Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

That's because she's a sad sad insane pharisee Demog, quite insane. I'm just seeing her deliberately misrepresent Marx, while claiming to represent him. And then to personally attack someone like that? Wow. She really doesn't belong in the worker's movement. I was wondering why she called herself a Leninist, and not a Marxist, or even a Marxist Leninist. Now I understand. She's an authoritarian with a chip on her shoulder. She's removed whatever shred of sense can be found in Lenin and advances such garbage. Blech. SIMCP has the right idea as far as her insane self is concerned, let her ramble.

Thank you Demo!

Her 9,000 word piece is really just one extended personal attack. I will leave it to anyone who is interested (i don't see why anyone should be) to decide if this person has gone way off the deep end. If Rosa thought that any of my inferences about her views, or any of my attempts to try to characterize what she were saying, were wrong, really the easiest way to deal with this (and what I always do when people misinterpret what i say) is to simply and patiently clarify what her view is. I don't think that would have been very difficult. A lot easier, one would think, than writing an obsessive 9,000 word ad hominem. if she's not an empiricist, if she defends the method of hypothesis and test, or whatever, all she had to do was to make this clear. that should be no big deal, one would think.

she makes a big deal of the fact that i started posting on revleft.com at the time she posted here. actually i had tried to register on revleft.com some time in the past, when i found out that an old comrade and friend I'd known since the '70s was posting there under the moniker redstar2000, but it was down. from her references to it here, I merely inferred it was back up again, which I was unaware of. her presence on it was of little concern to me.

I gotta tell you gato, I'm sorry that this happened to you. She's got some issues, and she needs to resolve them herself. I think her attacking Hegel, Marx, and diamat is the least of her problems. 9,000 words? whew... that's crazy.

oh well. the world has its assortment of fruits and nuts. her response is bizarre because i wasn't abusive towards her at all in this thread. i try to avoid personalizing debates.

Fido is back, and barking mad:

Ah, you are an amateur psychologist, as well as a mystic, are you?

So, you admit there is no evidence; you mystics just like to make stuff up, and not just about me, but about Marx and his alleged adherence to Hegelian gobbledygook.

But, as if to prove me right, and in response to this from me:

[This was in reference to Marx’s comment, that a reviewer had summarised his “dialectic method” without a trace of Hegel anywhere in it.]

Fido woofs back:

You may be an expert “yup”-er, my fine fury friend, but you are not too good at processing complex arguments – or even a simple one like this – are you, Fido?

Let me walk you through it once more; if you won’t accept my word, perhaps you might accept Marx’s (although the signs are not good – you like to ignore anything that does not compute in that doggy brain of yours): Marx quoted a short review of his book, in which, according to him, that reviewer had summarised the “dialectic method”.

Now, you can search through that review, but you won’t find a trace of Hegel.

Even you admit that, later!

Now, that, according to Marx, is the rational core of Hegel’s method, i.e., with Hegel 100% removed. Indeed, Marx called his method the opposite of Hegel’s, and with 100% of that bumbler’s ideas excised, you can’t get more opposite than that.

And, as if to rub it in with you Hegel-freaks, Marx even went on to say that in Kapital, all you will find of that Hermetic and logical incompetent’s work are a few bits of jargon, with which Marx merely “coquetted”.

Pick a fight with him, not me!

But, we know you like to read stuff into passages, ideas that conform only to the mystical fog that clouds your canine brain (er…, sorry, empty skull).

So, insert what you like into Marx’s work -- you mystics have been doing that for well over 130 years, not noticing how unsuccessful the resulting Dialectical Mumbo Jumbo actually is, and not noticing that if Marx is right, and truth is tested in practice, your ‘theory’ has been falsified by history – it won’t change the above facts.

I then said this:

My refutation consisted in quoting Fido to the effect that all ideas come from the ruling class, and hence, because Daoists have ideas (although there is some doubt about that too), these must have come from the ruling-class.

Here is what Fido had originally said (before he realised he was dropping himself right in it:

Now, I admit that the serious damage done to Fido’s brain by the cocktail of mystical bo**ocks and Hegelian sub-literate logic he has downed over the years means that he will not be able to see that this refutes his claim that Daoist ideas do not come from the ruling class, but the rest of us will just have to be patient with one so afflicted until the penny drops.

But, it would help if someone would take him to one side, and slap some materialist good sense into him. [Ok, that might take several hours of sustained slapping, but I can live with that.]

Proof?

