Pseuds really need to stop bringing up "dialectics", "dialectical materialism" or any other philosophy crap when talking about communism or marxism.
Marx: philosophy is religion rendered into thought and hence to be condemned. One has to leave philosophy aside and devote oneself to the study of the actual world, etc. etc. (1) As for the so-called dialectical method. Here are (2) Hegel. (3 & 4) Marx on Hegel. And (5) Marx on his own "method". Marx is very clear here: he does not have a method. A scientific investigation has to "appropriate the material in detail, analyze all forms of development and trace out their inner connections" rather than starting out with a ready made schema and distorting the material to fit it.
Bonus tracks (maxed out images lol):
>One has to “leave philosophy aside” (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or “Stirner”, one finds that one has long ago left them “behind” and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03e.htm
> Feuerbach’s great achievement is:>(1) The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned;>(2) The establishment of true materialism and of real science, by making the social relationship of “man to man” the basic principle of the theory; https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm>>2264814Dialectics aren't something you can apply. They're immanent in the content you are investigating. After the investigation is over, you can then present it in a dialectical form.
>>2264816Cockshott is a stupid grifter intellectual too.
>the term was coined by engelsSomebody already talked about how retarded Engels' dialectics of nature was.
>and popularized by stalinLmao.
>>2264780>a lot of what marx and engels believed has either become inapplicable to the modern worldright that is talking about isolated static facts separated from context(undialectical), not the dialectical method
>has been changed by changes in the understanding of historythats dialectics
>you cannot simply go that "everything he said was basically right" when that would also mean accepting the reactionary and chauvinist positionsnot what people are saying, the method is correct, the particular positions are limited by the information available to the individual
>few people do it for that reason>not one of those groups actually want thisintentions dont matter consequences and outcomes do
>>2264824no u.
if you want to contribute say what you think it is instead of empty claims
>>2264826Hegel: things must be studied in their essential natures and dialectics is immanent in the results of a correct investigation.
Marx: Lassalle is stupid for trying to force his content into a ready made system of logical categories.
Retards today: lol just apply dialectics and you'll end up with the right answer bro!
>>2264828When did everyone on leftypol become such a touchy pussy lmao?
>>2264832stalinists say the darnedest things
maybe one day you will learn what immanent means, or at least actually read some marx
>>2263649This is the one.
>>2264824This is not correct.
"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."(Captial ).
>>2264860Your screenshot doesn't disprove my point at all.
Marx explicitly stating how he came to his findings isn't quote mining. Marx accepted the dialectical method of thought but rejected idealism.
>“The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.”
>Marx is very clear here: he does not have a methodThis is false.While Marx rejects formal schemas or rigid frameworks imposed externally on reality (as was done by vulgar economists and idealist systems), he very much insists on a method—a dialectical materialist method—in Capital and elsewhere.
>"In its rational form, dialectic is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state… Because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature"
>“Rather than starting with a ready-made schema…”This point is true and crucial. Marx did not impose dialectics from the outside. That is exactly what differentiates dialectical materialism from idealism or vulgar materialism. Instead, he investigated the actual development of capitalism, discovered its contradictions, and used dialectical logic to trace their motion and development.
>>2263644yes. marx's understanding is clearly inspired from hegel's logic. we have in the first instance, being:
<quality-quantity-measurewhich relates to value and its form
we also have hegel's logic of nature:
<essence-appearance-actualitythis is given in relations of production and exchange
only ignorant people are capable of denying this
>>2264608youre right. people point to hegel without actually elaborating on it. hopefully i can provide context, as i have already attempted to do:
>>2263699>>2264660marx does actually think of economic value as an unsolved mystery, as he writes;
<"The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all [capital vol. 1, 1867]">>2264682change is always leading back to the same place however, like all natural cycles. thats why a "revolution" is about circling back, so as to sublate. even heraclitus saw that the only stasis of flux is flux itself, revealing the formality of the Logos.
>>2264796actually, marx and engels did make (false) predictions, as we can read:
<"The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future […] In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent [capital vol. 1, 1867 preface]"this is marx's determinism. we also read engels,
<"Free Trade has exhausted its resources [.] Foreign industry, rapidly developing, stares English production in the face everywhere […] The decennial cycle of stagnation, prosperity, over-production and crisis, ever recurrent from 1825 to 1867, seems indeed to have run its course [.] The sighed for period of prosperity will not come […] while the number of the unemployed keeps swelling from year to year, there is nobody to answer that question; and we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed losing patience will take their own fate into their own hands [capital vol. 1, 1886 preface]"revolution never came from capitalist nations, but from russia and china instead.
>>2264885yes, marx says he uses hegel in his theory of value:
<"I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker [hegel], and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him [capital vol. 1, 1873 afterword]"the form of value [exchange value] itself is also a relationship between contraries which bring mutual recognition, between substance and magnitude, or quality and quantity, whereby there is measure.
>>2264860lets read where marx spoke of his method;
<"M. Block [.] makes the discovery that my method is analytic […] german reviews [.] finds my method of inquiry severely realistic, but my method of presentation, unfortunately, German-dialectical […] I discuss the materialistic basis of my method […] Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method [.] what else is he picturing but the dialectic method? […] My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite […] With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought […] The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion […] But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital" [.] I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker […] With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell [capital vol. 1, 1873 afterword]" >>2264914>changethe more things change, the more they stay the same. you cant have flux without stasis, hence it is heraclitus who theorises the Logos. aristotle says that plato is inspired by heraclitus, as we may read in one of plato's masterpieces, "timaeus";
<"Now it was the Living Thing’s nature to be eternal, but it isn’t possible to bestow eternity fully upon anything that is begotten. And so he began to think of making a moving image of eternity: at the same time as he brought order to the universe, he would make an eternal image, moving according to number, of eternity remaining in unity. This number, of course, is what we now call time [timaeus]"this is a direct communication of "the one and the many" as it concerns being. if my cells die, i am preserved in my formality. change then, is a flux that is contained within a larger, static system, like how all games have creativity based on the limits of rules.
>law of valuemarx regards value as the metaphysical basis of commodity exchange; so an eternal law of this type of social labour. thats why he imagines it operating throughout history, even without our knowledge of it.
>>2265237"metaphysics" is a scary word, but it just refers to first principles.
>>2265230>Are you saying law of value wont be abolished cant be abolished?read again:
<marx regards value as the metaphysical basis of commodity exchangeabolish commodity exchange and you abolish value. this is also why value must be understood as a market construct rather than a natural category.
>>2265233yes. aristotle, for example, perceives an equality in commodity exchange, but cannot identify a common substance, which to marx, is human labour (value);
<"the great thinker who was the first to analyse [.] the form of value. I mean Aristotle […] What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? […] human labour. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. […] The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality [capital vol. 1, ch. 1]" >>2265244well, labour was not considered equal in aristotle's time (due to slavery). that is part of marx's point. even when it wasnt considered equal, it still gained an abstract equality as value in exchange. marx speaks a bit later on about this;
<"whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sec. 4]"value has these intrinsic properties to marx.
>>2265249yes, precisely. that is marx's positon.
there is "something" equal between things,
which to marx, is "human labour in the abstract".
aristotle also perceives an equality, but cannot say what it is. marx tries to fill in the gap.
Unique IPs: 13