I'm sorry to bring up dialectical materialism again...

[BIXX]

But I think it may be time for me to put some real effort into it. I do not wanna try to have an argument about whether or not it's true, cause first, I must understand it. I just wanna know if I understand it.

The way I see it is this: materialism states that thought is a response to the material world (example, I see capitalism is fucked up, thus I look for/try to come up with other systems as a response). Dialectics seem to state that there are internal contradictions that coexist even though they constantly push against one another (bourgeoisie and proletariat seem to be a common example). Now, assuming I was correct about those two things, they way I see them coming together is this: dialectics causes situations to be constantly changing due to the contractions "causing motion". Thus, when you look at two situations that are similar (if not "exactly" the same), and try to come up with a correct response, a different response is correct for the two because the material, even though it appears to be the same, can not be the same.

A really rough example could be how to deal with austerity measures in two situations, taking place in the same city, they are 20 years apart though. Now, in the first situation, the correct answer could be a letter writing campaign, to convince the officials that it'd benefit them to have austerity shut down. However, 20 years later, the contradiction of the worker and the capitalist has changed the situation to where the correct answer is for a general strike or revolt, because the officials get so much money from the capitalists who've been profiting off of the workers, who unknowingly supported austerity due to their employers being shitty.

So, how close am I? Did I just go full dumbass or is there a shred of truth in this?

(Also, please don't post links to other things that are really complicated if I'm weing, cause I'll read it and still not understand it. Preferably I could get someone to answer what it is in their own words)

[revoltordie]

I will try my best. Hegel was interested in trying to see the development of mind and reason. Hegel believed that the world we look at is processed through our sense by our mind. Mind progressed from a senseless looking at objects, to the application of universal ideas and concepts to objects eventually putting everything into a conceptual frame work. To do this you have to study your mind with your mind and it takes a very specific time frame to have reached the time when mind could do this. All this is about change coming from within itself so that it can be overcome. The original senseless looking had to be overcome if it was to overcome it's own limitations but it could only do this from within. Hegel then believed that reality was a construction of the mind. This is where Marx leaves Hegel and says that the mind is a construction of the world. That is the materialist part and it then rewrites Hegel's idea of the progression of history.

In Hegel there is a thing called master-slave relationship which occurs when two individuals meet. Remember, that reason is the goal of life. Hegel thought that there would be a tension, that to be only considered a real person meant taking part in combat and risking your life. So one becomes master and one slave. It can be said that this does not have to happen to everyone. The master-slave relationship is not a one way relationship. The slave makes the conditions of the real world in their own image. If they make a chair, they are making a chair not that master. The master is forced to use this chair. This lead Marx to the idea of alienated labor and then surplus labor.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'll preface this by saying that I think dialectics is a bunch on nonsense. But, that said, I think it's unfortunately a large part of Marxist theory and so should be understood for what it is. This is a very, very, simplified explanation of the ideas in regards to your questions.



The way I see it is this: materialism states that thought is a response to the material world (example, I see capitalism is fucked up, thus I look for/try to come up with other systems as a response).

This is a pretty good understanding of the Marxist flip of Hegel. Hegel thought that consciousness determined condition; Marx argued that condition determined consciousness. It turned out that Marx's theory made more sense. So, yes, materialism can be described as the notion that condition determines consciousness. But a better and more thorough description of materialism would be that matter is reality; that matter makes up everything that is real, our conscious mind included.


Dialectics seem to state that there are internal contradictions that coexist even though they constantly push against one another (bourgeoisie and proletariat seem to be a common example).

Again, this is a basic understanding of dialectics. Hegelian dialectics can be summarized as follows:
1. Thesis --(gives rise to)--> Antithesis (reaction to Thesis)
2. Thesis = / = Antithesis (the latter contradicts or negates the former)
3. Synthesis (in order to resolve this tension, a synthesis is formed).
Another way to look at this is "Abstract-Negative-Concrete." So the abstract is the thesis ("I think I can fly.") The Negative is the antithesis (I jump off my roof and fall to the ground). The Concrete is the synthesis (I know I cannot fly because reality has negated the abstract).

With that simplified basis in mind, Marx turned the whole thing upside down.
Instead of starting with the abstract, you start with the physical, the real. For Marxists, the base is people's material reproduction of their lives. This is the start. From here people develop ideas and notions and theories about the world which either fit into their base or do not (contradiction/negation). They then develop a synthesis whereby the ideas are either forced to relate to the reality or are not (another discussion).

You can also look at this economically. The economic state grows and grows, always becoming more efficient (thesis/real). But at the same time it is growing internal problems (antithesis/negation) which result in some form of synthesis. Usually the economic state must evolve in some manner or be destroyed. In capitalism the easiest way to look at it is as you described: the contradiction between working and capitalist class.


Now, assuming I was correct about those two things, they way I see them coming together is this: dialectics causes situations to be constantly changing due to the contractions "causing motion". Thus, when you look at two situations that are similar (if not "exactly" the same), and try to come up with a correct response, a different response is correct for the two because the material, even though it appears to be the same, can not be the same.

I get what you're saying here even though it's rather convoluted. Yes, the two situations which appear similar are different fundamentally because they arise from different material contexts.


So, how close am I? Did I just go full dumbass or is there a shred of truth in this?

(Also, please don't post links to other things that are really complicated if I'm weing, cause I'll read it and still not understand it. Preferably I could get someone to answer what it is in their own words)

You are close but I would urge you to look at things simply as historical materialism rather than dialectical materialism. The former encompasses the latter and works perfectly well without it - hence Occam's Razor would dictate that dialectics is not necessary to understand history and, in my personal opinion, only makes things difficult and needlessly complex.

Hope that helps.

[Hit The North]

This is a pretty good understanding of the Marxist flip of Hegel. Hegel thought that consciousness determined condition; Marx argued that condition determined consciousness. It turned out that Marx's theory made more sense. So, yes, materialism can be described as the notion that condition determines consciousness. But a better and more thorough description of materialism would be that matter is reality; that matter makes up everything that is real, our conscious mind included.


Except that the subject at hand is dialectical materialism, not the mechanical materialism you are outlining above.

Basically for Marx, the dialectic of history was this: man arises out of nature but in order to sustain himself must act to change nature and in the process of changing nature changes himself.

Idealism is the proposition that men's ideas determine reality.

Materialism is the proposition that material reality determines men's ideas.

Dialectical materialism is the proposition that men's ideas and men's material circumstances stand in a mutually determining relationship with each other, mediated by human praxis.

Marx's Theses on Feurbach remains the shortest and clearest expostion of Marx's ideas in this regard.

[revoltordie]

What of the idea of abstraction? Going from concrete to abstraction to thought concrete? where did this fit into the idea of dialectic?

[Thirsty Crow]

Basically for Marx, the dialectic of history was this: man arises out of nature but in order to sustain himself must act to change nature and in the process of changing nature changes himself.
Except that this is not the dialectic as it was understood and employed by idealists through the centuries, Hegel very much included. In fact, it is quite the opposite in its fundamental claim and orientation from all of the historical variants of the "dialectic" (the dialectic of matter in Engels included, for instance)


Idealism is the proposition that men's ideas determine reality.This is way too simplistic.

Idealism in case of the dialectic, as found in Hegel for instance, relates to the "proposition" that the concrete, final world has no existence separate from what the earlier metaphysics claimed as transcended reality, and that it is an epiphenomenon of the self-development of the Idea (remember the criticism levelled by Hegel at the various metaphysical proofs of the existence of God - the gist of it being that metaphysics has left the carnal world as a separate, independent sphere, intact, and thus transforming the absolute into something that is actually determined; whereas the dialectic is concerned, there is only the self-determining, self-moving path of the unfolding Idea). There, strictly speaking, are no men whose ideas "determine" reality here, as these men are merely one of the myriad of temporary embodiments of the idea. There is no matter here to speak of.

So, to conclude, you really misrepresent the claims of idealism, as it is most certainly not "men's ideas" that "determine" reality, but the Idea.


