Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

Gator:

I refer the honorable fibber to my previous response.

But now we have exhibit C fro the proesecution:

Tree...:

I am sorry, this was too obscure for me to follow.

What on earth are you asking?

[I understand the Latin, but do not see the point.]

Do you approve or disapprove of quantum mechanics? Do you approve or disapprove of a theory that bases itself upon a divine mystery, just like the Three Who are One?

Certainly Bohr makes Hegel seem like a perfectly sound bloke from the pub.

Tree:

No doubt. But how does he/she learn the mathematical concepts needed to correctly manipulate the equations? And if he/she's to apply the theory to semiconductors, he/she must know something about how such a theory is to be applied to that real context. the theoretical explanations may be "fuzz" and "half-truths"...and physicists will tell you "I don't know what it means" ...but it works.

Dialectics is also fuzz and half-truths but no one really knows how to apply it to anything reliably. And the confused lingo of dialectics isn't necessary as clearer explanations are available.

RosaL's latest says to refer to her previous explanation....except that there wasn't any.

t.

Well, I've reached the point where the quantity of Rosa's polemic can be qualitatively analyzed as an object, and a subject procured.

I call her form of philosophy borgeois, because capitalism, the state, valorizes itself by division and the creation of atomization. Her philosophy seeks to seperate and delineate, as opposed to an organic philosophy that seeks to see things in terms of relation and interrelation. The dialectic seeks to understand how the part is related to the whole, so that both the specific paticular represents the general universal, and the general universal represents the specific particular.

The whole of Capital is a study in the dialectic, where Marx starts with the commodity, ilustrates its relation and interrelation, and then explains how those who are the personifications of capital, the capitalists, interreact with each other. Marx gives specific examples of the proletrianization of humanity and its subsumption to the forces of the state, as well as illustrating the origing of capitalism through primitive acquistion. The whole of Capital is the greatest example of the dialectic, as it proceeds from the Grundrisse, where Marx didn't really narrow down the commodity until around page 800 or so. Marx started the Grundrisse with an analysis of money, which he mistakenly thought to be the basic particular of the whole of capital, whereas it was contingent to it, not necesary of it.

I advanced the Grundrisse because she was comfortable quoting from The German Ideology, a work of Marx that didn't reach print until the '30's. I saw her say that she's read everything printed on dialectics since the '70's. I saw her call other people a liar, and I figured that she must have seen The Grundrisse published by David McCellan, as it was a very popular work. Within it, McCellan discusses the history of The Grundrisse. Apparently she hadn't read it or she would know that The Grundrisse was the work that Marx wanted to publish, but the publisher and Engels warned him not to publish only one text, as money had to be made. Marx then said that he would publish 6 volumes of Capital (4 being published, 1 by him, 2 posthumousley by Engels and Kautsky) and would work on a handbook of his method when he was done. The Origins of The Family, Private Property, and The State, published by Engels represenst much of the work that Marx did on the state, and The Dialectics of Nature represents much of Marx's thought, though it was published by Engels. Marx did contribute to Anti-During and never stopped extolling Hegel, though he did break with Hegel's obscurantist language, there is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and say that he broke with the dialectic. Rosa takes this extremist view.

As for her philosophy, Rosa refuses to use any science, literary analysis, language analysis, or philosophers that were ruling class. Her philosophy can't be simplified to 2, 000 words, let alone a succinct paragraph. When I advanced a simple understanding of the dialectic through the use of sam, she agreed and then quickly attacked the reformulation of the theory under the aphorism, "the being and unbeing of a thing are alike". When I put basic reading strategy that 6 -8th grade students learn in high school, she scoffed at them, and then dismissed the whole of Piaget's work. I'm not sure on what basis, but she did. I'm not sure what's included in her philsophy if it is lacking in critical analysis, science, language, and anything written by the ruling class, though she is comfortable discoursing in the "precise language" of power that the ruling class lawyers and sophists throw around.

Which brings me to the state. Rosa discourses in the language of the state. Compare my mode of discourse with gato, toj's mode, and other's mode on this thread with hers. Instead of seeking an understanding, she seeks to overpower and crush. There is no dialogue, only challenge on her holy crusade. I'm not sure what set her off, maybe that Leninist that laid her and left her in college still hurts. Maybe she paid too many dues to a revisionist Maoist/Leninist Party in the '70's. but, she is on the Holy war and her discourse is classic ruling class rhetoric. She uses many philosophical tricks, pointed out at lenth by gato, and frankly, she hits on language, but refuses to consider her own. she is trapped in her own little logical sollipsism. She can't see past her own ideology.

so, either she doesn't know what the dialectic is, and so has a head of concrete after having studied Marxist literature for 30 years, or she can't see forest because the trees get in the way. If we were discussing problems with Marxism, then hey, I'd love to do that. If we were discoursing on how the dialectic has been misused, misinterpreted, and misunderstood, then that would be great, but she denies that it even exists!

Nah, she reminds me of the head of philosophy at the University of Padua who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because he refused to allow his eyes to tell him what his heart knew to be true.

me: "Historical materialism is a philosophical theory. But I thought Rosa rejects all
philosophical theories. "

RosaL: "It is a scientific theory."

So, you have a theory about when something is a "scientific" theory? And is that theory (about when something is "scientific") s "scientific" theory? If so, what experiments have you done (since you seem to think this is the epitomy of "science")?

You still haven't answered my question, What is the difference between "philosophy" and "science"? Hint: It won't do to say that science is not based on apriori assumptions because philosophy need not be either.

t.

Gato, you never explained to me why you use libertarian syndicalist instead of Anarchist Communist. Is it just the terms? I don't understand why you use "libertarian" instead of "anarchism". I also wonder why the word syndical is used instead of commuist.

Communism = a wageless, classless, egaitarian society where all distribution is soley based upon need.

Isn't a communist society your goal, so why don't you call yourself a communist?

I see the syndical as a vehicle to communism, but that communism is the goal. Anarchism, understanding the paradox that our order is capitalism's chaos, should be the method, but only relative to creating communism.

I think we're much closer than you think about our opinions on the mass org. I just think that at this stage of the social revolution, we need to develop the type of organization that is politically motivated and dedicated enough to be able to develop others. But, I like what you say about the mass org, and I feel that is what I try to do with those that I work with.

syndicalism is a revolutionary strategy, based on developing self-managed mass organizations, as prefigurative of a self-managed, classless society.

I don't know what it means to say "distribution would be based solely on need." I think that it will be necessary to have an adequate motivation for people to actually do productive work for others. I think each person's share of the total social product will inevitably be finite. Therefore, i think we need a notion of able-bodied adults earning their share of private consumption goods through work effort. To have an effective economy, to avoid waste of labor time and resources, we need a way to ensure that allocation of labor time and resources goes to what is most important to people. This presupposes a way to find out what their preferences are. if people aren't limited to a finite entitlement to consume, where they have to make choices about how they wish to distribute that entitlement among possible products, i don't see how the economy can capture that information about preferences. It's possible to do that through participatory planning, without a market system, but it still presupposes a requirement to do socially useful work, and each person having a finite entitlement to consume. I think "moneyless commumism" would be too risky an experiment. And it isn't necessary to take that risk in order to get rid of the class system, and liberate humanity from the structures of oppression.

That's one of the reasons I don't call myself a "communist." The other reason is that the word has come to mean the kind of statist, managerialist economy that has existed in the various "Communist" countries.

t.

so, kinda like "from each according to his abilities ..." then?

I agree here but i always thought of communism as being exactly that, not just a free for all with anyones idiotic whim being indulged, rather communism neccessitates such structures and organs.

revol, yes, you're right that some people would say that what i described IS a form of "communism." for one thing, I'm assuming that the earth and the means of producion would all be owned in common by everyone. "communism" is a rather ambiguous term. that's why some people would say that what I've described is a form of "libertarian communism", even tho it is really based on the principle "from each according to abilities, to each according to work for others, tempered by need"...I say "tempered by need" because i agree that distribution for need makes sense in some cases, such as health care, child care, etc.

t.

yeah but "from each according to abilities, to each according to need" isn't meant in an individualist manner of consumerism, need is clearly something socially mediated, so it's not like some fanny can decide they want five boats and they are just given them.

production of public goods would be important and because they are collective goods, they would be socially mediated if by that you mean the way it is decided to produce and distribute them. but there is also a realm of private consumption goods, things where there is variation in taste and people consume these things themselves, such as the foods people eat, the clothes they wear, the furnishings in their apartments, many of the activities they engage in, etc. it is not appropriate for these to be collectively decided. so there still needs to be some idea of how people are entitled to consume these things with people having the freedom to distribute that entitlement as they see fit among whatever things they want, up to the limit of their finite consumption share. and these preferences determining allocation of resources within the private consumption goods production sphere.

t.

The reason that I say need is just because that's what should be the ethic of an egalitarian society, trying to understand and meet each other's needs. In order to meet somebody's needs, you need to understand them on a very human organic level. The whole of society struggling to meet the whole of society's needs should be the primary function of the anarchistic struggle for humanity's liberation to communism.

Contingency is predicated upon need. All that is needed to acquire a thing requires things that are contingent upon it to occur. So, if the needs of all are the primary method of distribution, then the production will be organized to meeting people's needs. The human potential can be actualized, as those needs that hinder it now will be met, and a qualitative change in our whole society will result. The enforces scarcity of capitalism will end when people's needs are met, and production will be predicated upon need.

