New Page 1

Unfortunately, Internet Explorer 11 will no longer play the videos posted to this page. As far as I can tell, they play as intended in other Browsers. However, if you have Privacy Badger [PB] installed, they won't play in Google Chrome unless you disable PB for this site.

[Having said that, I have just discovered that these videos will play in IE11 if you have upgraded to Windows 10! It looks like the problem is with Windows 7 and earlier versions of Windows.]

If you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or later), you might find some of the links I have used won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select 'Compatibility View Settings' and then add this site (anti-dialectics.co.uk). Microsoft's new browser, Edge, automatically renders these links compatible; Windows 10 also automatically makes IE11 compatible with this site.

However, if you are using Windows 10, Microsoft's browsers, IE11 and Edge, unfortunately appear to colour these links somewhat erratically. They are meant to be dark blue, but those two browsers render them intermittently mid-blue, light blue, yellow, purple and red!

Although I am highly critical of Dialectical Materialism [DM], nothing said here (or, indeed, in the other Essays posted at this site) is aimed at undermining Historical Materialism [HM] -- a theory I fully accept -- or, for that matter, revolutionary socialism. I remain as committed to the self-emancipation of the working class and the dictatorship of the proletariat as I was when I first became a revolutionary nearly thirty years ago. [That puts paid to the allegation that those who reject DM soon abandon revolutionary politics.]

My aim is simply to assist in the scientific development of Marxism by helping to demolish a dogma that has in my opinion seriously damaged our movement from its inception: DM --; or, in its more political form, 'Materialist Dialectics' [MD].

Anyone using these links must remember that they will be skipping past supporting argument and evidence set out in earlier sections.

If your Firewall/Browser has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these and the other links here won't work!

I have adjusted the font size used at this site to ensure that even those with impaired vision can read what I have to say. However, if the text is still either too big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!

I have posted many similar comments on other pages at YouTube that are devoted to this theory and received little or no response. But, the producer of this film (whose on-screen name used to be Marxist-Leninist-Theory [MLT], but which has now changed to The Finnish Bolshevik -- henceforth, TFB) did respond (and to which I replied, here and here).

After several, shall we say, 'skirmishes' over the last six months or so, TFB posted a second, even longer video, which attempted to respond to one of my briefer attacks on this failed 'theory' of his:

As part of my reply to TFB's earlier video, I transcribed the vast bulk of it, which took absolutely ages. I did this for several reasons:

I have so far posted nine responses to the above video, so this Essay constitutes my tenth reply. All my debates and responses to TFB have now been collected together, here.

Incidentally, I have now decided to post much shorter replies to TFB in order to (i) Increase the probability of him reading them and, consequently, (ii) decrease the likelihood of having to explain the same things to him yet again, over and over, as had been the case up to now -- since he still refuses to read my longer replies, even though he expects his viewers to listen to his voice droning on and on, making the same points time and again, often incoherently, for over an hour!

TFB witters on... I have tried to transcribe his garbled words as best I can; I have also included a transcription of part of the video covered in my last reply to him in order to provide his remarks with some context:

"And as far as 'baffling them with bulls*it' is concerned, here is perhaps this..., an excellent example of the use of this tactic."

Then it (sic) quotes me [i.e., I quote TFB -- RL] from an earlier video where I said that:

"the Trotsky..., the Trotskyist [TFB actually used 'Trotskyite' in that earlier video -- RL] counter-argument seems to be [TFB has left out all his pauses, verbal glitches and mis-spoken words; I have reproduced the original passage below -- RL] 'This is silly, hah hah hah'..., like, that's not an argument. I mean, physics is kind of funny sometimes', that's not an argument. The rest of their counter-arguments are just silly."

Erm..., that's in response to a comment made by her, like.... She said that.... She said that..., er.., there's a contradiction in..., er..., in something that is being said, so therefore it's just..., er..., absurd. [Dramatic pause.] She said that..., er..., this leads to even more absurd conclusions. That's what she said. That it leads to even more absurd conclusions. Without..., she didn't justify that in any way. She just said that this leads to absurd conclusions. So, therefore it has to be..., so therefore it's wrong. And like... [this might be "I'm like" -- TFB's enunciation is unclear here], just because it's contradictory doesn't mean that it's...wrong. Because, as I say in this quote, I mean physics is kind of funny sometimes. Yeah, physics and math (sic) we..., sometimes works in weird ways. I mean, I'm not a mathematician, but it's still works in weird ways. Doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. Just because there are paradoxes [garbled word] seems to contradict something. 'Cause, like, either the paradox is wrong... [dramatic pause], or the math (sic) is wrong, or... [another dramatic pause], there is a paradox, but it's still not a problem -- because you're claiming that because there's a paradox it is automatically wrong, and you just have to dismiss the whole thing.

"This was taken from The Finnish Bolshevik's earlier video." [TFB is again quoting me -- RL.]

[Intake of breath.] No, aah! This is not what "baffling them with bullsh*t" means. [Dramatic pause.] As far as I know "baffling them with bullsh*t" means that basically you just use a lot of big words and you just spam the other person into submission. That's like..., that's literally what you are doing. That's why I said that you are doing that. I'm not doing that, like, how is this quote from me "baffling them with bullsh*t"? I mean, when, when..., we must be talking about different things. I'm saying that [TFB now adopts a slightly mocking tone -- RL] you write a whole bunch of stuff, and use big words, and have tons of quotes, but still, at the end of the day, it's all worthless. Doesn't prove anything. Doesn't debunk anything. It's all basically a huge waste of time, but it..., but it looks so impressive, or it..., it looks daunting, so that you're..., you're able to get away with it. Like, this..., if..., if I was talking to somebody, and I was, like, I made some really stupid argument, and then I said "Oh, but before you can respond you have to read, like, this..., er..., f..., fifteen volume book (sic)..., er..., set that I have written..., er..., before you can respond." I mean, I am sure we have all met people like this on line. [Garbled word.] You're trying to talk to them, and you're like..., they're spamming stuff, spamming more and more information at you, and it's often irrelevant to the question. And it doesn't really mean anything or support their case or anything, they're just spamming information just so that you can't really properly respond. You're put on the defensive because of the constant barrage of sh*t coming at you. [Dramatic pause.] You can never narrow the..., erm..., discussion down to the heart of the matter.

That's what your entire website is. That's why I am saying that you're trying to baffle me with bullsh*t. You're like [garbled word -- I think it might be "quote" -- RL]... 'Cause I asked you a simple question, you provide a very, very meandering and rambling all over the place answer. [Here we go again: talk about 'all over the place'! -- RL.] Like: "Give me the Stalin quote!" Instead you give me quote..., six quotes from other people. You can give me a simple, short, concise, answer, which answers everything perfectly, or you can give me this stuff that I didn't ask for which just wastes everyone's time.

And it's not just because your..., your responses and everything is [garbled word]..., is (sic) long. 'Cause I make long videos, sometimes. I mean my videos are like twenty minutes; sometimes [garbled words -- I think they might be "are way" -- RL] longer. But that's because I want to cover a lot of issues. But, with you..., I mean, your site has..., it doesn't address any particular point very well. And I know that's a harsh thing to say, but..., I mean you could just..., you could just do a good job of debunking the basic ideas of dialectics, but you do not really do that, you just sort of touch on them..., erm..., and then don't do a good enough job and then move on to the next topic. There's like plenty of topics that don't even need to be talked about. Just..., just debunk the core of dialectics and that should be enough.

I mean, I think that this is, like, your only hobby. You just like doing this. That's why there's so much stuff on your website, you just want to write more of this. [Approximately 57:26-1:03:00.]

TFB should know about bull*hit since he regularly produces so much of it. We can all take lessons from this expert. For example, here is a transcription of a section from his first video, which could easily have come from a Guide to the Production of Dialectical BS -- TFB is here trying to explain in 'simple terms' what happens when a solid melts -- as if no one knows:

So, let's make this even more simple. Now this is going to be scientifically inaccurate in terms, but I'm going to simplify the terminology so much that even a Trotskyist can understand.

