Marx?

[Redistribute the Rep]

What do you guys think? The overall attitude toward him on this forum is positive but I wonder how many people dislike him.

[BIXX]

I dislike him, thoroughly.

[DOOM]

Fuck Marx, Engels had a nicer beard.

[motion denied]

You mean this guy? LOL

http://www.commdiginews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/karl-marx-never....jpg

[Creative Destruction]

i agree with him more than i disagree.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I like the guy.

I mean, not just for his ideas. I like his ideas, obviously.

But mostly because he just seemed to be a fun guy to be around. There's that story of him and a friend in London who once got so drunk that they decided to pick up bricks and start busting street lights.

....They were of course spotted by the police, who then proceeded to chase Marx and company down the street.

[Bala Perdida]

I hate him. He forced me to read his books in order to speak revolutionary (the language) and not sound like a political farm boy. Also he was a terrible person bla bla bla... his theory sucks bla bla bla. I can't go into detail without waking up the marx babies that'll say he was the great jehovah who discovered racism. However I'll still defend Marxism, but only in spite of capitalism. Fuck Queen (the band)!

[Creative Destruction]

wait. what. fuck you, dude. Queen is awesome.

[Bala Perdida]

wait. what. fuck you, dude. Queen is awesome.
lol! Out of all the things. I love left coms (councilist types) :). Also I said that because I was imagining a 90's capitalist slide show to the tune of 'we are the champions'. But in all honesty, my Dad ruined classic rock for me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Didn't hail the Red Army in Afghanistan. Fucking sovietophobic social-democrat.

[RedKobra]

Without him the left would consist of nothing but bourgeois social democrats and petty-bourgeois anarchists. Yay for Marx say I. :grin:

[Tim Cornelis]

Without him the left would consist of nothing but bourgeois social democrats and petty-bourgeois anarchists. Yay for Marx say I. :grin:

Without Marx we could never have communism?

[RedKobra]

I was being tongue in cheek but yeh I guess if by Communism you mean Scientific Socialism. I think the proto-Socialists pre-Marx are the natural progenitors of modern Social Democracy.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I was being tongue in cheek but yeh I guess if by Communism you mean Scientific Socialism. I think the proto-Socialists pre-Marx are the natural progenitors of modern Social Democracy.
mmmm... don't think it's that simple and clear- cut.

Anyhow, Marx was infallible, like the pope (http://rt.com/news/169272-pope-francis-communism-christianity/).

[RedKobra]

Which bit? If you mean the claim that the utopian socialists begat the social dems & the dem socs I would admit that I wasn't suggesting a pure linage, more that the socdems/demsocs regressed to a pre-marxist/historical materialst philosophy, one where the hopeless proles were too feckless to revolt or govern themselves and instead needed the morally enlightened bourgeoisie to do it for them.

[Alain]

I don't agree with some of the stuff he wrote, but I did like other stuff.
I'll give him a "meh", though i guess I'm mostly favorable towards him. I would identify myself as a post-marxist, I guess.

[Collective Reasons]

I certainly learned a lot reading Marx. I only regret how much I had to unlearn after that in order to read some of his rivals with anything like an open mind.

[fear of a red planet]

Damn it, i should have read the thread before voting. This was about Karl Marx - not Groucho right?

In that case I withdraw my Yay and replace with a Nay

[Rafiq]

I certainly learned a lot reading Marx. I only regret how much I had to unlearn after that in order to read some of his rivals with anything like an open mind.

One should not concern themselves with having an "open mind". To articulate the argument of an opponent properly does not mean to adopt its subjectivity. It is a problem Marxists are most especially prone to making. It is tempting to be a pseudo-Nietzschean here: Marxists ought to be ruthless, and the minute we empathize with our opponents, we are excluded from the caste of masters. It is not doubt which is the greatest sin, it is not doubt which threatens faith - but uncertainty. It is uncertainty which makes us passively certain... In practice of the legitimacy of the existing order, it is uncertainty which weakens the heart and makes malleable the minds of men to the soulless mystery of present conditions - by actively living in them.

Marxism codifies the sum total of all subjectivity - and while any bourgeois ideologue can recognize its truth, only through the possession of Communism can one truly be a Marxist, can one fully realize the actuality of this truth. As the ecstatic power of humanism allowed men and women to reach heights previously unknown by the fog of the church, so too does Communism equip us with means to truth impossible while knelt before the altars of reason. Our minds are open through ruthless criticism of present conditions of life, but to have an open mind is not the same as to have an open ass.

[bricolage]

I don't agree with some of the stuff he wrote, but I did like other stuff.
I'll give him a "meh", though i guess I'm mostly favorable towards him. I would identify myself as a post-marxist, I guess.
what does it mean to identify as a post-marxist? (serious question)

[MethodMania]

thumbs up for marx. thumbs down, or, at best, sideways, for most 'marxists'

[Collective Reasons]

To articulate the argument of an opponent properly does not mean to adopt its subjectivity.

True enough. But if you don't commit to at least understanding an argument before you decide if it is the work of an opponent, that's probably not ruthless critique, but something a little less interesting. Sometimes it is just certainty that keeps us passively certain.

[HampshireGirl]

He never once spoke about sexism and gender discrimination...

[RedWorker]

Wrong and actually it was one of the most important topics for Marx & Engels. Additionally, any feminist theory or serious analysis of sexism and gender discrimination, considers of primary importance the principles exposited by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Marxist analysis of class society, and so on...


Joking aside, great progress was evident in the last Congress of the American "Labour Union" in that among other things, it treated working women with complete equality. While in this respect the English, and still more the gallant French, are burdened with a spirit of narrow-mindedness. Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the female sex.

One of the key characteristics of communist society for them:


#21. What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage - the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.

[Q]

mmmm... don't think it's that simple and clear- cut.

Anyhow, Marx was infallible, like the pope (http://rt.com/news/169272-pope-francis-communism-christianity/).
What about the pope?

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2 Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F09%2FKarl_Kautsky_01.jpg%2F 180px-Karl_Kautsky_01.jpg&f=1

[fear of a red planet]

what does it mean to identify as a post-marxist? (serious question)

I can't answer for the other poster, but for me it means acknowledging the massive contribution Marx (and Engels) made to political thought, to understand how the world works on a theoretical level, and to putting forward concrete proposals for a better world.

While also recognising that Marx and his direct descendents (Marxists) don't seem to have an adequate explanation for how capitalism has developed, and how it capitalism and socialism have accommodated to each other in both the developed and developing worlds.

Marx and Marxists have repeatedly underestimated the flexibility of capitalism to adapt to and take advantage of crises.

I certainly don't think Marxism has any ability to recognise how the working has transformed with the rise of precarity, or junior management, self employment, cheap credit, network theory, organisational change methodologies etc etc.

However I certainly don't want to throw the big bearded baby out with the bathwater - I would as a Post-Marxist identify the massive contribution Marx and Marxists have made to socialism, no one since has come close.

[Vogel]

I can't answer for the other poster, but for me it means acknowledging the massive contribution Marx (and Engels) made to political thought, to understand how the world works on a theoretical level, and to putting forward concrete proposals for a better world.

While also recognising that Marx and his direct descendents (Marxists) don't seem to have an adequate explanation for how capitalism has developed, and how it capitalism and socialism have accommodated to each other in both the developed and developing worlds.

Marx and Marxists have repeatedly underestimated the flexibility of capitalism to adapt to and take advantage of crises.

I certainly don't think Marxism has any ability to recognise how the working has transformed with the rise of precarity, or junior management, self employment, cheap credit, network theory, organisational change methodologies etc etc.

However I certainly don't want to throw the big bearded baby out with the bathwater - I would as a Post-Marxist identify the massive contribution Marx and Marxists have made to socialism, no one since has come close.

I introduce Richard Wolff, a man who I think has used Marxism to explain everything you said Marxism can't. rdwolff.com . You be the judge.

[Creative Destruction]

I can't answer for the other poster, but for me it means acknowledging the massive contribution Marx (and Engels) made to political thought, to understand how the world works on a theoretical level, and to putting forward concrete proposals for a better world.

While also recognising that Marx and his direct descendents (Marxists) don't seem to have an adequate explanation for how capitalism has developed, and how it capitalism and socialism have accommodated to each other in both the developed and developing worlds.

Marx and Marxists have repeatedly underestimated the flexibility of capitalism to adapt to and take advantage of crises.

I certainly don't think Marxism has any ability to recognise how the working has transformed with the rise of precarity, or junior management, self employment, cheap credit, network theory, organisational change methodologies etc etc.

However I certainly don't want to throw the big bearded baby out with the bathwater - I would as a Post-Marxist identify the massive contribution Marx and Marxists have made to socialism, no one since has come close.

If you think these things pose problems for what Marx said, then, by all means, make that argument.

[Luís Henrique]

He never once spoke about sexism and gender discrimination...


The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.


Another consequence of the use of machinery was to force women and children into the factory. The woman has thus become an active agent in our social production. Formerly female and children’s labour was carried on within the family circle. I do not say that it is wrong that women and children should participate in our social production. I think every child above the age of nine ought to be employed at productive labour a portion of its time, but the way in which they are made to work under existing circumstances is abominable.


Rudolph’s reflections do not go so far as to make the servants’ condition the object of his most gracious Criticism. Being a petty rulers he is a great patroniser of servants’ conditions. Still less does he go so far as to understand that the general position of women in modern society is inhuman. Faithful in all respects to his previous theory, he deplores only that there is no law which punishes a seducer and links repentance and atonement with terrible chastisement.


This was the origin of the additional Factory Act of June 7th, 1844. It came into effect on September 10th, 1844. It places under protection a new category of workers, viz., the women over 18. They were placed in every respect on the same footing as the young persons, their work time limited to twelve hours, their night-labour forbidden, &c. For the first time, legislation saw itself compelled to control directly and officially the labour of adults. In the Factory Report of 1844-1845, it is said with irony:

“No instances have come to my knowledge of adult women having expressed any regret at their rights being thus far interfered with.” [105] The working-time of children under 13 was reduced to 6½, and in certain circumstances to 7 hours a-day.


Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism


Joking aside, great progress was evident in the last Congress of the American "Labour Union" in that among other things, it treated working women with complete equality. While in this respect the English, and still more the gallant French, are burdened with a spirit of narrow-mindedness. Anybody who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex (the ugly ones included).

That doesn't exactly amount to "never once"...

[G4b3n]

In terms of my historiography, and I most certainly owe the basis of analysis to Marx and Engels. In terms of economics, it becomes to difficult to salvage was is still relevant and manageable and recognize what has become worthless and even harmful to the labor movement.

Overall, Marx was certainly one of the greatest political economists of history, right alongside Smith and the Enlightenment liberals before him. All though his dogmatic worshipers certainly have a negative impact on the labor movement as well as its intellectual legacy.

[ThesisQuasar]

His analysis of capitalism and critique resulting from that analysis was amazing and thorough, if just a bit complex with how he presented it to his audience. The problems I have arise in his solutions, especially on two major accounts: the means of production, and the state.

First I will give some definitions and then present my case:

Capitalism: Private control of the means of production

Planned economy (marxist economy): Bureaucratic/state control of the means of production.

Last but most importantly - Socialism: Workers democratic control of the means of production.

Marx has two contradictory goals. He emphasizes how the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains from the capitalist class, and how class conflict (especially conflict of interest between classes) is a major source of social stratification and inequality in society. Much of his text describes how society should be transformed into a workers controlled economy where the workers hold all the political power, hence the concept "Dictatorship of the proletariat". Marx viewed that the state could be 'converted' from an aristocratic structure into a social apparatus where the workers 'control' the means of production 'through' the state 'indirectly'. This is where the contradiction comes in, because all he ultimately advocated in this methodology was just shifting control of the means of production from the capitalist class, to the state and the bureaucratic class and left the actual workers with no power or control. my point is that nothing has changed in this transformation. It is class warfare all over again. CEO's are replaced by government officials, managers are replaced by labor commissioners. Nothing actually changes for the workers themselves. "State Control of the means of production" is both in contradiction with and an enemy of "workers democratic control of the means of production". Here is the bottom line: If you want an economy that actually works if favor for the workers, and in favor for the people themselves, then the economy must therefore be controlled and ran by the workers themselves and by no form of ruling class.

Whats the take away with this? Well, instead of having an economy even remotely controlled by a large state apparatus, there are many alternative schools of thought (particularly libertarian-socialist and anarchist schools of thought) for how the workers can directly control the means of production. One such method, and the method I advocate personally is worker cooperatives, which can be defined as " Enterprises democratically controlled by their workers". This concept is free from the capitalist class or any other ruling class and conforms very nicely to "Workers control of the means of production"; AKA socialism. It actually lets the workers manage their own lives, own the full product of their own labor and contribution, work at their own pace, and get to vote on how the enterprise they work for develops. There are no corporate or bureaucratic hierarchies making all or most of the decisions 'for' the workers in such an environment. The workers make all the decisions themselves and are effectively free because of it. ;)

[Rafiq]

Overall, Marx was certainly one of the greatest political economists of history, right alongside Smith and the Enlightenment liberals before him. All though his dogmatic worshipers certainly have a negative impact on the labor movement as well as its intellectual legacy.

How very generous of you to Marx beyond the grave! Surely he would he flattered. Rather, reducing Marx to the realm of political economy is the greatest insult to his legacy.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i would give him high marx out of 10

[Slavic]

i would give him high marx out of 10
Here
http://www.badumtss.net/

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marx remains one of the greatest revolutionary theorists, and an indispensable one for any anti-capitalist. On a personal level, though, he could be a dick at times.

[BIXX]

Marx remains one of the greatest revolutionary theorists, and an indispensable one for any anti-capitalist. On a personal level, though, he could be a dick at times.
I disagree that he is indispensable for any anti capitalist. There are many who are anti capitalists without him and many times more interesting than him, and pose more potential for liberation.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I disagree that he is indispensable for any anti capitalist. There are many who are anti capitalists without him and many times more interesting than him, and pose more potential for liberation.
Marx provided a tool of analysis for seeing through and critically assessing the economic power relations our society takes for granted, and I can't think of anyone else who has done that to the same degree that Marx did.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Here
http://www.badumtss.net/

aw come on, i deserved thanks for that.


on a more serious note I think that whatever his personal foibles (and they were many no doubt) Marx's anaylsis of capitalism is indispensable, at least as far as im concerned.

[Asero]

Marx4lyfe

[OGG]

<3

[BIXX]

Marx provided a tool of analysis for seeing through and critically assessing the economic power relations our society takes for granted, and I can't think of anyone else who has done that to the same degree that Marx did.
So, OK, I'm gonna assume you mean dialectics of materialism or diamat or whatever.

The thing is that it doesn't open us up more avenues of attack, and also generally (in fact, I can't think of a single time where it hasn't) serves the purpose of extinguishing other flames of resistance. It also closes doors automatically on anti-civ thought.

I don't see why we need a tool of analysis to "critically assess the economic power relations our society takes for granted" when we can just look at how fucked those power relations have made our lives, either. And honestly if someone isn't convinced by that, their real, lived experiences, they won't by some analytical tool passed down to us from some long dead white intellectual. In a lot of way I think it holds us back.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The thing is that it doesn't open us up more avenues of attack, and also generally (in fact, I can't think of a single time where it hasn't) serves the purpose of extinguishing other flames of resistance.
How does someone using Marxism as a tool for understanding capitalism "extinguish other flames of resistance"?


It also closes doors automatically on anti-civ thought.
Good. Anti-civ thought is pretty fucked up and reactionary.


I don't see why we need a tool of analysis to "critically assess the economic power relations our society takes for granted" when we can just look at how fucked those power relations have made our lives, either.
Yes, we can, but it still doesn't give us an understanding of how the system works. A revolutionary stumbling around blind is useless.


from some long dead white intellectual
Wow, what an intellectually defensible critique of Marxism that is!

[Alain]

what does it mean to identify as a post-marxist? (serious question)

Well, for me, it means that Marx certainly had a lot of good ideas, but he can be wrong at times. His ideas should be used, but also new ideas could and should be added to his, while ideas that are considered wrong should be discarded and, perhaps, replaced with better ones.
Also, his theory should be adapted to the current situation, if we want socialism to actually have a fighting chance against neoliberalism.
For me Heinz Dietrich's Socialism for the 21st century is a great example of post-marxist thought(and I also agree with it).
Also, I think Marx should not be hailed as some sort of prophet whose words should never be questioned. It just seems too "religious"-ish to me.
And, finally, I generally agree with the explanation fear of a red planet provided, I just wanted to clarify my own stance.

[BIXX]

How does someone using Marxism as a tool for understanding capitalism "extinguish other flames of resistance"?
The fact that diamat or Marxism in general is used to shut down any thoughts or ideas that are deemed un-Marxist, this is incredibly frequent when Marxists have an opposing viewpoint, suddenly they label everything from that viewpoint idealist or petty-bourgeois, etc...


Good. Anti-civ thought is pretty fucked up and reactionary.
I like you, but when you don't know what you're talking about you should shut the fuck up and read a book.

Baedan is a good resource, as is bash back in general (which baedan grew out of and in a lot of ways is just a more detailed explanation of shit in the BB! anthology). While there was some shit I disagreed with the in host is journal that wouldn't bee too bad to try and read. You definitely should read " witchcraft and the gay counterculture" as well as "against his-story, against leviathan".

Those are some really great anti-civ resources that would be worth a read. And most of them are fairly enjoyable reads as well.


Yes, we can, but it still doesn't give us an understanding of how the system works. A revolutionary stumbling around blind is useless.
But we only have the capacity to act, to negate capital and destroy authority over our lives within our lives. So it makes more sense to be acting based on your life, than some mode of analysis that doesn't tell us shit about revolt.


Wow, what an intellectually defensible critique of Marxism that is!
It wasn't intended to be.

[Creative Destruction]

So, OK, I'm gonna assume you mean dialectics of materialism or diamat or whatever.

lol...


I like you, but when you don't know what you're talking about you should shut the fuck up and read a book.

you should probably take you up on your own advice, buddy.

[Zoroaster]

Yeah, Marx is alright. A bit overhyped in certain categories, but he and Engels were pretty smart.

Plus, as Brandon pointed out, he knew how to party.:laugh:

[Pancakes Rühle]

Without Marx we could never have communism?

If one believes "the left" brings about communism, then your question would be relevant.

[BIXX]

you should probably take you up on your own advice, buddy.

OK, tell me, what anti-civ shit have you read? Because I actually know the subject at hand, having read both reactionary and radical anti-civ theory. If you haven't read anything other than DGR bullshit you don't have any room to speak.

[Creative Destruction]

OK, tell me, what anti-civ shit have you read? Because I actually know the subject at hand, having read both reactionary and radical anti-civ theory. If you haven't read anything other than DGR bullshit you don't have any room to speak.

I'm not arguing against anti-civ here and haven't presented any arguments for or against it. Most anti-civ stuff I have read comes from Zerzan, plus whatever dreck you manage to post here sometimes.

If you're going to implore someone to read about your movement, though, its best not to tack on a demand to do it when you clearly haven't done so yourself. Its the very definition of hypocrisy and dishonesty in a discussion.

Diamat is different from historical materialism, which is what I suspect you were trying to grasp at. It is mainly something Stalinists hold to based on a flawed idea that Engels came up with. Its got nothing to do with Marx. Since Danielle is clearly not a Stalinist, I doubt she thinks diamat is worth that much. It is a fundamental difference that becomes obvious if you had spent any amount of time reading Marx.

Don't cast stones and all that.

