Can someone comment on my understanding of dialectical materialism? As I understand it, it is the analysis of societal issues based on examining the conflict between the ruling class and the lower class. Is that right?
Also, from what I just read, one of the components of dialectical materialism proposed by Engels is that as population grows and technology advances, this inevitably results in social change. This is due to conditions worsening for the lower class, or for the lower class obtaining a higher level of class consciousness and demanding better conditions. Is that close?
And the point of dialectical materialism is to examine social upheavals and evolution throughout history, and using that to diagnose or understand our current social issues to posit what path we’re heading down. Right?
it is the analysis of societal issues based on examining the conflict between the ruling class and the lower class
Conflict is borne out of the contradictions inherent in material conditions/economic structure (thesis v. antithesis) and change happens because of that conflict - giving birth to a new system (synthesis). Idk play Fallout: NV and listen to Caesar or something (don't do this).
I am only a beginning dialectician, but this is what I've figured out.
Dialectical materialism is a description of how systems change. There are three principles.
The first is that quality changes are the result of quantity changes. This reflects that the state of the system changes due to a change in the amount of something. It can be quantities of materials or quantities of more abstract things, for example ice changes state into water due to change in temperature, which is the quantity of energy in the molecules.
The second is that a system is made of components which interact and influence each other and are influenced by each other. This is the law of contradiction.
Finally, the third is the negation of the negation. I think this is the materialist analog to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis triad. A system with parts in contradiction eventually negates a contradiction and produces a new state with new behavior.
Now, how does this apply to America in 2021? Seriously, this is not a rhetorical question. How does this apply to America in 2021?
Now, how does this apply to America in 2021? Seriously, this is not a rhetorical question. How does this apply to America in 2021?
Ugh I dropped out of college why are you giving me homework??? /s
I guess my intuitive answer to that question is something along the lines of "we are watching the misguided negation of years of american domestic policy failures/imperialism/capitalism" but in the sense that - harking back to my comment earlier on this post - most QAnon/MAGA followers do think there's something wrong with the system but are mislabeling the crucial components (capitalism, etc) as whatever they perceive as the bogeyman other. Whether that is 'the mainstream media', 'antifa', or 'socialist liberals' varies based on each individual's experience inside the system - but collectively they are negating the idea of how the United States (and the world to an extent) has operated and governed the last few decades. But like I said, they're mislabeling the crucial components that are in contradiction to each-other.
I dunno; I definitely need to read more theory and my brain is already fried from the last six hours of work but I hope that made some sort of sense.
in Marx's time, the primary view of history was that its unraveling was guided by the decisive actions of "great men" who stepped up to the task when the times called for it. Dialectical Materialism says that its actually the material conditions of the world, specifically focusing on the conflict between the ruling class and the working class, and that whatever individuals happen to be the ones who lead are actually mostly irrelevant. In reality, both ideas are wrong though, since the system which decides what we'd consider "global human history" is incredibly complex, and from a bunch of research we've done since the 60s or so, its become clear that it doesn't make sense to talk in terms of 'cause' and 'effect' for these sorts of systems, because as the famous example goes, "changing something as insignificant as when a butterfly flaps its wings can ultimately end up deciding whether or not a hurricane occurs", and certainly nobody would suggest the butterfly has the ability to cause hurricanes. There's much more useful ways to look at these sorts of things, and methodologies I wish the left would adopt but I mostly feel like I'm yelling at a wall in vein
Can someone comment on my understanding of dialectical materialism? As I understand it, it is the analysis of societal issues based on examining the conflict between the ruling class and the lower class. Is that right?
Also, from what I just read, one of the components of dialectical materialism proposed by Engels is that as population grows and technology advances, this inevitably results in social change. This is due to conditions worsening for the lower class, or for the lower class obtaining a higher level of class consciousness and demanding better conditions. Is that close?
And the point of dialectical materialism is to examine social upheavals and evolution throughout history, and using that to diagnose or understand our current social issues to posit what path we’re heading down. Right?
Conflict is borne out of the contradictions inherent in material conditions/economic structure (thesis v. antithesis) and change happens because of that conflict - giving birth to a new system (synthesis). Idk play Fallout: NV and listen to Caesar or something (don't do this).
I am only a beginning dialectician, but this is what I've figured out.
Dialectical materialism is a description of how systems change. There are three principles.
The first is that quality changes are the result of quantity changes. This reflects that the state of the system changes due to a change in the amount of something. It can be quantities of materials or quantities of more abstract things, for example ice changes state into water due to change in temperature, which is the quantity of energy in the molecules.
The second is that a system is made of components which interact and influence each other and are influenced by each other. This is the law of contradiction.
Finally, the third is the negation of the negation. I think this is the materialist analog to the thesis/antithesis/synthesis triad. A system with parts in contradiction eventually negates a contradiction and produces a new state with new behavior.
Now, how does this apply to America in 2021? Seriously, this is not a rhetorical question. How does this apply to America in 2021?
Ugh I dropped out of college why are you giving me homework??? /s
I guess my intuitive answer to that question is something along the lines of "we are watching the misguided negation of years of american domestic policy failures/imperialism/capitalism" but in the sense that - harking back to my comment earlier on this post - most QAnon/MAGA followers do think there's something wrong with the system but are mislabeling the crucial components (capitalism, etc) as whatever they perceive as the bogeyman other. Whether that is 'the mainstream media', 'antifa', or 'socialist liberals' varies based on each individual's experience inside the system - but collectively they are negating the idea of how the United States (and the world to an extent) has operated and governed the last few decades. But like I said, they're mislabeling the crucial components that are in contradiction to each-other.
I dunno; I definitely need to read more theory and my brain is already fried from the last six hours of work but I hope that made some sort of sense.
in Marx's time, the primary view of history was that its unraveling was guided by the decisive actions of "great men" who stepped up to the task when the times called for it. Dialectical Materialism says that its actually the material conditions of the world, specifically focusing on the conflict between the ruling class and the working class, and that whatever individuals happen to be the ones who lead are actually mostly irrelevant. In reality, both ideas are wrong though, since the system which decides what we'd consider "global human history" is incredibly complex, and from a bunch of research we've done since the 60s or so, its become clear that it doesn't make sense to talk in terms of 'cause' and 'effect' for these sorts of systems, because as the famous example goes, "changing something as insignificant as when a butterfly flaps its wings can ultimately end up deciding whether or not a hurricane occurs", and certainly nobody would suggest the butterfly has the ability to cause hurricanes. There's much more useful ways to look at these sorts of things, and methodologies I wish the left would adopt but I mostly feel like I'm yelling at a wall in vein
I'm down with multifaceted web-based causality polylectics
deleted by creator