@nti-dialectics Made Easy

[Volkov]

And once again, no one here cares for your pre-Hegelian mysticism.  The fact that you support Islamic fundmentalism speaks volumes of your so-called materialist world outook! 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Volkov/Axel1917:

And once again, no one here cares for your pre-Hegelian mysticism.  The fact that you support Islamic fundmentalism speaks volumes of your so-called materialist world outook!

Thankyou, V/A!!

The more you spout such lies and exude irrational bile like this, the more publicity for my views you help stir up.

And the more you confirm my hypothesis that you dialecticians react to criticism almost like religionists do -- all emotion and no thought. This response of yours just provides me with more data to add to the long list I am compiling.

[You certainly can't take me on in an argument over dialectical mysticism, which is, of course, why you merely confine yourself to low blows.]

Please, feel free to slime away to your heart's content.

However, the fair-minded among you might like to find out just why comrades like Volkov/Axel1917 behave so irrationally, here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Rosa

I am a pretty fair minded person and I bow to your incredible kowledge and your use of all that spare time you obviously have to develop your theories.
If you could allow me about ten years I will promise you that I will come back to this point with a reply/criticism .
In the meantime, Rosa , feel free to post but I havent got time to read it. I have got your website on my favourites just to remind me that you have an opinion and I will go to it if at any time I need to.

Leave Volkov alone. He is allowed his opinion and I respect what he has said since he has been a member of this board.

On my next post I will give you a link to a  busy board where you can debate your views to your hearts content. I am sure they will give you a warm welcome.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Rosa

As promised


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=27

Beware of the Anarchists. Also they dont like Trolls. Not that you are one of course. Just a comradely warning.

Let me know what you think.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OOTN:

Thanks for those comments, but you can't be serious about this:

Leave Volkov alone. He is allowed his opinion and I respect what he has said since he has been a member of this board.

He is the one who has been stalking me for the last 14 months (here and at RevLeft, disguised as Axel1917), making the same baseless assertions and inventing stuff about me as he sees fit (as he has just done here).

If he has a go at me, I promise I will always respond.

Otherwise, I'll leave him alone.

You will notice I did not post anything in response to his other comments here, on other threads -- not even that one where he seems to think that his version of Trotskyism is 'doing something', while everyone else isn't (i.e, the Frankfurt School thread).

Thanks for the link. I have in fact argued the dialecticians to a standfstill at RevLeft -- none dare take me on, now.

I am working my way through LibCom Forum at the moment.

I'll move onto the one you suggest next. One by one, they are becoming mysticism-free zones.

My Essays are now being read right across the planet -- and comrades e-mail every week thanking me for my stance.

Loads more to come.

[You must not think I spend all my time doing  this -- these Essays were largely written five years ago; I am just re-formatting and up-dating them for internet consumption -- I do have other things to do, not least my union and political activity.]

[Volkov]

OOTN:

Thanks for those comments, but you can't be serious about this:

Leave Volkov alone. He is allowed his opinion and I respect what he has said since he has been a member of this board.

He is the one who has been stalking me for the last 14 months (here and at RevLeft, disguised as Axel1917), making the same baseless assertions and inventing stuff about me as he sees fit (as he has just done here).

If he has a go at me, I promise I will always respond.

Otherwise, I'll leave him alone.

You will notice I did not post anything in response to his other comments here, on other threads -- not even that one where he seems to think that his version of Trotskyism is 'doing something', while everyone else isn't (i.e, the Frankfurt School thread).

Thanks for the link. I have in fact argued the dialecticians to a standfstill at RevLeft -- none dare take me on, now.

I am working my way through LibCom Forum at the moment.

I'll move onto the one you suggest next. One by one, they are becoming mysticism-free zones.

My Essays are now being read right across the planet -- and comrades e-mail every week thanking me for my stance.

Loads more to come.

[You must not think I spend all my time doing  this -- these Essays were largely written five years ago; I am just re-formatting and up-dating them for internet consumption -- I do have other things to do, not least my union and political activity.]

And the reason no one bothers arguing with you at revleft is because it is a complete waste of time.  Whenever someone gets a major point in, you get completely evasive about it.  No one at this site will ever listen to you, especially given that it was pointed out that someone's six year old sister refuted your "theories."  Only Internet leftists that despise theory and thereby end up taking the path that requires the least amount of thinking will ever listen to you, and history has shown that such people are not capable of getting anywhere. 

Why are you even posting here if you admit that no one will listen to you anyway?  Perhaps this board needs to tighten up its anti-spam guidelines. 

It is common knowledge that you Cliffites support Islamic Fundmentalism.  Some Marxists you are!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Volkov/Axel -- keep this up, PLEASE!!! It's great publicity!

And the reason no one bothers arguing with you at revleft is because it is a complete waste of time. 

Because they will lose, as they always do.

Whenever someone gets a major point in, you get completely evasive about it.

This is a good one coming from the master of evasion himself; you have alleged this many times before, but when you have been asked for one example (just one!) where I do this, you bluster, prevaricate, and then sulk away, back into the shadows.

No one at this site will ever listen to you, especially given that it was pointed out that someone's six year old sister refuted your "theories."

1) This is more than you have ever managed to do -- so what that says about you I will leave others to decide.

2) It seems that all it takes is for someone to allege they have done this, and that is good enough for you.

Let's quote that 'refutation, shall we (since you conveniently left it out)?

My 6 years old sister the other day drew a cube....and she overthrew your anti-dialectical theory with a stroke of 12 lines.

You know what a cube is.

You draw a point, but a point doesnt exist by itself, so you draw another one. So then, you get a line, and a line must have its counter line and voila you have a cube.

I will ask her, if she has any more interesting arguments against your theory :D

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=2137.15

I asked the comrade who posted this (Turnoviseous), how this refutes anything I have ever said, but he failed to reply.

So perhaps you can help us out here. How does this refute any of my stated ideas (as opposed to the ones you like to invent, and then put in my mouth)?

Only Internet leftists that despise theory and thereby end up taking the path that requires the least amount of thinking will ever listen to you, and history has shown that such people are not capable of getting anywhere. 

That puts them in good company then, since Trotskyism is the least successful area of Marxism (and I say that as a Trotskyist who wants to put this right) -- indeed, your group is not known for its mass following. In fact, as with other Trotskyist groups, it has a tendency to split, and thus become even less successful.

That is the only thing we trots seem to be good at!

Now, when things do not work out (especially over a long period), rational beings re-examine their theory (as I am doing).

In contrast, you cling to failed ideas even more, and then adopt a haughty attitude that you cannot possibly be wrong, and 'look at us we are so successful' (with a few thousand members, if that, and 65 years after the 4th International was set up, and 160 years after the Communist Manifesto was written!), and even though your group is to success what George W is to peace in Iraq.

I have no doubt that the more unsuccessful your tendency becomes, the more you will cling to these comforting but failed ideas.

And I can explain why -- but you had better not read my latest Essay (which explains why you are so irrational); we do not want you to become rational, do we?

Or, rather: it seems you do not want this.

Why are you even posting here if you admit that no one will listen to you anyway?

That is not strictly true; but even if it were, it provides yet more comfirmation of my thesis (explained in great detail in my latest Essay) that you Dialectical Mystics cling to this theory for non-rational reasons, and defend it with lies and evasion, since that is all you can do.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

It is common knowledge that you Cliffites support Islamic Fundmentalism.

It is 'common knowledge', too, that Marxism is a total failure.

So, since you now appear to accept what is 'common knoiwledge', I expect you will agree that it is indeed a failure.

I, on the other hand, do not think this, since I do not accept 'common knowledge' unless it is backed up with evidence.

So, can you provide that evidence?

I suspect not, or you would not have had to appeal to 'common knowledge'.

But, hey, who am I to stop you believing any old rubbish?

You seem to be able to do that without my help -- or hinderance.

Perhaps this board needs to tighten up its anti-spam guidelines. 

Yes, that will be the only way you will be able to defeat my ideas: censorship.

You certainly have no arguments.

[Volkov]

Volkov/Axel -- keep this up, PLEASE!!! It's great publicity!
 Because they will lose, as they always do.

Nonsense.  Not to mention that you have resorted to censorship (setevensen) against criticism. 

This is a good one coming from the master of evasion himself; you have alleged this many times before, but when you have been asked for one example (just one!) where I do this, you bluster, prevaricate, and then sulk away, back into the shadows.

You get dogy every time your argument breaks at a weak link.  Recently at revleft, I pointed out how your beloved anarchist allies (most of these allies of hers condone acts of individual terrorism against Leninists, and therefore prove that Rosa is an agent of the bourgeoisie) boast a track record of 160 years+ of failures.  And you hypocritically give this "160 years+ of failures to Marxism!"  Anarchism's shining moments: siding with the bourgeoisie against the Soviet government and voluntarily leaving power in the hands of the bourgeoisie in the Spanish Civil War!

1) This is more than you have ever managed to do -- so what that says about you I will leave others to decide.

2) It seems that all it takes is for someone to allege they have done this, and that is good enough for you.

Let's quote that 'refutation, shall we (since you conveniently left it out)?

What, were you too lazy to look at it the first time?

My 6 years old sister the other day drew a cube....and she overthrew your anti-dialectical theory with a stroke of 12 lines.

You know what a cube is.

You draw a point, but a point doesnt exist by itself, so you draw another one. So then, you get a line, and a line must have its counter line and voila you have a cube.

I will ask her, if she has any more interesting arguments against your theory :D

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=2137.15

I asked the comrade who posted this (Turnoviseous), how this refutes anything I have ever said, but he failed to reply.

So perhaps you can help us out here. How does this refute any of my stated ideas (as opposed to the ones you like to invent, and then put in my mouth)?

You clearly aren't too bright then.  Not to mention taht Turnoviseous also gave numerous, more detailed refutations in that thread.  You don't even understand the basic dialectical laws shown here, and yet you have the nerve to criticize it.  By your logic, there are no interconnections, unity and interpenetration of opposites, etc. (just like how you maintain that water gradually cools into a gel before freezing to ice). 

That puts them in good company then, since Trotskyism is the least successful area of Marxism (and I say that as a Trotskyist who wants to put this right) -- indeed, your group is not known for its mass following. In fact, as with other Trotskyist groups, it has a tendency to split, and thus become even less successful.

The punkie-hippie movement has literally no successes.  All they do is get stoned, go to orgies, and annoy the public by vandalizing everything in sight.  Your anarchist allies have a tendency to become more right wing over time and end up embracing right-wing ideology.  In fact, I would argue that anarchism is not a proletarian movement, but rather, for the most part, a movement of disgruntled teenagers that think it is cool to vandalize things and scare their parents when they are escorted home by the police.  And you think that these hooligans are in a position to change society, particularly when they boast a track record of not a single success in 160+ years?  Anyone at this site knows that your revleft and allies from other anarcho and punkie-hippie sites are rabid sectarians with literally no links to the working class.  Anarchism's influence is nil.  Ultra leftism is a common blight, yet in spite of them numbering millions internationally, our "insignificant sect" has infinitely more influence than they ever will!  Your 13 year old allies have a tendency of getting older and no longer being disgruntled teenagers over time, you know. 

That is the only thing we trots seem to be good at!

By we you mean yourself.  What is with these anti-Marxist allies of yours?  Are you some kind of rabid opportunist? 

Now, when things do not work out (especially over a long period), rational beings re-examine their theory (as I am doing).

Yes, I am sure that the bourgeois movement has contributed so much to socialism! 

In contrast, you cling to failed ideas even more, and then adopt a haughty attitude that you cannot possibly be wrong, and 'look at us we are so successful' (with a few thousand members, if that, and 65 years after the 4th International was set up, and 160 years after the Communist Manifesto was written!), and even though your group is to success what George W is to peace in Iraq.

And after 160+ years of anarchism, what have your allies accomplished? Siding with the bourgeoisie (all your anarchist/punkie-hippie allies do is post anti-Bolshevik propaganda, orginally put into circulation by the bourgeoisie!)?  Talk about clinging to failed ideas!  I seriously doubt that many of your allies even bother keeping up with current events, studying, etc. 

Ultra-leftism has also been around for a long time, longer than the Fourth Inernational.  What has it accomplished?  Splits?  9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 "mass parties" parties of "Two men and a dog?"  An idealist world outlook that deals with the ought instead of the is? 

Bolshevism has achieved the October Revolution and the preservation and continuation of Marxism, even in the difficult times of the postwar boom.  It is still relevant to this day, and this is especially proven by the fact that the bourgeoisie spend countless (probably billions) dollars on making sure that every school textbook contains libel to scare people away from it!.  The bourgeoisie isn't scared of anarchism or ultra-leftism.  They don't even mention it, and for good reason: they aren't foolish enough to waste their money on something that poses absolutely no threat to the existence of their dictatorship. 

I have no doubt that the more unsuccessful your tendency becomes, the more you will cling to these comforting but failed ideas.

I think this statement applies to your types.

And I can explain why -- but you had better not read my latest Essay (which explains why you are so irrational); we do not want you to become rational, do we?

Or, rather: it seems you do not want this.

Do you really think that anyone will read what you say when your arguments break at such weak links.  I don't know who this stevensen at revleft is, but even he hammered this point through.

That is not strictly true; but even if it were, it provides yet more comfirmation of my thesis (explained in great detail in my latest Essay) that you Dialectical Mystics cling to this theory for non-rational reasons, and defend it with lies and evasion, since that is all you can do.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

It seems like you are here for no major reason.  Perhaps amusement at most.  Doesn't seem productive to me.

It is 'common knowledge', too, that Marxism is a total failure.

So, since you now appear to accept what is 'common knoiwledge', I expect you will agree that it is indeed a failure.

Common knowledge is not completely hampered by restrictions, especially since even revlefters I don't really agree with have said that Cliffies are ardent Hezbollah supporters.

I, on the other hand, do not think this, since I do not accept 'common knowledge' unless it is backed up with evidence.

So, can you provide that evidence?

George Galloway, the SWP MP, has been known to support Islamic fundamentalism: 

I don't agree with everything this says, but this makes note of the reactionary Galloway:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/11/22/Islamists/

Also some dirt here, Galloway refusing a workers' wage, being paid by Saddam Hussein to be influenced by him, etc.:

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

A bit old, but digs up dirt on the SWP and Galloway:

http://www.marxist.com/britain-respect-6.htm

I have also heard that Galloway has been seen marching with Islamic fundamentalists.

I suspect not, or you would not have had to appeal to 'common knowledge'.

But, hey, who am I to stop you believing any old rubbish?

You seem to be able to do that without my help -- or hinderance.

I think you are the one that believes in rubbish.

Yes, that will be the only way you will be able to defeat my ideas: censorship.

From what you say, your posts don't seem to have any other purpose than amusement, if even that.

You certainly have no arguments.

I think history will prove otherwise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hi Axel/Volkov; you can stop now, I have got all the publicity I need for my site -- you do not need to keep drawing attention to my anti-mystical work.

[I thought you said that my ideas were not worth challenging; perhaps even you can see how wrong you were??]

Not to mention that you have resorted to censorship (stevensen) against criticism.

Yes, you probably regard spam from a Stalinist as something that needs defending -- part of the 'revolutionary defence' of the murderers of Trotsky is it?

You get dogy every time your argument breaks at a weak link.  Recently at revleft, I pointed out how your beloved anarchist allies (most of these allies of hers condone acts of individual terrorism against Leninists, and therefore prove that Rosa is an agent of the bourgeoisie) boast a track record of 160 years+ of failures.  And you hypocritically give this "160 years+ of failures to Marxism!"  Anarchism's shining moments: siding with the bourgeoisie against the Soviet government and voluntarily leaving power in the hands of the bourgeoisie in the Spanish Civil War!

And so, would you like to point to a workers' state set up by us Trots then? As disproof of my claim that Dialectical Marxism is a long-term failure, and that Trotskyism is even more so.

I wish there were otherwise, but all we are good at is sectarian sniping like this.

I blame dialectics (for making it worse) -- you lot treat it like a religion.

Which is hardly surprising given its mystical provenance, and the obvious consolation it provides you.

What, were you too lazy to look at it the first time?

A little bit less lazy than you were at failing to post the link, I feel.

Go on, I have challenged you now for well over a year to provide links to these stunning 'refutations' you keep banging on about.

All we get from you is prevarication.

The good people here are going to think you are making this up, and I am not being helped in persuading them otherwise by your intransigence.

Come on, give me something I can use to defend you against such ignorant attacks on your integrity.

Please, put us all out of our misery: where is this famed Rosa roasting you speak of??

Ah, you quote the famed Turnoviseous's screw up:

You clearly aren't too bright then.  Not to mention that Turnoviseous also gave numerous, more detailed refutations in that thread.  You don't even understand the basic dialectical laws shown here, and yet you have the nerve to criticize it.  By your logic, there are no interconnections, unity and interpenetration of opposites, etc. (just like how you maintain that water gradually cools into a gel before freezing to ice). 

Once more, how does this comment even address anything I have ever tried to argue?

Of course, you would not know, since even now, your tender eyes cannot look upon by heinous attacks on your religion.

And, as the threads above show, Turnoviseous's 'refutations' were all batted out of the park by my good self.

If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain where my rebuttals went wrong?

And you have failed to say why you do not think that when metals are heated and they slowly grow softer and softer, changing from solid to liquid without a 'nodal' point anywhere in sight, that this is not a refutation of Engels's 'law'?

I have been posing this now for over a year, and you just ignore it.

I predict that you will continue to do so

And you might like to quote where I say what you say I say about water and ice.

The punkie-hippie movement has literally no successes.  All they do is get stoned, go to orgies, and annoy the public by vandalizing everything in sight.  Your anarchist allies have a tendency to become more right wing over time and end up embracing right-wing ideology.  In fact, I would argue that anarchism is not a proletarian movement, but rather, for the most part, a movement of disgruntled teenagers that think it is cool to vandalize things and scare their parents when they are escorted home by the police.  And you think that these hooligans are in a position to change society, particularly when they boast a track record of not a single success in 160+ years?  Anyone at this site knows that your revleft and allies from other anarcho and punkie-hippie sites are rabid sectarians with literally no links to the working class.  Anarchism's influence is nil.  Ultra leftism is a common blight, yet in spite of them numbering millions internationally, our "insignificant sect" has infinitely more influence than they ever will!  Your 13 year old allies have a tendency of getting older and no longer being disgruntled teenagers over time, you know. 

I am not sure what this has to do with anything I have ever posted, but if it helps to get it off your chest, what the h*ll.

However, back in the real world: Trotskyism has been around now for over 70 years, and there's not a single Trotskyist workers' state anywhere to boast about.

What we do have are hundreds and hundreds of bickering Trot sects (including yours and mine).

So: Dialectical Trotskyism -- refuted by history.

Nasty thing practice when it refutes your pet mystical theory, eh?

By ‘we’ you mean yourself.  What is with these anti-Marxist allies of yours?  Are you some kind of rabid opportunist? 

Well, big mouth, point me to a Trotskyist workers' state, and that will shut me up.

Yes, I am sure that the bourgeois movement has contributed so much to socialism! 

Once more, with your head so deep in the sand, you refuse to face reality.

That just means you will not be able to help change the world if you cannot bear to face it.

And after 160+ years of anarchism, what have your allies accomplished? Siding with the bourgeoisie (all your anarchist/punkie-hippie allies do is post anti-Bolshevik propaganda, originally put into circulation by the bourgeoisie!)?  Talk about clinging to failed ideas!  I seriously doubt that many of your allies even bother keeping up with current events, studying, etc. 

Why do you keep referring to anarchists? What does anarchism have to with anything I have ever said or defended?

I am an anti-anarchist, like I am an anti-Stalinist -- like you.

However, even if you were right in what you say, Dialectical Trotskyism is not a shining example of revolutionary success.

Unless, once more, you can point us to a Trotskyist workers' state somewhere (that we all seem to have missed somehow).

Ultra-leftism has also been around for a long time, longer than the Fourth International.  What has it accomplished?  Splits?  9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 "mass parties" parties of "Two men and a dog?"  An idealist world outlook that deals with the ought instead of the is? 

Why are you beginning to ramble, comrade?

How does this show that Dialectical Trotskyism is an international and long-term success?

Plainly, it does not. So, I can only think that you are trying to deflect attention from that unwelcome fact.

Well, that did not work did it?

I bet you try it again though.

You have been doing it now for over a year -- for an alleged believer in universal change, you do not alter at all, do you?

The more you stay the same, the more you prove my point: some things in nature do not change.

Bolshevism has achieved the October Revolution and the preservation and continuation of Marxism, even in the difficult times of the post-war boom.  It is still relevant to this day, and this is especially proven by the fact that the bourgeoisie spend countless (probably billions) dollars on making sure that every school textbook contains libel to scare people away from it!.  The bourgeoisie isn't scared of anarchism or ultra-leftism.  They don't even mention it, and for good reason: they aren't foolish enough to waste their money on something that poses absolutely no threat to the existence of their dictatorship. 

Once more, how does this show that Dialectical Trotskyism is a glorious success?

And, of course, the revolution failed.

So, Dialectical Leninism is not too hot either!

In fact, can you point to any major and permanent successes at all???

Once more -- dialectics: refuted by history.

I think this statement applies to your types.

Well, then -- you should be able to point me to a workers' state your group has set up??

Pointing to my party and saying it is a failure too is all to the good, for I accuse it of that too, and I blame the theory it accepts, and it is the same theory you lot accept.

Guess what?

It's called dialectics.

That is why I am trying to change things -- but you believers in change do not want to change.

Funny that....!

Do you really think that anyone will read what you say when your arguments break at such weak links.  I don't know who this stevensen at revleft is, but even he hammered this point through.

Well, since you cannot point to these 'weak links', and since your tender eyes cannot look upon my 'evil' work, this is just posturing.

And Stevensen is a Stalinist; I note once more you are happy to defend a supporter of Trotsky's murderers.

And, of course, Stevensen did not actually have a point, even though I told him this dozens of times.

Like you, he never could quite get around to saying what these 'weak links' were, but kept saying I had not addressed them

I gave up asking him after the gazillionth attempt; who wants to debate with a Stalinist on such things?

I'd rather tease a fellow trot like you.

So, once more: what 'weak links'?

It seems like you are here for no major reason.  Perhaps amusement at most.  Doesn't seem productive to me.

I am here to help your tendency shake off its unsuccessful past by ditching the theory that history has already refuted: dialectics.

I do not for one minute think I can wean you lot away from this dogma since you are wedded to it just like the religious are to faith in 'god': it provides you with consolation for the fact that Dialectical Marxism is such an abject failure, and it helps convince you that one day things will turn around (since appearances contradict underlying reality -- that is why you refuse to face up to the past 150 years of failure).

So, you lot never learn from your mistakes, you just blame everyone and everything else.

Hence, the cycle just repeats itself year on year, requiring another hit of dialectical dope to keep your spirits up....

And back in the sand goes the collective dialectical head.

Common knowledge is not completely hampered by restrictions, especially since even revlefters I don't really agree with have said that Cliffies are ardent Hezbollah supporters.

Now that is as accurate a description of our position as if I were to argue that your belief in the 'revolutionary defence' of degenerated workers' states makes you a supporter of Stalinism.

Shame on you!

And thanks for that 'proof I asked for, but it is no more convincing than Pat Taafe's rubbishing of Woods and Grant.

It is similarly based on half-truths, smears and outright lies.

But, it is nice to know you'll believe anything that supports a view you arrived at already. It's called prejudice.

For my part, I read both sides (as I have done in the Woods and Grant case) before making my mind up (and I rather think W&G were badly treated).

Did you do that?

I have also heard that Galloway has been seen marching with Islamic fundamentalists.

Hearsay is proof now is it?

I have heard Marx was a racist.

Do I believe it? No -- since there is no proof (and it is inconsistent with his internationalism).

But you would have to believe it if it has been 'heard'.

What a fine example of fairness you are!

I think you are the one that believes in rubbish.

No, did you not know: I gave up belief in dialectics years ago.

Too bad you have clung onto it, then, eh?

I think history will prove otherwise.

It already has; it has refuted dialectics (see above)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

About this time last year I published a 'Basic Introduction to Anti-Dialectics', aimed at those who found my longer Essays either too difficult or too long.

However, it soon became apparent that several comrades found that Essay itself too difficult.

Hence, today I aim to put that right, for I am publishing an "Anti-Dialectics For Dummies" Essay.

This is no put-down, but is, like other "XYZ For Dummies" books, geared toward those who find such rarefied topics none-too-easy.

It is less than 5000 words long, and is confined to very basic, down-to-earth ideas.

You can read it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm

[Volkov]

About this time last year I published a 'Basic Introduction to Anti-Dialectics', aimed at those who found my longer Essays either too difficult or too long.

However, it soon became apparent that several comrades found that Essay itself too difficult.

Hence, today I aim to put that right, for I am publishing an "Anti-Dialectics For Dummies" Essay.

This is no put-down, but is, like other "XYZ For Dummies" books, geared toward those who find such rarefied topics none-too-easy.

It is less than 5000 words long, and is confined to very basic, down-to-earth ideas.

You can read it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm

Anti-dialectics truly is for dummies! :p :p

Not to mention how you ignore things that refute you, like links that dig up dirt on the pro-life, fundie George Galloway. 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:

Not to mention how you ignore things that refute you, like links that dig up dirt on the pro-life, fundie George Galloway. 

What has Galloway got to do with the mystical theory you have unwisely swallowed?

You need to learn to stick to the point.

And still, 18 months since you were first asked, you cannot explain why there is no nodal point in melting metal, glass, plastic, toffee, butter and chocolate.

For one such as you, expert that you claim to be in dialobolical logic, this should be easy.

But, no still you prefer to prevaricate, distract and dissemble.

I am sorry to have to say this, but it is beginning to look like I have you stumped.

The only conclusion, therefore, is that Engels was mistaken.

Makes you wonder what else he got wrong...

[Wonder no more, it's all there in painful detail at my site -- along with Lenin's errors, Plekhanov's screw-ups, Hegel's howlers and Trotsky's clangers. To say nothing of Woods and Grant's LuLu's.]

[Volkov]

Axel/Volkov:

Not to mention how you ignore things that refute you, like links that dig up dirt on the pro-life, fundie George Galloway. 

What has Galloway got to do with the mystical theory you have unwisely swallowed?

You need to learn to stick to the point.

And still, 18 months since you were first asked, you cannot explain why there is no nodal point in melting metal, glass, plastic, toffee, butter and chocolate.

For one such as you, expert that you claim to be in dialobolical logic, this should be easy.

But, no still you prefer to prevaricate, distract and dissemble.

I am sorry to have to say this, but it is beginning to look like I have you stumped.

The only conclusion, therefore, is that Engels was mistaken.

Makes you wonder what else he got wrong...

[Wonder no more, it's all there in painful detail at my site -- along with Lenin's errors, Plekhanov's screw-ups, Hegel's howlers and Trotsky's clangers. To say nothing of Woods and Grant's LuLu's.]

The point on Galloway is proof of your evasiveness.

I also believe you have stated that there is a point when a quantitative change in temperature produces a qualitative change in chocolate, metal, and the like. I mean, you did say that they do change states at different temperatures, did you not?   So how can there not be any "nodal points?"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:

The point on Galloway is proof of your evasiveness

Since this thread is about dialectics, your reference to Galloway is more a reflection of your incapacity to stick to the point, than my 'evasiveness' -- and what am I supposed to be 'evading', for goodness sake?

I also believe you have stated that there is a point when a quantitative change in temperature produces a qualitative change in chocolate, metal, and the like. I mean, you did say that they do change states at different temperatures, did you not?   So how can there not be any "nodal points?"

Well, you explain to the good people here where these ellusive 'nodal points' are.

If these substances change slowly from solid to liquid, where are these mythical 'nodal points', then?

A node is supposed to indicate a rapid change; here the changes are slow.

It's no use you asking "how can there not be any nodal points?"; the natural course of events tells us there are none -- unlike the change from, say, liquid water to steam, or to ice, where the change is rapid.

And where have I said what you now say I have?

I mean, you did say that they do change states at different temperatures, did you not?

You are remarkably good at inventing things you think I have said, which you would like me to have said, but you always go suspiciously quiet when asked for the proof, or for the incriminating links.

That, I think, is what is known as 'evasiveness'. So, I can learn much from you, the expert.

Some things do change state at certain temperatures; this is undeniable. But, with plastic, glass and metal, this change of state is protracted, and occurs at no set temperature (but over a range of temperatures in each case). Once more: no 'nodes' anywhere in site.

Engels screwed up.

And not just here -- his entire 'philosophy' (dialectical, but not historical, materialism) is one big screw up.

Good job Marx did not agree with him on this.

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

Look , you two , I have been passively enjoying this debate but frustration is boiling over. ( I hope that isnt Dialectical!!)

Rosa, do you belong the the political organisation that supports /promotes George Galloway??

By political organisation I am reffering of course to the 'mystical' SWP/Respect organisation.

Just answer that and you and Volkov can debate further.