Natural order? [Archive]

rosa-rl

16th June 2008, 18:50

I think that instead what we see is a species conforming to and creating its own conditions. The species can continue, for better or worse, on its current path or events can give rise to new possible paths of development - that is if there are individuals acting in fidelity with those events...

Those event and those acting in fidelity to those events do not necessarily carry us closer toward socialism or communism since two people can react to the same event in very different ways.

"Natural order" is a very idealist approach in that it assumes that there is some sort of existing idea that humanity has strayed from - or is naturally striving toward. Ultimately the concept leads directly into religious beliefs... idea of who or what?

Kropotesta

16th June 2008, 19:03

"Meant" by whom?

Luís Henrique
By nature. That is the point. Do believe it exists or not?

LuÃs Henrique

16th June 2008, 19:07

By nature. That is the point. Do believe it exists or not?

I believe "nature" has no intents.

Luís Henrique

PRC-UTE

16th June 2008, 19:54

Inherent, as in there's a specfic way that human society is naturally meant to conform to.

Nah, that's the philosophical weakness of both anarchism and free-market libertarianism. The idea of a natural order arises from religious thought.

Kropotesta

16th June 2008, 19:59

Nah, that's the philosophical weakness of both anarchism and free-market libertarianism. The idea of a natural order arises from religious thought.
I haven't spoke to many anarchists that would argue that there is such a thing......

Herman

16th June 2008, 20:29

I believe "nature" has no intents.

Heh, ask that to the directors of "The Happening".

I agree though.

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 21:03

Inherent, as in there's a specfic way that human society is naturally meant to conform to.
Nature has no intention, it doesn’t mean for anything to happen. At most what you have is certain tendencies given certain environmental constraints. The Industrial Revolution, for example, resulted in the capitalist mode of production, which in turn creates the sort of society that we have right now. Environmental conditions (such as the technology we possess) put a constraint on the sort of society we can have (e.g. you couldn’t get capitalism 5,000 years ago no matter how hard you tried), and it may made certain modes of production more or less likely, and in turn certain forms of society more or less likely. But none of this is “natural” or intended by nature (whatever that means).

Kropotesta

16th June 2008, 21:07

Alright wrong phrasing I meant a natural order within humans that we are to aspire to.

Hyacinth

16th June 2008, 21:26

Alright wrong phrasing I meant a natural order within humans that we are to aspire to.
First, I don’t know what you mean here by “within humans”, I’ll presume you mean inherent.

To say that there is an inherent social order, which is natural somehow or other, that “we are to aspire” to is teleological thinking. If such a drive existed in humans it would have to be instilled in us via evolution for it to be ‘natural’. Unfortunately evolution doesn’t work toward an end, and hence there is no such inherent “natural order” to which we are striving.

The better explanation for social change is to look at people’s perceived interests (i.e. what Marx called their consciousness) and the material causes which make them have the perceived interests that they do. People will tend to act in accordance with what they think is in their interests, and if they think that some social order is in their interest (e.g. a communist social order) you will see them acting to bring about such a social order. But none of this is “natural” in the sense that it is somehow some inherent drive that we have toward communism that is instilled in us by nature.

Mariner's Revenge

16th June 2008, 22:22

Kropotesta, can you be more specific? I don't know if I am going to answer your question but I will try. I was going to split my posts into two parts, individual aspirations and society aspirations but after more thought I found that they are very similar.

Assuming we are on the same page I will say that individuals and societies have tendencies but there is no absolute order. For an individual example, many humans strive for a stable lifestyle and the same applies for societies, hence why conservativism is so strong. This is obviously not true for all people or all societies because many people live for uncertainties and many societies, especially anarchies, do as well.

The same applies for the more "cause and effect" route as well. A good example on a sociological level would be that we start with a slave built society and eventually that society will fall so then the slaves will then probably be transformed from actual slaves to a serf or sharecropper type setup. We saw that happen in both the fall of the Roman Empire and when slavery was illegalized in the South after the 1860s. You could say that is a tendency but I would in no way say there is an order. Another example would probably be the capitalism setup will naturally in time turn to a communism setup, which I believe there is a tendency to do so but no absolute order.

To explain what I mean by tendency, it is nothing more than interests. When the outside forces of slave owners change (fall of an Empire or illegalization of slavery) they will find the next best option in their interests which is the serf/sharecropper setup. Since capitalists in the capitalist setup usually totally screw over the lower class, you will find that the lower class will tend to take matters into their own hands.

Dystisis

16th June 2008, 22:22

Not natural rights but natural order. Do you think it exists or not? Is there a natural order that we have strayed away from within capitalism? What do you think?
Personally I object to such an idea and believe that certain things, i.e. solidarity can be natural but not a part of a natural order.

By natural order I mean something within humans that we have an inclination to aspire to. A natural way of living as it were.
No...

As if that wasn't a fulfilling enough answer I say we must take every day and moment and do something with it, we can not survive on prophecies or stories about how and what things should be.

Regarding nature having it's own intent that is such a large topic of it's own, basically the statement is too unclear. What is meant by nature? I hate this word... isn't everything a part of nature?

PRC-UTE

16th June 2008, 22:32

I haven't spoke to many anarchists that would argue that there is such a thing......

Quite a few do, especially ecological anarchists and those who've picked up ideas from chaos theory.

But anyway, I don't want to derail your thread...

MarxSchmarx

19th June 2008, 20:26

Originally Posted by Kropotesta http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1174146#post1174146)
I haven't spoke to many anarchists that would argue that there is such a thing......

Quite a few do, especially ecological anarchists and those who've picked up ideas from chaos theory.

This is semantics. There are a couple sense of the term "order" as in "I have arranged the cards according to an order" and "the order of knights templar". The former merely implies a pattern. The latter sense implies a normative hierarchy, and it was in this sense that a "natural order" is usually talked about.

Without patterns (order?) in nature, science would be impossible. But identifying patterns is different from saying the "natural order" is for Europeans to rule all others, men to rule women, etc... All chaos theory says is that there is a method, or pattern, to the bewildering cacophony of the natural world. It has nothing to do with moral hierarchies.

I am hardly a "deep ecologist" or some such crap, but I do think that when these clowns speak of "order" all they mean is a benign "pattern" rather than a hierarchy, a Kropotesta was implying.

trivas7

19th June 2008, 20:33

No. Marxists don't believe in a human nature per se because of its idealist implications, and the notion of "natural law" has its roots Thomist theology.

Kropotesta

19th June 2008, 20:42

No. Marxists don't believe in a human nature per se because of its idealist implications, and the notion of "natural law" has its roots Thomist theology.
Marxists believe that communism is the natural evolution of human society I thought? Is this not some form of social order?

LuÃs Henrique

20th June 2008, 18:12

Marxists believe that communism is the natural evolution of human society I thought? Is this not some form of social order?

No, this is a misinterpretation. Marxists believe capitalism is contradictory, and that its contradictions can only be solved by revolutioning it into a communist society.

Luís Henrique

zelda

20th June 2008, 18:58

You raise a good question. However, Marxists should be left out.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2008, 19:22

LH:

Marxists believe capitalism is contradictory, and that its contradictions can only be solved by revolutioning it into a communist society.

And yet, when you (plural) are asked to explain this odd use of the word 'contradictory', it turns out not to mean 'contradictory' after all -- or it is meant in an entirely new and unexplained sense.

trivas7

20th June 2008, 19:50

And yet, when you (plural) are asked to explain this odd use of the word 'contradictory', it turns out not to mean 'contradictory' after all -- or it is meant in an entirely new and unexplained sense.
Mm, then what does it mean? New and unexplained to you perhaps? :rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2008, 20:07

Trivas:

Mm, then what does it mean? New and unexplained to you perhaps?

Unless you can say, my claim is that it is in fact meaningless must stand.

LuÃs Henrique

20th June 2008, 20:41

LH:

And yet, when you (plural) are asked to explain this odd use of the word 'contradictory', it turns out not to mean 'contradictory' after all -- or it is meant in an entirely new and unexplained sense.

I have already explained what "contradictory" means in this context.

But perhaps you agree with anarchists that there is a natural way for human society to organise, and capitalism is a deviation of such state of nature?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

20th June 2008, 21:09

Here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1132794&postcount=8

A material contradiction is a situation in which the continued existence of something requires some factor that in the long term undermines that very existence. For instance:

The development of capitalism requires a growing proletariat - but the existence of a huge proletariat will destroy capitalism.

Accumulation of capital requires substituting dead labour for living labour - but as only living labour provides surplus value, the substitution of dead labour for living labour will drive profit rates down.

Luís Henrique

trivas7

20th June 2008, 21:13

Unless you can say, my claim is that it is in fact meaningless must stand.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, i.e., you must prove that the word "contradictions" is meaningless.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2008, 21:37

Thanks LH, but I replied to that.

Trivas:

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, i.e., you must prove that the word "contradictions" is meaningless.

The word itself is not meaningless (as I noted), but since you lot are using it in a new way, we need to be told what this new sense is.

Until you do -- and we have only been waiting for 200 years -- then the suspicion that this new use is in fact devoid of content, grows by the week.

And we can't expect you to tell us, can we? After all, you "do not think about things you don't think about", do you?

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2008, 21:39

LH:

But perhaps you agree with anarchists that there is a natural way for human society to organise, and capitalism is a deviation of such state of nature?

No, I agree with Marx.

trivas7

20th June 2008, 21:43

The word itself is not meaningless (as I noted), but since you lot are using it in a new way, we need to be told what this new sense is.

Nonsense.

Hyacinth

20th June 2008, 22:40

Nonsense.
What's nonsense? That if you are going to use an established term in a new way you need to elaborate on how you're using it? Or that dialecticians are using "contradiction" in a way that deviates from the ordinary sense of the term, or even the logical sense of the term?

Hyacinth

20th June 2008, 22:46

Here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1132794&postcount=8
I find that perfectly intelligible, but I fail to see what it has to do with dialectical laws such as the unity of opposites, the negation of the negation, changing quantity into quality (or is it vice versa?), etc. As well, given that the term ‘contradiction’ already has an established formal meaning, how does using the term ‘contradiction’ help to illuminate (rather than obscure) the concept that you’re trying to get across? Couldn’t we instead simply say that the system of capitalism is inherently unstable? Or, for that matter, drop any technical terms altogether, the explanation that you gave is sufficiently succinct such that we can make do without jargon.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2008, 23:52

Trivas:

Nonsense.

That was in response to this:

The word itself is not meaningless (as I noted), but since you lot are using it in a new way, we need to be told what this new sense is.

I note Trivas is still prevaricating; so it looks like we will have to wait another 200 years...

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th June 2008, 23:55

Hyacinth, LH rejects these classic DM-concepts; I'll try and find the thread in which he threw them all away (it was about a year ago).

It leaves him with no theory of change, as I pointed out to him.

At least Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin had a theory of change (even if it does not work -- they at least gave this some thought); LH has none at all.

trivas7

20th June 2008, 23:59

It leaves him with no theory of change, as I pointed out to him.

You err to think that there is a scientific "theory of change."

Hyacinth

21st June 2008, 00:00

Hyacinth, LH rejects these classic DM-concepts; I'll try and find the thread in which he threw them all away (it was about a year ago).
A step in the right direction.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st June 2008, 00:47

Trivas:

You err to think that there is a scientific "theory of change."

Where do I even so much as suggest I think this?

There are in fact many philosophical theories of change; none are widely accepted.

Hegel's 'theory', copied by Engels & Co (even if allegedly put the 'right way up'), does not work -- as I have shown.

trivas7

21st June 2008, 00:51

No, I agree with Marx.
Re what exactly?

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st June 2008, 00:56

Trivas:

Re what exactly?

That he abandoned the dialectic as you mystics understand it.

Now, you notice I answer your questions. How about you doing the same?

We still await a clear explanation of the term 'dialectical contradiction', just as we await your refutation of my proof that dialectics cannot explain change, and your acknowledgement that you have confused 'verifiable' with 'verified'.

mikelepore

21st June 2008, 03:37

It may help here to remember what kind of animals we are. A few million years ago there were some primates that were safe because they stayed up in the trees. They had something to eat, and were not likely to be eaten. Some primates began to live on the ground. In the animal kingdom these ground-living primates were the last to eat and the first to be eaten, because, while they no longer had their homes in trees, they also didn't have the cats' speed, the eagle's claws, the wolf's nose, the turtle's shell, etc. Many other animals besides these primates had their protection tools and hunting tools as parts of their bodies. The primates began to pick up sticks and stones and figure out things to do with them. There was a selective pressure because the individuals who could find some of the most creative things to do with these findable resources would be the ones who would survive to reproduce.

After many generations their descendants had larger brains and taught their children complicated skills related to making and using tools. Social groups were some of their inventions. Language became more abstract. These societies passed through a definite sequence of inventions of categories of tools: pottery, the bow, the domestication of animals, farming, metallurgy, etc. In every step along the way the motivator was the fact that people without tools are the defenseless victims of nature. Today some very complicated tools are in use, but, due to social institutions, a small proportion of the people own those tools, and they place strict conditions on the others for using the tools. This makes most people into the slaves of the owners of the tools.

This should also give us some clues about what intelligent life on other planets might be like. Most likely, in order for intelligence to evolve, there has to be a situation in which survival is treatened, and only those who grab an assortment of nature's materials and use them to increase the probability of survival will survive. But it has to be a borderline situation where survival is only partially beyond reach, just enough so that some of them actually can and do invent those survival implements, instead of having only mass extinction. For intelligence to evolve, survival can't be either too easy nor too difficult.

What humans will do in the future is foreshadowed. We will continue to revolutionize the methods of making and using tools, which includes not only the means of production but also the relations of production. Every place than can be explored, every possible combination that can be formed with ideas and language, the shuffling of social institutions to try out new combinations of them, all such things will be influenced by this legacy we have, as the peculiar animal that didn't have survival tools as part of its body so it had to pick up nature's objects and fabricate some tools. Certainly we will not forever tolerate the situation in which we are the slaves of a few people who own the tools and make us beg for the opportunity to use them; that social situation is doomed. The kind of social order that will come after that will be one that intelligent planning will produce.

Mike Lepore

allthegoodnamesweretaken

22nd June 2008, 04:42

I think that it could be said that there is a natural order, but as has been pointed out again and again, definition is a key player in this discussion. For arguments sake; of course there's a natural order, we're natural animals and everything that happens because of us, every event that takes place at our creation, is by definition an event created by nature. I hate that argument, but I still think it's valid (of course the language will need to be fixed up, sounds pretty filthy in its current state).

I do believe that because of what some people call 'genetic coding' (fyi, I have very little knowledge about this topic, only a very basic understanding) there are certain natural ways that we behave, that we act. I think that because of our ability to communicate on such a higher level than our animal counterparts, we've broken down that natural order of things. We don't so much focus on finding food and reproducing. We have other purposes too, purposes which have come about, essentially, because of our ability to communicate at such a high degree.

On another hand, I'd argue that nature pertains to the system in which it resides. It's 'natural' for a certain type of New Yorker to avoid the subway on certain days, maybe because of the temperatures, maybe because of the amount of people, maybe one of many 'unnatural' reasons. An analyst of road traffic patterns could omit: It's natural for the roads to be jammed this time of year, for many people with the same or similar purposes are heading in the same or similar directions.

In summary, if there is a natural order in which humans would have otherwise pertained to, then yes, we have strayed from that course. But one could argue that if this is our course, then this is also the intention of nature. Once again, a definition debate, what exactly is being asked [for]?

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2008, 14:08

No, I agree with Marx.

And what does Marx say on such subject?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd June 2008, 14:14

LH:

Check this out (it should keep you quiet for a while):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2008, 14:24

I find that perfectly intelligible, but I fail to see what it has to do with dialectical laws such as the unity of opposites, the negation of the negation, changing quantity into quality (or is it vice versa?), etc.

Those would be Hegelian categories. At best, they could point to the empty form of material processes; they cannot be substituted for a critical explanation of those processes (for instance, it can be fancied that the co-existence of capitalist development and the counter-forces it provokes is "unity of opposites", that the build up of proletarian opposition under "lawful" forms, until it breaks as outright uprising against bourgeois order is "changing quantity into quality", etc. But these are, in my opinion, ad hoc explanations - or, as Marx would say, "coquetting" with Hegelian terms - that do not add any real depth to the analysis.)

As well, given that the term ‘contradiction’ already has an established formal meaning, how does using the term ‘contradiction’ help to illuminate (rather than obscure) the concept that you’re trying to get across? Well, as far as I am concerned, the concept I am trying to get across can be named anything else. I have suggested "Marie Louise", but for some reason it didn't seem to catch. Any other suggestions?

What we cannot do is to pretend that capitalism (and most other social phenomena) isn't troubled by this kind of process, or that Marx didn't center his criticism of capitalism around this notion.

Couldn’t we instead simply say that the system of capitalism is inherently unstable?No, I don't think this accounts for what the capitalist system is. First, because it is remarkably stable; second, because the particular nature of its internal crisis does not resemble a mere instability. The system is, for the lack of a better word, contradictory: like a child that wants to eat her candies and keep them for tomorrow, it needs it both ways, and those ways are incompatible with each other.

Or, for that matter, drop any technical terms altogether, the explanation that you gave is sufficiently succinct such that we can make do without jargon.Thanks for the compliment, but I still think that this kind of relation needs a word, or at least a short phrase, as its name. I am open to suggestions, but I would say that the Marxist tradition is to call them "contradictions". Which may be a poor choice, such as "dictatorship of the proletariat" undeniably is, but, then, and again, words are conventional.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2008, 14:29

LH:

Check this out (it should keep you quiet for a while):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm

I have already "checked" it out.

Can you answer my question? Come on, it shouldn't be a difficult one.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2008, 14:37

That he abandoned the dialectic as you mystics understand it.

Yes, we already know that this is your opinion. But when you said "no, I agree with Marx", it wasn't by no means in relation to dialectics. It was in relation with there being a "state of Nature" from which capitalism is a deviation.

Now, you notice I answer your questions. How about you doing the same?

Says the person who, asked about what Marx's take on "natural order" is, "answers" with a link to Marx's oeuvres complètes...

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2008, 14:40

Hyacinth, LH rejects these classic DM-concepts; I'll try and find the thread in which he threw them all away (it was about a year ago).

It leaves him with no theory of change, as I pointed out to him.

Well, and is there some reason I should have an abstract "theory of change"?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd June 2008, 15:42

LH:

Can you answer my question? Come on, it shouldn't be a difficult one.

Is it far too vague -- I could inform you about anything from my agreement with him over our favourite colours, to the nature of the variable in calculus, or otherwise.

You need to be more specific.

Says the person who, asked about what Marx's take on "natural order" is, "answers" with a link to Marx's oeuvres complètes...

Nice point, except you missed out a minor detail -- I was talking to Trivas, not you.

Well, and is there some reason I should have an abstract "theory of change"?

Indeed, not -- none of them work.

But, then your slightly less abstract 'theory' (involving those inexplicable 'contradictions') does not work either.

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2008, 15:54

Is it far too vague -- I could inform you about anything from my agreement with him over our favourite colours, to the nature of the variable in calculus, or otherwise.

You need to be more specific.

This thread has a specific theme. The question I asked you was very specific:

But perhaps you agree with anarchists that there is a natural way for human society to organise, and capitalism is a deviation of such state of nature?
Nice point, except you missed out a minor detail -- I was talking to Trivas, not you.Is this an admission that you don't answer my questions?

Indeed, not -- none of them work.

But, then your slightly less abstract 'theory' (involving those inexplicable 'contradictions') does not work either.Wait, I don't have a theory - how comes that now "my theory" (which we just agreed doesn't exist) doesn't work?

***************

It seems you forgot what the subject of the discussion was.

Is there a "natural" way for human society to organise, and is capitalism a deviation of such "natural" way?

I am sure you can give us a better answer than "I agree with Marx", followed by attempts to elude what Marx's position regarding this was...

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd June 2008, 18:48

LH:

This thread has a specific theme. The question I asked you was very specific:

And I said I agreed with Marx. You feigned ignorance of what Marx said, so I began to treat you as a fool.**

Is this an admission that you don't answer my questions?

No, since I did, and have been doing for nearly two years.

Wait, I don't have a theory - how comes that now "my theory" (which we just agreed doesn't exist) doesn't work?

Indeed, you do not have a general theory of change; you do have a theory of change in capitalism -- which cannot work in the way you say. Drop the empty jargon, and it might have a chance.

I am sure you can give us a better answer than "I agree with Marx", followed by attempts to elude what Marx's position regarding this was...

I have already been over that.**

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2008, 19:23

And I said I agreed with Marx. You feigned ignorance of what Marx said, so I began to treat you as a fool.**

I am pretty sure most of our members do not know what Marx said about this issue. For their benefit, if not for mine, can you explain what Marx's position is?

No, since I did, and have been doing for nearly two years.

Well, you clearly didn't - you are still to enlighten us on what Marx's position is.

Indeed, you do not have a general theory of change; you do have a theory of change in capitalism -- which cannot work in the way you say. Drop the empty jargon, and it might have a chance.

Well, can you explain how, and why, it can't work?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd June 2008, 20:37

LH:

I am pretty sure most of our members do not know what Marx said about this issue. For their benefit, if not for mine, can you explain what Marx's position is?

I think we can leave that in your very capable hands.

Well, you clearly didn't - you are still to enlighten us on what Marx's position is.

I answered it, but maybe nor in a way you liked.

Well, can you explain how, and why, it can't work?

I did do so in that other thread -- infortunately, I'd link to it, but I cannot find it!

By any chance do you know what and where it is?

LuÃs Henrique

24th June 2008, 13:42

I think we can leave that in your very capable hands.

Well, here it is:

No, this is a misinterpretation. Marxists believe capitalism is contradictory, and that its contradictions can only be solved by revolutioning it into a communist society.

But you say this is wrong; so I'm waiting for you to pose Marx's actual position on this issue. It seems that it is going to be a long wait, though.

I answered it, but maybe nor in a way you liked.

You "answered" it by posting a link to Marx's complete works... which obviously doesn't answer anything, unless we are trying to establish some kind of Marxist fundamentalism.

I did do so in that other thread -- infortunately, I'd link to it, but I cannot find it!

By any chance do you know what and where it is?

No, unhappily I can't remember what are you talking about.

Perhaps you not only forgot where and when you explained why it doesn't work, but also forgot why it doesn't work?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th June 2008, 14:33

LH:

But you say this is wrong; so I'm waiting for you to pose Marx's actual position on this issue. It seems that it is going to be a long wait, though.

And, of course, we both know he was not serious when he said this, for he himself told us he was merely 'coquetting' with such terms.

You "answered" it by posting a link to Marx's complete works... which obviously doesn't answer anything, unless we are trying to establish some kind of Marxist fundamentalism.

No, I pointed you there in order to keep you quiet for a few years, in response to your insincere request.

Clearly, that tactic failed.

No, unhappily I can't remember what are you talking about.

You may recall we had a long debate about 'contradictions' being 'opposites', which the dialectical Holy Books tell us turn into one another (which they cannot do).

I quoted these Gospels to you at length, to which you responded that you did not accept that view of 'contradictions'.

This meant that you had no theory of change (as I then alleged).

I am still looking for it, and will find it.

Perhaps you not only forgot where and when you explained why it doesn't work, but also forgot why it doesn't work?

Not so; if you need a refresher course in the basic philosophy of change, you only have to beg...

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th June 2008, 15:33

LuÃs Henrique

24th June 2008, 19:05

Found it!

I had been looking for it under the 'Dialectics', or related terms, but it was in fact under 'The Inevitable Downfall of Capitalism', in Learning:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/inevitable-downfall-capitalism-t60581/index.html

We begin to debate on page two.

Well, you may have found what you were referring to, but I don't think you found your demonstration that my "theory" - as you like to call it - "doesn't work".

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th June 2008, 19:42

LH:

Well, you may have found what you were referring to, but I don't think you found your demonstration that my "theory" - as you like to call it - "doesn't work".

Does not work in the sense that it is far too vague to work, and uses an ill-defined term -- 'contradiction' -- which merely compoinds the problem.

That is quite apart from the fact that it confuses nouns with relational expressions.

LuÃs Henrique

24th June 2008, 20:00

Does not work in the sense that it is far too vague to work, and uses an ill-defined term -- 'contradiction' -- which merely compoinds the problem.

What is vague about it?

That is quite apart from the fact that it confuses nouns with relational expressions.

How does it confuse nouns with relational expressions, if it isn't even about linguistics?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th June 2008, 20:09

LH:

What is vague about it?

What isn't?

How does it confuse nouns with relational expressions, if it isn't even about linguistics?

You have clearly not read that earlier thread.

LuÃs Henrique

24th June 2008, 20:35

What isn't?

Nothing.

You have clearly not read that earlier thread.

I clearly have, and you clearly are mixing up two different issues.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th June 2008, 20:53

LH:

Nothing.

So you say, but the thread I linked to says otherwise.

I clearly have, and you clearly are mixing up two different issues.

Obviously with little attention to what you read.

And what am I mixing up?

LuÃs Henrique

24th June 2008, 22:01

So you say, but the thread I linked to says otherwise.

No, it doesn't. It shows that your tactic in debate is to a. dismiss all general theory of change as metaphysical; and b. to dismiss all positions about change that do not constitute a general theory as "small"... because they are not general theories of change.

Obviously with little attention to what you read.

Considering the number of times that you had to back from your mistaken assertion on that thread... I seem to be not alone in that.

And what am I mixing up?

What you call my "theory of change", and a totally unrelated semantical discussion that we had on that thread.

By the way, what was Marx's position on "natural order"? I'm coming to believe that you don't know it.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th June 2008, 23:00

LH:

No, it doesn't. It shows that your tactic in debate is to a. dismiss all general theory of change as metaphysical; and b. to dismiss all positions about change that do not constitute a general theory as "small"... because they are not general theories of change.

Incorrect. I first of all show it is incoherent, and then attribute that fact to the additional fact that it is metaphysical.

Moreover, your revision of the dialectical 'theory' of change cannot answer any of the questions Hegel's 'theory' attempted to solve.

And, because of the way you pose this question, and then attempt to answer it, I am far from convinced you know the background to this 'problem'.

In fact, it is obvious that you do not.

So, no wonder I accuse your 'theory' of being superficial and vague.

Considering the number of times that you had to back from your mistaken assertion on that thread... I seem to be not alone in that.

And which 'assertion' was that?

What you call my "theory of change", and a totally unrelated semantical discussion that we had on that thread.

Not so; if a 'theory' is expressed in vague and imprecise terms, or uses terms with little regard to their meaning, or even distorts the use of certain expressions, then it cannot be assessed for its truth or falsity; it does not make it that far.

Now if Marx had regularly confused, say, the relative with the equivalent form of value, his critics would have had a field day, and Marx's stature even among his 'followers' would have been seriously compromised. But Marx was in general quite careful with his use of words.

Now, the same cannot be said for you; you regularly confuse nouns (e.g., 'contradiction') with relational expressions (e.g., 'A conflicts/struggles with B', or 'C contradicts D').

So, your theory is far too confused even to be assessed for its veracity; it does not make it that far.

By the way, what was Marx's position on "natural order"? I'm coming to believe that you don't know it.

And, the way you keep asking this, I am convinced you do not.

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2008, 16:54

Moreover, your revision of the dialectical 'theory' of change cannot answer any of the questions Hegel's 'theory' attempted to solve.

And why should I, or anyone else, answer the questions Hegel attempted to solve?

Are those questions even meaningful?

And which 'assertion' was that?

Varied ones. In fact, the most common movement on that thread was you taking back your sweeping assumptions against me.

Now, the same cannot be said for you; you regularly confuse nouns (e.g., 'contradiction') with relational expressions (e.g., 'A conflicts/struggles with B', or 'C contradicts D').

Can you point us an example of me doing such a thing?

And, the way you keep asking this, I am convinced you do not.

Maybe I don't - but I have tried to characterise it in a way that is both coherent and simple to understand. It is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot do the same, and that that is the reason you are not even trying.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th June 2008, 17:59

LH:

And why should I, or anyone else, answer the questions Hegel attempted to solve?

Indeed, but then why accept a 'theory' that depends on his defective reasoning for its only rationale?

In fact, the most common movement on that thread was you taking back your sweeping assumptions against me.

Well, unless you say what these are, this can only be a 'sweeping assumption' itself.

Can you point us an example of me doing such a thing?

Already done -- in that thread. I'll retrieve the exact link in a mo.

Maybe I don't - but I have tried to characterise it in a way that is both coherent and simple to understand. It is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot do the same, and that that is the reason you are not even trying.

Think what you like -- you generally do.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th June 2008, 18:15

OK, here we are:

Here you say that 'contradiction' is a name (which means it is a noun):

"Contradiction" is the name we give to those situations, in which something, in order to ensure its existence, has to foster forces that will result in its destruction.

Whereas here you say it is a relation (which means it is not a noun):

That's conflict. The contradiction is that the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are both of conflict and of functional dependency. The bourgeoisie needs the proletariat, and the proletariat needs to destroy the bourgeoisie (to avoid "the common ruin of the contending classes").

You can find my criticism of this here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=932096&postcount=59
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=932268&postcount=63
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=932318&postcount=65
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=932332&postcount=70
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=933202&postcount=85
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=933488&postcount=88
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=934130&postcount=93
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=934209&postcount=96

At which point you either gave up through exhaustion, or you conceded the point.

LuÃs Henrique

27th June 2008, 17:18

OK, here we are:

Here you say that 'contradiction' is a name (which means it is a noun):

Whereas here you say it is a relation (which means it is not a noun):

Oh, good grief.

"Contradiction" is a name. Contradictions are relations.

And yes, of course, "contradiction" is a name. It can be modified by adjectives:

"violent contradiction", "unsurmountable contradiction", "inexistent contradiction", etc.

It can be the subject of a verb:

"contradiction is not a scientifical concept", "contradictions cause sentences to be invalid", etc.

It can be used in lists with other names:

"contradictions, drugs, and rock and roll"; "sex, lies and contradictions".

You still can't bring yourself to state what Marx's views on "natural order" are. Either you don't know, or you realise that they are contradictory (in the formal logic sence) to your own neo-positivist views...

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2008, 17:41

LH:

"Contradiction" is a name. Contradictions are relations.

Well, we went through all this in that other thread.

If contradictions are relations, they cannot be names. If they are names, they cannot be relations.

You need to make your mind up.

trivas7

27th June 2008, 17:48

If contradictions are relations, they cannot be names. If they are names, they cannot be relations.

Are you arguing that nouns cannot name relations? Perhaps I'm missing something...

LuÃs Henrique

27th June 2008, 18:17

If contradictions are relations, they cannot be names. If they are names, they cannot be relations.

You need to make your mind up.

"Contradiction" is a name. It is a word. It has 13 letters. It begins with "c" representing the sound of /k/. It can be the subject of a verb. It can be modified by adjectives.

"Contradictions" is a word, too - a plural word; the plural of "contradiction".

A contradiction is not a name.

Contradictons are not names. They are not words. They haven't 13 letters, or 14 for that matter. They don't begin with "c". They can't be the subject of a verb. They can't be modified by adjectives.

That.

And you don't know where Marx stands on the subject of a "natural order" - or you do know, and also that it is not where you stand.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2008, 19:03

Trivas:

Are you arguing that nouns cannot name relations? Perhaps I'm missing something...

Read the links I posted, they will reveal all to you -- that is, if you can stir that brain of yours to think, for a chnage.

--------------------------

LH:

Contradictons are not names. They are not words. They haven't 13 letters, or 14 for that matter. They don't begin with "c". They can't be the subject of a verb. They can't be modified by adjectives.

Yes, yes -- once more we have been though all this (I covered this point in the treads you 'said' you read) -- you need to try to think up new ways to dig yourself out of the logical hole Hegel dumped you into.

And you don't know where Marx stands on the subject of a "natural order" - or you do know, and also that it is not where you stand.

Just because I won't tell you my every thought, does not mean you should throw a tantrum.

trivas7

27th June 2008, 19:37

Read the links I posted, they will reveal all to you [...]

It's exactly when you propose to reveal all that I am most worry you have nothing to reveal. :( Thanks for yet another dodge.

LuÃs Henrique

27th June 2008, 21:19

Yes, yes -- once more we have been though all this (I covered this point in the treads you 'said' you read) -- you need to try to think up new ways to dig yourself out of the logical hole Hegel dumped you into.

It has nothing to do with Hegel. This goes back to... Protagoras? Thrasymachus? Dogs bite, the word "dog" doesn't.

Just because I won't tell you my every thought, does not mean you should throw a tantrum.

But you still don't know where Marx stands on the issue of a natural order. Or, you do, and also know that it directly contradicts your line of reasoning...

I bet the latter...

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2008, 22:07

Trivas:

It's exactly when you propose to reveal all that I am most worry you have nothing to reveal.

And I suppose, in your own little fantasy world, I am to blaime for your incapcity to follow an argument?

Thanks for yet another dodge.

And yet you are the one who will not reveal to us the error in my proof that dialectics cannot explain change, what the phrase 'internal contradiction' means, or tell us how and why you confused "verifiable" with "verified".

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2008, 22:15

LH:

It has nothing to do with Hegel. This goes back to... Protagoras? Thrasymachus? Dogs bite, the word "dog" doesn't.

Indeed, I am happy to be reminded that this 'ruling idea' goes right back to the origins of organised class power in the 'West', and that you have still fallen for it.

[However, I was, of course, referring to the particular problem related to Hegel's crass confusion of the alleged relational nature if 'contradiction' with its supposed nominalised equivalent. I wasn't aware that Protagoras made this mistake with this word. But, hey, who am I to ruin this latest display of mock righteous indingnation on your part?]

But you still don't know where Marx stands on the issue of a natural order. Or, you do, and also know that it directly contradicts your line of reasoning...

I bet the latter...

What 'line of reasoning'?

Wrong metaphor -- it's a spiral... :rolleyes:

Hyacinth

27th June 2008, 22:50

To try to get this thread back [somewhat] on track, let me ask, what relation does the term ‘dialectical contradiction’ name?

Hit The North

27th June 2008, 23:06

To try to get this thread back [somewhat] on track, let me ask, what relation does the term ‘dialectical contradiction’ name?

Let's not allow our individual fetishes to get the better of us here. Jeez, you anti-dialectic guys are obsessed! The actual "track" of this thread was whether we can talk about a natural order, not about what a 'dialectical contradiction' is.

You may have posted in the wrong thread by accident.

But I doubt it. ;) :)

Hyacinth

27th June 2008, 23:25

You may have posted in the wrong thread by accident.

But I doubt it. ;) :)
Actually, you’ll forgive me, all of these threads look alike. :lol:

Hit The North

27th June 2008, 23:36

Actually, you’ll forgive me, all of these threads look alike. :lol:

Yeah, I wonder why that is :rolleyes:

LuÃs Henrique

30th June 2008, 17:14

To try to get this thread back [somewhat] on track, let me ask, what relation does the term ‘dialectical contradiction’ name?

This:

A material contradiction is a situation in which the continued existence of something requires some factor that in the long term undermines that very existence. For instance:

The development of capitalism requires a growing proletariat - but the existence of a huge proletariat will destroy capitalism.

Accumulation of capital requires substituting dead labour for living labour - but as only living labour provides surplus value, the substitution of dead labour for living labour will drive profit rates down.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

30th June 2008, 17:17

Indeed, but then why accept a 'theory' that depends on his defective reasoning for its only rationale?

I'm just "coquetting" with it. If Marx can do it, why can't I?

Can you explain Marx's refutation of the existence of a "natural order" without coquetting?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

30th June 2008, 18:27

LH:

I'm just "coquetting" with it. If Marx can do it, why can't I?

Sure you can, but then your 'theory' would still not work.

Can you explain Marx's refutation of the existence of a "natural order" without coquetting?

Does he refute it without coquetting?

larsxe

30th June 2008, 19:12

By natural order I mean something within humans that we have an inclination to aspire to. A natural way of living as it were.

Basically, I believe men are clean slates that can be turned into almost anything by the social order in which they are brought up. Two human beings with the same genetical background can be either greedy and murderous or kind and gentle, given the right social setting.

(This is one of the reasons I do not like hate, violence and blame, even when directed towards the "oppressors." Anyone can be an oppressor -- you would too, if you had those genes in that particular social setting. I do not really believe there is such a thing as "free will.")

Sure, some people are genetically (i.e., completely in their nature) psychopathic and completely beyond salvation by society or loving parents. Some people are genetically empathic, regardless of what heinous social order they're brought up in.

In general, I believe evolution has benefitted those humans who are at least in some regard co-operative and kind towards each other, either determined by their genetical make-up or by having the genetical predisposition so that such traits are easily developed within the social order. These are things that have made our species "thrive", in the evolutionary sense.

LuÃs Henrique

30th June 2008, 22:42

Does he refute it without coquetting?

No, he refutes it while, or even by, coquetting.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st July 2008, 01:06

LH:

No, he refutes it while, or even by, coquetting.

Then it is not a serious 'refutation'.

LuÃs Henrique

1st July 2008, 16:04

Then it is not a serious 'refutation'.

Then you not agree with him, on the contrary of what you have stated.

Which leaves you free from explaining what Marx's position is, but gets you back on task on why do you disagree with anarchists and illuminists when they argue a "natural" social order.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st July 2008, 18:01

LH:

Then you not agree with him, on the contrary of what you have stated.

I do not think he was 'coquetting'; you do.

Which leaves you free from explaining what Marx's position is, but gets you back on task on why do you disagree with anarchists and illuminists when they argue a "natural" social order.

'Illuminists'?

LuÃs Henrique

1st July 2008, 20:43

I do not think he was 'coquetting'; you do.

You don't? Then why you keep saying that he was?

'Illuminists'?Damned be the English language.

This:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si%C3%A8cle_des_Lumi%C3%A8res
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iluminismo

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

1st July 2008, 23:08

LH:

You don't? Then why you keep saying that he was?

Do I?

I am sorry, I am still no clearer who these 'illuminists' are.

Do you mean 'enlightenment'?

LuÃs Henrique

2nd July 2008, 16:00

Do I?

Yes; it even seems to be your main argument concerning Marx's rupture with Hegelianism. You always quote his preface, in which he comments an article from a Russian newspaper...

I am sorry, I am still no clearer who these 'illuminists' are.

Do you mean 'enlightenment'?

Yes, I do. You are not able to explain the difference between Marx and anarchists, or between Marx and XVIII philosophes, in what concerns "natural order".

Luís Henrique

PRC-UTE

2nd July 2008, 16:13

...and the merry go round continues

LuÃs Henrique

2nd July 2008, 16:22

...and the merry go round continues

... except that it is not "merry" at all.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 17:19

LH:

Yes; it even seems to be your main argument concerning Marx's rupture with Hegelianism. You always quote his preface, in which he comments an article from a Russian newspaper...

And yet you seem to think that I apply this critique to everything else Marx wrote.

Yes, I do. You are not able to explain the difference between Marx and anarchists, or between Marx and XVIII philosophes, in what concerns "natural order".

Another odd assumption.

We ought to interpret your initials as "Lots of Hypotheses".

PRC:

and the merry go round continues

Plently more laps in it for me...:)

LuÃs Henrique

2nd July 2008, 19:20

And yet you seem to think that I apply this critique to everything else Marx wrote.

So, Marx's refutation of naturalism in Das Kapital isn't serious, but his refutation of it in other works isn't. Which works are those in which Marx seriously refutes naturalism? Die Heilige Familie?

Another odd assumption.

Clearly based on your firm intention not to talk about the difference between the conceptions of Marx, on the one hand, and Rousseau & Co., on the other.

We ought to interpret your initials as "Lots of Hypotheses".

Or yours as "Really Loveable"...

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 19:27

LH:

So, Marx's refutation of naturalism in Das Kapital isn't serious, but his refutation of it in other works isn't. Which works are those in which Marx seriously refutes naturalism? Die Heilige Familie?

Where did I say that everything in Das Kapital was an example of 'coquetting'?

Clearly based on your firm intention not to talk about the difference between the conceptions of Marx, on the one hand, and Rousseau & Co., on the other.

More likely: based on your incapacity to read.

Or yours as "Really Loveable"...

I see, you have to copy me here too. No original thoughts of your own, I take it?

LuÃs Henrique

2nd July 2008, 20:08

Where did I say that everything in Das Kapital was an example of 'coquetting'?

Still dodging the subject, I see...

Where in Das Kapital does Marx make a serious criticism of naturalism?

More likely: based on your incapacity to read.Right on the head. Based on my incapacity to read... what was not written.

I see, you have to copy me here too. No original thoughts of your own, I take it?If you think it thoroughly, you will see that my use of your initials is radically different from your use of mine. Indeed, I am tempted to coquetting with Marx's expressions, and say that I put the use of initial on its feet, while in your way it was standing on its head.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

2nd July 2008, 20:46

LH:

Still dodging the subject, I see...

No, I am perfectly clear over which parts of Das Kapital Marx was 'coquetting', since he told us.

Perhaps you need to re-read what he said.

Where in Das Kapital does Marx make a serious criticism of naturalism?

Did I say he had?

Based on my incapacity to read... what was not written.

Are you drunk, by any chance? That might explain the problems you are having.

Just a suggestion...:)

If you think it thoroughly, you will see that my use of your initials is radically different from your use of mine. Indeed, I am tempted to coquetting with Marx's expressions, and say that I put the use of initial on its feet, while in your way it was standing on its head.

Yes, yes dear. Now drink your cocoa and have an early night. You'll feel a lot better in the morning...:rolleyes: