On Dialectis

[TrotskyWasRight]

Physics has proven that the universe has a fourth dimension. Spissitude and spassitude, I recommend looking it up on the internet instead of having me post diagrams and math.

However, I fail to see how this refutes dialectics. I have actually been working on using maths to prove dialectics. Let's consider a simple algebraic equation.

7x+14=28

Can you see the solution immediately? Possibly, but you would probably have to work some of it out first. Anyway, let's just assume that you have to work it out using traditional methods, as if you couldn't do it in your head.

First we have to add the opposite of 14 to 28
7x=28-14
7x=14

A dialectical process just occured. Did you see it? You had to use a negation of +14 in order to come closer to the solution

Now we have a new statement, which is.
7x=14
7x/7=14/7 (another negation)

x=7 (negation of the negation).

It's dialectical!

Well... I dont have the full details on it and Ive been stressed to find information about it on the internet, but supposedly there's been a new scientific break through and there are 12 dimensions. My friend was telling me about what he saw on tv from the Science channel. It was also interesting to note, that while explaining what we saw, he was also explaining to me dialectics without knowing it.

The 12th dimension is a new idea. Amongst the scientific "norms" its been generally regarded as only 11 dimensions. There are also sepculations of 26 dimensions. Also, Einstein had four dimensions.

String theory is a load of crap!

First, it arbitrarily assumes that there are x many dimensions (depending on if the person believes in bosonic string theory or not). It varies between 11 and 26 (!). It then says, "well, if there are x many dimensions, then this logically follows...". We can only empiraclly prove that there are 4 dimensions, anything more than this is working on a very big premise!

Furthermore, string theory assumes a newtonian universe. This is also ridiculous because if we were to assume that the universe did function as a newtonian system, we would be able to leave the universe! Newtonian mechanics works perfectly fine for explaining motion on Earth, but it is bad policy for the universe as a whole!

The reason the "string theorists" are around is because there was a time after Einstein when people just "weren't sure if he was right" - so they extended quantum mechanics (was was based a lot on Newtonian physics) into string theory. Now we know that Einstein was pretty much right (some things needed to be fixed, but relativity is right) and therefore String theory has lived out its usefulness.

True breakthroughs in physics will occur in Quantum Field Theory and Unified Field Theory. Basically, the unity of all things - especially Quantum Physics and Einstein's relativity.

[ckaihatsu]

Three-dimensional space can be empirically verified by anyone quite easily, of course -- but just because math/physics can describe dimensions beyond 3-dimensional space *doesn't* mean they *&^#! exist empirically!!!

From what I know of string theory, it seems to be an attempt to further the reductionistic trajectory of scientific investigation into the tiniest / most fundamental particles that make up material.

Who's to say that (hypothesized) strings, if they exist, would be the most "fundamental" particles of the universe?

On a related note, has anyone else considered that the known electromagnetic spectrum seems to be arbitrarily capped at both ends? Perhaps we should conceive of the greater-smaller range of energy and matter as being somehow infinite at both ends! See:

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


Chris






___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com,
rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, substancenews.com,
socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com,
moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info,
blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might like to visit my site, where dialectical materialism is systematically taken apart from a Marxist (yes, you read that correctly) angle (and the serious flaws in Reason in Revolt , among other dialectically-challenged books, are exposed):

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

Here is a sampler:

This is from the summary to Essay Four at my site:

In this Essay I expose the woeful ignorance of FL generally displayed by DM-theorists. Few dialecticians can resist making ill-informed and unsubstantiated criticisms even of AFL, while even fewer appear to know anything of MFL.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism; FL = Formal Logic; MFL = Modern Formal Logic; LOI = Law Of Identity; AFL = Aristotelian Formal Logic; LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction; LEM = Law of Excluded Middle; TAR = The Algebra of Revolution.]

One particularly egregious aspect of this self-inflicted ignorance is the fact that most DM-theorists seem to think that FL began and ended with Aristotle, despite being told repeatedly that they are wrong. In fact, as any reasonably decent history of logic would have told them (had they bothered to check), 95% of FL is less than 120 years old. Sixty years ago Burnham tried to tell Trotsky that his knowledge was badly out-of-date, but he might as well have been talking to the cat for all the good it did.

So, this is one idea that appears to have escaped the Heraclitean flux.

Even to this day, the 'news' that logic underwent a profound revolution in the late 19th century (easily of the same order that Physics underwent in the 17th century) has yet to penetrate most dialectical skulls. Still, they refuse to be told. In fact, I raised this with John Rees (the author of TAR) in person a few years back, but there is no evidence in TAR that the message got through. Similar attempts posted on Internet discussion boards are an equal waste of time.

Dialecticians, it seems, wear this particular badge of ignorance with pride.

Furthermore, based on what DM-theorists themselves write it is clear that the majority of them have not opened a single logic text ever, especially before they began pontificating on the subject -- at least, not one written since Hegel misnamed his own particular work Logic. And, of the tiny minority who have, few seem to have understood much of what they rapidly skimmed over. The hackneyed definitions that DM-theorists give of the three allegedly fundamental 'laws' of logic are hopelessly confused; their 'research' in this area has clearly been confined to copying these 'non-definitions' off of one another.

The LOI is defined as "A = A", "A is equal to A" -- or even "A is A" (on this see Essay Six at my site) --, which is said to imply that "A cannot be other than A" (which is incorrect). The LOC is similarly characterised as "A cannot at the same time be A and not be A" (or even "A cannot be non-A"), which is said to follow from the LOI (but with no proof that it does), whereas the LEM is depicted rather loosely as "Everything must be A or not A", or even worse, "A does not equal B".

[Detailed support of these allegations can be found here:

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

in note 23.]

Do dialecticians really think that a philosopher of Aristotle's sophistication actually believed that, say, "Everything is rat or not rat" (sic), or that "rat does not equal cat"? [Interpreting here the 'dialectical definition' of the LEM literally, replacing "A" with "rat", and "B" with "cat".]

If they do we might wonder why Marx thought so highly of him.

Of course, anyone familiar with Aristotle's style of writing (or who bothers to check!) will know that he never puts things this way. Indeed, I have been unable to find a sentence remotely like any of these in his work.

And it is quite clear that he does not even so much as mention the LOI. So much for it being a foundational principle of his thought!

Nevertheless, even if the above 'analysis' of the LOC were correct, and it was true that "A is A and at the same time non-A", it would be impossible for DM-theorists to give voice to their criticisms of these alleged AFL-principles. This is because it would be impossible for them to state the following:

B1: "A is A and at the same time non-A".

If it were true that "A" is at the same time "non-A", then sentence B1 would have to be re-written as:

B2: "Non-A is non-A".

Or even worse:

B3: "Non-A is non-A and at the same time non-(non-A)".

That is, if each "A" in B1 is replaced with what it is dialectically supposed at the same time to be (i.e., "non-A"). B1 thus dialectically disintegrates into B3.

Now, this fatal result can only be denied by someone who also rejected the DM-inspired version of the LOC, and who thought B1 false.

Even worse still, if every "A" is also "non-A", then these would surely follow from B3:

B4: "Non-(non-A) is non-(non-A) and at the same time non-(non-(non-A))."

B5: "Non-(non-(non-A)) is non-(non-(non-A)) and at the same time non-(non-(non-(non-A)))."

And so on, as each successive "A" in B3 and B4 is replaced by the "non-A" dialecticians insist that they are. Once more, this could only be denied by those who reject standard DM-criticisms of the LOC.

As should now seem apparent, the LOC has an annoying way of striking back in a most un-dialectical way when challenged; it thus becomes impossible to state what it is that DM-'logicians' are trying to tell us. The same problems afflict other DM-inspired criticisms of principles dialecticians claim to have found in textbooks of FL.

Perhaps worse, DM-theorists are invariably unclear what the "A"'s in these alleged FL-laws are supposed to stand for. Based on what they say (the details are given in Essay Four at my site), it is obvious that they regularly confuse these letters with one or more of the following: propositions, judgements, properties, qualities, words, objects, processes, predicates, statements, assertions, type-sentences, token-sentences, concepts, ideas, beliefs, thoughts, phrases, clauses, relations, names and "existences".

The significance of logical disorder of this magnitude lies not so much with the unmitigated confusion it creates, but with the fact that the vast majority of the DL-faithful have not even noticed it!

As will be shown in the aforementioned Essay Four, 2400 years ago (and despite his own confusions in this area) Aristotle was far clearer about such things than the vast majority of DL-fans now appear to be!

And these represent ideas we are told lie right at the very cutting edge of modern science?

Yeah, and the Pope is Jewish.

Now, anyone tempted to respond to the above on the lines that it gets the DM-view of contradictions (etc.) wrong, and that dialectical contradictions are really this, or they are in effect that, or they are…whatever, need only reflect on the fact that according to the DM-inspired criticism of the LOC, that criticism itself must be this or that, or whatever, and at the same time not this or that, or whatever -- if we here interpret the "A"'s above as "this or that, or whatever", since, on sound DL-principles, these letters can be interpreted in any which way we fancy.

Thus the radically imprecise nature of the DM-inspired criticism of the LOC (which sees everything as "this or that, or whatever, and not this or that, or whatever" -- where each "this or that, or whatever" remains studiously undefined) must itself be seen as "both a criticism and not a criticism" of the LOC. This is so unless of course criticisms are themselves exempt from their own criticism (and cannot thus ever aspire to become one of these wishy-washy dialectical letter "A"'s).

Alas, this means that DM's own criticism of the LOC must now self-destruct. So, for example, any attempt made by DM-'logicians' to define the LOC must be "a definition and not a definition" -- if their own 'analysis' of the LOC and LOI is itself invoked against any such attempt.

Hence, using "D" to stand for the DM-'definition' of the LOC (whatever that 'definition' is, and whatever it means, if we are ever told), it must be the case that "D is at the same time non-D". Clearly, that would mean that the DM-inspired criticism of the LOC undermines its own definition of it! Or, at least, it does and it doesn't.

It is at this point that even DM-fans might just begin to see how devilish their Diabolical Logic really is.

Now, it could be objected once more that DM-theorists do not object to the use of the LOC, the LOI and the LEM in their proper field of application; where these principles fall short is when they are applied to processes in the world, to change and movement. This hackneyed response is tested to destruction in Essays Five, Six and Eight posted at my site (where consideration is given to Engels's 'analysis' of motion, Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky's attempt to criticise the LOI, and the claim that change is the result of 'internal contradictions', respectively).

In the meantime, it is worth pointing out that these DM-inspired criticisms of FL are themselves phenomenal/material objects (i.e., they have to be written in ink on a page somewhere (etc.), or they have to be propagated in the air as sound waves at some point), and as such they are surely subject to change (if everything is). In that case, they "are never equal to themselves". If this is so, the above DM-inspired criticisms of FL must apply to each material copy of these DM-inspired criticisms of FL.

In that case, no materially-configured DM-criticism of the LOC is equal to itself, and hence each physical example of a DM-criticism is at the same moment both "a criticism and not a criticism".

The rest follows as before.

[The counter-claim that the 'relative' stability of words allows the DM-criticism to stand is examined in more detail in Essays Four and Six. Here is a summary of the argument:

It could be objected that our words do in fact remain relatively stable, so the above comments are entirely misguided. However, if Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky are right, then there would be no way that they (or anyone else) could possibly tell. As should seem obvious, there would be nothing to which they could appeal to ground a single safe thought. Memory would be of no use for if everything is changeable, memory could hardly escape unscathed. Not even Cartesian 'clear and distinct ideas' would be able to anchor a single cognition in solid epistemological bedrock, for the words and concepts used to formulate them could all be non-self-identical from moment to moment, liable to continual change. This must be so if it is at all possible that all things change all the time in the way Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky imagined; and yet it is this doctrine that must be excluded somehow to save the theory that propounded this crazy notion from itself. But, the only viable way to do this involves an invocation of the LOI (interpreted as a grammatical rule, and not as a truth).

Once again, FL would have to be used to rescue DM from itself.]

However, in order to refute the claim that FL cannot account for change (a charge DM-theorists make as often as they fail to substantiate it), I demonstrate how even AFL (never mind modern Tense Logic, for example) can easily cope with change. By way of contrast, I reveal that DL cannot even handle a simple bag of sugar.

Moreover, given that DL is supposed to be applicable to the practical affairs of the material world, the surprising fact is that so far there have been no discernible practical or technological applications of DL. This contrasts unfavourably with the many real applications there already are of MFL, not the least of which are those that have enabled the development of computers. Every standard processor operates with rules drawn from modern-day Propositional Calculus.

Once more, 'dialectics' meets its worst enemy: practicalities. MFL is eminently practical; DL is useless.

More at:

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

[Volkov]

Comrades might like to visit my site, where dialectical materialism is systematically taken apart from a Marxist (yes, you read that correctly) angle (and the serious flaws in Reason in Revolt , among other dialectically-challenged books, are exposed):

http://www.antidialectics.org

Here is a sampler:

This is from the summary to Essay Four at my site:

In this Essay I expose the woeful ignorance of FL generally displayed by DM-theorists. Few dialecticians can resist making ill-informed and unsubstantiated criticisms even of AFL, while even fewer appear to know anything of MFL.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism; FL = Formal Logic; MFL = Modern Formal Logic; LOI = Law Of Identity; AFL = Aristotelian Formal Logic; LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction; LEM = Law of Excluded Middle; TAR = The Algebra of Revolution.]

One particularly egregious aspect of this self-inflicted ignorance is the fact that most DM-theorists seem to think that FL began and ended with Aristotle, despite being told repeatedly that they are wrong. In fact, as any reasonably decent history of logic would have told them (had they bothered to check), 95% of FL is less than 120 years old. Sixty years ago Burnham tried to tell Trotsky that his knowledge was badly out-of-date, but he might as well have been talking to the cat for all the good it did.

So, this is one idea that appears to have escaped the Heraclitean flux.

Even to this day, the 'news' that logic underwent a profound revolution in the late 19th century (easily of the same order that Physics underwent in the 17th century) has yet to penetrate most dialectical skulls. Still, they refuse to be told. In fact, I raised this with John Rees (the author of TAR) in person a few years back, but there is no evidence in TAR that the message got through. Similar attempts posted on Internet discussion boards are an equal waste of time.

Dialecticians, it seems, wear this particular badge of ignorance with pride.

Furthermore, based on what DM-theorists themselves write it is clear that the majority of them have not opened a single logic text ever, especially before they began pontificating on the subject -- at least, not one written since Hegel misnamed his own particular work Logic. And, of the tiny minority who have, few seem to have understood much of what they rapidly skimmed over. The hackneyed definitions that DM-theorists give of the three allegedly fundamental 'laws' of logic are hopelessly confused; their 'research' in this area has clearly been confined to copying these 'non-definitions' off of one another.

The LOI is defined as "A = A", "A is equal to A" -- or even "A is A" (on this see Essay Six at my site) --, which is said to imply that "A cannot be other than A" (which is incorrect). The LOC is similarly characterised as "A cannot at the same time be A and not be A" (or even "A cannot be non-A"), which is said to follow from the LOI (but with no proof that it does), whereas the LEM is depicted rather loosely as "Everything must be A or not A", or even worse, "A does not equal B".

[Detailed support of these allegations can be found here:

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

in note 23.]

Do dialecticians really think that a philosopher of Aristotle's sophistication actually believed that, say, "Everything is rat or not rat" (sic), or that "rat does not equal cat"? [Interpreting here the 'dialectical definition' of the LEM literally, replacing "A" with "rat", and "B" with "cat".]

If they do we might wonder why Marx thought so highly of him.

Of course, anyone familiar with Aristotle's style of writing (or who bothers to check!) will know that he never puts things this way. Indeed, I have been unable to find a sentence remotely like any of these in his work.

And it is quite clear that he does not even so much as mention the LOI. So much for it being a foundational principle of his thought!

Nevertheless, even if the above 'analysis' of the LOC were correct, and it was true that "A is A and at the same time non-A", it would be impossible for DM-theorists to give voice to their criticisms of these alleged AFL-principles. This is because it would be impossible for them to state the following:

B1: "A is A and at the same time non-A".

If it were true that "A" is at the same time "non-A", then sentence B1 would have to be re-written as:

B2: "Non-A is non-A".

Or even worse:

B3: "Non-A is non-A and at the same time non-(non-A)".

That is, if each "A" in B1 is replaced with what it is dialectically supposed at the same time to be (i.e., "non-A"). B1 thus dialectically disintegrates into B3.

Now, this fatal result can only be denied by someone who also rejected the DM-inspired version of the LOC, and who thought B1 false.

Even worse still, if every "A" is also "non-A", then these would surely follow from B3:

B4: "Non-(non-A) is non-(non-A) and at the same time non-(non-(non-A))."

B5: "Non-(non-(non-A)) is non-(non-(non-A)) and at the same time non-(non-(non-(non-A)))."

And so on, as each successive "A" in B3 and B4 is replaced by the "non-A" dialecticians insist that they are. Once more, this could only be denied by those who reject standard DM-criticisms of the LOC.

As should now seem apparent, the LOC has an annoying way of striking back in a most un-dialectical way when challenged; it thus becomes impossible to state what it is that DM-'logicians' are trying to tell us. The same problems afflict other DM-inspired criticisms of principles dialecticians claim to have found in textbooks of FL.

Perhaps worse, DM-theorists are invariably unclear what the "A"'s in these alleged FL-laws are supposed to stand for. Based on what they say (the details are given in Essay Four at my site), it is obvious that they regularly confuse these letters with one or more of the following: propositions, judgements, properties, qualities, words, objects, processes, predicates, statements, assertions, type-sentences, token-sentences, concepts, ideas, beliefs, thoughts, phrases, clauses, relations, names and "existences".

The significance of logical disorder of this magnitude lies not so much with the unmitigated confusion it creates, but with the fact that the vast majority of the DL-faithful have not even noticed it!

As will be shown in the aforementioned Essay Four, 2400 years ago (and despite his own confusions in this area) Aristotle was far clearer about such things than the vast majority of DL-fans now appear to be!

And these represent ideas we are told lie right at the very cutting edge of modern science?

Yeah, and the Pope is Jewish.

Now, anyone tempted to respond to the above on the lines that it gets the DM-view of contradictions (etc.) wrong, and that dialectical contradictions are really this, or they are in effect that, or they are…whatever, need only reflect on the fact that according to the DM-inspired criticism of the LOC, that criticism itself must be this or that, or whatever, and at the same time not this or that, or whatever -- if we here interpret the "A"'s above as "this or that, or whatever", since, on sound DL-principles, these letters can be interpreted in any which way we fancy.

Thus the radically imprecise nature of the DM-inspired criticism of the LOC (which sees everything as "this or that, or whatever, and not this or that, or whatever" -- where each "this or that, or whatever" remains studiously undefined) must itself be seen as "both a criticism and not a criticism" of the LOC. This is so unless of course criticisms are themselves exempt from their own criticism (and cannot thus ever aspire to become one of these wishy-washy dialectical letter "A"'s).

Alas, this means that DM's own criticism of the LOC must now self-destruct. So, for example, any attempt made by DM-'logicians' to define the LOC must be "a definition and not a definition" -- if their own 'analysis' of the LOC and LOI is itself invoked against any such attempt.

Hence, using "D" to stand for the DM-'definition' of the LOC (whatever that 'definition' is, and whatever it means, if we are ever told), it must be the case that "D is at the same time non-D". Clearly, that would mean that the DM-inspired criticism of the LOC undermines its own definition of it! Or, at least, it does and it doesn't.

It is at this point that even DM-fans might just begin to see how devilish their Diabolical Logic really is.

Now, it could be objected once more that DM-theorists do not object to the use of the LOC, the LOI and the LEM in their proper field of application; where these principles fall short is when they are applied to processes in the world, to change and movement. This hackneyed response is tested to destruction in Essays Five, Six and Eight posted at my site (where consideration is given to Engels's 'analysis' of motion, Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky's attempt to criticise the LOI, and the claim that change is the result of 'internal contradictions', respectively).

In the meantime, it is worth pointing out that these DM-inspired criticisms of FL are themselves phenomenal/material objects (i.e., they have to be written in ink on a page somewhere (etc.), or they have to be propagated in the air as sound waves at some point), and as such they are surely subject to change (if everything is). In that case, they "are never equal to themselves". If this is so, the above DM-inspired criticisms of FL must apply to each material copy of these DM-inspired criticisms of FL.

In that case, no materially-configured DM-criticism of the LOC is equal to itself, and hence each physical example of a DM-criticism is at the same moment both "a criticism and not a criticism".

The rest follows as before.

[The counter-claim that the 'relative' stability of words allows the DM-criticism to stand is examined in more detail in Essays Four and Six. Here is a summary of the argument:

It could be objected that our words do in fact remain relatively stable, so the above comments are entirely misguided. However, if Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky are right, then there would be no way that they (or anyone else) could possibly tell. As should seem obvious, there would be nothing to which they could appeal to ground a single safe thought. Memory would be of no use for if everything is changeable, memory could hardly escape unscathed. Not even Cartesian 'clear and distinct ideas' would be able to anchor a single cognition in solid epistemological bedrock, for the words and concepts used to formulate them could all be non-self-identical from moment to moment, liable to continual change. This must be so if it is at all possible that all things change all the time in the way Hegel, Lenin and Trotsky imagined; and yet it is this doctrine that must be excluded somehow to save the theory that propounded this crazy notion from itself. But, the only viable way to do this involves an invocation of the LOI (interpreted as a grammatical rule, and not as a truth).

Once again, FL would have to be used to rescue DM from itself.]

However, in order to refute the claim that FL cannot account for change (a charge DM-theorists make as often as they fail to substantiate it), I demonstrate how even AFL (never mind modern Tense Logic, for example) can easily cope with change. By way of contrast, I reveal that DL cannot even handle a simple bag of sugar.

Moreover, given that DL is supposed to be applicable to the practical affairs of the material world, the surprising fact is that so far there have been no discernible practical or technological applications of DL. This contrasts unfavourably with the many real applications there already are of MFL, not the least of which are those that have enabled the development of computers. Every standard processor operates with rules drawn from modern-day Propositional Calculus.

Once more, 'dialectics' meets its worst enemy: practicalities. MFL is eminently practical; DL is useless.

More at:

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

Oh, no.  The Bourgeois philosophical crackpot has found our site. ::)  No one over here is going to believe this crap.  Unlike revleft, most of the people over here are actually knowledgable in Marxism. 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The deep thoughts of comrade Volkov:

Oh, no.  The Bourgeois philosophical crackpot has found our site.

Name-calling is your only defense, eh?

No one over here is going to believe this crap.  Unlike revleft, most of the people over here are actually knowledgable in Marxism. 

Which is why you went to all that trouble to name call, then?

Perhaps you would like to prove how 'knowledgeable' you are by refuting me.

Oh...you can't, or you would have.

Hence the childish name-calling.

[Morag]

You know, it's sometimes more effective to actually show where your ideas help in the discussion. You've obviously put a lot of thought and time and effort into the topic, so maybe you can explain how your post has anything to do with the topic? The topic being how Booleian or Boyleian Logic and the argument that there are extra dimensions, ect, have shown dialiectical materialism to be false? I'll admit my understanding of logic is only a first-year university understanding, but I'm not an idiot and I can't made head-nor-tail of your argument. Perhaps if you tailored it to the specific argument you would get a better response. Or, perhaps, written it in a way that someone who is moderately intelligent but has no background in philosophy can understand it? After all, even with a basic understanding of how logic arguments are formed, your post is a good example of the greatest criticism against marxism: no one understands what the hell we're talking about because we don't explains it in terms that anyone without a super education can understand.

And, since you mention name calling, your first paragraphs are dedicated to telling us we're all a bunch of idiots who refuse to see the truth:

Pot, meet Kettle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Morag, thankyou for those superficial comments; when you have something more substantial to offer, please do not hesitate to keep it to yourself.

[P.O.U.M]

Or, perhaps, written it in a way that someone who is moderately intelligent but has no background in philosophy can understand it?

Morag does make a point. I have no background in philosophy other than a superficial high school philosophy class and my own self taught education and I cannot begin to fathom what your post is about, other than dialectics is outdated. Your writing for an audience who is well versed in logic and philosophic terminology and theory.

Perhaps you can make a more dumbed down verision for us who didnt have the privilege for a 4 year university? Also, though Im sure its a time saver, your abbreviation of everything made for tough reading.

Perhaps the reason dialectics speaks to us more is because we can more easily comphrehend dialectics? Granted, its not the easiest thing to first grasp. But its a walk in the park compared to your Mt. Everest of an essay. This also brings up the point that perhaps I should get more acquianted with Logic and the like, but I dont have the time nor the care right now to fully update myself on the latest philosophical language coming up to par with yourself based on the presumption of some random passer-byer that dialectics is an out moded piece of crap.

So if your truly here to enlighted us, perhaps you should stop the taunting and jeering of fellow posters. Not all the posters have been as welcoming as Volkov's, but Morags needed no insult. She does bring up alot of points, chiefly being, a few of us have no idea what the hell you are trying to get across, other than we are horribly ignorant dialeticians who lack profoundly witty retorts.

Plus, your website (antidialectics) was not found when I clicked the link.

[Volkov]

The deep thoughts of comrade Volkov:

Oh, no.  The Bourgeois philosophical crackpot has found our site.

Name-calling is your only defense, eh?

No one over here is going to believe this crap.  Unlike revleft, most of the people over here are actually knowledgable in Marxism. 

Which is why you went to all that trouble to name call, then?

Perhaps you would like to prove how 'knowledgeable' you are by refuting me.

Oh...you can't, or you would have.

Hence the childish name-calling.

I love the hypocrisy here.  At revleft, you have a long history of abusive ad hominems, some of which have gotten you in trouble with the admins.  When it came to your points being refuted there, you got extremely evasive and ingored anything that damaged your Bourgeois philosophical world outlook.

Morag, P.O.U.M, she uses ivory tower language,the exact same thing she accuses dialecticians of using.  She has no support amongst those that have any actual knowledge of dialectics.  Her biggest fans at revleft happen to be cretins like redstar2000 (that guy even supports Fascist attacks on religious structures, for he thinks that it helps stop religion! :o).  She also has an education in a Bourgeois university, hence not being credible.  We all know the nonsense that passes for philosophy in the universities.  That crap does not refute dialectics.  In fact, this "official" philosophy makes Hegel's idealism look like cutting-edge science!  I think that she may be a reformist masquarading as a Marxist, given how she uses Bourgeois philosophy, in addition to having that arrogant, ivory tower mentality. 

She clearly has no understanding of dialectics.  She thinks that Lenin said that lightbulbs change themselves! ::)  Her denial of change through contradictions is tanatmount to saying that the class struggle does not exist! ::)  Her arguments break at very weak chains, proven by her posts at revleft (note her evasion of anything that refutes her nonsense). 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Even deeper thoughts of the V-man:

At revleft, you have a long history of abusive ad hominems,

Is that the best you can do?

I got one warning when I was new to the board for suggesting that CYM was spliffed (as you know, because I have told you before).

And as to this:

When it came to your points being refuted there

You DM-fans are good at invention, aren't you?

If that were the case, you would have posted the link so that we could all see the 'refutation' for ourselves.

So, the fact that you did not speaks for itself.

she uses ivory tower language,the exact same thing she accuses dialecticians of using

Like what?

But, even if it were true, you DM-fans dote in the most obscure word-meister in human history, Hegel.

Not only did he use such language, and acres of the stuff, he used incomprehensible jargon to boot.

She has no support amongst those that have any actual knowledge of dialectics.

That's a bit like saying Marx had no support among borgeois economists.

So what? You'd expect DM-fans not to give support to someone who has blown away their ideas.

She also has an education in a Bourgeois university,

So did Hegel and Marx ....  oh, and Lenin.

But I am working class; I got myself a university education, and that is the most damning criticism you, with your petty mentality, can come up with.

You can't personally reply to my critique, so you just slag me off.

In fact, this "official" philosophy makes Hegel's idealism look like cutting-edge science!

Proof?

Oh, you have none ... yet again.

More baseless assertions.

I think that she may be a reformist masquarading as a Marxist, given how she uses Bourgeois philosophy, in addition to having that arrogant, ivory tower mentality. 

So you think do you; on the basis of his, I suspect not very often.or to great effect.

She clearly has no understanding of dialectics.

That's OK, because no one understands it.

She thinks that Lenin said that lightbulbs change themselves!

Lenin thinks so too:

The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58. Empahsis added.]

So pick a fight with him, not me.

Her denial of change through contradictions is tanatmount to saying that the class struggle does not exist!

Hardly; but it is a denial of the application of mystical hermetic ideas to the science of Marxism.

Her arguments break at very weak chains, proven by her posts at revleft (note her evasion of anything that refutes her nonsense). 

Which you personally cannot do (and no one else has done yet), so you just mouth off.

Find just one evasion; I challenge you.

Oh, once more, you can't.....

An empty dialectical tin can, aren't you? All noise, no substance.

Find out what the V-man does not want you to see at:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[And V, I suspect you are Axel 1917 of RevLeft (and Marxism On Line) fame. If so, you were trounced there too (where you made the same unsubstantiated claims).

You even tried to persuade us that Stephen Gould said the opposite of what your own quotation of his words actually said, if that is you are Axel. If not, you have copied his style pretty convincingly. No wonder you had to change your name....]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

POUM, you are right in a way; this is my first post at this board and I clearly misjudged the level of knowledge in evidence here. I won't make that mistake again. Apologies to one and all (and to you Morag for being uncomradely).

However, the reason I go into such detail (and I have to say, even the logical points I make are very basic) is that DM-fans (but maybe not you or Morag) are quite happy to lecture the rest of us on the limitations of Formal Logic (and much else besides), when in my experience, few of them know any logic at all, and certainly none written in the last 100 years.

So, for the first time anywhere, I tackle this head on.

Most of the language I use is very ordinary (in fact I defend 'ordinary language' Philosophy), but the post I appended here is one of the more technical pieces at my site (but even then, as I noted above, it is still very basic logic), and I have written and re-written the material at my site literally scores of times to make it clearer and clearer.

I have posted a summary of my ideas here (for anyone who wants the 'edited higlights', as it were):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm

And the original link was wrong, it should have been:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

I have modified it since.

[Morag]

Rosa: Keep in mind, I'm just a wretched history/politics student, and have almost no idea what I'm talking about. But  I've been trying to get through some of your website (My goal is to have finished 8 or 9 % of it before I die... Wow, there's a lot) and that all the 'A is A but not A at the same time' makes my head explode, I've a few questions based on your more general points. I think I'm getting to gist of it, but I was hoping you could clarify a few points so they don't bother me while I continue to read- if you believe the sociologists (and I tend to ignore them), if you don't understand something at the top of a page, you zone out and miss everything else.

So, you say in the first few paragraphs of essay 16;

Even before the first dialecticians put pen to misuse, they found themselves surrounded on all sides by ideas drawn from this ancient tradition. Clearly, they faced a serious problem: if they imposed their ideas on nature in like manner, they could easily be accused of constructing a comparable form of Idealism. On the other hand, if they didn't do this, they wouldn't have a 'philosophical' theory of their own to lend weight to, and provide a bedrock for, their claim to lead the revolution. Confronted thus by traditional styles-of-thought (which they had no hand in creating, but which they were only too happy to appropriate), DM-theorists found there was no easy way out of the traditional minefield -- or at least none that managed to keep their theory the right side of immaterialism.

Do you have a reference for proof of this argument that the early dialecticians had considered this? I think I might have come across something suggesting it, and obviously they understood how people might react, but I can't recall any actual proof. (And as a supplementary because I'm a history student, do you think that it is important to your argument that they had such an idea in their minds when forming diamat?) You say that dialecticians still use a priori knowledge for proof, but (unless I'm mistaken about the meaning of a priori as opposed to a posteriori) isn't it true that at least some of diamat is knowable through experience?  Or, conversely, that some things aren't yet known at all but might be proven true via diamat and therefore a priori knowledge is potentially true? (I hate Descartes, but his idea of Cognito, ergo sum is one of the only philosophical arguments I actually understand, having discovered it on my own when I was in kindergarten [nap time + insomnia = too much time to think]) Anyway, unless I've totally missed the boat, Descartes little Evil Demon, (or whatever), was both a priori and pretty solid as well.

I'm know that you probably answer these questions on your own in the essays, but there is a lot, and I'm trying to get through the "bullet-point" essay that your provided before I move on. I just hope you'll be able to give me examples of what you mean, because a lot of the language is over my head, or you provide references to philosophers I maybe don't understand, like ("In fact, traditional theorists went further; their acts of linguistic legerdemain allowed them to uncover Super-theses in the comfort of their own heads, doctrines they claimed revealed the underlying essential nature of existence, which were supposedly valid for all of space and time.") I just have no idea who your pointing to, and while I don't understand the philosophical arguments, I do know a bit about a lot of philosophers and their "Big Ideas," so to speak. The way my brain works, if I don't know who these people are, I will be forming those ideas while reading, instead of understanding your argument. Any help would be great.

[Volkov]

Even deeper thoughts of the V-man:

Is that the best you can do?

Is being a single issue activist that has no idea what she is talking about the best you can perform at?

I got one warning when I was new to the board for suggesting that CYM was spliffed (as you know, because I have told you before).

I recall you getting another one for attacking someone else.

And as to this.

You DM-fans are good at invention, aren't you?

Any dialectician that looks back at those threads would know what I am talking about.

If that were the case, you would have posted the link so that we could all see the 'refutation' for ourselves.

You are the one that spends 9999999999999999999999999999 hours on the Internet.  Look back for yourself even.  Or, wait, you would get refuted then.  I am sure that other members can easily do a dialectics search at revleft to find these things.

So, the fact that you did not speaks for itself.

Now who is inventing?

Like what?

That can easily be seen from your attitude and your site.

But, even if it were true, you DM-fans dote in the most obscure word-meister in human history, Hegel.

At least he made discoveries unlike you, while your "new Marxism" has absoultely no useful purpose. 

Not only did he use such language, and acres of the stuff, he used incomprehensible jargon to boot.

At least things could be understood well from him, and at least some of his stuff actually made sense.

That's a bit like saying Marx had no support among borgeois economists.

Would you mind showing me skilled dialecticans that support you then?  Last time I checked, they ripped apart your nonsense at revleft. 

So what? You'd expect DM-fans not to give support to someone who has blown away their ideas.

A rehash of Borugeois philosohpical criticisms against Marxism in the guise of "new Marxism" is not refuting anything. It is merely putting forth the same formalism that breaks down, which dialectics supplements. 

So did Hegel and Marx ....  oh, and Lenin.

Times have changed.  Borugeois philosophy is worthless Postmodernist crap these days. 

But I am working class; I got myself a university education, and that is the most damning criticism you, with your petty mentality, can come up with.

You have the philosphical outlook and arrogant attitdue of reformist cretins I have encountered.  You have not even proven that you are a Marxist.  You only post rants against dialectics.  You even blame it for sectarianism.  Your claim about dialectics causing sectarianism is baseless, rosa.  You also blame dialectics for many problems in the left, Stalinism, etc.  More baseless crap.  If you really knew what you were talking about, you would have to had to mention things like Stalin's witch hunts in the CP's to consolidate them, the isolation of the revolution in backward Russia that paved the way for Stalin's political counterrevolution, the upswing of the productive forces at the end of WWII that made many think that capitalism was "delivering the goods," hence it surviving longer, persecution, etc.  But alas, none of these get mention at your site.  Had you any credibility, you would have had to mention these at your site, and at least draw the conclusion that dialectics, although you disagree with it, is not the cause for Stalinism, sectarianism, and other problems of the left. 

You can't personally reply to my critique, so you just slag me off.

Right...  You can't take any criticism.  When someone refutes you, you ignore it and keep ranting. 

Proof?

Oh, you have none ... yet again.

Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrea is proof of dialectics, and Che y Marijauna (sp?) refuted you at revleft on this aspect. 

More baseless assertions.

Who is the one that is good at invention here?

So you think do you; on the basis of his, I suspect not very often.or to great effect.

Would you mind proving that you are a Marxist?  Every post of yours has something to do with anti-dialectics, and it is also usually a link to a 30+ page essay. 

That's OK, because no one understands it.

So you admit that you don't understand it, and therefore confess that you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Lenin thinks so too:

The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.357-58. Empahsis added.]

So pick a fight with him, not me.

Again, had you any idea of what you were talking about, you would konw that he was not saying as such.  I believe that you ignored elaboration given on revleft by others in this aspect.

Hardly; but it is a denial of the application of mystical hermetic ideas to the science of Marxism.

When someone at revleft had proven that the class struggle is a contradition, you merely told him not to believe everything a dictionary says. ::)  Again, you are being foolish in this aspect.  You must think that the state is a wonderful tool of reason, for according to you, the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie are not antagonistically opposed, and live in perfect harmony.  According to you, revolution cannot happen!  History has proven you wrong here!  Comrades, don't agitate and prepare for revoultion.  Society is not at contradiction with itself!  The state is not an instrument for the suppression for one class by the other, but rather a product of harmonious reason!  The Bourgeoisie are our friends and do the best to see that we are happy! ::) :D :D 

Which you personally cannot do (and no one else has done yet), so you just mouth off.

Find just one evasion; I challenge you.

See how she never refuted Che y Marijuana at http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46970

Oh, once more, you can't.....

Really?

An empty dialectical tin can, aren't you? All noise, no substance.

Invention again, Rosa?

Find out what the V-man does not want you to see at:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

Go ahead and see it.  It is great for a laugh!

[And V, I suspect you are Axel 1917 of RevLeft (and Marxism On Line) fame. If so, you were trounced there too (where you made the same unsubstantiated claims).

I happen to be him.  So what?  I have proven your evasiveness.  You also baselessly accused me of being a male chauvinist just for opposing your anti-dialectical philosophy. ::)

You even tried to persuade us that Stephen Gould said the opposite of what your own quotation of his words actually said, if that is you are Axel. If not, you have copied his style pretty convincingly. No wonder you had to change your name....]

You were proven wrong in this aspect.  Sorry.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Morag, thankyou for those perceptive remarks; if I may say so, you are one of the first comrades on such boards to ask such penetrating questions.

Well, I attempt to do this in Essay Nine (I hope you understand that I cannot prove everything in every paragraph -- the one you refer to comes from a section that I added later as an introduction to the Essay it is now attached to, since the point of the rest of the Essay seemed to me obscure without it; it was not meant to be an exhaustive analysis, more an opening statement of intent. If you look at the summary to Essay Twelve, you will see the rationale behind what I say. Links to both essay sumaries below. Essay Twelve will be published in four or five parts over the next year or so, Essay Nine much earlier.).

The proof, if such it be, revolves around the approach to knowledge Marx and Engels (and other early dialecticians) adopted -- i.e., inverting Hegel so that the ideas human beings form are reflections of the material world, not constitutive of it (as it is in Hegel). They did this because they regarded a priori speculative thought as idealist unless backed up by a robust scientific analysis (I precis here). I go one further and reject the entire Western tradition of speculative thought, and the correspondence theory of truth.

Now, as Essay Two attempts to show (and this is done in detail in Essay Three) dialecticians still use a priori forms of thought.

You can see this when Engels tries to derive the contradictions he thinks he sees in motion from a consideration of the concepts involved (you cannot see these cointradictions in reality, you have to derive them from a conceptual 'analysis', one he pinched from Hegel, who got his from Zeno, and one not based on evidence -- all this is proven in Essay Five).

Trotsky does the same with the law of identity; there are many more examples in Essay Two, many of which are analysed in excrutiating detail in later Essays.

I also claim that not a single DM-thesis is knowable from experience (despite what we are told), not because we haven't looked hard enough yet, but because, when examined, not a one makes any sense.

So, it's a bit like looking for proof of the Christian Trinity; that makes no sense, so empirical proof is useless since we would have no idea what we would be looking for. I show in the early Essays that all the major DM-theses (and host of minor ones) fall apart when examined.

I also deny the possibility of a priori knowledge and for several reasons.

(1) The candidates for such knowledge (such as Descartes' 'cogito') all fall apart when closely examined (just like DM-theses do, and for the same reasons). They are all based on egregious distortions of material language. This is demnonstrated in extensive detail in essay Twelve (which alone is 100, 000 words long (!!), and will be longer when published. It contains my most origianla ideas, for there I provide the first comprehensive Marxist account ever of the origins of ruling-class ideology). There is a summary link posted below.

(2) The validity of a priori knowledge would imply that reality has an underlying structure that was not material, i.e, that was Ideal. This also forms part of the long proof in Essay Twelve. So, no materialsit should have anything to do with it.

I link (1) and (2) together, because the reason why a priori knowldege falls apart is that it misuses material language (i.e., that language invented in collective labour and sustained by working people -- so this is  a class issue) and is based on ruling-class thought forms invented by traditional philosophers (who were all either members of the ruling-class, or were paid by them), since it meshes with their mystical view of reality (that there is an a priori order to reality which makes their oppressive system 'rational' and ordained of god, or a consequence of non-material forces that we cannot control, but which, miraculcously, favour the status quo).

In this way, traditional philosophy is the highest form of ruling-class ideology, and since no one really questions the 'certainties' it delivers (like Descartes' cogito -- well they may question it, but they accept the methods he used to derive it: a priori word-juggling) it amply confirms Marx's claim that the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.

I claim dialecticians have bought into this thought-form, and produced a version of ruling-class ideology (all this forms the major part of Essay Nine, summary link below), saddling our movement with a divisive theory (which parially accounts for the spectacular failure our movement has witnessed over the last 100 years or so, since the working class will never be 'seized' by a theory based on ideal thought-forms, which helps fragment our movement, again for reasons I explain in the Essays at my site (like Essay Nine)  -- making Marxist parties small, insular (you can see this in Axel/comrade V's remarks), divisive and profoundly unreasonable).

The linguistic legerdemaine reference was to people like Descartes, who derive startling results from a brief consideration of a few words/'concepts'. But he was not the only one, Plato did it, so did Leibniz, and Spinoza, and so do Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Plekhanov.

Lenin does it when he tries to derive the whole dialectic from this passage:

"To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common, etc., [sic] with any proposition...: [like] John is a man…. Here we already have dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognized): the individual is the universal…. Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes), etc. Here already we have the elements, the germs of the concept of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say John is a man…we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other….

"Thus in any proposition we can (and must) disclose as a 'nucleus' ('cell') the germs of all the elements of dialectics, and thereby show that dialectics is a property of all human knowledge in general." [Lenin (1961), pp.359-60.]

This is analysed in detail in Essay Three, Part One, where I show how his conclusions are based on a defective analysis even of predicative sentences (these are ones that assert something of a subject, like 'Lenin is in error here'), which is anyway not a major sentential form in English, and is not found in non-Indo-European languages.

But, I give literally dozens of examples of this sort of thing.

I hope this helps, and please forgive me for my crass remarks earlier!

[In my defence, but it's a pathetic defence, everytime I 'debate' this with DM-fans (and I have been doing this for over 20 years), I get the same sort of abuse, and I just went into knee-jerk reaction mode, as I did at Rev Left. But, in your case, I clearly came a cropper, since your questions (and you might not believe this but it is true) are among the best I have been asked about my ideas.]

If you need any more assistance, do not hesitate to ask.

Links:

Essay Twelve summary:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

Essay Nine summary:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:

Is being a single issue activist that has no idea what she is talking about the best you can perform at?

Can you prove this? Once again, no, or you would have.

I recall you getting another one for attacking someone else.

And you failed to prove this too; you cannot even provide the link.

Any dialectician that looks back at those threads would know what I am talking about.

Again, no links.

You are the one that spends 9999999999999999999999999999 hours on the Internet.  Look back for yourself even.  Or, wait, you would get refuted then.  I am sure that other members can easily do a dialectics search at revleft to find these things.

You made this point before Axel, and had no proof then. Where is your proof now?

Once  more, you hope others will do your dirty work for you.

Now who is inventing?

Once, more, prove that I am by posting the links.

That can easily be seen from your attitude and your site.

After several weeks of me reminding you, you had not read any of my Essays, you finally had a rush of conscience and read a few opening pages.

So, you are judging from ignorance still.

At least he made discoveries unlike you, while your "new Marxism" has absolutely no useful purpose.

Name one ‘discovery’ Hegel made.

At least things could be understood well from him, and at least some of his stuff actually made sense.

So it’s only “some” now; that’s progress. And if he is so easy to understand in places, try explaining it to us. Go on, put yourself to some use: explain Hegel to us.

Would you mind showing me skilled dialecticians that support you then?

Well, since I openly said they didn’t, you need to read things a bit more carefully.

And I deny there are any skilled dialecticians. There are loads of hacks, though.

Last time I checked, they ripped apart your nonsense at revleft. 

Then you won’t mind posting the links so we can all see these devastating refutations (I claim are all in your dreams).

One thing is for certain, you can’t defend dialectics, or you would have done by now.
You claim you are too busy, but you have spent hours making virtually the same points for months now; had you put your time to better use, I am sure you could have come up with just one good argument, that did not appeal to others to fight your battles for you.

You really are a sad ‘true-believer’, aren’t you?

A rehash of Bourgeois philosophical criticisms against Marxism in the guise of "new Marxism" is not refuting anything. It is merely putting forth the same formalism that breaks down, which dialectics supplements.

Well, you DM-fans prefer a rehash of mystical Christianity, so you have no place pointing any fingers. And Trotsky said this of comrades like you:

Whenever any Marxist attempted to transmute the theory of Marx into a universal master key and ignore all other spheres of learning, Vladimir Ilyich would rebuke him with the expressive phrase 'Komchvanstvo' ('communist swagger')." [Problems of Everyday Life, p.221.]

These two were not wedded to purblind, self-imposed ignorance like your good self. And, like them, neither am I.

Bourgeois philosophy is worthless Postmodernist crap these days.

Well some of it is, but much of it defends scientific realism, and some of it is very traditional. But you would not know, since your posts show you are as ignorant of modern philosophy as you are of modern logic.

Such nice language:

You have the philosophical outlook and arrogant attitude of reformist cretins I have encountered.

Is this your proof?

[You brand anything as ‘arrogant’ that is forcefully put, and wipes out your theory, and then you just sulk.]

You have not even proven that you are a Marxist.

Neither have you.

Your claim about dialectics causing sectarianism is baseless, Rosa.

It’s done a pretty good job on you. You are my star witness.

So, please, Axel, never become reasonable. You will surely weaken my case….

You also blame dialectics for many problems in the left, Stalinism, etc.  More baseless crap.
Show me where I blamed Stalinism on dialectics. Oh, you can’t or you would have.
So the descriptor ‘baseless’ applies to your assertion. If you are right it would be easy to prove me wrong here: find the passage where I say this.
If you really knew what you were talking about, you would have to had to mention things like Stalin's witch hunts in the CP's to consolidate them, the isolation of the revolution in backward Russia that paved the way for Stalin's political counterrevolution, the upswing of the productive forces at the end of WWII that made many think that capitalism was "delivering the goods," hence it surviving longer, persecution, etc.  But alas, none of these get mention at your site.  Had you any credibility, you would have had to mention these at your site, and at least draw the conclusion that dialectics, although you disagree with it, is not the cause for Stalinism, sectarianism, and other problems of the left.

Wasted effort, Axel. I agree with the Trotskyist analysis of the origin of Stalinism. In your fevered attempt find something to use against me, you have to invent things and then rant on about it.

That’s OK. It is clearly therapeutic for you.

Rant away comrade if it helps.

You can't take any criticism.  When someone refutes you, you ignore it and keep ranting.

Ok, ranter-extraordinaire, find a refutation of me, and you win first prize.

Make yourself useful again; off you go. Find one.

But it still won’t be your work, but someone else’s.

You still can’t argue against me, can you?

Prove me wrong. It’s very easy. Just do it.

Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibria is proof of dialectics, and Che y Marijuana (sp?) refuted you at revleft on this aspect.

As I pointed out to you at Rev Left and at Marxism on line, you can keep saying this if it makes you feel better, but, CYM shut up arguing with me when he saw his arguments disintegrate.
You can revamp them if they were so good, and try again if you like, on his behalf, as it were.

[Why do I think this won’t happen?]

Who is the one that is good at invention here?

Well, on the basis of your fantasies about my beliefs about Stalin etc, I rather think a few fingers are now pointing at you.

Would you mind proving that you are a Marxist?

Ok: I am a Marxist.

Don’t believe me?

Well, I believe you are. So extend that courtesy to me, a fellow comrade -- even if only to prove how un-sectarian you are.

So you admit that you don't understand it, and therefore confess that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I said no one understands it, including you, then if I admit what you say, you will have to do the same.

I can live with that.

Again, had you any idea of what you were talking about, you would know that he was not saying as such.  I believe that you ignored elaboration given on revleft by others in this aspect.

Well Lenin specifically says things are self-moving; he even insists on it here:

"Dialectics requires an all-round consideration of relationships in their concrete development…. Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…. [Lenin, (1921), 'Once Again on The Trade Unions, The Current Situation And The Mistakes Of Comrades Trotsky And Bukharin', reprinted in Lenin (1980), pp.70-106; Lenin (1980) On The Question Of Dialectics (Progress Publishers) Bold emphasis added.]

And our very own Woods and Grant say the same:

"So fundamental is this idea to dialectics that Marx and Engels considered motion to be the most basic characteristic of matter.... [Referring to a quote from Aristotle] [t]his is not the mechanical conception of motion as something imparted to an inert mass by an external 'force' but an entirely different notion of matter as self-moving....

"The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based on contradiction.... Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the unity and interpenetration of opposites....

"The universal phenomena of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change -- the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"...Matter is self-moving and self-organising." [Woods and Grant 'Reason In Revolt', (Wellred Publications, 1995), pp.43-45, 47, 68, 72. Emphases added.]

So, if you disagree with these good people, I can claim at least one success.

In that case, Axel, I am glad you no longer believe this pre-Aristotelian ‘science’. Light bulbs cannot change themselves, contrary to what the above comrades assert.

I shall count you as a sinner who repenteth.

When someone at revleft had proven that the class struggle is a contradiction, you merely told him not to believe everything a dictionary says

Well, the dictionary in question merely connected contradictions with opposing forces, it did not mention the class struggle. You added that (no surprise).

Once more, this is someone else’s argument, not yours, and you could not even get that right!

And to compound things you only partially refer to it. You left out what I said in reply, which was that dictionaries contain all manner of mystical, reactionary and regressive ideas, which you (and that comrade) would not accept. So even you do not believe all you read in dictionaries.

And then I pointed out that dictionaries record usage, and since you dialecticians use these words this way it properly records that fact. You can no more use that than a Christian can use the fact that the same dictionary defines ‘god’ as our father as proof that he is.

More fantasy:

You must think that the state is a wonderful tool of reason, for according to you, the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie are not antagonistically opposed

Wrong, I fully accept the class war (how could I deny it?); as I told you repeatedly at Rev Left, I fully accept historical materialism (with the mystical stuff you like removed). So why do you keep saying such inane things?

Ah, a link at last (and, oh dear, to someone else’s argument):

See how she never refuted Che y Marijuana at http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46970

I am quite happy for comrades to read this and make their own minds up (how could I object), since they will see I argued you (Axel) and Che to a standstill.

Earlier, it was how he had refuted me: now when you post the link so we can see for ourselves, you change your tune to how I failed to refute him.

You need to get your story right.

Really?

Go on then, put your proof where your mouth is.

Invention again, Rosa?

Well, that comment of mine that yours is in response to said you were an empty tin can, full of noise, and no substance.

[The above prevarications and your earlier excuses rather support my assertion, I think.]

Here is an ideal opportunity to prove me wrong: say something (anything, purleeese) substantial, that you have not copied off someone else.

I double dog dare you to do it....

Go ahead and see it.  It is great for a laugh!

You would not know, since you are still too frightened to go there.

http://www.anti-dialectics.org