Thread: Mao Zedong

Results 101 to 120 of 667

  1. #101
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    First let us define a system properly. I understand exactly which point you are questioning. But if we see it that way, it is not a dynamic process. We are just discovering a relation between a number and whatever it is mapped to. This means that the relations existed irrelevant of whether we discovered it or not. Now, the whole thing so far being an abstraction, completely static systems are possible. So it is not really a dynamic process.
    You sound like a Platonist when you say things like this:

    This means that the relations existed irrelevant of whether we discovered it or not.
    And where exactly do these 'relations' exist?

    Now, the whole thing so far being an abstraction, completely static systems are possible.
    And what are they 'abstractions' from, and who did the 'abstracting'?

    So it is not really a dynamic process.
    I agree, but you seemed to think that numbers can change. Are you now back-tracking from that rash claim?

    I mean that let us not debate on why contradictions are not called tautologies.
    But, then why call the things you do 'contradictions' to begin with? In fact, you have no more reason to call then this that you have for calling them "tautologies" or even "bananas".

    But, we already know why you call them this -- you just copy the idea of one another, without giving it any thought at all, and the dialectical classicists did the same; they copied this word off Hegel (who invented this word when he confused the negative form of the 'law of identity' with the 'law of non-contradiction').

    So, this is just a catalogue of errors from start to finish. No wonder this 'theory' falls at the first hurdle, and that it has presided over 100+ years of the almost total failure of Dialectical Marxism.

    You just posted a smiley the last time I said this, so I can only assume you have no answer to it.

    I was referring to the achievements of the Indian Maoists so far. But since you demand an in-depth study of the whole of the Indian proletariat, you give me the right to demand the same concerning the proletariat of revolutionary China which would prove that they held that the CPC collaborated with the GMD against their interests.
    I know, but you made claims about what every worker in India knows.

    You from earlier:

    And as for class collaborasionism, what the class collaborationists have achieved in India is enough to make the Indian proletariat laugh at you if you attempt to explain your "communist" theories to them.
    So, where is your evidence that the entire proletariat of India is laughing at me? [Does even a single Indian worker know about me?]

    If you do not have any, perhaps you will now withdraw this slur?

    You are just taking advantage of some linguistic ambiguities which are too easy to resolve. It is too obvious that Lenin and Mao exactly meant what I mean by "struggle" and "opposites turn into one another". These guys actually fought for communism, and if they really thought that it would reverse back into capitalism, then they wouldn't. So please stop twisting the meanings of simple things.
    As I predicted, you are now just skim-reading whole sections of my posts and making bland comments. You are not even attempting to engage with what I say or even read Lenin and Mao carefully.

    What is 'ambiguous' about this:

    "The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

    "The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961) Volume 38, pp.357-58.]
    Lenin here tells us that everything in the entire universe, and that includes tables and piles of dust, changes because if a "struggle" of opposites, which contradicts what you alleged (that tables do not 'struggle'', they just 'develop'), as part of your 'on the hoof' revisionist 'theory'. Lenin even says this is an "absolute" and yet you seem to think it is "ambiguous". How much more emphatic could he have been?

    So, you just allege this:

    It is too obvious that Lenin and Mao exactly meant what I mean by "struggle" and "opposites turn into one another".
    But you do not re-interpret the word "struggle" (Lenin's non-negotiable "absolute") you eliminate it, and replace it with a bald "transform". Why do you think Lenin called this an "absolute" if he really meant it wasn't, according to you?

    On your 'theory' things just develop, they do not do so as a result of their "internal contradictions", not as a result of "struggle".

    It seems then that the only way you can rescue this 'theory' from absurdity is to ignore what both Lenin and Mao said!

    With defenders like you, they'd be better of with no defenders.

    Finally, how do you know that Lenin meant what you say he means?

    Do you have a single quotation from him (or Mao) that says you can re-interpret "struggle" so that the word disappears?

    If so, let's see it.

    [What's the betting that Red Cat ignores this, too!]

    These guys actually fought for communism, and if they really thought that it would reverse back into capitalism, then they wouldn't. So please stop twisting the meanings of simple things.
    But, it is you that finds you have to ignore what these two actually said, not me. I'm sticking to the letter of what they say, and what they say has absurd consequences.

    This just underlines what I said in my last post (with the relevant sections emphasised in bold):

    Well, what in fact happens is the same as is happening here; they (and you) have given this 'theory' of yours very little thought, even though you all naively swallowed it. When confronted with its absurd consequences, as you have been here, you have to think on the hoof, and come up with the sort of revisionist, ad hoc, repairs we have seen you try to pull above, all the while ignoring what Engels, Lenin, and Mao actually said.

    You skim-read their work, and you do the same to my posts -- and then decide to ignore what you do not like or cannot answer, hoping I'll go away. [My 12,000+ posts (in four years) should tell you that I won't.]
    And you are continuing to do it, as I predicted you would. In fact, I wrote this several years ago at my site:

    When confronted with such allegations, dialecticians with whom I have 'debated' this have tended to respond in one or more of the following ways:

    (1) They deny these authors meant what they said (or they did not even say it!).

    (2) They argue that these quotations are not representative.

    (3) They claim that the author in question mis-spoke, or made an error.
    I also alleged earlier that you defend the dialectical classics as if they were gospel truth, just like Christian fundamentalists defend the Bible -- except they do not also ignore what their Bible says in doing this. You do.

    And as far as this is concerned:

    These guys actually fought for communism, and if they really thought that it would reverse back into capitalism, then they wouldn't.
    Well, they shouldn't have promoted an unworkable ruling-class theory (lifted from that ruling-class hack, Hegel) that implies that socialism must turn into its opposite, capitalism, should they?

    And you shouldn't be defending it, either.

    Should you?

    Oh yes, I know that you have made so many posts in four years and it is really a credit being that patient. But I don't want you to go away; I just want you to realize that your "demolition of dialectics" is meaningless.
    And yet you are struggling to defend the indefensible.

    Your 'defence' amounts to removing (with no textual support) a key element in Lenin's and Mao's theory, which is that "struggle" does not mean "struggle", it means "no struggle at all".

    This is about as lame as defending, say, Darwin by claiming he meant "no selection at all " when he referred to "natural selection", and they rounding on those who point to the many places in his work where he specifically talks about natural selection, with the response that Darwin was using "ambiguous" language!

    I'd hang my head in shame if I were to come up with such a dishonourable 'defence'.

    And so should you.

    That you are assuming something that dialecticians did not mean.
    And, we already know what you mean by this: "Ignore what Lenin and/or Mao actually say, and substitute for it the exact opposite of what they did say, without any textual support for this revision, and then accuse anyone (who rejects this) of unspecified assumptions which you refuse to detail".

    So, what are these "assumptions"?

    Can we see the passages from the dialectical classics that support what you have to say, or which substantiate your revisionist interpretation of some very clear words?

    [What's the betting Red Cat ignores this too?]

    I really am not interested. A thousand more theories will, and are popping up which claim to negate MLM. What I need to see before I am interested in them is a single organization that upholds some such theory and has taken a single step towards revolution by conducting armed struggle.
    And what 'theory' is this? I have already told you I do not have one, and do not want one. Looks like it is you who is now making "assumptions"!

    You asked this:

    But your analyses and generalizations are wrong. That is why it is better to consider examples from the real world.
    I offered you some "real world" examples, and you now feign lack of interest. So, you are not interested in:

    examples from the real world.
    after all!

    If so, why not just admit it, and stop the pretence that you are interested in practice as opposed to abstract 'theory'?

    Or, are you just scared of what you might find?

    Again, as I noted above:

    Well, what in fact happens is the same as is happening here; they (and you) have given this 'theory' of yours very little thought, even though you all naively swallowed it. When confronted with its absurd consequences, as you have been here, you have to think on the hoof, and come up with the sort of revisionist, ad hoc, repairs we have seen you try to pull above, all the while ignoring what Engels, Lenin, and Mao actually said.

    You skim-read their work, and you do the same to my posts -- and then decide to ignore what you do not like or cannot answer, hoping I'll go away. [My 12,000+ posts (in four years) should tell you that I won't.]
    The truth us that you haven't given this 'theory' of yours any thought at all, and are now panicking.
  2. #102
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Because I subordinate other sources to revolutionary sources.
    Same here. They are just different 'sources'.

    Mine, however, do not depend on an unworkable 'theory' you have to alter in order to defend.
  3. #103
    Join Date Oct 2009
    Location Louisville KY
    Posts 894
    Organisation
    Socialist Action
    Rep Power 11

    Default

    Was Mao a true communist?
    As I understood it, Mao never even read any of Marx's works until the sixties, so most of his rule as a "communist" was spent with basically no knowledge of Marxism.
    "It is not enough to possess the sword, one must give it an edge it is not enough to give the sword an edge, one must know how to wield it."-L. Trotsky
  4. #104
    Join Date Nov 2008
    Location Norfolk, England
    Posts 3,128
    Organisation
    Peoples' Front of Judea (Marxist-Leninist)
    Rep Power 72

    Default

    That's idiotic and completely untrue. It's well documented that Mao had been reading Marxist literature since the beginning of the Communist movement in China. Any biography will confirm this.
    I'm assuming you've never read any of Mao's work either, because it shows clearly that he's read Marx n Lenin
    COMMUNISM !

    Formerly zenga zenga !
  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to scarletghoul For This Useful Post:


  6. #105
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scarlet

    That's idiotic and completely untrue. It's well documented that Mao had been reading Marxist literature since the beginning of the Communist movement in China. Any biography will confirm this.
    I'm assuming you've never read any of Mao's work either, because it shows clearly that he's read Marx n Lenin
    He plainly ignored this comment of Marx's:

    The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves
    But not the red army, or third world guerillas...
  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  8. #106
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Quote:
    Generally we specify the domain and range of a function when we study it. Hence the notion of a set.
    Yes, I am fully aware of this; I am a mathematician, after all; what I question is what this has to do with your claim that numbers change.

    Quote:
    You need to relate it with the physical world. That way pure mathematical calculations become related with our brains, and the corresponding changes need to be taken into account.
    Maybe so, but what has this got to do with whether numbers can change?

    Quote:
    The reason why I gave that particular example was to point out that contradiction might take place within the processes that lead to the mutually exclusive processes. So, the pre conditions for the emergence of a process that cannot occur simultaneously with the present one, may lie in the present process itself.
    Again, this is no help at all, since if these 'processes' are "mutually exclusive" they cannot co-exist, and so cannot 'struggle' with one another -- and hence cannot 'contradict' one another. On the other hand, if they do co-exist, if they are locked in 'struggle', then they cannot be "mutually exclusive".

    And if theses 'contradictions' "take place within the processes that lead to the mutually exclusive processes", as you claim, then these 'contradictions' themselves cannot be "mutually exclusive", as you had originally alleged.

    Now, in response to this post of mine:

    Quote:
    Red Cat:

    Quote:
    Spare them at this point at least.
    Me:

    Quote:
    I'm sorry, what does this mean?

    You reply:

    Quote:
    Nomenclature is to trivial a topic in this case to be debated.
    But, were is the "nomenclature" in what you said?

    Here it is again:

    Quote:
    Spare them at this point at least.
    Again, what does this (which contains no "nomenclature) mean?

    Quote:
    The other is that the history of China has been grossly falsified by counter-revolutionaries.
    You sound like a 'true believer', with whom it is pointless to debate.

    However, the substitutionism of the CCP is not open to debate; and this was 'justified' by the use of dialectics.

    Quote:
    Please visit the relevant threads and see for yourself.
    Ok, which threads here, or anywhere else for that matter, contain the results of the in-depth survey of what every worker in India thinks? All 500 or so million of them! Kindly post the links, and, if you are correct, I will withdraw what I have said, and apologise profusely.

    Go on, put the link where your mouth is.

    I double-dog dare you...

    Quote:
    Not at all. Note that in the examples of semi-colonies and imperialism, the term "opposites" does not refer to mutually exclusive processes anymore. It refers to the contradictions within the processes in the sense that they will give rise to something which exhibits the mutual exclusiveness property along with the present process.
    But, even if this is were so, according to Mao, these must turn into one another. So, for example, anti-imperialists must turn into imperialists, and imperialists must turn into anti-imperialists, and so on.

    Quote:
    And it is not that just because socialism and capitalism can turn into each other that socialism will always turn into capitalism.
    But, this is not what Mao says; he tells us that everything (not most things, but everything) turns into its opposite. This implies that socialism must turn into capitalism. Unless, of course, (shock" horror!") Mao was wrong. He could be; he wasn't a 'god'.

    Quote:
    "Struggle" does not refer to dust-guerrilleros fighting the wood-army. It merely refers to the state where dust transforms into wood (with infinitesimal probability) and vice-versa.
    So, Mao and Lenin were wrong when they said this 'struggle of opposites' is an 'absolute'. On your revisionist theory (you will get pilloried for this! I'd keep this quiet, or it's off to the gulag for you!), there is no 'struggle' here, just a bland 'transformation', with nothing to bring it about.

    Here is Mao:

    Quote:
    "The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without 'above', there would be no 'below').... Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants, there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semicolonies, there would be no imperialist oppression of nations. It is so with all opposites; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other, and on the other they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating and interdependent, and this character is described as identity. In given conditions, all contradictory aspects possess the character of non-identity and hence are described as being in contradiction. But they also possess the character of identity and hence are interconnected. This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics studies 'how opposites can be ... identical'. How then can they be identical? Because each is the condition for the other's existence. This is the first meaning of identity.

    "But is it enough to say merely that each of the contradictory aspects is the condition for the other's existence, that there is identity between them and that consequently they can coexist in a single entity? No, it is not. The matter does not end with their dependence on each other for their existence; what is more important is their transformation into each other. That is to say, in given conditions, each of the contradictory aspects within a thing transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction.

    "The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

    "All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

    "As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

    "The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end.... [Ibid., pp.311-18.]
    Mao is just as clear as Lenin was: all development is a 'struggle of opposites':

    Quote:
    "The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

    "The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961) Volume 38, pp.357-58.]
    So, either you are right, or Lenin and Mao are wrong.

    Anyway, given your revisionist theory, how do we know that there is a 'struggle' going on anywhere else? If things can just change, with no 'contradictions' bringing this about, then perhaps this can happen everywhere too? How can you rule this out except by dogmatic assertion?

    Quote:
    No offence meant, but I would suspect something different from what you are suspecting.
    Well, what in fact happens is the same as is happening here; they (and you) have given this 'theory' of yours very little thought, even though you all naively swallowed it. When confronted with its absurd consequences, as you have been here, you have to think on the hoof, and come up with the sort of revisionist, ad hoc, repairs we have seen you try to pull above, all the while ignoring what Engels, Lenin, and Mao actually said.

    You skim-read their work, and you do the same to my posts -- and then decide to ignore what you do not like or cannot answer, hoping I'll go away. [My 12,000+ posts (in four years) should tell you that I won't.]

    And, I predict you will continue to do this, since there is no answer to my objections. So, you just ignore stuff you can't answer.

    Quote:
    But your analyses and generalizations are wrong. That is why it is better to consider examples from the real world.
    And yet, you can't show where I go wrong.

    You will find plenty of real world examples here:

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

    Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to go to these sections:

    Quote:
    (7) Case Studies

    (a) Dialectics Compromises Communism

    (b) Dialectics Messes With Maoism

    (c) Dialectics Traduces Trotskyism

    __________________
    I'll answer your questions pointwise.

    1)While working with number-system, I associate them with more realistic models, for example the Argand plane, rather than thinking of them as a set of static axioms and definitions. A translation of the real line, hence, I believe to be the real line moving on to a different position. This way, numbers do change. I view them as belonging to dynamic processes.

    2) People working with a theory are allowed the liberty to name the things they discover at their will. However, here the terms like "contradiction" are used probably because the most important application of this theory is to defeat the bourgeoisie in class struggle, and it involves the study of social phenomena in which two classes oppose each other, visibly and often violently.

    3) What are you basing your claims concerning the "class collaborationist" character of CPC on? Is it not based on what the Chinese proletariat thought? Was the Chinese working-class so naive that they couldn't comprehend through their daily-experience what your comrades seem to have deduced, perhaps sitting miles away? Until you withdraw your counter-revolutionary allegations against the CPC, don't think that I will reconsider even for a moment what I have posted.

    4)You are basing your claims only on a linguistic ambiguity by dialecticians, whereas what they meant is very clear from their practice. The "demolition" of a theory cannot be based on this. Again and again you try to twist words and try to prove that you have done something great. And we don't need Mao or Lenin to define the meaning of every common word that they used. It is assumed that the reader will work them out by applying common-sense.

    5) "An unworkable ruling-class theory", "socialism must turn into its opposite, capitalism"...really nice. You twist the meanings until they contradict the theory itself, then you proceed to negate them. At this point, anyone can work out this little trick of yours.

    6)Please point out which real-world examples of yours I did not negate?
    In John's case, you defined things inconsistently. In the wood-table and steam-water ones, you stated that rate of forward and backward changes must be equal, twisted the meaning of struggle, and you actually were mocking MLM due to this pathetic fallacy of yours!
    Last edited by red cat; 12th November 2009 at 19:39.
  9. #107
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:



    Same here. They are just different 'sources'.
    Only the "revolutionary" part is missing.

    Mine, however, do not depend on an unworkable 'theory' you have to alter in order to defend.
  10. #108
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scarlet

    Quote:
    That's idiotic and completely untrue. It's well documented that Mao had been reading Marxist literature since the beginning of the Communist movement in China. Any biography will confirm this.
    I'm assuming you've never read any of Mao's work either, because it shows clearly that he's read Marx n Lenin
    He plainly ignored this comment of Marx's:

    Quote:
    The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves
    But not the red army, or third world guerillas...
    Right! One fine morning the workers will spontaneously march on factories and government headquarters with bouquets of flowers in their hands and kiss the bourgeoisie into giving up power. Sweet.
  11. #109
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    1)While working with number-system, I associate them with more realistic models, for example the Argand plane, rather than thinking of them as a set of static axioms and definitions. A translation of the real line, hence, I believe to be the real line moving on to a different position. This way, numbers do change. I view them as belonging to dynamic processes.
    If the numbers change then no one would be able to use those numbers ever again. You do not seriously think that the number 5, the one you used in an earlier post, actually changes do you?

    Once more: look there it is still on the page.

    And, the real line moves nowhere either -- otherwise others would not be able to find it again.

    People working with a theory are allowed the liberty to name the things they discover at their will. However, here the terms like "contradiction" are used probably because the most important application of this theory is to defeat the bourgeoisie in class struggle, and it involves the study of social phenomena in which two classes oppose each other, visibly and often violently.
    Indeed, but would you be inclined to accept a supporter of capitalism re-defining it as "stable, just and fait to all"? I think not.

    But, as I pointed out to you before, we already know why Dialectical Marxists use this word: they pinched it from Hegel, who screwed up the logic involved. So, this wasn't a free choice of will, as you suggest, but a nod in the direction of tradition, and this was a philosophical tradition that the working class and peasantry had no part in building. It was a ruling-class, mystical tradition of the worst possible kind. That's where this word came from. So what the hell is it doing in the workers movement?

    I have outlined Hegel's crass errors here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=30

    What are you basing your claims concerning the "class collaborationist" character of CPC on? Is it not based on what the Chinese proletariat thought? Was the Chinese working-class so naive that they couldn't comprehend through their daily-experience what your comrades seem to have deduced, perhaps sitting miles away? Until you withdraw your counter-revolutionary allegations against the CPC, don't think that I will reconsider even for a moment what I have posted.
    You can find this material at my site, here:

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

    Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to go to these sections:

    (7) Case Studies

    (a) Dialectics Compromises Communism

    (b) Dialectics Messes With Maoism

    (c) Dialectics Traduces Trotskyism

    But, you refuse to read it. So, stay ignorant.

    You are basing your claims only on a linguistic ambiguity by dialecticians, whereas what they meant is very clear from their practice. The "demolition" of a theory cannot be based on this. Again and again you try to twist words and try to prove that you have done something great. And we don't need Mao or Lenin to define the meaning of every common word that they used. It is assumed that the reader will work them out by applying common-sense.
    And how do you know that the words Lenin used (about a principle he declared was an "absolute" -- odd that he'd use ambiguous words in relation to an "absolute", isn't it?) were "ambiguous".

    I asked you to produce this textual evidence from Lenin or Mao (or any other dialectical classicist) that supports you claim that they are using these words "ambiguously".

    So, where is it?

    [As I predicted, comrades, Red Cat ignored this request. No surprise there then! And she/he'll keep ignoring it, too]

    And far from "twisting" their words, all I have done is quote them and taken them at their face value. It is you who wants to convince us that these comrades meant the exact opposite of what they said.

    And this is because you are panicking, and want to avoid the absurd consequences of this loopy theory of yours.

    I'd do the same if I were in the hole you are in.

    "An unworkable ruling-class theory", "socialism must turn into its opposite, capitalism"...really nice. You twist the meanings until they contradict the theory itself, then you proceed to negate them. At this point, anyone can work out this little trick of yours.
    Once more, it was Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao who all told us (and many times over, calling this an "absolute") that everything turns into its opposite, not me. So, on that basis socialism must turn into capitalism.

    Odd then that they all said the opposite of what you claim they 'really meant' -- which revisionist interpretation of yours you cannot support with a single passage from any of these theorists -- truly odd.

    Wonder why that is...?

    So, until you can come up with such a quotation from the dialectical gospels, the only conclusion possible is that it's you who refuses to face up to the absurd consequences of this unworkable ruling-class theory, not me.

    Please point out which real-world examples of yours I did not negate?
    Who said anything about "negating" them? You just ignored them -- link above; go ignore them some more.

    [QUOTE]In John's case, you defined things inconsistently. In the wood-table and steam-water ones, you were completely ignorant of the fact that reverse processes can occur, and you actually were mocking MLM due to this pathetic ignorance of yours![?QUOTE]

    Please point out exactly what these alleged "inconsistencies" are.

    [The fact that you haven't done so suggests you are now clutching at straws. Prove me wrong by itemising these "inconsistencies".]

    [What's the betting that Red Cat ignores this, too!]

    And I specifically allowed for 'reverse processes'.

    You're skim-reading again!

    As I have pointed out several times: you are only doing this because you can't cope with what I actually say, so you are just making stuff up as you go along, preferring to argue with a figment of your own imagination, rather than confront my actual words.

    This is not surprising, either: in relation to this theory, you do the same to Lenin and Mao!
  12. #110
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Only the "revolutionary" part is missing.
    Good of you to admit this of your own sources!

    [If you can deliberately mis-read me, I can do the same, surely, to you!]

