One thing I don't get about Stalin's, as well as Lenin's and Mao's, writings about dialectics is how they oppose it to metaphysics. I was under the impression that it was a kind of metaphysics.

V:

Along with Hegel, Plekhanov and Engels,

All a priori dogmatism.

Into Hume's bonfire with the lot.

I am not an anarchist and I agree that dialectics is bunk.

I admit I have coquetted with dialectical rhetoric, but I never regarded it as a law. I don't understand why marxists are so into it.

I don't think you can resolve any practical problem with dialectical materialism. In fact, I don't think you can resolve any problem with at all.

I would argue that most of the people who came up with good ideas through "Dialectics" came actually to those conclusions with a different approach--and only later embellished it with dialectical rhetoric.

Dialectical buzzwords look really nice on paper--but thats it.

What would Rosa say about Althusser's essays on how Marx refuted his Hegelian tendencies (via Feuerbach)?

DiaMat oppositions to gradualist Darwinist theories of evolution which seemed ridiculous in the 1900s have been confirmed by recent paleo discoveries.

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

It confirms that not only does DiaMat explain the physical world, it has actually made scientific predictions centuries before its time.

Yes and you Diamat fans should no more be believed than Fundamentalist Christians who claim the same for the book of Genesis.

jacobin1949's comment about dialectical materialism's refutation of Darwinian gradualism. (Thesis) Quantity
Rosa's comment about dialectical materialism being akin to "religious dogma." (Anti-Thesis) Quantity
Pointless circle debate. (Synthesis) Quality, Negation


I hope you anti-dialecticians are taking notes...

Now, looking at the dialectic analysis above and the direction this thread is going, we can assume the following:

Either Rosa will make another attempt to be "witty,"

Or she will say nothing.

We shall see what happens soon enough.

Criticise Some Things Sometimes, and Make Sure You Ignore Refutations of Pet Theories While you do it:

You have already had it pointed out to you that even Lenin rejected this typology (Thesis, Anti-thesis, blah blah), and it is only based on an error Marx made when he was young (or rather one he was taught at University by a professor who misconstrued Hegel's schema), which Marx never repeated.

Now please, check your facts before you try to regale the rest of us with your dogatic theses in future.

I have taken the trouble to pin the relevant information here, just for guys like you (i.e., those who cannot think for themsleves, but have to copy everything off Engels, Stalin, or Mao):

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

Moreover, you were asked to try to say what 'quality' meant'. Until you do, you might as well use a randomly typed string of letters -- in fact, that will probably make more sense.

Give it a go...

Sure, but unlike you, us genuine materialists actually criticise things, especially mystical stuff like this.

Again, you should give that a try, too.

In fact, I am constantly being accused of saying too much.

Now, let me make a prediction, too, if I may: Criticise Some Things Sometimes will continue to ignore anything he does not like, cannot refute, or which does not fit in with his dogmatic view of reality.

[It's a safe bet folks, since he has done this several times already.]

So, Rosa BullshitArtistStein made another attempt to be "witty." Which I had predicted, based on previous posts of hers (that's the material) from where I got my analysis.

Therefore,

the Synthesis (Pointless circle debate) becomes the new Thesis (Quantity)

The Anti-Thesis was Rosa's comment about CEA's so-called ignorance, dogmatism, lack of facts, etc. (Quantities)

So the new Synthesis (Quality) is that this is now a pointless circle debate that includes somebody's interpretations of the thoughts of the communists. The old state of affairs where this had been endless discussion on nothing is no more, it has been negated, and replaced by a new state of affairs. Where in this case, now it has become an endless discussion about the philosophy behind thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. Thus, the Negation of the Negation.

No, Marx's interpretation of Hegel is not distorted. Marx took Hegel's dialectic out of idealism and put it into the materialist conception because Hegel's conception of the dialectic was distorted. Obviously, the person who wrote this is trying to misinform the reader. The author is trying to misinform the reader, because it is his intention to dupe the reader into thinking that Marx is mistaken and Hegel is correct in order to lead people into idealism by calling dialectical materialism "dogma." And to emasculate the entire theoretical character of the revolutionary movement.

Oh, but I thought this "typology" was erroneous!

Yet here it is! Here is the dialectic! And where does it come from? A materialist basis! This, in opposition to Hegel's view of the dialectic in terms of idealism. Dialectic is the process of change through opposites, and using a materialist basis, Marxists use dialectical materialism to study the changes of society in order to correctly predict how to change it.

After all, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." And how can one change the world if they do not understand the process of how the world changes? That's where the dialectic comes in. Because once Marx saw how society with its contradictions had changed through a dialectic process, he used the dialectic to apply it to materialist conditions.

But of course, anti-dialecticians are against change, or studying the nature of change. They want to live in their fantasy world indicative of the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia and they don't want the working class to get too smart for its own good to the point of casting the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia on its ass. "Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."

Years of research in the political movements in Europe, America, and the world, years of research and application of theory to the development of capitalist economics and understanding the nature of the capitalist social system to prepare the working class for its overthrowing of this old system, all of this is "deadly, abstract machinery." Especially for a writer enjoying his pay and his comfortable living from the bourgeoisie.

Criticise Some Things Sometimes and Think Up Crap Abusive Names In Reply:

Well, one of us has to show some signs of intelligence; too bad it has to be me every time.

Yes, and if repetition won arguments, you'd be the man.

But it doesn't.

[I might have to repeat that, though. The message is not getting through.]

As I have told you several times, this schema does not work, nor is it part of dialectics -- no wonder Lenin rejected it.

But you are welcome to keep repeating it, now that no one is listening to you.

Unfortumately for you, the facts say otherwise.

Go and check them for yourself...er, sorry, you do not do that, do you.

My apologies for even suggesting you should begin to think for yourself. :blush:

Ok, I admit it, you can sometimes think.

I do get some things wrong -- you should not sneak up on me like that!

I am just not used to it. It is most unfair of you, lulling me into a false sense of security, and then suddenly starting to think. People have been restricted for less.

[May I suggest you try to read this material with some care, for the authour is criticising Marx, not agreeing with him!]

Oh dear, another declaration of simple faith, and back into his non-thinking shell goes Criticise Some Things Sometimes:

This does not work, as you would know if you checked the thread I linked to earlier.

Or, even better, try this:

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

Yes we know you can type-out stuff you have had rammed down your throat -- but, as any rational human being would have told you had you bothered to ask one, that does not make it true.

But it is you mystics who won't change. You are super-glued to a 'theory' you can only keep on repeating, long after it has been shown not to work.

A bit like Catholics, in fact, who keep saying their Hail Mary's etc., when faced with death or danger.

Far be it from me to stop you repeating this mantra of yours if it makes you feel better.

Now, since you seem to be the General Secretary for Stating the Bleeding Obvious (your winning entry kindly posted anbove), could you perhaps help us out with these nasty brain teasers?

1) What is the colour of grass?

2) Where is the Sky?

3) After they have breathed in, what do the vast majority of human beings then go on to do?

4) Fill in the missing letter: A, B, C,..., E, F.

5) Stalin was a mass murdering... what:

a) Bastard, b) Bastard, or c) Bastard?

[Do not rush Q5, it's not easy.]

Now, after my peerless demonstration, I hope you see how you too can start criticising things.

Glad I could help...

Don't pick on my username then.

Which is what you've been doing for more than a year now.

And you're a Mod too and you're resorting to such lows.

What's the point of debating with you if this is how you think?

"I'm right all the time"?

Get a grip.

Ironic coming from someone telling me I don't know how to criticise (sic).

If this is your way of reasoning, don't expect me to respond to any future posts of yours either in this thread, or in others. From now on, after this post, I shall simply ignore you.

I thought I was allowed to "think for myself"? Instead, all I see is you making an effort to force your views on me.

And I don't like that.

