Thread: Dialectical Materialism

Results 1 to 20 of 80

  1. #1
    Join Date Oct 2005
    Location Australia
    Posts 34
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Two questions, really.
    1) Do you, the RL community, think its important?
    2)Do you, the RL community, think its necessary?

    Under this premise, I should state what I already know, so that I don't get linked to other websites that tell me what I already know.
    I have read the T+A=S, but I'm not sure if simplifying it to this is really advisable.

    In conversation with a Marxist-Lenisnist (M-L), I quickly discovered that after asking the M-L to show if dialectical materialism was necessary, real, and useful, that because I disagreed with the M-L, that we SIMPLY couldn't have an arguement because I didn't "believe" in dialectics. I think the M-L was turning into the pope, telling me that I couldnt argue against God without having a belief in God first. After asking me what I know, and deviating from the original question to try and use a logical fallacy (asking what sources I was using to get this 'interesting information' so the M-L could attack them) the M-L then decended into a circluar arguement that because we think, there must be dialectics, and because of dialectics, we must think.

    Understandably, I was confused. So, to RL I turn.

    I understand the basics, I've read Redstar2000's paper on dialectial materialism, and have read other sites on the topic too. I would like more than that hilarious explaination that because "the fact of the sun being held together by gravity which opposes the force of its nuclear reactions is an example of unity of opposites" (The M-L's own words) that therefore dialectics are true and useful! I can find this conclusion with more than just dialectics. All scientific findings and all other progress has been made completely abstract of dialectics - all things that have apparently been founded in dialectics can be shown through logic, empirical or scientific method.

    I am sure that I will be bombarded with replies here, I look forward to it.

    Cheers.
    Pandii.
    <span style=\'colorurple\'>You think I am too small to be effective? Then you have never been in bed with mosquito. You think I am too small to have a big impact? Then you have never seen an oak tree grow from a couple of nuts that stood their ground.

    You can be a communist too.</span>
  2. #2
    Join Date Nov 2002
    Location somewhere else
    Posts 6,139
    Organisation
    Angry Anarchists Anonymous
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    We the RevLeft community don&#39;t have an opinion on anything. The community is too broad to have an opinion (beyond I guess fuck capitalism).

    That said, if you look through philosophy you will find some peoples opinion on DM.

    Most people I think, if they know anything about it, think that DM is a pile of shit. But it hardly ever comes up outside of philosophy, so it doesn&#39;t really matter.

    To find out if DM does matter, you could look through various other threads to look for references. You won&#39;t find many.
  3. #3
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Pandii, this &#39;theory&#39; has been trashed here so many times, I have lost count.

    Your allusion to &#39;thesis, antithesis, synthesis&#39; is interesting, since this way of viewing even Hegel&#39;s systyem was debunked at Rev Left a few months ago, here:

    http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292097892

    Now, I have been subjecting this &#39;theory&#39; to sustained, comprehensive and withering attack (from a Marxist angle) at my site now for over a year, in the most detailed critique it has ever received, anywhere, by anyone.

    In order to assist comrades who are not experts in Philosophy, I have summarised my main objections here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm

    Finally, I have listed links to RL threads where this has been debated over the last year or so, here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm
  4. #4
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Location Michigan, U$A
    Posts 353
    Organisation
    League for the Fifth International
    Rep Power 13

    Default

    Many people do have objections and problems in regard to Dialectical Materialism. Despite this, I think that dialectics is very important and is really the foundation of Marxism. Materialist Dialectics is basically the marxist method of studying nature and history. Historical Materialism, one of the foundations of Marxism, is based on materialist dialectics applied to the study of history. I think that Lenin was right in that Dialectical Materialism was one of the foundations of Marxism, along with Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. I do not see how you can scrap Dialectical Materialism, because you would be scrapping the Marxist method.

    For further reading on Dialectical Materialism, check out these links.
    An Introduction To Dialectical Materialism
    ABC of Materialist Dialectics
    Reason in Revolt
    Dialectics of Nature
    The German Ideology
    Materialism and Epirio-Criticism
  5. #5
    Join Date Nov 2002
    Location somewhere else
    Posts 6,139
    Organisation
    Angry Anarchists Anonymous
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Originally posted by RedLenin@February 17, 2007 04:24 pm
    Many people do have objections and problems in regard to Dialectical Materialism. Despite this, I think that dialectics is very important and is really the foundation of Marxism. Materialist Dialectics is basically the marxist method of studying nature and history. Historical Materialism, one of the foundations of Marxism, is based on materialist dialectics applied to the study of history. I think that Lenin was right in that Dialectical Materialism was one of the foundations of Marxism, along with Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. I do not see how you can scrap Dialectical Materialism, because you would be scrapping the Marxist method.

    For further reading on Dialectical Materialism, check out these links.
    An Introduction To Dialectical Materialism
    ABC of Materialist Dialectics
    Reason in Revolt
    Dialectics of Nature
    The German Ideology
    Materialism and Epirio-Criticism
    A good reason to scrap the Marxist method then ...

    I don&#39;t have a link, but redstar2000 demonstrated that you don&#39;t need dialectical materialism to do *any*thing. If a theory makes sense without dialectical materialism, then you don&#39;t need it. He argued that if you do strip the crap from Marxism, that you do get a workable theory anyway.

    I&#39;m sure someone will find the link for me.
  6. #6
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Thankyou for that RedL, but I have devoted all the main ideas (and the vast majority of the more minor ones) found in the works and links you listed (many of which merely repeat the same empty phrases, year in year out) to systematic and comprehensive refutation in my Essays.

    Materialist dialectics is not necessary for Marxism -- Marx, for one, was unaware of it.

    And, since truth is tested in practice, and Dialectical Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that materialist dialectics has been refuted by history.
  7. #7
    Join Date Mar 2005
    Posts 2,581
    Organisation
    United Students Against Sweatshops
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    And, since truth is tested in practice, and Dialectical Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that materialist dialectics has been refuted by history.
    And, since truth is tested in practice, and Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that Marxism has been refuted by history.
    "We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
    --Lenin
    Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
  8. #8
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Originally posted by Pandii@February 17, 2007 01:25 pm
    Two questions, really.
    1) Do you, the RL community, think its important?
    2)Do you, the RL community, think its necessary?

    On this issue it is very clear that the &#39;RL&#39; community dont have a shared view. There are minority views both ways and a majority that dont engage with this issue. That tells its own story.

    To answer your questions:

    1) It is important to a full understanding of Marxism, it is not important to beginning to be an effective communist

    2) It was historically necessary: without his critical assimilation of Hegel, Marx could not have conceived his theories and revolutionary movements would be &#39;a head shorter&#39;, as Engels once put it. It is probably not necessary at this moment of weakness in the history of communism.

    There is no agreement on all this, which is all that is very clear. Somewhat bizarrely, there are some critics of philosophy and of this theory who want to argue in the abstract, philosophically, that such abstractions are unnecessary or even meaningless while there are some supporters of the validity of such abstractions, probably myself among them, uninclined to defend dialectics as a philosophy or as a systematic set of abstractions, while believing it legitimate and believing its importance can be reflected in political practice.


    Wanna dive into that pool of confusion ? Feel Free.
    "Dixi et salvavi animam meam" - quoted by Marx
    "Things rarely work out well if one aims at 'moderation'..." - Engels
    "By and by we heare newes of shipwrack in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a Rock." Sir Philip Sydney
    "The most to be hoped for by groups who claim to belong to the Marxist succession (...) is for them to serve as a hyphen between past and future....nothing can be held sacred – everything is called into question. Only after having been put through such a crucible could socialism conceivably re-emerge as a viable doctrine and plan of action." - Van Heijenoort
  9. #9
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hop:

    And, since truth is tested in practice, and Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that Marxism has been refuted by history.
    Nice try Hop, but only Dialectical Marxism has ever been tried out in practice, so only it has been refuted by events.

    Neverthelss, I welcome your agreement that this test at least shows that something has indeed been refuted.

    You now only need to think this idea through, and you will soon be concluding, alongside us materialists, that this mystical &#39;version&#39; of Marxism, at least, has been dumped into the trash can of history, where it always belonged.
  10. #10
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Gil:

    There is no agreement on all this, which is all that is very clear. Somewhat bizarrely, there are some critics of philosophy and of this theory who want to argue in the abstract, philosophically, that such abstractions are unnecessary or even meaningless while there are some supporters of the validity of such abstractions, probably myself among them, uninclined to defend dialectics as a philosophy or as a systematic set of abstractions, while believing it legitimate and believing its importance can be reflected in political practice.
    Well, you can only claim this because you have never examined the other side of the argument.

    Indeed, I challenge you to say what an &#39;abstraction&#39; actually is, without using meaningless jargon to do so, and without having to nominalise general terms, so that they become the names of abstract particulars, destroying their generality (a syntactical error commited by the ancient Greeks (and medieval logicians), and copied by all subsequent theorists, including Hegel).

    Go on, I double dog dare you.
  11. #11
    Join Date Jul 2005
    Posts 6,289
    Rep Power 116

    Default

    i feel some attachment to DM mainly because some of my favorite writers use it.

    but it looks more like they conceived their theories first and then they ornamented them with dialectical mysticism...
    at the end though,i think they are unnecessary, they may look "pretty" on paper (saying stuff like negation sounds cool, i use that kind of vocabulary all the time in highschool essays and it works&#33 but for me is not anything more than aesthetic appeal.
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
  12. #12
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Marmot:

    i feel some attachment to DM mainly because some of my favorite writers use it.
    Many comrades feel the same as you, but attachment to tradition is the last thing us Marxists should appeal to, especially when it is possible to show that this theory is radically confused from beginning to end -- and (as I claim) has helped make Dialectical Marxism a shining example of failure.

    And, I am at a loss as to what the &#39;aesthetic&#39; appeal of these mystical ideas can be, except they fulfil a need in us brought on by alienation, in a way similar to that which induces religious belief (and religious art, etc.).

    We can hardly help humanity escape from its illusions if we cling onto those we have made for ourselves.
  13. #13
    Join Date Mar 2005
    Posts 2,581
    Organisation
    United Students Against Sweatshops
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@February 17, 2007 12:04 pm
    Hop:

    And, since truth is tested in practice, and Marxism has been spectacularly unsuccessful for nigh on 130 years, we can conclude, I think, that Marxism has been refuted by history.
    Neverthelss, I welcome your agreement that this test at least shows that something has indeed been refuted.
    Rosa, your wit is darling.
    "We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
    --Lenin
    Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
  14. #14
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 6,143
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Rosa:

    Nice try Hop, but only Dialectcial Marxism has ever been tried out in practice, so only it has been refuted by events.
    How are we measuring success here? Before even a non-dialectical marxism can head a revolutionary workers movement, we need such a movement. A theory (no matter how non-dialectical or otherwise) cannot summon such a movement from thin air.

    When hundreds and thousands of workers have been plunged into revolutionary activity, marxists has been successful in leading and organizing the movement.

    Again, when those movements have subsided or been defeated, or when the revolution has taken on a form unintended, the failure cannot simply be laid at the foot of a theory (yes, I know theories don&#39;t have feet, even though they can run to thousands of pages). The concrete material relations, not their reflection in the human mind, are decisive.

    Moreover, because Marxist theory is not a blueprint for action, it cannot be blamed when wrong actions are taken.

    Rosa, you&#39;ve already made a distinction between Lenin the political theorist, which you approve of, and Lenin the philosopher, who you do not. What you&#39;ve not done is demonstrate a positive connection between Lenin&#39;s espousal of the dialectic and his political activity. Any attempt on your part to demonstrate such a connection would force you to re-evaluate Lenin the politician and tactician - because a wrong theory (one which you argue is badly wrong) cannot lead to true practice.

    Except accidentally.
    "Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg

    "There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin

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

    Default

    Z:

    How are we measuring success here? Before even a non-dialectical marxism can head a revolutionary workers movement, we need such a movement. A theory (no matter how non-dialectical or otherwise) cannot summon such a movement from thin air.
    Well, you give me your criterion of success, and we will see.

    Mine is quite plain: abject failure almost everywhere one looks -- Trotskyism has more splits in it than a thousand earthquakes. As the working class gets bigger, the impact of Dialectical Marxism on it dwindles constantly.

    By any ordinary standards, Dialectical Marxism is an abject failure: this is how I put it in that Introductory Essay:

    ...Practice has not looked at all favourably on our side as a whole for close on a hundred years. All Four Internationals have failed (or have vanished), and the 1917 revolution has been reversed. Indeed, we are no nearer (and arguably much further away from) a workers' state now than Lenin was in 1918. Practically all of the former 'socialist' societies have collapsed (and not a single worker raised his or her hand in their defence). Even where avowedly Marxist parties can claim some sort of mass following, the latter is passive and electoral --, and those parties themselves have openly adopted reformism (despite the contrary-sounding rhetoric)....

    99% of the working class ignores Marxism....
    Now, if you can spot any rays of hope that I have missed, I'd be interested to see them.

    When hundreds and thousands of workers have been plunged into revolutionary activity, marxists has been successful in leading and organizing the movement.
    Apart from 1917 (which has now been reversed), all of these have failed, or have run into the sand.

    Again, when those movements have subsided or been defeated, or when the revolution has taken on a form unintended, the failure cannot simply be laid at the foot of a theory (yes, I know theories don't have feet, even though they can run to thousands of pages). The concrete material relations, not their reflection in the human mind, are decisive.
    Well then, how has this 'theory' ever been tested if whatever happens (i.e., after 140 years of failure), the theory survives unscathed?

    At some point, surely this theory has to stand up to reality; I merely point out that it has, and history has refuted it.

    Now, I do this not to make an academic point, or to attack Marxism, but because I want our movement to be a success.

    But what I see is dialecticians refusing to look reality in the face, and using this theory to protect that theory, failing to note the deleterious effect it has had on Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism (see below), blaming anything and everything else for these failures, and even then asserting that this theory has been tested in practice and is a glowing success!!

    [This shows that dialectics is not held on to for rational reasons; it is protected come what may, just like religious belief -- and no wonder, it arose from the same sort of alienated conditions]

    Radical dislocation from reality of this order of magnitude is pathological.

    It is preventing the scientific development of Marxism.

    All this is on top of the fact that this theory is wall-to-wall b*llocks, so no wonder it has failed us for so long.

    Rosa, you've already made a distinction between Lenin the political theorist, which you approve of, and Lenin the philosopher, who you do not. What you've not done is demonstrate a positive connection between Lenin's espousal of the dialectic and his political activity. Any attempt on your part to demonstrate such a connection would force you to re-evaluate Lenin the politician and tactician - because a wrong theory (one which you argue is badly wrong) cannot lead to true practice
    Not so. This theory screws with Marxist heads when the movement is in retreat (that is why they turn to it in periods of downturn, as the biographies of all the leading DM-fans show).

    In upturns, when the materialist input from the working class is sufficient to make the idealism in Dialectical Marxism no longer fit (or have any impact), the movement then achieves some success.

    That is why, for example, you will find precious little dialectics spouted by militants at the working class on strike, or on marches or during insurrections.

    It just does not fit with their materialism.

    But, when the struggle dies down, the 'god-seekers' come out of the woodwork, and this theory is used to ill-effect.

    Now, I hope to post the evidence substantiating this set of assertions in the near future, but I have been prevented by my present circumstances (I am in temporary accommodation right now, and will be moving in about 10 days -- most of my books and papers are in storage, so I cannot access them, but I hope to have this published by mid- to late-April).

    In the meantime, here is a summary of what I hope to show:

    A) DM was used by the Stalinised Bolshevik Party (after Lenin died) to justify the imposition of an undemocratic (if not an anti-democratic and terror-based) structure on the Communist Party and the population of the former USSR. This new and vicious form of the* 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was justified by Stalin on the grounds that, since Marxist theory sees everything as 'contradictory', greater central control was in order if greater freedom was to be achieved; freedom and necessity were thus 'dialectically-linked'. The "withering-away of the state" was in fact confirmed by its ever-growing power. Indeed, that very contradiction illustrated the truth of DM!

    Moreover, the idea that socialism could be created in one country was justified by, among other things, the dubious invention of 'internal' versus 'external' contradictions, bolstered by an appeal to 'primary' and 'secondary' contradictions, along with the convenient idea that some contradictions were not 'antagonistic'. Hence, the obvious class differences soon created in the former USSR were in fact 'harmonious'; the real enemies (i.e., the source of all those nasty 'primary' contradictions) were the external imperialist powers. All so eminently contradictory.
    We can see today the effect all this 'applied dialectics' had on the former USSR and its satellites in Eastern Europe.

    Only those who still have their dialectical blinders on will disagree with the judgment that these failed states were not a ringing endorsement of Marxism.
    The fact that not a single worker's hand was raised in their defence between 1989 and 1991 merely confirms that assessment.

    Indeed, the dire political consequences of the idea that socialism could be built in one country can be seen in the subsequent use to which dialectics was put to defend this counter-revolutionary idea, and to try to limit (or deny) the ensuing damage it caused to the international workers' movement.

    [Anyone who thinks the above is prejudicial to Stalinism only needs to reflect on the fact that the contrary idea --, that socialism could be built in one country --, has also been refuted by history.]

    Hence, DM was used to justify the catastrophic and reckless class-collaborationist tactics imposed on both the Chinese and Spanish revolutions, just as it was employed to rationalise the ultra-left, "social fascist" post-1929 about-turn. This crippled the fight against the Nazis by suicidally splitting the left in Germany, pitting communist against socialist, while Hitler laughed his way into power.
    This 'theory' then helped rationalise the rotation of the Communist Party through another 180o in the next class-collaborationist phase, the "Popular Front" --, and then through another 180o (in order to 'justify' the unforgivable Hitler-Stalin pact) as part of the 'revolutionary defeatist' stage --, and through yet another 180o two years later in the shape of 'The Great Patriotic War', following upon Hitler's invasion of the 'Mother Land'.

    Post-1945, one more flip saw the invention of 'peace-loving' nations versus the evil US Empire. History was now the struggle of 'progressive' nations against reactionary regimes, the class war lost in all the dust kicked up by so much dialectical spinning.

    [Indeed, Marx would, by now, be doing much, much more than 180o in his grave!]
    Every single one of these 'somersaults' had a catastrophic impact on the international workers' movement. Collectively, they cast a long shadow across the entire communist movement, reducing it to that sad, reformist excuse that we see among us today.

    However, far, far worse, these 'contradictory' about-turns helped pave the way for fascist aggression and the Third Reich. In that case, this 'theory' has played its own shameful, but indirect part in the deaths of millions of workers and countless millions of Jews, Gypsies, Russians and Slavs -- alongside the many hundreds of thousands of mentally-ill and handicapped victims of the Nazis.

    Because of their continual, Hermetically-inspired twists and dialectical turns, STD's in effect all but invited the Nazi tiger to rip European humanity to shreds. And it was only too happy to oblige.

    [STD = Stalinist Dialectician.]

    The negative effect of all this on the reputation of Marxism among the great mass of workers cannot be over-estimated, howsoever hard one tries.

    Of course, not all of this is the sole fault of this mystical theory; but it is undeniable that it was a major factor in helping to rationalise the above political gyrations (for whatever other reasons these were in fact taken), and sell them to party cadres.
    Moreover, no other theory could have permitted with such ease the adoption of continual, almost overnight, changes in strategy and tactics --, or have rationalised so effectively the pathetic excuses that were given for the criminally unacceptable political about-turns imposed on the Communist Party by post-1925 Stalinism.

    Nor, indeed, have so effortlessly licensed the grinding to dust of the core of the old Bolshevik Party in the 1930's, on trumped-up charges.

    DM: tested in practice?

    Millions dead, Bolshevism in tatters and Marxism an international stench.

    A ringing success? Absolutely! But, only for the ruling-class.

    [UO = Unity of Opposites.]

    B) Similar faults bedevilled the CCP under Mao; for example, the use of 'primary' and 'secondary' contradictions to justify the suicidal alliances with the Guomindang, the use of UO's to rationalise one-party, autocratic rule, the reference to 'leaps' to excuse the murderous and lunatic "Great Leap Forward". The list is almost endless.

    [UO = Unity of Opposites.]

    DM: tested in practice? Once again: indeed so! And we can all see the results today in that model 'socialist state', China.

    Of course, at the very least, this means that approximately 20% of the population of the planet cannot now (and might not in the foreseeable future) be won to any credible form of Marxism, since the vast majority of them have been inured to it, having seen the dire consequences of this contradictory theory (which preaches the "mass-line" but justifies mass oppression --, this dialectical 'contradiction' rationalised along sound Stalinist lines). They need no one to inform them of the results of 'practice'; the vast majority can see for themselves the political and social consequences of this theory, killing tens of millions along the way.
    And now, the very same theory is used to justify the existence of 'socialist' billionaires!

    What's that you say? A contradiction in terms? You clearly do not 'understand' dialectics!

    C) Trotskyism has similarly been cursed by the Dialectical Deity:* its founder succeeded in wedding his followers to the crazy dialectical idea that the 'socialist' regime in Moscow was contradictory. Hence, because 'materialist dialectics' demanded it, all good Trotskyists should defend the USSR as a workers' state --, albeit deformed/degenerated. And, as if to compound this monumental gaffe, Trotsky used dialectics to justify the murderous Stalinist invasion of Finland!

    More practice --, more dead workers.

    Do you begin to see a pattern?

    After Trotsky was murdered by a 'progressive' Stalinist agent with an ice pick, the application of 'scientific dialectics' to the contradictory nature of the USSR split the Fourth International into countless warring sects, who have continued to fragment to this day.

