I've been going through Crit's absolute beginner reading list and I keep putting down "Elementary principles of philosophy" and skipping ahead to the other books because I just fail to see the value in a deep dive to philosophy in order to learn about history and economy and so on. I would like to skip it completely but don't want to miss important fundamentals.
It's such a hard read for me because it keeps rubbing me the wrong way with stuff like
Then there are the scholars, unknowingly materialistic and inconsequential. They are materialists in the laboratory, then, when they come out of their work, they are idealists, believers, religious.
In fact, [the shameful materialists] did not know or did not want to put their ideas in order. They are in perpetual contradiction with themselves. They separate their work, necessarily materialistic, from their philosophical conceptions. They are "scientists", and yet, if they do not expressly deny the existence of matter, they think, which is unscientific, that it is useless to know the real nature of things. They are "scientists" and yet they believe without any proof in impossible things. (See the case of Pasteur, Branly and others who were believers, whereas the scientist, if he is consistent, must abandon his religious belief).
so I cant be a christian and marxist? Even worse I'm also a mathematician, I formulate ideas and theories and proofs with absolutely zero regard for any material reality. None. I will take an infinite number of unprovable, non-material statements as true, and to top it all off, unable to show that my axiomatic set theory is at least internally consistent, just believe it to be free of contradiction. Thus if someone proves how some seemingly obvious statement leads to a contradiction in my system I will thank them for proving that the statement must be false. In fact the proof of such nonsensical statements is often the highlight of a math course (I mean this kind of shit is awesome). The poor physicists then have to deal with the fallout of our complete disregard for material reality. But they're the scientist so what do I (speaking as an idealist mathematician) care, they're the materialists.
As a christian I at least double check if what I believe in contradicts scientific statements and amend my belief system, not deny the scientific statement (oh the earth wasn't created in 6 days? Guess I will have to revise what I assumed to be true). But why should the scientist care if I believe in a reality outside of the material one, they won't be able to study it anyway.
Now if I want to understand history or economy or anything else within material reality, I obviously have to use my senses or rely on the senses of others and study the state of the matter at some point in time that would have existed even if I didn't. Then formulate thought based on those observations. But why is it so important to literally always do that?
And what am I supposed to be getting out of this whole mess in order to better understand marxist/leninist/anarchist/whatever else theory????
Dialetical materialism is just the scientific method for history.
I literally didn't understand what the point of it even was, thanks.
Because without a scientific way of analyzing history, we would just make stuff up. The material world is in fact reality (duh) and we derive our ideas about the world (religion, philosophy, science) from our observations on that material world. Sometimes those ideas are wrong though, and we have to adjust our understanding of things according to new observations and our collective memory of old ones. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, rinse and repeat
Yeah I had to do some philosophy at the very start of my math studies as well, makes sense the sciences need some to. Just not very fond of it, wanna get to the good bits lol.
It's kinda fun to read when youre in the mood, but stuff like labor theory of value clicks easier
Well you’re not really a strict materialist in the philosophical sense if you’re a Christian since a strict materialist would hold the belief that the terms “existing”, “reality”, etc, refer to the material world. That speaking about things that don’t have physical reality as existing is nonsensical.
And Marxism is a materialist ideology. But it’s not necessarily strictly materialist. Marxism would say that the only thing that matters in terms of improving the material lives of the people is changing the material world, but I don’t think it necessarily requires strict materialism and a rejection of spirituality.
If you wanted to say “as a Marxist then we need to teach all children how to pray to save their souls” then you’re not doing Marxism you’re doing Christianity but I think if you said “as a Christian I believe we should stop hoarding the wealth and share equally” then I think you are being a Marxist.
As for stuff like maths well that’s a different kind of truth, mathematical truth means something a bit different, it’s more saying it’s internally consistent rather than true. Or if you want to use the words true and false for this you absolutely can because that’s normal usage but it’s understood to be a kind of jargon referring to its consistency.
