Comrades'
Sid, in his usual inattention to the discussion, states that "our DM scholar
may have muddied the waters". What "waters"? Let us recall the "clear"
waters of Sid::"The first step towards freedom is in recognizing the laws of
necessity. This is the domain of science and Marxism. The second step
towards freedom is in going beyond the realm of necessity. This falls into
another domain". And I "muddied" his "clear" waters and asked the following:
"What is this "another domain" which is beyond "the domain of science and
Marxism?" Sid is still keeping his "clear" waters "clear" by keeping quiet
about this question.
Now, when Sid says that "the proletariat and bourgeoisie are now
different", he would like to give an impression that "now" I state such
thing, and "before" I did not say the same thing (the dialectical identity
itself implies that they are "different)! When I repeatedly state that A is
A and ~A in the same relation and the same time, or "the bourgeoisie" is
"the bourgeoisie" and ~"the bourgeoisie", then what is this ~"the
bourgeoisie"? Of course, it is "the proletariat". Thus, each pole of the
dialectical identity of "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat" is itself
and its otherness in the same relation and at the same time. In this
connection, I must draw "the inattention" of our Dover-type "dialecticians"
that "the diametrical opposites" of any dialectical identity are different,
but not every pair of "different" things are "the diametrical opposites" of
any dialectical identity because our "dialecticians" are still perplexed
about "a lion fighting with a buffalo"!
In addition, first Sid keeps quiet about Lenin's understanding of
the dialectical identity of universal and individual by talking about "the
Vedanta philosophy", and second he wonders about the concept of "same" ("The
word 'same' has to be interpreted correctly here"), but does not say
anything about it. So, let me "muddy" Sid's "clear" waters and ask him the
following: How can one "interpret" the word "same"?
In relation to Sid's request to jump from the present discussion to
another one--my understanding of the dialectical identity of universal and
individual, I must say that let us discuss one subject at a time! So, I will
present my understanding of the dialectical unity of universal and
individual after I finish with the present discussion regarding Dover's
falsification of Marx's, Engels's, and Lenin's ideas of a socialist
revolution.
Javad
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
