#241
UK
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

getfiscal posted:

are you a cliffite, rosa?

No, but I used to be in the UK-SWP a while back, and will rejoin (if they'll have me back!) when my project is finished.

Do you consider yourself a Trotskyist? If so, of any sort, like Mandelite or something?



Yes, I am a non-Orthodox Trotskyist, in the International Socialism tradition.

#242
UK
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

tpaine posted:

those clowns were two days from retirement

I'm sorry, but I get the impression you just randomly bash away at your keyboard; either that or you type with a bag over your head...

I'm an icky elf. Whenever I fill out a survey or poll and it asks my vocation, i put down "aids clown" and any questions about the people i live with get answered with "random moose." ZOMG! My life is just a fucked up thing, Roda.



So, it's random key bashing, then?

Ok, so long as we are clear.

#243
Post rating: ~

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironclad:

But Obama has employed a dialectic between the established capitalist order and hopeful leftist rhetoric to forge a new synthesis of capitalist order that is "cool" and isn't questioned by people who would otherwise be putting their energy towards true revolutionary politics

"neoliberalism with a badass attitude" if you will. That's dialectic materialism


Perhaps you can show me where Obama appealed to the negation of the negation, or the unity of opposites, or even quantity passing over into quality. I must have missed it.

Your final comment, I am sorry to have to say, shows that you have a rather insecure grasp of Dialectical Materialism.

But I partially agree with you; Obama's politics is certainly neo-liberal -- but he is far less of a 'bad ass' than Reagan.


the more you appeal to dialectic, the more U missin it. Perhaps this is what YOU'RE disregard. Peace I dunno.

#244
[account deactivated]
#245
UK
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

getfiscal posted:
are you a cliffite, rosa?


No, but I used to be in the UK-SWP a while back, and will rejoin (if they'll have me back!) when my project is finished.

Do they have a trot paper i can buy?



Which country do you live in?

If it's the UK, then this:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/

If it's the US, this:

http://socialistworker.org/

#246
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Yes, I am a non-Orthodox Trotskyist, in the International Socialism tradition.

Cool. I've read a fair bit about the IS tradition. In Canada they tend to sort of tail behind the NDP though which seems problematic because the NDP (which they admit in theory) is a dead-end in my mind.

#247
UK
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

tpaine posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

tpaine posted:

those clowns were two days from retirement

I'm sorry, but I get the impression you just randomly bash away at your keyboard; either that or you type with a bag over your head...

I'm an icky elf. Whenever I fill out a survey or poll and it asks my vocation, i put down "aids clown" and any questions about the people i live with get answered with "random moose." ZOMG! My life is just a fucked up thing, Roda.

So, it's random key bashing, then?

Ok, so long as we are clear.

well...yeah i guess...



Er.., switched to non-random now!

I do wish you'd make up your mind.

#248
UK
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Yes, I am a non-Orthodox Trotskyist, in the International Socialism tradition.

Cool. I've read a fair bit about the IS tradition. In Canada they tend to sort of tail behind the NDP though which seems problematic because the NDP (which they admit in theory) is a dead-end in my mind.



Sorry, I do not know anything about the IS in Canada.

#249
UK
Post rating: ~

eccentricdeathmongrel posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironclad:

But Obama has employed a dialectic between the established capitalist order and hopeful leftist rhetoric to forge a new synthesis of capitalist order that is "cool" and isn't questioned by people who would otherwise be putting their energy towards true revolutionary politics

"neoliberalism with a badass attitude" if you will. That's dialectic materialism


Perhaps you can show me where Obama appealed to the negation of the negation, or the unity of opposites, or even quantity passing over into quality. I must have missed it.

Your final comment, I am sorry to have to say, shows that you have a rather insecure grasp of Dialectical Materialism.

But I partially agree with you; Obama's politics is certainly neo-liberal -- but he is far less of a 'bad ass' than Reagan.

the more you appeal to dialectic, the more U missin it. Perhaps this is what YOU'RE disregard. Peace I dunno.



Eh?

#250
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Sorry, I do not know anything about the IS in Canada.

What party would you support in Greece? SYRIZA? Antarsya? None?

#251
Post rating: +
it seems the further marxism attempts to distance itself from dialectics the more dialectical it becomes and its sort of like a chinese finger trap, you know?? maybe the answer and what anti-dialectics is is in fact the furthest inverse, libertarian anarcho-capitalism, and it is truly only through accelerationism that we will finally build the foundation for lasting global communism.
#252
Post rating: ~

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironclad:

But Obama has employed a dialectic between the established capitalist order and hopeful leftist rhetoric to forge a new synthesis of capitalist order that is "cool" and isn't questioned by people who would otherwise be putting their energy towards true revolutionary politics

"neoliberalism with a badass attitude" if you will. That's dialectic materialism


Perhaps you can show me where Obama appealed to the negation of the negation, or the unity of opposites, or even quantity passing over into quality. I must have missed it.



we need to work together, unite not divide, etc etc., i heard a lot of that

Your final comment, I am sorry to have to say, shows that you have a rather insecure grasp of Dialectical Materialism.



But you said yourself that it doesn't work? If it doesn't work then it doesn't exist so how can i have anymore a "secure grasp" on it then i could have a secure grasp on the wind, or youth or anything else so intangible?

But I partially agree with you; Obama's politics is certainly neo-liberal -- but he is far less of a 'bad ass' than Reagan.



that's arguable but ok

#253
Post rating: ~

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
getfiscal posted:
are you a cliffite, rosa?


No, but I used to be in the UK-SWP a while back, and will rejoin (if they'll have me back!) when my project is finished.
Do they have a trot paper i can buy?


Which country do you live in?

If it's the UK, then this:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/

If it's the US, this:

http://socialistworker.org/



I live in Asutralaia, we don't have many trots outside the Melbourne Cup!

#254
Post rating: ~
rosa have u ever read any marcuse, harvey, althusser, badiou, zizek?

reason and revolution contains a pretty good description of hegelian and marxian dialectics... perhaps u can trot along to some non trotty lit
#255
Post rating: +

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Impper posted:

rosa can you read my books and let me know what you think. thank you

http://www.amazon.com/John-Christy/e/B006RBZ01A/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

I'm really sorry, but I don't read fiction, and haven't done so for at least 20 years.

but u read marx?????

#256
Post rating: ~
that answer doesn't satisfy me particularly though. for one thing this trotskyist shibboleth of "substitutionism" is really not borne out by the facts - i would recommend looking more seriously at the chinese revolution in particular in this respect. humanity, after all, makes history in the conditions handed down by past generations. if all you have to work with is an agrarian peasant society, then you have to do what you can. in none of these examples can i see dialectics acting as a brake on any of this.

more broadly your assessment of an ever-more Fail marxism requires this historical assessment that discounts the dynamic and transformative role played by communists and communist parties in the third world - even where they didn't take power, their programs of independent development scared the ruling classes enough (or helped forge class alliances enough, as surveyed by samir amin) to embark on the process of import substitution and so on.

again, where is the dialectics holding them back? i'm not sure i can think of an example in accounts of party work anywhere where someone is saying "well we tried to persuade these workers/peasants to support us and they were right with us - until the dialectics stuff. but of course we can't get rid of this Holy Writ so i guess it's their fault."

basically, is your historical argument for the failure of dialectics borne out if you don't subscribe to the trotskyist historiography of Eternal Tragedy and Failure?
#257
mt.real
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

tpaine posted:

those clowns were two days from retirement

I'm sorry, but I get the impression you just randomly bash away at your keyboard; either that or you type with a bag over your head...

I'm an icky elf. Whenever I fill out a survey or poll and it asks my vocation, i put down "aids clown" and any questions about the people i live with get answered with "random moose." ZOMG! My life is just a fucked up thing, Roda.



we are all aids clowns here

#258
Post rating: +

aerdil posted:

rosa have u ever read any marcuse, harvey, althusser, badiou, zizek?

reason and revolution contains a pretty good description of hegelian and marxian dialectics... perhaps u can trot along to some non trotty lit



rosa... have you read the last five books i read... the last five books i've read are the most important books i've read...

#259
Post rating: ~
holy shit jools watch this



i found it looking for "trotsky fail"
#260
Post rating: ~
OK, since I seem to be responsible for summoning you here Rosa much like Beetlejuice (only by posting your site address rather than saying your name thrice), I wonder if you could answer a question I had about Wittgenstein’s rule-following argument since you talk about him a lot.

Saul Kripke mentions in a footnote (in On Rules and Private Language) that W’s argument against private rule-following has similarities to von Mises’ economic calculation argument in that both reject the idea that an individual (or planning body) can make meaningful rules for herself (or set prices) that aren’t merely whatever she feels is right at that moment. Just as the isolated individual can’t follow rules without being able to publicly check that she’s doing things the right way, a planner can’t decide between efficient uses of resources without prices, and prices are the outcome of different competing agents trying to make efficient use of resources. The market prices generated by other individuals provides the way of publicly checking that resources are being used efficiently.

Is this interpretation of W right? Do the limits of rule-following present a problem for socialist economy?
#261
UK
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Sorry, I do not know anything about the IS in Canada.

What party would you support in Greece? SYRIZA? Antarsya? None?



None

#262
UK
Post rating: ~

AmericanNazbro posted:

it seems the further marxism attempts to distance itself from dialectics the more dialectical it becomes and its sort of like a chinese finger trap, you know?? maybe the answer and what anti-dialectics is is in fact the furthest inverse, libertarian anarcho-capitalism, and it is truly only through accelerationism that we will finally build the foundation for lasting global communism.



No 'maybe' about it; the further Marxism drifts away from dialectics the further away from it, it gets. Perhaps you're not sure of the meaning of 'distance'.

I couldn't understand the other comments you made, sorry!.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()

#263
UK
Post rating: ~
Ironic:

But you said yourself that it doesn't work? If it doesn't work then it doesn't exist so how can i have anymore a "secure grasp" on it then i could have a secure grasp on the wind, or youth or anything else so intangible?



Well, certainly the theory exists. And one can surely have an insecure grasp of an unworkable theory. For example, I am not too sure about Flat Earth Theory. Does that mean there is no such thing as Flat Earth Theory?


#264
UK
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
getfiscal posted:
are you a cliffite, rosa?


No, but I used to be in the UK-SWP a while back, and will rejoin (if they'll have me back!) when my project is finished.
Do they have a trot paper i can buy?


Which country do you live in?

If it's the UK, then this:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/

If it's the US, this:

http://socialistworker.org/

I live in Asutralaia, we don't have many trots outside the Melbourne Cup!



Sure you do, check this paper out;

http://www.socialistworker.org.au/

#265
UK
Post rating: ~

aerdil posted:

rosa have u ever read any marcuse, harvey, althusser, badiou, zizek?

reason and revolution contains a pretty good description of hegelian and marxian dialectics... perhaps u can trot along to some non trotty lit



Unfortunately, yes I have, and just enough to put me off for good.

Marcuse is a born-again mystic with a few rather weak materialist tendencies.

Harvey's work on Captal is good, if he could just learn to drop the Heglian guff -- like Marx did. Althusser is seriously confused and Badiou is a waffle-meister.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()

#266
Post rating: ~
Can you estimate about how much of the human population is mystic and how many are just plain Idealists?
#267
UK
Post rating: ~

jools posted:

that answer doesn't satisfy me particularly though. for one thing this trotskyist shibboleth of "substitutionism" is really not borne out by the facts - i would recommend looking more seriously at the chinese revolution in particular in this respect. humanity, after all, makes history in the conditions handed down by past generations. if all you have to work with is an agrarian peasant society, then you have to do what you can. in none of these examples can i see dialectics acting as a brake on any of this.

more broadly your assessment of an ever-more Fail marxism requires this historical assessment that discounts the dynamic and transformative role played by communists and communist parties in the third world - even where they didn't take power, their programs of independent development scared the ruling classes enough (or helped forge class alliances enough, as surveyed by samir amin) to embark on the process of import substitution and so on.

again, where is the dialectics holding them back? i'm not sure i can think of an example in accounts of party work anywhere where someone is saying "well we tried to persuade these workers/peasants to support us and they were right with us - until the dialectics stuff. but of course we can't get rid of this Holy Writ so i guess it's their fault."

basically, is your historical argument for the failure of dialectics borne out if you don't subscribe to the trotskyist historiography of Eternal Tragedy and Failure?



Unfortunately, as we can now see for ourselves in China, this attempt to introduce 'socialism from above' in fact ends up creating a new form of capitalism. The working class must free itself (and not be freed by any other class or group), otherwise, as Marx said, all the sh*t of history will simply repeat itself. Chinese workers are going to have to organise another revolutuion, this time 'from below'

Check these out:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm

http://www.marxists.de/china/hore/index.htm

again, where is the dialectics holding them back? i'm not sure i can think of an example in accounts of party work anywhere where someone is saying "well we tried to persuade these workers/peasants to support us and they were right with us - until the dialectics stuff. but of course we can't get rid of this Holy Writ so i guess it's their fault."



Mao used this theory to justify class collaboration with the Guomindang, and to deny Chinese workers democratic control over what was supposed to be a workers' state. In the end, the party substituted itself for the working class, and we can see the results today -- in capitalist China.

Once again, Dialectical Marxism has been refuted by history...

I have covered this topic here:

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

Read the footnotes, too, since they contain extra information and argument.

basically, is your historical argument for the failure of dialectics borne out if you don't subscribe to the trotskyist historiography of Eternal Tragedy and Failure?



I'm afraid you have lost me here.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()

#268
UK
Post rating: ~

swirlsofhistory posted:

OK, since I seem to be responsible for summoning you here Rosa much like Beetlejuice (only by posting your site address rather than saying your name thrice), I wonder if you could answer a question I had about Wittgenstein’s rule-following argument since you talk about him a lot.

Saul Kripke mentions in a footnote (in On Rules and Private Language) that W’s argument against private rule-following has similarities to von Mises’ economic calculation argument in that both reject the idea that an individual (or planning body) can make meaningful rules for herself (or set prices) that aren’t merely whatever she feels is right at that moment. Just as the isolated individual can’t follow rules without being able to publicly check that she’s doing things the right way, a planner can’t decide between efficient uses of resources without prices, and prices are the outcome of different competing agents trying to make efficient use of resources. The market prices generated by other individuals provides the way of publicly checking that resources are being used efficiently.

Is this interpretation of W right? Do the limits of rule-following present a problem for socialist economy?



I think Kripke is on the right lines (but I am not sure of the Von Mises analogy). However, Kripke ruins his argument by characterising Wittgenstein as some sort of sceptic, which he wasn't.

These days this view is called 'Left Wittgensteinianism', as opposed to 'Right Wittgensteinianism' (whose main proponent is Peter Hacker).

I am not sure why you think Wittgenstein's work should pose a problem for socialist planning (if the latter is not understood along the lines we saw in the former Soviet Union). I can't see that it does.

And Neo-classical economics, of the sort von Mises helped inflict on humanity, has been well and truly demolished in this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned/dp/1848139926/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1352969376&sr=8-2

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()

#269
UK
Post rating: ~

Crow posted:

Can you estimate about how much of the human population is mystic and how many are just plain Idealists?



No.

#270
UK
Post rating: ~

Handsome posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Impper posted:

rosa can you read my books and let me know what you think. thank you

http://www.amazon.com/John-Christy/e/B006RBZ01A/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

I'm really sorry, but I don't read fiction, and haven't done so for at least 20 years.

but u read marx?????



Exactly, I don't read fiction. Well spotted.

#271
UK
Post rating: +

jools posted:

aerdil posted:

rosa have u ever read any marcuse, harvey, althusser, badiou, zizek?

reason and revolution contains a pretty good description of hegelian and marxian dialectics... perhaps u can trot along to some non trotty lit

rosa... have you read the last five books i read... the last five books i've read are the most important books i've read...



Doh! Can't answer that question until you tell me what those books are....?

#272
UK
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

it's been said that each of us is conditioned by an idea. there are far fewer ideas than men, therefore all men with similar ideas are alike. in the case of the rhizzone, that likeness is probably less the marxism and more the fail aids.



That's at least five ideas!

Moral: stop listening to things 'that are said'...

#273
Post rating: ~

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

jools posted:
that answer doesn't satisfy me particularly though. for one thing this trotskyist shibboleth of "substitutionism" is really not borne out by the facts - i would recommend looking more seriously at the chinese revolution in particular in this respect. humanity, after all, makes history in the conditions handed down by past generations. if all you have to work with is an agrarian peasant society, then you have to do what you can. in none of these examples can i see dialectics acting as a brake on any of this.

more broadly your assessment of an ever-more Fail marxism requires this historical assessment that discounts the dynamic and transformative role played by communists and communist parties in the third world - even where they didn't take power, their programs of independent development scared the ruling classes enough (or helped forge class alliances enough, as surveyed by samir amin) to embark on the process of import substitution and so on.

again, where is the dialectics holding them back? i'm not sure i can think of an example in accounts of party work anywhere where someone is saying "well we tried to persuade these workers/peasants to support us and they were right with us - until the dialectics stuff. but of course we can't get rid of this Holy Writ so i guess it's their fault."

basically, is your historical argument for the failure of dialectics borne out if you don't subscribe to the trotskyist historiography of Eternal Tragedy and Failure?


Unfortuantely, as we can now see for ourselves in China, this attempt to introduce 'socialism from above' in fact ends up creating a new form of capitalism. The working class must free itself (and not be freed by any other class or group), otherwise, as Marx said, all the sh*t of history will simply repeat itself. Chinese workers are going to have to organise another revolutuion, this time 'from below'



This is interesting, but how exactly was maoism socialism from above?

#274
Post rating: +

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Crow posted:

Can you estimate about how much of the human population is mystic and how many are just plain Idealists?

No.



I'm just trying to figure out how much of humanity I can completely ignore, how much of its intellectual tradition I should throw out

#275
UK
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

jools posted:
that answer doesn't satisfy me particularly though. for one thing this trotskyist shibboleth of "substitutionism" is really not borne out by the facts - i would recommend looking more seriously at the chinese revolution in particular in this respect. humanity, after all, makes history in the conditions handed down by past generations. if all you have to work with is an agrarian peasant society, then you have to do what you can. in none of these examples can i see dialectics acting as a brake on any of this.

more broadly your assessment of an ever-more Fail marxism requires this historical assessment that discounts the dynamic and transformative role played by communists and communist parties in the third world - even where they didn't take power, their programs of independent development scared the ruling classes enough (or helped forge class alliances enough, as surveyed by samir amin) to embark on the process of import substitution and so on.

again, where is the dialectics holding them back? i'm not sure i can think of an example in accounts of party work anywhere where someone is saying "well we tried to persuade these workers/peasants to support us and they were right with us - until the dialectics stuff. but of course we can't get rid of this Holy Writ so i guess it's their fault."

basically, is your historical argument for the failure of dialectics borne out if you don't subscribe to the trotskyist historiography of Eternal Tragedy and Failure?


Unfortuantely, as we can now see for ourselves in China, this attempt to introduce 'socialism from above' in fact ends up creating a new form of capitalism. The working class must free itself (and not be freed by any other class or group), otherwise, as Marx said, all the sh*t of history will simply repeat itself. Chinese workers are going to have to organise another revolutuion, this time 'from below'

This is interesting, but how exactly was maoism socialism from above?



It tried to bring socialism to the working class, as opposed to organising the workers to seize power and then create a socialist state themselves.

You'll find the details in Hal Draper's essay, which I linked to above; here it is again:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

As he points out;

What unites the many different forms of Socialism-from-Above is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control in fact. The heart of Socialism-from-Below is its view that socialism can be realized only through the self-emancipation of activized masses in motion, reaching out for freedom with their own hands, mobilized “from below” in a struggle to take charge of their own destiny, as actors (not merely subjects) on the stage of history. “The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves”: this is the first sentence in the Rules written for the First International by Marx, and this is the First Principle of his lifework.

It is the conception of Socialism-from-Above which accounts for the acceptance of Communist dictatorship as a form of “socialism.” It is the conception of Socialism-from-Above which concentrates social-democratic attention on the parliamentary superstructure of society and on the manipulation of the “commanding heights” of the economy, and which makes them hostile to mass action from below. It is Socialism-from-Above which is the dominant tradition in the development of socialism.



As well as Nigel Harris's book:

http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()

#276
UK
Post rating: +

Crow posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Crow posted:

Can you estimate about how much of the human population is mystic and how many are just plain Idealists?

No.

I'm just trying to figure out how much of humanity I can completely ignore, how much of its intellectual tradition I should throw out



Wish I knew; it would save me time too!

Spare a thought, however, for yours truly. Over the last fifteen years or so I have had to read several hundred books and articles on dialectics (no exaggeration!) -- a mind-numbing exercise, since much of it is highly repetitive.

And, that which isn't is almost totally incomprehensible!

#277
Post rating: ~

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Unfortuantely, as we can now see for ourselves in China, this attempt to introduce 'socialism from above' in fact ends up creating a new form of capitalism.




If you ignore a myriad of other circumstances and, as i imagine you are, make a generalization about this also being the case with the USSR then I guess you could come to such a conclusion based on the last 80 years of Chinese history, but really why would you want to do all that?

#278
UK
Post rating: ~

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:

Unfortuantely, as we can now see for ourselves in China, this attempt to introduce 'socialism from above' in fact ends up creating a new form of capitalism.

If you ignore a myriad of other circumstances and, as i imagine you are, make a generalization about this also being the case with the USSR then I guess you could come to such a conclusion based on the last 80 years of Chinese history, but really why would you want to do all that?



Because I am a Marxist, and am committed to understanding history in order to help change it.

In which case, I won't tell lies to myself just because others claim China is socialist, and the CCP did the best it could in difficult circumstances.

Wishful thinking and good intentions can't bring about a socialist society.

Only the proletariat can do that, and they were absent (in an active sense) in the Chinese revolution.

Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()

#279
Post rating: ~
What use would Chinese people have for some five syllable latinism like 'proletarian?'
#280
Post rating: ~
Shocking evidence reveals that 'The Proletarian' was not involved in being written by a single trot magazine during or after the War of Liberation.