A question on totality

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did Lenin have a dialectical inspiration for applying the unity of politics and organization to the relationship between the party and the state (totality)?

[I ask this because of the "degeneration" of the party into an appendage of the emerging "no-party state," (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1045138&postcount=30) and given Lenin's suggestion for a CC-independent Central Control Commission in 1923 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/23.htm).]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Who can say? Lenin's ideas on dialectics make about as much sense as the Jabberwocky:



`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And, I have demolished dialecticians' ideas on the 'Totality' (what few there are) here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm)

[gilhyle]

I doubt that there is much to be learnt from reflecting on Lenin's conception of totality in order to understand his 1922-23 views on the programme necessary to reform the workers state.

I do think that implicit in the idea of the workers inspectorate is a whole model of the NEP state as a forum in which workers would constantly decide the extent to which capital would be allowed to circulate in pursuit of profit and the extent to which the power of the state would be used to contain and control capital.

I dont think Lenin believed the party could do this, or should do this. In many ways this is implicit in his views in the trade union controversy during which Trotsky's underlying error was to place excessive trust in the capacity of the party to act as a guiding vanguard.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't know what to say, other than:

1) Whoa (please elaborate more on this, even in the Philosophy forum)!
2) Do you think this is somewhat related to the material in this other thread regarding the separation of the party from state administration (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1055546&postcount=44)?

As for Trotsky's "excessive trust" in the party, you're getting me to think about a potentially heavy theoretical rant against Trotsky once my user group gets going.



In any event, I was actually referring to the integration of the party and the state during the civil war and a possible relationship with the earlier material on political and organizational unity in the party. The 1922-23 stuff that I mentioned was merely an afterthought (if the integration was based on "totality," then Lenin retreated from his "dialectical application" in 1922-23).

[rouchambeau]

What is "dialectical inspiration"?

[gilhyle]

Yeah, as I said, I just dont see the link between this and Lenin's dialectical methodology. One could argue against someone (like Bukharin) who tried to generalise from the War Communism experience into a wrong theory of the workers state that such a person lacked the dialectical methodology which could be used to integrate support for War Communism with support for a very different type of State once the CiviL War was over. (Lenin effectively made such a comment about Bukharin) However, you would have to say that without the slightest consciousness of dialectical methodology one could take exactly the flexible approach Lenin took.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In short, dialectics is useless, then...

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think that gilhyle and I have "lost you," especially one who emphasizes historical materialism. :confused:

[DJFreiheit]

Did Lenin have a dialectical inspiration for applying the unity of politics and organization to the relationship between the party and the state (totality)?



Is that what Totality is?

[DJFreiheit]

Who can say? Lenin's ideas on dialectics make about as much sense as the Jabberwocky:





Not sure wether Lenin took LSD, Rosa.:crying:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJF: No, he merely read Hegel, which is worse...


Is that what Totality is?

Nobody knows what it is -- it's like 'god': a mystery.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm)

[More Fire for the People]

'Totality' is an out-dated (but still semi-useful concept). See Sartre's 'totalization (http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/works/sartre.htm)' as a better concept (it is essentially the same understanding of multiplicity but as a process rather than a mere thing). So when we're talking about the 'unity of politics and organization' we're really talking about the process of organizing politics and politicizing organization. So if we're talking about a parallel process in party-state relations then we're talking about partyizing the state and statification of the party.

:scared:

Even without the Stalin induced nightmares this would be a scare idea. So even if Lenin was suggesting a correlationary process he must be wrong. But in Lenin's defense he hadn't yet seen the full effect of the partification of the state and was pushing up daises long before the statification of the party. The reason why? The bureaucratic sludge that appears as a by-product of this process rots everything. The bureaucracy is practico-inert, anti-cathartic, what-have-you—simply, they're up to no good!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

But, Hop, no one seems to know what it is -- or whether their own vague ideas about the 'Totality' refer to the same 'Totality' as anyone else's.

As I noted: this is exactly the same identification problem the world's religions have. Are they referring to the same deity, or not (and how might we decide)?

That is why those who believe in this 'Totality' are best called mystics.

Small wonder then that they got this notion from Hegel and mystical Christianity:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NFIOpySKxw0C&dq=hegel+hermetic+magee&pg=PP1&ots=KaHOxNt52c&sig=HqGXg2eVg0Mw0EV8DX_a6njs4tE&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Hegel+Hermetic+Magee&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is what Magee has to say, in the book to which I linked above:



"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.]


Much of this book can be read at Google Books (linked above, too).

[Die Neue Zeit]

'Totality' is an out-dated (but still semi-useful concept). See Sartre's 'totalization (http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/works/sartre.htm)' as a better concept (it is essentially the same understanding of multiplicity but as a process rather than a mere thing). So when we're talking about the 'unity of politics and organization' we're really talking about the process of organizing politics and politicizing organization. So if we're talking about a parallel process in party-state relations then we're talking about partyizing the state and statification of the party.

:scared:

Even without the Stalin induced nightmares this would be a scare idea. So even if Lenin was suggesting a correlationary process he must be wrong. But in Lenin's defense he hadn't yet seen the full effect of the partification of the state and was pushing up daises long before the statification of the party. The reason why? The bureaucratic sludge that appears as a by-product of this process rots everything. The bureaucracy is practico-inert, anti-cathartic, what-have-you—simply, they're up to no good!

Thanks for the philosophical insight, I guess. :blushing: :laugh:

The problem with Sartre's stuff, though, is that there wasn't any real "partyizing" of the state. Otherwise, Moshe Lewin wouldn't have written about the "no-party state."

[More Fire for the People]

whether their own vague ideas about the 'Totality' refer to the same 'Totality' as anyone else's
:confused:

But that's a part of all communications — my concept of a 'book' or 'red' is different from yours. Only contextual (language), historical (situational), perspective (ideological) meanings are commutable. Hence 'totality' will only make sense for in certain language, in certain situation, and from a certain perspective.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hop:


But that's a part of all communications — my concept of a 'book' or 'red' is different from yours. Only contextual (language), historical (situational), perspective (ideological) meanings are commutable. Hence 'totality' will only make sense for in certain language, in certain situation, and from a certain perspective.

Well, we have ways of determining such things, in the open, in a public domain.

Moreover, if our concepts of 'book' or 'red' were different, then the same would apply to 'different', and your surmise would be empty of all content.

What ways are there for determining that theroist A means the same as theorist B over their use of the word 'Totality', especially if no one can tell us what it is?

[Die Neue Zeit]

gilhyle (PM):



Jacob

Could you do me a favour and post the following on the question about totality thread - the system for some reason wont let me post on that thread (logs me out whenever I go into it) at the moment - happened before and Malte told me it was a problem with my computer. But its weird cos it only happens sometimes on some threads:

"In conceptualising a thing, an object, we are mobilising a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements and to what is outside it. Those relations are not incidental to the conceptualisation of the thing - without that mobilisation the thing cannot be conceived. And by the same token, without those relations no such thing could exist - hence its relationships are not contingent or incidental but are necessary to it and essential to its existence. Recognising that, we have before us a conception of a thing-in-relationships which is not just a conception of a thing and its external relations. That distinction is captured by the idea of those relations being 'internal' to the thing and amounting - when conceived with the thing - to the totality (or totalities) within which it exists."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


"In conceptualising a thing, an object, we are mobilising a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements and to what is outside it. Those relations are not incidental to the conceptualisation of the thing - without that mobilisation the thing cannot be conceived. And by the same token, without those relations no such thing could exist - hence its relationships are not contingent or incidental but are necessary to it and essential to its existence. Recognising that, we have before us a conception of a thing-in-relationships which is not just a conception of a thing and its external relations. That distinction is captured by the idea of those relations being 'internal' to the thing and amounting - when conceived with the thing - to the totality (or totalities) within which it exists."

This looks like yet more a priori dogmatics, and something that should be left scientists to find out, not for philosophers to legislate over.

And, if considered philosophically, it confuses the rules we have for the use of certain words, with the alleged targets of those words. It derives super-truths about all of reality for all of time based solely on the conditions we impose on the meaning of our words

This is to fetishise language, and it collapses into Linguistic Idealism, in that what had once been the product of the social relations among human beings (language) is transformed and fetishised into an expression of what are now taken to be the real relations between things, or as those things themselves.

In this way, discourse is graced with 'magical' powers, and linguistic megalomania is given a licence to practice, since, from the consideration of the alleged meaning of a few words, super-cosmic truths about everything in reality have been 'derived'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For some reason, Gilhyle could not post this, so I have been asked by Jacob Richter to post it for her/him:

Originally Posted by gilhyle

Thanks for posting my previous message Jacob and this one. I lost a somewhat longer response to Rosa's reply yesterday evening when I got logged out again from this forum by trying to post a message, but here is an inferior version of my response:




This looks like yet more a priori dogmatics, and something that should be left scientists to find out, not for philosophers to legislate over.


No it is not a priori, it is a generalisation based on observation of the actual usage of concepts that people engage in and the actual inter-relationships of those concepts one with the other. As to leaving it to scientists, revolutionaries cannot wait for a scientific practice funded by capitalism to provide the conceptual framework for revolutionary theorising: that will be a cold day in hell, turkeys voting for Christmas etc.


The use of philosophical methods of rough approximation, rules of thumb to develop a rounded critical view of the society we live in and its ideological framework is part of the development of a critical capacity in Marxism to deal with the obstacles (including Philosophical obstacles) capitalist ideology places in our way.


And, if considered philosophically, it confuses the rules we have for the use of certain words, with the alleged targets of those words.

We cannot differentiate between the words we use and the 'alleged targets' of those words in the way suggested (except to the extent that words do not encompass our perspective - which is trivial for the purpose of this discussion). The only thing I can say about the 'alleged target' of words independent of using those words to speak about the 'alleged target' is that there is such a target and even then I must use other words to speak about that !!




It derives super-truths about all of reality for all of time based solely on the conditions we impose on the meaning of our words


There are no super-truths about all reality in my previous post, but rather an observation about the manner in which concepts rely on each other and an acknowledgement that insofar as we believe what we affirm we must believe those interconnections to be true of what is spoken about as well as true of the structure of the language used. (That is not to claim that the structure of language is the structure of reality, it is only to see the structure of language (and concepts) as an unavoidable framework of which our understanding of reality is a part. In practice, any actual 'internal relations' identified are always subject to revision in the light of progress in understanding and in the light of debate: no dogmatic super truths about all reality here.



This is to fetishise language, and it collapses into Linguistic Idealism, in that what had once been the product of the social relations among human beings (language) is transformed and fetishised into an expression of what are now taken to be the real relations between things, or as those things themselves.


This does not fetishise language. In fact the opposite view is more guilty of linguistic idealism. My view refuses to see language as either a product of social relations or as an expression of what are taken to be real relations between things. Rather it insists that language speaks about things from within the social relations. It is to be contrasted with a linguistic idealism which sees language as a reflection of social relations and it is to be contrasted with a crude materialism which sees language as expressions of real relations between things simpliciter.



In this way, discourse is graced with 'magical' powers, and linguistic megalomania is given a licence to practice, since, from the consideration of the alleged meaning of a few words, super-cosmic truths about everything in reality have been 'derived'.
It is not a matter of gracing discourse with magical powers, but of refusing the paralysis of critical thinking that the dominant ideology encourages through its favoured post modernist and analytical philosophies

(I'll shut up now on this topic since I obviously cant take further part in this debate, having tried to post on three different computers and having failed on all three - the problem is clearly at the Revleft end and seems confined to the philosophy forum.) My thanks to Jacob Richter again for his practical assistance in posting this for me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


No it is not a priori, it is a generalisation based on observation of the actual usage of concepts that people engage in and the actual inter-relationships of those concepts one with the other. As to leaving it to scientists, revolutionaries cannot wait for a scientific practice funded by capitalism to provide the conceptual framework for revolutionary theorising: that will be a cold day in hell, turkeys voting for Christmas etc.

This is a very naive view of what the prize-fighters of history's ruling elites (aka 'Philosophers') have been up to for 2400 years.

But, it is just a long-winded admission that your words are indeed yet more a priori dogmatics (and based on the jargon employed by ruling-class hacks for millennia, and not the material language of the working class) -- derived from a few specialised terms-of-art that purport to reveal fundamental truths about reality, unavaible to the senses, and thus forever beyond the grasp of science.

Superscience, as I said

And all that talk about not being able to 'wait' for science to catch up simply confirms this.

I wrote this in Essay Two -- and it applies to you:



For all their claims to be radical, when it comes to Philosophy, dialecticians are surprisingly conservative (but worryingly incapable of seeing this, even after it has been pointed out to them). At a rhetorical level, such conservatism is camouflaged behind what appear to be a set of disarmingly modest denials --, which are then immediately ignored.

The quotations recorded below (and in Note 1 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2002.htm#The-Dialectical-Fig-Leaf)) show that dialecticians are anxious to deny that their system is wholly or even partly a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_(philosophy)), or that it has been imposed on the world and not merely read from it. However, the way that dialecticians actually phrase their ideas contradicts these superficially honest claims, showing quite clearly that the opposite is in fact the case.

This inadvertent dialectical inversion -- wherein what DM-theorists say about what they do is the reverse of what they do with what they say -- neatly mirrors the distortion to which traditional philosophy has subjected language (outlined in Essay Three Parts One (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm) and Two (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_02.htm), and in Essay Twelve (summary here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm))).

However, unlike dialecticians, traditional metaphysicians were open and candid about what they were doing; indeed, they brazenly imposed their a priori theories on reality and hung the consequences.

Because dialecticians have a novel (but nonetheless defective) view both of Metaphysics and FL (on the latter, see here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm)), they seem oblivious of the fact that they are just as ready as traditional metaphysicians are to impose their ideas on the world, and equally blind to the fact that in so-doing they are aping the alienated thought-forms (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm) of those whose society they seek to abolish.

Naturally, this means that their 'radical' guns were spiked before they were loaded; with such weapons, it's small wonder then that DM-theorists fire nothing but philosophical blanks.

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

Dialectics is a conservative theory precisely because its adherents have adopted the distorted methods, a priori thought-forms and meaningless jargon of traditional Philosophy.


More to follow.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


The use of philosophical methods of rough approximation, rules of thumb to develop a rounded critical view of the society we live in and its ideological framework is part of the development of a critical capacity in Marxism to deal with the obstacles (including Philosophical obstacles) capitalist ideology places in our way.

In contrast, Marx actually said:



"We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. 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) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03p.htm), p.118. Bold emphases added.]


And:



"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 ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65. Bold emphasis added]


And you, like so many previous generations of supposed radicals, have fallen for this guff.


There are no super-truths about all reality in my previous post, but rather an observation about the manner in which concepts rely on each other and an acknowledgement that insofar as we believe what we affirm we must believe those interconnections to be true of what is spoken about as well as true of the structure of the language used. (That is not to claim that the structure of language is the structure of reality, it is only to see the structure of language (and concepts) as an unavoidable framework of which our understanding of reality is a part. In practice, any actual 'internal relations' identified are always subject to revision in the light of progress in understanding and in the light of debate: no dogmatic super truths about all reality here.

Not so; practically all your posts in philosophy, including the one we are speaking of, contain supertruths of one sort or another derived solely from the alleged meaning a few jargonised expressions.



This does not fetishise language. In fact the opposite view is more guilty of linguistic idealism. My view refuses to see language as either a product of social relations or as an expression of what are taken to be real relations between things. Rather it insists that language speaks about things from within the social relations. It is to be contrasted with a linguistic idealism which sees language as a reflection of social relations and it is to be contrasted with a crude materialism which sees language as expressions of real relations between things simpliciter.

Once again it does fetishise language, for from it, you constantly derive truths allegedly valid for all of space and time.

Language for you is like a secret, if not magical code, from whose depths such supertruths can be apprehended by thought alone.

[gilhyle]

Wow I can post...great !

I get told Im long winded and naive. I get told I fall for guff. I get contrasted with a quote from Marx. I get told that 'practically all' my posts express supertruths. I get a quote addressed to others as if it was addressed to me. I cannot find much engagement with what I actually wrote in all this, so there is no possibility of debate without focused response, but one thing puzzles me in this preoccupation with 'supertruths'...why is the followingnot a 'supertruth': - neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own,... they are only manifestations of actual life

I know even asking this replicates the repeated structure of philosophical debates on this site that usually just ramble round the topic, but Im still curioius.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


I get told I'm long winded and naive. I get told I fall for guff. I get contrasted with a quote from Marx.

You have fallen for ruling-class guff, and should not moan when it is pointed out to you.


I get a quote addressed to others as if it was addressed to me.

It most surely is if you too have swallowed the same sort of guff Marx was on about.


I cannot find much engagement with what I actually wrote in all this, so there is no possibility of debate without focused response,

Welcome to the club; that happens to me all the time, and you are one of the worst offenders. You just ignore stuff you do not like, or which does not fit the ruling-class theory you have bought into.


but one thing puzzles me in this preoccupation with 'supertruths'...why is the following not a 'supertruth': neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own,... they are only manifestations of actual life

Because its negation makes sense.

You really do need to read more analytic philosophy...


I know even asking this replicates the repeated structure of philosophical debates on this site that usually just ramble round the topic, but I'm still curious.

Then have a read of this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm)

Sorry, you are not surious enough to do that, are you?

Well, stay mired in the failed, and nonsensical ruling-class thought that has you in its grip...

See if I care.

[gilhyle]

Gil:

Because its negation makes sense.

By that argument, if the negation of the claim that In conceptualising a thing, an object, we are mobilising a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements and to what is outside it.' proves to be meaningful, then that claim itself is not a 'supertruth'

THe negation is of course, It is not the case that In conceptualising a thing, an object, we are mobilising a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements and to what is outside it. This claim, while false, is to my mind quite meaningful.

At stake here is an expression of a view on what the concept of totality is. You have said that it is a supertruth. You have therefore claimed that its negation is meaningless. Show why

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



By that argument, if the negation of the claim that In conceptualising a thing, an object, we are mobilising a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements and to what is outside it.' proves to be meaningful, then that claim itself is not a 'supertruth'



Unfortunately, the above sentence is in Martian.

You will need to translate it before I, a mere earthling, can follow your point.


You have said that it is a supertruth. Show why.

Done it; here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011%2002.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011%2002.htm)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm)


Now, I know you only like to read ruling-class guff, and reams of it, but the above will at least rescue you from your present benighted state of mind.

[gilhyle]

Ah, no Rosa, why do you always run away !

You know exactly what that sentence means....your problem is you call things meaningless and you have no way to show that in this case. To avoid that being evident, you refuse to engage but just charging the other person with being convoluted.

And whatever else is on your website, there isnt an answer there to a suggestion as to what totality is for marxists which has only now been posed on this thread...... To avoid engaging, you refer people to your website.

You know when 'celebs' appear on chat shows to promote their book and start every response with 'Well in my book, I ....' It feels cheap, the audience is cheated. Why ? because the celeb doesn't treat them with any respect. Its in my book/its on my website....isnt good enough. It betokens a person who is not prepared to debate, only to market their wares.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



Ah, no Rosa, why do you always run away !



I never back down; on the contrary, it is you my mystical friend who always legs it.


You know exactly what that sentence means....your problem is you call things meaningless and you have no way to show that in this case. To avoid that being evident, you refuse to engage but just charging the other person with being convoluted.

If a Christain Trinitarian comes out with this sort of stuff:



1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

which seems to contain mostly ordinary words, I would say the same.

You, too, are using traditional jargon, which, likewise, has no material sense.

Or, none that you could explain, just as Christian mystics cannot explain the above.

Now, I have an explanation why this is so (in the links I gave), but you are too lazy to read it.

Stay confused and ignorant, then.


And whatever else is on your website, there isnt an answer there to a suggestion as to what totality is for marxists which has only now been posed on this thread...... To avoid engaging, you refer people to your website.


To avoid reading my essays, you hide behind laziness.


You know when 'celebs' appear on chat shows to promote their book and start every response with 'Well in my book, I ....' It feels cheap, the audience is cheated. Why ? because the celeb doesn't treat them with any respect. Its in my book/its on my website....isnt good enough. It betokens a person who is not prepared to debate, only to market their wares.

Nice try. Feel cheap if you want. Use any excuise you like to stay ignorant. I careth not.

The bottom line is that you are an ignorant defender of ruling class ideology.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To avoid engaging, you refer people to your website.

You know when 'celebs' appear on chat shows to promote their book and start every response with 'Well in my book, I ....' It feels cheap, the audience is cheated. Why ? because the celeb doesn't treat them with any respect. Its in my book/its on my website....isnt good enough. It betokens a person who is not prepared to debate, only to market their wares.

gilhyle, although I know you're chatting with Rosa, I too must admit a bit of guilt for doing something similar on this board (linking to past threads and posts). :(

However, I am "promoting" past threads and posts precisely to spark debate.



P.S. - It's a good thing that the two of you are limiting your barbs at each other to this forum. I wouldn't want this kind of crap to occur in my user group.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jacob, then you would not want the real Lenin (of, say, Materialism and Empirio-criticism) to post in that user group either, for he was just a prickly as I am.

And what Gil objects to are links to my Essays, which he/she (Gil's gender is undecided; originally he/she was a she, then more recently, after the op, one presumes, she became a he) refuses to read (despite the fact that he/she will wade happily through page after page of incomprehensible ruling-class ideology), requesting short and snappy answers to what are complex problems. Because of that, I just take the piss out of her/him, and have been doing so for well over a year.

Plus, I enjoy winding-up mystics...

[On the one occasion I managed to persuade Gil to read part of one of my essays, which systematically demolished the core rationale of Hegel's 'Logic', she/he went very quiet about it.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Perhaps I'm not as polemically inclined as he was. As for you, you'd have to drop your SWP membership AND overall revisionist Trotskyist leanings (outside of dialectics, so I'm talking about bigger fish here) to join. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for the weak insult...

[Die Neue Zeit]

You know what the Xians say: "Hate the sin, love/not the sinner."

[Hence I am attacking your leanings outside of anti-dialectics, not you as a person.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, I note you can only make that work by taking advice from Christians.

But, we get on too well for me to be miffed at you.:)

[FireFry]

Or as us psychoanalysts say; Love the sin of loving the sinner!

[gilhyle]

gilhyle, although I know you're chatting with Rosa, I too must admit a bit of guilt for doing something similar on this board (linking to past threads and posts). :(

However, I am "promoting" past threads and posts precisely to spark debate.

P.S. - It's a good thing that the two of you are limiting your barbs at each other to this forum. I wouldn't want this kind of crap to occur in my user group.

I agree, such barbs should be limited to here. I dont think its always a bad thing to refer somewhere else either. The problem with Rosa's reference to her website is that they dont really work as references. They are references to texts which are probably MILLIONS of words long, incredibly badly edited (although often with an interesting argument or two hidden in there somewhere) and which often are only tangentally related to the subject under discussion.

Its part of a pattern of discourse Rosa engages in which is very confrontational, pointlessly so in my view, and which includes a lot of rhetorical devices which are not conducive to any sort of progress in philosophical debate. (I have referred to a few of those - at key moments she will often charge people with meaninglessness or transpose the point of reference from the topic to one of class allegiances or just hurl out some insults, or tell posters how often she has already supposedly demolished this argument and all this type of behaviour often at moments which allow a point of difficulty for her to be conveniently lost - and lets face it we all have points of difficulty in our perspectives.)

Dont get me wrong, Rosa doesn't annoy me - I was annoyed the first time I discussed a topic with her, but not any more. I find her substantive arguments quite interesting. I guess I have read about 10% of her website and my invariable urge is to just edit it so the ideas would become clearer (her own summaries I dont like, I think she often misses her own most interesting arguments in her own summaries). She is an asset to the board, in my opinion - but in the way that some things that are good for you are hard to take and in this case unnecesarily so. So if I seem to be annoyed or attacking her personally, that is a pity - I am just being straight and calling it as I see it.

I was concerned in this thread that her style would spread. The only thing that makes her style endurable is that she does have some challenging arguments to make. Others who lack her particular background in philosophy and logic will be just wasting space if they copy her style and the board will be the worse for it.

I regret very much the fact that her style makes it impossible for me to engage in a debate of substance with her. I have in the past shared an interest in many of the issues that interest her. But she just doesnt continue a debate in a rational form for more than two or three posts before the temptation to insult or refer to the website etc. takes over, at least when it comes to philosophy.

But what the hell, shine on Rosa ! (you will anyway, whatever I say - which is comforting :lol:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



The problem with Rosa's reference to her website is that they dont really work as references. They are references to texts which are probably MILLIONS of words long, incredibly badly edited (although often with an interesting argument or two hidden in there somewhere) and which often are only tangentally related to the subject under discussion.



You would not know, since you have read very little of my work.

And, all of my essays so far total, at most, 1.2 million words -- which means that each one does not contain 'milliosn' of words. In fact my longest essay is just over 82,000 words.

You just can't resist making stuff up, can you?



Its part of a pattern of discourse Rosa engages in which is very confrontational, pointlessly so in my view, and which includes a lot of rhetorical devices which are not conducive to any sort of progress in philosophical debate. (I have referred to a few of those - at key moments she will often charge people with meaninglessness or transpose the point of reference from the topic to one of class allegiances or just hurl out some insults, or tell posters how often she has already supposedly demolished this argument and all this type of behaviour often at moments which allow a point of difficulty for her to be conveniently lost - and lets face it we all have points of difficulty in our perspectives.)



Here is why:



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

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

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

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

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

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

These mystics can dish it out, but clearly they cannot take it.

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


And you are one of the worst offenders; hence my robust response to you.


I regret very much the fact that her style makes it impossible for me to engage in a debate of substance with her. I have in the past shared an interest in many of the issues that interest her. But she just doesnt continue a debate in a rational form for more than two or three posts before the temptation to insult or refer to the website etc. takes over, at least when it comes to philosophy.

You continually run away when I ask you to explain a single dialectical idea, and you constantly ignore stuff you cannot answer -- probably because you have an insecure grasp of logic.


I was concerned in this thread that her style would spread. The only thing that makes her style endurable is that she does have some challenging arguments to make. Others who lack her particular background in philosophy and logic will be just wasting space if they copy her style and the board will be the worse for it.

Yes, we already know you prefer ruling-class wafflers to the work based on the language of the working class.


I guess I have read about 10% of her website and my invariable urge is to just edit it so the ideas would become clearer (her own summaries I dont like, I think she often misses her own most interesting arguments in her own summaries). She is an asset to the board, in my opinion - but in the way that some things that are good for you are hard to take and in this case unnecesarily so. So if I seem to be annoyed or attacking her personally, that is a pity - I am just being straight and calling it as I see it.


Let me get this straight: someone who thinks highly of that incomprehensible buffoon Hegel, and other terminally-prolix bumblers (aka 'Continental Philosophers') has advice to give me on clarity, concision and editing? :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And yet you, for all your talk of logic, have yet to explain the one fundamental logical error of yours... [I won't elaborate on this in public.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What error?

Elaborate away -- I have nothing to fear.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Didn't you read my PM on this issue? :glare:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What PM?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't tell me your PM inbox is full again? :glare:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I did not receive that PM; when did you originally send it?

I did receive two from you about Gil's posts, but that was all.

And it turns out that the 'error' you have spotted in my 'logic' is in fact a misreading on your own part, for I nowhere alleged what you have attributed to me.

I will keep this out of the public domain to save your blushes.

[Hit The North]

Just as an aside:

Jacob:
As for you, you'd have to drop your SWP membership AND overall revisionist Trotskyist leanings (outside of dialectics, so I'm talking about bigger fish here) to join.

You do realise that the SWP exists in the real world, whereas your 'user group' - interesting though it is - exists only on a message board in hyper space, don't you? Asking people to drop their commitment to a political party - and probably their only access to organized activity - so they can join 'your' sub-forum is a tad self-important, don't you think?

Meanwhile:
And yet you, for all your talk of logic, have yet to explain the one fundamental logical error of yours... [I won't elaborate on this in public.]

Why so coy? Surely Rosa's alleged logical error isn't so scandalous that it can't be aired in public.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

On the other hand, since you have already made it public:



This, more than Rosa's anti-dialectical stuff (or "rants" if you're a "believer" in dialectical materialism), is the root cause of the sectarianism of the Trotskyist movement(s).

here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1070456&postcount=1

I will respond.

Where do I claim that dialectics is a cause (let alone the prime cause) of sectarianism?

So, not so much a logical error on my part, more a lack of care on your own.

And, even if you were right, it would be an error of fact, not of logic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Surely Rosa's alleged logical error isn't so scandalous that it can't be aired in public

This would indeed be of interest to us if you knew the first thing about logic -- but you don't.

So, I wonder why you keep making such a fool of yourself in public.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I suppose. As if YOUR anti-dialectics is the root cause of Trotskyist sectarianism (I'm picky on semantics, and my language wasn't consistent, there). :lol: ;)

EDITED FOR CLARITY [Check out the edited post. :) ]


You do realise that the SWP exists in the real world, whereas your 'user group' - interesting though it is - exists only on a message board in hyper space, don't you? Asking people to drop their commitment to a political party - and probably their only access to organized activity - so they can join 'your' sub-forum is a tad self-important, don't you think?

As if committing to some sort of "news service" (http://www.marxmail.org/archives/October98/seattle.htm) isn't organized activity, huh? :glare:

[Read up WITBD again, please. There were two central propositions there.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry, is this an admission that I made no 'logical errors'?

And where do I allege that dialectics is a 'root cause' of anything (let alone of 'Trotskyist sectarianism') --, other than confusion?

[Hit The North]

Jacob:
As if committing to some sort of "news service" (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxmail.org/archives/October98/seattle.htm) isn't organized activity, huh? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/glare.gif

Sure, but a pretty low level activity. I understand the necessity to organise around the newspaper (I am SWP, for Pete's sake!); I don't think posting on the internet is really equivalent, though. Although I'm not discounting it completely - for obvious reasons.


[Read up WITBD again, please. There were two central propositions there.]

Strangely enough, I'm reading an interesting post by you, written yesterday, where you admit
I haven't fully read Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered (let alone a single chapter of WITBD http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/blushing.gif ) http://www.revleft.com/vb/merge-marxism-workers-t70141/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../merge-marxism-workers-t70141/index.html)

So, um, I don't know, maybe you should read it! ;)

Rosa:
This would indeed be of interest to us if you knew the first thing about logic -- but you do not.

So, I wonder why you keep making such a fool of yourself in public.

Sorry, Rosa, for being just a dumb worker, without your academic erudition. Please forgive me, your Highness. :crying:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Sorry, Rosa, for being just a dumb worker, without your academic erudition. Please forgive me, your Highness.


No need to grovel. You have been humiliated enough as it is (and by your own hand).

I am a worker too (and a trade union rep, unpaid).

The difference is, I learnt some logic before passing an opinion on it.

[Hit The North]

R:
I am a worker too (and a trade union rep, unpaid).

Yes, you've told us enough times. All that proves is that some workers can be intellectual snobs and bullies.

It's a valuable lesson for us all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Yes, you've told us enough times. All that proves is that some workers can be intellectual snobs and bullies.


Diddums; did I 'wup your ass' a little too much?



It's a valuable lesson for us all.


The lesson being: learn some logic before you pontificate about it...

[Hit The North]

Diddums; did I 'wup your ass' a little too much?

Only in your screwed up sexual fantasy, dear.


The lesson being: learn some logic before you pontificate about it...

Point out where I ever pontificate on logic, to you or anyone else, and I'll apologise. Otherwise, stop telling lies and you apologise.

Now, I'd love to stay and chew the c(r)ud with you, but I have to get ready for work and I think we've derailed this thread enough.

[midnight marauder]

Good lord, I'd try to split off some of the flaming in this thread but I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Tone down the animosity! Do I need to separate you two? :lol:

http://www.nationwidefireextinguishers.co.uk/images/www.nationwidefireextinguishers.co.uk/big/new%20website%20pics%20008.jpg

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MM, Z and I have been at each other's throats now for over 18 months, and we are not likely to change - which, funnily enough, refutes yet another dialectical dogma...

He invariably comes off worst, but still he returns for more.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Only in your screwed up sexual fantasy, dear.

No, in those you always end up masochistically punishing yourself by being reasonable!:scared:



Point out where I ever pontificate on logic, to you or anyone else, and I'll apologise. Otherwise, stop telling lies and you apologise.



I will when you try to substantiate the many lies you tell about me.

[Volderbeek]

Here's how Marxists.org defines totality:


Totality and Totalisation are concepts used by Georg Lukács (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/glossary/people/l/u.htm#lukacs-georg) and Jean-Paul Sartre (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/glossary/people/s/a.htm#sartre-jean-paul) to refer to the objective and subjective processes whereby an entity, composed of a multiplicity of parts, constitutes itself as a totality or thing — either a thing-in-itself (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/glossary/terms/t/h.htm#thing) or a thing-for-itself.

Sartre uses the example, in the first instance, of a painting, which is made as a thing (or totality) by a single act of the imagination, which makes all the bits of paint, etc., exist as a single painting. As soon as it ceases to be looked at and maintained as a single thing, it ceases to be a totality.
So the totality relates to what I was saying in that opposites topic. It's the unity of indeterminate being and determinate being: absolutely determined being. IOW, it would be a perfectly defined thing. As such, an ideal totality must not exist; you can only approach it.

How does this all relate to Lenin's organizational approach? Well, that's up to you to decide.

[gilhyle]

When all the hot air (including my own) has disappeared into the internet atmosphere, from this thread, the simple fact is is someone asked what a totality is, I attempted a relatively straightforward one sentence definition, it was open to Rosa to engage with that (rather than referring to websites, telling me how meaningless I was etc.).....and she just didnt, you just didnt Rosa.Check back over the thread, you talked around it, you ignored but the one thing you never did was just plainly and calmly say, 'I dont think this definition of a totality works because .......'

I would be quite happy to do the same thing on any key idea of dialectics (except the concept of contradiction where my own view is undecided). I am happy to state a version of any of those key ideas and leave it out there for you to analyse and then come back on it.....

Leave out all the rhetoric and the references and the insults and the diversions and triumphalism and the playground antics and just DISCUSS the topic in front of and with the other people on this board interested in it.

I won't take part in such a conversation to win, I wont fear to lose....I just think its a good idea to converse, for all of us to help each other to refine our ideas and learn new ones.

Naive ? Maybe, but its always worked for me. Painful sometimes, when Im wrong and someone else is right, but what the hell, so is the dentist and s/he doesnt go around laughing with triumphalist glee in the belief that s/he has been vindicated by my cavities.

Its about solidarity.

(BTW I dont really agree with Marxist.org on this)

[Volderbeek]

(BTW I dont really agree with Marxist.org on this)

How so?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



So the totality relates to what I was saying in that opposites topic. It's the unity of indeterminate being and determinate being: absolutely determined being. IOW, it would be a perfectly defined thing. As such, an ideal totality must not exist; you can only approach it.



This can't be a definition since it contains several meaningless words.

Such as 'being'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



I attempted a relatively straightforward one sentence definition, it was open to Rosa to engage with that (rather than referring to websites, telling me how meaningless I was etc.).....and she just didnt, you just didnt Rosa.


1) You seem to think that complex issues in philosophy can be resolved in single line posts.

2) The 'definition' you offered also contained meaningless words.

3) When I have 'engaged' with you in the past, you just ignore stuff you do not like, or cannot answer. [A tactic other mystics here aslo adopt.]



I won't take part in such a conversation to win, I wont fear to lose....I just think its a good idea to converse, for all of us to help each other to refine our ideas and learn new ones.



You do not 'converse'; you turn a blind eye to material you cannot answer.

That is why I now just wind you up.

[Zurdito]

Why is "being" meaningless.

Infinitive: to be.

If "I am me" then what I am describing is "to be" me, or, the act of "being" me, i.e., the act of the thing that is me actually existing, is the act of me "being". What's the problem?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

If it is a participle, no problem.

But then the 'definition' won't work, for there it is being used as a noun (and perhaps even a proper name).

And your link between 'being' and 'existence' needs to be proven. You just assume there is such a link.

[gilhyle]

Gil:

2) The 'definition' you offered also contained meaningless words.


What word/words were 'meaningless' ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



What word/words were 'meaningless' ?


Here is an example of the use of seemingly menaingful words that soon become meaningless:

"A circle is defined as a tomato with a fringe on top."

Get the idea?

Now, if I throw in the sloppy use of words taken from the empty jargon of the ruling-class hacks you prefer, it should be even clearer:



In conceptualising a thing, an object, we are mobilising a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements and to what is outside it.' proves to be meaningful, then that claim itself is not a 'supertruth'


This I take it was the 'definition' you referred to?

What does "a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements..." mean?

A simple relation is, say, 'xRy', but if that is a concept it cannot be a relation.

If it is a relation, it cannot be a concept.

Sloppy syntax might impress you, but it renders the words you use meaningless.

[gilhyle]

Actually no, the description of totality I was referring to was the following:


In conceptualising a thing, an object, we are mobilising a range of concepts of the relationships of that 'thing' to its elements and to what is outside it. Those relations are not incidental to the conceptualisation of the thing - without that mobilisation the thing cannot be conceived. And by the same token, without those relations no such thing could exist - hence its relationships are not contingent or incidental but are necessary to it and essential to its existence. Recognising that, we have before us a conception of a thing-in-relationships which is not just a conception of a thing and its external relations. That distinction is captured by the idea of those relations being 'internal' to the thing and amounting - when conceived with the thing - to the totality (or totalities) within which it exists

However your point holds against that description also. If your comment that" If it is a relation, it cannot be a concept" is correct then the above description would not work. There may be a usage issue here. To take the simplest example, I am considering a relational term such as 'bigger than' as a concept.

'Bigger than', 'smaller than' and 'the same size as' consitue a range of concepts in this terminology. Now what can be wrong with that ?

[gilhyle]

How so?

My apologies, I missed this. Well in my view, firstly, there is a radical difference between either the Hegelian concept of totality or the Marxist concept of totality on the one hand and the Sartrean concept of totalisation. The latter is a concept seeking to describe the projective act of consciousness of leaning into the future, of intending to create. It is essentially an existentialist concept which is different from the Marxist and the Hegelian concepts which are much closer to structuralism. They arent exactly the same. The Sstructuralist view is a concept of a complex unity at a moment in time. The Sartrean view invovles the passage of time; totalisation occurs only over a period of time. The Marxist view (and arguably the Hegelian view) abstracts from time. Its absractness is essential to it - it is never an empirical phenomenon that you can go and find or could find if you could see enough things together. Like Value it is quitessentially abstracted from immediate givens. think of the idea of a mode of production - there is actually no such thing, it is an abstraction, but a truthful abstraction.Cant express this more clearly right now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I have said several times, your lack of faciltiy with logic will always let you down:


To take the simplest example, I am considering a relational term such as 'bigger than' as a concept.

This is a relational expression, and not a concept. If you take it as a concept, it ceases to be relational.

It is not a matter of usage so much as it is a question of not confusing logically distinct terms.

[gilhyle]

This is a relational expression, and not a concept. If you take it as a concept, it ceases to be relational.

It is not a matter of usage so much as it is a question of not confusing logically distinct terms.

Two things strike me about this. Firstly, if I change the above proposition re what a totality is so as to eliminate the use of the term concept and replace it by the term relational expression, it means pretty well exactly what it means already. I'll do that to illusrate if it helps to show that the purported meaningless of the proposal does not hang on the reliance on the expression 'concept'.

Secondly, the concern that I believe underpins your remarks is the concern, well articulated by Dummett but going back to Wittgenstein, that if we attempt to represent what it means to understand an expression by referring it to a mental representation we just have to use another language to do so and are, therefore, involved in an infinite regress - leading to the conclusion that we should just stick with the first language without reference to mental images. What is striking about this concern is that it is a concern which has force only within the practice of philosophy. It has force only for those who accept the legitimacy of setting out to represent what is involved in having an understanding of an idea. You have repeatedly on this site stated that you reject all philosophy and yet your post in effect is saying that my understanding of totality must be wrong because if the terms I use were meaningful that would imply that we live in a world where meaning exists but is not susceptible to representation : something considered reprehensible by ideologists within the realm of philosophy acting on behalf of the dominant class but which I would say is not a problem at all for Marxists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



Firstly, if I change the above proposition re what a totality is so as to eliminate the use of the term concept and replace it by the term relational expression, it means pretty well exactly what it means already. I'll do that to illusrate if it helps to show that the purported meaningless of the proposal does not hang on the reliance on the expression 'concept'.