Dialectical materialism is a kind of extension or reinvention of Hegelian dialectics. Dialectical materialism can roughly be summarized as being a social science whose primary hypothesis is that the history of society and humanity can be understood as a series of equilibriums, more or less the same idea as punctuated evolution but applied to the way human society changes and adapts to the conditions that it creates for itself. And further that it’s the material conditions of that human society and the way society changes material conditions that drives the way society changes.
Marxism has a tendency that is anti-religious and strictly materialist but plenty of Marxists are religious while being materialists.
I am an atheist and I used to hold the idea that Marxism required atheism as well, but I’ve long since dropped that idea and now I actually think believing Marxism requires atheism is itself anti-materialist since what actually matters isn’t the ideas in a persons head but what they do and how they behave in reality.
What Marxism does require is an empirical and scientific mindset. Meaning a materialist process in understanding the world and its history but I don’t think it requires specific beliefs beyond that mindset, which it sounds like you already have in terms of balancing empiricism with your religious beliefs.
Marxism has a tendency that is anti-religious and strictly materialist but plenty of Marxists are religious while being materialists.
I am an atheist and I used to hold the idea that Marxism required atheism as well, but I’ve long since dropped that idea and now I actually think believing Marxism requires atheism is itself anti-materialist since what actually matters isn’t the ideas in a persons head but what they do and how they behave in reality.
What Marxism does require is an empirical and scientific mindset. Meaning a materialist process in understanding the world and its history but I don’t think it requires specific beliefs beyond that mindset, which it sounds like you already have in terms of balancing empiricism with your religious beliefs.
Accurate and succinct statement. A mistake that's been noticed through out the international communist movement in AES states that existed and still exist is that pursuing militant atheism is moving well ahead of where their respective people's are and attempting to drag them well ahead from where they'd be comfortably willing to move into reaction.
In this regard I would note that the PRC has a more correct stance on religion than the Soviets did but only due to the fact that they could learn from the lessons and mistakes made by the home of the revolution.
In this regard I would note that the PRC has a more correct stance on religion than the Soviets did but only due to the fact that they could learn from the lessons and mistakes made by the home of the revolution.
I think the religious landscape in China is far too different from Tsarist Russia which would explain their different stances on religion. There's no Chinese equivalent of the Russian Orthodox Church. China didn't even have a state religion for the vast majority of its existence, the closest being Buddhism during the Tang dynasty, which abruptly ended when one of the Tang emperor decided Buddhism had to go and embark on a massive persecution campaign against Buddhism to purge Buddhism out of Tang civil and social life.
due to the fact that they could learn from the lessons and mistakes made by the home of the revolution
This is also an accurate and succinct statement that illuminates the PRC’s choices along the road to socialism. All decisions (positive or negative) made have been in the shadow of the successes and ultimate failure of the world’s first socialist state.
Part of the PRC's correct stance on religion according to Document No. 19 The Basic Viewpoint and Policy on the Religious Question during Our Country's Socialist Period posted recently on hexbear is that:
The policy of freedom of religious belief is directed toward the citizens of our country; it is not applicable to Party members. Unlike the average citizen, the Party member belongs to a Marxist political party, and there can be no doubt at all that s/he must be an atheist and not a theist.
To actually answer your question, dialectical materialism is really the cornerstone of Marxist theory and to understand any Marxist writer you really need to understand dialectical materialism.
Or well, you can listen to their appeals and see the truth in their statements without it but it’s thoroughly illuminating to understand their process.
It’s like pulling back the curtain and exposing reality. When a Marxist writer is writing for a broad audience, they can just point at what’s behind the curtain and you can agree “oh yeah that actually is obviously true” so in that sense you don’t need dialectics. But when you understand the theory and the process of dialectics, then you understand how they pulled back the curtain to expose reality which gives you a much deeper understanding.
dialectical materialism is really the cornerstone of Marxist theory
Yeah that sure seems to be the consensus here thank you for adding your voice
the only thing that matters in terms of improving the material lives of the people is changing the material world, but I don’t think it necessarily requires strict materialism and a rejection of spirituality.
if you said “as a Christian I believe we should stop hoarding the wealth and share equally” then I think you are being a Marxist.
makes me feel right at homeMarxism has a tendency that is anti-religious and strictly materialist but plenty of Marxists are religious while being materialists.
Which is why it took me so long to actually look at what marxism is, all I "knew" about it is that it would require me to denounce my faith which is a big part of my identity. Faith and math was for a long time the only thing I had.
Stepping aside from philosophy to history; You've probably already read about this, but a lot of the anti-religious activities of AES states has to do with breaking and overcoming prior feudal power structures (which religious institutions were deeply embedded in). That isn't to say that there weren't excesses in suppressing religious authority or superstition, just that the suppression wasn't simply "religion bad."
You probably meant "wasnt" at the end there, but yeah I don't see institutionalised religion as a good thing and would argue it is antithetical to what Jesus taught and how the first Christians lived. I live in Germany as well where the church still holds a huge amount of capital so I completely understand where it came from.
You probably meant "wasnt" at the end there
Correct, edited for clarity!
I used to think Marxism must be atheistic as well. But that’s because I only knew the “religion is the opium of the masses” quote when I was a kid. It wasn’t until I read the full quote that I realized that even if communism was achieved - and because Marxism is not utopian - someone will always be unhappy or unfulfilled or suffering in one way or another.
Religion will always be apart of human life because reality will always not be satisfying or even ‘good’ to every person. Our goal should be minimizing the suffering as much as possible and promoting a sort of “material mindfulness” to those who are religious - being present on god’s earth and with his creations, because heaven is a long way out and you shouldn’t neglect everything else in pursuit of it.*
*if you look at all the famous good Christians out there, almost none of them neglected their fellow man. Sure, you got the occasion weird monk who devoted his entire life to god in the mountains and then prosecuted by some government, but most of them became notable because they were amongst the living and fed the poor, rescued repressed people, promoted socialism, etc.
"Elementary principles of philosophy"
i have never heard that one being on a beginner's reading list
wasn't on my party's list eitherCould I get access to that list without you violating OPSEC? Or a recommendation on what to read about dialectical materialism.
That books in my party archives but it's not required reading for our recruits or cadre.
Starting with pure mathematics: while it is generally unconcerned with reality, I would not say that it is necessarily anti-materialist. It is when it comes into contact with reality that people slip into anti-materialism, when they expect reality to conform to their ideas rather than the other way around. The world is not made of math, and you won't find a triangle in nature outside of the human mind.
Now this might be slightly heterodox, but I do not think the contradiction between materialist dialectics and religion is unsolvable. Hegel equated his Absolute with God, what is to stop a Marxist from doing the same with Material Reality? They certainly share some qualities. What you would end up with is a different dialectical materialism and a different god from before, though. Or you could take the practical approach of ignoring the contradiction, but that might not work when you get deep enough.
I have not read that particular book, maybe it is great, but I would be sceptical about a suggestion to read a book on diamat as your third book of theory. If I were to teach someone about diamat, I would have them read books like Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Wretched of the Earth before any book about dialectics in the abstract. If I was forced, I would maybe start with something like the book by Stalin, mostly because it is mercifully short and about 70 % correct. I think a new reader of Marxist theory just has to settle for not being able to fully understand some works before reading the philosophical stuff, and at the same time not being able to understand the philosophy before reading those works.
Starting with pure mathematics: while it is generally unconcerned with reality, I would not say that it is necessarily anti-materialist. It is when it comes into contact with reality that people slip into anti-materialism, when they expect reality to conform to their ideas rather than the other way around. The world is not made of math, and you won't find a triangle in nature outside of the human mind.
That's is a better phrasing of my point, if I'm not trying to understand material reality why should I use materialism. That doesn't make sense, and vice versa.
I do not think the contradiction between materialist dialectics and religion is unsolvable
I am hoping so but that's a tough nut and there are more important things for me right now, don't know how necessary it even is.
Or you could take the practical approach of ignoring the contradiction
It's worked so far.
I think a new reader of Marxist theory just has to settle for not being able to fully understand some works before reading the philosophical stuff, and at the same time not being able to understand the philosophy before reading those works.
That's normal thing for a newbie in most fields I think.
if I'm not trying to understand material reality why should I use materialism
So don't use it for math, but I hope you aren't applying this statement to the rest of your life
Did you read through Stalin's work on Dia-mat?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
No, someone else (tentatively) suggested it as well, so that's I what I will go with next then.
I just fail to see the value in a deep dive to philosophy in order to learn about history and economy and so on.
A surface level understanding of diamat and its position in the history of political philosophy helps you judge the quality of what you are reading. Example: in "foundations of Leninism" Stalin describes how Lenin build off of Marx's work to create Marxism-Leninism. Knowing what Lenin's view was, and how he differed from Marx, means you can tell whether Stalin wrote something that portrays ML accurately or if he just wrote it to justify being the successor to Lenin. Basically you can see through the BS better.
Also, understanding why Marxism differs from other ideologies (simply being based on a different philosophy) will make you appreciate other schools of thought and help reevaluate your own beliefs when you come across them, rather than just dismissing them as uninformed. Not saying you would, but I see it online. "Damn libs just don't know"
But why is it so important to literally always do that
because if you aren't (trying to be) aware of subconscious biases and their origin, societal context and its influence, you aren't using the method for materialism. It's like doing an experiment without checking for variables or using a control.Thank you, that gives me a good reason to not try to shortcut.
because if you aren't (trying to be) aware of subconscious biases and their origin, societal context and its influence, you aren't using the method for materialism. It's like doing an experiment without checking for variables or using a control.
That’s true when you’re promoting a cause or doing something that affects other people. But OP’s quote talks about materialist scientists being “idealistic” outside of their work. In other words, their private world away from wider society. If someone wants to believe in bread turning into flesh while also advocating for parishioners to physically feed the poor and organize them to resist landlords (because Jesus would’ve done the same), then who am I to criticize?
It reminds me of the common Christian parable of the man stuck on his roof during a flood and ignores every instance of humanitarian aid because he was hoping for god’s miracle. When he does, god says that he sent helicopters, boats, kayaks, etc. but he chose to ignore all of them. Now, it’s important to note that this parable can be used to advocate pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. But if you’re a socialist, you can also use that parable to advocate for being materialistic within god’s world - he’s provided you with all the tools right here. You cannot ignore everything and hope god saves you. You must work together with the people and the environment
Diamat is fundamentally to Marxist theory, there is little you can get without understanding it.
Your Christianity will turn into something more like deism if you keep amending your beliefs like you describe, but if you're fine with that then it's all good. If you want to say that God is either stepping in to alter the historical dialectic or that He planned it to have a certain outcome, you've hopelessly tainted the analytical framework.
I don't think the mathematician thing is a negative b3cayse you presumably understand that your math stuff derives from stipulated axioms and those axioms are not necessarily real. I like formal logic, and if anything it helps me understand how the idea people (including logicians) construct can be divorced from reality.
I'm pretty sure when it comes to theory (as a novice myself, take what I'm saying with a few pounds of salt) the main takeaway of dialectical materialism is that "things don't just happen." There is a string of cause and effect that gives us any particular moment in time.
So, there's likely to be a conflict between the "there must always be a cause for there to be an effect" idea and "it just is because God made it so" idea.
As a christian I at least double check if what I believe in contradicts scientific statements and amend my belief system,
If you're doing this as a part of your belief system, then you're also doing the "synthesis" part of dialectical materialism.
TLDR: believe in god, but be aware that god’s expecting YOU to live and act in this world, not him or his miracles.
Some people go overboard with philosophy and are just really annoying about other people’s personal beliefs lol. Ignore them
As long as the work you contribute to society can improve someone’s life, it doesn’t matter if you’re “idealistic” at home. It doesn’t matter if you believe god cured cancer even if you were the one who discovered the cure, as long as you announce the cure and make it widely available. Of course, you can’t go around saying “you don’t need to worry about replicating my studies, just trust the science because god revealed it to me!” but you’ve already came to that conclusion as well.
Spirituality and religion are not materialistic concepts, so it shouldn’t matter if people believe in them as long as they’re aware that the current world they live in often requires measurable and/or tangible action. And just because they’re not inherently materialistic doesn’t mean they’re not relevant to how the world functions and changes.
Take solace in knowing that Cubans are Marxist Leninist and catholic. But the government doesn’t allow the church to broadcast its propaganda (the church complained about censorship because the government wouldn’t allow it to broadcast anti-LGBT propaganda lmao). Many Latin Americans are spiritual or religious in some way and many of them are leftists as well (anywhere from ballot waving demsoc to AK47 wielding jungle guerrilla).
You should watch X-Files. Now I’m basing this synopsis on the pattern of the series, but I the later seasons may have changed things up so I might be talking out my ass.
Fox Mulder believes in the paranormal and supernatural but scoffs at the idea of god. The supernatural exists in the show’s universe, so in that sense, Mulder is not being idealistic because he knows what reality consists of.
But his partner, Dana Scully, is a devout Christian but also takes the scientific process very seriously. Because she did not witness the paranormal personally or cannot prove what she experienced, she doesn’t say it exists on her reports and rationalizes as best as possible with the current scientific knowledge.
You want to be Scully. When your work affects other people, you must be grounded firmly in the observable reality. Your religion may guide your lifestyle, career choices, personality, relationships, etc. but it cannot interfere with what’s observable and currently knowable. The creator is also a devout Christian, so the show is really him trying to explore and challenge his own beliefs and remaining a believer.
If you look at some Reddit atheist posts, you’ll see a lot of neck beards upset with Scully because she’s a “hypocrite.” But I don’t know. I think it makes her human and a good materialist. You’re in her shoes right now, so don’t let some neck beard or philosopher or priest tear you down.
TLDR: believe in god, but be aware that god’s expecting YOU to live and act in this world, not him or his miracles.
Pretty much sums up how I interpret Jesus mission for us.
Dialectics is hard because it's less a thing and more of a method of thought/work. The best description I have heard of it in modern English is that it us a form of process logic in which there is both information in and of the objects in the system, but also in the relations of those objects and their movements. As to idealism this is also a place where people can get caught up because they get too reductive in their focus on literal things. An example of this is when people say "Money isn't even real!!!" On the one hand this is true in a reductive and superficial sense, but in reality it us completely false because it is the physical alienated form of the very real immaterial social relations that bind society togeather. Just screaming that money is immaterial doesn't make the lack of it less real, it doesn't feed the hungry or house the homeless. In this sense 'non material' things can be more concrete and material than the food you eat or the chair ypu sit on. From this perspective god can be very real if we make it so, now I know that isn't exactly a theological formula that jives with nicean Christianity, but I am simply trying to illustrate that there are non material ways ideas can be concrete and real.
Now idealism it's the opposite of materialism, which is most often the target of marxist invective. Idealism is placing ideas prior to the material in the hierarchy of the world. Moralism, most liberals are moralists i find, is an example of this idealistic worldview where how you understand and interact with the world your internal ideas are prior to the material. This is why liberals do shit like means testing, it doesn't matter that it doesn't actually work the point is that in their idealized world it SHOULD work therefore the problem is reality not conforming to their internal ideas.
