SHANK3Neuropathy 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.

the person who said this was lenin working within the framework of marxism qed

and id like to see the exact text you are referring to because your characterization seems to imply lenin was in support of revisionism which is incorrect

That idea runs throughout Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, but this should suffice:

Dialectics—as Hegel in his time explained—contains the element of relativism, of negation, of scepticism, but is not reducible to relativism. The materialist dialectics of Marx and Engels certainly does contain relativism, but is not reducible to relativism, that is, it recognises the relativity of all our knowledge, not in the sense of denying objective truth, but in the sense that the limits of approximation of our knowledge to this truth are historically conditional. (p.154, Peking Edition.)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two5.htm#v14pp72h-131

But, you have yet to tell us why it is 'infallible', when it is plain to me that it is far too confused for anyone to be able to say whether or not it is even 'relatively true'.

(By the way, I am not attacking Historical Materialism, a theory I fully accept.)

tpaine posted:

i think we're missing the main point here. that virgil pic everyone loved to post was inaccurate. the guy is at least kind of popular, so lay off him. that's a warning.

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say!

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

That idea runs throughout Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, but this should suffice:

Dialectics—as Hegel in his time explained—contains the element of relativism, of negation, of scepticism, but is not reducible to relativism. The materialist dialectics of Marx and Engels certainly does contain relativism, but is not reducible to relativism, that is, it recognises the relativity of all our knowledge, not in the sense of denying objective truth, but in the sense that the limits of approximation of our knowledge to this truth are historically conditional. (p.154, Peking Edition.)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two5.htm#v14pp72h-131

But, you have yet to tell us why it is 'infallible', when it is plain to me that it is far too confused for anyone to be able to say whether or not it is even 'relatively true'.

(By the way, I am not attacking Historical Materialism, a theory I fully accept.)

well i think that it might be more proper to use the term 'meta-science of marxism-leininsm' (not least in that it never met a science that it couldnt apply itself to!)

i feel like i want to quote the entirety of that excerpt back but the fundamental term i believe is 'reducible' since it is making a comment on the limits of human thinking and therefore the interpretation of all sciences through the minds of people

at this instance a lesser thinker would probably quote popper but i find that the less one is actually familiar with the science in question the more one is likely to resort to popper and naturally i consider myself above that

i would rather characterize what you attribute to lenin as 'revision' to be more properly évolution' which needless to say is a well established influence on engels marx and lenin

marxism-leninism is therefore in itself a genealogy with unfit revisionist branches withering and dying off like the neanderthal and this is not the squalid idea of dawkins of 'memetics' because a meme has no structure of thought - none of the nervous system that separates the more evolved beings

so what we are fundamentally referring to here with regards to the (meta) science of marxism-leninism is an adapted body with the advantage over other ideologies in that it accounts for the human mind and its processes and biases at its very core

hence it is enough to say that humans are fallible and by anticipating and subsuming this therefore marxism-leninism is not

i can't even belive this. jesus chris

I can only conclude one of two things: either 1) you are on something (in which case, clearly, you failed to take enough of whatever it was) or 2) you are wind-up merchant.

If the latter, Virgil is in fact a renowned ballet dancer -- on other pics you can clearly see his pink tutu.

I'm surprised you didn't know this.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Nov. 13, 2012 13:50:35)

Computer_Jones posted:

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/music2.htmDialectics: The Musical

That site you link to is embarrassingly poor, as I pointed out here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-kids-t60024/index.html

tpaine posted:

trigger warning

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Computer_Jones posted:

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/music2.htmDialectics: The Musical

That site you link to is embarrassingly poor, as I pointed out here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-kids-t60024/index.html

i looked at that and thought there were too many words for me to deal with atm but i noticed that it says 'Banned' under your name whats up with that

i remember visiting that place oh maybe a couple three years ago now and there seemed like a lot of navel-gazing going on so i can understand having some frustration with being heard there

SHANK3Neuropathy posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

SHANK3Neuropathy posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

I'll leave that to the experts

ok but do you want to make out sometime? i mean figuratively of course i barely know you but you sound neat and smart

Thanks, but I am only here for the argument.

works for me! im still working on proving im a deity or something but im kind of sleepy right now which is pretty ungodly on a number of levels

If you were a deity, you'd not need to work anything out.

diamond_galas posted:

i'm a little slow... why is dialectics wrong again?

In fact, it is far to confused for anyone to be able to say whether or not it is 'wrong'.

That is quite apart from the fact that it has presided over 150 years of the almost total failure of Dialectical Marxism (note the use of the word "dialectical", here; I am not claiming Marxism has been a failure it's just that the non-dialectical version hasn't been tried yet).

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein (Aug. 21, 2013 01:25:00)

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.

jeffery posted:

This is in fact Kant and Fichte's system, not Hegel's:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Thesis_Anti-Thesis_Synthesis.htm