influence on the entrenched process of opportunist/sectarian swings that constitute that party's history. Those swings are now entrenched in its material basis in society and that party, like other long standing trotskyist parties is probably irreformable .

Consequently, the truth is, the theoretical formulation of dialectics just isnt worth the effort.

Now this is certainly a negative reflection of the state of Marxism - a healthier movement would benefit from fully articulated theories. But at this point there is only one theoretical innovation that would make any difference to the sorry state of Marxism and that is a robust theory of imperialism and to achieve that you only need as much dialectics as you get from a sensitive reading of Capital.

[gilhyle]

Hoopla

If I understand Rosa's position correctly Marcuse, Tran Duc, etc are all meaningless (or near as makes no difference)

Of course its an interesting question - maybe Rosa would like to say what litmus test she would apply to spot the difference between a work couched successfully in ordinary language and one lost in the chimeras of category errors. I suspect her answer is the old line of whether the proposition is empirically verifiable or not, but she should speak for herself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle, thanks for those baseless opinions.

I note however the lack of either argument or evidence.

Why does that not surprise me?


suspect her answer is the old line of whether the proposition is empirically verifiable or not, but she should speak for herself.

Where in anything I have written do I make this a criterion of meaning?

Why do you mystics insist on inventing stuff?

Professional philosopher...???

Fanatasist, more like.

[gilhyle]

Rosa writes: "Gilhyle, thanks for those baseless opinions"

And you know that my opinions on the origins of sectarianism are 'baseless' ...how ?



Rosa Writes "I note however the lack of either argument or evidence."

You may note the lack of evidence - but there is an argument.

If you choose to compare the level of argumentation to your own attempts to support the rather grand thesis that dialectics contributes to causing sectarianism, you will find a lack of much evidence and a flawed argument. Essentially your argument goes along the lines 'because sometimes sectarianism takes the form of using dialectics to abuse comrades, therefore it follows that dialectics sometimes contributes to causing sectarianism'. You will note (no you probably wont) that this argument doesnt follow.




Rosa writes "Where in anything I have written do I make this a criterion of [i]meaning"

Go on Rosa, put us out of our misery, tell us your criterion of meaning. Your coquetting with us now. :lol:




Rosa writes: "Professional philosopher...???

Fanatasist, more like."

Rosa, thank you for that baseless opinion. :wacko:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


And you know that my opinions on the origins of sectarianism are 'baseless' ...how ?

Because you based them on nothing at all.

Next stupid question....


You may note the lack of evidence - but there is an argument.

You need to look up the meaning of that word.


If you choose to compare the level of argumentation to your own attempts to support the rather grand thesis that dialectics contributes to causing sectarianism, you will find a lack of much evidence and a flawed argument. Essentially your argument goes along the lines 'because sometimes sectarianism takes the form of using dialectics to abuse comrades, therefore it follows that dialectics sometimes contributes to causing sectarianism'. You will note (no you probably wont) that this argument doesnt follow.

I do not (and did not) claim that DM causes sectarianism.

Still making stuff up eh?

And what evidence I have for what I do claim I have not published yet.

When I do, you can ignore that too. Or make something else up.


Go on Rosa, put us out of our misery, tell us your criterion of meaning. Your coquetting with us now.

So, this is what it takes to make you miserable, is it?

You can stew in it for all I care, [i]softy.


Rosa, thank you for that baseless opinion

You can't even think up your own criticisms can you?

That makes you a fantasist with no originality.

[Bretty123]

I'll admit I like some aspects of Rosa's thought but not all of it. One thing I think you should look at doing with your work Rosa is try to publish the evidence before you argue a point. Because saying the evidence exists but it hasnt been published does not help your cause.

This is just my opinion from a reader's perspective.

[gilhyle]

[QUOTE]



I do not (and did not) claim that DM causes sectarianism. [I think you need new glasses.]


I got that idea from the following:

"....Although at the time I had no way of proving it, these local events suggested that an allegiance to DM might have helped create this wider, but suitably ironic, "unity of opposites": the long-term failure of a movement that should be hugely successful.

The thought then occurred to me that perhaps this paradoxical situation -- wherein a political movement that avowedly represents the interests of the overwhelming majority of human beings is ignored by all but a few -- was directly connected with the contradictory theory at its heart: DM. Perhaps this was part of the reason why all revolutionary groups remain small, fragmentary, and lack significant influence? Had dialectics got anything to do with the unprincipled (if not manipulatively instrumental) way that DM-acolytes treat, use or abuse one another? Was dialectics connected with the tendency almost all revolutionary groups have of wanting to substitute themselves for the working-class, or of excusing the substitution of other things for it -- be they Red Army tanks, Maoist guerrillas or 'sympathetic/progressive' nationalist leaders?

Answers to these questions, it seemed, might also help explain why revolutionary socialism has been impressively unsuccessful for so long. So, if there are no fixed principles (according to the fixed principle that there aren't any), then it's not the least bit surprising that comrades treat one another -- and are treated in return -- in an unprincipled and manipulative way. In that case, is DM just another aspect of the "muck of ages" that Marx claimed humanity had to cast aside if a socialist society is to be created?"

Quoted, as you will recognise, from your site.....and I didnt suggest that you claim that dialectics causes sectarianism but that it contributes to causing sectarianism. I'll lend you my new glasses....you need them more than me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


I got that idea from the following:

Note the tentative nature of these initial questions/thoughts, all made at the beginning of my work.

Is there anything there that suggests I now/still accept all of this?

In fact if you read my other Essays, you will see that I trace the causes of sectarianisn to the petty-bourgeois nature of dialecticians, the way they recruit themselves to the movement, and then control it -- and then wreck it:


This is because these comrades, unlike most workers, have entered the socialist movement by and large as a result of personal commitment, as an expression of their rebellious personality, or because of personal alienation from the system (or other contingent causes), but not as a direct result of the class war (i.e., through collective action).

This means that from the beginning (again, by and large), such comrades act and think as individuals; they are committed to the revolution as an idea -- as an ideal even --, they are not revolutionaries for materialist reasons, that is as a result of their direct experience of working-class action, or as a consequence of a collective response to exploitation.

[Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with all this (indeed, such comrades are invaluable to the workers' movement), but, as we can now see, this does mean that the individual psychology of such comrades can and has stymied Marxist theory and practice for well over 120 years, when it is not counterbalanced by working-class materialism.]

Once these comrades encounter DM it is 'natural' for them to latch onto its a priori theses (for the reasons given above); this response now connects dialectics with the revolutionary ego, for it is this theory that guarantees (for them) that their existence is not for nought, but is capable of assuming cosmic significance if it is engaged in revolutionary activity, and in a movement that could fundamentally alter the course of human history.

This now provides this layer with well-known social psychological motives, inducements and reinforcements, convincing them, for example: (1) that their personal existence is not meaningless; (2) that they as individuals are key figures in helping to decide what direction history will take, and (3) that whatever it was that caused their alienation from bourgeois society, it can be rectified (redeemed?) through the right sort of acts, thoughts and deeds -- somewhat reminiscent of the way that Pelagian forms of 'muscular Christianity' teach that salvation can be had through pure thoughts, good works, and the severe treatment of the body.

[Incidentally, this also helps account for the emphasis on praxis in DM-circles (truth is confirmed in practice, and practice will make you free).]

Dialectics takes over now from Divinity, giving cosmic significance to these petty-bourgeois individuals/comrades. Social atoms like these need the internally-unifying force of ideas (imposed by themselves on themselves), but ideas like these can only come from a traditional source -- from ruling-class theories --, since these are the ideas to which this layer are most susceptible, but which were the only ones around when Marxism was in its infancy.

In contrast, material forces in society can only unify those involved in collective labour (which dialectical comrades by and large are not) --, forcing workers to unite; these forces do not persuade workers to unite as a result of some theory, they compel them to do so out of necessity. This type of unity is thus externally imposed on workers, and by forces the ruling-class cannot control, which thus organise against them. More importantly, these material forces are not linked to the revolutionary ego, nor to ruling ideas, but to a collective identity.

Dialectics now replaces militant labour activism/struggle as a unifying force for these petty-bourgeois elements in Marxism; without this theory the reason why such comrades feel they stand at the political centre of the dialectical universe would vanish. Moreover, because DM supplies a coherent internal picture of reality (i.e., as an idea), it provides each dialectician as an individual with a unique motivating factor, which then serves to divide 'dialectical comrades', from one another (for reasons spelled out below). But, in a political party, collective discipline is paramount, while petty-bourgeois militants are not used to this form of discipline, and fights quickly break out, often over personal issues, which are thus easy to re-present as political differences in this atomised climate. The desire to impose one's own views on others becomes irresistible; doctrinal control (the control of inner, privatised ideas in each atomised head) now acts as a surrogate for outer control by material forces. Because the party cannot copy the class struggle, and force unity on its cadres externally, it can only control ideas by insisting of doctrinal purity. An authoritarian personality thus emerges to enforce orthodoxy (and 'tradition'), which now becomes the watch-word to test the loyalty of all those who might stray from the narrow path leading the few to revolutionary salvation. Small thus becomes beautiful -- nay desirable --, since it allows for greater control.

Democratic accountability is thus the first casualty of this part of the class war.

No wonder then that such dialectical-clones cling onto DM like grim death, just like religionists (of whom they are the secular mirror-images); it now dominates and shapes their personal integrity. Any attack on this sacred doctrine is an attack on the glue that holds this sort of comrade together.

The implication of all this is that, in their own eyes, these professional (petty-bourgeois) revolutionaries are special; they live -- no they embody -- the revolution. They have caught the tide of history, they must keep the faith. Commitment to the revolution on these terms soon creates militants who, for all the world, appear to suffer from the dialectical equivalent of a personality disorder -- chief among which is a Leader Complex. All hale the Great Splitter!

[Indeed, this might be why they find Hegel's Super-Ego Philosophy so appealing.]

For workers, things are starkly different: material existence and survival moves them to action, not petty-bourgeois egocentrism. This makes workers naturally collective-minded, not divisive.

The opposite is true of professional revolutionaries; their atomised egos here make them 'naturally' factional. This helps explain why, among dialecticians, disagreements become so personal so quickly, and why factionalism is so rife (and how strong characters, like Ted Grant, Gerry Healy, Michael Pablo, Tony Cliff, Ernest Mandel, Pierre Lambert and host of others, formed splits and divisions in the movement almost from the get-go). Indeed, splits are almost synonymous with Marxism now (witness the well-aimed jokes in Monty Python's Life of Brian about the Judean People's Front, etc.).

And what could be more suited to helping create empty, meaningless, incomprehensible (and hence irresolvable) quarrels than the Mystical Mother Lode itself: Hegelian 'Logic'?

Dialectical Marxists thus rapidly become militant Prima Donnas. Often these individuals have very powerful personalities, something they can use to good effect in the small ponds they invariably patrol, and seem to prefer. Expulsions and bans keep their grouplets small, and thus easier to control.

In that case, and in this way, the revolutionary ego keeps our movement fragmented: small, insular and ineffectual, in preference to being democratic, outward-looking and effective. No wonder then that in such circumstances, democracy soon goes out the window along with reasonableness.

[Anyone who has tried to 'debate' dialectics with these militant martinets will know exactly what I mean. Check this out.]

The class struggle forces workers to unite, but it has the opposite effect on those who, so it happens, believe that opposites rule everything. No less so here. Class society created the damaged revolutionary ego; it now unites it with easy fragmentation, courtesy of DM.

Ruling-ideas now rule by helping to divide and rule.

In furtherance of the class war, each dialectical ego imagines that it alone has direct access to the exact meaning of the dialectic. But, since no one really understands this mystical theory, this is a very easy claim to make, and impossible to refute. Thus, every opponent is branded in the same way (on this see below) -- all 'fail to understand the dialectic' -- that is, all except the blessed soul that made that claim. [It is almost as if they had received a personal visit from the Self-Developing Idea itself; the road to Damascus and the road to Dialectics have more in common than just a capital "D".]

The success of the revolution becomes an idée fixe, only it is now wedded to the personal integrity of these individuals -- ones who have not in general been subjected to the social and material forces that make workers think collectively and democratically. In fact, the forces that drive workers one way, send these Marxist Martinets the other.

Now this Unity of Opposites is no myth; the fragmentary nature of Marxism (and particularly of Trotskyism) attests to it every day. Indeed, it guarantees that revolutionary parties stay small, and thus suffer constant defeat, and thus more fragmentation.

[Anyone who doubts this should look here, and here; there they will see that there are literally hundreds of Trotskyist and other socialist parties world-wide. Each with its own shibboleth.]

In defeat, however, these comrades turn to Dialectical Methadone (the 'Opiate of the Party') to insulate their minds from reality and constant failure. And by all accounts it does a good job. As noted above, anyone trying to argue with these dialectical druggies would be far better occupied head-butting a Billy-goat.

However, narcoleptic stupor of this order of magnitude -- and the lack of clarity required to maintain it, alongside the divisions it foments -- only help engineer more defeats, thus creating the need for another sizeable hit, and so on. This is the real dialectical spiral, not the one we read about in the official brochure.

In situations where clarity of thought is paramount, we find spaced-out Marxists who just create more dialectical mayhem. No wonder Marxism is to success as religion is to peace on earth.

DM also encourages the spread of divisive, un-comradely thoughts and deeds. This is partly because the language and forms-of-thought it uses are not based on collective, communal life -- and are thus inimical to collective, democratic control.

But, the militant martinet is in its element here; the universe is now seen as an externalisation of its damaged ego (in this way it replaces 'god', as Feuerbach saw). In that case, the desire for a priori knowledge is at one with the projection of this ego onto nature. This explains the origin of the basic idea underlying dialectics (that reality is mind, and hence real knowledge is a priori): reality is the externalisation of the militant mind -- and that in turn explains why to each DM-acolyte, the dialectic is so personal, so intimately their own possession (and why you can almost hear the hurt in their throats when it is comprehensively trashed). Any attack on this 'precious jewel' is an attack on the revolutionary ego itself, and must be resisted with all the bile at its command.


I conclude that dialectics is the ideology of this set of substitutionists, which theory makes the sectarianism we see in our movement all the worse, and which is used to rationalise it, or even justify it, and then ignore it/excuse it/explain it away -- a bit like you, in fact.

So DM is not the or even a cause of sectarianism (you will not find me saying this anywhere in my Essays); it merely helps make the divisive nature of such petty-bourgeois dialecticians worse. I am quite sure that they would be sectarian without DM; they would find some other 'philosophical theory' to justify it (as do petty-bourgeois religionists, whom dialecticans closely resemble -- a bit like you again).

[The above is from a summary to Essay Nine; full details will be published later, with the evidence I have amassed to support these contentions. You can ignore/misconstrue/misunderstand other things I say here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm]

Now you say:


and I didnt suggest that you claim that dialectics causes sectarianism but that it contributes to causing sectarianism.

You might like to explain how contributing to a cause is not also a cause.

So, once again you have shown how incompetent you are even to understand simple points of logic.

This makes you an incompetent, unoriginal fantasist.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18 2006, 11:41 PM
Hoopla:


I mean, what baffles me, is everyone seems to think that Rosa's bizzarre behaviour towards some posters is perfectly normal

So, the price of fish is of no interest to you?
Just explain how I could ask that question in ordianry langauge. Yawn.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20 2006, 12:44 AM


You might like to explain how contributing to a cause is not also a cause.


If there was a categoric analytical distinction between 'helping to make something worse' and 'contributing to causing', I would. But incompetant fantasist that I am, I don't sustain distinctions where there is no substative difference....but such technicalities dont slow you down, do the Rosa ? :rolleyes:

[gilhyle]

For what its worth, here is my conclusions on this thread.

Rosa argues : the LOI does not preclude change, for if an object changes, anything identical to it will change equally quickly. Moreover, if a thing changes, it will no longer be identical with its former self.

Since Marxism does not claim that the LOI precludes change, this claim is no claim against Marxist dialectics.

With regard to contradiction, Rosa argues that Zeno’s paradox is an ‘ancient confusion’ and this, it seems to me is the hardest point she makes for Marxism to deal with – the Marxist concept of contradiction is decidedly obscure. (The issue of G. Priest is a side issue, his idea of contradiction is quite different.)

Rosa argues that dialecticians superimpose dialectics on nature ; but it can be shown that coherent articulation of dialectics would have to argue against superimposition on nature and Rosa’s claim that ‘in practice’ dialecticians superimpose dialectics on nature actually raises the issue of the abuse of dialectical concepts by its sectarian and voluntarist advocates : however, any such concept of abuse would run contrary to Rosa’s claim that dialectics, because of its character, helps to worsen sectarianism. AN idea of an abuse of dialectics is anathema to Rosa, but her own evidence suggests it.

Rosa suggests that dialectics is part of ‘traditional thought’ because it is an essentialism (not her phrase) – once again this charge is misplaced (and really amounts to a re-statement of the superimposition argument) since it fails to recognise that at the heart of dialectics is the ‘Doctrine of Essence’ which aims to show that all essentialisms are doomed to be inadequate to reality.

With regard to the laws of dialectics, Rosa claims that the law of the transformation of quantity in quality cannot be correct because sometimes change in nature is not nodal. Since the law does not claim that ALL changes of quantity lead to changes in quality, the criticism fails.

It is suggested that the belief in internal contradictions cannot be the case, because it would mean that nothing in nature could then affect anything else. Once again, this objection misses the claim. The claim is not that all totalities are changed ONLY by their own internal development, but that all totalities are in a process of change. The fact that the actual pattern of change is the sum of the interaction of internal development and interaction between totalities (even accepting this static way of talking about totalities) creates no logical contradiction. Rosa seems (though I find this hard to credit that she thinks this) to suggest that if external causes are also allowed this « will merely allow ‘god’ sneak in »…….eh, no it doesnt.

Rosa then adds that the belief in internal contradictions leads to support for the concept of ‘force’ and she is correctly critical of this term, apparently unaware that Hegel was an early critic of the concept precisely because of his dialectical perspective. Force is sometimes described as a concept of action at a distance and dialectics calls it into question because dialectics does not view cause in the empiricist manner that induces speculation of forces. So the criticism fails.

When Rosa then notes Engels criticism of the concept of force, this leads her to conclude that Engels is being inconsistent because « if there are no classical forces, then there can't be any (dialectical) contradictions in nature »….but this is her view not his. Engels would not agree with her.

With regard to totality, Rosa argues dialectical materialists dont have a basis in evidence for claiming that everything is inter-connected and – more importantly – that the belief in internal contradiction leads to a paradox : « for if all change is internally-induced then not everything can be interconnected. Alternatively, if everything is interlinked, then interconnection can play no causal role in change » This might be an interesting idea but it is far from clear. It is reminiscent of some criticisms made of Bradely around the turn of the twentieth century – but it is far from clear that there is any paradox here and a trenchant presentation would be needed to support the claim. For the claim seems to ignore the fact that the claim of inter-connectedness is not a claim of temporal and spatial immanence of all things and allows for prioritisation in contributory cause. Her claims here are actually quite weak – surprisnignly so as the tendency of analytical philosophy would be to provide very strong arguments that the concept of totality used by Marxism is unnecessary (cf Badiou)

With regard to practice, Rosa seems unaware that the primacy of practice could only be part of the dialectical conception if the dialectical conception was not an essentialism, as she has previously accused it of being. At this point Rosa slips into a suggestion that ‘Marxism’ is called into question by its failure in practice. Now she is clear elsewhere that she does not want to attack all of Marxism, and if we are charitable here we must conclude that there are some infelicities of phrasing here (not for the first time) and that her intent is to argue against the claim that dialectics can guide Marxist practice. If that were so, the matter is easily dealt with : Marxism makes no such claim. She goes on to make the well known point that false theories often work in practice and therefore the primacy of practice cannot be sustained ; but, once again, she is not arguing against a position any serious supporter of dialectics would defend. Dialecticians do not claim that practice always and instantly tells us which theory is true and which false.

Taking a step back from the particular claims in the article usefully posted by Rose to begin this thread, the folowing points have emerged which strike me as relevant :

Rosa is involved in a major project, with some 500,000 words published but more to come. This has two consequences that are difficult to deal with. Firstly Rosa repeatedly refers to material she has still to publish to deal with points made to her. Secondly the scale of the amount published makes it difficult to grasp what is being proposed. This problem is compounded by the fact that, despite revisions to earlier essays, Rosa does not necessarily stand over all the formulations on her website.

I am reasonably satisfied that there is a scattergun technique being used. For example the criticisms of the use of A=A, as I have suggested dont work but seem thrown in with a view to attacking dialectical ideas at every turn in the apparent hope of a sort of ‘blitzkrieg’ effect. This approach makes it particularly difficult to find the better arguments and focus on them. There is little of the discrimination that, for example, a good tutor would seek to instill in a post-grad.

Rosa’s claims concerning the meaninglessness of dialectical claims depend on a quite particular and contentious Wittgensteinian philosophy that she does not articulate. Thus, she refuses to set out her theory of meaning, which limits the potential for engagement. She refers at some point to a future thesis where I understood her to say her positive views would be articulated. This kind of statement illustrates how problematic it is to assess her stance. Indeed at times, she is forced to accept that she can do no more than pedantically interrogate sentences since she does not believe it possible to give a coherent account of DM even as a false theory. Thus representing DM faithfully is not a concept that can make much sense to her. How can you understand or misrepresent a meaningless view ? All this is always in danger of transforming her critique into a mere record of the experience of incomprhension.

Rather like ‘Autodidact’ with whom she has clashed, she finds it difficult to avoid descending into vitriol and this also limits the effectiveness of engagement. [Herself and ‘Autodidact’ are interestingly similar internet characters, displaying great energy and deep irritation.] Of course I must also acknowledge here my own unwillingness to engage substantially on issues to do with dialectics because I think it of limited political importance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More profound thoughts, worked out in comprehensive detail, by the legendary fantasist:


If there was a categoric analytical distinction between 'helping to make something worse' and 'contributing to causing', I would. But incompetant fantasist that I am, I don't sustain distinctions where there is no substative difference....but such technicalities dont slow you down, do the Rosa ?

You need to take a crash course in reading/thinking, my incompetent friend.

Let us say that a virus causes a disease, but that the one so afflicted refuses to take medical advice, or any medicine. The disease is still caused by the virus, but the subsequent behaviour only compounds the problem, it does not cause the disease.

Now that response by this individual might cause his/her death, but not the disease itself.

So, sectarianism, I claim, is caused by petty-bourgeois DM-fans like you, but the death of Marxism is on the cards because of the loopy theory you lot have imported into our movement.

Clear now?

So, perhaps you would now like to explain your bogus distinction?

Bet you can't....

[And I'd like to 'do the Rosa', but I do not know the steps.]

I'll respond to your longer post later tonight.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20 2006, 07:01 PM

Let us say that a virus causes a disease, but that the one so afflicted refuses to take medical advice, or any medicine. The disease is still caused by the virus, but the subsequent behaviour only compounds the problem, it does not cause the disease.

Now that response by this individual might cause his/her death, but not the disease itself.

Clear now?


No its not as simple as that, I think.

Your example talks of A causing X but of b helping to create Y, where A is the VIrus, B is the refusal of treatment, X is the desease and Y is the death.

But that slips between two effects.

To explain the difference between two relationships you need to expain differentiated relationships to one effect.

Thus the man dies because of the virus, but his refusal of treatment helps to cause his death.

Dont sweat it, its not the main point - let it lie and lets stick to dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


Since Marxism does not claim that the LOI precludes change, this claim is no claim against Marxist dialectics.

You are going to wish you hadn’t posted that; I never assert things of substance like this unless I can back them up. Indeed, had you read carefully the Essays you still even now criticise from a position of ignorance, instead of skim reading a few scattered passages, you would have seen these:


“Thus the axiom 'A' is equal to 'A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is if it does not exist." [Trotsky (1971), pp.63-64.]


"There are three fundamental laws of formal logic. First and most important is the law of identity. This law can be stated in various ways such as: A thing is always equal to or identical with itself. In algebraic terms: A is equal to A.

"…If a thing is always and under all conditions equal or identical with itself, it can never be unequal or different from itself. This conclusion follows logically and inevitably from the law of identity. If A always equals A, it can never equal non-A." [Novack (1971), p.20.]


"Dialectics, or the logic of motion, is distinct from formal or static logic. Formal logic is based on three fundamental laws:

"(a) The law of identity: A is equal to A; a thing is always equal to itself.

"(b) The law of contradiction: A is different from non-A; A can never equal non-A.

"© The law of exclusion: either A, or non-A; nothing can be neither A nor non-A.

"A moment's reflection will allow us to conclude that formal logic is characterised by the thought processes which consist of putting motion, change, into parenthesis. All the laws enumerated above are true, so long as we abstract from motion. A will remain A so long as it does not change. A is different from non-A so long as it is not transformed into its opposite. A and non-A exclude each other so long as there is no movement which combines A and non-A, etc. These laws are obviously insufficient if we consider the transformation of the chrysalid (sic) into the butterfly, the passage of the adolescent into the adult, the movement of life into death, the birth of a new species or a new social order, the combination of two cells into a new one, etc." [Mandel (1979), pp.160-61. Emphasis added.]

There are scores more passages like this, many quoted at my site; in fact, it is hard to find a DM-fan who does not assert that the LOI precludes change.

It looks like you do not even read Trotsky with care!

More to follow.

[Epoche]

Thus the man dies because of the virus, but his refusal of treatment helps to cause his death.

But wait! What if he accepted medical treatment, and the medicine which was assumed to cure him actually caused a side effect which worked to cure him instead; would that mean that because the desired or predicted effects of the medicine were not part of the actual cure, so the medical treatment could not have been said to help in the cure?

Can one be accidentally cured and still give credit to the medical treatment?

Oh...I got another one.

What if four out of five people who do accept medical treatment end up dying faster than the fifth one who didn't accept the treatment and was cured?

Could we then say that the medical treatment actually assisted in the death caused by the virus?

What if we repeated that experiment a series of times, and stopped when the odds were in our favor....would that be an official scientific method, would that be formal, would it be proof?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


Rosa argues that dialecticians superimpose dialectics on nature ; but it can be shown that coherent articulation of dialectics would have to argue against superimposition on nature and Rosa’s claim that ‘in practice’ dialecticians superimpose dialectics on nature actually raises the issue of the abuse of dialectical concepts by its sectarian and voluntarist advocates : however, any such concept of abuse would run contrary to Rosa’s claim that dialectics, because of its character, helps to worsen sectarianism. AN idea of an abuse of dialectics is anathema to Rosa, but her own evidence suggests it.

Since all dialecticians impose DM on nature, this response is pathetic, even for you.

Gilhyle:


Rosa suggests that dialectics is part of ‘traditional thought’ because it is an essentialism (not her phrase) – once again this charge is misplaced (and really amounts to a re-statement of the superimposition argument) since it fails to recognise that at the heart of dialectics is the ‘Doctrine of Essence’ which aims to show that all essentialisms are doomed to be inadequate to reality.

In fact my argument showing that DM is part of ruling-class thought has nothing directly to do with essentialism (which is a symptom); it is outlined in Essay Twelve’s summary. So these comments are irrelevant.

Gilhyle:


With regard to the laws of dialectics, Rosa claims that the law of the transformation of quantity in quality cannot be correct because sometimes change in nature is not nodal. Since the law does not claim that ALL changes of quantity lead to changes in quality, the criticism fails.

Even if you were right, and I dispute this, my argument shows that not all change is nodal, which is all it was aimed at showing.

Since you do not respond to this I can only assume you cannot.

And since you have not considered my extended argument in Essay Seven, these ‘comments’ of yours are irrelevant too.

Gilhyle


It is suggested that the belief in internal contradictions cannot be the case, because it would mean that nothing in nature could then affect anything else. Once again, this objection misses the claim. The claim is not that all totalities are changed ONLY by their own internal development, but that all totalities are in a process of change. The fact that the actual pattern of change is the sum of the interaction of internal development and interaction between totalities (even accepting this static way of talking about totalities) creates no logical contradiction. Rosa seems (though I find this hard to credit that she thinks this) to suggest that if external causes are also allowed this « will merely allow ‘god’ sneak in »…….eh, no it doesnt.

Again, I devote two full essays to a consideration of such superficial responses, in total over 80,000 words.

And you can only make this work by ignoring what DM-classicists actually say. In short, you invent your way out again.

And merely denying that the allowance of external causes will allow god back in is not an argument. You need to show why this is not so. Can you? I doubt it.

Gilhyle:


Rosa then adds that the belief in internal contradictions leads to support for the concept of ‘force’ and she is correctly critical of this term, apparently unaware that Hegel was an early critic of the concept precisely because of his dialectical perspective. Force is sometimes described as a concept of action at a distance and dialectics calls it into question because dialectics does not view cause in the empiricist manner that induces speculation of forces. So the criticism fails.

Wrong! I am aware of Hegel’s pathetic analysis of force; in fact I recommend Schelling’s far superior analysis over Hegel’s (in Essay Eight Part Two).

And I deal with every conceivable response to my criticisms, including a far superior version of your joke of a reply, in Essay Eight Part two.

So the criticism stands, unless you can respond to that essay.

Can you?

I doubt it, once more.

Gilhyle:


When Rosa then notes Engels criticism of the concept of force, this leads her to conclude that Engels is being inconsistent because « if there are no classical forces, then there can't be any (dialectical) contradictions in nature »….but this is her view not his. Engels would not agree with her.

Where do I accuse Engels of inconsistency on this score?

In fact, I argue that he was being consistent with modern science for a change.

So, yet more invention on your part.

Gilhyle:


This might be an interesting idea but it is far from clear. It is reminiscent of some criticisms made of Bradely around the turn of the twentieth century – but it is far from clear that there is any paradox here and a trenchant presentation would be needed to support the claim. For the claim seems to ignore the fact that the claim of inter-connectedness is not a claim of temporal and spatial immanence of all things and allows for prioritisation in contributory cause. Her claims here are actually quite weak – surprisnignly so as the tendency of analytical philosophy would be to provide very strong arguments that the concept of totality used by Marxism is unnecessary (cf Badiou)

Once again, you assume that a very brief summary, posted to assist comrades who know little philosophy, must contain absolutely clear and comprehensive arguments.

I assert this at the start of that Essay at my site:


It is also worth pointing out that this Essay deals with very basic issues -- even at the risk of serious distortion.

It has only been ventured upon because a handful of comrades (who were not well-versed in Philosophy) wanted a very simple guide to my ideas.

Hence, it is not aimed at experts!

Anyone who objects to the superficial nature of the analysis/claims made below must take these caveats into account or navigate away from this page. It is not intended for them.

Those wanting more details should consult the relevant Essays published at the main site.

And then at the end of that essay:


The above Essay will be updated continuously, and indefinitely.

That endeavour is itself connected with my aim to make my ideas as straightforward as possible. However, several factors mean that this objective will be extraordinarily difficult to achieve:

1) I allege that Dialectical Materialism makes no sense. If so, any criticism made of it risks a similar fate. For example, DM-theorists refer to 'internal contradictions' to account for change in nature and society, but they seem incapable of explaining what these mysterious beings are (that is, after 150 years of not trying very hard!).

Even the best account of 'dialectical contradictions' (that I have so far encountered) is itself hopelessly confused. [This is demonstrated here.]
Hence, in this case and in others, my objections are aimed at an irredeemably obscure set of DM-theses.

In many places, therefore, I have found it impossible to turn this 'dialectical pig's ear' into even a plastic purse. I doubt anyone can.

So, if after reading this Essay, visitors still haven't a clue what dialecticians are banging on about, that failing is not down to me.

2) My criticisms of DM form part of a wider critique of Philosophy in general. This involves me in having to challenge ideas that have penetrated very deep into Western (and, indeed, human) culture -- I claim they form part of the "ruling ideas" to which Marx referred --, and thus into Dialectics itself.

In turn, this has meant that I have had to challenge forms-of-thought that have dominated intellectual life --, and which few have thought to question --, for nigh on 2500 years, addressing extraordinarily deep problems that have been missed (or have been passed over) by some of the best minds in human history.
This being so, it is virtually impossible to give a 'simple' account of the criticisms I aim to make of such well-entrenched "ruling ideas", especially if they relate to problems that have been missed by such towering intellects.

[Incidentally, this is partly why my ideas have faced almost implacable resistance/hostility from practically every quarter (they break entirely new ground, and run against 2500 years of traditional thought) -- had that not happened, I would have known I was on the wrong track!]

Of course, these factors will not stop me from trying to make my ideas increasingly clear, since it is fundamental to my project that if I cannot explain myself in ordinary language, then not even I understand what I am attempting to say!

And that is why this Essay will need to be re-written many, many times.
[Anyone who still finds anything I have said above incomprehensible should e-mail me, and I will do my best to put it right.]

As to the weakness or otherwise of my arguments here, you need to wait until essay Eleven is published (sometime in October), and then try again.

However, it’s a bit rich of you accusing me of weak arguments, when you accept conclusions based on the ‘Stone Age logic’ found in Hegel, and you cannot respond effectively to anything I have posted here.

More to follow

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


With regard to practice, Rosa seems unaware that the primacy of practice could only be part of the dialectical conception if the dialectical conception was not an essentialism, as she has previously accused it of being. At this point Rosa slips into a suggestion that ‘Marxism’ is called into question by its failure in practice. Now she is clear elsewhere that she does not want to attack all of Marxism, and if we are charitable here we must conclude that there are some infelicities of phrasing here (not for the first time) and that her intent is to argue against the claim that dialectics can guide Marxist practice. If that were so, the matter is easily dealt with : Marxism makes no such claim. She goes on to make the well known point that false theories often work in practice and therefore the primacy of practice cannot be sustained ; but, once again, she is not arguing against a position any serious supporter of dialectics would defend. Dialecticians do not claim that practice always and instantly tells us which theory is true and which false.

You tell us once again that “Marxism makes no such claim”, and this time it is as accurate as your other assertion about the LOI.

And I do not argue for the position you attribute to me. I merely claim that if truth is tested in practice, and practice has shown that dialectical Marxism (not Marxism, I clearly distinguish the two, which you would see if you learnt to read) has been an abject failure.

You need to address that, not the invention you attribute to me.

And now we have an apostle of change moaning about change:


Rosa is involved in a major project, with some 500,000 words published but more to come. This has two consequences that are difficult to deal with. Firstly Rosa repeatedly refers to material she has still to publish to deal with points made to her. Secondly the scale of the amount published makes it difficult to grasp what is being proposed. This problem is compounded by the fact that, despite revisions to earlier essays, Rosa does not necessarily stand over all the formulations on her website.

And it is not helped by you not reading my essays with effective eye glasses on.

When I have finished, in about ten years time, there will be nigh on 2 million words.

And I will be adding to all the essays, strengthening every single argument, over an over, until either I die or this ‘theory’ of yours does.

So lament away, oh incompetent one.

Gilhyle:


I am reasonably satisfied that there is a scattergun technique being used. For example the criticisms of the use of A=A, as I have suggested dont work but seem thrown in with a view to attacking dialectical ideas at every turn in the apparent hope of a sort of ‘blitzkrieg’ effect. This approach makes it particularly difficult to find the better arguments and focus on them. There is little of the discrimination that, for example, a good tutor would seek to instill in a post-grad.

Once again, you have not shown my case against the DM-criticism of the LOI is flawed, since you have not yet even superficially considered it.

And I am not seeking a debate with you mystics, that is impossible as your inventions show; I only wish to end your theory.

So why you make that point is unclear.

You seem to think this is an academic issue; what has this got to do with postgrads???

Gilhyle:


Rosa’s claims concerning the meaninglessness of dialectical claims depend on a quite particular and contentious Wittgensteinian philosophy that she does not articulate. Thus, she refuses to set out her theory of meaning, which limits the potential for engagement. She refers at some point to a future thesis where I understood her to say her positive views would be articulated. This kind of statement illustrates how problematic it is to assess her stance.

Once again, I have articulated my ideas (not Wittgenstein’s) in the summary to Essay Twelve.

And I have no theory of meaning, since I deny such theories have any sense. Now you may disagree; but I am trying to be consistent, unlike you.

If you had read the introductory essay with any care you would have seen this:


From time to time readers will find themselves asking the following question of the author: "Well, what's your theory then?" No alternative philosophical theory will be advanced here (or anywhere else for that matter). This tactic has not been adopted out of cussedness -- or even out of diffidence --, but because it is an important part of the Wittgensteinian method (used here) not to advance philosophical theories. Wittgenstein's approach means that no philosophical theory makes any sense. Why this is so (and which ideological motives underlie any contrary view) will be considered at length in Essays Nine and Twelve. [Summaries are posted here and here. Objections to the use of his ideas will be neutralised in an Additional Essay, posted here. Hyperlinks in the original.]

Gilhyle:


Rather like ‘Autodidact’ with whom she has clashed, she finds it difficult to avoid descending into vitriol and this also limits the effectiveness of engagement. [Herself and ‘Autodidact’ are interestingly similar internet characters, displaying great energy and deep irritation.] Of course I must also acknowledge here my own unwillingness to engage substantially on issues to do with dialectics because I think it of limited political importance.

Correct for once; you mystics will receive little other than hostility from me, especially when you invent stuff and attribute it to me -- as you all do, and repeatedly.

Incidentally, your opinion that this is of small political relevance confirms my opinion too: DM is politically irrelevant since it is impossible to put into practice (well, no more than it is possible to make sure those pesky slithy toves keep on gimbling in the gyre).

So why you defend it is a mystery.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Just like Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke, this kid keeps getting up off the canvas, and leading with her chin, ready for another pummelling.

Rosa is happy to oblige:


No its not as simple as that, I think

But at least I made an attempt to respond to you; you have yet to respond to my challenge to you.

And, it's my example, so it's as simple as I say it is.

But you disagree:


Your example talks of A causing X but of b helping to create Y, where A is the VIrus, B is the refusal of treatment, X is the desease and Y is the death

And, as I said, sectarianism is caused by your sort of petty-bourgeois mentality (not by DM), while the death of marxism (a separate issue) is partially caused by DM, accelerated by sectarianism.

Where is the diffficulty?


But that slips between two effects.

To explain the difference between two relationships you need to expain differentiated relationships to one effect.

Thus the man dies because of the virus, but his refusal of treatment helps to cause his death

So?


Dont sweat it, its not the main point - let it lie and lets stick to dialectics.

You are the one who is pummelling this to death.

And as for sticking to the point, you hardly respond to a single point I make. You certainly fail to answer my questions, and whatever you think of my answers (whether they are good, bad, or indifferent), I at least try. You do not.

You demand explanations of me and castigate me if I fail to respond in the way you want; but have you actually explained a single DM concept yet? If so, you hid it impressively well.

You can't even get Trotsky right!!

So, let's try again; you explain something for a change (just one thing will do): how is a contributory cause not also a cause?

You have tried to divert attention long enough.

Go, on smarty pants: impress us all with a reply.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche, thanks for those comments, but if you continue you will only confuse Gilhyle even more.

Is that steam I can hear coming out of her ears?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 08:21 PM

Can one be accidentally cured and still give credit to the medical treatment?

Oh...I got another one.

What if four out of five people who do accept medical treatment end up dying faster than the fifth one who didn't accept the treatment and was cured?

Could we then say that the medical treatment actually assisted in the death caused by the virus?

What if we repeated that experiment a series of times, and stopped when the odds were in our favor....would that be an official scientific method, would that be formal, would it be proof?
What the hell, I'll answer - itll be more useful than trying to get Rosa to actually engage with her own ideas

Question 1: Yes - I would actually go further myself and accept that placebo effects 'cause' cures.

Question 2 : the medicine helped to cause their deaths

Question 3: that depends on how the methodologies and consensus of science defines its practices.

Rosa has tried to make a distinction between 'helping to make worse' and 'contributing to causing', suggeting they consitute such fundamentally different relations that to have used one phrase to represent the other view is to misrepresent her (leaving aside the fact that that isnt what she originally said)....anyway, yawn......when she then came to try to define the difference - and btw I am grateful for the effort - she made the fundamental definitional error of not keeping the object of the relational terms constant throughout her definition by example.

Consequently she opened up the possibility that the apparently different meanings of the relational terms in the two examples she provided could be caused by them referring to a different outcome (desease/death). And indeed this is the case.

Rosa's suggestion leaves her with the problem of what caused the death.....the virus or the behaviour - of course it was both, each contributed to the death. It is correct to say he died from the desease; its also correct to say his own stubborn refusal caused the death.

Of course if you then vary the example for situations in which a) the treatment would have been completely ineffective, b) the treatment would have delayed the death but not prevented it and c) the treatment would have prevented the death or even d) the treatment would have cured the desease but (for example) caused a liver failure that woudl kill him anyway. You can also differentiate death at T1 and T2 as different events...you can come up with all sorts of variations on the description and this can go on and on and on and on......

But the bottom line is Rose ascribes an influence to DM as what a dialectician might call 'mediating' the realisation of the sectarian political practices she sees as deriving ultimately from the sociological origins of 'professional revolutionaries' .

Now if Rosa believed that to call something a 'contributory cause' implied that I ascribed to her the view that the phenomenon of sectiarianism could not happen without DM, she might be correct to say that the use of the phrase 'contributory cause' misrepresented the part of her website that she quoted herself (although this would not be true for the part of her website I quoted originally). But this would be to misunderstand 'contributory cause'.

Thus to say that his refusal of treatment contributed to causing his death does not imply that he would not have died if he had accepted treatment.

Equally, to say that his refusal of treatment helped to make his condition worse, does not imply that his condition would not have worsened anyway

Thus the implication of each term is similar, because the relation suggested by each term is similar.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20 2006, 08:18 PM
Gilhyle:


Since Marxism does not claim that the LOI precludes change, this claim is no claim against Marxist dialectics.

You are going to wish you hadn’t posted that; I never assert things of substance like this unless I can back them up. Indeed, had you read carefully the Essays you still even now criticise from a position of ignorance, instead of skim reading a few scattered passages, you would have seen these:


“Thus the axiom 'A' is equal to 'A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is if it does not exist." [Trotsky (1971), pp.63-64.]

.........

There are scores more passages like this, many quoted at my site; in fact, it is hard to find a DM-fan who does not assert that the LOI precludes change.

It looks like you do not even read Trotsky with care!

More to follow.
I could come back - I will if its not driving you nuts Rosa - but having posted my conclusions I dont feel any need to do so, except on the one point where there has been some substantial debate in this thread, namely A=A

I will quote Trotsky (though I always approach defence of the classics with some sense of boredom):

"Formal Logic involves stationary and unchanging quantities: a = a. Dialectics retorts a <is not equal to> a. Both are correct. A = a at every given moment. A <is not equal to> a at two different moments. Everything flows, everthing is changing." The Second Notebook, Notebooks 1933-35

Now whether you want to go to Aristotle&#39;s De Interpretatione where it is clear that nouns are to be seen as timeless or whether you look at modern first order logic where variables and statement letters share this feature (although meaningless) of being assumed to have the characteristic otherwise associated with equivelnt meaning of being mutually substitutable where ever a given one occurs within a logical analysis, it is clear that Tortsky is referring to a key basic idea of logic.

What he is not saying is that a=a is wrong - he says clearly that it is correct. But he is saying both are correct.

How do we make sense of this ? We make sense of it by referring to Remark 2 of Chapter 2 of Section One of Book Two of the Science of Logic where the argument is set out (not entirely in a satisfactory way but nevertheless sufficiently well for us to understand what is being claimed).

What is being claimed, in effect, is that the LOI must be understood not just as a axiom of formal logic - as an assumption facilitating formalisation, but must be understood as a valid and powerful tool of ordinary thinking which is overturned (in a controled way) when we carry out an analysis across time, such that a constant object of attention has changed internally.

This point is so trivial and obvious as to hardly bear spending any time on. But, for example, if one did a critical analysis of the work of John Roemer, one would find that some of his most important conclusions rely on respecting the LOI where it should not apply. Once that error is identified some of his key deductions dont work.

Thus we have a situation where the dialecticians are actually asserting the IMPORTANCE and validity of the LOI while also flagging the limits of its application in daily or scientific thinking - and indeed it is quite possible to construct a logic in which the LOI does not apply in its simple form.

Thus dialecticians do not claim that if you believe in the LOI you cant understand change. On the contrary, they claim to believe in the LOI but ALSO to believe that it is possible to have a summary understanding of the pattern of situations in which it does not apply.

Note that that summary understanding does not allow us to predict precisely how the LOI will be varied when it does not strictly apply.....what it does allow us to do is another day&#39;s work. I&#39;ll stick to the fundamental point here.

It is for this reason that I think your focus on the LOI is misconceived and takes away from other areas where you may have more challenging arguments.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More invention from the queen of fiction:


itll be more useful than trying to get Rosa to actually engage with her own ideas

First, it takes repeated goading from me to get you to respond.

Second, far from not engaging with my ideas, not only have I published in excess of half a millioin words at my site, I have published over 1500 posts here since November, as well a dozens at other sites since the beginning of the year.

You are the one who won't engage.


Rosa has tried to make a distinction between 'helping to make worse' and 'contributing to causing', suggeting they consitute such fundamentally different relations that to have used one phrase to represent the other view is to misrepresent her (leaving aside the fact that that isnt what she originally said)....anyway, yawn......when she then came to try to define the difference - and btw I am grateful for the effort - she made the fundamental definitional error of not keeping the object of the relational terms constant throughout her definition by example.

Wrong, once more.

Are you going for the all-time record here: being wrong more than anyone else in the history of this forum?

I suggested earlier that you could not read, but now I suspect you are just menadacious.

Where do I even mention 'contributing to causing' sectarianism? The term is your own invention.


Rosa's suggestion leaves her with the problem of what caused the death.....the virus or the behaviour - of course it was both, each contributed to the death. It is correct to say he died from the desease; its also correct to say his own stubborn refusal caused the death.

No problem since it is irrelevant (to the point being made) what causes the death, but it is relevant what originally caused the illness. Hence the analogy with sectarianism. Whatever causes the death of Marxism (if it dies), the cause of sectarianism is different.

You need to learn to focus a little more.

Yet more invention:


But the bottom line is Rose ascribes an influence to DM as what a dialectician might call 'mediating' the realisation of the sectarian political practices she sees as deriving ultimately from the sociological origins of 'professional revolutionaries' .

I would never express my ideas in such wall-to-wall b*llocks.

Evidently, you do.

And now we get a brief shaft of honesty from Little Miss Fiboholic:


Now if Rosa believed that to call something a 'contributory cause' implied that I ascribed to her the view that the phenomenon of sectiarianism could not happen without DM, she might be correct to say that the use of the phrase 'contributory cause' misrepresented the part of her website that she quoted herself (although this would not be true for the part of her website I quoted originally). But this would be to misunderstand 'contributory cause'.

But still you cannot say whether a contributory cause is a cause or not, and you still attribute the term to me (above).

So, something of a false dawn, then.

And that is it.

You accuse me of not engaging with my ideas, but when I repsond to you, you ignore what I say. Fine, you do not have to read a single thing I write, but stop accusing me of the very thing you are guilty of.

And yet, no comment on your fabrication that no DM-fan asserts that the LOI prevents change? No retraction of that slur on me?

Again, why does that not surprise me?

And you wonder why I am so hostile to you dialectical liars.

What exactly would you count as 'engaging with my ideas'; complete agreement with you?

But even now, not a single DM notion explained by our very own fabulist.

Engels would be turning in his grave, if he could.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, some attempt at a response.

You quote Trotsky&#39;s Notebooks (which contradict his published writngs, but oddly you prefer the unpublished to the published thoughts), but still you do not retract your assertion that no DM-fan (or Marxist as you put it) asserts that the LOI prevents change.

Here is what I wrote about the passage you quote in that very Essay part of which you skim read:


However, in his Notebooks Trotsky added a number of important qualifications to his comments on the LOI in IDM. Among which were the following:

"a = a is only a particular case of the law of a (crossed out =) a…. Formal Logic involves stationary and unchanging quantities: a = a. Dialectics retorts: a ¹ a. Both are correct. A = a at every given moment. A (crossed out =) a at two different moments. Everything flows, everything is changing." [Trotsky (1986), pp.86-87.]

This suggests that Trotsky might have accepted a version of S13 or S21(a):
S13: S8 implies A1 is equal to A2.

S21(a): There is an A and a time t1 such that, A at t1 is not equal to A at t2.

S13 was in turn dependent on S8, S10 and S11:

S8: A pound of sugar is equal to itself.

S10: Let A1 be a pound of sugar at time T1.

S11: Let A2 be a pound of sugar at time T2.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

This would appear to mean that Trotsky was committed merely to the idea that an object is not self-identical at some later time, as opposed to adhering to the stricter principle that objects are not self-identical at any given moment -–, which belief is in turn based on the doctrine that all objects are UO&#39;s. If so, the above passage seems to suggest that Trotsky was in fact rejecting a core DM-idea: that UO&#39;s exist in every object and process, and which drive change through &#39;internal contradiction&#39;. Clearly, this is highly unlikely.

[However, since Trotsky nowhere (to my knowledge) refers to the idea that change is the result of the struggle between UO&#39;s, it is possible that he did reject, or did not accept, this doctrine.]

Nevertheless, since this quotation is taken from notebooks not intended for publication it would be unwise to rely too heavily on what they say as an accurate indication of Trotsky&#39;s intentions. This is especially so since it appears to contradict what was said in IDM:

A1: "In reality &#39;A&#39; is not equal to &#39;A&#39;…. [O]bserve these two letters under a lens – they are quite different from each other." [Trotsky (1971), pp.63-64.]

S9(a): All bodies change uninterruptedly. (b) They are never equal to themselves.

Compare this with a passage from the Notebooks (quoted above) where Trotsky now seems to say the opposite:

A2: "A = a at every given moment." [Trotsky (1986), p.87.]

If A1 and S9 were correct, A2 could not be; at best it would only represent half the story. In A2, the two letter "A"&#39;s are easy to distinguish without the aid of a lens: the second letter is in the lower case, while the first is a capital. Here, Trotsky now argues that these "A"&#39;s are equal at "every given moment" -- even though they look different to the naked eye. Conversely, in A1 Trotsky claims the opposite of this is true with respect to two letter "A"&#39;s that not only look identical but also are in the same upper case&#33; He claims that the two capital letters in A1 look different if examined under a lens, while a lower case "a" and a capital "A" in A2 are equal at every moment&#33; If A2 were correct, then Trotsky&#39;s reference in A1 to the physical appearance of these two letter "A"&#39;s when viewed under an eyeglass would be entirely pointless. The only reasonable conclusion here seems to be that since A1 was intended for publication it must contain Trotsky&#39;s more considered thoughts.

Furthermore, as noted above, A2 seems to be inconsistent with the claim that change is the result of internal contradictions: that is, with the idea that at any given moment an object both is and is not self-identical, constituting a UO -- in this case presumably a unity of "A and not A" (i.e., "pound bag of sugar and not pound bag of sugar"), or that a pound bag of sugar is both identical and not identical with its &#39;other&#39;, as Hegel might have put it. [On this, see Essay Eight Part Two, and Essay Twelve.]

[Precisely what the &#39;other&#39; is of a pound bag of sugar is somewhat unclear. A pound bag of tea? A half pound bag of tea? A 1.000000001 pound bag of sugar? But if it has no &#39;other&#39; (a logical &#39;other&#39;, too) then it cannot change. Sugar is highly complex; there are any number of things it can and does change into, so it must have countless &#39;others&#39; (which makes a mockery of Hegel&#39;s &#39;analysis&#39; of change).]

In addition, A2 is itself rather badly worded. When Trotsky wrote:

A3: "A = a at every given moment" (emphasis added)

he must have meant:

A4: "A = a at any given moment."

This is because the wording of A3 implies that "A" never changes; i.e., that at all times "A = a" -- something Trotsky certainly did not believe. On the other hand, A3 might contain an indirect allusion to Trotsky&#39;s point about abstract moments in time:

"A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself at &#39;any given moment&#39;…. How should we really conceive the word &#39;moment&#39;? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that &#39;moment&#39; to inevitable changes. Or is the &#39;moment&#39; a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom &#39;A&#39; is equal to &#39;A&#39; signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is if it does not exist." [Trotsky (1971), p.64.]

But, if Trotsky was referring to abstract moments in time in A3, it would mean that the items mentioned could not exist. If so, it would be unclear how A3 could ever be true -– i.e., assuming it was about such non-existent things.

Of course, if A2 and A3 were merely about letter variables (not their supposed referents) it might prove possible to re-interpret them in a more viable form. One such re-write could see them recording the fact that while objects in the world change, letters depicting them do not. But that would make Trotsky&#39;s other assertions about the "A"&#39;s in A1 decidedly odd, for the aim there had been to argue that these letters are not in fact "equal" irrespective of what they referred to. That was the whole point of Trotsky&#39;s appeal to ocular inspection. And since variable letters are physical objects in their own right, his claim surely was that they are just as susceptible to change and diversity as are the things to which they supposedly refer. That option therefore does not look at all promising.

On the other hand, if Trotsky had wanted to argue for something more complex in this regard it would prove impossible to comprehend his point. For example, if he had meant something like the following:

(1) Variable letters and what they refer to both change and that they do so as follows:

(2) Each letter "A" no longer refers to whatever it was that it used to refer to moments earlier, and,

(3) The object that each old letter "A" once denoted is no longer the same as it was when first identified, and,

(4) Earlier and concurrent manifestations of any and all letter "A"&#39;s are never the same as &#39;the same&#39; new letter "A" now on the page (which page also changes), and,

(5) Any two or more concurrent letter "A"&#39;s on the &#39;same&#39; line (which also changes) are not only different from each other, they change at different rates, and,

(6) Each letter individually denotes in a different and changing manner objects in reality, which objects are also different and all changing at different rates themselves.

If something like this had been Trotsky&#39;s intention then his entire point would become too obscure to assess for we wouldn&#39;t have a clue what he was on about. But, if all things change uninterruptedly in every respect (as Trotsky himself claimed) then he must have &#39;meant&#39; this&#33;

It could be objected that Trotsky only needs to appeal to the relative stability of medium-sized objects in reality to neutralise criticisms like this. Hence, if language and most medium-sized objects are relatively stable, points (1) to (6) above do not apply.

But, how could anyone know whether or not language is &#39;relatively stable&#39; -- especially if they believe that everything is in the grip of the Heraclitean Flux? In fact, as soon as language itself is implicated in this Flux, everything semantically solid melts into thin air. Hence, it would be no good appealing to evidence (drawn from dictionaries, textbooks, memory, common usage, etc.) in support of the claim that language is &#39;relatively stable&#39;, for if everything is changing then so is the language in which this evidence is couched, so are the books from which it has been trawled, and so are the memories on which all depend. For all anyone could tell, given this way of looking at things, all words could change their meanings every fraction of a second (along with any memories of and about and the objects that seem familiar to us, etc.). As Plato himself was quick to recognise, the Heraclitean Flux is no respecter of theories. [On this, see also Note 10 above and Note 15 below.]

Furthermore, the reasoning in the Notebooks appears to be somewhat confused. For example, it is not easy to see how "a = a" could be a particular case of the law "a ¹ a", any more than "a + b = c", for instance, could be a particular case of the rule "a + b ¹ c". If "a ¹ a" is a law, then "a = a" refutes it; it does not instantiate it. That is, it would do so unless the word "refute" were to change its sense. Of course, in such a madcap Heraclitean world it is not easy to see exactly what could either stay the same or change -- nor, indeed, for how long a decision about even that possibility would remain the stable, too&#33;

Moreover, other things that Trotsky said in IDM indicate that the above passage from his Notebooks is not a reliable guide to his thinking:

"A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself at &#39;any given moment&#39;…. How should we really conceive the word &#39;moment&#39;? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that &#39;moment&#39; to inevitable changes. Or is the &#39;moment&#39; a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom &#39;A&#39; is equal to &#39;A&#39; signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is if it does not exist." [Trotsky (1971), p.64.]

This at least confirms the accuracy of the interpretation put on Trotsky&#39;s analysis of the LOI in this Essay -– that is, in so far as any sense can be made of what he was trying to say on this &#39;law&#39;.

Finally, what TAR itself says about Trotsky&#39;s argument seems to agree with the interpretation given here. [Cf., Rees (1998), p.273.]

Hyperlinks in the original

The rest of what you say, I will respond to tomorrow.

It is too late right now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle before she was found out:


Since Marxism does not claim that the LOI precludes change, this claim is no claim against Marxist dialectics.

Gilhyle now:


Thus dialecticians do not claim that if you believe in the LOI you can’t understand change. On the contrary, they claim to believe in the LOI but ALSO to believe that it is possible to have a summary understanding of the pattern of situations in which it does not apply.

Your earlier claim was that Marxism does not claim the LOI precludes change, and when I quoted three out of the many who say precisely this, you back-sassed to the weaker claim that dialecticians do not claim that belief in the LOI stops anyone understanding change.

I think you either failed to understand your own point or you are so used to fibbing you cannot tell when you are doing it.

However, I go further; I deny that DM-fans can comprehend change with their loopy logic. Ordinary language alone is far superior in this regard, as is modern science. In fact, DM cannot account for anything at all, except the impotence of Marxism (and that only partially, and negatively).

However, you offer up a bowl of Dialectical spaghetti in support of your belief that DM provides a superior account of change (stuff I have heard more times than even you have made things up). None of it makes the slightest sense.

Proof??

I have devoted approximately 18000 words to pulling apart a far better version of your weak attempt to defend the indefensible. I was going to post some of it here, but I won&#39;t bother since you are clearly a waste of time, so you can go and read it yourself, if you want to.

You can find it here:

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

Scroll down to note 67, and the argument begins a few paragraphs beyond that.

Of course, you can ignore it if you want, I do not give a Gilhyle if you do.

So, your earlier assertion that I was wrong about what Marxists do or do not claim about the LOI and change was itself wrong.

Any chance of a retraction?

[Some hope&#33;]

[gilhyle]

Just on the confusions here (and this is getting far too confusing for anyone to follow, so its getting pointless). I spot two confusions worth referring to:

1. I used the term &#39;contributing to cause&#39; (it was never your term, I never said it was your term); you used the term &#39;helping to weaken&#39; - the issue was whether the use of the term &#39;contributing to cause&#39; misrepresented a view expressed (subsequently) as involving &#39;helping to weaken&#39;. I think it doesnt because the two phrases describe substantailly similar significances - as I showed with regard to the example you chose of a persons death. [Btw if we are arguing here about whether you allow that sectarianism can happen without DM, we can stop, cos I dont doubt that you allow that possibility]

2. My claim is that Marxism does not claim that belief in the LOI prevents people understanding change.....but I am quite happy to allow that in the course of ordinary language usage some &#39;DM Fans&#39; may have uttered sentences which taken in isolation can be taken to mean that. I have no problem with that. BUt this, I strongly suspect, would be in the course of such people trying to articulate the different claim that behaviours equivalent to a misapplication of the LOI can lead to a failure to understand change. People dont always succeed in saying what they mean

My interest is not in defending the texts (although Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and bits of Illyenkov are generally fine by me as non-technical statements of the ideas) - my interest is in whether there is a credible dialectical view. I have put forward what I think is such a view on the LOI. I think its a view that most Marxists would be happy with.

I dont exclude the possiblity that there would be some who would want to say that one cannot allow the LOI to apply in ANY ordinary language statements - that is not my view but its a variant I would consider worthy of consideration. I virtually exclude the possibility that any Marxist would defend the view that the LOI should not apply in first order logic. I make two exceptions to this exclusion :

Firstly, Marxism is a political movement and loyalty to it will sometimes lead people to attempt to express and advocate ideas they dont understand, parrot like, and that can lead to some silly formulation and

secondly in the course of degeration of the Russian Revolution and extremes of the Cultural Revolution there were times and places when certain people would say ANYTHING and in the frenzy of the political process they could get away with that. I count this as an abuse of dialectics, rather than a representation of dialectics. I understand that since you dont see dialectics as a coherent doctrine in the first place the concept of the abuse of dialectics does not arise for you. This leads you to the point where the criticism of the doctrine is replaced by the criticism of the sentences, often taken in isolation. Its not a credible reading methodology.

(you will be delighted to know that my reading methodolgy is dialectical : it moves from reading specific sentences via a process of aggregation and distillation to an abstract concept of the underlying meaning of the totaity of the sentences under review and is then re-concretised into a critical reconceptualisation of the meaning of the particular sentences ...just thought I&#39;d add that in to annoy you )

Again, I repeat that having drawn my conclusions, I feel we are going around in circles at this stage - repeating ourselves. However, I will review your long post above to see if there is anything additional in it.

I suspect there is noone reading this thread at this stage ...however, if there is I would be interested to know if there is a particular point on which other readers feel Rosa has trumped my arguments or on which they would like us to focus, I am happy to do that.....its likely to be quicker than waiting for Rosa to complete the next ten years work &#33;

[hoopla]

Like, I appreciate that this might be very interesting or even useful, but I am clearly tackling it in the wrong way.

Is there anything I can ask that will get an answer?

Thats it, thats what I&#39;m asking&#33;

:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle, now confessing to her own level of confusion, asserted this a page or so ago:


If you choose to compare the level of argumentation to your own attempts to support the rather grand thesis that dialectics contributes to causing sectarianism, you will find a lack of much evidence and a flawed argument. Essentially your argument goes along the lines &#39;because sometimes sectarianism takes the form of using dialectics to abuse comrades, therefore it follows that dialectics sometimes contributes to causing sectarianism&#39;. You will note (no you probably wont) that this argument doesnt follow. Emphases added.

Now she asserts:


I used the term &#39;contributing to cause&#39; (it was never your term, I never said it was your term

So when you said "your argument goes along the lines: &#39;.....contributes to causing sectarianism", you were lying or just inventing?

I think we can see who is causing all the confusion here.

Now she refuses to acknowledge that she was fibbing:


My claim is that Marxism does not claim that belief in the LOI prevents people understanding change..

When she had earlier castigated me for claiming that DM-fans get the LOI wrong, by among other things my claiming that it prevents change:


Since Marxism does not claim that the LOI precludes change, this claim is no claim against Marxist dialectics.

We can see once more who is causing the confusion.

Now we have this pointless aim trailed before our weary eyes:


my interest is in whether there is a credible dialectical view.

Let me put you out of your misery: no there is none whatsoever.

And I can prove it.

Now we get the desperate excuses:


secondly in the course of degeration of the Russian Revolution and extremes of the Cultural Revolution there were times and places when certain people would say ANYTHING and in the frenzy of the political process they could get away with that. I count this as an abuse of dialectics, rather than a representation of dialectics

But I quote Marxists who wrote at other times, and at all times, all rehearsing the same mystical and confused ideas -- and not out of context, as my Essays show.



This leads you to the point where the criticism of the doctrine is replaced by the criticism of the sentences, often taken in isolation. Its not a credible reading methodology.

More invention (as you would have seen if, for example, you had checked part of that link I posted above and not mouthed-off again in ignorance -- there I subject practically every sentence in the best article I have ever read (in over 25 years) on DM and the LOI and on &#39;dialectical contradictions&#39; to sustained assault, trashing all the screwy things DM-fans (and Hegel) say on this subject.

So wrong again.


you will be delighted to know that my reading methodolgy is dialectical : it moves from reading specific sentences via a process of aggregation and distillation to an abstract concept of the underlying meaning of the totaity of the sentences under review and is then re-concretised into a critical reconceptualisation of the meaning of the particular sentences ...just thought I&#39;d add that in to annoy you

Mystical gobbledygook like this annoys me not -- but it does confirm you cannot defend your ideas, except you talk fluent bollocks.


