I don't know. For me, I'm largely a Dialectic in the metaphysical sense. I do agree that it can't be used too heavily in regards to strategy but using Dialectics to analyse several historical phenomena is a key tenet of Marxism. Of course the nonsense of using it intentionally (Basing one's strategy on it) is contradictory to Materialism, after all, the point is that dialectics exists excluded of will, no? Anyway, your views don't really conflict with either Materialism or Dialectics, Anyway.
Kautsky's "dialectic" was called superior by Lenin, but he didn't use it as much as the unholy trinity of Gramsci, Korsch, and Lukacs.
That strikes me as somewhat odd, though. Were the early revolutionaries of the 20th century (Namely Kautsky) not some of the most firm of materialists among the Marxist crowd?
I'm not a dialectician or a histomat guy. Dynamic materialism isn't really well developed as a philosophy, but I go by that one.
What's your take on dialectics, and to what extent does it make a considerable impact on the several theoretical progresses you've put forward?
Comrade Ghost, the Bolsheviks did have an alternative, a policy in between NEP and Stalinist development that would have cast the remaining "national" bourgeoisie aside, real "state-capitalist monopoly" (by this, I imply my meaning of operating with market prices and indicative planning). Could it be said, perhaps, that the People's Democracies were more economically advanced than NEP Russia?
State Capitalist development in non industrialized countries, or otherwise, would be of necessity. Of this, I can fully concur.
1) TWCS doesn't just scrap bourgeois class rule, it liquidates the bourgeoisie as a class altogether. State-capitalist development doesn't need bourgeois parasitism at any level. 2) Lukacs is to be avoided big time regarding strategy. His attribution of "orthodox Marxism" to Lenin and the Comintern, and excessive "criticisms" of Second International Marxism, is ridiculous. 3) I certainly agree with you regarding the "upheavals" in Eastern Europe.
I've always been one to think they were weak and lost in correspondence with the 21st century, but I don't read their newspapers or whatever
After all this time, comrade, you're still puzzled about the "revolutionary" (non-)strategy of the non-Bordigists on the "communist left"?
