Well, Marx in fact ignored all this sort of stuff (unless you can quote where he discusses the nature of 'dialectical contradictions'), and Engels was almost totally ignorant of logic, and was thus incapable of passing an informed comment in this area.This is the Metaphysical approach that Marx and Engels have already dealt with in their time.
But, perhaps you can tell us where Engels dealt with the sort of contradictions I mentioned?
Moreover, Engels had to re-define metaphysics (in fact he copied Hegel's re-definition) to make his ideas work. Now, we can all re-define stuff to suite our own ends, but it proves nothing (except perhaps how desperate we might be).
Sure they do not exist independently, but what has that got to do with whether the examples dialectical mystics give of 'dialectical contradictions' are indeed contradictioon to begin with, let alone 'dialectical' ones?Rosa has broke apart the wage system, capitalist want to pay lower wages, workers want (need) higher wages.
So we have two conflicting sides. There is no doubt about it that their class interest conflict. And I too agree it is a far stretch to call them a contradiction at this stage of analysis.
However these two conflicting sides do not exist independently, they exist together in a system. Two conflicting sides form a thing. In this situation the two conflicting sides form the wage system, capitalism. How can they continue to exist in the same system for so long if they conflict? Hence the system has an inherent contradiction.
And sure, the capitalists are in struggle with the workers, but why is this a 'contradiction'?
Furthermore, as I have shown, according to Mao, Lenin and Engels, the 'opposites' in a 'dialectical contradiction' in fact turn into one another. That must mean that according to this 'theory', the working class must turn into the capitalist class, and vice versa!
Again, this must mean that the 'forces of production' must turn into 'relations of production', and vice versa!So let's go back to the all classic contradiction, productive forces and relations of production. If broken into their two parts, we have socialised labour and private ownership. Outside of their system, in a metaphysical view they do not contitute a contradiction. However nothing exists in such a state, there is no such pure indepdence and if our analysis stops here (as Rosa's does) then our analysis remains as a metaphysical analysis. The productive forces and the relations of production form a system, in todays society they form capitalism. So two conflicting sides form a thing, and that thing has inherent contradictions.
You are welcome to that 'theory'!
Not so; I do not 'break' anything down, and I challenge you to quote where I have done this.Rosa's error is to break things down and never put them back into context. When we do this, they have no meaning. Relations of production mean nothing, unless we talk about the productive forces. The dialetical materialist breaks these things down, to work out the two conflicting sides. Marx studied the economy of capitalism, he found that the relations of production were bourgeiosie ownership and proleteriat labour, and that the productive forces were more suited to socialised reltions of production, do to mass industry and socialised labour.
Once we break down the system, and understand the two conflicting sides, we place this anlysis back into it's context. It is from this point where we know there are two conflicting sides we can say the thing we have studied has inherent contradicitons, the inherent and primary contradiction in capitalism is the conflict between relations of production and productive forces.
What I have done is point out the simple fact that we still do not know what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, and that if they exist, they would in fact prevent change.
So, nice try Hiero, only it wasn't.