Don't lecture people, Rosa. That's a very good way to turn them off to what you have to say.

Now you're threatening me? What the fuck is this? I criticize some piece of literature which you cited, and you're telling me I'm in danger of being restricted?

It wasn't rammed down my throat. I've been studying Marxist philosophy and historiography for nearly four years, all on my own initiative. Like I said earlier in this thread, you don't like the fact that my philosophy is totally contradictory to yours. You want to mold me into a "Rosaist."

He most certainly did not.

Quote:

V.I. Lenin

Nothing concrete in this remark. Merely sectarian provocativeness and puerility at its best.

Criticise Some Things Sometimes, and then Throw a Tantrum:

Well, with the one you chose, coupled with the fact that you can't think for yourself, it would be criminal of me not to.

It is very good of you to say so. To upset Stalinist mystics is one of the main goals of my life.

You are incapable of 'debating', so the only thing left for me to do is wind you up.

You are good at pontificating, though.

Only on the necks of Stalinists.

I'll admit it if you will.

Oh dear; how will I ever survive the blow?

Well, you allow others to ram ideas down your throat, so I might as well try, too.

So, start thinking for yourself...

You were turned off before you learnt what I had to say (since you already know the Truth, and the Truth has set you free). As soon a comrades know I am trying to demolish the holy 'dialectic', they attack me, and bad-mouth my ideas without ever reading them -- as you did. So I go on the attack straight away

But, what they do not like, and what you do not like, is that I give far worse than I get.

You mystics like to dish out the abuse, but you can't take it when it's returned with interest.

Earlier in this thread, after I had advised you to try to think for yourself, you replied:

And you posted that without knowing what my essays say and in ignorance of the fact that I do not have a philosophy, nor do I want one.

When I see that sort of accusation, I go into attack mode straight away.

Here is why (this is from the opening page of my site, referring to a page also at my site that records all the abuse I have received over the years):

25 yers of abuse -- just think about that for a minute.

So, if you do not like my response, I should care.

I see, my 'joke' was a little too threatening, was it? Can't you recognise hyperbole when you see it?

Odd then that you just regurgitate the dialectical mantra all the time, almost word for word as it appears in the sacred dialectical holy books.

And it is even odder that it is quite apparent that you have not really thought much about what you have read.

For example, I directed you to a page where the dialectical 'theory' of change has been thoroughly demolished, and using very simple ideas that should have occurred to you had you given it a moment's thought.

What did you do? You ignored it. Like the other mystics here, you just turn a blind eye to stuff that challenges the dialectical gospel.

So, you do not want a debate, you just want to spread the glad tidings you found in the sacred texts.

And thanks for that quote from Lenin, but you chose a passge from his early work. in his mature work, he rejected this schema.

In his Philosophical Notebooks he wrote this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work....htm#LCW38_230a

Even in the work you quote, Lenin said this:

Quoted from here:

http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1894/f...zz99h-131-GUESS

So Lenin was a little more clued-in than you seem to be.

Plekhanov said more or less the same:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/...monist/ch04.htm

As I said; you are incapable of independent thought.

It's best if you just forget dialectics. Learning about it will not help you. Forgetting it will relieve you of a burden from your mind.

Herman, you are very sweet, but if you think that fans of the dialectic are going to do what you say, you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Big Foot.

They are super-glued to that theory since, as Marx noted, it provides them with the same sort of consolation (for their long-term failure) that religion provides believers.

Plus, since they also believe 'appearances' are 'contradicted' by underlying 'essences', it 'allows' them to argue that the long-term appearance that Dialectical Marxism has been monumental failure is 'contradicted' by the underlying essence that tells us the opposite.

In that way, they can ignore anything that I say, or any facts that history throws their way.

They can also dismiss the fact the billions of workers ignore their mystical creed.

It allows them to invent silly names like 'Criticise Everything Always' when they have no intention of doing that.

Finally, it guarantees they never learn from the past, which means we can now look forward to another 150 years of failure -- that is, if the planet lasts that long!