Thread: What is Dialectical Materialism.

Results 1 to 20 of 23

  1. #1
    Join Date Nov 2009
    Posts 8
    Rep Power 0

    Default What is Dialectical Materialism.

    Can someone explain in very simple terms, as i am a bit thick
    Thanks
  2. #2
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    ^^^I have explained this theory very briefly (and also criticised it), here:

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_...mmies%2001.htm
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Dec 2006
    Posts 1,352
    Rep Power 21

    Default

    A thesis (condition) got along with antithesis (another condition) produces synthesis (a contradiction condition). It is like proletariats' interest and bourgeoises' interest are in contradiction and yet they both exist alongside.

    That what Hegelism Dialectic means. Of course, Rosa proved it wrong! (Don't reply ffs)
  5. #4
    Join Date Mar 2005
    Posts 8,052
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Edit
    Last edited by KC; 28th January 2010 at 15:11.
  6. #5
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    BR:

    A thesis (condition) got along with antithesis (another condition) produces synthesis (a contradiction condition). It is like proletariats' interest and bourgeoises' interest are in contradiction and yet they both exist alongside.

    That what Hegelism Dialectic means. Of course, Rosa proved it wrong! (Don't reply ffs)
    The thesis/antithesis/synthesis motif was in fact Kant and Fichte's triad, not Hegel's.

    On that see here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...95&postcount=8

    Of course, Rosa proved it wrong!
    In fact, I largely ignore Hegel.

    And I did not 'prove it wrong', what I did do was show that Engels's, Plekhanov's, Lenin's and Mao's theory of change cannot work --, or, alternatively, that if their theory were true, change would be impossible.

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong...84/index5.html

    (Don't reply ffs)
    No chance.
  7. #6
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Can someone explain in very simple terms, as i am a bit thick
    Thanks
    A system changes according to the processes within it, and the way it is stimulated from outside. For highly complex systems, generally any stimuli acting on it from the outside are negligible. So, as is the case of the whole human civilization at present, these systems transform according to their internal contradictions.

    A contradiction is the struggle between two opposing forces.

    Internal contradictions in a system, can be many. For example, contradictions between the bourgeoisie of different countries, contradictions between women and patriarchy, contradiction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat etc. But within many such contradictions, it is generally observed that the outcome of only a few can transform the system and other contradictions radically. These we call the "principal contradictions".

    Now let us consider a semi feudal -semi colonial country in the modern world. Through the colonial times, this system has progressed quantitatively, that is, imperial powers have saturated all the markets, without introducing any radical change in the economy, to such a point, that it cannot find new markets in this colony. Therefore, no further quantitative development occurs, and more and more capital concentrates on oppressing the broad masses. Note that the broad masses and imperialism have radically different interests, yet they exist within a common system. Hence the first law of dialectics, unity of opposites.

    Now, the principal contradiction is between feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism, and the broad masses. Either the system will remain as it is, or it will change into a new-democracy through a violent revolution. If a revolution occurs, it will be a qualitative change, and new democracy will again develop quantitatively until the socialist revolution. Hence the first law of dialectics, transformation from quantity to quality and vice-versa.

    Now let us assume that a new democratic revolution has occured. It has come as the negation of the earlier system, that is, semi feudalism-semi colonialism. Through the course of the revolution, the internal contradictions of the system also transform. After the completion of the revolution, the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat becomes the principal contradiction. Either new democracy will become capitalism, or socialism, depending upon the outcome of this contradiction. The new system will come as a negation of new-democracy, but will not necessarily be similar to what new-democracy had negated, that is, semi colonialism - semi feudalism. Hence the third law of dialectics, negation of negation.
  8. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  9. #7
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    A system changes according to the processes within it, and the way it is stimulated from outside. For highly complex systems, generally any stimuli acting on it from the outside are negligible. So, as is the case of the whole human civilization at present, these systems transform according to their internal contradictions.

    A contradiction is the struggle between two opposing forces.

    Internal contradictions in a system, can be many. For example, contradictions between the bourgeoisie of different countries, contradictions between women and patriarchy, contradiction between the bourgeoisie and proletariat etc. But within many such contradictions, it is generally observed that the outcome of only a few can transform the system and other contradictions radically. These we call the "principal contradictions".

    Now let us consider a semi feudal -semi colonial country in the modern world. Through the colonial times, this system has progressed quantitatively, that is, imperial powers have saturated all the markets, without introducing any radical change in the economy, to such a point, that it cannot find new markets in this colony. Therefore, no further quantitative development occurs, and more and more capital concentrates on oppressing the broad masses. Note that the broad masses and imperialism have radically different interests, yet they exist within a common system. Hence the first law of dialectics, unity of opposites.

    Now, the principal contradiction is between feudalism, imperialism and comprador capitalism, and the broad masses. Either the system will remain as it is, or it will change into a new-democracy through a violent revolution. If a revolution occurs, it will be a qualitative change, and new democracy will again develop quantitatively until the socialist revolution. Hence the first law of dialectics, transformation from quantity to quality and vice-versa.

    Now let us assume that a new democratic revolution has occurred. It has come as the negation of the earlier system, that is, semi feudalism-semi colonialism. Through the course of the revolution, the internal contradictions of the system also transform. After the completion of the revolution, the contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat becomes the principal contradiction. Either new democracy will become capitalism, or socialism, depending upon the outcome of this contradiction. The new system will come as a negation of new-democracy, but will not necessarily be similar to what new-democracy had negated, that is, semi colonialism - semi feudalism. Hence the third law of dialectics, negation of negation.
    But, as you have been shown many times, because the dialectical classics tell us that these opposites "struggle" with and change into one another, this would make change impossible.

    Consider cats (here is an earlier post of mine on this)

    Cats undoubtedly die; so live cats at some point become dead cats.

    But, the dialectical classicists tell us that such changes can only occur if there is a 'struggle' of opposites, and that things like live cats change into their opposites.

    In that case, the dead cat that a live cat will one day become must be one of these opposites. [If it isn't, then dialectics cannot account for death -- or, in the general case, for any changes at all. Intermediate stages in a cat's life are handled below.]

    Now, this is where it gets tricky, since this live cat, in order to change and die, must struggle with what it becomes, that is, it must 'struggle' with the dead cat.

    But, in that case, the live cat cannot change onto the dead cat it will one day become, since that dead cat already exists! If it didn't already exist, then the live cat couldn't struggle with its opposite, this dead cat, and so could not change!

    Either way, change would be impossible if this theory were true.

    On the other hand, if this live cat in fact changes into another, different dead cat, and not the one just mentioned, then in order to do that, it would have had to have 'struggled' with this second dead cat too. Hence this second dead cat would also have to exist alongside this by now confused moggie and the original dead cat!

    I know that cats are supposed to have nine lives, but, if we press this argument much further this live cat will turn out to have more than nine deaths (or rather more than nine dead versions of its future self littering the place).

    So, despite appearances to the contrary, every live cat on the planet is now, and always has been, struggling with the future dead cat that it will one day become.

    Once more, that just means that no cat can ever die, since the dead cat that each live cat will one day become is already there, or it couldn't 'struggle' with it!

    Naturally, this raises serious problems about where all these dead cats came from. They can't have come from live cats, since live cats can only become dead cats if these dead cats already exist! They must pop into existence from nowhere!

    Now, this is not to deny change, only to argue that if dialectics were true, change could not happen.

    But, what is true of cats is true of all living things.

    Hence, this 'wonderful' theory not only has every live organism existing alongside the dead organism it is supposed to one day become (but is now struggling with it), it implies that nothing can die!

    Some comrades have tried to argue that this is ridiculous since cats go through many intermediate stages between birth and death, so in order to show that this makes no difference I posted this argument:

    Incidentally, the same result emerges if we consider the intermediate stages in the life and death of cat C.

    Let us assume that cat C goes through successive stages C(1), C(2), C(3)..., C(n), until at stage C(n+1) it finally pops its clogs.

    But, according to the dialectical classics, C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites. They also tell us that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite.

    So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it.

    But then the same problems emerge, for C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

    So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist, and no cat can change, let alone die!

    These 'dialectical cats' sure are odd...
    Now these intermediate stages could be those created by the negation of the negation, where an earlier stage is allegedly 'negated' to produce a higher stage, which also preserves certain things from that earlier stage.

    Nevertheless, this doesn't affect the argument.

    To see this, call cat stage C(2) the negation of cat stage C(1), such that C(2) is a higher stage which also preserves certain things from that earlier stage.

    The same problems arise:

    The dialectical classics tell us that C(1) can only change into C(2) because of a 'struggle' of opposites, and that C(1) inevitably changes into that opposite, C(2).

    So, C(1) must both struggle with C(2) and change into it!

    But C(1) can't change into C(2) since it already exists. If it didn't, C(1) could not struggle with it!

    So, by n applications of the above argument, all the stages of a cat's life must co-exist, and so no cat can change, let alone die!

    Now there is no way out of this self-inflicted quandary.

    [Incidentally, the same argument apples to the making of tables from wood, in addition to anything in the entire universe that changes.]
  10. #8
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    One another does not necessarily mean each into every other.
  11. #9
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat

    One another does not necessarily mean each into every other.
    You see, your irritating habit of skim-reading my posts means we have to go over the same points time and again.

    So, do us both a favour and read this carefully:

    I agree; where have I said otherwise?

    But, in view of the fact that Mao and Lenin (among many others) tell us that everything turns into its opposite (and into the opposite with which it "struggles"), and that such opposites turn into one another, this implies that socialism must change into capitalism and capitalism must change into socialism, and that the proletariat must change into the capitalists, and vice versa.
  12. #10
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat



    You see, your irritating habit of skim-reading my posts means we have to go over the same points time and again.

    So, do us both a favour and read this carefully:

    I agree; where have I said otherwise?

    But, in view of the fact that Mao and Lenin (among many others) tell us that everything turns into its opposite (and into the opposite with which it "struggles"), and that such oppsoites turn into one another, this implies that socialism must change into cpaitalism and capitalism must change into socialism, and that the proletariat must change into the capitalists, and vice versa.
    Last paragraph is not true.
  13. #11
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Last paragraph is not true.
    Well, as I have shown you from dozens of quotations from Lenin and Mao, it is in fact 100% accurate.

    Now, unless you can show us from argument and/or quotations where I have gone wrong, or where I have misquoted them, then this denial of yours is little more than foot stamping.
  14. #12
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:



    Well, as I have shown you from dozens of quotations from Lenin and Mao, it is in fact 100% accurate.

    Now, unless you can show us from argument and/or quotations where I have gone wrong, or where I have misquoted them, then this denial of yours is little more than foot stamping.
    One another does not necessarily mean each into every other. Now let's see a quotation in which Lenin or Mao give us an example like yours.
  15. #13
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    One another does not necessarily mean each into every other. Now let's see a quotation in which Lenin or Mao give us an example like yours.
    How many more times do you need to be told? I agree.

    But, the fact that Lenin and Mao tell us that these opposites turn into one another means that, according to them, the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie, and vice versa.
  16. #14
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:



    How many more times do you need to be told? I agree.

    But, the fact that Lenin and Mao tell us that these opposites turn into one another means that, according to them, the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie, and vice versa.
    No. Where do they give such a weird example?
  17. #15
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Where do they give such a weird example?
    As I have pointed out to you many times, they tell us that concerning every single pair of "struggling" opposites in the entire universe, that they turn into one another.

    In that case, if they are right, the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie, and vice versa.

    So, pick a fight with Lenin and Mao, not me.

    Now, can we move on...?
  18. #16
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:



    As I have pointed out to you many times, they tell us that concerning every single pair of "struggling" opposites in the entire universe, that they turn into one another.

    In that case, if they are right, the proletariat must change into the bourgeoisie, and vice versa.

    So, pick a fight with Lenin and Mao, not me.

    Now, can we move on...?
    Since class contradictions are what MLM-ist dialectics deals with, it is expected that Mao or Lenin would state this very important fact, referring directly to the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
  19. #17
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Since class contradictions are what MLM-ist dialectics deals with, it is expected that Mao or Lenin would state this very important fact, referring directly to the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
    Well, then you disgree with Mao, since he said this 'theory' appled to everything that changes.

    Lenin agreed with Mao.
  20. #18
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 757
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Oh Rosa please, just leave the learning threads, troll some high intelligent philosopher forums, but your wars with the people are always result in mass-posts of shit newcomers don't even understand one thing of, and when you finally see someone explaining things you can always count on Rosa popping up countering it with some holy wall of text, which AGAIN noone understands

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Muzk For This Useful Post:


  22. #19
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Muzk:

    Oh Rosa please, just leave the learning threads, troll some high intelligent philosopher forums, but your wars with the people are always result in mass-posts of shit newcomers don't even understand one thing of, and when you finally see someone explaining things you can always count on Rosa popping up countering it with some holy wall of text, which AGAIN noone understands
    No chance.
  23. #20
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Red Cat:



    Well, then you disgree with Mao, since he said this 'theory' appled to everything that changes.

    Lenin agreed with Mao.
    Sorry, I wanted to say that this is mainly what this theory is meant for. Considering that Lenin or Mao had themselves applied their own theory to class-struggle in their respective countries, it is expected that they would unambiguously mention the transformation of the proletariat into bourgeoisie, or that of socialism into capitalism, the way you are describing it, if they really meant so.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 16th July 2008, 18:11
  2. Dialectical Materialism
    By LSD in forum Theory
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 29th December 2005, 21:51
  3. dialectical materialism
    By violencia.Proletariat in forum Learning
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22nd June 2005, 09:01
  4. Dialectical Materialism...
    By The Children of the Revolution in forum Theory
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10th June 2004, 00:09

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