it's less boring and doesn't go around in circles as much
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Why are there so few women here? Maybe because they are frightened of being hit on by a bunch of desperate teenagers.
wow heteronormative much?
diamond_galas posted:i dunno, blaming the failure of actually existing socialism on using the wrong kind of marxism seems kind of idealist to me
not enough purges imo
First, sorry this forum sucks so much Rosa. I'm really disappointed that a bunch of people turned creepy.
you're correct that dialectics is confused and confusing, it seems to mean the exact opposite to marcuse and althusser, and there's almost no resemblance between lukacs on dialectical materialism and Mao on practice and contradiction. However that doesn't mean you dismiss it, like any method for understanding the world it will manifest in different ways.
At it's most basic dialectics is nothing more than an understanding that things are related. The basic dialectic is the relationship between value, use value, and exchange value. They are concepts that only manifest when the others exist. They are clearly not empirical concepts though they can be measured indirectly.they are separate concepts but can't exist except in a period of generalized commodity production, where they all exist together. I don't know how one even understands capital except dialectically.the relationship between labor and capital, the relationship between a class in itself and a class for itself (the relationship between reality and fetishization in consciousness), the relationship between the party and the masses, all of these are dialectical.
What's the alternative? Analytic philosophy? A dead philosophy, sponsored by the CIA created to attack Marx and the ltv? dialectics is so fundamental to marxs method in capital vol 1, I'm fascinated why you went after it of all things.and I'm still not sure what your problem with it is.
For instance: Why the Party and the Masses, and not the Party and Masses and the Environment or whatever.
If you think adding "the environment" to an analysis of the party and the masses without making the analysis too complex or losing sight of the fundamental aspects we're trying to highlight, be my guest.
What would you recommend reading about dialectical materialism as a beginner? Something with a bunch of examples applied to the real world rather than just theory.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:No I understand why it’s useful and why you don’t need to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the analysis……I suppose I’m just uncertain about the kind of deterministic way it seems to apply to the ‘progress of history’ or whatever.
What would you recommend reading about dialectical materialism as a beginner? Something with a bunch of examples applied to the real world rather than just theory.
Everybody likes "Dance of the Dialectic" by Ollman but I haven't read it so I can't say. Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by "real world examples". Like a book which shows how dialectical materialism used as a method of analysis can be useful/unique? Um...Capital by Karl Marx. Not sure what you want besides that.
e: lol I realize now you're asking "please explain dialectics in an empirical manner" good troll.
Edited by babyhueypnewton ()
deadken posted:those boat plane things. or i guess an amphibious personnel carrier i guess?
did they work or do anything particularly useful? cuz america builds boats through like....whatever as well
getfiscal posted:any viewpoint that says it can discover the real substructure of society that is somehow hidden to the masses is dumb as hell, which is why dialectics is bad and dangerous. things are pretty straightforward in life. if you start pretending you woke up from the matrix because you read capital or something then you're a clown person with clown views.
tpaine posted:Leave Virgil Alone
check out this wind-up merchant
tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:littlegreenpills posted:i;d love to ghet to know you better...i have a bottle of blue nun and sme marks and spencers sandwiches. theyre smoked salmon. how bout it. - brad
You lot are a bit desperate.
Why are there so few women here? Maybe because they are frightened of being hit on by a bunch of desperate teenagers.im 43
Which probably explains why you haven't hit on me.
getfiscal posted:any viewpoint that says it can discover the real substructure of society that is somehow hidden to the masses is dumb as hell, which is why dialectics is bad and dangerous. things are pretty straightforward in life. if you start pretending you woke up from the matrix because you read capital or something then you're a clown person with clown views.
Bold assertions, which are, alas bereft of proof.
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
diamond_galas posted:i dunno, blaming the failure of actually existing socialism on using the wrong kind of marxism seems kind of idealist to me
Which is why I wrote this on the opening page of my site (link in my signature):
It's important to emphasise from the outset that I am not blaming the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism solely on the acceptance of the Hermetic ideas dialecticians inherited from Hegel.
It's worth repeating this since I still encounter comments on Internet discussion boards, and still receive e-mails from those who claim to have read the above words, who still think I am blaming all our woes on dialectics. I am not.
However, no matter how many times I repeat this caveat, the message will not sink in -- and that's after several years of continually making this very point!
It seems this is one part of the universe over which the Heraclitean Flux has no power!
What is being claimed, however, is that adherence to this 'theory' is one of the subjective reasons why Dialectical Marxism has become a bye-word for failure.
There are other, objective reasons why the class enemy still runs the planet, but since revolutions require revolutionaries with ideas in their heads, this 'theory' must take some of the blame.
So, it is alleged here that dialectics has been an important contributory factor.
It certainly helps explain why revolutionary groups are in general vanishingly small, neurotically sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative, inconsistently deferential to 'tradition', and almost invariably lean toward some form of substitutionism.
Naturally, this has had a direct bearing on our lack of impact on the working-class over the last seventy years or so -- and probably for much longer -- and thus on the continuing success of Capitalism.
The following 'Unity of Opposites' is difficult to explain otherwise:
The larger the proletariat, the smaller the impact that Dialectical Marxism has on it.
Sadly, this will continue while comrades cling to this regressive doctrine.
Any who doubt this are encouraged to read on, where those doubts will be severely bruised, if not completely laid to rest.
tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:littlegreenpills posted:i;d love to ghet to know you better...i have a bottle of blue nun and sme marks and spencers sandwiches. theyre smoked salmon. how bout it. - brad
You lot are a bit desperate.
Why are there so few women here? Maybe because they are frightened of being hit on by a bunch of desperate teenagers.im 43
Which probably explains why you haven't hit on me.
uh, no it doesn't?? I'm 43 but I'm only attracted to other people with cleft palates, male or female or inbetween, and also the character chun-li from street fighter who as far as i know doesn't have a cleft palate but may have had corrective surgery at some point in the canon, maybe after m. bison killed her father
Still in rehab, I see.
I hope you get well soon.
deadken posted:like basically everyone, stalin didnt understand dialectics, and he still built some Kickin' Rad Socialism. chinese shipbuilders during the cultural revolution did understand dialectics and they used it to make a Big As Boat. score 2 for dialectics. come back 2 me when the anti-dialectical revolution lifts millions out of poverty and turns a backwards agrarian republic into a nuclear superpower
Perhaps you can explain to me exactly (and hopefully more coherently) how dialectics was used to do such things.
tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:littlegreenpills posted:i;d love to ghet to know you better...i have a bottle of blue nun and sme marks and spencers sandwiches. theyre smoked salmon. how bout it. - brad
You lot are a bit desperate.
Why are there so few women here? Maybe because they are frightened of being hit on by a bunch of desperate teenagers.im 43
Which probably explains why you haven't hit on me.
uh, no it doesn't?? I'm 43 but I'm only attracted to other people with cleft palates, male or female or inbetween, and also the character chun-li from street fighter who as far as i know doesn't have a cleft palate but may have had corrective surgery at some point in the canon, maybe after m. bison killed her father
Still in rehab, I see.
I hope you get well soon.they tried to make me go to rehab but i said OH NO NO NO NO NO NEH
Ah, that explains a lot.
babyhueypnewton posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:No I understand why it’s useful and why you don’t need to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the analysis……I suppose I’m just uncertain about the kind of deterministic way it seems to apply to the ‘progress of history’ or whatever.
What would you recommend reading about dialectical materialism as a beginner? Something with a bunch of examples applied to the real world rather than just theory.Everybody likes "Dance of the Dialectic" by Ollman but I haven't read it so I can't say. Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by "real world examples". Like a book which shows how dialectical materialism used as a method of analysis can be useful/unique? Um...Capital by Karl Marx. Not sure what you want besides that.
e: lol I realize now you're asking "please explain dialectics in an empirical manner" good troll.
Unfortunately, Ollman makes all the usual mistakes, with a few more thrown in for good measure. I have taken the core of his ideas apart here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2003_02.htm#Ollmans-Traditionalism
And Marx had abandoned the 'dialectic', as it has traditionally been understood, by the time he came to write Das Kapital. Proof here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm#Marx-And-DM--1
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm#Marx-And-DM--11
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
Ironicwarcriminal posted:No I understand why it’s useful and why you don’t need to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the analysis……I suppose I’m just uncertain about the kind of deterministic way it seems to apply to the ‘progress of history’ or whatever.
What would you recommend reading about dialectical materialism as a beginner? Something with a bunch of examples applied to the real world rather than just theory.
I have written an absolute beginner's guide to this theory, along with a few objections, here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm
And, for slightly more 'advanced' comrades, here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm
babyhueypnewton posted:I'm stuck posting from my phone atm so I can't post much.
First, sorry this forum sucks so much Rosa. I'm really disappointed that a bunch of people turned creepy.
you're correct that dialectics is confused and confusing, it seems to mean the exact opposite to marcuse and althusser, and there's almost no resemblance between lukacs on dialectical materialism and Mao on practice and contradiction. However that doesn't mean you dismiss it, like any method for understanding the world it will manifest in different ways.
At it's most basic dialectics is nothing more than an understanding that things are related. The basic dialectic is the relationship between value, use value, and exchange value. They are concepts that only manifest when the others exist. They are clearly not empirical concepts though they can be measured indirectly.they are separate concepts but can't exist except in a period of generalized commodity production, where they all exist together. I don't know how one even understands capital except dialectically.the relationship between labor and capital, the relationship between a class in itself and a class for itself (the relationship between reality and fetishization in consciousness), the relationship between the party and the masses, all of these are dialectical.
What's the alternative? Analytic philosophy? A dead philosophy, sponsored by the CIA created to attack Marx and the ltv? dialectics is so fundamental to marxs method in capital vol 1, I'm fascinated why you went after it of all things.and I'm still not sure what your problem with it is.
1) We don't need an alternative. Historical Materialism, which is a scientific theory, is all we require.
2) If we needed a theory that explains the connections you mention, dialectics wouldn't make the bottom of the reserve list of likely candidates; it is far too confused.
3) As I noted above, Marx abandoned the dialectic, as it has traditionally been understood, by the time he came to write Das Kapital. Proof here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm#Marx-And-DM--1
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm#Marx-And-DM--11
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
I’ll tell you the honest truth: I’m kind of simple-minded when it comes to these things. Whenever I hear a four-syllable word I get skeptical, because I want to make sure you can’t say it in monosyllables. Don’t forget, part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if everybody can understand what you’re talking about, you’ve sort of lost, because then what makes you special? What makes you special has got to be something that you had to work really hard to understand, and you mastered it, and all those guys out there don’t understand it, and then that becomes the basis for your privilege and your power.
MAN: I find it very reinforcing that you don’t understand the word “dialectics, ” it sort of validates me.
CHOMSKY: I’m not saying that it doesn’t have any meaning—you observe people using the term and they look like they’re communicating. But it’s like when I watch people talking Turkish: something’s going on, but I’m not part of it.
Actually, occasionally in interviews I’ve said this about not understanding “dialectics,” and I get long letters back from people saying, “You don’t understand, here’s what ‘dialectical’ is”—and either it’s incomprehensible, or else it’s trivial. So maybe I’ve got a gene missing or something—like people can be tone-deaf, they just can’t hear the music. But everything I encounter in these fields either seems to be sort of interesting, but pretty obvious once you see it—maybe you didn’t see it at first, and somebody had to point it out to you—or else just incomprehensible.
I’m skeptical: I think one has a right to be skeptical when you don’t understand something. I mean, when I look at a page of, say, quantum electrodynamics, I don’t understand a word of it. But I know what I would have to do to get to understand it, and I’m pretty confident that I could get to understand it—I’ve understood other complicated things. So I figure if I bothered to put myself through the discipline, and I studied the early stuff and the later stuff, I’d finally get to the point where I understood it. Or I could go to someone in the Physics Department and say, “Tell me why everybody’s excited about this stuff,” and they could adapt it to my level and tell me how to pursue it further. Maybe I wouldn’t understand it very deeply, or I couldn’t have invented it or something, but I’d at least begin to understand it. On the other hand, when I look at a page of Marxist philosophy or literary theory, I have the feeling that I could stare at it for the rest of my life and I’d never understand it—and I don’t know how to proceed to get to understand it any better, I don’t even know what steps I could take.
I mean, it’s possible that these fields are beyond me, maybe I’m not smart enough or something. But that would have kind of a funny conclusion—it’s nothing to do with me. That would mean that somehow in these domains people have been able to create something that’s more complex than physics and mathematics—because those are subjects I think I could get to understand. And I just don’t believe that, frankly: I don’t believe that literary theorists or Marxian philosophers have advanced to some new intellectual level that transcends century after century of hard intellectual work.
Lessons posted:are you from revleft, rosa?
Yes, but I was banned last year -- I have explained why in an earlier post in this thread.