Well, just check out this irrelevant response from Fido:

Can anyone see how this is at all relevant to showing that my refutation of his earlier claims is in any way invalid. How does that show that if:

that Daoist ideas are not ruling-class ideas as I alleged pages ago?

Now Fido tries to wriggle out of the bind he is in by deflecting attention to my alleged incapacity to comprehend the class struggle, not realising that my point is in fact motivated by that struggle, and my endeavour to stay on the side of the working-class, and not roll over before ruling-class hacks to get his tummy tickled.

To that end, I pointed out that all of philosophy is ruling-class twaddle, and so are mystical ideas, like those found in Daoism. Fido denied this. He asserted the following:

[Bold emphasis added.]

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/thesis-antithesis-synthesis?page=6

Notice that, unlike Fido and Posey, I back up what I allege with evidence.

Impartial readers will now wait upon Fido to explain how “all ideas come from the ruling class”, while of Daoism “it may have been turned into a ruling class ideology of pacifism, but that's not what it started as.”

Fido now tries to argue, in contradiction to himself:

Under pressure, he has to admit that such ideas come from the ruling class (as I asserted earlier), which contradicts the following, as we have seen:

Of course, he now tries to use ‘dialectics’ in his bid to squirm out of this corner, claiming that:

Not only is the above not a contradiction (or if it is, Fido will need to explain how it is – I predict he will bottle that one too), impartial readers will be able to see in this why I reject the importation of this word (i.e., “contradiction”) from Hegelian mysticism into Marxism, since it allows numpties like Fido to ‘defend’ their own sloppy thinking (which is riddled with genuine contradictions), on the grounds that everything is contradictory anyway, so their thought can be too (a get-out-of-a-hole-free-card they preserve for their own exclusive use – no one else is allowed to use it!).

Just as I hope they will see that the comrades who argued that ‘dialectical contradictions’ are not formal ones, they relate to conflict and struggle, were mistaken in their view that mad dog dialecticians like Fido here, will use this word in just such a way (as a formal contradiction) to excuse their own contradictory pronouncements – in this case, the one that exists between Fido’s claim that Daoism was not originally a ruling class set of ideas with his claim that all ideas originate with the ruling class:

which contradicts this:

So, I was right to assert, pages ago, that this mystical set of ideas (in Daoism), just like those found in Hegel, did indeed originate with the ruling-class.

But, how does Fido handle my earlier argument, outlined above, but summarised in this passage he quoted from me?

Well, we get this:

However, these “others” are remarkably silent – but, what is the betting that they speak to Fido in his dreams – after all that is what mystics usually claim.

Once more, can anyone see in what Fido has posted anything that explains this serious contradiction in his claims?

That being so, I once more assert that Fido gets all his ideas from the ruling-class, including those found in Daoism.

Once more, good people, do not take my word for it, Fido admitted this himself:

But then he moans because I want to throw all this away, and start afresh.

Why? Well as I show at length in Essay Nine Part Two, mystics like Fido here cling on to this set of ideas because (as Marx argued) it provides them with some form of consolation – in this case for the fact that Dialectical Marxism has been such an abject and long-term failure – but in the fond belief that all will turn out well in the end, when the negation of the negation finally kicks in (this second negation being their equivalent of the second coming).

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

In short, Fido is a quasi-religious nut, a doggie dogmatist.

And, once more, as if to prove that evidence and Fido are total strangers, in response to my suggestion that he actually check his facts by consulting (Marxist scholar) Conner’s recent book he ignores this. Here is the full passage that Fido ‘edited’:

Fido now woofs back:

Bold “eh” added.

Which once again shows that Fido is super-glued (crazy-glued) to an a priori[/] view of reality, where facts are not allowed to ruin the mystical picture.

Check this out:

http://www.booknoise.net/sciencehistory/index.html

And read this:

December 18, 2005

'A People's History of Science,' by Clifford D. Conner

Proletarian Science

Review by JONATHAN WEINER

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18weiner.html?ei=5070&en=181a3a0eeb767fda&ex=1179979200&pagewanted=print

Or this:

http://www.mediamouse.org/reviews/062506_a_pe.php?print_page=1

Backed into a new corner, Fido gets another dose of selective blindness, as follows:

Originally I had alleged that the [i]Grundrisse was not published by Marx or Engels, and so cannot be used by dialectical mystics to argue that Marx was still indebted to Hegel when he wrote Kapital.

Now, I might be right, I might be wrong. But Fido responded (in his previous post to this one) to this allegation thus (as summarised in my last post):

Fine, if he now wants to change his mind.

But in doing so, he steps on another landmine, for if Engels did not know about this work, it cannot have been all that important to Marx!

He did not even tell his closest friend and confidant about it!!

Either way, Fido’s theory is blown apart.

Oh dear!

Now, in relation to this comment of mine:

Fido replied thus:

Fido might be right here, he might not.

But, once more, since Marx did not publish this work, nor did he direct anyone to it (in Kapital, that is), it cannot be used by the likes of Fido to show that Marx remained indebted to Hegel in his Kapital-writing period.

Especially as I went on to say this (omitted by Fido):

This is the rock against which all of Fido’s ideas crash.

No wonder he wants to read into these words of Marx whatever takes his fancy.

This can be seen from his response to this comment of mine:

namely:

Which is Fido-esque for “I can make up what I like, so there!”

Exhibit A for the prosecution; in reply to this comment of mine:

Fido responds:

How does he know Marx meant it the way Fido says he does?

Well, Fido has spoken, and his word is law.

In short, Fido can use the word “dialectical” as a magic wand; all he has to do is wave it about and any word can be made to say anything he likes.

And we already know Fido does not do evidence --, but now we can see why.

He does not need any! With this magic wand, he can magic anything into anything he desires.

[Someone tell him to magic himself a working brain, please!]

But, Rosa is not allowed to do this – oh, no: only the dialectical faithful are permitted this handy device.

Now, in response to my saying I had no philosophy, we get this gem:

And how does Fido know that “the denying of a philosophy is in itself a philosophy”?

He does not say, and we had better not ask – for he is a minor deity, with a magic wand.

He could do you real damage if you diss him….

But, back on planet earth, when one denies something, it does not (except to the alien visitors from Planet Fido) mean that one is admitting to the thing denied!

Now, in an earlier post we had this exchange:

How are we to read this denial, in the light of the wisdom pouring in from planet Fido, where the opposite of what you say is what you mean?

Well, applying this doggie-logic, it must mean that Fido, in denying that he lionises the ruling-class, is thereby admitting that this is indeed what he does: lionise the ruling-class.

How else are we to understand the odd use of denial on planet Fido?

So, whenever any of you, dear readers, deny you are supporters of capitalism, do not be surprised if this emissary from another world says of you that your denial merely confirms that you are a class traitor!

Once more, and here, we can see the deleterious effects of too much Hegel on the brain of this diminutive little poodle.

Now, I hope he denies this, since doggie-logic means that will merely confirm what I say.

Indeed, every time he now tries to deny something, no prizes for guessing what he is going to get thrown back in his doggie face.

But, in response to admitting that I am in good company, not knowing what the ‘dialectic’ is (as he sees it), since no one seems to understand it, what does Fido woof back?

Wonder no more, for it is this:

Notice: no attempt to respond.

So, after 200 years of no one knowing WTF Hegel was on about, may I suggest to the mystical-faithful who post here at LibCom not look to this alien being for assistance, for it is plain he is as much in the dark as anyone else is -- perhaps more so..

In response to this from yours truly (about the nature of ‘the dialectic’, as Marx saw it):

This canine from outer space ‘responds’:

Now, this is either a concession that we do not need an ounce (or even a picogram) of Hegel to understand Marx, or it is an admission that this point tool has sailed over his hairy head (and face).

And, once again, Fido’s reference to my alleged ‘elitism’ sits rather badly with his own lionising of the ruling-class, and his open adulation of that famous coal miner, Hegel.

Now, earlier, I alleged that only Fido was allowed to interpret words any way he wanted, but in reply to this comment of mine:

which comment was, it is worth recalling, based on Marx’s own description of that reviewer’s summary of his method (in which not an atom of Hegel is to be found) as “the dialectic method” (notice the definite article here, so it is not a version of it, but the version), Fido responds thus:

So, Fido is allowed to interpret things anyway he see fit (and defiance of Marx’s own depiction), whereas I am not allowed to do the same (even though I am in accord with Marx’s own depiction)!

And then, how does he substantiate this significant advance in the science of make-believe?

Like this:

So cogent, so lucid!

But, if our doggy friend is not even good at abuse, is he good for anything?

Perhaps not; maybe he is the good-for-nothing we suspected from page one onward?

Nevertheless, we can only thank him that, a score or so posts later, this fact is abundantly clear even to the malnourished fleas on his scraggy coat.

And now, it seems that this canine coward is wilting under Rosa’s incessant attacks, for he yelps this in obvious pain:

Bold “eh” added.

Now, Fido here began in his first post in response to me with abuse, invective and an abundant use of scatological language.

Unfortunately for him, in those far off days, he did not know what he was taking on, since, as Posey has since noted, I usually go for the jugular from the get-go; but, quite out of character, I was rather nice to him at first. When it became apparent to me what a plonker he is, and how unfair hew was --, and what a fifth-rate abuser he still is --, I decided his jugular looked far too tempting to resist any more. Since then, I have attacked him mercilessly. So he yelps.

In general, Dialectical Mystics like Fido to dish it out but they cannot take it in return.

What was that about every action prompts an equal and opposite reaction? Not in me it doesn’t. I go the extra ten yards.

I always give far worse that I get.

Why?

Well, I explained why at my site (referring to a section at there that records the many pages of Fido-esque abuse I have had to endure over the last 18 months on the internet from similar mystics, and of a superior quality to anything he can dole out):

However, even those who disagree with me will wonder at the following Fido-esque tautology:

He’ll be challenging me to refute the claim that all regicides are king-killers next!

But, what of this seemingly ‘substantive’ point:

And how does Fido know this? How does he know we can learn from “everything and everyone” (which, if correct, must, of course, include Nazis, madmen, George W Bush, toilet seats and dog fleas (these are part of everything, I believe)).
Then why can’t he learn from me?

But, let us not stop there; this does mean he can learn from me.

[And this will be yet another Fido-ism he will get thrown back in his hairy face.]

Excellent! In that case, and from now on, I expect him to agree with all I say, including this: “Fido, you are a very silly little doggie!”
But, will he learn from this?

I suspect not.

Odd though this might see, that is good news: for that fact alone refutes his claim that we can “everything and everyone”, which is fine by me.

If he can’t learn form me then he has refuted himself!

[Watch and learn, Fido, this is how to do polemic….]

Now, I had earlier complained that when Fido said this:

He was misrepresenting me.

How does he respond?

Wonder no more, for here is the latest crackly message from planet Fido:

So, whatever their alleged quality, Fido now admits I allow inferences.

Another retreat, then!

But, is this another example of the ‘dialectic’ method at work? Does it mean that those whose brains (or in Fido’s case, empty spaces between the ears) it colonises have to contradict themselves all the time?

Well, it seems it must if Fido is of their ilk, for he does it incessantly.

May I suggest, therefore, to the dialectical-mystical community that you take Fido in hand, and at least house train him, for he is intend on dropping steaming piles of doggie mess wherever he goes, which he then unhelpfully calls “materialist dialectics”.

If this is indeed “materialist dialectics” in action, may I then suggest its name be change to “materialist do-do’s”?

No wonder Marxism stinks in the nostrils of the international working class when comrades dump at will, and everywhere, like this.

And when, Fido woofs this:

he knows, for I have told him many times, what I actually deny are the inventive ‘inferences’ he wants to use, which, as we have seen above, allow him to make stuff up about Marx (or anything else that finds itself swilling around his doggy brain), and to refuse to post the supporting evidence -- but, when he demands the exact opposite of rational souls like my good self (in that he requires me to prove everything, and moans when he thinks I have invented something).

And, now we find a return to neurotic laughter (did he catch this from SIMCP, or was it the other way around?):

How he knows what Lenin meant, Fido kept to himself, but I suspect those voices in his head are back again.

So, no wonder I cannot ‘explain’ this word, or this word as Fido has processed it, for, unlike him, I do not hear ‘the voices’ that have caught the ear of this canine casuist.

[I have to say that it can only be hoped that these voices one day say to him: “under that bus, now”, and rid our movement of this doggy dreamer, and his frequent ‘droppings’.]

Now in response to this long comment of mine:

Fido replies (with his usual penetrating logic, skilful use of new and never before seen terms of abuse – and, of course, that doggy style we have come to know and loathe):

[Rosa]Rosa's an idiot. You're an empiricist if you use empirical methodology. Just like you're a racist if you use racist methodology, regardless of whether or not you believe you are. And, she forgets that she is using her methodololgy (sic) on this site within this polemic. She's as dumb as they come.

Notice how he merely asserts I use empiricist “methodololgy” (which, I venture to suggest he cannot describe for us – he certainly cannot spell it!), but, like Posey (by the way, is Poesy Fido’s trainer?? That will explain the shared tactic of invention. I’d suggest they were sock puppets, but hat would be an insult to socks.), he cannot actually quote an example – you can bet he would have done so if there were one to quote.

