Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Splitters.

"A one hundred and fifty year mismatch between theory and observation of this order of magnitude would normally scupper an honest theory -- i.e., a scientific theory -- but not 'Materialist Dialectics'. Because of the latter, the message delivered to the dialectical brain by the senses may now be inverted so that it becomes its opposite. That message is re-processed and transformed into its obverse: a powerful confirmation of the theory that instructs believers to expect just such discrepancies, just such contradictions. Theorists who proudly proclaim their materialist credentials can now 'safely' ignore material reality (since the latter is merely an 'appearance'), and cling to the comforting (theoretical) idea that the tide of history is with them.

The fact that most dialecticians buy into this rosy view of reality (and cling on to it even after its true nature has been pointed out to them) suggests that something has gone badly wrong inside these Hermetically compromised craniums.

Dialectical Myopia is in fact movement-wide; it afflicts Maoists and Stalinists, Orthodox Trotskyists and Libertarian Communists, un-orthodox Trotskyists and academic Marxists alike. In fact, deep sectarian divisions have not succeeded in dividing opinion in this one area: while every other tendency is an abject failure and are traitors to the cause, members of each individual tradition/party, in contrast, judge themselves to be success incarnate.

In a world governed by topsy-turvy logic like this -- ideologically inverted as in a lens (to paraphrase Marx) -- fantasy replaces fact, and wish-fulfilment replaces material reality.

The near universal and long-term rejection of DIM by almost every section of the working-class can thus be flipped upside down to become the source of its strongest support! If workers disdain Marxism, then the theory that inverted this material fact -- transforming it into the contrary idea that workers do not really do this (since they are blinded by "false consciousness", or have been 'bought-off' by super-profits) -- at one stroke becomes both cause and consequence of the failure of revolutionary politics to "seize the masses". This is because hard-core fantasy of this intensity actually prevents its dialectical victims from facing up to the long-term problems confronting Marxism.

For sure, if there are no problems with the core theory, then plainly none need be addressed.

So, the theory that helps keep Marxism unbelievably unsuccessful is the very same theory that tells those in its thrall that the opposite is the case, and that nothing need be done about it, even while it insulates the militant mind from recalcitrant reality that clearly says different.

This means that the DM-inspired negators of material reality can now safely ignore the fact that reality universally negates their theory. That theory has now been rotated through 180 degrees in order to conform to the idea that whatever happens will always be a victory for socialism (if at least in the long term -- or someday soon)."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2001.htm#Background

Gosh I thought u wrote this yourself up there in the white mountains

I'm glad u didn't
It would be unfortunate
I loved the bit about analytic philosophy

One thing I've always loved about a certain strain of Brit essaying
In contrast to those florid Gallic fakirs
No fear of coming off like

A Flat footed simpleton

We should all take a break and read a book about Egypt. Angry Arab has a list on Sunday's blog. Cairo may be one of the most interesting cities in the world. We could fall in love with it, instead of wasting time talking about DM.

Wow, the foundation of Crowism revealed. I thought as much (little).

WTF is DM and what does it have to do with VI Lenin?

Are y'all talking about the urge to make every uprising of citizen discontent something about command and control, which is what many "Marxists" seem to want, to "organize" and to have "leaders" (and especially priests to translate and disseminate), despite claiming they want a stateless society. It's no wonder Marxists can't gain traction, they're all organized around that Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as if they never actually want to reach Glossy Karl's supposed endpoint of stateless existence.

This isn't new though, is it? "Christians" often follow a doctrine wholly unlike that of the New Testament or the things attributed to the historical Jesus. Does that mean the historical Jesus was wrong, or is it just his followers who are clusterfuckingly selfish and eager to distort things for self-gratification's sake?

And what does that say about the "Marxists"?

W/R/T Egypt, I'd wager a lot of Marxists don't know shit about Egypt or its people, and are just seeing Egypt through the lens of what THEY would do (these "Marxists") if THEY were involved. Smells to me like most of 'em would rather sit back, theorize, and wait for a leader.

PS: "Vitrine" = living medium. I see what you did, Pope Pius Paine. The Lord hates a necromancer!

...and -- of course -- here comes Oxflop, who can't understand even the sophomore's essay posted by his fellow Know Nothing, JC...

I suppose the one point of surprise is that Oxy now concedes that there might be something worthwhile in Marx, despite the dullardry of many Marxists. That a spark of progress, I suppose.

Dawson, once again I invite you to show my errors of logic or fact, rather than merely disparaging me.

I'm doubting you have the horsepower.

What's to be expected of Owen, really? He's preserved in the formaldehyde of an orthodoxy of one. A comrade, all the same, and I'd shoulder to shoulder with him a pinch; though, gladly one who will never actually ride the great beast of revolution. He's too busy picking apart everyone who hops up and leaves his preserved carcass behind.

As for Dawson, who cares? He's got puerile ad hom. only, and not even well conceived. Study Nietzsche, little man, to learn how to do it right.

All I've heard marxists saying is that the Egyptian masses need to establish a leadership which will prepare itself for the countermoves of the Egyptian reaction, and that is so. The common view seems to be that marxist ideas will have a role to play in the coming struggle if marxists are prepared, and this is also true. But nothing has been pronounced from the mountaintops as a done deal. I think we've got a straw man getting kicked around here.

Why do they *need* to establish a leadership, Michael?

Why?

Why do they need to have a cadre of professionals who will only lead the masses? What does it accomplish? What about the much vaunted historical record, in this regard? Have not all - literally all - revolutionary vanguards which have had even a modicum of success ended up as a re-iteration of the ruling authority they've replaced?

And why give the national security apparatus in Egypt, and its allies in London and Washington, a definable, definitive, identifiable and narrative friendly target?

Granted, this isn't really the argument that Seymour made, nor Owen for that matter. But, why?

No good reason why.

Except the reason that "Marxists" insist on a Professional Caste of priests and pastors, professors and pedants.

Which says, to me,

"We can't trust them idiots, we have to do it for them."

" Have not all - literally all - revolutionary vanguards which have had even a modicum of success ended up as a re-iteration of the ruling authority they've replaced?"

nihilism in a nut shell
make of it what you will

there's that Pope again, dispensing "truth" for his parishioners

There is literally nothing nihilistic about that statement.

Challenging your doctrine is not "nihilism."

Hilarious, Crow. Ad hominem? Not quite, though that is exactly all you've got to say about me, with your "little man" projections, etc.

Your post reveals your complete ignorance about Marxism. That is not ad hominem. That is saying you don't understand and almost certainly have not read what you claim to transcend. Fill us in: Where does Karl Marx provide his theory of what you call "DM"? While you're at it, one assumes you have no idea what Marx himself said were his main arguments. Those certainly aren't mentioned in the moronic diatribe you re-posted in reply to op's observation that Leninist ham-handing doesn't cut much mustard.

As for Nietzsche, I guarantee you I've read as much of him as you have. Just because you think it's beyond Marx doesn't make it so.

Dawson,

I did not connect Marx to DM. I never made the connection. You are responding as if I did, which perhaps also explains why you think I haven't read Marx, or don't understand him. That's a tell, and a useful one.

I quoted Rosa to follow up on SK's "splitters." This factionalism and turf warfare follows from the theories and pet theologies of professional leftists, like yourself.

And that's a measure of good fortune. History will pass you by, as the real working class and the actual oppressed do not need your priesthood, or your factionalism.

It perhaps even explains OP's elevated levels of blathering self-obsession and nastiness of late: history has abandoned him, and you, as the bourgeois, hidebound, declining age interlopers that you are.

I find that very reassuring. And satisfying.

And for all that I have long enjoyed SMBIVA and Mr. Smith's opus, it's the preening territoriality of you and Owen which make this site so difficult to read and appreciate, nowadays.

Good luck to you, both. Luck is all you appear to have left.

And for all that I have long enjoyed SMBIVA and Mr. Smith's opus, it's the preening territoriality of you and Owen which make this site so difficult to read and appreciate, nowadays.

Don't forget the Outsized Egos calling others egomaniacs. That's another bonus of The Pope and The Yapping Chihuaha. That's their PRAXIS, dude!

hmm. a misunderstanding on display in this siege. i'll fix it. the beast what conquered troy was a big vehicle, not a pile of hobbyhorses on top of a motionless army.

Have not all - literally all - revolutionary vanguards which have had even a modicum of success ended up as a re-iteration of the ruling authority they've replaced?

all revolutions, vanguard or no, have so far ended up with more of the same.

is the whole project therefore utterly without hope? are we doomed to ever push the boulder up the mountain only to be crushed flat?

ah, its a beautiful mountain anyway.

Heh, Leon. I don't honestly think the effort itself is quixotic. Is the project without hope? Nyet, no, non, nein.

Does it need unwieldy doctrine?

Probably not.

Hapa,

Point well taken.

"I did not connect Marx to DM."

You posted this:

"This is because [Marxism] prevents its dialectical victims from facing up to the long-term problems confronting Marxism."

But, wait, it gets even funnier:

"I quoted Rosa to follow up on SK's 'splitters.'"

Sk was referring to Monty Python!

Meanwhile, the clear topic of what you re-posted is not a comment on Marxist factionalism. It is a statement that Marxism is DM and, as such, is obvious error and delusion.

One of us, again, is in serious need of some extremely remedial reading comprehension work.

Heh. The irony, Dawson. One assumes you didn't intend to lie, but...

...speaking of remedial reading:

"This is because hard-core fantasy of this intensity actually prevents its dialectical victims from facing up to the long-term problems confronting Marxism."

That's the actual quote.

And the hard-core fantasy Rosa means?

Not Marx or Marxism.

But: ***Dialectical Materialism.***

Thanks for the hoot, Dawson.

By the way - the Monty Python skit was about factionalism. And Rosa's premise is that DM is the primary engine of factionalism, among Leftists and Marxists.

Thanks for the entertainment, Dawson.

Who's Rosa the half wit that wrote the dribble jc quoted near the top of this thread ?
Why rosa ?
An attempt to wrap herself in the Luxembourg robes ?

I have nothing really useful to add to this but I will say something in spite of that.

Real revolutions don't have leaders, they generally don't make the history books until hundreds or thousands of years later and come to pass almost unnoticed by the people who live through them.

Small and accumulative changes in human cultural practices and processes lead to new ways of living and interaction among humans.

The revolution won't be televised. It won't have a leader and there'll be no "ism" attached to it. It might not even be noticed for a while. But it will occur under your feet like a forest growing around you. One day you wake up and notice that the view has changed and things aren't what they used to be, for the better or for the worse, it can go either direction.

Meanwhile, to quote my favorite band "Let it Be". Yes yes, I know, taken the wrong way that is either the most facile comment ever or a statement of deep meaning. You get to decide.

this is a great thread! buy shoes and bags and jewelry.

Drunk: what's an example of that real revolution that takes place over time, like grass growing under your feet? The only ones I can think of, in western history, are the slow growth of capitalism, and the rapid move toward totalitarianism in the 20th century. You wouldn't be meaning those, would you?

An attempt to wrap herself in the Luxembourg robes?

I'm willing to bet a cone of badger's spleens that there's no 'her' there. As George Carlin once noted of a deity rather higher up in the pantheon than this oracle, a she He ain't, since "no woman would or could fuck things up like this."

I don't know who's the marxist on this site that's got everyone so riled up. Certainly not OP (what marxist/leninist would not know who Richard Seymour is?)

Anyway, what's the diff? As long as no-one here is advocating actual counter-revolution, what harm in showing off one's leanings, learning, temperament? I personally go with JC, because his is closest to the modest position of letting the Egyptians themselves work it out.

On the other hand, maybe OP is our Trotsky, clear-headedly seeing the dangers of counter-revolution coming from the imperialist powers, and properly warning, like Crow himself did on another site, that this is the time for the revolutionists to take it up a notch.

Sen,

Here's the thing for me: I think the "democratic" centralist thing has come and gone, because our adversaries interface with the society they manage and govern differently than their predecessors did when centralism's theories were in development, and vogue.

They organize *themselves* in a very similar fashion, as near to that which they've always done - but they no longer interact with us in a familiar or stable way. Because they don't have to anymore.

Does that mean that I wouldn't gladly shit kick the banks and bankers, along side comrade Owen? Of course not. I don't care, on a personal note, if Owen believes that the Talmud holds all the secret answers to the nature of man and history. Its probably about as useful as Lenin's notebooks, but if he's on the same side, it's got naught to do with me. Take away the doctrine, and the work still gets done. That's why I find the doctrine as close to useless as possible. It's not necessary. It's carbuncles and warts.

And while I think the centralists are mis-aimed, and historical dead ends, I know who the real enemy is, and that our revolution is probably more vital and necessary than ever.

The problem isn't those of us who've left centralism and its baggage of jargon behind. The problem is those who still need the jargon, the centralism and the cadre-party organization which they learned in decades past.

They are the ones who would rather nitpick every tendency, school and faction which no longer abides by their orthodoxy - because the orthodoxy matters to them more than revolution.

I don't know if that's Owen's exact gig - but that's the impression I get from his repeated and territorial slash and burns.

As for Egypt, though I have an invitation to stay for an extended period which I'm trying now to afford, I'm not there. I'm hopeful, and wary. And that's what I can offer, from such a distance.

I think we in the US, the UK and the homelands of empire and industrial capital do have an obligation, and an opportunity - for ourselves and for those who live under despots our governments support. It's ours to disrupt as much of the operation of the machinery of control as is within our reach, ability and capacity to endure. The more we degrade the workings of empire and capital at home, the more loot and treasure it must spend pacifying us. And that's something.

It's certainly better than alienating allies over Richard Seymour's failure to believe as Owen does...

maybe OP is our Trotsky, clear-headedly seeing the dangers of counter-revolution coming from the imperialist powers, and properly warning, * * * that this is the time for the revolutionists to take it up a notch.

Might be high time he came out and said that, instead of what he's been saying.

Which has been the usual I'm-on-a-plane-higher-than-you-nimrods-and-writing-in-cryptograms-so-fuck-you style and content.

Mixed with more overt condescension.

With a splash of Lapdog Dawson, for fun!

senecal,

does there have to be a historic exemplar?

I would hope the lack of templates doesn't frighten anyone.

for those who are frightened by such open landscapes in America, I suggest riding the pine. I'll mail you some tweezers. every team needs waterboys and cheerleaders.

Senecal said:

"The only ones I can think of, in western history, are the slow growth of capitalism, and the rapid move toward totalitarianism in the 20th century. You wouldn't be meaning those, would you?"

I said in the post that Senecal responded to:

"One day you wake up and notice that the view has changed and things aren't what they used to be, for the better or for the worse, it can go either direction."

Yeah, revolutions can go either way. Better or worse.

I'm puzzled as to your point.

Name call and nit pick all you want. It seems a shame to me that what we're talking about is expressed plain as day in the ideas of the terrible Mao Tse Tung:

The enemy advances, we retreat.
The enemy camps, we harass.
The enemy tires, we attack.
The enemy retreats, we pursue.

If you have a problem with leadership, get the fuck out of the way of those of us who don't mind calling a thing what it is.

Drunk: I had no point. I just wondered what revolutions/evolutions you were talking about?

M Hureaux,

The biggest problem anyone I know would have with leadership is the multi-part question of who gets to lead, and why, and toward what end.

In practice, those who do something are the ones who end up "leading," eh?

The quarrels that are sincere seem to do with Professional Organization and Leadership, not with people actually doing something for themselves and by so doing, becoming leaders.

Hope that distinction is clear.

There is no Marxist who got this started. Op posted an intelligent comment. Sk followed with a joke. Crow then posted something he half-understands and, when pressed, repeatedly mis-respresents, the entire point of which is that Marxism in all possible forms is a "dishonest theory" that ought to fling itself off a bridge. The clear point Crow was making? That op, by talking about class and the difficulties of revolution, is a Marxist, and, hence, a reactionary factionalist. And this he claims to have done in the name of anti-factionalism!

P.S. to Crow. I know what the quote said. Tell me, what is the "hard-core fantasy of this intensity" to which your comrade refers? It would be interesting to see you try to explain how it isn't "Marxism itself."

Christ, Dawson - the fantasy is "dialectical materialism." That's not Marxism and your quote was both wrong and deceptive.

Rosa's a Marxist, but a historical materialist, not a dialectical mystic.

I bet Glossy Karl is glad that Lapdog Dawson is here pretending to be the Ultimate Font of Marxist Truth.

Dawson would argue any shitbird point in order to deflect and distract from any real movement. He's terrified of an open landscape. SKAY-UH-WHEEE! Can't handle that without Professional Leaders! Michael Marx-Dawson says so!

Tell ya what, Dawson? How about we get Obama to change the USA's icons, away from Uncle Sam, Lady Liberty, and the Bald Eagle... and toward Joseph Stalin, the hammer & sicle, and the vulture? That will give a Professional Leader Class ready-made. Ought to satisfy you nicely.

historical versus dialectical materialist
interesting

usually used as interchangeable
by marxian oids ites and ismists
i recollect engels prefering histomat as a label to diamat ...err for popular consumer markets

I get the distinction,Mr.Oxtrot, I just think it's a waste of time. These are things that get resolved in real mass struggle- which has a critical component to its sponanaeist features- not in the resolutons formed in theoretical arguments. And if mass waves of people decide what they want is what you call a "professional leadership", well then, I guess we have to live with that, don't we? Because the living process is what is decisive, not where our personal allegiances are. I believe mass politics is the best school, and I believe people are sharp enough and smart enough to make those distinctions and that list of priorities without any of us. I also believe that marxism is a far more honest school in terms of assessing such developments, and that's why I'm not an anarchist.

If the people decide they need a Professional Leadership class because someone told them they need a Professional Leadership class, that's a different thing than concluding as much on their own after weighing all alternatives.

And I'm saying it seems to me there are a lot of "Marxists" --and I'm not engaging Dawson or whomever that ghost tag refers to on what is or isn't a "Marxist" because I only go by what people swear they are, and I don't give a rat's ass whether Glossy Karl is interpreted purely or profanely-- that there are a lot of "Marxists" who are trying to push their Professional Leadership Class argument regarding Egypt.

And I find that a shitpile of really stinky shit, frankly.

I don't think it's anyone's place, here in the USA, to tell Egyptians they need Marxism, or any other -ism.

I respect your choice in supporting Marxism, but you can count on me being in your way when you seek to implement anything reeking of Stalin or Lenin in this country. I have no problem being an obstacle to Marxism. None whatever.

You're welcome to it, as is ghost-tag Michael Dawson.

"I don't think it's anyone's place, here in the USA, to tell Egyptians they need .."
blah blah blah "..or any other -ism"

what in hell does this prissy
church crow of a phrase mean to you ox ??

"place " ???
are you shittin me ??

place ???

we're back to
"STFU u flabby
hot house marxist
running dog you "

that old chest nut ....again ??

i'm ..we're... writing for each other here
not for the egyptian masses

--------
if i had a chance to broadcast anything
to the egyption people
it would be :

"beware the ides of march "

this non marxist 'historical materialism '

is it like complexity theory ox ???
or the good old
"one damn thing after another "

Dearest Pope,

'twere not me who raised the Marxist ghost here, nor that of old Vissarionovich. If you notice, I entered the thread questioning why we are talking about Marx or Lenin.

signed,

Apostate from Glossy Karlism

And also, Papal One, I have no answer for you on "historical materialism," as I am not an ivory tower archer trying to repel those unwashed heathen.

I don't know what the fuck "historical materialism" is, nor why we should care.

But if you're asking whether I agree with Jack's position regarding mystics vs those in the here & now, I agree that the mystics are full of shit.

If you're asking whether I agree with The Papal Dispensation Regarding The Primacy of Clio, the answer is no. "History" is not a living thing that mandates a course presently. It's a bunch of skeletons, many of whom -- Glossy Karl, Freedy Angeles, and their followers now dead -- refuse to rest in peace. The gravediggers and necromancers would try to resurrect these hoary old pundits and spin artists, without realizing they were the Ann Coulters, Rachel Maddows and Sean Hannitys of their respective days.

I dont know Oxtrot, but I sense that everyone else commenting here is on the same side about what needs changing in the world, only differing on the means. And OP is right, we're not conducting the Egyptian uprising, only writing to each other.

MH says it best, to me, when he says "the living process is decisive." I think Crow agrees with that.

I appreciate your assumption that I can't gather people are talking about Egypt.

Really I do.

And I'm not sure what you're stacking up for counting there, with who agrees on "the living process being decisive."

Anyone who sits in a faculty office in the USA saying "they need a Professional Leadership cadre over there in Egypt" isn't worrying about Egypt, he/she is worrying about his/her own ideal revolution and seeing it implemented by Egyptians.

Vicarious living is for invalids.

Crow's one desire in life is to market himself as The Revolutionary. Oxflop is just a weird old cynic of some unfathomable kind. Both Know Nothings who never have anything new or useful to say.

As for Rosa, she has a mighty strange way of defending her supposed Marxism. It reads an awful lot like Glenn Beck's explanation of the topic. Why Crow thought her droolings were relevant to what op posted is anybody's guess.

I find it endlessly pitiful and also highly amusing that "Michael Dawson" would call me a "know-nothing" without any evidence or argument to support the point.

Those characters from LOST sure do have a way with non-thinking, reflexive lapdog-style yapping. If the little dog had teeth, I'd be checking my ankles for puncture wounds, but this one's a gummer. Pulled all his teeth for the better oral pleasuring of his superiors.

MD: I liked your book, I like your comments. How come you're wasting time on Crow, who's on the side of revolution, whose views of how it will happen are no more obscure than Negri and Hardt's, whose snarkish style is SOP for leftie sites?

Certainly, there has been NO snark in this thread from The Pope or The Yapping Lapdog.

Certainly.

Sen
Maybe md thinks the two are just a couple of silly ass holes

Stranger conclusions then that could be drawn

Dawson, it's really got to suck to be so wrong all the time. Market myself? Heh. If you weren't such a prig, you'd be more entertaining.

Finally, the Pope comes out with his true thoughts.

"If you don't bow down, supplicate, make the Sign of the Cross, genuflect, splash Holy Water on yourself, and accept my words as doctrine, you're just a silly ass hole."

Spoken just like a Pope: condescending toward his audience, sure of his own authority, and yet... speaking in myth and lie.

On some blogs interested in the Egyptian uprising, you'll find regular updates and frequent links to actual news sources. This site is refreshingly free of that, allowing everyone time to display his personal prejudices and predilections instead. Breath of fresh air!!

Sen
Surely no one comes here for news

This is a forum for commentary

Oxy you're not a silly ass

I must notice an odd symptom
U use the word lie
I find that a marker for certain nut ball types
I'm not sure why this is but .....

In the common tongue a "lie" is an untrue statement. Spoken, written, or flown across the sky in a banner behind a plane... doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what definition you're using, but that's the one I'm going with.

OP: Well yes, this is a commentary site. But commentary is commentary about something, in this case a fluid situation changing daily. I'm really expressing my own frustration that I didn't know more about the people carrying out this revolution -- if that's what it is.

Oxy a lie has intention a falsehood is the opposite of the truth

Point
U are saying your target is intentionally telling or writing un truths

Too strong an accusation for this site
A dialogue no matter how rude
Not an interrogatiion and prosecution
With a jury

Sen
I agree and though I don't share your frustration
I understand it

I'll add it's been my experience
Enough prior obsrvation of similar event sets
Often allows one to fill in the blanks

One needs modesty and reverence for uniqueness only to the extent you are prepared to scrap your preconceived notions on a moments insight
The problem in such a situation is often an unwillingness
To say
I was mistaken
A little confidence in yourself usually cures that block
But too much can lead to efforts to prove you're right when you're patently wrong

I can't recall you ever being overly pertinacious in that way
You are always a good interlocutor

Actually, dearest Pope, a lie is a lie whether intentional or un-.

And I am not, nor have I ever been, a donkey / mule / ass / burro.

"One needs modesty and reverence for uniqueness only to the extent you are prepared to scrap your preconceived notions on a moments insight"

That's my approach to everything in life. There must be a Latin phrase covering it.