Dialectics for kids.

[nvm]

Here (http://www.dialectics4kids.com/) is a site that teaches the basics of dialectics to anyone who is new to Marxism. It will really help you understand the basics. I recommend it:):)



PS:I think this should become a sticky.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Scrap DM: it, like its twin HM, isn't dynamic enough. :(

[Dros]

Scrap DM: it, like its twin HM, isn't dynamic enough. :(

:lol::lol::lol:

Oh... Richter.:)


=*=*=

I love this site. I found it a year ago or so when I was google searching for a summary of Hegel. It's a good site.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was being serious. :(

[nvm]

seriously a moderator or something should sticky it as it will be useful to new people to learn the basics.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Comrade, good find. :)

I think we all need to brush up on our Dialectical Materialism.

It's very rare to find comrades who can actually apply it to events and make decisions based on their conclusions. This is why a lot of organizations do not have the correct perspective most of the time, and begin doing work that leads them nowhere.

As for the anti-dialecticians, well, I can't argue with you on a lot of your points because even my knowledge of dialectics is limited to a basic understanding of the concepts, but after reading into it, I found it made perfect sense.

See Reason in Revolt, by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, an excellent book, though Rosa doesn't think so. :)

[Dros]

I was being serious. :(

I know. That's what makes it funny.:cool::laugh:

[Niccolò Rossi]

Oh please, will you people cut it out with the blind obedience to this outdated philosophical system! Marxism has nothing to do with dialectics. Sure Marx was highly influenced and moulded by Hegel's dialectic and his own materialist dialectic, but it serves nothing but a historical interest in reading Marx.

You don't need to understand dialectics to understand Marx, and you most certainly don't need to pledge an unquestioning obedience to it as some necessary element or pinnacle of Marxism. Why can't you people understand that?

[trivas7]

Oh please, will you people cut it out with the blind obedience to this outdated philosophical system! Marxism has nothing to do with dialectics.

So, then, what does Marxism have to do with?



You don't need to understand dialectics to understand Marx, and you most certainly don't need to pledge an unquestioning obedience to it as some necessary element or pinnacle of Marxism. Why can't you people understand that?
Because dialectical materialism is the essence of Marxist theory without which you don't understand Marx.

[Hit The North]

Oh please, will you people cut it out with the blind obedience to this outdated philosophical system! Marxism has nothing to do with dialectics.


Oh... Zeitgeist, are you being serious, too?


Sure Marx was highly influenced and moulded by Hegel's dialectic and his own materialist dialectic, but it serves nothing but a historical interest in reading Marx.

If it was used by Marx in his analysis (otherwise where was he "highly influenced"?) and so successfully that it makes him worth reading, shouldn't we use it in our analysis too?


You don't need to understand dialectics to understand Marx,

Well there are different levels of understanding. But even if you were right, the point isn't just to understand Marx, but to apply his method in our attempt to change the world.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Why don't we just try to use the language of ordinary people, rather than the language of philosophers.

We know at least in the merit of the language of ordinary people, as things get done every moment of everyday, useful things too!

I'm not sure we can say the same for philosophers really.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it!

Its all about the 'doing' and non philosophers 'do' stuff effectively all the time without dialectical materialism.

[eyedrop]

It's very rare to find comrades who can actually apply it to events and make decisions based on their conclusions. This is why a lot of organizations do not have the correct perspective most of the time, and begin doing work that leads them nowhere. What should this tell you?

[Dros]

Oh please, will you people cut it out with the blind obedience to this outdated philosophical system!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That was funny.


Marxism has nothing to do with dialectics.

That was even funnier!


Sure Marx was highly influenced and moulded by Hegel's dialectic and his own materialist dialectic, but it serves nothing but a historical interest in reading Marx.

Except that in order to get what's going on you need to understand diamat.


You don't need to understand dialectics to understand Marx,

Considering that diamat is his main contribution to philosophy, the basis of the entire Marxist conception of history, and the process through which you can understand ALL of his contributions, I would contest that just a little bit.


and you most certainly don't need to pledge an unquestioning obedience to it as some necessary element or pinnacle of Marxism. Why can't you people understand that?

If you are going to make these claims, you need to back them up with a critic of materialist dialectics. It is not at all obvious that it is in any way out of date. That is what you clearly fail to understand: we use dialectics because it is the only way to understand human history scientifically. If you can disprove this, I will reevaluate the theory of materialist dialectics and my use thereof.

Seriously, this is not an argument; it is a string of assertions. Please make some kind of contestable and logical argument. That way, we might get a mutually beneficial and constructive debate going!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oh... Zeitgeist, are you being serious, too?

If it was used by Marx in his analysis (otherwise where was he "highly influenced"?) and so successfully that it makes him worth reading, shouldn't we use it in our analysis too?

Well there are different levels of understanding. But even if you were right, the point isn't just to understand Marx, but to apply his method in our attempt to change the world.

Um, that is the very core of dynamic materialism (dynamat).

I presented a glaring example of dialectics "at work" (read: failing the workers) in the Philosophy thread.

[Dros]

Um, that is the very core of dynamic materialism (dynamat).

I presented a glaring example of dialectics "at work" (read: failing the workers) in the Philosophy thread.

Can you explain your objection to diamat? I hope it's not just Rosa's rehashed crap...

[Hit The North]

Why don't we just try to use the language of ordinary people, rather than the language of philosophers.

We know at least in the merit of the language of ordinary people, as things get done every moment of everyday, useful things too!


True. Philosophers obscure things all the time whereas workers have a practical relationship to the world and their language reflects that. But we need to ask what this 'practical consciousness' and 'ordinary language' consists of. Does it exist independently of the ensemble of social relations of which it is a part? What relationship does it have to relations of power and domination? How is it inscribed by this power and domination? How does it stand in opposition to bourgeois consciousness? Why do workers, armed with practical consciousness and ordinary language sometimes vote Tory, wave the Flag, or engage in other reactionary and oppressive practices?

I think it would be great to escape the convolutions of philosophy, but things are never that simple and questions of analytical importance will always arise. If life was so thinly rational as plain ordinary language is supposed to be, then we would already live in the most rational of worlds. But it's not, it's hedged in with material interests and power relations which create distortion and irrationality.


Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it!Yes, I had that passage in mind when I wrote:
the point isn't just to understand Marx, but to apply his method in our attempt to change the world.
Its all about the 'doing' and non philosophers 'do' stuff effectively all the time without dialectical materialism.No. No, it's not just about doing. Getting up in the morning, knocking back a cup of coffee and dashing out the door. Sitting in gridlock on my way to work. Working. Rushing lunch. Working. Sitting in gridlock on my way home. Preparing dinner, opening my first beer and turning on the TV. Watching reality shows 'til I'm too exhausted or drunk to object anymore. Going to bed. Dreaming dreams I can't understand or remember. That's doing as well!

A lot of what we 'do' reproduces our own wage slavery and contributes to our own unhappiness and unease.

That's why it can be dangerous appealing to the "ordinary language" of "ordinary people" in a way which reifies and sanitizes the working class. See Gilhyle's critique of this tendency in Rosa's appeal to ordinary language

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index9.html

None of this is to say that I don't agree with your reservations about the use of language in philosophy - and it's particularly more objectionable amongst Marxists (and, therefore dialecticians) because we should know better. But the rhetorical excesses of certain writers is separate from the issue of how best to analyse the conditions of our existence and organise our efforts to changing it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

drosera99, I already explained my position in my own Philosophy thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-materialism-dynamic-t80627/index.html) (dynamat). :)

[Hit The North]

Um, that is the very core of dynamic materialism (dynamat).


It's the core of historical materialism - you just want to change the name of it. :lol:

[Dros]

That's not a critic of dialectical process. You just say that you find some of it reductionist which is a.) not an argument and b.) not a problem with dialectics per se but with certain dialecticians.

Also, I find it amusing that the "social proletocracy" guy wants to say that the language of diamat is not accessible to workers.:D:D:laugh::cool::lol::o

[Niccolò Rossi]

Because dialectical materialism is the essence of Marxist theory without which you don't understand Marx.

Please back your statement up with evidence instead of making unproductive assertions. Your telling me that I can not grasp, say, the materialist conception of history or the Marxian conception of class, without an understand of Dialectics?


If it was used by Marx in his analysis (otherwise where was he "highly influenced"?) and so successfully that it makes him worth reading, shouldn't we use it in our analysis too?Whether this may or may not be true, in my humble opinion, the very last thing you want to have stickied in the learning thread is "Dialectics of Kids". There are far far more important concepts which aught to have such beginners guides posted.


Well there are different levels of understanding. But even if you were right, the point isn't just to understand Marx, but to apply his method in our attempt to change the world.Again sure if your a Marxian academic I think you aught to have a solid understanding of the dialectic to get into Marx's head. But why the hell would we want it stickied in the learning thread!?


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That was funny.

That was even funnier!

If you got something to say, say it! Laughing at me does nothing but make you look like a royal jerk.


Except that in order to get what's going on you need to understand diamat.

Would you call yourself someone who has an idea of "what's going on".

If so that means you have an understanding of diamat.

Would you agree? Maybe if you have such an understanding you would like to share it with us all, or maybe your supposed "understanding" is not up to scratch and like all those Marxists who hold diamat as being on of the "central tenants" of Marxism and who blindly hold it to be true just because Marx did?


Considering that diamat is his main contribution to philosophy, the basis of the entire Marxist conception of history, and the process through which you can understand ALL of his contributions, I would contest that just a little bit.

Would you care to elaborate as to how a person can not have a thorough understand of say, the materialist conception of history or the Marxian concept of class without diamat?


If you are going to make these claims, you need to back them up with a critic of materialist dialectics.

No I don't think I do. I did not at all critique diamat as a philosophical concept, all I did, if you re-read my post, was express a revulsion against the dogmatic adherence to the dialectic exhibited by so many Marxists and call for the link to "Dialectics for Kids" not to be stickied.


It is not at all obvious that it is in any way out of date.This statement by myself was probably "out of line". I realise that it's age has nothing to do with anything.


That is what you clearly fail to understand: we use dialectics because it is the only way to understand human history scientifically.What on earth does understanding the world scientifically have to do with the dialectic!? Maybe instead of you making such an assertion yourself, you would care to back it up. Why can't the world be understood scientifically without dialectics!


If you can disprove this, I will reevaluate the theory of materialist dialectics and my use thereof.

On the contrary, if you can proof to me the importance of dialectics as a philosophical and "scientific" concept I will re-evaluate my stance. The Burden of proof is on the affirmative ;)


Seriously, this is not an argument; it is a string of assertions. Please make some kind of contestable and logical argument. That way, we might get a mutually beneficial and constructive debate going!

Maybe you would care to lead by example. You have failed to make a logical and constructive arguement yourself, instead you've stooped to mockery, laughter and your own assertions. Please, practice what you preach.

[black magick hustla]

I generally agree with Rosa when dealing with dialectics but I think it is pretty evident that the hegelian dialectic infulenced marx's analysis of class struggle and how this struggle makes history shift from mode of production.

However, the dialectic itself is useless insofar as it tries to extrapolate metaphysical laws that are too vague to have any intelectual merit whatsoever. THe dialectic sieems to work simply because its vague enough to fit shit inside it. What the dialectician deems a contradiction, another individual can say that it isn't a contradiction at all. This kind of vagueness is unacceptable in every scientific discipline whatsoever, but dialecticians like to think that sitting in the library and musing about the most abstractly vague stuff gives them some sort of scientific merit. Why do you think physicists don't talk about contradictiions or unity of opposites when dealing with the order of things?

The dialectic entices a lot of philosophy-leaning guys because its vagueness reflects the poverty of philosophy in general.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NVM, Dialectics For Kids is an appallingly bad site, full of the same hackneyed errors I have demolished at my site.

Most of them here:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DirtyEtc:


See Reason in Revolt, by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, an excellent book, though Rosa doesn't think so.

And with good reason.

I list just a few of their many errors here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/appendix_to%20page%20seven.htm

And expose their appallingly bad logic here:

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

Alan Woods contacted me to help him improve the second edition, so it is slighty less awful than the first, but many of the errors I pointed out to him (even simple typos) were left in!

These two know absolutely no logic, but they are quite happy to pontificate about it -- just like Engels, Trotsky and Lenin.

