The 'Rosa Watch' watch thread

Well, BTB, it seems you are no better at prediction than you are at philosophy, since the Coven has kicked back into life.

Here is Hiero, who has "run out of things to say" about little old me:

Notice how Rosa actually relies on dialectics:

The class war drives social change -- mediated by the inter-play between the forces and relations of production.

She would not explain what this meant. Her defendents gave it a go, and they can only assume. Some say that words like inter-play have been used by Marx, it is possible, in the German Ideaology he uses "intercourse" instead of relations of production.

But basically Rosa's counter theory comes down to replacing words. If we replace mediate with contradiction we are back to Marxist dialectics.

Now, this deeply disturbed mystic has been asked to explain various obscure dialectical theses several times by yours truly, and he repeatedly fails to do so, and yet he demands that I explain something to him.

Naturally, I reminded him that just as soon as he answered my queries, I'd answer his.

So, he sloped off in a huff, and has now appeared in the safe environs of the Coven (where I am not allowed to post) to air his somewhat peevish complaint.

However, once again, we see one of these Hermeticists accuse me of having a 'theory' when the only theory I have is the one he has, Historical Materialism (with the Neo-Platonic and Hegelian theology excised).

Still, the fantasy world most of these coven-dwellers inhabit makes them feel safe, so who am I to awaken them from their dialectically-doped-up stupor?

Nevertheless, this particularly sad 'true believer' has had his higher reasoning faculties so badly damaged by too many years snorting along the correct line that he is quite incapable of thinking outside the box in which his mind seems to be trapped.

There are scores of words in the English language alone that help us depict the complex relation between the forces and relations of production, so we do not need to reach for the incomprehensible jargon Hegel inflicted on humanity.

And good job too, since the Dialectical Holy Books tell us that objects and process change because of a 'struggle' between opposites, and that these opposites turn into one another.

In that case, the forces and relations of production, according to the Dialectical Holy Men/Women, must turn into one another!

Have you ever seen a class relation of ownership and control turn into a factory, power generating system or steel plant? Or vice versa?

I have to admit I haven't.

Could it be that we haven't been paying sufficient attention?

Maybe one has to be dialectically-doped-up to see such Hermetic wonders?

Hiero again:

The other thing is applying dialectics in the metephysical. Such as the stupid examples like a cat dieing. Or the table was as even more stupid. The idea that wood "changes" into a table. The wood is shaped into a table, it's change is quantative. But Rosa doesn't understand this, or has gone too far done this counter-theory track that she can't turn back.

It seems that this world-shattering 'theory' cannot explain why cats die or tables are made.

This is most disturbing, since Lenin assured us that the 'struggle' of opposites explains everything in the entire universe.

Now, this means that either Lenin was wrong (shock, horror!), or cats and tables are not part of the universe!!

Since I am loathe to criticise Lenin's god-like knowledge of the behaviour of every particle in the entire universe, for all of time, I am forced to conclude that your pet cat and the table/desk at which you are sat to read this are not in fact part of this universe.

This is truly ground-breaking news, and workers everywhere should be told.

I can only think that once they hear this, they will be queuing round the block in every city and village on the planet to get their party cards.

I take back everything I have said about the anti-scientific nature of this mystical creed; this discovery rivals anything Darwin or Einstein uncovered.

All hale Hermeticism! Vindicated at last!

Though when asked with the tough question that we have a good dialectical understanding of, such as social revolution she uses dialectics but merely replaces words.

But, there is just as much evidence that these mystics use Zen Buddhism (which is very similar to 'dialectics'), and simply "replace" a few words.

I have never really countered counter-philosophy in any prominante way outside of revleft. Her no nonesence/common sense philosophy was attack by Engels way back in the days of Anti-Dühring.

This is news to me. Perhaps I need a shot of Dialectical Methadone if I am to see where Engels "attack" (sic) my alleged 'theory' -- it's no use asking this sad victim, he does not answer my materialist questions.

Perhaps he is too busy feeding his other-worldy cat? Or building his ethereal table?

Cummanach:

lol @ 'Rosa Watch'. seriously though, it's very frustrating.

It's meant to be. These mystics have screwed around with Marxism for far too long.

PRC:

what hiero's said is interesting. that's true of revleft in a lot of ways. a fair number of tendencies and ideas expressed on here are things I'd never run into in over a decade of being an active socialist, lol.

And this just confirms, yet again, how little thought these Hermeticists give to anything that seems to support their discredited ideas.

Does PRC really think it "interesting" to be informed that cats and tables are not part of the universe, or that class relations turn into transport systems?

Alas, from some of his posts, I fear he does.

Continuing in the tradition whereby I am the centre of mystical attention, Philosophical Materialist has posted this at the Coven (indeed, the few substantive posts that there are there have been about yours truly):

She appears to rely much on the thought of Wittgenstein, notably the concept of putting things in 'everyday' language. Although is approach is somewhat contradicted by her website which isn't accessible to most of the working class.

1) I actually state that any technical terms can be, and often are, capable of being translated into ordinary language.

2) However, even if you are right, the 'theory' I am attacking is incapable of being expressed in ordinary language -- indeed, academic dialectics (or 'systematic dialectics') is pure gobbledygook.

3) The language I end up using is in fact dictated by the language that dialecticians use. If I am to address their ideas, I can hardly refrain from employing terms they themselves choose. If they wrote more clearly, this 'problem' would disappear.

4) But, nowhere do I say this:

notably the concept of putting things in 'everyday' language

and neither does Wittgenstein. What he says, and what I endorse, is the method of unravelling philosophical puzzles (or confusions, as I prefer to call them) by returning the language that traditional philosophers use to the vernacular. Nowhere does he say, and nowhere do I say, that ordinary language is the be all and end all.

Wittgenstein himself was somewhat of a mystic, he found ways of bringing the futile concept of a deity into his investigations as well as ridiculing the materialist concept of the universe. For example, he believed that such things like human consciousness and emotion were due to a non-material "soul" and ironically ridiculed others who sought a materialist explanation for such phenomena as "mystics" and using faulty logic.

I agree with you about Wittgenstein and mysticism, but this is the least interesting aspect of his thought, and certainly the worst. I actually point this out at my site:

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

There is certainly room in revolutionary socialism for those who don't use dialectical logic, but they need to be honest with themselves that Marx was a dialectician and used such methods. Proposing that Marx became anti-dialectical later in his life doesn't match the evidence, and trying to enlist Marx for the purposes of anti-dialectics is a futility.

Of course it 'matches the evidence', as I have repeatedly shown at RevLeft, for example, here:

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

What you need to do is show where I go wrong. Other mystics at this site have tried and miserably failed

I recognise Rosa as intelligent and no doubt sincere in her views and analytical methods, although she may make more headway in using and developing critiques of dialectics from a socialist viewpoint. I've seen her use an anti-dialectic critique from Karl Popper of all people, something that doesn't exactly help her case.

This is not true, and I defy you to show where I have used anything from that charlatan Popper.

Personally, I find Marx's dialectic method as useful for investigation and understanding of various processes. Rosa may have a point that exposition can be flawed unless it's put into terms which the working classes can understand, but then again this is what socialist propaganda is for.

Some dialecticians are mystics and the dialectic in the hands of mystics will be used to come to mystical conclusions, especially if the axioms are based on mysticism. It is the same as other forms of logic, such as deductive logic as widely used in the European Middle Ages, ecclesiastical thinkers come to very logical (but inaccurate) conclusions as their axioms were already based on mystical assumptions.

But, us logicians have cast off the above mystical connections (which are not at all central to logic, and only really applied to certain forms of Aristotelian logic, anyway).

High time you mystics did likewise.

Philosophical Materialist has attempted to produce a rather weak response to the above:

Rosa, you haven't shown that Marx went against dialectics. Marx broke against Hegelian mysticism in establishing his own materialist dialectic. Dialectics weren't exorcised from Capital in fact Marx went to great pains to emphasise that his method was dialectic.

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

Fortunately for us, Marx himself ended all speculation in this regard (that is, he did so for those who are keen to take his word about what he believed and ignore tradition) when he added this to the Preface to Das Kapital:

"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:*

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]

You will note that Marx calls this the 'dialectic method', and 'his method', but it is also clear that it bears no relation to the sort of dialectics you have had forced down your throat, for in it there is not one ounce of Hegel -- no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no totality...

So, Marx's method has had Hegel totally extirpated. For Marx, putting Hegel on 'his feet' is to crush his head. Excising the mystical parts of Hegel thus means that there is nothing left of the sort of dialectics you have been conned into accepting. Once more there is no quantity turning into quality, no contradictions, no negation of the negation, no unities of opposites, no totality, no universal change...

And of the few terms Marx uses of Hegel's in Das Kapital, he tells us this:

"and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him."

So, the 'rational core' of the dialectic has not one atom of Hegel in it, and Marx merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon in Das Kapital.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of this mystical theory.

Hence, Marx's 'dialectic' more closely resembles that of Kant and/or Aristotle.

PM:

The accusations of "mysticism" against dialectical materialists is simple name-calling, as a result of a strawman in which you attribute Hegelian idealist jargon and mysticism to dialectical materialism.

On the contrary, it is no more 'name-calling' than describing a boss as a 'capitalist', since it is fully accurate.

Not one of you can explain this 'theory' of yours in non-mystical terms, which means that it is a mystery to you lot too!

Of course, this is not the least bit surprising since this theory originated in Hermetic and Neo-Platonic mysticism:

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

Had Hegel done the decent thing and died of typhoid 40 years before he finally did, we would not be having this debate, which means of course that your acceptance of 'dialectics' is a quirk of history.

Ok, the Coven-ites are still finding me of more interest than their own 'theory'. Here is Janine Melnitz's weak response:

Yeah I can't tell if Rosa has ever made a decent argument because I find her posts totally unreadable, I never get more than a few sentences in. Maybe she's right! About everything important anyway! I'll never find out, partly because of obvious intellectual dishonesty like a reading of Marx that claims he completely rejected any form of dialectics -- she can't just say with Althusser (who I have time for, even though I'm strongly opposed to a lot of his ideas) that Marx was wrong a lot of the time. The way she employs quotations for this "argument" is so laughably bad, and clearly (if she is as sane as she seems) intentional obfuscation.

So, here we have another comrade who is happy to judge my work without having read it.

Par for the course.

And, as far as my alleged 'unreadability' is concerned, if I am 'unreadable' goodness knows what Hegel, Althusser & co are.

Moreover, since this comrade is not willing to take Marx at his own word about the nature of his method, there is little I can do to help 'him'.

The other reason is that she can't go four sentences without her hateful personality filling up the reader's nostrils. "Mystic," "irrational," "double dog dare you", these are employed as fetishistic catchphrases -- hallmarks of the crank, along with turning every topic to your idee fixe and the haughty self-aggrandizement; her site is like Time Cube minus the schizophrenia. Libertarians are easier to read.

In other words, and like the rest of the mystics at this site, 'he' can't respond to my arguments, but is keen to post several of his own "fetishistic catchphrases" in reply.

To call this pathetic would be to praise it too highly.

So, here we have another comrade who is happy to judge my work without having read it.

What? No. I explicitly said I wasn't judging your work, or at least not its substance. I said this in plain English more than once. I didn't even mention your arguments (except for the obviously ridiculous, not to mention hardly relevant, one about what Marx really truly believed in his heart) except to say I hadn't read them. I certainly didn't pretend to be responding to them, as you are pretending to respond to my post.

And, as far as my alleged 'unreadability' is concerned, if I am 'unreadable' goodness knows what Hegel, Althusser & co are.

Awful bores. And I manage to read them! Hell, I'll take Heidegger over you

'him'.

wtf

In other words, and like the rest of the mystics at this site

...who are educated stupid,

'he' can't respond to my arguments

I'm sure I could! If I were capable of reading them! If, for instance, you employed someone less abhorrent than you (this could literally be anyone else on RevLeft) to, like, summarize them, and then if you marked their posts with seals of approval so I'd know I was responding to the genuine, super-rational article, maybe I'd even be won over!

Sorry JM, I have only just seen your reply.

What? No. I explicitly said I wasn't judging your work, or at least not its substance. I said this in plain English more than once. I didn't even mention your arguments (except for the obviously ridiculous, not to mention hardly relevant, one about what Marx really truly believed in his heart) except to say I hadn't read them. I certainly didn't pretend to be responding to them, as you are pretending to respond to my post.

Except that, as we know now, you too are quite happy to make stuff up about me without having read, on your own admission, beyond the first line of any of my posts.

Awful bores. And I manage to read them! Hell, I'll take Heidegger over you

And that, oddly enough, is good news. I'd hate to think I was responsible in any way for disabusing you of your self-inflicted ignorance.

who are educated stupid

Well if they were "educated stupid", no wonder they fell for all that mystical guff.

I'm sure I could! If I were capable of reading them! If, for instance, you employed someone less abhorrent than you (this could literally be anyone else on RevLeft) to, like, summarize them, and then if you marked their posts with seals of approval so I'd know I was responding to the genuine, super-rational article, maybe I'd even be won over!

Can I suggest therefore that you go back to kindergarden, and re-learn how to read.

What for example is difficult to follow or read in this?

Traditional Thought

In the 'West' since Ancient Greek times traditional thinkers have been imposing their theories on nature (as Cornforth noted -- quoted earlier). In fact, this practice is so widespread and has penetrated into traditional thought so deeply that few notice it, even after it has been pointed out to them. Or, rather, they fail to see its significance.

Now, if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or, rather, a significant section of "opinion formers", minor officials and administrators) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and thus cannot be fought. As is well-known, this tactic has been used for millennia; hence we have Theology and other assorted ruling-class ideologies.

All of these were imposed on reality by those who invented them -- plainly, since they cannot be read from it.

Indeed, this is how Marx depicted things:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, pp.64-65.]

As Marx notes, members of the ruling-class often rely on other layers in society to concoct the ideas they use to try to con the rest of us into accepting their system as 'rational', 'natural', or 'god-ordained'.

In Ancient Greece, with the demise of the rule of Kings and Queens, the old myths and Theogonies were no longer relevant. So, in the newly emerging republics and quasi-democracies of the Sixth Century BC, far more abstract, de-personalised ideas were needed.

Enter Philosophy.

Taken from here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

You may or may not agree with the above, but what exactly is difficult to read?.

difficult to follow or read

Beyond farce. I state as clearly as possible that my problem with you isn't "difficult" language or argument, and this is your response.

Anyway, I'm obviously not going to convince anyone that they're insufferably obnoxious and politically useless by arguing with them, which (along with our spat being off-topic) is why I've abandoned the materialism thread.

PRC-UTE has decided to throw his towering intellect into the battle to defend this embattled 'theory', and with a post so devastating, I hesitate to quote it:

I really think she's a troll. Recently I saw her meltdown over some of BobtheBuilder's comments about a dead analytical Marxist philosopher, during the course of which she demanded administrative action be taken against Bob.

Well, that puts me in my place for pointing out that another CC member and global mod (BTB) finds he can't argue against my ideas, so he has to lie about them. Is there no level to which I won't stoop?

But, this sad character (PRC-UTE) has now taken it upon himself to snipe, troll-like, at my posts -- failing to engage with me, since, coward that he is, he knows the floor will end-up being wiped with him once more -- since he knows he is ill-equipped to take me on.

So, we can look forward to more dyspeptic posts like this over the coming months.

And, it is gratifying to note, once again, that I am still the centre of attention over at the Coven, and that the 'Dialectical Materialism' group is more concerned with little old me than they are with their precious 'theory' -- after over nine months since it was set up, we have yet to see even one substantive post there about this living and vibrant 'theory'!

Apologies once again JM, I have only just seen this:

Beyond farce. I state as clearly as possible that my problem with you isn't "difficult" language or argument, and this is your response.

I see you are pretty good at stating the bleeding obvious. How has RevLeft managed to stumble along all these years without someone like you?

Anyway, I'm obviously not going to convince anyone that they're insufferably obnoxious and politically useless by arguing with them, which (along with our spat being off-topic) is why I've abandoned the materialism thread.

In other words, you were out of your depth, but still can't resist being offensive.

ZeroNoWhere:

Having read the thread... How the hell can one prefer Althusser to Rosa?

Well, this character came here intent on only being objectionable to yours truly, when I had said nothing at all nasty to him.

He assumned that the way I responded to other comrades was unprovoked, and took exception to to my manner, not realising that the way he had responded to me (with unremitting hostility from day one) was in fact the way that these other comrades had also responded to me from the beginning.

What he therefore objects to is is that I defend myself in the same terms -- apparently he expects me to be all sweetness and light no matter how abusive other comrades have been to me over the years. As I note at my site:

For anyone interested, check out the desperate 'debating' tactics used by Dialectical Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

You will no doubt notice that the vast majority all say the same sorts of things, and most of them pepper their remarks with scatological and abusive language. And they all like to make things up, too, about me and my beliefs.

25 years (!!) of this from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now take an aggressive stance with them every time -- I soon learnt back in the 1980s that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did not alter their abusive tone, their propensity to fabricate, nor reduce the amount of scatological language they used.

So, these days, I generally go for the jugular from the get-go.

Apparently, they expect me to take their abuse lying down, and regularly complain about my "bullying" tactics.

These mystics can dish it out, but clearly they cannot take it.

Given the damage their theory has done to Marxism, and the abuse they all dole out, they are lucky this is all I can do to them.

[Why they do this is explained here.]

So, what 'he' objects to is the fact that fight back.

How low will I stoop?

Zero:

Though, to be fair, I'm not sure that one could hold dialectics responsible for all the failures of the Marxist movement, or, hell, for many other than dialectics. Certainly not without justifying this, which I don't recall you doing (you may have, though, which would at the least be interesting).

And, of course, i have never claimed this.

This is in fact what I have said, and many times:

1) It is important to emphasise from the outset that I am not blaming the long-term failure of Dialectical 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.

This is from the opening page of my site, and I repeat it there many times.

Having read the thread... How the hell can one prefer Althusser to Rosa?

Althusser wrote some books about his mainly-wrong ideas. While we have it on record that purely philosophical differences with existing parties didn't lead him to refuse political involvement, maybe if the internet had been around he would've inexhaustibly and unproductively trolled people for "25 years (!!)" and set up a time-cube-esque site filled with creative text formatting and supercilious language about "fibs" etc. Luckily it wasn't, and he didn't, and he remains just barely readable.

What he therefore objects to is is that I defend myself in the same terms

No. I never objected to you being combative or whatever, Christ.

'he'

I'd really like this explained, it's pretty weird.

JM (still stalking yours truly):

While we have it on record that purely philosophical differences with existing parties didn't lead him to refuse political involvement, maybe if the internet had been around he would've inexhaustibly and unproductively trolled people for "25 years (!!)" and set up a time-cube-esque site filled with creative text formatting and supercilious language about "fibs" etc. Luckily it wasn't, and he didn't, and he remains just barely readable.

I see that you are still happy to conclude things about me from a position of total ignorance; my debates with your fellow mystics over the years you happily judge to be 'trolling' when you have absolutely no idea of the circumstances involved.

And I think this latest set of allegations on your part well qualify to be called 'fibs', or worse; but it's reassuring to see you continue in the fine dialectical tradition of not addressing the issues, preferring instead to deflect attention from the fact that you can't defend this 'theory' by indulging in yet more personal attacks.

No. I never objected to you being combative or whatever, Christ.

Indeed you have, which is why you have called me all sorts of names -- 'insufferably obnoxious' being your latest offering.

I'd really like this explained, it's pretty weird.

Why should I explain anything to a vile stalker like you?

Indeed you have, which is why you have called me all sorts of names -- 'insufferably obnoxious' being your latest offering.

"Obnoxious" and "combative" are totally synonyms, good point

Why should I explain anything to a vile stalker like you?

Because you're addressing me, idiot. This, and not "stalking", is also the reason why I respond.

JM (the stalker, slaketh on):

"Obnoxious" and "combative" are totally synonyms, good point

As If I said they were.

Because you're addressing me, idiot. This, and not "stalking", is also the reason why I respond.

Well, as a stalker, you would say this, wouldn't you?

ZeroNoWhere:

Fair enough, but you have, IIRC, associated diamat with failure by naming, for example, the bolshie revolution and so on, which would seem rather misleading.

But misleading only to those who can't read, since I am very careful in what I say.

^^^ I am sorry Zero, but I could not make head or tail of this post of yours.

Ah, I see!

But I fail to see the relevance of dialectics!

The Coven has sparked to life again after a few more weeks of deadly dialectical silence.

But, what new advance in mystical lore has emerged from the in-depth discussions they regularly hold there (that is, as regularly as Halley's Comet comes around), what new gem of dialectical dopery has surfaced in this murky backwater of intellectual suicide?

Yes, you guessed it: more fibs about yours truly (since I, and not this 'theory', it seems, am the centre of attention).

Here are the latest anti-Rosa fabulations from a normally honest comrade (Random Precision -- in this case, more accurately to be called 'Rarely Precise') -- posted at the Coven (where I am not allowed to post), since this 'brave revolutionary' cannot face me in open debate (goodness knows what he will do when the first barricade goes up! Bets are off, but the smart money was not on 'runs away', but on 'wets himself'):

Of course, Rosa believes that Marx was using the word "dialectical" in such passages as jargon, or some sort of an elaborate joke on his readers. She refuses to see anything dialectical in those passages, and puts more stock in things like a misplaced comma, or an endorsement of a book review, then things like this that Marx actually elaborated at length on.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=2434

This extremely near-sighted comrade clearly missed my comment (repeated on many occasions) that the 'dialectical method' in fact is closer to that of Kant and Aristotle (or even the Scottish Historical Materialists).

Moreover, as he would also have seen, had he not missed his last eye check-up, is that the "jargon" I refer to is none other than this:

and even, here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him [Hegel]

Here, in Marx's words, not mine, nor yet those of James Burnham or Max Eastman, we are told in no uncertain terms, what Marx's view is of the opaque terminology Hegel used (which, even to this day, not one of these moaning mystics can explain to us): it is fit only to 'coquette' with.

She refuses to see anything dialectical in those passages, and puts more stock in things like a misplaced comma,

Well, if this eagle-eyed comrade can see anything 'dialectical' (in the traditional sense, not Marx's sense) in this passage, he missed yet another golden opportunity to reveal this well-hidden truth to the rest of us.

From that we may conclude that this is just another rhetorical flourish which these mystics like to parade before one another to keep their flagging morale up -- and nothing more. Otherwise, why not tell the rest of us what these 'dialectical gems' Marx so expertly concealed are?

And the 'misplaced comma' is of course a reference to a comma the official edition of Marx's collected works saw fit to insert in the above passage:

and even, here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him [Hegel]

Here is the defective version:

and even, here and there in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him [Hegel]

So, the most authoritative version of this passage concurs with my interpretation, that is, that Marx was using the chapter on value as an example, not an exhaustive list, of the places where he 'coquetted'.

Any other interpretation of this passage -- i.e., one that limits his 'coquetting' to the chapter on value -- would have to explain why Marx did this only in perhaps the most important section of the book, but in other areas did not 'coquette' with Hegelian terms -- and, what is worse, what the difference is between a 'coquetted' "contradiction" and an non-'coquetted' "contradiction".

[Do not hold your breath on that one comrades, these Dialectical Dunces cannot even tell us what an ordinary 'contradiction' is!]

So, my interpretation not only agrees with this authoritative version of Das Kapital, it does not make Marx look like an inconsistent idiot.

Though for the record, I am on my way through Capital at the moment, and the dialectic is pretty much screamingly obvious on every page. I started reading by writing the concepts of dialectical logic I was seeing in the margins next to where I saw them, but pretty soon I was filling all of the margins up and poking holes through the page so I decided to stop.

Yes, and if you talk to born-again Christians, they can see the "handiwork" of 'god' everywhere, too.

Anyway, it's too bad this myopic mystic failed to note that Marx was, in his own words, 'coquetting' with these 'dialectical' phrases. And no wonder; as is very easy to show, if this 'theory' were true, change would be impossible:

Quotes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=76

Argument:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...1&postcount=77

It must take a very stubborn mind to refuse to see this.

Nice of Rarely Precise to be self-critical here -- albeit, inadvertently.

Looks like the dialectical cadaver is still twitching, and that yours truly is still the centre of attention, for we have this gem from 'Philosophical Materialist':

Indeed. It doesn't matter how much Marx implemented, explained or defended dialectics post-Capital, we are told that when Marx talked dialectic(s) Marx didn't mean dialectic(s) due to some Wittgensteinian sophistry. If the latter interpretation is true then it would mean that Marx was hopelessly confused by the meanings of words.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=2434

1) There is absolutely nothing 'Wittgensteinian' about my arguments, and this numpty cannot even find one quotation from what I have said to support this latest dialectical lie.

2) This plonker can only argue this by ignoring what Marx himself said; so, if anyone is confused it's this clown.