Materialism is the proposition that material reality determines men's ideas.Again, way to simplistic and misleading, and it is easily visible how these defintions are actually tailored to support an already assumed "mix" of the best of idealism (the "active side developed by idealism") and materialism (the existence of matter independent of human thought) resulting in "dialectical materialism" (disregarding the fact that all that was done by this dialectical thought was the very execution, destruction of the concrete reality Marxists speak of with ease)


Dialectical materialism is the proposition that men's ideas and men's material circumstances stand in a mutually determining relationship with each other, mediated by human praxis.Well, this is just common sense. If that's all there is to dialectical materialism, then fine. But this isn't the case unfortunately.


What of the idea of abstraction? Going from concrete to abstraction to thought concrete? where did this fit into the idea of dialectic?
What is meant in most cases by "abstraction" is isolating in thought a specific phenomenon or process from its immediate "environment", and studying it in its isolation which yields the fruit of this abstraction - the category (for instance, the category of wage labour remains one sided - which is synonymous with "abstract" - when it is not yet counter-posed to that of capital - or in other words, to understand what is fundamental in wage labour we need to look at its relationship to capital and all that results from this). The end result is the concrete, which is "concrete" in the first place because of the work of study on interactions in a given object (the object being society here), because of the study of its many "determinations" and not just one for instance, reproduced in thought.

Again, this is nothing so complex and definitely nothing worthy of being dialectically mystified.

[Hit The North]

Except that this is not the dialectic as it was understood and employed by idealists through the centuries, Hegel very much included. In fact, it is quite the opposite in its fundamental claim and orientation from all of the historical variants of the "dialectic" (the dialectic of matter in Engels included, for instance)


Voila! The genius of Karl Marx.


This is way too simplistic.


Obviously any one-sentence summary of a philosophical tradition is bound to be absurdly simplistic. And I'll concede that the summary of idealism is also misleading given that Hegel's system was the summation of idealism and was the specific doctrine that Marx was critiquing. However, I'd appreciate it if you elaborated on your objection to the way I characterise materialism.


Again, way to simplistic and misleading, and it is easily visible how these definitions are actually tailored to support an already assumed "mix" of the best of idealism (the "active side developed by idealism") and materialism (the existence of matter independent of human thought) resulting in "dialectical materialism"
This is a good summary of how I remember Marx and/or Engels summing up their relationship to the two prevailing philosophical traditions. Are arguing that they were wrong?


(disregarding the fact that all that was done by this dialectical thought was the very execution, destruction of the concrete reality Marxists speak of with ease) I'm not sure what this means and would be thankful if you explained it to me.


Well, this is just common sense. If that's all there is to dialectical materialism, then fine. But this isn't the case unfortunately.


Well, at least according to Marx and Engels, it was an article of common sense that eluded the apprehension of the great philosophers. Besides, sometimes there is nothing more revolutionary than a good dose of common sense, particularly in an age when people are clinging to the illusions of their age.

[Thirsty Crow]

Obviously any one-sentence summary of a philosophical tradition is bound to be absurdly simplistic. And I'll concede that the summary of idealism is also misleading given that Hegel's system was the summation of idealism and was the specific doctrine that Marx was critiquing.


I'm not sure what this means and would be thankful if you explained it to me.
I thought it was clear since you didn't criticize what I wrote. I'll repost that and let me know if this needs further elaboration:


Idealism in case of the dialectic, as found in Hegel for instance, relates to the "proposition" that the concrete, final world has no existence separate from what the earlier metaphysics claimed as transcended reality, and that it is an epiphenomenon of the self-development of the Idea (remember the criticism levelled by Hegel at the various metaphysical proofs of the existence of God - the gist of it being that metaphysics has left the carnal world as a separate, independent sphere, intact, and thus transforming the absolute into something that is actually determined; whereas the dialectic is concerned, there is only the self-determining, self-moving path of the unfolding Idea). There, strictly speaking, are no men whose ideas "determine" reality here, as these men are merely one of the myriad of temporary embodiments of the idea. There is no matter here to speak of.
So, this destruction of matter itself as distinct and independent from the Idea is a kind of an imaginary act. Which implies the difference between what you say about men's ideas determining reality, at least in connotations.


However, I'd appreciate it if you elaborated on your objection to the way I characterise materialism.Well, as a starting point, your characterisation is carried out only in relation to people holding ideas. And as such, no, materialism cannot be taken as a whole to claim, "mechanically", that conditions determine ideas, as it is in fact a simpler underlying proposition and the basis of all of science: that knowledge and ideas are always knowledge about a concrete object which exists independently of the observer (though that doesn't mean that the oberver and the analyst does not take part in it), while that object cannot be accounted for by recourse to any kind of an apriori reasoning, but rather to empirically verifiable hypotheses.

The problem with "old materialism" criticized by Marx was its faulty understanding of human life in society - human practice - which meant that it could do nothing other than disregard it, and fix it as a totally separate sphere.


This is a good summary of how I remember Marx and/or Engels summing up their relationship to the two prevailing philosophical traditions. Are arguing that they were wrong?
What was "best" about idealism was not the way it dealt with the active side, and the consequent results (destruction of carnal, finite reality), but that it actually had some notion of that very active side. The "best" thing about idealism was that it tried to incorporate a definite aspect of reality but really couldn't. The mix consists of materialism taking the bounty, that new field, but not at the cost of morphing into idealism. So the mix can be said to consist of the topic, the object of investigation ("the active side") which didn't even exist as such for one side (materialism), and which was distorted beyond recognition by the other (idealism).


Well, at least according to Marx and Engels, it was an article of common sense that eluded the apprehension of the great philosophers. No wonder that the ideologues of the ruling class would fall into this trap. After all, we've got Marx's criticism of ideology as a stepping stone from which to think about the relationship of social class position and the production of ideas, don't we?


Besides, sometimes there is nothing more revolutionary than a good dose of common sense, particularly in an age when people are clinging to the illusions of their age.Hell yeah, I agree totally.



The way I see it is this: materialism states that thought is a response to the material world (example, I see capitalism is fucked up, thus I look for/try to come up with other systems as a response).
Not quite.

Any materialist worth its name would have to consider thought, ideas, as part of that very same material world, and not a mere response, as it is the fundamental way that human beings appropriate nature as the means of our life - through labor, but this is always labour already conscious of its purpose (this is not to be interpreted teleologically), an activity which consciously transforms nature to human ends


Dialectics seem to state that there are internal contradictions that coexist even though they constantly push against one another (bourgeoisie and proletariat seem to be a common example). Now, assuming I was correct about those two things, they way I see them coming together is this: dialectics causes situations to be constantly changing due to the contractions "causing motion".

This is a very convoluted way to state something simple.

First of all, dialectics as a philosophy of motion as such - which can only be an abstract motion since we have no real motion as object of analysis but the idea of motion - and about contradictions as such, is mere nonsense, an idea about an idea all the while real practice is nowhere to be found.

For example, the changing situation can be very well explained once it is even specified what actually changed. The changes in leisure time use - let's suppose a study discovered that this actually occurred and that most people use 70% of their non-working time watching TV - do we need contradictions setting up motion? Or maybe the development of technology and the subsequent formation and promulgation of technical equipment such as TV sets as mass produced commodities?


Thus, when you look at two situations that are similar (if not "exactly" the same), and try to come up with a correct response, a different response is correct for the two because the material, even though it appears to be the same, can not be the same.
Honestly, this makes no sense. Can you rephrase?



A really rough example could be how to deal with austerity measures in two situations, taking place in the same city, they are 20 years apart though. Now, in the first situation, the correct answer could be a letter writing campaign, to convince the officials that it'd benefit them to have austerity shut down. However, 20 years later, the contradiction of the worker and the capitalist has changed the situation to where the correct answer is for a general strike or revolt, because the officials get so much money from the capitalists who've been profiting off of the workers, who unknowingly supported austerity due to their employers being shitty.Well, the reasonable thing to do would be to check the validity of the first approach - to examine the causes of the drive to asuterity in the first place.
But what does enable us to talk about a correct response in the first place?