Thread: Scrapping Dialectics: What would be lost?

Results 121 to 140 of 383

  1. #121
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    V:

    But, seriously, plenty of people studied history and class relations and didn't come to those conclusions. Even the socialists of the time thought there was a "social contract". Marx himself explicitly bashed narrative history.
    So? They were idiots.

    Marx got his ideas of class from the actual events in Germany and Britain, and from French and British socialists (this is all documented in Hal Draper's exhaustive study of Marx's political development) -- and his historical method from the Scottish materialists, among others -- Hegel merely slowed him down.

    "We" didn't establish anything. You simply made an argument that I didn't agree with and still don't. Perhaps we can continue that here.
    We esatblished Marx abandoned the dialectic (that is, as you ruling-class dupes understand it), since the contrary argument failed -- and according to what Marx told us.

    I noticed Rosa simply ignored this as it's not covered by the usual method reference (not that that was ever very convincing to start with).
    Unfortunately for you and Gil, I have the Collected Works of Marx and Engels in front of me, and the letter in question is on page 385 of Volume 46 (the letter itself is 3 short paragraphs long). It mentions Lafargue and Guesde, and certain reports from Paris. But there is no mention of dialectics. There is this, however (I quote it in full):

    "Your verification of the role of the second power when energy is transmitted with change of form is very pretty, and I congratulate you on it."

    As the editors point out, this is in reference to a letter Engels sent Marx on the 23rd of the same month (pp.383-85). In that letter, Engels rehearses an odd view of energy that does not appear in Dialectics of Nature, or in Anti-Duhring, which he calls a 'universal law', but which thereafter quietly drops from history. There is no more mention of it in the correspondence.

    Engels then says he has to get back to the dialectics of nature, but he does not connect this odd law with his work on dialectics.

    Marx is, as always, polite to his benefactor, but pointedly does not say whether he agrees with Engels or not. But even if he had, what this has to do with dialectics is entirely unclear.

    Now, all of this has been chewed over many times in the literature I referenced above, so why you think this is a 'smoking gun' I do not know; still less do I know why Gil referred to it.

    Engels entertained many dotty ideas that Marx quietly ignored, including this:

    "Comparison with animals proves that this explanation of the origin of language from and in the labour process is the only correct one. The little that even the most highly-developed animals need to communicate to each other does not require articulate speech. In a state of nature, no animal feels handicapped by its inability to speak or to understand human speech. It is quite different when it has been tamed by man. The dog and the horse, by association with man, have developed such a good ear for articulate speech that they easily understand any language within their range of concept (sic)…. Anyone who has had much to do with such animals will hardly be able to escape the conviction that in many cases they now feel their inability to speak as a defect…. Let no one object that the parrot does not understand what it says…. [W]ithin the limits of its range of concepts it can also learn to understand what it is saying. Teach a parrot swear words in such a way that it gets an idea of their meaning…; tease it and you will soon discover that it knows how to use its swear words just as correctly as a Berlin costermonger. The same is true of begging for titbits." [Engels (1876), pp.356-57.]
    Engels, F. (1876), 'The Part Played By Labour In The Transition From Ape To Man', in Marx and Engels (1968), pp.354-64.

    Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1968), Selected Works In One Volume (Lawrence and Wishart).

    Human labour creates language -- correct.

    Parrots have language, but are not humans, nor have they engaged in collective labour -- dotty.

    So, no wonder I 'ignored' this letter; you would do well to copy me.

    Anyway, you are a fine one to talk; you ignore much of what I have to say since you cannot answer it.
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 3rd June 2008 at 01:30.
  2. #122
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Well Ill just give others here Haldane's summary of the argument in the letter I referenced and for which Marx congradulated Engels and let them judge for themselves whether the argument is about the dialectics of nature :


    "In a letter to Marx on November 23rd, 1882, he (Engels) points out that Siemens, in his presidential address to the British Association, has defined a new unit, that of electric power, the Watt, which is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the square of the current whereas the electromotive force is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the current. He compares these with the expressions for momentum and energy, discussed in the essay on "The measure of motion - work," and points out that in each case we have simple proportionality (momentum as velocity and electromotive force as current) when we are not dealing with transformation of one form of energy into another. But when the energy is transformed into heat or work the correct value is found by squaring the velocity or current. "So it is a general law of motion which I was the first to formulate." We can now see why this is...
    Last edited by gilhyle; 3rd June 2008 at 23:35.
    "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
  3. #123
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    ..... so. The momentum and the electromotive force, having directions, are reversed when the speed and current are reversed. But the energy remains unaltered. So the speed or the current must come into the formula as the square (or some even power) since (-x) 2 = x2."

    This is patently an argument about dialectics since it is about change of form and it is patently about natural phenomena. You talk, but what are saying other than the unevidenced speculation that Marx did not mean what he wrote ?

    Btw Rosa, checked the other letters yet ? Since you have the MECW work your way through the volumes; there must be a dozen other references....though if you rely on the index you'll miss some of them.

    You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method and you think you know how to reconstruct his theory without it.....Gerry Cohen admitted as much after years of pretending he was a follower of Marx, just do the same and discuss substance instead of playing with camoflage.
    "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
  4. #124
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Gil:

    Well Ill just give others here Haldane's summary of the argument in the letter I referenced and for which Marx congradulated Engels and let them judge for themselves whether the argument is about the dialectics of nature :


    "In a letter to Marx on November 23rd, 1882, he (Engels) points out that Siemens, in his presidential address to the British Association, has defined a new unit, that of electric power, the Watt, which is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the square of the current whereas the electromotive force is proportional to the resistance multiplied by the current. He compares these with the expressions for momentum and energy, discussed in the essay on "The measure of motion - work," and points out that in each case we have simple proportionality (momentum as velocity and electromotive force as current) when we are not dealing with transformation of one form of energy into another. But when the energy is transformed into heat or work the correct value is found by squaring the velocity or current. "So it is a general law of motion which I was the first to formulate." We can now see why this is...
    Thanks for that Gil, but what has this got to do with dialectics, and with the fact that this topic was quietly dropped by Engels, and Marx, despite Haldane's hagiographic approach to anything Engels had to say?

    Those questions become all the more pressing when we recall that Haldane was one ot the Stalinist biologists who thought Lysenko was the bee's knees.

    His judgement was, therefore, somewhat suspect.

    Ah, but you have an answer:

    This is patently an argument about dialectics since it is about change of form and it is patently about natural phenomena. You talk, but what are saying other than the unevidenced speculation that Marx did not mean what he wrote ?
    Correct me if I am wrong, but what has change of 'form' got to do with dialectics -- not even Engels was stupid enough to put that in his screwy 'laws'.

    And, Marx was always polite with his benefactor; since Marx was not a physicist, how could he pass informed comment on this rather odd law, that no one else seems to know anything about (other than Stalinist hacks)?

    Btw Rosa, checked the other letters yet ? Since you have the MECW work your way through the volumes; there must be a dozen other references....though if you rely on the index you'll miss some of them.

    You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method and you think you know how to reconstruct his theory without it.....Gerry Cohen admitted as much after years of pretending he was a follower of Marx, just do the same and discuss substance instead of playing with camoflage.
    I, and many others have gone through these. And the conclusion is as Terrel Carver says.

    But, if you have a specific letter no one else has seen before, do let us know.

    Until then, I rather think I'll put more weight on Marx's published comments. You dialectical dupes can believe what you like from the scraped-together asides, comments and passing remarks you find in a few letters (many of which have to be twisted to make them even sound like they are about your precious dialectics, as we have jsut seen).

    Can you imagine, in connection with the work of any other great thinker, that his/her ideas would be read exclusively from off-the-cuff remarks in a few scattered letters, especially those which are not consistent with his/her own published remarks?

    But, with you mystics, apparently this is all OK.

    And Gerry Cohen can speak for himself; I have been a Marxist for probably longer than you have been able to read anything other than kiddy comics.

    So, you can stuff this where the Hermetic sun does not shine:

    You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method
    You continue to say such things in the face of the long quote I keep posting from Das Kapital (that CZ also ignores), which tells you that concerning Marx's method, he and I agree 100%.

    You have to cling on to a moth-eaten tradition that history has already refuted, and based on fragmentary remarks in unpublished letters -- you are the one who rejects Marx's stated method, not me.

    I wouldn't mind if this wonderful theory of yours was the very epitome of success; but it is the exact opposite.

    That alone should tell you something -- or it would if your brain had not been clooged-up with ruling-class garbage.
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 4th June 2008 at 00:00.
  5. #125
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You know Rosa, you'd be better off just to say openly that you disagree with Marx's method and you think you know how to reconstruct his theory without it.....Gerry Cohen admitted as much after years of pretending he was a follower of Marx, just do the same and discuss substance instead of playing with camoflage.
    Indeed. No Marxist is she.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  6. #126
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:

    Indeed. No Marxist is she.
    And, what evidence have we that you are a Marxist -- except of course your fondness for dogma?

    Oh dear! Silly me -- that actually disqualifies you...
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 4th June 2008 at 02:20.
  7. #127
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,079
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    ^^^ Well, to be fair, you didn't exactly answer the real question that I wanted answered in the Anti-Duhring thread (and the implied question wasn't about the book, but about who said a certain quote about that book ).
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  8. #128
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    JR, fair enough, but I think we would be using our time more wisely debating quotes about the Tokyo telephone directory rather than this execrable book.
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 4th June 2008 at 02:58.
  9. #129
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,079
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    ^^^ I was referring to Kautsky's philosophical outlook, damn it!!!
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  10. #130
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I know; and I was lamenting the fact that he did not spend more time on the Tokyo telephone directory, a far better use of his time.
  11. #131
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,079
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    As if a Tokyo telephone directory existed in Kautsky's time... or are you referring to totality?
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
  12. #132
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Good point -- perhaps then the Sears catalogue....
  13. #133
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Gil:

    And, Marx was always polite with his benefactor; since Marx was not a physicist, how could he pass informed comment on this rather odd law, that no one else seems to know anything about (other than Stalinist hacks)?

    I, and many others have gone through these. And the conclusion is as Terrel Carver says.
    You know what is really disappointing about all this is not that you wont engage with the evidence, thats predictable ...Terrel Carver, give me a break !!!, but this slander against Marx.

    Anti Duhring, published if I recall in 1877, am I right ? A book that sold exceptionally well in the the German socialist movement. And you speculate that to be kind to his 'benefactor', i.e. for the sake of money, filthy lucre, Karl Marx - what ever else he was a man of integrity - should, contrary to all the other actions of his life, have consciously disregarded what you speculate (without evidence) was a theory he supposedly disagreed with, a theory which was gaining wide influence in the working class, a theory that he knew would be associated with him because he was Engels' closest colleague, because he wrote a chapter of the book and wrote a preface to edited highlights (Socialism Utopian and Scientific), .....such a false theory was gaining influence in the class and Marx did nothing about that, according to you because this man (Engels) was his benefactor. In effect you charge Marx for money with allowing false ideas to circulate through the class and to be associated with him and his reputation.

    How little you think of that great man. In your charges against him you are in the company of Vogt, Loria, Bakunin. Im glad to say you are in the company of no one who has any regard to the facts of the man's life. Whatever else he was he was a man of personal integrity who protected his own reputation militantly, because his influence in the class relied on it and because he valued that above all else, maybe even more than his own family.

    There is an old idea that we charge others with the offences of which we are capable ourselves. Well it may or may not be true. But your unwarranted, unevidenced charge of such a miserly, unprincipled compromise says more about you than it does about Karl Marx.
    "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
  14. #134
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Oooh dear, hit a painful dialectical nerve, have we? The irrational, quasi-religious fervour seeps to the surface in yet another dialectical druggie.

    Gil:

    You know what is really disappointing about all this is not that you wont engage with the evidence, thats predictable ...Terrel Carver, give me a break !!!, but this slander against Marx.
    Another priceless lie from he/she who ignores what Marx had to say in Das Kapital, when I do not.

    A book that sold exceptionally well in the the German socialist movement. And you speculate that to be kind to his 'benefactor', i.e. for the sake of money, filthy lucre, Karl Marx - what ever else he was a man of integrity - should, contrary to all the other actions of his life, have consciously disregarded what you speculate (without evidence) was a theory he supposedly disagreed with, a theory which was gaining wide influence in the working class, a theory that he knew would be associated with him because he was Engels' closest colleague, because he wrote a chapter of the book and wrote a preface to edited highlights (Socialism Utopian and Scientific), .....such a false theory was gaining influence in the class and Marx did nothing about that, according to you because this man (Engels) was his benefactor. In effect you charge Marx for money with allowing false ideas to circulate through the class and to be associated with him and his reputation.
    So? I publish stuff at my site, written by theorists with whom I disagree over many things. This proves nothing.

    You seem to think that these two shared the same brain, or were as sectarian as you are.

    Ah, now we get to the hagiography:

    How little you think of that great man. In your charges against him you are in the company of Vogt, Loria, Bakunin. Im glad to say you are in the company of no one who has any regard to the facts of the man's life. Whatever else he was he was a man of personal integrity who protected his own reputation militantly, because his influence in the class relied on it and because he valued that above all else, maybe even more than his own family.
    How little you think of Marx is shown by two revealing facts:

    1) You ignore his actual words in Kapital (I'd quote them again, but CZ will only trash them).

    2) You try to implicate him in a rotten and incomprehensible ruling-class theory. Some Marxist you are!

    There is an old idea that we charge others with the offences of which we are capable ourselves. Well it may or may not be true. But your unwarranted, unevidenced charge of such a miserly, unprincipled compromise says more about you than it does about Karl Marx.
    Applies to you, too, Oh Unprincipalled One.

    Except, I can defend myself -- and you cannot; you just hero worship, and cling to the dialectical opiates that have addled your brain.

    Now unless you have something interesting to say (ha!), bog off and do something more useful -- like straightening-out the coastline of Norway.
  15. #135
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Amazing, Facts are that Marx never criticised anti duhring, you explain that by Engels being Marx's benefactor, I point out that that means you are accusing Marx with being corrupted by the desire for money and your response is that that responnse is 'hagiography'. How far have you gone into the dominant class view that you should think that selling one's reputation for money is OK and that denying that is 'hagiography'. How far are you corrupted by this society that you cant see that it is perfectly normal for a man to express his disagreement with a benefactor who is wrong and I dont need to be a hagiographer to ascribe to Marx that kind of basic personal integrity. What kind of commentator, I wonder, are you who denies him this basic personal integrity just so you can be right ?
    "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
  16. #136
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location North of the polar circle
    Posts 965
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Now unless you have something interesting to say (ha!), bog off and do something more useful -- like straightening-out the coastline of Norway.
    Warning! Off-topic

    Yes please. I'm sick of all those curvy expensive "highways" and tunnels we have to make. Thanks for a laugh.
  17. #137
    Join Date Apr 2005
    Location Canada
    Posts 644
    Rep Power 19

    Default

    Now, I’m in agreement w/ Rosa that dialectics really wasn’t central (or, for that matter, even peripheral) to the latter Marx (specifically Capital), nevertheless, let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that indeed Marx was committed to dialectics. So what? In that case Marx was [*gasp*] wrong on that point. I fail to see how Marxism can’t go on without dialectics. The onus is on the dialectitians to show how dialectics is necessary for historical materialism.

    As well, despite all the back-and-forth banter on dialectics on these boards, I have yet to see any dialectician actually directly respond to Rosa’s arguments in her very thorough, and well done, lambasting of dialectical nonsense.
  18. #138
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Gil:

    Amazing, Facts are that Marx never criticised anti duhring, you explain that by Engels being Marx's benefactor, I point out that that means you are accusing Marx with being corrupted by the desire for money and your response is that that responnse is 'hagiography'. How far have you gone into the dominant class view that you should think that selling one's reputation for money is OK and that denying that is 'hagiography'. How far are you corrupted by this society that you cant see that it is perfectly normal for a man to express his disagreement with a benefactor who is wrong and I dont need to be a hagiographer to ascribe to Marx that kind of basic personal integrity. What kind of commentator, I wonder, are you who denies him this basic personal integrity just so you can be right?
    And Marx never expressed agreement with it.

    Get over it.

    But he did summarise his method in Kapital, from which every shred of Hegel had been removed.

    You like to ignore that since it does not fit in with your class-compromised view of Marx.

    In fact, you prefer unpublished, ambigous remarks and asides of his, and indirect inferences. How very scientific of you.

    And who said Marx was 'corrupted'; I merely said he was always polite to his friend and benefactor.

    A simple, straight-forward, courteous human response -- Marx, may I remind you was not a saint, nor was he a robot.

    And we know you are not a robot, since you get rather emotive when your opiate is attacked.

    You need your daily Dialectical Methodone, don't you?
  19. #139
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Hyacinth, I have to agree with you -- except, for me, Marx's towering authority would be damaged if one of these dialectical dupes here can show he did accept this loopy 'theory'. Which is one reason I am defending his corner so diligently.

    Even then, it would still not make it any the less loopy, on that you are right.

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

    Thanks for that, eyedrop!
  20. #140
    Join Date Apr 2007
    Location Eisenach, Gotha, & Erfurt
    Posts 14,079
    Organisation
    Sympathizer re.: Communistisch Platform, WPA, and CPGB (PCC)
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Now, I’m in agreement w/ Rosa that dialectics really wasn’t central (or, for that matter, even peripheral) to the latter Marx (specifically Capital), nevertheless, let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that indeed Marx was committed to dialectics. So what? In that case Marx was [*gasp*] wrong on that point. I fail to see how Marxism can’t go on without dialectics. The onus is on the dialectitians to show how dialectics is necessary for historical materialism.

    As well, despite all the back-and-forth banter on dialectics on these boards, I have yet to see any dialectician actually directly respond to Rosa’s arguments in her very thorough, and well done, lambasting of dialectical nonsense.
    While I'm against dialectical materialism ("di-alectic" being a fancy way of saying "reductionist binary thinking"), I am somewhat open to dynamic materialism.

    After all, dynamic materialism covers historical materialism (I dunno why the original focused too much on history ), while addressing concepts such as synergy and totality - without going into logical errors and/or irrationality.
    "A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)

    "A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)

Similar Threads

  1. @nti-dialectics
    By Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor in forum Theory
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14th August 2006, 11:42
  2. dialectics
    By jaycee in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 9th June 2006, 14:11
  3. dialectics
    By sukirti in forum Theory
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 24th March 2006, 07:59
  4. Dialectics
    By Karl Marx's Camel in forum Learning
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 7th June 2005, 02:28
  5. Dialectics
    By bunk in forum Theory
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 9th June 2004, 22:09

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