Hiero:

Yes, we know you accept the dogma, but repeating it is no more a proof here than it would be if a Christian kept saying 'God is inherently love'.

What we want to know, and what you and the other mystics here refuse to tell us, is why these are 'contradictions' to begin with, let alone 'dialectical contradictions' (the nature of which has remained obscure for 200 years).

Now, it may be that you and the rest of your ilk cannot tell us the answer to these questions; in that case, you need to be honest and admit that this is just another of your many dialectical acts of faith.

As I have said before, in that case, I am in good company, for no one 'understands' this 'theory' of yours (not Hegel, not Engels, not Plekhanov, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not Stalin, not Mao, not Avakian) -- or if they do, like you, they have kept that secret well hidden for the last 200 years.

Well, they seem particularly inept at explaining it to us, or at showing where my refutation goes wrong, or even where I 'misrepresent' dialectics.

Even you do not try to do that -- and we both know why.

So, the bottom line is that even you cannot explain this 'theory' to us, but instead rely on repeating these safe and comforting mantras, ones you have uncritically swallowed simply because the Dialectical Holy Men told you to.

No, the shameful thing is that you have surrendered your intellect to a series of dogmas that make no more sense than the Christian Trinity -- but which oddly enough, and unsurprisingly, emerged from the same neo-Platonic cess pit from which Hegel dredged many of his ideas.

Small wonder then that you have make stuff up about the 'mass line', too.

So, and yet again: what is a 'dialectical contradiction'?

We have yet to be told. The 'best' attempt so far suggests that they cannot exist, and so cannot change anything --, or if they do exist, that change cannot happen.

Us, we? You mean you and a few others. The others have never really read anything on dialectical materialism about from your blog. I hadn't read alot before this year on dialectical materialism, I thought it would be too hard. I had read some of your jibberish, which put me off it for awhile. Once I got into it I realised it wasn't that bad, and then came to the conclusion that you're one confused lady. To all those who have accepted Rosa's misconceptions about dialectical materialism I urge you to read the chapter in Engels Anti-Duhring about dialectics and then check out Stalin's work.

t first I thought I could never compete with and your vast amount of resources. After I did a bit of indepedent research I realised that everything you have produced mix of nothingness. various points but together in essay form with no relation to one another. It is a shame because you have read a vast amount of philosophy and a pity you have never done anything usefull with it.

I never said that. That's what you want to hear, or purposely mishear. Poor effort Rosa.

Hiero:

'We' is the good people of RevLeft. And even if there are only a few, we have yet to have this mystical 'theory' of yours explained to us in terms that do not fall apart upon examination.

Good, stay away! I would hate to free you from your self-inflicted ignorance.

Even so, you cannot explain your 'theory'. So, it is you who is the 'confused lady'.

[You probably do not know, but 'lady' is considered a term of sexist abuse here in the 'west'.]

But, these repeat all the same tired old errors.

Anyway, they will emerge from that ordeal none-the-wiser about 'dialectical contradictions', which is what this thread is about.

1) If this theory of yours makes no sense, as my Essays show, then we have as Marxists a duty to say that.

2) If I am right, and I might not be (but no one has been able to show where I go wrong), but if I am, then part of the reason why Dialectical Marxism is such a long-term failure can be put down to this 'theory'. In which case, the demolition of dialectics will do more to help us do something 'useful' than anything you have so far accomplished, no matter how wonderful that is.

3) I went out of my way to learn shed loads of philosophy and logic so that I could demolish this 'theory'. Now, you may deprecate my actions, but they were taken for the sole purpose of making Marxism more successful, not less.

Who said you did say that? I was merely pointing out that others here, and elsewhere, have tried to tell us what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, and have failed, miserably.

You haven't even tried!

In that case, and yet again: what is a 'dialectical contradiction'?

We have yet to be told. The 'best' attempt so far suggests that they cannot exist, and so cannot change anything --, or if they do exist, that change cannot happen.

Fine, you're one confused man.

You would hate for anyone to do any self study

I told you. Well I have stated, I don't care if you choose to ignore it, it is there for others to see.

Just to jump in on the thread without bothering to even bother reading it all.

May I suggest, Capitalist A wants to pay their workers the least possible, and have Capitalists B-Z pay their workers a maximum wage. Capitalist B wants to pay their workers the least possible, and wants Capitalists CDE-ZA to pay the most possible. And so on.

There is no contradiction.

The flaw comes from thinking that the entire class of capitalists are looking after, or want to look after, the interests of the whole. Capitalist A doesn't give a shit about Capitalist B and vice versa.


Rosa, does that meet your approval?

Hiero:

Indeed, and I am in good company, for you mystics do not seem to know what your 'theory' entails, either; you certainly cannot explain it -- even worse, you cannot defend it.

This is always assuming that you do any 'self study' that goes beyond your naive acceptance of everything and anything the Dialectical Holy Books tell you.

You haven't. All you have done is reproduce an alleged example of one, but you have signally failed to explain why it is even an example of a contradiction, let alone why it's a 'dialectical contradiction' (a term anyway that has yet to be explained to a living soul).

In fact, your 'explanation' (by merely listing an alleged example) is no more help than would be that of, say, a Christian who pointed to the birth of a child as an example of the 'handiwork of God', but who then refused to say who or what 'God' was.

Now, if he/she were to turn round and then say:

you would be among the first to complain that nothing had been explained.

In that case, you have once again turned down a golden opportunity to explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is -- as I said to you in the Mao thread, you would have been the first person in 200 years to have done this anyway had you bothered.

But, no: you chickened out.

Once more, then:

We still have no idea what is a 'dialectical contradiction' is

The 'best' attempt so far suggests that they cannot exist, and so cannot change anything --, or if they do exist, they imply that change cannot happen.

No good looking to this bogus Hiero to help us out here, then, comrades.

AM, thanks for that, but there is in fact a 'dialectical' way out of the 'difficulty' you posed for LH.

However, I am not going to do the work of our mystical comrades for them; they can find it for themselves.

Anyway, I already have an answer for that get-out!

Debating this with our mystical bretheren for over 25 years does give me an edge that not a single one of them can match -- unfortunatley for them.

That is the answer.

You choose to ignore what I have said. It is the thing that has inherent contradictions. It is only when two conflicting sides form a system that there is a contradiction. Two abstract opposites do not form a contradiction. And that is all you ever deal with, things in the abstract.

It is obvious if after 25 years you have invested so much in your arguement that you not willing to concede that you don't even understand the basics. You are constantly ignoring peoples arguement especially the main points. And this is important, because any Marxist writing on contradictions talks about the unity of opposites If you ignore this it does look mystical, but then it is you who turns it into a mystical things because you choose to misconceive. This is getting very tacky.

Also I answered you comment on things turning into their opposites.

It actually wasn't that hard. There is nothing mystical about dialectics.

So is there anything new you want to discuss, or are we finished?

Um what?

Can we deal with concrete examples. It is really shameful when you have to use abstract answers with no social existance to prove your arguement.

Indeed, IMO what Rosa is attempting to do is to apply a causal and logical model upon Marxian analysis. But for Marx the only scientific method was to see social revolution in its historical context -- dynamic, acausal, and related in terms of an ecological ensemble of its material base, i.e., social relations, relation to nature, ideology, labor relations, the productive forces, lifestyle, etc.

True...if reality conformed to your simplistic logic.

Let me translate: Since you Rosa can think only in simple categories you cannot understand how mutual exclusive things can co-exist. Therefore (for you) they dont. Max Stirner and the Cardinals refusing to look into Galileo's telescope would have been proud of you - you dont understand it, therefore it isnt the case.

Hiero:

Quite obviously it isn't. You do not tell us why these are 'contradictions', you just asserted they were.

You are just like any other dogmatist (including religious ones) who think that we should all simply accept the Sacred Word if it is repeated enough times.

For example, why is this a 'contradiction':

Once more you just assert it is one.

Why is this 'metaphysical'? Yet again, you just copy Engels, who copied Hegel. No reason is given.

If a Christian were to assert things like this, that 'God' is this or that; that this or that is a 'sin', you would not accept it for one minute.

Why then should us materialists accept the word of you mystics?

Not so; I responded earlier more or less as I have responded just here.

The truth is, that you ignored my request that you tell us why these are contradictions in the first place, and why you use the word 'metaphysical' here with no justification (except on Hegel and Engels's say so).

Moreover, you failed to say where my refutation of Mao's 'theory' of change goes wrong. Here is the link again:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...57&postcount=2

And we still do not know what a 'dialectical contradiction' is. You keep refusing to tell us.

As I have said to you and others several times: I am in good company here, for it is quite clear that neither you nor anyone else at RevLeft understands this mystical 'theory' of yours, just as it is clear that neither Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao or even Bob Avakian understands it -- or if they do, they have kept that secret well hidden. As have you.

Not so, all you did was pass an irrelevant comment about the forces and relations of production:

I responded to this (which you have ignored) that according to Engels, Lenin and Mao, things struggle with their dialectical 'opposites', which they 'contradict', and that these opposites turn into one another. They do not turn into something else, they turn into one another.

So, in this case, if there is a contradiction between the forces and relations of production, according to the Dialectical Prophets, the forces of production should turn into the relations of production, and vice versa.

Furthermore, if the proletariat struggles with the bourgeoisie, then, according to the Dialectical Holy Men, the proletariat should turn into the bourgeoisie, and the latter should turn onto the proletariat!

Those are the consequences of your loopy 'theory'!

Moreover, you failed to respond to my proof that Mao's theory would mean that nothing could change. That proof can be found at the above link.

Scientists and mathematicians use 'abstract' arguments all the time. Even Marx does in Das Kapital! It is only you mystics who do not like them.

Here is a 'concrete' version:

No contradiction.

Once more, and for the twentieth time:

We still have no idea what is a 'dialectical contradiction' is

The 'best' attempt so far suggests that they cannot exist, and so cannot change anything --, or if they do exist, they imply that change cannot happen.

Gil:

Then you can't mean by 'mutually exclusive' what the rest us mean.

So, what do you mean by 'mutually exclusive'?

And, if my logic is 'simplistic', pray tell us how your superior 'logic' can explain how two mutually exclusive objects or processes can in fact co-exist.

If they co-exist, then they cannot be mutually exclusive. On the other hand, if they are mutually exclusive, they cannot co-exist.

Now, the only way out of this impasse is if you interpret 'mutually exclusive' not to mean that the one excludes the other.

But if that is so, then this 'definition' of a 'dialectical contradiction' falls apart. This is because, if these do not exclude one another, they cannot contradict each other (since that is what we were told these should do). On the other hand, if they do indeed exclude one another, then they cannot co-exist, and so cannot 'contradict' one another.

However you try to slice this, it falls apart.

Well, it should be easy for a superior intellect like you to explain the new meaning you are giving to 'mutually exclude' that in fact means that they do not mutually exclude one another.

[It is as if Galileo told the cardinals to look down his telescope but then he also meant that they should not look down it, which instruction they would not be able to grasp since they could only think in simple categories!]

So, unless you can tell us what this 'new' meaning of 'mutually exclude' is, which in fact does not mean mutually exclude, this remains the case:

We still have no idea what is a 'dialectical contradiction' is

The 'best' attempt so far suggests that they cannot exist, and so cannot change anything --, or if they do exist, they imply that change cannot happen.

Trivas:

I am quite happy to apply any methodology you like to this knotty problem, but in order to do that we need to be told what a 'dialectical contradiction' is first.

We have yet to be told.

Certainly, you keep dodging this issue (as you do all others).

Or rather:

The 'best' attempt so far suggests that they cannot exist, and so cannot change anything --, or if they do exist, they imply that change cannot happen.

And once more you assert absolutely nothing of worth.

You just don't get it. Some people weren't meant to be communsit, that is why the party is called the vanguard.

Hiero:

1) You (not me) began this thread with the express intent of trying to explain to the good people here what a 'dialectical contradiction' is.

2) But, all you did was give a semi-abstract example of one while you failed to say (and now it seems you refuse to say) why it was a 'contradiction' to begin with, let alone a 'dialectical' one.

3) So, I am not trying to assert anything with respect to this, I am merely asking you to explain why the example you gave is in fact a contradiction.

4) You keep saying it is, but refuse to say why.

Now, I predicted this would happen --, or rather, I said that if you actually managed to tell us what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, you'd be the first person in 200 years to do so, and I wished you good luck.

Seems you now need a miracle!

This was in fact an ideal opportunity for you to dazzle us all with your dialectical logic; it was your thread, your platform, your choice of topic (not mine).

But, what did you do? You chickened out, and then attacked me for having the temerity to ask you to explain the very thing you had set out to explain!

The rest of us can only conclude that either you are yet another dialectician who cannot explain himself -- to add to the hundreds (no exaggeration) I have met over the last 25 years who say almost exactly what you tried to say, and who also ducked the question, like you have -- or the phrase 'dialectical contradiction' is as empty a phrase as 'slithy tove' is.

You can always prove me wrong by actually telling us what a 'dialectical contradiction' is --, but if you could, you would have done so already.

So, like the other Maoists who chickened out in the 'Mass line' thread, too, and who could not prove that this was 'from the masses', you have bottled it also.

This is not a very impressive record you Maoists are establising for yourselves...

Apparently I am not the only one, since it is now clear that you 'don't get it', either, otherwise you would have been able to tell us what a 'dialectical contradiction' is.

What's a 'communsit'? Is it a communist who can't explain what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, by any chance?

If the rest are like you, it should be re-named 'the gullible'.

There are none so blind as those who do not choose to see.

You have been told repeatedly that a dialectical contradiction is opposing forces within a material unity.

Trivas:

See what?! You lot refuse to tell us.

Ah, but you missed out the 'mutually exclusive' part, which ruins the whole story.

If they are 'mutually exclsuive' then they can't exist together, so they can't interact.

On the other hand, if they do exist together, then they can't be 'mutually exclusive', and so can't be 'dialectical contradictions'.

And I answered the 'opposing forces' ploy too, in another thread (and in answer to you, and I even had to post it twice then since you just ignored it); here it is again:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=464

More to follow.

I even went on to post this, too, and you ignored it as well (a second time):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=465

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=466

In that case:

We still do not know what a 'dialectical contradiction' is -- or if we do, then we also know that they cannot exist, and so cannot change anything.