Negation of the Negation

Can someone other than Anal Water explain this shit in a language normies can understand, why it's important for DiaMat and also why Mao rejected it? I asked Jason Unruhe about it in a DM on Twitter months ago but all he did was link to some article by the LLCO which didn't explain shit.

Other urls found in this thread: of the Negation, Law of the


At work, but have this article on hand: of the Negation, Law of the

What don’t you understand? Read Engels you dumb nigger.

Engels is too confusing.


Which work? I've been mildly interested in the subject of dialectical negation for a while.

Thanks user.


Roo and Mao dont understand it either

Hence why Roo needs to link to an article by a fucking cop front and not explain it himself.

Dialectics can be understood as a back-and-forth. That's what is meant someone memes that "the dialectic is in motion." The object at hand has changed in meaning.

I will use this to homeschool my kids. Thanks.


Here's what the negation of the negation is:
First you got something. Then you got something that's its exact opposite. And after that, you got something that's so radically different from the second one of those two that it ends up being kind of similar to the first one.
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, as Hegel would have envisioned it.
The reason why Mao rejected it was because he wanted to be an edgy realist who got rid of Marxism's Hegelian roots.



Mao never read Hegel. Your narrative is highly flawed.

This is the best bait I've seen here in weeks.

Here's your (you), that was some damn good bait.

fichte made that, not hegel
he never read Hegel, your statement applies more to althusser

Author was a fan of Mises

This board isn't even trying anymore.

I find it quite trying

Now this is quality bait

I came up with two statements when taking a shower yesterday.

One is an internet meme,
and one is by Zizek,

Do these capture the idea of negation of the negation?

"You're not even wrong." is used when your opponent comes up with a statement you can't even properly disagree with. Like, you want to negate, but even the negation doesn't work out.

And "you have no idea how right you are" is used – I think – when the internal logic of someone's statement leads you exactly to the point you want to affirm. Or conversely, when your idea is the necessary basis for the other statement.

You don't negate the statement itself, which is arguably correct. Instead, you transform its position within the ideological structure by negating and then retaking it.

Another idea I had earlier is the experience of finding out the truth of what you've denied. Not in a way that erases the denial, but so that it is exactly the denial that opens up the space for the rediscovery. A rediscovery which is actually fuller than the original.

Can someone who knows his shit confirm that I've got this?


So hows your snipe hunt coming along?

One way to think about this is through this passage from the 1844 manuscripts:

This is an interesting passage since Marx is distancing real life from communism. There is debate that this early Marx is not canon, so to speak, so I'd like to hear any critical remarks anyone may have.

My understanding is that the negation of the negation is meant in the sense that at first, you are responding to and challenging conditions as they exist. Everyone believes in God, for example, and you come along and say "I don't, I'm an atheist." Yet outside the imposition of the norm you are responding to, this statement has no meaning. So if everyone were to become Atheist, there would be no point in calling yourself one. After all, this would no longer be a meaningful distinction.

Communism is understood as the negation of private property through its completion:

In the end, Marx is gesturing beyond communism since eventually there will no need to identify as communist based on a rejection of private property. Communism is a phase, necessary now but in time destined to be superseded.

Apologies for any unintended line breaks, I'm on mobile.

Also note the comparison to universal group marriage, Marx as original incel
sympathizer? lol

Does he mean that communism is the reaffirmation of human life as it was before the establishment of class society? The analogy with atheism is as follows: first you have some form of instinctive materialism as you have in animals, then you get religion as a negation of that, and then you get atheism, the negation of the negation. In a sense it's a return to the first, but it's also an affirmation of something richer.

The same applies for the triad [primitive communism – class society – communism]. Communism is only communism in reference to the triad. Any person living under communism wouldn't realize they were living under communism. Obviously this is only true if we look at communism outside of time, if you pick up a history book you'd very quickly understand you're communist, just as a person in a fully atheist society would realize it at that point.

Or at least, that's what I'm getting from it.

Thanks. I understand everything in that text.

I don't think Marx proposes that this IS communism. It is only a brutish first concept of it. Really sounds like a right-wing strawman of communism.

A few paragraphs beyond you get:

Which is brilliant. Here you see Marx himself complaining that communism doesn't take account of human nature. Obviously his point is that this isn't communism, only the necessary first idea of it which hasn't captured the positive content of private property.

It's an fragment text. Can you read it as a history of communism in the 20th century? Stalinism and Maoism look a lot like something that "wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property" and "the culmination of […] envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum." A place where "The community is only a community of labour, and equality of wages paid out by communal capital – by the community as the universal capitalist."

I love it. ☭TANKIE☭s confirmed not having read Marx.

*It's an interesting fragment.


I think you're right, but these limited forms of communism are necessary to get to muh full communism, and in turn muh full communism will itself be superseded (or how do you understand "communism is not the goal"?).

I find this relevant because we're talking about the negation of the negation. Communism is the negation of private property, but paradoxically it must come about through the completion of the project of capital. In other words, the commodity form is self-defeating.

I don't think it can be the affirmation of human life before class society/ the commodity form, since it's not about going back to anything but finding the logical outcome of historical development.

Also, I'm not understanding atheism as the negation of the negation. Atheism is the negation of religion. For Marx, true embodiment of "sensuousness" (it's interesting how often he uses that word in this work) has no need to reference atheism since it's no longer about negating religion. Maybe it's like how now, we have no need to go around saying "I don't believe in the Greek pantheon," since it's just not relevant.

In your future society, people indeed wouldn't think of themselves as atheists. They would read about atheism as a movement of the past which has also passed into irrelevance. There would simply be some new understanding which subsumes the God/Nature matrix as we understand it today.

So I would cut off the earlier part of each triad you present and make a new one with your last two terms in front and then the "new movement" as the last term:

private property-communism-real life

Sure, your triads work too, but that's only to say that everything is the result of an earlier dialectic movement. What concerns Marx here is the next move we need to make.


Early Marx knew jack shit about dialectics.

will I get gulagged if I bring up Greimas' rectangle

WTF is this?

Early Marx was way more dialectical and far more interesting than socdem economist Marx.

No he was less dialectical.

It's amazing how much people can say about things they know nothing about. Anyway, look, it literally cannot be made simpler than this. Here is Hegel's >first< logical construction of this in the system, it's where the very concept actually comes up explicitly—The Other in the 2nd chapter of the Science of Logic.

Take "the other" as absolute at face value (the immediate). Now, analyze this concept—what is its operative content? What does this concept generate when you think it? To >be< an other is >to be other to an other

Thank you based pseud.

Something is something,
Negation of something is the negation of something.
Negation of negation of something is something.

that's where you're wrong kiddo.

It's something else?

I was mostly shitposting, but I was referring to intuitionistic logic: It is related to Martin-Löf type theory , and through that to computer proof assistants. Definitely no relation to Hegel, though.

So why does Lacan say there is no other to the other?

Lacan isn't making postulations on otherness, he is saying that the process of sublation, that of unity in difference, is always in service of a particular universality and not the subject that actually exists. This means that in the process of creating an other, one must first suppose themselves an other - neither of these 'others' is fully reducible to being as such, there are always antinomies or contradictions. This porous nature of being is what Lacan talks about.

The 'no Big Other' is just saying that due to the inability to construct a completed universality that encompasses everything, whether monistic or particular, that any authority or sublimity derived from this system of symbolism and signification is in fact a massive unfreedom and a restriction of the human subject

are you completely retarded?
I'm amazed, you are able to access the internet.
I don't know how you made it this far.

Is this AW posting sans name or that Lacanian Badioufag from threads a while ago?


Wasn't he BTFO'd by Deleuze and Guattari?

Daily reminder Roo answered the question of the NotN years ago:

One of the two Lacanians, and maybe the only badioufag - so you're exactly right

Not particularly

What do you think about Althusser's critique of Hegelian Marxism?

I'm entirely of the mind that the two can be reconciled, but that the great account to be settled in Marxian philosophy is that of a humanist telos.

Aleatory materialism is the saving grace of the modern legacy of Marxist thought, a scientific and not scientistic one.

Astrology is a science.

The precession of the Earth suggests otherwise

So Mao rejected the negation of the negation because he didn't think it was empirically verifiable or some shit? Okay. "Capitalism was supposed to negate feudalism and slavery but didn't therefore Hegel BTFO" - I don't see how this debunks anything.

Science does not touch on Truth.
Astrology is a science as phrenology is.
Why have you embraced this Anglo-Saxon monopolizing conception of science?


Other Lacanfag reporting in. Great pots, so far. You are absolutely right about the possibility (and need) to reconcile Althusser with Hegel, that is why I'm shocked when you want to do it under the ideological notion of humanism.

Their legacy pretty much proved Lacan right and outed D&G as apologists for capitalist subjectivities.


oh no, what i meant was that the humanist teleology was the problem to be solved.

Can someone ask Anal Water about this?

read Hegel's into to science of logic goddamn


its how you can spot a poser


Go back to school pls.