gyrofry posted:name them
my favorite website is japanfocus.org cause thats what im most interested in besides marxism.
check out this sweet paper on kpop:
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Rachael_M_-Joo/3807
other than that it's mostly sites lf already knows about: upsidedownworld, voltairenet, landdestroyer.blogspot, bannedthought, marxists.org, kasama, lenin's tomb, mrzine, and some others.
thing is, all of these websites have some problem or another, there is yet to be a blog or website which collects all the smartest leftists/marxists/philosophers and has them argue with each other and post about stuff. that happens in academia but all those people are too old to use the internet i guess.
getfiscal posted:wait no i think i thought it was a hoax but then mccaine said he met her in real life or something and she was real. lol. i have a bad memory.
well she was devoted to posting nonstop on revleft for years in that same schitzophrenic style so maybe she's a really devoted troll but I doubt it. hilarious that mccain met her, would love to hear that story
prohairesis posted:rosa lichtenstein owns
swirlsofhistory posted:i was in earnest when i posted that btw. people don't appreciate her arguments because they get turned off by the ugly web design and 125,000 word essays
lol good trolls
Lykourgos posted:there's no good blogs or tumblers about marxism leninism because all good sites would move on to more fertile ground
what's your opinion on clinamen
swirlsofhistory posted:i was in earnest when i posted that btw. people don't appreciate her arguments because they get turned off by the ugly web design and 125,000 word essays
This is an odd complaint. On that basis you'd also be put off reading Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Leibniz, Descartes, Hume, Marx, Comte, Darwin, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche...
However, for those possessed of a rather short attention span, I have written several brief summaries of my Essays.
You can access them here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm
Sure, I am hopeless at web design, but at least I can put a few ideas together.
By the way, I am open to suggestions about how to improve the design!
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
getfiscal posted:that anti-dialectics website is a hoax apparently
What makes you say that?
getfiscal posted:wait no i think i thought it was a hoax but then mccaine said he met her in real life or something and she was real. lol. i have a bad memory.
I doubt it, since I wasn't there.
babyhueypnewton posted:getfiscal posted:wait no i think i thought it was a hoax but then mccaine said he met her in real life or something and she was real. lol. i have a bad memory.
well she was devoted to posting nonstop on revleft for years in that same schitzophrenic style so maybe she's a really devoted troll but I doubt it. hilarious that mccain met her, would love to hear that story
Why have you described my style this way?
Moreover, Mccain lies when he says 'he' met me, since I do not exist.
Or, so I have managed to convince myself...
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:babyhueypnewton posted:getfiscal posted:wait no i think i thought it was a hoax but then mccaine said he met her in real life or something and she was real. lol. i have a bad memory.
well she was devoted to posting nonstop on revleft for years in that same schitzophrenic style so maybe she's a really devoted troll but I doubt it. hilarious that mccain met her, would love to hear that story
Why have you described my style this way?
Moreover, Mccain lies when he says 'he' met me, since I do not exist.
Or, so I have managed to convince myself...
To pick a passage at random (which I grant may be unfair to its context):
Which is the negation of which here? And which is the NON?
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? What about vegetative (asexual) reproduction in general, where there are no opposites (i.e., no gametes)?
Consider, too, the thoroughly reactionary life form Myxomycota (The Slime Mould, although its precise classification has recently been changed!), which belongs neither to the plant nor the animal kingdom, but to the Protoctista. Its life-cycle is complex, and involves the following stages: a giant amoebal form, followed by a slug-like existence, which morphs into a fungal-like fruiting body, which then releases spores.
Now, it might be that this organism is so primitive that it does not 'understand' dialectics, and has thus not quite figured out which of these four stages is the 'negation', and which the NON, let alone what 'sublates' what -- especially since the first phase of its life-cycle involves a protracted union of cells, a 'dialectical tautology' if you will!
There are in fact many other examples of thoroughly revisionist organisms and processes in the natural world, which means, because of this, that nature is reassuringly non-dialectical.
Unfortunately, as noted above, DM-fans totally ignore these 'awkward' cases -- just like the Creationists who turn a blind eye both to the inconsistencies in the Bible and to the many examples of lack of design in there are in the universe.
Finally, with respect to the former USSR (as it was in 1917): if the NON is progressive, why did it let history down badly and allow the revolution to decay, and then go into reverse?
Is modern-day Russia really 'the negation of the negation of the negation' of Tsarist Russia?
On the contrary, do we not here have the complete negation of Hegel and Engels?
I like to think of myself as familiar with Hegel and Marx and I have no idea what this means. Since when is dialectical materialism about nature? There's an argument that Darwin had a similar method of analysis to Marx and influenced him, but that's talking about the general theory of evolution which is very dialectical. I've never once heard anyone claim that bees having sex and making baby bees is an example of a dialectical relationship, let alone a materialist one that can be abstracted to a general principle of political economy (O_0 seriously I think we have something very different in mind when we use that word).
Also the style is very strange, as random things have quotation marks, italics, colors, and acronyms. I'm willing to grant there's a purpose, after all I slogged through Lacan and Hegel himself. I'm very curious what you actually think dialectical thinking is? All I can gather from reading your page is it's a vulgar "thesis+antithesis=synthesis", but it is also apparently a way of describing everything ever.
You try to deal with it philosophically, but use the 'failure' of socialist states as evidence that dialectical materialism is bankrupt. It's very confusing if you're describing Hegel's dialectics or Marx's (or even Mao's), unless you think they are all the same which is a claim I would be interested to hear you justify.
I guess what I'm saying is I've read your stuff and I have literally no idea what the heck you're talking about. It may be that I'm a moron, but at least the people here are smarter than the average revleft user and we don't ban people.
Edited by babyhueypnewton ()
Computer_Jones posted:what exactly is your problem with dialectics? one sentence or less please
That comrades into dialectics require one sentence answers...
What next, summarise Marx in 25 words?
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Computer_Jones posted:
what exactly is your problem with dialectics? one sentence or less please
That comrades into dialectics require one sentence answers...
What next, summarise Marx in 25 words?
Marx used philosophy to find out patterns in the world and economics. Lots of people built on his ideas and still discuss them these days.
I like to think of myself as familiar with Hegel and Marx and I have no idea what this means. Since when is dialectical materialism about nature? There's an argument that Darwin had a similar method of analysis to Marx and influenced him, but that's talking about the general theory of evolution which is very dialectical. I've never once heard anyone claim that bees having sex and making baby bees is an example of a dialectical relationship, let alone a materialist one that can be abstracted to a general principle of political economy (O_0 seriously I think we have something very different in mind when we use that word).
Well, I agree with you that for Marx, the dialectic does not apply to nature, but for Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin, etc., it does.
And there are plenty of dialecticans who regard sex (and everything else to boot) as dialectical -- Lenin and Mao for instance.
Also the style is very strange, as random things have quotation marks, italics, colors, and acronyms. I'm willing to grant there's a purpose, after all I slogged through Lacan and Hegel himself. I'm very curious what you actually think dialectical thinking is? All I can gather from reading your page is it's a vulgar "thesis+antithesis=synthesis", but it is also apparently a way of describing everything ever.
I have added colours to the text to break it up. Page after page of black is not easy to read. But such things are always a matter of taste.
Also, I don't know what 'dialectical thinking' is, and after over 25 years researching this topic, discussing it with comrades who are dialecticians, and seven years debating it on the internet, I have yet to read/meet anyone who does.
I also spend time debunking the idea that dialectics is 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis', for example, here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Thesis_Anti-Thesis_Synthesis.htm
You try to deal with it philosophically, but use the 'failure' of socialist states as evidence that dialectical materialism is bankrupt. It's very confusing if you're describing Hegel's dialectics or Marx's (or even Mao's), unless you think they are all the same which is a claim I would be interested to hear you justify.
No, my argument is that if truth is tested in practice, then practice has returned a pretty damning verdict. More details here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%20010_01.htm
My main argument isn't that dialectics is wrong, or false, it's that it is far too confused for anyone to be able to say whether or not it is true or false (or even useful).
I guess what I'm saying is I've read your stuff and I have literally no idea what the heck you're talking about. It may be that I'm a moron, but at least the people here are smarter than the average revleft user and we don't ban people.
My work is in fact a doddle compared to Hegel and much that passes for 'dialectical thought'. Perhaps you aren't familiar with analytic philosophy and/or logic?
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
Marx used philosophy to find out patterns in the world and economics. Lots of people built on his ideas and still discuss them these days.
Sure, he used it in his early work, but after the German Ideology, he waved it 'goodbye':
One has to 'leave philosophy aside' (Wigand, p.187, cf., Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p.8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. [The German Ideology, p.236.]
And it is not hard to see why:
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.[The German Ideology, bold emphasis added.]
It is not possible to make sense of 'distorted' language. Which is why I also argue that all philosophical theories are non-sensical:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
Can't say the same for your signature, though!
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
SHANK3Neuropathy posted:its called the infallible science of marxism-leninism for a reason
I'd like to hear that reason, especially when Lenin went to great lengths to argue that no theory is final, or beyond revision.
i have a suspicion that if engels contribution had been duly acknowledged via a dual nomenclature or preferably a non-'nomen' nomenclature that we would not have the damaging cults of personality that succeeded (the entendre is necessarily doubled in this case) which are inherently un-'marxist'
which is not to deny that named people contributed correct extensions and praxis but merely to point out that they would be incorporated into a collective philosophy which would be closer to the original intention of both marx and engels
tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:SHANK3Neuropathy posted:its called the infallible science of marxism-leninism for a reason
I'd like to hear that reason, especially when Lenin went to great lengths to argue that no theory is final, or beyond revision.
Thanks for that, but I can't read that page since it is behind a paywall!
SHANK3Neuropathy posted:engels is like the red-headed stepchild of marxism and it pains me to write 'marxism' in that context giving full credit only to marx
i have a suspicion that if engels contribution had been duly acknowledged via a dual nomenclature or preferably a non-'nomen' nomenclature that we would not have the damaging cults of personality that succeeded (the entendre is necessarily doubled in this case) which are inherently un-'marxist'
which is not to deny that named people contributed correct extensions and praxis but merely to point out that they would be incorporated into a collective philosophy which would be closer to the original intention of both marx and engels
Thanks for that, but how does it answer my question?
tpaine posted:
Look, there's not much point you keep posting this, since no one can read it without forking out a joining fee.
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()