Again, I repeat that having drawn my conclusions, I feel we are going around in circles at this stage - repeating ourselves. However, I will review your long post above to see if there is anything additional in it

You are going in circles. and the loopy &#39;logic&#39; you have swallowed is to blame.


I suspect there is noone reading this thread at this stage

Even so, I bet that these &#39;nobodies&#39; are reading things with more care than you bring even to reading Trotsky.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Is there anything I can ask that will get an answer?

Who said that?

[hoopla]

Over 300 posts, almost all of them asking Rosa questions that lead to her silence&#33;
Yeah, I guess its cos I ignore your work. I had a go, but, you should include counter arguments against you in the texts themselves. Its rather dull to listen to one woman go on about how right she is for several thousand words at a go. It just comes across as rhetoric.

Got anything specific to Wittgenstein v Hegel.

Cheers

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 08:12 PM
I subject practically every sentence in the best article I have ever read (in over 25 years) on DM and the LOI and on &#39;dialectical contradictions&#39; to sustained assault, trashing all the screwy things DM-fans (and Hegel) say on this subject.


Thats my point - you can only do it sentence by sentence because your philosophical perspective prevents you adopting any other approach but the chop logic of sentence parsing.

I will check the article you refer to.

On the other point : Let recall, I used my choice of phrase (contributing to causing) to describe your view. You then objected to my phrase as a description of your view. You then provided your own phrase to describe your view - &#39;helping to weaken&#39;. I then argued that the two phrases were of sufficiently similar meaning that no misrepresentation had taken place. You then provided an example to show that they had different meanings. I then argued that your example contained a methodological error. You then changed the subject by suggesting that I was saying falsely that the phrase &#39;contributing to change&#39; was your phrase and we have been arguing about that diversion ever since, the central point being again and again lost as you constantly divert from the point.

Hoopla Great question - there is only one way to find an answer.to that one: ask a question

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


Thats my point - you can only do it sentence by sentence because your philosophical perspective prevents you adopting any other approach but the chop logic of sentence parsing.

No, you have no point; you keep changing your mind when put under pressure by me and when you are confronted with disconfirming evidence, which character defect you compound by failing to understand even your own argument.

Now, you moan about my analytic techniques (which, if you checked for a change, instead of making things up, you will see in this case I analyse this author&#39;s work in blocks of paragraphs, in a level of detail you could not match in ten lifetimes) but you take isolated sentences from my work, misread them, or you read into them what you want, or you just put your words in my mouth (then deny you did that in the face of evidence that brands you a serial liar) and now you have the cheek to point your idealist fingers at me.

In comparison to you, I am a model of fairness. I do not invent; I back up what I say, and in recognisably clear English.

When you try to evacuate that space between your ears, to inflict its sparse and ill-considered contents on the good folk here, all you can produce is gobbledygook, that not even you can get right between posts.

Here we have a clear case of the kettle (you) calling the sterilising dish sooty.


On the other point : Let recall, I used my choice of phrase (contributing to causing) to describe your view.

No need to &#39;recall&#39; we have your lying words on view. I quoted them.

And then you try to re-write history:


I then argued that the two phrases were of sufficiently similar meaning that no misrepresentation had taken place. You then provided an example to show that they had different meanings. I then argued that your example contained a methodological error. You then changed the subject by suggesting that I was saying falsely that the phrase &#39;contributing to change&#39; was your phrase and we have been arguing about that diversion ever since, the central point being again and again lost as you constantly divert from the point.

I cut and pasted your words so we could see you in all your dissembling glory; let&#39;s see you do the same in support of these new lies of yours.

[RevolverNo9]

I suspect there is noone reading this thread at this stage...

Believe it or not I&#39;ve followed most of what&#39;s been written by the two of you, though I admit not with upmost rigour&#33;

However I&#39;ve found it hard to follow your argument because it seems to shift subtly(on purpose or not). I suspect this is partly due to the lack of precision in your &#39;method&#39; - if it means something at all, it&#39;s not immediately deciperable. Your claim to a &#39;dialectical reading&#39; reads like a joke... it is equally absurd. I doubt it is possible to distinguish between what is &#39;dialectially phrased&#39; and (&#39;actual&#39;) &#39;expositions of dialectical enquiry&#39;. Or whatever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver, as you no doubt know, I do not really try to argue with such mystics. They all display a religious, almost scary devotion to this Hermetic creed, and just spout bollocks at you when they are pressed into a corner (again, just like believers in, say, the Trinity).

I would not mind, but not one can explain DM in clear English, not even to each other&#33;

I discovered well before many who post here were born that one cannot debate with these lost souls; they all make the same, or roughly the same, points, as if they were the first to have thought them up, or as if I hadn&#39;t heard them 1000&#39;s of times before (you can see that if you check the responses to me at this site).

They all invent stuff, raise irrelevant issues, put words in my mouth, then deny it, even when confronted with the evidence, and not a one can think for herself. [For example, they all still think logic cannot handle change, no matter how many times they are shown that it can, simply because some dialectical guru said this.]

They pontifciate about my ideas but refuse to read them (at best they skim read isolated bits -- and then they moan if they think I do this to Engels, or Trotsky&#33;).

Gilhyle is a classic example. In a future essay, I am going to link to her comments as more evidence of how unreasonable DM makes these clones. And as my Essays will outlast her, I am guaranteeing her imfamous notoriety for ever, as a sort of &#39;dialectical reward&#39; for her non-efforts.

What a fine example to workers&#33;

And unlike any other organism we know of, they do not learn from their mistakes (because the &#39;dialectic&#39; hides these from them -- mostly under wall-to-wall bollocks).

So that is why I treat them the way I do. I have total contempt for the way they have prostituted themselves to ruling-class ideas, and for the way they have screwed with the workers&#39; movement for 150 years.

[hoopla]

99% of what Rosa says is the most pathetic sort of rhetoric. I thought she might be *trying* to talk in ordianry language, but it is clearly just the language of a deluded fool who wants to us her "charism" ( :lol: ) to convince people. What a joke.

I mean, who really has the stomach to read through the garbage that she writes, almost all of it endless repititions of how "massively stupid" everyone is.

If I am going to have my criticism of her censored, I think you ought to do the same to the hundreds of comments she has made about me - which turned out to be malicious.

You are only making yoursleves look stupid putting up with it - why ffs - Marxist academics are ten a penny.

Maybe you have been dazzled by her insanely ugly repetitive and narcistic rhetorc, or the simple fact that you actually think Rosa really is the only Marxist Wiggenteinian on the face of the earth. Either way, the joke is on you :lol:

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


So, sectarianism, I claim, is caused by petty-bourgeois DM-fans like you, but the death of Marxism is on the cards because of the loopy theory you lot have imported into our movement.


Finally, a statement that makes sense. I&#39;m very much of the Motown school of thought: that if you can&#39;t say it in two and a half minutes, then it probably ain&#39;t worth saying. Which is why your trillions of words don&#39;t impress me.

So the petite bourgeoisie are to blame for the collapse of Marxism. But hold on, without this "petty-bourgeois DM" current, which must include Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Gramsci, Cliff, etc. would there even be a Marxist movement to speak of?

Unfortunately for you, Rosa, every single major interpreter of Marxism, every major marxist theoretician or activist of any note, has argued for the importance of the materialist dialectic.

But you&#39;re not on your own - there are a million and one bourgeois academics and enemies of the working class to keep you company. And they would love your audacity when you claim this:


So that is why I treat them the way I do. I have total contempt for the way they have prostituted themselves to ruling-class ideas, and for the way they have screwed with the workers&#39; movement for 150 years.

Yes, damn those Marxists. If only the workers had listened to you and Wittgenstein instead :rolleyes:

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:13 PM
I&#39;ve found it hard to follow your argument because it seems to shift subtly(on purpose or not). I suspect this is partly due to the lack of precision in your &#39;method&#39; - if it means something at all, it&#39;s not immediately deciperable. Your claim to a &#39;dialectical reading&#39; reads like a joke... it is equally absurd. I doubt it is possible to distinguish between what is &#39;dialectially phrased&#39; and (&#39;actual&#39;) &#39;expositions of dialectical enquiry&#39;. Or whatever.
Given that I must now live in fear of being immortalised in charicature on Rosa&#39;s site (oh the thrill &#33;&#33;) I thought I would just go over it one more time to show how trivial and straightforward the key point I was trying to make is:

The LOI asserts that a statement claiming the logical equivalence of a variable to itself is a tautology. The LOI has been objected to on the grounds that things change.In one sense, this observation is correct; that sense is not one with which logic is concerned. Logic is concerned with propositions that do not change over time. Thus when logic constructs truth tables, it assumes the LOI. When we engage in analysis outside logic dealing with change over time, it is no longer practical to treat the LOI as an assumption......end of story, simple uncomplicated point accepted by every half-rational logician in the world.

Rosa&#39;s objection (inter alia) is that the DM texts say something quite different (lots and lots of quotes in support).

My reply: Rosa, you don&#39;t know - and cant know - what the DM texts mean because you think they are meaningless.

Rosa does not take this last point at all seriously - thus I charge her, no matter how many thousands of words she produces - with not taking her own view seriously. Like many before who have claimed that others were uttering meaningless statements, she does not have due regard to the implications of this very severe claim for her own capacity as an agent in rational dialogue.

The answer in effect from her is that she carefully reads the texts in great detail.

But she knows as well as I do, that to refer to such an empirical fact is not an adequate response to my philosophical claim. To really anwer me, she would have to articulate her philosophy.....she doesnt want to do that.

Now this raises the question of how to read the DM texts. My reference to &#39;dialectical reading&#39; was something of a joke (as I indicated) because I assume there is no possibility of having a structured debate with Rosa about textual hermeneutics .....thus we are left _ I still think - with the conclusions I posted earlier concerning the problematic nature of Rosa&#39;s enterprise.

I was persuaded by a comment on her website to the effect that DM fans should welcome criticism of it. This is correct in principle...but in her case the half-hidden philosophical assumptions, the rhetorical baggage and the lack of editorial discipline (notwithstanding the welcome attempts at summaries) seem to me to make it very difficult to draw Rosa&#39;swork into any constructive debate (I say this while reserving my position on the worth of such a debate).

What can be overcome is the almost Turretts-syndrome like insistence on a rhetoric of derision which verges on the meglomanaical - I have found this thread an interesting exercise in self-discipline in that regard. I confess to having learnt to keep in mind the way the other housemates ignored inappropriate statements by one housmate in the recent series of Big Brother, as a good example for myself as I searched for what could be learnt from Rosa&#39;s years of effort.

Ultimately the purpose of the dialectical affirmation of materialism within Marxism is critical and political. It serves a political purpose - to arm revolutionaries to think clearly beneath a hostile dominant culture. For me that is the point - the rest doesnt matter. That is easier said than done and I am quite happy to consider that DM is wrong, but nothing I have heard here adds to my view on that. I continue to consider the dialectical concept of contradiction the most problematic idea in it and the LOI criticism it contains the most obviouslyand banally correct part of it. On balance, I continue to find it a highly persuasive if still underdeveloped perspective......of limited immediate political significance.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 04:31 PM
Ultimately the purpose of the dialectical affirmation of materialism within Marxism is critical and political. It serves a political purpose - to arm revolutionaries to think clearly beneath a hostile dominant culture. For me that is the point - the rest doesnt matter. That is easier said than done and I am quite happy to consider that DM is wrong, but nothing I have heard here adds to my view on that. I continue to consider the dialectical concept of contradiction the most problematic idea in it and the LOI criticism it contains the most obviouslyand banally correct part of it. On balance, I continue to find it a highly persuasive if still underdeveloped perspective......of limited immediate political significance.
Hmm, that&#39;s an interesting perspective on the debate. I read your post several times to make sure I understood it. My own views are somewhat similar but I wouldn&#39;t have phrased it that well, thanks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I'm very much of the Motown school of thought: that if you can't say it in two and a half minutes, then it probably ain't worth saying

So, you probably won't be reading Das Kapital then?

Or Hegel's 'Logic', or The Republic, or Critique of Pure Reason....


Unfortunately for you, Rosa, every single major interpreter of Marxism, every major marxist theoretician or activist of any note, has argued for the importance of the materialist dialectic.

Traditionalist to the last, as expected, BTB.

'If it was good enough for my grandfather it's good enough....'

It's a good job scientists do not think like you, or they'd still be telling us the earth was at the centre of the universe.


If only the workers had listened to you and Wittgenstein instead

And Hegel was a coal miner, wasn't he?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gilhyle:


The LOI asserts that a statement claiming the logical equivalence of a variable to itself is a tautology.

That shows how much attention you have been paying: it is not a tautology.

Oh dear:


Logic is concerned with propositions that do not change over time.

You really do need to learn some logic.

And now the usual error rears its ugly head:


Thus when logic constructs truth tables, it assumes the LOI.

Not so. There are several systems of logic, as you should, but clealry do not, know: the simplest being First Order logc, which can be set up with or without Identity.

And what has the LOI got to do with propositions? Identity relates objects, and propositions are not objects.




Rosa, you don&#39;t know - and cant know - what the DM texts mean because you think they are meaningless.

Well, until you tell us what they mean (and you have failed to do so up to now) I must assume they are meaningless to you too.

In fact, you have been trying to respond to me on and off for several weeks, and still you cannot explain a single DM-thesis.

At great length (and considerably more than has been tried anywhere by anyone ever) I consider every conceivable interpretation of these mystical ideas and show that howsoever they are read, they all collapse into incoherence.

You need to address that fact and not try to divert attention from your predicament (although I can understand why you would want to do that).

So this is irrelevant:


Like many before who have claimed that others were uttering meaningless statements, she does not have due regard to the implications of this very severe claim for her own capacity as an agent in rational dialogue.

After 200 years, and all the best efforts of dialecticians and Hegelians, not a single dialectical concept is clear; so no wonder I cannot succeed -- you lot can&#39;t either.

And it&#39;s [i]your theory. Not mine&#33;


she would have to articulate her philosophy

What philosophy? I have none, do not want one, and seek to terminate the subject.

But, all you can respond with, when asked to explain yourself, is a &#39;joke&#39;:


My reference to &#39;dialectical reading&#39; was something of a joke (as I indicated) because I assume there is no possibility of having a structured debate with Rosa about textual hermeneutics .....thus we are left _ I still think - with the conclusions I posted earlier concerning the problematic nature of Rosa&#39;s enterprise.

And as for this:


I was persuaded by a comment on her website to the effect that DM fans should welcome criticism of it. This is correct in principle...but in her case the half-hidden philosophical assumptions, the rhetorical baggage and the lack of editorial discipline (notwithstanding the welcome attempts at summaries) seem to me to make it very difficult to draw Rosa&#39;swork into any constructive debate (I say this while reserving my position on the worth of such a debate).

You missed the part where I indicated I did not wish to debate with clowns like you.

All you can bring to this thread are misquotions from me, jokes, lies and fabrications.

In fact, you do not want a debate either; if you did you would make some attempt to tell the truth -- and take up reading lessons.

So you can drop this faux sincerity.


What can be overcome is the almost Turretts-syndrome like insistence on a rhetoric of derision which verges on the meglomanaical - I have found this thread an interesting exercise in self-discipline in that regard. I confess to having learnt to keep in mind the way the other housemates ignored inappropriate statements by one housmate in the recent series of Big Brother, as a good example for myself as I searched for what could be learnt from Rosa&#39;s years of effort.

Well, in that case, do not read any of Marx&#39;s works; he could teach me a thing or two about &#39;abuse&#39;.

You are obviously a theoretical wimp.

I also note that fresh from your career as a failed logician/defender of DM, that you have now re-packaged yourself as an amateur psychologist.

I have no doubt you will be as successful here as eleswhere.


Ultimately the purpose of the dialectical affirmation of materialism within Marxism is critical and political. It serves a political purpose - to arm revolutionaries to think clearly beneath a hostile dominant culture. For me that is the point - the rest doesnt matter. That is easier said than done and I am quite happy to consider that DM is wrong, but nothing I have heard here adds to my view on that. I continue to consider the dialectical concept of contradiction the most problematic idea in it and the LOI criticism it contains the most obviouslyand banally correct part of it. On balance, I continue to find it a highly persuasive if still underdeveloped perspective......of limited immediate political significance.

That is it, is it? That is the extent of your incapacity to defend your ideas?

Calling this &#39;patheric&#39; would be high praise indeed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla, you can&#39;t even get your own childish and mis-spelt names right&#33;


Rosa Narcistic


Rosa Narcististic


Rosa Narcicistic

So, &#39;Slow Boy&#39; was right....

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 09:25 PM
Hoopla, you can&#39;t even get your own childish and mis-spelt names right&#33;
Rosa Narcisistic: &#39;Narcisistic&#39; is not a childish word. No more than &#39;sadist&#39; or &#39;sociopath&#39;.

Of course, she may mean to call my name-calling "childish" because it is mis-spelt.

That her comment cannot be thus understood, is evidence of the difficulty Rosa has in making her meaning clear even in insulting me (in which she has had plenty of practice).

I take this as evidence that it may be Rosa who cannot explain herself.

[hoopla]

:o This has suddenly become fun&#33; :lol:

Rosa Narcistic: I read this.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Dumain%2001.htm

Gee, that made me think :rolleyes:

:lol:

Not much to say really, probably been said already.

The analogy between Mr Dumain, and a right winger, is false, because Mr Dumain is quite different to a right winger (If thats your bag).

The Lenin example added nothing new to the discussion. I don&#39;t know any logic, so I can only say that the argument you presented could not possibly mean anything.

For a second I thought it was a good demonstration of how unnecessary universals are, but I&#39;m afraid that there is no meat to your argument.

The argument is visciously circular (?). You added nothing to either camp other than a few insults :lol:

[hoopla]

A militant ordinary languager. Whatever next?

:lol:

Whats the point Rosa Narcisitc, do you never feel tired of your beauty and want study philosophy?

Dull dull dull dull.

Where was the proof again. I do not seem to find it indexed in the index.

Rosa Lichtenstein&#39;s full poilitical philosophy:
--------------------------------------------------
Prole 1: Capitalists are stupid

Prole 2: Capitalist are stupider than me.
--------------------------------------------------

Blah blah blah.

Tell me whats wrong Rosa Narcistic. I know your ill, which is it? You&#39;ll meet some of your best friends inside a mental institution, so don&#39;t be scared of psychiatrists.

Imho, a better question than Mr Dumains on how is it to Wittgenstein&#39;s credit that he is a renowned philosopger, is how can you, Rosa, be a philosopher and a comrade?

You seem very sure that you don&#39;t want to engage in philosophy. Is this because you do not trust words or people? It can&#39;t be words that your scared of, having this nugget that you have. So it must be that you just don&#39;t want to collaborate.

Now, is this because you cannot, or because you choose not to?

I&#39;m done with my 2 years resat psychology degree. Get some help Rosa, it will be better for the people around you :)

Ps: As I like to do philosophy, I make a big point out of who has thought which bits of my ideas before me. Any philosophy probably is collaborative, and seeing as you are so untether from reality, oh sorry, I mean "history", it will probably be good for you.

:unsure:

[hoopla]

to think clearly beneath a hostile dominant cultureInteresting point :)


Fortunately, this is incorrect. The LOI does not preclude change, for if an object changes, anything identical to it will change equally quickly.Oh RLY? Do you have proof for this, or is it hot air?


Moreover, if a thing changes, it will no longer be identical with its former self. Oh RLY? Any proof for this?

So, far from denying change, this &#39;law&#39; allows us to determine when or if it has occurredI do like this, btw.

I am tempted to try and dismantle one of these (there are countless claims like these in the summary), just to see if I can. Which one shall I go for? Law of contradiction :lol:

PS: Not saying that I could succeed if others have failed. I can only assume that no-one cares at the moment. I notice that this is not your phd, Rosa Narcistsic :angry:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:

I refer you to this reply:


Hoopla, I told you months ago that I regarded you as a waste of time since you seemed (1) incapable of reading anything I posted here or at my site with any degree of accuracy, or (2) of typing comrehensible sentences/questions (hence my jibe about the boxing gloves).

In your recent posts I have seen nothing to make me change my mind.

So, if you want to carry on posting questions I am going to ignore, that is up to you.

Until you change, I won&#39;t.

Your recent outburts have made my decision look eminently sound, and now even more permanent, since we can now add:

(3) You seem to be 3 years old.

[hoopla]

Right, I read &#39;Law of identity&#39;. nah, it was OK.

Slightly annoying that the reason I read it is not actually there, and the argument is on a different essay.

I would like to add, that relations of equivalence is generally thought of as a relation of numerical identity, which Rosa does not mention.

Anyway, most of the essay would seem to be explain how we could not create an argument against the law of identity without assuming that two things are equal - she seems to use two things being equal in the place of one thing being equal to itslef, which is a little confusing.

I am inclined to think that if two things can be equal then a thing can be equal to itslef, however.

Thye main target of the essay is against this quote from Trotsky (of all people):
"How should we really conceive the word &#39;moment&#39;? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that &#39;moment&#39; to inevitable changes. Or is the &#39;moment&#39; a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom &#39;A&#39; is equal to &#39;A&#39; signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is if it does not exist."
Trotsky has to be able to refer to identically the same one [moment] to make his case. Without that, his whole analysis collapsesNow, I do not think that she makes this point in a convincing way, but I cannot say if it is true partly because of this.

I will however address one of her points.

She says
This further implies that Trotsky&#39;s claims are right only if they are notand therefore Trotsky&#39;s claims are false. I think this is a confusion, however.

If one&#39;s "opponent" were to hold a belief as true that one could refute on the condition that the belief was true, then the "opponent" position would amount to a self contradictory position, a belief that entails its own falsity.

Take F to entail the falsity of I. As soon as I&#39;s truth entails the truth of F, I is self contradictory. Conclusion I MUST BE FALSE.

However, that one&#39;s argument&#39;s premises are false, does not ential the falsity of one&#39;s conclusion. One can still hold I to be false even if F is false. F is not entailed by not I, therefore not F does not entail not I.

(That Trotsky&#39;s flour example does not make sense does not mean that the law of identity is true. If the law of identity cannot be true without entailing its refutation, it cannot be true)

I= Law of identity
F = Trotsky&#39;s flour example


To sum: there is nothing wrong with an immanent critique.

I think, anyway. Any comments? I will have more to say if this comment pans out OK.

[Herman]

I can see why this debate. Hegels&#39; Dialectics is a hard and tough subject and truth be it, I myself do not understand it completely. Here&#39;s a little something which I found:

"Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing."

"Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content — undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being."

"Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself."

This all comes from Hegel&#39;s logic.

If I understand this correctly, this can be sumarized in the well known formula of thesis + antithesis = synthesis. I myself do not understand more than that.

[hoopla]

I will be disappointed if no-one replies to that ^. (Edit: Sorry, my lost past)

As to the claim that language could not develop/make sense, without some things being the same, I cannot remember Rosa having an argument.

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

It is true that we seem to assume many things to be the same. I seem to think that each line of a equilatrial triangle that I have just drawn, is the same length.

But do I think that the triangle has equal sides?

I seem to be applying a rule in such a way as to assume that two things are identical in some way, in the process of constructing this sentence. However, am I in fact not thinking in analogies at all? If I was thinking analogically then I agree I would be equating two states of affairs.

It seems to me at the moment, that language could not function in the way we think it does if no thing or concept can be equal to another.

We believe (or we seem to believe) that many things are equal in some way.

However, it would seem that Rosa must show that language does indeed work by equality of symbols.

Untill she does, she has not proved that our use of language requires the truth of the law of identity. She would then have to show that we use language :lol:

Imho dialectics is OK. I&#39;m not sure that it isn&#39;t just negative though. I mean, if no two things are the same, then how can I construct a positive description of something. I can prove through immanent critique that your description is incorrect, but if I attempt to explain what the tree outside my window looks like, my opponent can always object that I am not describing any "tree", by proving that any thing is a tree.

Indeed, I cannot be said to be speaking the truth (as truth is normally defined), and no word can be used to describe what I am saying that could be possibly used elsewhere. Any statement of a state of affairs must be false. So it is false that the law of identity is false. But, it is also the case that it is true. And on, ad infinitum.

:lol:

[hoopla]

Maybe a dialectic negates the whole of philosophy, maybe language. So you cannot say it is false because X Y or Z. Because X Y or Z have been negated. I mean, if language cannot function without the same, then maybe no immanent critique of dialectics is possible.

Hmmmm. Can anyone tell me what was Marx&#39;s proof that the dialectic must be turned upsidedown?

:unsure: :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red H:


If I understand this correctly, this can be sumarized in the well known forumla of thesis + antithesis = synthesis. I myself do not understand more than that.

This is not actually Hegel&#39;s formual, but Kant and possibly Fichte&#39;s. I have posted a sticky on this here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292124737 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51512&st=0&#entry1292124737)

Scroll down five posts.

I will be taking this ridiculous &#39;argument&#39; of Hegel&#39;s apart in Essay Twelve when it is published next year sometime.

There is a summary of it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm:



Hermetic &#39;Genius&#39; Derives Everything From A Participle Of The Verb "To Be"

One particular &#39;argument&#39; is of special interest here; it is found in several places in Hegel&#39;s work, and it attempts to connect "Being" with "Nothing" and then with "Becoming", by &#39;deriving&#39; all three from the verb "to be".

Amazingly, this &#39;argument&#39; was praised by Lenin and Trotsky [Lenin (1961), p.110; Trotsky (1986), p.103; echoed in Rees (1998), pp.49-50], even though this prize piece of Jabberwocky Lore lies at the heart of the Ideal monster. Rees summarises thus &#39;argument&#39; in the following way:

"The &#39;Science of Logic&#39; begins with the most abstract of all human ideas, Being. This is the bare notion of existence shorn of any color (sic), size, shape, taste or smell. This first concept is also, in its way, a totality. Although Being reveals no characteristics or distinguishing marks, it does, nevertheless, include everything. After all, everything must exist before it can take on any particular characteristics. Being is therefore a quality that is shared by everything that exists; it is the most common of all human ideas. Every time we say, &#39;This is --,&#39; even before we say what it is, we acknowledge the idea of pure Being…. But Being also contains its opposite, Nothing. The reason is that Being has no qualities and no features that define it. If we try to think about pure Being…we are forced to the opposite conclusion, Being equals Nothing.

"But even Nothing is more than it seems. If we are asked to define Nothing, we are forced to admit that it has at least one property -– the lack or absence of any qualities…. This presents us with a strange dilemma: being is Nothing and yet Nothing is something. Hegel, however, is not so stupid as to think that there is no difference between being and Nothing, even though this is what our logical enquiry seems to suggest. All that this contradiction means is that we must search for a new term that…can explain how Being and Nothing can be both equal and separate (or an &#39;identity of opposites&#39;…). Hegel&#39;s solution is the concept of Becoming." [Rees (1998), pp.49-50.]

Because of its centrality, this &#39;argument&#39; is systematically taken apart line by line in Essay Twelve, and shown to fail even in its own terms. It is also pointed out that there is no way that these concepts ("Being", "Nothing" and "Becoming") could have been derived from "careful empirical work", nor can they be "tested in practice" -- let alone abstracted from anything recognisably material.

In the end, the fact that erstwhile materialists (like Lenin and Trotsky) praised this prime example of linguistic mystification is not the least bit puzzling -- once their own ideas are viewed against the class-compromised background of traditional thought. This is how Trotsky characterised this &#39;argument&#39;:

"The identity of Being (Sein) and Nothingness (Nichts), like the contradictoriness of the concept of the Beginning, in which Nichts and Sein are united, seems at first glance a subtle and fruitless play of ideas. In fact, this &#39;game&#39; brilliantly exposes the failure of static thinking, which at first splits the world into motionless elements, and then seeks truth by way of a limitless expansion [of the process]." [Trotsky (1986), p.103.]

Whereas Lenin thought it was:

"Shrewd and clever&#33; Hegel analyses concepts that usually appear dead and shows that there is movement in them." [Lenin (1961), p.110.]

All this is unsurprising given what has gone before.

However, at no point does Rees repudiate this style of reasoning, only some of its implications -- which, coupled with the praise Lenin and Trotsky heaped on this &#39;argument&#39;, indicates that the DM-denial of Hegel&#39;s AIDS is purely formal. By no stretch of the imagination have any of his conclusions (or those of dialecticians enamoured of them) been drawn from a "materialist analysis of real forces", or anything even remotely like one. The fact that leading DM-classicists could claim to learn anything about the nature of "static thinking" from such woefully defective logic reveals how superficial their frequent, vociferous rejections of AIDS really are. The &#39;logic&#39; of this passage is entirely bogus and thoroughly Idealist. The concepts it employs are the result of grossly exaggerated abstractions and terminally dubious assertions.

[AIDS = Absolute Idealism.]

In fact, this Hegelian &#39;derivation&#39; set the gold standard for all forms of LIE, for from it everything in existence -- every object, thought and process -- can be miraculously &#39;derived&#39; from the verb "to be".

Indeed, to misquote Berkeley here: "to be" is to be blamed.

In order to uncover its well-concealed truths, this innocuous verb has to be transformed into the noun "Being" -– which, re-born, now supposedly names &#39;everything that exists&#39;. This grandiose &#39;concept&#39;, stripped of all its &#39;properties&#39;, suddenly becomes &#39;identical&#39; with "Nothing", which in turn immediately and magically produces "Becoming". The entire Trinity from a diminutive "is"; seldom can so much be owed by so few to so little.

First of all, Rees claims that "The most abstract of all human ideas [is] Being...", but he forgot to say how anyone could ever know this for a fact. Does anyone this side of the Kuiper Belt own an &#39;abstractometer&#39; calibrated accurately enough to measure the exact level of abstractness possessed by any given word or concept? Does "Being" come supplied with its own metaphysical certificate that declares the extent to which it is removed from the material world? Is there a cosmic version of the Guinness Book of Records that catalogues this and other rival champion concepts? If so, Rees was remarkably quiet about it.

Far worse, Rees omitted the carefully collected, materially based-evidence (in the shape of a survey of novice and experienced abstractors alike) that supports this brave conclusion about what human beings can or can&#39;t do with their brains.

To be fair, Rees&#39;s claim was based on the exercise of thought, not on evidence. The idea seems to be that if anyone were to think about things long enough -- putting the verb "to be" through the required hoops -- they would arrive at a similar result. But, what if they don&#39;t? What if someone discovered an even more abstract idea than this one, perhaps as a result of more prolonged and intense meditation? How could Rees rule this out?

Fortunately, we need not wait for the results of experiments or surveys designed to test this supposition; several Philosophers have already pulled off the trick. According to them, there is something even more abstract than "Being": their undefeated world champion, mega-abstraction is Meinong&#39;s "Subsistence". This remarkable word/concept, we are told, nets not only things that actually exist, but also things that do not -- as well as things that cannot -- exist.

Luckily, no concrete evidence is required to substantiate this major advance in human knowledge; in fact all that any future contender for the title of "Champion Abstractor" need do to win this prize is summon up a greater determination to invent jargon than either Hegel or Meinong displayed.

Of course, Meinong&#39;s &#39;discovery&#39; means that, with respect to Discursive Magic, Hegel was decidedly second rate.

Well, what proof are we offered in support of the bold conclusions outlined in the above passage? How much carefully gathered experimental evidence is there that substantiates these momentous results? What exhaustive analyses of real material forces are we presented with? Where is the practice that verifies all this innovative &#39;science&#39;?

To be sure, Rees did offer the following &#39;proof&#39; (and no doubt the evidence in support will appear in the second edition of TAR):

"Everything must exist before it can take on any particular characteristics. Being is therefore a quality that is shared by everything that exists; it is the most common of all human ideas. Every time we say, "This is --," even before we say what it is, we acknowledge the idea of pure Being." [Rees (1998), pp.49-50.]

One small nagging problem; several in fact: despite these claims, the reader is offered no grounds at all for supposing that "existence" and "Being" are connected, or that they are the same -– or, that "Being" is "shared" by everything which partakes of existence -– or, even that the one so much as suggests the other. There is no argument here either to show that "Being" is a quality, or even that it can be shared. Worse still, no reason is given for believing that there is such a thing as "Being" to start with --, whether it is a quality, object, property, process, state or activity -- or not.

Admittedly, there is a word in the English language (viz.: "being"), which variously functions as a participle or as part of a compound noun (as in "human being"). But, what is this new term "Being" supposed to be? We are not told. And if we are not told, how are we supposed to agree that everything shares &#39;it&#39;? On the contrary, we are simply left to assume that "existence", "being" and "Being" are one and the same, or that they are connected in some way. Presumably this is because these words look similar, or they seem to mean the same thing, or that traditionally they have been connected by previous thinkers (with no proof that they are linked).

On that basis, presumably, it should be possible to conclude that when someone calls someone else "dear" it means that they are being both familiar with that person and accusing her/him of being expensive -- simply because both are spelt the same.

This is not a promising start to an analysis of a concept that is supposed to be "the most common of all human ideas" -- neither is it an entirely convincing way to demonstrate Hegel&#39;s "brilliance".

Thus the &#39;evidence&#39; connecting "Being" and "existence" amounts to little more than the superficial typographical similarity between "being" and "Being". The former is a present participle (possibly), while the latter is supposed to be that "quality that is shared by everything that exists". But, how could such an unremarkable auxiliary verb come to imply so much?

Nevertheless, it seems that this "quality" ("Being") arises only if something already exists, for as Rees indicates:

"Everything must exist before it can take on any particular characteristics. Being is therefore a quality that is shared by everything that exists." [Ibid.]

This clearly says that before anything can take on any "particular characteristics" -- such as the quality of "Being", one presumes -- it must already exist. So "Being" cannot be the same as "existence", since the former is acquired by &#39;things&#39; that already exist -- a fact conceded by Rees&#39;s use of the word "before" --, but which bare &#39;things&#39; have as yet no qualities (or "characteristics"). "Being" must be a "quality" that &#39;things&#39; which already exist later go on to acquire -- that is, of course, unless a "quality" here is not a "characteristic". Once again, we are left in the dark.

[Further ruminations on this &#39;argument can be found in Essay Twelve.]

[hoopla]

An interesting conclusion from this argument, is that a meaningless argument can (I would say produce a meaningful conclusion, but all language is meaningless (I mean, it looks to me that it must be if nothing can be the same as anything)) create something. Or perhaps, better, negate something.

I dunno. Does anyone think I am right about the Trotsky thing?

[hoopla]

Right, this is worringly like me trying to figure out how the hell logic works.

OK, anyone&#39;s contribution would be nice here. I don&#39;t think it can be the case, that Trotsky&#39;s exmaple refutes the law of identity, and the law of identity being false refutes Trotsky&#39;s example. Unless you are a dialectician, I assume :wall: So in that respect, Rosa cannot use this an argument. Well, she could, but she ought to explain that its something that on their terms can be refuted.

Now, as to this
If one&#39;s "opponent" were to hold a belief as true that one could refute on the condition that the belief was true, then the "opponent" position would amount to a self contradictory position, a belief that entails its own falsity

However, that one&#39;s argument&#39;s premises are false, does not ential the falsity of one&#39;s conclusion. One can still hold I to be false even if F is false. F is not entailed by not I, therefore not F does not entail not I.

However, that one&#39;s argument&#39;s premises are false, does not ential the falsity of one&#39;s conclusion. One can still hold I to be false even if F is false. F is not entailed by not I, therefore not F does not entail not T(Rosa, FFS, do you really want this on your shiny thread. Maybe, it is beautifuly fascinating, in a way).


:lol: Right, I reckon that, if dialectics implies the meaninglessness of language, this cannot be true with another law of logic. If A, then not not A. Which is if A then A, so who cares :lol:

Please, reply. I&#39;ve spent alot of time on this :o

[getoutofhere]

eeehhh.... :wacko:

at first i thought i&#39;m reading the same thread in some archived posts (click here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46087)). i thought red_che fought alone. but this time different people are now arguing against ms. rosa lichstentein.

and still, this rosa lichstenstein displays ivory tower attitude towards her "opponents" (dialectics). and still, she is not answering questions directly, especially when her arguments are refuted. :wacko:

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Get out of here:


and still, this rosa lichstenstein displays ivory tower attitude towards her "opponents" (dialectics). and still, she is not answering questions directly, especially when her arguments are refuted.

I see you too have no arguments or evidence to mount against me (just like Red Che). Still, you make the same baseless assertions about &#39;ivory towers&#39;.

Hegel, as I am sure you have forgotten, was a university professor, an arch-bourgeois theorist, and a terminally obscure mystic.

I am a working class woman, a trade unionist, and you have the cheek to accuse me of being stuck in an &#39;ivory tower&#39; (a term you probably pinched from Ted Grant, or Alan Woods).

I left the world of work, went and got myself an excellent education, re-entered the world of work, and I now use the best of modern logic and philosophy to put my case. If you can&#39;t handle that, and prefer to remain in your present state of ignorance that is your problem. As you are you are no use to scientific Marxism.

However, I challenge you to match the detail and sophistication I have brought to this subject (and for the first time in its history).

So if you have nothing substantive to offer other than your amateurish opinion, may I suggest you remain silent. I have heard pathetic whining like this far too often, and for far too long.

And none of my arguments have been refuted -- or if they have, you need to say which of these you have in mind, and I will show you how and why you are wrong.

[I am ignoring Hoopla&#39;s &#39;arguments&#39; since he is too incoherent to follow. If you can translate them into something worth commenting on, then have a go. Gilhyle, I responded to, even when she was making things up.]

[JimFar]

getoutofhere wrote:


at first i thought i&#39;m reading the same thread in some archived posts (click here). i thought red_che fought alone. but this time different people are now arguing against ms. rosa lichstentein.

and still, this rosa lichstenstein displays ivory tower attitude towards her "opponents" (dialectics). and still, she is not answering questions directly, especially when her arguments are refuted.

Yes lots of other people besides red che have attempted to take on Rosa. I said attempted to take on Rosa, since very few of Rosa&#39;s opponents on this board have more than a very minimal attempt at comprehending her position and the nature of her arguments against diamat in particular, and dialectics in general. It is curious that you have brought up red che. If the debate, such as it was, between Rosa and red che had been a boxing match, the officials would have called it to prevent the hapless red che from being killed in the ring. Having said that, he probably did make a more valiant attempt against Rosa than most of his fellow dialecticians since then.

As far as Rosa answering people&#39;s questions concerning dialectics, it seems to me that if you browse through this board&#39;s archives, not to speak of Rosa&#39;s own website, she has literally spent hundreds of hours doing just that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thankyou for that Jim.

You can see why I get a little tetchy from time to time with dunderheads like this to contend with.

And, on and off the web, for over 20 years....

If you check out this site, you will see things were more or less the same:

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?P...2b688&board=2.0 (http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=081bf7d096c37149407ffa5472d2b6 88&board=2.0)

Red Herman, I apologise to your good self for any insults that might have emerged from this corner, but my comments above should account for my bad manners, even if they do not excuse it.

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

Added after the next post by this latest dialectical myopic: Red, you can I hope see from this joker&#39;s response (below) why I get cross from time to time.

No matter how many times I ask for substantiation, these plonkers keep making the same baselss assertions.

As I noted above, I have been subjected to this sort of inanity for over 20 years, and they all say the same things.

[getoutofhere]

wekekekek..... :lol:

rosa says:
I see you too have no arguments or evidence to mount against me (just like Red Che). Still, you make the same baseless assertions about &#39;ivroy towers&#39;.

Hegel, as I am sure you have forgotten, was a university professor, an arch-bourgeois theorist, and a terminally obscure mystic.

I am a working class woman, a trade unionist, and you have the cheek to accuse me of being stuck in an &#39;ivory tower&#39; (a term you probably pinched from Ted Grant, or Alan Woods).

I left the world of work, went and got myself a an excellent education, re-entered the world of work, and I now use the best of modern logic and philosophy to put my case. If you can&#39;t handle that, and prefer to remain in your present state of ignorance that is your problem. As you are you are no use to scientific Marxism.

However, I challenge you to match the detail and sophistication I have brought to this subject (and for the first time in its history).

So if you have nothing substantive to offer other than your amateurish opinion, may I suggest you remain silent. I have heard pathetic whining like this far too often, and for far too long.

And none of my arguments have been refuted -- or if they have, you need to say which of these you have in mind, and I will show you how and why you are wrong.

it is amusing that rosa replied 7 paragraphs to my post while she keeps ignoring the more salient questions posed to her by people. my, oh my. <_<

rosa says:
Still, you make the same baseless assertions about &#39;ivroy towers&#39;. and
I am a working class woman, a trade unionist, and you have the cheek to accuse me of being stuck in an &#39;ivory tower&#39;

but she said:
So if you have nothing substantive to offer other than your amateurish opinion, may I suggest you remain silent.

isn&#39;t that an example of an "ivory tower" attitude? <_<

and going back to that archived thread, red_che did not attempt to take it onto rosa, he only tried to "expose" rosa as anti-marxist, at least that&#39;s what i get from his posts. and i think he is correct on that one. :D

and also on that comment about:
As far as Rosa answering people&#39;s questions concerning dialectics, it seems to me that if you browse through this board&#39;s archives, not to speak of Rosa&#39;s own website, she has literally spent hundreds of hours doing just that.

yea, maybe rosa really does nothing but to impose her ideas, while red_che and other dialecticians does more on organizing people for the revolution. :blush:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

wekekekek:


it is amusing that rosa replied 7 paragraphs to my post while she keeps ignoring the more salient questions posed to her by people.

I can only assume you are either malicious or stupid -- or both.

Despite this latest baseless assertion, I have not ignored questions by &#39;people&#39;; I have spent hours and hours answering the points comrades have posted here and eleswhere.

Find me one comprehensible/relevant question I have ignored.

Go on smart Alec; make yourself useful for a change.

And now I see you are still using Woods and Grant&#39;s phrase. Can&#39;t you think of one of your own?


isn&#39;t that an example of an "ivory tower" attitude?

Why is it? When these unnamed &#39;people&#39; do the same to me, why do you not say this of them?

However, I note you ignored my response about Hegel; he leaves me standing in this department, but you mystics still pay heed to his Hermetic doctrines nonetheless.


and going back to that archived thread, red_che did not attempt to take it onto rosa, he only tried to "expose" rosa as anti-marxist, at least that&#39;s what i get from his posts. and i think he is correct on that one.

Once more, you are either blind or incompetent; I wiped the floor with Red Che, hence he had to leave this board with his tail between his legs.

Again, I challenge you to find one argument of his that supposedly hit its target to which I did not fully respond.

And he was as good as you seem to be at just asserting things, without any proof, as if his word on everything was gospel.

So, unless you are on a mission from &#39;God&#39;, we will need more than just your say so, &#39;Getoutofthat&#39;.


yea, maybe rosa really does nothing but to impose her ideas, while red_che and other dialecticians does more on organizing people for the revolution.

Not doing too well there either, are they/you? The massed ranks of workers do not seem to like your brand of mysticism.

You dialectical mystics have not learnt much from the last 120 years of failure: dialectics has been refuted by history, and ignored by all but a tiny minority.

In fact, I needn&#39;t have written anything at this board against this misbegotten &#39;theory&#39; of yours since history has already passed its judgement.

Get over it.

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

Jim you will note the common pattern displayed by our mystical friends here (I have been subjected to this for over 20 years --, and it does not change, despite what Heraclitus said&#33;): baseless assertion, logical incopetence bordering on the insane, incapacity to argue, lack of solid evidence, accusations from those who do the very things they allege of me (i.e., ignoring arguments and evidence) and a level of unreasonableness that is hard to explain except on religious grounds -- it&#39;s like arguing with born again Christians.

I think even Engels would have been ashamed of them (goodnes knows what Marx would have said)&#33;

[Herman]

I can see why you&#39;d get angry. The pro-dialectics should stop that attittude of theirs and use some good arguments themselves, without insults.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:16 PM
I see Hoopla had something... pertinent to say to me:


the joke is on you

(Emphasis mine. Irony on overload.)


Why is the joke on me? Because every word Rosa says is the truth?

She has responded to about 300 of my posts with insults and a refusal to engage with me. I don&#39;t think you are in a position to show her, a phd, solidarity, and not me comrade revolver.

If you are all serious, and you think that Rosa is going to deliver Marxism from dialectics, you do know what that would make her don&#39;t you? Second only to Marx. The idea is preposterous, especially as she is unable to treat me as anything but slime&#33;

And, you must have a screw loose if you don&#39;t think I&#39;ve submitted any arguments. I spent around 10 hours trying to work out (not. that. smart. see) where Rosa Narcistsic had gone wrong.

Why, again, is the joke on me? If its because I use rhetoric :) (I always wanted to use words skilfully :) ). Besides which, my argumentation is fairly normal.

[hoopla]

I&#39;m not even I dialectican&#33; I only heard of the word libertarian 6 months agon&#33; Rosa is making some fairly important arguments here (if right), so, yeah, best to see what truth there is behind them.

Rosa Narcistsic: If A then b, iF B then not a. Therefore not a? Is that the only correct inference?

:)

[hoopla]

This is a waste of time, but comrade Revolver,
That Trotsky&#39;s flour example does not make sense does not mean that the law of identity is true. If the law of identity cannot be true without entailing its refutation, it cannot be trueCing as Rosa will not stoop to refuting me - why not explain what is wrong with this argument? :)

[RevolverNo9]

Because every word Rosa says is the truth?

No. I don&#39;t know how simply agreeing with another member counts for sycophancy? Seriously, think about your logic in this matter.


She has responded to about 300 of my posts with insults and a refusal to engage with me. I don&#39;t think you are in a position to show her, a phd, solidarity, and not me comrade revolver.

Whether you mean to or not your posts often come over as petulant and thoughtless, though it seems you are at least here making some efforts to rectifiy this which I can only commend. I&#39;ll agree that Rosa&#39;s standing here would improve if she made fewer ad hominen references (which have decreased since she first came here) but - lets be honest - she&#39;s hardly the only member here to do so and it&#39;s not like she hasn&#39;t faced many irrational and insulting opponents in debate.

Now as to how you can dare tell me where my solidarity should lie perhaps I should point out that this isn&#39;t even about solidarity. I have no reason to doubt that you aren&#39;t an honest socialist and I am more than convinced that the same applies to Rosa. The recurrent allegations that she is a petit-bourgeois academic simply don&#39;t stick; she is ostensibly a working class union and party activist (it&#39;s as if working class poeple somehow shouldn&#39;t get an education&#33;) and regardless I see little that is bourgeois about logic and philisophical criticism&#33; As revolutionaries I owe both of you solidaritiy. However in this particular theoretical debate I side with Rosa because, surprisingly, I agree with her&#33; Furthermore her argument is painstakingly made while yours has come over as thoughtless.

Perhaps I should point out that it was not Rosa who made me &#39;see the light&#39;. I rejected dialectics as soon as I learned that the theory was supposed to apply to knowledge outside of socio-historical investigation. As soon as I discovered that dialectical laws were imposed upon natural-science I became very sceptical. Why should we reject the findings of science in favour of a few iron-principals conjured up by aspiring Victorian philosophers obsessed with creating universal totalities to explain everything? Reading the modern-day arguments - invariably a very few specious shreds of evidence rehashed - I was much reminded of those pamphlets that attempt to justify Creationism by merit of a few pseudo-scientific examples. Nature is forced to explain the theory, rather than the otherway round.

Having read something by Coletti, who convincingly de-Hegelianises Marx and emphasised to me just how little Marx had to do with Dialectical Materialism, I felt my scepticism confirmed (Rosa is not the first Marxist in history to reject the notion, though she may be the first to attatch such importance to it negatively...) Coming from such a stand-point, is it surprising that I take a sympathetic interest in what Rosa has written? And since - to my knowledge - the tools that Rosa use are logic, mathetmatics and a well-grounded training in philisophical criticism I have only been further convinced by her that Dialectical Materialism is pseudo-science. I have never met an educated scientist give any credence to the field and I find such people far more authoritative the predominantly middle-class intellectuals who try and tell me that each single phenomenon is a self-contradictory moment that is actually simultanteously wholy unified to every single other moment in space and time as part of movement to the totality. Does that honestly sound convincing?

It has always been my view that we listen to what science is able at any moment to tell us and using all knowledge available to us we as revolutionaries attempt to criticise and affect society accordingly, with a rational and critical mind. Anything short of this is simply unreasoned.

[RevolverNo9]

That Trotsky&#39;s flour example does not make sense does not mean that the law of identity is true. If the law of identity cannot be true without entailing its refutation, it cannot be true

Cing as Rosa will not stoop to refuting me - why not explain what is wrong with this argument?

I am sorry can you clarify the argument? Why can the Law of Identity only be true if it verifies it&#39;s refutation? (I should note I have no training in logic at all but I&#39;ll obviously try and answer anything I can.)

(Can I also ask why you de facto feel that Dialectical Materialism needs defending? Is it because the weight of our ancestors, giants (albeit with no authority in science or philosophy) such as Engels and Lenin, instils your soul with reverence?)

[hoopla]

revolver: i was arguing that loi could not be true if it entailed its refutation. rose seemed to be saying that it can entail its refutation, as long as its refutation refutes the argument against it. it is a bit illogical, probably.

anyway, i don&#39;t feel that it needs to be defended, except against attacks, iyswim. you can&#39;t just claim the prize is yours and leave. anything as theoretically important as that needs a good discussion, at least. anyway, i don&#39;t have internet access for a while, so we&#39;ll have to finish this in a couple of weeks. i will have the memory of this, to keep me company http://www.the-rocketman.com/images/rocketwoman/JODI-SUPER-WOMAN.jpg
do not mourn me, for I have not gone... (I fucking hate myself for this lol)

[red_che]

Greetings everyone&#33;

The "this board&#39;s most embarrasing and incompetent poster ever" has returned and comes back to make more embarassments&#33;&#33;&#33; :o

Well, first of all I did not leave this board because I was embarassed. I may not have posted for quite some time because I got some more important things to do. In the past few months that I wasn&#39;t here I made more productive things than waste time arguing with narrow-minded, arrogant people like Rosa. In fact, we were able to form several youth organizations just this past three months and that is certainly more productive work.

So, is this Rosa and her gang up on it again? Huh, real waste of time. They can write thousands of words against Marxism but nothing they could do to destroy the revolution. The revolutionary movement moves on despite their efforts. They can&#39;t recognize the movements&#39; growth in several countries because they are blinded by their mysticism on their illogical logic that they continue professing as their "savior". :D :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, I'd like to say 'welcome back', but with slander like this from the get-go, I hope you stay away longer in future:


waste time arguing with narrow-minded, arrogant people like Rosa.

Well, you could not argue against me when last you showed your face; all you could do was quote holy scripture at me and say I was a heretic (or, at least its 'dialectical' equivalent).

You regard me as 'arrogant and narrow minded' because I had the temerity to argue back, and, shock horror, showed that I knew how to argue, which alas revealed you to be the logically-challenged individual we have come to know and loathe.

And I have no doubt you will teach these poor sods how to split and fragment in the time-honoured dialectical fashion:


In fact, we were able to form several youth organizations just this past three months and that is certainly more productive work.

It's what you mystics do so well.


They can write thousands of words against Marxism but nothing they could do to destroy the revolution.

Correct, I cannot destroy the revolution, not that I want to -- what I write is aimed at assisting Marxism throw off the mysticism you lot go in for!

And as far as 'destroying' the revolution is concerned, I'll leave that to you dialectical monks -- you have a 130 year long track record in this regard with which I cannot hope to compete.

In screwing with the revolution (even if I wanted to do this, which I do not), I would be a rank amateur compared to you guys.


The revolutionary movement moves on despite their efforts. They can't recognize the movements' growth in several countries because they are blinded by their mysticism on their illogical logic that they continue professing as their "savior".

So we can look forward to another 130 years of dialectical failure.

As I noted above, you mystics just do not learn....

[Herman]

She has responded to about 300 of my posts with insults and a refusal to engage with me. I don&#39;t think you are in a position to show her, a phd, solidarity, and not me comrade revolver.

She has argued with you fairly. You&#39;ve been insulting her all the time. And you&#39;re asking for a fair and rational discussion?


So, is this Rosa and her gang up on it again? Huh, real waste of time. They can write thousands of words against Marxism but nothing they could do to destroy the revolution. The revolutionary movement moves on despite their efforts. They can&#39;t recognize the movements&#39; growth in several countries because they are blinded by their mysticism on their illogical logic that they continue professing as their "savior".

&#39;Rosa and her gang&#39;? I didn&#39;t know she had some sort of MAFIA going around. I&#39;m sure she visits you for some beating up.

Have you bothered to read both sides of the argument? None of them have suggested that the revolutionary movement should be destroyed, nor was Rosa trying to do so. This is just a freakin&#39; discussion (which is becoming a flame fest). How does that hinder the revolutionary movement? What, are they talking the workers to death or something?

[jaycee]

rosa do you deny that class society is dominated by the conflict (the dialectic) between the oppressed and oppressor. This is the dialectic which drives forward ideas and actions. It is really this simple and i don&#39;t see why it gets derailed into all sorts of arguments about formal logic and all that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JC:


rosa do you deny that class society is dominated by the conflict (the dialectic) between the oppressed and oppressor. This is the dialectic which drives forward ideas and actions. It is really this simple and i don't see why it gets derailed into all sorts of arguments about formal logic and all that.

How could I deny that class society is dominated by conflict? But why you want to call it 'the dialectic' beats me.

The class war drives history (just as it drives forward ideas -- indeed, the mystical ideas found in dialectics were invented as part of the class war, 2000 years ago, by ruling class theorists; Hegel just mystified them even more). So, human beings drive history (but, of course, not under circumstances of their own choosing) not this mystical thing called the 'dialectic'.

And it's the fans of 'the dialectic' who dragged in formal logic; I merely make the following points:

1) Dialecticians, following the crass 'logic' they find in Hegel, make all sorts of false claims about formal logic, which I have batted out of the park at my site.

2) You can be a first rate revolutionary and know nothing about formal logic.

3) You can be a first rate revolutionary and know nothing about dialectical logic.

4) Dialectics has stood in the way of the scientific development of Marxism.

5) I aim to bring an end to this.

Some hope, though, with numpties like... around; well you can imagine who I mean.

[red_che]

Rosa said:
This is a rather odd passage since it seems to suggest that things can move themselves. If so, much of modern mechanics will need to be re-written. On this view, presumably, when someone throws a ball, the action of throwing does not actually move the ball. On the contrary, the ball moves itself, and it knows exactly where it is going and how to get there, traversing its path independently of gravity. Intelligent projectiles like this, it seems, need no guidance systems -- they happily &#39;self-develop&#39; from A to B like unerring homing pigeons.

Her statement was in response to this passage from Lenin:
"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their &#39;self-movement&#39;, in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the &#39;struggle&#39; of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of &#39;self-movement&#39;.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the &#39;self-movement&#39; of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the &#39;leaps,&#39; to the &#39;break in continuity,&#39; to the &#39;transformation into the opposite,&#39; to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.

"The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58.

One can certainly understand that Lenin did not say that things can move themselves but rather that self-movement is a key to motion. Rosa circumvents this by saying that things can move themselves such as that light bulbs change themselves out of the socket (which is ridiculously illogical).

Self-movement in society is that contradiction that brings forth class struggles and it is that contradiction that drives social classes into opposite sides and battles against the other for supremacy. It is as simple as that.

Such sophistication by Ms. Rosa Lichtenstein only succeeded in making her logic more illogical and made them hard to comprehend, thereby confusing the things which are rather clear and imposing her "thoughts" unobtrusively.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che (we thrashed this out months ago; Axel/Volkov tried the same sort of damage limitation you are now trying, and came unstuck, like you are doing now):


One can certainly understand that Lenin did not say that things can move themselves

He certainly did say this; you might want to argue he did not mean it, or it was a slip of the pen, but then he went on to insist that dialecticians see things this way:


"Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in &#39;self-movement&#39; (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90. Emphasis added.]

References at my site, at the end of this essay:

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

So, you and Lenin disagree? Is that it?

That&#39;s OK. It is allowed in science (but not in dialectical religion).

Now Red tries some more damage limitation:


but rather that self-movement is a key to motion.

Which he did not say; perhaps he should have asked you for advice.

He did say this:


[It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in &#39;self-movement&#39;

and:


"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of &#39;self-movement&#39;.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the &#39;self-movement&#39; of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the &#39;leaps,&#39; to the &#39;break in continuity,&#39; to the &#39;transformation into the opposite,&#39; to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new. Emphasis added.

Now I consider every conceivable response to this (such as yours, and far more sophisticated alternatives) in that Essay mentioned above.

You clearly missed this as you skim read (again -- looks like you have picked up where you left off 6 months ago: selectively/superficially reading what I have written -- that&#39;s OK, just own up to it and we can disregard all you have to say, again).


Rosa circumvents this by saying that things can move themselves such as that light bulbs change themselves out of the socket (which is ridiculously illogical).

I agree, but you need to pick a fight with Lenin, not me. His words imply that light bulbs can/do change themselves. [Unless they are not part of &#39;everything existing&#39;?]

Illogical?

Yes, but that&#39;s Diabolical Logic for you. I suggest you abandon it forthwith.


Self-movement in society is that contradiction that brings forth class struggles and it is that contradiction that drives social classes into opposite sides and battles against the other for supremacy. It is as simple as that.

You are merely repeating what you have read in dialectical holy writ; can you explain what the &#39;contradiction&#39; is here?

I think not.

Who is arguing with who? [For that is what the verb &#39;to contradict&#39; means. Perhaps you forgot.]

[Red, if you are trying to prove you are not the worst arguer we have seen at RevLeft for some time, this is not helping your case. I note also you are continuing to ignore my replies to you, and you wonder why I do not take you seriously. I&#39;ve said it before: you dialectical mystics are all the same. You invent stuff, cannot read, and fail to read replies, you love holy scripture and cannot think for yourselves.]

[Hit The North]

Just a few points:


"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of &#39;self-movement&#39;.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the &#39;self-movement&#39; of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the &#39;leaps,&#39; to the &#39;break in continuity,&#39; to the &#39;transformation into the opposite,&#39; to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new. Emphasis added.



His words imply that light bulbs can/do change themselves.

Aren&#39;t we getting confused here between movement in space and movement in time (i.e. change)?

Lenin isn&#39;t arguing that a golf ball propells across a golf course under its own volition, or that a lightbulb changes itself - although, certainly, properties within the lightbulb lead to it&#39;s eventual dissolution (change takes place within the lightbulb&#33;). Given that dialectics are an attempt to demonstrate relations between things it&#39;s highly unlikely that Lenin would aim to demonstrate how a thing might move or change in isolation.

In other words, dialectics only make sense in terms of explaining the dynamics of a particular system, whether organic, mechanical or social.

In Marxism, emphasis should be placed on the mode of production as the objective system of study.

In terms of explaining social change, some of the &#39;laws&#39; of dialectics make sense and are useful. For instance, the transformation of quantity into quality, allows us to conceive of how capitalism changes over time but still remains as capitalism. This then alerts us to the importance of the internal relations within the social system for explaining change and enables us to prioritise certain types of change over others.

So Red is right, I think, when he argues:



Self-movement in society is that contradiction that brings forth class struggles and it is that contradiction that drives social classes into opposite sides and battles against the other for supremacy. It is as simple as that.You are merely repeating what you have read in dialectical holy writ; can you explain what the &#39;contradiction&#39; is here?


The contradiction lies in the oppositional interests of the two major classes. That&#39;s obvious. So, even applying the rigour of your appeal to plain speech, Rosa, capitalism really is a system which argues with itself&#33; Another key contradiction lies in the way in which the further development of the means of production are fettered by the relations upon which the means depend.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB to the rescue:


Given that dialectics are an attempt to demonstrate relations between things it's highly unlikely that Lenin would aim to demonstrate how a thing might move or change in isolation.

You need to read what Lenin wrote, not what you would prefer he had written; at my site I show that practically every other DM-fan says the same thing. So this is a standard interpretation: objects are 'self-moving'.

So, you may think you know what he meant, but his words contradict (perhaps even ironically 'contradict') your attempts to bail him out.

He pointedly talks about self-moving objects, propelled along by their internally-orientated opposites; in fact he insists on this (and he does so in a published work, not in notebooks).


"Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90. Emphasis added.]

No relations mentioned (except internal opposites).

So, according to Lenin, light bulbs should be able to change themselves.
'
[Anyway, I deal with your 'objection' at my site, and in extensive detail, in the Essay I referenced, and show that even that is a dead end.]

Not only are you mystics not too good at reading what I post, you do not seem to be able to read what Lenin said with any accuracy either.

Or perhaps you cannot believe your eyes, nor credit how crass this 'theory' is when it is examined more carefully than any of you lot seem capable of doing (without inventing stuff to bail it out).


The contradiction lies in the oppositional interests of the two major classes.

Why is that a 'contradiction'? You just helped yourself to that word. Why can't I call it a 'tautology', or a 'conjunction' or a 'disjunction' or ... whatever I like?

And I'd like to see you explain the 'contradictions' in a billiard ball that propel it along.

Nice try BTB -- except it wasn't (but at least you are consistently poor, so we always know where we stand with you).

[LoneRed]

Rosa how can you not see the contradictions in society? The necessary contradictions, they arent extraneous or outside factor, they are due to the very nature of the capitalist system, something you seem to be ignoring. You seem to rather go on about the history of dialectics, instead of noticing that what Marx did to it was take it out of the metaphysical background into something real.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone:


Rosa how can you not see the contradictions in society?

This is like being asked by a creationist: "Can&#39;t you see God&#39;s handiwork everywhere?"

A contradiction (in ordinary language) is a gainsaying of something that someone has said. So, yes I do see people arguing in society.

[In logic it is the mere conjunction a proposition with its negation.]

I suspect, however, you mean something more than this.

But what?

I have yet to meet a dialectical mystic who can say....

[A bit like believers in the Trinity cannot say what they mean by their odd use of language.]

So, until you can say what you mean: no I cannot see a single &#39;dialectical contradiction&#39; anywhere, let alone in society -- well no more than I can see jabberwockies or slithy toves.

[By the way, I do see strife, conflict and class war in society; but, knowing the English language, I cannot call any of these a &#39;contradiction&#39; --, save the arguing sort I noted above.]

[RevolverNo9]

One can certainly understand that Lenin did not say that things can move themselves but rather that self-movement is a key to motion.

Perhaps I am a fool but... what differentiates an object moving itself and an object that is in &#39;self-movement&#39;?


Self-movement in society is that contradiction that brings forth class struggles and it is that contradiction that drives social classes into opposite sides and battles against the other for supremacy. It is as simple as that.

If it were as simple as that, which isn&#39;t very simple at all, I&#39;d question the theory I had accepted. Class struggle is not the result of the &#39;self-movement in society&#39;&#33; How can you say that? That is barely different from the Hegelian conception of the &#39;self-movement of the geist&#39; in its movement towards &#39;realisation&#39;. Do you not realise that what you have written is absolute idealism in a classical sense? This abstract notion mystically expresses itself as the class-struggle which proceeds to pull history forward - that is what you have claimed.

What you should have written is: &#39;Contending class-interests in society bring forth class-struggle.&#39; It is as simple as that.

(And that really is simple&#33;)

[red_che]

Rosa:
He certainly did say this

Well, I won&#39;t argue if that&#39;s the way how you read it. But, it goes also to say that that&#39;s the way how you circumvent things. As Citizen Z pointed out, perhaps you are confused as to how movement in space differs with movement in time. If self-movement literally means to you that a non-living thing can move itself, such as a light bulb changes itself out of its socket, I would say your kind of logic disturbed your capacity of analyzing or scientifically understanding the movements or developments of objects.

One would certainly understand outrightly that a light bulb (my goodness, this example is stupid&#33;) changes as time goes by, that is, it would go into the process of "wear-and-tear" in that it would, at a certain point in time, cease to produce light no matter how much amount of electricity or energy is put into it.

If you could notice, I wanted to shift our discussion from the light bulb to social applications. This is a topic which we could easily relate to. So, I want to dwell on this more rather than that stupid light bulb of yours.

What about you explain why there are no contradictions in society? And why are these contradictions not the "self-movement" that Lenin explained?


Why is that a &#39;contradiction&#39;? You just helped yourself to that word. Why can&#39;t I call it a &#39;tautology&#39;, or a &#39;conjunction&#39; or a &#39;disjunction&#39; or ... whatever I like?

Does it matter really? I don&#39;t see any substantial reason why you disagree with the word "contradiction". But I am certain this is your way of avoiding the issue.


A contradiction (in ordinary language) is a gainsaying of something that someone has said. So, yes I do see people arguing in society.



If that is so, can you please explain about this quote from Marx?:
in big industry the [i]contradiction between the instrument of production and private property appears from the first time and is the product of big industry; moreover, big industry must be highly developed to produce this contradiction.

RevolverNo9:
Class struggle is not the result of the &#39;self-movement in society&#39;&#33; How can you say that?

That is barely different from the Hegelian conception of the &#39;self-movement of the geist&#39; in its movement towards &#39;realisation&#39;.Definitely, it is different from the Hegelian concept.


What you should have written is: &#39;Contending class-interests in society bring forth class-struggle.&#39; It is as simple as that. Isn&#39;t that "contending class-interests" an internal force that brings forth class struggle and, consequently, social development? Isn&#39;t that the "self-movement", the force that is not from without but rather from within?

[Hit The North]

R:


Why is that a &#39;contradiction&#39;? You just helped yourself to that word. Why can&#39;t I call it a &#39;tautology&#39;, or a &#39;conjunction&#39; or a &#39;disjunction&#39; or ... whatever I like?

Oh dear. Neither of your alternatives fit the bill. The class conflict between the bourgeosie and the proletariat is contradictory because they represent two mutually opposite interests which cannot be resolved except through their mutual negation. Unless you want to argue otherwise - but that would make you a reformist.


So, you may think you know what he [Lenin] meant, but his words contradict (perhaps even ironically &#39;contradict&#39;) your attempts to bail him out.

He pointedly talks about self-moving objects, propelled along by their internally-orientated opposites; in fact he insists on this (and he does so in a published work, not in notebooks).


You conveniently ignore the distinction between movement in time and movement in space. Lenin uses the word &#39;development&#39; and is therefore alluding to change over time.


And I&#39;d like to see you explain the &#39;contradictions&#39; in a billiard ball that propel it along.

Only an idiot would.


Nice try Z -- except it wasn&#39;t (but at least you are consistently poor, so we always know where we stand with you).

Why do you find it so difficult to resist being a *****?


RevolverNo9:


What you should have written is: &#39;Contending class-interests in society bring forth class-struggle.&#39; It is as simple as that.

It&#39;s only "that simple" if you think these interests arise randomly in the minds of social actors rather than as a consequence of the real material contradictions which exist in the capitalist mode of production. From there, it&#39;s a small step to arguing that class struggle can be resolved without having to smash capitalism.

Maybe you should also, like Rosa, think of redesignating your politics as reformist, Rev.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


Well, I won&#39;t argue if that&#39;s the way how you read it.

Does this mean that you can&#39;t read Lenin, or do not know how to?


As Citizen Z pointed out, perhaps you are confused as to how movement in space differs with movement in time.

Yes I ignored that since it is in this context an irrelevant distinction; neither of you are suggesting that objects are self-moving in time but not in space, or the other way round are you?

And how does an object move in time alone? Or in space alone? I do not know, and I am sure you do not.

Since DM-fans hold that both space and time are &#39;modes&#39; of the existence of matter, you cannot, I think, separate out the two -- except in thought perhaps. But even then, how would that relate to anything Lenin said? Or to "everything existing"?

Certainly Lenin did not make this distinction; had he done so he would have been as confused as you two are.

[You both strike me a bit like theologians do who try to explain the Trinity: you are going to look foolish/desperate whatever you say; the concepts Hegel dumped on you DM-fans make no sense, whoever copies them out, Lenin, you or citizen Z.]


If self-movement literally means to you that a non-living thing can move itself, such as a light bulb changes itself out of its socket, I would say your kind of logic disturbed your capacity of analyzing or scientifically understanding the movements or developments of objects.

As I said, you need to pick a fight with Lenin, not me; he insisted that DM-fans saw things this way, and he said this applied to "all things existing", not just living things.

Of course, he got this loopy idea from Hermetic thinkers (like Hegel) who did think everything was alive and hence self-moving. [Details at my site.]


my goodness, this example is stupid&#33;

It was deliberately chosen to show you how &#39;stupid&#39; Lenin&#39;s &#39;logic&#39; is; except you cannot face up to that fact. Light bulbs are part of &#39;everything existing&#39;, so Lenin insists you see them as capable of changing themselves.


Does it matter really? I don&#39;t see any substantial reason why you disagree with the word "contradiction"

You probably haven&#39;t read enough Hegel to see that this word does matter; his whole logic fails without this word (and the invalid inferences he makes setting it up) -- as I show in Essay Eight Part Two.

I have read enough Hegel, perhaps more than is good for me.


If that is so, can you please explain about this quote from Marx?:

Unlike you, I do not treat everything Marx (or anyone) has said as gospel; so I cannot explain why he uses that word (except, perhaps I can offer contingent reasons why he did based on his own petty-bourgeois origins), nor would I want to. He learnt far too much from Hegel. My aim is to put that right.

However, if you do not understand Marx&#39;s use of this word (or if you cannot explain what it means, as I suspect), that is your problem. It&#39;s your &#39;theory&#39;, not mine&#33;

As I have said to you before, we do not need this word, and we especially do not need it if it means nothing --, and you say this word does not matter anyway.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:29 PM

Why do you find it so difficult to resist being a *****?

This is a discussion and not an insulting match. Stop the insults.
With all due respect, comrade, it&#39;s not an insult, it&#39;s a question. But I&#39;ll rephrase it: Why can&#39;t Rosa resist denigrating anyone who attempts to hold a discussion with her?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Oh dear. Neither of your alternatives fit the bill.

That's Ok, since the word 'contradiction' does not either.


The class conflict between the bourgeosie and the proletariat is contradictory because they represent two mutually opposite interests which cannot be resolved except through their mutual negation.

But why is that a contradiction as opposed to a contrary? [If you know the difference?] And why is this a real contradiction if both do not exist at the same time, except ideally as an aim, or an 'interest'?

You sound like an idealist talking this way.

Now, try to explain the contradictions in that billiard ball in the same way. What 'interests' has the billiard ball got?


You conveniently ignore the distinction between movement in time and movement in space. Lenin uses the word 'development' and is therefore alluding to change over time.

Perhaps I learnt to ignore things from you -- you ignore any number of awkward questions I have raised here and at my site.

But, you are right; I did ignore it, and I did so because your 'distinction' makes no sense. [You can find my reasons for saying so in my response to Red Che.]

How can something develop in time but not in space? Is it in a different universe?

And Lenin says:


"Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90. Emphasis added.]

Where he speaks about both. I take it you are not committed to the idea that things can change, but not in time; or that things can alter but not in space.


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

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

Note Lenin does not distinguish things in the way you do.

Once more, perhaps he should have taken advice from you before he saddled you with these unworkable ideas?

[And what is the contradiction that makes a billiard ball 'develop' in time, but not in space? And it's no good excusing billiard balls, since they are 'objects', and are part of 'everything existing'.]


Only an idiot would.

I agree, but that is why this loopy logic is no use to man nor beast.

In effect you are saying Lenin is wrong, or that billiard balls are not part of 'everything existing' -- or perhaps that they are not self-moving.

Either way, I welcome your disagreement with Lenin.


Why do you find it so difficult to resist being a *****?

And now we see the comradely spirit that dialectics engenders in all who come under its spell -- remember when you doubted me when I said that this was one of its effects?

Thanks for a practical proof of all I said. [But, if I said such abusive things, I'd get a warning point.]

To answer your question: I find it difficult because to my shame I modelled myself on you, a prize *******; perhaps I should choose a better exemplar.

[Hit The North]

R:


But why is that a contradiction as opposed to a contrary? [If you know the difference?] And why is this a real contradiction if both do not exist at the same time, except ideally as an aim, or an &#39;interest&#39;?

You sound like an idealist talking this way.


They are contradictory in that one claim cancels out the other. A situation cannot be reached whereby both bourgeois and proletarian class interests can be simultaneously satisfied. It&#39;s realising this simple truth that makes us revolutionaries, no? And this is not an idealist position because as I stated in my reply to RevolverNo9, these interests directly arise from the material relations of production.



Now, try to explain the contradictions in that billiard ball in the same way. What &#39;interests&#39; has the billiard ball got?


Billiard balls have no interests and I would not apply dialectics to it. It would explain nothing and contribute little to improving my game.

I&#39;m not interested in billiard balls or lightbulbs, I&#39;m interested in understanding and changing capitalism. My position is that the material dialectic should be applied to analysing human society and that applying it to nature is mistaken. In that sense I reject Lenin&#39;s diamat.

Nevertheless, billiard balls, not being indestructible, do change over time. They crumble and disintegrate. Lightbulbs eventually burn out.


How can something develop in time but not in space? Is it in a different universe?

Societies change over time without necessarily moving location in space. Human beings, too. If I leave an apple in my bowl for long enough, it will change dramatically, without ever having to leave the bowl (or the universe).


Once more, perhaps he should have taken advice from you before he saddled you with these unworkable ideas?

I don&#39;t feel saddled by Lenin&#39;s ideas. See above. Neither do I feel inhibited by Hegel as I&#39;ve never read his work and can&#39;t possibly see when I&#39;ll have enough time on my hands to want to.

What is apparent to me, though, is that if one doesn&#39;t see the class struggle as a dialectical process, it becomes harder to understand history and opens the door to all sorts of reformist illusions.


I give as good as I get.

Perhaps you are used to your women just lying back and thinking of Lenin?


I wish&#33; I think she lies back and thinks of the neighbour. He&#39;s ten years younger than me and has a better car. :( But that&#39;s another thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


They are contradictory in that one claim cancels out the other

But, if contradictions do not cancel one another (which they do not -- see below), then these cannot be contradictions.

You are confusing a contradiction with contradictory orders, rules or instructions -- they undo each other. So one will cancel the effects of another.

In addition, contrary interests also fit your description: both of these cannot be implemented together. [If you need me to explain the difference between contradictory and contrary interests (etc.), you only have to ask.]

So, why are your 'contradictions' not contraries?

But, take any pair of contradictory propositions, for example, "BTB knows very little logic" and "It is not the case that BTB knows very little logic"; they do not cancel one another otherwise you could not tell they were contradictory -- look, there they are still on your screen!

And their content does not cancel out, either: it is still there, too. If one is true (or false), the other is false (or true), but that could not happen if they cancelled. Cancelled propositions are not false propositions, merely crossed out ones.

I think you need to study a little more logic (like most DM-fans), or a little less Hegel (who also made the same mistake).


A situation cannot be reached whereby both bourgeois and proletarian class interests can be simultaneously satisfied

I agree, but why is that a contradiction, rather than an impossibility?

You are once again confusing facts about language with material facts.


Billiard balls have no interests and I would not apply dialectics to it.

So Lenin was wrong that his thoughts applied to 'everything existing'?

Once more, I agree -- except I would go further and say that they apply to nothing existing.

So it looks like you are half way toward seeing the light.


Nevertheless, billiard balls, not being indestructible, do change over time. They crumble and disintegrate. Lightbulbs eventually burn out.

Ah, now you are shifting your ground; dialectics cannot explain why billiard balls move but it can explain why they crumble, is that it?

But, what is the contradiction that makes billiard balls crumble? Do its atoms argue among themselves? Do they have conflicting 'interests'?


Societies change over time without necessarily moving location in space.

So, this all this takes place on a world that does not orbit the sun, or receive varying energy inputs from it?

What an odd dialectical universe you live in.

You are getting desperate now:


Human beings, too. If I leave an apple in my bowl for long enough, it will change dramatically, without ever having to leave the bowl (or the universe).

So the rest of the universe does not alter in relation to these things, and they do not, say, move through the solar system or the galaxy, either?

[It looks like you have to seal these items off from the rest of nature to make your desperate move here work, which is odd since you earlier claimed that things were inter-related.]

Hang on a minute; I get it now: these items self-move through the galaxy; is that it? Lenin seemed to think so, since they are be part of 'everything existing'.


Neither do I feel inhibited by Hegel as I've never read his work and can't possibly see when I'll have enough time on my hands to want to.

Oh, so you are a dialectical-heretic who believes you can understand, say, Das Kapital without studying Hegel's 'Logic'?

Fine, I agree.

But why bother with anything that mystic had to say, then? Especially when you find yourself saddled with ideas you struggle to make sense of.



What is apparent to me, though, is that if one doesn't see the class struggle as a dialectical process, it becomes harder to understand history and opens the door to all sorts of reformist illusions.

There have been, and there still are, dialectical mystics like you, who are open reformists (you might not be, but they are).

So, Hegel's ruling-class theory is no protection, comrade.

And it is possible to understand the class war without using a single idea of his.

In fact, as your sad attempts above have shown, Hegelian concepts merely create confusion.


I wish! I think she lies back and thinks of the neighbour.

No wonder, if you bad mouth her (like you do me) and expect her to lie back and take it.

[RevolverNo9]

Red Che:


Definitely, it is different from the Hegelian concept.

Not in as far as your statement also posits an abstract notion pushing forward history.


Isn&#39;t that "contending class-interests" an internal force that brings forth class struggle and, consequently, social development? Isn&#39;t that the "self-movement", the force that is not from without but rather from within?

Class struggle is the result of contending class interest and it is class struggle that creates social development. This we learn from the study of historical reality. The problem with your &#39;self-movment&#39; is that it is hopelessly abstract - it is not an organic catagory. What do you even mean to say when you state that society is changed from within and not without? How can society be transformed externally? Meteors? Even that would show a misunderstanding since society is itself the interaction between man and nature - any natural phenomenon that interacts with society becomes social itself. So again you are inventing arbitrary catagories, the result of your abstractions, I am inclined to think.

(As an aside can I sincerely express my gratitude that you have not quoted or even mentioned Mao once this thread&#33; Marvellous.)

Zero:


It&#39;s only "that simple" if you think these interests arise randomly in the minds of social actors rather than as a consequence of the real material contradictions which exist in the capitalist mode of production. From there, it&#39;s a small step to arguing that class struggle can be resolved without having to smash capitalism.

Maybe you should also, like Rosa, think of redesignating your politics as reformist, Rev.

Well since I never dared to suggest that class-interests &#39;arise randomly&#39; I fail to comprehend how you arrive at the deductions that you do. Class-interests arise because of the material, historical conditions constituted by that society&#39;s productive relations. Capitalist relations can only be ended if capitalism itself is ended... the notion that such reasoning leads to reformism is ludicrous&#33; How does rejecting an abstract conception such as the &#39;self-movement&#39; of society infer a parellel rejection of overthrowing capitalism to end antagonistic class relations?


What is apparent to me, though, is that if one doesn&#39;t see the class struggle as a dialectical process, it becomes harder to understand history and opens the door to all sorts of reformist illusions.

That very sentence suggests that you have never studied history seriously .

And your connection between reformism and &#39;undialectical&#39; historical analysis has yet to have been demonstrated (nor can I see how it is possible).

[red_che]

Rosa:
Yes I ignored that since it is in this context an irrelevant distinction;

You ignore things conveniently so as to avoid discussing them.


neither of you are suggesting that objects are self-moving in time but not in space, or the other way round are you?

Nobody, in their right mind, would think of "self-movement" the same way you think of it.


And how does an object move in time alone? Or in space alone? I do not know,

That&#39;s because, as I&#39;ve said before, your logic disturbed your capacity to understand scientifically how things move.


Certainly Lenin did not make this distinction; had he done so he would have been as confused as you two are.

Yes, he did not make any specific distinction on the general notion of self-movement because science (dialectical materialism) explained it already.


As I said, you need to pick a fight with Lenin, not me; he insisted that DM-fans saw things this way, and he said this applied to "all things existing", not just living things.

Lenin did not insist that we see things the way you imply it. It is only you want us to see your circumventing his words.


You probably haven&#39;t read enough Hegel to see that this word does matter; his whole logic fails without this word (and the invalid inferences he makes setting it up) -- as I show in Essay Eight Part Two.

You say it was Hegel&#39;s, not Marx&#39;s nor Engel&#39;s nor Lenin&#39;s. I, or every dialectical materialist know the difference of Hegel&#39;s metaphysics from that of Marx&#39;s materialist dialectics.


Unlike you, I do not treat everything Marx (or anyone) has said as gospel; so I cannot explain why he uses that word (except, perhaps I can offer contingent reasons why he did based on his own petty-bourgeois origins), nor would I want to. He learnt far too much from Hegel. My aim is to put that right.

However, if you do not understand Marx&#39;s use of this word (or if you cannot explain what it means, as I suspect), that is your problem. It&#39;s your &#39;theory&#39;, not mine&#33;

As I have said to you before, we do not need this word, and we especially do not need it if it means nothing --, and you say this word does not matter anyway.

I see you conveniently and skillfully avoided a perfectly valid inquiry one more time. I asked for an explanation. And I demand that you do explain, not evade. I will post it once more.


Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein Oct 04 2006+ 10:05 PM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein Oct 04 2006 &#064; 10:05 PM)A contradiction (in ordinary language) is a gainsaying of something that someone has said. So, yes I do see people arguing in society.

logic[/b] it is the mere conjunction a proposition with its negation.][/b]

And here is my inquiry:
Originally posted by Karl Marx+--> (Karl Marx)in big industry the [i]contradiction between the instrument of production and private property appears from the first time and is the product of big industry; moreover, big industry must be highly developed to produce this [i]contradiction.[/b]

I don&#39;t see any conversation or argument taking place here between instrument of production and private property, nor big industry&#39;s high development to have some argument against someone.


But why is that a contradiction as opposed to a contrary? And why is this a real contradiction if both do not exist at the same time, except ideally as an aim, or an &#39;interest&#39;?

I refer you back to my above inquiry.

And notice how Rosa avoid the subjects that would make this discussion more relevant to social applications:


my [email protected]
What about you explain why there are no contradictions in society? No response from Rosa.


Citizen Z
I&#39;m not interested in billiard balls or lightbulbs, I&#39;m interested in understanding and changing capitalism. My position is that the material dialectic should be applied to analysing human society and that applying it to nature is mistaken. In that sense I reject Lenin&#39;s diamat.No response from Rosa

RevolverNo9:
The problem with your &#39;self-movment&#39; is that it is hopelessly abstract - it is not an organic catagory.

It is abstract because you want it to be. You refuse to accept that one.


What do you even mean to say when you state that society is changed from within and not without?

The same way as to how a fruit becomes rotten.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


You ignore things conveniently so as to avoid discussing them.

As I said to Citizen Z, you do this all the time with the things I say; but the difference is here I explained why. You need to deal with my reasons, and not ignore them.


Nobody, in their right mind, would think of "self-movement" the same way you think of it.

Well, as I also pointed out to Citizen Z, and as you would have seen had you bothered to check instead of aimlessly asserting things, I show that a whole range of DM-fans do and did actually think this, and so did Lenin.

But, once more you need to answer that question; here it is again:


neither of you are suggesting that objects are self-moving in time but not in space, or the other way round are you?

You need to explain how something can move (let alone &#39;self-move&#39; as Lenin put it) in time but not in space, or the other way round.

For that is what Citizen Z&#39;s gloss on Lenin says things can do.


That&#39;s because, as I&#39;ve said before, your logic disturbed your capacity to understand scientifically how things move.

Again, you choose to ignore the question. It&#39;s your theory; why do you not understand it?

I suspect you cannot say, so are you becoming desperate to deflect attention from that fact.


Yes, he did not make any specific distinction on the general notion of self-movement because science (dialectical materialism) explained it already.

In that case, how can light bulbs change themselves? If he made no distinction, then it should be easy for you to explain this simple event.

That you cannot (or will not) suggests either than you disagree with Lenin, or do not understand the issues under discussion.

My vote is on the latter.


Lenin did not insist that we see things the way you imply it. It is only you want us to see your circumventing his words.

Well he said this (and you might like to wish he had not saddled you with this piece of pre-Aristotelian physics, but he did):


Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in &#39;self-movement&#39; (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90. Emphasis added.]

So, how do light bulbs move themselves?

A simple question that follows from what Lenin said.

Now you have a liking for DM-holy writ; accept and believe. The prophet has spoken. Light bulbs can change themselves. A DM-miracle to match any in Catholicism.


I, or every dialectical materialist know the difference of Hegel&#39;s metaphysics from that of Marx&#39;s materialist dialectics

So you say, but when questioned, you all fold, and become idealists and mystics, and you ignore awkward questions.

So, no you do not know the difference.


I see you conveniently and skillfully avoided a perfectly valid inquiry one more time. I asked for an explanation. And I demand that you do explain, not evade. I will post it once more.

And I think you need to learn to read; I answered it.

You ask again:


I don&#39;t see any conversation or argument taking place here between instrument of production and private property, nor big industry&#39;s high development to have some argument against someone.

So, why use this word when its meaning clashes with what you are trying to say?


I refer you back to my above inquiry.

This was your &#39;response&#39; to my question to Z why this was not a contrary.

I suspect you (like all other DM-fans I have met) do not know the difference.

But still you pontificate. No change there.



No response from Rosa.

Incapacity by Red to read.

You might not like my response, but you need to deal with it not ignore it.


No response from Rosa

Ditto.

Once more your bid to be voted the worst arguer at RevLeft in some time is impressive.

I suspect few will be able to match your low standards.

New comrades should watch and not learn.

[red_che]

Rosa:
You need to explain how something can move (let alone &#39;self-move&#39; as Lenin put it) in time but not in space, or the other way round.

A society does not move from place to place, right? But societies do develop. So, do not put everything in sum such as when objects self-move, they can move from one place to another and likewise they can move from one time to another. It&#39;s not that stupid as you want it to be.

I see you just want to imply these ridiculous things, or you just want to circumvent such things. I&#39;m sure if Lenin is alive he would have told you not to put words into his. And it seems that this just the way you do all the time.


In that case, how can light bulbs change themselves?

My, oh my. Such idiocy of yours is so...... I bet you&#39;re the only who saw things that way. And you are the most assertive that such is what Lenin said.


Originally posted by Lenin
Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in &#39;self-movement&#39;

So, do societies move themselves?


So, why use this word when its meaning clashes with what you are trying to say?

Why not? It don&#39;t clash actually. I don&#39;t see no wrong there. Same as Marx saw no reason not to use such a word. And it&#39;s not the word that is in question, but the reality that there is contradiction. And such contradiction that you wish not to accept.

And, I see that you argue on the word as a scapegoat, but in fact you argue on the actual existence of social contradiction. And you masquerade it as anti-dialectics.

[Hit The North]

R:



Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in &#39;self-movement&#39; (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90. Emphasis added.]So, how do light bulbs move themselves?

The fact that Lenin uses the word &#39;development&#39; is enough to demonstrate that he&#39;s writing about &#39;becoming&#39; or change through time. Your lightbulb analogy does not fit.

But, given your attachment to the exact meaning of words, shouldn&#39;t you have reproduced the above statement in the original Russian and let us all mull it over?

Have you read Lenin in the original Russian or Hegel in German or do you rely on translation? If it&#39;s the latter, how can you be sure that you&#39;re really accessing the texts with the degree of accuracy which would satisfy your own methodology?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


A society does not move from place to place, right?

So, as I noted in my response to citizen Z, you DM-fans inhabit an odd sort of universe where, say, the earth does not orbit the sun, and the sun&#39;s energy does not contribute to the &#39;forces of production&#39;?

Is that it?

Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space. I am amazed I have to tell you this.

So, you have not explained how something can move only in time.

Or explained why you are imposing this on Lenin, when he clearly did not refer to this bogus distinction, as the quotations show.


They can move from one place to another and likewise they can move from one time to another. It&#39;s not that stupid as you want it to be.

Well, of course, I do not deny this, but Lenin says these things can ‘self-move’, so in that case light bulbs can self-move, and hence change themselves.

Is that what you are committed to believing alongside Lenin?


I see you just want to imply these ridiculous things, or you just want to circumvent such things

Once more, you need to pick a fight with Lenin, or even more amusingly with yourself, since your ‘theory’ implies that light bulbs can change themselves.

I suggest you change that theory, or better, you abandon it.


...... I bet you&#39;re the only [one?] who saw things that way

So what if I am? Does that not mean that you lot are blind to the consequences of your own theory? It seems so.

You are lucky to have someone like me to point these follies out to you.

[Of course, you probably would have said the same sort of thing to Galileo. Someone has to innovate; too bad for you it is someone like me who knows some logic.]


So, do societies move themselves?

Answer: They move as a result of forces in nature and the struggle between classes. No contradictions anywhere in sight.

Glad I can help you see the light.


It don&#39;t clash actually

Well, you would not know, since you seem not to know what the word ‘contradiction’ means in logic or in ordinary language.


And it&#39;s not the word that is in question, but the reality that there is contradiction.

Well you DM-fans like to say things like this, but when it comes to giving a clear example, you become hopelessly vague.

How can there be contradictions in reality if reality does not argue with itself?


And, I see that you argue on the word as a scapegoat, but in fact you argue on the actual existence of social contradiction.

I do so since it is plain you haven’t a clue what this word means.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


The fact that Lenin uses the word 'development' is enough to demonstrate that he's writing about 'becoming' or change through time. Your lightbulb analogy does not fit.

Unfortunately for you he used other words which suggest I am right.

For example he compared his approach to that of crude materialists/deists who thought that things move (about the place) as a result of an external cause/'push'; he counterposes his approach to this by saying:


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

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.
[Lenin (1961), pp.357-58. Emphasis added.

So he is speaking about movement (i.e., change of place) here, as well as development.

But I hope you are not suggesting that as, say Capitalism develops, nothing actually moves about the place.

If not, and light bulbs are a recent invention, then according to this, light bulbs should be able to change themselves --, or at least make it from the store to your house on their own.


But, given your attachment to the exact meaning of words, shouldn't you have reproduced the above statement in the original Russian and let us all mull it over?

I would if that would help, but I suspect you'd read into that what you wanted to see, too.

Have you any reason to doubt the translation here? It was produced by DM-fans, not me.

Is this, I wonder, your latest desperate gambit?

It will do you no good, anyway; as dozens of quotations at my site show, DM-fans since Lenin have intepreted this passage as I do, except they have not derived the obvious conclusions from it.

Too bad for you lot, I have.


Have you read Lenin in the original Russian or Hegel in German or do you rely on translation? If it's the latter, how can you be sure that you're really accessing the texts with the degree of accuracy which would satisfy your own methodology?

In the German yes, but not the Russian.

But if you have any substantive reasons to doubt the translations, let's hear them. From what I can see of Hegel, it's as good as gobbledigook can be translated into English.

Recall, my aim is not to help make Lenin comprehensible (goodness knows, you lot struggle enough with that), but to end the baleful influence of these hermetic ideas on comrades like you.

But, as you seem more intent on evading the issues with all manner of desperate moves, I stand no chance.

So we can look forward to another 120 years of dialectically-induced failure....

[red_che]

Rosa:


So, as I noted in my response to citizen Z, you DM-fans inhabit an odd sort of universe where, say, the earth does not orbit the sun, and the sun&#39;s energy does not contribute to the &#39;forces of production&#39;?

Now I can see where you are arriving here. That external factors are the the primary factor in development. Your statement most closely resembles this one:
Originally posted by Hegel
History in general is . . . the development of the Spirit in time, as nature is the development of the Idea in space. :lol:


Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space. I am amazed I have to tell you this.

See that? It closely resembles that of Hegel&#39;s :blush: . So, in that case using her stupidly illogical logic, the American society can move physically and historically. It is amazing how Rosa can see the entire American society (geography, land, etc. included) move from the American peninsula to Asia literally. :rolleyes: Stupid logic.


Well, of course, I do not deny this, but Lenin says these things can ‘self-move’, so in that case light bulbs can self-move, and hence change themselves.

Nobody took "Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in &#39;self-movement&#39;" to mean light bulbs can change themselves, only you mistook it that way either intentionally or stupidly, or both. :angry: I can see your logic does imply the same as that I stated above.


Answer: They move as a result of forces in nature and the struggle between classes. No contradictions anywhere in sight.

You contradicted yourself, so funny you did not recognize it. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


That external factors are the the primary factor in development. Your statement most closely resembles this one:

Not so; so my question still awaits an answer.


It closely resembles that of Hegel&#39;s

It resembles Hegel&#39;s words not even remotely


So, in that case using her stupidly illogical logic, the American society can move physically and historically.

Since you know no logic, you are in no position to judge.

[And you cannot respond, so your only defence is to name-call.]


It is amazing how Rosa can see the entire American society (geography, land, etc. included) move from the American peninsula to Asia literally.

Where did I even imply this?

As for this:


Nobody took "Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in &#39;self-movement&#39;" to mean light bulbs can change themselves, only you mistook it that way either intentionally or stupidly, or both

You have been told countless times before: you need to learn to read more carefully (are all you DM-fans semi-literate?).

I asserted that at my site I had posted more than enough quotations from other dialectical mystics to show that they interpreted Lenin the way I did, except that I went further, and pointed out that if what Lenin said were true, light bulbs should be able to change themselves.

So how you managed to conclude the above is something probably not even you are capable of saying.

And nothing you have said so far shows where this is an incorrect inference.

[It may indeed be incorrect, but none of you mystics has been able to show where it is; this is probably because you know no logic.]


You contradicted yourself, so funny you did not recognize it.

Now, let&#39;s see you try to explain where and how I did this.

[I trust that others who are reading this can see why Jim Farr proposed Red Che as one of the most lamentable posters ever to grace the pages of Rev Left. He merely strengthens the case for the prosecution with each response. Way to go Red...&#33;]

[RevolverNo9]

That last post of Red Che&#39;s was so frustrating I almost had find something to break... but first of all:


It is abstract because you want it to be. You refuse to accept that one.

This is a bald assertion. You have yet to demonstrate how your catagory is organic... and I suspect you will never be able to. In fact - and reading this post was akin to watching a car-crash - you just proved how cripplingly abstract your conception is with this piece of unadulterated idiocy:


A society does not move from place to place, right?

What are you talking about? You are suggesting that there is no physical movement in society? But how?&#33;?&#33; Society is a physical existance, it is the interaction between man and nature (such interaction is necessarily phyiscal movement). Your objection that the USA could end up in Asia reaches levels of naivity that rivals small children&#33; Geographical movement isn&#39;t the only form of spatial movement. Nation&#39;s boundaries form and reform, tribes migrate, cities are built, mothers give birth... all these are social and all involve a movement through space (as does, as Rosa pointed out, a planet that revolves around the sun).

The only possible way you could come to make a statement such as this would be if you considered &#39;society&#39; as an absolutely abstract ideal, with no relation whatsoever to material reality, an entity without space that developed in your own head. As long as your position accommodates this proposition, your conception is at least as base as Hegel&#39;s.

(I just don&#39;t understand? How can a development that occurs in time not occur in space?)

Just in case anyone had any illusions about Red Che&#39;s paucity of reason, he compared society to a fruit.


The same way as to how a fruit becomes rotten.

Is this one of the poorest analogies I&#39;ve come across ever?

But more embarrising still is Red&#39;s quotation of Hegel that directly contradicts Rosa and directly supports his own argument... only for him to just flip the truth and pretend to the contrary&#33; Now Hegel agrees with Rosa?

Red writes that socity develops in time and not in space (?) and Hegel apparently also says:


History in general is . . . the development of the Spirit in time, as nature is the development of the Idea in space.

&#33; Rosa, and anyone with an IQ over 30, will point out that it develops in both time and space. Honestly, I can&#39;t believe my eyes&#33;


[I trust that others who are reading this can see why Jim Farr proposed Red Che as one of the most lamentable posters ever to grace the pages of Rev Left. He merely strengthens the case for the prosecution with each response. Way to go Red...&#33;]

(I&#39;d like to inflate my own meagre ego and take credit for this - Jim Farr was generous enough to describe Red&#39;s posts as &#39;valiant&#39;&#33;)

(p.s. I assume the entire evasion of the matter means you&#39;ve both realised a rejection of dialectical materialism can in no rational way constitute an acceptance of reformism?)

And finally:


It is amazing how Rosa can see the entire American society (geography, land, etc. included) move from the American peninsula to Asia literally.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver, think how you&#39;d feel if you had been on the end of over 20 years of this sort of stuff (as I have)&#33;&#33;

Red takes the biscuit, though; he is one of the poorest defenders of dialectics that even I have seen.

[red_che]

Rosa:
It resembles Hegel&#39;s words not even remotely

Hahaha..... it&#39;s more than resembles Hegel&#39;s. It&#39;s even almost exactly the same way he said it. Now it&#39;s your time to "skim read" and justify why you don&#39;t say the same thing as Hegel&#39;s. Go on, bail yourself out.


Where did I even imply this?

Not only that you exercise double standards when it comes to implying things. You are also exercising poor and bad reasoning.


I asserted that at my site I had posted more than enough quotations from other dialectical mystics to show that they interpreted Lenin the way I did, except that I went further, and pointed out that if what Lenin said were true, light bulbs should be able to change themselves.

And it implies also that since societies move in place and time as you said they are, then the American society can go to Asia. :rolleyes:


Now, let&#39;s see you try to explain where and how I did this.

Hahaha.... it&#39;s there. It&#39;s clear you contradicted yourself.


[I trust that others who are reading this can see why Jim Farr proposed Red Che as one of the most lamentable posters ever to grace the pages of Rev Left.

Go on, save your face by painting such a picture of me. Your fans might be turned off if they realized that after all, you are of the same concept with Hegel. The difference is that Hegel was stuck in the muds of metaphysical swamp. Had he pursued further using dialectics as his vehicle, he should&#39;ve gotten out of it. But alas, he chose not to.

While on the other hand, I can see you driving around the opposite side of the road where Hegel was. Only that you are using your poor logic to arrive at the same swamp where he was. And I will not be surprised that one day, yours and his ideas would be solemnly interlocked with a bond similar to that of a marriage. :blush:

RevolverNo9:


That last post of Red Che&#39;s was so frustrating I almost had find something to break...

Here comes the Rosa fan who suddenly appears to save her "idol".


This is a bald assertion. You have yet to demonstrate how your catagory is organic...

Oh, sorry, I must have ignored you before because I want to concentrate on responding to Rosa only. My apologies. I suppose this was your question?:
Originally posted by posted October 6 [email protected] 12:26 AM
The problem with your &#39;self-movment&#39; is that it is hopelessly abstract - it is not an organic catagory.

Okay. It is not abstract. It is live, organic. "Self-movement" in society precisely is the class contradiction. This class contradiction (which you termed "contending class interests") is an internal action. It is this that society moves in itself.


Your objection that the USA could end up in Asia reaches levels of naivity that rivals small children&#33;

My intention there is to show you same logic Rosa implies as to Lenin&#39;s statement. That Rosa&#39;s statement is such that "reaches levels of naivity that rivals small children&#33;". In case you can&#39;t notice it.


Is this one of the poorest analogies I&#39;ve come across ever?

As I said, I want to ignore you before. But actually, the analogy is not so much different.


But more embarrising still is Red&#39;s quotation of Hegel that directly contradicts Rosa and directly supports his own argument... only for him to just flip the truth and pretend to the contrary&#33;

No. (I see you are also a poor reader.) I said Rosa&#39;s statement resembles (not contradicts) that of Hegel&#39;s. :o


Now Hegel agrees with Rosa?

Once again, no. Rosa now agrees with Hegel. :D


Red writes that socity develops in time and not in space (?)

I never made such a comment, you idiot&#33; (pardon me for the word Mr. Moderators :( ). Societies develop without moving from one place to another such as America going to Asia, you fool. If what you imply as movement is that because the earth revolves around the sun, I accept such a thing. But it has nothing, or at least not a significant factor, to capitalism&#39;s or socialism&#39;s development or to class struggle. :angry:


Rosa, and anyone with an IQ over 30, will point out that it develops in both time and space. Honestly, I can&#39;t believe my eyes&#33;

Okay, I will give you the benefit of explaining it. Please do explain that the earth&#39;s revolving around the sun or a nation&#39;s borders&#39; expanding in a very gradual, slow progression contributes significantly to the development of capitalism.

[RevolverNo9]

Revolver, think how you&#39;d feel if you had been on the end of over 20 years of this sort of stuff (as I have)&#33;&#33;

You know I&#39;m really starting to empathise. The difficulty with religious and metaphysical beliefs is, it&#39;s actually harder to argue with the very unintelligent since they are incapable of distinguishing a reasoned proposition from meaninglessness. They don&#39;t understand what they&#39;ve said let alone what has been said by others&#33; RedChe demonstrates this spectacularly. As I said, reading his posts are like watching a succession of slow but inevitable car-crashes.

Since I&#39;m no expert I&#39;ve kept out of scientific and logical arguments in these forums but since I feel I have at least a little knowledge to discuss some of the matters here I&#39;m really starting to experience the pure senselessness that people display&#33; Rosa, you have my sympathy.

Right, with a penchant for pain, here I go. Red Che:


And I will not be surprised that one day, yours and his ideas would be solemnly interlocked with a bond similar to that of a marriage.

This is one of the most extraordinairy claims I&#39;ve ever come across&#33; What&#39;s that totalitarian belief you force upon science called again?


Here comes the Rosa fan who suddenly appears to save her "idol".


As I said to Hoopla, simply agreeing with someone on certain issues does not equate &#39;idolisation&#39;. You have no evidence to back this up and I think it&#39;s pretty clear that I&#39;ve tried to make my points on my own terms from a point of rational criticism, not out of a motivation to approach my &#39;idols&#39; for its own sake. (And this coming from a man who parrots the words of Mao completely uncritically and like a holy disciple&#33;)


Oh, sorry, I must have ignored you before because I want to concentrate on responding to Rosa only.

Yeah, quite right. Why bother with &#39;the little man&#39; when you can render society analogous to a rotting fruit? Good work mate.


Okay. It is not abstract. It is live, organic.

Oh, sorry&#33; Good thing you cleared that up.


It is this that society moves in itself.

So you said. Since you were ignoring me however (though I suspect you just failed to understand me) you failed to address the point that it doesn&#39;t make sense to say that anything affects society externally, since society is itself man&#39;s interaction with nature (and therefore, since he is part of nature, himself). Anything that interacts with nature is a social phenomenon (as any good historian can tell you). So... your statement is meaningless, you&#39;ve fabricated a distinction that simply does not exist. Do you understand what I am saying?

My other objection is that by endlessly discussing terms like &#39;self-movement&#39; you are actually lending in your mind simple pieces of vocabulary a role as active, historical agents&#33; By considering these abstracts, you obscure the real, material subject of investigation. Just consider for a moment whether your terms are helpful - whether it is not easier to understand society with more precise terminology, words that directly relate to their subjects.

(I note you&#39;ve even changed what you said: before society &#39;moved itself&#39;... now it &#39;moves in itself&#39;. More confusing by the minute.)


My intention there is to show you same logic Rosa implies as to Lenin&#39;s statement. That Rosa&#39;s statement is such that "reaches levels of naivety that rivals small children&#33;". In case you can&#39;t notice it.

There&#39;s a difference. One example satirises something genuinely absurd, the other is idiotic. I can talk to other human being. I will never, however, talk to Shakespeare. Capacities often, you will be surprised to hear, have limits. (Though, you may like to learn that land-masses do actually move&#33; Hah&#33; Fancy that, Red.)


As I said, I want to ignore you before. But actually, the analogy is not so much different.

Charming. Well actually, it isn&#39;t. Have you ever frozen a fruit? Have you ever cut open a banana and left it out? I think if an undergraduate biologist claimed that his plum was in &#39;self-movement&#39; he&#39;d get thrown of his course.


No. (I see you are also a poor reader.) I said Rosa&#39;s statement resembles (not contradicts) that of Hegel&#39;s.

:lol: I know English isn&#39;t your first language (or at least I&#39;m assuming it isn&#39;t) but what a humorous thing to say&#33; I know exactly that that is what you said which why I had to point out to you that you were completely wrong: &#39;But more embarrassing still is Red&#39;s quotation of Hegel that directly contradicts Rosa and directly supports his own argument... only for him to just flip the truth and pretend to the contrary&#33;&#39; The quotation, in reality, contradicts Rosa and supports you. That is why I am so amazed that you just blatantly lied and said the opposite&#33; You are inhabiting another world here&#33;


Societies develop without moving from one place to another such as America going to Asia, you fool.

I didn&#39;t say that they moved &#39;like that&#39;. I did say that they moved like this: &#39;Nation&#39;s boundaries form and reform, tribes migrate, cities are built, mothers give birth...&#39; and in countless other ways. Society is man&#39;s interaction with nature - how can he interact by not moving spatially? Telekinesis? Or maybe inhabit your own little dream-world.


But it [the earth&#39;s rotation] has nothing, or at least not a significant factor, to capitalism&#39;s or socialism&#39;s development or to class struggle.

Well, if half the world was permanently in darkness I&#39;d hazard to say that it would. However, all four of my entirely random examples also effect history and the class struggle. Are you saying imperialism and conquest does not? Are you saying tribal movement does not? The construction of wells, housing, towns and cities does not? The birth of human beings? Tell me how the first merchants traded without movement? Or how a worker occupies a factory without moving? (No wonder your political movement was such a failure if you think such things. Maybe capitalism should just be &#39;willed away&#39;.)

So, read carefully and for god&#39;s sake, think.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


it[&#39;s] more than resembles Hegel&#39;s.

In what way?


Not only that you exercise double standards when it comes to implying things.

I note you cannot say where I allegedly implied this.


And it implies also that since societies move in place and time as you said they are, then the American society can go to Asia.

You are merely trying to deflect attention from the fact that you cannot respond to my argument.


It&#39;s clear you contradicted yourself.

Once more, I note you are incapable of saying how and where.


Go on, save your face by painting such a picture of me

No need to: the artistry is all your own, as your latest comments further confirm.

However, it looks like you are now becoming incoherent:


Your fans might be turned off if they realized that after all, you are of the same concept with Hegel. The difference is that Hegel was stuck in the muds of metaphysical swamp. Had he pursued further using dialectics as his vehicle, he should&#39;ve gotten out of it. But alas, he chose not to.

While on the other hand, I can see you driving around the opposite side of the road where Hegel was. Only that you are using your poor logic to arrive at the same swamp where he was. And I will not be surprised that one day, yours and his ideas would be solemnly interlocked with a bond similar to that of a marriage.

:wacko:

As I noted folks: Red Che is his own worst enemy. The more he posts the further into the mire he sinks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolver, well done for trying to beat some sense into that knuckle-head. Do not imagine for one second you have made an ounce of difference.

When he and I &#39;debated&#39; some moths ago, I likened him to a devout Roman Catholic or born again fundamentalist, whose simple faith in the revealed word was good enough for him, but whose reasoning powers were not up to the task.

In the end, I advised him to post only blank spaces in reply to me since 1) it would save time, and 2) they would make his points far more convincingly.

He is without doubt the dialectical pits.

We should, I think regard him as a sort of troll. He is not here to argue, but to annoy and to waste time. He cannot read to save his life, or he chooses not to. And he just ignores stuff he cannot handle.

[Herman]

I know English isn&#39;t your first language (or at least I&#39;m assuming it isn&#39;t) but what a humorous thing to say&#33; I know exactly that that is what you said which why I had to point out to you that you were completely wrong: &#39;But more embarrassing still is Red&#39;s quotation of Hegel that directly contradicts Rosa and directly supports his own argument... only for him to just flip the truth and pretend to the contrary&#33;&#39; The quotation, in reality, contradicts Rosa and supports you. That is why I am so amazed that you just blatantly lied and said the opposite&#33; You are inhabiting another world here&#33;

I loled. :P


Here comes the Rosa fan who suddenly appears to save her "idol".

I don&#39;t understand this though. Since I agree with Darwin on his theory of evolution, and I defend it, does that mean that I idolize him?

[Hit The North]

RevolverNo9:


Just consider for a moment whether your terms are helpful - whether it is not easier to understand society with more precise terminology, words that directly relate to their subjects.

So what terms do you use? How do you develop a meaningful and coherent way of thinking about the distinction between structure and agency in society? How do you make history intelligable?

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and Gramsci are mistaken - even deluded - when they argue for the primacy of dialectics in understanding society (according to you and comrade Rosa). Well, what do you put in the place of dialectics?

Come on, genius, give us a coherent interpretive methodology to make sense of society.

DO SOMETHING POSITIVE (we know it&#39;s beyond Rosa - apparently we have to wait another 18 years before she gets into it).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and Gramsci are mistaken - even deluded - when they argue for the primacy of dialectics in understanding society (according to you and comrade Rosa). Well, what do you put in the place of dialectics?

Oh dear, human beings make mistakes! This is unbelievable!! :o

Welcome to the world of science, BTB. The rest of us humans learnt centuries ago to ditch useless theories that do not work, or are encrusted with mysticism.

No different here.

You conservative theorists cling on to the past too much.

And, as we established on another thread, Marx limited the application of 'dialectics' to a few phrases he lifted from Hegel, with which, as he said, he merely 'coquetted' -- and then only in one chapter of Das Kapital.

So, he was too smart to swallow all that Hermetic rubbish.

You need to follow his example.

Just a thought. :)


we know it's beyond Rosa - apparently we have to wait another 18 years before she gets into it

1) You'd moan anyway even if one were produced.

2) We already have a theory worked out; it's called Historical Materialism (why do I have to keep telling you this?).

3) The theory that is screwing with your head needs to be killed off first. Otherwise you will never learn to think straight, and Revolver will be of no help to you. You have already demonstrated how logically-challenged you are. I think that, like so many DM-fans I have known, your reasoning faculties are in long slow decline.

Look at Red Che; that's you in ten years time.

You have been warned....

[red_che]

Rosa:


In what way?

Elaborate your point and Ill show you how.


I note you cannot say where I allegedly implied this: "And it implies also that since societies move in place and time as you said they are, then the American society can go to Asia".......You are merely trying to deflect attention from the fact that you cannot respond to my argument.

No, you are the one trying to avoid my questions.


Once more, I note you are incapable of saying how and where.


Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] Oct 06 2006 12:16 PM
Answer: They move as a result of forces in nature and the struggle between classes. No contradictions anywhere in sight.

Class struggle without contradictions? Hahaha.... funny&#33; :lol: :lol:

RevolverNo9:


As I said to Hoopla, simply agreeing with someone on certain issues does not equate &#39;idolisation&#39;. You have no evidence to back this up and I think it&#39;s pretty clear that I&#39;ve tried to make my points on my own terms from a point of rational criticism, not out of a motivation to approach my &#39;idols&#39; for its own sake. (And this coming from a man who parrots the words of Mao completely uncritically and like a holy disciple&#33;)

No. It seems you are more than simply trying to make your points on your own terms, but rather as a fan who keeps cheering for his idol. :D


Yeah, quite right. Why bother with &#39;the little man&#39; when you can render society analogous to a rotting fruit? Good work mate.

Such as your idol&#39;s analogy of society&#39;s self-movement to a light bulb? Hehe... :lol:


you failed to address the point that it doesn&#39;t make sense to say that anything affects society externally,

I didn&#39;t say that anything external doesn&#39;t affect society. I want to make clear to your head that external factors are of secondary importance to society&#39;s development.


since society is itself man&#39;s interaction with nature (and therefore, since he is part of nature, himself). Anything that interacts with nature is a social phenomenon (as any good historian can tell you).

I&#39;m afraid you have lost your senses to society. Society is man&#39;s interaction with other men and nature. But, it&#39;s defined more on man&#39;s interaction with other men. I don&#39;t know where you got that definition of society. I think it is you who live on another world, not in this world called Earth.


My other objection is that by endlessly discussing terms like &#39;self-movement&#39; you are actually lending in your mind simple pieces of vocabulary a role as active, historical agents&#33; By considering these abstracts, you obscure the real, material subject of investigation. Just consider for a moment whether your terms are helpful - whether it is not easier to understand society with more precise terminology, words that directly relate to their subjects.

I believe Z clarified this one. I submit with his clarification.


Charming. Well actually, it isn&#39;t. Have you ever frozen a fruit? Have you ever cut open a banana and left it out? I think if an undergraduate biologist claimed that his plum was in &#39;self-movement&#39; he&#39;d get thrown of his course.

Okay, I will deal with these stupid examples once more. What can you observe of the frozen fruit? Or of the banana?


The quotation, in reality, contradicts Rosa and supports you.

I think you don&#39;t get my point when I posted that quote of Hegel and related it with Rosa&#39;s. However, I would be glad to know your explanation.


Are you saying imperialism and conquest does not? Are you saying tribal movement does not? The construction of wells, housing, towns and cities does not? The birth of human beings? Tell me how the first merchants traded without movement? Or how a worker occupies a factory without moving?

And therefore, societies do move in time and in space. Very well, I agree. And your statement is perfectly a materialist dialectical conception of society. :) You are dialectical, after all. And I would like to add that the the imperialist conquests are borne out of the capitalists&#39; drive for accumulation of more capital.

Now, I&#39;ve been pressing for Rosa to explain the same thing to let me know if her explanations do not subscribe to DM, as she claims. However, she has not, and stopped doing so. Because on her first attempt, I showed her explanation as closely resembling that of a dialectical concept contrary to her claim that she is not a dialectic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red (still playing for time):


Elaborate your point and Ill show you how.

You are being deliberately obstructive here: I asked you to say how my argument in any way resembled Hegel&#39;s obscure comment.

You failed to do that, so I asked again. Now I ask a third time.


No, you are the one trying to avoid my questions.

I asserted that you were trying to avoid my argument, not my questions. And now you try to avoid my argument some more.

Your questions have been answered. Show me one that has not been.

I note once more that you cannot say where and how I have contradicted myself; smileys do not constitute an explanation, nor does an exclamation mark or a &#39;Haha&#39;:


Class struggle without contradictions? Hahaha.... funny&#33;

Since you cannot explain yourself, I submit that you do not know.

And this is incoherent:


Now, I&#39;ve been pressing for Rosa to explain the same thing to let me know if her explanations do not subscribe to DM, as she claims. However, she has not, and stopped doing so. Because on her first attempt, I showed her explanation as closely resembling that of a dialectical concept contrary to her claim that she is not a dialectic.

What are you blathering on about, man? Do you read what you post? I defy even you to make sense of it.

I set up a site, which has over 600,000 words devoted to trashing DM; in addition I have been shredding it here at RevLeft for nearly a year and you want to know:


Now, I&#39;ve been pressing for Rosa to explain the same thing to let me know if her explanations do not subscribe to DM, as she claims.

What more do you need? A message written in the clouds? A sign from the &#39;gods&#39;?



As I told you last time we &#39;debated&#39;, Red, your case would be far more effective if you just posted a blank space in reply.

[i]At the moment, you are just making a continual fool of yourself.

[RevolverNo9]

Oh dear oh dear.

Rosa:


Revolver, well done for trying to beat some sense into that knuckle-head. Do not imagine for one second you have made an ounce of difference.

Thanks&#33; Yes, this is becoming more than apparent - the more that is said the more confusing and contradictory his thoughts (and I use that term loosely) become. But somehow I feel obliged to keep on writing&#33; Perhaps I am sharpening my critical skills, perhaps it is egoism. And of course, maybe someone will read this and realise what the people on their &#39;side&#39; are really like&#33;


[Citizen Zero] Look at Red Che; that&#39;s you in ten years time.

In ten years time? Surely Red Che can&#39;t be much older than ten?

Citizen Zero:


So what terms do you use? How do you develop a meaningful and coherent way of thinking about the distinction between structure and agency in society? How do you make history intelligable?

When I use terms to explain history, I choose terms that I feel relate to their subjects as concretely as possible. I do not need to use Hegelian logic to assert the following: &#39;major historical transformations are brought about by the struggle of contending class-interests.&#39; &#39;Contending class-interests&#39; are real, tangible phenomena. It is for such a reason that the latter phrase is infinitely more accurate and useful than something muddy like: &#39;History is the summation of internal contradictions as moments in the self-movement of society in the totality.&#39;

I take history very seriously and I have no graver objection that history being distorted by totalitarian schemata. The materialist conception of history must be informed by rigorous observation. If you look at the terms that Marx used in elaborating his theses on historical materialism they mean something concrete. The mode of production, relations of production, economic basis... each concept is empirically formed, meaningful and directly useful. We already have adequate terms and vocabulary to describe how society works.


Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and Gramsci are mistaken - even deluded - when they argue for the primacy of dialectics in understanding society (according to you and comrade Rosa). Well, what do you put in the place of dialectics?

As you should know, whether Marx actually used dialectics is highly contested. I don&#39;t think it can even be shown - can you convincingly demonstrate to me otherwise? Why is Hegelian logic needed?

But the answer to your question, is yes, they are &#39;mistaken - even deluded&#39;. Critics&#39; use of dialectics has been various in its form and extent but I fail to see an instance where &#39;dialectical method&#39; is a force for clarification while Dialectical Materialism is dangerously invalid. If you look at the intellectual climate that Engels emerged from, his philisophical work is a clear expression of the late Victorian trend in bourgeois intellectual life to force everything into a totalitarian system of thought. (For example, very similar things were happening in the name of Darwinism, this time as an explanation to all fields of knowledge.) Why would we want to keep this tradition alive?


Come on, genius, give us a coherent interpretive methodology to make sense of society.

I certainly have not - and do not - claim to be a genius. Your suggestion that there is something so outrageously iconaclastic in ignoring totalising philosophy constructed by ignorant bourgeoises from over a hundred years ago is faintly endearing (in a twee sort of way). You can&#39;t honestly tell me that Red Che makes sense to you, can you? He keeps on contradicting himself anyway... perhaps he&#39;s arriving at a moment of inner-self-movement. Soon he&#39;ll have negated his own negation and reached the Absolute of his own nothingness.

Red Che:


Class struggle without contradictions? Hahaha.... funny&#33;

Your sense of humour is appalling.


No. It seems you are more than simply trying to make your points on your own terms, but rather as a fan who keeps cheering for his idol. :D

Err... ? Hate to break it to you Red mate, but simply grinning doesn&#39;t actually increase the validity of your own claim. Unless you can demonstrate that my arguments are simply made to approximate my &#39;idol&#39;, your claim is worthless and anyone viewing this thread will know this. RedHerman&#39;s got a point:


Since I agree with Darwin on his theory of evolution, and I defend it, does that mean that I idolize him?

And as I have pointed out before (good to see you&#39;re on the ball&#33;) you openly idealise figures such as Mao and demonstrate zero critical appreciation. Tell me, is Citizen Zero your idol? Or is only Engels &#39;mighty&#39; enough for such an accolade?


I didn&#39;t say that anything external doesn&#39;t affect society. I want to make clear to your head that external factors are of secondary importance to society&#39;s development.

Well you clearly haven&#39;t understood a word I wrote. I said: &#39;it doesn&#39;t make sense to say that anything affects society externally&#39;. HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS??? I am saying that nothing affects society externally because that has no meaning whatsoever. Give me one example of an &#39;external factor&#39; in society&#39;s development? You can&#39;t can you, because any relation with society (natural or human) is by very definition social itself. For this reason, your concept of &#39;internal development&#39; and &#39;self movement&#39; has no meaning, because you have just invented a non-existant catagory.

If you are not going to make any effort to understand this, don&#39;t bother replying.


I&#39;m afraid you have lost your senses to society. Society is man&#39;s interaction with other men and nature. But, it&#39;s defined more on man&#39;s interaction with other men. I don&#39;t know where you got that definition of society.

Er, I said that society is man&#39;s interaction with man and nature (because man is a part of nature, did you know that?) and I have been saying that in all my posts. You are clearly not bothering to read a word of what I right properly are you? Right, well since you now seem to agree with my definition of society, care to explain how society can be affected externally? Of course you can&#39;t, because any interaction with society is therefore (by our shared definition) social.


I believe Z clarified this one. I submit with his clarification.

No he hasn&#39;t.


I think you don&#39;t get my point when I posted that quote of Hegel and related it with Rosa&#39;s. However, I would be glad to know your explanation.

Here we go...

Red Che&#39;s statement:
A society does not move from place to place, right?

... contradicts Rosa&#39;s statement:
Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space.

... but does not contradict Hegel&#39;s statement:
History in general is . . . the development of the Spirit in time

Rosa says that society moves in time and space while Red Che and Hegel (in this quotation) both deny that society moves in space. Your lies are as clear as crystal.

Except... in an unexpected twist Red Che realised my evidence was irrefutable (astoundingly, societies do move in space) and chose to directly contradict himself as follows:


societies do move in time and in space. Very well, I agree.

You&#39;ve just swapped sides in the argument&#33; (To the forgetful, compare with former statement: &#39;A society does not move from place to place, right?&#39; In fact, until a few hours ago, Red Che thought the very idea that there is physical movement in society so ridiculous that he compared its absurdity to the idea of a light-bulb changing itself.)

So, instead of admitting defeat, what does Red Che do? (I&#39;ll give you a clue... it&#39;s very similar to what the religious say when you finally force them to admit that members of other religions and atheists can act ethically - they claim they are acting with God... they just don&#39;t know it&#33;)


You are dialectical, after all.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

(You argue against a non-dialectical proposition, relent and accept it and then claim to be dialectical. I make no exageration when I say you are the single worst poster I have argued against here.)

Needless to say, you will not be able to demonstrate my thought as dialectical but - by all means - try if you want to scrounge after some meagre credibility.


And I would like to add that the the imperialist conquests are borne out of the capitalists&#39; drive for accumulation of more capital.

No nonsense there, Red. Where did I say anything to the contrary? What you say supports and informs the theory of historical materialism, one I whole-heartedly support. Why don&#39;t you bother reading what I and others&#39; write?

I despair.

[red_che]

Rosa:


You are being deliberately obstructive here: I asked you to say how my argument in any way resembled Hegel&#39;s obscure comment.

And I responded by asking you to explain your "argument" first, then I&#39;ll explain mine. That is not obstructive. You claim yours is different from Hegel&#39;s, then explain. And then I will explain my part after that.


I asserted that you were trying to avoid my argument, not my questions. And now you try to avoid my argument some more.

I&#39;ve asserted so many times before that you avoided so many of my questions. And you have not answered them until now.


I note once more that you cannot say where and how I have contradicted myself; smileys do not constitute an explanation, nor does an exclamation mark or a &#39;Haha&#39;:

I believe those smileys explained more than your thousands of words written on your essay... :D


What are you blathering on about, man? Do you read what you post? I defy even you to make sense of it.

I set up a site, which has over 600,000 words devoted to trashing DM; in addition I have been shredding it here at RevLeft for nearly a year and you want to know:

Oh, there you go. Point to somewhere else instead of doing it here, on this thread where we are discussing now. A very convenient way of avoiding questions. And arguments... :rolleyes:

RevolverNo9:


Your sense of humour is appalling.

Only to those who have little or no sense at all. :D


Err... ? Hate to break it to you Red mate, but simply grinning doesn&#39;t actually increase the validity of your own claim. Unless you can demonstrate that my arguments are simply made to approximate my &#39;idol&#39;, your claim is worthless and anyone viewing this thread will know this. RedHerman&#39;s got a point

They are very clear. Read again your responses. Or I&#39;ll help you out, as this response will show later.


&#39;it doesn&#39;t make sense to say that anything affects society externally&#39;.

Point number 1. I never said that anything affects society externally, but rather that external factors do affect society (can you see big difference between what I said and what you said?), and these external factors are only secondary factors in socity&#39;s development. That statement you made is a sure sign of your idolisation of Rosa since Rosa does the same thing several times: Circumventing things for her to impose her ideas unobtrusively. But in your case, you make up as a poor clone of your idol. :P


I am saying that nothing affects society externally because that has no meaning whatsoever.

Precisely, and I am not saying it either. :D


Give me one example of an &#39;external factor&#39; in society&#39;s development?

If you were reading your idol carefully, she already said that external factors do contribute to society&#39;s development. Once more, you proved yourself a very poor clone of your idol. But I&#39;ll do give one and I&#39;ll pick up the same one gave by Rosa: That the sun&#39;s energy contribute to the forces of production. Or in my own terms, the sun&#39;s energy contribute to man&#39;s production.


I said that society is man&#39;s interaction with man and nature (because man is a part of nature, did you know that?)

I say you are so quick at altering your own words. What kind of strategy are you employing here? To show you your inconsistency, here&#39;s what you said the last time:
Originally posted by RevolverNo9 Oct [email protected] 2006 05:00 PM
So you said. Since you were ignoring me however (though I suspect you just failed to understand me) you failed to address the point that it doesn&#39;t make sense to say that anything affects society externally, since society is itself man&#39;s interaction with nature (and therefore, since he is part of nature, himself). Anything that interacts with nature is a social phenomenon (as any good historian can tell you). So... your statement is meaningless, you&#39;ve fabricated a distinction that simply does not exist. Do you understand what I am saying?

And here&#39;s what I said:
Society is man&#39;s interaction with other men and nature. But, it&#39;s defined more on man&#39;s interaction with other men.

Don&#39;t you see the difference? Of course, you can&#39;t.


Rosa says that society moves in time and space while Red Che and Hegel (in this quotation) both deny that society moves in space. Your lies are as clear as crystal.

Another manifestation of your being a poor clone of Rosa.

First, I did not deny that society moves in time and space.

Second, I am showing that Rosa&#39;s statement resembles that of Hegel&#39;s statement, no conclusions yet.

Third, I am still waiting (until this moment) for Rosa to explain why she says her statement is not similar to Hegel&#39;s.

In other words, no one said or admitted they contradict the other because nothing have been explained as of now. You were so quick to judge at a stupid conclusion like you&#39;ve made without having any basis to prove your claim. That being said, I was (am) right to say that you are nothing but a poor clone and a very loyal fan of Rosa.... :rolleyes:


You&#39;ve just swapped sides in the argument&#33; (To the forgetful, compare with former statement: &#39;A society does not move from place to place, right?&#39; In fact, until a few hours ago, Red Che thought the very idea that there is physical movement in society so ridiculous that he compared its absurdity to the idea of a light-bulb changing itself.)

Oh, okay, I take back what I said. I thought you fully understand my point by then, but it seems you&#39;ve not, and instead you&#39;ve boasted like you have defeated Goliath in a boxing match.

You really can&#39;t understand simple words, poor clone.


&#39;A society does not move from place to place, right?&#39;

Read this several times. And read it carefully. Then tell me what you understand of it. :)


Needless to say, you will not be able to demonstrate my thought as dialectical but - by all means - try if you want to scrounge after some meagre credibility.

I really thought you were becoming scientific, but not, my mistake. You are really just a poor clone.


No nonsense there, Red. Where did I say anything to the contrary? What you say supports and informs the theory of historical materialism, one I whole-heartedly support. Why don&#39;t you bother reading what I and others&#39; write?

See? I really thought you got my point. I almost jumped out of my seat because I thought you were scientific, and dialectical. But as I said, I was wrong. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


And I responded by asking you to explain your "argument" first, then I&#39;ll explain mine.

For the fourth time, where exactly is my argument like anything Hegel said? This, you keep avoiding.

If you made the comparison without understanding my argument, then more fool you.

Why make that comparison if you did not understand what I was saying?

And nowhere did you ask for me to explain my argument; you asked several questions which I answered.


You claim yours is different from Hegel&#39;s, then explain.

In fact you asserted my claim was the same as his; it was you who brought this up not me. I asked you straight away, as well you know, what the similarity was between anything I had argued and the quotation you introduced from Hegel. Then you started this complex avoidance game.

If you can&#39;t say where my ideas and his are the same, withdraw that claim -- if you are man enough.


I&#39;ve asserted so many times before that you avoided so many of my questions

And, I asked you which these were, and you have once again failed to say.


I believe those smileys explained more than your thousands of words written on your essay...

You live in a fools paradise then.

Once more you cannot say because you do not know how and where I &#39;contradicted&#39; myself.

This is just part of your attempt to waste time, and avod answering my query: where and how did I &#39;contradict&#39; myself?

Your continual silence suggests you do not know, and cannot say.


Oh, there you go.

So, what does this passage mean then?


Now, I&#39;ve been pressing for Rosa to explain the same thing to let me know if her explanations do not subscribe to DM, as she claims. However, she has not, and stopped doing so. Because on her first attempt, I showed her explanation as closely resembling that of a dialectical concept contrary to her claim that she is not a dialectic.

I defy you to interpret your own blather.


A very convenient way of avoiding questions. And arguments...

I think we know who is the champion avoider is here: you.

If you won&#39;t take my advice and stop making a fool of yourself in public, so be it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might like to note that the Essay that sparked off this thread has been re-written. I have made the argument a little clearer, I think. It is also approximately 25% longer.

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

[red_che]

Rosa:
For the fourth time, where exactly is my argument like anything Hegel said? This, you keep avoiding.

If you made the comparison without understanding my argument, then more fool you.

Why make that comparison if you did not understend what I was saying?

And nowhere did you ask for me to explain my argument; you asked several questions which I answered.

As you said, I made a comparison. Just that, a comparison. So here it is again:
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space. I am amazed I have to tell you this.[/b]
Originally posted by G. W. F. [email protected]
History in general is . . . the development of the Spirit in time, as nature is the development of the Idea in space.

I stated that they are almost the same. The words, as you had written them, were almost the same as that of Hegel&#39;s, at least at first glance. If you say they are not the same, then why not explain? Why not clarify the difference? If you want to be understood, then explain.


In fact you asserted my claim was the same as his; it was you who brought this up not me. I asked you straight away, as well you know, what the similarity between anything I had argued and the quotation you introduced from Hegel. Then you started this complex avoidance game.

If you can&#39;t say where my ideas and his are the same, withdraw that claim -- if you are man enough.

You did not make any explanation as to why your statement is different from that of Hegel&#39;s. Except, of course (as you are fond of doing), to point to somewhere else, to this essay that you made or that site somewhere, etc.


And, I asked you which these were, and you have once again failed to say.

Do you want me to post them all again? One example is that one on my signature below.


Once more you cannot say because you do not know how and where I &#39;contradicted&#39; myself.

This is just part of your attempt to waste time, and avod answering my query: where and how did I &#39;contradict&#39; myself?

Your continual silence suggests you do not know, and cannot say.

I believe you are referring to this:
Rosa
They move as a result of forces in nature and the struggle between classes. No contradictions anywhere in sight.

There. It is clear. You contradicted yourself. How can you say that class struggles happen without any contradictions? And the way you put it, the forces of nature are more significant than class struggle, or class contradiction.


Comrades might like to note that the Essay that sparked off this thread has been re-written. I have made the argument a little clearer, I think. It is also approximately 25% longer.

Okay. That&#39;s simply how you avoid debate. You point to somewhere else and avoid the scrutiny here. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che (may I say &#39;well done&#39; for at least trying to respond this time):


As you said, I made a comparison. Just that, a comparison. So here it is again:

And? What exactly is the similarity?

Where do I mention &#39;spirit&#39;? Or &#39;idea&#39;?

I speak of the real world and societies moving in space and time.

You might as well say that if a religious nut said this:

"As you said, God made a comparison. Just that, a holy comparison. So here is the gospel again:"

when you had said:

"As you said, I made a comparison. Just that, a comparison. So here it is again:"

you two were saying something that closely resembled one another.

Which is what you asserted of me and Hegel:


It closely resembles that of Hegel&#39;s

I asked you how this was so, and the sorry affair took off.

So, how do these "closely resemble" one another?

You now try this:


I stated that they are almost the same. The words, as you had written them, were almost the same as that of Hegel&#39;s, at least at first glance. If you say they are not the same, then why not explain? Why not clarify the difference? If you want to be understood, then explain.

Not in the least. They contain some similar words, but they are saying entirely different things, as would be the case in the example of I gave above about you and the made up religious nut.

Your poor grasp of English is clearly affecting your judgement.


You did not make any explanation as to why your statement is different from that of Hegel&#39;s. Except, of course (as you are fond of doing), to point to somewhere else, to this essay that you made or that site somewhere, etc.

Once more, since you dredged this up, as a delaying tactic, I asked you to say in what way they were the same.

If I cannot see the similarity (and I guess no one else can), you should say, so I can comment.

This is something you are still refusing to do. Just pointing to a few similar words is of no use at all, especially if my words are saying something totally different from Hegel&#39;s.


One example is that one on my signature below.

And I answered it.

Here it is:



If that is so, can you please explain about this quote from Marx?

Unlike you, I do not treat everything Marx (or anyone) has said as gospel; so I cannot explain why he uses that word (except, perhaps I can offer contingent reasons why he did based on his own petty-bourgeois origins), nor would I want to. He learnt far too much from Hegel. My aim is to put that right.

You might not like my answer, but that is the best I can do.

If you want more details, I suggest you read my Essay Nine Parts One and Two (the first part has been published, the second will be in a few months time, but there is a summary of it already posted).


There. It is clear. You contradicted yourself. How can you say that class struggles happen without any contradictions?.

Easy. Here it is again: class struggle occurs without contradictions.

What I requested from you was an explanation of exactly where this is a contradiction in itself. Merely asking how I can say something is not an explanation.

Now, if I had said this:

"Class struggle occurs without contradictions and class struggle does not occur without contradictions."

you might have had a point, for that is a discursive contradiction.

And it would be too if you could show that "struggle" is synonymous with "contradiction", which neither you nor anyone else has been able to show.


And the way you put it, the forces of nature are more significant than class struggle, or class contradiction.

And I concentrate on nature, since my site was set up to take down dialectical materialism, not historical materialism, so I largely ignore the application of dialectics to human society (except to show what a mess it has made of the thinking processes of comrades like you, and prevented the scientific development of Marxism for over 100 years).

Hence my request for you to show how the internal contradictions in a light bulb (or a planet, or a billiard ball) make it move, as Lenin said they do.


That&#39;s simply how you avoid debate. You point to somewhere else and avoid the scrutiny here

You might think you are the centre of the universe, sunshine, but even you, in your paranoid state of mind, should be able to see that the comment to which you took exception was directed at the many dozens of others who are reading this thread, and were doing so before your confused face showed itself, not you. Hence my use of the word "comrades". And note the time tag on my last two posts before this one; they are nearly 24 hours apart. The first was aimed at you, the second not.

So, get a grip man....

[red_che]

Rosa:
And? What exactly is the similarity?

Where do I mention &#39;spirit&#39;? Or &#39;idea&#39;?

I speak of the real world and societies moving in space and time.

That&#39;s it. Now you are explaining. That&#39;s good. :D

Well yes, the words "spirit" and "idea" are missing in your statement. So, what about? Besides those words, what are your other proofs that what you said is different from Hegel&#39;s? I am looking for the more plausible ones. ;)


Not in the least. They contain some similar words, but they are saying entirely different things,

This is what I&#39;m asking you to explain. Why do they say different things while containing similar words? And, once more I ask of you, please do not point to somewhere else. Just explain it here.


Once more, since you dredged this up, as a delaying tactic, I asked you to say in what way they were the same.

If I cannot see the similarity (and I guess no one else can), you should say, so I can comment.

This is something you are still refusing to do. Just pointing to a few similar words is of no use at all, especially if my words are saying something totally different from Hegel&#39;s.

Delaying tactic or not (which I suppose you are the one delaying this), I still want an explanation.


And I answered it.

Here it is:


If that is so, can you please explain about this quote from Marx?

Unlike you, I do not treat everything Marx (or anyone) has said as gospel; so I cannot explain why he uses that word (except, perhaps I can offer contingent reasons why he did based on his own petty-bourgeois origins), nor would I want to. He learnt far too much from Hegel. My aim is to put that right.

You might not like my answer, but that is the best I can do.

You call that an answer? Well, I call it an excuse to not answer... <_<


If you want more details, I suggest you read my Essay Nine Parts One and Two (the first part has been published, the second will be in a few months time, but there is a summary of it already posted).

One again, an avoidance or evasion or refusal to answer here.


class struggle occurs without contradictions.

How could that be?


And it would be too if you could show that "struggle" is synonymous with "contradiction", which neither you nor anyone else has been able to show.

Okay, a definition of contradiction is found here: (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contradiction)

contradiction - opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas.


And I concentrate on nature, since my site was set up to take down dialectical materialism, not historical materialism, so I largely ignore the application of dialectics to human society (except to show what a mess it has made of the thinking processes of comrades like you, and prevented the scientific development of Marxism for over 100 years).

Fine. I can try to accept that lame excuse. But historical materialism is dialectical materialism applied to human society. And that is what this discussion is all about, the application of dialectical materialism to human society.


Hence my request for you to show how the internal contradictions in a light bulb (or a planet, or a billiard ball) make it move, as Lenin said they do.

Firstly, Lenin did not say it. Only idiots would think that to be, more so to insist that Lenin said it. And in this case, you are the one insisting it. Secondly, I am more interested in discussing the internal contradictions in society. I am not a physicist, or something like that, so I can&#39;t explain you in detail how the particles of light bulbs move or a billiard ball move.


You might think you are the centre of the universe, sunshine, but even you, in your paranoid state of mind, should be able to see that the comment to which you took exception was directed at the many dozens of others who are reading this thread, and were doing so before your confused face showed itself, not you. Hence my use of the word "comrades".

So it is directed to the others. Fine. But I say you are avoiding the scrutiny here.


And note the time tag on my last two posts before this one; they are nearly 24 hours apart. The first was aimed at you, the second not.

Oh, you want me to waste all my time waiting for your response? Hell, I don&#39;t want to. If I wasn&#39;t able to respond in that 24-hour span, that&#39;s because I have more productive things to do than arguing against you.

[Herman]

One again, an avoidance or evasion or refusal to answer here.

When Rosa tells you to read her essay, it&#39;s not to avoid anything. It&#39;s because she already answered the question in that essay.. If you take some time to read it, you&#39;ll probably get an answer.


This is what I&#39;m asking you to explain. Why do they say different things while containing similar words? And, once more I ask of you, please do not point to somewhere else. Just explain it here.

Okay, let&#39;s look at it again:


Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space. I am amazed I have to tell you this.


History in general is . . . the development of the Spirit in time, as nature is the development of the Idea in space.

I don&#39;t see the similarity in the meaning of both sentences. Hegel metions this:


the development of the Spirit in time, as nature is the development of the Idea in space.

Rosa says "in the real world, societies move in time and space". Do you see now why it is different?


Well yes, the words "spirit" and "idea" are missing in your statement. So, what about? Besides those words, what are your other proofs that what you said is different from Hegel&#39;s? I am looking for the more plausible ones.

Hegel refers to the spirit of time (when we all know this does not exist). Rosa does not. Simple as that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red:


That's it. Now you are explaining. That's good.*

Well yes, the words "spirit" and "idea" are missing in your statement. So, what about? Besides those words, what are your other proofs that what you said is different from Hegel's? I am looking for the more plausible ones.*

Since you asserted they were the same, the onus is on you, sunshine.


This is what I'm asking you to explain. Why do they say different things while containing similar words? And, once more I ask of you, please do not point to somewhere else. Just explain it here.

I refer you to my comment above.


Delaying tactic or not (which I suppose you are the one delaying this), I still want an explanation.

Let me get this straight: you want an explanation of your own assertion?

You provide it. It's your hobby-horse.


You call that an answer? Well, I call it an excuse to not answer...

As I said, if you do not like it, tough.

And, you will note that it beats out of sight any you have produced -- not that you have produced any.


One again, an avoidance or evasion or refusal to answer here.

Coming from the champion avoider, I take this as high praise.


contradiction - opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas.

We covered this months ago. I refer you back to what I said then.


But historical materialism is dialectical materialism applied to human society

This is the standard line, but I deny it.


Firstly, Lenin did not say it.

And I did not say he did; I said his words implied it, and no one here (least of all you -- hence your delaying tactics) has been able to show why this is not so.

I note you still cannot.


And in this case, you are the one insisting it

I refer you to my previous two comments.


Secondly, I am more interested in discussing the internal contradictions in society.

Well, you are going to get bored pretty quickly, since there are none.


I am not a physicist, or something like that, so I can't explain you in detail how the particles of light bulbs move or a billiard ball move.

No need to; what Lenin said implies they are self-moving.

So light bulbs can change themseleves.

Glad I could clear that up for you.


But I say you are avoiding the scrutiny here.

You can say what you like, but since little of what you say bears any resemblance to the truth, I rather think we can ignore it.


Oh, you want me to waste all my time waiting for your response? Hell, I don't want to. If I wasn't able to respond in that 24-hour span, that's because I have more productive things to do than arguing against you.

Once again, ego-maniac, you may think that you are the centre of attention, but you are not.

I do not care if you totally ignore me, or spend hours and hours here avoiding the issue. The time reference was added to point out that the earlier comment you took exception to was not directed at you. So, that time reference was not aimed at pointing out that I was hanging on your every word, merely that the two postings were not in any way related. That is why there was such a long delay. I too had better things to do, in this case re-writing the essay rubbishing the mystical ideas that have compromised your ability to think. [Proof of which is each and every one of your sad postings.]

Yes, go and do something more useful yourself -- may I suggest watching your toenails grow?

Or better: watch a few light bulbs change themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Herman, thanks for those comments, but as I said to Revolver, I hope you do not think for one second that Red Che will 1) undersatnd your point; 2) read what you say with any care; 3) alter his ideas accordingly.

He is living disproof of Heraclitus&#39;s claim that everything changes.

Check out an earlier thread [link below] from months ago, where you will see that no matter what anyone said to him, it sailed right over his head.

I&#39;d call him a troll, but that would be an insult to trolls.

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

[red_che]

RedHerman:


When Rosa tells you to read her essay, it&#39;s not to avoid anything. It&#39;s because she already answered the question in that essay.. If you take some time to read it, you&#39;ll probably get an answer.

If that is the case (just read her essay and accept her explanation without questioning) then we should as well stop discussing here and RevLeft shoud have made these discussion boards as just announcement boards.


Rosa says "in the real world, societies move in time and space". Do you see now why it is different?

Yes, I see the difference, that the words "spirit" and "idea" are missing and these words may imply something. But what I am asking Rosa to explain is what does she mean with what she said and why is it different from that of Hegel&#39;s. I want the explanation to come from herself not from anybody else&#39;s. In her essays, nothing of this sort was discussed by her.


Hegel refers to the spirit of time (when we all know this does not exist).

Correct. But I have doubts as to Rosa&#39;s real perception on this. :D

That&#39;s why I keep asking her.


Rosa does not. Simple as that.

This came from you, not from her... :rolleyes:

Rosa:


Since you asserted they were the same, the onus is on you, sunshine.

Yes, I assert it because you have not yet substantiated your statement. If you can provide plausible explanations other than saying "spirit" and "ideas" are not mentioned in your statement, I may change my mind. :rolleyes:


Let me get this straight: you want an explanation of your own assertion?

No, I want an explanation of your statement.


We covered this months ago. I refer you back to what I said then.

That everything in the dictionary is wrong? And that you will not accept that definition. Well, I say you are not accepting anything that contradicts what you say anyway. You think that you are the only one who can say what is correct and what is not. Then you&#39;re a fool.


And I did not say he did; I said his words implied it, and no one here (least of all you -- hence your delaying tactics) has been able to show why this is not so.

So, I also say that you imply that the American society can move from the American continent to the Asian continent... :D


Well, you are going to get bored pretty quickly, since there are none.

You cannot provide anything to back up this assertion, other than mere denial. And this you continue to avoid.


No neeed to; what Lenin said implies they are self-moving.

So light bulbs can change themseleves.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

So, America can move to Asia. Glad I can say this too. :D


You can say what you like, but since little of what you say bears any resemblance to the truth, I rather think I can we can ignore it.

Evasion.


Once again, ego-maniac, you may think that you are the centre of attention, but you are not.

I do not care if you totally ignore me, or spend hours and hours here avoiding the issue. The time reference was added to point out that the earlier comment you took exception to was not directed at you. So, that time reference was not aimed at pointing out that I was hanging on your every word, merely that the two posting were not in any way related. That is why there was such a long delay. I too had better things to do, in this case re-writing the essay rubbishing the mystical ideas that have compromised your ability to think. [Proof of which is each and every one of your sad posring.]

:huh:


Yes, go and do something more useful yourself

:)

[Herman]

This came from you, not from her...

This came from me, yes. I&#39;m not for or against dialectics. I know too little of it to make a proper jugdement.

What I can do is analyze what a person says and what he or she means with that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


Yes, I assert it because you have not yet substantiated your statement.

This is getting tedious; I made no statement, as well you know. You made an allegation and I asked what the similarity was.

You have yet to say; I think you cannot, hence all the distractions from you.


I may change my mind.

You live in a little self-obsessed bubble, don&#39;t you; you think I care whether you change your mind (that is, what little of it there is left after the ravashing it has had from the Hermetic virus you caught from Hegel).

All I asked was that you justify your claim. You haven&#39;t. And it now seems you cannot.


No, I want an explanation of your statement.

What statement? I asked you a question, you replied and then began to question your own question, asking me to clarify it for you.

At this stage, you are becoming so confused that you are finding it difficult to tell your own words from anyone else&#39;s. Or understand your own remarks&#33;


That everything in the dictionary is wrong?

As I said, I refer you back to that discussion. You need to tackle what I said then, not make some more stuff up. [You could not answer it then, and I think the same is true today.]

If you can&#39;t be bothered to look it up, I have to say, I do not care. Stick to your simple, mystical faith. I learnt long ago that you dialectical dummies cannot be reasoned with. You, though, take first prize.

As I have said to you many times: the longer you stay this confused, the less harm you can do to the workers&#39; movement -- what harm you do to yourself, that is your own affair.


Then you&#39;re a fool

Coming from you, this is rich. You will need considerable promotion to make the above grade. Each post of yours is unfortunately sending you into new, unplumbed depths.


So, I also say that you imply that the American society can move from the American continent to the Asian continent..

According to geologists, continents can move (even though what I said did not imply this).

What are you going to do, accuse them of holding reactionary anti-dialectical ideas?


You cannot provide anything to back up this assertion, other than mere denial. And this you continue to avoid.

Done it; check out my site.

Now let&#39;s see you explain why Lenin&#39;s words did not imply that light bulbs can change themselves.


So, America can move to Asia. Glad I can say this too.

I refer the honourable sub-fool to my previous remarks.

Now, the un-crowned king of evasion points his grubby finger at me, and croaks:


Evasion.

However, I am a mere amateur in this regard; I am trying my best to come up to your high standards. So, be patient.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Herman, notice how what I said came true?

If you check out that link I posted earlier, you will see that Red Che has a long and honourabble track record of soiling himself in public.

He is a warning to us all.

[Herman]

Red Herman, notice how what I said came true?

If you check out that link I posted earlier, you will see that Red Che has a long and honourabble track record of soiling himself in public.

He is a warning to us all.

Well, when I know very little about a certain subject, I know that I shouldn&#39;t try to make an argument or two.

I can see the reason why Che tries to justify the usefulness of dialectics though. It&#39;s something which has been part of marxism for very long and to discard it as mystical rubbish is something quite revolutionary (in a way).

I think the fact that dialectics is so complicated makes marxism hard to understand (this being a reason why many students don&#39;t even bother to learn anything about it). I&#39;d prefer a much simpler explanation on how society has progressed and why it has evolved in such a way. I think, we can all agree, that historical materialism suits this need of simplicity, yet a proper and good explanation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Herman, the problem is that Red Che cannot show how dialectics is useful (and he is not alone, no one can).

Sure dialectiucians say they can, but when pressed, they all become vague, and in his case, evasive and hoplessly confused.

And dialectics is not so much complicated, as terminally obscure.

You can see the effect it has on comrades&#39; thought processes, Red Che being an extreme example.

[Herman]

Well, if someone is unable to properly explain what it is, then it must be either complicated or illogical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Herman, I think that calling dialectics "illogical" is to, praise it far too highly.

It arose out of mysticism, and that is why its adherents cannot explain it.

[Herman]

Where does the mysticism come from though? Is it that much of an idealist thing?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here is how I put things in the summary to Essay Fourteen (links missing from the original):


In this Essay (when it is published sometime in 2007), the Hegelian/DM-view of reality is traced back to its real roots: these are not to be found in the ordinary lives of working people, nor yet in the everyday experience of the revolutionary party. Their pedigree can be traced back to mystical Hermetic thought, to doctrines that expressed ancient ruling-class beliefs about nature and their &#39;rightful&#39; divinely ordained place in it. Although others have made somewhat similar points, these connections are pushed much further in this Essay, backed by an entirely new approach, and far more evidence.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism.]

Indeed, it is shown here for the first time: (1) Just how and why this ancient mystical perspective actually developed; (2) Exactly how it was linked to wider ruling-class priorities; and (3) Precisely how this alien thought-form was (inadvertently) smuggled into Marxism.

In support of these claims, texts from ancient Mesopotamia, Persia, China, Egypt, India, Greece and Rome are quoted at length. In addition to the relevant (surviving) works of pre-Socratic thinkers (such as, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Zeno, and Parmenides) -- as well as those of Plato and Aristotle -- are introduced as main exhibits for the prosecution.

Moreover, the ideas of NeoPlatonic, Stoic and Hermetic writers (like Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Pseudo-Dionysius, and the shadowy figure Hermes Trismegistus &#39;himself&#39;) are then linked to the theories of late medieval/early modern thinkers -- such as, John Scotus Eriugena, Albertus Magnus (St Thomas Aquinas&#39;s teacher), Meister Eckhart, Raymond Lull, Nicholas of Cusa, Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, Marsilio Ficino, Henri Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim, Giordano Bruno, Robert Fludd, John Dee, Johannes Reuchlin, Paracelsus, Sebastian Franck, Valentin Weigel, Jacob Böhme, William Law, Emanuel Swedenborg, Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin, and Friedrich Christoph Oetinger. A summary of these influences on Hegel can be found here.

Finally, the views of these assorted mystics are then linked to the works of authors who directly influenced Hegel (i.e., Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Hölderlin, Goethe, Schelling and Novalis). The impact on DM of this mystical hotchpotch is considered in detail.

Of course, these are no mere speculations; Hegel admits them himself, and acknowledges his debt to many of the above mystery-mongers. Here are his odes to NeoPlatonism, Gnosticism and the Kabbalah, to the Y-Ching -- and here to Boehme.

[More details will be given in the published Essay.]

Indeed, Hermeticism was highly influential on German Pietism (through Boehme and his followers) -- which was itself a version of Lutheran Protestantism beloved of later German Kings; not only was Hegel brought up in the Pietist tradition, Engels&#39;s father was a Pietist, and he too was raised in its traditions. In fact, we find Engels himself speaking positively about Pietism in an early work: Reports From Bremen. A copy is posted here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...0/07/bremen.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/07/bremen.htm)

In that case, Engels&#39;s later trajectory back into Hermeticism (under the guise of Hegelianism) is not the least bit surprising.

In fact, anyone who thinks that dialectical materialism lies at the cutting edge of modern thought/science should read the Kybalion, the third most important book of Hermetic Philosophy, so we are told. Even though it was first published in 1912 (it had three authors who were all Masons), it summarises the core beliefs of this mystic creed. In many places it is not easy to to tell the difference between DM and the ideas Hermetic Philosophy espouses. Doubters are encouraged to check, here, but more specifically here, here and here. Subtract the overtly mystical language, and you have the covert mysticism of DM.

Similar boss-class bona fides can be found in Chinese, Indian, Tibetan and Japanese thought. Many of these are also outlined. Indeed, in many respects, Daoism is virtually identical to DM -- which fact Maoists have used to &#39;good effect&#39;. The same can be said for parts of Buddhism.

All this helps refute the claim (found in TAR -- for example, on p.6) that although DM shares with mysticism a belief in Totality, mystics do not try to account for change by appealing to &#39;internal contradictions&#39;, nor do they see the Totality as a process. The opposite is in fact the case; rarely does a mystic fail to appeal to opposites (and unities of opposites, too) -- or to terms that are analogous to contradictions and contraries (and they speak about "conflicts" in nature, as well), almost exactly as they are understood in DM -- to account for reality and change. Not only that, many mystical systems (such as Hermeticism ancient Chinese Daoism, again) do in fact see reality as a process.

[TAR = The Algebra of Revolution.]

Some comrades acknowledge this, and regard it as supportive of their own ideas (i.e., that the &#39;dialectic&#39; appears in a &#39;mystical&#39; form in practically all ancient religions). This, of course, merely underlines the fact that the continuity between ruling-class mysticism and DM places them both in the same tradition of anti-materialist, anti-democratic thought. One might as well boast about being related to Hitler, and appeal to the mystical aspects of National Socialism (Aryosophy) for like support.

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

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

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

http://lapismagazine.org/nazism.html

Mystical ideas like these were originally found in ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation stories -- and they pervade Chinese and Indian thought (as they do other ancient theologies, and Theogonies). Doctrines of this sort have cast a long shadow (in one way or another) across all forms of ruling-class thought. They reappear today in the most surprising places, which is no surprise really to anyone who takes Marx&#39;s claim seriously that ruling ideas are always those of the class that rules. [More details on this in the full Essay.]

Given this unsavoury background, the numerous similarities between Hermetic (and/or) NeoPlatonic doctrines and DM-theses are more than merely coincidental.

DM is thus exposed as a modern-day Deistic Myth.

These links with ruling-class thought help explain why Dialectical Marxism is so spectacularly unsuccessful: its core theory merely reproduces the thought-forms of those classes who, up until now, have been vastly more successful at preserving their own power than we have been ending it. The adoption of such mysticism thus solves the mystery of our own impotence: if we think like them, we end up acting like them.

As should seem obvious: it is not a good idea to try to end class rule by emulating its most tried and tested ideologies -- and then bury your head in the sand when a comrade points this out.

The original with all its links can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...ummaryofEssay14 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-7-14.htm#SummaryofEssay14)

Scroll down to near the bottom of the page for this Summary.

[red_che]

Rosa:


This is getting tedious; I made no statement, as well you know. You made an allegation and I asked what the similarity was.

You didn&#39;t say this?
Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space. I am amazed I have to tell you this.

I asked you to explain it.


All I asked was that you justify your claim. You haven&#39;t. And it now seems you cannot.

And I showed you their similarity. I even posted your statement and Hegel&#39;s so that everybody can see. If you want to say that yours is different, then substantiate it, do not just deny.


As I said, I refer you back to that discussion.

No need. Because as what you are doing now, you are merely evading, avoiding and refusing all questions.


According to geologists, continents can move

Good. They move slowly and gradually that it cannot be seen by the naked eye, right? So do you need to see also the light bulbs changing with your naked eye before you believe that they move?


(even though what I said did not imply this).

And what are you implying then?


Now let&#39;s see you explain why Lenin&#39;s words did not imply that light bulbs can change themselves.

Lenin did not imply that light bulbs can change themselves the same way people change their clothes. Why can&#39;t you not understand it? They move because their particles are moving.

RedHerman:


This came from me, yes.

But on my part, I don&#39;t want to speculate what Rosa would say.


I&#39;m not for or against dialectics.

I&#39;m not saying you agree or not, either.


I know too little of it to make a proper jugdement.

Same here, that&#39;s why I asked Rosa to explain them here, on this board, where I can ask her questions, or at least take a shot at "scrutinizing" her essays. I am not contented at merely reading her essays because I cannot ask her questions in her site. At least here I can ask her some, or many. :D


What I can do is analyze what a person says and what he or she means with that.

Yes. But it is much better to ask her questions personally through this board. And that is what I am doing.


I can see the reason why Che tries to justify the usefulness of dialectics though. It&#39;s something which has been part of marxism for very long and to discard it as mystical rubbish is something quite revolutionary (in a way).

I try to justify, in my own terms, dialectics not merely because it is part of Marxism for long. I do it because Marxism cannot be Marxism without dialectics. You may not agree. And it is exactly why discussions, such as what is going on now, on this issue is happening, and I&#39;m glad RevLeft can provide a way for it. Rosa is trying to discard dialectics, and some of us trying to argue against her. But Rosa avoids such discussions and just points those questions to her "essays". That is not a good way of discussing things. That is the most immature, and most arrogant way of avoiding debate.

And I say that discarding dialectics (dialectical materialism) is reactionary, not at all revolutionary. Again, you may not agree, and that is the reason why we should discuss it here.


I think the fact that dialectics is so complicated makes marxism hard to understand (this being a reason why many students don&#39;t even bother to learn anything about it). I&#39;d prefer a much simpler explanation on how society has progressed and why it has evolved in such a way. I think, we can all agree, that historical materialism suits this need of simplicity, yet a proper and good explanation.

I don&#39;t think so. Dialectical materialism is not that complicated. Historical materialism is an example of that. Historical materialism is the actual application of dialectical materialism into society.

I say Rosa&#39;s essays are much more complicated than Anti-Duhring.


Where does the mysticism come from though? Is it that much of an idealist thing?

Well, I guess a new thread must be started to discuss this one. As I can see, Rosa again began to throw those "infamous" look-at-my-site or look-at-this-link responses. This thread is now very long. I will initiate such thread when I come back. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


I asked you to explain it.

No you did not, you merely quoted Hegel:


Now I can see where you are arriving here. That external factors are the the primary factor in development. Your statement most closely resembles this one:

QUOTE (Hegel)
History in general is . . . the development of the Spirit in time, as nature is the development of the Idea in space.

QUOTE
Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space. I am amazed I have to tell you this.

See that? It closely resembles that of Hegel&#39;s . So, in that case using her stupidly illogical logic, the American society can move physically and historically. It is amazing how Rosa can see the entire American society (geography, land, etc. included) move from the American peninsula to Asia literally. Stupid logic.

No request to explain myself by you.

But, since then, all my requests to get you to tell me why you quoted Hegel, or why these two are in any way alike, have largely been ignored by you.

You are more interested in diverting the &#39;debate&#39; away from the embarrassing position Lenin&#39;s words have left you in than explaining why his words do not imply that light bulbs can change themselves.

And perhaps in your position I&#39;d do the same.

But still you persist:


And I showed you their similarity. I even posted your statement and Hegel&#39;s so that everybody can see. If you want to say that yours is different, then substantiate it, do not just deny.

All you &#39;showed&#39; was that a few words were the same (by using the Law of Identity, you will note -- so you do believe in it), and I responded to that.

If you cannot understand my reply, that&#39;s your problem.


No need. Because as what you are doing now, you are merely evading, avoiding and refusing all questions.

As I noted, too: I am learning from you, you need to give me time to reach your level of expertise in this area. You are the master, I am merely the pupil.


Good. They move slowly and gradually that it cannot be seen by the naked eye, right? So do you need to see also the light bulbs changing with your naked eye before you believe that they move?

Eh?


And what are you implying then?

Read what I say more carefully.


Lenin did not imply that light bulbs can change themselves the same way people change their clothes. Why can&#39;t you not understand it? They move because their particles are moving.

Lenin insisted that all objects must be taken in "self-movement"; his words, not mine. So, since a light bulb is an object, it must be able to move itself. So, his words did imply that light bulbs can change themselves.

It&#39;s your loopy theory, sushine.

Take my advice, abandon it.

[gilhyle]

Misquoting - the meaning of &#39;it&#39; varies :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

An earlier post of mine seems to have been lost; it went something like this:

The Essay that leads this thread has now been entirely re-written, with new material, in order to make the argument even clearer.

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Also, I have added a new Essay that expands on one of the &#39;thinnest&#39; areas of this introductory Essay:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have now up-dated that part of the Absolute Beginner&#39;s Essay posted at the head of this thread to incorporate the changes I have introduced since it was first published.

Comrades will note that over 3250 people have read this thread, which shows the level of demand that exists for such basic anti-mystical ideas on the revolutionary left.

It is also one reason why I have re-written it, to make my ideas even clearer.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Incidentally, anyone who wants to advance from this &#39;basic&#39; Essay, to something more thorough, but which is still introductory, try reading the separate sections of my Essay Sixteen (not the whole Essay, since that is well over 70,000 words long, and badly in need of revision), but the sliced-up subsections (all of which have been updated and revised) here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm)

[stevensen]

check my last post and the date too rosa (the post above for your befuddled brain) and dare to reply

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 06, 2006 09:36 am
Comrades will note that over 3250 people have read this thread, which shows the level of demand that exists for such basic anti-mystical ideas on the revolutionary left.
I can&#39;t speak for all the readers, but the only reason I view this thread is because of the hilarious little internet fights contained within. The walls of text certainly don&#39;t interest me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Anyone interested in longer summaries of my ideas, which begin where this basic version leaves off, should try this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might like to know that I am posting Essays of other anti-mystics (aka anti-dialecticians), here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Works%20of%20others.htm

[Hit The North]

Rosa writes:


Some might be a little concerned that several of these Essays were written by authors who later abandoned Marxism, or even became its opponents... In my own case, my opposition to DM has made me more determined, not less, to defend revolutionary socialism against the inroads of mysticism. So, in my case, if not in any other, opposition to this execrable theory has had the reverse effect. [My emphasis]

Says it all really.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Says it all really.

And Hegel was a coal miner, I suppose?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2006 04:42 pm
Mystic Z:


Says it all really.

And Hegel was a coal miner, I suppose?
No, but the founders of the UDM were coalminers (and Tories to boot), so I don&#39;t really understand your point.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2006 05:14 pm
Mystic Z:


No, but the founders of the UDM were coalminers (and Tories to boot), so I don&#39;t really understand your point.

Why does that not surprise me?
Perhaps because you too recognize the irrelevance of Hegel&#39;s occupational status to any meaningful assessment of his thought and you tacitly acknowledge that you often employ the phrase "And Hegel was a coal miner, I suppose?" as a smokescreen to avoid argument?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have now re-written all the Essays at my site, several times; the next Essay to be published will be Essay Nine Part Two (in January 2007), devoted solely to the deleterious effect of this Hermetic virus on the brains of otherwise rational comrades.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have completely re-designed the opening page to my site.

Let me know what you think....

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

[RebelDog]

Rosa,
What made you first come to the assumption that dialectics was wrong?
Are there any others who have worked as extensively as you to disprove it?
Is the hostility to dialectics of any significance within the SWP, I mean do many hold these views?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RD; I first encountered it 30 years ago when I was young, and immediately took a dislike to it; I could see it was a load of rubbish from the word go.

And, the more I found out about it, the less I lked it.

My work is totally unique; the closest anyone has come to matching my attack on dialectics are Karl Popper (and since he knew nothing about it, and was a rubbish philosopher, his attacks failed badly -- but everyone quotes his attacks as if they were the real deal), Gordon Leff 'Tyranny of Concepts' (a general attack on Marxism), H B Acton 'The Illusion of the Epoch' (a woefully misguided book) and a few others.

The best attack, though, is by Eric Petersen (in 'The Poverty Of Dialectical Materialism'), who is an Australian comrade, and who takes the view that there is no dialectic in nature, but there is one in history. He is sort of half-way toward my view.

He tells me he is working on a second edition, but I have advised him to revise the sections on logic, since they are easily the weakest part of his book (and Alan Woods contacted me to help him correct the logical howlers in the first edition of his book 'Reason in Revolt', for its second edition -- which I was happy to do -- but he did not take my advice to shred the sections on logic!).

Of course, there was Max Eastman, some of whose ideas I re-invented before I read his work, but he only snipes at this theory.

I will have thoroughly trashed it when I have finished; completely and utterly.

When I was in the SWP (I am not a member now, but I will re-join when this is complete (if they will have me back!)), the theory was taking hold (after the defeat of the UK miners in 1986 -- which is one reason for the 're-discovery' of this 'theory'); up until then, the majority accepted a dialectic in history but not in nature.

The reverse is true now; but in the last few years it has taken a decided back seat, since its abstract forms do not seem to match the wider radicalisation among young people since 1999, Seattle and 2003 Iraq etc., -- so it's not mentioned much these days.

I have no doubt it will return if there is a downturn -- in defeat, as Lenin noted, the temptation among comrades is to seek consolation in mysticism, etc.

By then, I should have finished this project -- but, I suspect it will have no effect....

[RebelDog]

D; I first encountered it 30 years ago when I was young, and immediately took a dislike to it; I could see it was a load of rubbish from the word go.

Then what &#39;jumped out at you&#39; as the original question relates to?


And, the more I found out about it, the less I lked it.

What more than anything makes it a theory you must reject over say, darwinism or general relativity?


My work is totally unique

I&#39;ve heard some comrades refer to dialectics and give a caveat, ie, relating to an opinion that some do not accept dialectics. Are they thus, due to your uniqueness, referring to you personally, tacitly?


The best attack, though, is by Eric Petersen (in &#39;The Poverty Of Dialectical Materialism&#39;), who is an Australian comrade, and who takes the view that there is no dialectic in nature, but there is one in history. He is sort of half-way toward my view.

So he is basically on your side except that you dismiss the human element also?
He must have to explain a difference between humans and the material world and animals then, how does he do this in his book?


When I was in the SWP (I am not a member now, but I will re-join when this is complete (if they will have me back&#33;)), the theory was taking hold (after the defeat of the UK miners in 1986 -- which is one reason for the &#39;re-discovery&#39; of this &#39;theory&#39;); up until then, the majority accepted a dialectic in history but not in nature.

Sometimes when I think deeply it is hard to understand how the miners strike might relate to, ie, the begining of the universe, but when one analyses the two one can see a fundemental truth that to fight one needs an enemy. The miners had the Ruling class and matter had anti-matter. Both had outcomes. A force must have a counter or it is not a force.
When I asked about the SWP ,I, at least knew you were once a member. I know that Alex Calinicos, Chris Harman, et al, are fundemental, superheavy-weight dialecticians.


The reverse is true now; but in the last few years it has taken a decided back seat, since its abstract forms do not seem to match the wider radicalisation among young people since 1999, Seattle and 2003 Iraq etc., -- so it&#39;s not mentioned much these days.

I don&#39;t understand how DM has abstract forms. By your logic, Rosa, everything nust have abstract form if it cannot be empirically, be verified, instantly. Everything is fundemenatally abstract then, because we have nothing as humans that is hard truth. You don&#39;t know you exist to disgrace dialecticts&#33; We live in primative times, we must wait for our technological "eyes".


I have no doubt it will return if there is a downturn -- in defeat, as Lenin noted, the temptation among comrades is to seek consolation in mysticism, etc.

There is a reality that the beaten, downhearted, resort to things which help them get through that which has just happened to destroy them. What if tomorrow the proletariat were victorious, what would they turn to? Without defeat, where is anti-dialectics?


By then, I should have finished this project -- but, I suspect it will have no effect....

Which leads me to say this; Why do you insist on this attack on Marx? He got it right, Rosa. There cannot be change without conflict.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RD:


Then what 'jumped out at you' as the original question relates to?

It's so long ago, it's hard to say; it just looked fishy to me.


What more than anything makes it a theory you must reject over say, darwinism or general relativity?

Well, that takes me into to nature of metaphysical theories as opposed to scientific ones, a topic too large for me to go into here.

I will be publishing several Essays on this over the next year or so.

But, anyway, if you compare the detail, precision and care put into the vast majority of scientific theories with the laughably amateur work that has gone into dialetics, you see a clear diffference immediately. [I am not speaking about Historical Materialism here --, a theory that has been worked out in far more detail, and with much greater care.]

And compared to other metaphysical theories, DM is fourth rate too. So, its not even quality nonsense!


I've heard some comrades refer to dialectics and give a caveat, ie, relating to an opinion that some do not accept dialectics. Are they thus, due to your uniqueness, referring to you personally, tacitly?

Possibly, but they are more likely to be referring to others, since I am not yet that well-known -- and/or notorious. I suspect that will change, and I will become the next bogeyperson.


So he is basically on your side except that you dismiss the human element also? He must have to explain a difference between humans and the material world and animals then, how does he do this in his book?

Well, he wrote his book back in 1995, well before he had heard of me.

I do not think he enters into the difference you speak of, but if he were to handle it in the same way as me, he would say that whatever the connection/difference between the two, as far as a theoretical/scientific account goes, dialectical materialism does not even make the reserve list, so poor is it. But, I cannot say for sure, since he does not.


Sometimes when I think deeply it is hard to understand how the miners strike might relate to, ie, the begining of the universe, but when one analyses the two one can see a fundemental truth that to fight one needs an enemy. The miners had the Ruling class and matter had anti-matter. Both had outcomes. A force must have a counter or it is not a force.

When I asked about the SWP ,I, at least knew you were once a member. I know that Alex Calinicos, Chris Harman, et al, are fundemental, superheavy-weight dialecticians.

Chris Harman only wrote about DM after the Miner's defeat, and Alex was like Eric Petersen until recently.

It was this change (back in 1987) that so demoralised me. Until then, even Chris was like Petersen (or so he seemed from what he had written).

The reason I mentioned that strike is that it is part of my thesis that DM-fans only turn to this theory when the movement is in retreat (and there is abundant, but not overwhelming, evidence to support this view -- I will be publishing it in my next Essay, due out in about a month).

They do this for the same reason that religious folk do (for consolation, etc), and that is why they irrationally cling onto it, and why my Essays will never break them from it.

I have written these Essays mainly to prevent younger comrades catching this mental virus, and to help formulate my own ideas clearly. And for future genrations to appropriate, and take further, should they want to.

However, it is also part of my thesis that only a confident and assertive working class will finally see this theory off, since only they can provide the material counter-weight to the idealism that dominates Dialectical Marxism.


I don't understand how DM has abstract forms.

I used this term loosely; I meant that its theses just do not mesh with anything that is happening.

Can you imagine banners/slogans on marches saying stuff like "Being is at the same time identical with but different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved in Becoming, and the fight against the Nazis!", or "Change in quantity results in change in quality and bring the troops home now!", or even "All things are interconnected and in continual change, as a result of their internal opposites, so we demand a 5% pay rise!"


By your logic, Rosa, everything nust have abstract form if it cannot be empirically, be verified, instantly.

Well, I do not argue this anywhere -- I suspect you have read into what I do say rather more than is there.

In fact, I attack all abstraction as meaningless, not that it can or cannot be verified; it does not make it that far.

[I am of course not speaking here of the ordinary use of abstract nouns!]


Everything is fundemenatally abstract then, because we have nothing as humans that is hard truth. You don't know you exist to disgrace dialecticts!

I could not follow this, so I cannot comment on it.


Which leads me to say this; Why do you insist on this attack on Marx? He got it right, Rosa. There cannot be change without conflict.

Where do I attack Marx? I say a few, a very few, critical things about some of his more philosophical ideas, but I never attack him or his theory of history -- which I fully accept.

And, I do not reject conflict and its role in change (how could I?!), just the metaphysical way this has been garbled in dialectics.

[Connolly]

I have completely re-designed the opening page to my site.

Let me know what you think....

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

Its much better than before. It also seems easier to navigate around to your different essays.

Its very good :D

My criticism is the same as Bretty - the colours are a tinchy bit too bright and illuminating. I dont think it does anything for issues of dullness. IMO, id rather read something dull under conditions that are easy on the eye than read something dull and have my eyes burnt out with illuminating colours. Also, though very minor, I dont think the red writing goes with the blue background - the white looks better on blue.

All in all - its excellent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

C, thanks for those comments.

I put the red in there, otherwise it will look like a Tory site!!

I'll take more of the red out, so that it can be read without sunglasses on....

Thanks again!

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

Right I have removed some of the red, but I have to leave some in!

I have also re-designed and re-written the basic introduction Essay, especially this section:

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

[hoopla]

Hey Rosa, would you reply to my these Feuerbach thread? I think my interpretation is ace, but DIALECTICAL&#33; :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I would do if these &#39;theses&#39; were important (or even if what you had written was comprehensible); they were unpublished by Marx.

You&#39;ll be commenting on the note he left for the milkman next&#33;

[hoopla]

Alright Rosa. Yeah, I&#39;m interested if your ideas will "take off". Suppose they might, though I am not really in agreement that that would be a good thing. Anyway, have you heard from any other critics/supporters of your work outside revleft?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

May I disabuse you of the fantasy that I want my ideas to &#39;take off&#39;?

Since the vast majority of human beings have been wrong about practically everything, the last thing I want is my ideas to become &#39;popular&#39;.

If ever they do, I will disown them.

What I do want is a confident and determined working class to seize power, and without any philosophical ideas to slow them down -- including my own.

So, up to the present, the vast majority of humanity has ignored everything I have to say -- long may this continue.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 09:29 pm
May I disabuse you of the fantasy that I want my ideas to &#39;take off&#39;?

Since the vast majority of human beings have been wrong about practically everything, the last thing I want is my ideas to become &#39;popular&#39;.

If ever they do, I will disown them.

What I do want is a confident and determined working class to seize power, and without any philosophical ideas to slow them down -- including my own.

So, up to the present, the vast majority of humanity has ignored everything I have to say -- long may this continue.
I meant, obviously, among Marxists: if you do not expect your ideas to have credit among communist groups, how do you expect the working class to throw off dialectics.

Your response seems, somewhat, "dialcetical" :-|

[Hit The North]

Hoop:


Your response seems, somewhat, "dialcetical" :-|

Certainly contradictory.

How does this:


Since the vast majority of human beings have been wrong about practically everything

square with Rosa&#39;s insistence that our salvation is to be found in the ordinary language of the working class (given their supposed tendency to be wrong about "practically everything")?

How does the implied elitism square with Rosa&#39;s avowed attachment to the idea that the working class are the collective agent of the revolution? Again, won&#39;t they just be "wrong about practically everything"?

[Guerrilla22]

Can we agree with what Marx came up with through dialetics though? You can criticize the process, but certainly what he put forth so far has come true.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:53 pm
Can we agree with what Marx came up with through dialetics though? You can criticize the process, but certainly what he put forth so far has come true.
If the method produces knowledge, there&#39;s little point in criticizing the method.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+January 18, 2007 06:00 pm--> (Citizen Zero @ January 18, 2007 06:00 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 06:53 pm
Can we agree with what Marx came up with through dialetics though? You can criticize the process, but certainly what he put forth so far has come true.
If the method produces knowledge, there&#39;s little point in criticizing the method. [/b]
The method has produced knowledge, but it doesn&#39;t seem as though those who are attacking dilatetics are objecting to the conclusions drawn, but rather to the approach, which is odd to me.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+January 18, 2007 07:21 pm--> (Guerrilla22 @ January 18, 2007 07:21 pm)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 18, 2007 06:00 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 06:53 pm
Can we agree with what Marx came up with through dialetics though? You can criticize the process, but certainly what he put forth so far has come true.
If the method produces knowledge, there&#39;s little point in criticizing the method.
The method has produced knowledge, but it doesn&#39;t seem as though those who are attacking dilatetics are objecting to the conclusions drawn, but rather to the approach, which is odd to me. [/b]
Well at the risk of appearing like Rosa&#39; s sock-puppet: I think she claims that dialectics played no part in Marx&#39;s actual analysis of history and capitalism. And even when he claims it has, she says he&#39;s wrong&#33;

Which is nice.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


I meant, obviously, among Marxists: if you do not expect your ideas to have credit among communist groups, how do you expect the working class to throw off dialectics.

Not really; you only have to look at, say, the twisted reasoning of comrades like Z to see that most Marxists are a lost cause.

The reason: they cling to this brand of mysticism for the same reason others cling to religion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


square with Rosa's insistence that our salvation is to be found in the ordinary language of the working class (given their supposed tendency to be wrong about "practically everything")?

How does the implied elitism square with Rosa's avowed attachment to the idea that the working class are the collective agent of the revolution? Again, won't they just be "wrong about practically everything"?

You clearly like to spin an 'idea' around in your head until its angular velocity exceeds the forces of good sense, and out it pops.

Even you (but I hesitate to attribute to you so complex a thought) know that you can say just as many falsehoods in ordinary language as you can assert truths (that is the whole point of the negative particle).

Ordinary language does not guarantee truth, it just guarantees sense.

I am not really surprised you do not know the difference.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G:


Can we agree with what Marx came up with through dialetics though? You can criticize the process, but certainly what he put forth so far has come true

Well, I accept the validity of historical materialism, but Marx did not use dialectical materialism, a notion invented by Plekhanov.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


And even when he claims it has, she says he's wrong!

On the contrary.

When we 'debated' this before, you had to skulk away since you could not show this to be so.

Especially when I proved the contrary.

Your memory is not too good.

I blame dialectics.

[Hit The North]

R:

Your memory is not too good.

I blame dialectics.



That&#39;s the trouble. You blame it for everything.

[Louis Pio]

Not that I wanna go into you whole anti-dialectics crusade, you know I think its bollocks.

I just can&#39;t help to wonder how you think you will reach people using arrogance Rosa? I mean it&#39;s half your posts or more recently...

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 12:57 am
G:


Can we agree with what Marx came up with through dialetics though? You can criticize the process, but certainly what he put forth so far has come true

Well, I accept the validity of historical materialism, but Marx did not use dialectical materialism, a notion invented by Plekhanov.
I was refering to the dialetical process in general.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


That's the trouble. You blame it for everything.

That suggests you should get it fixed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

T:


I just can&#39;t help to wonder how you think you will reach people using arrogance Rosa?

Well, what I said was a logical consequence of Marx&#39;s claim that the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class.

And, I do not expect the idealist notions that dominate, say, dialectical mysticism to be overcome by mere argument. [You only have to look at Z&#39;s posts to see that for a fact.]

If they could be, I&#39;d have to abandon materialism itself.

As you no doubt know, and as is the case with religious belief, it will take a change in society to rid us of the sort of idealism you find in dialectics -- not a series of lengthy essays by me.

So, that ls why I said that if my ideas alone could win, that would mean they were wrong, for it is part of those ideas that only in a revolutionary situation, or in a post revolutionary society, can idealism be vanquished.

So, if my ideas became popular now, that would refute them&#33; That is why I would have to disown them.

This is not to put the working-class down, nor denigrate their beliefs, but to put down the dominant ideologies they have absorbed from the media, their education etc. And to malign the ruling-class ideology that dominates dialectical mysticism.

So, it wasn&#39;t arrogance on my part as you suggest; just consistent materialism.

[You will also note that I claim very little credit for my ideas: 90% of what I say is a logical working out of Marx and of Wittgenstein; 1% from me (the rest from others). I have said that repeatedly; hardly the action of an arrogant person.

My essays are therefore aimed at influencing only a minority --- to protect, for example, young comrades from the sort of mental decay you see openly displayed here by the likes Z, and co.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

G22:


I was refering to the dialetical process in general.

Well, that&#39;s the point; there is no such thing. Or, perhaps better, it was an invention of Engels and Plekhanov, using garbled ideas they filched from that well known worker: Hegel.

[Louis Pio]

Ahh Rosa that reasoning are just silly and abstract.

I look forward to the day when you post something as to how dialectics had an bad influence on concrete events. Untill then i&#39;ll just be waiting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Teis:


Ahh Rosa that reasoning are just silly and abstract.

That merely describes it (and incorrectly), it does not counermand it.

You'll be saying next that Marx's claim about 'ruling ideas' is 'silly and abstract' too.


I look forward to the day when you post something as to how dialectics had an bad influence on concrete events. Untill then i'll just be waiting.

But this has nothing to do with your latest 'point'.

Anyway -- already done it.

You need to keep up.

[Hit The North]

R:


You&#39;&#39;ll be saying next that Marx&#39;s claim about &#39;ruling ideas&#39; is &#39;silly and abstract&#39; too.

No, but your assertion that dialectical materialism qualifies as &#39;ruling ideas&#39; are obviously silly and wide of the mark.

Unless, of course, you want to provide documentary or empirical evidence that DM or indeed dialectics of any shade, are used by the capitalist ruling class as an important ideological support.

Although given that the modern ruling class doesn&#39;t contain many hermetic mystics, German idealist philosophers or, indeed, dialectical materialists of any national complexion amongst its ranks or the ranks of its intelligentsia, I think empirical proof is beyond your grasp.

However, it&#39;s fairly easy to document the total opposition to dialectical materialism which has been trumpeted by the bourgeoisie for the past 150 years.

In fact, dialectics, in its historically emergent and imperfect manifestations, forms a historical residue of opposition to Ruling Class ideas which have generally depended on static, unchanging views of reality in order to justify the status quo.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


No, but your assertion that dialectical materialism qualifies as 'ruling ideas' are obviously silly and wide of the mark.

And now, you are so far adrift, you can't even think up your own criticisms.


Unless, of course, you want to provide documentary or empirical evidence that DM or indeed dialectics of any shade, are used by the capitalist ruling class as an important ideological support.

Yep, done it.


Although given that the modern ruling class doesn't contain many hermetic mystics, German idealist philosophers or, indeed, dialectical materialists of any national complexion amongst its ranks or the ranks of its intelligentsia, I think empirical proof is beyond your grasp.

So, you think, do you?

Progress?

In your case, clearly not.


However, it's fairly easy to document the total opposition to dialectical materialism which has been trumpeted by the bourgeoisie for the past 150 years.

In fact, dialectics, in its historically emergent and imperfect manifestations, forms a historical residue of opposition to Ruling Class ideas which have generally depended on static, unchanging views of reality in order to justify the status quo.

Not so -- you mystics have been saying the same stuff for millennia,

[Hit The North]

R:


And now, you are so far adrift, you can&#39;t even think up your own criticisms.

As if the point of critique is to be original. Maybe in your petite bourgeois world, Rosa.


Yep, done it.

Nope, you haven&#39;t.


Not so -- you mystics have been saying the same stuff for millennia,

And for a millennia, you ruling class apologists have been denying it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


As if the point of critique is to be original.

In your case, clearly not.


Nope, you haven't.

You wouldn't know anyway.


And for a millennia, you ruling class apologists have been denying it.

Once more, I see you are happy to copy someone else's point.

[RevolverNo9]

I&#39;m just about to post what may be the nearest Marx gave to an opinion on Engels&#39; &#39;discoveries&#39;... have a look.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Where?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 06:57 pm
G:


Can we agree with what Marx came up with through dialetics though? You can criticize the process, but certainly what he put forth so far has come true

Well, I accept the validity of historical materialism, but Marx did not use dialectical materialism, a notion invented by Plekhanov.
Actually, for a change, I agree with Rosa. Plekhanov did invent the phrase &#39;dialectical materialism&#39; — a misnomer in my opinion. Marx wasn&#39;t simply a &#39;materialist&#39; he was a &#39;naturalistic humanist&#39; or &#39;humanistic naturalist&#39;. He never used the phrase materialism outside of an association with wissenschaft. Marx did not turn Hegel on his head, he re-invented the whole dialectical method by re-positioning its categories of consideration away from abstractions [such as &#39;matter&#39; or &#39;mind&#39;] and centered them upon human social activity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More Fire, you are now about 3/4s of the way there.

You just have to drop every reference to Hegel (as Marx did in Das Kapital -- or rather, he said that he had merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon, and only in one Chapter of that book -- that was the extent of the 'rational kernel': a few bits of jargon), and you are there!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 06:42 pm
Hop, you are now about 3/4&#39;s of the way there.

You just have to drop every reference to Hegel (as Marx did in Das Kapital -- or rather, he said that he had merely &#39;coquetted&#39; with a few bits of Hegelian jargon, and only in one Chapter of that book -- that was the extent of the &#39;rational kernel&#39;: a few bits of jargon), and you are there&#33;
Oh, pur-leaze&#33; Do you think Marx would go out of his way to mention the rational kernel if he was just referring to a bit of jargon? This is the slimmest piece of evidence I&#39;ve ever heard and yet it seems to be the ace in your argument that Marx rejected dialectics.

Hop is completely right when he writes:


Marx... re-invented the whole dialectical method by re-positioning its categories of consideration away from abstractions [such as &#39;matter&#39; or &#39;mind&#39;] and centered them upon human social activity.

And in the face of over a century of Marxist scholarship which affirms the dialectical method in Marx&#39;s analysis of capitalism, you have this thinnest of arguments&#33;

Why can&#39;t you just admit that you and Marx had different opinions on this matter?

We wouldn&#39;t think any less of you (how could we?)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Oh, pur-leaze! Do you think Marx would go out of his way to mention the rational kernel if he was just referring to a bit of jargon? This is the slimmest piece of evidence I've ever heard and yet it seems to be the ace in your argument that Marx rejected dialectics.

Well, Marx it was, not me, who said he merely 'coquetted' with Hegelian jargon, and only in one chapter of his great work.

So, pick a fight with him, not me -- that was the extent of the rational kernel: a few bits of jargon. His words.


And in the face of over a century of Marxist scholarship which affirms the dialectical method in Marx's analysis of capitalism, you have this thinnest of arguments!

More tradition from you pretend radicals.

If scientists copied you lot, they'd still think the earth was flat.


Why can't you just admit that you and Marx had different opinions on this matter?

I have already admitted this: I would not even use the jargon.


We wouldn't think any less of you (how could we?)

Possibly because thinking is not something you do with ease -- or, at all, if your posts here are anything to go by.

[hoopla]

Hi Rosa. Why not post links to the text from which you decide Marx&#39;s relation to the dialectic - and also any other pieces that others think important.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Why not post links to the text from which you decide Marx&#39;s relation to the dialectic - and also any other pieces that others think important.

I have actually done that several times (and at least once in this thread), and an entire thread has been devoted to this very topic.

But, here we go again:

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

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53615&st=0

[hoopla]

Sorry Rosa. I think it is clear that the passages you posted on the revelft thread you likned to, can be interpreted quite differently from how you have. E.g. "mode of expression" to me does not mean "the dialectic" but style of writing, turn of phrase, idioms and emotion etc. I suspect that talented writers can do so very easily :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Sorry Rosa. I think it is clear that the passages you posted on the revelft thread you likned to, can be interpreted quite differently from how you have. E.g. "mode of expression" to me does not mean "the dialectic" but style of writing, turn of phrase, idioms and emotion etc. I suspect that talented writers can do so very easily.

Unfortunately for you, the chapter in question is the one in which the &#39;dialectic&#39; allegedly occurs in its clearest form, in which Marx merely said he &#39;coquetted&#39; with a few bits of Hegelian jargon. And Marx explicity links this to Hegel himself. Now why would he do that if it had no connection to the dialectic.

Hegel&#39;s terminology is of no use anywhere else, and for no other purpose.

So, you are at liberty to try and distance these words of Marx from &#39;the dialectic&#39;, but then you will not be able to say to what other purpose he put this jargon, and why he treated this oh so wonderful method with such contempt that he played about with its terminology in such a non-serious fashion. [And why in later volumes of Das Kapital, the &#39;dialectic&#39; slowly vanishes like the Cheshire Cat. Marx is extricating himself from the conceptual quagmire you lot are busy sinking yourselves back into.]

So, elsewhere in Das Kapital (apart from a few phrases here and there), one has to force Marx&#39;s ideas into this Hegelian boot.

Now, if you are determined to do this, fine.

But, do not petend that this isn&#39;t eminently subjective.

Now, my claims might be subjective too --, but, if I can show that Hegelian concepts make no sense at all (which I can, and have), then we are faced with a serious problem.

Abandon Historical Materialism (HM) because it trades on incomprehensible &#39;concepts&#39;, or ditch the superficial jargon with which Marx himself said he &#39;coquetted&#39;, and rescue HM from oblivion.

Now, unless one is irredeemably stupid, one will choose the latter course of action.

Hence, that is what I have done, and why I have done it.

You are welcome to disagree --, and you can thus look forward to another 100 years of failure....

[hoopla]

Considering how many anarcists there are on the boards I post on, I would be interested in finding out Bakunin&#39;s philosophical influences... It&#39;ll be a cool stick to beat people with if e.g. it turned out that all his writings on "freedom" were based on Plato or somesuch.

@

Rosa: I&#39;ll have more to contribute on this when I&#39;ve read "The Intellectual Origins...". Iirc you recommended it - thanks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Rosa: I&#39;ll have more to contribute on this when I&#39;ve read "The Intellectual Origins...". Iirc you recommended it - thanks.

Read
what??

Hoop, you see why I get so cross with you at times; you seem to be capable of posting meaningless strings of words, that bear no relation to anything I have said.

I have just spent 20 minutes carefully composing that reply, and all I get from you is this sub-literate mish-mash.

I am not sure I will bother with you again.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 11:42 am
Hop, you are now about 3/4&#39;s of the way there.

You just have to drop every reference to Hegel (as Marx did in Das Kapital -- or rather, he said that he had merely &#39;coquetted&#39; with a few bits of Hegelian jargon, and only in one Chapter of that book -- that was the extent of the &#39;rational kernel&#39;: a few bits of jargon), and you are there&#33;
Sorry Rosa but I&#39;m the type of Marxist who takes the influence of Hegel seriously. You could say I&#39;m a flunky of Gramsci, Korsch, Lukacs, et. al. Maybe you can keep your hopes for next year?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More Fire:


Sorry Rosa but I'm the type of Marxist who takes the influence of Hegel seriously. You could say I'm a flunky of Gramsci, Korsch, Lukacs, et. al.

And you are quite right to apologise.

No self-respecting materialist should go anywhere near that bible of mysticism -- Hegel's 'Logic'.

So: apology accepted -- can we now see the sinner you once were repenting in sackcloth and Formal Logic?


Maybe you can keep your hopes for next year?

Eh? :blink:

[hoopla]

But, do not petend that this isn&#39;t eminently subjective.Well interpretation can go on forever...

Now I don&#39;t pretend to know what "style" Marx writes in, but perhaps he would not say that he was a left Hegelian unless 1. He had no respect for the other "Left Hegelians", or he was indeed a "left Hegelian".

I admire the idea, really, but when I read the little Marx (his text and "style") I have read, the dialectic strikes me as very important to him. Imho your ideas should be cultivated and encouraged, but one must ask again if they do indeed "take off" (within reason - I&#39;m not suggesting that me and Citizen Z are planning to hire anyone for that).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Now I don&#39;t pretend to know what "style" Marx writes in, but perhaps he would not say that he was a left Hegelian unless 1. He had no respect for the other "Left Hegelians", or he was indeed a "left Hegelian".

I admire the idea, really, but when I read the little Marx (his text and "style") I have read, the dialectic strikes me as very important to him. Imho your ideas should be cultivated and encouraged, but one must ask again if they do indeed "take off" (within reason - I&#39;m not suggesting that me and Citizen Z are planning to hire anyone for that).

Well, as interested as we all are in your opinions, it is evidence and argument that wins every time.

I have the arguments and the evidence.

End of story.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

An ally of my site has just posted an entertaining anti-dialectical dialogue, which I have copied to here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Boiling%20Mad.htm

Apparently, there are more to follow.

[Connolly]

The link dosnt seem to work, even when the "mad.htm" is typed :mellow: