Thread: Dialectical Materialism Made Easy

Results 1 to 20 of 90

  1. #1
    Join Date Aug 2008
    Location Canada
    Posts 1,656
    Organisation
    Communist Party Of Canada
    Rep Power 0

    Default Dialectical Materialism Made Easy

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ism/index.html

    I would argue this is not as simply divided out like V.G. Afanasyev's work on the same subject. This is an amazing resource online to understand dialectical materialism.


    I would recommend this beginner level work to all who want to understand the philosophy of Marxism.
  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Charles Xavier For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You have recommended this before, but Afanasyev makes all the usual mistakes, ones you keep ignoring.

    For example:

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

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

    This shows that not only can dialectics not explain change, but that if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible.
  4. #3
    Join Date Oct 2008
    Posts 475
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You have recommended this before, but Afanasyev makes all the usual mistakes, ones you keep ignoring.

    For example:

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

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

    This shows that not only can dialectics not explain change, but that if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible.
    This has already been explained with the wood-table example, but you refuse to acknowledge it. It's been shown that whilst there's no substantial distinction (which is why it appears as if no change has taken place), there's yet a change in forms, utility etc.
  5. #4
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    BenHur:

    This has already been explained with the wood-table example, but you refuse to acknowledge it. It's been shown that whilst there's no substantial distinction (which is why it appears as if no change has taken place), there's yet a change in forms, utility etc.
    Not so, and you know it. [Or, if this were the case, you'd be able to provide the links. Go on, big mouth, where are they....?]

    But, how can the things you say 'struggle' with one another? How can 'utility' make wood change into a table? And how can a 'change in forms' do this?

    Once more, according to the dialectical prophets, all objects and processes change because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and yet they all also change into those opposites.

    So, the wood that is used to make a table, according to this 'theory', has to struggle with what it turns into, that is, this wood has to struggle with the table it turns into!

    In that case, the table must already exist, or it could not 'struggle' with the wood from which it is to be made.

    But, if the table already exists, then the wood cannot be changed into it.

    On the other hand, if the table does not already exist, then the wood cannot 'struggle' with its own opposite, that is, it cannot struggle with the table it has yet to become.

    Either way, change could not happen, according to this 'theory'.

    Now, I have backed this up with lengthy quotations from the dialectical Holy Books, and with a detailed and general argument. The above is just a particular, concrete example.

    Other than wave your arms about, you, smarty pants, have yet to show where I go wrong.

    And, we all know why that is: you have great difficulty with an argument that is more than a few sentences long, having an attention span less than that of a nervous cat...
  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date Aug 2008
    Location Canada
    Posts 1,656
    Organisation
    Communist Party Of Canada
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    can you please stop hijacking every thread on your posts in other threads?
  8. #6
    Join Date Feb 2007
    Location Melbourne
    Posts 5,716
    Organisation
    CWI
    Rep Power 44

    Default

    She has every right to provide counter-evidence toward such a claim.
    "The sun shines. To hell with everything else!" - Stephen Fry

    "As the world of the spectacle extends its reign it approaches the climax of its offensive, provoking new resistances everywhere. These resistances are very little known precisely because the reigning spectacle is designed to present an omnipresent hypnotic image of unanimous submission. But they do exist and are spreading.", The Bad Days Will End.


    "(The) working class exists and struggles in all countries, and has the same enemies in all countries – the police, the army, the unions, nationalism, and the fake ‘socialism’ of the bourgeois left. It shows that the conditions for a worldwide revolution are ripening everywhere today. It shows that workers and revolutionaries are not passive spectators of inter-imperialist conflicts: they have a camp to choose, the camp of the proletarian struggle against all the factions of the bourgeoisie and all imperialisms." -ICC, Nation or Class?
  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bilan For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Join Date Aug 2008
    Location Canada
    Posts 1,656
    Organisation
    Communist Party Of Canada
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    But instead of concrete criticism of the work at hand writen by the author. What occurs is spamming their links to their bankrupt theory.
  11. #8
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    TA II:

    can you please stop hijacking every thread on your posts in other threads?
    1) Nope.

    2) This is a public forum; you post on dialectics, I will demolish it.

    3) You dialectical pussies have your own, secluded coven where you can post nice, safe, comforting words for each other's delectation, where I cannot go. If you want to practice 'safe dialectics', use that electronic prophylactic.

    What occurs is spamming their links to their bankrupt theory.
    These are links to RevLeft pages that demolish your 'theory', to which you never respond, because, if you are honest (heh, some hope!), you can't.

    And I do not have a 'theory', nor do I want one.
  12. #9
    Join Date Oct 2008
    Posts 475
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    BenHur:



    Not so, and you know it. [Or, if this were the case, you'd be able to provide the links. Go on, big mouth, where are they....?]
    Use the search facility to find out. I am not going to do the homework for you.

    So, the wood that is used to make a table, according to this 'theory', has to struggle with what it turns into, that is, this wood has to struggle with the table it turns into!

    In that case, the table must already exist, or it could not 'struggle' with the wood from which it is to be made.
    First of all, tell me whether you consider wood to be any different from the table. If so, why? If not, why not? Then you can better understand this example. Until then, I am not gonna waste time.

    And, we all know why that is: you have great difficulty with an argument that is more than a few sentences long, having an attention span less than that of a nervous cat...
    If a few sentences can prove one's point, why bother writing 100000-word gibberish as some people do (you know who, don't you)?
  13. #10
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    BenHur:

    Use the search facility to find out. I am not going to do the homework for you.
    You made the claim; back it up or withdraw it.

    First of all, tell me whether you consider wood to be any different from the table. If so, why? If not, why not? Then you can better understand this example. Until then, I am not gonna waste time.
    Tables consist of wood, nails and glue, so yes.

    But, let's make it easy for you:

    Let the wood before it was made into a table be W; let the dialectical opposite of that wood be W*; let the table that is made out of W be T

    Since W turns into T, W* and T must be one and the same.

    But, according to the Dialectical Magi, things/processes change as a result of a 'struggle' with their dialectical opposite, and they all change into that opposite.

    So, W must 'struggle' with T. In other words, that table must exist before it exists!

    On the other hand, if T did not already exist, W could not 'struggle' with it.

    So, either tables have always existed (or the wood they are made out of could not become a table, since it would have nothing with which it could 'struggle'), or wood cannot change into the tables they become, because those tables already exist!

    Either way, change could not happen, at least here.

    [The general proof shows it cannot occur anywhere, if dialectics were true.]

    Now, it matters not whether T is different from, or the same as W, since W can only change into T if it 'struggles' with it.

    So, T has to exist alongside W.

    You keep ignoring this crazy consequence of your 'theory'.

    In your unenviable position, I'd do the same.

    If a few sentences can prove one's point, why bother writing 100000-word gibberish as some people do (you know who, don't you)?
    Yes, and 130 years ago, I can just imagine a numpty like you arguing thus:

    If it is possible to summarise marxist economics in a few pages, then why, Herr Marx, did you write millions of words of gibberish trying to prove the point?
    In fact, on this one point about change, if you ignore the 1000s of words I published at my site consisiting of long and detailed quotations from the Dialectical Gospels, my argument only stretches acrosss a few hundred words.

    So, you can't even get this right!

    The rest of my site is devoted to exposing the many, many other fatal weaknesses of your 'theory'.

    No wonder you have to bad-mouth my work (without having read it)...
  14. #11
    Join Date Aug 2008
    Location Canada
    Posts 1,656
    Organisation
    Communist Party Of Canada
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Rosa,

    10000 words of gibberish are just as good as 1 word of gibberish.
  15. #12
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    TAII:

    10000 words of gibberish are just as good as 1 word of gibberish.
    Never mind; let's hear what you have to say anyway...
  16. #13
    Join Date Aug 2008
    Location Canada
    Posts 1,656
    Organisation
    Communist Party Of Canada
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    If anyone wants to learn about Dialectical Materialism we have a group called Dialectical Materialism.
  17. #14
    Join Date Sep 2008
    Location KKKanada
    Posts 2,343
    Organisation
    My local socialist club
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    If anyone wants to learn about Dialectical Materialism we have a group called Dialectical Materialism.
    Good. That should be helpful for people like me.
    Economic Left/Right: -9.00
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
    "There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin

  18. #15
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    TAII

    If anyone wants to learn about Dialectical Materialism we have a group called Dialectical Materialism.
    Where not much happens.
  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  20. #16
    Join Date Jul 2004
    Location Commie Under Nazi Thought
    Posts 4,046
    Organisation
    Irish Republican Socialist Party
    Rep Power 32

    Default

    Good. That should be helpful for people like me.
    Please do join us there
    '...the proletariat, not wishing to be treated as a canaille, needs its courage, its self-esteem, its pride, and its sense of independence more than its bread.' Marx
    ...★
    ★...★
    ........★....★
    ..........★..★ Starry Plough Magazine

    'From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage workers' - Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

    Stop Killer Coke
  21. #17
    Freelance revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Location Au$tralia
    Posts 4,334
    Organisation
    ASU
    Rep Power 37

    Default

    When dialectical materialism is applied on a metaphysical level as Rosa has done, then it does not make sense.

    When applied to concrete examples it does make sense.

    Which is why Rosa always makes up own example and her own definition of change.
    The spiritual atom bomb which the revolutionary people possess is a far more powerful and useful weapon than the physical atom bomb. - Lin Biao

    Our code of morals is our revolution. What saves our revolution, what helps our revolution, what protects our revolution is right, is very right and very honourable and very noble and very beautiful, because our revolution means justice

    - Dr. George Habash, founder of the PFLP.


  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hiero For This Useful Post:


  23. #18
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hiero:

    When dialectical materialism is applied on a metaphysical level as Rosa has done, then it does not make sense.

    When applied to concrete examples it does make sense.
    On the contrary, as I have shown, this 'theory' cannot even account for change in cats, tables or boiling water:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=29

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...31&postcount=4

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

    Which is why Rosa always makes up own example and her own definition of change.
    In fact, as the quotations I have appended show, I have used the 'definition' of change found in Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and several others.

    There we are told that every object and process changes because of a 'struggle of opposites', and that they all inevitably turn into their opposites.

    But, if that opposite already exists, an object/process cannot change into it. If that opposite does not already exist, an object/process cannot 'struggle'with it.

    Either way, according to this 'wondefull' theory of change, change cannot actually happen.

    Here are those quotations:

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

    And still, after all your bluster, you cannot show where my argument goes wrong, you just make up spurious excuses.
  24. #19
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    PRC:

    Please do join us there
    And end up discussing zippo...
  25. #20
    Join Date Aug 2008
    Location Canada
    Posts 1,656
    Organisation
    Communist Party Of Canada
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Rosa isn't making an sense and has to turn every discussion into some metaphysical one.

    What everyone should do is come join Dialectical Materialism group so you can discuss dialectical materialism without having to read spam where someone is posting a bunch of links to their hair brain argument.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 16th July 2008, 18:11
  2. Dialectical Materialism
    By LtnMarxist in forum Theory
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 28th November 2005, 04:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread