Final Replies


I have been unable to complete my detailed take down of this video because of circumstances beyond my control, but the 'lockdown' has granted me the time to rectify put that right, so here are the last four replies to The Finnish Bolshevik's [TFB's] second video about me and my ideas.


Here are brief summaries of the last four of these responses:


Reply #11:


In this response, among other things, I deal with (a) TFB's lack of knowledge even of Stalin-era 'dialectics' (as expressed, for example, in Stalin's Problems of Leninism), and (b) the fact that I had no idea he was a fundamentalist Stalinist when I began to debate with him and hence why I quoted 'Brezhnev era revisionists' in earlier replies to him. Here is part of this response:


"(4) TFB is puzzled why I didn't know he was a mega-Stalin-groupie when I began to debate these issues with him. I'm not sure why he is puzzled. His brand of Über-Stalinism is still quite rare, at least in my experience. In discussion with others who regard the former Soviet Union [fSU] as an example of 'really existing socialism' (even under Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev), very few insisted on dismissing everything written by Soviet theorists in the 1960s, '70s or '80s because they were 'Brezhnev-era revisionists'. So it was a genuine surprise on my part to discover TFB was a fundamentalist in this respect (who, it seems, hasn't actually read any dialectics even from the Stalin-era, unlike yours truly -- or if he has, it seems to have made little impression on him). Why on earth does TFB think I quoted those 'Brezhnev-era revisionists' (who I also quote in several Essays at my site, and have done so for well over ten years) if I was in any way aware of his Neanderthal ideas about Stalin and 'Brezhnev-era revisionists'? What would I hope to gain from quoting theorists that he thinks I knew he'd reject in this way? In debate with other 'Stalinists', when I have quoted 'Brezhnev-era revisionists', not one has complained in the way TFB has done. In view of that, it was quite reasonable of me to expect the same from him."


I also repeat something from earlier: that an efficient Google search (which TFB failed to do) shows that 'external contradictions' were widely referred to in both Stalin's and Mao's years. I have posted detailed results in Reply #4, here:


Reply #11 can be accessed here:


Reply #12:


In this response I cover in detail one of TFB's more blatant lies about criticism of the rather odd idea that motion is 'contradictory' (originally highlighted in Reply #1 -- which was itself in response to TFB's first video). TFB expresses consternation over my allegations that he tells lies abut me and my ideas, but he refuses to read the evidence I have provided so no wonder he is puzzled.


Reply #12 can be accessed here:


Reply #13:


In this response, I once again reveal how garbled and incoherent TFB's videos are (and why I have advised him several times to delete both and try again, but with a script this time). I also respond to TFB's claims that I am trying to 'blind' people with 'spam', and point out that, like Donald Trumps' supporters, he seems to prefer simple answers to complex questions. I note that a 19th century TFB would have stopped reading Das Kapital before the end of page two! And, no, I am not comparing myself to Marx, just pointing out that TFB's allergic reaction to complexity and detail might just be a convenient cover for his incapacity to handle difficult ideas -- including his own theory, DM! We already know he didn't know about 'external contradictions', nor about Lenin's agreement with Hegel's criticisms of Hume's argument against Rationalist theories of causation (which mean that there can't be any 'external contradictions') -- and which I first of all covered here:


TFB also thinks this is just my "hobby"; not so. I am 100% committed to demolishing this 'theory'/'method' (Dialectical Materialism -- DM) since it is my belief that it is part of the reason why Dialectical Marxism is now almost synonymous with failure. Had TFB looked at my YouTube page, for instance, he'd have seen that my 'hobbies' include mountain walking, rock, blues and classical music as well as guitar playing.


Notice my use of the phrases "Dialectical Marxism" and "part of", here. First, I am not claiming that Marxism has been a failure, since the non-dialectical version hasn't been road tested yet. Second, nor am I claiming that DM is the reason for the aforementioned failure, just that it is one of the contributing reasons why Dialectical Marxism has been such a failure. I have explained why in these two Essays of mine:


Reply #13 can be accessed here:



Reply #14:


Again, among other things in this final response, I tackle TFB's consternation concerning my accusation that he tells lies about my ideas; here is part of that response:


"Attentive readers will no doubt have noticed that even while TFB is disingenuously complaining that he hasn't a clue why I accused him of lying, he neglected to click on a link that would have explained it all to him -- this link: here. That link would have taken him to the second of my replies to his first video where I quoted several examples of his bare-faced lies. I have reposted perhaps the worst of them in reply #12, as well as some of that material to other earlier replies to this second video. I do not propose to post it again in this response. TFB has been told many times what his lies are, he just refuses to read what I have accused him of, or he just waves these lies away with declaimers that are as feeble as they are implausible -- like this: "I don't know what you mean" --, and then he feigns innocence or incredulity at the same time as ignoring the link that would have explained it all to him."


TFB also accuses me of failing to understand "basic" ideas, but then I quote back at him this word-salad from Video One (this is word-for-word transcript of his garbled attempt to explain melting ice!):


"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 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...." [From approx 28:26 et seq in Video One.]


What hope have I to be able to understand such 'basic' gobbledygook like this from TFB? I quote and cite other sections of Video Two that are nearly as bad -- or are even worse than the above.


Toward the end of Video Two, TFB says he wants evidence, but when I supply it he refuses to read it. Once more I supply evidence on that score, too, which I know in advance he will refuse to read.


Finally, he asks whether I will "explain [my] position on Lenin". I have posted two detailed section on Lenin in earlier replies, but he ignored them, too! So I end with this comment:


"I have absolutely no desire to explain my 'position on Lenin' to someone who is a serial liar, who can't even read what is in front of him, staring him in the face, and who simply ignores what he can't handle or can't understand."


Reply #14 can be accessed here:



Finally, all four of the above, along with my other responses to TFB, can be accessed here: