24 Jun 2011, 11:20
Good explanation, would be of help to new members I reckon, but it needs something into HM - where Marxism really applies dialectics.
Would you be able to use a proper method of citation too? It aches my face through frowning to see something without proper sources.
24 Jun 2011, 12:20
It could be of use to me, never dare to presume otherwise.
I don't need to write any explanation like that - as I wasn't asked, you were, and I don't have an inclination to explain anything as detailed other than in person or over the phone - and neither does anyone really, it's all there and doesn't need to come up at all in 99% of conversations that us on the left ought to be having (unless mental wangsturbation is desired).
Anyway, the only bits of Capital that really matter are the actual consequences of industrialisation at the time, anybody who has or hasn't read Capital and with half a brain knows full well there's a great element of exploitation through many formalised social interactions
25 Jun 2011, 17:22
Just a question that arose my mind. If I understand correctly, contradictions exist in everything: Lenin said, in maths it is + and -, in physics action and reaction, and in social sciences it is the class struggle. Without up there is no down. So how is it then dialectically possible that classless society can exist?
25 Jun 2011, 17:28
It's dialectical opposite is non-society. Human-free nature. Outer space.
25 Jun 2011, 17:32
Wait, the antithesis of classless society is non-society? Isn't that class society?
25 Jun 2011, 17:43
Depends on the "route" of abstraction. Either you regard society in itself, disregarding the historical aspect and looking at it spacially-materially, then the opposite is obviously everything that's not society.
Or you regard it historically, then the opposite is class society, of course, but my actual point is that you can't give clear definitions here. Consider capitalism - what is its opposite, feudalism or socialism? It's all a matter of perspective and the direction in which you're looking. When people in communist society apprehend their society, the first thing they''ll think about obviously won't be "hey, it's different from class society" but rather "hey, we're humans as opposed to the inhabitants of this alien planet", for example.
But actually as a concept is defined by its inherent contradictions and communist society has none, maybe the concept of "society" will disappear in itself - I mean today, when we talk about societies, we always distinguish them from other societies, but that won't apply under communism of course, because communism encompasses all people.
26 Jun 2011, 00:19
I suppose dialectical materialism should be the only principle communists should have. It is the only truth we should hold eternal; everything else just depends on the time and circumstances. Other than this we should have no other principles.
26 Jun 2011, 06:53
I would tentatively agree with that ... because diamat just proves itself every day. It's like a thesis that requires no proof because it is its own proof.
And above all, of course, Marxism has never been a set of principles (though certain Leninists of course think that way, exalting "the teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin(-Stalin(-Mao))") - merely a method of analysis which necessarily leads to certain conclusions.
26 Jun 2011, 13:29
thanks mabool, this cleared my thoughts about dialectics up a lot ... or rather, helped me on my way to understand them (better) :'D
26 Jun 2011, 15:59
Eh. Mao has what I think is an overly schematic approach to dialectics. But here I really don't get what he's saying; as he's correctly saying, everything can be seen as negation and affirmation, so obviously that means that negations of negations are EVERYWHERE?
"Slave-holding society negated primitive society" -> Slave holding society was the negation of primitive society
"Feudal society constituted the negation in relation to slave-holding society"
-> "Feudal society constituted the negation" of the negation of "primitive society"