I am diametrically opposed to not supporting the abolition of the wage system the very day of the revolution. The social revolution must revolutionize society, and money is the mediator of the social discourse of society. A human discourse must take the place of the monetary discourse. Kropotkin's work on the wage system will illuminate what I've discussed.

I think that we should fight to unpackage the word Communism, as it does illustrate what we are fighting for.

I just saw your post after I posted mine.

Well, that's all well and good, but the apartments and activities that are engaged in can only be acquired if needs are met. Should it be okay for a commune on North America to have luxury housing while communes in India starve? I have no problem with a surplus value being enjoyed by the working class, but the surplus should be over and above the collective needs of all being met.

I disagree with the use of "entitlement" after the revolution. Stop me if I'm being overly semantical, but I believe that we should be struggling for a society without privelege. I see that the state is the concentration of privelege, power, and authority centralized in the hands of the few, and that it's meted out to those that best serve the state. A stateless society would struggle to entitle as many people as possible, and that entitlement can only occur after the needs of society have been met.

Great discussion though!

Moderators, can we have this discussion moved to another thread, since Rosa's ranting, I mean polemical discourse seems to be the primary thread here. Thank you.

why do you suppose that an entitlement to consume implies privilege? I sort of assume that remuneration for work effort would mean that all earn at the same rate, unless their colleagues think they're either doing extra sacrifices or shirking or otherwise not pulling their weight. And for those not working we can assume they would get an entitement equal to the social average. No privilege.

You seem to think that there is some objective understanding of what "needs" are. I don't think there is.

t.

Gato, did you read both of my posts? I posted the second after I saw yours, and I guess I was typing up the first one while you were typing up yours, so I ended up sending two posts.

entitlement is a form of privelege, that you own and are supposed to be given something that excludes others. I am against private property, but having said that, I understand that there will be a surplus value, and that the workers themselves will decide what to do with it. I don't have a problem with what workers decide to do with the surplus.

I am really against any form of remeneuration for work, as that implies entitlement, ableism, and privilege. It also requires an external governmental structure to ensure proper remuneration, and I oppose all forms of the state. I am really against workers earning at the same rate, as not everyone has the same needs. A mother of two should be given more than a young strong healthy male, as she has a greater need.

I see social average as a form of inequality, and that we should see social need as the point of departure. What does the whole of society need, and how do we meet those needs, and then there is an increase over and above those needs.

Food, Clothing, Housing, Education, a clean environment, and spiritual harmony are the needs of humanity. spiritual harmony can only be achieved when you have had food to eat, warm clothing, a house to meditate, and the understanding to do so. These are the objective needs of humanity. The very best housing, clothing, and healthy food should be predicated upon maintaining a harmony with nature.

I'm taking as objective an understanding of need as possible, and going from there.

wagnwei:

It seems to me you're confusing a bunch of different issues here. Why do you assume that parents should pay for their children from their own income? Children aren't the private property of their parents. The community needs to provide for the needs of children. When I say that people should be remunerated for their work effort, i'm only talking about their own consumption, not that of their children.

Without remuneration for work, there is no reliable, effective incentive to do work. I think some form of governance is inevitable but I don't see this as requiring a state. The society needs to set the basic structure, the basic rules, and provide for social self-defence and adjudicate accusations of criminal conduct. These are all governance functions.

But i don't see what that has to do with remuneration for work effort. A horizontal system of participatory planning can allocate resources to groups of workers to produce the things that communities and individuals have requested to be produced. This allocation would include remuneration for the work they propose to do for the community. We can see what effort they've done by looking at their output. Assuming we have a price system that integrates all social costs and benefits, we can measure the benefit in terms of the products that people use. And the costs in terms of resources they consume, including any pollution or other social costs. We need to be able to measure these things if we are to allocate resources to work groups in a manner that is effective at producing what communities and individuals most prefer. It is possible to have a self-regulating participating planning system, not requiring any state.

But people don't want "clothing" or "food" in the abstract, or any old clothes or food. There are particular foods they want, and particular sorts of clothing, and individuals have different tastes and desires in these things. This is why it is necessary to let people distribute their entitlement to consume over any particular mix of possible products any way they want.

And somebody else should control the non-surplus? Why? And how do you define "surplus"?
If you say, "it is what isn't needed", then I'd point out that no objective line can be drawn here. And what do you mean workers should control the surplus? And how is this different from controlling the non-surplus?

t.

We are in complete agreement here. I have to remember that under a stateless society, the nuclear family will be negated, and more of a tribal relation will ensue. Having said that, a distribution based on need will have to account for those who can't contribute to society enough to meet their own needs. The elders could help with the rearing of the youth, but they can't possibly produce enough as a virile young man, so all of their needs need to be taken into account.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. I am sorry, but for a new world to be built, the egoist man must be negated. The only incentive for work should be the worker's commitment to both themselves and society. The comitment to meet their needs through society, and not alienated from and at the expense of society. A negation of the incentive factor is a necessary struggle to create a society without any privilege. The ethic should be based upon needs.

There's a difference between governance and government. Governement is an external power that is the vehicle for the state apparatus of the ruling class to maintain itself. Any external power that regulates the workers lives is a government and a state. A stateless society will have democracy centralized within the forces of production themselves, the working class, and will self-govern their own selves. I see the specific organization as being necessary to tear down any other mediator of social discourse so as to facilitate the sensous discourse of humanity on a human level, and that requires a recognizing of need.

You mentioned "price system" and "participatory economy" and those resonate with the state. There should be no price for anything, only a method of distribution that keys meeting the whole of society's needs. A "price system" smacks of currency, and currency is the lifeblood of the state. All forms of currency, the market, and trade need to be negated by a communist revolution.

I am not talking about "want". I am discussing need. They are two absolutely seperate poles. Wants can bisect needs, but not always. Wants are contingent upon need being met. The form of the clothes is accidental to the fact that the content of the clothing carries out the function that they should do -- cool in summer, warm in winter. The needs of society are not negotiable, but the form that they take and the wants that arise can easily be decided by the workers themselves. Need is universal, but want is accidental, and particular to any number of variables.

No, the workers themselves should control the surplus. I am sorry if you think I'm intimating that some other higher power should control any aspect of the workers. The capitalists rule us because they control what can meet our needs and dictate our wants.

I define surplus value as a surplus of things of value. Value is anything that somebody needs, and therefore values. After everyone's needs have been met, a surplus should exist, and that surplus is the property of the whole of the working class to decide what to do with it, hence, why I use the term "worker." I prefer the term worker, as those who work in the society, and work the hardest for that society relative to their ability to do so, will have the most say in that society. It will be a society where everybody works to the best of their ability to make work, and then has all of their needs met by society.

I know that no objective/absolute line can be drawn between value and surplu-value, but a relative one can be understood by careful examination of the entire working class, the classless class of humanity. I don't seen any difference between workers controlling the surplus -value and any other values of society's production.

I see what you are proposing as a valuable stage on the road to a communist society, one that we may in fact pass through before the final social revolution, but I don't see it as the objective goal of the revolution. I love what you are saying that you're organizing in the way of libertarian syndicals, but I see them as a necessary part of a greater whole. I would love to join one of them, work with them, and help struggle with the workers within them to see what a communist world will be and why we should fight for one.

I think it is simply impossible to draw any objective line between "needs" and non-needs. And anyway i believe that a social economy will be effective if and only if it meets people's DESIRES. Needs are expressed through desires. To be able to measure what is important to people -- the intensity of their desire for alternative possible products -- it must be the case that each person and each community is limited to a finite budget and must choose among alternatives not all of which can be produced for them because we have finite resources, and a finite amount of time we all want to labor. Without a price system it will be impossible to make the various alternatives and their costs commensurable. The society needs a social accounting unit, a unit of value. And this value can only be measured thru a social interactive process in which people are forced to express their preferences where they are limited to a finite budget, expressed in social accounting units....prices, in other words.

But I've already debated this point in numerous forums here, and I'm not sure I want to rehash the arguments yet again. in any event, you see why i refuse to call myself a "communist." It is precisely because "communism" is interpreted in exactly the way you have just done so.

t.

Wang:

It is you who is a fan of that 'working class' thinker Hegel, so this is in fact a case of the kettle (you) calling the sterilising dish (me) 'sooty'.

No I did not.

Except, you use this one skill of yours in this 'polemic', and liberally.

Translated, this means that you can be elitist when it suits you, but no one else can refer to experts, or you will throw a tantrum again, and slag them off (which then allows you to ignore their arguments).

This can't be so, or you would not bother trying to argue with me.

I rather think you just like saying these things since it detracts from your predicament.

Just a hater of mysticism, which you seem to like.

I think we established that almost from the beginning, and the verdict was, you.

Well, it is quite clear from the syntactic mess you tried to sell us earlier that you know no logic, so you are in no position to judge.

And, yes, the whole of the dialectic can be shown to derive from a series of logical blunders (ones implicit in Aristotle's work, but turned into an art form in Hegel). So, it has no 'rational' core, just a rotten one.

I'd let you know where you could read up on thus, but I suspect you would not be able to follow the argument.

Ah, I see irony is lost on you.

Too complicated for you, is it?

If you can show how it is relevant, fine.

But I suspect you cannot. You find irony a challenge....

This was your 'response' to my use of Marx's own words to undermine you naive faith in the 'dialectics'.

So, it's not a question of what I want to say, but why you ignore Marx's own words.

[Well, we already know the answer to that one -- you can read his 'thoughts' and do not need his words, even if that contradicts what he actually said.]

And the syntactic mess you posted earlier suggests it is you who hasn't a clue about negation (whether it is a sentence forming operator, a word modifier, or a predicate functor --, or something else).

True, but he qualified his intent by saying that the dialectic was just jargon, with which he merely 'coquetted'. His words, not mine.

And since it has no 'rational' core, it is not difficult to see why Marx abandoned it.

Eh?

You have not read my 'philosophy': 1) because I have none, and 2) you haven't read my Essays.

But, we know you can divine the thoughts of others by other means not available to us mere mortals, don't we?

So you say, but Marx said he only used it in chapter one, and then he merely confined himself to Hegel's jargon, with which he 'coquetted'.

Unfortunately, I have in fact read practically everything published in English (and German) on this mystical doctrine, or which has been translated into either language, since Hegel put his pen to misuse. So, I have read more than you on this -- and it all reads largely the same.

After all, it is hard to be novel with gibberish.

Your proof of this is what?

Oh sorry, Marx's ghost told you.

And now even more invention:

I have no philosophy, do not want one, and seek to end this useless discipline.

However, I object to the use of science as if it were a substitute for metaphysics (i.e., the work of Piaget, or your attempt to so use it), but science itself I have the highest regard for.

You said you were good at invention, but the above assertion is rather poor even for you.

Yes it can: I have no philosophy.

Now move on, please!

Who is 'sam'?

Eh?

I dismissed your attempt to use his ideas to defend your god-like capacity to divine the thoughts of Marx which contradicted his actual words.

Piaget's work itself I passed no comment over.

Eh?

What are you mumbling on about now?

You are the one who resorted to abuse, not me. And you seemed to be rtahter proud of your use of scatological language.

And, from this, are we to assume that you think that Marxists do not aim to 'crush' certain things (like bourgeois ideas, the state, the oppressor?).

So your faux and recently assumed cuddly image won't wash, sonny.

You can't argue successfully against me, so you try to poison the wells. Abuse, invention, distraction -- anything to protect your precious mysticism.

Like this:

In my experience, Leninists are rather poor in the sack (as I suspect you are, hence the abuse to compensate), but that has not stopped me from remaining a Leninist to this day.

So, why you raise this -- well we know why: you are rattled, and cannot defend the mystical theory you have swallowed.

Well, Gator knows what he is talking about, which is more than we can say for you -- but where did he do this 'at length'???

You make so much up, I do not think you can tell truth from fiction.

I am in good company, then, since no one knows -- or if they do, they have kept the secret to themselves for 200 years.

You may be good with the jargon, but apart from that I suggest you do not know what it is, too.

Why, you do not even know of Hegel's serious logical blunders.

In Galileo's case, there was a material object to look through, and something physical to look at.

In the case of the 'dialectic' all you have is meaningless jargon, that not even I will 'coquette' with.

And since you will not read my Essays, I rather think you are like that professor you mention.

Stay ignorant -- you are less likely to do harm that way.

And thanks for providing me with more data to use to confirm my thesis that you Dialectical Mystics can only defend your ideas with emotion, abuse and lies.

Find out why, here:

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

Gator:

I refer the honorable fibber to my previous reply.

RosaL's Leninism is at least consistent with her elitism. And now she makes stuff up. She never "replied" to these questions. She refuses to now presumably because she can't. And her reply to wangwei is completely lacking in substance. Again, she refuses to engage in any substantive discussion.

t.

Gator:

I refer the honorable fibber to my previous reply.

The evasive Leninist RosaL has posted quite a bit to the Youth for International Socialism (the SWP youth group in UK?) website, particularly their philosophy discussion board:

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?board=2.0

t.

Gator, who it seems cannot get anything right:

It's Ted Grant's mob (the old Militant Tendency after the split), not the UK-SWP.

You will find much more of my stuff at RevLeft.

Apart from that, I refer the honorable...blah, blah....

Damn, Rosa you're really embarrassing yourself regardless of you being in the right or not. If you've been researching since the 70s you haven't really come a long way in understanding what dialectics is about. You haven't even been able to explain from your POV what dialectics is supposed to be about.

Wangwei: good posts and I must commend your patience...

atlemk:

As I have said, that puts me in good company, since not one of the many hundreds of books and articles I have studied (that attempted to do this) was able to explain this mystical theory.

If you think differently, then perhaps you can explain it for us (and for the first time in 200 years), or point me to a book/article that does this (but it will be 99.99% certain I will have already studied it).

You mean all that abusive language, fabrication, and avoidance of whatever he did not like or could not answer....

You mystics really do live in a world of your own, don't you!

Find out why, here:

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

Gato, Okay, at least we know where we disagree. We should set up a thread where we discuss the difference between need and want. It's a crucial aspect of any theory. I understand why you don't call yourself a communist, as you're not one, fair enought.

As for Rosa:

Wow, you completely disregarded The Grundrisse. Whether or not you agree with the fact that Capital started with the particular to illustrate the general home, and therefore illustrating the relation and interrelationship of the general to all the particular aspects of the system of capital (the whole), is irrelevent, as Capital did just that.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing as you say yourself that you have no philosophy, so, since you have nothing to offer, ah well, the rest is up to you.

"Sam" refers to a discussion that was early on in the thread in which is was illustrating to gator what the synthesis of thesis and antithesis is. You interrupted it. You forgot that you agree with it, it's okay, as I don't believe you're doing anything more than trolling this site anyway.

Again, I'm a communist, so that puts me squarely in the realm of material reality. Understanding that all literacy and science has been concentrated within the ruling class for the past 15, 000 years of class rules, it should come as no surprise that we have to read and learn from them as we seek to negate it to change history through a social revolution. You're straw man on trying to refute revolutionary praxis through insinuating I support the bourgeoisie because I've distilled learning from Hegel is quite a nice rhetorical trick. Hence, why I say that you have less of a philosophy and more of a rhetorical trick. Nice straw man though, it must have worked for you as you bullied the young people on the socialist site.

I have no problem with anybody refering to experts. I try to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I've yet to see you refer to any experts, yet I've consistently tried to bring in outside sources and link various elements to this polemic. You dismissed Piaget with a shrug, yet provided nothing in the realm of experts to illustrate and develop your point, apart from telling people to go to your crackpot site and read your obscurantist essays written in a language designed to cause headaches and nausea. Blech.

This was in reference you me saying you don't know the difference between reading and comprehension. You don't. You don't understand subtext, context, and inference. The fluidity of language flows under you like a bridge, and you're watching the flow and calling it a river. There's much more to language than meets the eye. Don't blame me if you don't understand the difference between reading and comprehension. You read to conform what you're reading to your own understanding of what things should be, whereas you should be reading to see what is there, and then see what resonates with prior learning. If you actually understood Piaget, then you would know that I'm discussing epistemology (in relation to language and learning), and the concrete and absract.

I only like mysticism when I need to meditate. Zen Koans are wonderful for that. The Tao Te Ching is a great early study in the dialectic that I read frequently, as well as whatever works I can get my hands on from the late Tang (li po, Tu Fu, Po-chi i, and of course my namesake), oh, and how can I forget any writings from the ancient Ying Yang school of thought, as the Eastern understanding of the dialectic is quite profound.

You're so elitist that you're using the Royal "we" now? Your shame has no limits.

Nice illustration of how you only know how to use absolutes. Since I don't agree with your logic (devoid of philosophy as you claim, which is mind boggling actually) then I don't know logic. This is the same syllogism that you tried to use to prove that Piaget didn't know science. At least you're consistent.

Nice to know that you got the Aristotle reference. My assertion is that there were many more logical blunders in Aristotle than his rudimentary dialectic. His dialectic was far from complete or wholly sound, but it was a step in the right direction. Hell, it's possible to use his Poetics as a method even today, so are you chucking him with the rest of the bathwater too? Ya Babychucker!

I don't ignore Marx's own words, but actually, you do. I think it was SatanIsMyCopilot who challenged this quote by illustrating the context of Marx's words, but since you are unable to read, you particularized the quote without any regard to the rest of Marx's body of work. You are trying to use a particular aspect to disprove a general whole. That may float with your Bourgeois philosophy, but not here.

Well, before we discuss the functionality of language, which you seem to know jack shit about, why don't you look at the definition of the word. Understand the definition, the layers of meaning, see what's packaged into the term, and how it relates to and alters the language around it, and then you'll understand a little more about negation, as you may have a negation of you're current position.

'nuff said. Shove the rest of your argument up your ass.

If you have no philsophy to offer the working class, then shut the fuck up. Or, as me mudder used ta say, "if you don't have nuthin' nice to say, den don' say nuttin' a' tall."

Because they are garbage written by a crackpot going postal. I mean, you had the audacity to dismiss Piaget out of hand, and you think I'm going to waste time reading your drivel. Come on! You yourself say you have no philosophy. I did the existentialist Heidegger and Nietzche thing. I'm done with Neumenon. Nah.

If by "mortal" you mean PHD's who can't read, then sure. The way you subsume meaning within words is quite amusing actually.

Hey, don't blame me if you're reading some pedantic shit written by Lenininists trying to prove that their enomist bullshit is dialectical. I'd be angry to if I read more than two articles a year written by trots. How do you stand it? Some of the stuff that the RCP and ISO put out is such garbage! The RCP even advance the fact that negation doesn't exist anymore! They're hilarious. I bet you've read more than me, but that doesn't change the fact that from all intents and purposes, It seems that I know the dialectic more than you.

