The 'Rosa Watch' watch thread

Over at the Coven, a comrade who is himself far too affraid to take me on in open debate has begun a 'Rosa watch' thread, safe in the knowledge that I cannot reply to him there.

So, here is RP, sucking his thumb in grand style:

Any of us who have been bored enough to visit the Anti-Dialectics group probably remember that Rosa Lichtenstein maintains a thread on all of our doings as a protest against her not being allowed into this group.

Therefore, to help re-activate the group, I've started this thread for us to keep watch on what Rosa is saying about dialectics in the Philosophy forum, her own comfy echo chamber, and elsewhere. Hopefully we can get some discussion going on her attacks against DM, and talk about how to combat them, since any of us who've tried to discuss these things with her (or even read threads in which she's been taken on directly) know how "unique" and frustrating her style of argument is.

So, feel free to use this thread to deconstruct Rosa's posts on DM, attack her theories, propose rebuttals, etc. Just please remember to keep things civil and not attack her or anyone else personally.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1600

Except they can openly lie about me!

Fellow materialists here will notice straight-away that I am now to become the focus for these sad characters to try to revive their dying group!

Plainly, they have nothing else to talk about in this esoteric huddle of theirs except little old me. [By the way, I even provided them with their reading list, since I know more about their theory than the lot of them put together!]

Hopefully we can get some discussion going on her attacks against DM, and talk about how to combat them, since any of us who've tried to discuss these things with her (or even read threads in which she's been taken on directly) know how "unique" and frustrating her style of argument is.

Which is code for: "Help! None of us can cope with her arguments. We need to go into another huddle! Get me my comfort blanket!!"

So, feel free to use this thread to deconstruct Rosa's posts on DM, attack her theories, propose rebuttals, etc. Just please remember to keep things civil and not attack her or anyone else personally.

No matter how many times these mystics are told that I do not have a 'theory', other than Historical Materialism (with the Hegelian gobbledygook excised), they all seem to think I have.

What that theory is, not one of them has been able to say.

[Except, one or two try to call me an 'empiricist', but they have yet to provide the evidence in support, conveniently ignoring the fact that I am nearly as severe on empiricism as I am on Hegelian/dialectical a priori dogmatics.]

Anyway, it is satisfying in an odd sort of way to know that I am in fact getting to them, which is the main reason I came to RevLeft in November 2005 (at RS2K's invitation -- he will be chortling to himself about this development!) in the first place.

Mission accomplished, eh?

Anyway, one thing is for sure, in their cabal, these scaredy cats will do no better in their attempts to turn my arguments than they have over the last three and a half years in open discussion.

BTB:

Apart from the fact that she confirms she sees Marxists as "the enemy", is anyone else looking forward to being bored rigid by this obsessive's repetitive posting?

BTB has been making stuff up about me since he joined in 2006, and here he continues in the same lying vein. Notice how he equates my attack on this ruling-class theory with 'attacking Marxists'.

This is odd, since many of the members of the 'dialectical mystics' group are unreconstructed Stalinists and Maoists, sworn enemies of his own party!

The same goes for RP, with whose politics I am in almost total agreement.

But, when it comes to defending this 'theory' of his, BTB is quite happy to lump them in as fellow Marxists (a term he cannot bring himself to use of me, even though we share the same politics!), and to agree with them over the legitimacy of DM.

Btw, one line which is always guaranteed to reduce Rosa to apoplexy is to point out the woeful history of anti-dialectics. Not only does it lead to theoretical sterility, but it always leads its adherents into the arms of reformism, or worse, counter-revolution.

This is even odder, given the point I have just made, for the history of Dialectical Marxism is one of mass murder and the destruction of the 1917 revolution!

And yet, Bob the Blusterer is quite happy to go into a huddle with 'comrades' who would be quite happy to see him with an ice pick in his head!

And yet, I am the main enemy, an individual who in fact agrees with him over 99.99% of his politics!

She'll argue that she is the exception to this, but it's always worth pointing out that as someone who refuses to join a Marxist organisation that her politics are inconsequential as they are hardly ever put into practice and she therefore achieves the third possible outcome of anti-dialectics: complete and utter irrelevance.

