On second thought, there's no need to indundate the forum with several threads about the same topic (that would just be unforum-like).

Besides the fact that I see you are a mod in Philosophy, and that people are accusing you of editing and removing posts of people you are "debating" with, it's become very obvious why you were so keen on me starting a thread here and so desperately opposed talking Maoist dialectics in the thread in Learning.

Nice try. I almost fell for it.

Since you're a mod of this forum, you can delete this thread, and we can discuss Maoist dialectics in the thread in Learning.

Just like other dialecticians, Mao is thoroughly confused:

Here are a few more confused DM-worthies:

All this seems to suggest that objects and processes not only change because of their internal opposites, but that they change into them (and, according to Lenin, they change into all of them!), and that they also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change. As we shall see, all this presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches.

To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus changes as a result.

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

And it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it now becomes what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there in the present to make that happen!

But, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'changes' into not-O*, how can it do this if not-O* already exists? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears. Thus, O* does not change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it.

At the very least, this account of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

It cannot have come from O*, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the negation of the negation) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism; FL = Formal Logic.]

Now, it could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes into fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, the above argument is entirely misguided -- or so it could be claimed.

In that case, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows. Hence, if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, where then is the change? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears.

Thus, O* does not change into not-O* it is just replaced by it, since not-O* already exists!

The only way to read this to avoid the above difficulty is to argue that despite this, O* still 'develops' into not-O*. But that cannot work, for not-O* must already exist for this to happen, and that would mean that there would now be two not-O*s where once there was only one!

It would also mean, incidentally, that all the while not-O* must remain the unchanged (which denouement would violate the DM-thesis that all things are always changing, and changing onto one another!).

Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*. But if that were so, while it was happening, these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process" while that is taking place". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective' once more.

But even this will not work. Let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change into an intermediary, but not into not-O* (which is, as we saw above, O**), contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier.

No, O* would have to change into an intermediary -- say O*1 --, and it would remain in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*1 in existence to make it change any further.

Anyway, even if O*1 were to change into not-O*1 itself (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems would reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*1 already exists to make it happen. But not-O*1 cannot already exist, for O*1 has not changed into it yet!

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into one, as the above claims. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists. Or so it could be claimed.

Maybe so, but according to the DM-worthies above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

Furthermore, John's 'opposite' is whatever he becomes (if he is allowed to develop naturally). But, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist or John would not need to become him!

So, in ten or fifteen years, John will not just become any man, he will become a particular man. Let us call the man that he becomes Manj. In that case, this opposite must exist now or John will not change into him (if the DM-worthies above are to be believed). But, if that is so, John cannot become Manj since he already exists!

[This is, of course, just a concrete example of the argument above.]

Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100oC (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam? It must do so if the above DM-worthies are to be believed. So, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens according to these wise old dialecticians is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy, and turn the gas off!

Let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it we shall call it W1, and the steam molecule it turns into S1. But, if the DM-worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it. But if that is so, where does S1 disappear to? In fact, according to the above worthies, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific theory, steam is turning back into the water you have just boiled, and at the same rate!

One wonders therefore how kettles manage to boil dry.

This must be so, otherwise, when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists or W1 could not change -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other examples of change).

None of this, of course, is to deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

Whichever way we try to re-package this 'Law' we end up with insuperable problems.

However, Mao attempted to revise Hegel, Engels and Lenin by the invention of principle and secondary contradictions (arguably to allow him to indulge in class-collaboration with the Goumindang):

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-1/mswv1_17.htm

But how can contradictions themselves change? Presumably, if they do, they too must be UO's.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

Let us assume then that the 'Primary' contradiction P1 changes into 'Secondary' contradiction S1.

But what brings about this change?

[MAD = Materialist Dialectics.]

Given the DM-theory of change, P1 must itself be composed of at least two further opposites, say: P* and P**, one of which P1 must turn into (since, as we saw, it is part of this MAD-theory that all things change into their opposites).

Hence, P1 turns into, say, P**.

[But do not try asking what happened to P*! As we will see, it's not that simple.]

But, once more: why did P1 change into P**?

Well, this must be because there is a 'contradiction' between P* and P** (or, perhaps, between P1 and P**).

But, in that case, if all things turn into their opposites, P* must change into P**, too! [But, P** already exists, so how can anything turn into it?]

There must therefore be two P**'s -- say P**a and P**b, for both of these to turn into, collectively or severally.

So, P1 and P* turn into one or other of P**a or P**b, while P** remains the same (or, it becomes one of these two, too).

But, that means that P** is either changeless (shock! horror!) or it too changes into one of the options that have already been selected for P* or P1 to become.

But, once more, P**a and P**b already exist, so P** cannot change into either of them!

Putting that 'difficulty' to one side for now, this can only mean that P1, which used to be made up of at least P* and P**, turns into P**, while P* turns into P**, too --, or it turns into something else (but into what and how?), or it disappears, or it does not change.

So, either P1 and P* merge into one entity (as they both become P**) or they turn into one or other of P**a or P**b -- or, third P** possibility (say, P**c) pops into existence as they (both?) change into it!

But if this is so, it is not easy to see how P1 could be part of the action. It must contain all these things (as internal opposites) if it is to turn into them, and yet that can only mean that it turns into one of its own parts! Once more, how can it do that if they too already exist?

Putting this to one side, too: the changes wrought in P1 and P* could not have been the result of a 'struggle of opposites', since this new opposite (i.e., P**c) does not yet exist!

On the other hand, if that opposite does exist (so that it can 'struggle' with one or both of the other two, and thereby cause the given change), neither P1 nor P* could change into it, since it already exists, too! So, these two cannot change, either.

Either that or there must be something else for one or both to change into -- but even then the same problems would simply return.

In that case, this 'theory' seems to imply that things either merge, disappear, or are created ex nihilo -- or they do not change!

Anyway, why should anything change from a P-type contradiction into an S-type, to begin with?

On this theory, this would only happen if, say, P1 already contained an S-type contradiction for it to change into. [Recall that on this 'theory', internal opposites cause change and things change into their opposites!] But where on earth did that S-type contradiction come from?

Given the above reasoning, for this to happen, P** (from earlier) must be an S-type contradiction, otherwise P1 (or P*) could not change into it. But, as we saw, P** already exists, so nothing can change into it!

Once more, these seem to be the only options available to MIST's: either P1 (or P*) merges with P**, or it (they) disappear into thin air -- or there are at least 3 versions of P** (P**a, P**b and P**c) for one or other to change into.

But these three (P**a, P**b and P**c) cannot exist, since if they did, P* and P1 could not change into them. But if they don't exist, they cannot struggle with anything in order to bring about the required change!

So, yet again, nothing actually changes (or nothing causes it!).

In that case, not only can this scenario not work, we still do not know why anything should alter from the one into the other sort of contradiction, or into anything whatsoever.

And these difficulties do not go away if concrete examples are substituted for the schematic letters used above. So, for example, why did the "primary contradiction" between China and Japan (referred to by Mao) change? On sound MAD-lines, it could only do so as a result of its own 'internal contradictions'. In that case, this "primary contradiction", C/J, must have had internal opposites C/J* and C/J**; the rest follows as before.

[MIST = Maoist Dialectician.]

More details can be found here:

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

and here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

More specifically here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change

RNL: check out the Mao post above, and weep...

I am in fact a global mod, so it does not matter where this appears, it just fits in with this section better.

And weep? Chauvanistic much?

The wording in given conditions should be enough to turn on your light bulb; internal change and contradictions can and are created by external processes (for instance the material conditions of China, and of Japan, and the Soviet Union and the USA and Britain). Nor is a given object or process composed only of two opposing contradictions or variables; the social, economic, political and military aspects of China alone can account for dozens of contradictions.

Most of the above examples of contradictions and opposites deal with a very limited number of variables, through which it is easy enough to debase. However, it must be considered that the entirety of Chinese society, its internal and external contradictions, number, most likely, in the hundreds of thousands. The "primary contradiction" between China and Japan are wholly an on-going process made up of a considerable amount of secondary factors.

Take, for example, the contradiction between the KMT and the Communist Party, and the back-and-forth trajectory of their relationship.

Originally the KMT began as an anti-fuedalist bourgeois movement, akin the the thousands of others that took place throughout the past two centuries. The eventual "change" in the nature of contradictions of the KMT is not so much an internal change, but a change brought forth by the Communist Party; the KMT did change, largely as the logical conclusion of the eradication of fuedalism and the empowerment of bourgeois ideas, as well as the inevitable process of time.

But, going back to the original topic, why did the nature of the relationship between the KMT and the CP change? Why did the nature of the KMT itself change (or its contradictions)? First, the process of the KMT's anti-fuedal campaign changed as it dragged on and material conditions of that campaign changed. First, fuedalism suffered massive defeats at the hands of the KMT and CP; the KMT itself grew and prospered during this time; the CP, even as early as the 20s, underwent internal change, partially through internal processes and contradictions but also external factors such as pressure from the COMINTERN and Moscow. I'd beg to differ with Mao, however, in his analysis that the nature of the KMT changed; while it was in the process, most of it was, instead, the nature of the perspective of the CP. With the conclusion of the bourgeoisie's revolution, the nature of the Communist movement naturally changed from that of collaboration with bourgeois to that of outright hostility. Again, this was brought about by factors in Chinese society and the economy.

Thank you for taking the time to actually write something quite large and thought-out (it's a nice change from the trollishness you protrayed throughout the other thread). It actually gives me something concrete to work with and learn from (as it's important, to me atleast, that all debate and discussion must be learned from). I have not "delved" into dialectical materialism much before. I look forward to engaging with you about it. But I have to ask you to please keep childishness checked at the door.

RNK:

That does not affect the argument I posted.

You need to address that, and not introduce an irrelevance.

Once again, this alleged change may or may not be correct, but one thing is for sure dialectics cannot account for it, as my argument shows.

Again: address my actual argument.

Good luck; no one has been able to figure this mystical theory out now for 200 years.

I doubt you will be able to.

Ok, I won't let your childishness in.

Rosa, you can't simply call a very important factor "irrelevent" and carry on discussing the topic from what has become an illigitimate standpoint. It is relevent, as it completely changes the nature of the arguement. You're attempting to exclude the statement of "in given circumstances" in order to conclude some universality to your beliefs, when really, there is no universality.

Your arguement shows very little, actually; in your first example, you took only two paragraphs from Mao, and, citing "lack of explanation", concluded that his statements have some mystical "creation from thin air".

The change is quite easy to account for. For instance, take the change in the nature of the relationship between China and Japan. What caused it? For one, it probably started back at the turn of the century, when Japan abandoned its seclusiveness, embraced western imperialism, and set down the road to imperialism (please don't ask me to explain how *that* change occured; at this rate, you'll have me going back to the theory of the creation of the universe). It's growing population lead to increased strain on Japan's economy and source of resources, which is a quite general factor for the change in the relationship. Japan adopted imperialism, and invaded China, and the rest of Asia, because the material conditions in Japan led the Emperor to believe this was necessary.

Thus the internal contradictions within Japan -- Seclusion and Imperialism -- changed again because of external factors (Economic), and, due to the extreme autocratic nature of Japan's imperial system, due to the conflictions of successive Emperors.

What arguement? The arguement that the explanations for change, that you failed to include, do not exist?

I'm going to ask one more time to stop your infantile trollish shit.

RNK:

None of that affects the logic of my argument, for it takes into account every conceivable circumstance,

This:

Perhaps you missed it.

I can undesrtand you trying to ignore my unanswerable refutation, but you needn't pretend to be so ignorant.

Just copying you, the master.

A longer and more detailed version of the argument presented above can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-Explain-Change

Wow. You are so awesome! You presented an irrefutable argument! I guess I'm going to change myself into a Rosa Luxembourgist now.

In all seriousness, your argument is based on your own gigantic misreading of Mao and silly suppositions that make no sense. Perhaps you can go back and explain the silly assertions you made and then we can have a sensical argument.

dross:

I hope not, since she has nothing to do with me.

A 'misreading'? In what way?

If Mao says everything turns into its opposite, then where is my misreading?

What you really mean is that you have never given this loopy 'logic' any thought at all.

Which helps explain your second emotional response.

You have been caught out accepting a croc... :blush:

Forgive me. I confused you with a revolutionary.

Mao stated that under certain circumstances, a thing can change into its opposite. Very simple. Very true.

I will no longer dignify your sad, obnoxious, self satisfied flaming with a response.

drosera, unable to respond, now attacks my integrity:

Yes, you sounded confused.

Unfortunately for you he said:

All processes, you will note; and it is "absolute"

In this Mao agreed with Lenin, among others:

But, even if you were right, and Mao believed that only under certain circumstances do opposites change into one another, as I have shown, nothing can change into its opposite, under any circumstances, in the way imagined by you mystics.

So, even though Mao disgreed with you, had he not done so, and had he agreed with you, his 'theory' would still not have worked.

Your surrender is accepted.

Links please.


That is the most absurd and laughable claim of all time. Has there ever been a war? Has there ever been a time in a certain place where there wasn't a war? Again, perhaps you should make an argument. Better luck next time.

EDIT:1.) I am perfectly able to respond. You are incapable of making real arguments.
2.) Where in my last post have I attacked your integrity? You are obnoxious and rude but I have not attacked your integrity. That is a fairly serious allegation and I suggest you back it up.

drosera:

Look, you have already proved to everyone's satisfaction that either a) you can't read, or b) you need new glasses, or c) both --, so you can stop trying to provide us with more evidence of that sad fact.

[The links were given above, and the references.]

Not quite, but I am trying to descend to your level of idiocy, so be patient with me.

But what has that got to do with what I said?

Better luck with the new glasses, for the ones you have on are distorting your vision.

--------------------------------------

You seem incapable of responding to my long, or my short argument.

But you are good at bluster.

I am obnoxious to those who worship mass murdering monsters like Mao (and we all know that being obnoxious is far far worse than murdering millions of peasants, etc.), and to those who cast doubt on my revolutionary persona.

Here, in your own words:

I'm pretty sure you were obnoxious prior to my mistaking your name.

you make me laugh...

I will deal with it presently.

drosera:

To quote a semi-divine member of RevLeft:

It's called 'whistling in the dark'.

I am quaking in my non-dialectical boots.

Why? That is a rediculous assertion.

Fundementally misunderstanding what is going on. See #1 below.

Nonsensical assertion.

If that change occurs in side a finite and definite system, then it is a change.

Unity of Opposites. See #1 below.

#1

True.

#1.)

1

Assertion and 1.)

1

#2 Below.

1

a.) irrelevant
b.) assertion
c.) Show the contradiction.

See #2.

2 and 1

Duh...

1

1

1 and 2

1

#3
Also there is no reason why it would occur at the same rate.

1,2, and 3

Are you seriously argueing that contradictions don't change?!

2

1 and 2

1,2, and 3 so many times I didn't want to apply them to all the errors.

Once more, 1.

2

1

This last bit is nonsensical.

1 and 2

Better brush up on your Engels.

And those did not exist?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????

1.) The unity of opposites does not mean that one opposite literally "contains" the other. It means that the one can not exist or is defined by the other. So peace is defined by the existence of war.
2.) Silly, mechanistic methodology. Your thinking assumes a closed and finite system which does not exist and is frankly absurd and totally inapplicable to reality.
3.) You forget that this occurs only under certain conditions (or very slowly it could be argued).

Seriously, that's right up there with Hegel in terms of being unmaterialistic.

And then you attack us Maoists for going on longwinded diatribes that the masses wouldn't read... oh the irony.

================================================== ============

Only semi?!

I love how unsectarian you are!

drosera:

You failed to say why you think this is so (which comment applies to most of the content of this latest post of yours).

As the quotations show, an opposite has to exist so that it can 'struggle' with its other half. So, capitalists have to exist at the same time as workers.

If so, then they cannot turn into one another. So, dialectics cannot explain change.

Why?

Maybe so, but dialectics cannot explain it.

a) Why?

b) No less so than Mao's 'assertions' -- all made without proof/argument, unlike mine.

c) Done it. You need to wake up.

So?

1) I deny they are 'contradictions'.

2) Even if they were, and even if they could change, Mao's 'theory' could not explain it.

May I suggest you stop posting such stuff then?

Done, it; his 'theory' does not work either.

1) Nobody seems to know what the 'contain' metaphor actually means, so I do not know how you can say this. I, in fact, have explored every alternative, and none of them work.

And if they exist at the same time, they cannot change into one another, as I pointed out.

On the other hand, if they do not exist at the same time, then one of them cannot change.

[In fact, peace can be 'defined' without war. So your example fails too.]

2) Not so. This is just another of your 'assertions'.

3) Whether or not this is so, dialectics cannot explain it.

You are the one who has accepted a mystical theory derived from the work of that logical incompetent, Hegel, whereas I reject all he had to say.

Well, the 'masses' do not read them, unless forced to.

Thanks; can't say the same about you, though.

You are a little too dim for full divine status.

dialectics is pretty simple in what it means to a marxist: that we inheret circumstances out of our control, interact with them based on our own decisions but limited by those circumstances, and that way create new circumstances for the future. that's dialectical materialism to me anyway, and it's kind of self-evident.

the rest of this rambling about O* and O** is pretty much missing the point. Also, if Engels or Mao once wrote something confusing or incorrect and called it dialectics, how does that in itself make dialectical materialism rubbish?

Z:

And the Gospels are pretty simple to all naive believers, too.

Ah, but these two jokers wrote nothing but rubbish on dialectics.

And, I note your incapacity to respond to my demolitioin of this part of dialectics -- or rather, your indirect admission you can't by your use of the vague term "rambling", which is always a dead giveaway.

Just as I note that you have yet to tell us (just as anyone has yet to tell us) what precisely is the point is that I am missing.

Of course, Engels, Lenin and Mao's confused thoughts in this area follow directly from the idea that everything in reality is a unity (or perhaps identity) of opposites, and that all change is a result of 'internal contradictions', and an 'inner struggle'.

If now you want to abandon this mystical idea, Z, that's fine by me.

[For my part, I am glad my expose has helped clear yet another mystical notion from your mind.

But, a 'thank you' now and then would not go amiss...]