Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81

Thread: Dialectics for kids.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,291
    Rep Power
    115

    Default

    I generally agree with Rosa when dealing with dialectics but I think it is pretty evident that the hegelian dialectic infulenced marx's analysis of class struggle and how this struggle makes history shift from mode of production.

    However, the dialectic itself is useless insofar as it tries to extrapolate metaphysical laws that are too vague to have any intelectual merit whatsoever. THe dialectic sieems to work simply because its vague enough to fit shit inside it. What the dialectician deems a contradiction, another individual can say that it isn't a contradiction at all. This kind of vagueness is unacceptable in every scientific discipline whatsoever, but dialecticians like to think that sitting in the library and musing about the most abstractly vague stuff gives them some sort of scientific merit. Why do you think physicists don't talk about contradictiions or unity of opposites when dealing with the order of things?

    The dialectic entices a lot of philosophy-leaning guys because its vagueness reflects the poverty of philosophy in general.
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    NVM, Dialectics For Kids is an appallingly bad site, full of the same hackneyed errors I have demolished at my site.

    Most of them here:

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

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    DirtyEtc:

    See Reason in Revolt, by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, an excellent book, though Rosa doesn't think so.
    And with good reason.

    I list just a few of their many errors here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...ge%20seven.htm

    And expose their appallingly bad logic here:

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

    Alan Woods contacted me to help him improve the second edition, so it is slighty less awful than the first, but many of the errors I pointed out to him (even simple typos) were left in!

    These two know absolutely no logic, but they are quite happy to pontificate about it -- just like Engels, Trotsky and Lenin.

    Gollobin's book is better, but even that is awful:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Gollobin_01.htm

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Trivas:

    Because dialectical materialism is the essence of Marxist theory without which you don't understand Marx.
    So you keep saying, but when pressed to defend these mystical beliefs of yours, you either sulk, or just repeat the same tired old dogmas.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Drosera:

    Considering that diamat is his main contribution to philosophy, the basis of the entire Marxist conception of history, and the process through which you can understand ALL of his contributions, I would contest that just a little bit.
    Marx knew nothing of diamat, and in Das Kapital, indicated he had abandoned the dialectic as you lot understand it.

    If you are going to make these claims, you need to back them up with a critic of materialist dialectics.
    He'd be wasting his time, since you lot just ignore stuff you do not like, or cannot answer -- there's thread after thread in the Philosophy section where this mystical theory has been systematically taken apart.

    A list can be found here:

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

    And what's left of it has been demolished at my site.

    Please make some kind of contestable and logical argument.
    Like others here who pontificate on the subject, you don't know any logic, so that would be a waste of effort, too.

    I hope it's not just Rosa's rehashed crap...
    You can't respond to my arguments, and have shied away for several months.

    And where have I 'rehashed' my ideas from?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,306
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Marx knew nothing of diamat,
    Insofar as he referred to it as materialist dialectics, that's true.

    and in Das Kapital, indicated he had abandoned the dialectic as you lot understand it.
    That's also not an argument.

    He'd be wasting his time, since you lot just ignore stuff you do not like, or cannot answer -- there's thread after thread in the Philosophy section where this mystical theory has been systematically taken apart.
    Rosa, the last time I was in the philosophy forum, I demolished your silly, non-argument critic in with ease at which point you resorted to the sort of behavior my nine year old cousin grew out of three years ago.

    Like others here who pontificate on the subject, you don't know any logic, so that would be a waste of effort, too.
    Rosa, do you remember that thread in CC where I demolished a logical fallacy you made in a flame post at me? Perhaps you should go back and find it... Ron Burgundy helped out too. Your skills at logic have been seriously in question since that happened.

    You can't respond to my arguments, and have shied away for several months.
    You don't have arguments and the reason I have "shied away" is because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.
    "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

    Workers of the World Unite!" -Karl Marx

    "The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. " -Vladimir Lenin

    "The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs." -Mao Zedong

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    880
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Ok, what really differs when you analyze history in a materialist sense as opposed to a materialist sense? I've heard a lot of Neo-Marxists are interchanging them now. What aspects of history would be interpreted differently?

    I'm not sure I really understand dialectics at all to be honest, even though I tried. It just seems like there are always two forces, and that it's a constant battle between them or something.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Drosera:

    Insofar as he referred to it as materialist dialectics, that's true.
    So you were lying when you said this:

    Considering that diamat is his [Marx's] main contribution to philosophy, the basis of the entire Marxist conception of history, and the process through which you can understand ALL of his contributions...
    That's also not an argument.
    Neither is that.

    Rosa, the last time I was in the philosophy forum, I demolished your silly, non-argument critic in with ease at which point you resorted to the sort of behavior my nine year old cousin grew out of three years ago.
    1) Not so; you skulked off when you could not respond to my replies.

    2) So, your cousin grew out of adult behaviour at nine? Remarkable kid!

    Rosa, do you remember that thread in CC where I demolished a logical fallacy you made in a flame post at me? Perhaps you should go back and find it... Ron Burgundy helped out too. Your skills at logic have been seriously in question since that happened.
    Well, you thought you did, but you didn't.

    Why don't you quote it here? [So you can be kicked out of the CC...]

    You don't have arguments and the reason I have "shied away" is because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.
    1) Not so, again, as the link I posted above shows.

    because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.
    2) My antics are not at all like yours.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts
    2,336
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Trivas:
    So you keep saying, but when pressed to defend these mystical beliefs of yours, you either sulk, or just repeat the same tired old dogmas.
    They're merely a tool, R, not a mystical belief -- albeit an indispensible one.
    Last edited by trivas7; 8th June 2008 at 18:16.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts
    2,336
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Post-Something View Post
    I'm not sure I really understand dialectics at all to be honest, even though I tried. It just seems like there are always two forces, and that it's a constant battle between them or something.
    That's a good start. Sounds like the class struggle, no?
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    880
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trivas7 View Post
    That's a good start. Sounds like the class struggle, no?
    So the difference between the idealism and materialist aspects are that one would argue that ideas and concepts are being battled out, while the other says economic factors are battling out and adapting to situations in the market?

  12. #32
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts
    2,336
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Post-Something View Post
    So the difference between the idealism and materialist aspects are that one would argue that ideas and concepts are being battled out, while the other says economic factors are battling out and adapting to situations in the market?
    Well, the question is a little unclear to me -- what do you mean by "aspects" of idealism and materialism? But generally, yes, Marx saw that "[T]he history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". The bourgeois historian knows nothing re the class struggle.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts
    2,336
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmot View Post
    The dialectic entices a lot of philosophy-leaning guys because its vagueness reflects the poverty of philosophy in general.
    You means guys like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky? Okay.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Trivas:

    They's merely a tool, R, not a mystical belief -- albeit an indispensible one.
    Ok, so, according to you, the world is not really dialectical, there are no contradictions in nature or society, no unities of opposites, no change of quantity into quality, etc., -- dialectics is just a way of picturing things, a tool to help us understand nature?

    Pull the other one...

  15. #35
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts
    2,336
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Trivas:
    Ok, so, according to you, the world is not really dialectical, there are no contradictions in nature or society, no unities of opposites, no change of quantity into quality, etc., -- dialectics is just a way of picturing things, a tool to help us understand nature?
    What's your point, R (if you have one)?
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Trivas:

    What's your point, R (if you have one)?
    Work it out for yourself -- you have a brain I assume...

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,285
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I'm still waiting on a response Drosera, please don't shy away .

    Your so eager to provoke a fight, why run?

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Z, he goes off into sulk if you question Holy Dialectical Writ. So don't expect an answer.

    Count yourself lucky; if this was Maoist China, you and I would be shot.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    138
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eyedrop View Post
    What should this tell you?
    This tells me that many so called Marxist theoreticians who have large influence over their organizations are leading them into a dead end, because instead of actually analyzing the situation, repeat the same rhetoric of great leaders long ago, when their positions have become useless and need to be developed.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    DirtyEtc:

    This tells me that many so called Marxist theoreticians who have large influence over their organizations are leading them into a dead end, because instead of actually analyzing the situation, repeat the same rhetoric of great leaders long ago, when their positions have become useless and need to be developed.
    And they all used dialectics -- which theory has now presided over 150 of almost total failure.

    So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has refuted dialectics.

Similar Threads

  1. Gap's New Line of Clothing: For Kids by Kids
    By MarxSchmarx in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 31st October 2007, 21:44
  2. Dialectics for Kids
    By which doctor in forum Websites
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 19th May 2007, 07:32
  3. Dialectics for Kids
    By tatu in forum Websites
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10th December 2005, 16:25
  4. Dialectics
    By bunk in forum Theory
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 9th June 2004, 22:09

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •