As we can see from BTB's post, 'Dialectics' and 'Dogma' share more than just the letter 'D'. It was good of this comrade to prove my point.

For example:

This flies in the face of what Marx himself told us in Das Kapital.

Where exactly?

It doesn't. Marx quite explicitly refers to his "dialectic method" in Capital.

Agreed.

BTB:

Indeed, but he is quite clear what he means by it: no 'unity of opposites', not 'contradictions', no 'Totality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', which is not what you mystics seem to think this word means.

I'd quote Marx on this, but you think it's 'spam'.

Trivas:

At least BTB tries to defend (albeit, rather weakly) the indefensible. You just roll over.

You have had it quoted at you many times, so you can drop the faux ignorance.

I'll quote it again if you can get BTB to allow me to do so -- he regards this passage as 'spam', so he is likely to delete it.

I have no need to defend Dialectical Marxism which is a fantasy of yours.

Why don't you defend your thesis:
and demonstrate where Marx or Engels explain DM thus.

Trivas:

That can only mean, as I pointed out to you before, that you think that dialectics has nothing to do with Marxism. Fine by me.

But, even so, you cannot defend your own theory. BTB at least makes some effort to do so -- pathetic though that is.

Why don't you try to answer some of my questions before asking me to answer yours.

You mean like "how does dialectics explain change?" But your assumption is that dialectics doesn't explain change, which I reject.

What other questions?

Rosa: Who said there was? Not me. In fact, the opposite in my post above where I encourage the setting to one side of Hegelian concepts.

Also, I'm sorry that you seem incapable of understanding historical materialism as we Marxists do.

Trivas:

Marx doesn't, but Engels does.

Try here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2002.htm

And you are a fine one to talk about 'defending' one's ideas -- you refuse to defend any of your own, whereas I have well over 7500 posts, most of which defend my ideas.

BTB:

So, you are quite happy to ditch 'dialectical contradictions', are you?

Fine, but try and get Trivas and the other mystics here to do this.

Yes, and we both know Marx said he was no Marxist.

So, I am quite happy to understand HM the way he does.

Well, too bad that the Law of Transformation of Quantity into Quality doesn't hold water

Trivas:

We know you reject it, but without good reason.

Moreover, I do not 'assume' dialectics cannot explain change, I have demonstrated that it cannot. You have been asked on numerous occasions to show where my refutation goes wrong.

However, you just slope away with your tail between your legs.

Trivas:

Indeed it does not; and here is why:

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

Moreover, as you can see from the above, even BTB has adandoned it.

Nope; how can you have demonstrated this when I don't know what you're talking re? Where do you tell us what you think dialectics is?

You've then need to show what Marx is doing if he's not applying dialectical thinking to history. You haven't laid any of this groundwork.

Trivas:

Once more you pretend ignorance. I have posted this refutation many times, and asked you even more times to show where it goes wrong.

Here is the latest example of that refutation (in a discussion you took part in, so you cannot pretrend you failed to see it):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=249

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=250

Volderbeek attempted a weak reply, but you sat on your hands (as usual).

The full argument can be found here:

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

I have no need to, Marx himself told us.

You can find his words at the beginning of the first of the two links above (unless BTB deletes it as 'spam').

It's not a refutation I'm seeking, it's a definition. I have no idea what you mean by dialectics.

Where does Marx define dialectics in that oft-so-quoted thread (where Marx himself is quoting a reviewer)????????
is no definition at all and the extent to which Marx comments on this review.

Trivas:

Looks like you have no idea what you mean by it either.

He goes one better, and calls it his "method".

But, you did not mention the word 'definition' in the post to which I was replying:

To which I replied:

You are the one who is fixated on a 'definition', which is a pretty un-dialectical notion anyway.