Do you subscribe to the whole 'dialectics' thing?

Also it would be a hoot if you gave your ideology as well.

cheers,

Holden

I'll go first, im not a follower of this particular religion, partly because when actually thought about it doesn't make sense to a materialist like myself.

You might want to change the wording to 'Do you accept dialectical materialism?' since your question is heavily biased.

For example, comrades who accept dialectical materialism do not see it as mystical, so naturally they are going to tick 'No', or abstain.

If you want an accurate response, you need to make your question neutral.

I don't really understand it and since you asked, I'm a Trot.

i was only kidding with the question, but if people are so humorless they need it changed then the mods can do their thang.

i was only kidding with the question, but if people are so humorless they need it changed then the mods can do their thang.

I voted I don't even understand it because the whole thing makes absolutely no sense. It's totally detached from material reality and makes attempting to understand the conditions of the working-class very difficult.

- August

Apperently so. What happened to light-hearted humor?

Ive tried to understand them but i just cant get it

the Stalinists purged it

Zero King:

Unfortunately, as many threads here show, this theory makes no sense at all.

I have listed these threads here:

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

Alternatively, you can simply check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nti-dialec...349/index.html

You should never make jokes in public. You never know who's listening! Be safe, be paranoid.

its not a religion its a philosophy

We've been over this. It was meant as a joke.

I voted "I don't understand it", but I'm sure by now that I don't understand it because it doesn't make sense.

So, nope.

According to Wikipedia:

1. Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by all dialecticians).
2. Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
3. Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
4. Change moves in 3D spirals not 2D circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")

Dialectical materialism with respect to Marx. Looking at everything with the perspective of class struggle is a way of looking at things. It doesn't necessarily mean everything that happens is based on class struggle. I accept or deny specific Marxist ideas without adopting this principle so I just don't see any reason to get into it.

As for dialectic in general, I don't really know much about it. Based on the four points, I would say this:

1. I would disagree.
2. Seems true.
3. Seems true.
4. Change moves in 4D so I disagree there, too.

Dooga, if this is so:

then change would in fact be impossible -- or rather, change would merely represent our subjective view of successive orthogonal hyperplane slices through a four-dimensional manifold, but it would not be 'objective'.

In 4D all points in the manifold of space-time coexist, and since change requires the passage pf time, which does not really happen in 4D, there can be no change.

This is one reason why soviet philosophers rejected Relativity as a physical theory, and regarded it as merely a mathematical model.

i changed the title of the poll. i dont really care if they get offended or not but i think it would be more effective like this.

i voted no. i mean i dont really understand it but not because of ignorance but because its nonsense and not even the master dialecticians understand themselves

Marmot, you seem to have mis-spelt 'subscribe'.

Based on the definition here, I would have to say that I don't support it, and I think it is a crock of shit. I used to (when I was young and stupid) think that everything had an opposite. Except, that well, not everything does.
What is the opposite of "roller skates"? "Non-roller skates"? That doesn't make sense.

As for change moving in spirals (rather than circles ), seems like a religious idea, don't Hindus think something like that? More to the point, to accept this idea, you would have to accept it without evidence. Meh, etc.

AM:

In fact, the majority of mystics do.

You will find most of dialectics here, too:

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion.htm

The Kybalion is the third most sacred book of Hermeticism.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...s/en/magee.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism