Thread: Mao's 'theory' of change

Results 1 to 20 of 328

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

    Default Mao's 'theory' of change

    Unfortunately, the thread on Mao (in Theory) was closed before I could reply to Red Cat.

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

    But that is in fact a 'happy accident' since it now means we can debate this in philosophy, where it belongs. Here is my reply:

    Scaredy cat:

    Whatever I may have done, that doesn't alter the fact that you claimed that Cantor's theorem is "rubbish", and then failed to back up your claim with any amount of mathematics.
    In other words, you admit you spammed this thread.

    Which make no sense after I showed how Mao mentions the influence of given conditions.
    Except, Mao restricts that to 'the identity of opposites'. The struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as he says, "absolute and unconditional".

    You have seen the quotation; do you want to see it again to ignore/alter it some more?

    Yes, I know Mao says that. But I have shown that he mentions the influence of "given conditions" too, and what he meant is clearly demonstrated by Maoist practice.
    Again, these "given conditions" apply to the 'the identity of opposites', whereas the struggle between opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as Mao says, "absolute and unconditional".

    You are running two different things together which Mao clearly distinguishes.

    I did not conduct any survey. If you are so eager to conduct one, please do so.
    Well, it's your claim -- justify it, or withdraw it.

    Actually it is not a negation. To be exact, it is only an attempt to negate MLM.
    I already covered that in this comment:

    I claim to be able to show that dialectics is non-sensical, and non-sense cannot be negated. If I thought dialectics made sense, then, of course, it could be negated -- but I claim it doesn't make sense.

    Now, I might or might not be wrong in thinking dialectics is non-sense, but that does not affect what I claim to be doing.
    So, I am not trying to 'negate' Maoism.

    You:

    The above example of yours. I could say that something opposing a well established paper in mathematics is worthy to be called a paper itself.
    Indeed, but as my example shows, that inference is not always safe, otherwise you would have to argue that, say, an anti-Maoist is also a Maoist!

    Since dialectics does make sense, then you must be trying to negate it.
    1) In that case, you are invited to say what sense it does make -- and good luck on that one, too! You'll be the first dialectician in 150 years to do so if you manage.

    2) I have already covered this reply; here it is again:

    I claim to be able to show that dialectics is non-sensical, and non-sense cannot be negated. If I thought dialectics made sense, then, of course, it could be negated -- but I claim it doesn't make sense.

    Now, I might or might not be wrong in thinking dialectics is non-sense, but that does not affect what I claim to be doing.
    You:

    You have been trying to prove that all along.
    In fact, I have been trying to show dialectics makes no sense at all, not that it is wrong, as you incorrectly state.

    Here you start lying again.
    So you say, but where exactly is the lie in this comment of mine:

    Well, that makes you the same as the bourgeoisie; they did not create socialism, and you lot didn't.
    We could both sit in front of the screen and just post "That's a lie" to everything either of us posted; but that would get us nowhere. What you need to do is say precisely where/why this is a lie.

    Can you?

    I doubt it...

    That does not alter the fact that we created socialism.
    Well, I deny you did create socialism, but even if you did, you lot are worse than useless letting it revert to capitalism every single time.

    And, given the fact that you have a demonstrably defective theory, this is no surprise: Mao's 'theory' implies that you lot will always fail.

    [Unless, of course, you abandon his 'theory'...]

    History/practice is trying to tell you something, but your head is far too deeply inserted in the and to hear...

    This comes from an anti-dialectician who also claims to be a Trot.
    So? How does that alter the truth of this claim of mine (to which the above 'response' of yours was posted in reply):

    That's like someone, who has just scored twelve own goals, claiming they are partially successful.
    Now, Trotskyism may or may not be a complete disaster area -- we can debate that in another thread -- but one thing is clear, we have yet to create a series of capitalist states like you MLM-ers.

    I have proved that your interpretation is wrong.
    Well, you keep saying things like this, but you can only get away with this by ignoring what Mao actually says -- when he tells us that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", compounding this by confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the struggle between opposites, which Mao clearly distinguishes -- as did Lenin.

    But your trolling is.
    1) What 'trolling'?

    2) You have already admitted that you are the spammer here, so you have no room to talk.

    Shown it many times.
    And in each and every case, I have shown that your replies are inadequate; the latest example being your refusal to read Mao's words and acknowledge that he argued that struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional".

    And you have yet to show where my long post (in reply to you a month or so ago, which I re-posted in reply to Rise Like Lions, and have re-posted again twice for you to attempt to respond) goes wrong.

    You just keep ignoring it.

    I'll post it again below.

    Only if you respond to it effectively can you say that you have "Shown it every time".

    But not otherwise.

    Where ?
    Here:

    1) When we discuss a theory you need to compare it with others.

    3) Only because I won't let you escape after you make tall claims about mathematics
    This acknowledges that you have diverted this thread into discussing other theories and into mathematics.

    And again with this:

    In case you didn't notice, I was always expecting a mathematical argument there.
    So, and once more: you admit to diverting and spamming this thread.

    If you want I can quote your posts which prove it.
    If you had the proof, you'd have quoted it by now.

    So, yes: be my guest -- post away.

    I am only responding to your lies concerning mathematics and politics.
    What lies? You keep forgetting to say (or to say precisely why they are lies to begin with).

    Not only that, you said many other things a thousand times too. Your habit is to repeat yourself often.
    In that, I'm merely catching you up.

    You belong to a movement that creates absolutely nothing.
    Once more; you might be right on this, or not (we can discuss this in another thread, if you like) -- but one thing not in doubt is that all you lot create are more capitalists, piling up yet more enemies of the working class and the peasantry.

    You are, in fact, excellent recruiting sergeants for the enemy, creating countless thousands extra bourgeoisie!

    We do not do that.

    Then you ARE a counter revolutionary.
    You missed the "if".

    Seems you can't read what I post any better than you can read Mao.

    I prefer to use capitals so that you notice.
    And yet you are the one who ignores stuff, like the long post below -- and what Mao himself says.

    Of course. You said that Cantor's theorem is "rubbish". This is one of your biggest lies.
    Still spamming and diverting this thread, I see...

    I am running out of words.
    I'm not. Nowhere near.

    My posts are getting awfully big, and I hate big posts. So I am making everything very short for you:

    1) You claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "A".

    2) But I quote Mao to prove that he means ~A.

    3) I state that Maoist practice, including that of Mao himself revolves around ~A and thus it proves that what Mao meant is ~A.

    4) Therefore your claim that Mao means A, is wrong.

    This is the gist of my argument .
    In fact what you do is ignore where Mao says the sort of change I have been analysing is "unconditional", and then you change that into "conditional".

    So, you are the one who is in fact doing this:

    1) You (Rosa) claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "~A". ["Unconditional -- i.e., "not conditional".]

    2) But I (Scaredy Cat) ignore Mao and assert he means A. [I.e., you (Scaredy Cat) say "unconditional" means "conditional".]

    3) Therefore your claim that Mao means ~A, is wrong, and we (MLM-ers) should always ignore what Mao says, or assert the opposite of what he does say.
    And your reference to practice is unfortunate, since all you MLM-ers have ever done is fail to create a socialist state that stays that way.
  2. #2
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Here is the long reply you (Scaredy Cat) keep ignoring:

    And in every case, I have replied.

    In fact, we are still waiting for your reply to this response from me to your last attempt to reply to my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change (that reply to you was posted again as part of my response to Rise Like Lions):

    I also agree with Red Cat's "interpretation" of Mao's theory of change. To me, your criticisms stem from a very literal and inflexible reading of the theory. Despite the fact that Mao used "literal" and "concrete" examples (e.g. death and life, misfortune and fortune), it doesn't even make sense to assume that he would apply the same logic to concepts like subordinate class (proletariat) and ruling class (bourgeoisie). Yes, he used terms like "real" and "concrete" to describe the transformations of opposites, but why would Mao mean this literally? It's illogical to assume that he does
    Except, Mao says his 'theory' applies to every example of change in the entire universe, without exception (his words, not mine) and that the identity of opposites is conditional. This part Red Cat quotes, but he/she misses the next thing Mao says: the struggle of opposites, and the transformation of everything into its opposite is absolute. [Quotations below.]

    In that case, if, say, a cat dies, which they did even in China under Mao, then the following must be the case. [This is my last reply to Red cat, to which he/she has not yet responded.]

    Red Cat:

    6) And yet, if it turned into a flat cat, and everything turns into its opposite, that flat cat must be the opposite of the live cat it used to be. [Is this correct or not?]

    This is where you go incorrect. A cat, like any other living organism, continuously interacts with its surroundings. It loses and gains chemicals and energy. At some point, when it dies, the nature of this interaction change too. For example, microbes begin to decompose its body etc. Hence, just after the cat has died, it cannot be called the opposite of its living self anymore, because certain interactions with its environment have already occurred, or in other words, the system cannot be approximated to a closed one.
    I covered this in an earlier post:

    Incidentally, the same result emerges if we consider the intermediate stages in the life and death of cat C.

    Let us assume that cat C goes through n successive stages C(1), C(2), C(3)..., C(n), until at stage C(n+1) it finally pops its clogs.

    But, according to the dialectical classics, C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites. They also tell us that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite.

    So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it.

    But then the same problems emerge, for C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

    So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist; if so no cat can change, let alone die!
    Hence, it does not matter to what extent you decompose the life of a cat, it can't pass to the next stage, since that next stage must already exist, and this is because all change is a struggle of opposites, including the change of a cat into its next stage.

    And this is so with the stages of everything else in the entire universe (cat's, atoms, electrons, forces...) and any changes they undergo; none can proceed to the next stage, since that stage must already exist for a struggle to take place. Hence, they can't change since that opposite already exists. Nothing can change into what already exists.

    And this is so with the struggle between any sub-processes; none of these can change unless they struggle with what they become, their opposite. But this can't happen, since, once more, that opposite already exists.

    We can adapt this to cater for your hastily-constructed reply:

    For example, microbes begin to decompose its body etc.
    Mao tells us that everything that changes, whenever it changes, does so as a result of a struggle with its opposite, and these opposites change into one another -- and this governs all changes, without exception.

    In that case, this cat of yours must turn into microbes, and these microbes must turn into a cat! But, that can't happen, for that cat already exists, and so do those microbes.

    Red Cat:

    Now let us go for a better analysis. Life consists of an organization of particular molecules, chemicals changes, ion flows etc. The whole system concerned with this, that can be approximated to a closed system, is the whole biosphere itself, and we can assume that the energy obtained from the sun and volcanic activities inside the earth's crust is more or less involved with only the basic level of photosynthesis etc. Now consider an atom in the biosphere. This atom, over time, reacts to form and break molecules, collides with other atoms or molecules and what not. This involves basic contradiction of electromagnetic forces and as an outcome of this, the atom continuously changes from being a part of living matter to non-living matter and so on. So, if you consider life and death as opposing states of an atom, for which the much more complex changes of an organism can be broken down to simpler ones, it does pass on from life to death and vice versa.
    1) Why is this a 'contradiction' -- you, like other dialecticians, just help yourself to this word without justification.

    2) If a dead organism is the opposite of a live one, as you acknowledge above, and a live organism turns into a dead one, then, according to Mao, this can only happen if it struggles with that opposite. But this is just a general version of my cat example.

    A) Using "L" for a live organism, and "D" for that organism when dead, then L can only turn into D if they struggle with one another, otherwise Mao was wrong.

    He also tells us that they turn into one another.

