Saturday, December 1, 2007

Why Revolutionaries Cling To DM Like Grim Death



by Rosa Lichtenstein

No matter how deep, long-term or devastating the refutations history delivers, and despite the cogent arguments ranged against it in my Essays, the DM-faithful remain hopelessly mesmerised by their 'theory'.

Why is this? And why have revolutionaries of the stature of Engels, Lenin and Trotsky sold their radical souls to this conservative thought-form? [Marx was an exception; on this, see here and here.]

The historical origin of the philosophical system underlying DM is not in any doubt (a summary can be found here), and neither are the class origins of DM-classicists (like Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky). In that case, dialectics itself has impressive alien-class credentials.

It is important to note, however, that it is not being alleged here that the above comrades imported these alien ideas knowingly or duplicitously; it is being asserted that they did this honestly but unwittingly.

Honestly, because they genuinely thought that the movement needed a Philosophy; unwittingly, because the only theories on offer in their day were those that had already been compromised by ruling-class concepts and forms-of-thought (which these comrades failed to appreciate). [More on that below.]

This does not of course mean that only workers can be good socialists, but it does mean that we should be alert to the class-compromised origin of the ideas that DM-classicists brought with them into our movement -- before the working class could provide them with an effective materialist counter-weight.

Today, a hundred or more years later, there is no longer any excuse for continuing to import these ideas, since that counter-weight now exists.

However, this does help explain a rather curious anomaly: as the working-class daily grows bigger, the influence that Dialectical Marxism has on it dwindles ever faster.

Parallel to this, but not unrelated to it, our movement continues to splinter, and thus has decreasing influence on the class struggle. Moreover, the fact that workers ignore our movement en masse means that their counter-weight has no influence where it counts: on our ideas.

So Marxist Idealism lives on, as its theorists think of new ways to make such awkward facts disappear.

The lack of active socialist workers means that the unifying force of the class struggle by-passes the revolutionary movement, which, because it is dominated by petty-bourgeois individuals, does little other than fragment (for well-known social-psychological reasons; on this, see here).

Hence, the same social forces that compel workers to unite, drive professional revolutionaries in the opposite direction, and toward fragmentation.

A rather ironic 'dialectical' inversion in itself!

But, are these accusations enough to condemn DM? Clearly, not on their own.

DM is demonstrably flawed from end to end (as my Essays show); that fact alone is enough to condemn it. But, the dubious class-origin of both "materialist dialectics" and its originators explains why this theory has had such a deleterious effect on militant minds, rendering our movement all but impotent. It also helps account for the disastrous effect it has had on post 1920s Marxism.

But why do hard-headed revolutionaries cling to this lamentable theory like drunks do to lamp posts?

Marxists are aware that in defeat the tendency (even among revolutionaries) is to turn to mysticism both as a means of explanation and as a source of consolation. This was indeed one of the main reasons why Lenin wrote Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

Alas, Marxism has faced little other than defeat and set-back for most of its history.

However, the theory that played an important subjective role in engineering this catastrophic state of affairs also enables its adherents to ignore it.

This it does in at least two ways:

1) The NON[Negation of the Negation] informs believers that any and all retreats are only temporary; the onward march of Marxism is assured by the underlying logic of history. [We saw this surface in Excuse Four, above.]

2) DM-epistemology teaches that appearances contradict underlying "essences" -- i.e., how things appear to be is the opposite of the way they really are. This being so, what might seem to be (i.e., to the dialectically untrained eye) a series of defeats, is really part of the long-term success of Marxism --, or, perhaps, part of a run of successes about to begin, any day soon...

Hence, the theory that has helped engineer these set-backs also says that they have not really taken place, that they are other than they seem, or that they do not matter.

Anyone who doubts this should try telling any randomly-selected, dialectically-distracted comrade that Marxism is highly unsuccessful. Unless you are extraordinarily unlucky, you can expect to be subjected to some ludicrously tortured logic that will attempt to prove otherwise.

The latter will include a convoluted explanation as to why, when 99% of the working class ignores Marxism --, and has done so for many generations --, and all four Internationals have gone down the pan, and the vast majority of the former 'socialist' states have gone into reverse, and Marxist parties (especially the Trotskyist variety) everywhere are a by-word for splits and divisions (indeed they are a standing joke in this regard),2 and even though practically every communist party on the planet has embraced open reformism, meaning that we are now further away from establishing a Workers' State than the Bolsheviks were in 1921 --, that none of this matters, or has actually happened, or is really now happening, or is any part of the particular 'tradition' to which this sad soul belongs.

You see, the other "sects" are to blame; it's a failure of revolutionary "leadership" -- their failure, you understand, not ours.

Alternatively, the "objective circumstances" ploy will be dusted-off, and given another spin around the dialectical exercise yard.

Nevertheless, you will probably then be informed of the good news that the latest stunt, conference, intervention, split, or expulsion that the 'party' (to which this sad dreamer belongs) has just pulled off (or is about to stage) heralds the long-awaited turning-point for the international proletariat.2a

Without a hint of irony -- still less of embarrassment --, this comrade will pronounce such verities on behalf of at most 0.00001% of the working class (this being the entire membership of his or her tiny grouplet (formed largely of non-workers)), some of whom, anyway, are about to be expelled from this 'Worker's Party' --, probably for failing to 'understand' "materialist dialectics"!

And, as sure as eggs are not dialectical eggs, this comrade will fail to see the connection between such facts and such failures --, and give you a hard time for even thinking to question the sacred gospel.

Or, if you belong to another "sect", you can expect to be called a "bourgeois stooge", or worse.

Those familiar with Marxist/revolutionary papers will already know of their unsinkable optimism -- how almost all claim to be the only one that is "leading the class", and how Capitalism is once again entering its "final crisis" (it apparently having more lives than a lorry load of cats).

But, all that this will confirm is how unreasonable dialecticians can be, and how they are prepared to bend every rule in order to protect the semi-divine dialectic.

So, Dialectical Marxists cling to this 'theory' because without it their entire world-view would fall apart, and their sole source of consolation would disappear. In short, they are super-glued (crazy-glued) to dialectics for the same reason that religious folk cling on to their faith. [More on this here.]

That, of course, explains the mind-numbing, mantra-like repetitiveness of DM, the pathological fear of the "R" word ("Revisionism" -- which attitude conveniently forgets that no science is beyond revision), the sacred books, the appeal to 'orthodoxy', the heroic pictures of the dialectical saints carried on parades (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Kim Jong-il, etc., etc.), and the inexplicable adherence to the Stone Age Logic found in a thinly-disguised work of mystical theology that celebrates the goings-on of an invisible 'Being' (i.e., Hegel's 'Logic').

If this wasn't quite so serious, you'd laugh.


For more about Dialectics and why this theory should be dumped, visit Rosa Lichtenstein @nti-Dialectics for Absolute Beginners.

22 comments:

Renegade Eye said...

I thought at first your post was a belated April Fools joke.

DM works for me.

blackstone said...

That's the thing, DM can "work" for anybody.

It reminds me of this Nostradamus prediction. During a war, one side said the prediction meant they was going to win and their opposition claimed it meant that they themselves was going to win.

LeftyHenry said...

So... because the socialist movement has had setbacks dialectal materialism is proven false? Dialectical materialism never meant that we march onward to socialism without any detours, setbacks, or even failures. That is the trotskyist theory of class struggle coming to an end under socialism. The Marxist-Leninist theory is that class struggle continues, that there are these setbacks and that's part of what struggle means. Throughout history there have been dialectical steps forward in history, followed by defeats bringing humanity back to the stone age. For example the first bourgeois democracy being defeated in Greece and replaced with monarchy and fuedalism and then bourgeois democracy making a triumphant comeback. Or the Paris Commune followed by the restoration of the empire and then the the massive socialist revolutions to start a half-century later. Dialectics are not a straight line.

blackstone said...

Henry, i don't know about Lenin(ML) had to say about class struggle, but Marx made it very clear in certain passages he wrote detailing what you have said. That there were going to be upheavals, setbacks, gains and losses, all of which constitute class struggle and form class consciousness. And in those passages, Marx never mentions dialectics or dialectical laws, like negation of the negation,etc.

Marx made those statements based on observation and historical evidence. Historical Materialism, yeah. Dialectical Materialism?No.

In any case, Dialectics can't tell you why those advances, setbacks, failures or victories even occurred.

ajohnstone said...

Basic Marx philospohy -

1. that you should not judge by empirical appearances alone (otherwise you might think that the Sun went round the Earth) but try, by theoretical analysis, to get at what might be behind them,
2. that everything is an inter- related part of the whole that is the universe,
3 . that everything is in a constant process of being transformed into something else, but that this change is not always continuous but involves leaps and breaks.

Add to this the traditional materialist view that mind and consciousness cannot exist apart from a living body, and you have "dialectical materialism".

Leftwing Criminologist said...

The article i think makes the big mistake of trying to seperate Marx from Engels. It needs to be remembered that the two worked very closely together over a prolonged period of time, and were in very regular correspondance with each other, marx focussing more on economics and engels on natural science. Marx read Enegls Anti-Duhring (and even wrote a chapter of it), I doubt he would have not said anything it he did not agree with engels position in that work.

@ lefthenry

Dialectical materialism never meant that we march onward to socialism without any detours, setbacks, or even failures. That is the trotskyist theory of class struggle coming to an end under socialism.

Actually, no that's gradualism favoured by the fabians and other reformists
I think for trotskyists class struggle would end with the abolition of classes (as in actual abolition not just someone saying they were abolished).

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Thanks for posting that Blackstone, but comrades will need to know that NON is short for 'Negation of the Negation'.

And good luck with the comments; you seem to be getting the sort that I receive -- you know, those from comrades who make irrelevant points about work they have not read.

A J is yet another of these, for I deal with his 'objection' number 1 in Essay Three Part Two.

Here are a couple of quotes from leading physicists:

'It could be objected here that, for example, modern post-Copernican science has in fact contradicted Aristotelian ideas about the immobility of the earth. Of course, that is itself a controversial interpretation of the relationship between modern and ancient scientific theories -– and one that is not obviously correct. [I will explain why this is so in a later Essay.]

[TOR = Theory of Relativity.]

Anyway, and despite this, one clear consequence of the TOR is that, with a suitable change of reference frame, it is possible to picture the Earth as stationary and the Sun (etc.) in motion relative to it. That done, the alleged 'contradiction' disappears. In that case, the only necessary 'correction' to Aristotelian Physics (in this respect) would involve the abandonment of the idea that the earth is situated in a unique frame of reference -– but science itself can neither confirm nor deny that particular metaphysical assumption.

On this, Robert Mills had this comment to make:

"Another way of stating the principle of equivalence, a way that better reflects its name, is to say that all reference frames, including accelerated reference frames, are equivalent, that the laws of Physics take the same form in any reference frame…. And it is also correct to say that the Copernican view (with the sun at the centre) and the Ptolemaic view (with the earth at the centre) are equally valid and equally consistent!" [Mills (1994), pp.182-83. Spelling altered to conform to UK English.]

[It is worth recalling that that late Professor Mills was co-inventor of Yang-Mills Theory in Gauge Quantum Mechanics, and was thus not a scientific novice.]

And this is what Fred Hoyle had to say:

"Instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view....

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense...." [Hoyle (1973), pp.78-79.]

"We now know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. But such an understanding had to await Einstein's theory of gravitation in order to be fully clarified." [Hoyle (1975), p.416.]

Similarly, Max Born commented:

"Thus from Einstein's point of view Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. For the mechanics of the planetary system the view of Copernicus is certainly the more convenient. But it is meaningless to call the gravitational fields that occur when a different system of reference is chosen 'fictitious' in contrast with the 'real' fields produced by near masses: it is just as meaningless as the question of the 'real' length of a rod...in the special theory of relativity. A gravitational field is neither 'real' nor 'fictitious' in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates, just as in the case of the length of a rod." [Born (1965), p.345. I owe this reference to Rosser (1967).]

Of course, it could always be claimed that Copernican theory is simpler than the Ptolemaic system, but until we receive a clear sign that nature works according to our notion of simplicity (or cares a fig about it), that argument won't wash.'

More on this, and references and links here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_02.htm

Red Youth said...

Blackstone,

I am not sure why this whole anti-dialectical turn has turned so popular, it has been getting more praise after psuedo-Marxist-Leninist Rosa Lichenstein has been repeating RedStar2000's posts with more philosophically driven understanding of the terms, but here it is quite clear that Rosa Lichenstein doesn't understand Dialectics in the simplest formulation.

It seems to me she is way out of step with actual theoretical work being performed and published and has no relation to any actual work being done beyond RevLeft.

Here we see her own understanding to be a bad cartoon of Engel's popularization of Dialectics in the work Anti-Durhing. This vulgar materialist understanding is a mere Empiricism, and is out of step with a scientific materialist perspective, which is a dialectical understanding.

What is Dialectics? There have been some bad formulations, but I would recommend comrades to read Thomas Kuhn's work on Scientific Paradigms in Revolution. Unlike the vulgar Reflection theory that Rosa is positing, a theory that is in line with Empirical-Idealism, it puts forward how Scientific knowledge and paradigms of science are in a continual processual revolution.

Here we see Dialectics in its pure form, how knowledge of the world in our paradigms comes to contradictions, and requires new paradigms synthesized for knowledge to move forward.

Red Youth said...

The last post was mine, under a different name...sorry for confusion.

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Red Youth:

"I am not sure why this whole anti-dialectical turn has turned so popular, it has been getting more praise after psuedo (sic)-Marxist-Leninist Rosa Lichenstein (sic) has been repeating RedStar2000's posts with more philosophically driven understanding of the terms, but here it is quite clear that Rosa Lichenstein (sic) doesn't understand Dialectics in the simplest formulation."

Well, in that case, I am in good company, since no one 'understands' dialectics; not Engels, not Plekhanov, not Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky...

Or if they did, they kept that secret well-hidden.
And my work is nothing like RedStar's

Nevertheless, all we ever get from you mystics are personal attacks. Not one of you can respond to my devastating attack on this Hermetic 'theory' you have all swallowed.

"It seems to me she is way out of step with actual theoretical work being performed and published and has no relation to any actual work being done beyond RevLeft."

Well, you are the sort of person who would have said to Galileo, 400 odd years ago:

"It seems to me he is way out of step with actual theoretical work being performed and published and has no relation to any actual work being done beyond atheists outside the Church."

Or to Marx:

"It seems to me he is way out of step with actual theoretical work being performed and published and has no relation to any actual work being done beyond critics of David Ricardo's theories."

The argument from conformity to tradition is always the last refuge of the conservatives among us.

"Here we see her own understanding to be a bad cartoon of Engel's popularization of Dialectics in the work Anti-Dühring. This vulgar materialist understanding is a mere Empiricism, and is out of step with a scientific materialist perspective, which is a dialectical understanding."

The material posted here was taken from a Basic Introductory Essay, so what else can you expect?

Now try and argue the same based on a reading of my actual Essays, not the introductions I wrote (to help a few comrades out).

You can perhaps begin here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm#What-Are-Dialectical-Contradictions

But you will need a better command of logic and philosophy than you have displayed here to follow the argument.

And your accusation is "empiricism" might make you feel better, but you will find it hard to prove (especially since I reject all philosophical theories as nonsensical, not false)

"What is Dialectics? There have been some bad formulations, but I would recommend comrades to read Thomas Kuhn's work on Scientific Paradigms in Revolution. Unlike the vulgar Reflection theory that Rosa is positing, a theory that is in line with Empirical-Idealism, it puts forward how Scientific knowledge and paradigms of science are in a continual processual (eh?) revolution."

Kuhn's work is in no way 'dialectical'. [You will find that allegation impossible to prove, too.]

And where to I 'posit' the 'reflection' theory (vulgar or otherwise)?

You lot just cannot resist making stuff up can you?

"Here we see Dialectics in its pure form, how knowledge of the world in our paradigms comes to contradictions, and requires new paradigms synthesized for knowledge to move forward."

Well, this shows you either have not read Kuhn, or you fell asleep while attempting to do so.

Try again, and then come back and tell me where he speaks about "knowledge of the world in our paradigms comes to contradictions".

It's not even good English...

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Fans of the dialectic, and especially those fair-minded (and obviously psychic comrades), like one or two of those above, who reject all I have to say without bothering to read a single one of my Essays, can instead try their hands at The 2007 Dialectics Exam:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Essay_666_The_Final_Exam.htm

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Looks like the link was too wide to fit on the page.

The exam can be accessed here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/

Top of the page.

ShineThePath said...

Rosa, if you feel like attacking grammar go away. I am not going down the route of utterly silly and frivolous insults here.

All I can say though is that in your discussion you derive all your facts from the very Empirical method you say you reject, what else can a 'materialist' be, if the dialectical method is rejected? Let us ask this, you will inevitability find yourself in an Empiricist model or you're evaluating propositions.

Further, Rosa, from all posts I have seen you do nothing but actually insult. For example, you exclaim that Dialecticians are 'mystics,' but you go on beating the dead horse of Plekhanov and Engels. Lenin, as can be seen in his notes while reading Hegel during 1916 shows a turn away from the formulaic rubric of Engels, Plekhanov, and other socialist leaders after Marx's death.

Further, where do you deal with more known academically credible Dialecticians of today, such as Slavoj Zizek?

Also your comments that Kuhn's structure have nothing in common with Hegel is simply non-indepth look. The scientific revolution structure of Kuhn is based on the same epistemological critique and dialectical movement of Hegel's phenomenology. The move of natural consciousness processually for Hegel is the basis for the idea of contradictions in scientific paradigms and moves to new paradigms.

If Rosa could explain her Materialist method and show how it is not Empiricist, I'd be intrigued.

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Shine:

"Rosa, if you feel like attacking grammar go away. I am not going down the route of utterly silly and frivolous insults here."

No, you prefer more sophisticated insults, like: "empiricist".

[You started the insults, you just do not like it when you discover I always give back far worse than I get. The reason? See my next post.]

"Let us ask this, you will inevitability find yourself in an Empiricist model or you're evaluating propositions."

Not so -- I reject empiricism, just as I reject your brand of mysticism.
[Anyway, even if you were right, I'd rather be an empiricist than a mystic like you.]

You need to focus on my arguments, not make wild predictions about my trajectory based on your not having read my work.

But, you are happy just to label me, and then you think that that allows you to ignore my systematic demolition of this Hermetic theory you have swallowed.

[Sure, I use labels too, but I also provide argument and proof -- you just label.]

"Lenin, as can be seen in his notes while reading Hegel during 1916 shows a turn away from the formulaic rubric of Engels, Plekhanov, and other socialist leaders after Marx's death."

That shows how much you know.

Lenin's lamentably poor work gets systematically trashed at my site too.

Now, do you really feel like making an even bigger fool of yourself by trying to comment on my work without actually read it?

You do not have to read my work, but you would be wise not to draw attention to your stupidity by passing comments about something you have not read.

Or, maybe you like public humiliation?
Good news then: you have come to the right woman for loads of that, sonny.

"Further, where do you deal with more known academically credible Dialecticians of today, such as Slavoj Zizek?"

He will also get a seeing-to in good time.

Have patience -- then you can make stuff up about that part of my work too.

"Also your comments that Kuhn's structure have nothing in common with Hegel is simply non-indepth look. The scientific revolution structure of Kuhn is based on the same epistemological critique and dialectical movement of Hegel's phenomenology. The move of natural consciousness processually for Hegel [eh???] is the basis for the idea of contradictions in scientific paradigms and moves to new paradigms."

Ah, I see you belong to the 'if I repeat this enough times, that will constitute a proof', school of non-thought?

Too bad it does not work.

You will need to provide quotations from Kuhn that support your contentions...oh, er, sorry, I forgot you like to make stuff up about Kuhn, too.

Well, that's OK, then...

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Shine:

"If Rosa could explain her Materialist method and show how it is not Empiricist, I'd be intrigued."

No you wouldn't -- you would not read it.

How do I know?

I have already explained it at my site, and you did not read that -- but were still happy to make stuff up.

Here is why I am so aggressive (taken from the opening page of my site):

"How Not To Argue 101

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

This page contains links to forums on the web where I have 'debated' this creed with other comrades.

For anyone interested, check out the desperate 'debating' tactics used by Dialectical Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas.

You will no doubt notice that the vast majority all say the same sorts of things, and most of them pepper their remarks with scatological and abusive language. They all like to make things up, too, about me and my beliefs.

25 years (!!) of this stuff from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now take an aggressive stance with them every time.

I soon learnt back in the 1980s that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did not alter their abusive tone, their propensity to fabricate, nor reduce the amount of scatological language they used.

So, these days, I generally go for the jugular from the get-go.

Apparently, they expect me to take their abuse lying down, and regularly complain about my "bullying" tactics.
So, these mystics can dish it out, but they cannot take it.

Given the damage their theory has done to Marxism, and the abuse they all dole out, they are lucky this is all I can do to them."

So, you are just the latest in a 25-year long line of dialectical idiots, for whom I have nothing but contempt.

ShineThePath said...

Not how to argue? Can we say Red Herring...honestly this is like reading someone who just took Logic 101, rather than actually dealing in any substantive way with anything that is spoken about you resort to criticisms non-related to the matter at hand.

You have made that immaturity well known by criticizing grammar here or criticizing the intentions of others from a prejudiced position against us Mystics.

Just demanding to give me a concise reason how your Materialism doesn't really on an Empiricist method is a question that can be done in a paragraph if you can give a real answer to this.

Further if you link me to the document which states your reasons for this than rather assuming I have no interest, it might have done you more good. But what is only revealing right now is that you just not might have answer.

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Shine:

"Not how to argue? Can we say Red Herring...honestly this is like reading someone who just took Logic 101, rather than actually dealing in any substantive way with anything that is spoken about you resort to criticisms non-related to the matter at hand."

Well, you would not know, since you are determined to pass comment on my work without having read it.

"You have made that immaturity well known by criticizing grammar here or criticizing the intentions of others from a prejudiced position against us Mystics."

You're the one who cannot string sentences together, sunshine, not me.

Here's some more garbled English:

"Just demanding to give me a concise reason how your Materialism doesn't really on an Empiricist method is a question that can be done in a paragraph if you can give a real answer to this."

No need to, done it already, at my site.

But you'd know that if you actually read my work before you opened your mouth and inserted a boot into it.

"Further if you link me to the document which states your reasons for this than rather assuming I have no interest, it might have done you more good. But what is only revealing right now is that you just not might have answer."

And what, makes you think I want to debate with a clown like you.

Again, here's what I wrote on the opening page of my site:

"I have taken great care with these Essays; they have been distilled from work I have been doing for ten years, but I have been mulling over the ideas they contain for twenty-five or more. Literally tens of thousands of hours have gone into writing, re-writing and re-thinking this material. In addition, I have spent more money than I care to mention obtaining obscure books, theses and papers on a whole range of topics directly and indirectly connected with Dialectical Materialism.

In that case, anyone who cannot bring to this discussion the seriousness it deserves is encouraged to go and waste their time elsewhere. I am not interested in communicating with clowns."

Get back to the circus Bozo.

ShineThePath said...

No wonder your work hasn't been taken seriously in 25 Years (and no wonder why your intellectual crowd you have attracted is nothing more than young people on revleft)...I am not sure why Blackstone is interested in posting up manic responders who have no serious want to actually talk on the matter.

So far this engagement has been nothing but insults from you for just asking to provide an account for a non-Empiricist Materialism.

Further I have read your writings and posts on Revleft, and the manner in which you talk to others is certainly just fucked up. I mean, insulting people based on Grammar? There is just no Marxist spirit with you, in fact it is quite reactionary.

So go a head and don't respond to "clowns" but I am quite sure you will continue to do so, because from other posts your tendency is to say it the obnoxiously Loudest, and to have last say.

Respond away Keyboard Commando

ShineThePath said...

If you ahve written about why you're not an Empiricist, all I asked was post a link to the document where you show your Materialism is not based on an Empiricist methdology.

You just assert your claim, but from all the writings I ahve seen from you I have no way of assessing how you're not and IF I am mistaken you're not providing me an account of why I am wrong or a document you have written where this clarified.

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Shine:

"No wonder your work hasn't been taken seriously in 25 Years (and no wonder why your intellectual crowd you have attracted is nothing more than young people on revleft)...I am not sure why Blackstone is interested in posting up manic responders who have no serious want to actually talk on the matter."

I see, you still can't read.

My work has been abused by idiots like you for 25 years, who can't be bothered to read it, but still pontificate about it out of total ignorance.

Who wants to be taken seriously by knuckleheads like that, or like you?

"So far this engagement has been nothing but insults from you for just asking to provide an account for a non-Empiricist Materialism."

And that is all you will get from me while you display such out-right ignorance.

"Further I have read your writings and posts on Revleft, and the manner in which you talk to others is certainly just fucked up. I mean, insulting people based on Grammar? There is just no Marxist spirit with you, in fact it is quite reactionary."

You need to address my Essays, not my repartee at RevLeft.

But, I'd rather you stayed away from my work, since I would hate to think I had any part to play in relieving you of your impressive ignorance.

"So go a head and don't respond to "clowns" but I am quite sure you will continue to do so, because from other posts your tendency is to say it the obnoxiously Loudest, and to have last say."

Well, thank you for proving you are not just an ordinary clown but a short-sighted clown, too, for I said I do not "debate" with clowns -- I certainly respond to them.

"If you have written about why you're not an Empiricist, all I asked was post a link to the document where you show your Materialism is not based on an Empiricist methodology."

Once more, why do you think I want to explain anything to one as dense as you?

"You just assert your claim, but from all the writings I have seen from you I have no way of assessing how you're not and IF I am mistaken you're not providing me an account of why I am wrong or a document you have written where this clarified."

You assert this, and without reading a single one of my Essays.

Now why would anyone other than a mischief-making clown do that?

Lights up Bozo, you are back on stage...

ShineThePath said...

Ah see! I knew lovely Rosa couldn't help but respond with another devasting round of insults. The tendency of absolute manic responders, keyboard commandos, and all other hacks.

I'll reassert, your work is not only taken seriously but is not read. What you have to say is more eloquently put forward by other empirical Materialists and promoters of sense-certainty over the past two centuries...so your essays which amount to nothing of rhetorical abuses and ad hominem attacks, what happen to giving charity to arguments?

You lack all serious rigor in addressing any key points on Dialectics on its own terms, and not even once take on a real academic defense of Dialectical method...ah well, so much so for honest philosophy from our gracious moderator on Revleft.

Once again I have said I have read your posts and your supposed theoretical writings, and yet I find nothing that explains why your method is not Empiricism. Too bad by 'knucklehead' syndrome prevents me from doing this, or there is a much simpler explaination to why I can't find it and you will not provide it...

You simply just have no explaination maybe?

Rosa Lichtenstein said...

Bozo:

"Ah see! I knew lovely Rosa couldn't help but respond with another devasting (sic) round of insults. The tendency of absolute manic responders, keyboard commandos, and all other hacks." [Eh?]

I hardly recognised you without your orange wig.

"I'll reassert, your work is not only taken seriously but is not read. What you have to say is more eloquently put forward by other empirical Materialists and promoters of sense-certainty over the past two centuries...so your essays which amount to nothing of rhetorical abuses and ad hominem attacks, what happen to giving charity to arguments?"

You would not know anyway, since you are too busy fooling around with that ill-fitting suite and those overlarge shoes.

"You lack all serious rigor in addressing any key points on Dialectics on its own terms, and not even once take on a real academic defense of Dialectical method...ah well, so much so for honest philosophy from our gracious moderator on Revleft."

A bit rich coming from someone with a false nose and a green bowler hat.

"Once again I have said I have read your posts and your supposed theoretical writings, and yet I find nothing that explains why your method is not Empiricism. Too bad by 'knucklehead' syndrome prevents me from doing this, or there is a much simpler explaination (sic) to why I can't find it and you will not provide it..."

That's all very well, but can I book you for my nephew's birthday party?

"You simply just have no explaination maybe?"

What is an "explaination"?

Is it Bozo-ese for "explanation"?

If so, your act sucks.