[SPLIT FROM CC] Rosa and Zurdito on Dialectics

[Zurdito]

Z:



1) They are the ones who are ghettoising themselves -- in their 'safe little haven', where none of us nasty materialists may enter.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/2.gif


hey personally I am happy to talk to you about dialectics. I consider me proposing dialectic and you arguing agaisnt it to be a thesis-antithesis-synthesis process process which proves itself. in fact the creation of the anti-dialectics group arising out of the creation of a dialectics group is beautifully dialectical in itself.

to a newtonian rationalist, the anti-dialectics group would have to be analysed in itself to understand what it is. to me, it can only be udnerstand as part of a fluid process arising out of its opposition tot he dialectics group.

and you are right of course. this is not materialist. the dialectics group materially is only that: an internet board. but that tells us nothing about it. only understanding it as part of a constantly developing process in relation to other thigns does it have meaning. but yet those social relationships do not materially exist. I cannot show you an atom flowing from the anti-dialectics group to the dialectics group in order to prove that they are in contradiction can I?

marxism is not vulgar materialism Rosa. marxism is based on social relationships, which are immaterial but objective.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I consider me proposing dialectic and you arguing agaisnt it to be a thesis-antithesis-synthesis process process which proves itself. in fact the creation of the anti-dialectics group arising out of the creation of a dialectics group is beautifully dialectical in itself.

This is not Hegel's method, but Kant and Fichte's:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

But, even if it were, what we have when we 'debate' is Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Silence.

We never quite get to the Synthesis. So, if anything, our 'debates' refute this simplistic formula.

Same with other dialecticians here, and elsewhere.


I cannot show you an atom flowing from the anti-dialectics group to the dialectics group in order to prove that they are in contradiction can I?

You seem to think that atoms can talk or think. How odd.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


the dialectical view though is that we are locked into a social relationship which is more than the sum of its parts, and which defines both of us. yet there is no material proof of this. to a newtonian rationalist, this is mystical. how can you and I be defined by a "social relationship", which we can't see or touch, which exists outside the both of us, outside of a material body? According to a rationalist, how can the external "relationship" act back on its component parts, subordinating them to itself?

Other than reading it in the Dialectical Holy Books, how do you know that such relationships are 'more than the sum of their parts'?

And how do you know that these are not all external relations, except you appeal to an a priori principle, lifted from Hegel? And one which based on a mystical view of reality and several egregious logical errors.


An abstraction, a system, subordinates the physical component parts within it.

How do you know that Capitalism is an 'abstraction', and what precisely is an 'abstraction'?


Only by uniting dialectics and materialism can you understand that. Otherwise your alternatives are 1.) Newtonian rationalism which prioritises component parts above the system or 2.) idealism. Neither are marxism.

Not so; we have Historcial Materialism.

[Zurdito]

But, even if it were, what we have when we 'debate' is Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Antithesis-Thesis-Silence.

We never quite get to the Synthesis. So, if anything, our 'debates' refute this simplistic formula.

in which case the silence would be the synthesis. what caused it if not what went before? it did not arise of its own accord or just because you decided to be silent did it? it does not exist purely on its own terms, but rather as a manifestation of the clash between our contradictions. you would criticise me for going silent during a debate, but you wouldn't criticise me for simply being silent one day. therefore the silence is given meaning by the process which created it.

I am not sure what Hegel said, I never claimed to be a philosopher I just get dialectics on my own intuitive terms. However it seems to me that the marxist position is that the "synthesis" does not need to be a "resolving" of the conntradiction in the subjectively satisfactory sense that we would like, but rather simply the result of the clash between thesis and antithesis which in itself "resolves" the contradiction by ending the process of contardicton.

the idea that there has to be a positive resolution sounds deterministc. the end of the world in a nuclear holocaust via the collapse of capitalism would still be a reuslt of its internal contradictions, the result of the clash between antithesis and synthesis. to predetermine what the synthesis has to be is not the same as simply understanding that there needs to be one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


in which case the silence would be the synthesis. what caused it if not what went before? it did not arise of its own accord or just because you decided to be silent did it? it does not exist purely on its own terms, but rather as a manifestation of the clash between our contradictions.

Ah, the old 'redefinition' ploy.

But how is silence a 'synthesis'. In Fichtean terms, a synthesis preserves concepts thrashed out from an earlier stage in a transformed form. Silence does not do that.

And what happened to the three stages? They have been replaced by ten or twenty.

So, as I said, not only is this triad not Hegel's, it does not work anyway.


I am not sure what Hegel said, I never claimed to be a philosopher I just get dialectics on my own intuitive terms. However it seems to me that the marxist position is that the "synthesis" does not need to be a "resolving" of the conntradiction in the subjectively satisfactory sense that we would like, but rather simply the result of the clash between thesis and antithesis which in itself "resolves" the contradiction by ending the process of contardicton.

Well, even Lenin and Plekhanov repudiated it, and declared it was not Hegel's system.

And I am not too sure you even know what a 'contradiction' is, let alone one of these obscure 'dialectical' monstrosities.


the idea that there has to be a positive resolution sounds deterministc. the end of the world in a nuclear holocaust via the collapse of capitalism would still be a reuslt of its internal contradictions, the result of the clash between antithesis and synthesis. to predetermine what the synthesis has to be is not the same as simply understanding that there needs to be one.

We are discussing debate here (as you yourself introduced this triad), not nuclear war. And in debate, since we are capable of determining what we say, and how we undersatnd one another, this is one system that is unambiguously deterministic.

[Zurdito]

Other than reading it in the Dialectical Holy Books, how do you know that such relationships are 'more than the sum of their parts'?


because they act back upon all its component parts in a way that not one of them chose nor consciously attempt to create. bosses and workers do not exist just because of the way individuals choose to act. these roles exist externally to the individuals who carry them out. It is not just rational self-interest driving each component part of the system, but rather the needs of the system driving the actors.


And how do you know that these are not all external relations, except you appeal to an a priori principle, lifted from Hegel? And one which based on a mystical view of reality and several egregious logical errors.

I am not sure what you mean, I said it is an external relationship.


How do you know that Capitalism is an 'abstraction', and what precisely is an 'abstraction'?

it does not materially exist. it is a process. but yet it does objectively exist. to a rationalist that is surely incompatible.




Not so; we have Historcial Materialism

which it became possible to articulate and understand due to existence of the dialectical method.

[Zurdito]

Ah, the old 'redefinition' ploy.

But how is silence a 'synthesis'. In Fichtean terms, a synthesis preserves concepts thrashed out from an earlier stage in a transformed form. Silence does not do that.

And what happened to the three stages? They have been replaced by ten or twenty.

So, as I said, not only is this triad not Hegel's, it does not work anyway.


but I didn't claim to be speaking for Hegel, so I don't see your point.

the silence is the result of the two sides of the debate. a synthesis. why else does it exist.


And I am not too sure you even know what a 'contradiction' is, let alone one of these obscure 'dialectical' monstrosities.

to put it in my own language, the opposite poles arising out of the way any situation can be resolved, which create the result by clashing. such as our argument creating a silence. such as the working class and bourgeois economic interests creating a revolution by clashing.


We are discussing debate here (as you yourself introduced this triad), not nuclear war. And in debate, since we are capable of determining what we say, and how we undersatnd one another, this is one system that is unambiguously deterministic

not necessarilly, no. it only means that hwatever the result of our debate is, it arose because we had the debate and does not have meaning outside of that process, just as everything is part of a constant process and a manifestation fo what went before it. it's obvious, dialectics is intuitively obvious. it is newtonian compartmentalisation which is counter-intuitive and an imposition on reality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


because they act back upon all its component parts in a way that not one of them chose nor consciously attempt to create. bosses and workers do not exist just because of the way individuals choose to act. these roles exist externally to the individuals who carry them out. It is not just rational self-interest driving each component part of the system, but rather the needs of the system driving the actors.

Indeed, but how does that make the whole 'more'.

And, 'more' than what?


I said it is an external relationship.

Forgive me, you are the first dialectician in history who has claimed these are 'external'.


it does not materially exist. it is a process.

Even if that were so, how does that make it an 'abstraction'. And we have yet to be told (by anyone, let alone you) what an 'abstraction' is.


which it became possible to articulate and understand due to existence of the dialectical method.

So you say, but us materialists, including Marx, say different.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


but I didn't claim to be speaking for Hegel, so I don't see your point.

But even Lenin and Plekhanov repudiated this triad.

Anyway, it does not work. Even in this 'debate' we have gone way past the Thesis-Antithesis stage.


the silence is the result of the two sides of the debate. a synthesis. why else does it exist.

The silence has up till now been the result of two factors only: I win, or the other person just gives up.

By no stretch of the imagination is this a synthesis.

And, your 're-definition' ploy confirms it: for you would not have to re-define 'silence' if a positive result always emerged.


to put it in my own language, the opposite poles arising out of the way any situation can be resolved, which create the result by clashing. such as our argument creating a silence. such as the working class and bourgeois economic interests creating a revolution by clashing.

But, you forgot the 'mutaully exclude' part that Marx introduced. As soon as that is thrown in, these 'contradictions' cannot co-exist, and so cannot change anything.

But, even so, why call these 'contradictions' and not, say, 'inconsistencies', or 'incompatibilities'? Or even 'banana squashings'?

What reason have you for calling these 'contradictions'?

Answer: Hegel invented this term, and he did so because he was a logical incompetent, as I have shown here many times.

No wonder Marx abandoned this term.


not necessarilly, no. it only means that hwatever the result of our debate is, it arose because we had the debate and does not have meaning outside of that process, just as everything is part of a constant process and a manifestation fo what went before it. it's obvious, dialectics is intuitively obvious. it is newtonian compartmentalisation which is counter-intuitive and an imposition on reality.

Dialectics is not intuitively obvious.

And this debate is determined, and will have no synthesis at the end, simply because I am more determined, and I never give in. So this thread will either go on forever, or you will just grow silent, again...

[Zurdito]

Indeed, but how does that make the whole 'more'.

And, 'more' than what?

more than its component parts. which it has to be in order to act back upon them.


Even if that were so, how does that make it an 'abstraction'. And we have yet to be told (by anyone, let alone you) what an 'abstraction' is.


well to be honest I don't think this is a very interesting or improtant point. I used the term "abstraction" to refer to the fact that when I say "capitalism", I am refering to a generalised concept independent of any real world examples but which encompasses many. I am not referring to anything specific which can be touched or seen, but rather a theoretical concept.

However what is interesting is not really my choice of words, but rather the fact that capitalism, something which can only be understood in the realm of theory and cannot be physically proven, does objectively exist, and is not just a name imposed on the actions of various component parts in order to generalise and describe. rather capitalism itself is what drives these component parts.

[Zurdito]

The silence has up till now been the result of two factors only: I win, or the other person just gives up.


which is quite different. :p


But, you forgot the 'mutaully exclude' part that Marx introduced. As soon as that is thrown in, these 'contradictions' cannot co-exist, and so cannot change anything.

they are in the process of mutually excluding each other. if they could happily exist together there would be no motion.


But, even so, why call these 'contradictions' and not, say, 'inconsistencies', or 'incompatibilities'? Or even 'banana squashings'?

because "inconsistencies" does not convey the fundamentally exclusive nature of the contradictions which creates permanent motion as they seek to overcome this.

incompatibilities likewise.

"contradiction" conveys the process of acively contradicitng each other and therefore cosntantly changing that which contains them.


Dialectics is not intuitively obvious.

this is because you have compartmentalised your thought process.


And this debate is determined, and will have no synthesis at the end, simply because I am more determined, and I never give in. So this thread will either go on forever, or you will just grow silent, again..

I might well get bored of semantic trivia, yes...but then, this silence, as I said many times, would be the result of the process which preceeded it, and therefore perfectly explicable by dialectics. according to vulgar materialism however, I would simply be silent because I wasn't talking, and therefore any further claim about the meaning of this silence would be "mystic".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


more than its component parts. which it has to be in order to act back upon them.

But how does that make them and the whole 'more'?


well to be honest I don't think this is a very interesting or improtant point. I used the term "abstraction" to refer to the fact that when I say "capitalism", I am refering to a generalised concept independent of any real world examples but which encompasses many. I am not referring to anything specific which can be touched or seen, but rather a theoretical concept.

However what is interesting is not really my choice of words, but rather the fact that capitalism, something which can only be understood in the realm of theory and cannot be physically proven, does objectively exist, and is not just a name imposed on the actions of various component parts in order to generalise and describe. rather capitalism itself is what drives these component parts.

Yes, well I can see why you think it not very important, for you, like all the others who use this word, cannot tell us what it means.

That makes your 'materialism' entirely indeterminate.

We have plenty of words in the vernacular to describe Capitalism without having to use 'abstraction' -- goodness knows, every revolutionary paper worth its salt has to do this if it wants to communicate with workers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


which is quite different.

Not so; it shows that this triad does not work.

Now wonder Lenin repudiated it.


they are in the process of mutually excluding each other. if they could happily exist together there would be no motion.

Ah, but that is the problem for until they do, they do not actually 'contradict' one another. But, just as soon as they do, one ceases to exist, and so they cannot contradict one anoher. Either way, this explanation fails.

And, how do 'contradictions' cause motion?


because "inconsistencies" does not convey the fundamentally exclusive nature of the contradictions which creates permanent motion as they seek to overcome this.

Not so, inconsistencies do this too. The problem is that inconsistency cannot be obtained from Hegel's 'Logic'.

But, you have still to justify the use of 'contradiction' here. Up to now, you have just asserted these are 'contradictions'. [But see below.]

There are only two ways to see 'contradictions' in capitalism (etc.): (1) impose them on reality (in abeyance of the claim that dialecticians never do this), or (2) ignore the problems that their 'definition' introduces.

Except you try this:


"contradiction" conveys the process of acively contradicitng each other and therefore cosntantly changing that which contains them.

But that is no use, since you use the very word you are trying to explain in its own explanation!


this is because you have compartmentalised your thought process.

No I haven't, and you cannot possibly know that I have.


I might well get bored of semantic trivia, yes...but then, this silence, as I said many times, would be the result of the process which preceeded it, and therefore perfectly explicable by dialectics. according to vulgar materialism however, I would simply be silent because I wasn't talking, and therefore any further claim about the meaning of this silence would be "mystic".

This 'semantic' argument won't wash either. It is worth pointing out that this is the only way you and those who use it can excuse their own sloppy thinking, and the only way you/they could make your/their ideas appear to work.

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

No,it's only in dialectics that sloppy thought like this is encouraged and defended.

And even if this were so, and you simply gave up for 'semantic' reasons, that would show that the triad you seem to like (which Lenin did not) just does not work.

[Zurdito]

But how does that make them and the whole 'more'?

because if it were equal to, it could not act back on them and cause change, could it? there would be no motion. or all motion would come from the component parts and the whole would never be anything more than a simple sum of all those parts, a description of them which does not exist as source of any motion in itself.



Yes, well I can see why you think it not very important, for you, like all the others who use this word, cannot tell us what it means.

but I did. plenty of people have defined the term.


We have plenty of words in the vernacular to describe Capitalism without having to use 'abstraction' -- goodness knows, every revolutionary paper worth its salt has to do this if it wants to communicate with workers

yes you are right. I think it depends what you are trying to say. I was saying that capitalism does not physically exist, that it is a generalised phenomenon, and therefore when Irefer to it I am abstracting. Whether capitalism is in tiself an "abstraction" was not my point and I don't really care, this is a semantic poitn which does not affect what I was saying. What I was saying was that it does not materially exist. But that objectively it does. Immaterial, objective.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


because if it were equal to, it could not act back on them and cause change, could it? there would be no motion. or all motion would come from the component parts and the whole would never be anything more than a simple sum of all those parts, a description of them which does not exist as source of any motion in itself.

But that is all part of the whole, so, once more, how is this 'more'?


plenty of people have defined the term.

Ok, name some, and give the references. I have been looking for over 25 years, and still cannot find one.


yes you are right. I think it depends what you are trying to say. I was saying that capitalism does not physically exist, that it is a generalised phenomenon, and therefore when Irefer to it I am abstracting. Whether capitalism is in tiself an "abstraction" was not my point and I don't really care, this is a semantic poitn which does not affect what I was saying. What I was saying was that it does not materially exist. But that objectively it does. Immaterial, objective.

But capitalism does physically exist, otherwise we'd simply be overthrowing an idea.

And I know you don't care about language, but Marx did, and thank goodness he did.

[Zurdito]

But that is all part of the whole, so, once more, how is this 'more'?

"capitalism" is not a component part of capitalism, is it?

you are again doing what you always do, trying to turn the discussion itno an almost existential debate on one term. in this case, "whole". It's a logical game, nothing more. What I am saying is clear. Capitalism is more than the sum of its parts.


Ok, name some, and give the references. I have been looking for over 25 years, and still cannot find one.

the dictionary isn't good enough?




But capitalism does physically exist, otherwise we'd simply be overthrowing an idea.

no, this is wrong, and is the difference between vulgar mateiralism and marxism. capitalism exists as a system. we replace the system when we overthrow the current rulign class. but, captialism itself, is neither an idea nor a aterial reality. it is a mode of production, a socio-economic system, a set of social relations. you cannot touch or see it. this is basic.


And I know you don't care about language, but Marx did, and thank goodness he did

well this is from someone who claims capitalism materially exists as a physical entity.

and thank goodness he was also a dialectician! or else we'd all still be dry english empiricist classic liberals, or idealist utopian socialists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


"capitalism" is not a component part of capitalism, is it?

Who said it was?


the dictionary isn't good enough?

Dictionaries cannot settle philosophical arguments. They will tell you what 'God' means, but that does not mean we have to become believers.

Anyway, here is one:


1.
a. The act of abstracting or the state of having been abstracted.
b. An abstract concept, idea, or term.
c. An abstract quality.
2. Preoccupation; absent-mindedness.
3. An abstract work of art.

1. a general idea rather than a specific example: these absurd philosophical abstractions continued to bother him

2. the quality of being abstract or abstracted

Noun 1. abstraction - a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance; "he loved her only in the abstract--not in person"
abstract

right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"
concept, conception, construct - an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances
absolute - something that is conceived or that exists independently and not in relation to other things; something that does not depend on anything else and is beyond human control; something that is not relative; "no mortal being can influence the absolute"

teacher - a personified abstraction that teaches; "books were his teachers"; "experience is a demanding teacher"

thing - a special abstraction; "a thing of the spirit"; "things of the heart"

2. abstraction - the act of withdrawing or removing something
remotion, removal - the act of removing; "he had surgery for the removal of a malignancy"

3. abstraction - the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances
generalisation, generalization
theorisation, theorization - the production or use of theories

4. abstraction - an abstract painting
painting, picture - graphic art consisting of an artistic composition made by applying paints to a surface; "a small painting by Picasso"; "he bought the painting as an investment"; "his pictures hang in the Louvre"


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstraction

So, which one is the one you meant?


no, this is wrong, and is the difference between vulgar mateiralism and marxism. capitalism exists as a system. we replace the system when we overthrow the current rulign class. but, captialism itself, is neither an idea nor a aterial reality. it is a mode of production, a socio-economic system, a set of social relations. you cannot touch or see it. this is basic.

You are just repeating stuff you have been told.

Once more: you claimed capitalism is an abstraction. Abstractions exist only in minds. Had there been no minds there would be no abstractions. Hence, you are merely in favour of overthrowing a mental construction.

If capitalism is a mode of production, it can't be an abstraction. Abstractions cannot produce things. Modes of production can, and often do.


well this is from someone who claims capitalism materially exists as a physical entity.

Where did I use the word 'entity'?

So, not only are you cavalier in your use of language, you want to impose as few of your own sloppy words on me!


and thank goodness he was also a dialectician! or else we'd all still be dry english empiricist classic liberals, or idealist utopian socialists.

Ah, but he abandoned the dialectic as you understand it in Das Kapital. And we can see why: it makes not one ounce of sense.

No wonder it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

[Zurdito]

Who said it was?

we're agreed then.



Dictionaries cannot settle philosophical arguments. They will tell you what 'God' means, but that does not mean we have to become believers.

no. I didn't say that th fact that the idctionary defines an abstraction means you have to believe that they exist or that capitalism is one. it was simply an answer to your claim that no-one has ever defined abstraction. which seems strange seeing as you just showed me the definition.



Anyway, here is one:



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstraction

So, which one is the one you meant?



1 and 3 will do.




Once more: you claimed capitalism is an abstraction. Abstractions exist only in minds. Had there been no minds there would be no abstractions. Hence, you are merely in favour of overthrowing a mental construction.


I did claim "capitalism" was an abstraction, you are right. but then I clarified that this was slightly badly worded - something you have made full capital out of rather than dealing with the general point!

What I should have said, to be 100% watertight to as to not allow you the opportunity to yet again derail the argument with a minor semantic point, was that when I say "capitalism", I am abstracting. The term "capitalism" is an abstraction.

Like I said though, I do not have enough in depth knowledge of the hsitory and nuances of the word "abstraction" to tell you if capitalism is an abstraction. Does this matter? Yes, I would like to be more able than I am, as you undoubtedly do too (if not, you should). However, is it central to the argument? No? Is squabbling over this point pedantic, semantic and trivial? yes! why? Because the point is that to describe capitalism you must abstract: it is a general phenomenon, a mode of production, a set of social relationships. It does not physically exist. I was clear on this. Whether this makes it an "abstraction" or not is of 0 importance for this argument. Does that argument matter elsewhere? Yes, sure. I would love you to educate me on abstractions.Make a post in the philosophy section. But don't claim it proves anything here.

In any case, back on point: "capitalism" does not physically exist. But it objectively exists. Immaterial but objective.


If capitalism is a mode of production, it can't be an abstraction. Abstractions cannot produce things. Modes of production can, and often do.

What do modes of production produce? "capitalism" has not made a single car, spade or shirt. Workers and mahcines make them. Workers and machines produce things, albeit within a mode of production, i.e. within a set of social relationships.




Where did I use the word 'entity'?

You said it physically exists. If it phsyically exists then it is a physical entity.


No wonder it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

A RESPECT supporter and member is lecturing me about failure in the Marxist movement?

The Bolsheviks didn't fail. They were ovetrthrown by a counter-revolution a decade after a succesful revolution. And this had little to do with dialectics. There are many causes of the historic defeat of the revolution but I don't see how dialectics is one of them. Try opportunism and making alliances with bureaucrats, bourgeois poltiicians, and businessmen.

Something you know about quite well. I don't deny that the history of the self-proclaiming heirs to Marx is nefarious and shameful, and unlike you say about "dialecticians" and am under no illusions of succes, in fact from reading you I think I am quite a lot more critical of the left than you are. However, if you do have the responses on a philosophical level, then sadly this hasn't manifested itself in your politics. Whereas the dialectical Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky never made the same political errors as you. So where does that leave us?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


we're agreed then.

Not so; you have yet to tell us how the parts or the whole can be 'more'.


I didn't say that th fact that the dictionary defines an abstraction means you have to believe that they exist or that capitalism is one. it was simply an answer to your claim that no-one has ever defined abstraction. which seems strange seeing as you just showed me the definition.

Well, of course, the dictionary mixes up the philosophical use of this word with its ordinary use, and reports on both. But, the 'definition' it gives isn't one, since it either confuses generalisation with abstraction (these are not the same as is easy to show), or it defines the word using the same term in the definition.

So, we are still waiting on a clear definition of this term, as you use it.


1 and 3 will do.

Ok, here they are again (there are several 1)s though -- which one did you mean?):



1) a. The act of abstracting or the state of having been abstracted.
b. An abstract concept, idea, or term.
c. An abstract quality.

1. a general idea rather than a specific example: these absurd philosophical abstractions continued to bother him

3. abstraction - the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances
generalisation, generalization
theorisation, theorization - the production or use of theories


Many of these use the word 'abstract' or 'abstraction' in the definition, so they are of no use.

And, as I noted, generalisation is not abstraction; that is why we have two words here not one.

A general word allows us to form sentences with the use of a singular term: e.g., 'George Bush is a man'.

Here we are describing Bush in general terms.

However, abstraction turns general words into the names of abstract particulars, and in so doing it destroys generality. In this case, it turns "a man" into the abstract noun Manhood. [This was in fact a ploy Hegel used, copying medieval Roman Catholic theologians, off whom he got the idea. Engels then copied Hegel, and so did Lenin.]

This abstract particular (called variously a Form, and Idea, a Concept, or a Universal) is no longer general, but particular.

And that is why abstraction is not the same as generalisation.

So, we still do not know what this word means.


I did claim "capitalism" was an abstraction, you are right. but then I clarified that this was slightly badly worded - something you have made full capital out of rather than dealing with the general point!

What I should have said, to be 100% watertight to as to not allow you the opportunity to yet again derail the argument with a minor semantic point, was that when I say "capitalism", I am abstracting. The term "capitalism" is an abstraction.

Like I said though, I do not have enough in depth knowledge of the history and nuances of the word "abstraction" to tell you if capitalism is an abstraction. Does this matter? Yes, I would like to be more able than I am, as you undoubtedly do too (if not, you should). However, is it central to the argument? No? Is squabbling over this point pedantic, semantic and trivial? yes! why? Because the point is that to describe capitalism you must abstract: it is a general phenomenon, a mode of production, a set of social relationships. It does not physically exist. I was clear on this. Whether this makes it an "abstraction" or not is of 0 importance for this argument. Does that argument matter elsewhere? Yes, sure. I would love you to educate me on abstractions. Make a post in the philosophy section. But don't claim it proves anything here.

In any case, back on point: "capitalism" does not physically exist. But it objectively exists. Immaterial but objective.

I am glad to see you are shifting your ground, but, alas, you have moved from the quicksand to the swamp. [See below.]

This is not a 'semantic' point. Unless we are clear about what we are talking about, then we are in danger of turning scientific Marxism into a morass of confusion, and, in your case, into a mystical version of Idealism.

Now you say that the word "capitalism" is an abstraction. But this is even worse, for the word "capitalism" is a physical object. Look, there it is on the screen!

And I have already covered "pedantry"; you need to show why what I said about it is mistaken, not keep repeating that point.

Indeed, you can see the mess you are getting into because of your careless use of language.


In any case, back on point: "capitalism" does not physically exist. But it objectively exists. Immaterial but objective.

But, as I noted above, "capitalism" is a word, and that certainly physically exists.

What you mean is that capitalism does not physically exist. In that case we do not need to overthrow it.

And, I'd like you to explain how something can be immaterial and yet be objective, when Lenin said:


"For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind." [Lenin (1972) Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.311. Bold emphasis alone added.]

Anything 'outside the mind' for Lenin was both material and objective. [He repeated this dozens of times in the above book -- these are all recorded at my site in Essay Thirteen Part One.]

I am not sure you know your own 'theory' too well!


What do modes of production produce? "capitalism" has not made a single car, spade or shirt. Workers and machines make them. Workers and machines produce things, albeit within a mode of production, i.e. within a set of social relationships.

Since "capitalism" is a word, of course it can't make cars.

But, check out what Marx said:


Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

But, industry can do nothing, surely? And yet Marx say it does do something. In like manner, modes of production can produce things.

There is nothing puzzling about this anymore that when we say things like "The party has organised a demonstration", when we know that it is individuals acting for the party that do this.


You said it physically exists. If it physically exists then it is a physical entity.

No, I do not wish to use the word 'entity'. I want to say with Marx that capitalism physically exists as a mode of production. Stop putting words in my mouth.


A RESPECT supporter and member is lecturing me about failure in the Marxist movement?

Whether or not I am a Respect supporter, that has nothing to do with the last 150 years of almost total failure. Even if I joined your tiny sect, the nature of the last 150 years would not change.

And I did not say the 'Marxist movement' was unsuccessful. Once more stop putting words in my mouth.


The Bolsheviks didn't fail. They were overthrown by a counter-revolution a decade after a successful revolution. And this had little to do with dialectics. There are many causes of the historic defeat of the revolution but I don't see how dialectics is one of them. Try opportunism and making alliances with bureaucrats, bourgeois politicians, and businessmen.

1) I am sorry to have to tell you that the former Soviet Union is no more. Alas, history has refuted that experiment.

2) The 'party of dialectics', as Trotsky called it, presided over that decay.

3) If you are saying that dialectics has had nothing to do with anything us Marxists have even done, then it is high time we ditched it.

4) On the other hand, if it does have something to do with what the Bolsheviks did, then history has refuted that 'theory'.

5) And (even though there were many causes) it is possible to show that dialectics played its own part in the decay of the Russian revolution. You can find the evidence at my site:

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


Something you know about quite well.

No I do not.


I don't deny that the history of the self-proclaiming heirs to Marx is nefarious and shameful, and unlike you say about "dialecticians" and am under no illusions of success, in fact from reading you I think I am quite a lot more critical of the left than you are. However, if you do have the responses on a philosophical level, then sadly this hasn't manifested itself in your politics. Whereas the dialectical Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky never made the same political errors as you. So where does that leave us?

I am not sure what attacking me has to do with the long term failure of dialectical Marxism (but it does show you are getting desperate). Whatever my failings are, they pale into insignificance next to that.

[Zurdito]

Not so; you have yet to tell us how the parts or the whole can be 'more'.

again this is just pedantry over one word. capitalism is more than the sum of its component parts. this all I wanted to say, that much was obvious, squabbling over the phrasing, which on an internet forum is unlikely to be up tot he standard of a pilosophy essay, is a waste of time. If we are agreed ont he central point then I am happy and don't see the need to waste time on a dull and irrelevant discussion over use of the word "whole".



Ok, here they are again (there are several 1)s though -- which one did you mean?):



the second 1, without the a,b,c.



Many of these use the word 'abstract' or 'abstraction' in the definition, so they are of no use.

I understood them well enough. most people owuld. if you didn't that is probably your problem.



And, as I noted, generalisation is not abstraction; that is why we have two words here not one.

A general word allows us to form sentences with the use of a singular term: e.g., 'George Bush is a man'.

Here we are describing Bush in general terms.

However, abstraction turns general words into the names of abstract particulars, and in so doing it destroys generality. In this case, it turns "a man" into the abstract noun Manhood. [This was in fact a ploy Hegel used, copying medieval Roman Catholic theologians, off whom he got the idea. Engels then copied Hegel, and so did Lenin.]

This abstract particular (called variously a Form, and Idea, a Concept, or a Universal) is no longer general, but particular.

And that is why abstraction is not the same as generalisation.

So, we still do not know what this word means.


The abstract particular is not a physically existing thing though. it describes a concept which exists in the realm of theory and which is derived from a generalisation abou a certain phenomenon. I can find a "man". I cannot find you a "manhood". Therefore it is an abstraction.



I am glad to see you are shifting your ground, but, alas, you have moved from the quicksand to the swamp. [See below.]

this conversation does somewhat resemble a swamp, yes.



This is not a 'semantic' point. Unless we are clear about what we are talking about, then we are in danger of turning scientific Marxism into a morass of confusion, and, in your case, into a mystical version of Idealism.

Now you say that the word "capitalism" is an abstraction. But this is even worse, for the word "capitalism" is a physical object. Look, there it is on the screen!


actually I said trhe "term", which refers to the concept and not te physical word. ;) this "point" you have made is self-evidently stupid, as anyone reading this will see. I see no need to refute it, it refutes itself.




What you mean is that capitalism does not physically exist. In that case we do not need to overthrow it.



you have already stated this, yes. unfortunately you haven't shown why this is true. this statement s not self-evidently obvious.


I am not sure you know your own 'theory' too well!

yes you are right. my way of thinking was bascally dialectical before I even read Hegel or Marx, like I say it is intuitively obvious.



But, check out what Marx said:



But, industry can do nothing, surely? And yet Marx say it does do something. In like manner, modes of production can produce things.


yes, I would also say that in some circumstances. it depends on what you are trying to say. in some contexts its not wrong to say "capitalism made x,y,z," just like in some ocntexts it is not wrong to say "the european races", or "free trade", or "liberal democracy", or some such thing, when inr eality we knwo the htings we are referring to are not that. we often speak on the terms of the bourgeoisie, for shorthand, in order to not let what in such a case would be semantic points cloud the terms of a central argument which does not depend on those points and can in fact be successful byt aking conventional bourgeois logic on its own terms.

thankfully for us none of the great marxist writers shared your obsession of pedantry over terms which were not central to the argument.



There is nothing puzzling about this anymore that when we say things like "The party has organised a demonstration", when we know that it is individuals acting for the party that do this.

yes, ebcause we use shorthand. however if we were to get into an argument over whether or not the PArty physically exists and can dot hese things on its own or whether inf act the source of tis comes formt he members, this would be a distinction worth making. only a person hwo undertsands the distinction between the central point of an argument and semantics would understand this, though.



No, I do not wish to use the word 'entity'. I want to say with Marx that capitalism physically exists as a mode of production. Stop putting words in my mouth.

well,no. because one implies the other.



Whether or not I am a Respect supporter, that has nothing to do with the last 150 years of almost total failure.

of course it matters. if dialectics is the cause of Marxist failure, and you have rejected it, then one would expect you to be onto somethign better. and yet, you supported a class collaborationsit project which encapsulated the worst aspects from the history of so-called "marxism", from degenerate post-trotsky pabloism, to outright stalinism. So, this is not a good advert for your new post-dialectical philosophy as some kind of answer to the future of marxism.


And I did not say the 'Marxist movement' was unsuccessful. Once more stop putting words in my mouth.

what did you say then? or sorry, should I say, what exactly did you mean. Has the marxist movement failed for the last 150 years or not?



1) I am sorry to have to tell you that the former Soviet Union is no more. Alas, history has refuted that experiment.

2) The 'party of dialectics', as Trotsky called it, presided over that decay.


Did Trotsky still call it that after leaving?



If you are saying that dialectics has had nothing to do with anything us Marxists have even done, then it is high time we ditched it.

4) On the other hand, if it does have something to do with what the Bolsheviks did, then history has refuted that 'theory'.


You may as well say the same about class struggle (something which in practice you reject btw) if your logic is that any one aspect of marxism must be held accoutnable for "150 years of almost total failure".


I am not sure what attacking me has to do with the long term failure of dialectical Marxism (but it does show you are getting desperate). Whatever my failings are, they pale into insignificance next to that.

I am not attacking you, I am attacking your politics. Do not martyr yourself. If you set yourself up as superior to dialecticians then expect to see this measured against your real life political decisions. I stand by mine and am public about them, why don't you? That is ultimately what measures us as marxists in any case.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z (I am sorry, but there are so many typos in your post that I found it difficult to follow you at times -- hope this isn't a sign that you are rattled...):


again this is just pedantry over one word. capitalism is more than the sum of its component parts. this all I wanted to say, that much was obvious, squabbling over the phrasing, which on an internet forum is unlikely to be up tot he standard of a pilosophy essay, is a waste of time. If we are agreed ont he central point then I am happy and don't see the need to waste time on a dull and irrelevant discussion over use of the word "whole".

And how is capitalism 'more' than the sum of its parts? You keep dodging this question. If you can't answer it (and I have yet to come across an answer in the hundreds of books and articles on dialectics that I have read), just admit it, and stop blustering.


I understood them well enough. most people owuld. if you didn't that is probably your problem.

If you wanted to know what, say, a Disjunctive Normal Form was in modern mathematical logic was, and I said the following:

"A Disjunctive Normal Form is one that is Disjunctive, but in Normal Form"

you'd be quite right to complain that I had not explained anything.

And you certainly would not accept me saying "if you don't understand this then that is probably your problem".

Same here.


The abstract particular is not a physically existing thing though. it describes a concept which exists in the realm of theory and which is derived from a generalisation abou a certain phenomenon. I can find a "man". I cannot find you a "manhood". Therefore it is an abstraction.

We cannot find Bin Laden or Lord Lucan. Are they therefore 'abstractions'?

Anyway, I already admitted that "Manhood" is an 'abstraction'. That was the whole point of that part of my argument.

The further point is that a particular (abstract or concrete) cannot determine (or be used to determine) a general rule, which is what generalisation does (or it is what we do with general words) in language.

Hence, these are not the same.


this conversation does somewhat resemble a swamp, yes.

Takes two to 'swamp'.


actually I said trhe "term", which refers to the concept and not te physical word. this "point" you have made is self-evidently stupid, as anyone reading this will see. I see no need to refute it, it refutes itself.

Well, in that case the 'term' is a proper name, and if it 'refers' to a 'concept' then that 'concept' cannot be a concept, but must be a particular again (since that is what proper names name).


you have already stated this, yes. unfortunately you haven't shown why this is true. this statement s not self-evidently obvious.

Only vacuous 'statements' (like 'Vixens are female foxes') are self-evident. "Self-evidence", as the word suggests, is that feature of certain uses of language that certifies itself, needing no evidence other than itself to testify to it's own truth. So, that is why I did not use one of those.

But, it is nonetheless evident that if you believe that 'capitalism' is a concept, or an 'abstraction' (these two are not at all the same, you just assume they are), then all we have to do is stop thinking about it, and it will go away.

And, that is why I keep having to tell you that your view means that we do not have to overthrow capitalism.


yes you are right. my way of thinking was bascally dialectical before I even read Hegel or Marx, like I say it is intuitively obvious.

But how does that answer this?


I am not sure you know your own 'theory' too well!

Of course, it doesn't.

Z:


thankfully for us none of the great marxist writers shared your obsession of pedantry over terms which were not central to the argument.

As I have pointed out to you already, all great thinkers and scientists were very careful over the language they used. Marx too was extremely careful in Das Kapital to distinguish between, say, use and exchange value, and between the relative form and the equivalent form of value.

Had you been around 140 years ago, you'd have accused him of 'pedantry'!

And you certainly wouldn't allow anyone to reject Marx's theory on the basis of their confusing surplus value with profit, say, who then thought that they had refuted Marx. And this is especially so if they then turned around and said that you were just being 'pedantic' when you pointed out their confusion.

So, this attempt of yours to excuse your own sloppy thought won't work either.


yes, ebcause we use shorthand. however if we were to get into an argument over whether or not the PArty physically exists and can dot hese things on its own or whether inf act the source of tis comes formt he members, this would be a distinction worth making. only a person hwo undertsands the distinction between the central point of an argument and semantics would understand this, though.

There are so many typos here, I am finding it difficult to follow your argument, if you have one.

Are you saying that the party does not exist? Or that it is merely shorthand?


because one implies the other.

How does it do that?


of course it matters. if dialectics is the cause of Marxist failure, and you have rejected it, then one would expect you to be onto somethign better. and yet, you supported a class collaborationsit project which encapsulated the worst aspects from the history of so-called "marxism", from degenerate post-trotsky pabloism, to outright stalinism. So, this is not a good advert for your new post-dialectical philosophy as some kind of answer to the future of marxism.

How does whether or not I was a Respect supporter affect the last 150 years of the failure of dialectical Marxism?

And, my work is not 'post-dialectical philosophy', since it is not philosophy to begin with.

Why are you still attributing to me things I do not believe?

But even if you were right, this attempt by you to distract attention from the last 150 years of the almost total failure of dialectical Marxism won't work either. My failings, no matter how great or how small they are, have nothing to do with that long-term and very sorry record.


what did you say then? or sorry, should I say, what exactly did you mean. Has the marxist movement failed for the last 150 years or not?

I just said 'failure', but I then went on to elaborate that I am only talking about the failure of dialectical Marxism. Indeed, I have been making this point here for the last three years, and have done so repeatedly in my Essays.

Moreover, the 'Marxist movement' has not been given a chance; it has been hijacked by mystics.


Did Trotsky still call it that after leaving?

It still used this 'theory' of yours.


You may as well say the same about class struggle (something which in practice you reject btw) if your logic is that any one aspect of marxism must be held accoutnable for "150 years of almost total failure".

1) Why do you say I reject the class struggle "in practice"?

2) Where did I say that "any one aspect of marxism must be held accountable for "150 years of almost total failure""?

Once more, your sloppy approach to language should not be projected onto me.


I am not attacking you, I am attacking your politics. Do not martyr yourself. If you set yourself up as superior to dialecticians then expect to see this measured against your real life political decisions. I stand by mine and am public about them, why don't you? That is ultimately what measures us as marxists in any case.

1) I am only 'superior' to dialecticians in one respect: I know your theory is cr*p.

2) You keep calling me a 'pedant', and you say things like this:


of course it matters. if dialectics is the cause of Marxist failure, and you have rejected it, then one would expect you to be onto somethign better. and yet, you supported a class collaborationsit project which encapsulated the worst aspects from the history of so-called "marxism", from degenerate post-trotsky pabloism, to outright stalinism. So, this is not a good advert for your new post-dialectical philosophy as some kind of answer to the future of marxism

As I have said, your personal attacks on me are quite understandable -- they help you distract attention from the fact that you can't cope with my arguments.

[Zurdito]

Z (I am sorry, but there are so many typos in your post that I found it difficult to follow you at times -- hope this isn't a sign that you are rattled...):

no, I am just very bad at typing all of the time.


And how is capitalism 'more' than the sum of its parts? You keep dodging this question. If you can't answer it (and I have yet to come across an answer in the hundreds of books and articles on dialectics that I have read), just admit it, and stop blustering.

well social relationships between people condition those people. the people are not conditioning themselves. therefore these social relationships must be more than simply the two indiviuals, or else they could not affect those people, could they?

another example is money. money arises out of the commodity form and becomes the ultimate commodity which rather than faciltiating exchange, terminates it. none of this is intended by anyone else in capitalism, yet everyone within the capitalist process has to defer to money as the ultimate commodity in order not to bring down the system.

therefore I think ti is fair to say that the complexities of the system force the actors within it to defer to certain conditions to make the system work, when nobody is consciously implementing these as policies. therefore the system drives those within it. soemthing which it could not do unless it was an objective reality with its own necessities - which it could not be if it were simply an external description placed on the actions of autonomous individuals.




If you wanted to know what, say, a Disjunctive Normal Form was in modern mathematical logic was, and I said the following:

"A Disjunctive Normal Form is one that is Disjunctive, but in Normal Form"


but the descriptions did not use the word "abstraction". they used the word "abstract", or "abstracting", etc., in which case, you need to look them up. that is legitimate.



We cannot find Bin Laden or Lord Lucan. Are they therefore 'abstractions'?


:rolleyes:


Anyway, I already admitted that "Manhood" is an 'abstraction'. That was the whole point of that part of my argument.

In which case, you know what one is. So what is the problem exactly?

also, "manhood" exists objectively, as well as being an abstraction.



The further point is that a particular (abstract or concrete) cannot determine (or be used to determine) a general rule, which is what generalisation does (or it is what we do with general words) in language.

Hence, these are not the same.


this is interesting, thankyou. however it is not at all relevant to our conversation. nobody said they are the same. hwoever abstractions are derived form generalisation. in any case, none of this changes the fact that the term capitalism is an abstraction


Well, in that case the 'term' is a proper name, and if it 'refers' to a 'concept' then that 'concept' cannot be a concept, but must be a particular again (since that is what proper names name).

why can't a concept be particular? isn't manhood a concept?


But, it is nonetheless evident that if you believe that 'capitalism' is a concept, or an 'abstraction' (these two are not at all the same, you just assume they are), then all we have to do is stop thinking about it, and it will go away.

no. if I stop believing in manhood I do not stop being a man.


And, that is why I keep having to tell you that your view means that we do not have to overthrow capitalism.

only to a vulgar materialist, who thinks that only the material is objective.



But how does that answer this?



Of course, it doesn't.



it does not. I am not an expert on dialectics. I do not need to be to think dialectically.



As I have pointed out to you already, all great thinkers and scientists were very careful over the language they used. Marx too was extremely careful in Das Kapital to distinguish between, say, use and exchange value, and between the relative form and the equivalent form of value.


of course. but he was not pedantic. the difference for example is that he would refer to "demcoracy", knowing it was not, or "free trade", likewise, or he oculd say that capitalism "produced something" without literally thinkignt hat capitalism sat down and made it.


Had you been around 140 years ago, you'd have accused him of 'pedantry'!

no, but you would have accused him of mysticism.



And you certainly wouldn't allow anyone to reject Marx's theory on the basis of their confusing surplus value with profit, say, who then thought that they had refuted Marx. And this is especially so if they then turned around and said that you were just being 'pedantic' when you pointed out their confusion.


this is not the same.



Are you saying that the party does not exist? Or that it is merely shorthand?

of ocurse the party objectivley exists. but it does not physically exist.

when we say that "the party organised something", it is shorthand in order to talk about more interesting things than the fact that physically it didn't, some people did. liekwise when we say cpaitlaism produced soemthing.

the fact we did that does not then invalidate pointing out the obvious fact that a "party" does not physically exist and cannot itself organise anything, when such a discussion becoems necessarry. but most of the time it is not necessarry therefore we use shorthand to faciltiate discussion on what is relevant rather than irrelevant semantics.



How does whether or not I was a Respect supporter affect the last 150 years of the failure of dialectical Marxism?

I didn't claim it does. It affects your own claim, which is based on the "failure of dialectical marxism", when your own non-dialectical brand of marxism has not only failed, but been a class-collaborationsit disgrace to the far-right of anything dialecticians like Lenin, Trotsky, Marx or Engels ever argued for. Therefore, if your version of marxism which is cleansed of dialectics has not made you a better marxist than the dialecticians, but in fact leads you to be amuch worse one, where does that leave us? or does the philosophical aspect no longer bear any relation to the poltical aspect - in which case, surely the failures of dialecical marxism have nothng to dow ith dialectics.


And, my work is not 'post-dialectical philosophy', since it is not philosophy to begin with.

then what is it?


Why are you still attributing to me things I do not believe?

what did I attribute to you that you don't believe?


Moreover, the 'Marxist movement' has not been given a chance; it has been hijacked by mystics.

So the Bolsheviks were not marxists?


It still used this 'theory' of yours.

It claimed to. But then the Nazis claimed to be socialist. And they also rejected dialectics. What's your point?



1) Why do you say I reject the class struggle "in practice"?

Because of your supprot for a reformist class collaborationsit bloc in practice.


2) Where did I say that "any one aspect of marxism must be held accountable for "150 years of almost total failure""?

You did not. You said:


1) I am sorry to have to tell you that the former Soviet Union is no more. Alas, history has refuted that experiment.

2) The 'party of dialectics', as Trotsky called it, presided over that decay.

3) If you are saying that dialectics has had nothing to do with anything us Marxists have even done, then it is high time we ditched it.

4) On the other hand, if it does have something to do with what the Bolsheviks did, then history has refuted that 'theory'.

but the "party of class struggle" also presided over this decay! The "party of karl marx" also presided over this decay! so why not ditch them too?

true though you did then provide a point no.5. But you preceeded it by these 4 which functioned as arguments on their own.



2) You keep calling me a 'pedant', and you say things like this:



As I have said, your personal attacks on me are quite understandable -- they help you distract attention from the fact that you can't cope with my arguments.

1.) calling you a pedant is not apersonal attack, it refers to your style of argument, and is therefoe a relevant form of criticising your argument. it is not the same as attacking your age, nationality or gender, which would indeed be personal attacks.

2.) if dialectics has presided over 150 years of almsot total failure, one would expect some kind of break with this once dialectics is borken with, therefore, holding you accountable to your poltiics is relevant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


well social relationships between people condition those people. the people are not conditioning themselves. therefore these social relationships must be more than simply the two indiviuals, or else they could not affect those people, could they?

How does that make capitalism 'more'?

Anyway, if capitalism is an abstraction, how can it be 'more'? Indeed, how can it have parts? Abstractions do not have parts.


another example is money. money arises out of the commodity form and becomes the ultimate commodity which rather than faciltiating exchange, terminates it. none of this is intended by anyone else in capitalism, yet everyone within the capitalist process has to defer to money as the ultimate commodity in order not to bring down the system.

therefore I think ti is fair to say that the complexities of the system force the actors within it to defer to certain conditions to make the system work, when nobody is consciously implementing these as policies. therefore the system drives those within it. soemthing which it could not do unless it was an objective reality with its own necessities - which it could not be if it were simply an external description placed on the actions of autonomous individuals.

Even if this were so, how does this make capitalism 'more'. 'More' than what?


but the descriptions did not use the word "abstraction". they used the word "abstract", or "abstracting", etc., in which case, you need to look them up. that is legitimate.

That is no more use than if I were to try to 'define' a Disjunctive Normal Form this way

"A Disjunctive Normal Form is one that is has Disjuncts, but they have been Normalised."

Once more, you would rightly complain that I had explained nothing.

I asked:


We cannot find Bin Laden or Lord Lucan. Are they therefore 'abstractions'?

You just posted a smiley in reply. I take it that that means you have no genuine response to make?

You either think that Bin Laden and Lord Lucan are indeed abstractions, or you are reluctant to admit that this destroys your 'definition'.


In which case, you know what one is. So what is the problem exactly?

also, "manhood" exists objectively, as well as being an abstraction.

Then it cannot be a general term.

And I do not know what an 'abstraction' is, I am merely relying on the confused things people like you say about them, and comparing that with the clear use we have of general terms, which shows that these are not the same.

I have no idea what 'god' is, but I know that George W Bush is not 'Him'.


this is interesting, thankyou. however it is not at all relevant to our conversation. nobody said they are the same. hwoever abstractions are derived form generalisation. in any case, none of this changes the fact that the term capitalism is an abstraction

But capitalism is not a term; you said earlier that "capitalism" was a term. Now you want us to accept that capitalism is a term. Which is it to be?

And this is relevant, since it shows that the word/term "capitalism", if it is an abstraction, cannot be used in generalisations. On the other hand if it can, it can't be an 'abstraction', since the latter are the names of abstract particulars.

And I quoted Lenin earlier; here he is again:


"For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind." [Lenin (1972) Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.311. Bold emphasis alone added.]

In that case, if capitalism is objective, it is material, and hence not an 'abstraction'.

Unless, of course, you disagree with Lenin.


why can't a concept be particular? isn't manhood a concept?

I explained this earlier. Concepts function in language as general terms. We use them to generate true or false sentences when they are combined with singular terms. For example: the concept "...man" combines with "Tony Blair" to give a truth (if we use other particles between them such as "is a"), but with "The River Nile" to give a falsehood.

Now, if the concept man were singular and designated "Manhood" it would turn sentences in to lists, and lists say nothing.

So, "Tony Blair Manhood The River Nile" says nothing. If we treat concepts as singular terms designating particulars then that would destroy the capacity we have in language for describing things, and the capacity we have of expressing generality.

The names of particulars say nothing; we have to concatenate them with general words (concepts) if we want to say something (in such sentences).

