"About" page does not equal the communist dialectic, but other content does

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 31 2013 15:56

Rosa Lichtenstein is probably a nod to Rosa Luxemburg, whom I just learned about. There is sudden interest in Hoss (umlaut on o) and, well one thing led to another... actually Duck Dynasty two days before they "broke" out of their reality show.

Hoss was a freikorps soldier who killed members of the German social revolution in the 20s. Rosa Luxemburg was a socialist leader killed by Hoss and Bormann. Bormann we know as Hitler's secretary, but Hoss (who was new to me) put the Holocaust in high gear from 200/day to 2000/day (in complete secret) by architecting/engineering Auschwitz. The freikorps were largely drafted into Hitler's bund, which was "cleansed" in the night of the long knives. (Unusually good Wikipedia page on it.)

Knowing this, I asked myself, who/what is America's freikorps? Duck Dyansty instantly came to mind, so I posted my thoughts FB especially for NYC gay activists I know--and two days later DD self-identified as such. The predictive abilities of constructive modeling and the value of phenomenology--but how to derive benefits?

I am wondering if RL read my page on the Occupy dialectic, saw commercial value in it, and built a sockpuppet from it by integrating the important but little-known failed German revolution. It is more tuned to the current "rational reductions" (over simplifications) that the rebelling youth use right now, such as made Occupy so popular. My occupy blog is not widely-read, only 2000 hits over 2 years, so I assume that readers are specifically interested and well-read on the topic, because it is so low-key--like RL's advertising venture.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Dec 31 2013 11:34

johnbessa you weird eejit! be a good comrade now and stop being such a big goose.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Dec 31 2013 15:54
Quote:
be a good comrade

??

From Leonard Cohen - The Captain:

tell me, Captain, if you know
Of a decent place to stand

There is no decent place to stand
In a massacre

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3yvOn-E-Kw

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Jan 1 2014 14:58

postmortem:

Seeing this thread is DOA, and that I put a good many ideas that I have been evolving since OWS showed its true colors, I will attempt to synopsize it (on FB & Occupy inquiry) to show new aspects of communism, that are apparently attempting to distance themselves from Marx's Kapital, the dialectic, by "reasoning" into another "alternative" --they say "historical blank" or "material blank" In-so-doing, these communists reveal the nature of N degrees of synthesis upon synthesis, such that this "alternative" (belief ) system that they are using to escape the ills of the original communism by dropping the term "dialectic" But this (typical) perversion of language IS the dialectic --by Socrates "alternate" definition! ALTERNATIVE MEANINGS! (not to mention perfecting its application by seducing little boys in the marketplace with it)

Such is revolution: one revolves into descending cycles of destruction, a vortex, black hole. Suggesting the (evolutional) natural track to synthesists is, of course, a waste of time. because, even if they accept it, their use of the word evolution it will be synthesized into some alternative (such as social darwinism was after darwin).

This is precisely what the original oligarchs did to created the fascist/corporate republic template, and current oligarchs rationally reduce to preserve, that is, preserve the downward spiral of growth as a cyclic stasis (now that's alternative thought!). Round and round we go straight into the (well-documented) dialectical hell of geno-mutilation.

Angelus Novus
Offline
Joined: 27-07-06
Jan 1 2014 21:13

Please delete this thread. Mental illness is not funny. If it's just trolling trying to emulate mental illness, that's even more tasteless.

johnbessa's picture
johnbessa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-13
Jan 2 2014 20:53

finally, I am a "troll" (trolling for/as self-abuse by pointing out someone finally called me a troll? abuser logic)

censorship may be the purest form of fascism (directly from plato's republic) but that does not prevent it from happening, especially at the insistance of "troll bashers" (nontheless I always backup my pages and post them on my site if they get deleted)

I first saw the word troll as "trawl" in the context of "an obvious police trawl" for grey-area sexual posts in the early 90s -- next I saw it for "troll busting" as the activity of wealthy racist students who were bashing the homeless in san diego

given this, I am going to hypothesize that all troll-busters have the "mental illness" necessary for bashing (and hence AN's complaint), though it is not something you have, but something you don't have, which I describe here as aggregation neurons that are usually described as empathic neurons such as mirror cells.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Dec 30 2014 16:42

johnbessa: Only just seen this page and your comments!

In fact 'Rosa' is a collective name for five (it used to be six) ex-members of the UK-SWP -- now, two females and three males.

One of us (me), a female, posts on forums; another (also a female) writes most of the essays, and the three guys do research and answer e-mails etc.

"attempting to generate hits for a low-key advertising scheme that you can find at the bottom of any RL pages"

If so, our site is a signal failure! That is because it generates at most a hundred hits on a good week.

In fact, the adverts were a price we had to pay for getting those hit-counters for free. They should now be removed (as per instructions from the owners of the hit-counter site -- they no longer do ads apparently), but we have been too lazy to delete them!

I have to say I find it odd to see you call the quotation from our site "funny (but inaccurate)". You failed to say wherein the inaccuracy lies.

What you do say seems to miss the point, for as we state at the top of each page:

Quote:
First of all, it is important to point out that phrases like "ruling-class theory", "ruling-class view of reality", "ruling-class ideology" used at this site (specifically in connection with Traditional Philosophy (that term will become clearer as this Essay proceeds) and DM) aren't meant to imply that all or even most members of various ruling-classes actually invented these ways of thinking or of seeing the world (although some of them did -- for example, Heraclitus, Plato, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius). They are intended to highlight theories (or "ruling ideas") that are conducive to, or which rationalise the interests of the various ruling-classes history has inflicted on humanity, whoever invents them. Up until recently this dogmatic approach to knowledge had almost invariably been promoted by thinkers who either relied on ruling-class patronage, or who, in one capacity or another, helped run the system for the elite.

However, this will become the central topic of Parts Two and Three of this Essay (when they are published); until then, the reader is directed here, here, and here (links omitted) for further details.

Which seems to me to cover what you had to say (about Socrates, Spartan 'tutors', and Hegel, etc.), and much else besides. So, and once more: I fail to see the error. Perhaps you can explain yourself more clearly?

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Dec 30 2014 16:27

Indeed, our name is a nod toward that much more famous and illustrious Rosa, as well as to Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 30 2014 16:30

Wow. We're in for a treat. The Rosa train wreck is back!

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Dec 30 2014 16:36

Ocelot: Wiped the floor with you, though!

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Dec 30 2014 16:31

'Train wreck'? In what way?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 30 2014 16:50

Nobody but you would need an explanation for that comment. But self awareness... Well, let's just say you don't have that.

bordigaismybro
Offline
Joined: 31-12-14
Dec 31 2014 14:27

JB, you're cool, I like where you are coming from. I know no matter what I tell you, you will dismiss me as a person to censor you. But I don't want to seem judgmental, insulting, or condescending. I know several people who have mental illness, specifically schizophrenia. One is a family member, so I am sympathetical. To me, you sound exactly like them, the way the talk, their concerns, their flow of ideas. If you haven't, I'd recommend seeing a doctor and receiving medication.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Dec 31 2014 17:43

Exactly my thoughts, bordigaismybro.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 31 2014 23:25
Quote:
In fact 'Rosa' is a collective name for five (it used to be six) ex-members of the UK-SWP -- now, two females and three males.

Gee, that's a switch. Usually you get a single person claiming to be a "collective" or a "group" or a "tendency." Here we get (supposedly, if you can believe this it/them/thing pretending to be) a "collective" "group" masquerading as an individual.

And now 5, used to be 6, ex-members of the UK-SWP-- that's priceless.

I want to know what happened to the 6th? Drop out, die, convert?

Group, collective, individual? Same pathology, and pathology it is. BTW RL never wiped the floor with anyone, except the odd teenage Maoist, Stalinist, living at home. She it he them don't know enough about Marx's material critique of capitalism to carry any weight.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 1 2015 20:45

Khawaga:

Quote:
Nobody but you would need an explanation for that comment. But self awareness... Well, let's just say you don't have that.

So, you don't know, either? Fair enough.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 1 2015 20:49

Not-so-Smartesian:

Quote:
Gee, that's a switch. Usually you get a single person claiming to be a "collective" or a "group" or a "tendency." Here we get (supposedly, if you can believe this it/them/thing pretending to be) a "collective" "group" masquerading as an individual.

Nothing unusual; check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki

And here's a whole page of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms

But, you in your infinite ignorance wouldn't know about this, would you?

Anyway, how's that search coming along for the missing work written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, which supports your attempt to re-mystify his work?

Not going too well, eh?

Quote:
And now 5, used to be 6, ex-members of the UK-SWP-- that's priceless.

I want to know what happened to the 6th? Drop out, die, convert?

He was along-term AIDS victim who died in July. Want to make a joke of that?

Quote:
Group, collective, individual? Same pathology, and pathology it is. BTW RL never wiped the floor with anyone, except the odd teenage Maoist, Stalinist, living at home. She it he them don't know enough about Marx's material critique of capitalism to carry any weight.

Still haven't found that missing 'evidence'?

Until you do, your middle names are: 'Floor' and 'Mop'. smile

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 1 2015 21:28

Yup, the train wreck is happening again. Been such a long a time that we had anything to laugh at.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 1 2015 22:14
Quote:
He was along-term AIDS victim who died in July. Want to make a joke of that?

OK, so he died. And if I believed a word you ever said, any or all of the 5 or 6 of you-- yeah, I'd make a joke of it. Don't play the pity card, or the "good taste" card. If you admin: no flaming. Please refrain from personal abuse

I'm not the one who needs to find any missing text of Marx proving anything. You are in need of some test to buttress your fantasy that somewhere, sometime between the explorations of what is now called the Economic Manuscripts (1857-1864) and the writing of the first volume of Capital Marx had a complete break with the previously existing "Hegelian" elements of his critique. So far all you've come up with is a distortion of Marx's preface to the second edition of volume 1.

So we are supposed to believe that Marx up to Capital is in the grips of Hegelian mysticism, but then suddenly with Capital, Marx has completely renounced any connection between his work and Hegel, without however Marx in any notebook, or preliminary draft, or study ever having examined, explained, analyzed such a momentous shift.

Of course there are no such writings of Marx because there was no momentous shift taking place between say, the drafting of the Grundrisse and the publication of Capital. The momentous shift had taken place years earlier with Marx's introduction to and critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right; the shift was deepened and widened in the German Ideology, but hey that's just so much history, and who cares about that? Certainly not our "train wreck" Rosa.

Oh, BTW, I know a bit about train wrecks. What it refers to is a blindness to the actual conditions, or of abiding by the requirements for successfully moving from A to B, and thus, fueled by ignorance, running right off the track or into another train and making a mess out of what is can be easily and safely accomplished and/or explained. It's a metaphor Rosa; a use of language to amplify and illuminate the situation being examined. In this case, you- a mess if ever there was one, or 5 (or 6 but one died).

Like I said, admin: abuse removed, this is a warning

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 2 2015 01:53

Rosa will surely just restate over and over that smoking gun: Marx coquetted with Hegel!

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 2 2015 07:38

Khawaga:

Quote:
Yup, the train wreck is happening again. Been such a long a time that we had anything to laugh at.

You should look in the mirror more often.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 2 2015 08:03

S Floor Mop Not-so-Smartesian:

Quote:
OK, so he died. And if I believed a word you ever said, any or all of the 5 or 6 of you-- yeah, I'd make a joke of it. Don't play the pity card, or the "good taste" card. If you (1,more, or all) were to drop dead tomorrow, I'd say you were a day late.

So, still haven't found that missing 'evidence', eh?

Quote:
I'm not the one who needs to find any missing text of Marx proving anything. You are in need of some test to buttress your fantasy that somewhere, sometime between the explorations of what is now called the Economic Manuscripts (1857-1864) and the writing of the first volume of Capital Marx had a complete break with the previously existing "Hegelian" elements of his critique. So far all you've come up with is a distortion of Marx's preface to the second edition of volume 1.

Still, Marx saw fit not to publish it, but he did publish a summary of 'the dialectic method' in the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital in which, surprisingly enough, there is not one atom of Hegel to be found, upside down or 'the right way up'. And, what is even more annoying for you, it's the only summary of 'the dialectic method' he saw fit to publish in his entire life. And, as if to rub it in, he added it to the Postface a good seven or eight years after the unpublished MSS you mentioned. So, and alas for you mystics, it represents his more considered thoughts. Get over it.

In which case, Mr Mop, you still need to find another summary of 'the dialectic method' written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, which supports your attempt to re-mystify his work.

Off you go, make yourself useful for a change.

Quote:
So we are supposed to believe that Marx up to Capital is in the grips of Hegelian mysticism, but then suddenly with Capital, Marx has completely renounced any connection between his work and Hegel, without however Marx in any notebook, or preliminary draft, or study ever having examined, explained, analyzed such a momentous shift.

Of course there are no such writings of Marx because there was no momentous shift taking place between say, the drafting of the Grundrisse and the publication of Capital. The momentous shift had taken place years earlier with Marx's introduction to and critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right; the shift was deepened and widened in the German Ideology, but hey that's just so much history, and who cares about that? Certainly not our "train wreck" Rosa.

Until you find this missing 'evidence', all we have to go on is what Marx saw fit to publish -- and it's not good news for you mystics, either; so do the math yourself (if you can -- if not, Rosa will be only too happy to assist you smile ).

Quote:
Oh, BTW, I know a bit about train wrecks. What it refers to is a blindness to the actual conditions, or of abiding by the requirements for successfully moving from A to B, and thus, fuelled by ignorance, running right off the track or into another train and making a mess out of what is can be easily and safely accomplished and/or explained. It's a metaphor Rosa; a use of language to amplify and illuminate the situation being examined. In this case, you- a mess if ever there was one, or 5 (or 6 but one died).

You'd be far better occupied trying to find this missing 'evidence' rather than posting all these ineffectual rants, Mr Mop.

But, I have been telling you this for three years or more, so I suspect you'll be regaling the good folk here with yet more of your verbal diarrhoea (as a way of deflecting from your plight -- and even that isn't working!).

Quote:
Like I said, drop dead individually and collectively. Your loss will be our gain.

What, and leave you mystics to screw around with Das Kapital some more? No chance.

The words 'wiped' and 'floor' oddly come to mind again...

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 2 2015 07:59

Khawaga the Irrelevant:

Quote:
Rosa will surely just restate over and over that smoking gun: Marx coquetted with Hegel!

No need to, you just did! Cheers!! smile

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 2 2015 15:21
Quote:
What, and leave you mystics to screw around with Das Kapital some more? No chance.

Now that's an interesting accusation. Exactly how have any of the so-called "mystics" screwed around with the content of Capital in contradistinction to how the "anti-mystics" have or have not screwed around with that content?

To answer that we'll have to ask the anti-mystics to tell us
1) what is the basis for Marx's critique of capital
2) what is unique to capitalism as opposed to other modes of production
3) what are the barriers to capital reproduction
4) what and where are the sources of these barriers

That just for starters, and it might yield some important insights-- of course it will require that we move beyond the postface to the second edition, which of course appears in English originally with the 4th edition.

So if RL would care to engage in some substantive discussion, and provide some evidence for her assertion re the "screwing up," I'm more than happy to engage. Otherwise, this is as pointless as asking Ted Bundy "what's on the menu?"

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 2 2015 15:49

I'll ask again Rosa: what is the dialectic that Marx uses? You've never ever been able to answer that, hence your "evidence" doesn't even mean anything to you. It can't because you really have no clue what you're talking about. Never did.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 2 2015 16:27

S 'Floor Mop' Not-so-Smartesian:

Quote:
Now that's an interesting accusation. Exactly how have any of the so-called "mystics" screwed around with the content of Capital in contradistinction to how the "anti-mystics" have or have not screwed around with that content?

To answer that we'll have to ask the anti-mystics to tell us
1) what is the basis for Marx's critique of capital
2) what is unique to capitalism as opposed to other modes of production
3) what are the barriers to capital reproduction
4) what and where are the sources of these barriers

That just for starters, and it might yield some important insights-- of course it will require that we move beyond the postface to the second edition, which of course appears in English originally with the 4th edition.

So if RL would care to engage in some substantive discussion, and provide some evidence for her assertion re the "screwing up," I'm more than happy to engage. Otherwise, this is as pointless as asking Ted Bundy "what's on the menu?"

Happy to tell you when you find that missing 'evidence'.

So, off you go...

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 2 2015 16:29

Khawaga The Irrelevant:

Quote:
I'll ask again Rosa: what is the dialectic that Marx uses? You've never ever been able to answer that, hence your "evidence" doesn't even mean anything to you. It can't because you really have no clue what you're talking about. Never did.

Why ask me then?

And why should I share any gems of wisdom with a numpty like you?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 2 2015 16:45

This:

Quote:
Happy to tell you when you find that missing 'evidence'.

and this:

Quote:
And why should I share any gems of wisdom with a numpty like you?

tell us everything we need to know about the Rosas Lichtensteins "understanding" and knowledge of Capital.

Infants/poseurs the lot of them.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 2 2015 17:11

S 'Floor Mop' Not-so-Smartesian:

Quote:
tell us everything we need to know about the Rosas Lichtensteins "understanding" and knowledge of Capital.

Infants/poseurs the lot of them.

Is this an admission you can't find the missing 'evidence' that supports your attempt to re-mystify Das Kapital?

I have to say, you kept that fact quiet for the last three years, and no mistake.

Now, where's that Clorox?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 2 2015 20:21
Quote:
Now, where's that Clorox?

Thirsty? Drink up, please.