You might like to think so, but that is not the case, unless you think that the two phrases work salva congruitate.




Secondly, the concern that I believe underpins your remarks is the concern, well articulated by Dummett but going back to Wittgenstein, that if we attempt to represent what it means to understand an expression by referring it to a mental representation we just have to use another language to do so and are, therefore, involved in an infinite regress - leading to the conclusion that we should just stick with the first language without reference to mental images. What is striking about this concern is that it is a concern which has force only within the practice of philosophy. It has force only for those who accept the legitimacy of setting out to represent what is involved in having an understanding of an idea. You have repeatedly on this site stated that you reject all philosophy and yet your post in effect is saying that my understanding of totality must be wrong because if the terms I use were meaningful that would imply that we live in a world where meaning exists but is not susceptible to representation : something considered reprehensible by ideologists within the realm of philosophy acting on behalf of the dominant class but which I would say is not a problem at all for Marxists.


No, you are just confused.

Reading too much Continental Philosophy has made you a sloppy thinker.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa, I'd like to ask one more question on totality, given DrFreeman09's thread:

Was the Hegelian notion of totality the basis for Kautsky being the first to try to transform Marxism into some sort of "theory of everything"?



http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm

[Careful, Rosa: this article is friendlier to Hegel than you are. ;) ]


It was in the 1890s, when Karl Marx had been safely dead for a decade, that Kautsky and Plekhanov invented ‘Marxism’. This total falsification of Marx’s work incorporated a story about a couple of ‘Young Hegelians’, who extracted the ‘dialectical method’ from Hegel’s system, and transplanted it into a materialist world-view. Then - so ran the tale - they could ‘apply’ materialism to history. The inventors of ‘Marxism’ gave their mythical beast the name ‘dialectical materialism’.

...

In any case, he only had time to begin the study of one particular item on his agenda. If we refuse to be bound by the false notion of ‘Marxism’, the idea that it possessed the patent on a ‘complete, integral world-outlook’, then we stand a chance of following Marx’s lead and continuing his work into the uncharted terrain of the twenty-first century.



[I ask this because I consider those who engage in such efforts to be reductionists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/internal-challenges-revolutionary-t70556/index.html). :( ]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think the problem began much earlier, with Engels and Hegel's "Truth is the whole" inanity.

I know very little about Kautsky, and from what I have seen, I want to know even less.

And, have you now abandoned your attempt to find the 'logical' error in my work?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I never said you had a "logical error" in your anti-dialectics work. Your error, like that of pretty much all "whatever-ic centralist" (democratic, organic, etc.) comrades, has NOTHING to do with dialectics, as discussed above. I merely said that, for all your claims to logic, that one little chink in your armour outside of dialectics is a fatal one. :(



BTW, why would you "want to know even less" about Kautsky and especially his relationship with what I call "Erfurtianism" ("Merge Marxism..." thread)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry JR, but are my eyes doing a Blair on me?



And yet you, for all your talk of logic, have yet to explain the one fundamental logical error of yours... [I won't elaborate on this in public.]


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1071148&postcount=39

And I still do not know what this 'error' (whatever sort it is) is supposed to be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What is the relationship between democratic centralism and "freedom of discussion, unity in action"?

[gilhyle]

You might like to think so, but that is not the case, unless you think that the two phrases work salva congruitate.

Well lets see shall we


In learning to refer to a thing, an object, we are relying on a range of relational expressions concerning that 'thing', its elements and what is outside it. Those relations are not incidental to the reference to the thing - without that reliance, the thing cannot be consistently referred to successfully. And by the same token, without those relations no such thing could exist - hence its relationships are not contingent or incidental but are necessary to it and essential to its existence. Recognising that, we have before us a range of relational expressions which we use in relation to that thing which are not incidental to our capacity consistently to refer successfully to that thing. That distinction between what is and is not incidental to our ability to refer to the thing is captured by the idea of those relations being 'internal' to the thing and amounting - when conceived with the thing - to the totality (or totalities) within which it exists.

[gilhyle]

Rosa, I'd like to ask one more question on totality, given DrFreeman09's thread:

Was the Hegelian notion of totality the basis for Kautsky being the first to try to transform Marxism into some sort of "theory of everything"?

[I ask this because I consider those who engage in such efforts to be reductionists (http://www.revleft.com/vb/internal-challenges-revolutionary-t70556/index.html). :( ]


Cant say I agree with you that Kautsky did this - on the contrary his view was the opposite.

[gilhyle]

Gil:
No, you are just confused.
Reading too much Continental Philosophy has made you a sloppy thinker.

Rosa, please resist the temptation to use personal remarks to avoid debate. I could just reply No you are confused. Reading too much analytical philosophy has made you a sloppy thinker......where does that get us ? .......nowhere. (in any case I have read a lot more analytical than continental philosophy.)

Take a step back:

I have pointed out to you some fundamental issues with your whole approach before:

- you write about dialectical materialism both as an historical phenomenon and as a philosophy (Thus conflating the history of ideas and philosophical critique) and slip between one and the other eclectically as suits your purpose;

- you claim dialectics is meaningless but then claim the capacity to say what is and is not a correct view of what dialectics is - you cant do that if its meaningless; it is not possible to correctly or incorrectly describe a meaningless term or idea; Believing Hegel meaningless you should believe it impossible to write a critique of his views....instead you treat him in practice as if his ideas were false, rather than meaningless.

- you claim that things are meaningless without having first defended your methodology for differentiating the meaningless from the meaningfull and without relying either on the common sense perception (and dont refer me to your website, I cant find it there either except for some eclectic comments strewn here and there - in any case you need to state it clearly here since you rely on it so much);

- you rely throughout on very particular views on philosophical issues while claiming to reject all philosophy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Cant say I agree with you that Kautsky did this - on the contrary his view was the opposite.

Care to elaborate?

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm


It was in the 1890s, when Karl Marx had been safely dead for a decade, that Kautsky and Plekhanov invented ‘Marxism’. This total falsification of Marx’s work incorporated a story about a couple of ‘Young Hegelians’, who extracted the ‘dialectical method’ from Hegel’s system, and transplanted it into a materialist world-view. Then - so ran the tale - they could ‘apply’ materialism to history. The inventors of ‘Marxism’ gave their mythical beast the name ‘dialectical materialism’.

...

In any case, he only had time to begin the study of one particular item on his agenda. If we refuse to be bound by the false notion of ‘Marxism’, the idea that it possessed the patent on a ‘complete, integral world-outlook’, then we stand a chance of following Marx’s lead and continuing his work into the uncharted terrain of the twenty-first century.

Careful, Rosa: this article is friendlier to Hegel than you are. ;)



I suppose that I am merely "coquetting" when using the term "Marxism" in "revolutionary Marxism."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Rosa, please resist the temptation to use personal remarks to avoid debate. I could just reply No you are confused. Reading too much analytical philosophy has made you a sloppy thinker......where does that get us ? .......nowhere. (in any case I have read a lot more analytical than continental philosophy.)


If you won't accept any advice there is not much I can do to help you; and if you prefer the conceptual morass called 'Continental Philosophy' you deserve everything you get.

But, you are the one who is confusing relational expressions with concepts, so that of course means I am the confused one. Yes, I can see how that follows... :confused:


- you write about dialectical materialism both as an historical phenomenon and as a philosophy (Thus conflating the history of ideas and philosophical critique) and slip between one and the other eclectically as suits your purpose;


And yet, I thought you mystics believed everything was connected; so when I take you at your word, you throw a dialectical wobbly, and blame it all on me.


you claim dialectics is meaningless but then claim the capacity to say what is and is not a correct view of what dialectics is - you cant do that if its meaningless; it is not possible to correctly or incorrectly describe a meaningless term or idea; Believing Hegel meaningless you should believe it impossible to write a critique of his views....instead you treat him in practice as if his ideas were false, rather than meaningless.


No, I have never claimed that; what I claim is that it is far too confused for anyone to be able to say if it is true, or false, or what...

On the other hand, I accuse you of using meaningless jargon, and pretending it signifies something, and you do that because you are far too enamoured of ruling-class hacks and their whacko philosophical theories.

But even if you were right, as I have also pointed out to you before (but you ignore stuff you cannot deal with), one can make inferences from sentences containing meaningless terms.

Want a demonstration?

You only have to beg...


- you claim that things are meaningless without having first defended your methodology for differentiating the meaningless from the meaningfull and without relying either on the common sense perception (and dont refer me to your website, I cant find it there either except for some eclectic comments strewn here and there - in any case you need to state it clearly here since you rely on it so much);


Done it at my site.

Sorry if that annoys you (I lie) -- but, you can now go back to reading page after page of ruling class tripe. I would hate to think you were improving yourself reading my essays.


- you rely throughout on very particular views on philosophical issues while claiming to reject all philosophy.

Name one.

[gilhyle]

Gil:

what I claim is that it is far too confused for anyone to be able to say if it is true, or false, or what...

On the other hand, I accuse you of using meaningless jargon, and pretending it signifies something, and you do that because you are far too enamoured of ruling-class hacks and their whacko philosophical theories.

But even if you were right, as I have also pointed out to you before (but you ignore stuff you cannot deal with), one can make inferences from sentences containing meaningless terms.

Want a demonstration?

You only have to beg.

Nah that is OK I know already. Funny thing is I was thinking of pointing the same thing out to you, since it is does call into question why you spend so much effort proposing that dialectical propositions are meaningless. However, we have now apparently moved on.....so my proposall about whatt a totality is is no longer meaningless.....merely too confused for anyone to say whether it is true or false.

Well that is fine, since we were discussing whether it was meaningless or not, that seems to be resolved.....it isnt.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

gil:



Nah that is OK I know already. Funny thing is I was thinking of pointing the same thing out to you, since it is does call into question why you spend so much effort proposing that dialectical propositions are meaningless. However, we have now apparently moved on.....so my proposall about whatt a totality is is no longer meaningless.....merely too confused for anyone to say whether it is true or false.



Can't you read?

I do not assert dialectical propositions are meaning less:



No, I have never claimed that; what I claim is that it is far too confused for anyone to be able to say if it is true, or false, or what...

On the other hand, I accuse you of using meaningless jargon, and pretending it signifies something, and you do that because you are far too enamoured of ruling-class hacks and their whacko philosophical theories.



You even copied it out, for goodness sake!

It looks like your comprehension is no better than your logic.


Well that is fine, since we were discussing whether it was meaningless or not, that seems to be resolved.....it isnt.

Make your mind up.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa, I've got another dialectical concern (http://www.revleft.com/vb/most-pressing-tasks-t70752/index.html) for you regarding "totality." I don't know if this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1076430&postcount=13) is just a joke, or if the poster is being serious.

[gilhyle]

Gil:
The 'definition' you offered also contained meaningless words.


I do not assert dialectical propositions are meaning less

Strictly speaking these two statements can be reconciled, but only on the interpretation that when you responded to my proposal originally as to what a totality was, you did not express your objection, but only expressed a trivial point as a piece of trickery to give the impression that your objection to my proposal was that it was meaningless, when that was not your view.

This is flaming, Rosa, its a waste of the efforts of everyone who posts...and you wonder why I sometimes walk away from debating with you ! ! I cant see how else to interpret this kind of behaviour. It seems very childish....why have I bothered with this thread if you dont even express a view you stand over ?

[gilhyle]

Gil:
The 'definition' you offered also contained meaningless words.

Sloppy syntax might impress you, but it renders the words you use meaningless

I do not assert dialectical propositions are meaning less

Now I am well aware that you can make a distinction between the words being meaningless and the proposition being meaningless. But the only reason to refer to the words being meaningless was to suggest that the proposition was meaningless. Why else refer to it ?

For goodness sake Rosa, this is silly pedantic talk. It really is flaming, wasting my time and yours.

And you wonder why I dont debate with you sometimes ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR, once again, I could see nothing there that I could comment on -- sorry!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



Strictly speaking these two statements can be reconciled, but only on the interpretation that when you responded to my proposal originally as to what a totality was, you did not express your objection, but only expressed a trivial point as a piece of trickery to give the impression that your objection to my proposal was that it was meaningless, when that was not your view.



Now I am well aware that you can make a distinction between the words being meaningless and the proposition being meaningless. But the only reason to refer to the words being meaningless was to suggest that the proposition was meaningless. Why else refer to it ?

You are obviously unaware of the distinction between the meaning of a word and the sense of a proposition.

What can I tell you? Go back and re-read your undergraduate logic notes -- that is, if you took any.



This is flaming, Rosa, its a waste of the efforts of everyone who posts...and you wonder why I sometimes walk away from debating with you ! ! I cant see how else to interpret this kind of behaviour. It seems very childish....why have I bothered with this thread if you dont even express a view you stand over ?

For goodness sake Rosa, this is silly pedantic talk. It really is flaming, wasting my time and yours.

And you wonder why I dont debate with you sometimes ?


I do not 'wonder', I know why...

And, I am mean to you because:

!) You deliberately misrepesrent me (the above is just the latest example) -- based on your own ignorance and sloppy thought.

2) You allow ruling-class hacks to dominate your thoughts.

3) You pick at the mote in my eye, and ignore the rafter in your own.

And, I do not care if you walk away -- or if you keep on walking.

I do not suffer mystical fools lightly -- especially those like you who should know better.

And as for pedantry, here is what I wrote in that essay you said you had read (clearlr, not very carefully):



However, to those who think that this sort "pedantry" can be ignored it is worth pointing out that this is the only way they can excuse their own sloppy thinking, and the only way they can make their ideas appear to work.

This sort of attitude would not be tolerated for one second in the sciences, or in any other branch of genuine knowledge. Can you imagine the fuss if someone were to argue that it does not matter what the Magna Carta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta) said, or when the Battle of the Nile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Nile) was fought, or what the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) actually contained, or what the exact wording of Newton's Second Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion) was, or whether "G", the Gravitational Constant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant), was 6.6742 x 10^-11 or 6.7642 x 10^-11 Mm2kg^-2, or indeed something else? Would we accept this sort of excuse from someone who said it did not matter what the precise wording of a contract in law happened to be? Or, that it did not really matter what Marx meant by "variable capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_capital)", or that he "pedantically" distinguished use-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-value) from exchange-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value) -- or more pointedly, the "relative form (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3a2)" and the "equivalent form (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3a3)" of value --, we should be able to make do with anyone's guess? And how would we react if someone said, "Who cares if there are serious mistakes in that policeman's evidence against those strikers"? Or if someone else retorted "Big deal if there are a few errors in this or that e-mail address/web page URL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Locator), or in that mathematical proof! And who cares whether there is a difference between rest mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass) and inertial mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_mass) in Physics! What are you, some kind of pedant?"

You can be sure such 'anti-pedants' will be examining these Essays with well-focussed magnifying glasses, nit-picking with the best, having turned their selectively pedantic eyes on all I have written in order to locate the tiniest of assumed errors --, all the while refusing to examine anything in the DM-Grimoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimoire) with a tiny fraction of such attention to detail.

So, the 'pedantry excuse' is your way of rationalising your own sloppy thought.

No wonder you like Hegel...

[Die Neue Zeit]

JR, once again, I could see nothing there that I could comment on -- sorry!

PRC-UTE's "dialectical" post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1076430&postcount=13) :glare: [A joke, or for real?]



Comrades, I think we've got our board's first revolutionary Marxist in the woefully underrated "Connollyist" mould! :cool:

That said, there are two trends amongst us (thankfully this is NOT sectarian): resolution of the crises of theory "in practice," and resolution of the crises of theory "in the backyard." I think these two trends are complimentary; one cannot exist in a healthy condition without the other.Excellent application of dialectical materialism (grasping the totality and living interaction of opposing forces) there, comrade.



*sorry, couldn't resist :laugh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I couldn't comment, since I cannot possibly read his mind. Why don't you ask him?

[gilhyle]

Gil:
You are obviously unaware of the distinction between the meaning of a word and the sense of a proposition.
..

No Rosa, the point is this ....why did you point to the meaningless of a word, what was your conclusion from this observation (leaving aside for a moment whether the word was meaningless ? If you believe merely that the propositions are too vague to be judged true or false, why did you not say that ? Instead of wasting time on diversions....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, the issue is that you forgot about, or were not aware of, the distinction between the meaning of a word and the sense of a propostion -- hence the confusion your earlier posts descend into.

And I do, several times, but you refuse to read my essays.

This is all set out in excrutiating detail in Essay Twelve Part One.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm)

[Volderbeek]

If it is a participle, no problem.

But then the 'definition' won't work, for there it is being used as a noun (and perhaps even a proper name).

It's perfectly legitimate to use being as a noun. One of the forms of "be" is an intransitive verb form that can easily become a noun.


And your link between 'being' and 'existence' needs to be proven. You just assume there is such a link.

From Dictionary.com:


be·ing http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fbeing) /ˈbihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bee-ing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).I think you and the dictionary need to take it outside; you'll get blood on the inter-tubes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


It's perfectly legitimate to use being as a noun. One of the forms of "be" is an intransitive verb form that can easily become a noun.

Sure, as part of a compound noun 'human being'.

But, in Philosophy, it derives from one source only: theology and mysticism. Hence, it has no more substance (except ideological) that 'god'.


I think you and the dictionary need to take it outside; you'll get blood on the inter-tubes.

As I noted before, dictionaries also summarise the confused use made of certain groups of letters by philosophers, mystics and theologians, including, for instance, 'g', 'o', and 'd'. That does not mean the rest of us need be duped by this. [Of course, I exclude you from this mention of the enlightened -- you obviously need to cling on to such alienated thought forms.]

And your tubes need cleaning, too...

[gilhyle]

.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, well said...

You seem to be making more sense these days.

[Volderbeek]

Sure, as part of a compound noun 'human being'.

But, in Philosophy, it derives from one source only: theology and mysticism. Hence, it has no more substance (except ideological) that 'god'.

I'm pretty sure philosophy predates theology, and probably mysticism as well. Either way, though, that is just an associative fallacy.


As I noted before, dictionaries also summarise the confused use made of certain groups of letters by philosophers, mystics and theologians, including, for instance, 'g', 'o', and 'd'. That does not mean the rest of us need be duped by this. [Of course, I exclude you from this mention of the enlightened -- you obviously need to cling on to such alienated thought forms.]The word god (or God) is used to refer to a particular thing. Whatever else we can say about God is irrelevant; people have something in mind when referring to God.


And your tubes need cleaning, too...Actually, I just got a new modem, so my tubes are four times faster.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



I'm pretty sure philosophy predates theology, and probably mysticism as well.


Not so, mystical and theological ideas go way back. Philosophy originated in the 6th century BC.



Associative fallacy


What the hell is that?


people have something in mind when referring to God.


How on earth can you possibly know that?

[gilhyle]

Gil, well said...

You seem to be making more sense these days.

I had a theory that you'd even answer a full stop....empirical verification achieved.:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



I had a theory that you'd even answer a full stop....empirical verification achieved.


You should stop making your full-stops so much more apposite than your other posts then, shouldn't you?

[gilhyle]

You just go on and on and on and on and on............shine on ! If I was to just keep posting here will you just keep answering ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



You just go on and on and on and on and on.


However long it takes to destroy this Hermetic virus -- no problem.

Let's see if you have any stamina in you; I have been at this for 25 or more years. You want to try to match that?

Another 25? No worries...



If I was to just keep posting here will you just keep answering ?


You can, I think, answer that for yourself.

[gilhyle]

Gil:
Another 25? No worries....

Do something else, right or wrong its not worth it. Remember AJ Ayers final words.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Remeber AJ Ayers final words.

Yes: I should have screwed Hegel some more...

And, I'll be the judge of whether it's worth ridding Marxism of ruling-class mysticism.

You obviously don't care.

[Volderbeek]

Not so, mystical and theological ideas go way back. Philosophy originated in the 6th century BC.

Not counting, of course, the times when these concepts weren't separate.


What the hell is that?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


How on earth can you possibly know that?You can't really talk about something without knowing something about it (even if you just make it up).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



Not counting, of course, the times when these concepts weren't separate.



Sure, but standard histories place religion, theology and mysticsim further back.

Unless, of course, you have evidence that refutes the standard tale...

But, even so, I am happy to lump all three together, and consign them to Hume's bonfire.

Association fallacy: ah an informal fallacy.

I still fail to see the relevance.



You can't really talk about something without knowing something about it (even if you just make it up).


But, how does that turn it into knowledge, as opposed to make-believe?

I may know something about Tolkein's work; but does that make Tolkein's work itself knowledge?

So, once more:



people have something in mind when referring to God.


How do you actually know this -- to be true?

[Die Neue Zeit]

One more question: is there any "totality" relationship between the circles of Lenin's day (hence his call for more party unity through centralized organization) and the sects of today (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/1918)? :D


Thanks for your comments-which are the most substantive comments my essay has received on this site.

> I absolutely love the idea of uniting similarly minded
> groups in order to have one centralized movement of a
> revolutionary intent and makeup.

Yes, we need to be thinking in this direction. The key question is how to make this happen. Most of the groups that have locked within their ranks comrades with years of experience as revolutionary activists-are thoroughly infected with the sectarian disease-and will never voluntarily join any project that threatens their exclusive hold on these comrades. So there is a need for a project that will, so to speak, drag these groups (against their will--kicking and screaming) together.

[Volderbeek]

Sure, but standard histories place religion, theology and mysticsim further back.

My point is that there was no distinction between these things and philosophy originally.


But, even so, I am happy to lump all three together, and consign them to Hume's bonfire.Good idea, but you still can learn from the past, so it's better not to leave it behind entirely.


Association fallacy: ah an informal fallacy.

I still fail to see the relevance.I also fail to see the relevance (because I don't remember what that referred to :lol:).


But, how does that turn it into knowledge, as opposed to make-believe?

I may know something about Tolkein's work; but does that make Tolkein's work itself knowledge?
It's not knowledge of the world, what has happened or is happening, but it's still legitimate knowledge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Good idea, but you still can learn from the past, so it's better not to leave it behind entirely.

I think the opposite.


I also fail to see the relevance (because I don't remember what that referred to

I blame diabolical logic.


It's not knowledge of the world, what has happened or is happening, but it's still legitimate knowledge

No, it's just turned into its opposite.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa, I don't know why you and the anarchist keep debating. Since he's an anarchist and not a Marxist, he should feel free to express his outdated, "double-duth" dialectical views without recrimination.

However, since he has brought up this old thread, I think it's time to address the concept of dynamic or dyna-mat "totality" (only due to the lack of a better word :( )... :D

I brought up above a possible "totality" (in this case, "totality" expressed as "historical") relationship between the circles of Lenin's day and modern equivalents ("sects"), and in my thread on dyna-mat brought up another "totality" relationship pertaining to class struggle (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167437&postcount=42).

[Volderbeek]

Yes, we need to be thinking in this direction. The key question is how to make this happen. Most of the groups that have locked within their ranks comrades with years of experience as revolutionary activists-are thoroughly infected with the sectarian disease-and will never voluntarily join any project that threatens their exclusive hold on these comrades. So there is a need for a project that will, so to speak, drag these groups (against their will--kicking and screaming) together.

I unequivocally agree. Sectarianism is best left to cults and religions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Sectarianism is best left to cults and religions.

Too bad it afflicts dialectical Marxism, too -- and dialectics makes things worse.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


Rosa, I don't know why you and the anarchist keep debating. Since he's an anarchist and not a Marxist, he should feel free to express his outdated, "double-duth" dialectical views without recrimination.

He needs slapping down, and I am just the girl to do it.

[Volderbeek]

Rosa, I don't know why you and the anarchist keep debating. Since he's an anarchist and not a Marxist, he should feel free to express his outdated, "double-duth" dialectical views without recrimination.

What were you just saying about sectarianism?

Double-duth?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


What were you just saying about sectarianism?

We make exceptions for comrades like you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What were you just saying about sectarianism?

Double-duth?

My "double-duth" (link) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-betrayals-dumping-t77143/index.html) remark has to do with the confusing language of dia-mat, and has nothing to do with my dyna-mat "totality" question.