If races are not real, then you have to be logically consistent - Page 53 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15318268
FiveofSwords wrote:This is what is called dialectical materialism.

No, it is not.

Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis...

Diamat is best thought of as the dialogue between the ideal and the material - the ideas in the world and material reality - the superstructure tugging on the base.

What happens after this 'conversation' is not predetermined. Things can go backwards as well as forward. It is not a mechanical process, cogs whirring, gears turning, that leads inevitably to communism.
#15318271
ingliz wrote:No, it is not.

Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis...

Diamat is best thought of as the dialogue between the ideal and the material - the ideas in the world and material reality - the superstructure tugging on the base.

What happens after this 'conversation' is not predetermined. Things can go backwards as well as forward. It is not a mechanical process, cogs whirring, gears turning, that leads inevitably to communism.

Dude...did you just type dialectic into chatGPT? Because naturally it defaulted to hegel, not marx. If you were less lazy and typed in the full 'dialectical materialism you would have gotten a better answer. But you still wouldn't understand it lol.
#15318273
@FiveofSwords

If you knew Marx, you would know I was not referencing Hegel.

If you knew Hegel, you would know it was Fichte not Hegel who employed the triadic idea "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" as a formula for the explanation of change.

and

If you knew Ilyenkov, you would know he introduced the triadic idea into Marxian dialectics. Marx dismissed the ritual formula when criticising Proudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy, Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy.

But you know nothing, so you keep making a fool of yourself.


:)
#15318275
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

If you knew Marx, you would know I was not referencing Hegel.

If you knew Hegel, you would know it was Fichte not Hegel who employed the triadic idea "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" as a formula for the explanation of change.

and

If you knew Ilyenkov, you would know he introduced the triadic idea into Marxian dialectics. Marx dismissed the ritual formula when criticising Proudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy, Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy.

But you know nothing, so you keep making a fool of yourself.


:)

Lol...you ate clearly just throwing names out you know nothing about. And you should have been more vague. Dialectic is not a formula to explain change. You have no clue what you are talking about.

If you knew anything about marx, you would know that I am simply correct that dialectical materialism really is just an assertion that all of history is driven by wealth inequality. It actually is explicitly reductionist. I'm just correct about that.

You want to argue with me despite knowing nothing about the subject cause, I dunno, you think it makes you sound smart. It does the opposite, really. You just seem very pathetic and needy. And if you wanted to sound educated, maybe you should have spent the effort into actually educating yourself.
#15318277
FiveofSwords wrote:Lol...you ate clearly just throwing names out you know nothing about. And you should have been more vague. Dialectic is not a formula to explain change. You have no clue what you are talking about.

The dialectic explains change as being caused by the internal contradictions within a system or a society. Even a system which is not being acted on by external factors will still change, due to its internal contradictions. So yes, the dialectic has everything to do with change.

If you knew anything about marx, you would know that I am simply correct that dialectical materialism really is just an assertion that all of history is driven by wealth inequality. It actually is explicitly reductionist. I'm just correct about that.

Wealth inequality and class conflict are different things. Wealth inequality, as such, can be the outcome of competition between individual people with equal opportunities - this, indeed, is precisely what the right-wing in the USA claim. Class conflict, on the other hand, is an inequality which is baked into the system, in which you have (mainly two) groups of people who are well differentiated and whose interests, both as individuals and as groups, are clearly in contradiction. This is the internal contradiction, both in the economy and in society as a whole, which leads to dialectical change - ultimately, to a revolution.

You want to argue with me despite knowing nothing about the subject cause, I dunno, you think it makes you sound smart. It does the opposite, really. You just seem very pathetic and needy. And if you wanted to sound educated, maybe you should have spent the effort into actually educating yourself.

Image
#15318278
Potemkin wrote:The dialectic explains change as being caused by the internal contradictions within a system or a society. Even a system which is not being acted on by external factors will still change, due to its internal contradictions. So yes, the dialectic has everything to do with change.


Wealth inequality and class conflict are different things. Wealth inequality, as such, can be the outcome of competition between individual people with equal opportunities - this, indeed, is precisely what the right-wing in the USA claim. Class conflict, on the other hand, is an inequality which is baked into the system, in which you have (mainly two) groups of people who are well differentiated and whose interests, both as individuals and as groups, are clearly in contradiction. This is the internal contradiction, both in the economy and in society as a whole, which leads to dialectical change - ultimately, to a revolution.


Image


Eso fue tremenda escalpiza o paliza.

Well, that was a damn knockout and fast Potemkin. Did you eat all your Wheaties this morning? Haha.

Five man does not know a fucking thing about a lot of complexity. He can't accept it. He needs to go back to the song.... :violin: Si me comprendieras, I am going to get me some kick-ass Puerto Rican coffee. :coffee:

It is a glorious morning in the Yucatán peninsula today. And I have an interpretation early, and I have a couple of online job interviews. Time to get me another job. Hee hee. I got a job offer yesterday. I have five more interviews set up and then it is comparison time with who pays the best with the best schedule that is flexible and so on. Then who makes the final cut.

I thought my age would be a barrier. But it looks like it is not.

Damn, Potemkin, you ate your Wheaties this morning. Coming out swinging hard at Mr. Project your own insecurities onto others man. :D That is what I call entertainment!
#15318280
@FiveofSwords

Dialectics is all about change.

But how that change works?

Marxists are not a hive mind.

Some fall into the trap of embracing the idealism inherent in Hegelian Marxism.

Many do not.

This metaphysical structure, which gives historical development a predetermined character, must be discarded if we are to elaborate a consistently dialectical, revolutionary method for dealing with reality.

— In Defense of Mao Tse-tung’s Contributions to Materialist Dialectics


:)
#15318282
Potemkin wrote:The dialectic explains change as being caused by the internal contradictions within a system or a society. Even a system which is not being acted on by external factors will still change, due to its internal contradictions. So yes, the dialectic has everything to do with change.


Wealth inequality and class conflict are different things. Wealth inequality, as such, can be the outcome of competition between individual people with equal opportunities - this, indeed, is precisely what the right-wing in the USA claim. Class conflict, on the other hand, is an inequality which is baked into the system, in which you have (mainly two) groups of people who are well differentiated and whose interests, both as individuals and as groups, are clearly in contradiction. This is the internal contradiction, both in the economy and in society as a whole, which leads to dialectical change - ultimately, to a revolution.


Image


Dialectics is not a formula to explain change.

You attempt to retort by saying 'internal contradictions are involved in change in some ways.'

Well, that isn't the same claim as 'dialectics is a formula to understand change'

Also, class is just a social construct, dude. And it stems from the observable phenomenon of wealth inequality
#15318283
FiveofSwords wrote:Dialectics is not a formula to explain change.

You attempt to retort by saying 'internal contradictions are involved in change in some ways.'

Well, that isn't the same claim as 'dialectics is a formula to understand change'

Society is not a simple, unitary thing with a hive mind. It is, and has always been, riven by internal contradiction and conflict. And conflict leads to change, whether for better or for worse. The dialectic is not a formula (pace Fichte), rather it is a method of analysis. If you want to understand how human society changes, even in the absence of external forces, you look at the internal contradictions in that society; these internal contradictions will attempt to resolve themselves through conflict, which process will inevitably lead to that society changing in some way, even if that change is just both sides of the conflict going down to their mutual ruin. There is nothing inevitable about the outcome of that change - if there were, there would have been no need for Marx to write a word, and no need for communism to even exist. People have minds, and we have agency. But that agency, if it is to be effective, must be informed by knowledge and by the awareness of reality. Which is where Marx comes in….
#15318285
Tainari88 wrote:Eso fue tremenda escalpiza o paliza.

Well, that was a damn knockout and fast Potemkin. Did you eat all your Wheaties this morning Haha.

Yep, I had three Weetabix this morning….


;)

Five man does not know a fucking thing about a lot of complexity. He can't accept it. He needs to go back to the song.... :violin: Si me comprendieras, I am going to get me some kick-ass Puerto Rican coffee. :coffee:

It is a glorious morning in the Yucatán peninsula today. And I have an interpretation early, and I have a couple of online job interviews. Time to get me another job. Hee hee. I got a job offer yesterday. I have five more interviews set up and then it is comparison time with who pays the best with the best schedule that is flexible and so on. Then who makes the final cut.

I thought my age would be a barrier. But it looks like it is not.

Good luck with the job hunt querida! :up:

Damn, Potemkin, you ate your Wheaties this morning. Coming out swinging hard at Mr. Project your own insecurities onto others man. :D That is what I call entertainment!

I aim to please, @Tainari88. :D
#15318286
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

Dialectics is all about change.

But how that change works?

Marxists are not a hive mind.

Some fall into the trap of embracing the idealism inherent in Hegelian Marxism.

Many do not.

This metaphysical structure, which gives historical development a predetermined character, must be discarded if we are to elaborate a consistently dialectical, revolutionary method for dealing with reality.

— In Defense of Mao Tse-tung’s Contributions to Materialist Dialectics


:)

Maoism primarily different from leninism in that he believed lumpenproletariat (as marx defined it, people without a class conciousness...in common sense definition, very dumb and primitive people like africans) could be useful in revolution.

He didn't disagree with the premise that everything is about wealth inequality.

And anyway...pote declared himself a marxist leninist, not a maoist...so why would this even matter?

You guys should just admit you don't know anything about your own purpoted political philosophy lol. You never even heard of dialectical materialism until I mentioned it. None of you have ever read a book in your life.
#15318287
Potemkin wrote:Society is not a simple, unitary thing with a hive mind. It is, and has always been, riven by internal contradiction and conflict. And conflict leads to change, whether for better or for worse. The dialectic is not a formula (pace Fichte), rather it is a method of analysis. If you want to understand how human society changes, even in the absence of external forces, you look at the internal contradictions in that society; these internal contradictions will attempt to resolve themselves through conflict, which process will inevitably lead to that society changing in some way, even if that change is just both sides of the conflict going down to their mutual ruin. There is nothing inevitable about the outcome of that change - if there were, there would have been no need for Marx to write a word, and no need for communism to even exist. People have minds, and we have agency. But that agency, if it is to be effective, must be informed by knowledge and by the awareness of reality. Which is where Marx comes in….


Again, 'societies have internal contradictions' is different from the claim 'dialectics is a formula to explain change'..

Dialectics is actually just a method for investigating truth.

You can keep trying to change the subject but it is just funny
#15318288
FiveofSwords wrote:the claim 'dialectics is a formula to explain change'.

Who claimed that?

Fichte

and

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) was a founding figure in German Idealism.

Marx hadn't even been born when he died.


:lol:
#15318289
FiveofSwords wrote:Those immigrants are just coming here for a better life, just like the natives did when they crossed the bering straight. If you cannot compete with them then maybe you aren't as superior as you think.

I'm sure a lot of slave-owners would say the same thing to their older slaves.

"If you can't compete with the other slaves, then perhaps you are flawed and should feel guilty."

It's amusing to see you regurgitate race-propaganda AND the narratives of the ownership class... in the same thread.

Which is which? Are you just scorched-earth trolling?

Oh, and do you belong to one of the races you keep advertising?
#15318291
ingliz wrote:Who claimed that?

Fichte

and

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) was a founding figure in German Idealism.

Marx hadn't even been born when he died.


:lol:

Lol you are so stupid. I was talking about marx. You are the one who brought Hegel and fichte into the discussion because you looked up 'dialectic' instead of 'dialectical materialism' lol. You are the one who changed the subject without even knowing you were changing the subject.

Even so, no. Fichte and Hegel and everyone educated would describe dialectics as a method of investigation. Not as 'a formula to explain change. Give it up bro.
#15318292
QatzelOk wrote:I'm sure a lot of slave-owners would say the same thing to their older slaves.

"If you can't compete with the other slaves, then perhaps you are flawed and should feel guilty."

It's amusing to see you regurgitate race-propaganda AND the narratives of the ownership class... in the same thread.

Which is which? Are you just scorched-earth trolling?

Oh, and do you belong to one of the races you keep advertising?

Sorry bro, I cannot take anyone seriously who pretends there is no difference between white and black people
#15318293
FiveofSwords wrote:throwing names out

You brought Hegel into the conversation when ascribing Fichte's formula to Hegel.

I corrected you.

I also pointed you towards Ilyenkov whose attempt to introduce the triadic idea into Marxian dialectics was condemned as "a relapse into Menshevik idealism" by the Commission of the Department of Science and Culture of the CPSU Central Committee in 1955.


:)
#15318295
ingliz wrote:You brought Hegel into the conversation when ascribing Fichte's formula to Hegel.

I corrected you.

I also pointed you towards Ilyenkov whose attempt to introduce the triadic idea into Marxian dialectics was condemned as "a relapse into Menshevik idealism" by the Commission of the Department of Science and Culture of the CPSU Central Committee in 1955.


:)

Lol you really do have a serious disability. You cannot follow a conversation at all. I actually was never speaking of hegel
#15318296
FiveofSwords wrote:Maoism primarily different from leninism in that he believed lumpenproletariat (as marx defined it, people without a class conciousness...in common sense definition, very dumb and primitive people like africans) could be useful in revolution.

He didn't disagree with the premise that everything is about wealth inequality.

And anyway...pote declared himself a marxist leninist, not a maoist...so why would this even matter?

You guys should just admit you don't know anything about your own purpoted political philosophy lol. You never even heard of dialectical materialism until I mentioned it. None of you have ever read a book in your life.


Wow, what a problem you must have had in high school.

No, you are not fooling anyone on here. We have read books. A lot of them. Ingliz for sure, and Potemkin for sure. And a lot. Especially on politics.

You? I suspect you grew up in a dysfunctional home with little intellectual stimulation and a bunch of emotional problems. You did not get around to learning much from conventional school. And being white was the only real advantage you had in that society because using your intellect was never encouraged much.

You think Africans are primitive dummies mainly because that is what the ignorants around you growing up hoped they were, because to think a Black person could be better at academics than some white trash losers in some backwoods in Dixieland was too much for you to accept.

Now, you are projecting on Potemkin what you feel about your inadequate education.

You do not understand much. If you did? You would have caught that fact @ingliz threw at you. You think you are punching harder back when all you revealed is that you are a rope a dope man. You can't think well because you either do not have the will or the need, or you lack the ability of capturing complex concepts in philosophy, mathematics, literature, and political science, social science, history and interpretations of psychological behavior by historical figures. Context is out. Your grammar and spelling is poor to nonexistent. Your English is horrible. Forget about expecting you to know and read and write other languages. You are a total liar and a fake. You claim you are not violent. You are.

If you hate the USA as a nation because it is not the version you want it to be? You can leave and join another nation. You won't because the truth is the only place you can live is among a bunch of Neo Nazis who would rather blame the system they live under that you claim wants to genocide them, and wait for their own death camp extermination. It is pathetic shit. The worst victim crying card shit I have ever heard.

Adversity is about challenging yourself to do better, be better, and act better. Not do worse, be worse and act worse.

You are choosing your negative crap mentality. It is up to you to change it. Not us. Do not project your stupid choices onto other people. No one here is a reading comprehension problem case. None. But you are. Because you write about it all the damn time. And none of us are ignorants who never read a book on Hegel, Marx, Mao, or Lenin or anything else.

I have read fascists. The interesting ones. The reality is trying to control millions of people with authoritarian dictatorship tactics is for the birds. You wind up forcing subversive action nonstop and eventually because you stop dignified dialogue you wind up being caught by surprise like Operation Valkyrie by the amount of dissent within your own ranks. Hitler was not universally loved by his Nazis. They tried to assassinate his ass. Where was the unity? In the toilet.

You are really just a hater who lost because he made a bunch of wrong decisions and needs to be irresponsible and blame the world for your own flaws.

I wish we had the German American man from Connecticut back in here. That man knew how to have a decent discussion about his political position. You? No.
#15318298
@FiveofSwords

Your words, not mine.

Dude...did you just type dialectic into chatGPT? Because naturally it defaulted to hegel, not marx.

And lookee there. What do we see?

Hegel.

As for 'affirmation, negation, negation of the negation.'

Outside of the Marxist-Leninist tradition, the Frankfurt School had a go at synthesising Hegel's cerebral metaphysics and Marx's secular philosophy in its Critical Theory developed in the late 30s.


:)
  • 1
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 63

That's pure speculation. The Koran in its origina[…]

Project 2025

This is is thread to discuss Project 2025 the Heri[…]

you are wrong of cos , Somalia is N1. AND I AM 99[…]

Looks like Moscow empire is really Desperate ! WIL[…]