http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...ism/index.html

I would argue this is not as simply divided out like V.G. Afanasyev's work on the same subject. This is an amazing resource online to understand dialectical materialism.


I would recommend this beginner level work to all who want to understand the philosophy of Marxism.

You have recommended this before, but Afanasyev makes all the usual mistakes, ones you keep ignoring.

For example:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24

This shows that not only can dialectics not explain change, but that if dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible.

This has already been explained with the wood-table example, but you refuse to acknowledge it. It's been shown that whilst there's no substantial distinction (which is why it appears as if no change has taken place), there's yet a change in forms, utility etc.

BenHur:

Not so, and you know it. [Or, if this were the case, you'd be able to provide the links. Go on, big mouth, where are they....?]

But, how can the things you say 'struggle' with one another? How can 'utility' make wood change into a table? And how can a 'change in forms' do this?

Once more, according to the dialectical prophets, all objects and processes change because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and yet they all also change into those opposites.

So, the wood that is used to make a table, according to this 'theory', has to struggle with what it turns into, that is, this wood has to struggle with the table it turns into!

In that case, the table must already exist, or it could not 'struggle' with the wood from which it is to be made.

But, if the table already exists, then the wood cannot be changed into it.

On the other hand, if the table does not already exist, then the wood cannot 'struggle' with its own opposite, that is, it cannot struggle with the table it has yet to become.

Either way, change could not happen, according to this 'theory'.

Now, I have backed this up with lengthy quotations from the dialectical Holy Books, and with a detailed and general argument. The above is just a particular, concrete example.

Other than wave your arms about, you, smarty pants, have yet to show where I go wrong.

And, we all know why that is: you have great difficulty with an argument that is more than a few sentences long, having an attention span less than that of a nervous cat...

can you please stop hijacking every thread on your posts in other threads?

She has every right to provide counter-evidence toward such a claim.

But instead of concrete criticism of the work at hand writen by the author. What occurs is spamming their links to their bankrupt theory.

TA II:

1) Nope.

2) This is a public forum; you post on dialectics, I will demolish it.

3) You dialectical pussies have your own, secluded coven where you can post nice, safe, comforting words for each other's delectation, where I cannot go. If you want to practice 'safe dialectics', use that electronic prophylactic.

These are links to RevLeft pages that demolish your 'theory', to which you never respond, because, if you are honest (heh, some hope!), you can't.

And I do not have a 'theory', nor do I want one.

Use the search facility to find out. I am not going to do the homework for you.

First of all, tell me whether you consider wood to be any different from the table. If so, why? If not, why not? Then you can better understand this example. Until then, I am not gonna waste time.

If a few sentences can prove one's point, why bother writing 100000-word gibberish as some people do (you know who, don't you)?

BenHur:

You made the claim; back it up or withdraw it.

Tables consist of wood, nails and glue, so yes.

But, let's make it easy for you:

Let the wood before it was made into a table be W; let the dialectical opposite of that wood be W*; let the table that is made out of W be T

Since W turns into T, W* and T must be one and the same.

But, according to the Dialectical Magi, things/processes change as a result of a 'struggle' with their dialectical opposite, and they all change into that opposite.

So, W must 'struggle' with T. In other words, that table must exist before it exists!

On the other hand, if T did not already exist, W could not 'struggle' with it.

So, either tables have always existed (or the wood they are made out of could not become a table, since it would have nothing with which it could 'struggle'), or wood cannot change into the tables they become, because those tables already exist!

Either way, change could not happen, at least here.

[The general proof shows it cannot occur anywhere, if dialectics were true.]

Now, it matters not whether T is different from, or the same as W, since W can only change into T if it 'struggles' with it.

So, T has to exist alongside W.

You keep ignoring this crazy consequence of your 'theory'.

In your unenviable position, I'd do the same.

Yes, and 130 years ago, I can just imagine a numpty like you arguing thus:

In fact, on this one point about change, if you ignore the 1000s of words I published at my site consisiting of long and detailed quotations from the Dialectical Gospels, my argument only stretches acrosss a few hundred words.

So, you can't even get this right!

The rest of my site is devoted to exposing the many, many other fatal weaknesses of your 'theory'.

No wonder you have to bad-mouth my work (without having read it)...

Rosa,

10000 words of gibberish are just as good as 1 word of gibberish.

TAII:

Never mind; let's hear what you have to say anyway...

If anyone wants to learn about Dialectical Materialism we have a group called Dialectical Materialism.

Good. That should be helpful for people like me.

TAII

Where not much happens.

Please do join us there

When dialectical materialism is applied on a metaphysical level as Rosa has done, then it does not make sense.

When applied to concrete examples it does make sense.

Which is why Rosa always makes up own example and her own definition of change.

Hiero:

On the contrary, as I have shown, this 'theory' cannot even account for change in cats, tables or boiling water:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=29

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...31&postcount=4

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24

In fact, as the quotations I have appended show, I have used the 'definition' of change found in Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and several others.

There we are told that every object and process changes because of a 'struggle of opposites', and that they all inevitably turn into their opposites.

But, if that opposite already exists, an object/process cannot change into it. If that opposite does not already exist, an object/process cannot 'struggle'with it.

Either way, according to this 'wondefull' theory of change, change cannot actually happen.

Here are those quotations:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

And still, after all your bluster, you cannot show where my argument goes wrong, you just make up spurious excuses.

PRC:

And end up discussing zippo...

Rosa isn't making an sense and has to turn every discussion into some metaphysical one.

What everyone should do is come join Dialectical Materialism group so you can discuss dialectical materialism without having to read spam where someone is posting a bunch of links to their hair brain argument.