Rosa L gets a platform.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

No, I told then back in September that I wanted nothing more to do with them because of their lying about the SWP.

Yeah, I forgot about that

I did, however, I send them this letter (which they might print):

Short but sweet . Let us know if they print it Rosa, ill keep a look out myself anyway.

Thanks again for the update.

[rosalichtenstein01]

Yes, they did print it:

www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/712/letters.html

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Thanks Rosa. Fair dues to them for letting you have a printed response.

[rosalichtenstein01]

Yes; for a sectarian paper, the editor is surprisingly fair-minded over the letters he publishes.

[dangeresque]

Jun 13, 2008 3:00:27 GMT rosalichtenstein01 said:

Yes; for a sectarian paper, the editor is surprisingly fair-minded over the letters he publishes.

They like to gossip!

[rosalichtenstein01]

Maybe so!

[RedFlag32]

Just a quick question to those who are anti-dialectics. How do you propose Marx could have came to his understanding of capitalism if the method of dialectics was not used? At the moment i would lean towards dialectics because anything ive read about it makes sense to me, but im currently in the proces of studying it properly so any info would be greatly appreciated.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

Just a quick question to those who are anti-dialectics. How do you propose Marx could have came to his understanding of capitalism if the method of dialectics was not used?

Hegals ideas, which marx adapted, may have inspired Marx to develop his theories initially - as in, they emerged from that particular line of thought of viewing things in conflict, which then allowed Marx to see society as one of conflict between classes.

But thats as far as it goes, it 'sprang' the idea of class conflict.

If it wasnt Marx then someone else would have developed such theories of class with or without dialectics being the inspiration.

As far as Marx actually using dialectics, well this is just it. Dialecticians would claim that a physicist 'uses' dialectics without knowing it. Or that i am using dialectics as I type this. An evangelical would claim that God is having some input in my life and thinking also...


I have never got any reasonable answer as to what I can actually do with dialectics other than read it...

Scientists supposedly "use it without knowing" - and so what? are they any worse off, are they missing out on something. I dont think so, no more than Gods supposed invisible hand manipulating matters.

Something that 'underlies everything' and yet 99.9% of people dont know it, or dont know they use it, and still fair no worse, and which when it is 'understood' has no demonstratable use what-so-ever and has done nothing of value, couldnt be worth wasting time with.

Its very 'supernatural' IMO.

[rosalichtenstein01]

RedFlag, it is arguable that dialectics slowed him down.

We already know he derived his core historical materialist ideas from the Scottish Historical Materialists (Ferguson, Millar, Smith, etc.), whom Hegel derived many of his ideas too (mystifying them in the process), just as we know from Marx's biography that the actual struggles of workers (and the input of socialist ideas from France) motivated his class struggle analysis. [Hal Draper's book on this is excellent.]

His economics he got from Ricardo (sure, he thoroughly criticised these ideas) -- from Hegel he merely derived some jargon (with which he merely 'coquetted' in Das Kapital, anyway).

So, Marx would have been a far clearer thinker much earlier had Hegel died of typhoid 45 years before he actually did.