Dialectical Materialism...

[The Children of the Revolution]

Engels once wrote the following, concerning 'Dialectical Materialism': "[N]othing is eternal but eternally changing..." This seems to sum up Marxist philosophy nicely. However, Marxism claims to remove the concept of hierarchy from society - to create a classless community based on equality; the workers themselves will own the means of production.

This is undoubtedly an improvement on the present system of exploitation and repression, commonly known as Capitalism. But, if everything is "eternally changing", Marxism surely cannot be recognised as any kind of "utopia" - merely a step along an infinite path of human development. Quoting Marx: [R]evolution is the driving force of history..."

What, then, supersedes a "classless" society?? Can anything ever "trump" this organisation of material productive forces??

Any speculations are welcome...

[Severian]

Where's the contradiction?

[The Children of the Revolution]

The contradiction is in the seemingly "final" nature of a Communism. The abolition of the class system, for example. And the fact that the workers - the whole of society, in other words - own the means of production. If this is bound to change, how will this change be manifest? And won't it represent a step backwards?

That's the point I meant to raise.

[Essential Insignificance]

Many from this board seem to be missing a paramount proposition of dialectics…and that being the "absolute synthesise", which implies that the dialectical change of any "matter", whatever that may be; be it society and the mode of production in this case, has come to its ultimate syntheses and nothing more can develop from it…as it has come to near "perfection".

Although this is an idea I’m not too fond of.

For it’s open to gross interpretation, on what has reached its "absolute synthesis"; Hegel thought that the Prussian state had…but that’s another argument in itself.

However many I’m sure will agree upon the notion that a pure communist society will be the "absolute syntheses" of how society can produce the material wealth; for itself.

Keep in mind that there is only a definite amount of courses in which particular "things" can take, by which it can not further itself any more.

I think communism is it, in relation to society. Things can "eternally" change within communism; but the basic notion will not…I think.

[The Feral Underclass]

Change in a communist society (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24990)

There is already a thread similar to this one with an extensive debate in it!

Nice to have ya back......i think!

[The Children of the Revolution]

... the "absolute synthesise", which implies that the dialectical change of any "matter", whatever that may be ... has come to its ultimate syntheses and nothing more can develop from it - as it has come to near "perfection".


That's the conclusion Marx reached, yes - that Communism was the "perfection" of material productive forces and associated means of exchange. But I'd always seen this as something of a "cop-out". I don't think you can reconcile the two theories to each other quite as easily as that.

If you suggest that there is a definite end to all change (the universe being comprised solely of "matter") - which the second theory does - then eventually, even if it may take millenia, human society will simply stop developing. And that means stagnation. Which, in turn, breeds disaster.

Plus, as you say, the second of the two theories leaves the first up for radical misinterpretation. Which might have drastic consequences in itself.

Next, consider for a moment the notion of "primitive communism". The "classless" society that existed eons before feudalism or capitalism "evolved" (Gah, too many inverted commas... I'm beginning to sound like RedStar!) or were even dreamt of. Before words to express "material relations" even existed. Society developed from that particular phase by implementing class structure. We have hierarchy and inequality to thank (absurd though it may seem) for our "civilised" lives. Whilst I absolutely agree that the next phase in human economic development is the establishment of a Communist system, why should things not progress beyond this point?

In my opinion, change IS eternal.

< T.A.T. - I had a brief look over the other pages; they seem to relate nicely to this. And yes... In a way, it&#39;s good to be back. I think&#33; :P >

[Faceless]

Whilst I absolutely agree that the next phase in human economic development is the establishment of a Communist system, why should things not progress beyond this point?
I once heard this analogy:
If you have a great heap of a substance, unstably balanced, it will fall down with gravity until it is flat because; but then the change has been in one direction. Whilst it has been falling the change has been dramatic. When it is no longer an unstable heap it is even over the surface and can not "fall" upwards.

But even then it is in constant change. A bag of sugar one minute may look the same as it does after an hour but in fact it has changed. It has gained some moisture in parts, lost some in others, undergone tiny chemical oxidation reactions. Entropy continues to bulldoze through this bag of sugar just very, very, very slowly. We are living in high entropy times comrade&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 31 2004, 08:57 PM
The contradiction is in the seemingly "final" nature of a Communism.
That sounds like an assumption you&#39;re making.


The abolition of the class system, for example. And the fact that the workers - the whole of society, in other words - own the means of production. If this is bound to change, how will this change be manifest? And won&#39;t it represent a step backwards?


Sounds like an assumption. Class structure might not be the only possible kind of social change. Right now, living in a class-divided society, we focus on that; in a classless society all kinds of other possibilities might open up.

Of course, other posters might be right and rates of social change might be slower if a classless society was stabler. Certainly primitive communist societies were stable and changed slower. But there&#39;s really no way to know.

[Nas]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 1 2004, 01:09 AM
Engels once wrote the following, concerning &#39;Dialectical Materialism&#39;: "[N]othing is eternal but eternally changing..." This seems to sum up Marxist philosophy nicely. However, Marxism claims to remove the concept of hierarchy from society - to create a classless community based on equality; the workers themselves will own the means of production.

This is undoubtedly an improvement on the present system of exploitation and repression, commonly known as Capitalism. But, if everything is "eternally changing", Marxism surely cannot be recognised as any kind of "utopia" - merely a step along an infinite path of human development. Quoting Marx: [R]evolution is the driving force of history..."

What, then, supersedes a "classless" society?? Can anything ever "trump" this organisation of material productive forces??

Any speculations are welcome...
right, but it doesnt contradict Communism

all it means that communism is not the final utopia society,
i dont know what will happen after communism , all i know, is what is after Capitalism (i mean socialism)

[The Children of the Revolution]

Class structure might not be the only possible kind of social change. Right now, living in a class-divided society, we focus on that; in a classless society all kinds of other possibilities might open up.


Ok... Perhaps... But my argument still stands. If change in certain areas is finite; then why not others? And then will this not eventually lead to stagnation and decay? And if not - presumably, a "reversal of change" would have to occur. A step backwards; this also introduces the idea that classless society may not be so "final" after all.

Of course, we&#39;re (I am) looking too far into the future. Just a mindless speculation, that&#39;s all.



... all it means that communism is not the final utopia society ...


It claims to be the end of class struggle. This carries a note of permanence, for sure&#33;

[antieverything]

Well, since the dialectic was just a ridiculous intellecutal fad of Marx&#39;s day, it is silly to say that his theory is voided by dialectical necessity.

[Sideshow Luke Perry]

Intellectual fad? Care to explain a little further? Or is this dealt with in that other thread that was mentioned?

[pandora]

The world is growing in its interdependence, socialism, and eventually communism is evitable as society grows. Our grandparents could not believe the level of interactions the average person has now on a given day. Unfortunately currently that is all corporate driven, when eventually the state takes this over it will be a change, people will have to re-evaluate their morals.
It&#39;s amusing in that a few hundred years ago the same conversation was had over the end of the monarchies :lol:
There has been a rise in the number of the ruling class, but we have a long way to go till equality.
Once we get there we will evolve from there. Although we can imagine how society will change for the better at that point it is all subjective. It&#39;s nice to imagine that it will continue to grow more intelligent and kind. That people will become more and more communal. There are aspects to rural life in Japan, aside from a lot of classism and sexism, that remind me of what it may be like. The village where everyone works together and children are raised by the grandparents. We can only hope.

[Sideshow Luke Perry]

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s inevitable. Cast your mind back to the number of times people have said socialism is inevitable and here we are. The contradictions in the capitalist system are becoming more and more stark, but that means the politics of the far right are on the increase too. Don&#39;t take anything for granted- if you want it, you&#39;ve got to work for it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 2 2004, 04:32 PM


Class structure might not be the only possible kind of social change. Right now, living in a class-divided society, we focus on that; in a classless society all kinds of other possibilities might open up.


Ok... Perhaps... But my argument still stands. If change in certain areas is finite; then why not others?
Why? You&#39;re begging the question and making unsupported assumptions.

"And then will this not eventually lead to stagnation and decay?"

Why? Unless you assume that rapid change is always good for its own sake, and slower change is always bad, implied by the negative connotations of "stagnation and decay". Which is an unfounded, overly sweeping assumption.

I think you&#39;re clutching at straws in an effort to save an idea that never had any merit.

"Of course, we&#39;re (I am) looking too far into the future. Just a mindless speculation, that&#39;s all."

You got that right.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Why? You&#39;re begging the question and making unsupported assumptions.


Not at all. Communism professes to end the class struggle - which has been the "dominant force" in history for millenia. (Marx said precisely this&#33;) The focus of social change. My point was that if such change is, in fact, finite - why can other "forms" of change not have a definite end too? And if this is the case, then eventually, we will simply stop changing. It doesn&#39;t necessarily matter if other avenues for change open up; less rapid or otherwise. Because, if given long enough, all the universe will reach it&#39;s "perfect state". This undoubtedly DOES breed stagnation. UNLESS a step backwards is taken.



Why? Unless you assume that rapid change is always good for its own sake, and slower change is always bad, implied by the negative connotations of "stagnation and decay". Which is an unfounded, overly sweeping assumption.


I think you have misunderstood my initial point. Go back and look at the rest of the posts I&#39;ve made.

[Essential Insignificance]

The "classless" society that existed eons before feudalism or capitalism "evolved" (Gah, too many inverted commas... I&#39;m beginning to sound like RedStar&#33;) or were even dreamt of. Before words to express "material relations" even existed. Society developed from that particular phase by implementing class structure

Of course it was a natural progression; men is a highly thinking being, thus the progression from the natural divisions of labour and the eventual formation of &#39;&#39;material relations&#39;&#39; was always going to happen.

The notion that a totally "classless" society existed, say 10,000 years ago is misconstrued by a lot, I think



We have hierarchy and inequality to thank (absurd though it may seem) for our "civilised" lives. Whilst I absolutely agree that the next phase in human economic development is the establishment of a Communist system, why should things not progress beyond this point?

What do you mean by "progress" specifically, and in what form.