What the fuck is the dialectic?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > What the fuck is the dialectic?

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Dialectical materialism leads to an interpretation of history known as historical materialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojR86ivIhQ8

# ¿ Apr 20, 2019 20:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 19:50

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Actual question:

Thesis: Marx's theories are based upon a certain interpretation of the progression of history, and this information was used by him to extrapolate information about the progression of humanity in the present and the future.

Anti-thesis: Our knowledge of the past is inherently incomplete and subjective. Each time period has its own limited understanding of the past. Does Marx's limited understanding of the past render his theories invalid? If not, why not? If they are still valid, what makes them valid, if it's not an accurate interpretation of the past?

# ¿ Apr 21, 2019 22:56

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Helianthus Annuus posted:

the trivial cop-out answer is that marxist thought is an ongoing process that explicitly responds to changes in material conditions. that includes responding to an evolving understanding of history.

marx was responding to and critiquing capitalism in his time as he understood it, and marxists today do the same in our time. the connection is the tools that we use (historical materialism, dialectics) and the point of view we bring with us (class, workers as producers of value and capitalists as appropriators of value).

but i feel like you're coming at marx from a rationalist/empiricist standpoint if you're thinking about it in terms of "incorrect information yields incorrect theories". i suppose what you're really getting at is "how do we know marx was right?" from my standpoint, that's a simpler, but equally fraught way to think about it (whats it mean to be "right" in this context?)

im gonna have to let someone who actually did the assigned reading unpack this for you

Yes, the first two paragraphs of your post were the conclusions I came to myself.

As for how I�m approaching it, I�m not sure, I was just thinking about the subjective nature of history and then thought of this. I don�t want to know if Marx was right because I�m not sure if it�s possible for someone to be right about something (because, once again, subjectivity). So then the question becomes how to reinterpret his ideas in light of new historical information, and indeed the answer I came to was to go beyond his own personal theories and look towards the process of dialectical materialism (and other analytical tools) that came about after Marx.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 01:37

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Thanks for the tip, read the first third and will read the rest in the coming days. I already have some thoughts but I'll finish it first

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 20:49

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Helianthus Annuus posted:

marxism is strong because it doesn't require a rationalist or empiricist epistemology

those epistemologies goof up right out the gate by presuming that knowledge can be independent from the knower -- that theres some independent Standard of Truth that exists outside the material world and outside of history

by deploying the idea of dialectics, we know better to try separating knowledge from the knower. both are to be conceived as part of a holistic system -- the world, materiality

the lesson to learn here is that your initial assumptions matter a lot. for example, if you assume there's such a thing as "class", and you acknowledge and affirm the limitless interconnectivity between "class" and "everything else", then you can comment intelligently on our present circumstances under capitalism.

on the other hand, if you assume that a theory can be proven valid (that there IS a correct theory, and marxism is either it or its not), then you're getting away from dialectics and towards rationalism and/or empiricism. the problem is that you wind up asking questions that cannot be answered

a better question to ask of a theory is whether it "works", whether it's useful. whether it's fruitful or whether it closes up on itself

anyway sorry for the epistemological call out. god bless you for doing the reading

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I have read some ancient philosophy but mostly 20th century French philosophy, and besides some Marx and Hegel and Kant I'm not terribly familiar with 19th German philosophy, and I'm trying to fill out the gaps in my knowledge a bit now.

I enjoy "French Philosophy." In particular I have read a lot of the later works of Foucault which deal with the concepts of bio-power and surveillance. This line of thought deals a lot with the mechanics of oppression and control, and how these mechamisms ultimately shape society. Although it deals with a lot of the same themes as traditional Marxist thought, the locii of power are decentralized and seperated from groupings such as classes or individuals. The Foucauldian model places us all within a churning and chaotic sea of power struggles that manifest themselves not only through structures such as social class, but also through more nuanced elements of life.

There is a lot of debate about Foucault, and while I currently view his ideas as a logical outgrowth of Marxist thought, some people consider it a break or separation from it. Though I find Foucault's philosophy interesting, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I subscribe to it. I do feel that his approach has some advantages in terms of analyzing our current lives, and that he added some analytical tools to the toolkit one can use to examine the underlying mechanisms of our society.

I suppose that more broadly I am attempting to brush up on classical Marxist thought so that I can do my own exercise in dialectics and see how these two methods of thought fit together. I don't really assume that there is an ultimate truth can be found, and if there is I doubt that I will the one to do it, so I'm mostly just trying to enrich my knowledge rather than find The Truth.

I am not a philosopher and haven't busied myself with it in a while but it feels good to finally read Engels. Still didn't finish the reading but I'm about halfway through it now, and I'm enjoying it.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2019 22:21

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

This isn�t :filez:

because it�s hosted on Project Muse at Johns Hopkins University with permission.

If you want a little sample of what Foucault is like, here is a quick 12 page article from the middle of his work, before his thoughts on power start becoming very abstract

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/252435/pdf

He had a weird policy about describing history, where he would only use examples from periods prior to the 20th century to illustrate the things he discusses. As a result his books are filled with weird historical anecdotes, although they are certainly meant to be read as commentaries on the present. It also reminds me of Engels, who makes great use of historical anecdotes to for his arguments.

twoday has issued a correction as of 18:54 on Apr 24, 2019

# ¿ Apr 24, 2019 18:49

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

And some background on the book this is from:

Wikipedia posted:

In May 1971, Foucault co-founded the Groupe d'Information sur les Prisons (GIP) along with historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet and journalist Jean-Marie Domenach. The GIP aimed to investigate and expose poor conditions in prisons and give prisoners and ex-prisoners a voice in French society. It was highly critical of the penal system, believing that it converted petty criminals into hardened delinquents. The GIP gave press conferences and staged protests surrounding the events of the Toul prison riot in December 1971, alongside other prison riots that it sparked off; in doing so it faced a police crackdown and repeated arrests. The group became active across France, with 2,000 to 3,000, members, but disbanded before 1974. Also campaigning against the death penalty, Foucault co-authored a short book on the case of the convicted murderer Pierre Rivi�re. After his research into the penal system, Foucault published Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (Discipline and Punish) in 1975, offering a history of the system in western Europe. In it, Foucault examines the penal evolution away from corporal and capital punishment to the penitentiary system that began in Europe and the United States around the end of the 18th century. Biographer Didier Eribon described it as "perhaps the finest" of Foucault's works, and it was well received.

And a panopticon:

twoday has issued a correction as of 19:14 on Apr 24, 2019

# ¿ Apr 24, 2019 19:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 19:50

twoday: May 4, 2005; C-SPAM Times best-selling author

Former DILF posted:

actually such a work does not exist, and we know this by r guyovich's inability properly link the citation of such a work for our perusal

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=socialism+utopian+and+scientific

# ¿ Apr 24, 2019 19:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > What the fuck is the dialectic?