    One fine morning the workers will spontaneously march on factories and government headquarters with bouquets of flowers in their hands and kiss the bourgeoisie into giving up power. Sweet.
    This comment shows you have absolutely no comprehension of Marxism or Leninism.

    I blame dialectics...
  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  14. #111
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Quote:
    1)While working with number-system, I associate them with more realistic models, for example the Argand plane, rather than thinking of them as a set of static axioms and definitions. A translation of the real line, hence, I believe to be the real line moving on to a different position. This way, numbers do change. I view them as belonging to dynamic processes.
    If the numbers change then no one would be able to use those numbers ever again. You do not seriously think that the number 5, the one you used in an earlier post, actually changes do you?

    Once more: look there it is still on the page.

    And, the real line moves nowhere either -- otherwise others would not be able to find it again.

    Quote:
    People working with a theory are allowed the liberty to name the things they discover at their will. However, here the terms like "contradiction" are used probably because the most important application of this theory is to defeat the bourgeoisie in class struggle, and it involves the study of social phenomena in which two classes oppose each other, visibly and often violently.
    Indeed, but would you be inclined to accept a supporter of capitalism re-defining it as "stable, just and fait to all"? I think not.

    But, as I pointed out to you before, we already know why Dialectical Marxists use this word: they pinched it from Hegel, who screwed up the logic involved. So, this wasn't a free choice of will, as you suggest, but a nod in the direction of tradition, and this was a philosophical tradition that the working class and peasantry had no part in building. It was a ruling-class, mystical tradition of the worst possible kind. That's where this word came from. So what the hell is it doing in the workers movement?

    I have outlined Hegel's crass errors here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=30

    Quote:
    What are you basing your claims concerning the "class collaborationist" character of CPC on? Is it not based on what the Chinese proletariat thought? Was the Chinese working-class so naive that they couldn't comprehend through their daily-experience what your comrades seem to have deduced, perhaps sitting miles away? Until you withdraw your counter-revolutionary allegations against the CPC, don't think that I will reconsider even for a moment what I have posted.
    You can find this material at my site, here:

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm

    Use the 'Quick Links' at the top to go to these sections:

    (7) Case Studies

    (a) Dialectics Compromises Communism

    (b) Dialectics Messes With Maoism

    (c) Dialectics Traduces Trotskyism

    But, you refuse to read it. So, stay ignorant.

    You are basing your claims only on a linguistic ambiguity by dialecticians, whereas what they meant is very clear from their practice. The "demolition" of a theory cannot be based on this. Again and again you try to twist words and try to prove that you have done something great. And we don't need Mao or Lenin to define the meaning of every common word that they used. It is assumed that the reader will work them out by applying common-sense.
    And how do you know that the words Lenin used (about a principle he declared was an "absolute" -- odd that he'd use ambiguous words in relation to an "absolute", isn't it?) were "ambiguous".

    I asked you to produce this textual evidence from Lenin or Mao (or any other dialectical classicist) that supports you claim that they are using these words "ambiguously".

    So, where is it?

    [As I predicted, comrades, Red Cat ignored this request. No surprise there then! And she/he'll keep ignoring it, too]

    And far from "twisting" their words, all I have done is quote them and taken them at their face value. It is you who wants to convince us that these comrades meant the exact opposite of what they said.

    And this is because you are panicking, and want to avoid the absurd consequences of this loopy theory of yours.

    I'd do the same if I were in the hole you are in.

    Quote:
    "An unworkable ruling-class theory", "socialism must turn into its opposite, capitalism"...really nice. You twist the meanings until they contradict the theory itself, then you proceed to negate them. At this point, anyone can work out this little trick of yours.
    Once more, it was Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao who all told us (and many times over, calling this an "absolute") that everything turns into its opposite, not me. So, on that basis socialism must turn into capitalism.

    Odd then that they all said the opposite of what you claim they 'really meant' -- which revisionist interpretation of yours you cannot support with a single passage from any of these theorists -- truly odd.

    Wonder why that is...?

    So, until you can come up with such a quotation from the dialectical gospels, the only conclusion possible is that it's you who refuses to face up to the absurd consequences of this unworkable ruling-class theory, not me.

    Quote:
    Please point out which real-world examples of yours I did not negate?
    Who said anything about "negating" them? You just ignored them -- link above; go ignore them some more.

    In John's case, you defined things inconsistently. In the wood-table and steam-water ones, you were completely ignorant of the fact that reverse processes can occur, and you actually were mocking MLM due to this pathetic ignorance of yours!
    Please point out exactly what these alleged "inconsistencies" are.

    [The fact that you haven't done so suggests you are now clutching at straws. Prove me wrong by itemising these "inconsistencies".]

    [What's the betting that Red Cat ignores this, too!]

    And I specifically allowed for 'reverse processes'.

    You're skim-reading again!

    As I have pointed out several times: you are only doing this because you can't cope with what I actually say, so you are just making stuff up as you go along, preferring to argue with a figment of your own imagination, rather than confront my actual words.

    This is not surprising, either: in relation to this theory, you do the same to Lenin and Mao!
    Yes I noticed that you allowed reverse processes. I edited the relevant part soon after I made the original post. You had twisted meanings again in those examples.

    And which of your quick links actually link to a survey of the Chinese proletariat on the question whether the CPC was class-collaborationist or not?

    Almost all of your "demolition" stands on your claim that MLM implies that every element or process must change back into each of its opposites in every system in which it is observed, and moreover, it must do so infinitely many times, for example, socialism will always change back to capitalism(according to your version of MLM). And it is not that you don't know what dialecticians meant. The fact is that you simply do not want to acknowledge it because you want to concoct a "negation" of MLM-dialectics to place yourself right beside Marx.
    Last edited by red cat; 12th November 2009 at 21:26.
  15. #112
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:



    Good of you to admit this of your own sources!

    [If you can deliberately mis-read me, I can do the same, surely, to you!]



    This comment shows you have absolutely no comprehension of Marxism or Leninism.

    I blame dialectics...
    Some actions of the revolutionary movements, please?
  16. #113
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Yes I noticed that you allowed reverse processes. I edited the relevant part soon after I made the original post. You had twisted meanings again in those examples.
    So, your persistent habit of skim-reading my posts has caught you out once again.

    And, I see you are determined to keep on making these unsubstantiated allegations about me and my ideas -- as I predicted you would (and, just like the other dialecticians I have debated this with over the years have done).

    Moreover, it is quite plain that you persistently fail to post details of these "twisted meanings", since you can't.

    What is your textual basis -- I'm not interested in your personal and unsupported opinions, or your desperate attempt at guesswork -- what is the textual basis for saying that I have "twisted" Mao and/or Lenin?

    Your continual attempt to ignore this request suggests that you prefer to make stuff up and to accuse me of what it is plain that you do: "twist" Mao and Lenin.

    [QUOTE]And which of your quick links actually link to a survey of the Chinese proletariat on the question whether the CPC was class-collaborationist or not?]/QUOTE]

    Isn't it obvious? The one that mentions Maoism.

    (b) Dialectics Messes With Maoism

    Is that clear enough for you?

    Almost all of your "demolition" stands on your claim that MLM implies that every element or process must change back into each of its opposites in every system in which it is observed, and moreover, it must do so infinitely many times, for example, socialism will always change back to capitalism (according to your version of MLM).
    Well, as has been established in my previous posts, this is the implication of the very clear words Lenin and Mao used.

    Once more, do you have a single quotation from either of these two that supports your revisionist reading of either of them?

    Answer: no.

    Lenin and Mao are quite clear that every object and process in the entire universe turns into its opposite; and all opposites turn into one another. [I'd quote them again, but you just ignore what they have to say! ]

    Now the opposite of capitalism is socialism, so this useless ruling-class theory of yours implies that socialism must turn into capitalism and capitalism must turn into socialism!

    And it is not that you don't know what dialecticians meant. The fact is that you simply do not want to acknowledge it because you want to concoct a "negation" of MLM-dialectics to place yourself right beside Marx
    On the contrary, it is quite clear from the way you ignore what Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao say that you do not understand your own theory!

    This is why you find you have to make stuff up, and make baseless allegations about me, which you find you cannot substantiate.

    Prove me wrong by substantiating what you allege of me and my supposed 'distortions'...

    [The smart money is on you ignoring this challenge yet again.]
  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  18. #114
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Some actions of the revolutionary movements, please?
    This is cute of you: you demand evidence from me, but consistently fail to produce one scrap of evidence supporting your allegations about my supposed 'distortions', or in support of your revisionist reading of Lenin and Mao -- even when I have repeatedly asked you to do so.
  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  20. #115
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Quote:
    Yes I noticed that you allowed reverse processes. I edited the relevant part soon after I made the original post. You had twisted meanings again in those examples.
    So, your persistent habit of skim-reading my posts has caught you out once again.

    And, I see you are determined to keep on making these unsubstantiated allegations about me and my ideas -- as I predicted you would (and, just like the other dialecticians I have debated this with over the years have done).

    Moreover, it is quite plain that you persistently fail to post details of these "twisted meanings", since you can't.

    What is your textual basis -- I'm not interested in your personal and unsupported opinions, or your desperate attempt at guesswork -- what is the textual basis for saying that I have "twisted" Mao and/or Lenin?

    Your continual attempt to ignore this request suggests that you prefer to make stuff up and to accuse me of what it is plain that you do: "twist" Mao and Lenin.

    And which of your quick links actually link to a survey of the Chinese proletariat on the question whether the CPC was class-collaborationist or not?]/QUOTE]

    Isn't it obvious? The one that mentions Maoism.

    (b) Dialectics Messes With Maoism

    Is that clear enough for you?

    Quote:
    Almost all of your "demolition" stands on your claim that MLM implies that every element or process must change back into each of its opposites in every system in which it is observed, and moreover, it must do so infinitely many times, for example, socialism will always change back to capitalism (according to your version of MLM).
    Well, as has been established in my previous posts, this is the implication of the very clear words Lenin and Mao used.

    Once more, do you have a single quotation from either of these two that supports your revisionist reading of either of them?

    Answer: no.

    Lenin and Mao are quite clear that every object and process in the entire universe turns into its opposite; and all opposites turn into one another. [I'd quote them again, but you just ignore what they have to say! ]

    Now the opposite of capitalism is socialism, so this useless ruling-class theory of yours implies that socialism must turn into capitalism and capitalism must turn into socialism!

    Quote:
    And it is not that you don't know what dialecticians meant. The fact is that you simply do not want to acknowledge it because you want to concoct a "negation" of MLM-dialectics to place yourself right beside Marx
    On the contrary, it is quite clear from the way you ignore what Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao say that you do not understand your own theory!

    This is why you find you have to make stuff up, and make baseless allegations about me, which you find you cannot substantiate.

    Prove me wrong by substantiating what you allege of me and my supposed 'distortions'...

    [The smart money is on you ignoring this challenge yet again.]
    Once again I am asking you, where is the survey of the workers of revolutionary China?

    And exactly where do Lenin or Mao claim that each element will turn into EVERY of its opposites, in EVERY system under observation, and will do so an INFINITE number of times? WHERE?
  21. #116
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    And once again I am asking you, where is the survey of the workers of revolutionary China?
    1) Where did I allege anything about workers in China?

    2) Once more, I repeat this:

    This is cute of you: you demand evidence from me, but consistently fail to produce one scrap of evidence supporting your allegations about my supposed 'distortions', or in support of your revisionist reading of Lenin and Mao -- even when I have repeatedly asked you to do so.
    As I keep predicting, you fail to substantiate your allegations because you can't.

    And exactly where do Lenin or Mao claim that each element will turn into EVERY of its opposites, and will do so an INFINITE number of times? WHERE?
    I keep quoting them but you keep ignoring what they have to say!

    And where have I used the word "infinite"?

    Still making stuff up I see.
  22. #117
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:



    1) Where did I allege anything about workers in China?

    2) Once more, I repeat this:



    As I keep predicting, you fail to substantiate your allegations because you can't.
    But your point of view that the CPC was class-collaborationist, judging by your own standards, need to be supported by a survey of the workers of revolutionary China. In case you have forgotten, that is what the survey thing is all about.
  23. #118
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat (still failing to substantiate a single allegation about my supposed 'distortions'):

    But your point of view that the CPC was class-collaborationist, judging by your own standards, need to be supported by a survey of the workers of revolutionary China. In case you have forgotten, that is what the survey thing is all about.
    I repeat:

    This is cute of you: you demand evidence from me, but consistently fail to produce one scrap of evidence supporting your allegations about my supposed 'distortions', or in support of your revisionist reading of Lenin and Mao -- even when I have repeatedly asked you to do so.
  24. #119
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default




    I keep quoting them but you keep ignoring what they have to say!

    And where have I used the word "infinite"?

    Still making stuff up I see.
    Edited and added "EVERY system" too , in case you haven't noticed. Would you mind quoting Lenin or Mao once more?
  25. #120
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Another thing, examining the property that whether an element A turns into its opposite B(sorry for the abstraction) infinite number of times, is quite important. Because if, say, B turns into A only a finite number of times, then replacing A and B with capitalism and socialism(if these had been the elements we had been studying) respectively, we can deduce that at some point socialism will not reverse into capitalism.

    EDIT: forget the abstractions. Read socialism and capitalism in place of B and A respectively.
    Last edited by red cat; 12th November 2009 at 23:05.

Similar Threads

  1. Mao Zedong good or bad?
    By Verix in forum History
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 1st March 2009, 00:33
  2. [STUDY GROUP] Quotations from Mao Zedong?
    By OneBrickOneVoice in forum Research
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 28th January 2008, 21:25
  3. Mao Zedong
    By RedStarOverChina in forum History
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 27th March 2005, 08:45
  4. mao zedong little red book
    By man in the red suit in forum Cultural
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 26th May 2003, 06:18

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