Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

342 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 5 2007 18:23

revol68:

Quote:
just how could I have explained it without using more words?

I do believe the boy has got the point at last!!

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 5 2007 19:03

RosaL essentially concedes her defeat. she refuses to debate me beause she can't answer my arguments.

t.

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 5 2007 19:37

revol: "that words only link to other words? Oh soo radical."

that's called linguistic idealism. but, hey, it's a philosophical theory, so
Rosa shouldn't accept it. and hard to see how it squares with Marx's materialism.

t.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 5 2007 20:01

revol68:

Quote:
that words only link to other words? Oh soo radical.

Oh dear, I was wrong; he still hasn't twigged!

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 5 2007 20:03

Gator:

Quote:
RosaL essentially concedes her defeat. she refuses to debate me beause she can't answer my arguments.

I refer the honourable fibber to my previous reply.

Exhibit A for the prosecution:

Quote:
that's called linguistic idealism. but, hey, it's a philosophical theory, so
Rosa shouldn't accept it. and hard to see how it squares with Marx's materialism.

babeuf
Offline
Joined: 2-04-07
Apr 5 2007 20:20
WangWei wrote:
Let's go back to white haired sammy. Suppose I say, Sam has black hair and point to Sam. You go, no, that's not the Sam I mean, I meant that Sam, and point to white haired sam. So, going back to your little tautology, Sam has white hair. I point out a black haired sam, and you say nope. Is the sentence "Sam has black hair" false? Yes and no. Ah, we're not getting to see the beauty of the dialectic.

Mellow my man ... far out ... Lennon said it even better:

Quote:
I am he as you are he as you are me
and we are all together ...
I am the eggman
they are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Goo goo g' joob

It's not that Rosa's bourgeois - she just ain't been through the doors of perception.

babeuf
Offline
Joined: 2-04-07
Apr 5 2007 20:50
revol68 wrote:
Would you do me the favour and explain it to me?

Don't worry, you'll find the answer here

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 5 2007 20:56

if revol can read catalan.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 5 2007 21:20

revol68:

Quote:
i must admit i'm having difficulty grasping your ohh so subtle point?

Would you do me the favour and explain it to me?

p.s. if you don't want to use words you could always draw me a diagram.

According to you, a page or so ago, I wasn't worth arguing with (and you used a few fruity phrases from Gator's book of superscientific jargon to describe me), but here, look at you, hanging on my every word...er diagram.

If you can't work it out for yourself get back to me in one year's time, and I'll put you off for another year.

Deal?

[If you have such a low opinion of me, why should I be bothered to do anything other than take the piss?]

babeuf
Offline
Joined: 2-04-07
Apr 5 2007 21:21
gatorojinegro wrote:
if revol can read catalan.

Ai! No m'he adonat que això sigui un problema. Quina llàstima!

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Apr 11 2007 17:29
Quote:
there are material advantages that white males have

These material advantages arecontingent upon and reinforce the greater social relationship of capital.

Quote:
There is no way that a class struggle politics can ignore the severe consequences of structural racism.

Structural racism is bricks in the overall structure of capitalist social relations. It is interwoven and a part of the capitalist system.

Quote:
. You can't explain why the majority labor federation in the USA has not accepted any sort of anti-captialist perspective

Yes, it's because Unions are now in cahoots with the capitalist bosses, and so must recreate and restablish the social relationship of capitalism. It's pretty simple, the unions exist relative to the needs of US capital to keep labor in line. Much like the Labor Federation of Nazi Germany. Are you implying that Unions are inherently revolutionary and fully support the worker's needs?

Quote:
The Black Panther Party had various problems but it wasn't racist.

It was, and it is. They were pretty blatant about their racism. Have you read Seize the Time, Bobby Seale is pretty adamnant about race there.

Quote:
It rejected black nationalism

Provide proof please, as far as I know, they embraced a version of third world Maoism with a hint of Bakunin's Catechism of a Revolutionary. They also were specific in some idea that the lumpenproletariat was the vanguard, and so tried to unite the gangs to fight the capitalist system. Many on the American Left have this unusual perspective on gangs.

Quote:
It's lack of an orientation to workplace organizing reflected the fact that a very large part of the black working class has suffered from extreme structural unemployment.

I fully agree that racism fuels capitalism to over a trillion dollars in profits a year, based upon structural inequality. The fight against racism is the primary struggle that we should be waging under capitalism. What I'm saying is that only multi-racial unity against the system of capitalism and with the goal of eliminating even the concept of race will destroy racism forever. We need to unite on class lines, not race lines. The black bourgeoisie and politicians like Obama and his ilk will not emancipate the working class, but the black working class is definately key to revolution in the USA.

Quote:
And Hegel of course was a coal miner, was he?

But if you prefer to listen to a petty-bourgeois logical incompetent and arch mystic like Hegel, that's your problem.

Nice try at obfuscating the argument. It's nice to see that you can name call, as I can tell that you don't know fuck all about the dialectic method.

Quote:
Not so; it would only 'mean' what you say if propositions used to assert that this person was white contradicted those that could be used to assert the other things you say. The questions is, do they?

No, what I'm saying is both his "whiteness" and lack of "blackness" are just as important to who he is. I can tell you aren't following shit. Keep on, you're doing fine.

Quote:
You are relying on the vagueness of language to make a banal observation

So says the semantic addict! You amuse me. Just because you can't follow it, doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that the language is vague, it just means your brain's a bit "vagehish"

Quote:
I am in fact a working-class woman, who holds down a full-time job, and who is a union representative (unpaid). Before that, I went back into college, paid for it myself, and got an excellent education in Philosophy, Logic and Mathematics -- which expertise I will now use to reduce this sub-Aristotelian theory of yours to dust.

Ignoramuses like you are no use to Marxism, or to my class.

So pin a medal on your left breast! My charge that you're elitist is actually reinforced here as you're trying to trade in your sackloth like a currency. So, you're not just elitist, you're also seeking accolades.

Quote:
1) Not even Marx claimed this for his own work.

Uhm, no. Have you even read Marx? Marx was specific that the logic helped to formulate his ideas, and that an understanding of the logic will help to understand his work. He wrote "Surplus Value" and Capital to be read without the use of dialectics, but even a rudimentary understanding of the dialectic clearly illustrates the dialectical underpinnings of his works.

1.) if you even knew the dialectic, then you wouldn't be so hostile to it.
2.) if you understood Marx, you wouldn't be so hostile to the dialectic.
3.) you mustn't know Marx nor the dialectic since you're hostile to the dialectic (Just trying out your logic for a change! You know, make shit up and slap it together to see if it sticks!)

Quote:
he noted in Capital that he had merely 'coquetted' with a few bits of Hegelian jargon (and only in one chapter of that great book) -- his words, not mine.

May I suggest reading some Piaget so that you can learn the difference between words and ideas. Marx negated Hegel's language, but advanced the theory of Hegel in a new form after seting it upon its head. He did not chuck the baby with the bathwater, like you believe he did. You're just espousing your ignorance of Marx.

Quote:
Lenin himself admitted there were passages in Hegel's 'Logic' he did not understand -- so that must mean that he did not understand Capital, either:

You're not too bright are you? not understanding a part, doesn't negate not understanding the general whole. I don't have to know what every word means in the English language, it's entirety of grammar, nor it's whole of syntax in order for me to write and speak English -- or even teach it for that matter.

You're an abosolutist, atomist, and empiricist. Your logic is as full of shit as your head is full of concrete.

Quote:
Notice that Lenin did not refer to just 99.9% of Hegel's Logic, but the "whole" of it.

If you knew dialectics then you would know what he meant, so I'm just going to chuckle and put out the two categories: infinite and finite and general vs. specific. If you need me to explain them, then I will.

Quote:
And your exasperation at not being able to justify your faith in this Hermetic religion is shown by the fact that you have to use scatological language to abuse me.

I don't have to, but it's fun.

Quote:
He chose not to publish the Grundrisse,

Unless you know the dialogue that he had with Engels about the Grundrisse and Capital, please refrain from making such erroneus assertions. I'll explain it if you'd like.

Quote:
based on his actual words

And, clearly, you don't know what the ideas under those words are.

Quote:
Dialectical Marxism has.

If truth is tested in practice, then dialectics has been refuted by history.

Not really good with the fact that Lenin and Marx are different people and that there are some real problems with Leninism. Why don't you learn the difference between the two if you're going to make a holy crusade against them?

Quote:
But he used more words to do that, as you just did.

Okay. I'm sure that thism makes sense to you, the semanticist. blech.

Quote:
p.s. if you don't want to use words you could always draw me a diagram.

Or place an interpretive dance on yootube!

and that Babeuf just put up a link to somethin in Catalan to explain a point! These two are like cast offs from some theatre of the absurd. Honestly, you two are fuckin' wit' us right? You're both not serious right?

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 11 2007 18:03

me: "there are material advantages that white males have"

Wangwei:

"These material advantages arecontingent upon and reinforce the greater social relationship of capital. "

And the social relationship of capital is contingent on racial and gender divisions and other divisions within the working class to continue. The depenency flows in both directions, not one direction as you seem to think.

And racism wasn't a capitalist invention, tho it makes systematic use of it. Aristotle's argument that it was okay to enslave non-Greeks was a form of racist argument.

me: "There is no way that a class struggle politics can ignore the severe consequences of structural racism. "

Wangwei:

"Structural racism is bricks in the overall structure of capitalist social relations. It is interwoven and a part of the capitalist system."

And because race and gender inequality are real, there will be and are struggles against them, which are not reducible to class struggle. The concerns of those adversely affected by these forms of oppression need to be integrated into a class movement for it to have the unity to challenge the dominating classes. But this precisely cannot be done if one insists that only class-wide demands or aims are acceptable and that race- or gender-specific demands are not.

me: "You can't explain why the majority labor federation in the USA has not accepted any sort of anti-captialist perspective"

Wangwei: "Yes, it's because Unions are now in cahoots with the capitalist bosses, and so must recreate and restablish the social relationship of capitalism. It's pretty simple, the unions exist relative to the needs of US capital to keep labor in line. Much like the Labor Federation of Nazi Germany. Are you implying that Unions are inherently revolutionary and fully support the worker's needs?""

You've not provided an explanation but merely re-described the facts in your ultra-left ideology. European union federations are also bureaucratized and entrenched in deal-making with the capitalists, but -- and this is my point -- the majority labor federation in the USA since the 1880s has NEVER accepted even nominally any socialist or anti-capitalist politics. Accepting an anti-capitaliist political view does NOT ensure that a union will not become bureaucratized and end up holding back worker struggle due to its own bureaucratic interests. The European and American unions both do this but American unionism has historically been more sectoralist, hierarchical and conservative than its European counterparts.

The reason, I suggest, is lower class consiousness in the USA, and racism has a great deal to do with this. In the 1880s when the Knights of Labor was smashed and the AFL grew up in its ashes to replace it, the craftist leaders of the AFL were explicit in rejecting the class wide solidarity strateyg that had been the hallmark of the Knights. They believed that any such strategy in the USA was hopelessly unrealistic due to racial division and racism, which they simply capitulated to, basing their strategy on organizing elite groups of white male skilled males, to use their leverage for their own advantage, rather than for the common advantage as was the strategy of the Knights. This sectoralist conception of unionism also meant they were willing to accept continued existence of capitalism and refused to see any fundamental contradiction between labor and capital. A key reason for all of this was the racial and ethnic divisions in the working class in the USA. This also has something to with why the AFL and CIO did not actively pursue a national health care system after WWII but opted for private welfare states based on privileged market leverage of organized workers. Pursuing a society wide health care system would have assumed a vision of solidarity of all working people, including black people.

t.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Apr 11 2007 20:15

t. I'm trying to place my finger on exactly where our disagreement lies. So, if you will, can we move this discussion to a new thread?

I think what we're debating is a reform vs. revolution argument.

I am not opposed to oppressed groups fighting against oppression, so long as there is a class analysis involved. I do not mean an analysis of class, but a class analysis.

So, when blacks in Harlem organize themselves to stop a health clinic from closing, that's great, if they use a church and Jesus, hell that's great too. I would then like to see that struggle joined with the immigrant bullshit happening with the Minutemen (ultra-right fascists in the USA), because both struggles are intrinsically linked to the ruling class' needs to further their imperialist war in Iraq.

The specific form of the struggle must be widened along class lines, so that the content retains a potential revolutionary contradiction.

I've usually ascribed the lack of class consciousness, especially in Unions, in the USA to both racism and organized crime. A vast amount of gangs seperates the urban black proletariat and the organized crime syndicals have their tentacles throughout the unions. Racism is the achiles heal of capitalism, and a multiracial unity is needed to smash the state.

This is my position, please allow me to voice what I believe is yours, and correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that your seeing class as a secondary aspect, and not the primary aspect, and that specific groups predicated upon artificial social constructs, will recreate those social constructs as they can only exist relative to the existence of those groups. A specifically black group can only exist so long as there is black, and therefore needs to preserve the systemic identity of black. The struggle for a classless society without even the concept of race requires us to unite in opposition to the pre-existing social constructs and tear all of them down -- this I consider anarchism.

I see you putting too much emphasis on the reform, and not enough on the revolution.

As far as race, it did not exist in the specific form particular to capitalism until the specific mode of capitalist production became the primary mode of social production. "Race" was much more fluid. "The fear of otherness", the basic ideology of the state, was intensified and codified particular to the needs of the ruling class. I mean, orient could have meant black, could have meant arab, and other racial terms. Even the term race is now being challenged, as Latino and South East Asians challenge it.

I don't like mixing racism with other forms of bigotry, as there are many other forms of bigotry that exist apart from race eg caste, height, piercings, sexual orientation etc.

Those that are closest to those that have the ways and means of production glean a prestige factor, but the prestige factor is predicated upon those that have the ways and means of production. The most powerful centre of the ways and means of production are in Western Europe and the USA and those that make the standard are generally White Males. That concentration of power and privelege is maintained by the capitalists since they have the state power in their hands, and control the minds of the masses at this stage of the social revolution.

Where are we in disagreement?

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 12 2007 00:10

i don't think we were talking about reform vs revolution. Revolution is only possible with the mass movement, organizational strength and self-confidence built through the struggles for changes that are less than total. Reform vs revolution is a false dichotomy. I'm not saying you were making it. I don't see racism as just bigotry but also even unconscious patterns of advantage, like who has access to jobs. I agree that the class struggle is central and do not reject that, but believe that there are a whole variety of areas of struggle that all important. Race struggles can also be class struggles. Consider the fight of black and latin construction workers in New York in the '70s and '80s thru the "Coalitions" to gain access to jobs. I would say that the class organizations need to embrace all the concerns of workers, a worker's whole life, as difficult as that may be. Not necessarily everything all at once. The working class must eventually be able to put forward an alternative on all the various problems.

The corruption of American unions derives from their lack of class consciousness, combined with the intrangigence of American employers and their willingness to engage in violent and unlawful activity. This led powerless craft unions in the early 1900s to fight back with "terrorist" methods like bombings, and then this led to hiring thugs outright to bomb or beat employers. The thugs saw a juicy opportunity by taking over the union, gaining access to things like pension funds to be a piggy bank for the mob, and to intimidate the unions on behalf of small businesses owned by the mob, to get lower wages, to make a superprofit. The reason the feds broke the mob control of the construction unions in New York was because the big boys, the bankers, big general contractors, and developers wanted the profits to flow up the food chain to them instead of being concentrated in the mob-controlled subcontractors who got superprofits due to their collusive, coercive relationship with the unions.

t.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Apr 12 2007 13:19
Quote:
Reform vs revolution is a false dichotomy.

This is a difficult concept to work around. I view them reform vs. revolution as a dialectical relationship, and not so much as a binary dichotamy. Reform struggles can become revolutionary struggles when class conscious communist ideals take hold of the masses and they struggle for their needs as workers.

I am still trying to put a finger on what we disagree on, as there seems to be one between us, but I can't figure out what it is. So, I am in agreement with this:

Quote:
I agree that the class struggle is central and do not reject that, but believe that there are a whole variety of areas of struggle that all important. Race struggles can also be class struggles. Consider the fight of black and latin construction workers in New York in the '70s and '80s thru the "Coalitions" to gain access to jobs.

But, I would add, that our job as Communists would be to try to link the struggle to not just coalitions of black workers fighting for black workers, and to illustrate how the economic fight for jobs is still linked to maintianing the state. The economic relationship is still maintained. So, I see our role as linking the fight to other fights and illustrating how it relates to the overall system of exploitation. That would be how to infuse revolutionary politics into a reform movement.

I am not saying that we shouldn't participate in the struggles, as racism is fundamental to capitalism, but that we should participate in them as communists -- with the goal of fomenting a communist revolution. The building of the specific anarchist/communist organization is also important.

What are we in disagreement over?

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 12 2007 15:37

I'm not sure what it is to participate in a struggle "as a communist". I don't call myself a "communist" altho i don't believe in private property and favor socialization of the means of production, so that land and means of production are owned in common by everyone. I'm for the dissolution of the class system, which I believe requires not only eliminating private ownership of means of production but also re-designing jobs so as to eliminate the concentration of power over decision-making by the professional/managerial class. The idea is to liberate the working class, through its acquisition of all social power, and dissolution of other classes into an empowered working class, thus eliminating class division.

I think that part of the process of development of class consciousness requires development of mass organizations/movements that are self-managed so that working class has the opportunity to develop a sense of its potential power and habits of directly democratic decision-making. But at present such movements will not necessarily exhibit revolutionary consciousness since this does not characterise consciousness of the class at this time. Revolutionaries should not be trying to impose their ideology on the mass, but facilitating development of self-management of struggles, development of self-confidence, an informed and activated working class.

An organization of revolutionaries has a role to play in this process, as activists, organizers, publicists, encourating self-development and involvement of the class, but not as a "general staff of the revolution" nor as managers of organizations or social movements. But as I don't call myself a "communist", i don't call such an organization "anarchist-communist".

t.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 12 2007 18:43

Wangwei:

Quote:
Nice try at obfuscating the argument. It's nice to see that you can name call, as I can tell that you don't know fuck all about the dialectic method.

I am in good company then -- no one (not Engels, not Lenin, not Marx himself) understood this incomprehensible 'theory' -- or if they did, they kept that secret well hidden.

And I note once more that your best argument remains abuse.

And now we know why: not even you can defend this 'theory'.

I also note that your response to my pointing out that Hegel was not a worker (in reply to your attempt to malign my views as 'elitist') is to ignore it.

So, you are quite happy to accept the views of this university Professor, a noted mystic, but bad-mouth anyone who argues against him as an elitist. [And my arguments, if you check them out, reduce his ideas to shreds.]

I suggest you now look up the meaning of the word 'obfuscate'.

As to 'name-calling'; I am quite happy to name-call a non-comrade (and mystic).

You, on the other hand, name call at random.

Quote:
No, what I'm saying is both his "whiteness" and lack of "blackness" are just as important to who he is. I can tell you aren't following shit. Keep on, you're doing fine.

The point being....???

Quote:
So says the semantic addict! You amuse me. Just because you can't follow it, doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that the language is vague, it just means your brain's a bit "vagehish"

I rather suspect you cannot follow it either, hence your use of sloppy language.

Quote:
So pin a medal on your left breast! My charge that you're elitist is actually reinforced here as you're trying to trade in your sackloth like a currency. So, you're not just elitist, you're also seeking accolades.

Whereas you prefer the views of a ruling-class mystic like Hegel.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:
Uhm, no. Have you even read Marx? Marx was specific that the logic helped to formulate his ideas, and that an understanding of the logic will help to understand his work. He wrote "Surplus Value" and Capital to be read without the use of dialectics, but even a rudimentary understanding of the dialectic clearly illustrates the dialectical underpinnings of his works.

Except he denied this.

A small point, I admit, but one you keep ignoring.

Quote:
1.) if you even knew the dialectic, then you wouldn't be so hostile to it.
2.) if you understood Marx, you wouldn't be so hostile to the dialectic.
3.) you mustn't know Marx nor the dialectic since you're hostile to the dialectic (Just trying out your logic for a change! You know, make shit up and slap it together to see if it sticks!)

Head still in the sand, eh?

Quote:
May I suggest reading some Piaget so that you can learn the difference between words and ideas.

Unfortunately, Piaget made the fatal error of using words to make this point.

So, you are asking me to accept the musings of one elitist (Piaget) to help support your acceptance of the ideas of another elitist and Mystic (Hegel).

Is that it?

Not very consistent, are you?

Once more, you can only make your ideas work by ignoring what Marx actually said.

Unless, of course, you have 'access' to Marx's ideas by other means -- by telepathy --, or maybe you have used the services of a medium of some sort?

Quote:
Marx negated Hegel's language, but advanced the theory of Hegel in a new form after setting it upon its head. He did not chuck the baby with the bathwater, like you believe he did.

Except he said he 'coquetted' with the language you now say he ignored.

So, he did not ignore that language (unless you have been in contact with his ghost again, and know different), he used it and only in one chapter of his great work.

Quote:
You're just espousing your ignorance of Marx

I am sorry, have you access to his actual words that say he did what you now say he did?

Or do you just like to make stuff up when it suits you?

Quote:
You're not too bright are you? not understanding a part, doesn't negate not understanding the general whole. I don't have to know what every word means in the English language, it's entirety of grammar, nor it's whole of syntax in order for me to write and speak English -- or even teach it for that matter.

Except Lenin himself said:

Quote:
"It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!" [Lenin (1961), p.180. Bold emphases added.]

So, you not only have to ignore what Marx actually said, you have to ignore what Lenin had to say, too!

Unless, of course, you have been in contact with Lenin's ghost as well!

Quote:
You're an absolutist, atomist, and empiricist. Your logic is as full of shit as your head is full of concrete.

I cannot answer such devastating logic.

Once more you use your strongest argument to destroy my case: abuse.

I am in fact a nothing-whatsoever-ist: I reject empiricism as I reject mysticism.

You, on the other hand, seem to like mysticism.

Perhaps it's because of all those ghosts you know.

Quote:
If you knew dialectics then you would know what he meant, so I'm just going to chuckle and put out the two categories: infinite and finite and general vs. specific. If you need me to explain them, then I will.

Oh, I see: part of this mystical 'theory' involves the capacity of its acolytes to be able to intuit what the saints meant over and above their actual words?

In that case, we can invent anything we like, attribute it to Marx (on the basis that those were his 'ideas'). Is that it?

One wonders why Marx bothered to write all those words down, then. He could have relied on you and your medium to communicate his 'ideas' to humanity, on the basis that you, and you alone, know what they are.

I did not know I had been communicating with a living prophet, such as you; excuse my impertinence....

And I have been studying this 'theory' of yours since the late 1970's. I have read practically everything there is to read on it (and many times), and I have yet to find a mortal soul who can explain it in comprehensible language. Perhaps you can help me out -- know any ghosts who can assist me here, oh great one?

Quote:
I don't have to, but it's fun.

And it's your only 'argument'.

No wonder you like it.

Quote:
Unless you know the dialogue that he had with Engels about the Grundrisse and Capital, please refrain from making such erroneous assertions. I'll explain it if you'd like.

Oh, so it was published by Marx then? Or by Engels??

No?

Then my point still stands.

Quote:
And, clearly, you don't know what the ideas under those words are.

You are right; I cannot hope to compete with you mystics and the ghosts you talk to.

Quote:
Not really good with the fact that Lenin and Marx are different people and that there are some real problems with Leninism. Why don't you learn the difference between the two if you're going to make a holy crusade against them?

Eh??

This was in response to the following point of mine:

Quote:
Dialectical Marxism has.

If truth is tested in practice, then dialectics has been refuted by history.

I note once more that you have not, and thus perhaps cannot, answer my claim that your 'theory' is not only mystical, it has not worked and that history has refuted it. [These two facts, of course, are not unrelated.]

Tested in practice: a monumental dud.

Quote:
Okay. I'm sure that this makes sense to you, the semanticist. blech.

My comment was in response to this one of yours:

Quote:
He also explained these terms using words. Don't blame him if you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Which was itself aimed at explaining the comments of a third party here. He too had wanted to argue that words and 'ideas' (or, in his case, 'concepts') were not the same.

So, as I have done with you above, I pointed out that this claim (that ideas and words are not the same) has itself to be expressed in words, undermining the claim that they are different..

Now do try to pay attention!

Quote:
You're both not serious right?

But, you are the one who thinks this is 'fun'.

[Babeuf can speak for himself (he was in fact taking the piss).]

Speaking for myself: I will continue to reduce this 'theory' of yours to dust.

And, with defenders like you to contend with, I think my task will be rather easy.

[Since my Essays will long outlast you, I have immortalised your unreasonableness (and your capacity to intuit the ideas of the long dead, while ignoring their actual words) here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

Bottom of the page.]

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 12 2007 19:01

Says RosaL: "So, as I have done with you above, I pointed out that this claim (that ideas and words are not the same) has itself to be expressed in words, undermining the claim that they are different.."

This inference is invalid. You might as well argue that San Francisco Bay is not different than words because we can't talk about it except by using words. From the fact that we can't talk about something without using words it does NOT follow that nothing is different from words.

Indeed, we would be unable to explain why humans have the sentence production trait -- an inherited biological trait -- on this assumption. We have this capacity because communication success among our ancestors in the past made this trait adaptive. How are we to understand this success? If we imagine the situation of a hunter tens of thousands of years ago returning to a band and uttering a sentence, it is important whether the band understood the hunter as pointing to a situation of a nearby dangerous predator rather than to a situation of a nearby food source. Behavior of members of the band are coordinated if they have a common understanding of the situations thus communicated. We can understand this on analogy with the dances of bees. When a bee returns from the field and has discovered a source of pollen, it does a dance that indicates direction and distance to the source. Bee dances have a grammar that differentiates these variables.

RosaL's argument is analogous to the old idealist fallacy that, since we can only think of things by using concepts/thoughts, nothing can exist apart from consciousness.

t.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Apr 12 2007 23:31
Quote:
I am in good company then -- no one (not Engels, not Lenin, not Marx himself) understood this incomprehensible 'theory' -- or if they did, they kept that secret well hidden.

You must have missed my suggestion that you read Piaget, ah well. They all understood it, and all were in a process of understanding it, and all were men within their own historical stage applying what they knew of it. Dialectical Materialism is a scientific process that advances through practice. Since you can't get your head around the proverb of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, why would I expect you to understand something like the dialectic? I can also tell that you've probably never understood any of the Marx that you may have read.

Quote:
And I note once more that your best argument remains abuse.

Nah, you're the only person that I've ever abused on this site actually. I just return the contempt that you've shown others to you. You know, the elitism you're full of.

Quote:
I also note that your response to my pointing out that Hegel was not a worker

I ignored it because it was accidental to the polemic we are having. Since you know fuck all about Historical Materialism, then I'll just give you quick lil' sound bites o' proverbs -- literacy was the domain of the literate. Apply that to your pathetic assertation to try to discredit Hegel's theory based on his class.

Quote:
[And my arguments, if you check them out, reduce his ideas to shreds.]

I am just laughing here. Marx negated Hegel long before you were born.

Quote:
The point being....???

that the unbeing and being of a thing are just as important to the essence of a thing. What a thing is and what a thing is not create that thing's identity. If you had actually read t.'s and my own discussion, then you'd see that's what we were discussing. Thanks for establishing this precedent in our polemic. The basic tenet of the dialectic has been established, and the rest is easy.

Quote:
hence your use of sloppy language.

Hence my irreverent use of language as the vehicle of imparting the ideas. Again, you really should read some Piaget on language use and acquisition Ya semmanticist! I don't get sucked into any mechanical semmanticist arguement. Ideas can be expressed in many ways and using many words, but the essence of meaning imparted can remain a constant.

Quote:
Whereas you prefer the views of a ruling-class mystic like Hegel.

Still chucking babies with da bathwater? So, everything that a ruling class stooge says is moot? So, like, Aristotle's Poetics should just be chucked because he supported slavery? You've got to be fuckin' kiddin' me? You should pin a medal to your forehead while you're at it.

Quote:
Except he denied this.

No, he never denied the use of the dialectic as method. He tried to negate obscurantist language, but since you're such a semanticist, you can't figure out the difference between language and meaning.

Quote:
Head still in the sand, eh?

I was thinking the same thing about you! Since you're unable to handle paradox and contradictions, why should I ever expect you to understand such a simple idea as the dialectic.

Quote:
Unfortunately, Piaget made the fatal error of using words to make this point.

So, you are asking me to accept the musings of one elitist (Piaget) to help support your acceptance of the ideas of another elitist and Mystic (Hegel).

Wow. You're an idiot. Do you just type shit and hope that your PHD makes up for this drivel. You do know the contributions Piaget has made to pedegical theory right? I mean, this is the funniest shit I've ever seen on any political discourse board, and the sad part is, you mean it. Did you learn anythin' from dem coooollige Profffesssors of yurs or were dey tooo elitist? Did you throw away all of the books that you have from non-working class elitist stooges?

Quote:
you can only make your ideas work by ignoring what Marx actually said.

Well, since I've actually read Marx, then yeah I don't ignore what he said, I employ what he wrote. I actually have never heard what he said, have you? You know, just bein' a semanticist and all.

Quote:
Except he said he 'coquetted' with the language you now say he ignored.

One, learn what the fuck "negates" relative to Hegel/Marx's usuage means . Auffheben for starters. Two, you just admitted that he used the language in his great work. If you actually knew dialectics, then you would see that he used the method throughout Capital.

Quote:
I am sorry, have you access to his actual words that say he did what you now say he did?

yes, I have access to his writings, and have actually read them. That would give me access to his words. Unless, you believe that his works were divinely inspired a la the Bible, and Marx didn't actually write them.

Quote:
So, you not only have to ignore what Marx actually said, you have to ignore what Lenin had to say, too!

Means: I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about in Luxemburgese. If you don't know, just ask, it's okay, I'll explain. If you knew dialectics then you would know what he meant, so I'm just going to chuckle and put out the two categories: infinite and finite and general vs. specific. If you need me to explain them, then I will. (I'l just cut and paste this sentence back in, since you obviousely don't know.)

Quote:
I reject empiricism as I reject mysticism.

You do? Wow, it seems to be the only type of logic that you use. You polarize ideas into mutually exclusive spheres and categories, atomize the ideas in language, and then say you're not an empiricist. Okay. If it gets you through the night.

Quote:
And I have been studying this 'theory' of yours since the late 1970's. I have read practically everything there is to read on it (and many times), and I have yet to find a mortal soul who can explain it in comprehensible language. Perhaps you can help me out -- know any ghosts who can assist me here, oh great one?

Well, you could start with Ira Gollobin's Dialectical Materialism: It's laws, categories, and practice. A review can be found here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n1_v43/ai_10708288 Since you say you've been working on this since the 1970's, it should bring you out of your Platonic cave.

Quote:
Oh, I see: part of this mystical 'theory' involves the capacity of its acolytes to be able to intuit what the saints meant over and above their actual words?

Do you know how to read? Inference is a basic learning strategy, but why would you know anything that has to do with literacy and educational development since you don't know anything about Piaget. Basically, if you have the concrete (in the Piaget sense, look it up if you don't know) understanding of a concrete idea, then you can abstract concrete understandings based on infering information due to prior understanding and the ability to decode encoded information. Coding is important, but why would I expect you to know about linguistics and literacy since they are sciences that have been developed by bourgeois stooges.

