Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: Dialectical materialism in practice?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    WALES
    Posts
    96
    Organisation
    Socialist Party (UK)
    Rep Power
    8

    Question Dialectical materialism in practice?

    How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

    How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
    ?
    ?
    Can you talk me through an example please?
    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,386
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tellyontellyon View Post
    How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

    How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
    ?
    ?
    Can you talk me through an example please?
    Thanks

    An example in politics could be the US and its stance on the Kyoto agreement.

    On the Bush years, US wanted nothing to do with it. Obama promised to change that. Bourgeois media or history books would view that as a proof of Obama being more progressive, in touch with his era and its problems etc.

    A materialist would argue that a person's behaviour (or a rulling class' policies and stance on matters) isn't something that exists independently of this world, the material sphere, and the economy, which is the base of everything.Instead, it is born out of it. Also, that it is the outcome of many "collisions" between groups that see they have conflincting interests as they interract with each other.


    In that case, Bush acted in a certain manner not because he believed those saying there is no global warming, but because he represented the interests of Big Oil and polluting industries. US dependence on that type of production was what led to the middle east wars.
    Obama on the other hand was backed by that part of the bourgeoisie that sees in the so called "green economy" a great profit opportunity. He was also against the war in Iraq as his sponsors, the capitalists that hired him to do their bidding and whom he represented, wouldn't have much to gain from it. This side grew in strength really fast as only recently renewable forms of energy became financially viable and as science is making great leaps.


    So, what did change wasn't that a more progressive man walked into office but that the part of the bourgeoisie that sees a bigger chance for profit in "going green" has for the time being the upper hand in the ongoing "struggle".
    The procedure to use it seems to be looking at the right place, which is the economy and the social relations that arise from it.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FSL For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,930
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tellyontellyon View Post
    How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

    How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
    ?
    ?
    Can you talk me through an example please?
    Thanks
    Nice question. But I can almost feel a certain one-line reply being typed with a link. So beware...

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    tellyonsquared:

    How is 'dialectical materialism' used to understand stuff?

    How do you actually use it in practice? Is there a procedure?
    ?
    ?
    Can you talk me through an example please?
    Since this theory makes not one ounce of sense, as several of us here have argued more times that the US military has invaded somewhere, it cannot be put into practice, and so it has never been put into practice (except to screw things up, as it did in the former USSR with the theories dreamt up by Lysenko -- link below).

    It wasn't even used in 1917 in Russia (proof can be suplied on request).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

    There are literally scores of pages at RevLeft where we have demonstrated this; I have collated links to them all here:

    http://************************/RevLeft.htm

    The latest place is here:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong...84/index5.html

    and the next ten pages!

    Which explains why Red Cat is so miffed.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    FSL:

    An example in politics could be the US and its stance on the Kyoto agreement.

    On the Bush years, US wanted nothing to do with it. Obama promised to change that. Bourgeois media or history books would view that as a proof of Obama being more progressive, in touch with his era and its problems etc.

    A materialist would argue that a person's behaviour (or a rulling class' policies and stance on matters) isn't something that exists independently of this world, the material sphere, and the economy, which is the base of everything.Instead, it is born out of it. Also, that it is the outcome of many "collisions" between groups that see they have conflincting interests as they interract with each other.

    In that case, Bush acted in a certain manner not because he believed those saying there is no global warming, but because he represented the interests of Big Oil and polluting industries. US dependence on that type of production was what led to the middle east wars.

    Obama on the other hand was backed by that part of the bourgeoisie that sees in the so called "green economy" a great profit opportunity. He was also against the war in Iraq as his sponsors, the capitalists that hired him to do their bidding and whom he represented, wouldn't have much to gain from it. This side grew in strength really fast as only recently renewable forms of energy became financially viable and as science is making great leaps.

    So, what did change wasn't that a more progressive man walked into office but that the part of the bourgeoisie that sees a bigger chance for profit in "going green" has for the time being the upper hand in the ongoing "struggle".

    The procedure to use it seems to be looking at the right place, which is the economy and the social relations that arise from it.
    But this is an example of Historical Materialism, not Dialectical Materialism!

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    But I can almost feel a certain one-line reply being typed with a link. So beware...
    Well, you were no more right about that than you were about Lenin and Mao (on change).

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,930
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Good. Let other people have a look at our debate and say whose points make sense.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  12. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    Let other people have a look at our debate and say whose points make sense.
    And no doubt they will also note that there you support your 'revisionary' claims with not one single quotation from Lenin or Mao, whereas I support everything I allege with many.

  13. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,930
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Red Cat:



    And no doubt they will also note that there you support your 'revisionary' claims with not one single quotation from Lenin or Mao, whereas I support everything I allege with many.
    We will see. I am waiting for the mass opinion on your posts.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  15. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    I am waiting for the mass opinion on your posts
    They have already passed their opinion on Dialectical Marxism -- they ignore it in their billions.

  16. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,930
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Red Cat:



    They have already passed their opinion on Dialectical Marxism -- they ignore it in their billions.
    No wonder.

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    No wonder.
    Indeed, they are right to ignore your useless 'theory'.

    After all, it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

  18. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,930
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Red Cat:



    Indeed, they are right to ignore your useless 'theory'.

    After all, it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.
    An example of relative success by any other alternative, please?
    Last edited by red cat; 18th November 2009 at 16:26.

  19. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    An example of relative success by any other alterative, please?
    Capitalism and liberal democracy come to mind.

    Even though capitalism is an evil system (and should be overthrown), it is way more successful than Dialectical Marxism. Why, even China has embraced it (as have the former USSR, and E Europe).

    If truth is tested in practice...

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,930
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    An example of relative success by any other alterative, please?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Red Cat:



    Capitalism and liberal democracy come to mind.

    Even though capitalism is an evil system (and should be overthrown), it is way more successful than Dialectical Marxism. Why, even China has embraced it (as have the former USSR, and E Europe).

    If truth is tested in practice...
    To be precise, an alternative that claims to be proletarian, vividly preaches socio-economic equality, has been able to overthrow a former regime, and has witnessed massive increase in the levels of education, health-care, average life-span etc.

  21. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Red Cat:

    To be precise, an alternative that claims to be proletarian, vividly preaches socio-economic equality, has been able to overthrow a former regime, and has witnessed massive increase in the levels of education, health-care, average life-span etc.
    And yet which has now embraced a far more successful (but evil) system: capitalism.

  22. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Socialist:

    Capitalism is "successful"?
    It has conquered the world, and revolutionised the productive forces -- so much so that the vast majority of the former 'socialist' states have embraced it.

    Why are you a socialist then? Try being a "successful" capitalist instead.
    That's about as brainless an argument as "Why don't you lot go live in Russia?" used to be.

    I am a socialist since I want it to be successful, hence the need to ditch this ruling-class 'theory' of yours.

    Socialism failed?
    In your highly emotional frame of mind, you have clearly lost the ability to read. Where did I say socialism has failed?

    This is what I said:

    Even though capitalism is an evil system (and should be overthrown), it is way more successful than Dialectical Marxism. Why, even China has embraced it (as have the former USSR, and E Europe).
    I can enlarge the font for you if that helps...

    As materialists, we don't judge systems as "evil" or "good" but in class terms. If its evil, it must be bad for the working class. If its good, it must be good for the working class. Thats the only way to see it from a materialist perspective.
    Indeed, but that doesn't mean that capitalism isn't evil.

    [And I'd like to see you define "good" in non-moralistic terms!]

    Furthermore, I'm glad you mentioned the working class, since, the larger it gets, the more it ignores your 'theory'.

    I am still a learner like yourself, but thinking in terms of dialectics is something that changes your world view from a metaphysical one to a materialist one. To quote Mao, "As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. "
    And yet as we have seen, this theory cannot account for change -- or, alternatively, if it were true, change would be impossible:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong...84/index5.html

    FSL gave an excellent example.
    But, where was the 'dialectics' in it?

  23. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, USA
    Posts
    136
    Organisation
    none yet, any thoughts?
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    I find your argument interesting Rosa, but it sound like you are picking apart dialectic materialism just to show you can. You take like four or five comments on dialectical materialism as the base of the argument and ignore what it says on the whole.

    Nothing is fixed
    everything changes
    through the interaction of multiple forces new conditions and forces will arise.

    boom. DM in 100 words or less. This philosophy is not only true but incredible useful. You do a lot of philosophical waxing but I don't really see its value outside of a nice talk. Okay, so DM is riddled with holes? Okay? So what does your perspective bring to the international revolutionary movement? What is the cash-value of your argument? I haven't seen anything from you positive. Just a tearing down of an incredibly practical philosophy. You act like everyone is against you. Like they are afraid of your ideas because you have so blown everyone’s mind. I don't think that’s it. I think you are talking over everyone’s heads. And if no one understands you, you might as well be putting down your argument in Latin because if no one gets it and no one can use it, your argument is impotent from the get-go. Also I think your harsh and antagonistic tone when talking further alienates yourself. You said on your site that you “[FONT=&quot]generally go for the jugular from the get-go[/FONT]”. You’re not playing Left4Dead, you’re talking to comrades. I am not saying your argument is wholly wrong, although I do think that, I'm saying that it is wholly useless in its current form. I think that if you published a book on this, the only person who would buy it would be college students, and the only person who would like it is Noam Chomsky. If you want anyone to care I would make it more palatable to the general person and I would avoid putting people on the defensive because it does you no credit. Although I suspect that you will not take my criticism with good humor.
    "The emancipation of the working class will be an act of bears." - Karl Marx

    "It's not power that corrupts, but bears." - VI Lenin

    "Political power grows from the mouth of a bear." - Mao Zedong

    "Bears are more dangerous than ideas. We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have bears?" - Josef Stalin

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to btpound For This Useful Post:


  25. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,930
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Rosa's arguments are based on the following points(she refuses to accept that these facts have always been a part of Marxist dialectics):

    Lenin, Mao etc. have stated that opposites struggle. Therefore it is to be assumed that a "struggle" will exist in every place, everywhere. The meaning of "struggle" is the conflict of opposing forces.

    Mutually exclusive systems struggle through forces that lead to these systems. These forces co-exist. For example, in a capitalist system, both the bourgeoisie and proletariat co-exist and struggle, for capitalism and socialism, respectively.

    As systems change, contradictions change too. So, after a point, reversal to a system identical to a previously existent one becomes impossible. Hence capitalism cannot reverse back to socialism forever, and must proceed to communism.

    Rosa asks for passages from dialecticians' works which state these facts, instead of providing examples were they have stated anything near to what she claims are the "faults" of dialectics.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  27. #20
    F9's Avatar
    F9 is offline Welcomes u to the Muppet Show Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    cyp-rus
    Posts
    5,900
    Rep Power
    56

    Default

    KC this is a verbal warning for spamming, please dont post stupid pictures, and especially please dont do it in Learning.
    OMONOIA
    ANARCHOCOMMUNIS
    M

    You're never over

Similar Threads

  1. Dialectical materialism
    By Vincent in forum Learning
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12th May 2009, 23:09
  2. Dialectical logic is not Dialectical materialism
    By Lamanov in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 16th July 2008, 18:11
  3. Dialectical Materialism
    By LtnMarxist in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 28th November 2005, 03:08
  4. Dialectical materialism
    By JasonR in forum Theory
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 31st January 2004, 14:24

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •