Ah, your inverted view of reality again! Very amusing.

Yes, in a forward added several years after first publication. A point which you're obviously having trouble digesting.

BTB:

'Inverted' as in 'the right way up', yes.

'Amusing' -- for me, too.

Nevertheless, whenever it was added, it records 'his method', from which every trace of Hegel had been removed.

And, that sticks in your craw.

Tough...

Given that you have referred elsewhere to Marx having a dialectical method, it remains entirely unclear what it means to talk of every trace being removed or not an atom being present.

Gil:

Well, this just shows how little attention you pay; we have been over this several times.

Hegel did not invent the dialectic. It had a traditional, and clear meaning before Hegel put his pen to misuse.

Erm - the fact that he tought it valuable doesn't mean he kept it. Those are different things.

In which case, Marx would have not been able of coquetting with his form without inadvertently adhering to his content.

Ah, but this isn't possible:

Marx explicitly tells us where he coquetted with the modes of expression of Hegel - and it wasn't in the paragraphs ahead, but exclusively in the chapter on the theory of value.

Well, of course - Marx was a mystic, if we accept your definition of what a mystic is. What we don't agree, on the other hand, is about what a mystic is.

In the chapter on the theory of value. Is this the chapter on the theory of value? Unless you can prove that this afterword is part of such chapter, he was not coquetting with those terms.

When I feel the need to be mean to you, I say openly what I think about your debating practices (as for instances, in the discussion of your nomination to Philosophy moderator). I don't need other means of expressing "contempt" to you.

I am far from convinced that those "dialecticians" weren't reacting to your own offencive ways; having being at the taking end of your abuse, without ever having given you a reason for it, that's what seems more probable to me.

Yes, I can relate to this. After 25 months of your nasty behaviour, I'm already tetchy enough.

Oh well. "Idea" is also a bourgeois idea.

So, those of us who don't agree with your ideas are class enemies?

Luís Henrique

LH:

And what makes you think he thought it 'valuable'?

No; if I use Hegelian terms mockingly/unseriously, that hardly alters Hegel's 'theory'. Same with Marx.

We have been over this many times in other threads. This is becoming all rather tedious.

The punctuation suggests another reading:

"In the chapter on value" is therefore just one example of the "here and there", but not the only one, where he 'coquetted' with Hegel's jargon. We can see this from the fact that he used the same jargon in other chapters of that book.

You are not suggesting, I hope, that he was using these terms non-seriously only in Chapter One, but seriously elsewhere, are you?

Anyway, the punctuation bears my interpretation just as well as it does yours, but mine is consistent with the summary of 'his method' added to the Preface, whereas yours is not.

So, you think it scientific to attribute human characteristics to 'the dialectic', do you?

Already covered.

Then don't do it.

Well, then you will have to remain unconvinced.

However, you can actually see this taking place here (where I had never even debated this 'theory' before). This is a Venezuelan site, the existence of which I did not even know about until I did a Google search. That did not stop the dialectician involved ('Red Devil') behaving in the same boorish and offensive way to me that others have here right from the start:

http://aporrealos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12027

There are plenty more examples of the same logged here:

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

At the foot of the page, in the non-RevLeft entries. The vast majority of the latter are sites on which I had never appeared before, but in nearly every case, we see the same abusive, lying, irrational, emotive and scatological response that we seen at RevLeft.

That's cool; I always give back worse than I get.

It's also an ordinary language term, and that is how I was using it here.

Where did I say that? You see, you too have to invent things to put in my mouth.

However, those here who, inadvertently or not, spout ideas they culled from boss-class hacks like Hegel, are indeed acting as 'prize fighters' for the ruling-class on this board -- at least philosophically.

Reread the afterword.

But it certainly makes what you write an exercise of mockery, instead of serious scientific research.

I don't think so. If so, he would have written somethink like,

I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, as in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him.

No. I'm suggesting that he used them seriously, period.

No, I think it is rhetoric.

Including to those who didn't "give" you anything first place. Which, frankly, makes you deserving of the abuse you get.

And "ordinary language" is a bourgeois idea, as is "term".

Or, on second thought, not so. They would be slaveholding ideas. Unless we believe Classic Greece was capitalist.

Did you notice that question mark? It means I was asking you a question, "do you think that those of us who disagree with you are class enemies?"

And it seems a reasonable question to make, after this gem:

So, again - are those who "act as 'prize fighters for the rulling class'", class enemies?

Luís Henrique

LH:

That still does not tell me what he thought was valuable in it.

Your point was that this must affect the content of the work mocked. But, how can it? This reply merely suggests it reflects on the one doing the mocking.

As I said, this passage bears both interpretations.

Had he meant your version, he would have written:

The punctuation suggests this is not the only way to read this passage.

Your view also makes his use of 'here and there' rather awkward. If he had just meant the chapter you mention he would have written:

The 'here and there' with the commas suggests that the chapter in question is just one example of several where he did this.

So, this passage alone is inconclusive, but my view is consistent with his use of this jargon in other chapters, and with the summary he added in the Preface.

Well, then why did he use them non-seriously in what was probably the most important chapter?

And if he did that there, why use them seriously elsewhere?

You view has him acting inconsistently.

Then the rest is rhetoric, and not to be taken seriously.

Like who? Except in very rare cases, I never abuse others first.

And don't get me wrong -- I neither mind nor do not mind the abuse I get, but it is useful in showing up the irrational attitude of you and your mystical friends.

Then Marx was bourgeois:

Even so, I was using these terms in a non-bourgeois manner. Care to prove otherwise?

How do you work that out? Or are you making stuff up as you go along?

Once more, you betray an unhealthy bias, for nowhere in that comment is there the slightest suggestion that I view any who disagree with me as class enemies.

It was in fact said to you, not just to anyone:

How you can derive your biased question from this is perhaps something we should leave for your psychiatrist to unravel.

Once again, more invention:

Read what I said:

In fact, I'd employ the word 'class-traitor' in preference to your phrase, but I won't since BTB does not like me using that word, but it is apt for all that.

So class traitors are not class enemies?

Luís Henrique

LH:

Not necessarily.

So, in a nutshell, you call people "class traitors" and then get all worked when people ask if they are being called "class enemies".

It's a method.

Luís Henrique

LH:

I see -- you equate getting "all worked up" with the mere fact that someone diagrees with you.

It's more madness than method.

No; I equate it with things like

You call people "class traitors", and then accuse them of "putting things in your mouth" (which is what I call "getting all worked up") when they ask if they are being called class enemies.

It's a method - just ask any bad journalist.

It sure is - but it is you who equate disagreeing with you with bad things; in the case, with class treason.

*********************************************

I think it is enough. It has been proved that you cannot sustain your views without putting Marx into the dichotomical position of being either a mystic or a clown. It has been proved that your "analysis" relies on the faintest of evidencies (a review by an anonymous writer, then Marx's brief comments on such review, and ultimately a comma in one sentence).

This, of course, explains also your tone: having to grasp to such meager straws, it is natural that you will resort to insult instead of argument. In other words, your tone exposes your inconsistency rather than conceals it.

Done.

Luís Henrique

Ah, it's LH who is now getting 'all worked up':

Ok, I will:

LH, is this a bad method?

Still making stuff up, I see.

You should try your hand at writing WMD dossiers for the US war machine.

On the contrary, your view means that Marx was either a mystic or a clown. My view implies he was a materialist.

Perhaps you should learn from him.

My tone is the way it is because you mystics have introduced into the workers' movement a set of ruling class ideas.

Why wouldn't a good Marxist be angry at that?

Er, why am I asking you...?

You sure have been.

Next numpty please...

I'm closing this thread because I think it has run its course and can see little else constructive for any of the interlocutors to contribute.

If anyone has an issue with this, pm me.