Rosa is still confused
Rosa likes Wittgenstein
We still don't know what Rosa's point it. Her best attempt at a point is contradictions do not exist

You do realize that scientific explanations use causality, dynamics, and so forth, right?

Or are you seriously trying to assert that Marx's abandons causality?

No; I never mentioned 'mutually exclusive'. It is you who keep reading your own misunderstanding into it.

Yes, exactly -- Marx's explanation in Capital of the process of social change is not a causal one. Newton's physics long before Marx had abandoned the search for causes.

Hiero:

Indeed I am, and it's about the same thing that you are confused about: the nature of 'dialectical contradictions'.

And you like Mao. So, what is your point?

Well, I do not have to have a point; as I noted above, this is your thread, in which you sought to tell us what a 'dialectical contradiction is.

As I noted above:

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.

In that case, you have passed up a golden opportunity to tell us what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, and failed to answer any of my criticisms.

And the extent to which you can't think for yourself is revealed by the fact that you even have to copy my one-liners.

Hence, and yet again:

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:

But you kept referring to 'others' who have responded to my criticisms, and they certainly mentioned this.

The phrase 'mutually exclusive' in fact comes from Scot Meikle, a definition that Gilhyle also endorses. So, it's not my invention.

No matter, your 'definition' does not work either (in fact it's worse than the one that Scot Meikle gave, which Gilhyle endorsed), as my posts on forces demonstrate.

You need to show where my arguments go wrong.

Until you do:

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:

Where is your proof of this rather bold statement?

In fact, Marx endorsed a summary of 'his method' in which his work is described as quintessentially scientific, as Red indicated:

And science, as you seem not to know, looks for causes.

This is a marvelous and baseless assertion. Being a physicist, I had no clue that Newton had abandoned the search for causes...particularly because in his Principia he writes:

Principia by Isaac Newton (1729).

Would you care to try to explain your assertions in light of the above?

I can similarly quote Marx, but you don't quite seem to understand the concept of causality...

Would you care to state what cause you think Newton's laws of motion or his laws of universal gravitation as expounded in the Principia explain? Or where the concept of causality is in Capital?

What "cause" Newton's laws as expounded in the Principia explains? This is barely grammatically correct...

In fact it's a metaphysical question (gasp).

I could explain to you how Newton's laws are an approximation, and how general relativistic mechanics explains motion then recover Newton's laws in an appropriate limit...but I am more than certain that you would straw man the entire explanation to something bizarre.

Try Chapter 13, wherein Marx explains the origin of capitalism...

You really don't seem to understand the notion of causality.

If Marx worked without causality, that would mean there is no reason (no cause) for anything to happen.

Why did capitalism come about? There are certain material conditions which make it so, that notion requires causality!

Causality is kind of one of the two foundational concepts in science...the other one I doubt you'd like any better!

It is of course a mistake to think that in ordinary or scientific language we only have one word to express our ideas about causation, that is 'cause'. We have in fact many hundreds, if not thousands. Here is a greatly shortened list:

Marx uses many of the above words throughout his writings, as here:

From Chapter One of Das Kapital:

And so on...

It would not be difficult to fill dozens of pages with quotations that show that Marx used the ordinary language of change and causation to express his ideas --, a resource, incidentally, that is far richer than that found in the highly limited, obscure jargon of dialectics.

What part of English grammar don't you understand?
Nevertheless the fact remains that Newton doesn't explain the cause of anything.
No, it would mean that Marx isn't giving a causal explanation of capitalism.
My point is exactly not so for Marx. Yes, all bourgeois economists looked for causes, Marx was not one of them.

Are you thinking out loud now? You were the one who wrote that barely coherent sentence...

Ah here is the straw man.

Newton explains how bodies move in three simple rules.

You are asking "Where does this come from?" Empirical observation. "What causes these rules to work?" That's a meaningless question, why not ask "What's north of the north pole?"

You are using sophistry to redefine causality as you please, it appears!

Would you care to explain why it isn't causal, or are you going to remain asserting things baselessly without evidence?

The vulgar economists pretend to do so, but in reality do not.

Marx was explaining the dynamics of capitalism with Capital, that's kind of the importance of the Law of accumulation.

If he were doing it "acausally" he wouldn't have set up a system that works in a causal way...

For instance, the capitalist invests money in the firm. How does he do so? With money that is revenue from the sales of commodities or from a loan from a bank or some other institution. This is kind of causal in nature...would you care to explain why it isn't?

Exactly. Unfortunately for you these don't constitute a cause.
But the answer to the question "what causes things" is exactly what Aristotle meant by science. Science for Aristotle was finding the cause of things. Which Newton never attempted. Which is exactly my point. What was yours?
If you think that Marx in Capital sets up a system that works in a causal way, so be it. I don't read him as a determinist.

Yes, we've established that you are being ambiguous.

Apparently, you're the only person that uses Aristotle's definition of "science" (assuming he did indeed define it that way, like everything else from you this appears to be an assertion without evidence).

But don't let that stop you!

The Newtonian laws of motion have been used to explain the orbits of the planets and the motions of bodies...why does it move this way? Well, by the first law it does so!

You ask why are the laws of motion valid; that is a metaphysical question. You don't seem to grasp this point: your argument is grounded in metaphysical nonsense!

You are oblivious to what was just stated, how cute. See Part VII: The Accumulation of Capital.

I am certain you are going to assert, baselessly no doubt, that it's "not causal" and then give absolutely no reasoning why.

That appears to be your approach to these matters...

Again, be as imprecise as you like, the Newtonian laws of motion aren't an explanation of planetary motions, merely a description of them.
No, I'm not asking why the laws of motion are valid. I'm saying that for Marx science wasn't looking for causal explanations, which is what you seem to be insisting he ought to do.

Trivas:

Depends what you mean by 'explanation'.

In a perfectly ordinary sense these laws are.

So, what sense are you attaching to 'explanation' here?

Unless you say, your objection is as empty as your 'definition' of 'dialectical contradiction' ever was.

Once more, where is your proof of this?

As I showed, Marx used the same kind of causal language you use in everyday life, so, according to the language he used, he was seeking causal explanations, as Red says.

Unless you can show otherwise, once more, your allegations are inadmissable.

If you think that an explanation is the same thing as a description, you're just wrong.
It is merely my reading of Capital, you are welcome to your determinist and ideal one.
In your usual simple-mindedness you equate the use of causal language (whatever that means) used in everyday life with a causal explanation of phenomena.

Trivas:

Where did I say that they were the same? However, we do not know what sense of 'explanation' you are using.

Even so, in a perfectly ordinary way, Newton's Laws are explanatory.

Now, it may be that you are using 'explanation' idiosyncratically -- or it may not. But, until you tell us, your challenge remains an empty one.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I was a determinist? in fact, if you look at the free will threads here, you will see that I am a sharp critic of determinism.

And causation does not imply determinism.

Moreover, as we have already established, it is your reading of Das Kapital that is idealist. This is because I have shown that Marx abandoned the idealist method you have swallowed (aka 'the dialectic' as it is traditionally understood), in that book.

Well, even scientists have to use this language to make their theories work -- and, as I have shown, Marx also adopted this 'simple-minded' approach to causation. So, once more, it is you that is out of line.

Anyway, we are still waiting for your proof that Marx was not offering a causal account in Das Kapital.

However, previous experience with the way you dodge/ignore awkward questions about other bold pronouncements you come out with from time to time suggests perhaps that the US will cease to an imperialist power long before you give an answer here.

Still, what else could be expected of a dogmatist like you who 'does not think about things he doesn't think about'?

Not so; just the stupid ones you keep bringing up, Rosa.