Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Register ][ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Anti-Dialectics For Dummies?

POST REPLY
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 12 Oct 2010, 22:04
So,i stumbled upon this "anti-dialectics" essay that claims DiaMat is wrong and faulty.
The first part is some sort of a short summary about dialectics,the second parts is the author "refuting" DM.
What do you think about this?

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_For ... s%2001.htm
Soviet cogitations: 10001
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 12 Oct 2010, 22:07
You can't refute Dialectical Materialism because it's a perspective on the world. Treating it as dogma that's either true or false is one of the biggest errors of the Soviet state ideology.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Ideology: Other Leftist
Embalmed
Post 12 Oct 2010, 22:15
The author frequently posts on revleft under the name 'Rosa Lichtenstein' and claims she's been refuting dialectician 'mystics' for 30 years.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10001
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 12 Oct 2010, 22:17
onelineonebullet
Last edited by Fellow Comrade on 15 Oct 2010, 12:12, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: She's stupid.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 1124
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 13 Oct 2010, 12:42
Here’s my take on some of her arguments from my understanding of dialectics.

Quote:
Unfortunately, Dialectical Marxism has not known much in the way of success. The 1917 revolution has been reversed, practically every single 'socialist' state has abandoned Marxism (and the workers in those countries did not lift a finger to defend 'their state')…And yet, most dialecticians claim that materialist dialectics lies at the heart of revolutionary theory and practice. If so, why have none of them drawn the obvious conclusion: history has refuted their theory?


She seems here to be refuting dialectics simply because capitalism has yet to change effectively into socialism. Quite ignored is the transition from primitive to slave, slave to feudal, and feudal to capitalist society. As for the collapse of the USSR etc, just because something can change dialectically doesn’t mean it cannot revert back. Liquid water can be boiled to make water vapour but that doesn’t mean that water vapour cannot be cooled and turned back into a liquid again.

Quote:
But not all qualitative differences are caused this way. The order in which events take place can effect quality, too. For example, try crossing a busy main road first and looking second -- now try it the other way round! And anyone who tries pouring half a litre of water slowly into a litre of concentrated sulphuric acid will face a long and painful stay in hospital, whereas the reverse action is perfectly safe.


I’m not sure at what she’s getting at here with the road-crossing example. This contains issues of probability of being hit by a car (it is far from inevitable). As for the acid: I’m no scientist but would these not count as separate dialectical processes despite containing the same elements?

Quote:
Now, it turns out that this Law is so vaguely worded that dialecticians can use it in whatever way they please. If this is difficult to believe then ask the very next dialectician you meet precisely how long a "nodal point" is supposed to last. You will receive no answer. But, if no one knows, then anything from a Geological Age to an instantaneous quantum leap could be "nodal"!


Why does anyone need to know how long a nodal point lasts? Surely they all vary anyway?

Quote:
In that case we could easily have qualitative change with no extra matter or energy added to the system. For instance, consider three animals in a row: a mouse, a pony, and an elephant. In relation to the mouse, the pony is big, but in relation to the elephant it is small. Change in quality, but no matter or energy has been added or subtracted.


This is not a change in quality because the mouse, pony and elephant are not changing into each other. If there was some way for a mouse to change into a pony then energy would be required to make that qualitative change.

I would think this also applies to the example she uses of isomers. While molecularly identical, their difference is found in their geometrical organisation. I don’t see a problem with this as one still cannot change into the other (without energy).

Quote:
To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is composed of two 'internal' opposites O* and O**, and A thus changes as a result. But O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If it didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring this about!


I’ve never seen it like this. I’ve always seen it as O* and O** are in constant struggle but that, inevitably, O** negates O* leaving just O** left (which is in turn negates A).

For example, let’s say A is a coffee table which has just been made at a carpenters. It is made with fresh wood and has just been varnished and protected against outside influences. Thus O* represents these forces that hold the table together, protect the table and generally keep the table within its identifiable definition of “table”. O** represents the forces that are trying to undo the table. These include weathering, rot, the drying out of the glue, etc.

Upon the outset the forces of O* are at their strongest. However, this does not mean the forces of O** are not present and, without human intervention (energy) they will only grow stronger. If you leave the table for 100 years the forces of O** will have had a demonstrable impact upon the table as they start to overcome the forces of O*. If you leave it long enough the forces of O* will be completely negated by those of O** as the table rots away until it is no longer identifiable as a “table”. Thus O* does not turn into O**; O** negates O*.

Quote:
Of course, this is all quite apart from the fact that many things just do not change into their opposites (or even because of them). When was the last time you saw a male cat turn into a female cat? Your left hand into your right? An electron into a proton? Or even a material object turn into an immaterial one?


Many of these are not opposites. A male is not the opposite of a female. I would say a male cat is inherently similar (although not identical) to a female cat. According to her logic a zebra would be the opposite of a horse. The opposite of a cat is a dead cat - i.e. no-longer identifiable as a “cat” in the truest sense of the word.

But of course, she is mistaken in arguing one turns into the opposite. Instead the cat is eventually negated by it’s opposite - and this is true: all cats die.

Quote:
And are we really supposed to believe that every proletarian (as individuals or as a class) will turn into Capitalists (and/or vice versa)?


No, capitalism is to be negated by socialism.

Quote:
And what about organisms that reproduce by splitting, such as amoebae and bacteria? In any such division, which half is the negation and which the NON?


The one is negated to form two. It does not matter which “one” is the negation. The point is one is negated to form two.


These are the key things I have issues with in her argument. Although I must say she seems to have a point about the lack of ubiquity of nodal change within nature.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 08 Nov 2010, 22:25
Conscript:

Quote:
The author frequently posts on revleft under the name 'Rosa Lichtenstein' and claims she's been refuting dialectician 'mystics' for 30 years.


In fact, all I have claimed is that I have been debating this theory with dialectical marxists now for 25+ years. I really did not know enough about it until the late 1990s for me to be able to refute it. Since then, I have been studying it extensively.

It is also worth recalling that the Essay of mine that is the subject of this thread was written for absolute beginners, and so does not enter into this theory, or my criticisms, in any great detail.

A far better one, that outlines my objections more completely, is this:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 08 Nov 2010, 22:29
Mabool:

Quote:
You can't refute Dialectical Materialism because it's a perspective on the world. Treating it as dogma that's either true or false is one of the biggest errors of the Soviet state ideology.


In fact, I think I can show that this theory reflects the 'perspective' of substitutionist elements in Marxism.

And, I agree that it is difficult to refute this theory, but that is because it is terminally vague, and, as far as I can see, it makes no sense at all.

But, I think I have managed to do it anyway.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 08 Nov 2010, 22:31
gRed Britain, thanks for those comments. I'll return tomorrow with a reply.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 10001
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 17:08
Quote:
In fact, I think I can show that this theory reflects the 'perspective' of substitutionist elements in Marxism.


You're welcome to do so, then. I'm listening. How does Dialectical Materialism reflect the perspective of "substitutionist" elements in Marxism?

Quote:
And, I agree that it is difficult to refute this theory, but that is because it is terminally vague, and, as far as I can see, it makes no sense at all.


I wouldn't agree that it makes no sense. But technically this is irrelevant. As I've said, Dialectical Materialism is a perspective. A point of view. An interpretation of the world. An interpretation cannot be right or wrong, and if you think it makes no sense, this is your opinion, but it doesn't invalidate it. Most interpretations of Kafka make no sense to me either, but I don't try to refute them because it's impossible.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 19:46
gRed:

Quote:
She seems here to be refuting dialectics simply because capitalism has yet to change effectively into socialism. Quite ignored is the transition from primitive to slave, slave to feudal, and feudal to capitalist society. As for the collapse of the USSR etc, just because something can change dialectically doesn’t mean it cannot revert back. Liquid water can be boiled to make water vapour but that doesn’t mean that water vapour cannot be cooled and turned back into a liquid again.


1) Recall this is a very basic essay, intended for absolute beginners, so I have had to leave out all the qualifications I normally insert into my essays.

2) My argument is in fact:

a) Dialectical Materialism is far too confused for anyone to be able to say whether or not it is true. Essays Two through Thirteen Part Three at my site are aimed at substantiating that controversial conclusion.

b) So no wonder it does not work.

c) However, assuming that truth is indeed tested in practice, the fact that Dialectical Marxism (notice I do not say Marxism here, I add the word "dialectical") is a long term failure, then dialectical materialism cannot be true. Either that, or truth is not tested in practice. The various responses that could be made to this allegation are considered in detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%20010_01.htm

What about this?

Quote:
Quite ignored is the transition from primitive to slave, slave to feudal, and feudal to capitalist society. As for the collapse of the USSR etc, just because something can change dialectically doesn’t mean it cannot revert back. Liquid water can be boiled to make water vapour but that doesn’t mean that water vapour cannot be cooled and turned back into a liquid again


I do not in fact ignore this in my longer essays. The point is that however you slice it, the changes you mention actually refute the 'law of the negation of the negation', which is all I intended to show in that part of the essay you are reviewing.

Quote:
I’m not sure at what she’s getting at here with the road-crossing example. This contains issues of probability of being hit by a car (it is far from inevitable). As for the acid: I’m no scientist but would these not count as separate dialectical processes despite containing the same elements?


The point is that Engels first law, the transformation of quantity into quality, cannot handle all or even most changes in nature and society. Many changes are induced by the order in which things happen -- and that, of course, governs probabilities too.

The acid example makes the same point.

However, I take your point that this might not be "separate dialectical processes", but then we don't know what are or aren't separate, since this theory is far too vague and imprecise for anyone to be able to say what processes in nature illustrate or refute it.

Even so, interpreting it in its most charitable sense still means that my counter-examples do indeed refute it.

After another 150 years of scientific development, why does it surprise us that Engels could not possibly have got everything right? Or is this the only theory in the entire history of humanity that does not need updating?

Anyway, are the counter-examples I list non-material? No.

There are scores more listed here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm


Quote:
Why does anyone need to know how long a nodal point lasts? Surely they all vary anyway?


The point is that this illustrates how vague this theory is -- because of that, it is used in an entirely subjective way by Dialectical Marxists. In addition, the word "quality" is either left undefined, or if defined, it rules out many of the examples used to illustrate this law. For example, water as gas, liquid or solid remains H2O. The addition of heat does not change water in the required way (as I pointed out).


Quote:
This is not a change in quality because the mouse, pony and elephant are not changing into each other. If there was some way for a mouse to change into a pony then energy would be required to make that qualitative change.

I would think this also applies to the example she uses of isomers. While molecularly identical, their difference is found in their geometrical organisation. I don’t see a problem with this as one still cannot change into the other (without energy).


1) This is the same point: because this theory is so vague, you can only rule my counter-examples out on a subjective basis, on what you think.

2) If the Aristotelian definition of 'quality' (that Hegel and Engels used) is relaxed to allow the change from water into steam to stand (see above), then there is no way you can rule out the counter-example I gave of the three animals in a row. There the relational properties of bodies change with no addition of energy.

3) The isomer example was used partly to illustrate the extreme vagueness of the 'addition of matter/energy' part of Engels's law. May I therefore refer you to the above link where I consider this topic in extensive detail.

Quote:
I’ve never seen it like this. I’ve always seen it as O* and O** are in constant struggle but that, inevitably, O** negates O* leaving just O** left (which is in turn negates A).

For example, let’s say A is a coffee table which has just been made at a carpenters. It is made with fresh wood and has just been varnished and protected against outside influences. Thus O* represents these forces that hold the table together, protect the table and generally keep the table within its identifiable definition of “table”. O** represents the forces that are trying to undo the table. These include weathering, rot, the drying out of the glue, etc.

Upon the outset the forces of O* are at their strongest. However, this does not mean the forces of O** are not present and, without human intervention (energy) they will only grow stronger. If you leave the table for 100 years the forces of O** will have had a demonstrable impact upon the table as they start to overcome the forces of O*. If you leave it long enough the forces of O* will be completely negated by those of O** as the table rots away until it is no longer identifiable as a “table”. Thus O* does not turn into O**; O** negates O*.


But, the dialectical classics tell us that:

1) Everything in the entire universe changes because of a struggle of opposites, and that

2) Those opposites change into one another.

You can find a long list of quotations to that effect, taken from the classics and more modern sources, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php? ... stcount=31

Let us consider the coffee table:

A) Call this table "T" and whatever it changes into "T*" (which is not-T). So T changes into its opposite T*.

B) But the dialectical classics tell us this can only happen if T struggles with its opposite.

C) But its opposite is T* which does not yet exist!

D) So, T can't change.

E) On the other hand, if T* already exists, then T can't change into it, since T* is already there!

A consideration of all the intermediate stages in the process of changing T into T*, so that we avoid the above absurdity, would be no help either.

Let us assume that T goes through successive stages T(1), T(2), T(3)..., T(n), until at stage T(n+1) it finally changes into T*.

But, according to the dialectical classics, T(1) can only change into T(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites. They also tell us that T(1) inevitably changes into that opposite.

So, T(1) must both struggle with T(2) and change into it.

But then the same problems emerge, for T(1) can't change into T(2) since T(2) already exists. If it didn't, T(1) could not struggle with it!

So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages in a table's life must co-exist, and thus no table can change!

This does not deny change; it does mean that if this theory were true, change would be impossible.

What about this, though?

Quote:
Thus O* represents these forces that hold the table together, protect the table and generally keep the table within its identifiable definition of “table”. O** represents the forces that are trying to undo the table. These include weathering, rot, the drying out of the glue, etc.


But, this is no help at all, since, as Lenin points out, these opposites must turn into one another:

Quote:
"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical, -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Philosophical Notebooks, p.109. Bold added.]


In that case, the forces that preserve this table must change into the forces that are undoing it, and vice versa. Not only is this contrary to experience (for instance, when have you seen weathering, say, turn into glue, or the other way round?), it can't happen since they already exist.

So we hit the same brick wall.

But what about this:

Quote:
Upon the outset the forces of O* are at their strongest. However, this does not mean the forces of O** are not present and, without human intervention (energy) they will only grow stronger. If you leave the table for 100 years the forces of O** will have had a demonstrable impact upon the table as they start to overcome the forces of O*. If you leave it long enough the forces of O* will be completely negated by those of O** as the table rots away until it is no longer identifiable as a “table”. Thus O* does not turn into O**; O** negates O*.


Not only does this contradict what Lenin says (see above), it must mean that O* and O** are unchanged (and are thus the only things in the universe that do not change!).

On the other hand, if both O* and O** do change, then they too can only do this by struggling with their opposites, and if that is so the above problems will simply reappear at another stage.

Quote:
Many of these are not opposites. A male is not the opposite of a female. I would say a male cat is inherently similar (although not identical) to a female cat. According to her logic a zebra would be the opposite of a horse. The opposite of a cat is a dead cat - i.e. no-longer identifiable as a “cat” in the truest sense of the word.

But of course, she is mistaken in arguing one turns into the opposite. Instead the cat is eventually negated by it’s opposite - and this is true: all cats die.


I only mentioned the cat example, since there are plenty of Dialectical Marxists who use male/female to illustrate the law of the interpenetration of opposites.

And if the opposite of a cat is a dead cat, then a live cat must struggle with that dead cat if it is to turn into that opposite! So, you get the same absurd result.

And if you appeal to the internal forces in a cat that change it, the same problems emerge that your table example faced.

Quote:
No, capitalism is to be negated by socialism.


But, this faces the same problems, for these must, according to Lenin, change into one another. So capitalism must change into socialism, and socialism must change into capitalism!

An appeal to the internal forces in capitalism that change it into socialism will, likewise, face the same problems as the table did, above.

Quote:
The one is negated to form two. It does not matter which “one” is the negation. The point is one is negated to form two.


And yet, his can't avoid the above problems either -- but I have said enough.
Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein on 09 Nov 2010, 19:58, edited 2 times in total.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 10001
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 19:56
Quote:
And yet, his can't avoid the above problems either -- but I have said enough.


Yes, you have. Thanks for demolishing my worldview. And I'm serious about that. What you have just delivered is easily one of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen on S-E.

But how is Marxism supposed to work without dialectical materialism? Are we to discard Historical Materialism as well?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:01
Mabool, please note that I am not attacking Historical Materialism [HM], a theory I fully accept,

HM is not affected by the above demolition.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:04
Mabool:

Quote:
You're welcome to do so, then. I'm listening. How does Dialectical Materialism reflect the perspective of "substitutionist" elements in Marxism?


