I think that one problem with marxist dialectal analysis is that it is often interpreted to be a supratechnological process, which is driven by class conflicts. Of course, class conflicts are by nature prevalent in all systems where there is scarcity, but the class conflicts would not generate much more than a change of elites without a change of productive forces without technological development. Technological development premediates institutional development, and the institutional development cannot stop technological development, although it could halten the process. One example is filesharing. When we did not have sufficient technology to copy and download files with music and movies in, there was no reason for the institution (or the social actors) to care much about filesharing. The ascension of software technology has led to contradictions arising within capitalism. Technological development generally means that the productive forces are expanded, and that the standard of life is increasing. When a social system is unable to handle expanded productive forces, it will generally collapse and a new system, more sufficient to administrate them to distribute products, services and a basis for integrity. Even repressive social systems generally enjoy major public support before it stands evidently clear that they are no longer able to offer an adaption towards increased productive forces. Of course, regression is also possible, which is shown by a lot of African countries and regions between 1970 and 1990, where the social systems have crumbled due to the lack of independent development of the productive forces. What do you think?
The problem with dialectical materialism is that it is overly wordy, to the point of obfuscation, and explains nothing that could not be explained with standard formal logic, therefore it is completely unnnecessary.
*waits for Rosa to apply to join the HPG*
I still do not really know what dialectics is, and I confess that I am not that interested either. It is suffice to say that the idea that logic cannot deal with change is bollocks, so logic is good enough for me.
Well, your analysis is correct, Serpent. Technological development has indeed made enforcement of the private ownership of information and the arts very difficult, leaving the system no opportunity save increasing it's oppression and control. And as these efforts are showing to be futile and merely adding to the impopularity of the capitalist order, we must conclude that technological progress has for the moment successfully dealt a blow to the status quo. As for dialectics per se, however, I do agree that it's quite redundant as a method for analysis. *waits for Rosa to apply to join the HPG* The day she joins, I quit.
I think that dialectics is a useful projection of reality, but of course, it is simply a model. The only problem with dialectics is that it's sole focus lies on conflict and it's focus is dualistic. There exists class conflicts, but what premediates all form of social orders is some form of consensus around the informal institutional framework of the system. Most peasants under feudalism did not want to abolish the nobility, the church or the king for example.