Gollobin's book is better, but even that is awful:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Gollobin_01.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Because dialectical materialism is the essence of Marxist theory without which you don't understand Marx.

So you keep saying, but when pressed to defend these mystical beliefs of yours, you either sulk, or just repeat the same tired old dogmas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Drosera:


Considering that diamat is his main contribution to philosophy, the basis of the entire Marxist conception of history, and the process through which you can understand ALL of his contributions, I would contest that just a little bit.

Marx knew nothing of diamat, and in Das Kapital, indicated he had abandoned the dialectic as you lot understand it.


If you are going to make these claims, you need to back them up with a critic of materialist dialectics.

He'd be wasting his time, since you lot just ignore stuff you do not like, or cannot answer -- there's thread after thread in the Philosophy section where this mystical theory has been systematically taken apart.

A list can be found here:

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

And what's left of it has been demolished at my site.


Please make some kind of contestable and logical argument.

Like others here who pontificate on the subject, you don't know any logic, so that would be a waste of effort, too.


I hope it's not just Rosa's rehashed crap...

You can't respond to my arguments, and have shied away for several months.

And where have I 'rehashed' my ideas from?

[Dros]

Marx knew nothing of diamat,

Insofar as he referred to it as materialist dialectics, that's true.


and in Das Kapital, indicated he had abandoned the dialectic as you lot understand it.

That's also not an argument.


He'd be wasting his time, since you lot just ignore stuff you do not like, or cannot answer -- there's thread after thread in the Philosophy section where this mystical theory has been systematically taken apart.

Rosa, the last time I was in the philosophy forum, I demolished your silly, non-argument critic in with ease at which point you resorted to the sort of behavior my nine year old cousin grew out of three years ago.


Like others here who pontificate on the subject, you don't know any logic, so that would be a waste of effort, too.

Rosa, do you remember that thread in CC where I demolished a logical fallacy you made in a flame post at me? Perhaps you should go back and find it... Ron Burgundy helped out too. Your skills at logic have been seriously in question since that happened.


You can't respond to my arguments, and have shied away for several months.

You don't have arguments and the reason I have "shied away" is because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.

[Post-Something]

Ok, what really differs when you analyze history in a materialist sense as opposed to a materialist sense? I've heard a lot of Neo-Marxists are interchanging them now. What aspects of history would be interpreted differently?

I'm not sure I really understand dialectics at all to be honest, even though I tried. It just seems like there are always two forces, and that it's a constant battle between them or something.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Drosera:


Insofar as he referred to it as materialist dialectics, that's true.

So you were lying when you said this:


Considering that diamat is his [Marx's] main contribution to philosophy, the basis of the entire Marxist conception of history, and the process through which you can understand ALL of his contributions...


That's also not an argument.

Neither is that.


Rosa, the last time I was in the philosophy forum, I demolished your silly, non-argument critic in with ease at which point you resorted to the sort of behavior my nine year old cousin grew out of three years ago.

1) Not so; you skulked off when you could not respond to my replies.

2) So, your cousin grew out of adult behaviour at nine? Remarkable kid!


Rosa, do you remember that thread in CC where I demolished a logical fallacy you made in a flame post at me? Perhaps you should go back and find it... Ron Burgundy helped out too. Your skills at logic have been seriously in question since that happened.

Well, you thought you did, but you didn't.

Why don't you quote it here? [So you can be kicked out of the CC...]


You don't have arguments and the reason I have "shied away" is because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.

1) Not so, again, as the link I posted above shows.


because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.

2) My antics are not at all like yours.

[trivas7]

Trivas:
So you keep saying, but when pressed to defend these mystical beliefs of yours, you either sulk, or just repeat the same tired old dogmas.
They're merely a tool, R, not a mystical belief -- albeit an indispensible one.

[trivas7]

I'm not sure I really understand dialectics at all to be honest, even though I tried. It just seems like there are always two forces, and that it's a constant battle between them or something.
That's a good start. Sounds like the class struggle, no?

[Post-Something]

That's a good start. Sounds like the class struggle, no?

So the difference between the idealism and materialist aspects are that one would argue that ideas and concepts are being battled out, while the other says economic factors are battling out and adapting to situations in the market?

[trivas7]

So the difference between the idealism and materialist aspects are that one would argue that ideas and concepts are being battled out, while the other says economic factors are battling out and adapting to situations in the market?
Well, the question is a little unclear to me -- what do you mean by "aspects" of idealism and materialism? But generally, yes, Marx saw that "[T]he history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". The bourgeois historian knows nothing re the class struggle.

[trivas7]

The dialectic entices a lot of philosophy-leaning guys because its vagueness reflects the poverty of philosophy in general.
You means guys like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky? Okay.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


They's merely a tool, R, not a mystical belief -- albeit an indispensible one.

Ok, so, according to you, the world is not really dialectical, there are no contradictions in nature or society, no unities of opposites, no change of quantity into quality, etc., -- dialectics is just a way of picturing things, a tool to help us understand nature?

Pull the other one...:rolleyes:

[trivas7]

Trivas:
Ok, so, according to you, the world is not really dialectical, there are no contradictions in nature or society, no unities of opposites, no change of quantity into quality, etc., -- dialectics is just a way of picturing things, a tool to help us understand nature?

What's your point, R (if you have one)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What's your point, R (if you have one)?

Work it out for yourself -- you have a brain I assume...

[Niccolò Rossi]

I'm still waiting on a response Drosera, please don't shy away :blushing:.

Your so eager to provoke a fight, why run?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, he goes off into sulk if you question Holy Dialectical Writ. So don't expect an answer.

Count yourself lucky; if this was Maoist China, you and I would be shot.

[dirtycommiebastard]

What should this tell you?

This tells me that many so called Marxist theoreticians who have large influence over their organizations are leading them into a dead end, because instead of actually analyzing the situation, repeat the same rhetoric of great leaders long ago, when their positions have become useless and need to be developed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DirtyEtc:


This tells me that many so called Marxist theoreticians who have large influence over their organizations are leading them into a dead end, because instead of actually analyzing the situation, repeat the same rhetoric of great leaders long ago, when their positions have become useless and need to be developed.

And they all used dialectics -- which theory has now presided over 150 of almost total failure.

So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has refuted dialectics.

[dirtycommiebastard]

DirtyEtc:



And they all used dialectics -- which theory has now presided over 150 of almost total failure.

So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has refuted dialectics.

Just because they claim to use dialectical materialism, does not mean they actually have done so. If you look at the history of Trotskyism in Britain, you can see the failures of many groups that have used the same age old rhetoric of our predecessors and have had the incorrect perspective, as they have not actually used dialectical materialism to develop the old theories.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dirtyetc:


Just because they claim to use dialectical materialism, does not mean they actually have done so. If you look at the history of Trotskyism in Britain, you can see the failures of many groups that have used the same age old rhetoric of our predecessors and have had the incorrect perspective, as they have not actually used dialectical materialism to develop the old theories.

In that case, the dialectic is useless, if no one has ever used it.

So, ditch it then.

As I noted in another thread here:


Moreover, each and every dialectician from different wings of Marxism accuses every other dialectician from every other wing of Marxism of either abandoning the dialectic, or of not 'understanding' it.

So Maoists accuse us Trots of not adhering to 'materialist dialectics' (and the latter do the same in return); Stalinists accuse Libertarian Marxists of the same (and the latter return the favour), orthodox Trots (like Ted Grant and Ernest Mandel) accuse us in the IST of abandoning Trotsky's 'dialectical method' (and we do the same), each tiny sect in Trotskyism accuses all the rest of this hanging offence, and the Sparts accuse everyone in the entire universe of this heinous crime.

So, there are far more revolutionary Marxists who have 'abandoned' the dialectic than otherwise, namely all those comrades in these other wings of Marxism!

In that case, who has ever used it 'correctly', [I]and how could we ever tell?

The problem is, as soon as you tell us, you stand a real chance of being accused by others of not 'understanding' dialectics.

Ironically, this is perhaps the one thing that unites all Marxists, the claim that no one else, except the person making this claim, 'understands' dialectics.

And that is because this theory can be made to say anything you like, and its opposite, sometimes in the same breath.

[trivas7]

In that case, the dialectic is useless, if no one has ever used it. [I'd also like to see you show how it should be used 'correctly'.]

So, ditch it then.

And replace it with what? How then do you analyze history?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


And replace it with what? How then do you analyze history?

As I have already told you; historical materialism explains history, and since I fully accept HM, HM is quite enough.

[Dros]

So you were lying when you said this:

No. I said he didn't call it that. It's the same thing.


1) Not so; you skulked off when you could not respond to my replies.

I think everyone who read your post knows that you post like an anti-social six year old even though you are apparently an "adult".


2) So, your cousin grew out of adult behaviour at nine? Remarkable kid!

:lol: bravo with subtraction by the way. I can see that logic came in handy!


Well, you thought you did, but you didn't.

Generally, when you start behaving like a two year old, I know I've won and you have nothing to say that is intelligent.;)


Why don't you quote it here?


[So you can be kicked out of the CC...]


2) My antics are not at all like yours.

Yes. I act like an adult.

Rosa, I thank you for your reply in advance. No one can prove my argument that you are a toddler better than you can!:rolleyes:

Anyway, bye troll!

[black magick hustla]

You means guys like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky? Okay.

yep.

[trivas7]

As I have already told you; historical materialism explains history, and since I fully accept HM, HM is quite enough.
And if HM doesn't explain the capital-labor relationship to be dialectically self-destructive -- transitory by virtue of its inner dynamic of development -- what does it explain?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dros:


I think everyone who read your post knows that you post like an anti-social six year old even though you are apparently an "adult".

I do not post like you.


Generally, when you start behaving like a two year old, I know I've won and you have nothing to say that is intelligent.

That's where I went wrong -- I copied you, damm it!


Yes. I act like an adult.

That's very flattering of you, to say you act like me. Cheers!


Rosa, I thank you for your reply in advance. No one can prove my argument that you are a toddler better than you can!

Since it is impossibe to prove a falsehood, then I am sound.


Anyway, bye troll!

Hello, mystic!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


And if HM doesn't explain the capital-labor relationship to be dialectically self-destructive -- transitory by virtue of its inner dynamic of development -- what does it explain?

Destruction can be explained easily by science, and by historical materialism, and without any of that Hegelian guff, too -- I am surprised you think otherwise.

But, since dialectics cannot explain change anyway, as I have shown, the above comment good news for HM.

[trivas7]

Destruction can be explained easily by science, and by historical materialism, and without any of that Hegelian guff, too -- I am surprised you think otherwise.

This is non-responsive. It isn't destruction that needs explaining but the capital-labor relationship. What is this mystical HM that has the power to explain history?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This is non-responsive. It isn't destruction that needs explaining but the capital-labor relationship. What is this mystical HM that has the power to explain history?

Not so, science can explain self-destruction causally -- whereas dialectics cannot explain a single thing -- not even a boiling kettle!

In which case, we'd be foolish to replace science with dialectics, just as geographers, say, would be foolish to replace their knowledge with flat earth theory.

And the capital labour relation is causal too, so we do not need daielctics here at all.


What is this mystical HM that has the power to explain history?

I thought you knew?

Well, to help you out: you'll find it in Marx's writings -- you should try to read them some time.

Except, of course, he got rid of the 'mystical' part when he ditched Hegel, and dialecitcs.

Glad I coukld help...

[Hit The North]

And the capital labour relation is causal too, so we do not need daielctics here at all.

So in which direction does the causal relationship run?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


So in which direction does the causal relationship run?

Ask a scientist.

[Hit The North]

No I'm asking you. You're the one who thinks she's got all the answers.

[trivas7]

I thought you knew?
Well, to help you out: you'll find it in Marx's writings -- you should try to read them some time.
As usual you evade to answer.



And the capital labour relation is causal too [...]

What do you mean by this? How does this explain history?

[Herman]

How do you put "dialectics" into practice?

As far as i'm concerned, the dialectical method is something immaterial, non-physical. So how do you "test it"?

[dirtycommiebastard]

How do you put "dialectics" into practice?

As far as i'm concerned, the dialectical method is something immaterial, non-physical. So how do you "test it"?

By creating perspectives and seeing if they play out to be correct.

It is a question of properly analyzing the multi-dynamic class relations and material conditions to make proper predictions so that work can be done accordingly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


No I'm asking you. You're the one who thinks she's got all the answers.


Once more, ask a scientist.

I am not a scientist, so I do not have all the answers -- just more than you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


As usual you evade to answer.

So, you think referring people to Marx is to 'evade to answer'.

Are you really a Marxist...?


What do you mean by this?

Don't you understand the word 'cause'? If not, I can't help you. If you do, work it out for yourself -- you really can't expect me to do all your thinking for you.


How does this explain history?

It doesn't, but it can be used to do so.

Us genuine materialists call this 'historical materialism'.

Why do I have to keep reminding you?

[Hit The North]

I am not a scientist, so I do not have all the answers -- just more than you.

So you think scientists have all the answers, do you? :lol:

Btw, what kind of scientist should we ask about social class relations?

[trivas7]

Trivas:
So, you think referring people to Marx is to 'evade to answer'.
Are you really a Marxist...?

Don't you understand the word 'cause'? If not, I can't help you. If you do, work it out for yourself -- you really can't expect me to do all your thinking for you.



How does this explain history?



It doesn't, but it can be used to do so.

Pathetic, R.

[Herman]

By creating perspectives and seeing if they play out to be correct.

It is a question of properly analyzing the multi-dynamic class relations and material conditions to make proper predictions so that work can be done accordingly.

You can predict many events, including class relations, without resorting to dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Pathetic, R.

I really do not think you should describe Historical Materialism in such terms.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ:


So you think scientists have all the answers, do you?

Just more than you mystics.


Btw, what kind of scientist should we ask about social class relations?

Social scientists.

Let me know when you want advice on the colour of grass, won't you?

[Raúl Duke]

So you think scientists have all the answers, do you?

If they don't...than who?

The scientists seems to be the ones finding out most of the answers...


Social scientists.

I want to be one... :cool:


So, then, what does Marxism have to do with? [Trivas referring to dialectics/responding to 1st post]

With class struggle, communism, the abolition of private property...

I can't believe that none of the others criticized this statement.

[trivas7]

So, then, what does Marxism have to do with?




With class struggle, communism, the abolition of private property...

I can't believe that none of the others criticized this statement.

What is Marxism's theoretical basis?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What is Marxism's theoretical basis?

How many more times? Historical materialism.

Now, move on for goodness sake.

[trivas7]

What is Marxism's theoretical basis?


Historical materialism.

Nope. The theoretical basis of Marxism is materialism. Marx completed it, extended its knowledge of nature to the knowledge of human society, viz. historical materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


The theoretical basis of Marxism is materialism. Marx completed it, extended its knowledge of nature to the knowledge of human society, viz. historical materialism.

You are using 'basis' in a different sense; you seem to mean by it 'point of departure'.

And that just causes confusion.

[trivas7]

And that just causes confusion.
You are confused because you don't know what you mean by historical materialism, R. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You are confused because you don't know what you mean by historical materialism, R.

On the contrary, I rather think you are confused about the meanig of the word "basis" -- you have clearly muddled it up it with "point of depatarture".

[rosa-rl]

First, I did not look at the original link that this thread was about - so please excuse that fact.

However, I have noticed what seems to be a strong anti-intellectualism here. What is wrong with being academic? isn't it important to have Marxist Philosophers, or rather Philosophers in the tradition of Marx that are moving ahead in the investigation of such questions as the nature of 'truth'?

I just do not think anyone would blindly throw out theoretical physicists because they don't talk in the common language...

Really we need to raise the level... we need the basic people talking in the languages of physics, philosophy, art, biology and so much more. This is not out of the reach of people - they have been denied it by this system.

[Raúl Duke]

First, I did not look at the original link that this thread was about - so please excuse that fact.

However, I have noticed what seems to be a strong anti-intellectualism here. What is wrong with being academic? isn't it important to have Marxist Philosophers, or rather Philosophers in the tradition of Marx that are moving ahead in the investigation of such questions as the nature of 'truth'?

I just do not think anyone would blindly throw out theoretical physicists because they don't talk in the common language...

Really we need to raise the level... we need the basic people talking in the languages of physics, philosophy, art, biology and so much more. This is not out of the reach of people - they have been denied it by this system.

I don't see much of anti-intellectualism in criticizing philosophy...

Some of the critics here are very into the more empirical-based science.

Actually, sometimes it seems that philosophy, at least some versions of it, has an anti-intellectual strain against sciences/empiricism and prefer mysticism instead.

[Mania]

I just wanted to make a point about this pitiful website.

Dialectics claims that it can prove x, y and z.

We know that maths/chemistry/physics/whatever science can prove x, y and z.

It strikes me as somewhat...silly to defer to a 'tool' which has contentious claims at proving something (at best) when we already have tools which can prove the same things.

To put it simply, it's like trying to use a spoon to beat in a nail, when we have a hammer!

Looking at the examples of this pathetic website:


M - Snow stays on the ground all winter . . . until a warm day comes along and it all
MeltsCan be explained via a basic understanding of the properties of water, solids, gases, liquids & melting points...


R - The clouds turn dark, a cool wind stirs, . . . and it starts to
RainA basic understanding of clouds, water vapor etc.


E - Deep in the earth, pressure builds up for many years . . . suddenly there comes an
EarthquakeGeology explains this via tectonic plates, geophysics.


A - Snow builds up and up and up on a mountain . . . until there's an
Avalanche Can be explained via understanding of snow structure and mathematics (e.g. Bernoulli's principle & other mathematical models)

---

My point is, referring to a philosophy to try to explain something (which does a poor job) in the face of methods which do a far better job at explaining something is illogical.

If something is not pragmatic it deserves to be thrown out. Tradition for tradition's sake is wholly un-Marxist. Ruthless criticism of all things existing, right?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rosa:


isn't it important to have Marxist Philosophers, or rather Philosophers in the tradition of Marx that are moving ahead in the investigation of such questions as the nature of 'truth'?

Indeed, it is important to question dialectics, too, especially if this 'theory' not only does not work, it makes not one ounce of sense, and can be shown not to do either.

The site was are criticising does not do this; it uncritically accepts an ancient Hermetic dogma, re-discovered by Hegel, given a bogus non-flip by Engels and co, and peddled to ususpecting Marxists who know no logic --, and it then tries to sell these half-baked ideas to kids!

The owner of that site should be had up for child cruelty.

Check this out, where you will see a long list of threads at RevLeft where this 'theory' has been systematically demolished:

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

By the way, is your name a take on my own?

[trivas7]

The site was are criticising does not do this; it uncritically accepts an ancient Hermetic dogma, re-discovered by Hegel, given a bogus non-flip by Engels and co, and peddled to ususpecting Marxists who know no logic --, and it then tries to sell these half-baked ideas to kids!

But you would have Marxism do away with all philosophy, no?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


But you would have Marxism do away with all philosophy, no?

And not least because Marx did so too.

Where's the problem, then?

[trivas7]

Where's the problem, then?
Marx set as his goal in Capital to understand the laws of motion of capitalism, not something other. Laws of motion which were a methodology developed by Hegel -- a philosopher. Marx's philosophy is materialism, not nothing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Marx set as his goal in Capital to understand the laws of motion of capitalism, not something other. Laws of motion which were a methodology developed by Hegel -- a philosopher. Marx's philosophy is materialism, not nothing.

In order to undertsand capitalism, Marx used historical materialism, which is a science, not a philosophy.

But you have been told this many times and, dogmatist that you are, you prefer to stick to the same old hackneyed mante, rather than read what Marx himslef actually said (and you have had his words quoted at you many times, too).

Time to take your head out of the sand, I think.

And, you have yet to explain to us why my proof that Hegel's 'method' means that change cannot happen, is faulty.

[trivas7]

In order to undertsand capitalism, Marx used historical materialism, which is a science, not a philosophy.

It is a science because it the application of dialectical materialism to the study of the evolution of human societies.

Please don't repeat yourself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


It is a science because it the application of dialectical materialism to the study of the evolution of human societies.

That's rather odd, since dialectical materialism was invented by Plekhanov long after Marx was dead.


Please don't repeat yourself.

You do -- so I will.

Especially when you ignore things you can't answer.

You have yet to explain to us why my proof that Hegel's 'method' means that change cannot happen, is faulty.