There are many ways of modelling the same thing.
Imagine you have a limited amount of money to fence in your yard.
An economist would say “you have a budget”.
A cyberneticist or a linear programmer would say “you have a potentially binding constraint on your objective function”.
A marxist might say “there is a contradiction between the size of your enclosure and the amount of fence you can buy”.
A normal person would say “well there’s a tradeoff. I can fence in my whole yard or I can spend my money to go drinking on the weekends.”
All of these basically say the same thing. Marxists like to use dialectics which is a philosophical idea originally from idealist philosophers. When brought into the realm of materialist philosophy it gets called dialectical materialism.
Materialist philosophy is the idea that ultimately everything is matter and energy. Nowadays this gets called Physicalism sometimes.
Idealist philosophy says that there are things which do exist but which are not material or energy. Ideas, gods, angels, conciousness, etc. Most people have a combination of these two ideas and so would accurately be called “Dualist” but internet leftists tend to use the term “Idealist”.
The simplest way to understand a “dialectic” is, I think, the following:
At the start of the industrial revolution in England there were the old lords and a new wealthy business class. There was a conflict between them over the limited resources. There are only so many people to control, luxury goods to purchase, government positions to hold, etc. And these people have different interests. So a Marxist would say, when speaking in terms of dialectics, that “there is a contradiction between the aristocracy (landowners) and the bourgeoisie (business owners, capitalists)”.
Now obviously the relative strength of either side in this conflict can change. Maybe the business class start organizing and take more seats in parliament, maybe the lords begin raising their own knights and armies again, etc. A marxist would say that this change is actually not unusual but a key part of the system. They say that modelling things using dialectics and materialist philosophy means we can understand how things change and not be so surprised when they do. And when something does change they might say “the dialectic is in motion” or “the contradictions are sharpening”.
Ultimately the entire thing is fancy language from the 1800s that should probably be replaced because it’s alienating and bad for propaganda. “Conflict”, “tradeoff”, and “change” are much more sensible in 21st century English than “contradiction”, “dialectic”, and “motion”.
There might be a list someone made somewhere but I don’t think that’s how most people use dialectics.
Usually it’s clear what the internal conflict is in something. In the US there are the conflict between workers and owners, but in electoral politics/government many would say that the conflict is actually between one side of the capitalists and another (there isn’t a worker party in government in the US).
Anything where there is a tradeoff to be made and where human groups are involved will probably get called a “contradiction” or a “dialectic” by a Marxist at some point. Maoists tend to use the terms much more broadly, even describing the process of water boiling as a dialectic/contradiction. Next time you see a a hierarchy or a power structure or something, think about whether there are two sides competing over a limited resource. That’s a dialectic way of thinking. If you assume that the most important things controlling that conflict are physical, you’re a dialectical materialist.
Next time you see a a hierarchy or a power structure or something, think about whether there are two sides competing over a limited resource
I think that’s a good first step for someone getting started with dialectics, but the term is broad and applies more broadly than only to class society or revolutionary praxis. Maoists are not the only ones who say that water boiling is a dialectic, but they would be correct (my experience with maoists is that they just talk about committing violence a lot)
Dialectics are a natural phenomena that happens around us, if very abstractly (it’s not literally a force or power like a watermill would be, but it exists as a process). If dialectics didn’t exist elsewhere than in marxism, then it wouldn’t be a helpful tool to us, because it wouldn’t allow us to find out the objective nature of the world. The objective nature of class society is that there emerges an exploitative class and an exploited class, and either cannot exist without the other.
We need to dig out this objective nature to engage in effective praxis. As Marx said, philosophers have only interpreted the world: the point is to change it. Dialectics is currently as close as we can get to the objective nature of the world, and we need materialism for that because we need to be clear that only the material world exist and is worth effecting change in, not the metaphysical (supernatural) world. Probably in a few hundred years or so we’ll either evolve dialectics or replace them with a new, more objective and correct model. I can’t know, but this is as good as it gets for us at this point in time.
This is also why dialectics can’t be disproved, otherwise it would be too easy for opponents of marxism to say that dialectics is just communist nonsense. Dialectics is derived from natural phenomena and is observable. The seed for example contains the potential to become a plant, and the contradiction between the seed and plant is resolved when the seed sprouts. It has gone through dialectical change: there was a seed, now there’s a sprout.
You don’t necessarily have to use dialectics outside of revolutionary praxis (though I think it helps one become familiar with the framework); you can focus dialectics on your revolutionary work. But it still exists and is still happening whether we are there to witness it or not.
In your earlier example, all of the professionals that are asked about fencing the yard are essentially all superseded by dialectics. The economist points out a contradiction (and I think this is what you were conveying?), but it’s incomplete. When we get to the true contradiction, the dialectical one, we can tell the tenant why they actually can’t fence their yard.
I would also like to correct, if you’ll allow me, the misconception that materialism is the idea that everything is made of matter. I think this is not necessarily wrong to grasp the concept, but can quickly lead into vulgar materialism deviation. Materialism is the philosophical outlook that only the material world exists, and everything is the result of material interaction. Ideas exist and don’t solely belong to idealists. This can be demonstrated very quickly by simply thinking about something, or finding a solution to a problem. If ideas were not material, then materialism would simply be wrong or an incomplete model because I don’t think anyone can disprove ideas exist when they need to have the idea to disprove them in the first place.
We can say that ideas are the result of material interaction (through brain cells interacting, which is a meat organ), but I still think this is veering into vulgar territory. It leads some people to start rejecting LGBT identities because “gender doesn’t materially exist”.
I take a very tautological approach: if something exists, then it’s material. Ghosts don’t exist, they’re metaphysical (the Greek word that means the exact same thing as the Latin supernatural). God doesn’t exist, he’s metaphysical. Religion exists and this is easily demonstrated, but the God that religions believe in is not materially demonstrated or tested. LGBT identities exist in the material world as well.
Speaking of religion this is another deviation that vulgar materialism leads one to (that I’m not saying you’re doing, just to be very careful about not falling into it for the readers!) – their model would mean that nothing abstract can exist, and so dialectics can’t exist, because dialectics are not made of matter. Dialectics describe the process of matter (among other things), but isn’t made of matter itself.
The thing is dialectics are literally endless, contradictions create other contradictions both in the thing itself and in other things as well. Everything is connected through that process, and that’s why it can feel daunting.
@[email protected] this is also why there can’t be an exhaustive list of contradictions. We can certainly give dozens of examples but there are billions of contradictions current and past, and there will be billions more. Contradictions, when resolved, make change happen and other contradictions emerge. This is how things move forward in the world, how the seed become a sprout, how the student becomes a teacher, how water boils, how classes emerge and get overthrown, how industrialization happens, how capitalism becomes imperialism, how Marx emerged, how there came to be marxists, how marxists organize.
I also wanted to add that not Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, nor Mao came up with dialectical materialism. It was actually a guy called Dietzgen. No one reads him anymore but you can if you want. Lenin and Stalin quote him heavily since he’s the first one to actually use the term.
You may also see similar things outside of Marxism which look quite a bit like dialectics. Structuralism does something really similar with it’s “inverses” concept. I’m not a fan of dialectics since it feels a bit too idealist for me. Mechanical Materialism is more my style but it’s nothing worth fighting over.
There are many ways of modelling the same thing.
Imagine you have a limited amount of money to fence in your yard.
An economist would say “you have a budget”.
A cyberneticist or a linear programmer would say “you have a potentially binding constraint on your objective function”.
A marxist might say “there is a contradiction between the size of your enclosure and the amount of fence you can buy”.
A normal person would say “well there’s a tradeoff. I can fence in my whole yard or I can spend my money to go drinking on the weekends.”
All of these basically say the same thing. Marxists like to use dialectics which is a philosophical idea originally from idealist philosophers. When brought into the realm of materialist philosophy it gets called dialectical materialism.
Materialist philosophy is the idea that ultimately everything is matter and energy. Nowadays this gets called Physicalism sometimes. Idealist philosophy says that there are things which do exist but which are not material or energy. Ideas, gods, angels, conciousness, etc. Most people have a combination of these two ideas and so would accurately be called “Dualist” but internet leftists tend to use the term “Idealist”.
The simplest way to understand a “dialectic” is, I think, the following:
At the start of the industrial revolution in England there were the old lords and a new wealthy business class. There was a conflict between them over the limited resources. There are only so many people to control, luxury goods to purchase, government positions to hold, etc. And these people have different interests. So a Marxist would say, when speaking in terms of dialectics, that “there is a contradiction between the aristocracy (landowners) and the bourgeoisie (business owners, capitalists)”.
Now obviously the relative strength of either side in this conflict can change. Maybe the business class start organizing and take more seats in parliament, maybe the lords begin raising their own knights and armies again, etc. A marxist would say that this change is actually not unusual but a key part of the system. They say that modelling things using dialectics and materialist philosophy means we can understand how things change and not be so surprised when they do. And when something does change they might say “the dialectic is in motion” or “the contradictions are sharpening”.
Ultimately the entire thing is fancy language from the 1800s that should probably be replaced because it’s alienating and bad for propaganda. “Conflict”, “tradeoff”, and “change” are much more sensible in 21st century English than “contradiction”, “dialectic”, and “motion”.
wow that makes sense thanks. Is there a list of contradictions I can find?
There might be a list someone made somewhere but I don’t think that’s how most people use dialectics.
Usually it’s clear what the internal conflict is in something. In the US there are the conflict between workers and owners, but in electoral politics/government many would say that the conflict is actually between one side of the capitalists and another (there isn’t a worker party in government in the US).
Anything where there is a tradeoff to be made and where human groups are involved will probably get called a “contradiction” or a “dialectic” by a Marxist at some point. Maoists tend to use the terms much more broadly, even describing the process of water boiling as a dialectic/contradiction. Next time you see a a hierarchy or a power structure or something, think about whether there are two sides competing over a limited resource. That’s a dialectic way of thinking. If you assume that the most important things controlling that conflict are physical, you’re a dialectical materialist.
I think that’s a good first step for someone getting started with dialectics, but the term is broad and applies more broadly than only to class society or revolutionary praxis. Maoists are not the only ones who say that water boiling is a dialectic, but they would be correct (my experience with maoists is that they just talk about committing violence a lot)
Dialectics are a natural phenomena that happens around us, if very abstractly (it’s not literally a force or power like a watermill would be, but it exists as a process). If dialectics didn’t exist elsewhere than in marxism, then it wouldn’t be a helpful tool to us, because it wouldn’t allow us to find out the objective nature of the world. The objective nature of class society is that there emerges an exploitative class and an exploited class, and either cannot exist without the other.
We need to dig out this objective nature to engage in effective praxis. As Marx said, philosophers have only interpreted the world: the point is to change it. Dialectics is currently as close as we can get to the objective nature of the world, and we need materialism for that because we need to be clear that only the material world exist and is worth effecting change in, not the metaphysical (supernatural) world. Probably in a few hundred years or so we’ll either evolve dialectics or replace them with a new, more objective and correct model. I can’t know, but this is as good as it gets for us at this point in time.
This is also why dialectics can’t be disproved, otherwise it would be too easy for opponents of marxism to say that dialectics is just communist nonsense. Dialectics is derived from natural phenomena and is observable. The seed for example contains the potential to become a plant, and the contradiction between the seed and plant is resolved when the seed sprouts. It has gone through dialectical change: there was a seed, now there’s a sprout.
You don’t necessarily have to use dialectics outside of revolutionary praxis (though I think it helps one become familiar with the framework); you can focus dialectics on your revolutionary work. But it still exists and is still happening whether we are there to witness it or not.
In your earlier example, all of the professionals that are asked about fencing the yard are essentially all superseded by dialectics. The economist points out a contradiction (and I think this is what you were conveying?), but it’s incomplete. When we get to the true contradiction, the dialectical one, we can tell the tenant why they actually can’t fence their yard.
I would also like to correct, if you’ll allow me, the misconception that materialism is the idea that everything is made of matter. I think this is not necessarily wrong to grasp the concept, but can quickly lead into vulgar materialism deviation. Materialism is the philosophical outlook that only the material world exists, and everything is the result of material interaction. Ideas exist and don’t solely belong to idealists. This can be demonstrated very quickly by simply thinking about something, or finding a solution to a problem. If ideas were not material, then materialism would simply be wrong or an incomplete model because I don’t think anyone can disprove ideas exist when they need to have the idea to disprove them in the first place.
We can say that ideas are the result of material interaction (through brain cells interacting, which is a meat organ), but I still think this is veering into vulgar territory. It leads some people to start rejecting LGBT identities because “gender doesn’t materially exist”.
I take a very tautological approach: if something exists, then it’s material. Ghosts don’t exist, they’re metaphysical (the Greek word that means the exact same thing as the Latin supernatural). God doesn’t exist, he’s metaphysical. Religion exists and this is easily demonstrated, but the God that religions believe in is not materially demonstrated or tested. LGBT identities exist in the material world as well.
Speaking of religion this is another deviation that vulgar materialism leads one to (that I’m not saying you’re doing, just to be very careful about not falling into it for the readers!) – their model would mean that nothing abstract can exist, and so dialectics can’t exist, because dialectics are not made of matter. Dialectics describe the process of matter (among other things), but isn’t made of matter itself.
The thing is dialectics are literally endless, contradictions create other contradictions both in the thing itself and in other things as well. Everything is connected through that process, and that’s why it can feel daunting.
@[email protected] this is also why there can’t be an exhaustive list of contradictions. We can certainly give dozens of examples but there are billions of contradictions current and past, and there will be billions more. Contradictions, when resolved, make change happen and other contradictions emerge. This is how things move forward in the world, how the seed become a sprout, how the student becomes a teacher, how water boils, how classes emerge and get overthrown, how industrialization happens, how capitalism becomes imperialism, how Marx emerged, how there came to be marxists, how marxists organize.
I also wanted to add that not Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, nor Mao came up with dialectical materialism. It was actually a guy called Dietzgen. No one reads him anymore but you can if you want. Lenin and Stalin quote him heavily since he’s the first one to actually use the term.
You may also see similar things outside of Marxism which look quite a bit like dialectics. Structuralism does something really similar with it’s “inverses” concept. I’m not a fan of dialectics since it feels a bit too idealist for me. Mechanical Materialism is more my style but it’s nothing worth fighting over.
If you want a detailed read on Dialectical Materialism. Check out: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism.