social dialectics

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not sure if this thread belongs to Learning, but what the hell.

I've been scanning the debate on dialectical materialism (gasp) for quite a while, and there's something I'd like to learn about.

At the end there was talk about "social dialectics".
Now, I'd like to learn more about such a method, in short, what does it presuppose and what is its epistemological foundation.

And I'd like that anti-dialecticians do not meddle too much, if that's even possible.

[A.R.Amistad]

These might help:
http://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/sampler.htm

[blake 3:17]

The most important dialectical relationship with capitalism/imperialism is between the constant socialization of modes of production (resource extraction and distribution of labour on local, regional, national, and international levels) and the social atomization which capital imposes in forms of private ownership of production and competition between individuals.

[Hit The North]

At its most general level of expression, it is the notion that human society forms a contradictory totality of mediating relations. The base-superstructure metaphor is an attempt to visualise this unity of the material and ideological life of human beings. It separates Marx's vision of the social unity from the prevailing one of his time which drew the division between civil society and the political state.

The critique which "social dialectics" (I'm using your term but prefer the term historical materialism) makes of dialectical materialism, or the view that development in nature mirrors human social development through the operation of similar general laws, is that it mistakes the real basis for Marx's materialism as being external nature, when in fact the primary basis of Marx's materialism is the material relations internal to society.

Epistemologically, I'd suggest that the contribution the dialectical method makes for establishing knowledge is to employ dialectical thinking in terms of viewing any social phenomenon as a constellation of relations ("the concrete is the sum of many determinations", as Marx wrote); directing attention to the possibility of inner connections between seemingly contradictory or oppositional tendencies both in real human affairs (e.g. the contradictions at the heart of capitalist accumulation) and in thought, showing the necessary connection between contemplation and action.

Boiling it down, the dialectic at the heart of the social, is the class struggle which explains the leaps, reversals, paradoxes and ironies of human history: why a massive increase in the productivity of society should result in the relative impoverishment of the majority; why the extension of democracy results in the further concentration of economic and political power; why technological invention results in longer working hours; etcetera.

[Luisrah]

Boiling it down, the dialectic at the heart of the social, is the class struggle which explains the leaps, reversals, paradoxes and ironies of human history: why a massive increase in the productivity of society should result in the relative impoverishment of the majority; why the extension of democracy results in the further concentration of economic and political power; why technological invention results in longer working hours; etcetera.

I see, does that have anything to do with the dialectical laws?

If it has, and if those are really laws, then how do we assume that class antagonisms and those ironies will end when we reach communism? Do the laws stop applying there?

[Thirsty Crow]

I see, does that have anything to do with the dialectical laws?

If it has, and if those are really laws, then how do we assume that class antagonisms and those ironies will end when we reach communism? Do the laws stop applying there?

Now these are some really interesting questions...which I don't know how to answer so I hope some users with more knowledge on the subject matter do answer them.
But what are these dialectical laws? Who came up with them?

[Luisrah]

Now these are some really interesting questions...which I don't know how to answer so I hope some users with more knowledge on the subject matter do answer them.
But what are these dialectical laws? Who came up with them?

I think it was Marx and Engels, although I've only seen Engels talk about them.

From what I've studied, they are supposed to be laws that are supposed to interpret how nature and/or society works. They are 3:

The law of the transformation of quantity into quality: Means that the increase or decrease of quantitative values/things/whatever can mean a transformation in quality. For example, an atom with 1 proton and 1 electron is hidrogen, but if you ''add'' protons and electrons (and neutrons too) it turns into other elements, with different characteristics, or qualities.
Another example is that if you have liquid water and rise it's temperature (energy), it will sooner or later turn into steam, which eventhough it's water, it has different characteristics.

This is the hardest law for me to apply to society, I have no examples

The law of the unity and conflict of opposites: From what I've studied, it states that the conflict of opposites within things (the inner contradictions of things) that make progress/change possible. For example, atoms have protons in the nucleus (sp?), and they are positive charges, so they repel each other. However, they are together, because the atomic forces keep them together. It is this contradiction that allows elements to transform into others in nuclear reactions.
Another example Engels gives is that of life. For you to live, you have to constantly asimilate and (the opposite, which I can't spell) water and one is always dominant. There are times when your body needs water, and you asimilate more, and there are times when you need to sweat or you have too much water, and the contrary happens. The same thing happens to nutrients in your organism, sometimes you have too much salt, sometimes you have too little, but it'r rarely even, and if it is, it doesn't last long.

This law is easy to apply to society, and Engels himself gives a great example which I believe is the philosophical support that Marxism has. Engels says that while capitalists say that strikes and riots are bad for society because production stops, we communists say that they are good, because they force the capitalists to lower work hours, and give us better salaries. As such, Engels says that it is this conflict of opposites that leads to the progress of society.

Law of the negation of the negation: From what I've studied, this law says that when things change, things must negate what they were before in order to change. For example, as Engels shows, in order for a seed to become a plant, it must negate what it was, or it will continue to be a seed, and while it does that, it gains new things and loses some other things, while maintaining others.
For example, (a wild example) when reptiles originated birds, they lost their teeth, kept their eyes, and gained feathers, all this while negating what they once were before.

An example on society is just the same. When capitalism turns into socialism, society no longer has oppression and exploitation or private property, it keeps the buildings and currency for example, and gains workers control of the means of production and direct democracy.

However, I've always had a doubt about the law of the conflict of opposites. Capitalists can claim that they accept this law, since they talk of competition between companies, saying that this leads to progress. And we say that cooperation is necessary when we eliminate companies.
Can someone enlighten me a bit? :)

[Jazzhands]

inb4 Rosa.

[Hit The North]

This is the hardest law for me to apply to society, I have no examplesFrom the general perspective of historical materialism: a quantitative (or evolutionary) accumulation of changes to the existing mode of production, lead to a qualitative (or revolutionary) leap into a new mode of production. This is only possible because all modes of production create their own contradictions and conditions for negation within their necessary and normal development.

[Luisrah]

From the general perspective of historical materialism: a quantitative (or evolutionary) accumulation of changes to the existing mode of production, lead to a qualitative (or revolutionary) leap into a new mode of production. This is only possible because all modes of production create their own contradictions and conditions for negation within their necessary and normal development.

Well, then what are the conflicting opposites in a communist society (a classless one)?

And could you give some input into this?


However, I've always had a doubt about the law of the conflict of opposites. Capitalists can claim that they accept this law, since they talk of competition between companies, saying that this leads to progress. And we say that cooperation is necessary when we eliminate companies. However it's seems like a contradiction to do that when we believe that it is the conflict of opposites that leads to change and development.
Can someone enlighten me a bit?

[Hit The North]

Well, then what are the conflicting opposites in a communist society (a classless one)?


How do I know? When we get there, you can tell me! It won't be class struggle, though, as classes will have ceased to exist.

I don't believe in dialectical laws which operate autonomously from history and have no problem with arguing that dialectic of class society is itself historically transient.


And could you give some input into this?

I don't know if there is such a law as you speak about. Conflict can be a feature of a number of explanatory systems. However, one difference between the Marxist view of class struggle and the capitalist view of the struggle between capitals (i.e. free trade) is that the latter argue that the conflict works itself out into a harmonious arrangement (Smith's 'hidden hand', whatever) whereas the Marxist view of class struggle argues the opposite.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


At its most general level of expression, it is the notion that human society forms a contradictory totality of mediating relations. The base-superstructure metaphor is an attempt to visualise this unity of the material and ideological life of human beings. It separates Marx's vision of the social unity from the prevailing one of his time which drew the division between civil society and the political state.

And yet, the sort of things you lot tell us are 'contradictions' do not even look like contradictions. Unless, after four years of being asked, you can tell us why they are.


The critique which "social dialectics" (I'm using your term but prefer the term historical materialism) makes of dialectical materialism, or the view that development in nature mirrors human social development through the operation of similar general laws, is that it mistakes the real basis for Marx's materialism as being external nature, when in fact the primary basis of Marx's materialism is the material relations internal to society.

So why did Marx refer to Hegels' 'law' in relation to chemistry in Das Kapital?


Epistemologically, I'd suggest that the contribution the dialectical method makes for establishing knowledge is to employ dialectical thinking in terms of viewing any social phenomenon as a constellation of relations ("the concrete is the sum of many determinations", as Marx wrote); directing attention to the possibility of inner connections between seemingly contradictory or oppositional tendencies both in real human affairs (e.g. the contradictions at the heart of capitalist accumulation) and in thought, showing the necessary connection between contemplation and action.

But, as soon as you try to fill in the details (which you 'accidentally' keep leaving out), the traditional tale you tell here falls apart faster than a politician's promise. For example, what exactly are these "many determinations" you lot keep banging on about?


Boiling it down, the dialectic at the heart of the social, is the class struggle which explains the leaps, reversals, paradoxes and ironies of human history: why a massive increase in the productivity of society should result in the relative impoverishment of the majority; why the extension of democracy results in the further concentration of economic and political power; why technological invention results in longer working hours; etcetera.

But, as I have shown, if your 'theory' were true, none of these changes could possibly happen:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761299&postcount=30

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Menocchio:


I'm not sure if this thread belongs to Learning, but what the hell.

I've been scanning the debate on dialectical materialism (gasp) for quite a while, and there's something I'd like to learn about.

At the end there was talk about "social dialectics".
Now, I'd like to learn more about such a method, in short, what does it presuppose and what is its epistemological foundation.

And I'd like that anti-dialecticians do not meddle too much, if that's even possible.

No chance. The mystics, tired of the hammering they were always receiving here (mostly from yours truly), retreated into huddle in the Dialectical Materialism Group, and banned me from joining (so they could rehearse their catechisms in peace). But, in well over a year, there have been few, if any, substantive posts there, and if we go back to the beginning (in Nov 2008, I think) there have been only a handful of highly repetitious and by now cliched posts one could read in any book or internet site on this 'theory'. So, this 'theory' is about a vibrant as a dead sheep. In fact, the most substantive post there was contributed by me (indirectly via the founder of that group, who has now left RevLeft): a bibliography of books and articles on this 'theory'!

So, if you want to debate dialectics safe from interference from us genuine materialists, may I suggest you deacamp there?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=62

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


From the general perspective of historical materialism: a quantitative (or evolutionary) accumulation of changes to the existing mode of production, lead to a qualitative (or revolutionary) leap into a new mode of production. This is only possible because all modes of production create their own contradictions and conditions for negation within their necessary and normal development.

Manifestly this did not happen, ever.

What was the 'quantitiative increase' that led to the change from slave society to feudalism?

And what was the 'quantitative increase' that led to the change from feudalism to capitalism?

You seem to have swallowed a rather crude form of Second International 'determinism'.