So, keep in mind that this is not the...really the way you should use these terms, but whatever...

So, er..., would it be more understandable to you if I said that more heating..., er..., more melting..., er..., if I instead of saying more heating more...like if I...even though [this is an extremely garbled section! -- RL] it's not really melting, but just if if [sic] I said it like it's melting? If I said that once melting..., once 'melting' has accumulated, even though it's really heat, but let's just say that it's melting so that it's easier to understand. So, one..., once melting has accumulated we have a quantitay (sic), ...a quantity turning into a quality. Er..., enough melting quantity turns into solid goes ff... (sic) to liquid; quantitative change. Erm..., so qualitative change is a threshold, and quantitative change is the gradual approach toward the threshold. Erm..., I hope I have made this clear.

And just to avoid this kind of semantic nonsense and playing with words [!! -- RL], let's take one more example where the wording is not as confusing.

So, look at...look at a piece of ice. Then look at water. Are they qualitatively different? Well, yes they are. One is liquid and one is solid, clearly. Are they quantitatively different? Why yes they are. One has notice..., noticeably more heat than the other, because it's...you know...liquid. So, a qualitative leap has happened somewhere, has it not? Erm..., is there a category of (sic) between frozen, i.e., solid and liquid? No. Is there water that is half or perhaps 33% frozen? No.

Even when, for example, a glass of water freezes and it's sort of kind of solidifies (sic) partially while still having some liquid in the glass, it's not half-frozen water. It's ice on top of liquid water. Same with melting icicles that have water dripping from them. They're not 90% frozen water, but it's ice with liquid water dropping..., er..., dripping from it.

Er..., so this works the exact same way with metal. I hope that's clear enough. [Garbled and undecipherable] just ask questions if you don't..., er..., if it's confusing. I know this is kind of...it is kind of confusing, but..., er..., I hope that makes sense to you. [Approx 28:26-31:07. Bold added.]

(1) So, exactly which "big words" do I use? As usual, TFB doesn't say. He offers not even one example. Readers are invited to check what sort of words I use at my site, or in answer to this serial fibber -- I have collected all my answers to TFB, here. The longest words I use are terms like "contradiction", which are all taken from Hegel and DM-texts. Perhaps he should criticise Lenin for using this word? If I use any technical terms, I always provide a link to a definition.

(2) What about the "spamming" accusation? Even if that were the case, the only place I am actually 'spamming' is my own site(!), which is where the overwhelming majority of my answers, and all of my longer answers, have been posted. But, what does TFB mean by "spamming"? Apparently he takes exception to my detailed replies to his superficial objections to my ideas. Had an 1870s version of TFB been around when Engels published Anti-Dühring [AD], he'd have moaned about that book spamming Dühring since it went into considerable detail about a host of different subjects. I estimate AD is approximately 130,000 words long, much longer than all my replies to TFB combined.

[The calculation behind my estimation of the number of words in AD can be found here.]

(3) TFB seems to prefer simplicity and superficiality over detail, accuracy, or anything resembling complexity, which might help explain why he swallowed this regressive theory [DM] in the first place; it certainly accounts for his excruciatingly simplistic and garbled response to my objections (see above). One wonders what TFB will now say about Das Kapital (Volume One of which is at least 500,000 words long, if we include all the Prefaces, Afterwords and footnotes), with all its long words, extensive detail, and reassuring complexity? What about phrases like "the relative form of value" and "the equivalent form of value"? Does TFB think Marx was 'spamming' his readers? Or, "baffling them with BS"?

[And no, I am not comparing myself to Marx, merely pointing out that TFB is highly inconsistent over his accusations of "spamming" and complexity.]

(4) Independently of that, TFB's response is reminiscent of the replies one receives from Donald Trump supporters -- which is why Trump speaks like a six or seven year-old:

"The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking angered supporters of Donald J. Trump on Monday by responding to a question about the billionaire with a baffling array of long words. Speaking to a television interviewer in London, Hawking called Trump 'a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator,' a statement that many Trump supporters believed was intentionally designed to confuse them. Moments after Hawking made the remark, Google reported a sharp increase in searches for the terms 'demagogue,' 'denominator,' and 'Stephen Hawking.' 'For a so-called genius, this was an epic fail,' Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said. 'If Professor Hawking wants to do some damage, maybe he should try talking in English next time.'" [Quoted from here; accessed 19/02/2018. Paragraphs merged; quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"'People like the idea that deep down, the world is simple; that they can grasp it and that politicians can't,' John Hibbing, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska, told Wonkblog. 'That's certainly a message that I think Trump is radiating.'" [Quoted from here; accessed 19/02/2018. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site.]

"In an era of fierce partisanship and polarization, when media are fragmented and under attack, it's understandable that people would reach back to an idealized era. But just as Trump supporters are misled in their nostalgia for an America where white workers had well-paying jobs and white men reigned supreme, so too are the Americans who long for a bygone era of bipartisanship and objectivity. Nostalgia, with its simple answers and feel-good glow, blinds us to the harder lessons of history, and makes it that much tougher to enact effective political change." [Quoted from here; accessed 19/02/2018.]

"At Thursday night's Republican presidential debate, Ben Carson delivered an opening statement about 'the abyss of destruction.' An analysis shows he was communicating at the level of a 10th-grader's comprehension. Marco Rubio, who spoke of 'the identity of America in the 21st century,' was also at the high-school level. Ted Cruz and John Kasich were at middle-school comprehension levels.

"And then there was Trump -- at a third-grade level: 'We don’t win anymore.... We're going to make a great country again. We're going to start winning again. We're going to win a lot. It's going to be a big difference, believe me.' This was no anomaly. Some noticed Trump's peculiarly prosaic prose early in the campaign, but it has become even more pronounced: Simple words. Simple sentences. Simple concepts....

"But, on some primal level, it works. Americans -- particularly those who are angry and anxious, as Trump's followers are -- wish to be told that they will be OK, that there are simple answers. There is an obvious appeal to Trump's declarative statement on the Middle East -- 'I am totally pro-Israel' -- rather than Cruz's Princetonian version: 'The notion of neutrality is based upon the left buying into this moral relativism that is often pitched in the media.'" [Quoted from here; accessed 19/02/2018. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Several paragraphs merged.]

Indeed, this speech of Trump's is reminiscent of TFB's garbled comments from earlier:

"Look, having nuclear -- my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart -- you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world -- it's true! -- but when you're a conservative Republican they try -- oh, do they do a number -- that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune -- you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged -- but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me -- it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right -- who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners -- now it used to be three, now it's four -- but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years -- but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us." [Quoted from here.]

I'm saying that you write a whole bunch of stuff, and use big words, and have tons of quotes, but still, at the end of the day, it's all worthless. Doesn't prove anything. Doesn't debunk anything. It's all basically a huge waste of time, but it..., but it looks so impressive, or it..., it looks daunting, so that you're..., you're able to get away with it.

As noted above, TFB has a serious problem handling detailed argument, extensive use of evidence and carefully constructed proofs -- his videos (about me) reveal this since they are evidence-free and proof-free zones. One wonders what he would say to a critic of Marx, or Lenin, who came out with something like this:

"I'm saying that Marx writes a whole bunch of stuff, and uses big words, and has tons of quotes, but still, at the end of the day, it's all worthless. Doesn't prove anything. It's all basically a huge waste of time, but it looks so impressive, or it looks daunting, so that he's able to get away with it."

Well, we all know how he would react. Like the rest of us he would reject such superficial objections to Marx and Lenin, but apparently it's OK to do that to me.

Someone might object that I am once again comparing myself to Marx and Lenin. Not at all, I am merely making the (uncontroversial) point that a flat rejection of another's argument, whosoever they are, on such lines renders that rejection null-and-void.

"Oh, but before you can respond you have to read, like, this..., er..., f..., fifteen volume book (sic)..., er..., set that I have written..., er..., before you can respond." I mean, I am sure we have all met people like this on line. [Garbled word.] You're trying to talk to them, and you're like..., they're spamming stuff, spamming more and more information at you, and it's often irrelevant to the question. And it doesn't really mean anything or support their case or anything, they're just spamming information just so that you can't really properly respond. You're put on the defensive because of the constant barrage of sh*t coming at you. [Dramatic pause.] You can never narrow the..., erm..., discussion down to the heart of the matter.

True-to-form, TFB prefers to tell lies rather than quote facts, since he will nowhere find in my replies to him that he should read a "fifteen volume book" before he responds, even though he requires his unfortunate YouTube viewers to have to endure over an hour of him droning on and on, making largely the same points over and over again. Many of my responses to him are longer than they should be since I have taken the trouble to include a transcript of his ill-advised videos with each reply. In most of my responses, the transcripts alone take up between a fifth and a quarter of their length. Quotations from the Dialectical Classics (most of which TFB seems to have been ignorant of, or about which he had devoted precious little thought), and other relevant sources, take up another fifth of the space, in many cases. On top of that, I have to repeat myself several times, because TFB more often than not fails to read my earlier replies to him.

(7) TFB alleges that some of what I say is "irrelevant" to the question; but he hasn't read any of it, so how does he know? On the other hand, if he has read my replies (even though there is precious little evidence to suggest he has -- which once more explains why I have to go over the same points time and again, while he says I haven't answered him!), he again failed to quote, cite or reference those parts he thinks are "irrelevant". No good asking him either; he will just ignore you.

That's what your entire website is. That's why I am saying that you're trying to baffle me with bullsh*t. You're like [garbled word -- I think it might be "quote" -- RL]... 'Cause I asked you a simple question, you provide a very, very meandering and rambling all over the place answer. [Here we go again: talk about 'all over the place! -- RL.] Like: "Give me the Stalin quote!" Instead you give me quote..., six quotes from other people. You can give me a simple, short, concise, answer, which answers everything perfectly, or you can give me this stuff that I didn't ask for which just wastes everyone's time.

And it's not just because you're..., you're responses and everything is [garbled word]..., is (sic) long. 'Cause I make long videos, sometimes. I mean my videos are like twenty minutes; sometimes [garbled words -- I think they might be "are way" -- RL] longer. But that's because I want to cover a lot of issues. But, with you..., I mean, your site has..., it doesn't address any particular point very well. And I know that's a harsh thing to say, but..., I mean you could just..., you could just do a good job of debunking the basic ideas of dialectics, but you do not really do that, you just sort of touch on them..., erm..., and then don't do a good enough job and then move on to the next topic. There's like plenty of topics that don't even need to be talked about. Just..., just debunk the core of dialectics and that should be enough.

I mean, I think that this is, like, your only hobby. You just like doing this. That's why there's so much stuff on your website, you just want to write more of this [Loc cit.]

(a) TFB rakes over the same points yet again -- i.e., concerning those Stalin quotes (which he knew nothing about until I brought them to his attention). I have dealt with that topic so many times, for example, here, and here, and here, and here, and...

(b) We already know TFB prefers "simple, short, concise, answer[s]", just like Trump supporters (and other right-wingers) -- a malady that has now been given its own special name by psychologists: The Dunning-Kruger Effect:

"The Dunning-Kruger effect..., named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence -- or specifically, their incompetence -- at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimation of themselves. In simple words it's 'people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are'....

"The implication is that someone who hasn't learned much about the subject would have no appreciation for how much there is to learn about it, and so might grossly overestimate their level of understanding.... The effect can also be summarised by the phrase 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.' A small amount of knowledge can mislead a person into thinking that they're an expert because this small amount of knowledge isn't a well known fact." [Quoted from here; accessed 20/02/2018. Quotation marks altered to conform with the conventions adopted at this site. Some paragraphs merged. Bold emphasis alone added.]

Which is why Trump supporters, right-wingers, and now TFB (as well as those who commented about his two videos, criticising me), prefer "simple answers".

"Many commentators have argued that Donald Trump’s dominance in the GOP presidential race can be largely explained by ignorance; his candidacy, after all, is most popular among Republican voters without college degrees. Their expertise about current affairs is too fractured and full of holes to spot that only 9 percent of Trump's statements are 'true' or 'mostly' true, according to PolitiFact, whereas 57 percent are 'false' or 'mostly false' -- the remainder being 'pants on fire' untruths. Trump himself has memorably declared: 'I love the poorly educated.'

"But as a psychologist who has studied human behaviour -- including voter behaviour -- for decades, I think there is something deeper going on. The problem isn't that voters are too uninformed. It is that they don't know just how uninformed they are. Psychological research suggests that people, in general, suffer from what has become known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They have little insight about the cracks and holes in their expertise. In studies in my research lab, people with severe gaps in knowledge and expertise typically fail to recognize how little they know and how badly they perform. To sum it up, the knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task -- and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at that task. This includes political judgment.

"In voters, lack of expertise would be lamentable but perhaps not so worrisome if people had some sense of how imperfect their civic knowledge is. If they did, they could repair it. But the Dunning-Kruger Effect suggests something different. It suggests that some voters, especially those facing significant distress in their life, might like some of what they hear from Trump, but they do not know enough to hold him accountable for the serious gaffes he makes. They fail to recognize those gaffes as missteps." [Quoted from here; accessed 20/02/2018. Emphases in the original; quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted at this site. Some paragraphs merged; spelling modified to UK English.]

"The voters who put their faith in the real estate promoter seem to think Trump can fix almost anything, including the economy, healthcare, schools, veterans' benefits, military strength and U.S. relations with Israel. Trump, they believe, will sweep all obstacles out of the way and impose simple answers on complex problems." [Quoted from here; accessed 20/02/2018.]

So, it is no surprise to see TFB, a comrade happy to regurgitate ruling-class ideology dressed up as 'Marxism-Leninism', insist on "simple answers" -- something Marx and Lenin would have been the first to condemn. Indeed, Lenin even argued that 'dialectics' requires depth, detail and complexity:

"Dialectical logic demands that we should go further. Firstly, if we are to have a true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and 'mediacies'. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity. Secondly, dialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world. Thirdly, a full 'definition' of an object must include the whole of human experience, both as a criterion of truth and a practical indicator of its connection with human wants. Fourthly, dialectical logic holds that 'truth is always concrete, never abstract', as the late Plekhanov liked to say after Hegel...." [Lenin (1921), pp.90-93. Bold emphases alone added; quotation marks altered to conform with conventions adopted at this site.]

"I demand we go no further. If we are to have simplistic knowledge of an object, we should avoid looking at or examining all its facets, its connections and 'mediacies'. That is something we can easily achieve. An easy answer must exclude the whole of human experience...". [Edited misquotation of Lenin.]

I mean, I think that this is, like, your only hobby. You just like doing this. That's why there's so much stuff on your website, you just want to write more of this.

Again, true-to-form, TFB substitutes speculation about me for facts about me, facts that are easily available on YouTube itself, for example -- which TFB could have discovered for himself had he bothered to check (Ha! Some hope!). He would have found that my 'hobbies' include mountain climbing, science, history, guitar playing, blues and rock music -- as well as arguing with dialectical numpties like him.

Whether he thinks so or not, my site was set up as a political intervention, aimed at making Marxism more successful, since it is my opinion that the ruling-class theory that TFB accepts (i.e., DM) is part of the reason Dialectical Marxism has been such a monumental and long-term failure. TFB might prefer to regard this as side-issue, and sweep it under the rug as a 'hobby', but, if I am right, this issue is of the utmost importance, which is why I have devoted over twenty-two years of my life to it.