    Indeed, this is the only aspect of dialectics that Trotskyists have managed to perfect in practice, as the movement continues to splinter under its own 'internal contradictions'.

    Unfortunately, Trotsky's heirs could not quite agree which was the more important principle: loyalty to their founder's 'dialectical method', or to Marx's belief that the emancipation of the working class is an act of the working class itself -- and thus not an act of the Red Army/Russian tanks (in Eastern Europe), or of 'Third World' guerrillas, nationalist/'progressive' dictators, or even of radicalised students (to name but a few of the groups that have been 'dialectically substituted' for the working class by assorted Trotskyists ever since).

    Dialectics has been used, and is still used, to justify every conceivable form of substitutionism imaginable.

    [As I show in Essay Nine Part One and* Two (summary here): dialectics is indeed the ideology of substitutionist elements in our movement.]

    All this has fatally wounded Trotskyism. It might never recover.

    Tested in practice? If so -- please: no more practice!

    These are just three examples of the thoroughly malignant influence this Hermetic theory has had on our movement. There are many more.

    Is it any wonder then that since the 1920's (at least) Marxism* has been to success what George W Bush has been to intellectual achievement.
    This was published here a few months ago (links etc. omitted):

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm

    ----------------------

    Added later; that Essay has now been published here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm
  16. #16
    Join Date Jul 2005
    Posts 6,289
    Rep Power 116

    Default

    Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@February 17, 2007 06:21 pm


    And, I am at a loss as to what the &#39;aesthetic&#39; appeal of these mystical ideas can be, except they fulfil a need in us brought on by alienation, in a way similar to that which induces religious belief (and religious art, etc.).
    it is "appealing" in the same way poetry is appealing--most poetry is subtle, it doensnt delivers the message in an outright way.

    and as i said before, i think DM is pretty much worthless. however in papers i sometimes use words like "negation" when i simply refer to things happening against the status quo--i dont use the theory of DM itself.

    a lot of worthless philosophy is aesthetically appealing. that is why jorge luis borges said once that philosophy is "good fiction", referring to how philosophy sounds "cool" but also referring how it is mostly meaningless.
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
  17. #17
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Marmot:

    it is "appealing" in the same way poetry is appealing--most poetry is subtle, it doensnt delivers the message in an outright way.
    You think!

    Pretty wierd scansion, and metre, and the content is a bit iffy too.

    But, much of religious stuff is 'aesthetically appealing' to some, since it fills a gap that alienatiion creates. But, would that make you want to help with an appeal to renovate a Cathedral?

    DM is just the same.

    a lot of worthless philosophy is aesthetically appealing. that is why jorge luis borges said once that philosophy is "good fiction", referring to how philosophy sounds "cool" but also referring how it is mostly meaningless.
    Which is why it has become part of the ruling ideas....
  18. #18
    Join Date Dec 2005
    Location San Diego for now
    Posts 410
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    I personally think that dialetical is a just a load of shit that can be done without.
    Israel sucks ass

    Please excuse my spelling, I suck ass at spelling. Sorry.

    Believe it or not, you can read it.
    I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit plcae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?
  19. #19
    Join Date Oct 2005
    Location Australia
    Posts 34
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Thankyou to everyone who relpied, Rosa, you are an eternal fountain of wonderful information and I will read as much as I can in the up and coming weeks.

    Cheers.
    Pandii.

    PS. DIALECTICS = useless verbose crud.
    <span style=\'colorurple\'>You think I am too small to be effective? Then you have never been in bed with mosquito. You think I am too small to have a big impact? Then you have never seen an oak tree grow from a couple of nuts that stood their ground.

    You can be a communist too.</span>
  20. #20
    Committed Revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location 127.0.0.1
    Posts 10,131
    Rep Power 23

    Default

    1) Do you, the RL community, think its important?
    2)Do you, the RL community, think its necessary?
    Please use the search function, we&#39;ve had a ton of threads on this subject in this forum, Philosophy, and Theory.

    DM
    DM
    DM
    DM

Similar Threads

  1. Dialectical materialism
    By bloody_capitalist_sham in forum Learning
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 8th May 2006, 23:37
  2. Dialectical Materialism
    By Ultra-Violence in forum Learning
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2nd August 2005, 04:11
  3. Dialectical Materialism...
    By The Children of the Revolution in forum Theory
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10th June 2004, 00:09
  4. Dialectical materialism
    By JasonR in forum Theory
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 31st January 2004, 15:24

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