One of the problems I have faced debating this 'theory' with DM-fans over the last thirty years or so is that none of you seem to know your own theory! In this case, you seem not to have read the DM-classics with due care (or all!); you appear to be ignorant even of basic concepts -- such as the nature of 'dialectical opposites', 'self-motion', and even 'external contradictions' (a term Stalin in fact invented, and which Mao then appropriated -- follow the above links for the actual quotations from Stalin and Mao you seem to be unaware of). This woeful state of affairs has been compounded by what can only be called self-inflicted ignorance of logic (and that includes Aristotle's Logic, never mind the 99% of the discipline that has been invented since 1870 -- check this out) -- even though you all like to pontificate about it.
As I also noted, this means that dialectics can't actually cope with change; in fact, as I demonstrated in extensive detail (follow the link below for more details): if this theory were true, change would be impossible.
http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007_03.htm
[Which also reproduces -- in Section Three -- dozens of quotations from the DM-classics and 'lesser' DM-works to show that the allegations I levelled above are completely accurate.]
Finally, you say you need to read more Hegel. Well, good luck with that! I have studied logic and philosophy to PhD level, and still can't fathom what he was banging on about. However, he committed several sophomoric logical errors, so egregious that they undermine the entire 'dialectic' -- upside down or 'the right way up'. I have exposed them in all their crassness here:
http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm
Summary Of My Main Objections To Dialectical Materialism
Abbreviations Used At This Site
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2020
Hits Since 02/01/16:
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 (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~~~~~~
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.
[DM = Dialectical Materialism/Materialist, depending on context; TFB = The Finnish Bolshevik.]
Or is that asking too much of DM-fans like you?
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!).