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

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 3 2015 07:54

S 'Floor Mop' Not-So-Smartesian:

Quote:
Thirsty?

Indeed, I am. Thirsty for knowledge about Marx and Das Kapital, but you, Mr Mop, refuse to share any, or tell the good folk here whether or not this missing 'evidence' (which, I am sure, supports your aim to re-mystify his work) actually exists.

Or, does it?

The only way to shut me up is: produce it, or admit, at long last, that it doesn't exist.

Or, is that too complicated a task for me to set you?

[I can type slower if that will help. smile ]

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Jan 3 2015 11:19
Khawaga wrote:
Rosa will surely just restate over and over that smoking gun: Marx coquetted with Hegel!

Or maybe he just had croquettes with him. /lamepun

Nothing else I can contribute; the dead horses shall dead remain.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 3 2015 11:51

Hang on, so we're making death threats now over marginally different interpretations of Marx?

And you call the OP the one with the mental health issues...

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 3 2015 15:12

Caiman del Barrio -- this is par for the course. I have had similar 'death wishes', and worse, imposed on me many times over since I first appeared on the Internet in 2005. All because I have the temerity to question the sacred 'dialectic'.

Many of these comradely wishes have been recorded here:

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

Recently, a well-known Marxist Professor of Economics expressed the wish that I should "Eat sh*t and die!" -- either that or quaff some Hemlock. When he repeated these comradely thoughts and worse at The North Star Magazine website -- in the comments section to an interview I gave this journal a year or so ago -- they were deemed so extreme, they were deleted by the mods:

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10789

Another, also an academic Marxist (fellow Trotskyist, too, and member of the same party to which I used to belong (he has since left that party, too)), said I was the "vilest person on the Internet", which, presumably makes me worse than child murderers, Zionist butchers and Nazi war criminals.

Of course, comrade Artesian has been spewing similar bile in my general direction for over three years; what is more, he will continue doing it.

And I know why he/they do this: I am attacking their only source of consolation (for the fact that Dialectical Marxism is a long-term failure). In short, they are like those religious zealots who used to burn people at the stake for their 'heresies', or who today cut their heads off:

Quote:
"Hence, any attack on this 'precious jewel' -- the dialectic -- is an attack on the revolutionary ego itself, and will be resisted with all the bile at its command."

Explanation here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm#Essay_Nine_Part_Two

In fact, there is a much briefer explanation about a quarter of the way into that interview I gave -- follow the second link I posted above. It can be found in answer the this question: "Why do you think that dialectical materialists refuse to abandon dialectical materialism?"

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 3 2015 15:28

A. I am not your comrade

B. I have never called you the vilest person on the Internet. You are certainly not the vilest person I've ever met. You are once and always a mediocrity.

C. I've never made a "death threat" to you. You on the other hand have liberally, and liberal you are, called those who disagree with you "class enemies" and the like. Where I come from when you identify someone as a "class enemy" you are targeting that person for future severe attack, up to and including physical elimination. That you don't "see" the words as meaning that shows again just how ignorant you are about the real conditions, and demands, of class struggle.

C. Quit the pity appeal. You refuse to engage with the substance of Marx's work. Instead you set up "demands" for evidence that have nothing to do with the content of Marx's work. You have claimed that Marx's work, prior to the publication of Capital volume 1, employed or exhibited or was somehow "infected" with traces of Hegelian mysticism. For those not quite as familiar with Marx's work prior to Capital, please provide examples of Hegelian mysticism in Marx's analysis, which mysticism is subsequently abandoned, refuted, corrected, or altered, not in phrasing or in vocabulary, but in the material critique of the conditions and requirements for capitalist reproduction. For example, if you consider Marx's argument in the Grundrisse, and in other sections of the Economic Manuscripts that capital's basic, and ultimate, contradiction of capital is the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor to be an example of "Hegelian mysticism," then please show how and where Marx corrects or rejects that formulation in or after the publication of volume 1. Now that's just an example, so don't try and get around it by saying "that's not an example of Hegelian mysticism."

D. Your responsibility, if you claim to be a Marxist, is to identify the pre-Capital Hegelian elements in Marx that hamper, restrict, distort his critique of capital, and how, in his seminal work, Marx has overcome that limitation, those restrictions, and has advanced the critique of capital, his apprehension of the dynamic processes of capital accumulation, due to the rejection of Hegel.

E. Of course, talking about "responsibility" to person/person who are, individually and collectively dilettantes is generally a futile endeavor-- but that's the point. You are not serious. You are a dabbler.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 3 2015 16:03

Mr Mop:

Quote:
A. I am not your comrade

I'll be the judge of that, sunshine.

Quote:
B. I have never called you the vilest person on the Internet.

I never said you did. [Do you need new glasses/eyes/brain cells?]

Quote:
You are certainly not the vilest person I've ever met. You are once and always a mediocrity.

Only slightly less mediocre than your good self, Mopsy -- that is, unless you can locate the missing 'evidence' I have been asking you about for the last three years.

Quote:
C. I've never made a "death threat" to you. You on the other hand have liberally, and liberal you are, called those who disagree with you "class enemies" and the like. Where I come from when you identify someone as a "class enemy" you are targeting that person for future severe attack, up to and including physical elimination. That you don't "see" the words as meaning that shows again just how ignorant you are about the real conditions, and demands, of class struggle.

1) That is why I re-characterised it as a 'death wish', which you certainly posted.

2) In fact, I called you a 'class traitor' for spewing ruling-class ideology in the general direction of anyone foolish enough to read your posts (on this topic).

3) The other things you allege are figments of your imagination.

Quote:
C. Quit the pity appeal. You refuse to engage with the substance of Marx's work. Instead you set up "demands" for evidence that have nothing to do with the content of Marx's work. You have claimed that Marx's work, prior to the publication of Capital volume 1, employed or exhibited or was somehow "infected" with traces of Hegelian mysticism. For those not quite as familiar with Marx's work prior to Capital, please provide examples of Hegelian mysticism in Marx's analysis, which mysticism is subsequently abandoned, refuted, corrected, or altered, not in phrasing or in vocabulary, but in the material critique of the conditions and requirements for capitalist reproduction. For example, if you consider Marx's argument in the Grundrisse, and in other sections of the Economic Manuscripts that capital's basic, and ultimate, contradiction of capital is the conflict between labor and the conditions of labor to be an example of "Hegelian mysticism," then please show how and where Marx corrects or rejects that formulation in or after the publication of volume 1. Now that's just an example, so don't try and get around it by saying "that's not an example of Hegelian mysticism."

Two 'C' points, eh? I see you are just as sloppy over such details as you are over other things connected with Marx's work -- like the fact that I had to correct your defective 'definition' of a 'contradiction' as Marx 'defined' it in his masterpiece, and you struggled heroically, but lamentably badly, to tell us what a 'use value' is:

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/marxs-dialectic-26012012?page=3

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/dialectics-29072006?page=8

Anywhoo, I'll be more than happy to answer the other points you raised when you (a) show the lightest interest in the answer, and (b) locate the missing 'evidence' we have all been eagerly waiting for, but which you simply refuse to publish

Quote:
D. Your responsibility, if you claim to be a Marxist, is to identify the pre-Capital Hegelian elements in Marx that hamper, restrict, distort his critique of capital, and how, in his seminal work, Marx has overcome that limitation, those restrictions, and has advanced the critique of capital, his apprehension of the dynamic processes of capital accumulation, due to the rejection of Hegel.

Well done! Good to see you know that 'D' follows 'C' in the alphabet, and not another 'C'!

And, once again: I'll be more than happy to accept your characterisation of my controversial ideas when you locate that missing passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your (up to now) futile attempts to re-mystify his work.

Until then, all we have to guide us is Marx's own published summary of 'the dialectic method', which contains no trace of Hegel whatsoever (upside down, or the 'right way up').

Quote:
E. Of course, talking about "responsibility" to person/person who are, individually and collectively dilettantes is generally a futile endeavor-- but that's the point. You are not serious. You are a dabbler.

So you keep saying (except you alternate between 'troll', 'liar' and now 'dabbler' -- and at one point 'police spy!').

Still, even if true, it's far better than being a class traitor like your good self, isn't it, Mopsy? smile

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 3 2015 16:18

Good job exposing yourself Rosa. We could trade insults forever. Fact is you won't answer, because you can't answer. You offer nothing regarding the content of Marx's critique of capital.

And as you have so cheerfully admitted, whether or not any one or group does or does not link Marx to Hegel has absolutely no impact on the "politics" of that one or group.

Pointlessness is your profession.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 3 2015 16:25

BTW, Rosa, you keep asking for "evidence" for something you say I am claiming regarding Marx.

For the record, please identify what you claim I am saying regarding Marx that requires such evidence.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 3 2015 16:45

Mr Mop:

Quote:
Good job exposing yourself Rosa. We could trade insults forever. Fact is you won't answer, because you can't answer. You offer nothing regarding the content of Marx's critique of capital.

And as you have so cheerfully admitted, whether or not any one or group does or does not link Marx to Hegel has absolutely no impact on the "politics" of that one or group.

Pointlessness is your profession.

Drat, you forgot that 'evidence' again. sad

But, you have answer:

Quote:
BTW, Rosa, you keep asking for "evidence" for something you say I am claiming regarding Marx.

For the record, please identify what you claim I am saying regarding Marx that requires such evidence.

Here it is again, for the umpteenth time (your memory is clearly shot; I blame dialectics):

Quote:
Please locate that missing passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your (up to now) futile attempts to re-mystify his work.

I'll be happy to keep posting this until one or two of your memory cells show some sign of life, Mopsy baby.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 3 2015 16:50

Rosa,

I asked you to specify the claim you say I am making regarding Marx's critique that requires the evidence. What is the content of the claim you assert I make?

What specific claim do I make that "remystifies" Marx's work-- mystification means, of course, obscuring the real material content.

No answer for that either? Not surprised.

Word: You should watch how and where you use the word "mopsy." In certain environments use of the word would identify you as, at the very least, sexist, and possibly a pimp.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 3 2015 17:30

Mr Mop:

Quote:
I asked you to specify the claim you say I am making regarding Marx's critique that requires the evidence. What is the content of the claim you assert I make?

What specific claim do I make that "remystifies" Marx's work-- mystification means, of course, obscuring the real material content.

No answer for that either? Not surprised.

Word: You should watch how and where you use the word "mopsy." In certain environments use of the word would identify you as, at the very least, sexist, and possibly a pimp.

Well, you are the expert at avoiding questions; I have been posing them to you since you first showed your moppish face over at RevLeft, and which you also ignored at Louis Proyect's site and at RedMarx -- just as you did at this site a year or so ago.

And I even told you then that I'd quote those pages back at you when you ignored them again, just as you will also do in thread; here is just one such request from me, which you also ignored back then:

Quote:
...may I remind you (yet again!) that you are the one who can't justify his use of 'contradiction' -- except you appeal to tradition -- and that I had to inform of Marx's caveat that even a 'coquetted' contradiction involves a unity of opposites that 'mutually exclude' one another (something you had forgotten about) -- which, of course, means that there can be no such 'contradictions'.

Plus, you are the one whose defective intentional 'definition' of use value (carelessly put in the present continuous tense -- even though I warned you to be careful) implies that any object not known about loses its use value.

Now, instead of moaning about me, you'd be far better employed:

1) Justifying your odd use of 'contradiction' -- without the usual knee-jerk appeal to tradition;

2) Locating that missing passage, published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your attempt to re-mystify his work;

3) Explaining why objects that aren't known about can have a use value, when your intentional 'definition' implies they can't.

But, we all know you prefer to duck such questions, and that you will continue to dream up all manner of avoiding tactics to deflect attention from your plight.

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/dialectics-29072006?page=9#comment-4735...

So, just as soon as you answer effectively the many questions I have been asking you for over three years, I will be happy to answer yours.

Deal?

Er..., sorry: Deal, Mopsy?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 3 2015 18:22
Quote:
1) Justifying your odd use of 'contradiction' -- without the usual knee-jerk appeal to tradition;

2) Locating that missing passage, published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports your attempt to re-mystify his work;

3) Explaining why objects that aren't known about can have a use value, when your intentional 'definition' implies they can't.

But, we all know you prefer to duck such questions, and that you will continue to dream up all manner of avoiding tactics to deflect attention from your plight.

1) I rarely use the word "contradiction" , and when I do, it is solely in the "traditional" sense, i.e in the sense that Marx himself used it throughout his work up to including and beyond Capital; i.e when Marx says

Quote:
"We saw in a former chapter that the exchange of commodities implies contradictory and mutually exclusive conditions. The differentiation of commodities into commodities and money does not sweep away these inconsistencies, but develops a modus vivendi, a form in which they can exist side by side. This is generally the way in which real contradictions are reconciled."

The careful reader, of which you are not one Rosa, will note that this also answers your harping about my lack of recognizing Marx's earlier description of contradiction being mutually exclusive. Marx, in Capital demonstrates that what he calls contradiction in the traditional sense underlies and determines the real development of capitalist accumulation" and that such contradictions are reconciled by being "composed" or "compressed" into a single form.

Or as another example:

Quote:
The antithesis, use-value and value; the contradictions that private labour is bound to manifest itself as direct social labour, that a particularised concrete kind of labour has to pass for abstract human labour; the contradiction between the personification of objects and the representation of persons by things; all these antitheses and contradictions, which are immanent in commodities, assert themselves, and develop their modes of motion, in the antithetical phases of the metamorphosis of a commodity. These modes therefore imply the possibility, and no more than the possibility, of crises. The conversion of this mere possibility into a reality is the result of a long series of relations, that, from our present standpoint of simple circulation, have as yet no existence. [25]

2) Again what exactly constitutes evidence for your assertion that I attempt to "re-mystify" Marx? That I use "contradiction" in the "traditional sense" when I ever use it in my published work?

3) Objects that aren't known about have use value? Who cares? That's a marginal, trivial issue. Marx's critique of capital has nothing to do with such obscurantist crap. Does a rock have "use value"? Is use value innate to things, separate and apart from a user? Please that's circle jerk dilettantism. Marx is dealing with social relations of production; the organization of social labor-- nature as mediated by human activity, labor; and that labor itself being expressed in a particular form dependent upon specific historical conditions.

Those are my answers such that they are. Whether you accept them or not, agree or not is immaterial.

Now answer the questions that have been put to you.

But of course you will not. You'll play your linguistic trivial pursuit once again.

And then the discussion will be over, because you are not serious in your investigation of Marx's critique. Dilettante you were, are, and will remain.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Offline
Joined: 30-03-07
Jan 5 2015 16:22

Mr Mop: I'll respond to your rather weak attempt to respond to my last post later this week.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 5 2015 16:39

Is the answer:Marx coquetted with Hegel?

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 5 2015 16:42

NB, google image search for "coquette" in the hope of providing suitable humorous meme for above, definitely NSFW. (Shoulda seen that one coming, really. D'oh!)

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 5 2015 17:14

The response Rosa, is not to my post-- but to the questions that have been asked of you.

For example, you continue to claim that I am trying to "remystify Marx."

Consequently, the issues are:

Who attempted originally to mystify Marx?

How did this mystification of Marx obscure, distort, Marx's critique of capital?

Show how the distortion is the result of, determined by, use of, or adherence to "Hegelian tendencies."

You acknowledge that Marx asserts he does employ a dialectic in Capital. As Khawaga has already asked: What are the elements of that dialectic? Provide examples of Marx's dialectic in his analysis of capital from the pages of Capital, Volume 1 itself. Provide examples from Marx's earlier "tainted" works of a "different dialectic."

How, when Marx himself, according to you, expunged all remnants of Hegel from his critique, did Marx's analysis of capital, or the laws of capital accumulation, change? How was the analysis of those laws now different from the analysis Marx provided when his work was supposedly, according to you, still hampered by elements of Hegel?

Find the examples, counter-examples, evidence of change, passages later distorted by "Hegelian mystifiers" in the actual body of Marx's works, in Marx's critique of the origins, laws, methods, conditions of capital accumulation.

confusionboats
Offline
Joined: 4-01-14
Jan 16 2015 01:49

Tangentiality is the only Truth. Hegel was just trying to convince people that the carpet remnants was a total carpet.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 16 2015 22:45

Rosa? Time for one or more of the five, was six, of you to give us your answers to life's questions.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 16 2015 23:11

Yeah, I was wondering when Rosa would wade in and quote the "coquetted" phrase ad nauseam. That smoking gun... apparently.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 23 2015 15:22

Time's up, Rosa. You haven't responded, exactly as was expected. You've forfeited this one.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Jan 23 2015 16:15
Khawaga wrote:
Yeah, I was wondering when Rosa would wade in and quote the "coquetted" phrase ad nauseam. That smoking gun... apparently.

And the whole coquette thing is grossly misinterpreted anyway. The passage says nothing about anything dialectic per se but the way he used some Hegelian terms (sometimes in irony, some because they're useful), especially in the first chapter of the first German edition. Later editions have fewer direct and indirect references (too bad, because the first edition's first chapter was so much richer in content) - so all in all, the passage is a cheap strawman.