[BIXX]

I'm not arguing against anti-civ here and haven't presented any arguments for or against it. Most anti-civ stuff I have read comes from Zerzan, plus whatever dreck you manage to post here sometimes.

If you're going to implore someone to read about your movement, though, its best not to tack on a demand to do it when you clearly haven't done so yourself. Its the very definition of hypocrisy and dishonesty in a discussion.

Diamat is different from historical materialism, which is what I suspect you were trying to grasp at. It is mainly something Stalinists hold to based on a flawed idea that Engels came up with. Its got nothing to do with Marx. Since Danielle is clearly not a Stalinist, I doubt she thinks diamat is worth that much. It is a fundamental difference that becomes obvious if you had spent any amount of time reading Marx.

Don't cast stones and all that.
I am aware of the difference between diamat and historical materialism, I was just throwing out terms that I often heard Marxists using to explain what his tools of analysis were. Really though all of them are equivalent in their actual use, whether some Stalinist fantasy or what Marx actually came up with, all are equally useless on the subject of revolt.

[Creative Destruction]

I am aware of the difference between diamat and historical materialism, I was just throwing out terms that I often heard Marxists using to explain what his tools of analysis were. Really though all of them are equivalent in their actual use, whether some Stalinist fantasy or what Marx actually came up with, all are equally useless on the subject of revolt.

So you don't actually know what the concepts are.... you just heard "Marxists" use them. Again, you should really, as you put it, shut the fuck up and read a book. They're not all equivalent in their usage, like I just got done explaining to you.

[G4b3n]

So, OK, I'm gonna assume you mean dialectics of materialism or diamat or whatever.

The thing is that it doesn't open us up more avenues of attack, and also generally (in fact, I can't think of a single time where it hasn't) serves the purpose of extinguishing other flames of resistance. It also closes doors automatically on anti-civ thought.

I don't see why we need a tool of analysis to "critically assess the economic power relations our society takes for granted" when we can just look at how fucked those power relations have made our lives, either. And honestly if someone isn't convinced by that, their real, lived experiences, they won't by some analytical tool passed down to us from some long dead white intellectual. In a lot of way I think it holds us back.

I see you posting a good deal of valid and articulate critiques. In regards to capitalism, Marxism, anarchism, etc. But I never see you purposing what ought to be done. You seem to be the Noam Chomsky of Revleft if I can make that analogy. Can you enlighten us on your anti-civ mode of thought? Explain to us how it is not reactionary, ableist, transphobic garbage?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The fact that diamat or Marxism in general is used to shut down any thoughts or ideas that are deemed un-Marxist, this is incredibly frequent when Marxists have an opposing viewpoint, suddenly they label everything from that viewpoint idealist or petty-bourgeois, etc...
Which has nothing to do with the tools of analysis Marxism gives us, and I think you know it. Considering my own politics are influenced by Marxism and anarchism, it's kind of silly to say to me that "you Marxists are just trying to shut other ideas down".


I like you, but when you don't know what you're talking about you should shut the fuck up and read a book.
Back in the 1980s, before I discovered Marxism, I was an eco-anarchist. I'm familiar with anti-civ ideas, thank you.


You definitely should read " witchcraft and the gay counterculture"
Well, that title is certainly intriguing!


But we only have the capacity to act, to negate capital and destroy authority over our lives within our lives. So it makes more sense to be acting based on your life, than some mode of analysis that doesn't tell us shit about revolt.
My goal is communism. Revolt without theory or organization is rather unlikely to achieve communism.

[BIXX]

I see you posting a good deal of valid and articulate critiques. In regards to capitalism, Marxism, anarchism, etc. But I never see you purposing what ought to be done. You seem to be the Noam Chomsky of Revleft if I can make that analogy. Can you enlighten us on your anti-civ mode of thought? Explain to us how it is not reactionary, ableist, transphobic garbage?
Oof. That actually hurt. Being called a Noam Chomsky just... Ouch.

I don't have the time right now I just needed to make the joke but yeah I'd be down with some PMs or whatever. I don't really like discussing shit in threads.

[MethodMania]

It also closes doors automatically on anti-civ thought.

marx does indeed close the door on reactionary horseshit. ofc it's no surprise that those who hold such views condemn him for it. what's surprising is that anyone outside opposing ideologies does


I'd be down with some PMs or whatever. I don't really like discussing shit in threads.

wise on ur part. better to stick to sniping commies from the brush and not expose ur own bullshit views to public scrutiny

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I am aware of the difference between diamat and historical materialism, I was just throwing out terms that I often heard Marxists using to explain what his tools of analysis were. Really though all of them are equivalent in their actual use, whether some Stalinist fantasy or what Marx actually came up with, all are equally useless on the subject of revolt.

What do you mean Marx was useless on the subject of revolt?

[BIXX]

wise on ur part. better to stick to sniping commies from the brush and not expose ur own bullshit views to public scrutiny

Actually I have exposed myself to scrutiny before, however it never goes beyond simply calling me a reactionary. So I prefer to only converse with people who are actually interested, and if they have an actual critique they can present it to me that way. I do believe that almost everyone who has pm'd me about my views will tell you that I am generally respectful (even someone who brought me up on the mod board, to discuss my potential restriction which was then voted down).

I am not however interested in the internet equivalent of a firing squad. Y'all have determined what you think of what I've got to say before I've even said it, at this point its just a social process of deciding how to deal with me. If you're actually interested in discussing anything with me I will happily pm you but I'm done responding to people whose biggest critique of me is that I'm not a leftist so I should leave.

So yeah I'll keep sniping from the bushes instead of attempting to engage in honest discussion with people who don't want honest discussion, rather they want conformity. In fact, I kinda appreciate rafiq for that, I feel he does try to engage with me, even if he is dishonest and rambles a lot and I consider his views vile- he tries.


You need a tl;dr? Here it is: actually engage with what I've said or fuck off.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I really do like Marx, but it seems like people (especially on this site) seem to forget we don't live in the 19th century any more and that things have changed a lot since then. It also really bothers me when people get so lost in Marxist jargon they become completely unable to be understood by anyone besides Marxists also completely lost in jargon.

[John Nada]

I really do like Marx, but it seems like people (especially on this site) seem to forget we don't live in the 19th century any more and that things have changed a lot since then. It also really bothers me when people get so lost in Marxist jargon they become completely unable to be understood by anyone besides Marxists also completely lost in jargon.Nomenclature is a great way to make one feel smarter and superior, with all those French, German and Russian loanwords. It works for doctors, lawyers and priests. A privileged few, vanguard if you will, who can speak Latin and read the runes.:grin:

[Creative Destruction]

I really do like Marx, but it seems like people (especially on this site) seem to forget we don't live in the 19th century any more and that things have changed a lot since then..

I don't know why this argument is always thrown out there as if it was relevant. No one ever provides reasoning for why this is important. Yeah, things change. So what? What does that say for Marx's ideas?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I don't know why this argument is always thrown out there as if it was relevant. No one ever provides reasoning for why this is important. Yeah, things change. So what? What does that say for Marx's ideas?

Well, Marx wrote in 19th century, now it's 21th century. We should move on dude. Like, you know, we always move away from things when time passes. Like, for instance, when Darwin wrote about the theory of evolution in 19th century and then we moved away from it in 21th century... oh wait.

[Atsumari]

What does that say about Marx's ideas
That Marx's ideas need a patch like Darwin
What amazes me about Marxism is that it once an ideology that looked towards the future. Nowadays, too many Marxists are looking to the past, a statement that was usually reserved for some of our political opponents.

[Creative Destruction]

That Marx's ideas need a patch like Darwin

Here's the thing: when this is brought up, as if it were an issue for Marx's ideas, it's never accompanied with an argument as to what ideas need to be rethought, changed, revised and what have you. It's just plopped down in the middle of the floor like a steaming pile of cowshit, with the reasoning why apparently to be self-evident. It never is, though. I really can't think of a single time, when I've asked, that someone actually responded with a specific criticism.

Make an argument for which ideas need to be "patched." Don't just say they need to be and think it is at all a significant argument for anything.

[John Nada]

I don't know why so many say Marx and Engels were "out of date". Reading them I'd swear the were psychic. Or has capitalism stay, well, capitalism.

[G4b3n]

I don't know why so many say Marx and Engels were "out of date". Reading them I'd swear the were psychic. Or has capitalism stay, well, capitalism.

In the bourgeois narrative, Marx has been dead since his own day.

[Stirnerian]

Less useful than Nietzsche or Stirner. But still useful.

[John Nada]

In the bourgeois narrative, Marx has been dead since his own day.He's like a nineteenth century Tupac.:cool: Keeps releasing new shit long after death. Only fear of death is reincarnation!(It'd disprove materialism):marx:

[Atsumari]

Here's the thing: when this is brought up, as if it were an issue for Marx's ideas, it's never accompanied with an argument as to what ideas need to be rethought, changed, revised and what have you. It's just plopped down in the middle of the floor like a steaming pile of cowshit, with the reasoning why apparently to be self-evident. It never is, though. I really can't think of a single time, when I've asked, that someone actually responded with a specific criticism.

Make an argument for which ideas need to be "patched." Don't just say they need to be and think it is at all a significant argument for anything.
Speaking from the methodology
1. Historical Materialism - This is my biggest problem to the point I cannot even call myself a Marxist. Marxism sees politics as being inevitable with the revolution in the end. Recent history has shown us that society is adaptive rather than going with an inevitable outcome whenever the dominant ideology has failed.
2. Society of Consumption - In places of the world where society has gone from industrialism to consumerism, it is difficult to talk about the working class but writers such as the Frankfurt School and Zizek to some extent have written about this.
3. Marxism as a Science - Marx and his predictions were just off to the point that his followers turned it into a dogma when the revolution happened, namely Russia by industrializing the country cuz Marx said so. Not to mention the Eurocentrism of his s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ philosophy which makes me happy that people like Mao, as crazy as he was, at least readjusted the ideology.

[Creative Destruction]

Thanks, Atsumari. This is, truly, the first time someone has answered that question and in an honest manner, as well.


Speaking from the methodology
1. Historical Materialism - This is my biggest problem to the point I cannot even call myself a Marxist. Marxism sees politics as being inevitable with the revolution in the end. Recent history has shown us that society is adaptive rather than going with an inevitable outcome whenever the dominant ideology has failed.

I've had issues with this myself, but probably for different reasons (maybe?) I don't think this is an issue of needing to patch Marx up, though, rather than it is going back and de-emphasizing somethings that -- through the course of history -- has been shown not to be so important, while emphasizing other parts that clearly are. For example, to your point that society is adaptive, rather than necessarily on a path toward resolving some historical contradiction. I agree with that. I'd say, though, that this doesn't present too much of an issue for the HM framework. We just need to leave at the door the idea that history is some guiding hand that no one is above. That's clearly wrong in general. Rather, we should probably go back and emphasize that people are at the center of our history and we guide it.

Underneath it all, though, the main contention of HM is that, as far as I can tell, history is always changing and is dynamic. I think that's kind of an impossible contention to rebut because it's so clearly the case. But to think of it as some supernatural force that is imbued with a set path, I think is a bit off-key. It's too idealistic.

This is also assuming I'm not getting anything wrong about HM... which I could be.


2. Society of Consumption - In places of the world where society has gone from industrialism to consumerism, it is difficult to talk about the working class but writers such as the Frankfurt School and Zizek to some extent have written about this.

I don't think so. First, I'm not sure that "industrialism" and "consumerism" are mutually exclusive. I think a clearer step here is "industrial" to "post-industrial," since you're always going to have consumerism in capitalism. You're going to have consumerism in all economic arrangements, otherwise there'd be no need for economics in the first place. It's an inherent human activity. (Unless you're using "consumerism" in a way that I'm unfamiliar with.)

For "post-industrialism," though, I really do not see much of a difference between that and industrialist class structure. The same principles still apply.


3. Marxism as a Science - Marx and his predictions were just off to the point that his followers turned it into a dogma when the revolution happened, namely Russia by industrializing the country cuz Marx said so. Not to mention the Eurocentrism of his s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ philosophy which makes me happy that people like Mao, as crazy as he was, at least readjusted the ideology.

I find his "predictions" to be more hopeful rather than concrete, in his writings. I don't think this is an issue with Marx, but rather an issue with Marxists. They misunderstood the "science" part of M&E. I do think, though, that Marx kind of gave the shaft to agricultural workers in his analysis.

At the core of it, though, if we change the framework ever so slightly, and consider that the conditions for communism are a.) just a set of conditions for emancipating humans and b.) are something that people have to actively pursue, rather than assuming that it's a historic force at work, then I think that would free us up, more, to think about the possibilities of the future, based on the activity of negating all aspects capitalism. That's not so much, imv, like patching up a hole in a dam, which implies plugging things up with something new. It's more about applying a different, more humanist, interpretation to what he was saying.

[Artiom]

Studied a lot of his work in order to learn how to overthrow the current system.
Instead I ended up joining this site, reading this thread....

But I voted Yay

[Art Vandelay]

This is also assuming I'm not getting anything wrong about HM... which I could be.

You are and so is Astumari. There is nothing within the theory of historical materialism that states that communism is an inevitability, or that the subjective factor of history (ie: the role of individuals) is of no importance. On the contrary, Marxists have always been quite clear regarding these issues (think of Luxemburg's socialism or barbarism statement, or Trotsky on the necessity of a revolutionary leadership), so it's always kind of baffling to me when I see folks on here making claims to the contrary. It's an elementary point of Marxism and have to wonder if people who repeat these claims have actually ever bothered to read anything by the man they claim they are critiquing.

[Creative Destruction]

well, hey, i guess it's always better to snipe than actually engage in the conversation.

[Art Vandelay]

well, hey, i guess it's always better to snipe than actually engage in the conversation.

What exactly is there to engage with? It's a conversation on Marx and his theories, in a thread about Marx, between two people who either haven't read or understood what is essentially a cornerstone of his thought. I'm not sure what exactly you expect, other than for me to point out you're wrong and give a couple examples as to why. There really isn't a whole lot to go on here.

[Tim Redd]

His [Marx] analysis of capitalism and critique resulting from that analysis was amazing and thorough..The problems I have arise in his solutions, especially on two major accounts: the means of production, and the state.

First I will give some definitions and then present my case:

Capitalism: Private control of the means of production

There was private control of the means of production in both slave and feudal regimes. Capitalism is private control primarily based upon commodity production. The fundamental to capitalism is the political economic movement: Capital->Commodity->Capital plus profit.


Planned economy (marxist economy): Bureaucratic/state control of the means of production.Planning doesn't necessarily imply negative bureaucracy. Planning in proper socialism or communism should heavily if not mainly be determined by the working class and allies of the working class who want to uphold and enhance the revolution. In proper socialism or communism the working class uses the state to assert its control of the means of production. (You address this issue later in your post and I will discuss it in another post shortly.)

[Atsumari]

You are and so is Astumari. There is nothing within the theory of historical materialism that states that communism is an inevitability, or that the subjective factor of history (ie: the role of individuals) is of no importance. On the contrary, Marxists have always been quite clear regarding these issues (think of Luxemburg's socialism or barbarism statement, or Trotsky on the necessity of a revolutionary leadership), so it's always kind of baffling to me when I see folks on here making claims to the contrary. It's an elementary point of Marxism and have to wonder if people who repeat these claims have actually ever bothered to read anything by the man they claim they are critiquing.
I am well aware what Trotsky and Rosa said, but I am referring to Marx rather than Marxists.
And now that I think about it, most of the theory about communism came from Marxists rather than Marx

[Art Vandelay]

I am well aware what Trotsky and Rosa said, but I am referring to Marx rather than Marxists.
And now that I think about it, most of the theory about communism came from Marxists rather than Marx

You're still wrong. There is nothing within Marx's theory of historical materialism that suggests the establishment of a classless and stateless society of free producers is inevitable; nor does he discount the role that human agency plays in historical development.



And now that I think about it, most of the theory about communism came from Marxists rather than Marx

Again this isn't accurate. Marx & Engel's collected works is like thirty volumes. They left behind a massive wealth of material which laid the basis for the further development of scientific socialism. Secondly, they didn't really theorize about communism, as their views were in sharp conflict with those of the utopian socialists of their day.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”

[Tim Cornelis]

You are and so is Astumari. There is nothing within the theory of historical materialism that states that communism is an inevitability, or that the subjective factor of history (ie: the role of individuals) is of no importance. On the contrary, Marxists have always been quite clear regarding these issues (think of Luxemburg's socialism or barbarism statement, or Trotsky on the necessity of a revolutionary leadership), so it's always kind of baffling to me when I see folks on here making claims to the contrary. It's an elementary point of Marxism and have to wonder if people who repeat these claims have actually ever bothered to read anything by the man they claim they are critiquing.

"[The bourgeoisie's] fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." -- Communist Manifesto.

[Creative Destruction]

You're still wrong. There is nothing within Marx's theory of historical materialism that suggests the establishment of a classless and stateless society of free producers is inevitable; nor does he discount the role that human agency plays in historical development.

But he does downplay it in some ways. Not completely, but he does assert in several areas that historical development does not rest with the movement of people, but with the development of the mode of production.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living...."

"France therefore seems to have escaped the despotism of a class only to fall back under the despotism of an individual, and what is more, under the authority of an individual without authority. The struggle seems to be settled in such a way that all classes, equally powerless and equally mute, fall on their knees before the rifle butt. But the revolution is thoroughgoing. It is still traveling through purgatory. It does its work methodically."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/

Just from these two pull quotes, it suggests that a revolution works from outside the realm of the material. He has ascribed it an almost supernatural force, that people participate in but do not ultimately control it themselves. For Marx, the revolution rests on negating capital and is itself some sort of living force with "does its work methodically."

For inevitability, see Tim's post.


Again this isn't accurate. Marx & Engel's collected works is like thirty volumes. They left behind a massive wealth of material which laid the basis for the further development of scientific socialism. Secondly, they didn't really theorize about communism, as their views were in sharp conflict with those of the utopian socialists of their day.

They did theorize about communism, but not in the ways that the utopians did. I mean, what you just said here this is blatantly wrong and the proof is in the Critique of the Gotha Program. Moreover, the way Marx handled his analysis of capitalism suggests that he had a vision in mind. The mere fact that he's discussing a communist society at all hints at a kind of "blueprint," though one much different than the utopians were engaging in. He did not give an idle critique of capitalism and called it a day, otherwise he wouldn't have had much more to offer than what Ricardo already did. (Kliman expands on this point much more here (http://akliman.squarespace.com/writings/Alternatives%20to%20Capitalism.doc).)


"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”


This does not help your argument, really.

As a PS to all of this, your suggestion that Historical Materialism is a "cornerstone" of Marx's thought is correct, which no one disputes, except for the anti-dialectical or analytical Marxist shitbirds. However, that does not mean that HM is set in stone. It is a model that is subject to changes of history and in light of new evidence, just as any other scientific inquiry is. Marx, in several places, warned against treating the framework as a dogma. Engels was very explicit in this:


In general, the word "materialistic" serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge — for economic history is still as yet in its swaddling clothes! — constructed into a neat system as quickly as possible, and they then deem themselves something very tremendous. And after that a Barth can come along and attack the thing itself, which in his circle has indeed been degraded to a mere phrase.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm

What bothers me is when people make the claim that Marx needs to be revised, but with no accompanying reason for it to happen. When people actually offer up the arguments, it's better to sit down and examine them, see if they have validity, rather than immediately writing them off because you have some dogmatic attachment to historical materialism, as if it's forever good and right. You keep saying that we got "historical materialism" wrong. While that could be true, you didn't point out where, and you made no attempt to correct me except for giving vague references to Marxists and go on to question whether I've actually read the material. That is just as bad, if not worse, than those who contend, without argument, that HM is completely flawed and can thus be discarded.

[Art Vandelay]

"[The bourgeoisie's] fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." -- Communist Manifesto.

Also in the manifesto, M&E say that the internal contradictions within a mode of production lead to the "revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or the destruction of the contending classes."

Then we have Luxemburg's paraphrasing of Engel's in the Junius pamphlet: "Friedrich Engels once said: Bourgeois society stands at a crossroads, either transition to socialism, or regression into barbarism."

Engels in Anti-Durhing: "both the productive forces created by the modern capitalist mode of production and the system of distribution of goods established by it have come into crying contradiction with that mode of production itself, and in fact to such a degree that if the whole of modern society is not to perish, a revolution in the mode of production and distribution must take place."

And for good measure we have the pope of Marxism: "If indeed the socialist commonwealth were an impossibility, then mankind would be cut off from all further economic development. In that event modern society would decay, as did the Roman emipre nearly two thousand years ago and finally relapse into barbarism.

As things stand today capitalist civilization cannot continue, we must either move forward into socialism or fall back into barbarism."

Those are just the ones that came to mind off the top of my head, but could certainly track down more if I had access to my books. There were a number of issues with the content in the manifesto and Marx & Engel's political thought was far from mature.

[Creative Destruction]

Also in the manifesto, M&E say that the internal contradictions within a mode of production lead to the "revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or the destruction of the contending classes."

This reads to me like an air of inevitability. The issue is M&E claiming revolutionary inevitability in the face of internal contradictions. While understanding they never put a time-stamp on this, inevitability is only something you can claim in hind-sight, based on evidence of a similar event occurring. This is where previous discussions of whether the English revolution was actually a bourgeois revolution come in, and whether it is necessary to revise this stance upon discovering new evidence. (Which, given Engel's stance on reviewing fresh evidence, they probably would have done themselves, if alive.)

As of yet, we have not seen the inherent inevitability -- as if it were something to happen like clockwork -- of revolution in the capitalist system. What we have seen is capitalism being destroyed but also being reconstituted time and again, and which movements toward negating capitalism itself were absent or had not enough momentum to see through a revolution (which would seem to rebut the notion that revolutions are actually thoroughgoing, per Marx.)


Then we have Luxemburg's paraphrasing of Engel's in the Junius pamphlet: "Friedrich Engels once said: Bourgeois society stands at a crossroads, either transition to socialism, or regression into barbarism."

Is this actually something that Engels has said, rather than Luxemburg badly paraphrasing him? Even so, I'm not sure why we are discussing Marxists, when we are focused on what Marx (and Engels) said. (To which, I'm not going to address the Kautsky quote.)

[Tim Redd]

Without Marx we could never have communism?

Not true. We could still have achieved the theory and practice of communism because a German worker/scholar named Dietzgen posited dialectical materialism and historical materialism at the same time Marx did. Marx acknowledges this.

[Creative Destruction]

No because a German worker/scholar named Dietzgen posited dialectical materialism and historical materialism at the same time Marx did. Marx acknowledges this.

Marx never posited dialectical materialism.

[Tim Redd]

...The problems I have arise in [Marx's] solutions, especially on two major accounts: the means of production, and the state. First I will give some definitions and then present my case...




Last but most importantly - Socialism: Workers democratic control of the means of production.While worker's should control the means of production on a democratic basis among themselves and allied groups, that of course is not the only goal or purpose of socialism. The main purpose of socialism is to be a social formation that transitions to communism. Thus socialism is a primarily a political construct with that goal or aim. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat (dotp) over bourgeois elements whose aim is to realize communism as rapidly as possible (including as well taking into account world affairs and how they affect one country's path to the achievement of communism.)

Various modes of production may be present, sustained, implemented and superseded during the socialist dotp all with the goal to achieve classless, exploitation free communism.


Marx has two contradictory goals. He emphasizes how the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains from the capitalist class, and how class conflict (especially conflict of interest between classes) is a major source of social stratification and inequality in society.It is not primarily class conflict that creates social stratification and inequality, but rather social stratification and inequality that prompts class conflict.


Much of his text describes how society should be transformed into a workers controlled economy where the workers hold all the political power, hence the concept "Dictatorship of the proletariat". Marx viewed that the state could be 'converted' from an aristocratic structure into a social apparatus where the workers 'control' the means of production 'through' the state 'indirectly'. This is where the contradiction comes in, because all he ultimately advocated in this methodology was just shifting control of the means of production from the capitalist class, to the state and the bureaucratic class and left the actual workers with no power or control. my point is that nothing has changed in this transformation. It is class warfare all over again.Where is it that Marx "ultimately advocated...just shifting control of the means of production from the capitalist class, to the state and the bureaucratic class and left the actual workers with no power or control."?

I can't find that anywhere in Marx's writing. I can not find in Marx's (or Engels or Dietzgen) the implication that the control of the means of production should be controlled by bureaucratic class. Realizing also that control by the state does not necessarily mean control by a bureaucracy. Control by the state can also mean ultimate, primary control by the working class and its allies.


CEO's are replaced by government officials, managers are replaced by labor commissioners. Nothing actually changes for the workers themselves.Where did Marx state that should be the case?


...If you want an economy that actually works if favor for the workers, and in favor for the people themselves, then the economy must therefore be controlled and ran by the workers themselves and by no form of ruling class.Again, where did Marx state that during socialism the economy should be controlled ultimately by any group other than the working class?


Whats the take away with this? Well, instead of having an economy even remotely controlled by a large state apparatus, there are many alternative schools of thought (particularly libertarian-socialist and anarchist schools of thought) for how the workers can directly control the means of production.Not sure how you see how "libertarian" as being anything other than right wing, Tea Party, Rand Paul tripe. Freedom is not mainly doing whatever you desire. Marxists understand freedom as first of all coming from doing what is necessary. Freedom may arise from that, but this is something most bourgeois advocates of freedom - like the Tea Party and Rand Paul - fail to understand.


One such method, and the method I advocate personally is worker cooperatives, which can be defined as " [I]Enterprises democratically controlled by their workers". This concept is free from the capitalist class or any other ruling class and conforms very nicely to "Workers control of the means of production"; AKA socialism.When Yugoslavia was structured on the basis of worker cooperatives (post WWII until the '90's) - of which I carried out detailed studies while visiting there - actually many coops had non-communist oriented bureaucrats controlling the coop.


It actually lets the workers manage their own lives, own the full product of their own labor and contribution, work at their own pace, and get to vote on how the enterprise they work for develops. There are no corporate or bureaucratic hierarchies making all or most of the decisions 'for' the workers in such an environment. The workers make all the decisions themselves and are effectively free because of it.Another non-socialist feature of the coops was that many if not most competed against one another to maximize profits for the commodities they created. Unless an individual coop operated in that manner, it would not survive. Thus each coop acted as a collective of capitalists competing with other such coops. Coops were acting as individual capitalists. And this generated the evils, oppression and exploitation of the working class and other non-controlling strata of society.

Only if the needs of the economy are looked at as coherent, country/nation wide, whole whose aim is to abolish classes, exploitation and oppression as soon as possible will the society actually be on the path to communism. To repeat, because there is unitary ownership by the state does not mean the working class and its allies are not making the primary decisions about the political economy and all aspects of society.

[Tim Redd]

Marx never posited dialectical materialism.

Marx never used the term dialectical materialism. However Marx did advocate for philosophy that was materialist versus idealism and for a philosophy that relied upon dialectics to analyze the motion of things in that materialist world. And its a fact that Marx's right hand man, Engels did mention the term dialectical materialism.

Typically those who harp on Marx never mentioning the term dialectical materialism are found on the one hand to hold inconsistent materialist or non-materialist views and on the other hand they tend to object to employing dialectics to analyze the motion of concepts in thought and things in the physical world. [As a refresher: Materialism holds that 1) being primarily determines thinking/ideas and not vice versa. And 2) materialism holds that the material world gives rise to the idea of spirits and not vice versa.]

These persons also tend to object to using dialectics when analyzing the motion of things in reality - or they are opposed to understanding and acknowledging the proper role of dialectics in the motion of things.

I advocate that in many cases dialectics is not the only, or primary tool that should be used to analyze motion. I advocate that in many cases there are other methodologies that can complement/supplement dialectics when analyzing the motion and development of things. Additionally I advocate that in many cases other methodologies can displace dialectics when analyzing the motion and development of things. I also see the efficacy of using only dialectics in many circumstances.

[Creative Destruction]

Marx never used the term dialectical materialism.

He never advocated anything like it.


However Marx did advocate for philosophy that was materialist versus idealism and for a philosophy that relied upon dialectics to analyze the motion of things in that materialist world.

Marx used it as far as to study history. Not the entire natural world. He never advocated that.


And its a fact that Marx's right hand man, Engels did mention the term dialectical materialism.

Yeah, and when Engels "developed" dialectical materialism, it made very little sense. The natural world does not work in a way that meshes with diamat.


Typically those who harp on Marx never mentioning the term dialectical materialism are found to neither hold consistent materialist (that being primarily determines thinking and there spirits don't give rise to the material world). These persons may also object to using dialectics when analyzing the motion of things in reality - or they are opposed to the understanding and acknowledging the proper role of dialectics in the motion of things.

It's unscientific to tie scientific inquiry of the natural world to a methodology used to study history.

[Tim Redd]

Marx never used the term dialectical materialism.


He never advocated anything like it.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier, "However Marx did advocate for philosophy that was materialist versus idealism and for a philosophy that relied upon dialectics to analyze the motion of things in that materialist world. And in German Ideology and Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx used the terms dialectics and materialism in close proximity to one another.


Marx used it as far as to study history. Not the entire natural world. He never advocated that.

Gee, I always thought that history was looking backwards at the natural world, which includes humans, from the standpoint of the present. When and how did a transition occur that made dialectical materialism which was once operative in the history of reality become non-operative in today's reality?

Also insofar as Marx (which he explicitly described in the above mentioned works and elsewhere) sees political economy as a means of sustaining real, physical people in the natural world (Capital, Grundrisse, German Ideology, Critique of the Gotha Program and Theses on Feuerbach) he also applied the concepts of dialectics and materialism to the natural world. And Engels applied dialectical materialism to both human development and to physical sciences. And more importantly, regardless of whether or not Marx agreed, the case can be made that both dialectics and materialism apply to the physical world. Materialism applies to our whole understanding of reality and dialectics is operative in many if not most processes and events in reality.


And its a fact that Marx's right hand man, Engels did mention the term dialectical materialism.


Yeah, and when Engels "developed" dialectical materialism, it made very little sense. The natural world does not work in a way that meshes with diamat.

Your mental blinders are indeed blinding you to fundamental aspects of the nature of reality. Too bad for you. What is it about "diamat" (dialectical materialism) that makes some people deny its existence? If they really studied 18th century materialism and both Marx's and Engels' critique and overcoming of it, many of them would see that there is an essential acceptance of the subjective and fluidity of thought when analyzing the nature and motion of things in diamat.


Typically those who harp on Marx never mentioning the term dialectical materialism are found to neither hold consistent materialist (that being primarily determines thinking and there spirits don't give rise to the material world). These persons may also object to using dialectics when analyzing the motion of things in reality - or they are opposed to the understanding and acknowledging the proper role of dialectics in the motion of things.


It's unscientific to tie scientific inquiry of the [I]natural world to a methodology used to study history.How, why? Especially because Marx himself has explained in Capital and Grundrisse that human development is a natural process and fact that we require and evolve the means of production as a natural scientific process. How given these facts wouldn't there be a plausible link, or sameness between theory applied to both the human and non-human natural worlds. One has only to read these 2 works to see that Marx posits human history and political economy as natural processes and events.

[Creative Destruction]

what the hell...?

[Creative Destruction]

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier, "However Marx did advocate for philosophy that was materialist versus idealism and for a philosophy that relied upon dialectics to analyze the motion of things in that materialist world. And in German Ideology and Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx used the terms dialectics and materialism in close proximity to one another.

You restating your argument doesn't actually mean anything. I know what you said. It's wrong. When Marx used dialectics and materialism, it was in reference to historical materialism. Not dialectical materialism, which is a specific term denoting a general application of dialectical reasoning to all things. Marx did not engage in that.


Gee, I always thought that history was looking backwards at the natural world, which includes humans, from the standpoint of the present.

It's a look back at events that have occurred within history, which is dealing with social processes. Not an interrogation of natural processes. The two are different.


When and how did a transition occur that made dialectical materialism which was once operative in the history of reality become non-operative in today's reality?

Dialectical materialism was never operative in any reality. That's why it's shit. It's a philosophical application to scientific inquiry; that is, it's taking a philosophical supposition and applying it to observations about natural process. It doesn't make any sense. Historical materialism is and was operative. I don't know how many more times I can tell you this.


Also insofar as Marx (which he explicitly described in the above mentioned works and elsewhere) sees political economy as a means of sustaining real, physical people in the natural world (Capital, Grundrisse, German Ideology, Critique of the Gotha Program and Theses on Feuerbach) he also applied the concepts of dialectics and materialism to the natural world.

No, he did not. Not once did he look at a natural phenomenon (that is, something outside of human activity) and apply a dialectical reasoning to it. I dare you to find an instance in which he did.


And Engels applied dialectical materialism to both human development and to physical sciences.

Yes, he did. And he got it wrong.


And more importantly, regardless of whether or Marx agreed, the case can be made that both dialectics and materialism apply to the physical world.

No, it can't. We have a process for scientific inquiry, which doesn't start with the supposition that everything moves in the way that human history does. It's called "the scientific method." Maybe you've heard of it.


Materialism applies to our whole understanding of reality and dialectics is operative in many if not most processes and events in reality.

Historical materialism does not, which is what Marx dealt with. Historical materialism dealt with the history of human activity only.


Your mental blinders are indeed blinding you to fundamental aspects of the nature of reality.

Good lord...


Too bad for you.

Yeah, it's too bad for me that I'm wasting my time arguing with a colossal idiot.


What is it about "diamat" (dialectical materialism) that makes some people deny its existence?

It's wrong. It does not confirm or explain natural processes as it intends to. There are things on the surface that appear to conform to a dialectical materialist understanding, but investigation typically leads you to somewhere else. And that's what scientific inquiry is about: investigation, falsification and the ability to confirm or disprove your theory. Dialectical materialism has a set end and beginning. That's not how you conduct scientific investigation.


If they really studied 18th century materialism and both Marx's and Engels' critique and overcoming of it, many of them would see that there is an essential acceptance of the subjective and fluidity of thought when analyzing the motion of things in diamat.

Saying things like this belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, intends to do and show.


How, why? Especially because Marx himself has explained in Capital and Grundrisse that human development is a natural process and fact that we require and evolve the means of production as a natural scientific process.

In as much as you count human activity as "natural" (to which you consider every single thing in existence as "natural"), but natural science deals with natural phenomena outside of human activity. A historical materialist understanding is helpful when conducting research in social sciences; not when conducting research in natural (that is, physical) sciences.


How given these facts wouldn't there be a plausible link, or sameness between theory applied to both the human and non-human natural worlds. One has only to read these 2 works to see that Marx posits human history and political economy as natural processes and events.

Ugh. It's no doubt you would have made Stalin proud.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I like Marx. I separate his body into two vague categories of social analysis and then corresponding political theory. I think the theory that filters through his writing is outdated and not of much use to us, aside from historical reflection. I also interpret leftist complaints of Marx no longer being relevant to be referring to this aspect of his writing generally. His analysis on the other hand rings true just about every time I go back to it, which isn't to say he's always right. Every time I think the world really is done with Marx I read something that just proves me wrong. Marx is light years ahead of the marxists, who have only gone backwards as time progresses and that's the real source of the issue in my opinion.

Marx should be liberated from marxism and his corpse should be exhumed and fired into the sun as a celebration of his success because the reality is that Marx is done with shithole of a planet, not the other way around.

[Tim Redd]

I understand and support that there is a qualitative difference between the methods used in the physical sciences versus the social sciences. But that difference is in addition to their common basis.

In other words I see both physical and social as operating on the basis of dialectical materialism, however human social affairs have the added layer of historical materialism when studying social affairs. And that is an objectively real layer in human affairs, it doesn't exist for the purely physical sciences.

Historical materialism arises from 1) the dialectical materialism that is present due to the fact that humans are material beings that exist physically and must survive in a physical world and 2) the fact that humans carry out their physical existence in social relations with one another. These social relations constitute the ideological and other non-production relations, institutions and cultural practices of the superstructure of human society that stand over the mode(s) of economic production base of human society.

So we see that human society isn't just a matter of something called historical materialism, but also how the historical materialist aspect of human society rises on the basis of the physical dialectical materialist world in general. This is a physical world that includes the way that the physical reality of human society operates.

[Tim Redd]

Yeah, it's too bad for me that I'm wasting my time arguing with a colossal idiot.

So you are that arrogant and full or yourself that you consider someone who challenges your views with plausible propositions and arguments to be a 'colossal idiot'.

In that case you are another smartie pants, pseudo thinker, who can't face up to what real revolution is about. On this basis you want to deny the essential fact that dialectical materialism applies to all areas of life.

With such types that typically goes hand in hand with improperly objecting to the application of the scientific method to all areas of life.

In actuality, depending upon the nature of the domain being analyzed, the dialectical materialist viewpoint may fully account for, complement or supplement domain specific theories and principles.

In the case of human society dialectical materialism should be properly applied such that historical materialism arises. And historical materialism should be applied so that it enhances our ability to understand and manage human society during socialism and communism.

[Historical materialism more likely than not also applies to extra-terrestrial societies that have means of producing and reproducing the physical, survival aspect of society and which give rise to a state/ideological/cultural superstructure that rides atop those means of production.]

[Creative Destruction]

I understand and support that there is a qualitative difference between the methods used in the physical sciences versus the social sciences. But that difference is in addition to their common basis.

You're being imprecise here and leading to a different conclusion. Physical sciences are quantitative, social sciences are largely qualitative. It's not that there is a "qualitative difference" between the two things. They are one and the other. Their commonalities rest solely on the fact that they take research and data and produce results based on that. That's it. But even within physical sciences, methods are completely different. To spring off that, what you're claiming here is like saying that statistical methodology can be successfully applied in the area of tornadogenesis as a way of explaining why tornadoes develop in some thunderstorms, but not others. The methods for researching statistics and tornadogenesis are completely fucking different, even if they share the basis of data collection and extrapolating conclusions from the data. Social sciences have their own sets of methodologies for reaching their conclusion. There is no one-size-fits-all here, which is nearly the entire basis of analyzing things on the basis of diamat.

Psychology can't be mathematically modeled. It rests solely on personal observation and coming up with explanations for social phenomena, or discovering things and putting context to them. Neurology can be modeled and we gain insights based on data, modelling, and falsification hypotheses based on that data.

The two interplay fields interplay with each other, which I think is what you're confusing for "common basis," but that does not mean that they have commonality in methodology. Their methodology is different. That's why you can't take dialectics, which started off as a philosophy of the mind and which was turned into a framework for analyzing social phenomena and generalize it to all sciences. Marx used Hegel but he turned him on his head -- that does not mean he changed Hegel's methodology. It means he applied it differently; analyzing social phenomena rather than metaphysical. No where in the dialectics that Marx or Hegel used suggests that you could do the same with natural phenomena, such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc.


In other words I see both physical and social as operating on the basis of dialectical materialism,

This is not how physical sciences work. Right now, what you (and Engels) had is a hypothesis; that dialectics can be applied to the physical sciences. Neither of you have done the actual work of gathering observations, testing them against that hypothesis and confirming or denying. And I highly doubt that you could. In the examples that Engels laid out when talking about it, he was covering very surface observations. He did not test the questions he had in a rigorous, scientific manner. And if he had done so, he would've seen that diamat would not have been a good basis for coming up with actual conclusions, evidence or anything of the sort.


however human social affairs have the added layer of historical materialism when studying social affairs.

It's the only manner in which Marx used dialectics. Before Engels came up with his theories, there was no "dialectical materialism." There was only historical materialism, which was informed, in part, by Hegelian dialectics.


And that is an objectively real layer in human affairs, it doesn't exist for the purely physical sciences.

Dialectics doesn't generally exist in physical sciences. I'm being generous here by saying "generally," since I don't know 100% all of the physical sciences, but having a growing background in physics, chemistry and atmospheric sciences, dialectics does not exist as an explanation for anything.


Historical materialism arises from 1) the dialectical materialism that is present due to the fact that humans are material beings that exist physically and must survive in a physical world

Again, there was no "dialectical materialism" present when Marx concretized historical materialism. Engels attempted to concretize dialectical materialism. He did not succeed.


and 2) the fact that humans carry out their physical existence in social relations with one another.

Something that is only addressed by historical materialism.


These social relations constitute the ideological and other non-production relations, institutions and cultural practices of the superstructure of human society that stand over the mode(s) of economic production base of human society.

Which says nothing of the validity of dialectical materialism, as an attempt to extend Marx's method to the physical sciences.


So we see that human society isn't just a matter of something called historical materialism, but also how the historical materialist aspect of human society rises on the basis of the physical dialectical materialist world in general.

Anything social, as it regards human relationships and how we interact with the world, is solely within the domain of historical materialism. There is no physical science for explaining human relationships with the world in general. There happens to be some overlap with life sciences in this regard, but dialectical materialism is not present in these fields, either. Physical sciences deal with explaining natural phenomena (again, "natural" and "social" are two distinct categorizations.)


This is a physical world that includes the way that the physical reality of human society operates.

You're defining these terms into meaninglessness. It's purely abstraction for you. Physical sciences do not deal with abstractions. You need to stop claiming this crap because it has no real basis in anything, other than in your ideology.

[Creative Destruction]

So you are that arrogant and full or yourself that you consider someone who challenges your views with plausible propositions and arguments to be a 'colossal idiot'.

No, you're a colossal idiot because you do not know what you're talking about. You're trying to make ideologically-driven conclusions about areas you have no fucking clue about. It's not an issue of you challenging my "views." It's an issue of you being completely wrong. Your propositions have never been plausible, from the get-go.


In that case you are another smartie pants, pseudo thinker, who can't face up to what real revolution is about.

"Real revolution" isn't about drawing dogmatic ideological conclusions on shit you have no clue about. Considering you're the one with a self-ascribed ideology, you lean more into the "pseudo thinker" territory than anyone on these forums.


On this basis you want to deny the essential fact that dialectical materialism applies to all areas of life.

There is no basis for this "essential fact," and you've given absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is an "essential fact." You're clinging to Stalinist nonsense and expecting people reading this to just swallow it.


With such types that typically goes hand in hand with improperly objecting to the application of the scientific method to all areas of life.

"The scientific method" is fine to apply. You're not doing that. Dialectical materialism is not a "scientific method." It's a failed attempt to ideologically explain natural phenomena.


In actuality, depending upon the nature of the domain being analyzed, the dialectical materialist viewpoint may fully account for, complement or supplement domain specific theories and principles.

Prove it.


In the case of human society dialectical materialism should be properly applied such that historical materialism arises. And historical materialism should be applied so that it enhances our ability to understand and manage human society during socialism and communism.

Historical materialism -- Marx's methodology -- only applies to social phenomena. It cannot be applied to the physical sciences and expect to come to reasonable conclusions in-depth. It's relegated, at best, to initial observations, but try doing that with any science and see how far you get when it is peer-reviewed.


[Historical materialism more likely than not also applies to extra-terrestrial societies that have means of producing and reproducing the physical, survival aspect of society and which give rise to a state/ideological/cultural superstructure that rides atop those means of production.]

Good lord. Shut the fuck up already, you incredibly asinine shitbird.

[Tim Redd]

If you could actually defend your ridiculous stance on dialectical materialism that echoes nearly every bourgeois, academic, twit's view of Marxist philosophy and philosophy in general, you wouldn't have to make puerile comments. Doing so makes it clear you are clueless on this issue.

[Creative Destruction]

lol, unable to actually defend your position, you find the last refuge of the Stalinist. Accuse someone of being "bourgeois" and "academic" without any merit and call it a day. Well done. No doubt Uncle Joe's ghost is proud of you.

Just so you have no doubt, you have no argument. It's purely driven by ideology and not actually based in reality. Try applying diamat to a rigorous physical scientific problem and see where it leads you. Go ahead. Post your results here, with the exact methodology you used, and how it fared under peer-review. I can't wait to see it.

[Tim Redd]

...your ridiculous stance on dialectical materialism that echoes nearly every bourgeois, academic, twit's view of Marxist philosophy and philosophy in general...

[Stirnerian]

This quibbling over theoretical abstractions is basically irrelevant to the lived, day-to-day experience of the working class. No bourgeois Party engages in such analytic debate over its platform; rather they all embody the interests of various segments of the owning class.

It's enough to make one wish that Marx had never written a word. The biggest source of factionalism and political cultism on the Left is the debate over how to interpret Marx's Holy Writ. It is not remotely a constructive argument, advances no cause, and causes not a single member of the working class to 'convert' to revolutionary politics. It's also mostly propagated by those individuals who have been educated in bourgeois colleges and universities and by radical-chic professors.

[Tim Redd]

You're being imprecise here and leading to a different conclusion. Physical sciences are quantitative, social sciences are largely qualitative.

I see that qualitative analysis applies a great deal to the physical sciences and and that quantitative analysis applies a great deal to social sciences. I'm not willing to say that the physical sciences are mostly or primarily about quantitative methods.


Psychology can't be mathematically modeled. Oh, I believe it can when regarding certain aspects or issues. Perhaps not predominantly but at least in large, or significant part.


Marx used Hegel but he turned him on his head -- that does not mean he changed Hegel's methodology. It means he applied it differently; analyzing social phenomena rather than metaphysical.The difference between how Hegel and Marx applied dialectics was not a matter of what domains they chose to apply it in, but rather in how they saw how dialectics arose and role it played in reality. Marx applied dialectics materialistically in that he maintained that primarily material being determines thinking - and not the other way around as Hegel assumed. Hegel's objective idealism assumed that thought/spirit gave rise to and sustained material being. This is why we call Marx's basic philosophical "materialism". This is true because Marx regarded that material being primarily determines thoughts/thinking and not vice versa.


No where in the dialectics that Marx or Hegel used suggests that you could do the same with natural phenomena, such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc.Marx's 1) acceptance of reality in general, which includes dialectics, on a materialist basis and 2) Marx's known acceptance of dialectics as the primary means of change implies that Marx sees change everywhere including chemistry, physics, biology, etc. as occurring in dialectical manner (and how things change is what dialectics is about). On the other hand, while dialectics is a significant and perhaps primary means of motion, change and development of things, I do not think that it is the only means for these processes to occur.

[Tim Redd]

This quibbling over theoretical abstractions is basically irrelevant to the lived, day-to-day experience of the working class. No bourgeois Party engages in such analytic debate over its platform; rather they all embody the interests of various segments of the owning class.

It's enough to make one wish that Marx had never written a word. The biggest source of factionalism and political cultism on the Left is the debate over how to interpret Marx's Holy Writ. It is not remotely a constructive argument, advances no cause, and causes not a single member of the working class to 'convert' to revolutionary politics. It's also mostly propagated by those individuals who have been educated in bourgeois colleges and universities and by radical-chic professors.

Because most of the bourgeois so-called intelligentsia are philistine drones doesn't mean we should follow them. There are very real and significant reasons that Marxists engage in philosophical study and debate and attempt to impart such knowledge as much as possible to the working class, other everyday masses and sympathetic intellectuals.

That is because philosophy (a worldview) determines how one approaches and reacts to events and affairs that have a bearing on preparing for, carrying out and long term sustenance of revolution. For all of these things having a correct philosophical stance can facilitate and speed up the realization of favorable revolutionary events.

[John Nada]

This quibbling over theoretical abstractions is basically irrelevant to the lived, day-to-day experience of the working class. No bourgeois Party engages in such analytic debate over its platform; rather they all embody the interests of various segments of the owning class.

It's enough to make one wish that Marx had never written a word. The biggest source of factionalism and political cultism on the Left is the debate over how to interpret Marx's Holy Writ. It is not remotely a constructive argument, advances no cause, and causes not a single member of the working class to 'convert' to revolutionary politics. It's also mostly propagated by those individuals who have been educated in bourgeois colleges and universities and by radical-chic professors.Honestly I don't think this is even a debate IRL, anymore than the Democrats and Republicans debate Lockian empiricism.

[Бай Ганьо]

[...] 2) Marx's known acceptance of dialectics as the primary means of change (whereas I think it was one, seemingly primary means) implies that Marx sees change in chemistry, physics, biology, etc. as occurring in dialectical manner (and how things change is what dialectics is about).

So, what you actually mean is that Marx saw scientific research as a social phenomenon, i.e. the scientific debate about natural phonemena, evolving in a dialectical manner? That's something different from saying that he saw dialectics as a tool to analyze natural phenomena.

Whatever he might have said, the latter is nonsense, and the former could lead to postmodern constructivist positions on scientific achievements, which are also nonsensical.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Speaking from the methodology
1. Historical Materialism - This is my biggest problem to the point I cannot even call myself a Marxist.

Yes, well, now, most of us would say there are other reasons why you can't call yourself a Marxist...


Marxism sees politics as being inevitable with the revolution in the end.

9mm has already addressed this. It's simply wrong. Marx never claimed that the victory of the proletariat was inevitable - except in one comment in one of his earliest works, the Manifesto. In fact the other possibility - barbarism (although Marx and Engels did not use the term themselves, reserving it for the stage between "savagery" and "civilisation") - was always kept in mind by Marx.


Recent history has shown us that society is adaptive rather than going with an inevitable outcome whenever the dominant ideology has failed.

The problem is that you're not engaging with historical materialism at all. What does it mean that "the dominant ideology has failed"? That is idealist nonsense. For Marxist materialists, social change is not the result of ideologies "failing" (as far as I can tell, the bourgeois ideology is serving the bourgeoisie just fine), but of the productive forces growing beyond the confines of the existing relations of production.


2. Society of Consumption - In places of the world where society has gone from industrialism to consumerism, it is difficult to talk about the working class but writers such as the Frankfurt School and Zizek to some extent have written about this.

So, you fault Marx for something that isn't actually true. The relations of production remain the same as they were in the nineteenth century (and "consumerism", a bourgeois term if there ever was one, is built on industrial production, both in the metropole and in the periphery, with particular dependence on semi-free labour in the latter).


3. Marxism as a Science - Marx and his predictions were just off to the point that his followers turned it into a dogma when the revolution happened, namely Russia by industrializing the country cuz Marx said so.

So, what specific prediction, made by Marx or by Engels, was "off"? In fact I can name some of them - the overestimation of the German revolution, for example. But on the whole, what little predictions Marx did make (Marx was a theoretician, not a prophet) tended to be confirmed by history - the analysis of the French Empire under Napoleon III, the relation between republicanism and the proletariat etc.

And apparently, you think the people in Russia were all blithering idiots, who "industrialised" (to a large extent this meant reaching the level of industrial development that existed prior to the Civil War, at least in the first years) "cuz Marx said so", and not because they had no intention of being mired in the idiotism and starvation of the Russian countryside.


Not to mention the Eurocentrism of his s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ philosophy which makes me happy that people like Mao, as crazy as he was, at least readjusted the ideology.

Ah, yes, this old canard. It's not surprising to hear so from an "Asian nationalist", but then again, Marx is simply not going to be your cup of tea if you're a nationalist of any kind. How was Marx "Eurocentrist"? He focused on Europe because that, in fact, was the region he had the most data on. For the same reason Engels's work on the family focused on American natives. But it is precisely because of the "Eurocentric" recognition of objective laws of social development that Marxism can be applied to Asian etc. societies.


No, you're a colossal idiot because you do not know what you're talking about. You're trying to make ideologically-driven conclusions about areas you have no fucking clue about. It's not an issue of you challenging my "views." It's an issue of you being completely wrong. Your propositions have never been plausible, from the get-go.

Do you actually have anything to contribute to this site except calling everyone who disagrees with you (which happens to be everyone but your own esteemed self, given how confused your ideas are) a "colossal idiot" and variations?

Your argument against the materialist dialectic is ridiculous. First of all, try as you might, you can't separate Engels from Marx on this point. Not only did Engels discuss the matter with Marx, in letters and personally, the first mention of the application of the materialist dialectic to non-human nature is made in a work Engels was asked to write - by Marx. Second, yeah, Engels was out of his depth when it comes to science. He was an amateur writing for a popular audience. But are you going to criticise positivism because of Wittgenstein's ridiculous statements about science? At least be consistent here. Third, to talk about "The Scientific Method (TM)" as if the term is not itself contentious and disputed is just bizarre. Do you think everyone accepts the naive falsificationism you apparently advocate? Falsificationism has been dead for a long time, and deservedly so - God, this isn't even a matter of ignoring Marxism, it's a matter of ignoring modern, serious work on science as a method (well, I say "modern", it goes back to Duhem at least). Finally, have you actually read any serious attempt to apply the materialist dialectic to physical phenomena, by people who are experts in the field? Something like the Fok-Omelyanovsky debate of the late twenties? No? Well, then, perhaps you should learn something about the thought you're supposedly attacking (in reality, all you're doing is showing your own ignorance).

[Rafiq]

Whatever he might have said, the latter is nonsense, and the former could lead to postmodern constructivist positions on scientific achievements, which are also nonsensical.

This would only pre-requisite the necessity of the inherently postmodern notion that scientific progress being rooted in social processes is 'only' relative to those social processes and therefore not properly reflective of reality. What if it was possible to formally refuse to create a dichotomy between the relative and the absolute, and recognize that the only reality fathomable as such, the only objective reality that can ever exist or even be imagined is the reality relative to our social relationships to nature? These social processes do not stem from a mere clash of abstract ideas, they objectively exist. It thus goes as follows - the more complex our means of survival, which is an absolute qualification, the more complex our ability to fathom the world around us in proportion to that social complexity. Is this ultimately rooted in ideology, and (therefore) language? Undoubtedly! But as humans strive, indirectly at least, for better means of survival, of mastering nature, this ultimately would require the necessity of a better understanding of nature - and through that understanding allow for opening up the magnitude of more understandings which aren't immediately necessitated by direct productive processes, but are contingent upon them as a possibility. Scientific achievements are real, just as the social relations which made them possible are real.

Regarding dialectics and science: As I have mentioned before in a previous thread, the minute one consciously adheres to dialectics, rather than forming dialectical conclusions from a widened theoretical stratum (dare I say organically), dialectics becomes a confused employment of formal logic. For Hegel and Marx after him, dialectics was not a pre-conceived theoretical framework to which reality was molded into. Dialectics as a method was forged in the fires of struggling to conceptualize processes of change, which were contradictory and this was perceived as problematic by Hegel's predecessors. These were precisely the problems faced by Kant at the onset of German Idealism which Hegel strove to solve. That processes of change are contradictory is not a theoretical assertion rooted in a pre-conceived framework of logic, it is an inevitable result of trying to conceptualize change in itself of trying to understand the relative in relation to the absolute. The point of dialectics was precisely not an assertion about nature which was elaborated upon, dialectics is contingent upon the subject attempting to conceptualize that beyond him. As we are materialists, the "universe" does not evolve "dialectically" as an unwritten law, rather our attempts to understand the evolution of the universe have to be conceived dialectically.


Not to mention the Eurocentrism of his s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ philosophy which makes me happy that people like Mao, as crazy as he was, at least readjusted the ideology.


And there is precisely nothing more sickening of Eurocentricism than orientalism. The fetishism of non-European cultures, or their exaltation in non-European capitalist societies is a rotten displacement of the antagonisms of capitalism and an attempt to ease their traumatic effects. But make no mistake at all, the whole world may very well be Eurocentric. The entire world today is binded by the same ideological edifice, which is why Communism is possible in any country contingent upon this totality, nay mind talk of "Eurocentricism". Capitalism, capitalist relations had their origin in Europe - they subsumed the entire world. Orientalist fetishism is therefore not outside what would be conceived as a "eurocentric" pre-conceived framework of ideas, as you cannot ever be beyond it, just as you cannot be beyond global capitalism itself. During the onset of colonialism, often times the Colonial powers would absolutely favor a ruling caste of cultural conservatives hostile to westernization in order to maintain stability. The threat didn't come from "other cultures resisting" but from precisely the opposite - the fostering of the same antagonisms present in the heartland of the empire which irrevocably led to demands for the same freedoms enjoyed by Europeans.

There can therefore be no talk of "Eurocentricism" in Marx's works, at all. And you sure as hell can't pick and choose what you want to call Eurocentric. In those places where previous relations to production preside, it is absolutely Eurocentric, for example in pre-capitalist central Asia, to oppose forced marriages and sexual slavery, even from what spontaneous lower class revolts there may have been. What is precisely Eurocentric if anything, is the questioning of one's own foundations - the recognition that Europe isn't actually the center of the world is alone Eurocentric. This cartesian subjectivity was never present in other societies, never present before the all-expansive march for world domination by capital.

[Tim Redd]

You know many of the issues and questions we discuss on this forum are of significance and some are of vital import. I want to participate in discussion on this issues and contribute as I see others contribute.

But there's no way it's going to work long term in a positive way with the regular attempts to belittle and with the swearing at one another that takes place.

Please take that into account and try to restrain oneself. I know every sees themselves as a super brain and don't understand why others just don't accept what they say, but hey take 3 breaths and think about the fact that revolution ultimately is about liberating all of humanity and eliminating all exploitation and oppression. If you really understand and accept that hopefully you'll check yourself and debate in a way that promotes that goal and not it's opposite of bourgeois hate and negativity.

The whole point of discussion here should be to advance the movement for proletarian revolution, in order to achieve its class goal: realize a society free of exploitation and oppression in major part by eliminating classes.

[Tim Redd]

the recognition that Europe isn't actually the center of the world is alone Eurocentric.

You really think that makes sense as an utterance?

[Tim Redd]

It's unscientific to tie scientific inquiry of the natural world to a methodology used to study history.

Not aware where that point has been made. I do know that not only dynamic materialism should be applied to all studies of reality. In addition historical materialism should be applied in the study of of most sapient primate history (and to the study of all sapient species in the universe).

Historical materialism is at minimum the application of the materialist philosophical viewpoint to the study/analysis of history. A prime corollary of this application is that what happens in the theoretical-sociological-political-anthropological-cultural superstructure of a society is primarily determined, or influenced by dynamics in the economic base of society. The economic base of a society may consists of and be primarily influenced by one or more types of means of production that exist prior to and during the existence of the superstructure.

[Dynamic materialism is where not only dialectics, but many other methods are used to study motion, change and development in reality. This dynamicity is in contradistinction to 18th century European materialism which lacked, or eschewed suitable methods for analyzing how things move, change and develop in reality. I elucidate a number of the other means for things to move, change and develop in the thread, Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html)].

Historical materialism is a theory of how economic structures and social relations work in tandem to enable the existence and continued existence of human the society.

