A dialectical method lies at the core of Marx's method. Without a dialectical method Marxism doesn't offer much of anything useful to the world. So argues Brendan M. Cooney is this series of videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8X7...eature=related

Too bad for you that Marx had stripped it of every Hegelian concept.

Thanks for the video link -- I'll watch it, but I'll predict it will:

1) Say all the same old things we have heard a million times before;

2) Make all the ususal, and by now hackneyed, mistakes.

You see, you can post links, and we do not throw tantrums, saying things like:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=47

Ok, I have watched the first (of the four), and it is indeed the same old story.

The second one, which I am watching at the moment, is no better. It assumes there is a valid use of the Hegelian term 'contradiction', without showing that this word has a meaning when applied to the class struggle or the economy.

The speaker argues that there is a 'contradiction' between the interests of workers and capitalists, without explaining why this is so.

For example, he says that the contradiction is this:

1) Capitalists have an interest in paying the lowest wage possible to workers; workers have an interest in resisting this.

But, this would be a contradiction if this were the case:

2) Capitalist CC has an interest in keeping wages as low as possible, and Capitalist CC does not have such an interest.

Or:

3) Worker WW has an interest in resisting exploitation and worker WW does not have such an interest.

So, 1) is not a contradiction.

Now, this is not to deny that these two classes have such interests, but it is to deny they constitue a 'contradiction'.

The third video is even worse, for it assumes that the only criticisms of dialectics are those put forward by bourgeois economists or postmodernists, or that all critics claim that dialectics is 'deterministic'.

In addition, he assumes that to attack dialectics is to attack historical materialism, which is not the case.

As a summary of the well known weakeness of dialectical materialism, this is a joke.

However, when this speaker moves away from the use of dialectical 'concepts', much of what he says makes sense. It's a pity he, like so many others, chose to ruin a good theory by importing gobbledygook from Hegel.

Given that you've confessed to be a Fergusonian and not a Marxist, I'd say Mr. Cooney is right on the mark.

Trivas, in full invention mode:

Where did I 'confess' this?

You are getting so desperate now that you find you have to start lying to defend your faith.

What else can we expect from a dogmatist?

I note that, once again, you can't respond to my criticisms of this lame-brained 'theory' of yours.

But you have no valid criticism of dialectics -- you just don't understand it, by your own admission.

Trivas:

Well, I am in good company, since no one understands it.

Please, why indulge in black-and-white thinking? Methinks you are heavily invested in not understanding it: it's a matter of will.

Trivas:

Eh?

And you are a dogmatist who believes everything he reads in the Dialectical Bible.

Problem, Reaction, Solution: How the Illuminati have used the Hegelian process to further their cause. It is effective and diabolical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxnN...eature=related

Trivas, finally losing it:

Yes, yes dear! Now take those nice tablets the nice doctor prescribed while I call for a nice ambulance...