Dialectics for Dummies

What is dialectical materialism? I don't get it.

Other urls found in this thread:



Read Stalin's Dialectical and Historical Materialism and/or Trotsky's ABC of Materialist Dialectics.

They're short and give a good synopsis.

These documents were trying to convince people who are naturally skeptical of new ideas (even if Marx technically did them first) and fully explore the depths of their implications, if you just need to know the basic concept and not every justification and implication of it like the scholars who'd be reading these books I don't see any reason not to just ELI5 it.

Thesis contradicts with Antithesis, resulting in a Synthesis

Essentially contradictions and conflict drive social change

But I thought this was the definition of traditional dialectics, and that dialectical materialism was supposed to go way deeper. What makes Marxist dialectics specifically Marxist, what do they feature that traditional dialectics lack?

Sheeeiitt man, I could own a company and a legion of wage slaves and still not be hooked up like I work at Google.

Sounds like woo-speak to me.

Marx turned Hegel on his head. Meaning he took his method of dialectics and decided to apply it to things that are actually real. This is where the "materialism" bit comes in.
Marx was also critical of the "heretofore existing materialism" of thinkers like Spinoza, which is conveniently summarized in his theses on Feuerbach

Super tldr, but basically it's Marx's interpretation of the evolution of history using Hegel's concept of dialectics. However this time it's grounded in a materialistic perpective with no idealistic, mystic voodoo.

Basically, it's the idea that there is no such thing as wealth creation and therefore the economy is a zero sum game.
They are wrong though, so you should dismiss dialectical materialism entirely save for historical reasons.

Even ancaps are not that stupid. 2/10


Historical materialism is all about wealth creation. The "definite, socially necessary relations we enter into around production" and so on.
Wealth creation is literally where bourgies exploit proles by extracting surplus value. If wealth weren't being created somewhere, how could your boss "exploit" you by paying you a wage? Your understanding of Marxism is frankly laughable.

I agree. What?

This is a very very simple explanation.

Dialectics is a way of arriving to the truth of an issue by arguing two opposing sides: thesis and antithesis and arriving at the synthesis. Imagine it sort of like a debate between two teams arguing points and then eventually arriving at the 'truth'. The truth cannot be found until two diametrically opposing sides are reconciled into something new that incorporates elements of both.

Materialism is the philosophy of the 'real'. In simple terms it means to consider only things that are of this world and capable of being perceived or interacted with and to reject anything that is not of the material world. It also means to consider all things as complex mechanisms that are dynamic and in perpetual flux. A materialist would say that a human being is not a fixed thing but an organism that constantly sheds it cells and molecules and is replaced along with a consciousness that is constantly changing itself as a response to stimulus.

Dialectical Materialism is all in the name. Put those two concepts together and you'll understand the whole. To get to the 'truth' of how a system works you must dialectically analyse each and every aspect of that system also while rejecting explanations that aren't based on material interactions. Marx discarded the economic analysis of his time because not only was it un-dialectical, it also arbitrarily ignored essential parts of the capitalist system just for the sake of maintaining an 'ideal' image of capitalism that somehow stood apart from society. Marx's work is so enduring and so comprehensive because of Dialectical Materialism. The thoroughness and logic of Marx's capitalist critique is staggering.

First non retard in the thread, thank you.

Pretty good, but you failed to mention how Marx was also concerned with how society, the individual, and the given mode of production are all connected and structured in a way that give rise and perpetuate each other.

Well as I said it was a 'very very simply explanation'.


But seriously,

Are all wrong.


As for Marx, he didn't turn Hegel on his head. The only dialectical work he ever made, Capital, was purely Hegelian to its core.


This assertion of yours isn't terribly inventive or original.
It is, however, what I've come to expect from you, A.W

Take it up with Marx, and quit reading shit WSWS articles from philosophical illiterates.

He says, not responding to the explicit refutation of his point contained therein.

Can i also drop links and declare a victory without explaining the point from the article to show that i've read it?

There is nothing to refute. Just skimmed it, and he's literally in denial if reality (also doesn't fucking get dialectics, proof positive of him knowing jack shit). Poor guy, and poor you, your desire for a saint to worship and an ideology to hold on to is just sad.

People claiming Marx was not a "Marxist" ignore several key pieces of evidence and commit to statements that are glaringly false

What are these several key pieces of evidence?


Primary sources kek

He''s right and you know it.

See the problem here?
Refute him, try it.

How many levels of dialectic are we on here?

orly? pics very much related

Well, no. He didn't actually argue his fucking point in the first place. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And the "refutation" is in the essay.

Stop stonewalling you little fuck

Why dont you explain it yourself in your own words? lazyness, nothing wrong with that actually.

What the fuck is that?

It's your brain on theory.

Really makes you think that systematics has gone too far

I did, cf.

This is your brain on thing-in-itself.

oh no the noumenal gulf how will i ever recover

What's that?

You can't step outside of consciousness.

So are you saying that was what Stirner was getting at, essentially?

No, shut the fuck up about Stirner. I'm talking about Kant.

Just checking.
It's not exactly clear what you were saying.
Not trying to establish a point, I'm genuinely curious.

dialectical materialism is the magic that will make the prophecy come true

It basically means Marx had prophetic delusions.

It means you can't know the future condition of a given physical object by contemplation or through "dogmas." You can only know by observing similar other objects.

Marx applied this thinking to large-scale production: workers shouldn't be fooled by hopes of a future than is not "real." Instead they must pull away the curtain and accept conditions as they are "on the ground" by observing the conditions of other workers (many of whom during the 19th century lived truly awful lives).

This was a fancy way to convince workers to react censoriously (not enviously) towards employers and landlords for their spendthrift lifestyles – as the employees fought for tablescraps.

How is this different from any other occurrence where two parties disagree with each other and still need to cooperate? People make compromises every day all the time without violently lashing out at one another. Also, if the proletariat's input is essential to the bourgeoise exploiting them then why is it implied the result is going to be one sided? Surely, if you're intelligent enough to realize you're being taken advantage of, you're intelligent enough to bargain without resorting to violence.

How is this different from Objectivism?

It's different because capitalists don't intend on cooperating

It's not.
See: Horseshoe Theory

Objectivism is egoist and pro-capitalist and a bunch of other things.

Game theory. In the worker's solidarity dilemma, there's too much incentive for individual workers to defect.

Overview of dialects:

Socrates, after studying under Plato, concluded that you can learn only by gathering clues. He asked questions that could be answered without invoking superstition or unexamined principles. Hegel extended Socrates by gathering knowledge of what something is not – at a particular moment. Dialectics is using negation to cut away the chaff from the wheat. Hegel, however, doesn't say that the negation is cutting away, rather that affirmative lemmas are being added to it. There is a middle between the two sides that is sometimes called a concept. This would make sense to someone who understands commutability in mathematics and "exclusive-or" in logic (an understanding of finite arithmetic would be even more helpful).

Life in this wordly existence can become uninspiring at times. According to philosphers, the solution to lack of inspiration is to make several of sacrifices, including the sacrifice of ethical assumptions. We can know which ethical assumptions to forsake by taking note of our doubts. Post-modernism extends Hegel by claiming that each person must perform his own dialectical analysis, since each person experiences doubt and inspiration in his own way (and because, according to Kant, it is doubt that prevents us from stretching these theories to the absolute extreme).

According to post-modernists, no dialectical concept exists that is universally-applicable (truth cannot be taught) except the principle of doubting. Truth is a sort of sacred entity whereby each carnal experience is merely a drop in a large unfathomable ocean. Learning one person's expert opinion should not be treated as a life-changing moment; rather the life-changing moment is when your own "consciousness" on a topic "evolves."

The system of thesis-anthesis-synthesis can be gamed by omitting information from the querent. Hence, people who hold opposing opinions to his are often accused of being uninformed, rather than of having a different experience.

good post

Wasn't Plato Socrates's student?

Either give a clear reason as to why people are wrong or go suck a spiked dick.

I'm tired of people on boards quoting a million posts saying "wrong" and then not saying why.

It doesn't surprise me that you're trip either as neither your statement or the link contradicts anything the previous blokes said. Attention seeking dumb ass, leave my sight.

Genuine question-

What is the difference between materialism and positivism? and for that matter is there a difference between materialism and old fashion determinism?

Positivism has a pretty large difference from Materialism in any Marxist sense. For instance positivists definitely don't like the concept of dialectics, and historical materialism isn't compatible with positivism either. Marxism examines the material conditions of the social construction of reality, positivism usually thinks it can access empirical phenomena directly.

if I was the OP your post would be completely unhelpful. even worse is that you didn't bother trying to explain it in simple terms like the OP wanted. you have got to be one of the most annoying and pretentious trips on this board

Listen to Badiou:

Said, A.W. who has read neither the Greeks, nor Romans, or Scholastics, and has barely skimmed the moderns (only one you've "read" is Hegel).

This. Read this OP, don't listen to A.W.'s pseudo intellectual drivel. We're all still waiting for A.W. to show us proofs of 3 professors who think he's the absolute shit.