Historical materialism is in many ways formulated as a result of applying dynamic materialism to the study human social affairs. Such application gives rise to a number of historical materialism corollaries. These are: 1) the socio-economic formations of human society overall, or long term tend to go through a ladder of progressive changes that improve the legal and economic status of most of the everyday masses.#2, the changes that occur in human society over time tend to weaken and dismantle previous social structures that inhibit the forward progress of traditionally pinned down groups, like marginalized races and enslaved females in reactionary social marriage relations.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't know much about your "dynamic materialism" other than it using complex systems theory, which I found interesting, but not altogether convincing. Regardless, you're not saying anything new here, and largely restating what I've already said about historical materialism, and it's completely different from what we were discussing vis a vis dialectical materialism.

[Luís Henrique]

"[The bourgeoisie's] fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." -- Communist Manifesto.

The Manifesto is a call to arms.

Usually when generals harangue their armies before battle they don't say things like "maybe we will lose"...

But the Manifesto itself says, verbatim,


a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes

So there is little doubt about what Marx and Engels thought would happen if the proletariat fails in its struggle against the bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

9mm has already addressed this. It's simply wrong. Marx never claimed that the victory of the proletariat was inevitable - except in one comment in one of his earliest works, the Manifesto. In fact the other possibility - barbarism (although Marx and Engels did not use the term themselves, reserving it for the stage between "savagery" and "civilisation") - was always kept in mind by Marx.

I think this is a mere coincidence, not another masterful insight of Marx, but I think it is better not to use the term "barbarism" in this context indeed.

It generally brings to mind a regression to other modes of production, which doesn't seem too much probable. Rather, what we are going to see (what we are starting to see) is a process of putrefaction; the mode of production remain capitalist, but the content of such production is going to be increasingly destructive towards humankind (and nature altogether). Guns and drugs are probably the fastest growing markets as of now.

[Luís Henrique]

eurocentric

Unhappilly, the world seems to be eurocentric. Failing to realise this cannot lead to proper analysis of the world, and even less to a proper struggle against eurocentrism.

Much of the anti-eurocentrism we see here (and other leftist environments) is just the fetishisation of pre-capitalist social relations. And, as such, it is eurocentric itself (things are turned into a fetish not because of themselves, but because they are non-European). Just, in this peculiar form of eurocentrism, the "centre" is demonised instead of worshiped.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think this is a mere coincidence, not another masterful insight of Marx, but I think it is better not to use the term "barbarism" in this context indeed.

It generally brings to mind a regression to other modes of production, which doesn't seem too much probable. Rather, what we are going to see (what we are starting to see) is a process of putrefaction; the mode of production remain capitalist, but the content of such production is going to be increasingly destructive towards humankind (and nature altogether). Guns and drugs are probably the fastest growing markets as of now.

I don't think anyone claims society can "regress" to previous modes of production. At the same time, I'm not sure being destructive "toward humankind and nature altogether" is what really characterises barbarism - hell, every mode of production of the class society is like that. Rather, what characterises barbarism is the destruction of the productive forces and the lowering of the general cultural level of mankind. I think that, that in mind, "barbarism" is an apt description, although perhaps not a politically correct one.


Much of the anti-eurocentrism we see here (and other leftist environments) is just the fetishisation of pre-capitalist social relations.

And mostly by people who are not in any danger of living in the pre-capitalist or "native" capitalist communities they idealise so. Our very own Anti-Europäer.

[Бай Ганьо]

This would only pre-requisite the necessity of the inherently postmodern notion that scientific progress being rooted in social processes is 'only' relative to those social processes and therefore not properly reflective of reality.
Yes, precisely.


What if it was possible to formally refuse to create a dichotomy between the relative and the absolute, and recognize that the only reality fathomable as such, the only objective reality that can ever exist or even be imagined is the reality relative to our social relationships to nature?
If the dichotomy between the relative and the absolute were to formally disappear, then words like "absolute", "relative", "subjective", and "objective" would become devoid of meaning, and it would make no sense to keep using them, but this would change nothing to the reality of the dichotomy.

A reality relative to our social relationships to nature automatically implies a certain degree of subjectivity in the sense that our understanding of objective reality will remain an – ever improving, for firm believers of scientific progress – approximation. I wouldn't call such an approximation "the only objective reality". Sure, the approximation is real, and it objectively is an approximation of a reality independent from our experience, but an approximation of reality doesn’t equal reality, even though the social relations through which it is produced are real.


It thus goes as follows - the more complex our means of survival, which is an absolute qualification, the more complex our ability to fathom the world around us in proportion to that social complexity. Is this ultimately rooted in ideology, and (therefore) language? Undoubtedly! But as humans strive, indirectly at least, for better means of survival, of mastering nature, this ultimately would require the necessity of a better understanding of nature - and through that understanding allow for opening up the magnitude of more understandings which aren't immediately necessitated by direct productive processes, but are contingent upon them as a possibility.
I’m not sure I get the point you want to make here. If all this is rooted in ideology and language, then it is by definition subjective and relative to an appreciable degree. What do you exactly mean by “opening up the magnitude of more understandings”? The possibility of a variety of understandings doesn’t make those other understandings equally valid. The goal of scientific inquiry is to find out which understanding comes closest to reality and thereby invalidates – and makes unnecessary – all previously known interpretations. If dialectics were superior to formal logic for our understanding of natural processes, in other words, if dialectics were the most reliable analytical tool for physical phenomena, science would have abandoned formal logic long time ago. It’s still up to the defenders of diamat to demonstrate how physical phenomena generally are unities of mutually contradictory parts. Could someone, for example, explain where the unity of opposites is in electrons?

Of course, one could say that only in complex matters some characteristics of X conflicts with some characteristics of Y, but such weakening of dialectics only shows that it can make no claim to universality. At the very most, it could be argued that diamat could serve as an imaginative tool in helping to develop theoretical proposals on the mechanics of natural phenomena, but these proposals would nevertheless require further confirmation through the scientific method.


Scientific achievements are real, just as the social relations which made them possible are real.
Yes, nobody says the contrary.


Regarding dialectics and science: As I have mentioned before in a previous thread, the minute one consciously adheres to dialectics, rather than forming dialectical conclusions from a widened theoretical stratum (dare I say organically), dialectics becomes a confused employment of formal logic. For Hegel and Marx after him, dialectics was not a pre-conceived theoretical framework to which reality was molded into. Dialectics as a method was forged in the fires of struggling to conceptualize processes of change, which were contradictory and this was perceived as problematic by Hegel's predecessors. These were precisely the problems faced by Kant at the onset of German Idealism which Hegel strove to solve. That processes of change are contradictory is not a theoretical assertion rooted in a pre-conceived framework of logic, it is an inevitable result of trying to conceptualize change in itself of trying to understand the relative in relation to the absolute. The point of dialectics was precisely not an assertion about nature which was elaborated upon, dialectics is contingent upon the subject attempting to conceptualize that beyond him. As we are materialists, the "universe" does not evolve "dialectically" as an unwritten law, rather our attempts to understand the evolution of the universe have to be conceived dialectically.
The assertion that processes of change are contradictory relies on an incomplete observation of reality, and this actually is the very weakness of general dialectics, namely that it focuses too much on conflictual relationships, while nature and (the history of) social relations show that cooperation is as much (if not more?) important for change to occur. As materialists, we ought not to ignore this.

[Tim Redd]

The assertion that processes of change are contradictory relies on an incomplete observation of reality, and this actually is the very weakness of general dialectics, namely that it focuses too much on conflictual relationships, while nature and (the history of) social relations show that cooperation is as much (if not more?) important for change to occur. As materialists, we ought not to ignore this.

Yes, I wrote paper addressing the very point that at a minimum dialectics should not be taken to be as the only explanation for the way that things and processes, move, change and develop. I make the argument that in addition to dialectics there are other means by which these phenomena occur. These ideas are presented in some detail in the thread: Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html).

That paper makes the case that when analyzing and explaining the motion, change and development of a thing, dialectics may account for none, a part, or a most of such motion, change and development.

[Rafiq]

A reality relative to our social relationships to nature automatically implies a certain degree of subjectivity in the sense that our understanding of objective reality will remain an – ever improving, for firm believers of scientific progress – approximation. I wouldn't call such an approximation "the only objective reality". Sure, the approximation is real, and it objectively is an approximation of a reality independent from our experience, but an approximation of reality doesn’t equal reality, even though the social relations through which it is produced are real.

I’m not sure I get the point you want to make here. If all this is rooted in ideology and language, then it is by definition subjective and relative to an appreciable degree. What do you exactly mean by “opening up the magnitude of more understandings”? The possibility of a variety of understandings doesn’t make those other understandings equally valid. The goal of scientific inquiry is to find out which understanding comes closest to reality and thereby invalidates – and makes unnecessary – all previously known interpretations. If dialectics were superior to formal logic for our understanding of natural processes, in other words, if dialectics were the most reliable analytical tool for physical phenomena, science would have abandoned formal logic long time ago. It’s still up to the defenders of diamat to demonstrate how physical phenomena generally are unities of mutually contradictory parts. Could someone, for example, explain where the unity of opposites is in electrons?

What you're crucially missing here is simple: You fail to see how you are still establishing a false dichotomy between relative and absolute, merely by articulating the rejection of such a dichotomy as being a rejection of their existence all together. The point is simple: Subjectivity is a pre-condition for recognizing objective reality in that there is absolutely nothing inherent to humans to attempt to articulate reality outside of the bounds of our means of life and existence. What this in effect means is that not only is objective reality relative to different social formations, to even talk of a perceived magnitude of objective reality, unfulfilled, which we can acquire, i.e. to even speak of the precarious nature of knowledge is in itself contradictory - in that it itself is a pretense to an absolute. The essential point being that objective reality is objectively perceivable, but only in approximation to our social existence. Or let me be clear - to talk of subjectivity being an obstacle to articulating the "real thing" is contradictory in that it makes a pretense to articulating the "real thing" in a more correct manner, making it even more subjective. The point is not that the new paradigms of scientific thought, or understanding the world are equally as false as the dogma of the church in that they simply exist in approximation to the interests to the bourgeoisie as a class, but that getting one step closer to truth, as you would likely put it, and the rising social hegemony of the bourgeois class, were pre-conditions of each other. As many might find it obnoxious, I return to the formidable case of the discovery of heliocentricism - the recognition that the Earth is not the center of the universe is not simply a "relative" discovery, it is absolute. This absolute, however, could have only been wrought out by the relative ideological nature of humanism which was not bound by the dogma of the church solely because the social formations which sustained the church, or gave it power, were being challenged.

It would have been impossible, absolutely impossible at that for the discoveries wrought out by the scientific revolution to have emerged without the newly rising social formations during the end of feudalism - commonly people think that the Church simply "suppressed" our innately curious nature as a species and kept it in check, but this simply isn't true. Before capitalism emerged, or its pre-requisites, ruling ideology, the church, couldn't be questioned outside of mystical re-formations of ruling thought. There was no need to suppress science during the early middle ages, because the very notion of science was beyond the linguistic capabilities of people. That is not to say that an objective reality does not exist at all independent of our social formations, but this reality will be impossible to be perceived, i.e. it is a non-problem in itself. Allow me to provoke you: What is perception, consciousness itself if not an entirely human category? One could be inclined to assert that a consciousness without, independent of such social processes could see reality for what it "really is" - but reality doesn't care about what it really is, because it exists independently of consciousness. Such new magnitudes of possibility opened up, are in effect not to be construed vulgarly as 'secretly' conveying class interests contrary to the "real thing", the point is that more of the reality around us became knowable precisely stemming form this very opposition - instigated by social formations while still bound and contingent upon those social formations. The natural question follows: Why do new social formations allow for more of reality to be understood? The point is simply that the complex reality of these social formations, intrinsically entailing a more complex understanding of the world around us in approximation to them, becomes unbound by the dogma of previous ones.

The problem with your categorization of dialectics is that it effectively subsumed by formal logic, or understood on those terms. No doubt, there are countless Marxists, if not the grand majority today - who conceive dialectics under the subset of formal logic. Dialectics is not a tool which is going to give us better results, it has not "practical" utility within the bounds and constrains of bourgeois-rationalism - for the same reason historical materialism cannot. Or, allow me to be very concise: Before the onset of the scientific revolution, the resistance by the church wasn't under the terms of scientists. The church didn't care about the scientific method and so on. Merely accepting that the cosmos was knowable, perceivable critically, merely accepting that human anatomy and so on was knowable was the point of debate. On the church's terms, this was the epitome of wickedness, the work of the devil - how could this even come close to being remotely addressed on their terms? You would agree that presently the sciences, both on a direct and wider level, are contingent upon capitalism and our existing order, no (In terms of reliance on funding, and in the inability to think beyond ruling ideology without taking a definite side politically)? So if scientifically we were equipped with a means of better understanding the world in approximation to the struggle against things as they are, why would this be accepted en masse if it wasn't proportional to the victory of the revolution, or its impending victory? I've said this before: One can never arrive at dialectical conclusions without having already taken a definite leap, in attempting to conceptualize processes of change itself. Critics of dialectics put it perfectly - it's a disease that you don't know exists until you already have it. There's no real debate between formal logic and dialectics and there can't be. Dialectics absorbs into its very edifice already the basic presumptions of formal logic and expands them. One cannot be "convinced" to adhere to dialectics, one can catch the disease unknowingly and then have no reason to renounce it.

Dialectics isn't a hypothesis in the same way that first instances of the scientific method itself were not hypotheses. It doesn't state something, i.e. that all things are "contradictory" and then it's up to us to demonstrate whether this is true or false. After all, how could one "test" the scientific method without making axiomatic the principles of the scientific method? The ability to yield better, and more results? Meanwhile, the church, completely ignorant of these achievements and results takes a step back and holistically designates them all as the conjurations of the devil. The recognition of contradiction is an irrevocable consequence of attempting to understand the changing of one thing to another, dialectics is merely the outwardly embodiment of recognizing this. Bourgeois rationalists might have felt the effects of this reality, hence the Duhem–Quine thesis. Even if a better understanding of the world is wrought out through dialectics (One should say the latter is simply a consequence of the former, not the other way around) - it will never be accepted fully by the scientific apparatus for the same reason that before the disintegration of feudalism in Europe, the scientific method would never have been accepted by those with a monopoly on knowledge. Power is sustained by a precise limitation of our understanding of the world - in the case of capitalism, this limitations is precisely the limitation of an understanding of the social. That is not to say that the achievements of the scientific method are to be discarded, or that we ought to be mistrustful of the data wrought out by scientists. Indeed, it is the implications of such data which is our concern within a wider holistic understanding of reality. We already see that the sciences face a crises today - tell me, how could we ever, in the long term, reconcile formal logic with quantum physics? Mysticism and bullshit have run rampant as a result of the limitations of our scientific paradigm. Again - I must stress - dialectics isn't a utility that can be adopted at will. One encounters a contradiction, and one draws a dialectical conclusion or designates it as a problem, as Kant did. The complexity of reality as a whole, in one way or another, isn't fathomable by formal logic.


At the very most, it could be argued that diamat could serve as an imaginative tool in helping to develop theoretical proposals on the mechanics of natural phenomena, but these proposals would nevertheless require further confirmation through the scientific method.


Dialectics doesn't disregard to the importance of the scientific method. To be confused, let me put it plainly: the relationship between dialectics and bourgeois-rationalism is dialectical. The latter is a pre-condition to the former, a given - but the former is more expansive.


The assertion that processes of change are contradictory relies on an incomplete observation of reality, and this actually is the very weakness of general dialectics, namely that it focuses too much on conflictual relationships, while nature and (the history of) social relations show that cooperation is as much (if not more?) important for change to occur. As materialists, we ought not to ignore this.

This establishes a very false dichotomy. On these terms, it can be said that every historic epoch's existence was contingent upon, in one way or another, the cooperation of different antagonistic social forces (otherwise, they wouldn't last a day - neither would conflict). But such instances of "cooperation" between interests are still contingent upon the antagonistic nature of those interests, they are only reconciled for whatever reason - but the social differences, if they do remain (in the case of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in the late 19th century, the former did not) are still antagonistic. Cooperation itself is contradictory, in this way. But alas, this is very confused - the point concerns movement and change. When one speaks of contradiction, one emphasizes the struggle of the mind to fathom change, or moreover history. The relative and absolute are in nature contradictory. A good example is the fact that the proletariat opposes capitalism, but from within the conditions set forth by capitalism - pre-supposing its achievements as a pre-condition for its own opposition. This is the point of dialectics.

[renalenin]

Engels had nice eyes.

[Tim Redd]

Engels had nice eyes.

Nice beard too. If people want to use a "Mr. 19th Century Bearded White Guy" icon, they should use Engels.

I'd probably use Frederick Douglass, for a "Mr. 19th Century Bearded Guy" look (since I'm a guy), but I'm not caught up in the trend.

[Бай Ганьо]

What you're crucially missing here is simple: You fail to see how you are still establishing a false dichotomy between relative and absolute, merely by articulating the rejection of such a dichotomy as being a rejection of theirexistence all together. The point is simple: Subjectivity is a pre-condition for recognizing objective reality in that there is absolutely nothing inherent to humans to attempt to articulate reality outside of the bounds of our means of life and existence. What this in effect means is that not only is objective reality relative to different social formations, to even talk of a perceived magnitude of objective reality, unfulfilled, which we can acquire, i.e. to even speak of the precarious nature of knowledge is in itself contradictory - in that it itself is a pretense to an absolute. The essential point being that objective reality is objectively perceivable, but only in approximation to our social existence. Or let me be clear - to talk of subjectivity being an obstacle to articulating the "real thing" is contradictory in that it makes a pretense to articulating the "real thing" in a more correct manner, making it even more subjective.

I don’t question the fact that subjectivity is a pre-condition for recognizing objective reality, if this is to formulate the truism that without human observation and debate, there cannot be human knowledge about objective reality. Does that mean subjectivity is a pre-condition for reality to be? No. Answering yes to that question would be falling in the trap of extreme relativism, because it would imply the ridiculous claim that the universe dates back to the very beginnings of human awareness and that until then it had been inexistant.


The point is not that the new paradigms of scientific thought, or understanding the world are equally as false as the dogma of the church in that they simply exist in approximation to the interests to the bourgeoisie as a class, but that getting one step closer to truth, as you would likely put it, and the rising social hegemony of the bourgeois class, were pre-conditions of each other. As many might find it obnoxious, I return to the formidable case of the discovery of heliocentricism - the recognition that the Earth is not the center of the universe is not simply a "relative" discovery, it is absolute. This absolute, however, could have only been wrought out by the relative ideological nature of humanism which was not bound by the dogma of the church solely because the social formations which sustained the church, or gave it power, were being challenged. It would have been impossible, absolutely impossible at that for the discoveries wrought out by the scientific revolution to have emerged without the newly rising social formations during the end of feudalism - commonly people think that the Church simply "suppressed" our innately curious nature as a species and kept it in check, but this simply isn't true. Before capitalism emerged, or its pre-requisites, ruling ideology, the church, couldn't be questioned outside of mystical re-formations of ruling thought. There was no need to suppress science during the early middle ages, because the very notion of science was beyond the linguistic capabilities of people.

The theory of heliocentrism had already been formulated by Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC. The Greeks simply didn’t have the necessary knowledge and technological means to check it.

Apart from that, it is dangerous not to draw a clear distinction between a discovery and its recognition, for this leads to the wrong assertion that the degree of truthfulness of a claim is relative to the interests and values of a social group, institution, etc., which is exactly the kind of bullshit someone tried to sell us in another thread on religion. What is true, however, is that the utility of a discovery is only fully revealed once it is embraced by a social group, institution, etc., and that social formations can either stimulate new research for the sake of research or try (albeit in vain) to put a brake on it, because scientific results might go against their interests, doctrine, and widespread simply accepted beliefs.



That is not to say that an objective reality does not exist at all independent of our social formations, but this reality will be impossible to be perceived, i.e. it is a non-problem in itself. Allow me to provoke you: What is perception, consciousness itself if not an entirely human category?

See my answer to the first quote.


One could be inclined to assert that a consciousness without, independent of such social processes could see reality for what it "really is" - but reality doesn't care about what it really is, because it exists independently of consciousness.

Those are truisms. For independent reality to care about what it really is, it itself should have a consciousness in the first place.


Such new magnitudes of possibility opened up, are in effect not to be construed vulgarly as 'secretly' conveying class interests contrary to the "real thing", the point is that more of the reality around us became knowable precisely stemming form this very opposition - instigated by social formations while still bound and contingent upon those social formations. The natural question follows: Why do new social formations allow for more of reality to be understood? The point is simply that the complex reality of these social formations, intrinsically entailing a more complex understanding of the world around us in approximation to them, becomes unbound by the dogma of previous ones.

See the second alinea of my answer to the second quote.


Dialectics is not a tool which is going to give us better results, it has not "practical" utility within the bounds and constrains of bourgeois-rationalism - for the same reason historical materialism cannot. Or, allow me to be very concise: Before the onset of the scientific revolution, the resistance by the church wasn't under the terms of scientists. The church didn't care about the scientific method and so on. Merely accepting that the cosmos was knowable, perceivable critically, merely accepting that human anatomy and so on was knowable was the point of debate. On the church's terms, this was the epitome of wickedness, the work of the devil - how could this even come close to being remotely addressed on their terms? You would agree that presently the sciences, both on a direct and wider level, are contingent upon capitalism and our existing order, no (In terms of reliance on funding, and in the inability to think beyond ruling ideology without taking a definite side politically)?

Dialectics is in the same way contingent upon capitalism and our existing order too. Would from this automatically follow that applying dialectics is bourgeois?

It is only when the sponsors of research decide that something has to be published in accordance with their interests, only when there is that kind of interference, that so-called scientists take a definite side politically. But this is no science anymore, this is mere propaganda. In Nazi Germany, this attitude went as far as to “purify” (hard and soft) science from all results brought by scientists of Jewish origin.

But there is still something called scientific integrity, you know.


So if scientifically we were equipped with a means of better understanding the world in approximation to the struggle against things as they are, why would this be accepted en masse if it wasn't proportional to the victory of the revolution, or its impending victory?

See the second alinea of my answer to the second quote again.


Dialectics isn't a hypothesis in the same way that first instances of the scientific method itself were not hypotheses. […]

This is not true. The principles of the scientific method aren’t axioms, but hypotheses that have always been and are still being questioned by philosophers and/or scientists. They are, however, so robust that they appear and can be used as postulates. We know at present about the shortcomings of the principle of falsifiability defended by Popper. For instance, nobody can falsify Newtonian mechanics, but physicists decided to abandon them nevertheless. Why? Because Einstein’s theory was simply more successful in describing reality. That is why voices in the scientific community have begun to speak against overstressing the importance of falisifiability.


Even if a better understanding of the world is wrought out through dialectics […]

Which dialecticians fail to prove.


- it will never be accepted fully by the scientific apparatus for the same reason that before the disintegration of feudalism in Europe, the scientific method would never have been accepted by those with a monopoly on knowledge. Power is sustained by a precise limitation of our understanding of the world - in the case of capitalism, this limitations is precisely the limitation of an understanding of the social. That is not to say that the achievements of the scientific method are to be discarded, or that we ought to be mistrustful of the data wrought out by scientists. Indeed, it is the implications of such data which is our concern within a wider holistic understanding of reality.

See the second alinea of my answer to the second quote again.


We already see that the sciences face a crises today - tell me, how could we ever, in the long term, reconcile formal logic with quantum physics?

There is nothing to reconcile. Quantum physics are rooted in formal logic. Any serious quantum physicist would confirm that.


The complexity of reality as a whole, in one way or another, isn't fathomable by formal logic.

Formal logic is not about presenting simplistic vague formulas (“unity of opposites”) with which one mistakenly thinks to get a grasp on reality as whole.


Dialectics doesn't disregard to the importance of the scientific method. To be confused, let me put it plainly: the relationship between dialectics and bourgeois-rationalism is dialectical. The latter is a pre-condition to the former, a given - but the former is more expansive.

Referring to rationalism and formal logic as bourgeois occults the fact that throughout history dialectics were developed in a bourgeois context as well, with Hegel as their greatest champion, and only adapted to materialist thought by Marx. Bearing that in mind, one could speak of bourgeois-dialectics. Besides, if we had to measure the degree of embourgeoisement of these methods against their use amongst working people, dialectics would earn the bourgeois label rather quickly, formal logic being the formalization and correction of common sense, which is the predominant source of reasoning of working people. Dialectics are just more popular among part of the leftist intelligentsia thanks to Marx and his followers, but this fact does not make them in themselves more proletarian than formal logic.

If the relationship between dialectics and formal logic could be interpreted "dialectically", I’d say it is because marxian (and even hegelian) dialectics are committed to an ideology and formal logic is not (unless you erroneously think that relying on a set of constantly challenged moral, ontological and epistemological principles about reality is the same as adhering to a doctrine). That’s one of the major reasons why dialectics cannot be scientific, and can only be more expansive in terms of cloudiness.


This establishes a very false dichotomy. On these terms, it can be said that every historic epoch's existence was contingent upon, in one way or another, the cooperation of different antagonistic social forces (otherwise, they wouldn't last a day - neither would conflict). But such instances of "cooperation" between interests are still contingent upon the antagonistic nature of those interests, they are only reconciled for whatever reason - but the social differences, if they do remain (in the case of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in the late 19th century, the former did not) are still antagonistic. Cooperation itself is contradictory, in this way. But alas, this is very confused - the point concerns movement and change.
I guess I will never catch the disease of orthodox dialectics for, in my view, this is a very confused way of expressing things.

Let me explain this with a topical example: as you know, in Greece, Syriza formed a coalition with ANEL, despite the fact they do not agree on many issues. The antagonism here is situated on the level of specific issues (immigration, LGBT rights, etc.) but this (temporarily) does not affect their cooperation, because the interests they represent do converge on other issues that are either quantitavely or qualitatively of greater importance (a.o. anti-austerity). Therefore, it is wrong to state that antagonistic interests are “reconciled for whatever reason”. They simply aren’t, they are just being “kept in the fridge” until the common objective is achieved or until at least one party decides that it is no priority anymore. If the point of dialectics is to state all this in a confused way (“unity of opposites”), then I’d prefer to stick to the clarity and precision of formal logic.

It is somehow telling that you left out this part of my reply:

Of course, one could say that only in complex matters some characteristics of X conflicts with some characteristics of Y, but such weakening of dialectics only shows that it can make no claim to universality.
which demonstrates how speaking of a “unity of opposites” is nothing but playing on the ambiguity of words, for this expression does not make clear whether those opposites are to be understood as absolute opposites or not, and which therefore once more shows how expansive dialectics are… in their deliberate vagueness.

When one speaks of contradiction, one emphasizes the struggle of the mind to fathom change, or moreover history. The relative and absolute are in nature contradictory. A good example is the fact that the proletariat opposes capitalism, but from within the conditions set forth by capitalism - pre-supposing its achievements as a pre-condition for its own opposition. This is the point of dialectics.
It is largely self-evident that the opposition to capitalism operates within the framework of capitalism, else there would be nothing for the proletariat to oppose. The rule of the bourgeoisie is a pre-condition for the existence of the proletariat and its struggle. This does not change the fact that a too strict interpretation of the antagonism between both classes would deny the fact that (a fraction of) the bourgeoisie may have common interests with (a fraction of) the proletariat, despite the obvious antagonistic nature of the biggest part of their respective interests.

F.e. an entrepreneur investing all his money in green energy might share the same environmental concerns as you and me and work on programs to raise people’s awareness about climate change. In the end, some kind of fruitful collaboration could be triggered on that matter. I’m not saying that the actions of that entrepreneur could not be equally driven by the pursuit of profit.

To sum things up, and I know I’ll repeat myself, any analysis of social relations should go beyond a too rigid and simplistic bourgeoisie vs. proletariat interpretation. Reality is a little more nuanced than that: while diametrically opposed classes and interests do indubitably exist, there are subordinate gradations within them that should always be taken into account in any study of social struggles in order to avoid all too brash generalizations.

The problem with your categorization of dialectics is that it effectively subsumed by formal logic, or understood on those terms. No doubt, there are countless Marxists, if not the grand majority today - who conceive dialectics under the subset of formal logic.
Indeed, and to be honest, I doubt this exchange will lead to anywhere, you totally adhere to dialectics and see things (incl. formal logic) from that point of view, and I do not. :grin:

Critics of dialectics put it perfectly - it's a disease that you don't know exists until you already have it. There's no real debate between formal logic and dialectics and there can't be. […] One cannot be "convinced" to adhere to dialectics, one can catch the disease unknowingly and then have no reason to renounce it.
So dialectics are a religion.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I hear he liked his spirits, old fashioneds and scat play. Also, according to the diaries of Mrs. Engels, Karl and Freidrich were a lot closer than most would imagine. Once, on some night in late autumn in England, Karl and Fred gave Mrs. Engels the Eiffel Tower and became 'Eskimo brothers.' I also believe that Marx, later in life became an advocate of pre-ancient astronauts theories and even went so far as to join a UFO cult called "Das Mütterschiff," or "The Mothership," in 1875. It was from then on that his theories became even more outlandish most notably what many consider his magnum opus, a work titled "The Proletariat Invented the Question Mark," in late 1881.

[Creative Destruction]

your posts are the best posts.

[Tim Redd]

For instance, nobody can falsify Newtonian mechanics, but physicists decided to abandon them nevertheless.

Newtonian mechanics have been shown to not apply, to be false, when applied to bodies having relativistic speeds.

Further, whether or not Newtonian mechanics is falsified is not Popper's point. Popper is saying that a hypothesis/theory must be capable of being falsified in order for it to be classified as a scientific hypothesis/theory, a theory worthy of consideration. He didn't maintain that the hypothesis/theory actually had to be falsified in order for it to be a scientific hypothesis/theory.

[Tim Redd]

It’s still up to the defenders of diamat to demonstrate how physical phenomena generally are unities of mutually contradictory parts. Could someone, for example, explain where the unity of opposites is in electrons

Perhaps electrons aren't made up or relate to a unity of opposites. You yourself just said that defenders of diamat need to demonstrate how physical phenomena *generally* are unities of mutually exclusive opposites.

And perhaps the unity of opposites for electrons more relates to an electron in a context, not in the electrons per se.

I grapple with precisely these issues in Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html). In that paper I discuss the fact that dialectics do not necessarily underlie or account for the motion, change and development of processes. In

(http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm)"FORWARD WITH REVOLUTIONARY DIALECTICS" (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm) I discuss how contradictions may consist of more than 2 elements in a relationship.

[Cliff Paul]

Is Tim Redd basically the pro-dialectics version of Rosa Lichenstein?

[Rafiq]

Does that mean subjectivity is a pre-condition for reality to be?
[...]
The theory of heliocentrism had already been formulated by Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC. The Greeks simply didn’t have the necessary knowledge and technological means to check it.

Clearly, you're gravely misinterpreting the point: Reality exists independently of the mind, the point is that subjectivity - taking sides in real social struggles - is a pre-condition for fathoming objective reality. Of course, no one suggests that fathoming objective reality, and the existence of reality itself are interchangeable. That is nonsense. What's missing here by attempting to trace heliocentricism beyond the renaissance is that even though the Greeks had gotten in right, they (or Aristarchus) had gotten it right for all of the wrong reasons - purely an accident. Again, refer to the Duhem-Quine Thesis - the point is that within their present standards of reason, the Greeks were incapable of articulating the reality of heliocentricism, of course astronomy had existed, which would naturally lead to a wide array of theories about the nature of the solar system, but this is beyond the point: The whole history of heliocentricism, from antiquity to the Islamic golden age, was solidified only through the emergence of the scientific method, through Copernicus and so on. Had it not been, such an absolute would have been perceived as the fringe shit-stains of any epistemological epoch - as, for example, some of the ludicrous theories of biology might. What I really get at here is that the tools that were used to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe derived from the Renaissance - had the same conclusion existed in previous epochs, it was owed to completely different contexts and means. Of course, eppur si muove, either way this is still an absolute reality - the sun is objectively the center of the Solar system and has always been regardless of whether humans wanted to recognize it or not. My point is only that this could only ever have been wrought out through engaged subjectivity, recognizing this truth was contingent on taking a side in real social processes - for the only thing which had suppressed this truth, or made the ability to realize it impossible linguistically, was the implicit religious dogma as an irrevocable superstructure of feudal society. Even the fringe ideas which posited that the Sun was truly in the center before Copernicus, this was only fathomed and articulated through abstractions of pre-existing religious dogma, not independent of ruling ideas. The notion that the Sun was at the center of the solar system was only made possible, scientifically elaborated, as a result of the weakening of the ideological legitimacy of the church with the rise of a class which challenged the hegemony of the social edifice through which the Church derived power and legitimacy. All ideology (not doctrine, mind you) requires definite epistemological restrictions, designating reality either as unknowable or knowable. These epistemological limitations are contingent upon the social edifice from which they are derived. Of course, there is nothing really intristic about geocentricism which reproduces feudal relations alone, but geocentricism was consequential logically of a pre-existing ideological framework which was absolutely necessary for the reproduction of feudal relations. I am sure you recognize as axiomatic that one cannot be beyond ideology - that ideology is more than just a system of ideas or doctrine, yes?


What is true, however, is that the utility of a discovery is only fully revealed once it is embraced by a social group, institution, etc., and that social formations can either stimulate new research for the sake of research or try (albeit in vain) to put a brake on it, because scientific results might go against their interests, doctrine, and widespread simply accepted beliefs.


Indeed, but there is no real ulility, as far as the Renaissance goes, for recognizing that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. It misses my point together, it is a rather vulgar designation of the position of us (western) Marxists. The point isn't that science somehow has to secretly have an implicit class interest behind it, or a definite utility for a specific class. This is ridiculous! It is not as though Copernicus, and Galileo, their discoveries possessed power because their ideas were useful to the rising mercantile classes. It didn't matter that the Earth wasn't the center of the galaxy - the day went on, it literally made no difference to anyone as far as utility is concerned. So what's the point? The point is that space was opened up which was previously rendered unknowable by the social edifice of society, by ruling ideology (Not an enforced pre-conceived doctrine, people literally could not think beyond this) wherein the name of the game was everything is permitted that had been previously prohibited (unknowable) in approximation to that very social opposition which made it possible. Which meant that, of course, this didn't open up the possibility of "true" human epistemological freedom wherein there were no restrictions on the achievable as thought was still contingent and bound by the social processes which made such degrees of freedom possible. No doubt the rising mercantile class still, as a class, was not beyond ideology, certainly it was bound by definite ideological limitations. To not be confusing, let me be rather clear: If you get into a bar fight with some shithead, whatever blows you're going to give him, whatever intricate ways in which you defend yourself are still going to be bound and contingent upon that very fight, that very opposition that's there between you guys.

The problem here, and I have spoken to positivists who've claimed more or less the same thing, is that you're assuming the scientific method, it's possibility wrought out through the age of reason and so on, had existed throughout history but was consciously suppressed by those in power. What you're missing is the fact that it would have been linguistically impossible for the scientific method as we know it to have been conceived by anyone during that time - one couldn't fathom dividing astrology from astronomy before Kepler. What golden traces that we can perceive as present is nothing more than re-writing history in approximation to today. Had things turned out differently, had their been no scientific method discovered and so on - nobody would have ever cared about Aristarchus of Samos, or perceived him as the breadcrumb leading up to the loaf. Because Aristarchus of Samos wasn't able to arrive at the conclusions that he did for the same reasons that the astronomers which followed did - and even if he could, the idea would have never gained credence - not because it wasn't useful enough to those in power, but because the social foundations for its widespread acceptance weren't ideologically present.


See my answer to the first quote.


And it still doesn't suffice. We know that objective reality exists independently of us humans, my point is that it is meaningless to make designative pretenses to how things "really are" because again, we don't know how things "really are" by default. We know how things really are in approximation to our social existence. My point isn't that reality is contingent upon perception, but that a definite perceived reality is contingent upon perception. I know you're not implying this, but I'm saying the typically subjective idealist notion that there is an eternal gaze, perception which makes the universe real - a god - represents the void of humanity's eternal struggle to approximate how things "really are" - and the mere existence of a god who knows how things "really are" creates a gap between what we know now, and what we can eventually know. Let me repeat myself: The essential point being that objective reality is objectively perceivable, but only in approximation to our social existence. There are absolutes, things which are objectively existing in reality that are wrought out from the relative. That Napoleon died on May 5th is an absolute, even if it can only be wrought out by relative, ideological processes of language and thought. That's the point - the absolute is the sum-total of the relative, and the relative itself is part of objective, absolute processes, subjectivity itself constitutes an objective reality (In that the EXISTENCE of the subject is PART of objective reality, if we are materialists).


Dialectics is in the same way contingent upon capitalism and our existing order too. Would from this automatically follow that applying dialectics is bourgeois?


Yes, just as the Renaissance, and the age of reason was contingent upon the decaying feudalism around it. Let's use the same logic here - if we recognize Liberalism is inherently bourgeois, wouldn't that mean, by the same qualifications, Communism too is bourgeois because it derives from capitalism? The point is that you can't be beyond capitalism - and here's the point of dialectics: The end of capitalism derives from the conditions established by capitalism. When you realize that there's really no magic trick to dialectics, you will understand the point of it. There is nothing mystical about it - you won't get an epiphany and so on. What I mean isn't that the sciences are contingent upon the existing order in the sense that they are bourgeois because they derive from the existing order, but that the fact that they reproduce the existing order, or to be clear - not get in the way of its reproduction, is why they are accepted. Dialectics is indeed contingent upon capitalism, but within the confines of capitalism its widespread acceptance as a form of logic would be ideologically contingent upon the very gesture of taking sides in a real social struggle. Without this - taking sides - you're not going to be able to fathom truth. My point was simple: Only through radically taking a side within a social antagonism could objective realty be articulated - and it is axiomatic that it exists either way. Here's the point: Social formations as they have existed were contingent upon not knowing what was irrevocably the unknowable. You're missing the point - it's not as though dialectics is a tool to yield better results, this would be as ridiculous as saying that the scientific method was a tool for fathoming the doctrine of the Church in a better way. It is how results are approximated, how they are conceived, how they are understood and so on.


It is only when the sponsors of research decide that something has to be published in accordance with their interests, only when there is that kind of interference, that so-called scientists take a definite side politically. But this is no science anymore, this is mere propaganda. In Nazi Germany, this attitude went as far as to “purify” (hard and soft) science from all results brought by scientists of Jewish origin.


