You do not need an ounce of philosophy to understand Capital.
Since you can't read, I'll explain it simple like for the simplton. Marx wrote Capital using the dialectic, but that doesn't mean that you need to use the dialectic to understand it. Nice try at obfuscating the argument.
You get better here:
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.
Because you are unable to understand that fact that all ideas have come from the ruling class, including Marx's. All of human knowledge and understanding is a mountain. This is your favorite straw man. There are experts, they provide research and understanding, and I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, but instead seek to understand knowledge objectively. The subjective source of that knowledge should be taken into account, but the material reality uncovered by that knowledge is key.
this is choice:
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.
This coming from a person who can't read! I'm not reading into Marx, but am inferencing from Marx. Don't blame me if you don't know basic reading strategies.
But stop calling it 'Marxism'.
Well, since it's based upon the works of Marx, why not? Do you have a better idea to call Marx's dialectic? Oh yeah, you say that it doesn't exist.
More ruling class ideology;
Hmm... You don't know jack shit about how the Tao developed then do you? I thought not. Carry on with your ignorance.
I was in fact referring to myself and Babeuf.
And I was, how did you put it, oh yeah, taking the piss.
this means that you are proud you know no logic
Indicative of your absolutism. Since I don't agree with your logic, then I don't know logic. Yup, you're consistent.
As far as Marx's use of the term "coquetted", it's just further proof that you can't read. There's a context for it, and you missed that context. So, uhm, yeah, if you could read, then you'd know what I was talking about, but you can't.
But you are the one who listens to mystics and that 'working class' philosopher Hegel.
Since you're an absolutist, You assume that I am one two, and you're projecting your belief system onto me. Sorry, no dice. As Marx negated Hegel, it's Marx's dialectic that I employ. Hegel was part of the process that Marx employed in crafting the Dialectic.
On a side note, you are aware that Marx crafted his dissertation of Epicurus from fragments right? Yeah, Marx could read and use his human capacity for induction and deduction.
What you call logic is empirical bourgeois formalism. I don't agree that your mechanical logic is an acurate representation of reality. So, I'm comfortable with contradiction, so long as they are part of the organic process of change, which the dialectic seeks to understand.
All this just to cover the fact that you like to make stuff up
It's pretty sad actually that you didn't understand what I meant by using "package" and deconstructionist techniques on a word. Don't blame me if you don't know what the word means, especially when you say that you know everything about the dialectic. Hint: negation is the process of unbecoming to become.
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.
I love how you use the word "hermetic", where I would use the term shematic or epistemological. Ah well. The dialectic is used epistemologically to extract understanding to create a concrete analsysis capable of building an abastraction out of. It's in Gollobin's discussion of Piaget.
But still, you feel you can comment on them in total ignorance.
Not total ignorance, as I was having a great laugh with you trying to disprove the first law using the moon! It was such a laugh fest.
Which is poor, even by your standards, since I did not dismiss him
It's not just enough to be a revisionist, but now you're revising history? wow. Sad, so sad.
[And I suspect you mean 'Noumenon'.]
Yes. Thanks for correcting my spelling. Not that you're an elitist or anything.
Who are the Lenininists
The RCP and ISO are. I gave some examples of Leninists.
and what is an ‘enomist’?
economist. Damn, too many spelling errors in my last post. I'll take more care editing, I promise, I really doooo.
it is quite clear that not even you 'understand' this mystical creed.
What you call a "syntactic mess" may actually be me using the dialectic, but you're so ambiguous with it, that I don't know exactly what you're referring to.
[Perhaps you can cite these letters? You know, the ones that Marx scholars, who have investigated this, have missed, but you haven’t.]
Are you seriously saying that you're unaware of correspondance between Marx and Engels?
That code being, of course:
Why would you know what "code" means in terms of discourse?
It 'defines' itself
words don't define themselves. They are defined through context, coding, and interraction. I'll go out on a limb and define philosophy thus: Philo = love sophia = wisdom, knowledge
philosophy = a search for, and a method to understand the world around us. This is the meaning I'm employing behind the term philosophy, and the meaning common to it in the vernacular. What are you discoursing with?
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.
Sorry I forgot that you can't read. The prounoun "it" in my sentence referred to the reading strategy "inference" which the site was about. Since you're a mechanical automaton, you mechanically thought that I referred to the site, and not the subject of the site. You do that often don't you, you know miss the subtext. You know miss the content when you're looking at the form, and the form when you're looking at the content; can't see the trees because the forest gets in the way...
Once more, are you cracking up?
Yup, further proof that Leninists don't understand the state. Carry on.
Who was I bullying?
No one I guess, I mean, you were just acting like a Leninist is all. Carry on.
No, you like to swallow its ideology instead.
Yup, I'm sure that you understand the ideology of the state, I mean everything you've typed here fully illustrates a deep understanding of it. Yup, profound.
I am aware that the dialectic goes back to the origin of class society, which is just one more reason to reject it.
I think that the dialectic pre-dates all class society, and that as we recapture our humanity, that we'll see things as they are. the idealist social constructs of today are all part and parcel of class society and need to be removed, so the philosophy that existed before class society would be the best one to build upon, as communism will have to be built through a synthesis of struggle between humanity and nature to find harmony. If you knew anything about Ch'an, Zen, or the Tao, then you'd know what I was saying.
It’s at my site --, but your tender, class-compromised eyes are too sensitive to look upon the crushing evidence.
This self-parody is the funniest thing that you've ever typed. Do you take yourself that seriousely? Wow.
If that is what 'understanding' the dialectic is, I was right to reject it.
If that's all you can focus on, then you're reminding me of the sophomoric Beavis and Butthead who would say stuff like, "she said bra" during health class. Is that what the class was on, no, but that's what they got because they couldn't grasp what was going on.
And the above are not logical errors;
Mao's nationalism wasn't a logical blunder??? Whoa. Okay.
Want to know what these logical blunders are?
According to a Leninist who doesn't think that Mao's nationalism wasn't a logical blunder? Uhm... no.
In fact, I merely dismiss mystics like you.
I'm sure St. Max would have said it the same way. Carry on Sachmo!
rather doubt that you are 'waiting'; if I gave you such a source, I guess you'd refuse to read that too.
More mind reading. I actually am waiting for a shred of proof, I mean other than, "I have a PHD". Of course, summarize and synthesize whatever you give.
I'd respond if I thought you were 1) interested; 2) sincere.
So, you refuse to define 1.) philsophy and 2.) the dialectic. So, you refuse to particularize our discourse by unpackaging the terms that we're discoursing with. You're not a very good semanticist are you?
From the above, and once more, I am in excellent company, since you appear not to know what it is.
uhm, I've put it into practice in this polemic, but you missed it. So, Beavis, carry on.
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.
Who says that it's never been explained? It's still being developed, and our understanding of it is developing too. The ruling class does not want us thinking dialectically at all, as that would endanger their hold on our ideology.
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'.
Yeah, Lenin without the dialectic is quite terrifying. I think the term is "Blanquism."