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:
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.
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
And with good reason.See Reason in Revolt, by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, an excellent book, though Rosa doesn't think so.
I list just a few of their many errors here:
And expose their appallingly bad logic here:
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:
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.Because dialectical materialism is the essence of Marxist theory without which you don't understand Marx.
Marx knew nothing of diamat, and in Das Kapital, indicated he had abandoned the dialectic as you lot understand it.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.
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.If you are going to make these claims, you need to back them up with a critic of materialist dialectics.
A list can be found here:
And what's left of it has been demolished at my site.
Like others here who pontificate on the subject, you don't know any logic, so that would be a waste of effort, too.Please make some kind of contestable and logical argument.
You can't respond to my arguments, and have shied away for several months.I hope it's not just Rosa's rehashed crap...
And where have I 'rehashed' my ideas from?
That's also not an argument.and in Das Kapital, indicated he had abandoned the dialectic as you lot understand it.
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.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, 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.Like others here who pontificate on the subject, you don't know any logic, so that would be a waste of effort, too.
You don't have arguments and the reason I have "shied away" is because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.You can't respond to my arguments, and have shied away for several months.
"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
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.
So you were lying when you said this:Insofar as he referred to it as materialist dialectics, that's true.
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...Neither is that.That's also not an argument.
1) Not so; you skulked off when you could not respond to my replies.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.
2) So, your cousin grew out of adult behaviour at nine? Remarkable kid!
Well, you thought you did, but you didn't.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.
Why don't you quote it here? [So you can be kicked out of the CC...]
1) Not so, again, as the link I posted above shows.You don't have arguments and the reason I have "shied away" is because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.
2) My antics are not at all like yours.because I find your toddler like antics tiresome.
Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei
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?They's merely a tool, R, not a mystical belief -- albeit an indispensible one.
Pull the other one...
Work it out for yourself -- you have a brain I assume...What's your point, R (if you have one)?
I'm still waiting on a response Drosera, please don't shy away .
Your so eager to provoke a fight, why run?
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.
And they all used dialectics -- which theory has now presided over 150 of almost total failure.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.
So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has refuted dialectics.