The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Marxism Destroyed the Dialectic > Comments

Marxism Destroyed the Dialectic : Comments

By Gilbert Holmes, published 27/9/2010

Marx poisoned modern political philosophy because he didn't understand the dialectic

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. ...
  14. 53
  15. 54
  16. 55
  17. All
> In this way, with decreasing oscillations between too many and not
> enough rabbits, it seems to me that a relatively stable population
> of rabbits will evntually be reached, with these rabbits keeping the
> grass pretty well clipped.
>
> This seems pretty logical to me. If it is wrong, can anyone explain
> in more detail how or why?
> GilbertHolmes

Besides the fact that such ideal situations do not exist in Reality (bugsy covered this quite thoroughly!), I have already pointed out it has been well-established that the population growth of e.g. biological systems -- including rabbits -- in FACT vary by _rate_ of growth in a way which oscillates according to 1 or more *chaotic attractors*. This is a major fact of all Reality which you simply must become aware of. If you intend to write (e.g. professionally) on such matters in anything more than a sophomoric way, you must acquaint yourself 'with the literature', as they say. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.

> My own interpretation of the dialectic comes from an interest in
> polarity. Specifically in this context I look at there being three
> fundamental polarities. Yin/yang as the underlying polarity, being/
>non-being and separateness/connectedness which are more related to
> actual goings on in the world.

Actually, you misunderstand dialectic because you are lumping together different levels of Reality -- ontological or otherwise -- and choosing whatever resulting setup appeals to you. Dialectic develops by series of 'triads' (cough) which 'ascend' by succeeding levels of complexity: _emergent_ complexity, actually -- which produces ever newer qualitative phenomena. Like the reflective/reflexive [self-]consciousness of physical Beings.

> Specifically then, I look to there being two categories of
> dialectic within which all dialectic progressions will fit.
> The first relating to the being/non-being polarity.

So finally you are addressing the basic ontology of existence -- as you should have at the beginning of this exercise.

> Here we can look at whether something is either more or
> less manifest (such as rabbits).

A category or two too far, AFAIC.
Posted by grok, Friday, 1 October 2010 6:36:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm finding the idea of a Marxist chiding anyone for believing that ideal situations can exist in reality most snicker-inducing.
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 1 October 2010 8:22:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grok wrote: Eric Blair was right on the money often enough; but again: the primary intellectual/ideological failure of the petit-bourgeois types on this forum (or anywhere, for that matter) is their accepting the basic false premise of capitalist propaganda that 'stalinism == socialism'.

One of the false techniques of argument is to set up a strawman and argue against it. Stalin did not set up the dictatorship. That was Lenin. Lenin initiated the gulags, had his cheka execute class enemies, brought back censorship that Kerensky had eliminated, destroyed the freedom of trade unions and created a one party tyranny. In doing so he followed the prescription of Marx who advocated putting all transportation and communication in the control of state. Stalinism is Leninism is Marxism. However, that is not socialism. Socialism does not mean tyranny, but Marxism does.

It is neither Stalinism nor socialism that is the problem. It is Marxism.
Posted by david f, Friday, 1 October 2010 9:53:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish.
Yes. Positively hootful.

Grok
“Rest my case.”

In case you haven’t noticed, you haven’t actually made a case, nor refuted mine.

If we strip away your passionate conviction that there is something dreadfully wrong with individual freedom and private property, and something most excellent about the wisdom of Marx, and your personal argumentation and other logical fallacies, there’s nothing left.

No-one is arguing that Stalinism = socialism. The argument is that attempts to implement socialism result in arbitrary despotic government and greater poverty for the masses.

“Nowhere here, for instance, is any attempt made to demonstrate the very real relations between these corrupt political elites of these neo-colonial countries and the ruling elites of the Western imperialist countries: who in fact not only make this corrupt behavior possible, but even positively *encourage* it.”

No, but neither have you made any such attempt, have you? Nor have you shown how these exploitative power blocs are the result of private ownership of the means of production, rather than of centralised governmental direction and control of production, much of it explicitly motivated by socialist ideas.

“And proper use of even the hegelian dialectic would allow us and encourage us to properly relate 'facts' to the correct relative and absolute contexts.”

Nor have you properly related ‘facts’ to the correct relative and absolute contexts. You haven’t made any argument in favour of socialism at all; nor refuted the argument showing it is impossible.

“Dialectic develops by series of 'triads' (cough) which 'ascend' by succeeding levels of complexity: _emergent_ complexity, actually -- which produces ever newer qualitative phenomena. Like the reflective/reflexive [self-]consciousness of physical Beings.”

What’s that supposed to mean?

I bought some food, plates and cups the other day. They were the product of private property and voluntary exchange. I can’t see anything exploitative about the process by which they were produced. I say it was mutually beneficial to all parties. Your task is to show why they were necessary exploitative. So far you haven’t got to square one.

GH
Assuming your rabbit/grass hypothesis were agreed, then… what do you say follows?
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 1 October 2010 10:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I passed by a lot of crap and even some real questions, simply because life is too short... We can always get to everything eventually, anyway.

>> “Dialectic develops by series of 'triads' (cough) which 'ascend' by
>> succeeding levels of complexity: _emergent_ complexity, actually --
>> which produces ever newer qualitative phenomena. Like the reflective/
>> reflexive [self-]consciousness of physical Beings.”
>
> What’s that supposed to mean?

(Leaving aside the snide innuendo implied) Where do you want to start? With my attempt at avoiding the infamous "wooden triad" of the fixated bourgeois mentality, which apes dialectical development w/o actually understanding it? As opposed to the real process of development: the polar "moments" of the dialectic (i.e. as in 'momentum' or 'moment of inertia'), which express the true dynamic essence of the development of real things..? Or somewhere else?

> I bought some food, plates and cups the other day. They were the
> product of private property and voluntary exchange. I can’t see
> anything exploitative about the process by which they were produced.
> I say it was mutually beneficial to all parties. Your task is to show
> why they were necessary exploitative. So far you haven’t got to square
> one.

You clearly understand nothing of import in bourgeois economics --- let alone what Marx explained about capitalism. So probably the best approach here is to cut to the chase and 'debate' the reality of Marx' famous "Labor Theory of Value" (i.e. the complete theory -- not Ricardo's incomplete initial work). Neoliberals keep claiming to have driven a stake thru the heart of this theory; but apparently it keeps rising up, undead, to haunt the capitalist world...

> Assuming your rabbit/grass hypothesis were agreed, then… what do you
> say follows?

What follows is modeling Reality as it is: systematically and scientifically. And today we have computers: so pleading 'complexity' is no longer an issue, as it was in the Paper-and-Pencil Age.
Posted by grok, Friday, 1 October 2010 11:19:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get pensions from the United States along with Social Security. However, look at what Marx wrote in the Manifesto as his prescription for the Marxist state.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

The Marxist states follow the prescription of Marx. I volunteered to help settle refugees from the USSR while it existed. They came with nothing. Marxism required confiscation of what they had worked for.

In the Manifesto Marx wrote:

"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."

In the United States or Australia I can own a home and not be deprived of it arbitrarily.

Marx also advocated:

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

If a person dies young the children may become wards of the state.

Marx also prescribed:

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

That eliminates a free press. In Australia the Marxist Green Left Weekly can publish. In Marxist countries publications opposing the Marxist ideology or independent of the state cannot.

Marx also advocated:

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Industrial armies cannot be organized without coercion. Conscripted sent to go to labour camps working on such projects as the canal to the White Sea were victims of Marxism. An estimated 20% survived the camps.

Marx also advocated:

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

The above means that people live not where they want to but where the government decides.

Marx also wrote in the Manifesto:

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

That is a prescription for murder. The corpses were no accident. They were a direct result of the evil of Marxism.
Posted by david f, Friday, 1 October 2010 11:25:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. 15
  13. ...
  14. 53
  15. 54
  16. 55
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy