Thread: Stalin on Materialism

Results 1 to 20 of 34

  1. #1
    Join Date Jan 2007
    Posts 303
    Rep Power 11

    Default

    Natural Quantitative Change Leads to Qualitative Change

    Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of development as a simple process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open' fundamental changes' to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.

    The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:

    "Nature," says Engels, "is the test of dialectics. and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle. but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years." (Ibid., p. 23.)

    Describing dialectical development as a transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:

    "In physics ... every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it. For example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises or falls, a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water is converted in one case into steam and in the other into ice.... A definite minimum current is required to make a platinum wire glow; every metal has its melting temperature; every liquid has a definite freezing point and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we are able with the means at our disposal to attain the required temperatures; finally, every gas has its critical point at which, by proper pressure and cooling, it can be converted into a liquid state.... What are known as the constants of physics (the point at which one state passes into another – J. St.) are in most cases nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement causes a qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 527-28.)

    Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:

    "Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies as the effect of changes of quantitative composition. his was already known to Hegel.... Take oxygen: if the molecule contains three atoms instead of the customary two, we get ozone, a body definitely distinct in odor and reaction from ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the different proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively different from all other bodies !" (Ibid., p. 528.)

    Finally, criticizing Dühring, who scolded Hegel for all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient world to the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic matter to the kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new state, Engels says:

    "This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations in which at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap, for example, in the case of water which is heated or cooled, where boiling point and freezing point are the nodes at which – under normal pressure – the leap to a new aggregate state takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 45-46.)
    d) Contradictions Inherent in Nature

    Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.

    The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.

    "In its proper meaning," Lenin says, "dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 265.)

    And further:

    "Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, p. 301.)

    Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist dialectical method.

    It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.

    If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.

    The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system

    The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.

    Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.

    It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.

    Further, if the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that there can be no "immutable" social systems, no "eternal principles" of private property and exploitation, no "eternal ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.

    Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.

    Hence, we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.

    In the eighties of the past century, in the period of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population, whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken; for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.

    Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not backward.

    Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

    Hence, the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.

    Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.

    Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

    Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.

    Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of the "growing" of capitalism into socialism.

    Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.

    As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.
    2) Marxist Philosophical Materialism

    The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows:
    a) Materialist

    Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."

    "The materialistic outlook on nature," says Engels, "means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, p. 651.)

    Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 318.)
    b) Objective Reality

    Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error. Engels says:

    "The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 329.)
  2. #2
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Jacobin 1949, as I have shown repeatedly, not only does none of the stuff you have posted work, it is riddled with confusion and error.

    Details here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm
  3. #3
    Join Date May 2006
    Location The Hague
    Posts 1,366
    Organisation
    Spanish Socialist Worker's Party
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    There are many things Stalin was, but being a philosopher was not one of them.

    There isn't much you can learn on marxism if you read his works (his works being a bunch of essays).
    "El ideal del P.S.O.E. es la completa emancipación de la clase trabajadora; Es decir, la abolición de todas las clases sociales y su declaración y conversión en una sola clase de trabajadores, dueños del fruto de su trabajo, libres, iguales, honrados e inteligentes." -Pablo Iglesias (founder of PSOE and UGT)

    "Quienes contraponen liberalismo y socialismo, o no conocen el primero o no saben los verdaderos objetivos del segundo." -Pablo Iglesias

    Art. 1.º España es una República democrática de trabajadores de toda clase, que se
    organiza en régimen de Libertad y de Justicia.
  4. #4
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    I dont understand your point Jacobin....maybe quantity is inversely related to quality in this case.
    "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
  5. #5
    Join Date Sep 2007
    Location Sojazistan
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@November 20, 2007 09:40 pm
    Jacobin 1949, as I have shown repeatedly, not only does none of the stuff you have posted work, it is riddled with confusion and error.

    Details here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm
    ok I took up your challenge.

    Engels outlined this 'Law' as follows:

    "...the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63. Emphasis added.]

    But, exactly how Engels knew that it was impossible to "alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion" he annoyingly kept to himself. It can't have been based on the limited evidence available in his day, for that could not have show that it was "impossible" to do what he says. Even the vast quantity of data extant today can't show that this is an "impossibility".
    you can't prove a negative, science can only make those assertions based on the lack of any evidence for the claim. you are claiming that it's possible for a physical entity to qualitatively change without anything being done to it. but what scientist backs you up? Engels example is self-evident, it seems to me.

    These include the following: melting or solidifying plastic, metal, rock, sulphur, tar, toffee, sugar, chocolate, wax, butter, cheese, and glass. As these are heated or cooled, they gradually change (from liquid to solid, or the reverse). There isn't even a "nodal point" with respect to balding heads!
    A balding head is not a change to a physical susbtance any more than taking clothes off a body is. No-one would claim it's comparable to boiling water.

    As for melting plastic, or anything else: the point is that the substances have a melting point. as you heat them up to the melting point, the change is qualitative - they get hotter but they aren't melting. Once they begin to melt, they enter into a qualitative change. Then once they are completely liquid, the change is complete. That's dialectical you see - the substance goes through a period of change, then becomes something else, which is a result of that change. Some changes will be smoother than others of course but there comes a point when the qualitative change itself begins - ie the melting point. 100 litres of water don't instantly turn to steam at 100 degrees either do they, so you might as well have used that example.

    Another recent favourite example is Steven Jay Gould's theory of "Punctuated Equilibria". Unfortunately, amateur dialectical palaeontologists have failed to notice that the alleged "nodal" points here last tens of thousands of years, at least. This is a pretty unimpressive "leap" -- it's more like a painfully slow crawl. Indeed, snails on downers move faster!
    hohoho, I see you don't jsut reserve your great sense of humour for Revleft then.

    If we're observing phenomena that occur over millions of years, and you could prove that changes occur in ten-thousand year bursts, then that would be a dramatic leap within that context. to deny that is the kind of anti-science I'd expect from the reactionary right. Let's look at wikipedia:

    Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

    Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5]
    The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_eq...#Tempo_and_mode

    Not that different to the transition to communism, then.

    Now, the difficulties the first 'Law' faces do not stop there. For example, when heated, objects change in quality from cold to warm and then to hot, with no "nodal" point separating these particular qualitative stages.
    Cool to Warm to Hot are not qualitative changes, they are quantitative, because the substance remains the same. they only become qualitative at melting, freezing or boiling points, which come as a result of those qualitative changes. And it's scientific fact that all substances have metling, freezing and boiling points, which come AFTER and AS A RESULT OF changes from cool to warm to hot.


    As we devote more thought to this 'Law' problems mount up: for example, the same number of molecules at the same energy level can exhibit widely differing properties/qualities depending on circumstances. Think of how the same amount of water can act as a lubricant, or have the opposite effect, say, on wet clothes; the same amount of sand can help some things slide, but prevent others from doing so; the same amount of poison given over a short space of time will kill, but given over a longer period (in small doses) it could benefit the recipient -- Strychnine comes to mind here.
    no no no :wacko: the qualities of the substance don't change just because you change the way you use them. I could hit you with a bottle (I wouldn't) or place it in your hand, its effect on you would be different but its objective physical qualities would not change. Likewise cold water on wet clothes or on a dry hand may have a different effect, but so what, this doesn't retrospectively change the physical qualities of that water before contact.

    However, other recalcitrant examples rapidly spring to mind: if the same colour is stared at for several minutes it can undergo a qualitative change into another colour (several optical illusions are based on this fact).

    the "colour" doesn't undergo a qualitative change, the colour is not a physical object but just something you percieve due to the interaction (dialectial interaction? :P) between your eyes and the way the object reflects light. your perception of this colour changing would be the result of a change in your eyes due to staring at the object for too long it would not be because the object changed the way it reflects light. Here, change which would occur quantitively if you observe how your pupils shrink and grow depending on light, stress placed on them etc., This quantitative change would then result in the qualitative change of you percieving a different colour.

    For instance, Isomeric molecules (studied in stereochemistry) are a particularly good example here, especially those that have chiral centres (i.e., centres of asymmetry). In such cases, the spatial ordering of the constituent atoms, not their quantity, affects the overall quality of the resulting molecule (something Engels said could not happen); here, a change in molecular orientation, not quantity, effects a change in quality.
    Wrong, engels talked about boiling water - this itself is a change in molecular orientation and not in quantity of molecules - no new substance is added. You are vulgarising the term "quantity" to mean that simply more or less molecules are added - all it means is that the molecules begin to move their positions and distance from one another (quantity of molecules in a certain space if you like) an addition of motion derived from the addition of heat, before that distance changes to such a point that the substance itself becomes a different one.

    To take one example of many: ®-Carvone (spearmint) and (S)-Carvone (caraway); these molecules have the same number of atoms (of the same elements), and the same bond energies, but they are nonetheless qualitatively distinct because of the different spatial arrangement of the atoms involved. Change in geometry --, change in quality.
    I looked this up...


    Would you like spearmint or caraway flavor? That's a strange choice, but believe it or not, they are the same thing. Well, almost. Spearmint and caraway both contain a molecule called carvone with the empirical formula C10H14O, or rather 10 carbon atoms, 14 hydrogen atoms, and 1 oxygen atom. The thing that makes them taste different is that one is left-handed and the other is right-handed. In order for something to have a left or right-handedness, it must be chiral.

    Chiral molecules contain the same atoms arranged as mirror images that are non-superimposable. Examples of chiral objects are your hands. Your left hand is the same as your right hand, but they are not interchangeable. Your right hand cannot be replaced by your left hand just as you cannot put your left glove on your right hand. In fact, if you look at your right hand in the mirror, the image you would see would be a left hand. They are mirror images of each other that are non-superimposable; therefore they are 'chiral'. Superimposable objects are things such as balls, cubes, and baseball bats. They are not chiral. When you look at their reflection in a mirror, it looks just like the actual object.


    http://www.scienceiq.com/ShowFact.cfm?ID=287



    I don't see your point here. if it was not "chiral" (a word I just learnt) then a quantitative change would be, theoretically, the molecule "flipping over" from left to right - imagine the pictures are 3D and you will picture it.. once it passed the centre point, the QUANTITATIVE change inherent in that moveent would become a QUALITATIVE change. look at the picture - how does the picture on the left become the picture on the right? your brand of "science" suggests it could just magically appear as its mirror image without first moving. oh dear.

    as it is "chiral", then the two molecules cannot change from one to the other, so dialectical analysis doesn't apply. also, for all your complicated language, you didn't even notice the very obvious example of a left hand and a right hand as used in the text, yet it would have served your purposes just as well. this makes me doubt your ability to see to the heart of any concept, and instead makes it seem like you use extremely complex language to describe banal concepts.

    However to answer your question, the answer is just an extension of the answer I gave above. If you could say change a model of an object into it's chiral mirror image by re-ordering models of the atoms or molecules, but still within the framework of each peice of the toy being interlinked like beans on an abacus, you would have to move each individual atom or molecule in regards to another, until they crossed. moving towards one another, motion, would be a qualitative change. once they cross, their position in regards to one another changes, and becomes qualitative. Once the first two "atoms" or "molecules" cross, then a qualitative change in the substance has taken place. the transition to the eventual desired result - the mirror image - takes place only once the final atom has been moved into the position it would be in the mirror image. Kind of like the difference between a degenerate workers state and a communist society, if you like.

    Your essay was too long for me to read beyond that point, but basically what I read was all wrong. You should stop trying to confuse young minds with your propaganda, you call others sectarians yet you're trying to undermine the very basis of revolutionary politics with pseudo-science just so comrades will join your Cliffite sect and unlearn marxism.
    Lenin’s internationalism is by no means a form of reconciliation of Nationalism and Internationalism in words but a form of international revolutionary action. The territory of the earth inhabited by so-called civilized man is looked upon as a coherent field of combat on which the separate peoples and classes wage gigantic warfare against each other. No single question of importance can be forced into a national frame.

    Leon Trotsky

    TVPTS - 24hr news, analysis and opinion, from a revolutionary perspective
  6. #6
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Z: From what you have posted at the end, it is clear that you did not read my Essay in its entirety (for I deal with many of the points you raise at length in footnotes and later on), and you obviously only skim-read those parts you did consult:

    "you can't prove a negative"
    Not so. This is a clichéd response made by those who know very little logic (which helps explain why you like the Stone Age 'logic' Hegel used), or who cannot think for themselves

    But, it is very easy to prove a negative in science, mathematics, logic and everyday life.

    You mean, "You can't prove a falsehood."

    Example 1: I claim it is not raining. You look outside and tell me "Yes, you are right. It's not raining."

    Example 2: A scientist claims the story in Genesis is not correct. Along comes Darwin, and proves her right; Genesis is incorrect.

    Example 3: A mathematician claims that the primes are not finite in number. Pythagoras comes along and prove her right too. The primes are not finite.

    There are countless more of these.

    but what scientist backs you up? Engels example is self-evident, it seems to me.
    More to the point, what scientists back Engels, especially when it is unclear what he is claiming -- but you'd know that if you had read my Essays carefully.

    And I do not need any scientist to 'back me up'; all I need do is appeal to facts established by scientists and common understanding -- like the ones I used.

    Some changes in 'quality' (but Engels left this term undefined, as you have, too) are caused by changes in quantity, but many are not -- so it can't be a law.

    And many changes are not nodal, or do not happen in 'leaps'. I gave dozens of examples.

    You try to deal with a few of them (more on that later)

    A balding head is not a change to a physical substance any more than taking clothes off a body is. No-one would claim it's comparable to boiling water.
    I agree, but then you should pick a fight with dialecticians who use this example, not me.

    As for melting plastic, or anything else: the point is that the substances have a melting point. as you heat them up to the melting point, the change is qualitative - they get hotter but they aren't melting. Once they begin to melt, they enter into a qualitative change. Then once they are completely liquid, the change is complete. That's dialectical you see - the substance goes through a period of change, then becomes something else, which is a result of that change. Some changes will be smoother than others of course but there comes a point when the qualitative change itself begins - i.e. the melting point. 100 litres of water don't instantly turn to steam at 100 degrees either do they, so you might as well have used that example.
    But, a melting point is not part of a qualitative change. From what little detail some dialecticians give, qualitative change is substantial change (Hegel got this idea from Aristotle). But, either side of the melting point, substances remain the same substance -- so it's not even a qualitative change!

    For example, iron is still iron whether its a solid or a liquid, so is glass, plastic and water (and practically everything, for that matter).

    And, I quote sources that tell us that many such changes are slow, and non-nodal. You skipped past those (how convenient&#33.

    If we're observing phenomena that occur over millions of years, and you could prove that changes occur in ten-thousand year bursts, then that would be a dramatic leap within that context. to deny that is the kind of anti-science I'd expect from the reactionary right. Let's look at wikipedia:
    I dealt with this at length; you need to address the points I made, not ignore them.

    The problem is that you are dealing with a term (i.e., 'nodal change&#39 which is undefined. And you do not define it, either. That allows you to use it subjectively, and to ignore or re-interpret cases you do not like. So, one minute a node is a few seconds, the next it is tens of thousands of years

    I call this "Mickey Mouse science"; now we see why.

    Not that different to the transition to communism, then.
    If that transition is non-nodal, maybe so. But, since Engels's law is entirely subjective, and dialecticians apply it selectively, then it cannot be a law, and you cannot know whether the transition to communism will be one of the exceptions or not. If the transition is like that of most melting substances, then capitalism will be the same on the other side of the change! [Iron is, so why not Capitalism?]

    Cool to Warm to Hot are not qualitative changes, they are quantitative, because the substance remains the same. they only become qualitative at melting, freezing or boiling points, which come as a result of those qualitative changes. And it's scientific fact that all substances have melting, freezing and boiling points, which come AFTER and AS A RESULT OF changes from cool to warm to hot.
    There is a qualitative difference between cold water and hot water. So it is a qualitative change.

    The problem is, once again, you are dealing with a term that is left undefined, and that allows you (and me&#33 to make these subjective points.

    So, once more this not a law, and where it applies it applies only subjectively.

    The melting point example is not a happy one, for as I pointed out above, either side of it the substances in general stay the same.

    the qualities of the substance don't change just because you change the way you use them. I could hit you with a bottle (I wouldn't) or place it in your hand, its effect on you would be different but its objective physical qualities would not change. Likewise cold water on wet clothes or on a dry hand may have a different effect, but so what, this doesn't retrospectively change the physical qualities of that water before contact.
    Some do, as I pointed out. Merely denying what I say is not enough, I am afraid.

    the "colour" doesn't undergo a qualitative change, the colour is not a physical object but just something you perceive due to the interaction (dialectical interaction? ) between your eyes and the way the object reflects light. your perception of this colour changing would be the result of a change in your eyes due to staring at the object for too long it would not be because the object changed the way it reflects light. Here, change which would occur quantitatively if you observe how your pupils shrink and grow depending on light, stress placed on them etc., This quantitative change would then result in the qualitative change of you perceiving a different colour.
    Once more, you are working with an ill-defined notion of 'quality'; until it is defined clearly, no one will know who is right. So, it's still not a law.

    Now, dialecticians have been using these sloppy terms for 200 years -- and no one, literally no one, has defined this term clearly.

    Now, you tell us colour is this or that, but you simply take that for granted. I deny it is what you say it is.

    When a scientist, for example, tells us Copper Sulphate is blue, she is not describing her own perceptions.

    Mickey Mouse theory as I said.

    Wrong, Engels talked about boiling water - this itself is a change in molecular orientation and not in quantity of molecules - no new substance is added. You are vulgarising the term "quantity" to mean that simply more or less molecules are added - all it means is that the molecules begin to move their positions and distance from one another (quantity of molecules in a certain space if you like) an addition of motion derived from the addition of heat, before that distance changes to such a point that the substance itself becomes a different one.
    Again, you are helping yourself to 'quality', but object when I apply it in certain ways you do not like. You do not like the subjective way you seem to think I have approached things, but you are quite happy to be subjective yourself.

    Until you define it clearly, my counter-example still stands.

    Now, Engels says this:

    "...the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63. Emphasis added.]
    Notice that: matter and energy added or subtracted, just as I indicated.

    So, you cannot even get Engels right!

    My example shows that change in geometry causes change in quality, contrary to Engels, and this can be achieved with an energy neutral budget between cases.

    Plus you are working with a loose definition of a system, and of energy inputs (more Mickey Mouse science! for example, are these systems thermodynamically open or closed?

    But, you would have seen this point had you read my Essay with more care.

    I don't see your point here. if it was not "chiral" (a word I just learnt) then a quantitative change would be, theoretically, the molecule "flipping over" from left to right - imagine the pictures are 3D and you will picture it.. once it passed the centre point, the QUANTITATIVE change inherent in that movement would become a QUALITATIVE change. look at the picture - how does the picture on the left become the picture on the right? your brand of "science" suggests it could just magically appear as its mirror image without first moving. oh dear.
    Once more you miss the point; a change in geometry here within an energy neutral budget causes a qualitative change, contradicting Engels.

    Now I do not deny qualitative change (an odd idea you seem to attribute to me); all I deny is that Engels got it right.

    Change in nature is far more complex than Engels imagined; for goodness sake, science has moved on in the last 140 years! No wonder he got things wrong.

    as it is "chiral", then the two molecules cannot change from one to the other, so dialectical analysis doesn't apply. also, for all your complicated language, you didn't even notice the very obvious example of a left hand and a right hand as used in the text, yet it would have served your purposes just as well. this makes me doubt your ability to see to the heart of any concept, and instead makes it seem like you use extremely complex language to describe banal concepts.
    Once more, you are applying your ideas subjectively, and deciding before you look at nature what you are going to accept as 'dialectical'. That is, you are not doing this:

    "Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels (1976), p.13. Bold emphasis added.]
    But you are doing this:

    "A consistent materialism cannot proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason, intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source. Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in practice...." [Novack (1965), p.17. Bold emphasis added]
    [References at my site.]

    You even use the word 'self-evident'!

    Now, I quote dialecticians (including Engels) who use similar arguments to mine to try to prove the opposite to me, that this law correct.

    You take exception to my use of similar arguments used the other way.

    Once more, this 'law' only works because of the sloppy 'definitions' you (plural) use (or rather, you do not even bother to define things), and the subjective way you apply the vague notions found in Hegel.

    Your essay was too long for me to read beyond that point, but basically what I read was all wrong. You should stop trying to confuse young minds with your propaganda, you call others sectarians yet you're trying to undermine the very basis of revolutionary politics with pseudo-science just so comrades will join your Cliffite sect and unlearn marxism.
    Ah! The sweet voice of sectarian point-scoring emerges at the end. You just cannot resist it can you? [And I like the way you use Ted Grantisms, here. As I said, you cannot think for yourself.]

    I explain why you mystics are like this in Essay Nine Part Two:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

    But, the SWP (of which I am not a member) agree with you, and disagree with me.

    So, if they are a sect, and they accept this mystical theory, and you do, what does that make you?

    And I will continue to rescue 'young minds' from the grip of a theory that has presided over 150 years of failure, which relies on Stone Age 'logic', a sloppy use of language -- and one invented by an arch mystic.

    If that upsets you, I am sure I can live with that.

    And, as I noted above, you have skim-read part of my Essay, and somehow think you have refuted me.

    What would you think if I said I had read a few pages of Kapital, made a few superficial points, and then claimed I had refuted Marx?

    Well, we both know what you'd say.

    And that is what I say about you.

    You do not have to read my Essays, but you need to resist the temptation to make a fool of yourself in public like this, and on the basis of such an amateurish reply.

    Come back when you are prepared to treat this with the seriousness it merits, otherwise, don't waste my time.
  7. #7
    Join Date Sep 2007
    Location Sojazistan
    Posts 1,895
    Rep Power 17

    Default

    Rosa:

    "Notice that: matter and energy added or subtracted, just as I indicated.

    So, you cannot even get Engels right!"


    He said matter OR motion. Therefore, adding or subtracting matter is not a necessity. My language in saying "adding energy" may be mickey mouse, but in fact, heating something up adds motion to the molecules, which is both solid science and what Engels said.

    As for hot water - cold water being qualitative just like water - gas, again I think you're being either misinformed or deliberately dishonest. Any chemistry class will teach you that any substance can exist in three forms - solid, liquid or gas, and that the properties of each are clearly defined and objectively different. They will not tell you the same about a hot and cold version of a substance in the same form.

    As for reading your entire essay, I read it for a long time and only got a fraction of the way down, and already noticed numerous errors. You then tell me you correct those errors later on, but you don't quote examples to show where. This is strange seeing as you are keen for people to read your essay; I'd think you would want to make as much of it read as possible.

    And yes, dialectical materialism is the philosophical foundation of Marxism.
    Lenin’s internationalism is by no means a form of reconciliation of Nationalism and Internationalism in words but a form of international revolutionary action. The territory of the earth inhabited by so-called civilized man is looked upon as a coherent field of combat on which the separate peoples and classes wage gigantic warfare against each other. No single question of importance can be forced into a national frame.

    Leon Trotsky

    TVPTS - 24hr news, analysis and opinion, from a revolutionary perspective
  8. #8
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Z:

    He said matter OR motion. Therefore, adding or subtracting matter is not a necessity. My language in saying "adding energy" may be mickey mouse, but in fact, heating something up adds motion to the molecules, which is both solid science and what Engels said.
    I do not deny this, but you had taken me to task for an objection of mine that involved the addition of matter, indicating that you didn't even understand Engels, let alone me.

    As for hot water - cold water being qualitative just like water - gas, again I think you're being either misinformed or deliberately dishonest. Any chemistry class will teach you that any substance can exist in three forms - solid, liquid or gas, and that the properties of each are clearly defined and objectively different. They will not tell you the same about a hot and cold version of a substance in the same form.
    Once again, you (just like Engels) are operating with no definition of 'quality'. This allows you to be subjective and inconsistent about what you count as a 'qualitative change'.

    I brought this out by being equally subjective (but I do not need to define 'quality' since it is your Mickey Mouse theory, not mine), and you complain.

    So, this theory of yours will remain subjective until and unless you tell us very clearly what a 'quality' is, and what 'qualitative change' is.

    I do not expect an answer from one as ignorant as you since philosophers have been struggling with that one since before Plato was a lad, and to no avail.

    We just do not have a clear notion of 'quality' let alone 'qualitative change'. It is no surprise therefore to see you struggling.

    [The standard attempts to 'define' it depend on an ancient and mystical notion of 'essences' -- Hegel merely copied it, put it into obscure jargon (as 'determinate being' (wtf is that?&#33), and so did Engels (except he dropped the jargon). You, Mickey Mouse, deep thinker that you are, just ignore the problem!]

    Moreover, your analogy with the change to communism means that either side of the change, capitalism will stay capitalism (it will just change its phase), just as water stays water when it is boiled or frozen, or plastic stays plastic when it is a solid or a liquid.

    On the other hand, if you argue that something new emerges after a revolution. based on this ill-defined 'law', then my objection stands, since nothing qualitatively new emerges when you melt say, iron; it stays the same substance -- there is no qualitative change here.

    Either way, your Mickey Mouse 'law' fails. Engels screwed up; you fell for it.

    But he had an excuse; he was working with obsolete science, and out-dated 'logic'.

    We cannot absolve you quite so easily.

    As for reading your entire essay, I read it for a long time and only got a fraction of the way down, and already noticed numerous errors. You then tell me you correct those errors later on, but you don't quote examples to show where. This is strange seeing as you are keen for people to read your essay; I'd think you would want to make as much of it read as possible.
    You do not have to read my essays, but, and once more, you need disabuse yourself of the idea that you have refuted me based on such a superficial and amateurish reply.

    And the 'errors' you have spotted turn out to be screw-ups on your part (many of which were handled in the parts of the essay you skipped, and in my reply).

    I do not "correct" those errors, since they are not errors (and I did not say that I had "corrected" them later -- you need to learn to read). What I do, and what I say I did, is that I tackle the sort of brainless objections you have come up with, and neutralised them. You would have seen this had you read on.

    In that Essay, I have taken on (mostly in the end notes) every objection that has ever been raised in the history of Marxism to defend this 'law', and every single one that I have faced in the 20 odd years that I have been working on this project, and every conceivable objection (many that you have not thought of) to the sort of attacks I have mounted on it, and I have neutralised them all (that is why the Essay is as long as it is -- in its final state in ten years time, it will be at least twice as long).

    So you are not likely to have discovered something new to throw at me.

    Now, I am prepared to put the work in, you are not. I have read countless thousands of pages of amateurish science and philosophy churned out by you mystics (the vast bulk of it equally poor, if not worse, but all of it repetitive), including that written by the following:

    Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Bukharin, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Smith, Bertell Ollman, Sean Sayers, Chris Arthur, August Thalheimer, David Hayden Guest, Christopher Caudwell, John Bernal, Levins and Lewontin, Woods and Grant, Ira Gollobin, Spirkin, Oizerman, Ilyenkov, Kharin, Afanasyev, Naletov, Spirkin, Mandel, John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Novack, Shirokov, Tommy Jackson, Henry Levy, John Lewis, John Somerville, Maurice Cornforth, Kuusinen, Yurkovets, Henri Lefebvre...

    So, I have done my homework --, you have not.

    Once more we both know what you'd say to someone who thought they had found 'errors' in the first few pages of Das Kapital, and who made a fool of themselves in public by announcing the fact they had refuted Marx, and refused to read any further.

    You are just as big a fool.

    My advice: stay out of the big league sonny unless you are prepared to do some genuine work, and/or you are ready to start thinking for yourself, for a change.

    And yes, dialectical materialism is the philosophical foundation of Marxism.
    Then no wonder Dialectical Marxism has been such a long term failure.

    We need to reverse that by ditching a theory that history has already refuted.
  9. #9
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 1,172
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Bukharin, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Smith, Bertell Ollman, Sean Sayers, Chris Arthur, August Thalheimer, David Hayden Guest, Christopher Caudwell, Bernal, Levins and Lewontin, Woods and Grant, Ira Gollobin, Spirkin, Oizerman, Ilyenkov, Kharin, Afanasyev, Naletov, Mandel, John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Novack, Shirokov, Tommy Jackson, Levy, John Lewis, John Somerville, Cornforth, Kuusinen, Yurkovets, Henri Lefebvre...
    Not that I know half of these people, but was there any reason you excluded Marx?
  10. #10
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Yes, since he slowly abandoned this 'theory', so that by the time he got to Kapital he says he merely 'coquetted' with a few Hegelian terms of art, and even then only in a few places in that great work.

    So, I do not include him among the dialectical mystics.
  11. #11
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 6,143
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Originally posted by Martov@November 21, 2007 04:32 pm
    Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Bukharin, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Smith, Bertell Ollman, Sean Sayers, Chris Arthur, August Thalheimer, David Hayden Guest, Christopher Caudwell, Bernal, Levins and Lewontin, Woods and Grant, Ira Gollobin, Spirkin, Oizerman, Ilyenkov, Kharin, Afanasyev, Naletov, Mandel, John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Novack, Shirokov, Tommy Jackson, Levy, John Lewis, John Somerville, Cornforth, Kuusinen, Yurkovets, Henri Lefebvre...
    Not that I know half of these people, but was there any reason you excluded Marx?
    Because the only way Rosa can oppose dialectics (and all those Marxists she includes in her list) and retain a Marxist identity is to falsely claim that Marx explicitly abandoned the method.

    Her evidence for this? Her own interpretation of one passage in a forward to Capital which is contradicted by subsequent statements by Marx. His confession that he "coquetted" with a few Hegelian terms is made to do a tremendous amount of work in Rosa's analysis: no less than signal the complete abandonment of dialectics.

    Now, we could produce another, altogether more puny list of Marxists (Bernstein, Eastman, etc.) who abandoned dialectics. Unfortunately for Rosa, almost without exception, they ended up abandoning Marxism itself.
    "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

  12. #12
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Z:

    Because the only way Rosa can oppose dialectics (and all those Marxists she includes in her list) and retain a Marxist identity is to falsely claim that Marx explicitly abandoned the method.
    But, we managed to prove I was correct on this in an earlier thread.

    Is your memory going?

    Her evidence for this? Her own interpretation of one passage in a forward to Capital which is contradicted by subsequent statements by Marx. His confession that he "coquetted" with a few Hegelian terms is made to do a tremendous amount of work in Rosa's analysis: no less than signal the complete abandonment of dialectics.
    Ah, but we need not speculate, for Marx very kindly added a summary of "his method", in which not one atom of Hegel is to be found.

    Since you have forgotten it so quickly, here it is again:

    "After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

    'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

    "Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted here.]
    And, if that passage is read with more care than Z can manage, the reader will note that there are no 'contradictions', changes of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation" or "unities of opposites", and the only indirect input Hegel is allowed is restricted in the following manner:

    and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him.
    Glad I could clear that up again for you, Z -- this is only the 20th time I have had to help you out here; I suspect we might need another 20 before it sinks in.

    Now, we could produce another, altogether more puny list of Marxists (Bernstein, Eastman, etc.) who abandoned dialectics. Unfortunately for Rosa, almost without exception, they ended up abandoning Marxism itself.
    But, the Stalinists use the dialectic, and they are counter-revolutionaries.

    So, this contradictoiry 'theory' of yours can be used to justify anything -- and has been used to justify anything (precisely because it is contradictory).

    In that case, there are considerably more anti-revolutionary dialecticians (the Stalinists and Maoists) than there are 'revolutionary' ones, and, as if to rub it in, the Stalinists and Maoists have presided over more revolutions etc. than us Trots.

    So, the dialectic is not super-glued to 'revolutionary orthodoxy'.

    [And it is nice to see you, Z, agreeing with the Stalinists and Maoists on this theory -- that should make you stop and think -- er, sorry, you do not do that...]

    But, all three are abject failures, and all three accept dialectical materialism

    Conclusion: dialectical materialism has been refuted by history.
  13. #13
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 6,143
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    R:
    But, we managed to prove I was correct on this in an earlier thread.
    No, you managed to convince yourself that you were correct. Not much of a feat in itself and I doubt you convinced anyone else.

    [And it is nice to see you, Z, agreeing with the Stalinists and Maoists on this theory -- that should make you stop and think -- er, sorry, you do not do that...]
    No, I agree with the Marxists. The only people who agree with your anti-dialectics is a handful of anarchists on this site. So you are the one who needs to reflect on who your friends are.
    "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

  14. #14
    Join Date May 2006
    Location The Hague
    Posts 1,366
    Organisation
    Spanish Socialist Worker's Party
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    But, the Stalinists use the dialectic, and they are counter-revolutionaries.
    Seeing Stalin in a positive light does not make you counter-revolutionary. Remember that.

    You may hate Stalin, you may throw garbage in his face, but whoever sees him as another "true" socialist leader is not counter-revolutionary. There are many fine people who sincerely believed in Stalin.
    "El ideal del P.S.O.E. es la completa emancipación de la clase trabajadora; Es decir, la abolición de todas las clases sociales y su declaración y conversión en una sola clase de trabajadores, dueños del fruto de su trabajo, libres, iguales, honrados e inteligentes." -Pablo Iglesias (founder of PSOE and UGT)

    "Quienes contraponen liberalismo y socialismo, o no conocen el primero o no saben los verdaderos objetivos del segundo." -Pablo Iglesias

    Art. 1.º España es una República democrática de trabajadores de toda clase, que se
    organiza en régimen de Libertad y de Justicia.
  15. #15
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Z:

    No, you managed to convince yourself that you were correct. Not much of a feat in itself and I doubt you convinced anyone else.
    You have the survey results I presume?

    Or are you just substituting guesswork/wishful-thinking for facts again?

    No, I agree with the Marxists. The only people who agree with your anti-dialectics is a handful of anarchists on this site. So you are the one who needs to reflect on who your friends are.
    In fact, you agree with the Stalinists and the Maoists (and a few libertarian anti-Leninist Marxists).

    With your head so deep in the sand I am not surprised you cannot see this.

    But, it is enough to know that you disagree with Marx. He, on the other hand, saw things my way -- as I proved in earlier threads

    And, even if you were right, not one of you brave mystics can win a single argument against me. But still you adhere to your safe little doctrines, which provide you with much needed consolation (as you admitted last year). You are clearly quite fond of this 'comfort blanket'.

    And, as you should know, innovative work in every sphere of human endeavour is often rejected by traditionalists like you.

    So, even if I were the only person on the planet who thought this way, that would not make me wrong.

    But, you seem to think truth is arrived at by counting the heads of mystical sheep.

    In your case it has clearly put you to sleep.

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

    Default

    I have split from this thread all those posts that relate to 'tolerating' Stalin and Stalinsism, and moved them to a thread of that name in History.

    If you want to comment on that, please go there.
  17. #17
    Join Date Jul 2006
    Location Somewhere in hell
    Posts 622
    Organisation
    Unorganized Proletarian
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Originally posted by Rosa

    And, even if you were right, not one of you brave mystics can win a single argument against me.
    A seed falls from a tree. (Thesis) Quantity
    Water, temperature, sunlight, soil (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
    The seed grows into a new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation
    The new tree. (Synthesis becomes the new Thesis) Quantity
    Birds, bees, wind, pollen (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
    Fertilized seeds fall from the new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation of the Negation

    There, I proved how dialectics is applied to a materialist basis, and how matter moves in spiraling motion.

    How you still cannot understand this process perplexes me...
  18. #18
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Criticise Some Things Sometimes:

    A seed falls from a tree. (Thesis) Quantity
    Water, temperature, sunlight, soil (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
    The seed grows into a new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation
    The new tree. (Synthesis becomes the new Thesis) Quantity
    Birds, bees, wind, pollen (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
    Fertilized seeds fall from the new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation of the Negation
    Oh dear, more Mickey Mouse 'Science'!

    This sort of 'proof' would be laughed out of kiddie school.

    There, I proved how dialectics is applied to a materialist basis, and how matter moves in spiraling motion.

    How you still cannot understand this process perplexes me...
    1) You clearly need to check on what the word 'proof' means in science and/or philosophy.

    2) Check this out, and then tell me this 'theory' of yours is explicable:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change

    3) I go further than claim I do not understand this 'process', I claim that no one does, not Engels, not Lenin, not Mao, not Stalin, not you.

    4) All you have done is list a few items that seem to fit, you have not even considered the many that do not, nor have you explained even how these fit.

    Now, I have shown that these 'laws' you refer to are far too vague and confused to be considered 'laws', and whatever they seem to mean, the evidence refutes them.

    You need to address my arguments and evidence, not keep repeating tired, old, and failed formulae.

    5) The Thesis-Anti-thesis-Synthesis triad you use is not even Hegel's (and Lenin rejected it too). Even if it were correct, it would suggest nature is mind -- for what else can advance theses like this?

    On that see here:

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

    Now, please, just for once, try to live up to your name, and start to think for yourself.

    Give it a go; you might get to like it...
  19. #19
    Join Date Jul 2006
    Location Somewhere in hell
    Posts 622
    Organisation
    Unorganized Proletarian
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Actually, I do think for myself.

    What bugs you is the fact that I (and many others) don't subscribe to your narrow-minded philosophy.

    See, you don't want me to "think for myself," you want me to think like you do.


    I'd like to see a better response from you than "Mickey Mouse Science," or spamming in another link to your website- which, by the way, I'll never bother to read because

    1. I think for myself

    2. Because it's long-winded, boring, and lacking in substance.
  20. #20
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Criticise Some Things Sometimes, and even then Make Sure You Get Them Wrong:

    What bugs you is the fact that I (and many others) don't subscribe to your narrow-minded philosophy.
    Considering the fact that I do not have a philosophy, but you do (and one that you cannot defend), well done, this was within a couple of parsecs of being accurate (the "What" bit, that is -- the rest you can keep).

    See, you don't want me to "think for myself," you want me to think like you do.
    Not necessarily, but it would help if you stopped regurgitating the tired old formulae and examples you copied off Engels etc.

    Now if you stopped doing that, we might just begin to believe you actually can think for yourself.

    I'd like to see a better response from you than "Mickey Mouse Science," or spamming in another link to your website- which, by the way, I'll never bother to read because
    Of course you would, and you will get just such a response when you post something that does not rely on Mickey Mouse Science.

    So, it's up to you; the question is, can you think for yourself enough to be able to rise to that daunting challenge?

    I for one refuse to believe the sceptics who say that even if we wait until the Sun cools, that will never happen.

    I on the other hand put it down to a few hundred thousand years, at most.

    You could even be the very first Stalin-oholic ever to do this.

    Please do not let me down...

    Because it's long-winded, boring, and lacking in substance.
    How do you know if, as you say, you have not read my work?

    On the other hand I have read the even longer and still more boring works of Stalin.

    Yes, I know the question you are dying to ask: how did I manage to stay awake past page one of volume one?

    Now, if you ask really nicely, I'll tell you so that you too can make it to page two.

    How's that for a deal?

Similar Threads

  1. Lenin, Stalin, and post-Stalin (Khrushchev)
    By Die Neue Zeit in forum History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22nd November 2007, 03:41
  2. Stalin defenders: How many did Stalin kill?
    By Cheung Mo in forum Learning
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 7th March 2007, 20:12
  3. materialism.....
    By rahul in forum Learning
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13th September 2005, 07:30
  4. materialism
    By Adamore in forum Theory
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 19th February 2004, 15:11
  5. Interesting info about Stalin. - Was Stalin a supreme being?
    By Turnoviseous in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st September 2002, 01:37

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