For as much as people talk it up, I thought there was a lot to it. There isn’t.
A dialectic is a tool for thinking through a problem or idea. You start with an idea or concept (called the Thesis) and then you consider the forces and concepts that lie in opposition to the chosen one (called the Antithesis). After considering both, you try to understand the relationships between the two things and how they support, oppose, and generate each other. This unified understanding of how the two concepts are actually one concept through these connections is called the Synthesis.
Dialectical Materialism is applying the dialectic as a tool while also keeping in mind physical/material reality and the ways in which physical/material constraints influence these things.
For example you might ask “Why do rebellions occur in formally peaceful states?” Your thesis is “rebellion” and so your antithesis is something like “the state” or “status quo.” Through materialism, you’d ask questions like “where do the rebels/state acquire food, shelter, weapons, etc. What is the role of poverty in fomenting rebellion?”
Through synthesis, you would come to conclusions like “the people pay taxes to fund the state, but some people also devote a larger share of their time and resources to the rebellion.” Or: “Rebel recruitment goes up after police crackdowns, a lighter hand with policing may reduce re-occurrences of riots.”
Because this isn’t ideal dialectics (not “ideal” like optimal but “ideal” as in “concerning ideas and immaterial things.”) So we’d be less concerned with “what is the rebellions stated aim” or “what is the state’s majority religion?” you can make these questions material though: “what do the rebels hope to gain materially” or “how is the state religion funded and enforced?”
And although I’m just riffing an example, in real life when using this tool to convince others of your sound logic, it is best to have actual references and data to support the conclusions derived. This gives reality to the material considerations.
Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer is my favorite introduction to Historical and Dialectical Materialism if you’re down to reading a book!
If not, the gist of it is that Materialism is a subset of philosophy that believes matter shapes thoughts, rather than idealism where thoughts shape matter. The Dialectical aspect focuses on contradictions both within something and between things, their relations, and trajectories.
An example of the usefulness is when Karl Marx developed it and used it to analyze Capitalism, seeing how it arose from Feudalism, and predicted that because Capitalism has a tendency to centralize and the Proletariat stands at odds with the Bourgeoisie, eventually Socialism will be the next phase, emerging from the conditions laid out by Capitalism via revolution. The class dynamics formed a contradiction, as you cannot have a bourgeoisie without proletarians, as well as vice versa. Additionally, Capitalism contains the means to make Socialism, the internal contradictions.
This was an extreme oversimplification, but that’s the bare gist. I recommend the book if you’re interested in more!
I didn’t know dialectical materialism was a thing till this meme. Now I need to know. Thanks asshole!
For as much as people talk it up, I thought there was a lot to it. There isn’t.
A dialectic is a tool for thinking through a problem or idea. You start with an idea or concept (called the Thesis) and then you consider the forces and concepts that lie in opposition to the chosen one (called the Antithesis). After considering both, you try to understand the relationships between the two things and how they support, oppose, and generate each other. This unified understanding of how the two concepts are actually one concept through these connections is called the Synthesis.
Dialectical Materialism is applying the dialectic as a tool while also keeping in mind physical/material reality and the ways in which physical/material constraints influence these things.
For example you might ask “Why do rebellions occur in formally peaceful states?” Your thesis is “rebellion” and so your antithesis is something like “the state” or “status quo.” Through materialism, you’d ask questions like “where do the rebels/state acquire food, shelter, weapons, etc. What is the role of poverty in fomenting rebellion?”
Through synthesis, you would come to conclusions like “the people pay taxes to fund the state, but some people also devote a larger share of their time and resources to the rebellion.” Or: “Rebel recruitment goes up after police crackdowns, a lighter hand with policing may reduce re-occurrences of riots.”
Because this isn’t ideal dialectics (not “ideal” like optimal but “ideal” as in “concerning ideas and immaterial things.”) So we’d be less concerned with “what is the rebellions stated aim” or “what is the state’s majority religion?” you can make these questions material though: “what do the rebels hope to gain materially” or “how is the state religion funded and enforced?”
And although I’m just riffing an example, in real life when using this tool to convince others of your sound logic, it is best to have actual references and data to support the conclusions derived. This gives reality to the material considerations.
Thanks
Elementary Principles of Philosophy by Georges Politzer is my favorite introduction to Historical and Dialectical Materialism if you’re down to reading a book!
If not, the gist of it is that Materialism is a subset of philosophy that believes matter shapes thoughts, rather than idealism where thoughts shape matter. The Dialectical aspect focuses on contradictions both within something and between things, their relations, and trajectories.
An example of the usefulness is when Karl Marx developed it and used it to analyze Capitalism, seeing how it arose from Feudalism, and predicted that because Capitalism has a tendency to centralize and the Proletariat stands at odds with the Bourgeoisie, eventually Socialism will be the next phase, emerging from the conditions laid out by Capitalism via revolution. The class dynamics formed a contradiction, as you cannot have a bourgeoisie without proletarians, as well as vice versa. Additionally, Capitalism contains the means to make Socialism, the internal contradictions.
This was an extreme oversimplification, but that’s the bare gist. I recommend the book if you’re interested in more!
Pseudo-science is a bad tool for scientific prediction.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of marx. But the outdated and pseudo-scientific aspects should be emphasized instead of obscured.
Could you elaborate? Which part was wrong? Which aspect is pseudoscientific? This is too vague for me to do anything with.