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”.
Dialectic has perfectly nice non-nerd “dialogue” word, or “negotiation” which fits more closely.
And materialism of marxism lies in more that society development (laws customs whatevs) is driven materially (by actually existing physical world), guided by how production is set-up, and not by the gheist of the nation/progress towards justice/gods plan/technology level (although this part is more fuzzy due to direct connection to forms of production).
For every scientist who has not been led astray by professorial philosophy, as well as for every materialist, sensation is indeed the direct connection between consciousness and the external world; it is the transformation of the energy of external excitation into a state of consciousness. This transformation has been, and is, observed by each of us a million times on every hand. The sophism of idealist philosophy consists in the fact that it regards sensation as being not the connection between consciousness and the external world, but a fence, a wall, separating consciousness from the external world—not an image of the external phenomenon corresponding to the sensation, but as the “sole entity.” lenin from ‘materialism and empiriocriticism’.
According to you, if one acknowledge the existence of consciousness, they are an idealist. I may be misunderstanding what you were saying though.
if conciousness is fundamentally a phenomenon of matter and energy then it fits in a materialist worldview.
statin that it’s immaterial is not materialist.
Materialism isn’t just “where everything is matter or energy”. That’s reductionist. Idealists can agree that things are composed of matter or energy, the same as materialists. The idea of a conscious mind isn’t inherently idealist either, as things which are intangible can still be material. Marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, instead they acknowledge its existence. The difference between materialism and idealism is how our consciousness interacts with the world. Materialists argue that it is not consciousness that dictates reality, but reality that dictates consciousness. In other words, there can exist things which are independent of our consciousness. Idealists argue the former, stating that consciousness dictates reality. It’s the reason why gods or angels exist within the idealist mind. Idealists believe in the existence of an angel, although it is a product of our minds, and does not exist within reality. Also combining “ideas” with “idealism” supposes that Marxism is also idealist. Science is idealist. Ideas are not inherently idealist, the concept of idea is the formation of our mind, but these ideas can also have some application with reality. Marxism is a set of ideas, it is based on science, which Marxists observe the political economy and form ideas which align with reality.
Your first paragraph doesn’t align with the 2nd to last paragraph. If Marxism is simply a different view, why must we have different views? What makes Marxism different from a cyberneticist? I read your examples and they show vastly different things. And your 2nd to last paragraph shows that clearly. Marxism is different from an economist, a cyberneticist, because it looks at things in a different view within the application of the political economy, something which an economist or cyberneticist cannot do. Also saying “the contradictions are sharpening” is vague. What contradictions? What application of Marxism are we using here? We are referring to change, but there are several types of change, with negations or quantitative to qualitative transformations. All of this seems to be speaking in absolutism, in isolation from what Marxism is supposed to be.
Also saying this:
Ultimately the entire thing is fancy language from the 1800s that should probably be replaced because it’s alienating and bad for propaganda.
Why? Why is it bad for propaganda? We used these terms for centuries now and now we need to change them? The proposed terms are absolutely vague. “Conflict” does not speak of non-antagonistic contradictions (i.e. Proletariat-Peasantry), “tradeoff” does not speak of what dialectics truly is (It’s not always binary, in fact suggesting dialectics is inherently a binary thing is metaphysical). “change” is absolutely vague because of what I said earlier. The term “motion” is always referring to change, a specific type of change. Ultimately dumbing down terminology should be done for beginners, but not for the sake of sacrificing the word itself.
Materialism is a philosophy where ultimately everything is matter and energy. I don’t know how you can think otherwise.
Conciousness can exist in a materialist worldview so long as it’s a phenomenon of matter and energy.
Why have different views? Because there are different, equally valid ways of modelling the same thing. But some are more useful than others. You even highlight this in your next few sentences.
The reason it’s bad for propaganda is because no lay person understands what the fuck any of us are talking about when we use this philosophical language and quote long dead men from the 1800s.
You also do not understand what materialist dialectics are. You have a very idealist form of them. But that’s fine. It’s not worth arguing about. The idea that correct thought is needed for correct action is anti-marxist.
I think materialism involves matter, but it does not mean we can reduce everything to simply matter. That’s like saying emotions are just “the product of chemical and hormonal imbalances in our brains”, which is ultimately reductionist because these emotions are a method of expression. You put “consciousness” as an example of idealism even though marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, and that a consciousness is material thing. Also, do you think a consciousness is a form of materialism or idealism? Because you do not seem to argue either or in this paragraph.
If it is true that an economist, an cyberneticist, and a marxist have equally valid (supposedly) ways of viewing the world, why there exists such a division? Why do economists follow Neoclassical/Keynesian economics while Marxists still follow (and succeed) the classical economists by upholding the Labour Theory of Value? It is clear that there exists different interpretations, and these different interpretations lead to different conclusions because of different premises and methods.
In the context of marxism, where we fold out materialistic dialectics for lay people to understand, sure, I can understand dumbing down terminology to the layperson so that they can fulfill a better understanding of dialectics. This does not mean we must scrap the entire term all together. Also you did not put any counterpoints to what I said. The meanings of words under Marxism do not correlate with the common meaning, or even meanings under other fields of the natural sciences.
If it is not worth arguing about my interpretation of diamat, then why bring it up to begin with? What is supposedly the issue with my dialectics? What am I being an idealist for? A consciousness existing that is material? That ideas while intangible can also be material given the right circumstances (i.e. Science and Marxism). If you don’t think it’s worth discussing then don’t bring it up.
Lastly, correct thought is needed for correct action isn’t anti-Marxist. Without any revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. If it is true that correct thought isn’t needed for correct action, why do we have theory? Why do we need to impose cultural revolutions under socialism? Why do we care about Marxism, at all? It’s clear that this “correct” thought while not being overall correct, it is the most correct. And that is what Marxism currently is. It is the most correct form of the social (and likely natural) sciences, because it does not disregard the political economy, and thus makes more accurate predictions as a result.
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”.
Dialectic has perfectly nice non-nerd “dialogue” word, or “negotiation” which fits more closely.
And materialism of marxism lies in more that society development (laws customs whatevs) is driven materially (by actually existing physical world), guided by how production is set-up, and not by the gheist of the nation/progress towards justice/gods plan/technology level (although this part is more fuzzy due to direct connection to forms of production).
Umm, consciousness does exist.
According to you, if one acknowledge the existence of consciousness, they are an idealist. I may be misunderstanding what you were saying though.
if conciousness is fundamentally a phenomenon of matter and energy then it fits in a materialist worldview.
statin that it’s immaterial is not materialist.
but thank you for quoting scripture.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5618337/5058813
You often accuse others of things you do/are. 📽️
Materialism isn’t just “where everything is matter or energy”. That’s reductionist. Idealists can agree that things are composed of matter or energy, the same as materialists. The idea of a conscious mind isn’t inherently idealist either, as things which are intangible can still be material. Marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, instead they acknowledge its existence. The difference between materialism and idealism is how our consciousness interacts with the world. Materialists argue that it is not consciousness that dictates reality, but reality that dictates consciousness. In other words, there can exist things which are independent of our consciousness. Idealists argue the former, stating that consciousness dictates reality. It’s the reason why gods or angels exist within the idealist mind. Idealists believe in the existence of an angel, although it is a product of our minds, and does not exist within reality. Also combining “ideas” with “idealism” supposes that Marxism is also idealist. Science is idealist. Ideas are not inherently idealist, the concept of idea is the formation of our mind, but these ideas can also have some application with reality. Marxism is a set of ideas, it is based on science, which Marxists observe the political economy and form ideas which align with reality.
Your first paragraph doesn’t align with the 2nd to last paragraph. If Marxism is simply a different view, why must we have different views? What makes Marxism different from a cyberneticist? I read your examples and they show vastly different things. And your 2nd to last paragraph shows that clearly. Marxism is different from an economist, a cyberneticist, because it looks at things in a different view within the application of the political economy, something which an economist or cyberneticist cannot do. Also saying “the contradictions are sharpening” is vague. What contradictions? What application of Marxism are we using here? We are referring to change, but there are several types of change, with negations or quantitative to qualitative transformations. All of this seems to be speaking in absolutism, in isolation from what Marxism is supposed to be.
Also saying this:
Why? Why is it bad for propaganda? We used these terms for centuries now and now we need to change them? The proposed terms are absolutely vague. “Conflict” does not speak of non-antagonistic contradictions (i.e. Proletariat-Peasantry), “tradeoff” does not speak of what dialectics truly is (It’s not always binary, in fact suggesting dialectics is inherently a binary thing is metaphysical). “change” is absolutely vague because of what I said earlier. The term “motion” is always referring to change, a specific type of change. Ultimately dumbing down terminology should be done for beginners, but not for the sake of sacrificing the word itself.
Materialism is a philosophy where ultimately everything is matter and energy. I don’t know how you can think otherwise.
Conciousness can exist in a materialist worldview so long as it’s a phenomenon of matter and energy.
Why have different views? Because there are different, equally valid ways of modelling the same thing. But some are more useful than others. You even highlight this in your next few sentences.
The reason it’s bad for propaganda is because no lay person understands what the fuck any of us are talking about when we use this philosophical language and quote long dead men from the 1800s.
You also do not understand what materialist dialectics are. You have a very idealist form of them. But that’s fine. It’s not worth arguing about. The idea that correct thought is needed for correct action is anti-marxist.
I think materialism involves matter, but it does not mean we can reduce everything to simply matter. That’s like saying emotions are just “the product of chemical and hormonal imbalances in our brains”, which is ultimately reductionist because these emotions are a method of expression. You put “consciousness” as an example of idealism even though marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, and that a consciousness is material thing. Also, do you think a consciousness is a form of materialism or idealism? Because you do not seem to argue either or in this paragraph.
If it is true that an economist, an cyberneticist, and a marxist have equally valid (supposedly) ways of viewing the world, why there exists such a division? Why do economists follow Neoclassical/Keynesian economics while Marxists still follow (and succeed) the classical economists by upholding the Labour Theory of Value? It is clear that there exists different interpretations, and these different interpretations lead to different conclusions because of different premises and methods.
In the context of marxism, where we fold out materialistic dialectics for lay people to understand, sure, I can understand dumbing down terminology to the layperson so that they can fulfill a better understanding of dialectics. This does not mean we must scrap the entire term all together. Also you did not put any counterpoints to what I said. The meanings of words under Marxism do not correlate with the common meaning, or even meanings under other fields of the natural sciences.
If it is not worth arguing about my interpretation of diamat, then why bring it up to begin with? What is supposedly the issue with my dialectics? What am I being an idealist for? A consciousness existing that is material? That ideas while intangible can also be material given the right circumstances (i.e. Science and Marxism). If you don’t think it’s worth discussing then don’t bring it up.
Lastly, correct thought is needed for correct action isn’t anti-Marxist. Without any revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. If it is true that correct thought isn’t needed for correct action, why do we have theory? Why do we need to impose cultural revolutions under socialism? Why do we care about Marxism, at all? It’s clear that this “correct” thought while not being overall correct, it is the most correct. And that is what Marxism currently is. It is the most correct form of the social (and likely natural) sciences, because it does not disregard the political economy, and thus makes more accurate predictions as a result.