Refuting A Weak Attempt At Refutation -- Part Fourteen

 

Preface

 

This page is still under construction.

 

Unfortunately, Internet Explorer 11 will no longer play the videos posted to this page. As far as I can tell, they play as intended in other Browsers. However, if you have Privacy Badger [PB] installed, they won't play in Google Chrome unless you disable PB for this site.

 

[Having said that, I have just discovered that these videos will play in IE11 if you have upgraded to Windows 10! It looks like the problem is with Windows 7 and earlier versions of Windows.]

 

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, in the other Essays posted at this site) is aimed at undermining Historical Materialism [HM] -- a 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 to 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: .]

 

Quick Links

 

Anyone using these links must remember that they will 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) FB Pleads Innocence

 

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 YouTube page -- entitled: "Refuting a Trotskyite Attack on Dialectics". I have replied to this largely incoherent video, here, here, and here.

 

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

 

 

Video One: The Garbling Continues

 

As part of my reply to TFB's earlier video, I transcribed the vast bulk of it into print, which took absolutely ages. I did this for several reasons:

 

(a) So that others could see how largely incoherent it is.

 

(b) So that it would be easier to expose TFB's lies and fabrications.

 

(c) So that I couldn't be accused of distorting what he had said.

 

I have so far posted seven responses to the above video, so this Essay constitutes my eighth reply. All my debates and responses to TFB have now been collected together, here.

 

Incidentally, I have now decided to post much shorter replies to TFB in order to (a) Increase the probability of him reading them and, consequently, (b) decrease the likelihood of having to explain the same things to him yet again, over and over, as had been the case up to now -- since he still refuses to read my longer replies, even though he expects his viewers to listen to his voice droning on and on, making the same points time and again, often incoherently, for over an hour!

 

FB Pleads Innocence

The complaining continues

 

[1:03:00] So, anyway, she continues by saying:

 

"Finnish Bolshevik  just made this up -- which is yet another fib from this 'revisionist' comrade."

 

Er..., I don't know what I supposedly made up, but.... OK.

 

[FB now quotes me.]

 

"Readers can access the background details here, where they will see just why I have accused FB of blatantly lying." [From here.]

 

You have accused me of lying plenty of times, but it's just so weird, like..., you're the most difficult person to talk to. You seem to misunderstand even the most basic things. When I say something you immediately think I am accusing you of something. And when you're not..., when you're not thinking I that am accusing you then you are accusing me. Like, you're accusing me of lying. I've..., I've.... I haven't lied. I don't know what you mean. [Approximately [1:03:00-1:03:49.]

 

Readers will no doubt have noticed that even while FB was disingenuously complaining that he hadn't a clue why I accused him of lying, he neglected to click on a link that would have explained it all to him -- this link: here. That link would have taken him to my second reply to his first video where I quoted several examples of his bare-faced lies. I have reproduced some of that material in earlier replies to his second video -- I do not propose to post it again. So, FB has been told many times what his lies are, he just refuses to read what I have accused him of -- or he just waves these lies away with declaimers that are as feeble as they are implausible, like this: "I don't know what you mean".

 

But what of his accusation (and readers can see it for themselves in the above quote, if FB later tries to re-write history and deny he has accused me of anything) that I "seem to misunderstand even the most basic things." When I accuse FB of anything, I quote him. Indeed, note the following comment posted at the top of all my replies:

 

As part of my reply to TFB's earlier video, I transcribed the vast bulk of it into print, which took absolutely ages. I did this for several reasons:

 

(a) So that others could see how largely incoherent it is.

 

(b) So that it would be easier to expose TFB's lies and fabrications.

 

(c) So that I couldn't be accused of distorting what he had said.

 

And have I continued to do that for this second video. As I point out, I have done this so that FB can't sleaze his way out and claim I have misquoted him, and so that his lies are plain for all to see.

 

But, in general, FB fails to quote where I have done many of the things he accuses me of, and here we see yet another example. What "basic things" have I misunderstood? As usual, he fails to say.

 

Perhaps this "basic thing" (taken from my transcript of his first video where he attempted to explain how ice melts(!) -- anyone reading this gobbledygook might sympathise with me for failing to understand a thing he says, "basic" or otherwise):

 

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.

 

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. Follow this link for my reply, where I have constructed a detailed take down of this garbled 'argument, including his claim that melting ice and liquid water don't co-exist (this condition is called a mixed phase). Has he never seen ice cubes slowly melt? Ice and water typically co-exist.]

 

Does anyone understand the first few paragraphs of this word salad? If FB struggles to explain such "basic things" what hope have I -- or anyone else -- of understanding him?

 

I advised him to delete that video and try again; I also suggested he scripted his videos in future so that his viewers or listeners might stand some chance of following his diatribe. He then published a second video that was nearly as incoherent! For all the good my advice did I might just as well have been talking to the cat.

 

But there is more:

 

 

 

 

 

 

More to follow...

 

Word Count:

 

Latest Update: 11/03/20

 

Return To The Main Index

 

Back To The Top

 

 

Rosa Lichtenstein 2020

 

Hits Since :