The Basics Of Marxism: Dialectical Materialism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Saved posts from the old blog area.
#1823792
By FallenRaptor

This article will be a first in a series describing different theoretical aspects of Marxism. Hopefully these will shed light for those who aren't familiar with Marxist theory, especially its critics.

In order to fully understand Marxism, we must first understand it's scientific method: Dialectical Materialism. Dialectical materialism is a world outlook developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels which organically combines dialectical logic and philosophical materialism.

What are dialectics?

Dialectics is a form of logic that has it's roots in ancient Greek and Asiatic societies, and was later developed by the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. In The Dialectics of Nature, Engels described three basic laws of dialectics from Hegel's works:

1) The Law of Contradiction

Or the law of 'the interpenetration of opposites'. This law is the most important principle of dialectics. It contends that everything has an opposite(or something in opposition in some way or form) and when these opposites unite or conflict with each other they create something new. The famous Hegelian triad, thesis - antithesis = synthesis, describes this law well.

2) The Law of Change

Or the law of 'the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa'. It holds that all qualitative changes result from qunatitative changes in matter or forms of motion. For example, when more heat is applied to water in it's liquid form, it gradually becomes vapor. However, if we take away heat from the same water, it becomes ice.

3) The Law of Development

Or more famously known as 'the negation of the negation'. This law contends that all development consists of a series of contradictions. Because of this, development organically progresses in a 3D spiral which doesn't return to it's original position instead of a 2D cycle. Darwin's theory of evolution can be seen as an example of the negation of the negation.

So where do Hegel and Marx differ?

Hegel was a philosophical idealist. Marx, however, was not. He claimed to have taken the 'rational kernel' of dialectics from the 'mystical shell' of Hegelianism and developed it, turning his dialectic into the opposite of Hegel's: a dialectic not based on the ideas of man but on the material conditions of the world man lives in and it's forms of motions. According to this view, ideas are not the basis of the world, but are byproducts of it. It is thus the organic unity of dialectics and materialism through which Marxists view the world, and it is what gives Marxism it's scientific character.

Comments...
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1824388
Thanks, Fox. And Honi for posting the article on the blog.

If any fellow comrade would like to contribute to these articles, they're more than welcome to. I don't think I would be happy trying to summarize everything about Marxism into a series of 500 word articles by myself.
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#1824402
I really like the style and format of the article. It's very concise and to the point, and the way FallenRaptor explains it offers a new way (at least for me) to look at dialectics. Very much looking forward to the rest of the series.
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#1825501
Ok... As usual when you guys come out in force I'm having a very hard time understanding context, seriously...not being an arse here...Follow along for a minute, please:

FallenRaptor wrote:Or the law of 'the interpenetration of opposites'. This law is the most important principle of dialectics. It contends that everything has an opposite(or something in opposition in some way or form) and when these opposites unite or conflict with each other they create something new. The famous Hegelian triad, thesis - antithesis = synthesis, describes this law well.


I have no idea how you apply this law though. I assume you mean politically, but for we unworthy, it's not exactly clear. I could supply an example of what I think you might mean, but there's not telling how it might be taken, so please...show us one.

FallenRaptor wrote:Or the law of 'the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa'. It holds that all qualitative changes result from qunatitative changes in matter or forms of motion. For example, when more heat is applied to water in it's liquid form, it gradually becomes vapor. However, if we take away heat from the same water, it becomes ice.


I get this scientifically, I don't get it politically.

FallenRaptor wrote:Or more famously known as 'the negation of the negation'. This law contends that all development consists of a series of contradictions. Because of this, development organically progresses in a 3D spiral which doesn't return to it's original position instead of a 2D cycle. Darwin's theory of evolution can be seen as an example of the negation of the negation.


Ok, this looses me as well. I get teh contradictions bit, but when you go to 2D and 3D spirals, I'm totally lost. How is there a 3D spiral in politics, or Philosophy, or Sociology, or whatever context you're using?

Ugh...same issue with that last point.

Yeah, so...please explain, I've been interested in this discussion for awhile, but have no idea where to start, and before someone says "Read Marx", the point is, it is far too technical for me to bother with without some basic understanding of the language being used, ahead of time, to tackle more of it than what is taught in college level sociology, history, and economics courses. (Which is basic theory without the...academic terms).
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1825543
About Marx, Raptor wrote:He claimed to have taken the 'rational kernel' of dialectics from the 'mystical shell' of Hegelianism and developed it, turning his dialectic into the opposite of Hegel's: a dialectic not based on the ideas of man but on the material conditions of the world man lives in and it's forms of motions.

But what methodology does Marx use that separates him from human ideas in the articulation of his formula for idealized human resource distribution?

Why does he think his re-formulation of human society is any less contrived and man-made (subjective and messianiac) than any other Enlightenment ideas about humans improving their condition by "taking charge" of nature?
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1825864
Demos:

This article is philosophical/scientific. Dialectical materialism can be applied to all disciplines of science, be it politics, economics, chemistry, physics, biology, etc. This article isn't political, as it's dealing with the very foundation of all Marxist theory. In order to understand the alphabet, you can't start at Q. You must first go by A, B, C, etc. Marxism is the same way. Later installments will have more political and economic content using this method.

Dialectics for Kids has many simple examples.

Qatz:

The method Marx uses to separate his theory from idealism is practice. Engels explains it here:

Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy wrote:The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice — namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable “thing-in-itself”. The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained just such “things-in-themselves” until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the “thing-in-itself” became a thing for us — as, for instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For 300 years, the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis with 100, 1,000, 10,000 to 1 chances in its favor, but still always a hypothesis. But then Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when [Johann] Galle really found this planet [Neptune, discovered 1846, at Berlin Observatory], the Copernican system was proved.
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#1826340
FallenRaptor wrote:Dialectics for Kids


:lol: I can't believe you just linked me to that! :lol:

How humiliating... :?:
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1827767
I had no intention to humiliate you. I felt that would be a much easier alternative than some long book by a 19th century intellectual.

If you understand the concept of the contradiction, the negation of the negation shouldn't be much harder to understand. It simply states that after a synthesis has been made, a new antithesis will appear, and a newer synthesis emerges. Because of this, development occurs in a 3D spiral. Instead of a 2D cycle which always comes back to the same spot every time, the 3D spiral never returns to it's original position. Think of Darwin's theory of evolution.

It's the very defintion of "being Scottish.&[…]

Eurovision I THE BIGGEST FREE WORLD SHOW IS ON, wh[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

I can't help wondering if this Israeli atrocity is[…]

The importance of out-breeding

Excessive outbreeding can also produce some probl[…]