Dialectical Materialism

[Ultra-Violence]

Can somebody please explain this to me i hoenstly dont have a clue of what it is?

i would really appreciate the help commrades :hammer:

[violencia.Proletariat]

i asked for help on this before too, and never got it

[Pawn Power]

From the marxists internet archive dialectical materialism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectical-materialism)

[Martin Blank]

Materialist dialectics (which is how Marx described it) is a method of understanding the world that takes into consideration how the laws of motion affect the development of human society. It emerged from the early materialist philosophers of ancient Greece (and, I would add, the African -- specifically Egyptian -- philosophers who left a legacy for the Greeks to learn) and the dialectical writings of Georg W.F. Hegel.

Dialectical theory revolves around three central tenets, or laws:

1. The unity and interpenetration of opposites

2. The transformation of quantity into quality

3. The negation of the negation

Each of these three tenets of dialectical thought can be seen in nature and human society. In fact, the human being itself is an excellent example of how these three tenets work together.

In the beginning, there was the contradiction.... :D

A human being emerges into life after a period of development in which it begins as a non-living pair of entities (the sperm and egg cells). After its period of initial development and gestation, it is born and begins its life. This development is a negation of its previous (non-) existence, and one of the first transformations from quantity (a group of cells) to quality (a sentient human being).

As a human being grows and develops from child to adult (transformation of quantity to quality), it also changes physically and mentally. However, the potential for these changes are inherent in all human beings (the unity and interpenetration of opposites). A dialectician would point out that a human being, regardless of their age or stage of development is and is not an adult at the same time because of this unity of opposites. Just as a wooden chair is, at all times, in the process of becoming something else (because of the decay of the plant cells, external changes in climate, etc.), or a sheet of steel is, at all time, in the process of becoming something else (e.g., oxidation turns it to rust), or has the potential to become something else, so too a human being is, at all times, in the process of becoming something else (from protolife to infant to child to adolescent to adult to elder to corpse).

The quantitative changes human beings go through in their life also prepare the ground for its final transformation from living thing to dead thing. This transformation of quantity (age, degeneration of living organs and tissue, etc.) to quality (living or not-living) is also a negation of the negation, since the beginning of life for a human being is a negation of its previous existence as the aforementioned sperm and egg cells. But this negation of the negation is not a case of a mechanical repetition of the previous existence. On the contrary, it is, because of the transformations it underwent, a negation on a qualitatively different level.

There are also other corrolaries to these three tenets of materialist dialectics. Marx pointed out that the basis of motion and development stems from material contradictions contained within things, and that there is no such thing as a "pure" anything. Day and night are one of the better examples of this. Always and at all times, day is in the process of becoming night, and night is in the process of becoming day. There is never a moment when you can rightly say that it is a "pure" day or "pure" night. This lack of "purity" is measured by human beings in the form of time.

Lenin, in his Philosophical Notebooks and other writings on dialectics, considered Mendeleyev's Periodic Table of Elements to be an example of how the three tenets of dialectics apply to chemistry. He does this by showing how the rearrangment of the Table into a three-dimensional model (first done by Mendeleyev himself, IIRC) produces an upward-moving, expanding spiral, similar in shape to a funnel, on which we can plot each element. It should be pointed out, too, that this spiral model of the Periodic Table is what motivated many chemists to begin searching for many of the new elements that have been added to the Table over the last century.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Miles

[Entrails Konfetti]

So would an objective conversation be considered The unity and interpenetration of opposites ?

I start by saying to you, " But, if there is no such thing as anything pure, how am I not a pure human-being ? Even if I were to cease living, doesn't that make me a pure decomposing human-being ?"

And then you rely back. After that I make a reply agianst your reply. This goes on until a conclusion or agreement is made. Would that be considered the negation of the negation ?

Also, with the transformation of quantity into quality Marx pointed out as machinery devolops more and more,the social labour-time (quantity) necessary for production speeds up,thus makes the products of a lesser quality.

However,what I do not understand about dialectics is how one opposite triumphs over another opposite,leaving the defeated opposite to triumph over the other.
X wins over Y
Y wins over x.....ect.
In the dialectical perspective there aren't any ends,instead,triumph over triumph.

The idea I don't understand about this is when Marx put this in the perspective of class-struggle,he said if the prolitariat victors over the bourgeosie,they will ultimately lose their chains,in conclusion an end to the class struggle. Instead,of the class struggle, does the prolietariat struggle against their environment,thus the beginning of the negation on the negation ? Can the central tenets of Materialist Dialectics intertwine ?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Jul 29 2005, 01:47 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Jul 29 2005, 01:47 PM)So would an objective conversation be considered The unity and interpenetration of opposites ?[/b]

Yes and no. :P


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 29 2005, 01:47 PM
I start by saying to you, " But, if there is no such thing as anything pure, how am I not a pure human-being ?

Because you are also in the process of becoming not-human: dead, worm food, mulch, dust, ash,... however you want to say it.


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 29 2005, 01:47 PM
Even if I were to cease living, doesn't that make me a pure decomposing human-being ?"

No, because you are also food and nutrients for other things. So, in death, you are also a giver of life, and thus, in a small way, a recomposing plant or animal.


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 29 2005, 01:47 PM
And then you rely back. After that I make a reply agianst your reply. This goes on until a conclusion or agreement is made. Would that be considered the negation of the negation ?

Yes and no. :P


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 29 2005, 01:47 PM
Also, with the transformation of quantity into quality Marx pointed out as machinery devolops more and more,the social labour-time (quantity) necessary for production speeds up,thus makes the products of a lesser quality.

However,what I do not understand about dialectics is how one opposite triumphs over another opposite,leaving the defeated opposite to triumph over the other.
X wins over Y
Y wins over x.....ect.
In the dialectical perspective there aren't any ends,instead,triumph over triumph.

But with every "triumph" of X over Y and Y over X, the contradictions change, the interpenetration of opposites change, the motions change, the material conditions change, and the next victory of X over Y is not the same as the last, and so on. Think of the First and Second World Wars in Europe, for example. The Second was not a simple replay of the first, even though the alignment and relationship of forces were roughly the same (with the exception of Italy). New contradictions brought about by the Armistice and the defeat of the Central Powers, the October Revolution, the attempted German November Revolution, the League of Nations, the rise of fascism, etc., quantitatively and qualitatively changed the conditions by 1939. Likewise, a future Third World War among the imperialist powers would be conditioned by the changes that have taken place since 1945.


EL [email protected] 29 2005, 01:47 PM
The idea I don't understand about this is when Marx put this in the perspective of class-struggle,he said if the prolitariat victors over the bourgeosie,they will ultimately lose their chains,in conclusion an end to the class struggle. Instead,of the class struggle, does the prolietariat struggle against their environment,thus the beginning of the negation on the negation ? Can the central tenets of Materialist Dialectics intertwine ?

They definitely intertwine. That's the point. These are not like the laws of formal (bourgeois) logic, where they are static categories, unchanging and devoid of life. On the contrary, the tenets of materialist dialectics are meant to interact with each other, influence each other, and thus reinforce each other.

The achievement of world communism is considered to be the negation of the negation of human society -- the initial negation being the ascent of humanity from primitive communism to early class society. After the achievement of a communist society, new contradictions will emerge that will move humanity and society in new directions. Where that unity and interpenetration of opposites will take us, I cannot say. I do think, however, that humanity's interrelationship with the rest of the living beings on this planet, and the planet itself, is a likely contradiction that will lead to new challenges and new revolutionary work in such a society.

Miles

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:19 PM
Yes and no. :P

So its all three tenets then ?



No, because you are also food and nutrients for other things. So, in death, you are also a giver of life, and thus, in a small way, a recomposing plant or animal.

If conciousness determines existance, a human-being,star or animal is really an occurance in stages ?

If grammar was looked at in a Materialist Dialectical perspective,would a noun be a verb ?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Jul 29 2005, 05:00 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Jul 29 2005, 05:00 PM)So its all three tenets then ?[/b]

Well, yes ... and no. :P

Seriously, though, a conversation can only be an outward manifestation -- a form by which we attempt to grasp and understand what is happening around us.


Originally posted by EL [email protected] 29 2005, 05:00 PM
If conciousness determines existance, a human-being,star or animal is really an occurance in stages ?

Actually, it is existence -- our social being -- that determines our consciousness. But, in the second part, you are correct. We, as human beings, are always in the process of becoming something else. That's the inspiring element of materialist dialectics: the understanding that you can be more than you are now, both as an individual and as a society.


EL [email protected] 29 2005, 05:00 PM
If grammar was looked at in a Materialist Dialectical perspective,would a noun be a verb ?

Depending on its context (its "material conditions"), yes.

Miles

[redstar2000]

The problem is with the "dialectical" half of "dialectical materialism".

Ordinary materialism is what scientists actually use to discover the nature of objective reality.

It really "works".

"Dialectics" doesn't. It can be made to "look like" it works in the following way:

1. Use an ordinary materialist approach to investigating a problem.

2. When a reasonable solution emerges, reformat that answer in "dialectical language"...scatter phrases around like "unity of opposites", "negation of the negation", etc.

3. Present your "dialectical" solution as both evidence of the "power of dialectics" and of your own "mastery" of "dialectical thinking".

4. Under no circumstances ever admit the fact that "vulgar materialism" was your real tool and actually generated the solution.

There is one situation where "dialectics" really comes in handy. Suppose that "for political reasons", you find it "necessary" to represent some piece of nonsense as "dialectical truth" -- here the object is to confuse the reader to such a degree that s/he has no choice but to "take your word for it".

"Dialectics" is perfect for this project; you can use it to verbally prove anything.

And if the target of your efforts continues to balk, you can always say (in the loftiest tone you can manage), "Your problem, comrade, is that you fail to grasp the dialectic."

Hegel (the modern inventor of this scam) used it to "prove" that the perfect embodiment of democracy resided in the person of the King of Prussia. :lol:

It is one of the misfortunes of history that Marx and Engels were suckered into this crap; the consequence is that "dialectics" enjoys a prestige that is totally unmerited.

But those are the breaks. Every year there are probably thousands of young lefties who beat their poor heads in trying to "master dialectics"...wasting time and energy trying to make sense of nonsense.

To no avail.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 29 2005, 09:05 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 29 2005, 09:05 PM)The problem is with the "dialectical" half of "dialectical materialism".

Ordinary materialism is what scientists actually use to discover the nature of objective reality.

It really "works".[/b]

Two words for you: Big Bang.

Two more words for you: Dark Matter.

Oh yeah, mechanical materialism really "works". :rolleyes:


Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:05 PM
"Dialectics" doesn't. It can be made to "look like" it works in the following way:

1. Use an ordinary materialist approach to investigating a problem.

2. When a reasonable solution emerges, reformat that answer in "dialectical language"...scatter phrases around like "unity of opposites", "negation of the negation", etc.

3. Present your "dialectical" solution as both evidence of the "power of dialectics" and of your own "mastery" of "dialectical thinking".

4. Under no circumstances ever admit the fact that "vulgar materialism" was your real tool and actually generated the solution.

I sense more than a hint of subjectivity in this. I take it you have had more than your share of petty-bourgeois "theoreticians" who abused dialectics to justify their own support for bourgeois ideology?


[email protected] 29 2005, 09:05 PM
There is one situation where "dialectics" really comes in handy. Suppose that "for political reasons", you find it "necessary" to represent some piece of nonsense as "dialectical truth" -- here the object is to confuse the reader to such a degree that s/he has no choice but to "take your word for it".

"Dialectics" is perfect for this project; you can use it to verbally prove anything.

And if the target of your efforts continues to balk, you can always say (in the loftiest tone you can manage), "Your problem, comrade, is that you fail to grasp the dialectic."

Hegel (the modern inventor of this scam) used it to "prove" that the perfect embodiment of democracy resided in the person of the King of Prussia. :lol:

It is one of the misfortunes of history that Marx and Engels were suckered into this crap; the consequence is that "dialectics" enjoys a prestige that is totally unmerited.

But those are the breaks. Every year there are probably thousands of young lefties who beat their poor heads in trying to "master dialectics"...wasting time and energy trying to make sense of nonsense.

To no avail.

Well, I guess that answers my question above.

Comrade, I know that plenty of so-called "socialists" and "communists" have beat dialectics like a stepchild, but that's no excuse for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're right to point out that these "comrades" are using dialectics as a cover for their own shortcomings. Stress that point more than anything else.

Miles

[ComradeRed]

Two words for you: Big Bang.

Two more words for you: Dark Matter. I have studied both theoretical physics and dialectics. I think a stronger argument would be the histories of the universes, the theory that there is a big bang resulting from a big crunch which results in another big crunch, ad infinitum.

The problem is that it is easier to come up with that idea without dialectics. Math is a far stronger tool, and it trumps the dialectic anyday of the week; no real scientist denies the truth of math.

And as much as dark matter is concerned, the dialectic merely "conforms" itself around that fact. It has nothing to do with it, except the oxymoronic title. In the end that's all dialectics is good for: oxymorons.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague
Two words for you: Big Bang.

Two more words for you: Dark Matter.

Oh yeah, mechanical materialism really "works".

Defenders of "dialectics" have frequent recourse to the pejorative "mechanical" -- as if anyone who has failed to "master dialectics" or think such an endeavor superfluous "must" perforce see the universe as "Newtonian wheels and gears".

This is simple slander, of course. Modern scientists both investigate and attempt to explain the complexity of the universe with a wide variety of models...of which Newtonian mechanics is of decreasing importance.

The existence of dark matter, however, was first learned from an application of the much despised "Newtonian mechanics".

In studying the rotation of galaxies, it was discovered that the outer edges were rotating almost as fast as the inner portions...something that violates Newton's laws.

Physicists were loathe to "give up" on such useful tools...and postulated that there must be a considerable amount of "invisible mass" (or "dark matter") in each galaxy in order to explain why it rotates the way it does.

This, of course, generates a new and, thus far, intractable problem: what is dark matter? Here, Newton is of no assistance and we must turn to post-Einsteinian physics.

There are hypotheses: for example, "dark matter" is some form of atomic or sub-atomic particle(s) that have yet to be discovered. (Many suggestions of what those particles might be like have been made -- but, so far, none have been observed in our particle accelerators.)

But "dialectics" plays no role in this investigation. Right now it's all mathematics (of a very high order).

As to the "Big Bang", I believe that only a few propositions have been suggested...

The big bang is a "quantum fluctuation" writ large. (!)

The big bang resulted from a collision (or near miss) of two "branes" -- super-universal structures. (!!!)

And we cannot overlook the fact that "big bang" was first suggested by a Jesuit astronomer...who saw the "hand of God" at work. :lol:

The serious stuff is many decades or more away from observational confirmation...at least.

But "dialectics" doesn't even suggest an explanation.

(Note that the "quantum foam" can be verbally expressed dialectically. What evidently happens "down at the quantum level" is that electrons and positrons spontaneously appear "out of nothing" for a tiny fraction of a second and then annihilate one another, releasing a tiny gamma ray. "Negation of the negation"? :lol:

And you can do the same thing with "wave-particle duality" -- matter sometimes has "particle properties" and sometimes has "wave properties" depending on how we observe it. "Unity of opposites?" :lol:)

--------------------------------

It's been a while since I've has occasion to argue "dialectics", but if Miles wants to "go there", I'd be happy to move this thread to the Theory forum.

Here is what I've written on the subject thus far...

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Disputing Dialectics (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087002057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Dizzy with "Dialectics" (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1103040986&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dante]

Oh dear - a full frontal assualt on Dialectics! Ah well I suppose the argument that scientists do not use dialectics therefore it is useless is similar to the old 'people learn post modernism in universities now' so therefore Dialectics must be useless because people are learning the 'superior' theory of Post Modernism. I do not think so.


Hegel (the modern inventor of this scam) used it to "prove" that the perfect embodiment of democracy resided in the person of the King of Prussia.

Of course, Marxism was the dialectical advancement on the laws and tools that Hegel developed (from earlier Greek philosophers like Heraclitus), he 'turned Dialectics on its head' and applied the laws to the class struggle. The right Hegelians of course were pro monarchists, whereas the left Hegelians (marx and Engles and so on) managed to seperate it from any taint of idealism and now we have Dialectics today. The only succesful revolution in the history of the workers movement was carried out by a party rooted in the understanding of Dialectics. I doubt very much that a party will be built on redstars 'papers'.

For something easy to read on Dialectics by the L5I you check this out,
here (http://www.fifthinternational.org/LFIfiles/marxistphilosophy.html), also Trotsky wrote
this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1942-dm/ch04.htm) as well. Plenty of reading to do! :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dante
The only successful revolution in the history of the workers movement was carried out by a party rooted in the understanding of Dialectics.

Hey, great response! :lol:

Lenin pulled off a successful coup and Lenin said he was a "master of dialectics", and "therefore", "dialectics" really "works".

Not only is that an utterly wretched argument on its face...it's even worse when you recall that this "master of dialectics" and "maker of successful revolution" was restoring capitalism four years later!


I doubt very much that a party will be built on redstar's 'papers'.

I certainly hope not!

My ideas, with all their admitted limitations, are directed to revolutionaries...not wanna-be despots.

Stick to Trotsky...he'll tell you what you want to hear. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Dante]

Hard to encapsulate more incorrect answers in such a short space. Clearly this thread will be massivly derailed by me answering to each line. I was just wondering what particular revolutionary theory you ascribe to redstar?


Lenin pulled off a successful coup and Lenin said he was a "master of dialectics", and "therefore", "dialectics" really "works".


Same old bourgeois crap about the Bolshevik coup. Sorry, I thought this was a theory section not a 'reply to the usual bullshit' section? A coupe carrie dout by a party with 250,000 members, which had control of the Petrograd and Moscow soviets and commanded the red guard? Yeah sure, a 'coup', whatever.


My ideas, with all their admitted limitations, are directed to revolutionaries...not wanna-be despots.

A revolution means the radical transformation of society through the workers taking power. Where does despotism come into it?

[ComradeRed]

Same old bourgeois crap about the Bolshevik coup. Sorry, I thought this was a theory section not a 'reply to the usual bullshit' section? A coupe carrie dout by a party with 250,000 members, which had control of the Petrograd and Moscow soviets and commanded the red guard? Yeah sure, a 'coup', whatever. A coup is independent of size. It doesn't matter if it's 25 angry senators or 250000 angry part members, a spade is a spade.


Ah well I suppose the argument that scientists do not use dialectics therefore it is useless is similar to the old 'people learn post modernism in universities now' so therefore Dialectics must be useless because people are learning the 'superior' theory of Post Modernism. I do not think so. Not necessarily, suppose that the predecessor of Post-Modernism was horribly flawed and Post-Modernism isn't. Is it better to study its predecessor? Of course not, no one likes studying useless things; that's exactly why science and math trumps dialectics!

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 12:08 PM
Not necessarily, suppose that the predecessor of Post-Modernism was horribly flawed and Post-Modernism isn't. Is it better to study its predecessor? Of course not, no one likes studying useless things; that's exactly why science and math trumps dialectics!
Postmodernism is the ideology of the neoconservative corporatists. Anyone calling themselves a "socialist" or "communist" and subscribing to postmodernism is a cancer in the body of the movement, and should be excised immediately upon discovery.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)Postmodernism is the ideology of the neoconservative corporatists. Anyone calling themselves a "socialist" or "communist" and subscribing to postmodernism is a cancer in the body of the movement, and should be excised immediately upon discovery.[/b]

I largely agree with this. To assume that someone who has no time to waste on "dialectics" therefore "must" be a post-modernist is just as silly as assuming that they "must" be trapped in the Newtonian realm of 18th century French clock-makers.

Post-modernism is essentially an argument that objective reality is unknowable -- that all attempts to construct coherent explanations are "social constructs" and no one of them is any "truer" than any other.

This is a view that "bites its own tail" of course -- post-modernism is also a "social construct" and therefore also no "truer" than any other.

But it certainly is fashionable...as an "intellectual" rationalization for collaboration with existing power, it's tough to beat.

One of its founders began his career writing anti-semitic trash for the Belgian press under German occupation...and they've been sucking up to whoever is in power ever sense.

Their ideas are mostly too rarefied to be appreciated by the paleolithic neo-cons (who prefer the more robust imperial doctrines of Leo Strauss).

But corporate marketing types worship at the altar of post-modernism as do some executives as well. Enron was a "post-modernist corporation". Smoke and mirrors are real if we say they are.

And the neo-cons do appreciate the post-modernist idea that "the world is what you make it" -- if you can make people believe that Iraq is now a "sovereign democracy"...then that's just as good as if it actually were one.

It's not too much a stretch to call post-modernism a kind of coherent or at least semi-coherent madness.


Dante
I was just wondering what particular revolutionary theory you ascribe to, redstar?

I call it Marxism without the crap (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).

One of my persistent critics called it "crap without the Marxism". :lol:

"Dialectics" is often suitable for constructing witticisms.


Same old bourgeois crap about the Bolshevik coup.

October 1917 -- Revolution or Coup? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1109888439&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Anyways, this stuff is a departure from the thread topic.

Wave that dialectical wand, Comrade Potter, and astonish us with mysteries and wonders.

Or retreat to the "Church of St. Leon" and "pray for us sinners". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:19 PM
It's been a while since I've has occasion to argue "dialectics", but if Miles wants to "go there", I'd be happy to move this thread to the Theory forum.

Here is what I've written on the subject thus far...

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Disputing Dialectics (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087002057&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Dizzy with "Dialectics" (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1103040986&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
OK, so I read these transcripts. I have to be honest with you, comrade. I'm not that impressed. It's not that I am knocking your arguments per se; rather, it's pretty clear that you were dealing with (Oh, how do I say this and be kind? I can't!) intellectual lightweights, and people who could parrot the words and terminology of dialectical thought but really did not understand it.

At some point, it might be worthwhile for you and I to go around on this topic. But not at this time. My schedule at the moment does not permit me the time to devote to this topic what it would deserve. What I would invite you to do, however, is to review the documents of the League -- and, in this, I would also include the Open Letter that initiated the IWPA, since both myself and another comrade of League helped with that document -- and explain how some (if not all) of the conclusions we reach could be derived using a method of analysis other than materialist dialectics.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Miles
...rather, it's pretty clear that you were dealing with (Oh, how do I say this and be kind? I can't!) intellectual lightweights, and people who could parrot the words and terminology of dialectical thought but really did not understand it.

Perhaps you are right; they all claimed to know this stuff (one of them was actually writing a graduate school thesis on "dialectics").

As I noted in one of my introductions, it's always been in the back of my mind that someone might show up who really is a "master of the dialectic"...and proceed to rip my arguments into shreds and tatters.

I don't think that can happen but...you never know. :o

Still, I am "at your disposal" on this one. When your time permits, just start a thread in the Theory forum and I promise an extended response.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

Here's some helpful links:

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm

In short, dialectical materialism is a combination of both dialectics and materialism.

Dialectics (as you have been told) is a process where all factors are considered in any single event (including the contradictions, if not most importantly), and that their outcome is gradual and flows into itself - the outcome itself is dependent on certain conditions.

Hence we arrive at materialism. Materialism stresses the conditions outside of our consciousness, or outside of our minds.

To give an example, we can invoke the modern-day example of Bolivia (a favorite of RedStar). Materialist conditions (capitalist initiatives) have made it so the populace have rised up against their oppressors; dialectics, considering the entirty of the circumstance, understands that the outcome will be determined by the subjective factors of all sides of society (peasants, proletariat, capitalists, rulers), all whims of the economy, etc.

I hope this isn't too complicated, or that my interpretation of the matter isn't distorted (I too would like reassurance from comrades!).

- HP

[Holocaustpulp]

Sorry, on the second link look up "dialectical materialism."

- HP