I've been reading a bunch into dialectics, and started "Dance of the Dialectic" by Bertell Ollman which i'm finding very interesting.

I want to write a few things, some articles that will generally be about historical research, analysis and critique of an event, or a text, or ideology. A lot of what i'm interested in gravitates around literary/media critique.

So are there still marxist, specifically dialectical methods, models or schools of thoughts that are still used? Modernised versions, evolutions (that don't fall into anti-communism, or some vague "post-marxism"), etc? Are there methods that bridge the gap like Marx's dialectic and can be used as much in science, in critique, in philosophy and in strategy and action?

Another thing I'm interested in: escaping the uselessless of media and literary critique. I don't just want to dissect a text and talk about what's inside or about the ideology, although that's a necessary step, but I want to see if that can be projected forward, to derive not only a critique but a positive method, a strategy for change. For example, a method that allows you to critique fiction writing and also gives you workable tactics for better writing, for revolutionary writing. Not simply pointing out the ideological content of something, but tactics for fighting it, for writing something better, for counter-acting. Feels like simply analysing and being critical isn't enough because it doesn't bring change, and can even bring a sense of powerlessness when all you're doing is in knowing rather than doing. In this example, how do we convert the analysis into something that motivates and guides new writing? I'm still unsure if this is really possible, it feels like media critique can only ever be subsumed into capital and can never really be used in revolutionary ways, but I'm wondering.

Sorry if some of this is rambly.

    • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don't think so. It's a method for testing if the model produced by your current theory is statistically consistent. When it's not, large shifts in our thought require a dialectic turn. So for developing quantum mechanics that turn looked like resolving a contradiction by introducing a notion of quantized angular momentum, and at first, just with that and classical mechanics, you can actually solve a lot of early quantum mechanics issues without fully dialectically breaking from the extant theory fully. So called semiclassical physics. Or Einstein doing thought experiments to resolve a logical inconsistency introduced by a very well verified and consistent theory of electromagnetism.

    • PaX [comrade/them, they/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      For a contrary opinion to the first one, yes. It's a method that acknowledges the dialectical relationship of human ideas and material reality. When human ideas don't make sense with material reality, we adjust our ideas and try again. This is the same method applied by revolutionaries in political practice.

      At first, knowledge is perceptual. The leap to conceptual knowledge, i.e., to ideas, occurs when sufficient perceptual knowledge is accumulated. This is one process in cognition. It is the first stage in the whole process of cognition, the stage leading from objective matter to subjective consciousness from existence to ideas. Whether or not one’s consciousness or ideas (including theories, policies, plans or measures) do correctly reflect the laws of the objective external world is not yet proved at this stage, in which it is not yet possible to ascertain whether they are correct or not. Then comes the second stage in the process of cognition, the stage leading from consciousness back to matter, from ideas back to existence, in which the knowledge gained in the first stage is applied in social practice to ascertain whether the theories, policies, plans or measures meet with the anticipated success. Generally speaking, those that succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect, and this is especially true of man’s struggle with nature.

      -"Where do correct ideas come from?", Mao Zedong

      • AcidMarxist [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you! The excerpt you posted is actually some of the very little Mao I've read. He's refering to dialectics in it right? It reminded me of the scientific method, probably because its some of the only critical theory(?) taught in American public schools. I can read Mao, Marx, and Engels, but I dont feel very confident explaining it to other people to see if I actually understand it. But using the scientific method as an example might be practical in cracking through western brainworms

        • PaX [comrade/them, they/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you! The excerpt you posted is actually some of the very little Mao I've read. He's referring to dialectics in it right?

          No problem! Yeah, he's talking about the dialectical relationship between a person's knowledge and the material world. If you wanna learn more about this relationship and the Marxist theory of knowledge more generally I highly recommend Mao's short essay "On Practice"

          I can read Mao, Marx, and Engels, but I dont feel very confident explaining it to other people to see if I actually understand it.

          Yeahh, it can be difficult especially under the pressure of a social situation. Sometimes I can't do it either. It takes a lot of study and practice to internalize it fully. But I believe in you!

          But using the scientific method as an example might be practical in cracking through western brainworms

          Yeah! Especially if the person you're trying to reach is a more scientific-minded person.

          • grym [she/her, comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Interesting exchanges! I recently finished reading a collection Mao's stuff and his contributions to the concepts of contradiction, and the theory/practice dialectic, was very interesting.

            I posted a big-ass comment on the post that goes further in what I was trying to get at.