Posey has spent countless hours over the last week or so, having been reduced to trawling through my Essays in order to find an atom of proof for his wild allegations (no luck so far; I suspect, even now, he is ransacking my dustbin, and rummaging through my smalls! He wears them with such style, though!) – Fido skips even that lunatic phase(!). He never bothers to check.

Is it against the religion around here to produce evidence for one’s assertions – or can I start making stuff up, too?

Ok, here goes: Posey is mad at me ever since I refused him a **** ***.

You can fill in the blanks yourself.

“Evidence!” -- you say??!!

You must be a “pedant” and an “egotist” to boot, to demand such things on the web!

Ask Posey – he promulgated that eternal verity himself (it’s called naturalised piss taking…).

But, now we get this Fido-ism:

But, if you are going to call someone a “racist”, you are going to need evidence.

On planet Fido, though, I suspect you do not, but on earth, you do. Us humans are rather picky that way.

And I have tried to tell him, but it is all too much for this canine chump.

So, where is Fido’s evidence I am an empiricist?

For uncommitted readers of this post, if such it finds, I suggest you do not hold your breath waiting for an answer to that one, since Fido here thinks us human beings do things as they are done in his whacky world back home: make allegations and then act surprised when proof is required – and, then to cap it all, deny any proof is required.

Posey would call it “inference to the most convenient explanation”.

Indeed, he has perfected this art form.

Now, a while back, Fido argued thus:

To which I responded:

Fido then came back with this sharp riposte:

To which I replied:

How did Fido handle this dose of reality; did it disturb his doggie daydreams?

Are you kidding!?

This Hydra cannot be tamed by lopping it’s heads off. That just strengthens it even more.

Here is his devastating reply (put your safely helmets on, comrades, this is explosive, if badly-typed, stuff[/]):

Yes, I know! This completely wipes the floor with me.

One small niggle: when have the working class [i]ever used Hegel, or even upside-down-Hegel? Or Hegelian ‘logic’ to “smash the bourgeoisie”?

And yet, they will use the internet (as we are now doing), and mobile phones, which work thanks to formal logic (and the latter does this without ‘representing’ the world), if ever they do rise up.

One thing they won’t be using is the whacky ‘logic’ found in Hegel.

How do I know?

Well, they already use the internet and mobile phones to plan strikes and demonstrations.

But, have you ever heard (has anyone ever heard) a single one discourse (in the heat of struggle) about “un-becoming”, and the rest of that dog’s boll*cks?

If so, you were drunk.

And, of course, we know they never will, since not even its most avid fans can explain it to us, or even to one another.

So, they stand no chance of explaining to workers.

And, you can just imagine the response from the massed ranks of the working class when this good little doggie, Fido the Fearless, turns up, just when they are ready to “smash the bourgeoisie”, and he woofs at them these immortal words:

They will surely hoist him onto their shoulders, and proclaim this poodle top dog, hero of the revolution, master of all the gobbledygook he surveys….

In your dreams!

So, let’s here no more about the ‘superiority’ of diabolical ‘logic’.

[If we do, those so foolish as to try to tell us of it will, of course, need to access the superiority of formal logic (in their computers) to communicate such follies to us over the internet.

“Diabolical logic is superior, but we need formal logic to tell you so!”

A nice dialectical inversion, if ever there was one.]

And in reply to this post of mine:

Fido “yups” back:

Instead of explaining the term (which, to this day remains unexplained), Fido merely snarls back at me.

In that case, we are left to conclude that Fido here thinks that leaves do indeed argue with trees, and like in the song, the trees “whisper back”.

Now UK Prince Charles used to talk to his plants, since, dolt that he is, and member of the ruling class that he also is, he holds dotty ideas like this. Fido, apparently agrees with him.

Is this the source of the voices Fido hears? Do his plants talk to him because of all the Dialectical Manure he heaps on them, mostly from his rear end?

Perhaps so?

And now, dear, long-suffering reader, you can see why I said I was in good company, for Fido here does not seem able to explain ‘dialectics’ to us, as I alleged all those pages ago.

Now, if he’d have been an honest little poodle, and admitted this from the start, he could have saved himself this prolonged public humiliation.

However, in response to this from me (but he failed to note the trap warned him about):

Fido leaps in, hairy paws first:

We’ll put to one side for now the fatal qualification Fido introduced into his ‘argument’ when he concedes that communism does not actually exist in the here and now, but merely somehow “exists as potential”, to ask where this potential actually came from?