This is incredibly vulgar. The act of consciously suppressing science is still indicative that the very possibility of knowing otherwise is still there. Akin to knowing that there's a hamburger in front of me, but that I won't eat it. If there's a veil in front of me placed by no one on purpose, which doesn't let me see the hamburger, which makes it impossible for me to deduce that there's a hamburger there by merit of my constrain on the knowledge of different cuisine - this is a real existing constrain on knowledge and it's a constrain precisely because I don't know that it is. Once I recognize that the owner of the veil (an asshole) doesn't know what's behind there either - but none the less wants it there for whatever reason, do I remove the veil and find out that there's a hamburger behind it. An obscure example no doubt, but my point is that politics and ideology is more than establishing pre-conceived doctrines consciously and dogmatically adhering to it. That's not politics, and that's certainly not ideology - both of which are rooted in real social processes, not the willful intent of the minds of men. Consciously imposing limitations on science reflects a deep ideological weakness, and signifies the absence of an affirmative ideological force - an irrational existence waiting to die. My point is that you can't think outside of ruling ideology without taking a side in the class struggle - this doesn't mean rejecting, dismissing or downplaying the achievements of modern science as "bourgeois" but recognizing that there are definite ideological limitations to this science in approximation to the necessity of reproducing the existing order. Again, merely looking into the sky with a telescope at one point wasn't a matter of scientific debate - it wasn't SIMPLY said that Galileo is wrong for X reason in terms of recognizing that this reality was knowable, it was that the telescope was the instrument of the Devil or whatever. Why? Because using it undermined the ability for the reproduction of feudal relations of society, or the power of the Church by directly contradicting it in some way.


This is not true. The principles of the scientific method aren’t axioms,


No, the interpretation, use, and designation of the scientific method isn't axiomatic, but merely recognizing a scientific method for articulating reality is indeed axiomatic. What constitutes something as scientific of course varies on the level you describe, but not to the point where it violates the underlying axiom that the world is perceivable beyond religion, or the realm of the divine. Now this wasn't a hypothesis - during the age of reason, getting out tools, attempting to understand reality, divorcing astronomy from astrology - this indeed required pre-conceived axiomatic assumptions. Again, refer to the Duhem-Quine thesis, the pre-conceived ideological framework set forth by ruling religious ideology didn't establish definite qualifications for approximating reality that are consistent with the scientific method. This did rely on axiomatic ideological presumptions, entirely contingent upon social processes (the decline, or absorption of feudal society) that made them possible. The mere notion that "This is this, for this reason" - basing this reason outside of the holy word of Christ itself relied on the axiomatic assumption that one could think beyond this. So yes, the scientific method wasn't a hypothesis, it was a process that was refined and developed through testing its ability to articulate the world correctly, but recognizing that this is a meaningful constitution of truth (confirming, testing hypotheses) was itself an axiomatic assumption.


Which dialecticians fail to prove.


Which dialecticians fail to prove under the qualifications of proof, or truth established of formal logic, but you can't prove a better understanding if recognizing something is a better understanding means utilizing the logic itself. In other words, you can't prove that something is better understood to someone who adheres to a certain form of logic, if this better understanding is contingent upon not being bound by that form of logic, no? Let's put it this way: For us dialecticians, we don't dismiss the achievements wrought out by formal logic, and we don't claim that dialectics is going to magically impose a new, unignorable reality upon the experiences of people. Then again, heliocentricism didn't make a difference as far as the direct immediate conditions of perception for people - you could still think that the Earth is the center of the solar system and nothing, absolutely nothing changes for that time. Dare we make greater qualifications for proof, more complex qualifications for proof, then that established by bourgeois-rationalism. As far as dialectics is concerned, its' already proven that formal logic has been utterly incapable of recognizing processes of historical change, relying on righteously affirmed pretenses to the necessity of ignorance. I don't even see where your qualifications for proof are coming from - it would appear that it translates to being accepted, overall accepted by the scientific community. But why would it, if recognizing it is contingent upon social, political processes (Of which have seen a sharp decline in the past decades?). Even if it did yield a better understanding of reality on their terms, it still wouldn't be accepted, because this better understanding could only be granted by taking a side in real-existing struggles! So tell me: Why would they do this? You're making it as though they'd be utilitarians - "Oh, let me instill into my heart Communist discipline so I'll yield better results" - this is ridiculous. The point is that merely recognizing that this will yield better results itself would presuppose definite ideological assumptions, and there is no reason why this would be presupposed.


There is nothing to reconcile. Quantum physics are rooted in formal logic. Any serious quantum physicist would confirm that.


And that's precisely why Quantum physics faces a major theoretical crises, is rampant with contradictions and a vast array of irreconcilable interpretations, along with its almost organic appropriation by mystics and pseudoscientist religious scum who are filling the holes formal logic, bourgeois-rationalism can't with utter nonsense. My point is that through quantum physics, data has been yielded which can't be articulated or fathomed within the constrains of formal logic. Yielding that data, and what approximations there are - are still rooted in formal logic, but that's precisely the problem with them. I can't see how anyone with any experience in the field would argue that things can go on the way they are, that big science will regain vitality, without a major epistemological, theoretical overhaul.


Formal logic is not about presenting simplistic vague formulas (“unity of opposites”) with which one mistakenly thinks to get a grasp on reality as whole.


Yes, well the problem with this is that it subsumes dialectics with formal logic - that we make pretenses to one, grand over-reaching hypothesis - the "unity of opposites" and conform reality to it. This is formal logic, not dialectics - this is a mistake many Marxists of the 20th century have made following the formalization of Marxism by the Soviet Union and afterwards China. Any idiot can see that the grand majority of "Marxists" today are phrase-mongers who attempt to strictly adhere to dogma to keep up the aesthetic of being a Marxist, and owning up to the legacy of Marxism historically. I've said it before - Hegel didn't say "reality is a unity of opposites" and then go on from that axiomatic assumption, he attempted to understand the process of historical change in in the process came to the conclusion that reality is a unity of opposites. Again, these contradictions aren't theoretically imposed, they are real and irrevocable of any attempt to consistently flesh out our means of understanding reality - this was the point of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Hegel from the get-go had sought out to solve the puzzle. Kant had already pointed out the loopholes of bourgeois-rationalism, and this radical obstruction is what led to German idealism itself.


Referring to rationalism and formal logic as bourgeois occults the fact that throughout history dialectics were developed in a bourgeois context as well, with Hegel as their greatest champion, and only adapted to materialist thought by Marx. Bearing that in mind, one could speak of bourgeois-dialectics. Besides, if we had to measure the degree of embourgeoisement of these methods against their use amongst working people, dialectics would earn the bourgeois label rather quickly, formal logic being the formalization and correction of common sense, which is the predominant source of reasoning of working people.


This alone establishes false pretenses to what constitutes class nature. The working people also might be organically predisposed to nationalism, bigotry and ignorance - that doesn't make these things inherently "proletarian" because it isn't an exponentiation of their collective interests as a class. Merely recognizing there is a proletariat with a common interest, means recognizing that this common interest is only wrought out through proletarian-consciousness itself, or the mass recognition that they DO exist as a class. Oppression by nature relies on the consent of the oppressed, and their active participation in its reproduction, or else it wouldn't exist in the first place. I mean, you blatantly bring up problems which can only be conceived and solve dialectically and it only proves my point - Communism derives from capitalism, dialectics derives from the elaborated struggles of fleshing out formal logic, or making it applicable to an analysis of historic change. Without formal logic, there could have never been dialectics as we know it. So Hegel, the greatest champion of the dialectical method, and his ideas were given the historic vitality that they did because they were mediated through the class struggle, and had connotations with Communist ideology. Hegel's legacy could have never survived without Marx's (his TRUE disciple) break from the Young Hegelians. I mean again, this alone is a dialectical relationship - Marx as a Hegelian, whose Hegelian character is retained through his very opposition to Hegel. Dialectics isn't more proletarian because of any vague ideological pretenses, but because it is contingent upon recognizing, if we draw it to its consistent end, that our society isn't free form dialectical processes, in other words, our historic epoch too is subject to change. The vitality of this is drawn from an opposition to the existing order, which is proletarian in nature. How could it not be? There is no other class which is predisposed to opposing the existing order in a way that would supersede it. It is because the proletariat is the class which has no affirmative interest, it is the class whose real interest is its self-abolition as a class, contingent upon the abolition of classes in general and consciousness of the social itself. This is precisely why Marx criticized Hegel for his so-called "uncritical positivism" - Hegel's historical method was to Marx, not taken to its fullest logical extent as far as our society goes.


If the relationship between dialectics and formal logic could be interpreted "dialectically", I’d say it is because marxian (and even hegelian) dialectics are committed to an ideology and formal logic is not (unless you erroneously think that relying on a set of constantly challenged moral, ontological and epistemological principles about reality is the same as adhering to a doctrine). That’s one of the major reasons why dialectics cannot be scientific, and can only be more expansive in terms of cloudiness.


No, what you're really trying to get at is that dialectics is contingent upon an ideological background in opposition to ruling ideology. That is certainly true, but this doesn't constitute it as unscientific - on the contrary, Marxism is more scientific in that it takes the sciences to its fullest extent in approximating that which is rendered completely ideologically and unknowable by ruling ideological - the social, the nature of humans themselves. This very ideological difference is based on... the ideological nature of Communism as being unbound by the limitations set forth by ruling ideology. Formal logic is contingent upon not opposing the existing order, which again means it is contingent upon ruling ideology which establishes this very limitation, that which we cannot articulate as ideology. What you need to understand - is that all ideology is - is a designation of reality which leaves one without the tools of knowing that reality. That something is designated vaguely and dismissively as a given, but not known consciously. As Althusser said - Ideology does not say "I am ideology". Marxists aren't unbound by ideology, we're simply unbound by ruling ideology, that which is necessary to reproduce the existing order. The ideological nature of Communism isn't knowable to anyone, but the ideological designation of reality by ruling ideology is knowable by Marxists because they aren't bound by the reproduction of the ruling order. This is the whole of the history of science as such.


I guess I will never catch the disease of orthodox dialectics for, in my view, this is a very confused way of expressing things.


Be careful, you may have already by the time you're reading this.


Let me explain this with a topical example: as you know, in Greece, Syriza formed a coalition with ANEL, despite the fact they do not agree on many issues. The antagonism here is situated on the level of specific issues .


This is nothing short of a game of abstractions. No, there isn't an inherent antagonism between Syriza and ANEL, the point is that the existence of Syriza and ANEL is contingent upon various social antagonisms which give rise to the controversial nature of these topics in the first place (immigration, and so on). Marx, the materialist, recognized that these antagonisms are rooted in identifiable processes which all of society, and history is contingent upon, not just ideas which we prefer to place primacy upon (be they political parties, or friendships). Let's be very simple - where do the differences between Syriza and ANEL reside? Issues like Immigration, social conservatism and so on. Why are these issues at all, what is the point of disagreement here, what is it rooted in and so on. This is the point of dialectics - you're false employment of it is incredibly superficial. You're not bringing up major flaws in dialectics, you're bringing up nonsense which had Marx and Engels or any of our fathers had an iota of reason would have been able to understand. Dialectics isn't so simple, so don't try to make it as though what potential problems with it can BE simple. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations. But let's ignore all of that, let's pretend it's possible they were idiots who didn't realize this for whatever reason: Your example is superficial because it's no different than saying two people in the woods who absolutely hate each other temporarily put aside their differences in order to survive. Of course there can be a reconciliation of interests, of course humans by nature are predispoed to reconciling differences where they can. The bourgeoisie is compromised of gentlemen who probably don't like each other, but they'll put aside their differences in order to preserve what is infinitely more important than such quarrels, to the point where such quarrels can only exist through their very privileged position. The point of social antagonisms are those definite moments wherein there can be no reconciliation. The aristocracy's power, and the power of the bourgeoisie were inversely proportional. There's no way you're going to meet halfway here. You had absolutism, admittedly which did survive for a significant amount of time, but capitalist relations still subsumed feudal ones which led to the aristocracy to become a purely political, and parasitic social entity, it led to a condition which culminated in the French revolution.

If history was mostly composed of various groups "putting aside their differences" and so on - well, there would be no history as we'd be living in the same social epoch forever. The point of dialectics concerns change and movement. The point is identifying what is historically eventful and what is not. Without antagonism, there is no historical change - "cooperation" doesn't play a part in change at all, for this would BY NATURE entail no change at all! For something to change, this innately implies a contradiction, and there is no way around this. There's no magic trick here, there is nothing vague or mystical about this.


It is somehow telling that you left out this part of my reply:

which demonstrates how speaking of a “unity of opposites” is nothing but playing on the ambiguity of words, for this expression does not make clear whether those opposites are to be understood as absolute opposites or not, and which therefore once more shows how expansive dialectics are… in their deliberate vagueness.


I left this out because I had already addressed the underlying point - I don't need to be redundant. If I address something, I expect people can take my logic to the end in addressing other arguments which are contingent upon the same points I already dealt with. The point is this: what is X and Y, and why and how are they forces of change? Remember, the point of dialectics is that reality is never static, so when it is said that reality is a unity of opposites - this doesn't imply a static state of affairs, but continual changes that constitute reality. The question of X and Y defined Marx's break with Hegel (I.e. class warfare being the forces of change historically). Dialectics doesn't superimpose upon reality, but draws conclusions from the contradictions wrought out from attempting to fathom reality. Dialectics, therefore, doesn't simply state the obvious - that there are contradictions, it recognizes that sytematizing and accepting that such contradictions can be engaged is a pre-condition for properly understanding reality.


To sum things up, and I know I’ll repeat myself, any analysis of social relations should go beyond a too rigid and simplistic bourgeoisie vs. proletariat interpretation. Reality is a little more nuanced than that: while diametrically opposed classes and interests do indubitably exist, there are subordinate gradations within them that should always be taken into account in any study of social struggles in order to avoid all too brash generalizations.


Okay, but wherein lies the potential, the historically eventful potential of these "subordinate gradations" in this class opposition, for real societal change as a whole? (members of) The bourgeoisie and the working class, both concerned about climate change are going to be concerned about it for entirely different reasons. Indeed, it would be the end of life itself for both, but which kinds of liveswould it end, and why? If life is contingent upon survival, and definite means of survival, then it's obvious that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat both value their livelihood in a different manner. That there are common interests in place (As there were during the bourgeois revolutions of 1848 against the remnants of feudalism) doesn't make those common interests capable of rendering the antagonism no longer present. It doesn't matter if some members of the bourgeoisie are concerned about climate change, because climate change isn't going to be dealt with unless the hunger of capital is denied. Capitalists can't think holistically in their economic existence, they care about the immediate needs of capital and profit and to think for one second otherwise is only in the benefit of your competitor. That's why the state exists. But presently, the bourgeoisie isn't going to allow the state to impede the immediate interests of capital, which controls the capitalist like a shrine controls a devout worshiper. We know historically that there isn't some kind of internal mechanism among the bourgeois class that allows them to spontaneously band together when their interests aren't immediately threatened - be very aware that despite any personal reservations, capitalists are more than willing to (indirectly) drive us all to hell and barbarism without a second thought to feed the hunger of capital. The only thing which one could think otherwise regarding were the instances of corporate power - both in Keynsianism in the US and Fascism in Germany and Italy wherein the immediate demands of capital were articulated holistically through bureaucratic coordination and planning. But this alone was under the subset of social antagonism and the threat of proletarian revolution, it was absolutely an emergency measure. Even if the bourgeoisie gets its shit together temporarily to fight climate change, suspending the immediate hunger of capital, it will very well allow the entire world to be destroyed before it suspends its social existence in the midst of the necessity of abolishing capitalism itself to save the world.

To put it bluntly and shortly, the point is that this definite unity of conflicting interests, these contradictions whose respective magnitudes are inversely proportional irrevocably is the point. The class struggle can never be reconciled, and even if common interests between the proletarian and bourgeois class are present, these are not historically eventful interests but completely temporal. They, in otherwords, have no potential for leading to historic or social change - the point of concern as far as materialist dialectics go in the first place! But devil's advocate: Even if they could be reconciled, even if the present antagonisms could dissapear, as Hegel might have thought (It remains unclear, really), this wouldn't change the point of dialectics as far as articulating relative and absolute in history or any instance of movement and the process of one thing changing into another. Dialectics can only really be used retrospectively, and conclusions can be drawn from this retrospective analysis about the present. Hence, Marxism.


Indeed, and to be honest, I doubt this exchange will lead to anywhere, you totally adhere to dialectics and see things (incl. formal logic) from that point of view, and I do not. :grin:


But it's not so simple. Presupposing dialectics, catching the disease, is a pre-condition for understanding it. But I don't have to be bound by formal logic to understand it completely! One can never fathom dialectics completely without already adhering to it. It is a language which simply doesn't register - it requires its reduction to the language of formal logic. The problem is that formal logic wasn't wrought out in opposition to dialectics, it doesn't contain the definite mechanisms of dealing with it. It's simply a matter of opposing it holistically for whatever reason, as the Church opposed scientific methodology as a whole in all its vast complexity, or not. There can't be a debate between them as one already consumes the other.


So dialectics are a religion.

No, I mean even by the standards of science itself, ruling science, one finds not only no reason to renounce dialectics, one cannot even fathom how it could be renounced - as it consumes, and absorbs formal logic into a wider paradigm.

[Rafiq]

Is Tim Redd basically the pro-dialectics version of Rosa Lichenstein?

Read him carefully - he's taking what is already a false criticism of dialectics and accepting it as valid, to which he promises is reconciled in his "dynamics", and utterly schizophrenic attempt to reconcile the inability for dialectics to be fathomed formally with the necessity of keeping up the aesthetic of Marxist methodology.

[Бай Ганьо]

Newtonian mechanics have been shown to not apply, to be false, when applied to bodies having relativistic speeds.

Strictly speaking this is not falsification. Falsification is to prove that a theory or a law is false within its own domain of applicability. For example, geocentrism was falsified and replaced by heliocentrism.

Einstein didn’t prove that Newtonian mechanics are false within their domain, no scientists managed to prove that, and if you know someone who did, then I invite you to post some references here or to prove it by yourself.



Further, whether or not Newtonian mechanics is falsified is not Popper's point.

I was referring to Newtonian mechanics as an example of non-falsifiability.


Perhaps electrons aren't made up or relate to a unity of opposites. You yourself just said that defenders of diamat need to demonstrate how physical phenomena *generally* are unities of mutually exclusive opposites.

I said “generally”, because it seems that there are several kinds of practitioners of diamat: the hardcore ones who think that everything in the world are unities of mutually exclusive opposites and the more moderate ones who aren’t that blind to reality.


And perhaps the unity of opposites for electrons more relates to an electron in a context, not in the electrons per se.

What is "an electron per se", but an abstract idea? We're talking about material reality here.

Edit:

I misread.

Well, if it's not in electrons, then you confirm that dialectics aren't universal.

[Rafiq]

The point, of course, would be that electrons don't exist without their relationship to other subatomic particles in the constitution of matter. Unity of opposites isn't an abstract dogma, it isn't something to which "everything" is an opposite. For example, there is no "anti-cat" as far as a cat is concerned. Presently we don't know if electrons can be broken down, what we do know is that it's virtually impossible to understand them without their relationship to other subatomic particles in an atom.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

This is incredibly vulgar. The act of consciously suppressing science is still indicative that the very possibility of knowing otherwise is still there. Akin to knowing that there's a hamburger in front of me, but that I won't eat it. If there's a veil in front of me placed by no one on purpose, which doesn't let me see the hamburger, which makes it impossible for me to deduce that there's a hamburger there by merit of my constrain on the knowledge of different cuisine - this is a real existing constrain on knowledge and it's a constrain precisely because I don't know that it is. Once I recognize that the owner of the veil (an asshole) doesn't know what's behind there either - but none the less wants it there for whatever reason, do I remove the veil and find out that there's a hamburger behind it.

So this is what is meant by "knowing the limitation is already being beyond it", right? So if people under feudalism knew that natural world was knowable, they would already be beyond their limitations by recognizing that reality is actually knowable, they would be beyond the ideological constraints placed by religion. The real limitation is ideological, it is not knowing that you can know, it is not knowing what precisely it is that you can know or don't know currently, it is a lack of a designation, which would be outside the ruling ideology (e.g. reality in feudalism was designated, but it was designated within religion mythology). Ideology doesn't mean consciously suppressing what you know to be the truth, but suppressing something even if you don't know what is the truth or what is behind the ideological veil, because that's an assault on your power, which derives from present circumstances of ignorance. So even trying to fathom a reality, which current ideology designates as unknowable (e.g. understanding history scientifically, capitalism as a social epoch etc.) means taking a side in the class struggle or in struggle for power even if you don't want it, even if it isn't your intention and desire, even if you want to side with the bourgeoisie etc.

Also, when you say this: "...ideology is more than just a system of ideas or doctrine...", what is it that you mean exactly? I know it's something that you most probably explain in the post itself, but could you connect the dots for me and point it out?

[Rafiq]

Also, when you say this: "...ideology is more than just a system of ideas or doctrine...", what is it that you mean exactly? I know it's something that you most probably explain in the post itself, but could you connect the dots for me and point it out?

You, in effect, already explain it best yourself. The only problem here is this: So even trying to fathom a reality, which current ideology designates as unknowable (e.g. understanding history scientifically, capitalism as a social epoch etc.) means taking a side in the class struggle or in struggle for power even if you don't want it, even if it isn't your intention and desire, even if you want to side with the bourgeoisie etc.

The problem here is that it assumes one can take a side in a utilitarian way in order so that you can better fathom reality. But the point is that taking a side, finding yourself subsumed by a real-existing side in the struggle, is a first and foremost, while better fathoming reality is secondarily contingent upon it - not the other way around. One finds themselves taking a side in the struggle, and then one finds themselves predisposed with the ability to understand truth better, unconstrained by certain worldly (ruling class) constrains on it. Hence Marx, a Young Hegelian, was from the onset opposed to the Prussian aristocracy and the ancien regime even during his childhood. It is ultimately the culmination theoretically through Hegel which allowed him to transcend, or displace the coordinates of struggle (or see them) as having risen during capitalism. Communism derives from capitalism, it can even arise through definite contradictions present in liberal ideology.

Concerning ideology, ideology is precisely that which is not spoken, that which is not knowable but designated anyway. Marx said, with regard to it - that they are doing it but they don't know it - stemming from his analysis of commodity fetishism. Ideology is the domain of the subconscious, it is what we emphasize and what we de-emphasize, it is what we implicitly and explicitly claim under the backdrop of a designated reality whose means to articulate it fully are not present.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

You, in effect, already explain it best yourself. The only problem here is this: So even trying to fathom a reality, which current ideology designates as unknowable (e.g. understanding history scientifically, capitalism as a social epoch etc.) means taking a side in the class struggle or in struggle for power even if you don't want it, even if it isn't your intention and desire, even if you want to side with the bourgeoisie etc.

The problem here is that it assumes one can take a side in a utilitarian way in order so that you can better fathom reality. But the point is that taking a side, finding yourself subsumed by a real-existing side in the struggle, is a first and foremost, while better fathoming reality is secondarily contingent upon it - not the other way around. One finds themselves taking a side in the struggle, and then one finds themselves predisposed with the ability to understand truth better, unconstrained by certain worldly (ruling class) constrains on it. Hence Marx, a Young Hegelian, was from the onset opposed to the Prussian aristocracy and the ancien regime even during his childhood. It is ultimately the culmination theoretically through Hegel which allowed him to transcend, or displace the coordinates of struggle (or see them) as having risen during capitalism. Communism derives from capitalism, it can even arise through definite contradictions present in liberal ideology.

What I meant was that you can't be beyond class-struggle, that not taking a side is already taking a side and so on. So that your attempt to articulate a reality scientifically in feudal times is already an assault on feudal order in so far as its ideology is challenged. Now, of course, you trying to articulate a reality scientifically is contingent upon a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the feudal aristocracy already being present, but it doesn't mean that you, as a dispassionate individual merely trying to grasp reality better, must consciously be a part of that class-struggle. So it was more a throw-away about that you can attack an ideology and take side in the class-struggle objectively, i.e. in so far as objective outcome of your actions is concerned, even if you don't intended and don't want to do so.

[Tim Redd]

Is Tim Redd basically the pro-dialectics version of Rosa Lichenstein?

In what way? In what way do you think my positions, or actions are like Rosa Lichenstein?

[Tim Redd]

Perhaps electrons aren't made up or relate to a unity of opposites. You yourself just said that defenders of diamat need to demonstrate how physical phenomena generally are unities of mutually exclusive opposites.

And perhaps the unity of opposites for electrons more relates to an electron in a context, not in the electrons per se.

* CORRECTED (within asterisks) *
I grapple with precisely these issues in Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html). In that paper I discuss the fact that dialectics do not necessarily underlie or account for *all of* the motion, change and development of processes *and things*.

In "FORWARD WITH REVOLUTIONARY DIALECTICS" (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm) I discuss how contradictions may consist of more than 2 elements in a relationship.

(edited within asterisks)

[Tim Redd]

Read him carefully - he's taking what is already a false criticism of dialectics and accepting it as valid, to which he promises is reconciled in his "dynamics"

Note: I corrected my last response in this thread in a new post (couldn't edit the original). Not sure if that has a bearing on what you think I'm asserting.


and utterly schizophrenic attempt to reconcile the inability for dialectics to be fathomed formally with the necessity of keeping up the aesthetic of Marxist methodology.To be clear: I understand that formal logic claims that dialectical logic is invalid. In fact I have argued that formal logic is wrong about this in many places including here on RevLeft, in my papers and elsewhere.

But then it seems you say, that I am trying to reconcile this understanding with "the necessity of keeping up the aesthetic of Marxist methodology".

To start, I definitely am not consciously trying to do that.

Further, I'm not sure what "aesthetic of Marxist methodology you are referring to".

Regarding dialectics, I'm asserting that dialectics are applicable to many if not most cases of motion, change and development of processes and things.

I'm also asserting that communist revolutionaries need to be trained and prepared for the analysis of cases where the motion, change and development of processes and things proceed by non-dialectical, or by partially non-dialectical dynamics.

I detail this matter and promulgate various forms of dynamics that standalone from, complement, or supplement dialectics in: Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html).

[Cliff Paul]

In what way? In what way do you think my positions, or actions are like Rosa Lichenstein?

Oh it was mostly a joke. I haven't been on revleft in like 3 years, and when I saw your posts about dialectics in this thread (which I admittedly glossed over, until I read Rafiq's reply) it reminded me of Rosa's old posts. Not in substance or content, just because both of you have a habit of posting links / referring back to your respective websites when posting about this topic.

[Tim Redd]

Oh it was mostly a joke. I haven't been on revleft in like 3 years, and when I saw your posts about dialectics in this thread (which I admittedly glossed over, until I read Rafiq's reply) it reminded me of Rosa's old posts. Not in substance or content, just because both of you have a habit of posting links / referring back to your respective websites when posting about this topic.

Good, hopefully no exact match with Rosa in content.

For one major thing she rejects dialectics in total, and I don't. I think in some cases dialectics can be supplemented or complemented by analysis that uses various kinds dynamics other than dialectics. In other cases dialectics may even be supplanted by other dynamics. But dialectics definitely has many areas of validity.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Concerning ideology, ideology is precisely that which is not spoken, that which is not knowable but designated anyway. Marx said, with regard to it - that they are doing it but they don't know it - stemming from his analysis of commodity fetishism. Ideology is the domain of the subconscious, it is what we emphasize and what we de-emphasize, it is what we implicitly and explicitly claim under the backdrop of a designated reality whose means to articulate it fully are not present.

Would you say that ideology is primarily or solely a domain of subconscious? For instance, what would you make out of the situation where one claims to adhere to a certain ideology, when one says "I support Liberal ideology"? Would you say that it doesn't matter what he claims to support, because his open support of this or that ideology is consequential of him already having some subconscious ideas about our reality, which in fact is true ideology? I mean, if someone views society as comprising of individuals who are making free choices, then it follows from that that he will support Liberalism in one way or another and that's besides the point, because the real point is why he has these unconscious ideas about individuals, human nature etc to begin with, which is the most important question regarding ideology. I am not sure to what extent that makes sense considering that you said that ideology is "...precisely that which is not spoken, that which is not knowable...". Do you mean by this that ideology is that, which is not spoken in a sense that nobody speaks why they hold certain subconscious ideas, so in case of Liberalism nobody speaks of why an abstract individual is a starting point of conceptualising reality? Do you mean that this question can't even be raised without already attacking the basis of power of the bourgeoisie in the same way as scientific inquiry in and of itself was threatening to the power of the feudal aristocracy?

I am moving in the right direction with that, do you get my point?

[Rafiq]

I am moving in the right direction with that, do you get my point?

You are. Ideology is subconscious, but can only express itself through consciousness. If someone claims that they "support Liberal ideology", one should never take what they say at face value. One has to pay attention to why they identify in such a way, what identity this serves, their rhetorical gestures and so on. When I say ideology designates a reality without equipping us with the means of knowing that reality, I mean that a reality is designated solely by merit of the implicit or explicit relationships of power individuals have toward one and another (I.e. relations to production) that we believe in through lived action, even consciousness (Freudian slips, and so on).


Do you mean by this that ideology is that, which is not spoken in a sense that nobody speaks why they hold certain subconscious ideas, so in case of Liberalism nobody speaks of why an abstract individual is a starting point of conceptualising reality?

It is not spoken because the very language to articulate such ideology as ideology (rather than a given) is not present. There are definite qualifications set in place, ideologically at least, for how one justifies our social reality. So in effect, people do explicitly speak about how an "abstract individual is a starting point of conceptualizing reality". The point is that this itself is a vague abstraction which pretenses to a reality infinitely more complex. It is not that they don't recognize themselves from the lens of an opposing ideology the right way (or consider other perspectives) but that they render the crux of their designation scientifically unknowable. In other words, nobody can talk about the underlying sustenance of their ideology, because the minute it is recognized, it is already subjectively conceptualized through the lens of another ideology, set of pre-conceived beliefs and so on.

[Tim Redd]

Strictly speaking this is not falsification. Falsification is to prove that a theory or a law is false within its own domain of applicability. For example, geocentrism was falsified and replaced by heliocentrism.

Einstein didn’t prove that Newtonian mechanics are false within their domain, no scientists managed to prove that, and if you know someone who did, then I invite you to post some references here or to prove it by yourself.

I was referring to Newtonian mechanics as an example of non-falsifiability.
So how are Newtonian mechanics non-falsifiable within its realm of application?

Newtonian mechanics asserts that certain events, behaviors and outcomes will, or will not occur within its non-relativistic domain, when specific circumstances are present. It is possible to create, or observe various tests of those circumstances. Thus the hypotheses and theories of Newtonian mechanics are capable of being falsified.


I said “generally”, because it seems that there are several kinds of practitioners of diamat: the hardcore ones who think that everything in the world are unities of mutually exclusive opposites and the more moderate ones who aren’t that blind to reality.

What is "an electron per se", but an abstract idea? We're talking about material reality here.

Edit: I misread. Well, if it's not in electrons, then you confirm that dialectics aren't universal.

Yes, my stance for some years has been that dialectics is not universal - it is not present in all objects and or relations. It's present in perhaps most objects and relations, but not all.

That is why I advocate that progressives and revolutionaries, in addition to dialectics, should study various other form widely recognized forms of dynamics. [I go into detail on this in my paper: Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html)]
__________________

[Tim Redd]

Concerning ideology, ideology is precisely that which is not spoken, that which is not knowable but designated anyway. Marx said, with regard to it - that they are doing it but they don't know it - stemming from his analysis of commodity fetishism.

I've never run across Marx asserting that the full or only definition of ideology is that it is something not spoken and not knowable.

Marx has made this point: this or that person or group has an ideology but they are unaware of it.

But that is a particular case. Marx has never, from what I have read, claimed that in all cases ideology is not spoken and not knowable.

[Бай Ганьо]

So how are Newtonian mechanics non-falsifiable within its realm of application?

Newtonian mechanics asserts that certain events, behaviors and outcomes will, or will not occur within its non-relativistic domain, when specific circumstances are present. It is possible to create, or observe various tests of those circumstances. Thus the hypotheses and theories of Newtonian mechanics are capable of being falsified.

Right, I was confusing falsifiablity with falsification there. But this doesn't change anything to the fact that Newtonian mechanics have not been rejected because they have been proved to be false within their own domain of applicability.

Which was a reply to:


For instance, nobody can falsify Newtonian mechanics, but physicists decided to abandon them nevertheless.


Newtonian mechanics have been shown to not apply, to be false, when applied to bodies having relativistic speeds.

---



That is why I advocate that progressives and revolutionaries, in addition to dialectics, should study various other form widely recognized forms of dynamics. [I go into detail on this in my paper: Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics]
__________________

Er, we all know by now, needless to advertise your paper once more. :lol:

[Rafiq]

I've never run across Marx asserting that the full or only definition of ideology is that it is something not spoken and not knowable.

Marx has made this point: this or that person or group has an ideology but they are unaware of it.

But that is a particular case. Marx has never, from what I have read, claimed that in all cases ideology is not spoken and not knowable.

Is that a haiku?

[Tim Redd]

Is that a haiku?

My response may be some kind haiku given an extended understanding of what designates a haiku.

But more importantly there are also notions and ideas in the post being conveyed that run counter to notions and ideas that you have asserted to be the case in other posts. If you don't want to respond based upon those earlier notions and ideas then so be it.

We now know what you will respond to with intellectual honesty and on the other hand what you will not.

[Tim Redd]

Er, we all know by now, needless to advertise your paper once more. :lol:

Not every reader coming into the thread has read the whole thread. Thus I note in multiple places, significant reference material which some readers may not be aware of.

[1xAntifa]

The socialism of the barracks and any form of dictatorship leave this little black duck completely cold. As for Lenin and the Bolshevik line...what can I say except Stalin, Mao and how many millions dead? Case closed.

Really, whilst Marx can continue to provide insight if we lose the historical determinism or at least make it a very minor point of orientation so-as to dispose of the false sense of the inevitibility of social progress.

Does Lenin really need to be resurrected?

[Tim Redd]

Is that a haiku?

A "syllogo-haiku". :)

[Sea]

I don't see why we need a tool of analysis to "critically assess the economic power relations our society takes for granted" when we can just look at how fucked those power relations have made our lives, either. And honestly if someone isn't convinced by that, their real, lived experiences, they won't by some analytical tool passed down to us from some long dead white intellectual. In a lot of way I think it holds us back.That's like saying we shouldn't learn calculus because we can count on our fingers and toes.
And honestly if someone isn't convinced by that, their real, lived experiences, they won't by some analytical tool passed down to us from some long dead white intellectual. In a lot of way I think it holds us back.The vast majority of the workers out there are not yet conscious of their position as exploited workers. Could you have honestly explained why exploitation is inherent to profit without having read Capital? I certainly couldn't have, and I'd like to think I'm at least reasonably good at observing the world around me. Furthermore, Marx's race and age are immaterial to the accuracy (of lack thereof) of his work. Please refrain from such fallacious reasoning.

We can look around and see that something is fucked up, but judging from the number of people content on blaming "government regulations", "the liberal media", etc, it is evident that we, as workers, cannot be relied upon to understand the process of how we are exploited and why capitalism is the problem simply by observing that a problem exists. We don't need a messiah either - we need to educate ourselves and understanding how capitalism works is one of the key ways of doing that.
The fact that diamat or Marxism in general is used to shut down any thoughts or ideas that are deemed un-Marxist, this is incredibly frequent when Marxists have an opposing viewpoint, suddenly they label everything from that viewpoint idealist or petty-bourgeois, etc...Unless the reasoning used is the result of accurately applying Marxist thought, you can't blame Marx for that. In my experience the majority of the time this happens it's just lazy debating. They use Marx as an excuse, hoping the other side will think that "If Marx approves, it must be true!" when he has nothing to do with it. I think you'll find similar stuff across the political spectrum. If something actually is idealist or petty-bourgeois, and a logical reason is given, that's different, but those terms are thrown around so haphazardly and you'll often see left-communists and Marxist-Leninists calling eachother idealist and bourgois back and forth and getting nowhere even though Marx couldn't have agreed with both of them. It's pathetic. I always ask for the reasoning behind why something is petty-bourgeois or idealist and abandon the debate if none is given.
But we only have the capacity to act, to negate capital and destroy authority over our lives within our lives. So it makes more sense to be acting based on your life, than some mode of analysis that doesn't tell us shit about revolt.Keep in mind that Marx's magnum opus, Capital, is a critique of political economy. It has that subtitle for a reason. It's a criticism of economics - in it he goes through and explains why various economic theories of his time, put forth by economists whose goal was to cast capitalism in a favorable light, are false, and meanwhile explains how exploitation occurs in capitalism. Fighting back isn't covered because that's not what it's about.

What part or parts of Marx's theories as to how capitalism works do you disagree with?


edit: Since this thread is already on page 4, if you've already addressed these points feel free to just point me to where.

[Comrade Jacob]

Didn't he sell his trousers for a box of cigars and hit police hats off with snowballs and got drunk on a donkey and started yelling shit?

Love 'im.

[Luís Henrique]

The fact that diamat or Marxism in general is used to shut down any thoughts or ideas that are deemed un-Marxist,


when you don't know what you're talking about you should shut the fuck up and read a book.

Talk about dialectics.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Alex]

Darwin discovered the laws about the development of species, Marx discovered the laws about the development of society. His method Dialectical Materialism is what makes socialism scientific. And he thoroughly and scientifically explained the laws of capitalsim. Of course Marx by himself is not enough. You also need Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
That's my two cents.

[Luís Henrique]

Marx discovered the laws about the development of society.

This is one thing.


he thoroughly and scientifically explained the laws of capitalsim.

And this is another, very different one.

The first is necessarily transhistoric; the other should be not. But if we confuse them, we end up believing that capitalist categories are transhistoric - in which case we won't be able to destroy capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

But if we confuse them, we end up believing that capitalist categories are transhistoric - in which case we won't be able to destroy capitalism.

Luís Henrique

Was it not Marx, however, who said that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were the first two classes in history as such because the intricacies of their antagonism allowed for a scientific social analysis of all previous history? To clarify myself, only with the emergence of the outwardly class relations in capitalism that, unlike feudal relations or a caste, are fundamentally divorced from the organs of state power formally which creates a clear apparent division between civic life and its social realty. In feudalism and slave societies, class relations and law were bound together.

The point, however, is precisely allowing for "capitalist categories" to be trans-historic. Because the theoretical ability to encapsulate class is unique to our capitalist epoch, because it represents nearing the self-consciousness of the social dimension. Hence why Marx claimed that the key to understanding the anatomy of an ape, is through understanding the anatomy of a man. So Marx indeed did bring forth a scientific understanding of societal development, and this was the first instance of it - built upon the backbone of Montesquieu, then later Hegel. The absolute limitations of bourgeois historic analysis and bourgeois philosophy as such were crystallized in Hegel. This is in contrast to the various metaphysical, racial explanations for historic development either representing divine will, metaphysical categories like the "evolution of democratic freedoms" or whatever, or a shrewd and pathetic application of Darwin's work onto the social.

[StromboliFucker666]

I agree with him a lot but I also disagree with some of his work too. Is he the greatest socialist theorist I've read? Kinda. I guess "libertarian post marxist" would be a good way to describe my relation to marxist thought. I believe that his more libertarian works are a good place to start, but we need to build on it a lot more.