• Dialectics

Apologies for the formatting of my reply, but I do not know how to insert quotes at this site,  and I thought I had left gaps to highlight the quotes I did refer to!

Right, I have fiixed that link!

Arthur: "But you would need to tackle the concrete issues we are discussing (eg Iraq) in ordinary language."


 Rosa: "I am not sure what this has to do with anything I have said, but you need to know that I am, unlike those who post here, vehemently opposed to the criminal invasion of Iraq, in ordinary or in technical language. Indeed, I hope the US military suffers a defeat like it did in Vietnam, or worse.


 Arthur: Understood. That is why I said:

We hold opposite views on concrete political issues so discussing those concrete issues ought to be more productive. If you read the thread linked above from the beginning, and the links within it, you will find plenty of material that shows the connection between our different political views to yours and our different philosophical views concerning dialectical materialism to yours.

 I doubt that anyone else here is likely to have time to read more than the 3% of your material that I did and get into a discussion on your terms (I know I'm not). However we are very short of people who hold "vehement" views on Iraq similar to yours and who are actually interested in sustaining an argument with us as opposed to simply denouncing us with bewilderment.


If you do follow links from this thread to various posts on dialectics at this site, it is likely that you would find material here that claims there is a connection between political views that you have in common with people you have been arguing with about dialectics, and what people here claim to be a complete incomprehension of dialectics on their part. It would be surprising if you agreed with what we say about dialectics and pseudo-left politics at those links.


There is more chance of people here being drawn into discussion with you if you challenge us about specific things we have been saying here that you disagree with us about.

Mao wrote  

Concrete analysis of concrete conditions, Lenin said, is "the most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism".[4] Lacking an analytical approach, many of our comrades do not want to go deeply into complex matters, to analyse and study them over and over again, but like to draw simple conclusions which are either absolutely affirmative or absolutely negative. The fact that our newspapers are lacking in analytical articles and that the habit of analysis is not yet fully cultivated in the Party shows that there are such shortcomings. From now on we should remedy this state of affairs.*

While you would not agree with the author of that, I had the impression that part of your critique of "dialecticians" was that they tend to spout mystical theories instead of concretely analysing concrete conditions. For example many of the people posting at this site were involved in the solidarity movement supporting Vietnam against US aggression and would take the view that the concrete nature of the Vietnam war was so obviously different from that of the Iraq war that saying "I hope the US military suffers a defeat like it did in Vietnam, or worse." is simply not an argument at all but merely a statement of position.

If you are willing to challenge us in the concrete analysis of concrete conditions concerning our different perspectives concerning the Iraq war that could be fruitful.


You may also find that you are likewise vehemently opposed to views expressed here in relation to "green" issues.

The dialectic of debate about concrete disagreements concerning things we have been saying here is likely to result in a discussion of dialectics that you may get more satisfaction from arguing with us about. I got the impression you were quite frustrated about the refusal of others to argue coherently with you. Try us and see. Like it or not however, you would need to be arguing with what we are saying rather than expecting us to read 600,000 words concerning your arguments with others.


If you read the whole of this thread on dialectics from the beginning and follow the links from earlier posts, you ought to be able to find a starting point to get into an argument with us. If you cannot, there wasn't much point posting to this thread.


PS By "ordinary language" I include the sort of language you were using in the paragraph I quoted from you above. As it happens keza has some familiarity with the technical language of Analytical Philosophy and I have some familiarity with the technical language of Mathematical Logic - and several of us are familiar with the jargon of peurile sects pretending to be revolutionary and dialecticians.

Rosa wrote:

Apologies for the formatting of my reply, but I do not know how to insert quotes at this site,  and I thought I had left gaps to highlight the quotes I did refer to!

To turn text into a quote  (as I have done above)  you will need to copy the text that you would like to quote  and then  select it and click on the  "indent  button" on the green bar  at the top of the edit form.  The indent icon is to the left of  the small globe  which is the button you can use to add a link.) To outdent the text following your quote, use the  "outdent button" (but chuck in a few returns first. It will look better that way.)   More info about using the site generally is available in our user guide .  Specific info. on formatting forum messages is here.


Also... it's always best to insert at  two returns between paragraphs. Although using a single return seems to look OK in the edit form, when saved the paragraphs move automatically closer together, unfortunately. That's a fault in the software.
_______

And yes, as mentioned by Arthur in his reply to you, we are frustrated at the appallingly low level of debate coming from those who disagree with our views on the war in Iraq and other issues.  Those who dislike our viwes often seem to have no concept  of what an argument is. The tendency is to string together a series of shocked assertions and to change the subject frequently by introducing new assertions rather than attempting to counter what we have said, and so on.  Such posts are also frequently littered with logical fallacies.

I haven't as yet found time to do more than skim some of the material on your site, but from what I have looked at so far, you seem to have some concept of the importance of being able to mount a genuine logical  argument and can see that this is very differnet from just talking in vague generalities and making sweeping statements based on an a world view that is regarded as unchallengeable and sacred.


We would welcome a genuine and well constructed argument  with you over the real-world  issues on which we disagree.  That would be the best way to test out the differences between our support for dialectics (when used correctly) as the best way to analyse the world around us, and your view that  the  dialectical approach is without merit.

Keza, thanks for the advice on editing.

 

If you want a debate on the criminal invasion of Iraq, I suggest you try RevLeft, or better, Lenin's Tomb.

 

I will not get distracted on this issue here, since I only visited this site to publicse my site.

Arthur, as I said to Keza, I did not come here to debate Iraq, not will I.

 

As to this:

 

While you would not agree with the author of that, I had the impression that part of your critique of "dialecticians" was that they tend to spout mystical theories instead of concretely analysing concrete conditions.

Whether concrete or abstract, I claim, with abundant evidence, that dialectics makes no sense at all.

 

I will not return to this site again, since associating with those who in any way can justify an invasion to steal Iraqi oil, and in the process kill over 650,000 civilians, leaves a dirty taste in my mouth.

 

I have to say, I only discovered the pro-Imperialist stance voiced here after my first post.

 

Had I discovered it before I had posed my first message, I would not have done so, and would not ever have returned here.

 

According to the "Preliminary Points" in Rosa's Introduction:

So, it is alleged that dialectics is an important part of the reason why revolutionary groups are in general vanishingly small, neurotically sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative, theoretically deferential (to "tradition"), and almost invariably tend toward all forms of substitutionism.

 I claim, with abundant evidence, that these charactistics are not confined to those pseudo-leftists that claim to support dialectics but are equally common among those who openly reject dialectics. Rosa might be somewhat unique in claiming to be a Marxist and Leninist and being interested enough in the subject of dialectical materialism to write 600,000 words rejecting it, rather than simply ignoring it. But there are at least as many people claiming to be on the left who have similar views to Rosa on political issues like the Iraq war or the end being nigh, who make no pretence of being influenced by dialectics as there are who do make such a pretence.


In the same place Rosa added:

I sincerely hope I am wrong in this, but bitter experience over the last twenty-five years "debating" with the {Dialectical Materialist}-faithful tells me I am talking to Marxists with stoppered ears. Internet "discussions" have merely confirmed (if not greatly amplified) this opinion.


Not one seems capable of entering into fair debate.

 Anyone willing to spend 25 minutes, let alone 25 years talking to people with stoppered ears is likely to find their opinions confirmed by the experience, regardless of what those opinions are. One has to be very fond of one's own opinions indeed to keep talking about them to people who obviously are not listening.



I claim that people incapable of entering into fair debate are inherently incapable of grasping dialectics sufficiently to either support or reject it since the necessary concepts are closely connected with the "dialectical" process of dialogue.


Both those with stoppered ears claiming to support dialectics and those with stoppered ears openly rejecting dialectics are in facts adherents of dogmatics, not dialectics. They are certainly neither Marxist nor revolutionary. Just "neurotically sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative" etc.


I rest my case. It did not take 600,000 words accumulated over 25 years.

Some principles (selected quotes) about dialectics from mao's "On Contradiction"

Dialectics
The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing

Qualitatively different contradictions can only be resolved by qualitatively different methods

This dialectical world outlook teaches us primarily how to observe and analyse the movement of opposites in different things and, on the basis of such analysis, to indicate the methods for resolving contradictions

Particularity
Lenin ... said that the most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism, is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions ... Without concrete analysis there can be no knowledge of the particularity of any contradiction

... in order really to know an object we must embrace, study, all its sides, all connections and "mediations". We shall never achieve this completely, but the demand for all-sidedness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity (Lenin quote)

Fundamental contradiction
The fundamental contradiction in the process of development of a thing and the essence of the process determined by this fundamental contradiction will not disappear until the process is completed; but in a lengthy process the conditions usually differ at each stage ... the fundamental contradiction becomes more and more intensified as it passes from one stage to another in the lengthy process. In addition, among the numerous major and minor contradictions which are determined or influenced by the fundamental contradiction, some become intensified, some are temporarily or partially resolved or mitigated, and some new ones emerge; hence the process is marked by stages

Principal contradiction
There are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions ... in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to finding its principal contradiction

Unevenness
In any contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.... Nothing in this world develops absolutely evenly; we must oppose the theory of even development or the theory of equilibrium

the new superseding the old
We often speak of "the new superseding the old". The supersession of the old by the new is a general, eternal and inviolable law of the universe. The transformation of one thing into another, through leaps of different forms in accordance with its essence and external conditions--this is the process of the new superseding the old. In each thing there is contradiction between its new and its old aspects, and this gives rise to a series of struggles with many twists and turns. As a result of these struggles, the new aspect changes from being minor to being major and rises to predominance, while the old aspect changes from being major to being minor and gradually dies out. And the moment the new aspect gains dominance over the old, the old thing changes qualitatively into a new thing

At certain times in the revolutionary struggle, the difficulties outweigh the favourable conditions and so constitute the principal aspect of the contradiction and the favourable conditions constitute the secondary aspect. But through their efforts the revolutionaries can overcome the difficulties step by step and open up a favourable new situation; thus a difficult situation yields place to a favourable one

identity of opposites
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, transforming themselves into one another,--why the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another (Lenin quote)

It is only the reactionary ruling classes of the past and present and the metaphysicians in their service who regard opposites not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves into one another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere to delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule

antagonism
... antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites