On Aug 1, 4:25 am, rab <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:



When you say "Logically, if dialectical materialism IS so correct and
powerful..." here you are using formal logic and not dialectics and
you are demanding that dialectics be explained within the framework of
formal logic but the contradiction cannot be eliminated because the
problems of the class struggle penetrates our discourse as well
whether we like it or not and whilst these arguments are taking place
on a remote newsgroup they still cannot escape this content that comes
from the class struggle itself.

Why is "if dialectical materialism IS so correct and
powerful" a formal-logical premise, hence unsuitable for a discussion
about dialectical logic, yet "Dialectical materialism IS a guide to
action but it IS NOT a
substitute for action" avoids this criticism?

Your point is that the study and grasp of dialectics is a necessary
but insufficient condition for revolutionary success. But what does
this point have to do with dialectics or in particular with your
criticism of the Wisdom of Solomon?

srd

Thus, I assure you, SEPtic is very anti-pragmatist.

Why? Don't you think North became a capitalist because he found
getting money from the print shop "worked" to keep SEP afloat? You
can't make a revolution, if you don't exist! Those are the sounds of
applied pragmatism. William James extolled religious experience,
because it "worked" to create desired subjective states.

Marxists hate pragmatism because pragmatism is anti-theoretical, while
North pretends to hate pragmatism, because detesting pragmatism is
part of the tradition of his group. Marxists speak of the practical
criterion of truth, but the path is circuitous. SEP or its
predescessors hasn't led any workers' movement for 40 years. Is that a
sufficient test? How many years suffice? Should they have known they
were bankrupt after 20? If these questions are answerable, they
require going beneath the surface appearance that pragmatism worships.
Not that most  "dialecticians" try to do that.

srd- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

predescessors hasn't led any workers' movement for 40 years. Is that a
sufficient test? How many years suffice? Should they have known they
were bankrupt after 20? If these questions are answerable, they
require going beneath the surface appearance that pragmatism worships.
Not that most  "dialecticians" try to do that.

srd- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -