Thread: Isn't DM demotivating?

Results 1 to 20 of 62

  1. #1
    Join Date Jul 2008
    Posts 1,748
    Rep Power 0

    Default Isn't DM demotivating?

    Law of Opposites

    Marx and Engels started with the observation that everything in existence is a unity of opposites. For example, electricity is characterized by a positive and negative charge, and atoms consist of protons and electrons which are unified but ultimately contradictory forces.



    Living things strive to balance internal and external forces to maintain homeostasis, which is simply a balance of opposing forces such as acidity and alkalinity.
    Marx concludes that everything "contains mutually incompatible and exclusive but nevertheless equally essential and indispensable parts or aspects." This unity of opposites is what makes each entity auto-dynamic and provides a constant motivation for movement and change. This idea was borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Hegel who said: "Contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and of all life."
    Some opposites are antagonistic,[1] as in the competition between capitalists and laborers. Factory owners offer the lowest wages possible, while workers seek the highest wages. Sometimes, this antagonism sparks strikes or lockouts.
    This is absurd.If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?
    Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?

    the nature of opposition, which causes conflict in each element and gives it motion, also tends to negate the thing itself.
    This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
    Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
    So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?
  2. #2
    Join Date Feb 2009
    Location Upper Darby, PA
    Posts 3
    Organisation
    Socialist Action - Philadelphia
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    There are is a group of anti-DM RevLeft members on the forums. You should take this there. I'm still exploring the validity of Dialectical Materialism myself.
  3. #3
    Join Date Dec 2008
    Posts 236
    Rep Power 10

    Default

    When the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class is over, there will still be other opposites which will further development, such as between manual and intellectual labour, or between the countryside or the city. So development doesnt halt when the contradictory struggle between worker and capitalist halt.
  4. #4
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Absolut, unfortunately the theory behind what you say is radically flawed. On that see here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24

    There you will see that dialectical classicists like Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, and many others (whom I have quoted extensively there) argue that 'dialectical opposites' (comprisng these 'contradictions') all inevitably turn into one another.

    That can only mean that the capitalist class must turn into the proletariat, and the proletariat must turn into the capitalist class!

    It also means that the forces of production must turn into the relations of production!

    Fortunately, we do not need dialectics to make Historical Materialism work.
  5. #5
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Bulk Sheep, well done for your forthright stance, but you need to know you are banging your head against a brick wall.

    That is why I chose this signature:

    Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it -- Max Eastman.
    Alas, dialectically-distracted comrades cling on to this 'theory' for non-rational reasons, those I outlined here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...79&postcount=2

    That is why you will never get much sense out of the vast majority of them.

    [I have been trying now for over 25 years -- with very little success so far!]
  6. #6
    Join Date Oct 2008
    Posts 475
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    you are banging your head against a brick wall.
    Having corresponded with you for a while, I have an idea what it must feel like. Anyway, must you trash every thread with this anti-dialectic diatribe?

    Back to topic:

    Bulk Sheep,

    Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?
    The movement and change will continue, as you've rightly suspected. But it will continue within the field of what we call communism, hence the apparent contradictions are resolved.
  7. #7
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    BenHur:

    Having corresponded with you for a while, I have an idea what it must feel like. Anyway, must you trash every thread with this anti-dialectic diatribe?
    1) Yes -- get used to it -- or don't.

    Why do you think I have notched up nearly 10,000 posts in just over three years? And why do you think the dialectical mystics here had to limp off and form their own secret little coven (the Dialectical Materialism group), which I am not allowed to join?

    2) But, aren't you the numpty who said this?

    You're denying the fact that opposites combine to create something new. When you get the basics wrong, how can we take you seriously?
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=37

    To which I replied:

    So, you believe that the bourgeoisie and the working class will 'combine' do you?

    But, according to the dialectical prophets (quoted above), these two classes should change into one another.
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=41

    3) And, as I predicted, you mystics cannot respond effectively to my demolition of your mystical 'theory', so you just resort to abuse.

    The movement and change will continue, as you've rightly suspected. But it will continue within the field of what we call communism, hence the apparent contradictions are resolved.
    But we already know this can't work -- anyway, you think that 'opposites' should 'combine'.

    So, not even you 'understand' this 'theory'!
  8. #8
    Join Date Dec 2008
    Posts 236
    Rep Power 10

    Default

    Absolut, unfortunately the theory behind what you say is radically flawed. On that see here:
    I never said I confessed to dialectic materialism, I just tried to explain it as Ive had it explained to me, as Ive also asked the same question. Personally, I feel I know too little of it to confess to it. Ill definately check your links out though.
  9. #9
    fire to the prisons Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Posts 6,051
    Rep Power 100

    Default

    When the contradiction between the working class and the capitalist class is over, there will still be other opposites which will further development, such as between manual and intellectual labour, or between the countryside or the city. So development doesnt halt when the contradictory struggle between worker and capitalist halt.
    You must admit that these so-called "opposites" are based upon conceptual differentiations which may, or may not, exist.

    Ex: your use of "manual labor" and "intellectual labor."
    1) Why are these forms of labor 'opposed' to one another?
    2) Does not intellectual labor entail manual labor?
    3) Is not intellectual labor manual labor, and manual labor intellectual labor?

    If you admit that manual labor (such as digging a ditch) entails intellectual labor (such as engaging in basic logic), then why are they opposed? Where is the opposition?

    - August
    If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
    - Karl Marx
  10. #10
    fire to the prisons Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Posts 6,051
    Rep Power 100

    Default

    The movement and change will continue, as you've rightly suspected. But it will continue within the field of what we call communism, hence the apparent contradictions are resolved.
    "Movement," what movement?
    "Change," what change?

    Can you be anything other than abstract and vague? I could say that there is 'movement' and 'change' in the fairies which live in my computer and make it function...

    - August
    If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
    - Karl Marx
  11. #11
    Join Date Dec 2008
    Posts 236
    Rep Power 10

    Default

    You must admit that these so-called "opposites" are based upon conceptual differentiations which may, or may not, exist.

    Ex: your use of "manual labor" and "intellectual labor."
    1) Why are these forms of labor 'opposed' to one another?
    2) Does not intellectual labor entail manual labor?
    3) Is not intellectual labor manual labor, and manual labor intellectual labor?

    If you admit that manual labor (such as digging a ditch) entails intellectual labor (such as engaging in basic logic), then why are they opposed? Where is the opposition?

    - August
    Your points may very well be valid, and Im not going to engange in any kind of defence for dialectic materialism. I can only point you to my answer above.
  12. #12
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Absolut:

    I never said I confessed to dialectic materialism, I just tried to explain it as Ive had it explained to me, as Ive also asked the same question. Personally, I feel I know too little of it to confess to it. Ill definately check your links out though.
    And I never said you did, I merely said that the theory behind what you say (not what you believe or what you accept) is radically flawed.
  13. #13
    Join Date Dec 2008
    Posts 236
    Rep Power 10

    Default

    Absolut:

    And I never said you did, I merely said that the theory behind what you say (not what you believe or what you accept) is radically flawed.
    In that case I misunderstood what you said, sorry.
  14. #14
    Join Date Mar 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 1,801
    Organisation
    Solfed (IWA)
    Rep Power 22

    Default

    This is absurd.If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?
    Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?
    It is a dynamic process. Where class society is 'negated' humans will be left with the battle against nature until either or neither wins.

    This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
    Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
    So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?
    Surely every reality depends on having a system of quantifying what any given thing is at any given time. Your point might actually be counter-productive, given that if you understand that everything must decay in to something else, then there must be a dynamic process behind this.
    "The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live" -Leo Tolstoy

    "Government is the shadow cast by business over society."
    John Dewey

    RIP Ian Tomlinson (victim of UK police brutality)
  15. #15
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    RD:

    Your point might actually be counter-productive, given that if you understand that everything must decay in to something else, then there must be a dynamic process behind this.
    But even if there were, that process cannot be 'dialectical', for the reasons I detailed here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24
  16. #16
    Join Date Jul 2004
    Location Commie Under Nazi Thought
    Posts 4,046
    Organisation
    Irish Republican Socialist Party
    Rep Power 33

    Default

    This is absurd.If contradiction is the root of motion and life,then why is cancelling that contradiction (domination of the 1 opposite in today's society-laborers) is good?
    it allows for the beginning of human history. humans and their societies are no longer controlled by the whims and choas of markets, tyrants, war and unavoidable social conflicts.

    Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?If there is none wont the movement and change be halted?
    the theory goes that change would no longer be directed by forces external to the individual, or internal contradictions (social conflicts from partisan class material interests that cannot be resolved within that society and poitn to the creation of a new society). change would be man-made and designed.

    This is abstract and subjective as hell,because it depends on the definition of the object/process.When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
    Philosophically,at each moment the cat of the previous moment is not the same cat,but it has changed,into something else (still a cat practically).
    So what changes are adequate according to DM to change the object/process? When do we say 'whoa,the cat has ben non'd into something else'?
    well for one thing, I don't see the values of dialectics applied to nature. that was something Engels and later the Soviets really applied, not so much Marx.

    however it was a positive critique of bourgeois thinking. like take the idea that someone is a petit bourgeois. rather than look at them as a petit bourgeois defined by the nature of the petit bourgeoisie, we may examine how their class is changing and their relationship to other classes in a specific period of time. not just the nature of something, but where it is going, and its interaction within a whole. dialectical reasoning was an attempt to move past the mechanistic thinking inherent to the bourgeoisie, for while it was progressive at one time it has limitations. as does dialectical thinking- it shouldn't be held up as some sort of religion as admittedly many do.
    '...the proletariat, not wishing to be treated as a canaille, needs its courage, its self-esteem, its pride, and its sense of independence more than its bread.' Marx
    ...★
    ★...★
    ........★....★
    ..........★..★ Starry Plough Magazine

    'From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage workers' - Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

    Stop Killer Coke
  17. #17
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    PRC:

    it allows for the beginning of human history. humans and their societies are no longer controlled by the whims and choas of markets, tyrants, war and unavoidable social conflicts.
    But this is Historical Materialism, not dialectics.

    the theory goes that change would no longer be directed by forces external to the individual, or internal contradictions (social conflicts from partisan class material interests that cannot be resolved within that society and poitn to the creation of a new society). change would be man-made and designed.
    Not only are we never told what these alleged 'contradictions' are, or rather why they are contradictions to begin with, what little we are told implies this theory cannot work (or that if dialectics were true, change would be impossible):

    Quotes from the Dialectical Classics:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=23

    Argument showing this 'theory' cannot work:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...5&postcount=24

    well for one thing, I don't see the values of dialectics applied to nature. that was something Engels and later the Soviets really applied, not so much Marx.
    I agree, but then your 'half-way house' compromise suggests that human beings are not part of nature!

    Better to dump this useless, mystical theory altogether.
  18. #18
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location Caracas, Venezuela
    Posts 826
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    -Since communism is stateless and classless,where is the internal contradiction?
    - You previously said that "some opposites are antagonistic", so there must be non antagonistic contradictions or opposites in the communist society

    -When is a cat not a cat?What is a cat?
    -When light is a wave and when a corpuscle? How can light be 2 different things at one and the same time?

    If Hegels' explanation on how things change is not good, are we to redefine Marxism anew?
    ¡Patria socialista o muerte, venceremos!
  19. #19
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    el chavista:

    If Hegels' explanation on how things change is not good, are we to redefine Marxism anew?
    We do not need to -- all we need is classical historical materialism with the Hegelian jargon removed.

    Our understanding of history and how to change it will not be affected in the least.
  20. #20
    Join Date Jul 2004
    Location Commie Under Nazi Thought
    Posts 4,046
    Organisation
    Irish Republican Socialist Party
    Rep Power 33

    Default

    PRC:
    But this is Historical Materialism, not dialectics.
    Marx made no such distinction. He applied dialectics to his studies. DM was a legitimising ideology which was created post-Marx, as my comments about dialectics on nature and science were made in reference to.

    Not only are we never told what these alleged 'contradictions' are, or rather why they are contradictions to begin with, what little we are told implies this theory cannot work (or that if dialectics were true, change would be impossible)
    we've heard it all before. from Bernstein, actually.
    '...the proletariat, not wishing to be treated as a canaille, needs its courage, its self-esteem, its pride, and its sense of independence more than its bread.' Marx
    ...★
    ★...★
    ........★....★
    ..........★..★ Starry Plough Magazine

    'From its origin the bourgeoisie was saddled with its antithesis: capitalists cannot exist without wage workers' - Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

    Stop Killer Coke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread

Website Security Test