Well, they are supposed to be used in conjunction.

Yes, if I explain Dialectics to him, and get him to understand it so he can come to his own conclusions from it, I will be the next Stalin.

The only way to prevent that is to make sure everyone has the tools and the knowledge to understand the world on their own.

This is what this thread is about.

Yes, it's soo evil! Read the link, respond to it directly. I'm afraid that if we keep this in the realm of the baseless personal attacks, I may attack you back. So put your facts where your mouth is old man.

So is the problem, for those of you who don’t want to use DM, that’s its dialectics (Hegel and stuff) or is it dialectical materialism? Or is it both?

I understand that Marx & Engle’s turned dialectics on its head, and created DM.

So, would a person who uses DM compared to someone like Fukuyama who uses another type of dialectics, share the same method of getting to their conclusions?

Also, do people who criticize DM also criticize the dialectics of Fukuyama, for much the same reasons?

Can i just ask, what this means? What is DM supposed to do, if not just to explain the way the world works? hehe its mainly the thing i am trying to find out.

BTW, thanks for all the feedback everyone!

The "problem" is that you can use historical materialism to actually explain things...in ordinary language that anyone can understand.

Using Historical Materialism

Adding "dialectics" to the "mix" is like adding crankcase oil to cakebatter...the result is useless for any purpose.

Hegelian mysticism was the culmination of a long period in European "intellectual" life dominated by "esoteric mysteries" and "hidden keys to knowledge".

Had Marx been "lucky" and gone to college in France or England, then we would know (or care) nothing about "dialectics". It's the "aura effect"...being associated with Marx's name makes "dialectics" intellectually respectable to those who regard Marx's other ideas as profoundly interesting and significant.

Fortunately, that time is finally coming to an end. More and more young lefties think, quite properly, that Hegel was a fraud and that just because Marx "fell for it" doesn't mean that they "have to fall for it too".

Quote:

Che y Marijuana

Chairman Ted is even older than I am...truly a "living fossil".

Playing the "age card" isn't going to help you here.

Try lazy vulgar American anti-intellectual petty-bourgeois pragmatist!

That might distract a few people.

The real problem for non-Marxists is that their attempts to seperate Dialectical Materialism from Historical Materialism are like trying to classify oranges and orange peel as two distinct fruits.

Historical Materialism is nothing more than the sociological application of the methods of Dialectical Materialism.

Same language, same methods, just applied in a specific field. The words you claim are so mystical about dialectics are the same ones used in historical materialism. Conflict, contradiction, opposing forces, the quantitative accumulation of struggles generalized into a qualitative societal change.

Your false dichotomy falls flat on its face, old man.

Yes, hegel grew out of the mysticism of his age, but he did stumble upon truth. This is why Marx and Engels demystified his dialectics, or, in Marx's words: "put it on its head".

Had Marx not used dialectics as the basis of his studies, we certainly would have ended up with a much more rigid, and therefore less realistic understanding of revolution.

It is dialectics, the understanding of equilibrium and explosion, that seperated Marx from the idealists who had nothing to say about how to realistically change the world

The period of decline amongst the left you speak of is over. It was a short period after the end of the Soviet Union that saw a left incapable of real analysis and paralyzed by lifestylism and sectarianism.

Fortunately, that trend is on the reverse again, and real living analysis is back on the agenda for the left. The new social explosions in south america, the indian subcontinent, and europe have breathed new life into the decaying corpse of the left.

So you refuse to address the link, and instead would like to engage in some more personal attacks.

Again, answer the link, because your personal attacks will not go unanswered if you don't put some content in your posts.

CyM wrote:

If that is the case then why did Marx and Engels considered Lewis Henry Morgan to be an independent discoverer of the materialist conception of history? Morgan lived in America and yet he discovered historical materialism apart from Marx without the use of dieletics. Another question is did anyone else come up with dieletics apart from Hegal? Who is Fukuyama?

I have not read Lewis, I was referring to the Historical Materialism of Marx and Engels.

I would imagine that while it may bare some similarities to that of Marx, Lewis's does not have the same organic view of revolution as a theory developed with the conscious knowledge of change that Dialectical Materialism provided Marx and Engels. But I would have to check it out.

As for Hegel, Dialectics has a long history, as far back as greek philosophy, but until Marx it had reached its zenith with Hegel.

Ahh, hes just some dude.

He is a neo-conservative, but now renounces that i think.

he is kinda like the right wing academic who said that because the soviet union fell, it proved communism would never come into force and capitalism. or liberal "democracy" was infact the end of history.

In the academic world, people love him because communism is out of fasion, hehe.

and he uses dialectics. So im am glad to hear, they are discedited these days.

Only reason i know about him is at uni they preach his shit like gospel, oh well.

Fukuyama has very little to do with Marxist dialectics though. Marxist dialectics sees the end of class society not as the end of history, but the beginning of a new history. A history written consciously and rationally by human beings freed from the unconscious and uncontrollable forces of the market.

Which version of "Marxist dialectics"? ....Marx's version? ....or Engels, or Plekhanov, or Trotsky, or Bukharin's, or Mao, and so on.

I actually find it rather amusing that people get so worked up about this whole subject.

After all, if some people think that 19th century German philosophy is useful, then that's their choice....but if others find it crap (or like myself find it unintelligible), then so be it.

Marx, as far as I know, never used the phrase dialectical materialism....he simply employed dialectics as a method some of the time. He also borrowed some of the methods of the "English Economists" as they are called, despite some of the most prominent ones being Scottish! <_<

Yet, not many people would be "outraged" if someone proposed that a section of Marx's work which was heavily influenced by the economists was "out of date"....indeed Lenin (and a few others before him) drastically altered Marxist economics with their theories on Imperialism.

So I really don't see what all the fuss is about when people propose that the tools used with regards the Materialist Conception of History could be altered....after all, times change and tools get old!

Indeed, ComradeRed has proposed in the past that it may be possible to place Historical Materialism in a Mathematical framework....this would likely be a "step up" from dialectics and therefore it does interest me.

After all, copper pipe is better than lead pipe. :P

On a side note, and this relates to my point about Marx and the phrase dialectical materialism, it was Engels who, as far as I know, coined the term Materialist Conception of History (Historical Materialism) and Plekhanov who first used the phrase dialectical materialism....Marx, for once in his life, wasn't bold enough to give his theory a name.

And additionally, within "Marxist circles", dialectics seems to have taken a role similar to Goodwin's Law some of the time....certain well known Marxists will spout a load of rubbish and when questioned about it, they will say that it's dialectal -- St. Avakian springs to mind here!

So really, I'd say that if your brain works in a manner that is capable of understanding 19th century German philosophy, then give dialectics a try....but if your brain doesn't work in such a manner, try to find methods you can understand.
_________

Oh, and CyM, that link is pretty interesting, but really, is dialectics necessary to note change?

After all, couldn't we just say, in a kind of formal logical sense, that the means of production change (A equals B) and then human consciousness changes too (B equals C) and so on.

I don't see why dialectics needs to be used here, or that only dialectics can be used....wouldn't it be easier to just say advancement in technology X produced social phenomena Y?

And aside from that, whatever method you employ to understand social reality, you still have to back it up with evidence and explain why your conclusions are correct....just saying they are correct because of the method you employed in and of itself, isn't what I'd consider good practice.

Armchair, you are absolutely right, not only do we not need dialectics to account for change, it cannot do so. Indeed, we have countless thousands of words in ordinary material language (and in the sciences) that can be used to depict change to any level of accuracy needed.

Here is how I explained things in Essay Six at my site:

'This is how John Rees put things:

"Ordinary language assumes that things and ideas are stable, that they are either 'this' or 'that'. And, within strict limits, these are perfectly reasonable assumptions. Yet the fundamental discovery of Hegel's dialectic was that things and ideas do change…. And they change because they embody conflicts which make them unstable…. It is to this end that Hegel deliberately chooses words that can embody dynamic processes." [Rees (1998), p.45.]

The problem with this passage is that it gets things completely the wrong way round. It is in fact our use of ordinary language that enables us to refer to change. Technical and philosophical jargon (and especially that which was invented by Hegel) is practically useless in this regard since it is wooden, static and of indeterminate meaning, despite what Rees asserts.

As is well-known by Marxists, human society developed because of its constant interaction with nature and as a result of the struggle between classes. In which case, ordinary language could not fail to have developed the logical multiplicity to record changes of limitless complexity.

This is no mere dogma; it is easily confirmed. Here is a greatly shortened list of ordinary words (restricted to modern English) that allow speakers to refer to changes of unbounded complexity:

Vary, alter, adjust, amend, mutate, transmute, modify, develop, expand, swell, flow, differentiate, fast, slow, rapid, hasty, melt, harden, drip, cascade, fade, is, was, will be, will have been, had, will have had, went, go, going, gone, lost, age, flood, crumble, disintegrate, erode, corrode, flake, tumble, cut, crush, grind, shred, fall, rise, spin, oscillate, rotate, wave, quickly, slowly, instantaneous, suddenly, gradually, rapidly, sell, buy, lose, win, ripen, rot, perish, grow, decay, more, less, fewer, steady, steadily, jerkily, slowly, quickly, very, extremely, exceedingly, intermittent, continuous, continual, push, pull, jump, break, charge, assault, dismantle, replace, undo, reverse, repeal, quash, hour, minute, second, instant, destroy, annihilate, boil, freeze, thaw, liquefy, evaporate, solidify, condense, protest, challenge, expel, eject, remove, overthrow, expropriate, defeat, strike, revolt, riot, march, demonstrate, rebel, campaign, agitate and organise….

Naturally, it would not be difficult to extend this list until it contained literally tens of thousands of words all capable of depicting countless changes in limitless detail. It is only a myth put about by Hegel and DM-theorists (unwisely echoed by Rees, and others) that ordinary language cannot express change. On the contrary, it performs this task far better than the incomprehensible and impenetrably obscure jargon Hegel invented in order to fix something that was not broken.

Dialecticians, it seems, would have us believe that because of the alleged shortcomings of the vernacular, only the most recondite and abstruse terminology invented by Hegel (the meaning of much of which is unclear even to Hegel scholars) is capable of telling us what we already know -- and have known for tens of thousands of years -- that things change!

Of course, as Rees himself implicitly conceded, Hegel's leaden language has to be translated into 'ordinary-ish' sorts of words for the rest of us to be able to gain even a dim appreciation the obscure message it contains (that was the whole point of his précis of a key Hegelian 'deduction' (discussed in Essay Twelve); pp.49-50 of TAR: The Algebra of Revolution) --, which was that we could not understand change without such assistance! But, if we already have ordinary terms (like those listed above) that enable us to talk about and comprehend change, what need have we of Hegel's prolix terminology? Conversely, if according to Rees ordinary language is inadequate when faced with the task of translating Hegel's observations into something we can understand, how would anyone be able to grasp what Hegel meant -- or even determine whether he meant anything at all?

On the other hand, if we are capable of comprehending Hegel's obscure ideas only when they are written in ordinary terms, why do we need his opaque concepts to reveal to us what our language can or cannot express anyway -- when, manifestly, it must have been adequate enough (on this supposition) for just such a successful re-casting of Hegel's ideas? If ordinary language can capture what Hegel meant, in what way is it defective? If it can't, then how might we understand Hegel?

Not surprisingly, if Hegel were correct, no one (including Hegel himself) would be able to understand Hegel, for, ex hypothesi, his words would not then be translatable in terms anyone could comprehend. Conversely, once more, if Hegel's words are translatable, that must mean that we already have the linguistic resources available to understand change (etc.) perfectly well. Naturally, this implies that on the one hand, if Hegel were correct, no one would be able to understand him, while on the other, if he were incorrect -- and we could understand him enough to be able to say that much -- no one need bother.

The idea that ordinary language cannot cope with slow or rapid change may be summarised by the following sentence:

H1a: Ordinary language cannot account for or depict change.

But, the question is: Is H1a itself written in ordinary language? It certainly looks like it. If it is, it is pertinent to ask what the word "change" in H1a actually means. If we, as ordinary speakers, do not understand this word, what precisely is it that Hegel and Rees are presuming to correct? We may only be educated if we know of what it is that we are ignorant -- that is, if we already know what change is (so that we can at least say that our word "change" does not match this ideal). But, ex hypothesi, we are not supposed to know this since our language is allegedly inadequate in this area.

Contrast H1a with the following:

H1b: Ordinary language cannot account for or depict quantum phenomena.

The situation is not at all like that presented in H1b, where a technical area of knowledge is involved. "Change" as it appears in H1a cannot be an example of a technical use of language, if it is in the vernacular. Of course, if H1a is not in the vernacular, then the word "change" it uses will need to be explicated in terms of the ordinary word "change", so that we might grasp what this typographically identical technical word means. If so, the ordinary word "change" will have to feature in just such an explication, and we would be back to where we were in an earlier paragraph.

Without that explication, if we don't know what the technical term "change" means, H1a must be incomprehensible; it contains at least one word that no one -- not a single human being -- yet understands, apparently. Unfortunately, this now means that our re-education cannot be initiated by means of H1a (or indeed any other sentence that uses the as-yet-to-be-explained word "change"). Of course, that would also mean that the 'dialectical' development of this 'word/concept' cannot begin either, for as yet, all we have is an empty word. For all the good it does, it might as well be replaced by "slithy tove".

It could be objected here that while our ordinary terms partially grasp the nature of change, Hegel's use of language provides the wherewithal to comprehend the concept more fully -- 'dialectically' and 'scientifically', as it were. Perhaps then Rees meant the following:

H2a: Ordinary language cannot fully grasp change.

H2b: Specially created terminology is required to enable its comprehension.

But, once again, what does the word "change" in H2a mean? Is it being used in the same way that we use the ordinary word "change"? Or does it possess its own 'special' technical sense which has yet to be explained? If it does mean the same as the ordinary term, then where does our common understanding of this word fall short? Why do we need a theory to explain something we already understand?

On the other hand, if the common understanding of this word is defective -- if users of this word do not understand it -- then H2a is incomprehensible, since it contains a word that no one understands. Until we know the extent of our ignorance all the technical/dialectical terminology in the world is of no use.

Alternatively, if the word "change" in H2a has its own special meaning, what is it? And, if that is the case, then what sort of criticism of ordinary language do H2a and H2b represent, if they do not use it? If in H2a the word "change" has a technical sense, how can that word with its special sense be used to criticise the ordinary word (or point out its limitations) if the ordinary word is not itself being used?

Furthermore, if the word "change" has a 'dialectical meaning', how could that meaning possibly help anyone correct the ordinary word if we still do not understand the ordinary word? And how might dialecticians explain to themselves what this special 'dialectical meaning' is if all they have is the defective ordinary word "change" to go on? This side of a clear answer to these questions, H2a is as devoid of sense as H1a ever was.

Again, in response to this it could be argued that H2a is not about our understanding of the meaning of a word; it is merely reminding us that ordinary language cannot be expected to operate outside its legitimate sphere of application (i.e., "beyond certain limits"). No one expects ordinary language to cope with complex issues found, say, in the sciences or in philosophy; this does not impugn common understanding, it simply reminds us of its limitations.

Doubtless this is correct, but unless we are told in what way the ordinary term "change" -- as we now understand it -- falls short, a dialectical extension to our knowledge cannot even begin. This shows that despite suggestions to the contrary, H2a is directly about our understanding of this word, for if the word "change" (as it is used in H2a) does not mean what the ordinary word "change" means, then the meaning of H2a itself must be indeterminate. Not only that, if our understanding of the word "change" is even slightly defective, we certainly cannot use it while pretending to correct it. We cannot feign comprehension of a word for the sole purpose of correcting or revising its current (defective) meaning. This is not because this would be a difficult trick to pull off, it is because it is no more of an option than, say, pretending (to oneself) to forget a word.

Conversely, if the word "change" has no meaning (or if it is unclear what it means), neither that word nor its meaning may be corrected by the use of any sentence that also contains that 'suspect' word (such as H2a). And, if it is true that our grasp of this word is defective (in any way), then those very same linguistic imperfections must apply to anyone who seeks to correct it by the use of sentences like H2a. Clearly, in that case, such prospective revisers would not be able to comprehend what they themselves were trying to reform, since they would be in the same position as the rest of us, using a word with unspecified shortcomings. On the other hand, if such aspiring reformers understand the word "change" differently from the rest of us then any proposed modification to ordinary language would clearly apply to their own special use of that term -- i.e., to a word that is only typographically similar to the ordinary term "change" (and which special word is still of undisclosed meaning) --, but not to the word "change" as it is used in ordinary language.

The claim here, therefore, is that with respect to the word "change", it is not possible for anyone even to begin to say in what way it fails to mean what it is ordinarily taken to mean (or falls short of it), or even to entertain the possibility that it might do this, without using that word in a way that cannot be subject to such doubts.

Consider the following 'attempt' to revise the word in question:

H3: Change does not mean what ordinary language would lead us to believe. It means: "development over time as a result of internal contradictions understood as real material forces acting as parts of a mediated totality."

If this is so, then H3 should be re-written as follows:

H4: Development over time as a result of internal contradictions understood as real material forces acting as parts of a mediated totality does not mean what ordinary language would lead us to believe. It means: "development over time as a result of internal contradictions understood as real material forces acting as parts of a mediated totality."

The replacement of the word "change" in H4 with what it allegedly 'means' just creates an incomprehensible sentence (and the same would happen with respect to any of its cognates -- indeed, Hegelians can replace the proposed 'dialectical meaning' of "change" in H3 with whatever formula they please, the result will not change (irony intended)).

If it is now objected that the above is unfair then it behoves that objector to indicate in what way our ordinary material words for change fall short of whatever they are supposed to fall short of -- without him or her actually using the word "change" (or one of its synonyms) anywhere in that attempt. Short of doing that, that objector's use of this word (or one of its cognates) to express his or her own objection (howsoever mild or nuanced, or dialectically motivated) will be subject to the very same unspecified shortcomings, and the objection itself must fail for lack of meaning.

In that case, the objector will be as much in the dark as the rest of us allegedly still are -- only he/she will now be unclear, not just about our ordinary words for change, but about the application of his/her own non-standard, jargonised (dialectical) replacement for it, since he/she would be unclear what it was supposed to be replacing. [That was the point of the ridiculous example given in H4.]

This is why we can be confident that not even Hegel understood this part of his own theory. This is not because it is a difficult theory, or because it employs special technical terms that are completely incomprehensible to the untrained mind. Nor is it because Hegel did not use H3 (or anything like it), it is because of the fact that as soon as any attempt is made (by anyone -- even a person of "genius") to correct ordinary language -- or, just as soon as the vernacular is dismissed as defective or even slightly flawed, and its terms are held to be deficient when applied beyond "certain limits", requiring that they be "surpassed", by-passed or revised -- all meaning disappears.

To repeat, it is not possible to pretend to understand an ordinary word like "change" and then claim that it is defective (whether "speculative reason" initiates such an attempt, or not). Either the objector's understanding of this word is defective -- and the ordinary term is alright as it is --, or the ordinary word is defective and no one (including that objector) actually understands it. Again, in the latter case, there would then be nothing left to modify; in the former, no one need bother.'

[Taken from Note 19 at:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm]

The above post makes me feel like peter griffin, but stupider

So, is all dialectics really just using different words than normal?

that cant be it.

What are the kind of words they use? please can you tell me a couple.

Yeah...it's like looking behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz.

Magic Phrases

Unity of Opposites
Negation of the Negation
Primary and Secondary Contradictions
Internal Contradictions
Quantitative Changes
Qualitative Changes
Transformation

And probably a bunch more that I've fortunately forgotten.

Learn to mutter these phrases in solemn tones on ritual occasions and you too can become a "Master of the Dialectic".

BCS:

"So, is all dialectics really just using different words than normal?

that cant be it.

What are the kind of words they use? please can you tell me a couple."

Our best guide to what people mean is what they say, and if what they say makes no sense, however it is sliced, then the presumption must be that nothing with any content was originally communicated.

Now, if someone uses what seem to be ordinary words in odd circumstances and idiosyncratic ways (creative literature to one side), then they cannot complain if others pull them up for it. [In every single Essay at my site, I give examples of this sort of gross misuse -- mostly taken from the work of DM-fans, but practically any book on Philosophy would have sufficed. As you can see from my earlier post, it is not too difficult making such quirky uses of language implode.]

Philosophers (and not just DM-fans) have been doing this for years, nay millennia, spinning out their theses using word-trickery and the invention of new (but empty) phrases whenever the vernacular (the material language of ordinary workers) would not let them proceed any further.

Everyone pays such 'thinkers' undue respect because they feel intimidated by their seeming profundity (and, in earlier times, by their social-standing -- they were either members of the ruling-class, or the latter were their patrons), but when someone pops up and tells us this 'royal person' is as naked as the day he was born, because this trickery has gone on for so long, few listen. It seems too crass a mistake for such 'intelligent' thinkers to have made. 2500 years of philosophical hot air based solely on the misuse of language (the very idea!!??); it beggars belief. And yet there is a materialist reason for this; it explains why certain members of the ruling-class, or their hangers-on, so easy fell prey to this age-old error, but you will have to read it for yourself at my site: in the summary to Essay Twelve.]

I am just using a technique invented by Wittgenstein -- aimed at letting the hot air out of traditional philosophy (of which DM is a fourth-rate, distant cousin) -- whereby those using language in a thoroughly sloppy manner, misusing it, or employing it un-thinkingly or dishonestly, are called to account, their theories shown to be nonsense (i.e., too confused even to be counted as true or false).

[Except I am pushing this much further than anyone has ever done; and, as far as I am aware, no one has applied it to dialectics before.]

It is then quite easy to show that not a single philosophical thesis stands up to such deflationary scrutiny -- including the poor relation found in DM.

Few know about this method -- and even fewer like what they see; this is because it robs them of their philosophical illusions (i.e., it takes away the idea that there is meaning to everything, that there is an a priori or essential structure to reality, accessible only to thought, or that the logical structure of our thinking somehow matches the logic of reality -- of course, it could only do that if nature were Mind).

For most people, it was bad enough being robbed of their religious illusions -- being robbed of their philosophical comfort blanket it a deflation too far. So, it is either ignored or rejected out of hand. [You can see this from the mayhem my ideas are causing among the DM-faithful at this site; they haven't a clue where I am coming from, or a coherent set of tactics to deal with my ideas; they just have a gut feeling that I am robbing them of a very precious illusion -- the last bastion of their consolation that history/nature/the laws of DM, are on their side. Their use of traditional methods to fight my ideas does not work, since my method undermines all traditional thought. They have never encountered it before since it is so little known.]

So, many just cling onto their consoling theses, along with the quirky use of langauge that goes with them, and whistle in the dark, or bury their heads again.

[You can see the attraction of, say, 'secular Buddhism' here (check out the thread on the Philosophy Forum where several Lefties let slip that they still hold onto a few guilty consoling secrets), which suggests that there is indeed a 'way' set out for humanity, invented by some guru (who used language in odd ways too), one that just exists (i.e., no one outside humanity authored it, but it mysteriously puts humanity right back at the centre of the meaning universe again, implying there is a meaning to life, if you just change the way you see things -- and use language quirkily too).]

Five hundred years ago, Copernicus removed humanity from the centre of the physical universe; Feuerbach, Marx, Wittgenstein (and now my good self, in my own small way) have attempted to remove us from the centre of the meaning universe -- after all, why should reality have any meaning or logic to it? -- so that with all our idols smashed, we stand a chance of fashioning at least this part of reality in our own image, making history fully human for once.

Philosophers have only interpreted world...the point is to challenge them, and change things in our way, not theirs.

I don't give a shit about dialectics either way, and I don't fit in either group.

Marx and especially Engels's historical theories were heavily based on Lewis Morgan's theories. That's where the whole "stages of history" idea comes from. They modified his ideas with some of their own. see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...amily/index.htm

Morpheus, I am like you, but the situation is even worse.

Every one of the 'crimes' CYM attributes to those who reject 'dialectics' is committed in profusio by our mystical friends -- except, they have done real damage to our side.

Parties fond of 'dialectics' are all riven with sectarian strife, factionalism, expulsions, splits (or if they are Stalinists and/or Maoists, they just imprison and kill one another) and petty-bourgeois personality cults (hence their slavish adherence to their 'holy books' and all those heroic pictures of Marx, Engles, Stalin and Mao).

They justify every accommodation with the ruling-class with 'dialectical arguments' that would have baffled Hegel (witness the Stalin/Hitler pact, the invasion of Finland, Mao's attempt to justify an alliance with the Koumintang by means of a spurious invention called 'primary and secondary contradictions', Orthodox Trotskyists who justify every act of tail-ending various third-world nationalist borgeois movements (e.g., reformists like Chavez) with similar bouts of dialectical delirium), etc etc.

They substitute themselves (or anyone and anything) for the working class at every turn (be they the Red Army and Russian Tanks (that somehow (!) brought socialism to E Europe, by-passing the working class, but then subjecting them to forty years of oppression), guerilla armies (China, Cuba, Nepal, etc.), nationalist 'reformers' (Castro, who 'discovered' Marxism only after he seized power), themselves (as a 'vanguard', as 'tribunes', as 'the party of the world proletariat' -- only no one asked them), parliamentary 'socialists' ('entryism'), etc.).

The list is as long as it is depressing.

All down to the 'dialectic' (which, because it glories in contradiction, can be used to 'justify' anything -- and has been so used).

So, small wonder then that Dialectical Marxism is to success as George W is to peace on earth.

Hence, the vehemence of my attacks on these Hermeticists, who have helped to ruin the workers' movement.

[Background theory to this at:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm]

That's because of her insistance on ivory-tower language and methods, the very things she accuses people like me of.

Funny, I thought the learning forum would be the one place that her stale academia bullshit would be cut down in the interests of actually being understood, oh how wrong I was.

Because it isn't.

This isn't about what words you use. This is about the idea of how change occurs, the fundamental concept of conflicting forces and the violent rupture of the existing equilibrium between them, leading to the establishment of a new one and the accumulation of new conflicts.

That's all Dialectics is, a concept of change as conflict, as evolution interrupted by revolution, order interrupted by chaos.

Hence the key word "generally".

Your next essay will be edited down to a link by the way, this is not the proper space for that, rosa.

CYM:

"That's because of her insistance on ivory-tower language and methods, the very things she accuses people like me of,,,"

Like what? [I suspect you mean that you do not understand enough logic and/or philosophy to follow my arguments....]

[And Hegel used the language of local workmen and women, I suppose?]

Unable to respond, we just get abuse:

"Funny, I thought the learning forum would be the one place that her stale academia bullshit..."

As I have pointed out to you before, I do not work in academia; I have a full-time job and I am a Trade Union rep (unpaid).

You just can't stand the fact that I am a working-class woman who is able to put together complex arguments, based on the latest work, that you cannot either match or understand.

"Because it isn't."

But, as I am able to show, but you can only deny (with no supporting argument or proof) that it is just this; as is all of traditional philosophy.

Why you do not just stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'La La La' I do not know.

It would be an improvement.

And now we get yet more mysticism:

"This is about the idea of how change occurs, the fundamental concept of conflicting forces and the violent rupture of the existing equilibrium between them, leading to the establishment of a new one and the accumulation of new conflicts."

That's right, the world is controlled by intellegent forces that argue among themselves -- far more honest people in the past used to just call these the 'gods'.

"That's all Dialectics is, a concept of change as conflict, as evolution interrupted by revolution, order interrupted by chaos."

It's odd then that it cannot explain change, except by an appeal to mystical intelligences again.

"Your next essay will be edited down to a link by the way, this is not the proper space for that, rosa."

It wasn't an essay, but a single note from one of them.

I thought you could read?

[You just do not like your mystical faith being challenged.]

I am pretty much on the fence here, or at least I choose to remain so whilst everything is so hostile, but this is what you accuse dialectitions of Rosa Lichtenstein.

I thoght the point really was that whether or not dialectics could suddenly be understood or not was't the point, the point was that formal logic was sufficient, and considering what has constituted Marxism thus far, is where we should focus our efforts.

If the arguments against dialectics, formulated using formal logic are complicated and not easily understandable to CyM (someone that does not have too many problems with dialectics) then why?

Heg: I am not sure I understood what you were trying to say, but the point is not that logic is difficult, but that DM-fans have in general only listened to descriptions of it provided by other DM-fans, and have (also in general) not bothered to check whether these mis-descriptions are accurate (which they provably are not). Still, in their reduced state, they will not be told. Not by me, not by anyone. They refuse even to check.

Thus, their ignorance is entirely self-inflicted.

Now that we have extensive resources on the internet to help put this right (some of which material I have brought to their attention, but they refuse even to look at those Essays of mine that try to correct this problem, let alone the links I have posted to assist them claw their way out of their ignorant state); so they are clearly being willfully ignorant.

The basics of modern formal logic are not that difficult to grasp (granted, advanced logic is not at all easy). Hence, in my chiding of comrades like CYM. Axel 1917 and Red Che, I am trying to draw attention to this self-imposed ignorance (in order to further expose the anti-scientific attitude DM fosters in all who fall under its spell --, and no wonder it does this: dialectics was invented a philosopher who confused logic with mystical Idealism, one who would have been, you would have thought, the very last theorist any self-respecting materialist would pay any heed to). DM encourages faith in tradition (note the way DM-fans prefer to quote their holy books, a bit like the theologians who confronted Galileo), and it fosters personality cults (hence also their refusal even to allow for the possibility that Engels and Co made some serious (or minor!) mistakes) -- which anti-scientific faults they readily highlight in their opponents.

So, even though DM-fans claim to be scientific, they almost all ignore modern advances in logic (there are, however, a few notable exceptions to this rule), all the while pontificating about it.

[You might as well expect George W to lecture us on Quantum Mechanics (except, his ignorance is natural, not self-imposed).]

Finally, there is little in Historical Materialism, as far as I am aware, that depends on modern (or ancient) logic. But, you do need a smattering of both to be able to see where DM hits the rocks (and these three comrades refuse to be embarassed by me into learning so much as a microscopic smattering!).

I am merely the messenger here; but, the message I bring is unwelcome news to many comrades -- or, rather, to those comrades who put too much faith in tradition, and too little in the advances in knowledge and logic we have seen over the last 125 years (Axel 1917 even tried to deny this was true of logic!! -- he thinks Woods and Grant are the last word in everything! In him, DM, it seems, has claimed another auto-softened brain as its victim).

Well, they'd better get used to it; things are only going to get worse for DM-fans before I am through.

And that's a promise....