Confused Marxist-Leninist Fails Even To Understand His Own 'Theory'!

 

Preface

 

If you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or later), you might find some of the links I have used won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select 'Compatibility View Settings' and then add this site (anti-dialectics.co.uk). Microsoft's new browser, Edge, automatically renders these links compatible; Windows 10 also automatically makes IE11 compatible with this site.

 

However, if you are using Windows 10, Microsoft's browsers, IE11 and Edge, unfortunately appear to colour these links somewhat erratically. They are meant to be dark blue, but those two browsers render them intermittently mid-blue, light blue, yellow, purple and red!

 

Firefox and Chrome reproduce them correctly.

 

~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~

 

Although I am highly critical of Dialectical Materialism [DM], nothing said here (or, indeed, any of the other Essays posted at this site) is aimed at undermining Historical Materialism [HM] -- a scientific theory I fully accept -- or, for that matter, revolutionary socialism. I remain as committed to the self-emancipation of the working class and the dictatorship of the proletariat as I was when I first became a revolutionary nearly thirty years ago. [That puts paid to the allegation that those who reject DM soon abandon revolutionary politics.]

 

My aim is simply to assist in the scientific development of Marxism by helping demolish a dogma that has, in my opinion, seriously damaged our movement from its inception, DM -- or, in its more political form, 'Materialist Dialectics' [MD].

 

The difference between HM and DM, as I see it, is explained here.

 

[Latest Update: 17/06/20.]

 

Quick Links

 

Anyone using these links must remember that they might be skipping past supporting argument and evidence set out in earlier sections.

 

If your Firewall/Browser has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these and the other links here won't work!

 

I have adjusted the font size used at this site to ensure that even those with impaired vision can read what I have to say. However, if the text is still either too big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!

 

(1) Background

 

(2) My Replies

 

(3) Other Debates

 

Summary Of My Main Objections To Dialectical Materialism

 

Abbreviations Used At This Site

 

Return To The Main Index Page

 

Contact Me

 

Background

 

In 2015, I posted the following comment on a YouTube page which was devoted to introducing prospective viewers to a highly simplified version of DM:

 

Alas for this video, I have demolished this dogmatic theory (from a Marxist angle) at my site:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Main objections outlined here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

 

I have posted many similar comments on other pages at YouTube that are devoted to this theory and received little or no response. But, the producer of this film (whose on-screen name used to be Marxist-Leninist-Theory [MLT], but which has now changed to The Finnish Bolshevik -- henceforth, TFB) did respond (and to which I replied, here and here).

 

Not long afterwards, another video appeared on YouTube, which was also produced by TFB (but posted to his other site) -- entitled: "Refuting a Trotskyite Attack on Dialectics" -- although after being asked to drop the derogatory term "Trotskyite", TFB has agreed to stop using it -- but only temporarily, as it turns out!

 

 

Video One: The 'Case' For The Prosecution

 

After several, shall we say, on-line 'skirmishes' over the next six months or so, TFB posted a second, even longer and even more repetitive video, which attempted to respond to one of my briefer attacks on this failed 'theory' of his:

 

 

Video Two: The Garbling Continues

 

My Replies

 

Over the last couple of years I have been posting the following replies to this barely coherent Marxist-Leninist dissembler (much of which he has totally ignored -- since he plainly has no answer):

 

1)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 01

 

2)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 02

 

3)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 03

 

4)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 04

 

5)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 05

 

6)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 06

 

7)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 07

 

8)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 08

 

9)   Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 09

 

10) Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 010

 

11) Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 011

 

12) Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 012

 

13) Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 013

 

14) Refuting A Weak Attempt To Refute Me 014

 

~~~~~~oOo~~~~~~

 

TFB regularly complained that my responses were far too long (even though his two videos last over 105 minutes). Because of that, Replies #5 through #14 above are about a quarter of the length of the earlier four responses. He has continued to ignore these, too. That alone shows his earlier excuse (that my replies were far too long) was a smokescreen for his incapacity to reply effectively to me.

 

The second video of his was an hour long object lesson how to make largely the same point, over and over again -- concerning what I had claimed in my Essays about 'external contradictions' -- a term invented by Stalin in the mid-1920s, which TFB admitted he had never heard before. That itself was no big surprise since it has been abundantly clear from the get-go that TFB has a very sketchy knowledge of his own 'theory' -- or, indeed, of the history of its development as well as the political considerations that helped shape it. This means that Video Two was largely wasted effort, since much of what he had to say I had already covered in Replies #1 to #5 -- which, again, he hadn't read since he prefers to keep his head buried in the non-dialectical sand. Of course, that means I have had to go over much of the same ground yet again, in Replies #6 to #14!

 

The length of my replies was also determined by the fact that I decided early on to post a word-for-word transcript of the vast bulk of TFB's words from both videos. That alone added at least 30% to the length of each response. I did this for at least three reasons:

 

(a) Long experience debating with DM-fans has taught me that unless I quote them (and their Holy Books) accurately, with 100% precision, word-for-word, they tend to deny what their own classics, and their own words, have to say.

 

(b) The two videos TFB posted on YouTube were largely incoherent (as my transcripts clearly show -- I have posted the worst example below, taken from Video One). That is because TFB prefers to speak extemporaneously and unscripted, which drawback is compounded by the fact that English is his second language. So, I have advised TFB to delete these videos and try again, this time with a script. He chose to ignore my advice, happy to leave in place the fourth-rate material he has unwisely inflicted on YouTube viewers. Whatever one thinks of DM, TFB's videos bring no credit to Marxism, or even Marxism-Leninism. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

TFB seems oblivious of the indirect slur he has inflicted on revolutionary socialism in general as a result.

 

Either that, or he just doesn't care.

 

(c) TFB is also a confirmed liar -- there is abundant evidence of this in Replies #1to #14 --, and even though I have pointed this out to him several times, he refuses to apologise and withdraw his many fibs and fabulations. An accurate transcript of those lies was therefore imperative, so that even he couldn't sleaze his way out of them.

 

Don't take my word. Judge for yourself how incoherent TFB is -- this was taken from Reply #Two to Video One. Here is TFB proudly dumping on Marxism from a great height -- discussing Engels's 'First Law', the alleged 'change of quantity into quality'. [Bear in mind the dots in the following don't indicate missing words, merely a pause in oration, or where his delivery faltered.]

 

"So, let's make this even more simple. Now this is going to be scientifically inaccurate in terms, but I'm going to simplify the terminology so much that even a Trotskyist can understand. [Added on edit: OK, let's see just how 'clear' TFB can make things -- RL.]

 

"So, keep in mind that this is not the...really the way you should use these terms, but whatever...

 

"So, er..., would it be more understandable to you if I said that more heating..., er..., more melting..., er..., if I instead of saying more heating more...like if I...even though [this is an extremely garbled section! -- RL] it's not really melting, but just if if [sic] I said it like it's melting? If I said that once melting..., once 'melting' has accumulated, even though it's really heat, but let's just say that it's melting so that it's easier to understand. So, one..., once melting has accumulated we have a quantitay (sic), ...a quantity turning into a quality. Er..., enough melting quantity turns into solid goes ff... (sic) to liquid; quantitative change. Erm..., so qualitative change is a threshold, and quantitative change is the gradual approach toward the threshold. Erm..., I hope I have made this clear.

 

"And just to avoid this kind of semantic nonsense and playing with words [!! -- RL], let's take one more example where the wording is not as confusing.

 

"So, look at...look at a piece of ice. Then look at water. Are they qualitatively different? Well, yes they are. One is liquid and one is solid, clearly. Are they quantitatively different? Why yes they are. One has notice..., noticeably more heat than the other, because it's...you know...liquid. So, a qualitative leap has happened somewhere, has it not? Erm..., is there a category of (sic) between frozen, i.e., solid and liquid? No. Is there water that is half or perhaps 33% frozen? No.

 

"Even when, for example, a glass of water freezes and it's sort of kind of solidifies (sic) partially while still having some liquid in the glass, it's not half-frozen water. It's ice on top of liquid water. Same with melting icicles that have water dripping from them. They're not 90% frozen water, but it's ice with liquid water dropping..., er..., dripping from it.

 

"Er..., so this works the exact same way with metal. I hope that's clear enough. [Garbled and undecipherable] just ask questions if you don't..., er..., if it's confusing. I know this is kind of...it is kind of confusing, but..., er..., I hope that makes sense to you." [Approx 28:26-31:07. Bold added.] 

 

Readers are directed here for my response to this classic example of how not to explain anything, let alone DM!

 

Other Debates

 

I have also tangled with TFB on several other occasions; they can be accessed here:

 

1) Debate With MLT_01

 

2) Debate With MLT_02

 

3) Finnish Bolshevik -- A Liar And A Coward (Still Under Construction)

 

4) Yet Another Reply To Finnish Bolshevik_01

 

5) Yet Another Reply To Finnish Bolshevik_02

6

Latest Update: 17/05/20

 

Word Count: 1890

 

Return To The Main Index

 

Back To The Top

 

 

Rosa Lichtenstein 2020

 

Hits Since 25/03/17:

 

AmazingCounters.com