An Introduction to Marxist Philosophy - John Molyneux

[@Hellserch]

What a tremendous loss he is to all of us. Great mind, funny and personable man.

[@titanwindswell]

Trotskyite bunkum ! from those who applauded 'no fly zones' against Libya & therefore it's destruction.

[@michaelkulyk4739]

I've just funished reading John's book 'The Point Is To Change It;an introduction to marxist philosophy'.It's very clear and comprehensive unlike some of the others I've read or tried to read i.e. Balibar,Wood and Zizek.

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

Moreover, it won’t do to claim that these two notions are approximately identical. Approximations only make sense when we know with what it is we are approximating, but if John and/or Trotsky are right, we can’t know this. And it’s no use claiming that these are abstractions, since abstract equality and abstract identity are different, too. For example, if 2x + 1 = 5, then x = 2, but no one supposes that x is identical with 2, since if it were it would be unable to take on a different value.

[@mojorhythm]

Yes, but the worker's state should be as democratic as possible, including delegates with binding mandates, instant recall, and so on. The rise of a co-ordinator class is possible without the most constant vigilance.

[@czarquetzal8344]

This is fascinating: A lot of Marx ideas are either undefined ( ideology), vague ( socialism), self-contradictory ( the Ideal state of man when thefe is no history yet), obviously wrong ( the political potential of culture and the effect of economic determinism to such realization), yet majority of those who reali,zed these died Marxists ( members of Frankfurt School, Lukacs, Goldman, Gramsci)

[@GaryAskwith1in5]

I find Marx difficult because there's always voiceless proletarians taking their opportunity to be heard by coughing throughout these talks!

[@cigaretessports3k]

how to avoid totalitarianism? ANY centralize power , protective stance of military and reforms. preparing the society mentally for new order, basically. Using words- Working Class so many times. Im trying to say ; anarchy is only way for classless society ,but unfortunately (IMHO) we are not ready yet. Educated society, the one who know the true meaning of things and responsible for it. Good luck for future

[@michaelkulyk4739]

Yes.

[@00ppium]

Wood? Where you referring to Alan Woods?

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

Finally, John lays great emphasis on practice, which is rather odd given the fact that Dialectical Marxism has been, and still is, such an abject and long-term failure. [Notice, I have used the term “Dialectical Marxism”, here, not “Marxism”.] In view of this, John would be well advised to stop appealing to practice as proof that dialectical materialism is correct; practice has in fact refuted this theory. Either that, or truth isn’t tested in practice, of course.

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

Furthermore, it is quite clear that Trotsky attacked the wrong target, confusing equality with identity. It could be objected that these two are in fact identical, but anyone tempted to argue along those lines will have already conceded that the 'law of identity' [LOI] applies at least here, undermining Trotsky’s entire argument. Of course, anyone who now admits that they aren’t identical after all will also have conceded (at least implicitly) that Trotsky attacked the wrong target.

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

If you want to discuss this in detail, type 'revforum' into Google, and go to the History, Theory and Philosophy section where I'll be happy to debate this with you. There isn't enough space here to do that.

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

Well, if you nip over to my site (details in another reply of mine on this page), and check out Essay Ten Part One, you'll soon see which one of us is the ignorant one.

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

Why do you, John, keep telling fibs about formal logic? Aristotle knew nothing of the 'law of identity' -- it was invented in the Middle Ages. Moreover, identity does not preclude change, for if an object changes, then anything identical to it will change equally quickly. Moreover, if something changes, it will no longer be identical with its former self. So, far from denying change, this 'law' allows us to determine if and when it has occurred.

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

More details at a site I help run. Just type 'anti-dialectics.co.uk' (without the quotes) into Google.