Can someone explain in very simple terms, as i am a bit thick
Thanks

^^^I have explained this theory very briefly (and also criticised it), here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_...mmies%2001.htm

A thesis (condition) got along with antithesis (another condition) produces synthesis (a contradiction condition). It is like proletariats' interest and bourgeoises' interest are in contradiction and yet they both exist alongside.

That what Hegelism Dialectic means. Of course, Rosa proved it wrong! (Don't reply ffs)

Edit

BR:

The thesis/antithesis/synthesis motif was in fact Kant and Fichte's triad, not Hegel's.

On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...95&postcount=8

In fact, I largely ignore Hegel.

And I did not 'prove it wrong', what I did do was show that Engels's, Plekhanov's, Lenin's and Mao's theory of change cannot work --, or, alternatively, that if their theory were true, change would be impossible.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong...84/index5.html

No chance.

A system changes according to the processes within it, and the way it is stimulated from outside. For highly complex systems, generally any stimuli acting on it from the outside are negligible. So, as is the case of the whole human civilization at present, these systems transform according to their internal contradictions.

A contradiction is the struggle between two opposing forces.

Internal contradictions in a system, can be many. For example, contradictions between the bourgeoisie of different countries, contradictions between women and patriarchy, contradiction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat etc. But within many such contradictions, it is generally observed that the outcome of only a few can transform the system and other contradictions radically. These we call the "principal contradictions".

Now let us consider a semi feudal -semi colonial country in the modern world. Through the colonial times, this system has progressed quantitatively, that is, imperial powers have saturated all the markets, without introducing any radical change in the economy, to such a point, that it cannot find new markets in this colony. Therefore, no further quantitative development occurs, and more and more capital concentrates on oppressing the broad masses. Note that the broad masses and imperialism have radically different interests, yet they exist within a common system. Hence the first law of dialectics, unity of opposites.

Now, the principal contradiction is between feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism, and the broad masses. Either the system will remain as it is, or it will change into a new-democracy through a violent revolution. If a revolution occurs, it will be a qualitative change, and new democracy will again develop quantitatively until the socialist revolution. Hence the first law of dialectics, transformation from quantity to quality and vice-versa.

Now let us assume that a new democratic revolution has occured. It has come as the negation of the earlier system, that is, semi feudalism-semi colonialism. Through the course of the revolution, the internal contradictions of the system also transform. After the completion of the revolution, the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat becomes the principal contradiction. Either new democracy will become capitalism, or socialism, depending upon the outcome of this contradiction. The new system will come as a negation of new-democracy, but will not necessarily be similar to what new-democracy had negated, that is, semi colonialism - semi feudalism. Hence the third law of dialectics, negation of negation.

Red Cat:

But, as you have been shown many times, because the dialectical classics tell us that these opposites "struggle" with and change into one another, this would make change impossible.

Consider cats (here is an earlier post of mine on this)

One another does not necessarily mean each into every other.

Red Cat

You see, your irritating habit of skim-reading my posts means we have to go over the same points time and again.

So, do us both a favour and read this carefully:

I agree; where have I said otherwise?

But, in view of the fact that Mao and Lenin (among many others) tell us that everything turns into its opposite (and into the opposite with which it "struggles"), and that such opposites turn into one another, this implies that socialism must change into capitalism and capitalism must change into socialism, and that the proletariat must change into the capitalists, and vice versa.

Last paragraph is not true.

Red Cat:

Well, as I have shown you from dozens of quotations from Lenin and Mao, it is in fact 100% accurate.

Now, unless you can show us from argument and/or quotations where I have gone wrong, or where I have misquoted them, then this denial of yours is little more than foot stamping.

One another does not necessarily mean each into every other. Now let's see a quotation in which Lenin or Mao give us an example like yours.

Red Cat:

How many more times do you need to be told? I agree.

But, the fact that Lenin and Mao tell us that these opposites turn into one another means that, according to them, the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie, and vice versa.

No. Where do they give such a weird example?

Red Cat:

As I have pointed out to you many times, they tell us that concerning every single pair of "struggling" opposites in the entire universe, that they turn into one another.

In that case, if they are right, the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie, and vice versa.

So, pick a fight with Lenin and Mao, not me.

Now, can we move on...?

Since class contradictions are what MLM-ist dialectics deals with, it is expected that Mao or Lenin would state this very important fact, referring directly to the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Red Cat:

Well, then you disgree with Mao, since he said this 'theory' appled to everything that changes.

Lenin agreed with Mao.

Oh Rosa please, just leave the learning threads, troll some high intelligent philosopher forums, but your wars with the people are always result in mass-posts of shit newcomers don't even understand one thing of, and when you finally see someone explaining things you can always count on Rosa popping up countering it with some holy wall of text, which AGAIN noone understands

Muzk:

No chance.

Sorry, I wanted to say that this is mainly what this theory is meant for. Considering that Lenin or Mao had themselves applied their own theory to class-struggle in their respective countries, it is expected that they would unambiguously mention the transformation of the proletariat into bourgeoisie, or that of socialism into capitalism, the way you are describing it, if they really meant so.