Totalitarianist

You can read it here:
<a href="http://www.marxist.com/science/preface_spanish_2nd_ed.html" target="_blank">http://www.marxist.com/science/preface_spanish_2nd_ed.html</a>
<a href="http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp" target="_blank">http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp</a>

Interesting things here as well:
<a href="http://www.marxist.com/philosophy/chapter2.html" target="_blank">http://www.marxist.com/philosophy/chapter2.html</a>
<a href="http://www.marxist.com/philosophy/index.asp" target="_blank">http://www.marxist.com/philosophy/index.asp</a>

Edit: Title

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Lady Anoteros ]</p>

Vesica

I read most of that first article...Could you maybe post a Q or two for discussion??

JP2

Wow, interesting stuff.

However, perhaps my conception of the Dialectic is too Platonic to really grasp what the authors here are getting at, but I'm not sure that a somewhat specious treatment of the Dialectic in a scientific context goes any way to proving it as a "law" of any kind. It's still an important philosophical idea, for sure, and I find myself uncovering Hegel's conception of the Dialectic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) in many things I come across in my day to day life, but I still think it should be treated more as a theory, or a convenient "equation" for the things we observe, rather than a prescriptive law, verifiable enough to make concrete predictions from.

Similarly, I don't think that justification for Marxist socialism can be found in the science of genetics, or astrophysics. Capitalism, to be sure, is just one stage in the development of human civilisation, certain to be usurped by some other system in the indefinate future, but I'm still not sure why this system must necessarily be replaced by Marx's conception of a more equitable society, or why evidence supporting the notion of the Dialectic as a scientific tool goes any way to verifying the benefits of Marxism. Given all that they have said about quality vs quantity and the laws of the "opposite" (or the antithesis in Hegelian terms I guess), I'm suprised that they could come to such concrete conclusions, given that their views probably aren't so congenial towards that sort of certainty. Surely the conclusions they reach in this book - by their own logic - are merely a path towards the next idea, and do not necessarily stand as a definite truth in themselves.

Well, in either case, it's a good read. Plenty of other good articles on that site too, more than enough to whittle away a dull Friday evening.

DeanWCasa

Usually an article (YAWN) is a tiny sidenote, why don't you summarize it and give us your position, i.e. argument and conclusion.

DeanWCasa
Out