Reply to Melvin on dialectical logic

Sun Jul 13 14:45:25 MDT 2003

In a message dated 7/13/03 11:37:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bendien at writes:

Dear Melvin,

I realize you are very fond of Joe Stalin, but I am not. Your fondness for
Stalin leads you to accuse me of "faking, lying and petty-bourgeois intellectual
masturbation" without providing any good grounds for believing that, beyond
stale rhetoric, and you do not even bother to understand and engage with what I
said. Joe Stalin of course did not argue his case, he had people who
disagreed with his policy murdered, imprisoned or deported. Then you say, you do not
care about that, and indeed this is reflected in your style of argumentation,
which is along the lines of "I stick to my views regardless of whether people
are murdered, imprisoned or deported". But this being the case, there is,
precisely, no point in arguing with you, because you just stick to repeating a few
old dogmas regardless of any circumstances
anyway. Your aim is different from mine. You are a literal Marxist who
quotes Marx as being self-evident, i.e. on the basis that "the truth is
manifest" and Marx has a monopoly on the truth. What I am doing is explore
the meaning of what Marx says, and how this could be interpreted in different
ways in a modern context. I am interested in new insights, you just keep
recycling old news.<


You lie again. I cited the specific text and when they were published and
substaniated my points. The issue is not Stalin but what was written. You
initiated this dialogue on Pen-L. I did not. You started with a lie and I have the
text and your response where you admit you did not actualy mean what you stated.
Must I reprint your retraction? All I ever asked for was your source material
and you stated there was none. Must I reprint your retraction?

>From my standpoint you have things very twisted. I do not care about Stalin
but if you say that a person has written one thing and they wrote the exact
opposite, it makes you a liar. If you write that Mao Ze Dong writings on
contradiction are centered on the negation of the negation - which you state in no
unceratin terms, and I have the book and read it countless times and it talk
about something else and I point this out that is called "intellectual debate."
Actually, we wrote an intense article on this very point back in 1978. Thus, I
knew you were lying. We of course did not agree with this presentation but that
is not the point.

You are a liar.

If you say the Stalin Dialectical and Historical materialism became the
official dogma of Soviet ideology and I investigate the matter and say the official
dogma was the Textbook of Marxist Philosophy prepared by the Leningrad
Institute of Philosophy under the Direction of M. Shirokov was published in 1937,
then why is this love for Joe Stalin?

You call me a literal Marxist and that is all right because it comes down to
who is telling the truth and can show at least basic verifiable facts. You are
a liar in your basis facts about Mao Ze Tung not because I say so but the
damn material refutes what you state as a fact. You are lying and on this point
it is obvious to anyone that has read his fundamental texts. I cite three
sources and you cite none.

What gives you ther right to assert what you stated without a source? The
fact of the matter is that this literary arena is a political arena and you put
forth political conclusions and anyone has the right to challenge you on
political conclusions. I am not challenging your political conclusions but something
more elementary - lying.

On Pen-L you choose to enter the fray based on an article written by myself
about the formation of Marxism and Marxist groups in America.  Must I reprint
the article to prove this?

Let me be clear once again. I have never killed a human being and I do not
cry over the millions of slaves that perish in the formation of capital. Shit
happens man. I do not care and have bigger fish to fry.

You are a liar to state that Dialectics of Nature was the fundamental text in
presenting and shaping what is called the modality of the materialist
dialectic of Marx because the book that presented this was Anti-Duhring. You are
lying and act as if what you state is not understood as an obvious lie.
Anti-Duhring was published in 1878. When was Dialectic of Nature published?

Yes my aim is different from yours. That is not the issue. You become hurt
when an obvious lie is pointed out and scream death and murder by Stalin. When I
reply I do not care and stick to the point you are hurt. Do you read what you

I challenged you on specific point and presented the material to prove you
invented your argument in your head. That makes you a damn liar. Shut me up and
show where in the two text I used as a source material Mao Ze Dong is
fascinated by the negation of the negation. Prove me a liar about Anti Durhing as the
text that outlines the Marx dialectic, as opposed to Dialectic of Nature. It
is in fact you obssessed with Joe Stalin and not me. I say "Fu*k Stalin."

The thing you call "new insights" cannot justify you lying. What would
possess you to claim as real something anyone can verify? To cover your lack of
depth you scream Stalin. You can settle this right now. Why is Dialectics of
Nature the fundamental text that expounded materialist dialectics first and not
Anti Durhing, and when was Dialectics of Nature published? This is what you

>The reason why Marxists considered that to be a true Marxist you had to be a
competent dialectician was, that Engels had written that manuscript
"dialectics of nature" which he did not publish, which implied some sort of cosmology
or at least an ontology. <

Why would you say something this stupid and obviously wrong that cannot be

When you are challenged you act like a little girl and cry "Joe Stalin." For
the record, " to hell with Joe Stalin."

Deal with what the material you cite as a fact and prove me wrong. This is
simple if I am wrong. I did not raise this and if you want a private
conversation go off line. If I call you a liar and cannot substantiate the claim than I
am a fool. Anyone can substantial your claims about Engels and Mao. The
material is available on line for anyone.

Repeat: to hell with Joe Stalin and the rest of them. I do not care. The
point was what you presented . . . sport. Stick to the issue of dialectics.

What I wrote stands. You are a liar and ideologue. Get your basic facts
right.  You do not have to respond, but what did you think I would do? Back down
from a liar?

Hell if you really wanted to explore the dialectic from the standpoint of
modern biology, that strikes me as interesting and I have in fact followed this
for a number of years. Not simply from the standpoint of the "whole or its
parts" but from the standpoint of form and content and why the form of protein is
its content, which is a leap in understanding of form. This was done on the
basis of why the AIDS virus is man-made and the components it break into under
chemical dissolution. Unnatural organic material only breaks down on the basis
of the components used to constitute it.

Here is the living dialectic. You do not raise such issues but politics and
lies which I bust your lying ass on. Stop lying.

Melvin P.

More information about the Marxism mailing list