Apologies for the pretty basic question, but I need an "official" answer to this question I've thought about for a few months.

How is Dialectical Materialism separable from Historical Materialism?

They shouldn't be. We run into all kinds of trouble when we separate them.

And what trouble is that?

*footsteps*

Its HER!

In b4 Rosa.

Quote:

*footsteps*Its HER!

HA...Jokes


Marxism is grounded in dialectics....you cannot be truly Marxist if u deny its existence. (That’s my opinion anyway...don't shout at me please ).

To answer the question "How is Dialectical Materialism [DM] separable from Historical Materialism[HM]?"...it isn't. Rossa, (I’m speaking of her because I know her from YFIS, and have never read anything written by blackstone,) always claims that Marx differentiated between the two (DM & HM). Well this is incorrect. HM is connected, as with everything else, to dialects. HM does not float unattached to the dialectical world; if you understand HM then you are, in a sense, also understanding dialectics.

And it doesn’t matter if so called 'Marxists’ want to disagree with dialects...in the words of a great comrade: "you may not recognise dialectics, but comrade, dialectics recognises you."

And this is just my opinion; as I have said to Rossa I am yet 2 have read and understood enough Marxist works 2 form a concrete opinion. However I have 2 say Rossa...u argue that comrades use Marxism as a crutch, or for emotional support etc. Well it seems 2 me that u use dialectics 2 justify the historical failures in socialism, rather than examining the material reality behind those situations. It also appears that u may simply be unable 2 understand the complexity of dialectics. I don't mean 2 sound confrontational comrade; as I have said b4 I do respect u, and this is yet 2 change, (I also realise that u have not posted on this topic yet...but I’m sure u will, which is why I addressed this 2 u).

Anywayz...later comrades

Materialism without dialectics leads to static ways of thinking about the material world. The natural world and capitalist society are always in constant change and what I get from dialectics to a way to understand how things change.

Fuck Dialectics.. why? i don't get them, they are a waste of time.. try coming up to a working class person pushing that B.S. see how fast they walk away or slap you. LOL.

Dialectics are a tool for understanding change. I wouldn't say that you have to understand dialectics to be a revolutionary or a socialist, but it is helpful for understanding how opposing forces play off each other to cause change.

If anyone goes out to a strike picket and starts a conversation on dialectics or materialism or permanent revolution, then they are probably not going to get much of a response. To say that a working person "can't get it" is just eletism though. I couldn't teach a class on Dialectics, but I can study and I can learn "complicated things" despite the supposed limitations of my class.

Worker's aren't anti-intellectual; capitalism is just anti-intellectual-workers.

In fact, for a revolution to be sucessful, most worker are going to learn and understand real things much more complicated than dialectics... things like why did this rebellion win and this one fail.

Z:

Like what?

The only 'trouble' seems to be that one would have dialecticians (like you) bad-mouthing anyone who tried to 'separate' these two and giving them a hard time for questioning a defective theory.

Gravedigger:

Dialectics is probably the worst theory ever invented to try to explain change.

Proof?

Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...57&postcount=2

Not so, ordinary and scientific language contain countless words that allow us to explain change far better than the wooden jargon dialecticians inherited from Hegel.

Here is a shortened list:

Quote:

Vary, alter, adjust, amend, revise, edit, bend, straighten, twist, turn, wrap, pluck, tear, mend, mutate, transmute, sharpen, modify, develop, expand, contract, constrict, swell, flow, differentiate, divide, unite, fast, slow, rapid, hasty, melt, harden, drip, cascade, drop, pick up, fade, wind, unwind, meander, peel, scrape, file, scour, dislodge, is, was, will be, will have been, had, will have had, went, go, going, gone, lost, age, flood, crumble, disintegrate, erode, corrode, rust, flake, percolate, tumble, mix, separate, cut, chop, crush, grind, shred, slice, dice, saw, spread, fall, climb, rise, ascend, descend, slide, slip, roll, spin, oscillate, undulate, rotate, wave, quickly, slowly, instantaneously, suddenly, gradually, snap, join, resign, part, rapidly, sell, buy, lose, find, search, cover, uncover, stretch, compress, lift, put down, win, ripen, germinate, conceive, gestate, die, rot, perish, grow, decay, fold, many, more, less, fewer, steady, steadily, jerkily, smoothly, quickly, very, extremely, exceedingly, intermittent, continuous, continual, push, pull, slide, jump, run, walk, swim, drown, immerse, break, charge, retreat, assault, dismantle, pulverise, disintegrate, dismember, replace, undo, reverse, repeal, enact, quash, hour, minute, second, instant, destroy, annihilate, boil, freeze, thaw, cook, liquefy, solidify, congeal, neutralise, flatten, crimple, evaporate, condense, dissolve, mollify, pacify, calm down, terminate, initiate, instigate, enrage, inflame, protest, challenge, expel, eject, remove, overthrow, expropriate, scatter, gather, assemble, defeat, strike, revolt, overthrow, riot, march, demonstrate, rebel, campaign, agitate, organise…

And, despite what you have been told, Formal Logic can handle change too:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm


Summary here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Four_Part_One.htm

EcoTrot:

Quote:

And this is just my opinion; as I have said to Rossa I am yet 2 have read and understood enough Marxist works 2 form a concrete opinion. However I have 2 say Rossa...u argue that comrades use Marxism as a crutch, or for emotional support etc. Well it seems 2 me that u use dialectics 2 justify the historical failures in socialism, rather than examining the material reality behind those situations. It also appears that u may simply be unable 2 understand the complexity of dialectics. I don't mean 2 sound confrontational comrade; as I have said b4 I do respect u, and this is yet 2 change, (I also realise that u have not posted on this topic yet...but I’m sure u will, which is why I addressed this 2 u).

1) I do not blame the failures of Dialectical Marxism on dialectics -- it is merely one of the causes (as I have said many times).

2) In view of the fact that dialecticians respond almost invaribly in an emotive way to my criticisms, refusing even to read my work (like the priests who would not even look down Galileo's telescope), but still making stuff up about it (like you have just done), leaves one with the question: why do they almost all respond so irrationally?

I have a theory why this is so, but it could be wrong.

What is not in dispute is that dialectical mterialism is a failed theory because it is an erroneous theory -- however, you are welcome to try to show where my demolition of dialectics goes wrong, if you disagree with that.

And it's 'Rosa', not 'Rossa'.

A) The metaphysical quagmire of a dialectics of nature.
Or
B) The one-sided and over-deterministic version of historical materialism found in the analytical-Marxism of Cohen or the structural-Marxism of Althusser.

I don't bad mouth your efforts but, and only occasionally, your attitude. You see, you can't even enter this debate without immediately throwing accusations around.

Z:

These can all be avoided, without any of the mysticism you would like to re-introduce.

On the contrary, almost from the beginning you have been abusing me, and getting far worse in return.

And so it will continue...

I told you that I would treat you with unremitting hostility until you show you are serious in wanting to debate with me.

Well that's good news. Can you elaborate?

Z:

No.

HA

Eco, what is that supposed to mean?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein Eco, what is that supposed to mean?

I just found your refusal to back up your own statement rather amusing...especially considering that you critise other comrades because you believe their arguments have no validity

I only refused to explain this to Z, not to anyone else.