And we have seen what 150 years of 'practice' (courtesy of such mystics) has produed:

All four internationals down the pan, 1917 reversed, nearly every former 'communist' state embracing free market capitalism, Dialectical Marxist groups at each others' throats, splits, divisions, expulsions, the working class worldwide ignoring us...

In many cases, we have even seen this sort of behaviour among such 'dialectical comrades':





Ironically, the only thing that unites the Stalinists, Maoists, Orthodox and Unorthodox Trotskyists, libertarian marxists, and Hoxhaists in this cabal is not Marxism (for they all disagree with each other over this), but their hatred of little old me!

I only hope we see more of this, since it confirms what a good job I am doing.

PrettyRiledCoward:

I know she'll respond that 'they didn't really mean what they said', but that hardly rescues the theories of Marxism. anyone who takes her ideas about dialectics halfway seriously would have to disregard all the major works of Marxism. I have a link in my sig from Engels describing the working class as the antithesis of the capitalists, which I came across reading the German Ideology again the other day. We all know the other passages that have been debated on revlet where Marx openly acknowledges dialectics.

Of course, this is to treat the works of Marx like the Bible, just as it is to insult him into the bargain.

If Marxism is a science, then like any other science it will reject or abandon those theories or parts of theories that represent concessions to mysticism and/or error.

So, just as we no longer accept the mystical parts of, say, Newton's work (in fact we edit them out), we have to do the same with Marx. Recall, a good 3/4s of Newton's work was devoted to Achemy, Numerolgy, Cabbalism, Hermeticism and mystical Eschatology (i.e., the study of the 'end time' and the return of Christ).

http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

But, which Physicist will argue that by ignoring these parts of Newton's work we will have to:

disregard all his major works

PrettyRiledCoward:

So at best, her supporters would have to conclude that Marx and Engels were very very confused and could only borrow from an awkward and weak terminology.

Certainly Engels was thoroughly confused (when it came to science and Philosophy), but we already know that Marx had waved this gobbledygook 'goodbye' in his later work:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-...34/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=75

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

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

I agree it's bizarre she'd describe Marxists as the enemy.

What was that about repeating a lie often enough that it becomes the accepted 'truth'?

BTB:

It sums up the obsessive quest that she is on. She cannot help but place philosophical considerations above other more concrete and political issues. Hence her inability to join the SWP (UK) even though she agrees with at least 90% of the party's positions.

99.99% in fact.

However, BTB is the sort of member who, had he lived in the 1870s, would have described Marx as 'an obsessive anticapitalist'.

And, far from placing "philosophical considerations above other more concrete and political issues", nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, it's a matter of priorities. If we look at the practice the SWP have engaged in over the last 25 years, their conversion to dialectical materialism (in and around 1985 -- it received no mention before then; BTB is invited to prove otherwise) has done them no favours -- the party is well under half the size when I was a member 20 years ago, and has a fraction of the influence it had then. [Look at the way it has failed to recruit on the back of the massive anti-war and anti-capitalist movements since 1999; in fact it has shrunk since then!] Hence it is no less important for me to attack one source of poison seeping into the SWP (DM) as it is to join it and just amble along, ostracised as I was before for my stance on DM.

Indeed, if I joined again tomorrow (if they'd have me!), I would get a one way ticket to Coventry, since comrades in the SWP would treat me in the same un-comradely manner that BTB has behaved toward me since he joined RevLeft in 2006 -- and in the same manner in which I was treated by fellow SWP-ers 20 years ago.

Here is yet another example of this boorish manner, this remarkably brainless intervention by BTB:

She's written quite an amusing response to this thread in her anti-dialectics group, by the way. Again she gives the impression that the only reason we're not now living in a workers paradise is because of some supposed counter-revolutionary effect of DM....

And she dares to call herself a materialist!

Comrades will notice that he has to misrepresent what I say to make this boorish point.

Nowhere here or in my essays do I say, hint or imply that I think DM is the only reason why Dialectical Marxism [DIM] is a by-word for failure. BTB has been told this many times before, but he prefers to tell lies.

What I do say (and have said repeatedly, here and at my site) is that it is an undeniable fact that DIM is and abject failure, and that is all that the quotation that BTB uses to spin this latest lie says.

The point is, of course, that when comrades like him have examined the objective reasons why DIM has failed, they fail to look at the subjective reasons. It's as if Dialectical Marxists are all robots, who are not motivated by the ideas they have in their heads, and thus upon whom their core theory (DM) has (apparently!) had no affect whatsoever!

Now, I have examined this additional cause of failure; I have shown that this 'theory' has had deleterious effects on our movement (particularly on us Trotskyists), and I have done it with the sole purpose of eliminating them, and thus of making our movement more successful.

BTB talks as if I want the opposite.

This is the sort of boorish behaviour that prevents me from considering re-joining his dwindling party. I faced this before, and will encounter it again, should I rejoin. But, who does BTB point fingers at? Certainly not his own uncomradely and lying attitude.

In his haste to find a reason (any reason!) to defend the mystical theory that has helped cripple DIM, BTB not only ignores the evidence I have put together, he won't even read it -- he is too busy making stuff up about me.

Now this is typical of such 'head-in-the-sands' mystics.

[Comrades will note he once again just ignores the substantive points I make -- and we know why; he has no answer. Hence, he has to post his weak response in front of a captive audience of 'nodding dogs', and lie his class-compromised pants off.]

The theory BTB accepts tells us that everything is interconnected stops short just here: the only two things in the entire course of human history that are not connected apparently are the long-term failure of DIM and its core theory!

You just could not make this stuff up!

Finally, BTB ignores the materialist explanation I have given for all this (based on Lenin's own analysis), he won't even read it, as I have said, since that would threaten his source of consolation, the dialectical cocaine upon which he and the other mystics are hooked.

That is why they have to lie all the time; the truth they cannot take.

RP:

Sigh. I suppose that was inevitable. For Rosa, we may have our differences politically in this group, but I doubt that anyone in here really wants to iceaxe anyone else. I also was of the impression that you disliked sectarianism? Which of course can be blamed on dialectics...

It's no use you 'sighing'; you are the one who is helping disseminate lies about my ideas.

And you are right, I do dislike sectarianism; but what else is 'Rosa watch'?

I suppose you expect me to take such lies lying down?

And, if you think that the unreconstructed Stalinists you have allowed to join your Coven will not have you and the rest of us Trotskyist 'wreckers' killed if they ever get into power, then you are suicidally naive.

To test how comradely you mystics all are: I dare you to start a thread on the dialectical reasons why the former USSR was socialist/a degenerated workers' state/state capitalist.

If you accept the dare (some hope!) you will soon see how this contradictory 'theory' of yours can be used to defend anything at all, and it opposite.

Which of course can be blamed on dialectics...

Where have I blamed sectarianism on dialectics?

You see, you too have to tell lies, don't you?

As I've said somewhere else, I started this group mainly so that people who are interested in learning about dialectics can have a space to do so without Rosa constantly breathing down everyone's neck and raving about mysticism. Fear of being challenged has nothing to do with it, we know that her very presence on the site will result in us being challenged in some way or another.

That's backfired too; all the attention is now on me and my response to your esoteric musings.

In that case, I can only thank you for undermining your own stated aims -- an nice 'dialectical inversion' for you now to ponder.

raving about mysticism

What was that about personal attacks?

Here is one of her posts that I think it would be instructive for us to look at. It's her famous "if dialectics were true, change would be impossible" chestnut:

Good luck on that one; not one of you is capable of handling a complex philosophical argument.

Which is, of course, why you are all sad mystics, with a touching, but naive faith in this Hermetic 'theory'.

Ah, yet more fibs:

KC:

I don't really see the point in this. Her whole outlook hinges on Marx's use of the word "coquette," which should be enough to show how empty it really is. She attempts to cover it up through attrition, relying on hundred-thousand word essays of which she always brags and constant nitpicking ("coquette").

As KC knows, this is so wide of the mark, it's in the next galaxy.

My case depends on far more than this; and he knows this since he has skim-read it:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-...34/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=75

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

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

So, this brave comrade has to wait until he crawls into the safe confines of the Coven to try to attack me -- he can't do this in the open, for reasons we both know: he's just another scaredy-cat.

Hence, he has to tell lies:

It's completely obvious to anyone that knows anything about dialectics that she doesn't have a leg on which to stand; her only adherents are those that don't really know anything about it. That's why she always trolls threads where people actually want to learn about it - if they learn about it they'll realize how wrong she really is.

Of course, it's only 'obvious' to those who have swallowed the traditional line (one they can't defend), hence the fibs and the cowardice.

I think the best course of countering her would to simply PM anyone that expresses an honest desire to learn about dialectics and invite them to join this group. That way discussion can be had without the irrelevant noise she constantly causes.

Yes, keep it secret; we can't have Rosa 'polluting' the minds of the latest neophytes, can we?

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

The more these saddos twist and turn, the more they confirm they are just a bunch of scaredy-cats.

Rosa, I don't really think this is even worth your time (I know you do, but hear me out).

I have yet to read one argument on behalf of the star-gazers which is a) coherent, b) rooted in materialism, and c) not a bunch of assumptions/slander.

Every single post in that thread revolves around the poster assuming one thing or another about your argument, providing absolutely no evidence what-so-ever for their claims, and then making an illogical conclusion.

It's like watching high school students debate quantum physics...

By the way, awesome smiley faces... so many... so diverse. WAIT! I'VE GOT IT!

Your secrets to deconstructing dialectics all lie within the smilies. Listen, it makes total sense.

Since dialectics is based upon the idea that everything contains its opposite, and smilies are obviously the opposite of frownies, then your anger at the dialectians is manifested through the smilies and hence proves dialectics!

You're welcome mystics... you're welcome.

Nice smiley there, Rosa!

RP:

I agree with most of what you're saying, KC. The "coquette" thing, is of course a particularly shallow attempt by her to enlist Marx in her cause- which is based on, as LuÃ*s Henrique said once, a comma put in the wrong place and an endorsement of a book review.

That comma, which the editors of the Collected Works saw fit to restore, makes all the difference.

Trust you sloppy mystics not to notice.

But I think it's important that we begin to to grapple with what she's saying- as a method for us to learn more about dialectics, not to try to counter her or convince her of anything. That's all I meant to do by starting this thread.

There's no way these logically-challenged saddos can come to grips with my posts, let alone my Essays.

Anyway, just so long as they keep me centre stage, I am cool with that.

AW:

Rosa, I don't really think this is even worth your time (I know you do, but hear me out).

I have yet to read one argument on behalf of the star-gazers which is a) coherent, b) rooted in materialism, and c) not a bunch of assumptions/slander.

Every single post in that thread revolves around the poster assuming one thing or another about your argument, providing absolutely no evidence what-so-ever for their claims, and then making an illogical conclusion.

It's like watching high school students debate quantum physics...

I hope you recognise this development for what it represents: the mystics are rattled.

I need to turn the knife.

And I am just the gal to do it...

AW:

By the way, awesome smiley faces... so many... so diverse. WAIT! I'VE GOT IT!

Your secrets to deconstructing dialectics all lie within the smilies. Listen, it makes total sense.

Since dialectics is based upon the idea that everything contains its opposite, and smilies are obviously the opposite of frownies, then your anger at the dialectians is manifested through the smilies and hence proves dialectics!

You're welcome mystics... you're welcome.

Loads more to come as I carry the fight to these numpties.

JR:

Nice smiley there, Rosa!

The battle continues against the forces of darkness:

The issue here is that even if marx "dropped" or not that stupid terminology he isnt gospel and i would still be against that type of ridiculous terminology. anything that makes "sense" through dialectics probably already made sense before and would make even more sense if dropping that stupid methodology. philosophical obfuscation is the language of metaphysics and the ruling class, our positions should be as crystal clear as possible.

Spot on as usual Marmot!

Ironic, isn't it. These sad mystics have found they have to retreat in to their secret Cabbal so they can study their esoteric texts in peace and quiet, but they end up being told to study my posts and essays!

So KC, can you tell me what sort of insight have you gained from DM that would have been better without it? i am not being an ass i am genuinely curious and we should discuss it.

So KC, can you tell me what sort of insight have you gained from DM that would have been better without it? i am not being an ass i am genuinely curious and we should discuss it. i d

So KC, can you tell me what sort of insight have you gained from DM that would have been better without it? i am not being an ass i am genuinely curious and we should discuss it. i dont

KC:

Actually what I posted in the DM group is pretty much identical to what I've posted in the philosophy forum:

Except you limped off after you were put in your place.

So please, continue with your inanities; one good thing about them is that I find your tantrums and superiority complex incredibly entertaining.

Translated, this seems to read: "I can't respond to your arguments, so I will just come out with more abuse."

So, no change there then.

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

KC, from the Coven:

the problem is that Rosa's kind of criticism is hollow and we learn nothing from it. Like I said before, it's just noise. I'm not going to waste my time with it and I advise everyone else here not to, either.

Except he just did.

Tupac Amaru II:

Rosa is very annoying, all her/his debates are logically incorrect and as soon as someone posts in the philosophy section he/she posts 20 links to her/his other articles, which don't even explain what we are talking about.

The links I post, of course, are to other RevLeft pages, which, no one in the entire history of this board has ever done before, and I am thoroughly ashamed of myself for this...

Never quite manged 20, though. Must try harder.

Its a very unwelcoming environment in the Dialectical Materialism portion of the forum for new people. This group is useful but not used.

And that is because very few comrades want to enroll on the Dialectical Methodone program.

I mean this whole argument that if you combine O* + O** = O** then writes forty paragraphs about it how O* + O** cannot exist because O** already exists

Nowhere in my argument does his piece of incoherence exist; but this does confirm that these mystics can't handle a complex argument, as I noted above.

but first of all no marxist is claiming that argument, its a strawman, and people newer to dialectics will think wow dialectics must suck.

And neither am I; but I do quote dozens of dialecticians who argue that things change because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and that they also change into those opposites, which plainly makes change impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24

Oops, posted a few more of those annoying links again!

PrettyRiledComrade:

I agree that we should invite more people to participate. I'd suggested someone join us the other day in the philosophy forum.

Participate in what? We have yet to see a substantive argument.

All we have witnessed up to now is a group hugging session.

Dialectics gives us nothing that simple logic doesn't.

But yeah, Rosa its quite silly some of them won't even debate you...

As far as I understand, there's not really a debate at all.

Think about it. If you were a proponent of dialectics, what would/could you actually argue for? There's no real position to hold - except the dogmatic one that dialectics is true.. because..

Indeed, that is why they have actually said very little so far about this 'wonderful' theory.

In fact, they have posted more about me in the last 36 hours than they have about their 'theory' over the last few months!

KC:

Yeah, I never replied because as I've already said it's a waste of time to discuss anything with you. I came here to just clear up your lie that I only said that in the DM group.

In other words, you are just another scaredy-cat.

But what about this?

the problem is that Rosa's kind of criticism is hollow and we learn nothing from it. Like I said before, it's just noise. I'm not going to waste my time with it and I advise everyone else here not to, either.

Must mean you have changed your mind and that my demolition of your 'theory' is not just 'noise'.

Or, maybe that: you are such an inveterate fibber, we can't believe a word you say.

Nope. I was obviously referring to discussing dialectics with you, with which I'm not going to waste my time.

Except, you just did again...

Over at the Coven it's quiet -- too quiet.

I suspect they've twigged that they are making me the centre of attention.

The mystics are more cunning that I imagined...

Nah, we've just run out of things to say about you. You're not the voluminous topic you think you are.

BTB:

Nah, we've just run out of things to say about you. You're not the voluminous topic you think you are.

We'll see...

But, anyway, you mystics have run out of things to say even about your own 'theory'!

Maybe it is not as 'voluminous a topic' as you seem to think...