It cannot have come from capitalism (its opposite) since capitalism can only change because of its own opposite (namely – communism!) -- unless this potential being existed before it existed!

So, this potential being must have popped into existence from nowhere, or it was always there (was it in the Big Bang – or whatever began the whole show?).

And that is why I posted this general objection to this non-theory of change of his (which seems to have sailed right over Fido’s canine cranium):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

So, capitalism cannot change into communism as we had been led to believe, since the latter must already exist to cause that very change.

But, then what created this already existent (even potential) communism?

That could only have been capitalism.

But capitalism can only change because of an already existent opposite, which means, once more that communism must exist before it exists!

Fido missed all this in his doggie desire to rescue his ‘theory’ from the knackers yard, or his knackers from the vets….

What is the betting he misses it again?

And exactly what is this “potential” version of communism doing here anyway?

It is no use to man nor dog nor dog flea.

Capitalism, so we are told, will change into communism, but capitalism can only change because of an already existing opposite.

But this means, given Fido’s dog’s dinner of a ‘theory’, that capitalism will change into merely a potential version of communism, not into communism itself!

This is because, Fido tells us that communism only exists now in this form only:

In that case, capitalism must change, but not into communism as such (an economic system run by workers (as us Marxists believe) but into a mere “potential” (Fido’s exact words), or into something that exists only “in sensual human relations”, etc.

Since capitalism can only change into its opposite, and that opposite only now exists as a “potential”, we are forced to conclude that capitalism will change into just such a “potential”.

Try selling that to workers: “Forget worker’s power, down-trodden masses! Your fight is for a ‘potential’, for something that exists only in ‘sensual human relations’…!”

“Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your lack of ‘potential’…!”

“There is a ‘potential’ spectre haunting Europe…!”

Not grabbers, I think you will agree.

No wonder Dialectical Marxism has been such a long-term failure if this is what you non-Marists have been trying to sell them since 1850.

And it is no use saying this “potential” will change too, for if it is to change, then its opposite must also exist now, or, according to this ‘theory’, it cannot change.

So, if the opposite of “potential” communism is actual communism (i.e., workers’ power), then that opposite must exist now.

On the other hand, if it does not exist now, where could it possibly come from?

Why only from its own opposite, too (according to this Fido-fantastic ‘theory’), which is “potential” communism (or whatever).

But the latter can only change, too, because of its opposite, which must exist now, so how can that opposite be produced by “potential” communism?

This is the trap Fido happily leaped into.

Let’s sit back and watch him squirm.

More likely, however, he will throw another weak term of abuse at me, and ignore the problem.

He may, therefore, be the first doggie in history that likes to put its head in the sand.

Now, in reply to this taunt:

Fido snapped back:

But then it can’t be a classless society.

That is, “classless” -- as in no classes, including ruling-classes

Get it?

No, I didn’t think you would.

I then asked this:

And this doggie dingbat replied:

Fido does not explain how it is possible for anyone to rule over themselves, unless of course, he thinks that this future society comprises only of schizophrenics.

[I only ask: but, is that the source of his own ‘voices’?]

And this sentence needs preserving for posterity as a warning to children of what a diet of melted Hegel on Taost (deliberate misspelling!) can do for the human intellect:

Perhaps this sentence has the “potential” to become a comprehensible sentence one day? I will, however, leave that to the professionals to decide --, once they have cured Fido of his ‘inner voices’.

Even so, I asked Fido this question:

And Fido very helpfully corrected me:

But wait! My question was in response to this from our very own canine correspondent:

So, this “basic” Marxist idea cannot be found in Marx.

In that case, Fido was being ironic.

But, where in “basic Marxism” is this idea to be found?

I’d ask for a reference or two from Fido to show that this is indeed “basic Marxism”, as he says -- you know, the basic sort of stuff we use to agitate and organise workers --, but he tends to ignore such direct requests for proof.

I think that is because proof is only required of me!

So can someone else contact the dog pound where he has been put, and get his keepers to pose this request to him?

[Or is he in quarantine? I was only joking when I called him a “Mad Dog Dialectician”! Honest!]

Whatever; just ask him for a quote from one[/] of the Marxist classics that shows that this term is “basic Marxism” (as we are assured it is by this inventive canine) and not, as cynics might claim, just the product of a trendy modern fad (derived perhaps from one of the social sciences, or from Saussure, and other non-Marxists).

Just to shut these cynics up, you understand.

However, do not expect an answer!

And if you persist, you will stand in real danger of being accused of “not understanding dialectics” (which is a Fido-ism for, “Stop questioning me! I have enough in my bowl with Rosa here!”).

Now this internationally-acclaimed, and unquestionably brave little poodle has very helpfully reminded us of his awesome powers -- a post or so ago.

Here it is again, if these historic words passed you by unnoticed ([i]shame on you!):

Now, dog help me, I try as best as I can to keep up with current affairs, but to my eternal shame, I cannot personally recall whether many (or any) states have been “smashed” recently.

Perhaps you can.

But, what did I do? I foolishly turned to our doggie dogmatist for help, and with these words:

And what does this modern day Blanqui do? He blanked me:

Bold “eh” added.

But Fidqui (or is it Blanqo?) said he smashed states (plural), and yet he now acts all shy when asked which ones he has “smashed” (as if he were ashamed of these historic blows against the boss class):

Correct me if I am wrong, but if someone says they do something (of historic importance), it is only reasonable to ask for a few examples (even if only to tell the grandchildren).

So, far from not understanding my own “retort”, I am still in the dark as to which states Fido “smashes”.

But, our very own Fido Canine Castro is being coy, This hero of the working class, this doggie desperado, will not tell us.

I refuse to believe the slanders of those who say he made this up….

So, perhaps he means he did all this “smashing” this ‘dialectically’?

Which, apparently, means it did not happen (since fun boy Fido tells us that everything means its opposite).

So, it could indeed mean absolutely anything! Even its ‘opposite’ -- as in “I consolidate states”, or maybe even “I smash communes”! – who can say what goes on, on planet Fido, or in his canine cranium?

But no --, we get a clue in this comment of his:

That seems to mean he has smashed his own state!

And then, this implies (see, I use implications too!) he has moved on to others (note the plural here: “states”).

Well, since our canine communist, our mongrel militant, won’t tell us, can anyone else say which states Fido has finished?

Or, are these “smashed” states only to be found on his home planet: which exists a long way off, slap bang in the middle of cloud nine (or is that cloud canine?).

So, proletarian here Fido it seems has paws of clay, This is no Blanqui, it is Bozo, the fabulist. This is no Malatesta the communist, it is Maladroit the confused.

But, what is this now:

He’s “smashing” more states I’ll warrant.

Well, at least a few plates….

Posey:

I refer the honourable, but now whimpering, monomaniac to my previous response to him.

JoKe:

Yes, good, isn't it?

Demogorgon:

No, I came here not for clarity, but to advertise my site, and give you mystics a hard time (you have had things far too easy for too long).

To do all that, one has to become the centre of attention, and bozo's that you all are, you fell for it.

This is the most used thread in the history of this section at LibCom, if I am not mistaken.

None of you can resist having a dig at me, and then you moan when you get far worse back in return.

You clearly like your women to lie back and think of being screwed.

Big strong guys. eh?

Champions of the working class, eh?

You can't even handle little old me.

The ruling class has not much to fear from you clowns, I suspsect.

[And, the traffic at my site has increased markedly over the last month -- so thanks to you numpties for playing along (inadvertently)!]

So sue me.

What a load of whimps you are!

However, what you say would have a microgram of truth to it if Posey here had an ounce of evidence to back up what he says.

But, he hasn't, so I think I am allowed to make an 'inference to the best explanation' of my own for his stalking.

And if you do not like that, I care not a rat's ass.

In fact, a rat's ass would be gold and diamonds in comparison to how much I care.

Demogorgon:

No, I came here not for clarity, but to advertise my site, and give you mystics a hard time (you have had things far too easy for too long).

To do all that, one has to become the centre of attention, and bozo's that you all are, you fell for it.

This is the most used thread in the history of this section at LibCom, if I am not mistaken.

None of you can resist having a dig at me, and then you moan when you get far worse back in return.

You clearly like your women to lie back and think of being screwed.

Big strong guys. eh?

Champions of the working class, eh?

You can't even handle little old me.

The ruling class has not much to fear from you clowns, I suspect.

[And, the traffic at my site has increased markedly over the last month -- so thanks to you numpties for playing along (inadvertently)!]

So sue me.

What a load of wimps you are!

However, what you say would have a microgram of truth to it if Posey here had an ounce of evidence to back up what he says.

But, he hasn't, so I think I am allowed to make an 'inference to the best explanation' of my own for his stalking.

And if you do not like that, I care not a rat's ass.

In fact, a rat's ass would be gold and diamonds in comparison to how much I care.

Demogorgon:

No, I came here not for clarity, but to advertise my site, and give you mystics a hard time (you have had things far too easy for too long).

To do all that, one has to become the centre of attention, and bozo's that you all are, you fell for it.

This is the most used thread in the history of this section at LibCom, if I am not mistaken.

None of you can resist having a dig at me, and then you moan when you get far worse back in return.

You clearly like your women to lie back and think of being screwed.

Big strong guys. eh?

Champions of the working class, eh?

You can't even handle little old me.

The ruling class has not much to fear from you clowns, I suspect.

[And, the traffic at my site has increased markedly over the last month -- so thanks to you numpties for playing along (inadvertently)!]

So sue me.

What a load of wimps you are!

However, what you say would have a microgram of truth to it if Posey here had an ounce of evidence to back up what he says.

But, he hasn't, so I think I am allowed to make an 'inference to the best explanation' of my own for his stalking.

And if you do not like that, I care not a rat's ass.

In fact, a rat's ass would be gold and diamonds in comparison to how much I care.
Demogorgon:

No, I came here not for clarity, but to advertise my site, and give you mystics a hard time (you have had things far too easy for too long).

To do all that, one has to become the centre of attention, and bozo's that you all are, you fell for it.

This is the most used thread in the history of this section at LibCom, if I am not mistaken.

None of you can resist having a dig at me, and then you moan when you get far worse back in return.

You clearly like your women to lie back and think of being screwed.

Big strong guys. eh?

Champions of the working class, eh?

You can't even handle little old me.

The ruling class has not much to fear from you clowns, I suspect.

[And, the traffic at my site has increased markedly over the last month -- so thanks to you numpties for playing along (inadvertently)!]

So sue me.

What a load of wimps you are!

However, what you say would have a microgram of truth to it if Posey here had an ounce of evidence to back up what he says.

But, he hasn't, so I think I am allowed to make an 'inference to the best explanation' of my own for his stalking.

And if you do not like that, I care not a rat's ass.

In fact, a rat's ass would be gold and diamonds in comparison to how much I care.

what a startlingly unpleasant, delusional, obsessional character you are. Of course you don't have the right to 'infer to the best explanation' - your (literally) pathetic use of your sex as a weapon (as if anyone cares a damn that you're a woman) is the final straw as far as I'm concerned, rounding off tens of bizarre, repetitive, interminable postings which display not the slightest modicum of wit, insight or grace. Anyone who has the time to write the amount you do on here... still, whatever lets you reproduce your sense of self-worth, I guess. I suggest everyone else stop feeding this pathetic troll - let her have her (Pyrrhic) victory - I'm sure she'll gloat at length on her site - but this ludicrous farce - this hideous discursive trainwreck - has gone on long enough.

what a startlingly unpleasant, delusional, obsessional character you are. Of course you don't have the right to 'infer to the best explanation' - your (literally) pathetic use of your sex as a weapon (as if anyone cares a damn that you're a woman) is the final straw as far as I'm concerned, rounding off tens of bizarre, repetitive, interminable postings which display not the slightest modicum of wit, insight or grace. Anyone who has the time to write the amount you do on here... still, whatever lets you reproduce your sense of self-worth, I guess. I suggest everyone else stop feeding this ludicrous troll - let her have her (Pyrrhic) victory - I'm sure she'll gloat at length on her site - but this ludicrous farce - this hideous discursive trainwreck - has gone on long enough.

I agree si, totally.

This gem is enough for me:

As the basic principle of Anarchism is to teach people to rule over themselves. She's a statist. The rest of her long drawn out post is a study in narcisistic self-gratification and a complete lack of analysis.

I'm done with this psycho. She's the type that uses her sex as a weapon, yet pushes an elitist view of the whole world.

Done.

I tried to post a few extra comments last night, and this morning, but this page flagged up the message that this thread was closed.

Anyway, far be it from me to interrupt this collective therapy session you are all engaged on, a sort of mystics hug-in and wound-licking exercise; I will leave you with this farewell link, so you can see for yourselves what I tried to post earlier:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/libcom_circles_the_wagons.htm

Back again one day soon, to disturb your dogmatic slumber even more...!

[Thanks to one and all for making me the centre of attention for a few weeks, and attracting a huge increase in traffic to my site -- remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity! Hence my many 'antics'. ]