PRC:

1) That does not mean that we shouldn't.

2) Marx abandoned this theory by the time he came to write Das Kapital:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=124

Where in Bernstein do you find this:

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

The quotations upon which the above is based can be found here:

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

You must remember that in Rosa's mind this site is a location on which to conduct class struggle, rather than a location for fraternal mutual informative debate between comrades and she....in her own mind at least....is involved in a class strugge against a ruling class ideology, consequently she has no intention of allowing debate about DM to occur; she flames here as a political method.

Like Don Quixote she is tilting at windmills; the model of class struggle underlying such website behaviour is as absurd as her criticisms of dialectical materialism are confused.....but the price you pay for wanting to look for any debate on this site about DM to develop your own attitude to it is that you have to endure Rosa, class struggle warrior that she is, carrying out her war on your thread.

Now on to the issue. What is important to understand about DM is that as a metaphysic it is trivial. Its ideas about the universal nature of change have no significant implications, when underrstood as those propositions were understood by, for example, Engels. What DM is is a set of critical ideas that help to cut against ideological assumptions that get put into many ideological arguments.

Potentially it has second relevance. Marx used a methodology which few if any Marxists have used since - a complex methodology which involved the articulation of models of reality which explaned empirical phenomena which directly contradicted key claims of the model. But no Marxists have been able to replicate that model since. Lenin, for example, did not use such a methodology, being as he said himself a political journalist rather than a theorist. Thus you cannot say that DM leads you to Marx's methodology - but you can say that DM led Marx to that methodology.

But leaving that aside and going back to the first point, DM as a critique of aspects of ideologies, you ask

It is not the point of accepting that change is constant to argue that change should end. Marxism is not a Buddhism - which seeks escape from the eternal cycle etc. We recognise the constancy of change to criticise those ideologies which suggest that captialism is in some sense normal, or the end of history. We do not suggest that we fight against capitalism to end change - but rather accept that our struggle will continue it.

It is true that it is implicit in the Marxist concept of advanced communism that a point is reached when the nature of historical change itself changes fundamentally. All history has been the history of class struggle, driven by the inadequacy of human resources to perceived need, based on the given level of productive forces. At the point of full communism that ceases to be the case. But that does not mean change ends, rather that the driver of change alters. But all that is highly theoretical. Really who cares ? We'll all be long since dead.

YOu are absolutely correct and it is critical to DM that it affirms that it cannot say when the cat ceases to be a cat. That must be worked out but it must be worked out by persons operating at a different level than DM theorists. DM theory is only a gloss on more particular theories and perspectives.

Of course when the cat ceases to be a cat is also, to some extent, a matter of subjective consensus. Underlying it of course is an objective process, which underlies what we define as objects, but this does not determine what we characterise as an object in some mechanical, realist manner in which we perceive objects which are just there and and which dictate to us what we will identify as objects.

The identification of objects, the division of the world into descrete defined objects is itself a complex process. Within a class divided society, even the definition of objects becomes a matter of politically charged debate - note the debate on abortion. But DM does not aim to tell you in advance of more specific debate what is a useful or acceptable usage.

Gil:

Ah, at last, Gil's annual 'review' of me -- those who saw his/her 'review' last year will know that I predicted that we'd have another soon -- the gap being slightly larger than even I had imagined. I also predicted that Gil would make unsubstantiated allegations about me, and in that I was right too.

In fact, from the very beginning Gil, you are the one who has avoided "fraternal mutual informative debate", whereas I have merely reacted to your lies, fabrications and systematic avoidance of evidence and argument you could not answer.

Which 'windmills' am I 'tilting at'? You always fall to say. And which of my criticisms are 'confused', and in what way? You shed no light there either.

So, true to form, you just advance yet more unsupported allegations.

Roll up next year, folks, for the same sort of 'review'.

For Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin (among many others) it's a world-view alright, and not just a 'critical method'. And, as it turned out, it is dogmatic and a priori -- having been imposed on the world on the basis of very thin, and highly dubious evidence (mostly copied from Hegel or Engels), and in defiance of a mountain of facts.

But we already know that Marx abandoned this mystical method when he wrote Das Kapital.

And, you have no excuse, you have been told.

But, according to the Dialectical Holy books, things change because of their 'internal contradictions' comprised of a 'unity and identity of opposites', and they inevitably change into their opposites.

Comrades can read the sacred texts to this effect here:

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

But, as my argument above shows, this is not possible, for if that opposite already exists, then the original object cannot change into it. On the other hand, if that opposite does not already exist, no change can come about, since there would then be no opposite for the said object to struggle with.

In that case, of DM were true, there could be no change; alternatively, if and when change occurs, DM cannot explain it.

Gil has ignored this since he/she cannot answer it -- and neither can any other of our brave dialectical warriors here. No wonder they had to slope off into their secret cabal to avoid me.

Unfortunately, DM cannot even explain dead cats!

Consider cat C. According to the Dialectical Prophets, cat C can only change because of its internal opposite, its internal contradiction. [Both Hegel and Lenin both affirmed that there is only one 'other', one dialectical opposite, for any object or process.] Let us call the opposite of cat C, cat C*. But they also tell us that cat C will change into that opposite; so this opposite must be cat C*, which cat C must change into. But C changes into a dead cat, so that dead cat must be this opposite, it must be C*.

But if C is to struggle with C*, then C* must already exist. In other words, this live cat C must struggle with dead cat C*!

Have you ever seen a live cat struggle with its future dead self?

But, if this dead cat already exists, then C cannot change into it! In that case, according to this wonderful 'theory', this amazing 'method', cat C cannot die!

Now, one might be tempted to argue that C changes into some other dead cat, say C**, but in that case, if the Dialectical Magi are to be believed, C** must already exist, otherwise it could not struggle with C! So, C cannot change into it either! In fact, in this case, there would now be two dead cats, not one!

[The same argument applies to any of the intermediate stages in a cat's life -- for the general details, see the long argument I posted earlier.]

Hence, we hit the same non-dialectical brick wall.

And what is true of this moggie is true of all moggies. No cat can, or has ever died, according to the 'world-view' of the proletariat!

Is it any wonder that workers ignore us?

There is indeed a spectre haunting Europe, and its not that of a dead cat -- for there are none.

So, workers of the world unite, you have nothing to fear but the loss of your dead pets!

Not rousing slogans, I trust you will agree...

In that case, we should perhaps rename DM as the theory that proves there are no Dead Moggies.

So, it must be an illusion of bourgeois 'commonsense' that cats die!

And this, in brief, is the argument that Gil and the rest ignore, since it almost single-handedly demolishes DM, and they have no answer to it.

So they just deflect attention, and make personal attacks.

Ha, what a bunch of morons Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin must have been!

Yes, that must be it. They've penetrated to the internal contradictions of classical DM and found us out for the morons we are.

BTB:

They were not the first, nor will they be the last non-workers to accept a loopy ruling-class theory.

Look how many 'intelligent' people believe in God.

You said it comrade.

Yes, but one so crass as to resolve itself into the denial of dead cats!? This particular 'ruling class theory' is so loopy, even the ruling class don't have any use for it!

Meanwhile which theory do the workers use which separates their view from the ruling class theory?

Yes, but in jest. Obviously the reason workers ignore Marxist has next to nothing to do with the problems of dialectical theory and more to do with their attachment to ruling class ideas.

BTB:

Well, in general they don't; only Hegelians (and materialist dialecticians) seem to believe it.

And it's ruling-class in the sense I gave it here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...79&postcount=2

And yes it is crass, but then there are highly intelligent people who believe that Jesus walked on water, changed water into wine, was born of a virgin, and rose from the dead (so for them there is no dead Jesus, either!).

They have none, which is all to the good.

But, because of this, in times of struggle, it is very easy to persuade them of the truth of Historical Materialism.

The exact opposite is the case with those comrades who have fallen for this virus of the mind:

BTB:

Indeed, but it is part of the story.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

I think someone needs to re-read Das Kapital!

In fact, Have you read The fetishism of commodities passage?? It´s completely dialectical
How could you then deny the dialectical conception of Marx if it is present even (which is your assumption not mine) in Das Kapital??

SEKT:

And that "someone" is you.

In what way is it 'dialectical'?

And, I see you have not read the argument here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...6&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=124

Is it any wonder then that Marx abandoned this 'theory'? As the long argument above shows, if dialectics were true, change would be impossible. On the other hand, if and when change occurred, dialectics would not be able to explain it.

You do not believe that this is a site for fraternal debate. You have made it clear that you think anything goes in responding to opponents in this debate; you have also made it clear that you think that those who accept the DM view are, thereby, on the wrong side of the class divide. but the nub of the point is this: people raise sincere issues about DM and your purpose in intervening in the thread and in posting 10,000 posts over three years is to shout down others, confuse issues, misrepresent, represent accurately....anything that will suit your purpose of defeating the windmill which is the DM of your own imagination, a DM which you claim not to understand, but which you claim to be able, authoritatively, to set out.....an unprecedented feat of philosophical gymnastics from someone who also claims not to have a philosophical stance etc.....the absurdity goes on and on and on and on ....and the only result is no one can ask a question or have a debate on DM which is, sadly, your ownly purpose - although you do have some challenging points to make about DM which are lost in your own class struggle fantasy.

You should at least have the decency to stay way from the 'Learning forum, or limit your contributions to the kind f factual elaborations which are approrpriate for this forum, but no the class struggle must go on.

Lo ! Another Windmill Rosa, tilt, for Wittgensten's sake, Tilt !

Gil, clearly riled:

So, you still can't respond to my argument.

No change there then, -- and this from a supposed apostle of change!

Yet another ironic dialectical inversion. I hope you agree.

Why should I? If you can't respond to my demolition of your source of opiates, I think newer comrades should see this, and witness your melt-down.

Not windmills, but windy gils.

Newer comrades as you call them are perfectly capable of going to the philosophy forum. People post in this forum not because they are new, but because its a learning forum. If you werent so preoccupied with your class struggle role, you could treat it as such.

WindGil:

So are you.

And I intend to learn them. Get used to it, or don't.

Indeed, and we are on opposite sides, too: you struggle to convey the ideas of the ruling class to newer comrades, whereas I aim to stop you.

And that is why you throw so many tantrums.

By the way, got anywhere with the paradox of the dialectical wood yet?

You know, the one where he/she who struggles with wood to make a table, turns into that wood, since the dialectical prophets tell us that everything turns into that with which it struggles, its 'opposite'.

Or are you still sulking?

Right, the contradictions within society will be halted thus there would be no need for further social change once communism is achieved. Technology and other sciences would still advance because they would have to address society's concerns.

GDII:

As I have shown. these alleged 'contradictions', if valid, would prevent change.

You keep dodging this fatal weakness of your theory.

That's because you've ignored Hegel's idea of The Absolute, which is essentially unchanging, and which is the substratum of all change.

BenHur:

And how do you know this?

As I said, you mystics like such a priori 'truths', acessible to thought alone, which is, of course, why I posted this earlier:

Self-evident. Consider the wood-table analogy, which seems to be your favorite. When wood becomes table, there's a change in form, but no change in substance. One might as well relate the process of change to the forms such as table, chair etc., and conclude that the substance wood, which happens to be the substratum, is unchanging.

In other words, change always implies change of forms and, hence, there must be an unchanging substratum, which is what Hegel's idea of The Absolute is all about. Without this unchanging substratum, there'll be no change in forms. Without wood as an unchanging basis, there's no change in forms from table to chair to any other wooden object.

BenHur:

1) If it were 'self-evident', it wouldn't need a proof. So, it can't be 'self-evident'.

2) Even supposing you are correct about the wood example (not in fact my choice of example, but that of another comrade), this does not show what you say is true of every change that has occurred in the entire universe, and for all of time. You simply assume it is a priori true. We have yet to see the general proof.

3) According to Trotsky, even wood must change:

In Defence of Marxism, pp.63-64.

No body is ever equal to itself. If A is never equal to A, then wood is never equal to wood. So Trotsky disagrees with you. [I disagree with Trotsky here, but do you? For what reason? I can give you mine...]

3) Again, even if you were completely correct here, and there is some unchanging substrate to all change, how does that refute my proof that dialectics cannot explain change, and that if dialectics were true, change could not happen.

According to the dialectical prophets [quoted earlier], objects change because of a 'struggle' between 'dialectical opposites', and they inevitably change into those opposites.

In that case, if wood changes into a table, the wood must struggle with the table it becomes!

On the other hand, if the wood is to struggle with the table it becomes, then the table must exist before it exists!

But, if it does not exist yet, it can't struggle with the wood from which it is made.

And, the same problem afflicts any of the intermediary stages here -- see my longer post on this.

That makes you an Absolute Idealist, or an old-fashioned Aristotelian, then.

But what happens if the wood is burnt? What stays the same then? The atoms? But what happens if the atoms decay, or are smashed (in a high energy physics experiment)? What stays the same then? The elementary particles? What happens when they decay (as almost all of them do)?

Finally, your argument seems to depend on this inference:

In every change, something remains the same. Therefore there is something that remains the same in every change.

This is called the 'quantifier switch fallacy' in modern logic.

If valid, it would licence the following inferences:

Every road goes somewhere. [True] Therefore there is somewhere that every road goes. [False]

But, in that case, all roads would indeed go to Rome.

Every football team has a captain. [True] Therefore, there is a captain for every football team. [False]

But, who is this universal captain?

Every event has some cause. Therefore there is some cause for every event -- call it 'God'.

In other words, this fallacy lies behind the Cosmological Argument for the existence of 'God'! No wonder Idealists liked to use this sort of inference.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...ical-argument/

And that switch is why this argument fails.

This fallacy was easy to expose after modern quantifier logic was invented.

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohe...ifierOrder.pdf

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mgl/langua...ork8_tutor.pdf

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...um=1&ct=result

Rosa really doesn't like science. All their posts are anti-science and doesn't talk about other subjects. Rosa are you even a communist? I have never seen you talk politics only yell against science?

I mean in your anti-science speeches you don't seem to understand Dialectical Materialism, yet you write so much.

So I will summarize, what change is:

Matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements.