Chomsky On Dialectics

Dialectics is one that I've never understood, actually-I've just never understood what the word means. Marx doesn't use it, incidentally, it's used by Engels. And if anybody can tell me what it is, I'll be happy. I mean, I've read all kinds of things which talk about "dialectics"-I haven't the foggiest idea what it is. It seems to mean something about complexity, or alternative positions, or change, or something. I don't know.

I'll tell you the honest truth: I'm kind of simple-minded when it comes to
these things. Whenever I hear a four-syllable word I get skeptical, because I want to make sure you can't say it in monosyllables. Don't forget, part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if every- body can understand what you're talking about, you've sort of lost, because then what makes you special? What makes you special has got to be something that you had to work really hard to understand, and you mastered it, and all those guys out there don't understand it, and then that becomes the basis for your privilege and your power.

So take what's called "literary theory" -I mean, I don't think there's any such thing as literary "theory," any more than there's cultural "theory" or historical "theory." If you're just reading books and talking about them and getting people to understand them, okay, you can be terrific at that, like Edmund Wilson was terrific at it-but he didn't have a literary theory. On the other hand, if you want to mingle in the same room with that physicist over there who's talking about quarks, you'd better have a complicated theory too that nobody can understand: he has a complicated theory that nobody can understand, why shouldn't I have a complicated theory that nobody can understand? If someone came along with a theory of history, it would be the same: either it would be truisms, or maybe some smart ideas, like somebody could say, "Why not look at economic factors lying behind the Constitution?" or something like that-but there'd be nothing there that couldn't be said in monosyllables.

In fact, it's extremely rare, outside of the natural sciences, to find things that can't be said in monosyllables: there are just interesting, simple ideas, which are often extremely difficult to come up with and hard to work out. Like, if you want to try to understand how the modern industrial economy developed, let's say, that can take a lot of work. But the "theory" will be ex- tremely thin, if by "theory" we mean something with principles which are not obvious when you first look at them, and from which you can deduce surprising consequences and try to confirm the principles-you're not going to find anything like that in the social world.

Incidentally, I should say that my own political writing is often denounced from both the left and the right for being non-theoretical-and that's completely correct. But it's exactly as theoretical as anyone else's, I just don't call it "theoretical," I call it "trivial" -which is in fact what it is. I mean, it's not that some of these people whose stuff is considered "deep theory" and so on don't have some interesting things to say. Often they have very interesting things to say. But it's nothing that you couldn't say at the level of a high school student, or that a high school student couldn't figure out if they had the time and support and a little bit of training.
I think people should be extremely skeptical when intellectual life con- structs structures which aren't transparent-because the fact of the matter is that in most areas of life, we just don't understand anything very much. There are some areas, like say, quantum physics, where they're not faking. But most of the time it's just fakery, I think: anything that's at all understood can probably be described pretty simply. And when words like "di- alectics" come along, or "hermeneutics," and all this kind of stuff that's supposed to be very profound, like Goering, "I reach for my revolver."


Other urls found in this thread:,

I'm not saying that it doesn't have any meaning-you observe people using the term and they look like they're communicating. But it's like when 1 watch people talking Turkish: something's going on, but I'm not part of it.

Actually, occasionally in interviews I've said this about not understand- ing "dialectics," and 1 get long letters back from people saying, "You don't understand, here's what 'dialectical' is"-and either it's incomprehensible, or else it's trivial. So maybe I've got a gene missing or something-like people can be tone-deaf, they just can't hear the music. But everything 1 encounter in these fields either seems to be sort of interesting, but pretty obvious once you see it-maybe you didn't see it at first, and somebody had to point it out to you-or else just incomprehensible.

I'm skeptical: I think one has a right to be skeptical when you don't un- derstand something. I mean, when I look at a page of, say, quantum electrodynamics, I don't understand a word of it. But I know what I would have to do to get to understand it, and I'm pretty confident that I could get to understand it-I've understood other complicated things. So I figure if I bothered to put myself through the discipline, and I studied the early stuff and the later stuff, I'd finally get to the point where I understood it. Or I could go to someone in the Physics Department and say, "Tell me why everybody's excited about this stuff," and they could adapt it to my level and tell me how to pursue it further. Maybe I wouldn't understand it very deeply, or I couldn't have invented it or something, but I'd at least begin to understand it. On the other hand, when I look at a page of Marxist philosophy or literary theory, I have the feeling that I could stare at it for the rest of my life and I'd never understand it-and I don't know how to proceed to get to understand it any better, I don't even know what steps I could take.
I mean, it's possible that these fields are beyond me, maybe I'm not smart enough or something. But that would have kind of a funny conclusion-it's nothing to do with me. That would mean that somehow in these domains people have been able to create something that's more complex than physics and mathematics-because those are subjects I think I could get to understand. And I just don't believe that, frankly: I don't believe that literary theorists or Marxian philosophers have advanced to some new intellectual level that transcends century after century of hard intellectual work.
There are parts of philosophy which I think I understand, and it's most of classical philosophy. And there are things that I don't understand, because
they don't make any sense-and that's okay too, these are hard questions. I mean, it's not necessarily a criticism to say that something doesn't make sense: there are subjects that it's hard to talk sensibly about. But if I read, say, Russell, or analytic philosophy, or Wittgenstein and so on, I think I can come to understand what they're saying, and I can see why I think it's wrong, as I often do. But when I read, you know, Derrida, or Lacan, or AI- thusser, or any of these-I just don't understand it. It's like words passing in front of my eyes: I can't follow the arguments, I don't see the arguments, anything that looks like a description of a fact looks wrong to me. So maybe I'm missing a gene or something, it's possible. But my honest opinion is, I think it's all fraud.

That's an interesting case, because Newtonian mechanics was treated as kind of holy-because it was such a revolutionary development. I mean, it was really the first time in human history that people ever had an explana- tion of things in any deep sense: it was so comprehensive, and so simple, and so far-reaching in its consequences that it almost looked like it was necessary. And in fact, it was treated that way for a long time-so much so that Kant, for example, regarded it as the task of philosophy to derive Newtonian physics from a priori principles, and to show that it was certain truth, on a par with mathematics. And it really wasn't until the late- nineteenth and early-twentieth century that the fallacy of those conceptions became quite clear, and with that realization there was a real advance in our conception of what "science" is. So science did have kind of a religious character for a period, you're right-and that was something we had to get ourselves out of, I think. It doesn't happen anymore.

kek, Chomsky is such a fucking brainlet

Dialectics, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Di-a-lec-tics

I don't blame Chomsky, dialectics is abused a lot and often only used as a scare word to shut your opponent up.

I'm a biologist and I agree 100% with Chomsky's attack on jargon and have always felt the same about it. I really detest phrases like "deleterious" that seem to exist solely to create a barrier of understanding to keep outsiders out.

Chomsky is an analytical brainlet.

I kinda agree with him on this point, generally. Often when people use big words like "dialectics", "negation of the negation", etc., the point they're making is actually extremely simple, and could easily be explained to a complete brainlet without much dumbing down.

So his problem is thinking that speech exists only to make arguments and state facts, when it can be made to express logic equations - and this use of language seems to elude Chomsky.


Go on.

I think they're referring to lojban.

I too like to open my epic attacks on Marxism with statements that are obviously not true and very easy to disprove. I assume this was written before people had google?

Although it's nice to see that, although by his own admission he knows nothing of Marxism, Chomsky spent enough time with Marxist academics to know you're supposed to blame Engels for all the parts you don't like or confuse you.

What does it mean?

Don't ask me dumb gotcha rhetorical questions, read a book.

So learning what dialectic means is part of being in a niche group? How can leftists ever plan on getting the working class on their side if they cant even explain their central ideas.


If you aren't an autist just become an analytical Marxist. Much cleaer to the normie, easier to learn and apply. No need for dialectics to argue for your communism.

That's not what he's saying. But let's pretend it was: he is probably the most influential linguist ever. So I'd take his opinion on the reason why speech exists over yours.

The most successful organizers don't waste time with theory. And the academic Marxists aren't great at organizing. Or at least not that I'm aware of. All of academia is basically people writing to other academics or people who pretend like they're part of that intellectual community.

I've been calling myself a Marxist for over 5 years but still haven't the faintest idea of what dialectics are and how they relate to Marxism.

How are dialectics useful to the communist movement? Explain in the most brainlet-level way you can please.


*The law of the unity and conflict of opposites
*The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes
*The law of the negation of the negation

Any questions?

Maybe the most successful jailbirds.

read State and Revolution and it'll make sense

Total lie.


I agree with a lot of Chomsky's viewpoint there, and I am always getting mad at obfuscationists. Especially in the circles he's forced to run in, working with obscurantist American left-liberals, I'd get pissed off too. Remember that Chomsky's views of Althusser, Lacan etc. would be even worse than a normal person, because he's not just annoyed at reading them, he also has to deal with the kind of fuckwit American """academics""" who make their livings not just making shit up, but making shit up ABOUT making shit up, at one and two removes from the source (writing papers about books about books, for instance). It's like all these Continental lefties were trying to build theoretical tools, or weapons, to analyse capitalism and dismantle it, but in the import process to the Anglosphere they got converted into silly toys. For this reason, most theory hangs out in literary departments, not philosophy departments, which is a shame because it leaves powerful tools like Hegel and Lacan, built to analyse minds, societies, or Being itself, in the hands of people who use them to analyse films and novels.

However, dialectics is a powerful tool for thought, and I would encourage anyone to pick it up. It's not hard. Part of Chomsky's trick, very common to Chomsky, is dismissing things as either incomprehensible or trivial - by setting up that divide, he plays a bit of an arrogant reduction game. Remember, finally, that Chomsky has his own image as an unpretentious, no-nonsense thinker to maintain here. He critiques the system, but is simultaneously inside it. I mean, you can call anything trivial once the thought's been presented to you - Newton is just 'dude things are attracted to other things LMAO', or Adam Smith is just 'dude muh invisible hand LMAO'. You can pretend to be le superieur intellectual all day long if you want to, by using this trick, but you're only fooling yourself if you do.

I will see what I can achieve with monosyllables. Dialectics is a world-view which sees things as moving and in conflict. This is a big step forward from earlier theories, probably clearly put for the first time by Aristotle, which see the world as being fixed, set, static.

Dialectics is like a conversation - a dialogue - where instead of one side talking, it is more like two sides arguing and getting closer to the truth by disagreeing with eachother and revising their views. For Aristotle, the world was a big fixed creation. Things proceeded in a very straightforward line, or a circle. Like summer, autumn, winter, spring, summer again. Nothing really changes on the inside. Things do appear to change, but only externally, because of things that happen on the outside of them (men go to war, but nothing really changes about the nature of war. This war ends, another starts)

Dialectical thinking sees the world as defined by change, based on the forces or contradictions internal to things. The change is brought about because the thing can't go on working the way it normally does. Small measurable changes ("quantitiative", like quantity) build up and nothing appears to happen, until all of a sudden there is a noticeable change in the KIND of thing it is ("qualitative", like quality). Things appear to swing wildly from one thing to another. I drive my car to work, I don't need a service. I drive my car home, I don't need a service. But if I don't service my car after a year of driving, it changes in quality - it goes from being a working car to a broken car.

This isn't just theory wank, it happens in the real world. In pre-Revolution France, the system started to fall apart due to internal contradictions, big disagreements. The Royalty required people to work in order to tax them and spend their wealth, but people need to retain enough food to survive on. if one person hasn't got enough money for bread, that is one person's problem. But if the royalty keeps taxing and there's a bad year for crops, each individual person piles up until there's a change in the QUALITY of the King (he goes from being a King with a head to being a King without a head). To say that things are 'just like themselves', fixed and static, is like saying that nothing ever changes, which is obviously untrue. Things are driven on by forces going on within them (like a city, or a person, or an economy). The Global Financial Crisis happened because everyone assumed we'd keep getting richer, so banks made bad loans and then sold eachother the debt. Everyone knew this was happening, and slowly every little bit of untrustworthiness built up until nobody could trust anyone anymore, and the system went from looking like a booming economy to a broken economy almost overnight. This is dialectics in action.


Dialectics is often less interested in looking at things themselves than it is about the way things are related. If I look at a boss or a worker individually, I see just a regular person, maybe a nice bloke, maybe with a family, trying to survive in the world. Only when I look at them as a "boss and a worker" do I see that the boss is acting in a certain way, a power relationship exists, and so on. Then I can work out what contradictions exist (for instance: the worker needs wages, but the boss wants to pay low wages for maximum profit, but the boss needs to sell stuff to other workers, who need good wages to buy things) and analyse what can be done about the problem.

This also leads to apparent big swings from side to side. People trained to think in an undialectical, 'classical', 'linear' or 'analytical' way often find this confusing. This is the same mindset that looks at a trend-line on a graph and concludes that it will always keep going up or down. By doing this ("the stock market is going up, better invest") all these individual actions contribute to a contradiction ("the money invested does not represent the real value of the products"), and then people realise this and a crash or swing occurs. Someone who thinks dialectically can see the small oppositions build up to a whole change in what is going on. For instance, Russia was a backwards and conservative country in the late 1800s. Then, Russia had a revolt in 1905 (involving the Bolsheviks) where people in the cities got angry (because of things building up as above, like a grain shortage, government repression, low wages). The Revolution got put down, but government was pressured to institute a constitution. Then, after 1906, people were tired out and there was mass repression. These were years of absolute political conservatism where people didn't want revolution and wanted to get on with their lives. But then the WWI happened, and there was another big shift to the revolutionary side and the Revolution happened. However, after this and the Civil War, people again reacted to the conditions of life (Civil War and shortages) and we got the more staid and conservative Stalinism coming in.

Does this make sense? Shorn of all the rubbish, dialectics is very powerful. It changes the way you see things, and often helps to clear away the mystification about why a bunch of stuff happens.

Dialectical Materialism the philosophy of a Communist/Socialist movement. Materialism is the position that thought comes from nature, not the idealist position that thought produces nature. Materialist belive in the real, physical world and reject the supernatural, ghosts, spirits, and so on. The dialectics in Materialism are the "motion" of the real world. Dialectics is primarily the acceptance/acknowledgment that the real world effects itself through processes (called dialectical processes), forming the real world. It is very common sense, and is only denied by idealists and metaphysicians to keep their sterile world view. An example of a dialectical process is the life cycle of a tree. The seed of the tree is acted on by outside and internal forces, pushing the seed to grow or stagnate. The seed is pushed toward a growth due to favorable conditions, and the seed turns into the plant, which undergoes similar process before turning into the tree, and then produces its own seeds. In this example, we have covered most of dialectics. The seed impacts it self (cellular growth), and the seed is impacted by its environment (nutrient sin the soil), creating conditions where it overcomes its previous state into a new one. This overcoming is often referred to as contradictions. Their are contradictions inherent in things, with the seed fighting the contradictory (opposing) forces of life and death. Certain forces push the seed towards decay, while others push it towards life. By overcoming theopposing forces of decay, the seed transforms into the plant.
Much love,

But it's not a worldview, Marx certainly doesn't think this is just another worldview. It's a thinking that captures something in its essence.

But this isn't true either. Marx does not reduce dialectics to relations of quantity and quality. The contradiction is not something that happens to things, but is what they really are. A commodity doesn't have a contradiction happen to it, it is a contradiction itself. A commodity is something that has its essence, another commodity, outside of itself, and is only in its interchange with this other. It is a thing which as thing has its essence outside it as another thing, but only when that other thing exchanges with it. This is not a quantitative change, but is an immediate contradiction of the commodity itself just being what it is: a thing that is useful for exchanging away.

But what dialectics really do is precisely to look at things in themselves and show without a doubt that they are necessarily related to an opposite.

But this requires no understanding of anything like Hegel's method or Marx's. It's actually quite common sense.

Honestly, dialectics isn't useful in any way for what you think it is. You are mistaking an accurate grasp of historical contingent occurrences to be the same as a grasp of an essential and necessary logical development of things. These two things are not identical, essences are not the same as appearances, nor is the contingent and existent the same as the rationally necessary. Capitalism does not in fact work with a pure logic of capital, and one does not expect it to. To the extent that it does, to that extent capitalism has self-corrected and transcended its limitations in a self-rationalizing process.

Fuck off Anal Water

Dialectics is good but not in the way that Zizek and other "professional" academics use it. Contrarians and other cosmopolitans need to be purged by force from all marxist orgs. Any who openly identify as marxist/communist/leftist should be eliminated.

Thanks, Brother No. 1

Oh look: a huge wall of text that misrepresents the opposing view.
Except Chomsky already remarked:
Typical of the dishonest wafflers on this board.

Fuck off Anal Water>>2299945
Hey, I quite like Chomsky. I agree with his point about there being too many complex shitters around making livings by gussying up regular thoughts with big words.

However, if you want to call everything trivial, then what the hell is the point of the designator 'trivial' here? A (sufficiently interested, motivated) high-school student can understand just about anything you care to teach them - the main reason highschool students don't know much is because they've only been alive for limited years, not because being in highschool makes you unable to learn stuff.

Plenty of highschoolers actually do read and understand Marx, but this doesn't mean that Marx's critique of political economy is 'trivial' knowledge. If everything is trivial, then nothing is trivial. 'Trivial' is a pretty big insult to start throwing around at people's ideas if you're just going to retreat to 'all ideas are trivial' when called out. I mean, hell, maybe it does seem trivial to Chomsky, but he's one of the most cited academics ever, so he's maybe not in a position to judge triviality for the average brainlet, you know?

Whatever makes you feel like a big boi, little man ;)

Uh huh. Still in that HS teenage phase where you believe you understand everything and everyone else is just dumb?

reatard op


You shave or let a cat lick off that contemptible excuse of facial hair for you, given that we're on the topic of non-sequiturs

Read Lewontin, ffs.

Dialectics is hermetic mysticism, it's literally "the right side of history" ideology.

Or it's stupidity and selfishness in action. What else could explain that they created and maintained such a stupid system in the first place?

Pick one.

Do the letters sjc mean anything to you?

Really good explanation, thanks fam

I note and appreciate your criticism. You are right. Now, would you be so kind as to explain dialectics to these comrades in a way that makes it seem a 'non-trivial' project, while also using monosyllabic words to avoid being accused of obscurantism?

Thanks for your post it pretty much confirmed to me that I had the right idea of dialectics, but was just confused by alot of the terminology thrown around by the big boys. QUALITY POST.

This has given me a very content feeling. You're welcome man.

If you meant to reply to my post scj doesn't mean anything to me but I am terrible at remembering names and what not.

I'd you mean it is the ideology of the cool kids, then yes, it is undoubtedly on the right side of history and YES it will make your children big and strong.
Wew lad, you almost have a point, if you aren't thinking of material dialectically, you are being a pretty shitty materialist. That's not your point tho, so allow me to sidestep your false dichotomy. Come with a real argument w/e you feel like it.

This is ironic posting boys, take note.

How about the deduction of the tendency of the rate of profit to decline? that's counter intuitive and complex

i agree on that dialectics is just for pretencious retards tho

nvm then, you'd know if it meant anything to you

people fight over things
such dialectics
marxism confirmed

There is nothing to say about the method because there is none that is formal. I can give you a form it has, but this form let's you know nothing and allows you to do nothing.

I don't know why people keep trying to convince themselves they have to shill a method that is useless for what they want. This method does not give you an empirical science, it gives you an essential science. It does fuck all to help you organize, it does not give you any revolutionary insight, and it does not have any practical implications for your personal or group actions.

Necessary sciences like Capital give you the practice of the object in theory. The unity of theory and praxis is not of the theory and yours, but of the theory and the object. You cannot have a science of this kind for your local party. Knowing that proles are the masses and capitalists are the few, and that they have opposing interests is not in fact telling of anything like a transcending class struggle nor tells of how one mobilizes a mass towards a transcending aim. History is full of contingencies, revolution is contingent, and contingencies is not what these theories deal with.

I tend to agree. The humanities are really nothing but language dress-up.

Marx does use it, in letters to Engels he describes the value form as a dialectical presentation.

More like dress-down, language is compressed to a mix of far-left jargon and human resource phrasing. I think this is why they appear so detached and afraid, the language they use renders them unable to conceive of the world as anything but a p.roblematic-oppressive-systematic-structure.

Have you ever spent five years working a job you hated with a boss you hated and unable to get any other job? Or have you ever been in the military or any other lock-in contract job?

I think Chomsky just mixed up Dialectic(s) (a term Marx used) with Dialectical Materialism. With that bug fixed, it's a pretty good text.


yeah, but the TRPD is clearly not pseudoscientific quackery

Literally makes no sense. You can't make up vague concepts and call them laws

Well fam, it obviously doesn't make sense if you don't try to understand what he means by this. Even the fucking wikipedia article explains this.
All these laws come from Hegel, I'm sure Anal Water can explain it better than I can, but let me try
The first law originally comes from Heraclitus, and it's the logical precursor to the Hegelian dialectic. As this helpful article explains (, Heraclitus says that all things are in a constant state of change, opposite things are identical, and everything is and is not at the same time. Now this sounds absolutely bonkers, but it does make a certain degree of sense. Take the two opposites, alive and dead. They are contradictions, you can't be both at the same time, and yet one cannot exist without the other, and we live in a state of flux between the two. Even as we are alive, we are still slowly dying, and we know that what is alive right now will one day be dead. Applied to our subject, it means that society is in a constant state of change and defined by conflicting, contradictory forces that are nevertheless dependent on each other. Now there is more to this - something something negation, sublimation, and sho on - but I don't know enough Hegel to explain it.
The second is much simpler. It just means that quantitative changes (say, changes in population) lead to qualitative changes (changes in the structure of society). I think most people would find this self evident, but it did lead to an annoying tendency of Marxist historians studying, say, the French Revolution by looking at bread prices (which does kinda miss the point).
The third is an extension of the first, and I'm not quite well-read enough to explain what the fuck Hegel means by it, but thankfully we have a quote from Marx that applies it for us
Capital vol. 1 - Chapter 32
Capitalism arises from the capitalist appropriation of property - the enclosure of the commons, the breakup of feudal manors, etc. This is the first negation. But the capitalist system creates contradictions that will lead to the re-appropriation of property and its destruction. Communism, the negation of the negation.
Dialectical materialism is basically applying Hegel's dialectic to Marx's theory of history in order to turn it into a broader philosophy, with all the weird language and metaphysics that entails. Personally I'm just sticking with the theory of history. If you want a better explanation, you're gonna have to ask Anal Water or read Hegel

Oh, those annoying historians. What does it matter whether people can afford food. You sound like you are quite the thonker.

How can it make sense to you if you can't even explain it?

You couldn't even make sense of the Marx quote! Simply calling things "negation of negation" means nothing. The key there is that it "does not re-establish" what was before. This is in contrast with classical logic that claims that negating something twice leads us back to the original. I think this is the only thing that is actually part of Hegel's dialectics. His contradictions are certainly not just "oppositions" and the second "law" has nothing to do with dialectics.

Of course the prices of food matter, but it isn't the only thing that matters, and narrowing your lens to a few statistics misses the whole point of history being a social process driven by a variety of forces, both quantitative and qualitative. The rising bread prices might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, or at least a part of that straw, but behind that number of social relations and historical developments centuries in the making that you can't simply divine from how many francs a loaf of bread costs.

All the "laws" are from Hegel. The second one was taken from the Science of Logic.
The ideas make sense to me as someone who hasn't read a lick of Hegel and who is literally just clicking through the wikipedia article and reading the sources. Fact of the matter is that you can't get a full understanding of something from wikipedia articles, and I'm not well-read in terms of philosophy, but I do know that the laws are more than just "vague concepts" that Engels invented.

*but behind that number lies a whole bunch of social relations and historical developments

"The law of the unity and conflict of opposites" certainly has nothing to do with Hegel and "the law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes" could be a misunderstanding of Hegel's analysis of Quality and Quantity but it has nothing to do with his method (dialectics).

Well fam I'm gonna have to take your word for it. I'm still reading Capital

Pull your head out of your ass. If I can't obtain food by buying I will try to obtain it some other way. Think what that means.

Fam, are you seriously gonna argue that you can boil down the entire French Revolution into a single number? If not, I don't see what it is you're disagreeing with me about. I'm saying they were missing the point in focusing on the number, rather than the broader historical process. I'm not saying they were missing the point by looking at the price of food, period.

So dialectics could be summarised as a set of univerasl principles fundamental to growth of "unbiased" insight?
Fundamental values off which you build further conclusions, so as not delve in fallacy of "validation/verification" based on presumptions off presumptions themselves?
Validity of dialectics verified through examination of nature and it's processes, the logic behind it, the very:
And then there's
Which I'm kinda lost at, sparks kinda similar confusion as that of dialectics kinda justifying dialectics themselves, except it's somewhat understandable as with empiricism, materialism or what not, afterall we need the slightest fundaments which to build off of, a point of refferance, a benchmark, say.. chaos and unity.
The almost paradoxical rule that creates logic and vice versa the rule being it's own logical outcome.
Thanks based Bob Ross.

Still, I'll be grateful for elaboration on the law of negating the nagation, if not all in all the overalls.

Where does it say that, you silly sausage?

Dialectics are a pattern that emerges as a result of conducting what is called the imminent critique: investigating a concept or system based on its own internal logic. They really aren't that important to Marxism. I'm almost 100% with Chomsky on this one.

Fuck off Anal Water. Your pseudointellectual quackery is not welcome here.

I too can read a wikipedia article

why are marxists such faggots?

You had an arse full of farts that night, dialectics, and I fucked them out of you

U wont mate? I haven't read the Wikipedia article for dialectics but I imagine it isn't much like what I described, as the term has different usages outside of Hegel.

I like this definition!

nothing of what A.W. has said is actually wrong, fuck you all for not contributing to the discussion whatsoever

t. buttblasted AW samefagging

any time somebody doesn't answer the question and instead tells you "read a book" should get a ban tbh. You really think Lenin or anybody like that ever said to young worker with a question "read a book" ? If you're so superior, it shouldn't be difficult, and if you believe in the idea, you should be happy to argue in its favour, you should jump at the chance to make a convert.