Is Dialectical Materialism really necesscary?

[∞]

Throughout my ontological pondering I have turned to empirical science to give me an explanation. I never saw axioms based on Hegel to be able to provide me something with enough proof for me to whole-heartily agree with it. I may not understand Dialectical Materialism very well, but I don't see why we really need to abide by it. This would lead me to believe that its best to ignore it, and just observe nature.

[The Man]

Yeah, it just hurts my brain. If you want your brain to hurt more, go to Rosa's old threads.;)

[ZeroNowhere]

No, it doesn't matter if you accept it when stated so long as you recognize it in practice anyway. Of course, that is only ultimately the case under socialism, where the theoretical antitheses are ultimately resolved through practice (hence communists are 'practical materialists', and insofar as they are materialists take a human society as their starting-point). Likewise, it isn't necessary to understand the necessary direction of the workers' movement, and indeed it's quite possible that the revolution won't be begun in the name of socialism.

[Lyev]

It depends what you mean by "Dialectical Materialism". Some people link it too closely to Hegel's dialectic, and Kautsky and Plekhanov's expositions of 'dialectical materialism' are probably too rigid and systematized. I would not say "necessary", but perhaps "helpful" is a better word. Marx owes a lot to Hegel for his critique of bourgeois thought. This is Lenin's "three sources" of Marxism: German 'idealist' philosophy, English political economy and French utopian socialism. Marx didn't just "disagree" with the thinkers in these schools, he critiqued them. This word itself is in practically every title of all Marx's major works. I would say Marx's notion of critique, which is arguably an application of some kind of dialectical progression, is quite central to how we understand all three volumes of Capital or The Poverty of Philosophy, for example. It is the "tearing away of the veil" to reveal the kernel of truth which exists in every idea. The essence of truth is then subsumed in the following, truer theory that negates the previous one. This is the concept of aufheben, or aufhebung (translated as supersede, nullify, transcend or negate) which Marx got from Hegel. This notion of abolishing something whilst leaving its core intact applies nicely to the capitalist mode of production itself. The abolition of capitalism lies in its own nerve-centre; the proletariat have the historic task of making revolution, and are the remnants of the old bourgeois society that will survive on into the new society. Capital creates its own gravedigger. Of course, this is not to say that if we somehow managed to teach every worker at every workplace about the ins and outs of Marx's philosophical origins then revolution will happen tomorrow; this has it the other around. And as Zero said, I agree: "Dialectical Materialism" does not need to taught or preached to people or anything horrible like that.

[∞]

It depends what you mean by "Dialectical Materialism". Some people link it too closely to Hegel's dialectic, and Kautsky and Plekhanov's expositions of 'dialectical materialism' are probably too rigid and systematized. I would not say "necessary", but perhaps "helpful" is a better word. Marx owes a lot to Hegel for his critique of bourgeois thought. This is Lenin's "three sources" of Marxism: German 'idealist' philosophy, English political economy and French utopian socialism. Marx didn't just "disagree" with the thinkers in these schools, he critiqued them. This word itself is in practically every title of all Marx's major works. I would say Marx's notion of critique, which is arguably an application of some kind of dialectical progression, is quite central to how we understand all three volumes of Capital or The Poverty of Philosophy, for example. It is the "tearing away of the veil" to reveal the kernel of truth which exists in every idea. The essence of truth is then subsumed in the following, truer theory that negates the previous one. This is the concept of aufheben, or aufhebung (translated as supersede, nullify, transcend or negate) which Marx got from Hegel. This notion of abolishing something whilst leaving its core intact applies nicely to the capitalist mode of production itself. The abolition of capitalism lies in its own nerve-centre; the proletariat have the historic task of making revolution, and are the remnants of the old bourgeois society that will survive on into the new society. Capital creates its own gravedigger. Of course, this is not to say that if we somehow managed to teach every worker at every workplace about the ins and outs of Marx's philosophical origins then revolution will happen tomorrow; this has it the other around. And as Zero said, I agree: "Dialectical Materialism" does not need to taught or preached to people or anything horrible like that.

I thought the historic analysis of classes and class antagonisms had more to with Historical Materialism. Does Historical Materialism in any way stem from dialectical materialism or vice-verse?

[Blake's Baby]

I'd say it's neither real, nor necessary, but I've become very anti-dialectical of late. Damned Rosa.

Historical materialism, yeah fair enough. Seems to me that dialectical materialism was an over-rigid attempt to graft historical materialism on to everything. I think we have a better understanding of such things as mass psychology, feedback loops and fluid dynamics than Marx had and can use a wider suite of analogies when discussing historical and social change. But we need to be aware that any anaolgy is only partial.

[ZeroNowhere]

I thought the historic analysis of classes and class antagonisms had more to with Historical Materialism. Does Historical Materialism in any way stem from dialectical materialism or vice-verse?
I think that it would probably be more accurate to call the materialist conception of history a facet of dialectics, rather than something separate which stems from it. I suppose that one could say that 'historical materialism' was fully systematized only in 'The German Ideology', whereas Marx's materialism (which one could call a 'dialectical materialism', and this would be an accurate label, although the term itself has had a somewhat unfortunate history) was already present in the 1844 manuscripts; on the other hand, the further developments are in a sense simply an extension of the basis of the Paris manuscripts.

However, I'm not sure that I would say that there's a definite body of ideas or way of seeing things which could be called 'historical materialism' per se, and in a sense a 'materialist conception of history', a term which Engels used, would simply constitute the application of dialectics to history, insofar as the unique character of Marxist materialism is its dialectical nature, and consequent emphasis on human self-creation through sensuous practice and labour. This dialectical nature also means that it begins from a socialist viewpoint by default, and hence recognizes the contradiction between forces and relations of production inherent in class society, based on alienation and hence the formation of an antithesis between subject and object, the individual and society, and so on, bringing it into conflict with the human aspect of society, in which these antithesis are reconciled.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Nope.
Pretty simple, really.

[graymouser]

The problem as I see it with ignoring dialectical materialism is that most people who don't study it tend to miss the contradictions in class society, how they interact and interpenetrate each other. It leads to different types of reductionism, or what can be called "one-sided" thinking. Properly learned, dialectical materialism demands that you study things in their relations rather than in isolation, and as a result you develop more nuanced and complex ideas with a closer relationship to reality.

For instance, there is a crude "anti-imperialism" best illustrated by the Marcyite tendencies that I think is really undialectical. It blends together all the state and economic forces behind imperialism and makes them a homogeneous whole, with a starkly counterposed "other." By focusing on IMPERIALISTS and ANTI-IMPERIALISTS as whole entities rather than looking at the interpenetration and differentiation of political and economic imperialism, they wind up with a crude version of politics that gets them tailing after a lot of dictators. (There is something of the mock-dialectic to IMPERIALISTS versus ANTI-IMPERIALISTS but it is not a genuine dialectical analysis.)

[Queercommie Girl]

The problem as I see it with ignoring dialectical materialism is that most people who don't study it tend to miss the contradictions in class society, how they interact and interpenetrate each other. It leads to different types of reductionism, or what can be called "one-sided" thinking. Properly learned, dialectical materialism demands that you study things in their relations rather than in isolation, and as a result you develop more nuanced and complex ideas with a closer relationship to reality.


I agree. I would add that a dialectical and non-reductionist way of thinking is useful not just in politics, but also in other fields like natural science, social science, and even in everyday life as well.

Reductionism is not just philosophically and ethically unsound, it is also strategically stupid. If you use it to manage a football/soccer team, your team will be relegated. If you use it in the dating arena, you will lose your boyfriend/girlfriend. If you use it at work, you will end up unemployed. Utilise reductionism at your own peril!



For instance, there is a crude "anti-imperialism" best illustrated by the Marcyite tendencies that I think is really undialectical. It blends together all the state and economic forces behind imperialism and makes them a homogeneous whole, with a starkly counterposed "other." By focusing on IMPERIALISTS and ANTI-IMPERIALISTS as whole entities rather than looking at the interpenetration and differentiation of political and economic imperialism, they wind up with a crude version of politics that gets them tailing after a lot of dictators. (There is something of the mock-dialectic to IMPERIALISTS versus ANTI-IMPERIALISTS but it is not a genuine dialectical analysis.)On a higher level, both crude anti-imperialism and narrow class reductionism that completely ignores imperialism (like many left communists do) are just as bad as each other. The "truth" is "somewhere in-between".

To be frank, the inane and idiotic opinions on both sides of the debates between pseudo-Marcyite crude anti-imperialists and infantile crude class reductionist ultra-leftists really annoy me quite a bit as well.

[∞]

What I'm getting sick of though, is DM being used as an amazing scientific doctrine. Almost every thread here about Quantum Mechanics has to do with Dialectical Materialism and their relationship. It gets on my nerves, though I'm glad n one here dismissed QM in order to defend DM.

[Queercommie Girl]

What I'm getting sick of though, is DM being used as an amazing scientific doctrine. Almost every thread here about Quantum Mechanics has to do with Dialectical Materialism and their relationship. It gets on my nerves, though I'm glad n one here dismissed QM in order to defend DM.

DM is a philosophical principle, not a scientific doctrine. But I certainly wouldn't dismiss the relationship between DM and QM so quickly if I were you. It might not be correct in the objective sense, but it is a valid hypothesis nonetheless.

But then I'm more of an anti-reductionist than a pro-DM. You don't have to subscribe to the philosophy of DM to be anti-reductionist. I really dislike philosophical reductionism, not least because it always tends to apologise for the most reactionary ideas regarding gender and sexuality.

Another anti-reductionist philosophy is simply utilitarian pragmatism, which is not dialectical either, but closer to the basic methods of experimental science and the basic tactics of military strategy.

I'd say there is something "dialectical" in transgenderism though. (Yin and Yang) :lol:

[Hit The North]

I'd say it's neither real, nor necessary, but I've become very anti-dialectical of late. Damned Rosa.

Historical materialism, yeah fair enough. Seems to me that dialectical materialism was an over-rigid attempt to graft historical materialism on to everything. I think we have a better understanding of such things as mass psychology, feedback loops and fluid dynamics than Marx had and can use a wider suite of analogies when discussing historical and social change. But we need to be aware that any anaolgy is only partial.

I have some sympathy with this. However, there might be good reasons for favouring the Marxist dialectic over these other approaches, even if just heuristically.

Most theories of mass psychology present static views of a manipulable human nature. Contrast this with Marx's rich examination of mass psychology in The 18th Brumaire, where the action of crowds and of social classes are understood from the particular intersections of history and contemporaneous political forces.

Feedback loops might be one way of examining the interplay of social relations and forces but, again, most theories of feedback loops begin from the point of view of a system in equilibrium, so that you can think of 'positive feedback loops' which take the system away from its equilibrium, or 'negative feedback loops' which help to maintain equilibrium. But how far does this describe capitalism as a system? Personally, I find the use of 'contradiction' much more illuminating of the empirical reality of capitalist development, where capitalism chases an illusory equilibrium - illusory because of the contradictions at the foundation of capitalist accumulation. And, of course, a key tenet of the material dialectic is that we should examine society in its development, rather than as an unchanging state of equilibrium. Moreover, how far can we claim that capitalism can achieve equilibrium, without having to concede to the politics of class collaboration?

And even if we concede the usefulness of feedback loops, in order to make sense of them (even as analogy) we need to integrate them within a broader view of social development, which takes us back to Marx's dialectical presentation.

As for fluid dynamics, this is a scientific study of fluids, so any use of it in social analysis will be pure analogy. Human beings and human societies do not behave like liquids and gasses.

[Thirsty Crow]

The problem as I see it with ignoring dialectical materialism is that most people who don't study it tend to miss the contradictions in class society, how they interact and interpenetrate each other.
Well, in my opinion philosophical expositions on dialectical materialism can in fact hinder one's understanding of the world driven by social antagonisms.
Though, that's not so firm of an opinion. Which works on DM would you recommend to a person which would like to understand fully the social antagonisms of his/her day.

[Queercommie Girl]

As for fluid dynamics, this is a scientific study of fluids, so any use of it in social analysis will be pure analogy. Human beings and human societies do not behave like liquids and gasses.


Actually liquids and gases also tend to behave dialectically. Consider the change of quantity into quality: ice melting or water boiling as temperature is smoothly and continuously increased.

I agree with Engels that dialectics can be applied to nature as well, as he stated in his book Dialectics of Nature. However, one should remember that this is only true in a general sense, as an aid to scientific thinking, it can never be applied dogmatically like an absolute doctrine.

[Hebrew Hammer]

This quote seems to sum up my feelings on Diamat atm:

"Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it."-Max Eastman.

But I am determined to figure this madness out eventually.

[Luís Henrique]

It depends what you mean by "Dialectical Materialism". Some people link it too closely to Hegel's dialectic, and Kautsky and Plekhanov's expositions of 'dialectical materialism' are probably too rigid and systematized. I would not say "necessary", but perhaps "helpful" is a better word. Marx owes a lot to Hegel for his critique of bourgeois thought. This is Lenin's "three sources" of Marxism: German 'idealist' philosophy, English political economy and French utopian socialism. Marx didn't just "disagree" with the thinkers in these schools, he critiqued them. This word itself is in practically every title of all Marx's major works. I would say Marx's notion of critique, which is arguably an application of some kind of dialectical progression, is quite central to how we understand all three volumes of Capital or The Poverty of Philosophy, for example. It is the "tearing away of the veil" to reveal the kernel of truth which exists in every idea. The essence of truth is then subsumed in the following, truer theory that negates the previous one. This is the concept of aufheben, or aufhebung (translated as supersede, nullify, transcend or negate) which Marx got from Hegel. This notion of abolishing something whilst leaving its core intact applies nicely to the capitalist mode of production itself. The abolition of capitalism lies in its own nerve-centre; the proletariat have the historic task of making revolution, and are the remnants of the old bourgeois society that will survive on into the new society. Capital creates its own gravedigger. Of course, this is not to say that if we somehow managed to teach every worker at every workplace about the ins and outs of Marx's philosophical origins then revolution will happen tomorrow; this has it the other around. And as Zero said, I agree: "Dialectical Materialism" does not need to taught or preached to people or anything horrible like that.

Indeed. What we see is that "dialectical materialism" is often used here as an alias of "dialectic of nature" and similar ontologisations of the dialectic method. But such ontologisations cannot be materialist at all, as they are Hegelian or semi-Hegelian attempts to impose method into matter.

However, a proper use of the phrase "dialectical materialism" should stem from Marx's acception/rejection of Hegel's method:


My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire.

This is what I would call dialectical materialism, and certainly has nothing to do with "dialectics of nature".

Luís Henrique

[Kronsteen]

The majority of marxists have no interest in or knowledge of marxist philosophy. But they seem to manage pretty well without it.

It's mainly the leadership who try to show a mastery of 'dialectics' in their speeches - for some reason, we like to think of our leaders as intellectuals.


But I am determined to figure this madness out eventually.

What if there's nothing to figure out? Theologins have been trying for centuries to figure out scriptures, and they'll be doing it until their religions die, precisely because there's nothing to discover.

[Queercommie Girl]

Natural Dialectics is not without its problems, but I'd rather have natural dialectics than crude biological reductionism on any day.

[Kronsteen]

Natural Dialectics is not without its problems, but I'd rather have natural dialectics than crude biological reductionism on any day.

That's called a 'False Dilemma'. Which makes it a profoundly undialectical way of conceiving the question.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's called a 'False Dilemma'. Which makes it a profoundly undialectical way of conceiving the question.

My point is that dialectical materialism is generally better than reductionism, I'm not literally counterposing the two of them. It's a manner of speaking.

And I didn't say it is a "dialectical" way of conceiving the question either. That would indeed be taking dialectical philosophy too far.

[black magick hustla]

The problem as I see it with ignoring dialectical materialism is that most people who don't study it tend to miss the contradictions in class society, how they interact and interpenetrate each other. It leads to different types of reductionism, or what can be called "one-sided" thinking. Properly learned, dialectical materialism demands that you study things in their relations rather than in isolation, and as a result you develop more nuanced and complex ideas with a closer relationship to reality.

i dont think nuanced political opinions are contingent to "dialectical materialism" whatever that means. i think some people who derived their philosophical background from poor, second-hand marxist "philosophers" like trotsky's and stalin's philosophical work think marx had a sort of "axiomatic" method that could be applied clearcut to situations, i.e. the talk of quantitative change to qualitative, negation, etc. marx's "dialectics" were mostly heuristic and most of the time it just meant analyzing the interdependence of social dynamics, not a sort of exact doctrine.



For instance, there is a crude "anti-imperialism" best illustrated by the Marcyite tendencies that I think is really undialectical. It blends together all the state and economic forces behind imperialism and makes them a homogeneous whole, with a starkly counterposed "other." By focusing on IMPERIALISTS and ANTI-IMPERIALISTS as whole entities rather than looking at the interpenetration and differentiation of political and economic imperialism, they wind up with a crude version of politics that gets them tailing after a lot of dictators. (There is something of the mock-dialectic to IMPERIALISTS versus ANTI-IMPERIALISTS but it is not a genuine dialectical analysis.)

i think marcyte theoretical unsophistication has more to do with them being a corpse of cold war geopolitics than anything else

[Zanthorus]

Theologins have been trying for centuries to figure out scriptures, and they'll be doing it until their religions die, precisely because there's nothing to discover.

This is a bad example. I'm not overly familiar with the subject myself, but there are in fact secular biblical scholars who believe that parts of the bible could be interpreted as metaphors for various points of human history or who analyse the teachings of the bible in terms of the needs of the community at the point any particular story was written. So there is something to discover, but only if you take a materialist attitude to the material.

[Kronsteen]

are in fact secular biblical scholars who believe that parts of the bible could be interpreted as metaphors for various points of human history or who analyse the teachings of the bible in terms of the needs of the community

There are indeed biblical scholars who try to resolve theology into history. Obviously I'm talking about biblical scholars who try to resolve unclear theology into clear theology - to demystify while keeping the mystery, as though that were possible.