Natural Quantitative Change Leads to Qualitative Change

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of development as a simple process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open' fundamental changes' to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:

"Nature," says Engels, "is the test of dialectics. and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle. but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years." (Ibid., p. 23.)

Describing dialectical development as a transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:

"In physics ... every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it. For example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises or falls, a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water is converted in one case into steam and in the other into ice.... A definite minimum current is required to make a platinum wire glow; every metal has its melting temperature; every liquid has a definite freezing point and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we are able with the means at our disposal to attain the required temperatures; finally, every gas has its critical point at which, by proper pressure and cooling, it can be converted into a liquid state.... What are known as the constants of physics (the point at which one state passes into another – J. St.) are in most cases nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement causes a qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 527-28.)

Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:

"Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies as the effect of changes of quantitative composition. his was already known to Hegel.... Take oxygen: if the molecule contains three atoms instead of the customary two, we get ozone, a body definitely distinct in odor and reaction from ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the different proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively different from all other bodies !" (Ibid., p. 528.)

Finally, criticizing Dühring, who scolded Hegel for all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient world to the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic matter to the kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new state, Engels says:

"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations in which at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap, for example, in the case of water which is heated or cooled, where boiling point and freezing point are the nodes at which – under normal pressure – the leap to a new aggregate state takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 45-46.)
d) Contradictions Inherent in Nature

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.

"In its proper meaning," Lenin says, "dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 265.)

And further:

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, p. 301.)

Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist dialectical method.

It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.

If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.

The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system

The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.

Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.

It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.

Further, if the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that there can be no "immutable" social systems, no "eternal principles" of private property and exploitation, no "eternal ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.

Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.

Hence, we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.

In the eighties of the past century, in the period of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population, whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken; for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not backward.

Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Hence, the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.

Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of the "growing" of capitalism into socialism.

Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.

As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.
2) Marxist Philosophical Materialism

The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows:
a) Materialist

Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."

"The materialistic outlook on nature," says Engels, "means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, p. 651.)

Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 318.)
b) Objective Reality

Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error. Engels says:

"The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 329.)

Jacobin 1949, as I have shown repeatedly, not only does none of the stuff you have posted work, it is riddled with confusion and error.

Details here:

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

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm

There are many things Stalin was, but being a philosopher was not one of them.

There isn't much you can learn on marxism if you read his works (his works being a bunch of essays).

I dont understand your point Jacobin....maybe quantity is inversely related to quality in this case.

ok I took up your challenge.

you can't prove a negative, science can only make those assertions based on the lack of any evidence for the claim. you are claiming that it's possible for a physical entity to qualitatively change without anything being done to it. but what scientist backs you up? Engels example is self-evident, it seems to me.

A balding head is not a change to a physical susbtance any more than taking clothes off a body is. No-one would claim it's comparable to boiling water.

As for melting plastic, or anything else: the point is that the substances have a melting point. as you heat them up to the melting point, the change is qualitative - they get hotter but they aren't melting. Once they begin to melt, they enter into a qualitative change. Then once they are completely liquid, the change is complete. That's dialectical you see - the substance goes through a period of change, then becomes something else, which is a result of that change. Some changes will be smoother than others of course but there comes a point when the qualitative change itself begins - ie the melting point. 100 litres of water don't instantly turn to steam at 100 degrees either do they, so you might as well have used that example.

hohoho, I see you don't jsut reserve your great sense of humour for Revleft then.

If we're observing phenomena that occur over millions of years, and you could prove that changes occur in ten-thousand year bursts, then that would be a dramatic leap within that context. to deny that is the kind of anti-science I'd expect from the reactionary right. Let's look at wikipedia:

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:

Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5]
The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_eq...#Tempo_and_mode

Not that different to the transition to communism, then.

Cool to Warm to Hot are not qualitative changes, they are quantitative, because the substance remains the same. they only become qualitative at melting, freezing or boiling points, which come as a result of those qualitative changes. And it's scientific fact that all substances have metling, freezing and boiling points, which come AFTER and AS A RESULT OF changes from cool to warm to hot.


no no no :wacko: the qualities of the substance don't change just because you change the way you use them. I could hit you with a bottle (I wouldn't) or place it in your hand, its effect on you would be different but its objective physical qualities would not change. Likewise cold water on wet clothes or on a dry hand may have a different effect, but so what, this doesn't retrospectively change the physical qualities of that water before contact.


the "colour" doesn't undergo a qualitative change, the colour is not a physical object but just something you percieve due to the interaction (dialectial interaction? :P) between your eyes and the way the object reflects light. your perception of this colour changing would be the result of a change in your eyes due to staring at the object for too long it would not be because the object changed the way it reflects light. Here, change which would occur quantitively if you observe how your pupils shrink and grow depending on light, stress placed on them etc., This quantitative change would then result in the qualitative change of you percieving a different colour.

Wrong, engels talked about boiling water - this itself is a change in molecular orientation and not in quantity of molecules - no new substance is added. You are vulgarising the term "quantity" to mean that simply more or less molecules are added - all it means is that the molecules begin to move their positions and distance from one another (quantity of molecules in a certain space if you like) an addition of motion derived from the addition of heat, before that distance changes to such a point that the substance itself becomes a different one.

I looked this up...


Would you like spearmint or caraway flavor? That's a strange choice, but believe it or not, they are the same thing. Well, almost. Spearmint and caraway both contain a molecule called carvone with the empirical formula C10H14O, or rather 10 carbon atoms, 14 hydrogen atoms, and 1 oxygen atom. The thing that makes them taste different is that one is left-handed and the other is right-handed. In order for something to have a left or right-handedness, it must be chiral.

Chiral molecules contain the same atoms arranged as mirror images that are non-superimposable. Examples of chiral objects are your hands. Your left hand is the same as your right hand, but they are not interchangeable. Your right hand cannot be replaced by your left hand just as you cannot put your left glove on your right hand. In fact, if you look at your right hand in the mirror, the image you would see would be a left hand. They are mirror images of each other that are non-superimposable; therefore they are 'chiral'. Superimposable objects are things such as balls, cubes, and baseball bats. They are not chiral. When you look at their reflection in a mirror, it looks just like the actual object.

http://www.scienceiq.com/ShowFact.cfm?ID=287



I don't see your point here. if it was not "chiral" (a word I just learnt) then a quantitative change would be, theoretically, the molecule "flipping over" from left to right - imagine the pictures are 3D and you will picture it.. once it passed the centre point, the QUANTITATIVE change inherent in that moveent would become a QUALITATIVE change. look at the picture - how does the picture on the left become the picture on the right? your brand of "science" suggests it could just magically appear as its mirror image without first moving. oh dear.

as it is "chiral", then the two molecules cannot change from one to the other, so dialectical analysis doesn't apply. also, for all your complicated language, you didn't even notice the very obvious example of a left hand and a right hand as used in the text, yet it would have served your purposes just as well. this makes me doubt your ability to see to the heart of any concept, and instead makes it seem like you use extremely complex language to describe banal concepts.

However to answer your question, the answer is just an extension of the answer I gave above. If you could say change a model of an object into it's chiral mirror image by re-ordering models of the atoms or molecules, but still within the framework of each peice of the toy being interlinked like beans on an abacus, you would have to move each individual atom or molecule in regards to another, until they crossed. moving towards one another, motion, would be a qualitative change. once they cross, their position in regards to one another changes, and becomes qualitative. Once the first two "atoms" or "molecules" cross, then a qualitative change in the substance has taken place. the transition to the eventual desired result - the mirror image - takes place only once the final atom has been moved into the position it would be in the mirror image. Kind of like the difference between a degenerate workers state and a communist society, if you like.

Your essay was too long for me to read beyond that point, but basically what I read was all wrong. You should stop trying to confuse young minds with your propaganda, you call others sectarians yet you're trying to undermine the very basis of revolutionary politics with pseudo-science just so comrades will join your Cliffite sect and unlearn marxism.

Z: From what you have posted at the end, it is clear that you did not read my Essay in its entirety (for I deal with many of the points you raise at length in footnotes and later on), and you obviously only skim-read those parts you did consult:

Not so. This is a clichéd response made by those who know very little logic (which helps explain why you like the Stone Age 'logic' Hegel used), or who cannot think for themselves

But, it is very easy to prove a negative in science, mathematics, logic and everyday life.

You mean, "You can't prove a falsehood."

Example 1: I claim it is not raining. You look outside and tell me "Yes, you are right. It's not raining."

Example 2: A scientist claims the story in Genesis is not correct. Along comes Darwin, and proves her right; Genesis is incorrect.

Example 3: A mathematician claims that the primes are not finite in number. Pythagoras comes along and prove her right too. The primes are not finite.

There are countless more of these.

More to the point, what scientists back Engels, especially when it is unclear what he is claiming -- but you'd know that if you had read my Essays carefully.

And I do not need any scientist to 'back me up'; all I need do is appeal to facts established by scientists and common understanding -- like the ones I used.

Some changes in 'quality' (but Engels left this term undefined, as you have, too) are caused by changes in quantity, but many are not -- so it can't be a law.

And many changes are not nodal, or do not happen in 'leaps'. I gave dozens of examples.

You try to deal with a few of them (more on that later)

I agree, but then you should pick a fight with dialecticians who use this example, not me.

But, a melting point is not part of a qualitative change. From what little detail some dialecticians give, qualitative change is substantial change (Hegel got this idea from Aristotle). But, either side of the melting point, substances remain the same substance -- so it's not even a qualitative change!

For example, iron is still iron whether its a solid or a liquid, so is glass, plastic and water (and practically everything, for that matter).

And, I quote sources that tell us that many such changes are slow, and non-nodal. You skipped past those (how convenient!).

I dealt with this at length; you need to address the points I made, not ignore them.

The problem is that you are dealing with a term (i.e., 'nodal change') which is undefined. And you do not define it, either. That allows you to use it subjectively, and to ignore or re-interpret cases you do not like. So, one minute a node is a few seconds, the next it is tens of thousands of years

I call this "Mickey Mouse science"; now we see why.

If that transition is non-nodal, maybe so. But, since Engels's law is entirely subjective, and dialecticians apply it selectively, then it cannot be a law, and you cannot know whether the transition to communism will be one of the exceptions or not. If the transition is like that of most melting substances, then capitalism will be the same on the other side of the change! [Iron is, so why not Capitalism?]

There is a qualitative difference between cold water and hot water. So it is a qualitative change.

The problem is, once again, you are dealing with a term that is left undefined, and that allows you (and me!) to make these subjective points.

So, once more this not a law, and where it applies it applies only subjectively.

The melting point example is not a happy one, for as I pointed out above, either side of it the substances in general stay the same.

Some do, as I pointed out. Merely denying what I say is not enough, I am afraid.

Once more, you are working with an ill-defined notion of 'quality'; until it is defined clearly, no one will know who is right. So, it's still not a law.

Now, dialecticians have been using these sloppy terms for 200 years -- and no one, literally no one, has defined this term clearly.

Now, you tell us colour is this or that, but you simply take that for granted. I deny it is what you say it is.

When a scientist, for example, tells us Copper Sulphate is blue, she is not describing her own perceptions.

Mickey Mouse theory as I said.

Again, you are helping yourself to 'quality', but object when I apply it in certain ways you do not like. You do not like the subjective way you seem to think I have approached things, but you are quite happy to be subjective yourself.

Until you define it clearly, my counter-example still stands.

Now, Engels says this:

Notice that: matter and energy added or subtracted, just as I indicated.

So, you cannot even get Engels right!

My example shows that change in geometry causes change in quality, contrary to Engels, and this can be achieved with an energy neutral budget between cases.

Plus you are working with a loose definition of a system, and of energy inputs (more Mickey Mouse science!); for example, are these systems thermodynamically open or closed?

But, you would have seen this point had you read my Essay with more care.

Once more you miss the point; a change in geometry here within an energy neutral budget causes a qualitative change, contradicting Engels.

Now I do not deny qualitative change (an odd idea you seem to attribute to me); all I deny is that Engels got it right.

Change in nature is far more complex than Engels imagined; for goodness sake, science has moved on in the last 140 years! No wonder he got things wrong.

Once more, you are applying your ideas subjectively, and deciding before you look at nature what you are going to accept as 'dialectical'. That is, you are not doing this:

But you are doing this:

[References at my site.]

You even use the word 'self-evident'!

Now, I quote dialecticians (including Engels) who use similar arguments to mine to try to prove the opposite to me, that this law correct.

You take exception to my use of similar arguments used the other way.

Once more, this 'law' only works because of the sloppy 'definitions' you (plural) use (or rather, you do not even bother to define things), and the subjective way you apply the vague notions found in Hegel.

Ah! The sweet voice of sectarian point-scoring emerges at the end. You just cannot resist it can you? [And I like the way you use Ted Grantisms, here. As I said, you cannot think for yourself.]

I explain why you mystics are like this in Essay Nine Part Two:

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

But, the SWP (of which I am not a member) agree with you, and disagree with me.

So, if they are a sect, and they accept this mystical theory, and you do, what does that make you?

And I will continue to rescue 'young minds' from the grip of a theory that has presided over 150 years of failure, which relies on Stone Age 'logic', a sloppy use of language -- and one invented by an arch mystic.

If that upsets you, I am sure I can live with that.

And, as I noted above, you have skim-read part of my Essay, and somehow think you have refuted me.

What would you think if I said I had read a few pages of Kapital, made a few superficial points, and then claimed I had refuted Marx?

Well, we both know what you'd say.

And that is what I say about you.

You do not have to read my Essays, but you need to resist the temptation to make a fool of yourself in public like this, and on the basis of such an amateurish reply.

Come back when you are prepared to treat this with the seriousness it merits, otherwise, don't waste my time.

Rosa:

"Notice that: matter and energy added or subtracted, just as I indicated.

So, you cannot even get Engels right!"


He said matter OR motion. Therefore, adding or subtracting matter is not a necessity. My language in saying "adding energy" may be mickey mouse, but in fact, heating something up adds motion to the molecules, which is both solid science and what Engels said.

As for hot water - cold water being qualitative just like water - gas, again I think you're being either misinformed or deliberately dishonest. Any chemistry class will teach you that any substance can exist in three forms - solid, liquid or gas, and that the properties of each are clearly defined and objectively different. They will not tell you the same about a hot and cold version of a substance in the same form.

As for reading your entire essay, I read it for a long time and only got a fraction of the way down, and already noticed numerous errors. You then tell me you correct those errors later on, but you don't quote examples to show where. This is strange seeing as you are keen for people to read your essay; I'd think you would want to make as much of it read as possible.

And yes, dialectical materialism is the philosophical foundation of Marxism.

Z:

I do not deny this, but you had taken me to task for an objection of mine that involved the addition of matter, indicating that you didn't even understand Engels, let alone me.

Once again, you (just like Engels) are operating with no definition of 'quality'. This allows you to be subjective and inconsistent about what you count as a 'qualitative change'.

I brought this out by being equally subjective (but I do not need to define 'quality' since it is your Mickey Mouse theory, not mine), and you complain.

So, this theory of yours will remain subjective until and unless you tell us very clearly what a 'quality' is, and what 'qualitative change' is.

I do not expect an answer from one as ignorant as you since philosophers have been struggling with that one since before Plato was a lad, and to no avail.

We just do not have a clear notion of 'quality' let alone 'qualitative change'. It is no surprise therefore to see you struggling.

[The standard attempts to 'define' it depend on an ancient and mystical notion of 'essences' -- Hegel merely copied it, put it into obscure jargon (as 'determinate being' (wtf is that?!)), and so did Engels (except he dropped the jargon). You, Mickey Mouse, deep thinker that you are, just ignore the problem!]

Moreover, your analogy with the change to communism means that either side of the change, capitalism will stay capitalism (it will just change its phase), just as water stays water when it is boiled or frozen, or plastic stays plastic when it is a solid or a liquid.

On the other hand, if you argue that something new emerges after a revolution. based on this ill-defined 'law', then my objection stands, since nothing qualitatively new emerges when you melt say, iron; it stays the same substance -- there is no qualitative change here.

Either way, your Mickey Mouse 'law' fails. Engels screwed up; you fell for it.

But he had an excuse; he was working with obsolete science, and out-dated 'logic'.

We cannot absolve you quite so easily.

You do not have to read my essays, but, and once more, you need disabuse yourself of the idea that you have refuted me based on such a superficial and amateurish reply.

And the 'errors' you have spotted turn out to be screw-ups on your part (many of which were handled in the parts of the essay you skipped, and in my reply).

I do not "correct" those errors, since they are not errors (and I did not say that I had "corrected" them later -- you need to learn to read). What I do, and what I say I did, is that I tackle the sort of brainless objections you have come up with, and neutralised them. You would have seen this had you read on.

In that Essay, I have taken on (mostly in the end notes) every objection that has ever been raised in the history of Marxism to defend this 'law', and every single one that I have faced in the 20 odd years that I have been working on this project, and every conceivable objection (many that you have not thought of) to the sort of attacks I have mounted on it, and I have neutralised them all (that is why the Essay is as long as it is -- in its final state in ten years time, it will be at least twice as long).

So you are not likely to have discovered something new to throw at me.

Now, I am prepared to put the work in, you are not. I have read countless thousands of pages of amateurish science and philosophy churned out by you mystics (the vast bulk of it equally poor, if not worse, but all of it repetitive), including that written by the following:

Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Dietzgen, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Bukharin, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Tony Smith, Bertell Ollman, Sean Sayers, Chris Arthur, August Thalheimer, David Hayden Guest, Christopher Caudwell, John Bernal, Levins and Lewontin, Woods and Grant, Ira Gollobin, Spirkin, Oizerman, Ilyenkov, Kharin, Afanasyev, Naletov, Spirkin, Mandel, John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Novack, Shirokov, Tommy Jackson, Henry Levy, John Lewis, John Somerville, Maurice Cornforth, Kuusinen, Yurkovets, Henri Lefebvre...

So, I have done my homework --, you have not.

Once more we both know what you'd say to someone who thought they had found 'errors' in the first few pages of Das Kapital, and who made a fool of themselves in public by announcing the fact they had refuted Marx, and refused to read any further.

You are just as big a fool.

My advice: stay out of the big league sonny unless you are prepared to do some genuine work, and/or you are ready to start thinking for yourself, for a change.

Then no wonder Dialectical Marxism has been such a long term failure.

We need to reverse that by ditching a theory that history has already refuted.

Not that I know half of these people, but was there any reason you excluded Marx?

Yes, since he slowly abandoned this 'theory', so that by the time he got to Kapital he says he merely 'coquetted' with a few Hegelian terms of art, and even then only in a few places in that great work.

So, I do not include him among the dialectical mystics.

Because the only way Rosa can oppose dialectics (and all those Marxists she includes in her list) and retain a Marxist identity is to falsely claim that Marx explicitly abandoned the method.

Her evidence for this? Her own interpretation of one passage in a forward to Capital which is contradicted by subsequent statements by Marx. His confession that he "coquetted" with a few Hegelian terms is made to do a tremendous amount of work in Rosa's analysis: no less than signal the complete abandonment of dialectics.

Now, we could produce another, altogether more puny list of Marxists (Bernstein, Eastman, etc.) who abandoned dialectics. Unfortunately for Rosa, almost without exception, they ended up abandoning Marxism itself.

Z:

But, we managed to prove I was correct on this in an earlier thread.

Is your memory going?

Ah, but we need not speculate, for Marx very kindly added a summary of "his method", in which not one atom of Hegel is to be found.

Since you have forgotten it so quickly, here it is again:

And, if that passage is read with more care than Z can manage, the reader will note that there are no 'contradictions', changes of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation" or "unities of opposites", and the only indirect input Hegel is allowed is restricted in the following manner:

Glad I could clear that up again for you, Z -- this is only the 20th time I have had to help you out here; I suspect we might need another 20 before it sinks in.

But, the Stalinists use the dialectic, and they are counter-revolutionaries.

So, this contradictoiry 'theory' of yours can be used to justify anything -- and has been used to justify anything (precisely because it is contradictory).

In that case, there are considerably more anti-revolutionary dialecticians (the Stalinists and Maoists) than there are 'revolutionary' ones, and, as if to rub it in, the Stalinists and Maoists have presided over more revolutions etc. than us Trots.

So, the dialectic is not super-glued to 'revolutionary orthodoxy'.

[And it is nice to see you, Z, agreeing with the Stalinists and Maoists on this theory -- that should make you stop and think -- er, sorry, you do not do that...]

But, all three are abject failures, and all three accept dialectical materialism

Conclusion: dialectical materialism has been refuted by history.

R: No, you managed to convince yourself that you were correct. Not much of a feat in itself and I doubt you convinced anyone else.

No, I agree with the Marxists. The only people who agree with your anti-dialectics is a handful of anarchists on this site. So you are the one who needs to reflect on who your friends are.

Seeing Stalin in a positive light does not make you counter-revolutionary. Remember that.

You may hate Stalin, you may throw garbage in his face, but whoever sees him as another "true" socialist leader is not counter-revolutionary. There are many fine people who sincerely believed in Stalin.

Z:

You have the survey results I presume?

Or are you just substituting guesswork/wishful-thinking for facts again?

In fact, you agree with the Stalinists and the Maoists (and a few libertarian anti-Leninist Marxists).

With your head so deep in the sand I am not surprised you cannot see this.

But, it is enough to know that you disagree with Marx. He, on the other hand, saw things my way -- as I proved in earlier threads

And, even if you were right, not one of you brave mystics can win a single argument against me. But still you adhere to your safe little doctrines, which provide you with much needed consolation (as you admitted last year). You are clearly quite fond of this 'comfort blanket'.

And, as you should know, innovative work in every sphere of human endeavour is often rejected by traditionalists like you.

So, even if I were the only person on the planet who thought this way, that would not make me wrong.

But, you seem to think truth is arrived at by counting the heads of mystical sheep.

In your case it has clearly put you to sleep.

Dream on...

I have split from this thread all those posts that relate to 'tolerating' Stalin and Stalinsism, and moved them to a thread of that name in History.

If you want to comment on that, please go there.

A seed falls from a tree. (Thesis) Quantity
Water, temperature, sunlight, soil (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
The seed grows into a new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation
The new tree. (Synthesis becomes the new Thesis) Quantity
Birds, bees, wind, pollen (Anti-Thesis) Quantities
Fertilized seeds fall from the new tree. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation of the Negation

There, I proved how dialectics is applied to a materialist basis, and how matter moves in spiraling motion.

How you still cannot understand this process perplexes me...

Criticise Some Things Sometimes:

Oh dear, more Mickey Mouse 'Science'!

This sort of 'proof' would be laughed out of kiddie school.

1) You clearly need to check on what the word 'proof' means in science and/or philosophy.

2) Check this out, and then tell me this 'theory' of yours is explicable:

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

3) I go further than claim I do not understand this 'process', I claim that no one does, not Engels, not Lenin, not Mao, not Stalin, not you.

4) All you have done is list a few items that seem to fit, you have not even considered the many that do not, nor have you explained even how these fit.

Now, I have shown that these 'laws' you refer to are far too vague and confused to be considered 'laws', and whatever they seem to mean, the evidence refutes them.

You need to address my arguments and evidence, not keep repeating tired, old, and failed formulae.

5) The Thesis-Anti-thesis-Synthesis triad you use is not even Hegel's (and Lenin rejected it too). Even if it were correct, it would suggest nature is mind -- for what else can advance theses like this?

On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292097892

Now, please, just for once, try to live up to your name, and start to think for yourself.

Give it a go; you might get to like it...

Actually, I do think for myself.

What bugs you is the fact that I (and many others) don't subscribe to your narrow-minded philosophy.

See, you don't want me to "think for myself," you want me to think like you do.


I'd like to see a better response from you than "Mickey Mouse Science," or spamming in another link to your website- which, by the way, I'll never bother to read because

1. I think for myself

2. Because it's long-winded, boring, and lacking in substance.

Criticise Some Things Sometimes, and even then Make Sure You Get Them Wrong:

Considering the fact that I do not have a philosophy, but you do (and one that you cannot defend), well done, this was within a couple of parsecs of being accurate (the "What" bit, that is -- the rest you can keep).

Not necessarily, but it would help if you stopped regurgitating the tired old formulae and examples you copied off Engels etc.

Now if you stopped doing that, we might just begin to believe you actually can think for yourself.

Of course you would, and you will get just such a response when you post something that does not rely on Mickey Mouse Science.

So, it's up to you; the question is, can you think for yourself enough to be able to rise to that daunting challenge?

I for one refuse to believe the sceptics who say that even if we wait until the Sun cools, that will never happen.

I on the other hand put it down to a few hundred thousand years, at most.

You could even be the very first Stalin-oholic ever to do this.

Please do not let me down...

How do you know if, as you say, you have not read my work?

On the other hand I have read the even longer and still more boring works of Stalin.

Yes, I know the question you are dying to ask: how did I manage to stay awake past page one of volume one?

Now, if you ask really nicely, I'll tell you so that you too can make it to page two.

How's that for a deal?