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.
I don't think we are disagreeing entirely. Of course, I am not saying our model of the atom is a perfect reflection of the underlying reality it represents or the final model that humans will develop to explain these phenomena. I'm not familiar enough with physics to speak too much more on this. But our methods have developed significantly since theories of the aether and to say that model is as true as the atom is rejecting all models that aren't a hypothetical perfect model of physics. There is no "True" model out there waiting for us to discover it, just scientists trying to describe the real objects and relationships this field of science is concerned with to increasing success.
I would argue that our methods have not evolved significantly: our technology has. The point I'm trying to convey is to encourage people to not confuse the theory or methods of science with what is real or unassailable. The thinking that the atom is in some way more true than say the value form is a mistake commonly made and encourage in our society, predicated on separating the theory out as a truth to be reasoned about on its own. I'm not really trying to agree or disagree, just explain what it means to be doing science without overdetermining the terrain or fetishizing it as a substitute for other explorations of reality
By methods, I meant experimental techniques for testing theories. For example, pre-modern physicists didn't have particle accelerators and couldn't even conceive of a particle accelerator because they didn't have any concept or the same concept of a particle.
That wasn't my intent, just to be clear. I just thought it was wrong to claim the atom is as true as the aether. The former is better at describing our empirical observations than the latter.