scarletghoul

But, this was covered in my debate with Red Cat. According to Lenin, these should change into one anothet. Do they? I think not.

"And yes, Huey P Newton's work constantly and explicitly emphasises dialectical materialism. From 1970 onwards that is."

No wonder he failed then.

"Have you read Bukharin's Arabesques? It seems pretty cool and I like Bukharin, is it worth reading ? Of course you dont like it but if you were silly enough to believe in dialectics would you recommend it?"

Yes, it's in my list as one of the best, if not the best, on this 'theory' -- that is, the best of the worst.

And, in debates with Red Cat (which you I know you read) and Greymouser, I have tackled "material examples".

"For example, in the USSR, socialism transformed into its opposite, capitalism. This was due to the class contradictions within Russian society, an aspect of which was capitalism (+ of course the external contradictions between ussr and the capitalist powers). When the capitalism became the principal aspect the economy became capitalist. This concrete example is much easier to follow than your ridiculous abstract stuff about P*1 whatever."

I'd like to see you prove this:

"The Manifesto and Origins of the Family are both obviously works of dialectical materialism as they show the dialectical development of material situations."

What 'dialectical development' was this then?

"I tried to read your disproving of Mao's theories but honestly its impossible for me to follow. Its so abstract and involves what seems to be ridiculous jumps in logics as well as a naive misreading of dialectical theory. You should try working with material examples (after all, this is what makes DM DM not just D), it would make things a lot more understandable and i think would help you too."

I have also explained this in everyday terms; but even if I haven't, if you find what I have to say difficult, you stand no chance with Hegel, or with Das Kapital.

Here's what I have posted (at the Anti-Dialectics Group) about your 'epoch-making' list over at the Dialectical Mausoleum:

"Of course, the first does not mention this 'theory' (nor is it based on on it), so what it's doing there is as big a mystery as the 'theory' itself. More or less the same can be said about the second. The two mentioned third are deeply flawed, as Scarletghoul has had pointed out to 'him' already:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=90

I haven't read the fourth, so I'll leave it others to comment on it -- but I'll be surprised if it mentions this 'theory' at all, or shows how it can help understand the subject the book is supposedly about.

Perhaps Scarlet hasn't seen the long list I compiled for the mystics (posted at the Mausoleum by Random Precision two years ago):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?...cussionid=1172 "