Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On Jul 1, 2:28=A0pm, scottpsolo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> These are very, very, very, profoundly, profoundly, profoundly and
> very profound contributions. =A0Up until now, Trotskyism has been a
> failure because more time hasn't been spent understanding Dialectics.
> Nobody who has made a real scientific contribution in the last fifty
> years

Not actually true, and I'm surprise you would think it. Even if
dialectics were utterly worthless, some scientists surely would
embrace the dialectical method, as some scientists have always
gravitated to every manner of superstition.

srd


 or who has built a successful political party gives a **** about
> Dialectics, but that doesn't mean a profoundly profoundly profound
> deeply deep study of this im****tant area of study would have propelled
> humanity much farther in every area of human endeavor if Dialects had
> been the first order of business before any other sort of intellectual
> pursuit.