Hello,

I came to this site knowing nothing about DM, and now ive read lots of posts by people who advocate it and by people who dont, but i still really dont get it.

I have read the Wikipedia page about it. and i still dont understand

1) why people would want to use it
2) why people dont want to use it.
3) how is it used?

So can anyone, as simply as possible, gimme the rundown on it, as it seems like something i should have an opinion on.

pls dont argue though, just try and present me with the facts

You have a set of difficult choices to make here.

There are a number of "canonical" works that you can seek out and read...which purport to "explain dialectics" and why it's "a good thing".

You will discover that they disagree with each other.

OR you can read the critics. There are six collections of posts on my own site that are profoundly critical of "dialectics".

And, my recommendation, there is Rosa Lichtenstein's excellent site...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/

I don't think "dialectics" is something that you need "to have an opinion on". It's really all bollocks and you can be a better revolutionary without it altogether.

But, you will have to put up with a few people who will dismiss your ideas as rubbish because you failed to re-phrase them in "dialectical" terminology.

Good sense always has a price.

Wikipedia explains

Wiki DM

Short definition

Dictionary.com DM

I've stayed clear of Dialectics and only read the real basics. But Rosa Lichtenstein's essay is pretty interesting and I will probably read it in full this summer, but until then I just skimmed through the first part. I came across this:

To me, this sounds like doublethink. I wonder if Orwell was criticizing DM when he wrote 1984. Anyway, I'm looking forward into reading the rest later... from the bit I read so far Lenin sounds insane.

It's confusing, that's about all I know about it. I've attempted to educate myself on it, but I always quit due to boredom.

Take cover everyone. The Leninist counter artillery barrage should be coming in any moment now.


I would just stay clear from dialectics, I don't think they are nessecary at all, for me, it only proved to confuse people, plus see all of the junk dialectics have produced...from Hegel's psycobabble to Fukyama's stupid proclimation of the "end of history".

Marxism is wothrless without dialectical materialism. I would recommend the following works:

What is Dialectical Materialism? by Rob Sewell:
http://www.marxist.com/study-guide-dialect...materialism.htm

The ABC of Materialist Dialectics by Leon Trotsky. Contains additional material by Rob Sewell and John Pickard:
http://www.marxist.com/abc-dialectical-mat...ism-trotsky.htm

Reason in Revolt: Dialectial Philosophy and Modern Science by Alan Woods and Ted Grant:
http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp

It is hard to learn at first, but if you study, you will understand it, unlike redstar2000 and the rest of his anti-Marxist parrots.

To get a better understanding of society, the world, etc. in their constant state of change and flux. Formal logic has its limits, and Marx and Engels formulated their theories with dialectical materialism.

The Bourgeoisie teach only formal logic because dialectical materialism is a very important aspect of Marxism. They obviously don't want people learning about Marxism. The people that are opposed to it on this site, and other such "Marxists", don't understand it, from what I have seen.

It is based on emricial observation, noting change through contradiction, quantitative changes producing qualitiative leaps, some things returning on a qualitatively higher basis, etc. Stephen Jay Gould used aspects of dialectical materialism in his theory of punctuated equilibrea.

Yeah...more "erudite" cowpies from Axel "Iron Bolshevik Discipline" 1917.

Chairman Ted's version of "Marxism" is worthless with "dialectical" "materialism".

I sure hope no one wastes a nanosecond on it.

But some folks, it must be admitted, were born to waste time.

And redstar2000 happens to be one of those that is born to waste time, given that he is not capable of thinking.

Let's steer clear from the spam, and the spam-linking, and stick to the topic please: what is dialectics.

Not whether or not you think it's a conspiracy involving fukiyama.

Axel's links are pretty good, though I think you're looking for something less comprehensive. Reason in revolt is, in my opinion, the best way to understand dialectics because it explains it by a comprehensive analysis of processes in nature and society and draws philosophical conclusions from it, rather than imposing the philosophy on the processes. However, it is quite long.

I'll post a link to something introductory and concise in a bit.

here:

Dialectal Materialism by J. Pickard

1) why people would want to use it
The ‘dialectic’ is a cornerstone of the science of logic, of how things move and operate and come and go out of being. Dialectics is the study of sublation, of a ‘being’ negated but then transcend by a new ‘being’ that maintains some properties of the old. For instance, Einsteinian negated Newtonian physics but retained some properties of Newtonian physics.

The ‘materialist’ aspect of dialectical materialism is the standpoint of a materialistic worldview, i.e. a scientific outlook on life. That is, matter is the absolute knowable and exerts its properties on everything. Or rather, matter alone can be proven to exist. A materialist outlook on life is the most pragmatic and rational.

2) why people dont want to use it.
To understand what is happening now, why the past happened, and how the future will happen.

3) how is it used?
It is used in the same way you would utilize the principles of mathematics, take for instance the use of Euclid’s axioms and propositions. From these rules you can deduce how a circle will behave and why a 30-60-90 triangle has one side that equals ‘x’, another which equals ‘2x’, and another that equals ‘x√3’.

It is important to remember that dialectical materialism is an analytic concept and not a determinate or religious method.

I believe it is up to the individual if he or she would wants to learn dieletics. I never came accross anything written that it was commanded that everyone has to learn it. It been explained that it's an analysis tool. I just have too much on my plate to even bother with it since I have much to read what Marx, Engles, DeLeon, Debs, etc., wrote. However, I don't understand why a person who doesn't use dieletics is considered a non-Marxist? Would that not be considered sectarianism?

Sectarianism would be refusing to recognize a movement because it doesn't conform to your image of "perfect revolution". However, Marxists are supposed to be the group of activists who understand the theory and try to educate and agitate within the larger movement to radicalize it. To do that, you must support the larger movement, but still hold an independant line and engage in constructive criticism. So someone may support Marxism, but if their method is one of idealism, of everlasting "things" in society as opposed to interacting and ever changing processes, they are no Marxist.

Hence the currently ideologically bankrupt trends on the left, searching for "newness" for newness' sake because they cannot understand what went wrong and how society works, let alone how to build a real movement again in a better way. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there's been this turn to "new ways" of looking at things which has resulted in a completely empty and lifeless class analysis. One which sees class warfare as a dead collection of component parts, as opposed to a living process with periods of quiet build-up followed by explosive clashes.

Thanks CyM for clairifying what sectarianism is. But what of the other question?

Well, i attempted to explain both, but I admit sometimes I'm not very clear in my responses.

Basically, Marxism is in itself dialectical, there is no Marxism without it. The idea of class dynamics, of the equilibrium within society degenerating until a new society explodes out of the old, this is dialectics applied to sociology.

Without the understanding dialectics provides, what we are left with are rigid lifeless categories that have little to no connection to the living processes they are meant to explain. It is important to encorporate the idea that things change into our analysis at all levels. Dialectics allows you to do that. This is why Marx came to all of his conclusions with its use.

We look at those who have abandoned dialectics, and generally we find two groups:

1) those who end up abandoning the struggle entirely, and become reformists and the like
2) those who lose sight of the movement entirely, and become sectarians who can do nothing but shout at every revolutionary wave that it is not "truly revolutionary".

Really, they're two sides of the same coin. Neither thinks to actually look at what is happening around them, the rising tides, the accelerating processes of mass resistance, etc... They think they can draw their ideas from thin air really, and to hell with what is happening in society.

So again, they can be a supporter of Marxism, but not a Marxist if they abandon the methods and practice of Marxist organizing and analysis. The methods and practice Marx and Engels themselves used.

A much better explanation of why dialectics is necessary is the explanation of what it is that I linked to. It's about 2 pages I think, and really clear, much clearer than I could make it.

Watch out whenever you see assertions like this one!

It's usually a sign that whoever's making it "has an agenda" that may be less than attractive if stated in plain words.

For example, if you can be convinced that "dialectics" actually means something, then you might also be convinced that "some people are really good at it" and you "should listen to them and do what they say".

Over the centuries of human history, people have often found it profitable to pretend to "special knowledge" hidden from ordinary people.

"Dialectics" is such a pretense; under a critical eye, it reduces to verbal nonsense in fairly short order.

But those who think that "Marxism" gives them a "license to rule" -- like Chairman Ted or Chairman Bob -- find "dialectics" to be extremely useful...because you can use it to "prove anything" in words.

When entering the magical realm of "dialectics", turn your skepticism up to its highest setting.

I would like to see you disprove dialectics, given that no one has successfully done it in history. Or are your posts angry rantings, given that the "worm of doubt" is chewing away at you?

In the previous citations, dialectics is proven. Studying dialectics will allow one to understand it.

That's on the same level as the poor godsuckers who show up in the Religion Subforum and demand that we prove that God does not exist!

The "burden of proof" is on you, oh mighty magician, to show us that your "dialectical miracles" are something more than verbal spoon-bending.

You've had a century or so to demonstrate that "dialectics" is "more than just words"...and your failures have been spectacular!

When Chavez's social democrats finally grow weary of your nagging and toss you out on your bums, I look forward with anticipation to Chairman Ted's "dialectical explanation".

It should be hilarious!

You have heard both sides now, and as was predicted, there is little consensus.

As far as I am concerned dialectics is something that you can choose to induldge in if you want. CyM suggested that rejection of it leads to materialism, but really that needn't be the case, you can accept the important aspects of materialism with out dialectics. Redstar suggested that dialectics will lead you to become an outdated failure, or reformist, again I would disagree.

I have never seen dialectics as something useful in terms of predictions, but as an analytical "tool" it can be useful. From what I have read, I don't see why formal logic and dialectics can't be used in conjunction, although the more extremists spend a lot of time and effort explaining why not. I would say that later Marxist thinkers did place far too much reliance upon dialectics, but dialectics itself was not the problem. The problem was the dogmatic and linear approach, considering that it wasn't successful. I think that compromise between factions is more important than the philosophical prejudices of opposing camps that are supposedly working for similar goals.