Yet Another Reply To The Finnish Bolshevik


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 ( I have as yet no idea how Microsoft's new browser, Edge, will handle these links.


[DM = Dialectical Materialism/Materialist, depending on context; TFB = The Finnish Bolshevik.]




So, TFB, after almost a year, you still can't quite manage to respond effectively to my complete demolition of your other video, eh? You could, at least, apologise for the lies you told about me and my work, and then withdraw them (along with that awful, almost incoherent video) -- I can itemise these fibs again for you if you have conveniently swept them from your memory.


Or is that asking too much of you DM-fans?


So, according to you, we "couldn't agree on anything". But, what about your allegation that I had invented the term 'external contradiction', a term you said you had never heard before -- even though both Mao and Stalin used it? And, as far as your assertion that there is 'progress' in the dialectic, that claim sits rather awkwardly with Mao's claim that everything turns into the 'opposite' with which it has struggled. In that case, the proletariat must turn into the capitalist class. Where is the 'progress' here, then? And if there is 'progress', Mao (and Engels and Lenin) must be wrong that everything turns into its opposite. You claim that workers become a new ruling class, but, and once more, according to Engels, Lenin and Mao, things change into their opposites, that is, they change into that with which they have struggled. [Not my words, theirs!] Workers struggle with capitalists; so, according to the dialectical classicists, they must change into that with which they have struggled -- capitalists. Is this what we are all fighting for, to become capitalists?


To assist you, I added dozens of relevant quotations to this effect to my long reply to you. You clearly failed to read them -- they have been posted here, here, and here. With all due respect, you seem determined to remain ignorant.


Now, and as far as Lenin and 'self-motion' is concerned, you say he only mentioned this in notebooks, but he also published on this, as I noted in my response to you. Here it is one of these passages again (for you to ignore once more): "Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin (1921), p.90. 'Once Again On The Trade Unions, The Current Situation And The Mistakes Of Comrades Trotsky And Bukharin'.] Notice that Lenin says that Dialectical Logic "demands" we take objects in "self motion". This isn't in fact a Hegelian notion, it goes back to ancient Greece, and was theorised by Aristotle and Plato, who in turn got this idea from earlier religious mystics. You can find the details at my site (in Essay Three Parts One and Two). [You can find a link to this published work of Lenin's in those replies of mine that you unwisely failed to read.]


You also seem not to know about Lenin's understanding of the nature of 'dialectical opposites' -- again: I quoted what he said about this (follow the above links) so you could at least do yourself a favour and upgrade your knowledge of what is supposed to be your theory. According to Lenin and Hegel, each object in change has a unique opposite, what both called its "other", and they are 'internally' connected by (dialectical) logic. Why they argued along these lines was to provide a response to David Hume's attack on rationalist theories of causation (the details behind this and the relevant passages from Hegel and Lenin to this effect were added to my long reply to you -- too bad you skipped it!).