So "Blair" says nothing. If someone just said that word out of the blue (and not in answer to a question, say), you would not respond "True". But if they said "Blair is a liar" you would agree, and if they said "Blair is a Marxist" you would disagree.


if I stop believing in manhood I do not stop being a man.

That is because we have in ordinary language terms that are not abstractions.

But, you are committed to the view that capitalism (or is it "capitalism", you do not seem to know which) is an abstraction, and that is it.

So, if that is all there is to capitalism/"capitalism", if it is just a 'mental' entity, then if we stop believing in it, or if we refuse to use that term, it will cease to exist, on your view.


only to a vulgar materialist, who thinks that only the material is objective.

1) You are just repeating what you have been told. You cannot justify this -- except you repeat it again.

2) Then Lenin was a 'vulgar' materialist:


"For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind." [Lenin (1972) Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.311. Bold emphasis alone added.]

Z:


I am not an expert on dialectics. I do not need to be to think dialectically.

Well, it seems that up to now, to be able to think 'dialectically' amounts to the stunning ability to post confused off-the-cuff ideas (that you have not really thought much about), slowly digging yourself into a hole.

To be honest, it's rather like debating with a Creationist who knows very little science, but who thinks he/she can just bluff their way through.


but he was not pedantic. the difference for example is that he would refer to "demcoracy", knowing it was not, or "free trade", likewise, or he oculd say that capitalism "produced something" without literally thinkignt hat capitalism sat down and made it.

He was very careful and clear about the vast majority of the words he used, just like me. So, if he wasn't 'pedantic', neither am I.

In contrast, you have indulged in the sloppy use of language here, and your only excuse for that is to say that I am 'pedantic'!


but you would have accused him of mysticism.

I rather think you would have accused him of 'pedantry'. You only have to look at the careful way he dissected Hegel's system, concentrating on Hegel's cavalier use of language, and the ideas this represented.

For example, check this out:


"The mystery of critical presentation…is the mystery of speculative, of Hegelian construction….

"If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea 'Fruit', if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea 'Fruit', derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then -- in the language of speculative philosophy –- I am declaring that 'Fruit' is the 'Substance' of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea -– 'Fruit'…. Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is 'the substance' -– 'Fruit'….

"Having reduced the different real fruits to the one 'fruit' of abstraction -– 'the Fruit', speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from 'the Fruit', from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea 'the Fruit' as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction….

"The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary fruits and to say in some mysterious way that there are apples, pears, almonds and raisins. But the apples, pears, almonds and raisins that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of apples, semblances of pears, semblances of almonds and semblances of raisins, for they are moments in the life of 'the Fruit', this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind…. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, 'the Fruit', to real natural fruits, you give on the contrary the natural fruits a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of 'the Fruit' in all the manifestations of its life…that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits, how in each of them 'the Fruit' realizes itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a raisin to its existence as an almond. Hence the value of the ordinary fruits no longer consists in their natural qualities, but in their speculative quality, which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of 'the Absolute Fruit'.

"The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind 'the Fruit'….

"It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, 'the Fruit.'

"In the speculative way of speaking, this operation is called comprehending Substance as Subject, as an inner process, as an Absolute Person, and this comprehension constitutes the essential character of Hegel's method." [Marx and Engels (1975), The Holy Family, pp.72-75.]

I adopt a similar tactic. And this is why:


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

Notice: 'abstraction' distorts language (as I have explained, it changes general words into the names of abstract particulars, as Marx notes in the long quotation above).

And, I would not have accused Marx of mysticism in his Das Kapital phase, since he waved goodbye to the dialectic (as you understand it).

In fact, the sloppy use of language is the only way you can make your 'theory' seem to work, as Marx noted of Hegel & Co, too.


of ocurse the party objectivley exists. but it does not physically exist.

Then you disagree with Lenin:


"For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind." [Lenin (1972) Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.311. Bold emphasis alone added.]

Z:


when we say that "the party organised something", it is shorthand in order to talk about more interesting things than the fact that physically it didn't, some people did. liekwise when we say cpaitlaism produced soemthing.

the fact we did that does not then invalidate pointing out the obvious fact that a "party" does not physically exist and cannot itself organise anything, when such a discussion becoems necessarry. but most of the time it is not necessarry therefore we use shorthand to faciltiate discussion on what is relevant rather than irrelevant semantics.

Once more, this is not 'irrelevant semantics' for your ideas commit you to the 'objective' existence of something that is an 'abstraction', and thus which can only exist in the mind. For you, then, the 'material' world and the complex processes in it (like the capitalist system) are just ideas in the mind --, and that means you are an idealist.

You see now why Marx said that idealism is connected with the sloppy use of language.


It affects your own claim, which is based on the "failure of dialectical marxism", when your own non-dialectical brand of marxism has not only failed, but been a class-collaborationsit disgrace to the far-right of anything dialecticians like Lenin, Trotsky, Marx or Engels ever argued for. Therefore, if your version of marxism which is cleansed of dialectics has not made you a better marxist than the dialecticians, but in fact leads you to be amuch worse one, where does that leave us? or does the philosophical aspect no longer bear any relation to the poltical aspect - in which case, surely the failures of dialecical marxism have nothng to dow ith dialectics.

Even so, this 'core theory' of yours has presided over failure after failure. Tested in practice, and thus refuted.

And, I do not see how you can argue this:


Therefore, if your version of marxism which is cleansed of dialectics has not made you a better marxist than the dialecticians, but in fact leads you to be amuch worse one, where does that leave us? or does the philosophical aspect no longer bear any relation to the poltical aspect - in which case, surely the failures of dialecical marxism have nothng to dow ith dialectics.

It is just your opinion that I am a 'worse' Marxist -- and I'll have you know that the SWP is just as much into dialectics as you are. Hence the continued failures. In fact, the tiny group you belong to is not known for its many successful revolutions.


then what is it?

Well, I only adhere to one theory: Historical Materialism.

But, I use my expertise in philosophy to help demolish all philosophical theories (as ruling-class hot air), including the Minnie Mouse Metaphysics found in dialectics.

So, if you want to call that anything, call it 'anti-philosophy'.


what did I attribute to you that you don't believe?

This:


You may as well say the same about class struggle (something which in practice you reject btw) if your logic is that any one aspect of marxism must be held accoutnable for "150 years of almost total failure".

and this:


So, this is not a good advert for your new post-dialectical philosophy as some kind of answer to the future of marxism.

I did make that clear in my last post!


So the Bolsheviks were not marxists?

They were dialectical Marxists, as I pointed out.


It claimed to. But then the Nazis claimed to be socialist. And they also rejected dialectics. What's your point?

And so did Engels, Lenin and Trotsky: they claimed to be using the 'dialectic'. The point is, that there is no way of telling what the 'correct' way to use the dialectic is. As I noted in another thread:


LZ and Rakunin:


Btw, his views on the police are more dialectic than the views of some others who opposed him

Oh really? Could you please explain how this is the case?

And while you're at it give me your definition of "dialectical views".

This is quite straight-forward: dialectics is that theory that can be, and has been used to justify anything whatsoever, and its opposite -- in view of the fact that it fetishises 'contradiction'.

A: "So, you claim to be a Marxist and yet you support the nazis!"

B: "Is this a contradiction? Yes it is, but it fully conforms to Marx 's materialist dialectics..." [This is an argument actually used by Stalin, but not about Nazism (although I am trying to find proof that this was actually used to justify the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact -- anyone who can help out here will win my undying gratitude!).]

C: "But, as a Marxist, you should be against oppression. How come you defended the former USSR, a state which oppressed workers?"

D: "You fail to understand the contradictory nature of the Stalinist regime, preferring abstract principles for a concrete analysis...". [Orthodox Trotskyists use this one all the time.]

E: "How is it possible to build socialism in one country? That is contrary to Marx's internationalism, and the global nature of capitalism."

F: "You fail to understand the contradictory nature of socialism, preferring abstract principles for a concrete analysis...". [Maoists and Stalinists use this one all the time, too.]

G: "The theory of State Capitalism runs contrary to Marx's analysis of capitalism, and substitutes an abstract scheme for concrete analysis." [Ernest Mandel and Ted Grant, among others, argued this way.]

H: "Quite the reverse, a dialectical analysis of the former USSR shows it was a State Capitalist regime -- you are held fast by an abstract understanding of fluid reality." [Tony Cliff and other IST-ers used this one regularly, too.]

In fact, it is possible to prove 'dialectically' that Lenin was made of cream cheese (and that he wasn't), and Mao was the Little Green Mekon in disguise (and that he wasn't).

Anyone who disagrees with the above is clearly wedded to an abstract understanding of the dialectic, ignoring concrete analysis.

This is where you at home can join in...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1247947&postcount=73

Z:


Because of your supprot for a reformist class collaborationsit bloc in practice.

No I do not.


but the "party of class struggle" also presided over this decay! The "party of karl marx" also presided over this decay! so why not ditch them too?

true though you did then provide a point no.5. But you preceeded it by these 4 which functioned as arguments on their own.

1) Marx had already abandoned this 'theory' by the time he wrote Das Kapital.

2) We only have to ditch this mystical 'theory'.

To make myself perfectly clear I posted this on page one of my site, and I have repeated it many times:


(1) It is important to emphasise from the outset that I am not blaming the long-term failure of Marxism solely on the acceptance of the Hermetic ideas dialecticians inherited from Hegel.

It is worth repeating this since I still encounter comments on Internet discussion boards, and still receive e-mails from those who claim to have read the above words, who still think I am blaming all our woes on dialectics. I am not.

However, no matter how many times I repeat this caveat, the message will not sink in (and this is after several years of continually making this very point!).

It seems that this is one part of the universe over which the Heraclitean Flux has no power!

What is being claimed, however, is that adherence to this 'theory' is one of the subjective reasons why Dialectical Marxism has become a bye-word for failure.

There are other, objective reasons why the class enemy still runs this planet, but since revolutions require revolutionaries with ideas in their heads, this 'theory' must take some of the blame.

So, it is alleged here that dialectics has been an important contributory factor.

It certainly helps explain why revolutionary groups are in general vanishingly small, neurotically sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative, theoretically deferential to 'tradition', and almost invariably lean toward some form of substitutionism.

Naturally, this has had a direct bearing on our lack of impact on the working-class over the last seventy years or so -- and probably for much longer -- and thus on the continuing success of Capitalism.

The following 'Unity of Opposites' is difficult to explain otherwise:

The larger the proletariat, the smaller the impact that Dialectical Marxism has on it.

Sadly, this will continue while comrades cling on to this regressive doctrine.

Any who doubt this are encouraged to read on, where those doubts will be severely bruised, if not completely laid to rest.

Z:


1.) calling you a pedant is not apersonal attack, it refers to your style of argument, and is therefoe a relevant form of criticising your argument. it is not the same as attacking your age, nationality or gender, which would indeed be personal attacks.

2.) if dialectics has presided over 150 years of almsot total failure, one would expect some kind of break with this once dialectics is borken with, therefore, holding you accountable to your poltiics is relevant.

It looks personal to me.

But, whatever; it helps you distract attention from the hole you are in.

[Tip: this tactic of yours isn't working.]

As to 2) above: that in no way answers the point.

[Zurdito]

How does that make capitalism 'more'?

because a social relationship cannot condition both "component parts" if it is only the sum of their autonomous actions, can it?


Anyway, if capitalism is an abstraction, how can it be 'more'? Indeed, how can it have parts? Abstractions do not have parts.

But I already said that capitalism might not be an abstraction. I said that the term capitalism is an abstraction. not the system itself.


Even if this were so, how does this make capitalism 'more'. 'More' than what?

more than the sum of its parts. it makes it more because they need to act in a certain way to maintain the system. this would not happen if the system were nothing more than the sum of the parts.



That is no more use than if I were to try to 'define' a Disjunctive Normal Form this way

"A Disjunctive Normal Form is one that is has Disjuncts, but they have been Normalised."

Once more, you would rightly complain that I had explained nothing.


dictionaries work that way. you need to look up what abstraction means to get the definition, simple. the fact you did not says a lot.



You just posted a smiley in reply. I take it that that means you have no genuine response to make?

You either think that Bin Laden and Lord Lucan are indeed abstractions, or you are reluctant to admit that this destroys your 'definition'.


oh sorry were you being serious?


Then it cannot be a general term.

why not? manhood is both an abstraction and a general term.



I have no idea what 'god' is, but I know that George W Bush is not 'Him'.



but you said that manhood is an abstraction.


But capitalism is not a term; you said earlier that "capitalism" was a term. Now you want us to accept that capitalism is a term. Which is it to be?

when did I say it was not a term?

When talkign about "capitalism" you can talk about many things. the "word". the pixels ont he screen (as you amazingly did), or the thing. I can refer to the term "capitalism" as an abstraction.t his doesn;t necessarilyl mean the mode of production is. it might be thogh. I am not sure.


And this is relevant, since it shows that the word/term "capitalism", if it is an abstraction, cannot be used in generalisations. On the other hand if it can, it can't be an 'abstraction', since the latter are the names of abstract particulars.

this is not true. manhood encapsulates all men. therefore it is rderived form a generalisation of a phenomenon.



In that case, if capitalism is objective, it is material, and hence not an 'abstraction'.

Unless, of course, you disagree with Lenin.


Di dLenin say that that which is not material is not objectice? Maybe, but not int he quote you just showed.




I explained this earlier. Concepts function in language as general terms. We use them to generate true or false sentences when they are combined with singular terms. For example: the concept "...man" combines with "Tony Blair" to give a truth (if we use other particles between them such as "is a"), but with "The River Nile" to give a falsehood.

Now, if the concept man were singular and designated "Manhood" it would turn sentences in to lists, and lists say nothing.

So, "Tony Blair Manhood The River Nile" says nothing. If we treat concepts as singular terms designating particulars then that would destroy the capacity we have in language for describing things, and the capacity we have of expressing generality.

The names of particulars say nothing; we have to concatenate them with general words (concepts) if we want to say something (in such sentences).

So "Blair" says nothing. If someone just said that word out of the blue (and not in answer to a question, say), you would not respond "True". But if they said "Blair is a liar" you would agree, and if they said "Blair is a Marxist" you would disagree.


Blair is contained within manhood, or liardom. therefore they can be used together. Rosa,womanhood. Blair, manhood. see?

So, if that is all there is to capitalism/"capitalism", if it is just a 'mental' entity, then if we stop believing in it, or if we refuse to use that term, it will cease to exist, on your view.


no. because just as man relates to manhood, so capitalist and capital relate to captialism.


He was very careful and clear about the vast majority of the words he used, just like me. So, if he wasn't 'pedantic', neither am I.

as you keep saying. however, this rests on me taking you at your own word that Marx would todsy be saying what you are saying were he here today. the fact he explciitly endorsed dialectics suggests otherwise.


Notice: 'abstraction' distorts language (as I have explained, it changes general words into the names of abstract particulars, as Marx notes in the long quotation above).

but apparently, what Marx said was meaningless, because the term abstraction is meaningless.


And, I would not have accused Marx of mysticism in his Das Kapital phase, since he waved goodbye to the dialectic (as you understand it).

he just refused to say so, and in fact claimed the opposite. maybe he did this on purpose so that one day his true heir could decode this devious trick, and reveal themselves.



Then you disagree with Lenin:

again, all that shows if that if the party were material, then it owuld be objective. it does not say that to be objective it must be material.


Once more, this is not 'irrelevant semantics' for your ideas commit you to the 'objective' existence of something that is an 'abstraction', and thus which can only exist in the mind. For you, then, the 'material' world and the complex processes in it (like the capitalist system) are just ideas in the mind --, and that means you are an idealist.

no, I do not think capitalism exists only int he mind. like a social relationship, it clearly objectively exists, but cannot be seen or touched. next time you have a social relationship in a cage, call me round and I'll taste it.


It is just your opinion that I am a 'worse' Marxist

well, no, you support trade union bureaucrats, landlords, Bengali millionaires and reformist politicians, i.e. enemies of the working class.


-- and I'll have you know that the SWP is just as much into dialectics as you are. Hence the continued failures.

so the SWP are Bolshevik in their practice?


In fact, the tiny group you belong to is not known for its many successful revolutions.

this may be so. but at least I understand that the left in Britain needs to send its members into the workplaces, into the sectors in struggle, into the vanguard sectors. it needs to get serious. it needs to be with the workers, the base, independent of our enemies, the brueaucrats, the bourgeois scum like George Galloway who earn so many tens of thousand each year, independent of the petty borugeois "community leaders" and reformist stalinist corpses and landlords and Bengali millionaires.

Until this happens there won't be a serious left in Britain. the fortune of the revolutionary left is the fortune of the working class vanguard and currently the groups in Britain which claim to be the former do not care about the latter. they are jsut impressionists on the sidelines, not proletarian groups basing their poltiics on the struggles of their members.




This:



and this:



I did make that clear in my last post!


but you did imply 1, whether or not you think it, and if 2 is not true, then what is the point of what you do?



They were dialectical Marxists, as I pointed out.

so they were not historical materialists?


No I do not.

that is what RESPECT is.



1) Marx had already abandoned this 'theory' by the time he wrote Das Kapital.



according to your decoding which contradicts what he actually said, yes.


To make myself perfectly clear I posted this on page one of my site, and I have repeated it many times:

I did not say you placed all the blame on dialectics.



It looks personal to me.

yes, appearances and essences. if it relates to yoru style of arguing it is a criticism of your argument, and not personal.


As to 2) above: that in no way answers the point.


it is not a defence of dialectics, no. it is not intended to be. it is an attempt to questiont he effect of dialectics on the failures of marxism. which is quite different. seeing as you stated that it had an important effect, this is a valid point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


because a social relationship cannot condition both "component parts" if it is only the sum of their autonomous actions, can it?

But, each of the parts is already conditioned as parts of that whole. So, how can their sum be 'more' than that whole?


But I already said that capitalism might not be an abstraction. I said that the term capitalism is an abstraction. not the system itself.

If capitalism is not an 'abstraction', what then is it? And how can a term be an 'abstraction'; "Capitalism" as a term exists on your screen.


more than the sum of its parts. it makes it more because they need to act in a certain way to maintain the system. this would not happen if the system were nothing more than the sum of the parts.

Is this a sum of the part before they became incorporated into that whole or after. If the former, where were they before they were incorporated? If after, then, as I noted before, they are already parts of that while, and so are already conditioned by it and one another, So, how can they no be 'more'?


dictionaries work that way. you need to look up what abstraction means to get the definition, simple. the fact you did not says a lot.

We have already covered this. The dictionary 1) confuses generalisation with 'abstraction', and 2) defined this word in terns of itself. As I noted that would be about as useful as defining a Disjunctive Normal Form as a disjunction of normalised disjuncts.

So, we still do not know what an 'abstraction' is.


oh sorry were you being serious?

Yes, so what's your response? Why aren't Lord Lucan and Bin Laden 'abstractions' if we cant 'find' them, as you alleged of 'abstractions'?


.I can find a "man". I cannot find you a "manhood". Therefore it is an abstraction.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1250053&postcount=42

So, if we can't find Lord Lucan or Bin Laden, they must be 'abstractions'. If not, then your criterion is defective.


manhood is both an abstraction and a general term.

I have already been over this. This word designates an 'abstract' particular, and particulars aren't general.

You can see this if you try to express generality with it:

"Blair is Manhood" makes no sense.

And, we still do not know what an 'abstraction' is so that we are in a position to agree or disagree with you.

Even worse, we do not know how you or anyone else arrive at them. It looks like you believers just invented them. In that case, they have about as much going for them as Gryphons and Harpies.


but you said that manhood is an abstraction.

I said no such thing. I am careful to put this word in 'scare' quotes, as i do with 'God' (and for the same reason), or I merely report your words, and try to see where they lead. Not for one second do I believe that "Manhood" is an 'abstraction', since I have yet to have the word "abstraction" explained to me. And I have yet to se it explained to anyone else.

As I noted, I do not need to know what an 'abstraction' is to know that it is not the same as generalisation since, to repeat:

I have no idea what 'god' is, but I know that George W Bush is not 'Him'.


when did I say it was not a term?

When talkign about "capitalism" you can talk about many things. the "word". the pixels ont he screen (as you amazingly did), or the thing. I can refer to the term "capitalism" as an abstraction.t his doesn;t necessarilyl mean the mode of production is. it might be thogh. I am not sure.

You are really getting yourself into a tangle here. But "capitalism" is a word, not a term (as you seem to be using that word, i.e., "term"). Perhaps you need to explain to us what you mean by "term", for it is confusing me.


manhood encapsulates all men. therefore it is rderived form a generalisation of a phenomenon.

But, that is precisely the point; as soon as you produce this word "Manhood" is designates an abstract particular, and so loses its generality, as I showed above.

Here it is again:


I have already been over this. This word designates an abstract particular, and particulars aren't general.

You can see this if you try to express generality with it:

"Blair is Manhood" makes no sense.

And who does this 'generalisation', and how do you know you have all done it exactly the same way, and with the same results?

And what 'phenomenon' is this you are referring to?


Di dLenin say that that which is not material is not objectice? Maybe, but not int he quote you just showed.

No, read it again:


"For the sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind." [Lenin (1972) Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.311. Bold emphasis alone added.]

And he repeated this many times; here are few of these:


"Thus…the concept of matter…epistemologically implies nothing but objective reality existing independently of the human mind and reflected by it."

"[I]t is the sole categorical, this sole unconditional recognition of nature’s existence outside the mind and perception of man that distinguishes dialectical materialism from relativist agnosticism and idealism." [Ibid., p.314.]

"The fundamental characteristic of materialism is that it starts from the objectivity of science, from the recognition of objective reality reflected by science." [Ibid., pp.354-55.]

And he added things like this:


All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception. That is true. But the question arises, does objective reality “belong to perception,” i.e., is it the source of perception? If you answer yes, you are a materialist. If you answer no, you are inconsistent and will inevitably arrive at subjectivism, or agnosticism, irrespective * of whether you deny the knowability of the thing-in-itself, or the objectivity of time, space and causality (with Kant), or whether you do not even permit the thought of a thing-in-itself (with Hume). The inconsistency of your empiricism, of your philosophy of experience, will in that case lie in the fact that you deny the objective content of experience, the objective truth of experimental knowledge....

The Machians love to declaim that they are philosophers who completely trust the evidence of our sense-organs, who regard the world as actually being what it seems to us to be, full of sounds, colours, etc., whereas to the materialists, they say, the world is dead, devoid of sound and colour, and in its reality different from what it seems to be, and so forth.... But, in fact, the Machians are subjectivists and agnostics, for they do not sufficiently trust the evidence of our sense-organs and are inconsistent in their sensationalism. They do not recognise objective reality, independent of man, as the source of our sensations. They do not regard sensations as a true copy of this objective reality, thereby directly conflicting with natural science and throwing the door open for fideism. On the contrary, for the materialist the world is richer, livelier, more varied than it actually seems, for with each step in the development of science new aspects are discovered. For the materialist, sensations are images of the sole and ultimate objective reality, ultimate not in the sense that it has already been explored to the end, but in the sense that there is not and cannot be any other. This view irrevocably closes the door not only to every species of fideism, but also to that professorial scholasticism which, while not recognising an objective reality as the source of our sensations, “deduces” the concept of the objective by means of such artificial verbal constructions as universal significance, socially-organised, and so on and so forth, and which is unable, and frequently unwilling, to separate objective truth from belief in sprites and hobgoblins. [Ibid., pp.142-43.]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two4.htm#v14pp72h-122

You can see here that Lenin argues against the kind of construction you seem to dote upon (in the last highlighted part of the quotation):


“deduces” the concept of the objective by means of such artificial verbal constructions as universal significance, socially-organised, and so on and so forth, and which is unable, and frequently unwilling, to separate objective truth from belief in sprites and hobgoblins.

As I have said, you cannot tell the difference between your "capitalism" and such hobgoblins (or as I interjected, Gryphons and Harpies).


Blair is contained within manhood, or liardom. therefore they can be used together. Rosa,womanhood. Blair, manhood. see?

But, "Blair manhood" is a list, and lists say nothing.

And, how can Tony Blair, the man, be 'contained' in an 'abstraction'?


because just as man relates to manhood, so capitalist and capital relate to captialism.

But, according to you manhood is an 'abstraction', so that must mean capitalism is an 'abstraction'.

And what is this 'man' you are referring to? Another 'abstraction'?


as you keep saying. however, this rests on me taking you at your own word that Marx would todsy be saying what you are saying were he here today. the fact he explciitly endorsed dialectics suggests otherwise.

Well, he indicates that he and I do indeed agree, in Das Kapital. You can find the evidence here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124


but apparently, what Marx said was meaningless, because the term abstraction is meaningless.

The odd thing is that in his early work he repudiated 'abstraction' as the quotes I added showed. However, in later work he returned to using them sparingly. And, as he too failed to say what these odd items meant, then yes, those parts of Marx's work (fortunately very few and far between) where he refers to the word "abstraction", are meaningless.


he just refused to say so, and in fact claimed the opposite. maybe he did this on purpose so that one day his true heir could decode this devious trick, and reveal themselves.

In fact, he quite clearly repudiated the dialectic as you traditionalists understand it. Evidence in the links above.


again, all that shows if that if the party were material, then it owuld be objective. it does not say that to be objective it must be material.

Not according to Lenin.


no, I do not think capitalism exists only int he mind. like a social relationship, it clearly objectively exists, but cannot be seen or touched. next time you have a social relationship in a cage, call me round and I'll taste it.

Well, we have made some progress, for you began by arguing that capitalism was an 'abstraction'.

But, many material things cannot be seen or touched. When was the last time you saw an electron? Or touched one? Or the centre of the earth? Or the centre of mass of the Galaxy?

Now, I do not deny these social relations, but many relations can be seen. Get two of your friends to stand together. Now look at them. You will, unless blind, drunk or smashed out of your head, see that they are next to each other. But 'next to' is a relation. There are plenty more like this too.

So, the fact that we can see some relations (and we can touch and hear others) means that your argument is defective.

Now, if capitalism exists 'outside the mind', then according to Lenin it must be material. In that case, it must also be physical.

Of course, Lenin could be wrong here. But both you and he can't be right.

In fact, the solution here is to avoid using this obscure jargon. We have plenty of words available to us in ordinary language that allow us to speak of capitalism in countless ways. indeed, the best revolutionary papers already do this or they would not sell to workers.

As Marx noted, the problem with your approach is that you have appropriated far too much of the obscure jargon invented by ruling-class hacks. This jargon goes well with idealism, but not materialism. As Marx argued, we need to ditch it:


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

Notice, 'abstraction' equals distortion.

And as he argued in the The Poverty of Philosophy:


"Is it surprising that everything, in the final abstraction…presents itself as a logical category? Is it surprising that, if you let drop little by little all that constitutes the individuality of a house, leaving out first of all the materials of which it is composed, then the form that distinguishes it, you end up with nothing but a body; that if you leave out of account the limits of this body, you soon have nothing but a space -– that if, finally, you leave out of account the dimensions of this space, there is absolutely nothing left but pure quantity, the logical category? If we abstract thus from every subject all the alleged accidents, animate or inanimate, men or things, we are right in saying that in the final abstraction the only substance left is the logical categories. Thus the metaphysicians, who in making these abstractions, think they are making analyses, and who, the more they detach themselves from things, imagine themselves to be getting all the nearer to the point of penetrating to their core…." [Marx (1978), p.99.]

And in the Holy Family:


"The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind 'the Fruit'….

"It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, 'the Fruit.'" [p.75. Bold emphases added.]

This is almost exactly how I see things too: 'abstraction' is the creation of ruling-class hacks and Idealists, and has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist materialism.


you support trade union bureaucrats, landlords, Bengali millionaires and reformist politicians, i.e. enemies of the working class.

Why are you beginning to tell lies?


so the SWP are Bolshevik in their practice?

I think so, as I think your tiny sect is too. But, unfortunately, Bolshevism has been traduced by its acceptance of dialectics.


this may be so. but at least I understand that the left in Britain needs to send its members into the workplaces, into the sectors in struggle, into the vanguard sectors. it needs to get serious. it needs to be with the workers, the base, independent of our enemies, the brueaucrats, the bourgeois scum like George Galloway who earn so many tens of thousand each year, independent of the petty borugeois "community leaders" and reformist stalinist corpses and landlords and Bengali millionaires.

Until this happens there won't be a serious left in Britain. the fortune of the revolutionary left is the fortune of the working class vanguard and currently the groups in Britain which claim to be the former do not care about the latter. they are jsut impressionists on the sidelines, not proletarian groups basing their poltiics on the struggles of their members.

Ah, it doesn't take long for the sectarianism, just below the surface, and encouraged by dialectics, to rear its ugly head, does it?

Even so, the 'party of dialectics' (howsoever you conceive of this) has up till now screwed up; in which case, dialectics has been tested in practice, and has failed. Once more, this mystical theory has been refuted by history --, and no wonder, it was invented by ruling-class hacks.


so they were not historical materialists?

Their HM was fatally compromised by dialectics.


that is what RESPECT is.

I see, you are wedded to an abstract formula, and do not reason concretely? [See how 'dialectics' can get me out of any corner?]

If I dine in a restaurant, does that mean I am against the social provision of meals, or that I am in favour of privatised food production? Respect was a means to an end. But, if you want to debate that, I suggest you begin another thread.


according to your decoding which contradicts what he actually said, yes.

Not so, as the evidence you will find at the links I posted above shows that I am right here. If, of course, you disagree, you can always challenge what I say in those posts, and re-start that thread.


I did not say you placed all the blame on dialectics.

In fact, you said this:


You may as well say the same about class struggle (something which in practice you reject btw) if your logic is that any one aspect of marxism must be held accoutnable for "150 years of almost total failure".

Here you allege that I believe that there is a unitary cause of this long-term failure, which I do not. Moreover, since we are speaking about dialectics, then that can only mean that you do indeed think that I "placed all the blame on dialectics".

[Zurdito]

If capitalism is not an 'abstraction', what then is it? And how can a term be an 'abstraction'; "Capitalism" as a term exists on your screen.

no, a term is a linguistic device for referring to something.



Is this a sum of the part before they became incorporated into that whole or after. If the former, where were they before they were incorporated? If after, then, as I noted before, they are already parts of that while, and so are already conditioned by it and one another, So, how can they no be 'more'?

actually, I was going to say:

for example, by looking at a capitalist and a worker as individuals, you could not see how the capitlis forces the worker to work. onl by understanding them as part of a relationship whereby ones ownership of property deprives the other, can you see the coercion there. this is more than can be seen by simply viewing them individually and adding up the sum of their actions.

but in the process of reasoning this, I came to think that probably, you can understand the reltionship as the sum of their actions. So on this point I think you were probably right and I was wrong.



We have already covered this. The dictionary 1) confuses generalisation with 'abstraction', and 2) defined this word in terns of itself. As I noted that would be about as useful as defining a Disjunctive Normal Form as a disjunction of normalised disjuncts.

So, we still do not know what an 'abstraction' is.

if you were serious about finding out, you would have gone to the definition of "abstract" and made sense of the definition that way. in any case, I do not think it is wrong to say that an abstraction is derived froma generalisation and then made into a noun (which you call particular, actually I am not sure if that is correct)...


Yes, so what's your response? Why aren't Lord Lucan and Bin Laden 'abstractions' if we cant 'find' them, as you alleged of 'abstractions'?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1250053&postcount=42

So, if we can't find Lord Lucan or Bin Laden, they must be 'abstractions'. If not, then your criterion is defective.

I was not attempting to "define" abstraction at that point, so poitning out to me that I didn't is not that profound. this is an exmaple of your pedantry. ti si obvious that as real human beings, it would be theoretically possible to touch and see Bin Laden or Lucan. It would however not be theoretically possilbe to do so with "manhood".



I have already been over this. This word designates an 'abstract' particular, and particulars aren't general.

You can see this if you try to express generality with it:

"Blair is Manhood" makes no sense.


correct. but Blair is a mn, and therefore subordinate to the overriding abstraction "manhood", which is derived from a generalisation of all men.


I said no such thing. I am careful to put this word in 'scare' quotes, as i do with 'God' (and for the same reason), or I merely report your words, and try to see where they lead. Not for one second do I believe that "Manhood" is an 'abstraction', since I have yet to have the word "abstraction" explained to me. And I have yet to se it explained to anyone else.

what do you think it is if not an abstraction?



And what 'phenomenon' is this you are referring to?



the fact that 50% of the population are men.



But, "Blair manhood" is a list, and lists say nothing.



true.


And, how can Tony Blair, the man, be 'contained' in an 'abstraction'?

because it is derived from the generalisation "men".


But, according to you manhood is an 'abstraction', so that must mean capitalism is an 'abstraction'.

but yet manhood objectively exists,andcould only be overthrown by eradicating all men. so using this definition of abstraction, I am happy to say that cpitalism is one.



Well, we have made some progress, for you began by arguing that capitalism was an 'abstraction'.

I did not actually "begin" by arguing that. and I certainly always said that it objectively exists.


But, many material things cannot be seen or touched. When was the last time you saw an electron? Or touched one? Or the centre of the earth? Or the centre of mass of the Galaxy?

this is stupid. they physically exist, and it is possible to describe their weight, appearance, temperature, size, etc.


Now, I do not deny these social relations, but many relations can be seen. Get two of your friends to stand together. Now look at them. You will, unless blind, drunk or smashed out of your head, see that they are next to each other. But 'next to' is a relation. There are plenty more like this too.

no, you cannot see a relation. you can only see two people. the abilty to understand the relation requires making a deduction, and abstracting from waht you see, a general principle.



Now, if capitalism exists 'outside the mind', then according to Lenin it must be material. In that case, it must also be physical.

Of course, Lenin could be wrong here. But both you and he can't be right.


this is not really an answer. do you have some capitalism for me to taste?



Why are you beginning to tell lies?


Which lie did I tell?



I think so, as I think your tiny sect is too. But, unfortunately, Bolshevism has been traduced by its acceptance of dialectics.

I do not think this is true. The Bolshevik method was to base its politics on the working class vanguard, a minority, ahead of mass opinion, and to seek to shape it to lead the class. the SWP method is to support left-bureaucrats and bourgeois populists in the hope of recruiting some members from amongst the masses.


Even so, the 'party of dialectics' (howsoever you conceive of this) has up till now screwed up;

wellno. the Bolsheviks did lead a succesful revoltuion and a workers state for ten years, which eventually degenerated under outside pressure, under abureaucracy whch was not motivated by dialectics, btu material self-interest. unless you think it was possible to build socialism in one country, I do not see how the degeneration of the Russian revoltuion was due in a significant degree to dialectics and not to obective factors.

As for Salinism: this was the opposite of Bolshevism in so many ways. So how could both ahve been dialectical? the only conclusion is that dialectics leaves space for such hugely different poltiics, that it cannto have beent he cause of the "failures" of both groups (not htat the Bolsheviks did fail).

Likewise, you agreed with me on another thread abotu the class charcter of Stalinism. Therefore if Stalinism is the ideolgoy of the coutner-revolutionary bureaucracy which works to subordinate the sectiosn of the working class to one or another section of the bourgeoisie at home, and to its own abroad, then how can its "failure" to lead a world revoltuion be down to dialectics, and not down to the fact that it was not tyring to lead a world revoltuion, but inf act tyring to prevent revoltuion abroad, soldifiy its own rule at home, and then restore capitalism, all of which it succeeded very well in doing. :(



If I dine in a restaurant, does that mean I am against the social provision of meals, or that I am in favour of privatised food production? Respect was a means to an end. But, if you want to debate that, I suggest you begin another thread.

I have argued it too many times. but either you are with the working class, or with its enemies. eating at restaurant does not mean helping to smash up halls which provide free food. supporting union bureaucrats, landlords, Bengali millionaires and bourgeois poltiicians, does mean helping to attack the working class.

again, this is relevant if the poltiical failures of dialectical marxists are relevant.




Not so, as the evidence you will find at the links I posted above shows that I am right here. If, of course, you disagree, you can always challenge what I say in those posts, and re-start that thread.

Did Marx say he had ditched dialectics, or did he keepclaiming to adhere to dialectics?




In fact, you said this:



Here you allege that I believe that there is a unitary cause of this long-term failure, which I do not. Moreover, since we are speaking about dialectics, then that can only mean that you do indeed think that I "placed all the blame on dialectics".

well I am sorry if you misunderstood me.I meant to say that if any one aspect of marxism could be implicated as one reason for its failure purely through having been claimed to be upheld by groups which failed, then why not class struggle itself?

this was a point about the specific way you framed your argument in the post I quoted to make that point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:

no, a term is a linguistic device for referring to something.

How is that different from a word then?


actually, I was going to say:

for example, by looking at a capitalist and a worker as individuals, you could not see how the capitlis forces the worker to work. only by understanding them as part of a relationship whereby ones ownership of property deprives the other, can you see the coercion there. this is more than can be seen by simply viewing them individually and adding up the sum of their actions.

but in the process of reasoning this, I came to think that probably, you can understand the relationship as the sum of their actions. So on this point I think you were probably right and I was wrong.

So, there is no 'more' here in the external world, it's all in the mind, since you admit that it is only if we see things a certain way can we understand them:


only by understanding them as part of a relationship whereby ones ownership of property deprives the other, can you see the coercion there. this is more than can be seen by simply viewing them individually and adding up the sum of their actions.

Once more, you can see how this way of grasping things turns you into an idealist. And this is not the least bit surprising, since, as I noted in previous responses to you, this whole way of viewing things was derived from ruling-class hacks like Hegel. There is no 'rational core' here; this remains an idealist method upside down or the 'right way up'.


if you were serious about finding out, you would have gone to the definition of "abstract" and made sense of the definition that way. in any case, I do not think it is wrong to say that an abstraction is derived from a generalisation and then made into a noun (which you call particular, actually I am not sure if that is correct)...

1) What do you mean "serious"? I have been looking now for over 25 years (and not just in dictionaries!). Moreover, philosophical problems cannot be solved by looking in a dictionary, as I have already pointed out to you. This is especially so if the dictionary uses the very word being defined in that definition, or if it confuses generalisation with 'abstraction'.

2) You may not think that it is "wrong to say that an abstraction is derived from a generalisation", but you have yet to say how that occurs. Furthermore, we do not need to go down that ruling-class route, even if you could say how this process works (and good luck there -- even Marx saw through that one in those quotes I posted above). If we already have general words that do the job they were meant to, then why do we need 'abstractions'? Indeed, as Marx noted, 'abstractions' distort language.

3) You have yet to say how you know that your 'abstractions' are the same as those of anyone else. The problem is that 'abstraction' is allegedly done 'in the mind', in a private arena, where it cannot be checked by anyone. In contrast to this, generalisation is done in an open arena, by means of publicly accessible language. The use of concepts is thus a skill we are socialised into performing, and since it is a publicly checkable skill, its results can be shared. This is not so with 'abstraction'.

4) If you look at the history of the introduction of abstract terms in Philosophy, the situation is quite clear. You see ancient Greek Philosophers like Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Parmenides and Plato introducing such nouns as the proper names of Ideas in the mind of 'god', or as proper names that designated the Forms (the original abstract particulars, in Plato's work) in 'heaven'. They had to do this, since general words in vernacular Greek were not Proper names (they are verbs, or general nouns). So, they took such words and turned them into the names of such abstract particulars, thereby creating a 2500 year old (unsolvable) philosophical 'problem', one which arose solely from the distortion of language. Marx was clearly aware of this, hence the remark he made about 'abstraction' being a distortion of ordinary language (in the German Ideology and the Holy Family:


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


"The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind 'the Fruit'….

"It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, 'the Fruit.'" [p.75. Bold emphases added.]

Now, they did this for ideological reasons, since it was in their interest to show that there was a hidden, ideal world beyond appearances that justified class division, and the rule of the state. Subsequent philosophers merely elaborated this theory, they did not alter it significantly. And they had to do this since ordinary language resists such distortion; if you try to do this you end up with lists, and so you end up with 'sentences' that say nothing. Hence these ideologues were forced by their class position and allegiances to invent jargonised expressions that in the end failed to do what they had originally been invented to do.

And that is why these 'abstract' nouns are the names of 'abstract' particulars that do not exist in the physical world: they were introduced explicitly to that end. This is because if class power depends on hidden, mystical 'essences' and cosmic hierarchies, knowledge of which is ascertainable by thought alone, then it is safe from materialist refutation, and workers will just have to get used to this hidden 'divine'/'natural' order, since there is no point rebelling against the cosmic order.

Such 'abstractions' have always been used to underpin the philosophical 'justification' of class society.

Notice that you too have to appeal to 'abstractions' that have no physical existence. That is plainly because this doctrine was copied from Hegel, a ruling-class theorist. It is also why Marx was so severe with this approach to knowledge in the works I quoted above and in earlier posts.


I was not attempting to "define" abstraction at that point, so poitning out to me that I didn't is not that profound. this is an exmaple of your pedantry. ti si obvious that as real human beings, it would be theoretically possible to touch and see Bin Laden or Lucan. It would however not be theoretically possilbe to do so with "manhood".

Once more, it is not "pedantry" to point out that you are using words in a sloppy manner.

Now, you have changed your criterion. For you didn't say earlier this: "ti si obvious that as real human beings, it would be theoretically possible to touch and see Bin Laden or Lucan. It would however not be theoretically possilbe to do so with "manhood"."

You said this:


The abstract particular is not a physically existing thing though. it describes a concept which exists in the realm of theory and which is derived from a generalisation abou a certain phenomenon. I can find a "man". I cannot find you a "manhood". Therefore it is an abstraction.

Here you are arguing about what you (specifically) can or can't do, not what human beings can or cannot do.

But, it is not theoretically possible for human beings to touch the other things I listed, such as electrons, the Centre of Mass of the Galaxy [CMG]. In fact, many of the things that physicist tell us the world in made of, we cannot touch or see.

But are they 'abstract'?

I think not.

So, even your 'revised' criterion' is defective.

Then, you changed it even more, for in answer to the above, you argued:


this is stupid. they physically exist, and it is possible to describe their weight, appearance, temperature, size, etc.

But, which is the real Zurdito? The solipsist who said:


The abstract particular is not a physically existing thing though. it describes a concept which exists in the realm of theory and which is derived from a generalisation abou a certain phenomenon. I can find a "man". I cannot find you a "manhood". Therefore it is an abstraction.

Or, is it the inter-subjective positivist:


I was not attempting to "define" abstraction at that point, so poitning out to me that I didn't is not that profound. this is an exmaple of your pedantry. ti si obvious that as real human beings, it would be theoretically possible to touch and see Bin Laden or Lucan. It would however not be theoretically possilbe to do so with "manhood".

Or is it the crude positivist/idealist? [I say "idealist" because you use the word "describe", and not "measure", say.]


this is stupid. they physically exist, and it is possible to describe their weight, appearance, temperature, size, etc.

But, the CMG does not in fact physically exist. It is a mathematical construct we use to explain the motion of the Galaxy. And yet is exercise a decisive influence on every atom in the Galaxy. Is it 'abstract', then?

But, let us assume that this is your latest and best guess. You say things like electrons and the CMG physically exist because it is possible to "describe their weight, appearance, temperature, size, etc."

So, if someone could "describe", say, the appearance of Manhood, it would physically exist, according to you. In that case, how do you know that someone hasn't already done that? Or that they might not do so, say, in ten years time?

Now the only possible response you could make to this is that this is impossible since Manhood is an 'abstraction', and so cannot be "described" in this way. Again, how do you know? We can do things today that 1000 years ago would have seemed impossible.

Anyway, how do you know 'manhood' is 'objective' if you can't prove it exists? It seems you believe in this 'abstraction', and that it is 'objective', only because Hegel did (for that is where dialecticians got this idea). And we all know he was an idealist/ruling-class hack. You have absolutely no other reason to believe in it, let alone think it is 'objective'.

You see why it is important to careful about the language you use, for the way you talk suggests that much of material reality is 'abstract' since we can't touch it!


but Blair is a mn, and therefore subordinate to the overriding abstraction "manhood", which is derived from a generalisation of all men.

How do you know this? And how can a man be 'subordinate' to an 'abstraction'? Are they really that powerful?

2 million people marched against Blair in 2003, and he ignored them. You mention one abstraction and he has to 'subordinate' himself to it!

As I said, your ideas are turning you into an idealist who believes in a hidden world, beyond appearances, accessible to thought alone, from where 'abstract' Ideas control reality, not material objects, process and forces.

We can now see why Marx was so against them.


what do you think it is if not an abstraction?

It is the nominalisation of a general concept word "...is a man".

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


but yet manhood objectively exists,andcould only be overthrown by eradicating all men. so using this definition of abstraction, I am happy to say that cpitalism is one.

1) How can something that is the pure creation of though 'objectively' exist? Surely you need evidence that 'Manhood' exists to believe in it? [Otherwise, why not believe in 'god'?]

But, what actually exists are men. Why then do we need this 'abstract' term, if we already have in language the means by which we can talk about men? Especially, when such 'abstractions; destroy sentences and turn them into lists?

2) You disagree with Lenin then, since for him if something is 'objective' it is material, and thus physical.


I did not actually "begin" by arguing that. and I certainly always said that it objectively exists.

Unfortunately, you did, for that is what more-or-less kicked this debate off:

Me:


How do you know that Capitalism is an 'abstraction', and what precisely is an 'abstraction'?

You:




http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1249348&postcount=26

Z:

[QUOTE]you cannot see a relation. you can only see two people. the abilty to understand the relation requires making a deduction, and abstracting from waht you see, a general principle.

But, if you look at two people stood next to each other, no 'deduction' is needed. Now, if you argued thus: "Those two are stood next to each other, so it must be the start of the queue", or some such like, that would be a deduction. The word 'so' tells you this. But, if you see two people next to each other, you do not need to reason at all. You just look and you see they are next to each other. So, you can see relations.

Moreover, the relation 'next to' is not general, so it cannot be an 'abstraction' as you see things. If A is next to B, where is the generality?


do you have some capitalism for me to taste?

How does this answer Lenin's point?

And, what has "taste" got to do with this? Don't tell me you are changing your highly fluid criterion again!

And yes one can taste capitalism. Want an example?


Which lie did I tell?

I told you which one. Stop being deliberately obtuse.


I do not think this is true. The Bolshevik method was to base its politics on the working class vanguard, a minority, ahead of mass opinion, and to seek to shape it to lead the class. the SWP method is to support left-bureaucrats and bourgeois populists in the hope of recruiting some members from amongst the masses.

1) This has nothing to do with the long-term failure of Bolshevism. And it in no way explains why your tiny sect has not won too many revolutions of late.

2) This is another lie, but now about the SWP. Can't you post without telling sectarian lies?

Indeed, you can't -- dialectics in fact exacerbates sectarianism -- you can find out how and why here:

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

So, thanks for confirming my thesis!


the Bolsheviks did lead a succesful revoltuion and a workers state for ten years, which eventually degenerated under outside pressure, under abureaucracy whch was not motivated by dialectics, btu material self-interest. unless you think it was possible to build socialism in one country, I do not see how the degeneration of the Russian revoltuion was due in a significant degree to dialectics and not to obective factors.

As for Salinism: this was the opposite of Bolshevism in so many ways. So how could both ahve been dialectical? the only conclusion is that dialectics leaves space for such hugely different poltiics, that it cannto have beent he cause of the "failures" of both groups (not htat the Bolsheviks did fail).

Likewise, you agreed with me on another thread abotu the class charcter of Stalinism. Therefore if Stalinism is the ideolgoy of the coutner-revolutionary bureaucracy which works to subordinate the sectiosn of the working class to one or another section of the bourgeoisie at home, and to its own abroad, then how can its "failure" to lead a world revoltuion be down to dialectics, and not down to the fact that it was not tyring to lead a world revoltuion, but inf act tyring to prevent revoltuion abroad, soldifiy its own rule at home, and then restore capitalism, all of which it succeeded very well in doing.

Yes, I know the official Trotskyist story, and I accept 99% of it. But, the fact is that the 'party of dialectics' screwed up. They did not use dialectics in 1917 (since it is impossible to put its nostrums into practice), and only began to use it in earnest after 1923, when the revolution was already decaying. This theory then helped accelerate the decline of Bolshevism both in its aberrant Stalinist and in its revolutionary Trotskyist forms. As I have shown at my site (summarised in an earlier thread), dialectics can be used to justify anything you like, and its opposite. And it has been so used by Stalinists, Maoists and us Trots, alike. All use it to 'prove' the other lot are traitors to Marxism, and do not "understand" dialectics.

In fact, since the 1930s, the only thing us Trots have shown we are good at is splitting and throwing sectarian abuse at one another -- just like you keep doing. Comrades like you use dialectics to justify this, since only your tiny sect knows how to use the 'dialectic' properly. But every sect says this -- and all that results from this is that Trotskyism then goes into another ten years of decline.

Very clever!


I have argued it too many times. but either you are with the working class, or with its enemies. eating at restaurant does not mean helping to smash up halls which provide free food. supporting union bureaucrats, landlords, Bengali millionaires and bourgeois poltiicians, does mean helping to attack the working class.

again, this is relevant if the poltiical failures of dialectical marxists are relevant.

Yes, I can see you like to substitute an abstract formula for a concrete analysis again. No wonder you like dialectics.


Did Marx say he had ditched dialectics, or did he keep claiming to adhere to dialectics?

You can find the evidence that he did the former at those links I posted.


well I am sorry if you misunderstood me. I meant to say that if any one aspect of marxism could be implicated as one reason for its failure purely through having been claimed to be upheld by groups which failed, then why not class struggle itself?

this was a point about the specific way you framed your argument in the post I quoted to make that point.

Plainly, revolutionaries are not robots. They have ideas in their heads. And their dominant ideas are those they have derived from 'materialist dialectics'. So, even though the class struggle is an important factor in the long-term failure of dialectical Marxism, its core theory (which tells us that truth is tested in practice) has to take some of the blame.

[And it can be shown to have contributed in no small way to that decline, too.]

So, if truth is tested in practice, then dialectics has been refuted by history.

If this is not so, then truth is not tested in practice, and that core thesis goes out of the window, instead.

I can live with either outcome...

[Hit The North]

Moved so that Zurdito can reply without having to bear the indignity of joining the anti-dialectic user group.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks BTB!

Can't have Z joining the genuine materialists, can we?:D

[Hit The North]

Surely you mean the mechanical materialists? ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Surely you mean the mechanical materialists?

No, I meant the genuine materialists, as I said.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Wow -- what an impressive waste of time this thread is

[Hit The North]

We're all glad you're impressed, m'Lord.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I thought you were banned?

[Lord Hargreaves]

I thought you were banned?

?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You had in fact been banned for being a sock puppet a few weeks ago. It must have been a mistake.