If you have the knowledge background, then you can connect to that knowledge in a variety of forms.

Quote:
Oh, so it was published by Marx then? Or by Engels??

and if you read the dialogue between them, then you'd know why. So, your argument means shit. If you'd like me to explain it to you just ask or read The Grundrisse by David Mclellan and that will explain it to you.

Quote:
You are right

I know. Thanks though, it means much, really it does. You know, when I read Shakespeare and commune with his ghost when I see the subtext, boogala boogala!

Quote:
that your 'theory' is not only mystical, it has not worked and that history has refuted it.

It has worked to create revolution, and will work again to create another. You do know that the Russian, Chinese, Albanian, etc. revolutions occured right? That they were reversed due to their own internal contradictions is accidental to the fact that the working class seized power and will seize power again.

Quote:
So, as I have done with you above, I pointed out that this claim (that ideas and words are not the same) has itself to be expressed in words, undermining the claim that they are different..

And this goes back to my point, that you agreed with actually, that the unbeing and being of a thing are alike. The contradiction of words and ideas works on several levels as words can be packaged to contain several ideas. Are you familiar with "unpackaging" or "deconstructing" language to understand what the ideas embedded within words are? "The finest" if used by the New York Post means Police officers, but "finest" does not mean police officers unless when used in that context. Do you see the contradiction within language or does it short circuit the semantic part of your brain?

Quote:
And, with defenders like you to contend with, I think my task will be rather easy.

[Since my Essays will long outlast you, I have immortalised your unreasonableness (and your capacity to intuit the ideas of the long dead, while ignoring their actual words) here:

Awesome! Then do try to capture the paucity of your ideas as I crumble yours to dust as well. I can tell that you are going to be fun. Do carry on.

Quote:
RosaL's argument is analogous to the old idealist fallacy that, since we can only think of things by using concepts/thoughts, nothing can exist apart from consciousness

Shhhh.... She doesn't use any philosophy at all! And to think about this too deeply will shatter her carefully constructed holy war. Heck, she might even read Piaget and understand language acquisition.

T. I'm going to put your response in a different post to clear the air.

Edited due to a mistake with the quote maker, sorry! Nothing to see here, carry on.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Apr 12 2007 23:41

gatorojinegro:

Quote:
But as I don't call myself a "communist", i don't call such an organization "anarchist-communist".

I don't understand why you don't call yourself a communist or such an organization "anarchist-communist"?

Quote:
An organization of revolutionaries has a role to play in this process, as activists, organizers, publicists, encourating self-development and involvement of the class, but not as a "general staff of the revolution" nor as managers of organizations or social movements.

At this stage of the social revolution, I would say that you're mostly right. The class consciousness is too low for us to try to make any "mass orgs" as they would function as little more than front groups, but that doesn't change our task as being to advance the class consciousnes of the working class and illustrate the greater picture. I'm not saying that we should join a union and try force people to do things our way, but I'm discussing the specific role of the communist organization. I see a clear distinction between the mass org and the specifically revolutionary communist, Anarchist - Communist, or Anarchist organization.

Are we in disagreement over the fact that we should be linking the struggles together? The specific organization should have, for lack of a better word, comrades peppered throughout different organizations that work together to coordinate activity between those orgs and against capitalism with the goal of negating the state and creating a classless society. I'm not saying that the mass org can ever be fully communist, Malatesta illustrates this in his polemic against anarchosyndicalism actually, but that the specific organization should.

Are you anti-organization? I'm not being vindictive, I'm just trying to figure out why we disagree, because you seem to be pro-revolution. At least that's what I believe your saying here:

Quote:
The idea is to liberate the working class, through its acquisition of all social power, and dissolution of other classes into an empowered working class, thus eliminating class division.

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Apr 13 2007 00:25

wangwei:

Quote:
At this stage of the social revolution, I would say that you're mostly right. The class consciousness is too low for us to try to make any "mass orgs" as they would function as little more than front groups, but that doesn't change our task as being to advance the class consciousnes of the working class and illustrate the greater picture. I'm not saying that we should join a union and try force people to do things our way, but I'm discussing the specific role of the communist organization. I see a clear distinction between the mass org and the specifically revolutionary communist, Anarchist - Communist, or Anarchist organization.

You see, this is where we disagree. I think forming mass organizations is crucial because it is thru the experience of running struggles themselves, and thru the process of learning how to do this, and thru building collective power thru collective organization and action, that workers gain the sense of collective power, of self-confidence that comes from that, the habits of dealing with problems collectively rather than individualistically, and how to run struggles in a collective and democratic way.

I'm a libertarian syndicalist. For me, the main strategy is developing mass organizations that the members control, mass organizations that people can use to manage their own struggles. Libertarian syndicalism is a prefigurative politics. The idea is that as we develop mass organizations that are self-managing, this prefigures a society of self-management.

The specific organization should not aim to concentrate the knowledge and positions of control in its hands. That is a vanguardist position. The specific organization should aim to develop the knowledge, skills, self-confidence of the members of the mass organizations, so that they can be an effective factor in running that organization. A mass organization does not become self-managing "spontaneiously" but requires dispersion/development among the rank and file of the capacities to run their organizations. We should not want a situation to develop where members are dependent on a few activists, which is what historically tends to bureaucratize mass organizations.

Part of the process of developing self-managed mass organizations includes oppositional movements or autonomous movements in the bureaucratic business unions, independent of the union hierarchy. But the idea is to transform the labor movement into a vehicle of worker self-management of their struggles, thru a variety of possible tactics.

t.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 15 2007 08:54

Gator:

Quote:
This inference is invalid. You might as well argue that San Francisco Bay is not different than words because we can't talk about it except by using words. From the fact that we can't talk about something without using words it does NOT follow that nothing is different from words.

I refer the honorable fibber to my earlier response.

SatanIsMyCoPilot
Offline
Joined: 22-12-04
Apr 15 2007 09:43

Wow! What a great thread this turned out to be. We have Rosa busily trumpeting her own excellence whilst declaring herself to have 'crushed Hegel to dust', Wangwei doing a Biblical exegisis, and Gatorjinegro valiantly banging his head against a brick wall that replies to his arguments with devastating rebuttals like "I refer the honorable fibber to my earlier response."

This really is great stuff. But because I can't quite bring myself to trawl through the last four pages, I'd be extremely grateful if Rosa could offer a quick, clear and simple explanation as to why Hegel requires pounding into dust, and as to why she believes herself to have done so. I'd like the response to be rather more substantial than the simple assertions that 'he's difficult to understand', 'no one understands him', or best of all, 'Hegel is a mystical ruling class wizard.'

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 15 2007 10:10

Wang:

Quote:
You must have missed my suggestion that you read Piaget, ah well.

Not so. Please try to read what I actually say, for a change.

Quote:
Nah, you're the only person that I've ever abused on this site actually.

Since it is your only counter-'argument'.

Quote:
You know, the elitism you're full of.

Whereas Hegel was a coal miner, I suppose?

Quote:
I ignored it because it was accidental to the polemic we are having.

Not so; you allege I am an elitist, but you are quite happy to learn from the uber-elitist, Hegel.

Quote:
Since you know fuck all about Historical Materialism

More abuse, and more invention.

Keep it up, it's the only aces you have.

Quote:
I am just laughing here.

Us non-elitists call this 'whistling in the dark'.

Quote:
that the unbeing and being of a thing are just as important to the essence of a thing.

Empty, idealist clap trap.

Quote:
Hence my irreverent use of language as the vehicle of imparting the ideas

Once more, this allows you to make stuff up, which, it seems, you are an expert at.

Quote:
Again, you really should read some Piaget on language use and acquisition

So, you are the elitist? Or was Piaget a coal miner too?

[By the way, I have read his work, and would no more accept his view of language than I would his views on High Energy Physics.]

Quote:
Still chucking babies with da bathwater?

And the bath, and the soap, and the bathroom....

Quote:
So, everything that a ruling class stooge says is moot?

In Philosophy, yes.

Quote:
You should pin a medal to your forehead while you're at it.

No, I am loathe to copy you.

Quote:
No, he never denied the use of the dialectic as method.

I am sorry, you, of course, have access to his 'thoughts' over and above his actual words (where he does do this).

One wonders then why Marx bothered to write all those many millions of words down; he could have relied on your good services to enlighten us all, and saved himself the bother.

Now I know that the True Prophet of Marx has arrived, I will be more respectful, Oh Great One.

Quote:
I was thinking the same thing about you!

Why bother to write that down?

Just beam your 'meaning' at me, and let the spirit of Piaget do the rest.

Quote:
Since you're unable to handle paradox and contradictions, why should I ever expect you to understand such a simple idea as the dialectic.

Since these 'contradictions' are based only on a handful of logical blunders Hegel made -- ones that a logical novice like you would miss (despite the help of Piaget) -- I am happy to by-pass them.

[They are not contradictions, nor are they 'paradoxes'.

But you would know that already if you concentrated on my 'meaning' and stopped pratting about with my words.]

Quote:
Wow. You're an idiot

Oh dear, yet more words! [What happened to all those mysterious 'meanings'?]

What is this above? More abuse? I have really got you rattled, haven't I?

And all so easily done!

Quote:
You do know the contributions Piaget has made to pedegical theory right?

All irrelevant to Philosophy -- so why you keep playing your joker card, I do not know.

Quote:
I mean, this is the funniest shit I've ever seen on any political discourse board,

You should not be so hard on yourself - I have seen funnier (I think, in your last response to me, but it might have been in the one before that).

Quote:
Did you learn anythin' from dem coooollige Profffesssors of yurs or were dey tooo elitist? Did you throw away all of the books that you have from non-working class elitist stooges?

As I said: "rattled"....

Quote:
Well, since I've actually read Marx, then yeah I don't ignore what he said, I employ what he wrote. I actually have never heard what he said, have you?.

But why did you bother reading him?

You should have closed your eyes and 'intuited' his 'meaning' -- especially if you now actually ignore what he did say.

I tried to quote it for you, but now I realise that was a mistake.

You just ignored it some more.

Quote:
One, learn what the fuck "negates" relative to Hegel/Marx's usage means .

Eh?

As I said, he merely 'coquetted' with this jargon.

Please feel free to ignore that, too.

Quote:
Auffheben for starters. Two, you just admitted that he used the language in his great work. If you actually knew dialectics, then you would see that he used the method throughout Capital.

You might think you know 'dialectics', but since you seem not to know what 'coquetted' means, I rather doubt it.

And I deny he used this obscure 'method, throughout Capital.

How do I know?

Simple: Marx told us he merely 'coquetted' with this jargon, and in one chapter.

Marx (not Piaget, not me), said it.

Too bad if that blows this traditional view of Capital out of the water.

Now the ghost of Marx may be whispering different things in your ear, but until we get your mental health checked, I suggest we ignore what you have to say on this.

No offence meant -- I do not want a Fatwa on my head from you, The Prophet.

Quote:
yes, I have access to his writings, and have actually read them

But, according to you, Oh Great One, you do not need his words.

So, if you now have to appeal to them to support your threadbare case, then you are the semanticist, after all (and Piaget can be consigned to the bin, where he belongs).

Quote:
I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about in Luxemburgese.

I suspected this of you too, I am glad you now agree.

[I am not sure about the reference to Luxemburg, though. Are you so used to making stuff up, you invent even here?]

Quote:
If you knew dialectics then you would know what he meant

Yes, if only I had faith, the gospel would become clear to me.

Never mind Marx contradicted this, you have faith, and faith enough to move words, if not yet mountains.

So, that allows you to believe the opposite of what he said.

I now see it all so clearly: dialectics means you can 'intuit' what Marx 'meant', ignore his actual words, conclude the opposite, and then bad-mouth anyone who points this out to you.

In that case, I am glad I do not 'understand' dialectics.

Quote:
You polarize ideas into mutually exclusive spheres and categories, atomize the ideas in language, and then say you're not an empiricist.

Here too, your miraculous powers of 'dialectics' allow you to ignore my words, and invent stuff.

You may be a fantasist, but at least you are consistent.

Quote:
Well, you could start with Ira Gollobin's Dialectical Materialism: It's laws, categories, and practice

An appallingly bad piece of work -- but that is probably why you like it.

I will, however, be devoting an Essay to shredding this book when I have done with Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Hegel himself (plus other assorted modern day Hermeticists, like Ollman).

Quote:
Since you say you've been working on this since the 1970's, it should bring you out of your Platonic cave.

On the contrary, I aim to put this book, and all like it, back in the Hermetic swamp from whence it squirmed.

And, now, yet more from the elitist:

Quote:
Inference is a basic learning strategy, but why would you know anything that has to do with literacy and educational development since you don't know anything about Piaget.

As I said, this screwy 'theory' allows you to invent to order.

No wonder you are trying to sell, it to us.

No deal.

I prefer the things Marx actually said over and above the things you would like his to have said.

Quote:
and if you read the dialogue between them, then you'd know why.

But, I do not need to; according to you I can 'intuit' what I like.

Or, are only you allowed to do this?

Even so, Grundrisse was not published, and Marx said he merely 'coquetted' with Hegelian jargon.

Now we all know that to you this means the opposite, and that Piaget's words (which you seem to have taken literally, but perhaps his words are excused?) tell you to make stuff up.

Try that tactic on your bank manager; see if he/she too can spot the $1 million in your account.

Get him/her to read Piaget -- you never know, it might work.

The rest of us are somewhat sceptical, though.

And, as if to help us out, here is an example of this superfine 'dialectical' method in operation:

Quote:
So, your argument means shit.

In that case, I was right earlier: to be 'dialectical' is to be 'scatological'.

Except, in your case you seem to have dialectical diarrhoea.

Exhibit B for the prosecution:

Quote:
You know, when I read Shakespeare and commune with his ghost when I see the subtext, boogala boogala!

An argument at last!

Quote:
It has worked to create revolution

The workers did that, not the theory.

Quote:
You do know that the Russian, Chinese, Albanian, etc. revolutions occurred right? That they were reversed due to their own internal contradictions is accidental to the fact that the working class seized power and will seize power again.

But if the theory did make the revolution, as you say, the above has refuted it.

As I said: dialectics -- refuted by history.

Quote:
Awesome! Then do try to capture the paucity of your ideas as I crumble yours to dust as well. I can tell that you are going to be fun. Do carry on.

Please keep this up; the more you ramble on, the more abuse you exude (in the pretence you think abuse = argument), the more unreasonable you are, the more my thesis is confirmed.

Thanks!

Quote:
Shhhh.... She doesn't use any philosophy at all! And to think about this too deeply will shatter her carefully constructed holy war. Heck, she might even read Piaget and understand language acquisition.

Had I never read Piaget, I think the effect it has had on you would warn me off.

Can I get his publishers to quote you on each book as a health warning?

However, for those who would like to know why comrades like Wang here resort to abuse when their precious 'theory' is trashed, check this out:

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

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 15 2007 10:33

SIMCP:

Quote:
I'd be extremely grateful if Rosa could offer a quick, clear and simple explanation as to why Hegel requires pounding into dust

I ignore Gator (whose latest post was yet more invention) since he is a fibber (and he's not very good at it, either).

And, as for Hegel, I do not think I claimed I had trashed his entire system yet, only that my aim was to do so (although I have made significant headway in that direction in my Essays).

Had I given that impression, I am happy to withdraw it.

Why I am doing so?

Take a look at what it has done to Wang here.

The effect this Herrnetic virus has had on good comrades is quite alarming.

No wonder Dilalectical Marxism is to success what George W is to peace in Iraq.

This is quite apart from the fact that Hegel's work is an insult to humanity.

And a ruling-class insult, to boot.

More details here:

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

However, I can no more give you the sort of 'brief' summary you want of a complex set or arguments than anyone else could, say, summarise quantum mechanics in 150 words.

'Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it.' -- Max Eastman

SatanIsMyCoPilot
Offline
Joined: 22-12-04
Apr 15 2007 11:58

No, I asked you for a "quick, clear and simple explanation as to why Hegel requires pounding into dust". Instead you cheerfully exchange insults with Wangwei and direct me to your website.

I'm not interested in trawling through your essays as I simply don't have time. Further, if they hold any content whatsoever you should be able to give me a quick, clear summary of your basic premises. simply describing Hegel as "a mental disease" and - best of all - "an insult to humanity" is a pretty poor response to my earlier request that "the response...be rather more substantial than the simple assertions that 'he's difficult to understand', 'no one understands him', or best of all, 'Hegel is a mystical ruling class wizard.'" Instead of calling Hegel names put forward a decent argument as to why you feel the need to 'trash his entire system.'

If you can't explain these ideas clearly and simply there's a very high probability that you don't actually understand them.
So, persuade me otherwise: give me a quick, clear summary of your objections.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 15 2007 12:04

SIMCP:

Quote:
No, I asked you for a "quick, clear and simple explanation as to why Hegel requires pounding into dust". Instead you cheerfully exchange insults with Wangwei and direct me to your website.

I also posted this addition while you were replying:

Quote:
However, I can no more give you the sort of 'brief' summary you want of a complex set or arguments than anyone else could, say, summarise quantum mechanics in 150 words.

And as part of my response to you, I do not think I included any insults directed at Wang.

Quote:
I'm not interested in trawling through your essays as I simply don't have time.

Fine, Don't then.

Quote:
Instead of calling Hegel names put forward a decent argument as to why you feel the need to 'trash his entire system.'

Over and above what I have already said, this is not possible.

So, you will either have to remain curious, or read my Essays.

Your choice.

Quote:
If you can't explain these ideas clearly and simply there's a very high probability that you don't actually understand them.
So, persuade me otherwise: give me a quick, clear summary of your objections

I am quite happy for you to think what you want.

If you do not like this, I think I can live with that fact.

SatanIsMyCoPilot
Offline
Joined: 22-12-04
Apr 15 2007 15:09

If I was asked to give a general account of the nature of a project, its purpose and how I hoped to achieve it, and if I then found myself completely unable to give a clear and simple explanation, I would a) be extremely embarressed, and b) be deeply worried about the supposed virtues of my project.

Even if we are to equate your essays to the cutting edge of quantum physics one would hope that a quantum physicist would be able to explain simply and clearly exactly what it is they're researching.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Apr 15 2007 16:28

SIMPC:

Quote:
Even if we are to equate your essays to the cutting edge of quantum physics one would hope that a quantum physicist would be able to explain simply and clearly exactly what it is they're researching.

I repeat, I gave you a choice; read my Essays or stay puzzled.

[However, for guys like you, I wrote this short piece back in August:

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

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 15 2007 16:30
SatanIsMyCoPilot wrote:
Even if we are to equate your essays to the cutting edge of quantum physics one would hope that a quantum physicist would be able to explain simply and clearly exactly what it is they're researching.

One would hope, but hope in vain, for quantum physics is even more obtuse these days than dialectical materialism could ever hope to be.