A lifetime of close correspondance and Marx saying he wanted to write it anyway. It's conjencture, and I advanced it as such.

Huh? You want to end philosophy? How do you define philosophy, because I think you're using the word, and packaging it with a meaning that is not particular to the code that I'm using.

OH, the reading strategy was "Inference". http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/S00001679.shtml I know that this website is written using scientific pedagogical understandings that may have to do with Bloom and Piaget, but please understand that hundreds of millions of school children are using it to read, so there may be a little bit of truth to it. Just a wee bit.

Sorry, you're a (self-proclaimed) Leninist. Why would I expect you to understand anything at all about the state. I wonder if yu even think the state exists, or if you take his position that it's the fillament on the outside of society.

Still am. I saw you bullying people on this site and didn't like it.

Yes, but I refrain from using the weapons of the state on those who are oppressed by the state, hence my assertion that you're using the language of the state. Revisionists don't mind crushing the oppressed with the language of the state, but I've got this thing called class consciousness and his bruddah class solidarity. Look it up.

If you say so.

Actually, it's been far longer than that. The dialectic has been in development for at least the past 5,000 years, as it does predate Socrates. The ruling class does not want us to learn it nor develop it, and they spend billions to make sure that it's not developed.

Why thank you! You could suggest away, but only one of us here is actually practicing the dialectic in discourse. So, I do know what the dialectic is, and have been constantly analyzing it and its development around the world. It didn't begin and end with Hegel.

What makes you think I don't? I'm a Marxist Communist, of course I know of Hegel's serious logical blunders, but I have not read anywhere near enough Hegel to proclaim that I know all of his logical blunders. He made many, one being the obfuscation of state to people and people to state, thereby creating the fallacy that the autocratic Prussian state was a utopia. Mao did the same mistake in his essay On Contradiction by the way, except he subsumed worker and proletariat to the term people, and then cloaked working class liberation to national liberation.

You also remind me of St. Max, or Sachmo, as Marx and Engels refered to Stirner. You dismiss all egos but your own as the only source of wisdom and knowledge. I'm waiting for a single source, outside of your crackpot site, to invalidate the dialectic. So, St. Max, continue please.

Yeah, that's true. Rosa, what is the dialectic? Do you even know, I mean apart from the mechanistic "diamat" of the old CP? I've read Stalin's Dialectical Materialism, and it was woefully awful. So bad that it's sad. Is that what you're calling dialectical materialism?

Gato, you are completey right, she is sooo evasive it's not even funny. You would think somebody that's on a holy war against something would know what it is. This is like listening to a Spanish Inquisitor decrying Hummanism in the 13th century, and then saying that it can't possibly exist because nobody can yet explain it. Centuries later, Marx writes the Paris Manuscripts linking the potential existing within humanism to the acuality of the need for a Communist revolution to liberate mankind.

You may call yourself a Leninist, but you're a very shitty Leninist. What's Lenin without the dialectic but an authoritarian, economist centered, pedantic? Sad, so sad.

Wang:

Just as you disregarded Marx's own words that all he used of Hegel's ideas was his jargon, with which he merely 'coquetted', and then only in one chapter of Capital.

You can only make your ‘ideas’ work by ignoring what Marx himself wrote.

You do not need an ounce of philosophy to understand Capital.

Agree with what?

But, Hegel was not a worker and so all your accusations about 'elitism' apply to you, not me, since I am merely trying to expose this, while you revel in it.

In fact, I dismissed your attempt to use him to support your claim to be able to read into Marx the opposite of what he actually said.

So, I can understand your being irked at being found out.

Stay ignorant then -- you are less danger to the workers' movement that way.

Translated this means I know the difference between reading and invention; I read, you invent.

Make stuff up if it makes you happy; see if I care.

But stop calling it 'Marxism'.

You mystics are all the same.

More ruling class ideology; in fact, you seem to like the thoughts of ruling-class hacks, and get rattled and abusive when this is pointed out.

Marx noted that the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class. They certainly rule your mind.

I was in fact referring to myself and Babeuf.

Your desperation knows no limits – you’ll grasp at any passing straw, won't you?

Translated, once more, this means that you are proud you know no logic, but still you are happy to pontificate about it, citing the work of a non-logician in support.

Any old sloppy, sub-Aristotelian idea is OK for you; into the mix it goes just to support this ancient mystical quasi-religion of yours.

The odd thing is, you still think you are a materialist, and not a mystic.

Since you know no logic, you are in no position to judge even Aristotle. But, as we know, that does not stop you impersonating the Pope on this and other topics.

Good; so, you now accept that he merely 'coquetted' with Hegelian jargon in Capital, and then only in one chapter.

Fine! We agree at last.

Oh dear, that was merely a false dawn, for now you backslide and end up rejecting his words:

So, you don't accept what he said.

Just be honest.....

But you are the one who listens to mystics and that 'working class' philosopher Hegel.

And here, once again, you play your strongest card, more scatological language:

Coming from someone who knows no logic, and thinks a syntactical mess is logic, I think I will take no lessons from you.

All this just to cover the fact that you like to make stuff up.

Just be open about it.

May I suggest you apply for a job writing dossiers for Bush and Blair? They can use your natural talent at invention.

As we can see from the above, the ruling-class ideas you have allowed to colonise your brain have certainly not improved your capacity to argue.

Even if it was only to annoy you, I'd continue to post here --, but especially to allow you to demonstrate to these good people how these Hermetic ideas you have swallowed have ruined even your low grade logical skills, to such an extent that your only come back is a swear word.

What a warning you are to others of the deleterious effects of too much Hegel (or any at all).

But still, you feel you can comment on them in total ignorance.

And your excuse for this is:

Which is poor, even by your standards, since I did not dismiss him (as you would know if you bothered to take your own advice and learnt to read), I merely rejected your use of his ideas to justify your 'divine right' to make stuff up when it suited you (in defiance of what Marx actually said).

Are you beginning to crack up? Or are you just rattled by my anti-mystical stance? The abuse and the scatological language suggest both.

[And I suspect you mean 'Noumenon'.]

Translated, once again, this means: I (Wangwei) can make stuff up, and then accuse anyone who points this out of “not being able to read”.

Eh? Who are the Lenininists, and what is an ‘enomist’?

And, what are you banging on about now? Do you know what the word “relevant” means?

But, from that syntactic mess you tried to post earlier, it is quite clear that not even you 'understand' this mystical creed.

So, you did make it up.

Honesty at last.

[Perhaps you can cite these letters? You know, the ones that Marx scholars, who have investigated this, have missed, but you haven’t.]

That code being, of course: whatever I (Wangwei) say is the case, is the case.

And philosophy does not need defining since it has been around for 2500 years at least.

It 'defines' itself: ruling class gobbledygook.

You know, of the sort you like.

So, this is where your learnt to make stuff up, and palm it off as what Marx 'really' meant? And in defiance of what he actually said?

And I rather think you are exaggerating the number of children who are using this site -- but, we already know you like to make stuff up.

Why not here too?

Once more, are you cracking up? Or do you like to just randomly bash away at the keyboard?

Who was I bullying? And how does that justify your mindless abuse?

No, you like to swallow its ideology instead. Indeed, you are proud to do so.

I'll take that as a minor victory.

I am aware that the dialectic goes back to the origin of class society, which is just one more reason to reject it.

Every ruling-class hack has used its ideas, including Hegel.

Proof?

It’s at my site --, but your tender, class-compromised eyes are too sensitive to look upon the crushing evidence.

I am quite happy for you now to link this mystical creed with your capacity to make stuff up, use abusive language, post syntactic spaghetti, and employ scatological language.

If that is what 'understanding' the dialectic is, I was right to reject it.

You know no logic, so this is mere bravado.

And the following proves it:

So, I was right, you don't know.

[And the above are not logical errors; I only say this since a logically-challenged bumbler like you would not otherwise know.]

The above are minor errors compared to the serious ones he made.

[And I'd like to see you find a quotation from Hegel that says he thought the Prussian state was as you say he said it was. This is in fact a very common error made by amateurs about Hegel’s ideas. So, it looks like you do not understand your mystical hero, even!]

Want to know what these logical blunders are?

Then you are going to have to be very brave, and summon up more courage than perhaps you have ever manifested in your tedious life so far, and read my oh so threatening essays, where they are laid out in all their ignominious glory -- if you can follow an argument, that is.

In fact, I merely dismiss mystics like you.

I rather doubt that you are 'waiting'; if I gave you such a source, I guess you'd refuse to read that too.

But, as I said earlier: stay ignorant -- you are less danger that way.

I'd respond if I thought you were 1) interested; 2) sincere.

Since I doubt both, you can remain in ignorance, or read my essays.

I careth not either way.

From the above, and once more, I am in excellent company, since you appear not to know what it is.

But, according to you, this Hermetic creed has been around for 5000 years, and in all that time not a single one of you mystics can explain it.

So, it's not at all like you say above. [Even if I knew what ‘Hummanism’ was. Even if you knew!]

And to finish, we get more scatological language to prove how much this braggart 'understands' the dialectic:

Lenin without this mystical dogma is just a Marxist, since Marx reduced the 'dialectic' to a few bits of jargon, with which he merely 'coquetted'.

His words, not mine.

If anyone wants to know why Wangwei and all other Dialectical Mystics are so unreasonable (and why they all say the same sorts of things, over and over again), check this out:

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