    B) But that can't happen, since D already exists! If it didn't already exist, they could not struggle, and so L could not change.

    C) So, we end up with the same ridiculous conclusion, (a) either live organisms (like cats) struggle with the dead organisms that they become, which means they must change before they change, or (b) nothing can change, since nothing can change into something that already exists

    And, this is not surprising, since my refutation of Mao was completely general, so it will apply to any particular example of change, like this.

    Red Cat:

    In a hypothetical situation, if the conditions arise for exactly the constituent particles of a cat that lived earlier, to pass through the same contradictions at favourable time and place, then yes, they can once again result in a live cat. In the real world, the probability of this (that is, the effective closure of this system) is so low, that it can be neglected in the practical sense.

    This refutes your argument.
    But this can't happen, for if these particles become a live cat again, they can only do this if they struggle with that live cat, according to Mao. But, if this is so, that live cat with which they struggle, must already exist, and if that is so, they can't change into it, since it already exists.

    Hence, we get the same result howsoever we try to repair Mao's defective 'theory'.

    And it's no use decomposing this into countless sub-processes, as you attempt, since the same argument applies.

    Consider Sub-process (1), henceforth "S(1)"; if it is to change it has to struggle with its opposite, say "S*(1)", and these have to change into one another, if Mao is to be believed. But this can't happen since S*(1) already exists. If it didn't, S(1) could into struggle with it, and thus change.

    So, once more, we hit the same brick wall; this 'theory' implies that nothing can change!

    [All this was covered in my original long post, the one that sparked this debate off. Once more, you must have skim-read that post, and thus missed it.]

    Hence, your refutation of my refutation fails.
    As far as this is concerned:

    Rise:

    but why would Mao mean this literally? It's illogical to assume that he does.
    I have already dealt with this, when Red Cat tried the same ploy. Here it is again:


    Red Cat:

    That Mao didn't mean a literal change into opposites, or the classes gaining each of the opposing qualities, is clear from this:
    But, I have already covered this last ditch, desperate response of yours.

    Here it is again (for you to ignore once more) -- Mao is quite clear that what he has to say is literally true:

    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 "below", there would be no "above". Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, these would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty) without difficulty, there would be no facility. 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.
    There is no way that this can be interpreted non-literally, otherwise the contrasts Mao draws would not work. As he underlines, here:

    In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another.
    Notice, these are concrete and real, not non-literal.

    As he goes on to say:

    Contradiction is universal and absolute, it is present in the process of development of all things and permeates every process from beginning to end.
    The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception.
    Things in contradiction change into one another, and herein lies a definite identity.
    All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites. This is what Lenin meant when he discussed "how they happen to be (how they become) identical--under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another".
    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.
    We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.
    We may now say a few words to sum up. The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook. It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. According to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from beginning to end; this is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. Each contradiction and each of its aspects have their respective characteristics; this is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.
    Page references can be supplied on request; bold emphases added.

    Once more, not much wiggle room there. Just like Hegel, Engels, Lenin and Plekhanov, Mao meant this literally, universally and absolutely.
    Rise:

    You are obviously an intelligent person, so I can only assume that you know what Mao Zedong is really talking about, but your ideological bias and overly critical eye takes you to absurd and reductionist conclusions.
    Well, what I think is that Mao's 'theory' makes no sense at all, and you lot only think it does since you have never examined it critically, and this is because you are so used to just swallowing everything he says.

    A soon as you try to work the details out, it falls apart, as I have shown.

    If one has enough time on their hands, one would be able to nitpick at all sorts of artistic liberties that many writers and theorists take.
    It's not 'nit-picking' to show that Mao's 'theory' cannot account for simple, every day changes -- or that, if it were true, nothing in the universe could change.
    Notice what Mao says:

    We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.
    You made a weak attempt to claim that all change is conditional, even though Mao said that this sort of change is "absolute and unconditional", as you can see from the quotation above.
  3. #3
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Comrades can read my original demolition of Mao's 'theory', here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=80
  4. #4
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Unfortunately, the thread on Mao (in Theory) was closed before I could reply to Red Cat.

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

    But that is in fact a 'happy accident' since it now means we can debate this in philosophy, where it belongs. Here is my reply:

    Scaredy cat:



    In other words, you admit you spammed this thread.



    Except, Mao restricts that to 'the identity of opposites'. The struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as he says, "absolute and unconditional".

    You have seen the quotation; do you want to see it again to ignore/alter it some more?



    Again, these "given conditions" apply to the 'the identity of opposites', whereas the struggle between opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as Mao says, "absolute and unconditional".

    You are running two different things together which Mao clearly distinguishes.



    Well, it's your claim -- justify it, or withdraw it.



    I already covered that in this comment:



    So, I am not trying to 'negate' Maoism.

    You:



    Indeed, but as my example shows, that inference is not always safe, otherwise you would have to argue that, say, an anti-Maoist is also a Maoist!



    1) In that case, you are invited to say what sense it does make -- and good luck on that one, too! You'll be the first dialectician in 150 years to do so if you manage.

    2) I have already covered this reply; here it is again:



    You:



    In fact, I have been trying to show dialectics makes no sense at all, not that it is wrong, as you incorrectly state.



    So you say, but where exactly is the lie in this comment of mine:



    We could both sit in front of the screen and just post "That's a lie" to everything either of us posted; but that would get us nowhere. What you need to do is say precisely where/why this is a lie.

    Can you?

    I doubt it...



    Well, I deny you did create socialism, but even if you did, you lot are worse than useless letting it revert to capitalism every single time.

    And, given the fact that you have a demonstrably defective theory, this is no surprise: Mao's 'theory' implies that you lot will always fail.

    [Unless, of course, you abandon his 'theory'...]

    History/practice is trying to tell you something, but your head is far too deeply inserted in the and to hear...



    So? How does that alter the truth of this claim of mine (to which the above 'response' of yours was posted in reply):



    Now, Trotskyism may or may not be a complete disaster area -- we can debate that in another thread -- but one thing is clear, we have yet to create a series of capitalist states like you MLM-ers.



    Well, you keep saying things like this, but you can only get away with this by ignoring what Mao actually says -- when he tells us that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", compounding this by confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the struggle between opposites, which Mao clearly distinguishes -- as did Lenin.



    1) What 'trolling'?

    2) You have already admitted that you are the spammer here, so you have no room to talk.



    And in each and every case, I have shown that your replies are inadequate; the latest example being your refusal to read Mao's words and acknowledge that he argued that struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional".

    And you have yet to show where my long post (in reply to you a month or so ago, which I re-posted in reply to Rise Like Lions, and have re-posted again twice for you to attempt to respond) goes wrong.

    You just keep ignoring it.

    I'll post it again below.

    Only if you respond to it effectively can you say that you have "Shown it every time".

    But not otherwise.



    Here:



    This acknowledges that you have diverted this thread into discussing other theories and into mathematics.

    And again with this:



    So, and once more: you admit to diverting and spamming this thread.



    If you had the proof, you'd have quoted it by now.

    So, yes: be my guest -- post away.



    What lies? You keep forgetting to say (or to say precisely why they are lies to begin with).



    In that, I'm merely catching you up.



    Once more; you might be right on this, or not (we can discuss this in another thread, if you like) -- but one thing not in doubt is that all you lot create are more capitalists, piling up yet more enemies of the working class and the peasantry.

    You are, in fact, excellent recruiting sergeants for the enemy, creating countless thousands extra bourgeoisie!

    We do not do that.



    You missed the "if".

    Seems you can't read what I post any better than you can read Mao.



    And yet you are the one who ignores stuff, like the long post below -- and what Mao himself says.



    Still spamming and diverting this thread, I see...



    I'm not. Nowhere near.



    In fact what you do is ignore where Mao says the sort of change I have been analysing is "unconditional", and then you change that into "conditional".

    So, you are the one who is in fact doing this:



    And your reference to practice is unfortunate, since all you MLM-ers have ever done is fail to create a socialist state that stays that way.
    I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later. At present I will keep my posts short so that you cannot divert this thread. This is my summary of arguments:


    1) You claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "A".

    2) But I quote Mao to prove that he means ~A.

    3) I state that Maoist practice, including that of Mao himself revolves around ~A and thus it proves that what Mao meant is ~A.

    4) Therefore your claim that Mao means A, is wrong.
    You respond to the above:


    In fact what you do is ignore where Mao says the sort of change I have been analysing is "unconditional", and then you change that into "conditional".

    So, you are the one who is in fact doing this:

    Quote:
    1) You (Rafflesia) claim, by quoting Mao that he means something, say "~A". ["Unconditional -- i.e., "not conditional".]

    2) But I (Scaredy Cat) ignore Mao and assert he means A. [I.e., you (Scaredy Cat) say "unconditional" means "conditional".]

    3) Therefore your claim that Mao means ~A, is wrong, and we (MLM-ers) should always ignore what Mao says, or assert the opposite of what he does say.
    And your reference to practice is unfortunate, since all you MLM-ers have ever done is fail to create a socialist state that stays that way.
    1) What I referred to as "A", you are referring to as ~A. Okay , we can do with that.

    2) I do not say that conditional means unconditional. I say that Mao states that the nature of change depends on given conditions.

    3) How does this follow? Please explain.

    And as I have told you many times, preserving a socialist state is not the only measure of success.
  5. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Comrades can read my original demolition of Mao's 'theory', here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=80
    As well as your demolition of Cantor's theorem here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-diale...235/index.html

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  8. #6
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Here is the long reply you (Scaredy Cat) keep ignoring:

    And in every case, I have replied.

    In fact, we are still waiting for your reply to this response from me to your last attempt to reply to my demolition of Mao's 'theory' of change (that reply to you was posted again as part of my response to Rise Like Lions):



    Notice what Mao says:



    You made a weak attempt to claim that all change is conditional, even though Mao said that this sort of change is "absolute and unconditional", as you can see from the quotation above.
    No, I am not ignoring it. Presently I need to concentrate on my points instead of replying to your insanely long posts.
  9. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  10. #7
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:

    I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later. At present I will keep my posts short so that you cannot divert this thread. This is my summary of arguments:
    1) In what way are they 'invalid'?

    2) You often say this, but you then proceed to ignore my argument, asserting later that you have replied to me!

    1) What I referred to as "A", you are referring to as ~A. Okay , we can do with that.

    2) I do not say that conditional means unconditional. I say that Mao states that the nature of change depends on given conditions.

    3) How does this follow? Please explain.

    And as I have told you many times, preserving a socialist state is not the only measure of success.
    As far as 2) is concerned, I have covered this several times, and you continue to ignore my reply. Here it is again:

    Except, Mao restricts that to 'the identity of opposites'. The struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as he says, "absolute and unconditional".
    I added:

    You have seen the quotation; do you want to see it again to ignore/alter it some more?
    and:

    Again, these "given conditions" apply to the 'the identity of opposites', whereas the struggle between opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite, on the other hand, is, as Mao says, "absolute and unconditional".

    You are running two different things together which Mao clearly distinguishes.
    You now ask this:

    3) How does this follow? Please explain.
    Here is the offending inference:

    3) Therefore your claim that Mao means ~A, is wrong, and we (MLM-ers) should always ignore what Mao says, or assert the opposite of what he does say.
    Well, it is quite plain that when Mao says that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", you read this as "conditional"!

    Or, do you want me to walk you through that again?

    As well as your demolition of Cantor's theorem here:
    So, you want to spam this thread too, I see.

    No, I am not ignoring it. Presently I need to concentrate on my points instead of replying to your insanely long posts.
    In other words, you will continue to ignore my argument.

    Prove me wrong...
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 12th March 2010 at 08:40.
  11. #8
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:



    1) In what way are they 'invalid'?

    2) You often say this, but you then proceed to ignore my argument, asserting later that you have replied to me!
    Don't try to divert the thread.

    As far as 2) is concerned, I have covered this several times, and you continue to ignore my reply. Here it is again:



    I added:



    and:
    But the whole point of my argument is to prove that these do not imply that conditional means unconditional. You are assuming your claim to prove the same claim of yours again. This is circular logic. If you ASSUME Maoism to be wrong, then say so and I will leave you in peace.
    You now ask this:



    Here is the offending inference:



    Well, it is quite plain that when Mao says that the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process into its opposite is "absolute and unconditional", you read this as "conditional"!

    Or, do you want me to walk you through that again?
    This again depends on your assumption that Maoism is wrong or self contradictory.

    So, you want to spam this thread too, I see.



    In other words, you will continue to ignore my argument.

    Prove me wrong...
    In other words, pointing out that you fail in mathematics as well as in politics is "spamming", but not paying any heed to the numerous irrelevant issues you raise( thereby not letting you spam) is just "ignoring your arguments."
  12. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  13. #9
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:

    Don't try to divert the thread.
    How is it 'trying to divert' this thread to ask you why you claim my argument is invalid?

    Or, pointing out that you ignore my argument, as you have also done here, yet again?

    But the whole point of my argument is to prove that these do not imply that conditional means unconditional. You are assuming your claim to prove the same claim of yours again. This is circular logic. If you ASSUME Maoism to be wrong, then say so and I will leave you in peace.
    Except, you keep claiming that when he says "unconditional" he really meant "conditional".

    The truth is that you can see that Mao calls this sort of change (the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process in the entire universe into its opposite) "absolute and unconditional", but, dissembler that you are, you keep calling it "conditional".

    Now, these are not my words, but Mao's that you are ignoring/distorting.

    The question is: why are you, an alleged Maoist, ignoring/distorting what Mao says?

    Finally, I have not assumed Maoism is false, since I claim it is far too confused for it to be either true or false.

    Unless, of course, you can show where my demolition goes wrong -- but after several months of you prevaricating, deflecting attention, raising irrelevant issues, spamming threads and ignoring what Mao actually says, it's quite clear that you can't.

    This again depends on your assumption that Maoism is wrong or self contradictory.
    Well, I have not assumed Maoism is wrong or contradictory, nor have I shown either to be the case (since it was not my aim to do this). What I claim to have done is show that Mao's theory would make change impossible.

    You have yet to show where my argument goes astray.

    In other words, pointing out that you fail in mathematics as well as in politics is "spamming", but not paying any heed to the numerous irrelevant issues you raise( thereby not letting you spam) is just "ignoring your arguments."
    Well, you spammed the other thread, and are doing so here again.

    And, what 'irrelevant' issues have I raised here?

    Finally, you have ignored my argument, in this thread:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...25&postcount=2

    And you have been doing so for months, despite my having re-posted it several times.
  14. #10
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:



    How is it 'trying to divert' this thread to ask you why you claim my argument is invalid?

    Or, pointing out that you ignore my argument, as you have also done here, yet again?
    The question is that exactly which of your arguments are valid?



    Except, you keep claiming that when he says "unconditional" he really meant "conditional".
    Prove it.

    I am quoting Mao again:
    Why can an egg but not a stone be transformed into a chicken? Why is there identity between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings and not to anything else? The sole reason is that the identity of opposites exists only in necessary given conditions. Without these necessary given conditions there can be no identity whatsoever.

    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.
    But it is useless to quote Mao to make you admit that what you claim is wrong. Because you will quote other paragraphs from Mao's article again, misinterpret them, and claim that "unconditional" means "conditional".
    The truth is that you can see that Mao calls this sort of change (the struggle of opposites and the transformation of every object and process in the entire universe into its opposite) "absolute and unconditional", but, dissembler that you are, you keep calling it "conditional".
    That Mao states that "unconditional" is "conditional", is YOUR claim. And you misinterpret Mao in order to support your claim.

    Now, these are not my words, but Mao's that you are ignoring/distorting.
    I am not distorting Mao's words. It is you who is using circular logic and distorting Maoism.
    The question is: why are you, an alleged Maoist, ignoring/distorting what Mao says?

    Finally, I have not assumed Maoism is false, since I claim it is far too confused for it to be either true or false.
    Then you have assumed that it is confused. You haven't been able to prove anything.
    Unless, of course, you can show where my demolition goes wrong -- but after several months of you prevaricating, deflecting attention, raising irrelevant issues, spamming threads and ignoring what Mao actually says, it's quite clear that you can't.
    Your "demolition" ( or what you call demolition)cannot go wrong, because it is not a demolition in the first place. It is just a set of tall claims, just like your mathematical ones, which you fail to prove in any way.

    Well, I have not assumed Maoism is wrong or contradictory, nor have I shown either to be the case (since it was not my aim to do this). What I claim to have done is show that Mao's theory would make change impossible.

    You have yet to show where my argument goes astray.
    Shown it many times. Not my fault if you pretend to misunderstand it.


    Well, you spammed the other thread, and are doing so here again.

    And, what 'irrelevant' issues have I raised here?

    Finally, you have ignored my argument, in this thread:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...25&postcount=2

    And you have been doing so for months, despite my having re-posted it several times.
    Don't complain about spamming until you prove your political and mathematical claims to be true. Because until then, whatever you have posted in Revleft is nothing but spam.
  15. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    Join Date Mar 2010
    Posts 6
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    i can't believe this could still be going on. could you really hide from your lies that much rafflesia or rosa or whatever??? really?? look if dialectics had been used by marx lenin and mao and even trotsky then maybe its a good thing..
  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Kommrad Stalen For This Useful Post:


  18. #12
    Join Date Oct 2005
    Posts 11,269
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I wonder, if Red Cat would win this debate, would he turn into Rosa?
  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Dimentio For This Useful Post:


  20. #13
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:

    The question is that exactly which of your arguments are valid?
    Well, it was your comment!!, so why you are asking me I do not know.

    Here's that comment of yours again:

    I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later. At present I will keep my posts short so that you cannot divert this thread.
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...20&postcount=4

    So, and once more: which of my arguments are invalid?

    And, you still haven't honoured this claim:

    I will address the rest of your invalid arguments later.
    In fact, you are still ignoring my arguments (valid or otherwise), as you have done for months (see the end of this post).

    You now quote Mao:

    Why can an egg but not a stone be transformed into a chicken? Why is there identity between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings and not to anything else? The sole reason is that the [b]identity of opposites[b] exists only in necessary given conditions. Without these necessary given conditions there can be no identity whatsoever.

    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.
    Bold added.

    As I pointed out, you are confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites'. Mao goes on to say (in the passage you are constantly ignoring since you have had it quoted at you many times) the following:

    We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.
    Bold added.

    This is because Mao agrees with Lenin:

    "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 Volume 38, Collected Works, pp.357-58.]
    Mao says this several times, so it was no mere slip of the pen:

    Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]
    In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.(pp.345-46).
    And here, in the quotation you partially give, he makes this distinction yet again:

    When we said above that two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other because there is identity between them, we were speaking of conditionality, that is to say, in given conditions two contradictory things can be united and can transform themselves into each other, but in the absence of these conditions, they cannot constitute a contradiction, cannot coexist in the same entity and cannot transform themselves into one another. It is because the identity of opposites obtains only in given conditions that we have said identity is conditional and relative. We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

    The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things. [pp.342-43.]
    Bold added in all of the above.

    So, that is why I said you ignore the clear distinction Mao drew between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites'. [Do you actually know why Lenin and Mao drew this distinction?] Now, the latter has to be absolute and unconditional since all things are always changing (according to dialectics), and Mao needs an absolute law to account for it since, like Hegel, he was aware of Hume's criticism of rationalist theories of causation (to which Kant had made an unsatisfactory reply).

    Hence, if all things are always changing, and dialectical materialism is the theory that can explain change, then it needs an absolute and unconditional law to explain it.

    So, I think your errors arise because you do not seem to know much philosophy (but, correct me if I am wrong), and are unaware of the objections Hegel made to Hume, incorporated into Lenin's and Mao's theories.

    Unfortunately, as I have shown, while Hegel's theory actually works in an ideal sort of sense, when his theory is 'put on its feet', and 'inverted', its 'rational kernel' extracted, and it's applied to the material world, it does not work, as I have shown.

    As for this:

    Prove it.
    The above shows that you are either (1) deliberately substituting "conditional" for "unconditional", or (2) you do not understand the philosophical reasons for Mao's very clear distinction.

    Now, Mao was a far more careful and precise (philosophical) thinker than Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin (and many others) were, but it does not help his cause (or yours) if you ignore the clear distinction he made several times.

    I am not distorting Mao's words. It is you who is using circular logic and distorting Maoism.
    1) Well, you are deliberately ignoring what he says, then.

    2) As we can see, it is you who is at fault here, not me.

    Then you have assumed that it is confused. You haven't been able to prove anything.
    In fact, I claim to have shown (but I did not assume this) that this 'theory' of change implies change is impossible; you have yet to show where I go wrong (but see below).

    In fact, when I began my project back in July 1998, I couldn't see these flaws in Mao's theory (so I did not begin by assuming he was confused), and thought it sound, but could see no way of challenging it in detail. It was only in 2003 that it suddenly hit me that his theory was thoroughly confused, and that it was his claims about the struggle of opposites, and their absolute and unconditional nature that make impossible the very thing (change) it had been introduced to explain.

    Now, over the years, I have tried to find a loop-hole in my argument, and it was only when I was convinced there was none, that I posted it here a few years ago (in 2007, I think), and then at my site.

    So, if you can find a hole in my argument, I will withdraw it and apologise profusely -- but all you do is prevaricate, divert attention, ignore what Mao says, spam the thread, and then blame me for trying to explain in detail what my theory actually is, as clearly as I can so that if there is an error, you can see what it is more easily.

    Here's yet another example of your irrational response to my argument:

    Your "demolition" (or what you call demolition) cannot go wrong, because it is not a demolition in the first place. It is just a set of tall claims, just like your mathematical ones, which you fail to prove in any way.
    Once more, instead of showing why it's not a demolition, you just repeat yourself.

    In which case, it remains a demolition until you show otherwise.

    Shown it many times. Not my fault if you pretend to misunderstand it.
    In fact, as the above demonstrates, what you have done is confuse the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites', and have thus tried to replace "unconditional" with "conditional", deliberately or because you do not understand the issues involved.

    Hence, you have not replied to me at all.

    Moreover, you have studiously ignored the argument I have posted here several times, which addresses your last detailed reply to me (months ago!) -- you have yet to show where that response of mine goes wrong.

    Here's the link to it again!

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...25&postcount=2

    Now, I have been telling you for many weeks that you have ignored this, so you've no excuse.

    See what I mean about spamming; you just can resist doing it can you:

    Don't complain about spamming until you prove your political and mathematical claims to be true. Because until then, whatever you have posted in RevLeft is nothing but spam.
    Now, you can start another thread on this if you want to, but it's off-topic here.
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 6th April 2010 at 22:08.
  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  22. #14
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Kommrad Stalen:

    I can't believe this could still be going on. could you really hide from your lies that much rafflesia or rosa or whatever??? really?? look if dialectics had been used by marx lenin and mao and even trotsky then maybe its a good thing..
    Is this your only argument, KS -- abuse?

    And sure these great comrades claimed to have used this 'theory' (but I maintain that it is far too confused to use), but the 1917 revolution has been reversed, all the former 'socialist states' have embraced market capitalism, or are slowly doing so, all four internationals have gone down the pan, and workers in their billions ignore us.

    So, if truth is tested in practice, it has returned a pretty clear verdict: our core theory is defective.

    No wonder then that I have been able to show precisely that.
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 29th March 2010 at 02:29.
  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  24. #15
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Dimentio:

    I wonder, if Red Cat would win this debate, would he turn into Rosa?


    Only if Mao's theory were correct; mercifully it is instead seriously defective.
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 29th March 2010 at 02:30.
  25. #16
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:



    Well, it was your comment!!, so why you are asking me I do not know.

    Here's that comment of yours again:



    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...20&postcount=4

    So, and once more: which of my arguments are invalid?

    And, you still haven't honoured this claim:



    In fact, you are still ignoring my arguments (valid or otherwise), as you have done for months (see the end of this post).
    Once again, you are raising irrelevant issues, to sideline the main ones. So I will concentrate only on the relevant part of your post.

    You now quote Mao:

    Why can an egg but not a stone be transformed into a chicken? Why is there identity between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings and not to anything else? The sole reason is that the [b]identity of opposites[b] exists only in necessary given conditions. Without these necessary given conditions there can be no identity whatsoever.

    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.
    Bold added.

    As I pointed out, you are confusing the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites'. Mao goes on to say (in the passage you are constantly ignoring since you have had it quoted at you many times) the following:



    Bold added.

    This is because Mao agrees with Lenin:



    Mao says this several times, so it was no mere slip of the pen:





    And here, in the quotation you partially give, he makes this distinction yet again:



    Bold added in all of the above.
    Another quotation to clear things up:

    All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.
    This describes the interconnection between identity and struggle of opposites.

    Until you respond to this, the rest of your post is useless.

    So, that is why I said you ignore the clear distinction Mao drew between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites'. [Do you actually know why Lenin and Mao drew this distinction?] Now, the latter has to be absolute and unconditional since all things are always changing (according to dialectics), and Mao needs an absolute law to account for it since, like Hegel, he was aware of Hume's criticism of rationalist theories of causation (to which Kant had made an unsatisfactory reply).

    Hence, if all things are always changing, and dialectical materialism is the theory that can explain change, then it needs an absolute and unconditional law to explain it.

    So, I think your errors arise because you do not seem to know much philosophy (but, correct me if I am wrong), and are unaware of the objections Hegel made to Hume, incorporated into Lenin's and Mao's theories.

    Unfortunately, as I have shown, while Hegel's theory actually works in an ideal sort of sense, when his theory is 'put on its feet', and 'inverted', its 'rational kernel' extracted, and it's applied to the material world, it does not work, as I have shown.

    As for this:



    The above shows that you are either (1) deliberately substituting "conditional" for "unconditional", or (2) you do not understand the philosophical reasons for Mao's very clear distinction.

    Now, Mao was a far more careful and precise (philosophical) thinker than Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin (and many others) were, but it does not help his cause (or yours) if you ignore the clear distinction he made several times.

    I am not distorting Mao's words. It is you who is using circular logic and distorting Maoism.
    1) Well, you are deliberately ignoring what he says, then.

    2) As we can see, it is you who is at fault here, not me.



    In fact, I claim to have shown (but I did not assume this) that this 'theory' of change implies change is impossible; you have yet to show where I go wrong (but see below).

    In fact, when I began my project back in July 1998, I couldn't see these flaws in Mao's theory (so I did not begin by assuming he was confused), and thought it sound, but could see no way of challenging it in detail. It was only in, 2003, that it suddenly hit me that his theory was thoroughly confused, and that it was his claims about the struggle of opposites, and their absolute and unconditional nature that make impossible the very thing (change) it had been introduced to explain.

    Now, over the years, I have tried to find a loop-hole in my argument, and it was only when I was convinced there was none, that I posted it here a few years ago (in 2007, I think), and then at my site.

    So, if you can find a hole in my argument, I will withdraw it and apologise profusely -- but all you do is prevaricate, divert attention, ignore what Mao says, spam the thread, and then blame me for trying to explain in detail what my theory actually is, as clearly as I can so that if there is an error, you can see what it is more easily.

    Here's yet another example of your irrational response to my argument:



    Once more, instead of showing why it's not a demolition, you just repeat yourself.

    In which case, it remains a demolition until you show otherwise.



    In fact, as the above demonstrates, what you have done is confuse the 'identity of opposites' with the 'struggle of opposites', and have thus tried to replace "unconditional" with "conditional", deliberately or because you do not understand the issues involved.

    Hence, you have not replied to me at all.

    Moreover, you have studiously ignored the argument I have posted here several times, which addresses your last detailed reply to me (months ago!) -- you have yet to show where that response of mine goes wrong.

    Here's the link to it again!

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...25&postcount=2

    Now, I have been telling you for many weeks that you have ignored this, so you've no excuse.

    See what I mean about spamming; you just can resist doing it can you:



    Now, you can start another thread on this if you want to, but it's off-topic here.
    Start another thread about you spamming? No, thank you. Most of us are already aware that you spam wherever you can, be it a thread about politics or mathematics.
  26. #17
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:

    Once again, you are raising irrelevant issues, to sideline the main ones. So I will concentrate only on the relevant part of your post.
    It can't be irrelevant if I was attempting to answer one of your questions!

    Now the comment below shows that you do not get the point of Mao's distinction between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites', nor do you seem to appreciate the philosophical problems with which he was trying to grapple. In fact, it's quite plain that it's gone right over your head:

    Another quotation to clear things up:

    All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.
    This describes the interconnection between identity and struggle of opposites.

    Until you respond to this, the rest of your post is useless.
    Where does this quote describe the connection between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle between opposites'? In fact, he doesn't even mention the 'struggle of opposites' in this passage.

    You are now reduced to inventing even what Mao says!

    Anyway, I don't see how this helps you. Let me summarise:

    1) Mao follows Lenin and points out that the 'identity of opposites' is both relative and conditional. Any change induced by this means is therefore conditional.

    2) But, this is not the same as the 'struggle of opposites' which Mao says goes on all the time, and applies "without exception" to everything in the entire universe, and that such changes are "absolute and unconditional".

    You have seen the quotations where Mao distinguishes these two notions. Here they are again for you to ignore once more:

    We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.
    Bold and underlining added.

    This is because Mao agrees with Lenin:

    "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 Volume 38, Collected Works, pp.357-58.]
    Mao says this several times, so it was no mere slip of the pen:

    Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]
    In given conditions, opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.(pp.345-46).
    And here, in the quotation you partially give, he makes this distinction yet again:

    When we said above that two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other because there is identity between them, we were speaking of conditionality, that is to say, in given conditions two contradictory things can be united and can transform themselves into each other, but in the absence of these conditions, they cannot constitute a contradiction, cannot coexist in the same entity and cannot transform themselves into one another. It is because the identity of opposites obtains only in given conditions that we have said identity is conditional and relative. We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another, that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.

    The combination of conditional, relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement of opposites in all things. [pp.342-43.]
    In fact, in this passage Mao clearly draws a distinction between the two:

    Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. [p.342.]
    Bold and underlining added.

    So, it is you who can't seem to read Mao correctly.

    2) Anyway, as I showed in an earlier post, even if he hadn't have drawn this distinction, or even if you were right about Mao, conditional change into opposites would be no less impossible. Here it is again:

    A) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

    B) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

    C) Call that opposite "P*".

    D) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

    E) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

    F) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

    G) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

    H) Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

    QED

    So, where does the above go wrong?

    You have in fact been asked this several times already, but you choose to ignore stuff to which you can't respond.

    In which case, your dissembling attempt to misread/ignore Mao is to no avail -- whether you are right about conditional change or not, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

    Unless, of course, you can show otherwise...

    Start another thread about you spamming? No, thank you. Most of us are already aware that you spam wherever you can, be it a thread about politics or mathematics.
    Instead, you prefer to spam this thread.
  27. #18
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scaredy Cat:



    It can't be irrelevant if I was attempting to answer one of your questions!

    Now the comment below shows that you do not get the point of Mao's distinction between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle of opposites', nor do you seem to appreciate the philosophical problems with which he was trying to grapple. In fact, it's quite plain that it's gone right over your head:



    Where does this quote describe the connection between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle between opposites'? In fact, he doesn't even mention the 'struggle of opposites' in this passage.

    You are now reduced to inventing even what Mao says!

    Anyway, I don't see how this helps you. Let me summarise:

    1) Mao follows Lenin and points out that the 'identity of opposites' is both relative and conditional. Any change induced by this means is therefore conditional.

    2) But, this is not the same as the 'struggle of opposites' which Mao says goes on all the time, and applies "without exception" to everything in the entire universe, and that such changes are "absolute and unconditional".

    You have seen the quotations where Mao distinguishes these two notions. Here they are again for you to ignore once more:



    In fact, in this passage Mao clearly draws a distinction between the two:



    Bold and underlining added.

    So, it is you who can't seem to read Mao correctly.

    2) Anyway, as I showed in an earlier post, even if he hadn't have drawn this distinction, or even if you were right about Mao, conditional change into opposites would be no less impossible. Here it is again:

    A) Let us assume that there is an object or process, "P", that only changes under certain conditions, "C".

    B) Under those conditions, P can only change because it struggles with its opposite.

    C) Call that opposite "P*".

    D) So, Mao says that under conditions C, P and P* change because they struggle with each other.

    E) He also says that they change into each other, under those conditions.

    F) But, that is not possible, since P* already exists (under those conditions)!

    G) If P* didn't already exist under those conditions, P could not struggle with it, and thus could not change, under those conditions.

    H) Hence, whether change is conditional or unconditional, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

    QED

    So, where does the above go wrong?

    You have in fact been asked this several times already, but you choose to ignore stuff to which you can't respond.

    In which case, your dissembling attempt to misread/ignore Mao is to no avail -- whether you are right about conditional change or not, Mao's theory implies change is impossible.

    Unless, of course, you can show otherwise...



    Instead, you prefer to spam this thread.
    The relevant portion of your post is:


    Where does this quote describe the connection between the 'identity of opposites' and the 'struggle between opposites'? In fact, he doesn't even mention the 'struggle of opposites' in this passage.
    Really ?
    All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.

    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.


    -Mao
    Transformation of opposites is due to what Marxists call struggle.
  28. #19
    Join Date Mar 2010
    Posts 636
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You notice how Rosa's arguments are almost all circular? I have yet to see her even present something resembling proof.
  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dermezel For This Useful Post:


  30. #20
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Sydney
    Posts 68
    Rep Power 10

    Default

    Thanks for helping the class struggle guys
    "Each decade we shiftily declare we have buried class. Each decade the coffin stays empty"-Richard Hoggart
  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to core_1 For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. What was Mao's Cultural Revolution?
    By Stranger Than Paradise in forum Learning
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 27th July 2009, 05:35
  2. Mao's Examples of Dialectics
    By heiss93 in forum Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27th November 2008, 09:21
  3. Mao's Theory on Art, Literature and Aesthetics
    By jacobin1949 in forum Theory
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 4th April 2008, 13:28
  4. Mao's Lectures on Dialectics
    By jacobin1949 in forum Learning
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 18th March 2008, 18:48
  5. Mao's Critique of Stalinism
    By jacobin1949 in forum Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26th February 2008, 22:25

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

Website Security Test