If you don't mind, I'll not enter into that in this thread.

However, I have fully substantiated it at my site, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 10001
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:06
Quote:
Mabool, please note that I am not attacking Historical Materialism [HM], a theory I fully accept,

HM is not affected by the above demolition.


But it's based on dialectical materialism.
The change from feudalism to capitalism, as well as the change from capitalism to socialism, is nothing more or less than the practical application of the law of the transformation of quantity into quality. The inner contradictions of capitalism make the system undergo a qualitative change: It becomes socialism. This is dialectical materialism applied to history, and this is what Historical Materialism is. Or not?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:06
R.Liechtenstein's post is tautology.
If there is something wrong with DiaMat Lenin would have figured it out back in his days.

Revisionist subversions emerging from everywhere!
Chase away the revisionists!

Hold hight the banner of Marx-Engels-Lenin!
Image
Last edited by Loz on 09 Nov 2010, 20:07, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:07
Mabool:

Quote:
I wouldn't agree that it makes no sense. But technically this is irrelevant. As I've said, Dialectical Materialism is a perspective. A point of view. An interpretation of the world. An interpretation cannot be right or wrong, and if you think it makes no sense, this is your opinion, but it doesn't invalidate it. Most interpretations of Kafka make no sense to me either, but I don't try to refute them because it's impossible.


This is certainly not how the dialectical classicists saw their theory, and it is with their ideas I want to take issue.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:10
Loz:

Quote:
R.Liechtenstein's post is tautology.


In what way?

Quote:
If there is something wrong with DiaMat Lenin would have figured it out back in his days.


Not really, since he knew very little philosophy, and even less logic.

Quote:
Revisionist subversions emerging from everywhere!


But Lenin himself told us that no theory is above revision.

Quote:
Chase away the revisionists!


You sound like those who did not want to listen to Galileo!:)
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:17
Quote:
This is certainly not how the dialectical classicists saw their theory, and it is with their ideas I want to take issue.

What a perfectly vague answer.
You didn't say ANYTHING there.
It's tautology,just like your "anti-dialectic" thought.

Marx-Engels-Lenin couldn't have missed this alleged "fallaciousness" of DiaMat.

Quote:
In what way?

In a way that it's a bunch of text with a little meaning/substance.

Quote:
Not really, since he knew very little philosophy, and even less logic.

He didn't have to know bourgeois bullshit-"philosophy" and his logic led to the greatest advancement in the history of mankind.

Quote:
But Lenin himself told us that no theory is above revision.

DiaMat is not just a theory,it's the way things go.


Quote:
You sound like those who did not want to listen to Galileo!:)

Yeah,for an internet anonymous with a "left-communist" nickname has more credibility than biggest philosophers/revolutionaries in history.
Last edited by Loz on 09 Nov 2010, 20:18, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:17
Mabool:

Quote:
But it's based on dialectical materialism. The change from feudalism to capitalism, as well as the change from capitalism to socialism, is nothing more or less than the practical application of the law of the transformation of quantity into quality. The inner contradictions of capitalism make the system undergo a qualitative change: It becomes socialism. This is dialectical materialism applied to history, and this is what Historical Materialism is. Or not?


I deny it has to be. To give you an analogy, Newton's theories were based on a mystical and theological view of the world, but in rejecting the latter, we do not also reject the genuinely scientific part of his work.

And I deny that the change you mention is an example of this law. But we can go into that another time.

We have enough resources in ordinary language and science (and in HM, too) to explain every change imaginable. We do not need this obscure theory to account for it. In fact, as we have seen, it would make change impossible.

As Marx noted:

Quote:
"The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]


And that is precisely what I am trying to do.
"The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves."
Soviet cogitations: 10001
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Nov 2010, 20:24
Loz, stop acting like the dogmatist you are.

Quote:
I deny it has to be. To give you an analogy, Newton's theories were based on a mystical and theological view of the world, but in rejecting the latter, we do not also reject the genuinely scientific part of his work.


But... sorry, what IS Historical Materialism if dialectical materialism is removed from it?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
» Next Page »
POST REPLY
Log-in to submit your comments and remove Infolinks advertisements.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.