How can I practice analysing things dialectically?

It's also wrong.

Don't listen to this guy. Marx read Hegel, you should too if you want to

Fug, shitpost flag

Dialectical materialism isn't the same as the dialectical method Hegel and Marx use. Materialist dialectics only please.

No, it isn't.

What in Heaven's name are you talking about

The distinction between Marx and Hegel is that Marx was a materialist. Ergo, Marx as a dialectical materialist. And for fuck's sake, the thing is titled "ABCs of Materialist Dialectics".

Trotsky had no idea what he was talking about.

Point to specific places where you think Trotsky misinterpret Hegel, Marx, or Lenin.

Protip: You can't.

*misinterpreted

Yes, definitely. Hegel's dialectic is what Marx used to come up with Capital in the first place, in fact you wont properly understand why Marx is doing what he is in Capital unless you understand Hegel.

Hegel is the base logic and then Capital is an example of that logic being applied to various aspects of life and society.

But can't I learn the method from Marx himself instead of polluting my head with Hegel's idealism?

typical lazy Leftcom pleb

haven't read ANY Hegel:

t. Holla Forums

also lel if you think "Geistes" translates to "mind"

Really? What are those reputations?

Long and dry I presume. Capital vol. I is however beautiful in its composition. A beauty which can only be comprehended by those who have a basic understanding of dialectics.

Oh boy, I just noticed that link.

His idea of dialectics was that one pound of sugar isn't actually one pound of sugar because there will never be an exact number of crystals of sugar, even thesis-antithesis-synthesis is better, and that's saying a lot.

I really get the feeling that you read only that one paragraph, made up your mind that it was stupid (or felt that your preconceived concept of it was confirmed) and then you closed the window.

He's right though. Trotsky was calling for the total militarization of society before Stalin came to power as well.

Except he's not right. The "pound of sugar" was just a rhetorical device to explain how common logic is useful for every day problems, but that in examining systems syllogisms like A = A only make sense when examining processes in a discrete time frame. From there he goes on to explain how in engineering you have concepts like "tolerance" where you can treat A plus or minus some degree of variation is still treated as A, but past a certain variation A becomes B.

I sincerely suggest reading the ABC again because so far it doesn't seem like either of you understood a single word of it.

I suggest just reading Hegel for the first time. Trotsky's fucked:

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/ch08.htm

I didn't say that Trotsky is beyond you, but saying "Trotsky's idea of dialectical is a pound of sugar isn't a pound of sugar" is incorrect and in portraying it as such is mistaken. I suggest rereading it because your statements make it seem as though you either didn't read it or didn't understand it and neither of those possibilities are useful when it comes to discussing the work's utility.

But you're right, I should read Hegel. He seems pretty complicated and interesting and I'd like to improve my understanding of dialectical thinking as well.

this is very good dialectic work thus far keep it up user

This is a bad opinion. Capital is a self-contained book and you can understand Marx without reading Hegel.

This thread is low on actual help. Some quick tips for OP:

1. Totality - Think of how something (simple object) relates to every else (the totality).
2. Becoming - How does something come about (as in what was the process).
3. Concreteness - How does something exist in reality, in actuality (as opposed to the abstract concept).
4. Contradiction - What are the opposing forces that sustain or change something (for example a political conflict).

You can't possibly be that stupid.

He was pointing out that the chief distinction between dialectic logic and formal logic is that dialectic logic views things in a state of constant change or transformation, which is much more in line with modern science and therefore much more accurate.

Yes, that's very out of line with the idea of an "armed dictatorship of the proletariat."

Oh wait.

Hegel is probably the most difficult material you'll read and you'll regret even picking up any of his books. But have fun I guess.

This. Just read Marx. He perfected Hegel.

It's worth reading only insofar as his Phenomenology of Spirit is a prerequisite to reading The Ego and Its Own so you can get the satire of Stirner making fun of Hegel.

Did Stirner actually think or believe anything or did he just make it his life goal to mock everyone else?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Ego and It's Own is even outlined the same was as Phenomenology, Stirner also mocks Hegel's writing style and the fallacies he commits, and uses Hegel's philosophy against him by using the same historical process to arrive at a conclusion that contradicts itself and supports egoism.

Read this: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/stirner-the-wise-guy

And while you're at it; theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-philosophical-reactionaries

Stirner was the height of 18th century comedy it would seem

How do you even do that?

You realise this is not in any way contradictory to Marx, right? The whole idealism-materialism dichotomy is a meme pushed by Trots and ML's to simplify the whole topic and create an 'us vs them' mentality.

Even the phrase 'Marx flipped Hegel on his head' has nothing to do with 'rejecting' idealism but rather applying Hegel's dialectic to history, which is not what it was intended for.

Marx explaining why you are retarded in his own words, from the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital volume 1:

Also Hegel did apply dialectics to history:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectures_on_the_Philosophy_of_History

Nothing exists in a vacuum figure out how the thing affects other things and work your way out. E.g. the whole "are traps gay?" thing starts with a specific area of sexuality but it connects to other adjacent questions. How does sexual orientation work and where are the boundaries? How does gender work, and how is performance/presentation distinct from internal gender distinct from biological gender? These concepts are adjacent to and relate to family structure - how does the codified family structure conflict with expanded concepts of gender and gender roles, as well as attraction? Families/households have functioned within capitalism as reproducers of labor both as a way for current laborers to "recharge the batteries" and be ready to labor again, and as a way for laborers to produce future laborers (children). How does a shifting dynamic in family structures affect capitalism as a global economic system?

You can connect everything to everything else if you take enough steps in the right directions. The totality part here shouldn't be emphasized too much though. In order to analyze a situation it's also important to know what parts are ok to ignore. Broadening your approach is useful for finding possible sources of conflict that you otherwise wouldn't have considered, but you have to move on to analyzing how the moving parts move together at some point.

Are there no practice exercises or something?

bump

there you go.

Write down the thing on a piece of paper, write down all of the things it is related to, and draw lines between them, then think about what those lines represent.

Marx is cringe-inducingly wrong about both Hegel and himself here, and his philosophically incompetent rhetoric barely even means anything when you actually dissect it. It's almost like namefags are blinded by their own ego and are not perfectly self-transparent. Stop being spellbound by your messiah and actually learn how to read.

youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8xaUVDt6I

This is why Trotsky is wrong.

This is something you >after< thinking dialectically, not to think dialectically.

Or just read

empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/

It's okay Yui-poster, I'm sure nobody remembers that episode where you embarrassed yourself by claiming that materialism is just a type of idealism.

What's Yui?

But if ideas are just material perceptions reflected by the human mind, then all types of idealism are a form of materialism. By that logic, materialism and idealism are connected. In the way that every idealistic abstraction is bound by real material presuppositions. While every real material condition is an imperfect version of the idealist abstraction. So doesn't it all boil down to semantics, while the way both of them use dialectics remains the same, except for the fact that Marx uses it as an immanent critique, while Hegel just uses it as a way to describe the world.

I don't recall that argument tbh but I do remember making some wild claims along those lines, was probably banking on Marxists being bluffing faggots who only have two words at their disposal. Have any of you even read Kant?

No you don't get it Marx perfected ontology and there's nothing more that needs to be said than trusting him, Engels, and maybe Lenin on this one. Never mind technological capitalism has a totally different material base now, we must all be frozen in the spergy metaphysics of a single autist because his rhetoric seems maybe persuasive enough. Or for some, never elaborated, reason except "it's good why not" slapping Lacanian psychobabble over the top to make it more excessively baroque/frenetically rant about memes to stoned college idiots.

Now I understand why you are a "nazbol"

Oh go on tell me all the elaborations. Liek to hear your take on the brief existentialist phase

This is why I just tend to mock you rather than engaging in debates mostly btw. I might as well debate a cat.

Have you ever seen such a thing as matter as such? No. Matter is a universal concept, an idea to explain the world. That's what it means for materialism to be an idealism.

fite me faggot

...

bump

...

Learn to think and observe for yourself. Challenge even your most basic assumptions.

Is Lefebvre's Dialectical Materialism any good?

No.

What's the problem with it?

It's not dialectical. What do you mean what's the problem with it? You would have to know what IS dialectics first if you were to even grasp a response.

I've read reviews and they said the first part of the book is Lefebvre presenting Hegel's and Marx's dialectical methods.

Have a (You) for the effort spent in writing that shitpost.

I've heard his name somewhere else before, so he is probably good for reasons. Why not read it? I'll put it in my reading list myself.

And it's bad. Dialectics is an immanent method, it never can be materialist or idealist in nature.

If Marx has a dialectical method that's different, then you should drop dialectics and switch to analytical Marxism. It does the same, and it saves you a headache due to bs.

Why did you remove your Nazbol flag?

bump