What's the point with dialectics?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

What's the point with dialectics, and how is it connected to marxism?

[NovelGentry]

Dialectics is often spouted as the end all be all to understanding the universe. The point is to come up with the "reasoning" so to speak and the "resolution" to opposing forces (forces materially, ideas philosophically). It it something of a method for examining the progress of a certain thing. And I use the word thing as it has been related once again to both material and immaterial things.

Marx used the dialectic in a very material sense, applying it to the progression of man through history and in the process offering much critique to Hegel who was more strictly philosophical and thus something Marx considered and idealist.

I theorize that without using dialectics or having never been introduced to it, some of Marx's most solid points would be destroyed. Particularly those relating to the material conditions of existence etc. However, I don't believe dialectics is necessary to prove such things, in fact, it does little to prove and a whole lot to speculate. Without historical context dialectics seems like little more than speculative astrology that answers few questions. As such, I don't think there IS a point to dialectics aside from examining the past. It is interesting to look at history through the dialectical lense, as it does something to set the stage for very valid arguments, but using it as a tool to predict the future so to speak seems more and more like a dead end.

It seems that it is not until history has revealed the reality of these opposing forces/propositions, that we are able to come to a full realization of their synthesis. Analytically interesting, but productively useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Thank you.

I notice the term "material conditions" is used a lot, but what does it really mean?

Do you have any favorite links on dialectial materialism?

[NovelGentry]

I notice the term "material conditions" is used a lot, but what does it really mean?

Material conditions is in essence a lump sum of the material pretenses, at least in the sense I use it. That is to say technology has developed to make overproduction possible (one man can do the work to sustain many). It is also a condition of material relations to people... "who owns the machines that allow that production to be possible?" and "It's technologically possible, but why do we not achieve this."

Material conditions are very much simply the conditions of life (what is possible, what do we do with what's possible, etc) as it relates to material necessity, but also luxury. We as individuals and thus as a class or a whole society must settle these material conditions. Can we produce enough food? Are the people who need the food getting it? Why not?


Do you have any favorite links on dialectial materialism?

No. Seeing as I don't see much use for the dialectic aside from analyitical use, which can be done WITHOUT the dialectic I don't really carry reference on it or any full bodied information on it aside from what is embedded in Marxism.

To say Marx needed "dialectical" materialism over any normal materialist view seems a bit of a misstatement. Really I wouldn't bank too much into the idea that it requires any dialectical elements.