I am sorry, but how is ‘dialectical materialism’ not just an attempt at a secular version of revelations. If you are going to make bullshit claims that communism is incompatible with spirituality, then the same claims that a lot of Marx’s influences are incompatible with atheism and spirituality still shines at Marx’s attempt at making a purely atheistic dialectic materialism. First of all, it has an extremely strong reminiscence to eastern ideas of ‘karma’. Karma not being luck or something bad automatically happening to you for doing something bad, but the automatic chain of cause and effect in existence, in which everything is existence reacting with itself. The idea of an End To History and socialism being inevitable is bullshit in a completely chaotic random world, because the slippery slope fallacy proves that you cannot account for the millions of mitigating circumstances that could happen, Marx did not live in a time of nukes or knowledge of climate change - he could not know that humanity could wipe itself out before socialism could ever be established. Unless you people hold a subconscious belief that the natural materialistic karma of the world is a reflection of spiritual principles, which you clearly do no matter how much you try to deny it otherwise you would deny there being really any natural dialectic towards socialism at all (because of a thousand things that could happen that we aren’t even aware of that could steer things in a completely different course). Even the idea of the end of class conflict causing an end to religion and ‘God’, and the end of time, is something that has extremely mystical underpinnings - because it’s essentially the entire message of Christianity! Paul pretty much claims the exact same thing! If everyone is under the oneness of the son, if there is no sense of power or division, then isn’t man under the oneness of God? Is God not manifesting Himself through man? And if man is within the oneness of God, the idea of ‘God’ disappears since ‘God’ is just a name for something unspeakable, and if man is one with God there wouldn’t be any need for a name or concept to realise God as separate from oneself. Since heaven and earth are united, there would be no need to recognise the spiritual separate from the material, since the spiritual and the material would be made one.
In Marxism’s staunch atheism a shadow of spirituality shines, Marxism feels like a mix of a ‘materialistic’ Buddhist-Christianity. Buddhism the karmic aspect, Christianity the end of time aspect. You can see how Tankie Marxists act like the Catholic Church, how they quote Marx like divinely inspired biblical scripture in every argument
>>2485249>I am sorry, but how is ‘dialectical materialism’ not just an attempt at a secular version of revelations. does dialectical materialism posit any of the following?
<The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – Four riders (conquest, war, famine, and death) appear, each bringing catastrophic events to the world (Rev. 6:1–8).<The Mark of the Beast (666) – A mysterious number that marks the followers of the Beast, signaling allegiance to an evil power (Rev. 13:16–18).<A Woman Clothed with the Sun – A celestial woman, with the moon beneath her feet, who is pregnant and pursued by a dragon (Rev. 12:1–2).<A Beast Rising from the Sea – A monstrous creature with seven heads and ten horns, representing an evil empire or ruler (Rev. 13:1–10).<The Great Battle of Armageddon – A final, apocalyptic battle between the forces of good and evil at the end of the world (Rev. 16:16).<A New Heaven and New Earth – God will create a new, perfect world, replacing the current corrupted one (Rev. 21:1–4).<A River of Life Flowing from God's Throne – A pure river of water of life, symbolizing eternal nourishment and peace (Rev. 22:1–2).<The Beast's Image Comes to Life – The Beast’s image is somehow given the ability to speak, leading to even more deception (Rev. 13:14–15).<The Locust Army – A bizarre army of locusts with human faces, lion teeth, and scorpion tails, tormenting humanity for five months (Rev. 9:1–11).<The Fall of Babylon – A great city of sin and corruption is destroyed in a single day, signaling divine judgment (Rev. 18:1–24).Instead what does dialectical materialism posit?
>Materialism: Reality is fundamentally material, and the material world exists independently of human consciousness.>Dialectics: Change occurs through contradictions within things, and these contradictions drive development. Everything is in a constant state of flux.>Contradiction: Internal contradictions (opposites) are the source of change. A thing or process contains opposing forces that create tension, leading to transformation.>Negation of the Negation: History and nature move forward through a process of negation—what was once established is overthrown, and the new negates the old, but incorporates aspects of it.>Unity of Opposites: Contradictory forces exist in a dialectical relationship, and their unity or struggle is what propels development.>Historical Materialism: Human history is shaped by material conditions, particularly the modes of production and class struggles.>Class Struggle: Society develops through the conflict between different classes with opposing interests, typically between the ruling class and the working class.>Material Conditions Determine Consciousness: People's ideas, values, and beliefs are shaped by the material conditions and relations of production they live under.>Totality: All parts of reality are interconnected, and no part can be understood in isolation; understanding the whole is key to understanding any part.>Transformation of Quantity into Quality: Small, gradual changes accumulate until a qualitative leap occurs, bringing about a new stage or phase of development.Does that answer your question?
>>2485273>marx got his theory of history from hegelmarx got his dialectical method from hegel
>hegel got his theory of history from the biblenot really
>>2485267If you want to take things ridiculously literally, but revelations is essentially a symbolic representation of a dialectic process
>Materialism: Reality is fundamentally material, and the material world exists independently of human consciousness.I will give you that, though dialectical materialism acts as if it were a clockwork machine with a divine will baked into it
>Dialectics: Change occurs through contradictions within things, and these contradictions drive development. Everything is in a constant state of flux.Straight form buddhist philosophy
>Contradiction: Internal contradictions (opposites) are the source of change. A thing or process contains opposing forces that create tension, leading to transformation.Straight from Buddhist philosophy
>>Negation of the Negation: History and nature move forward through a process of negation—what was once established is overthrown, and the new negates the old, but incorporates aspects of it.Pretty much the whole relationship between Christ and anti-Christ, also note the role that archangel Samael plays and the role that Satan played before Christian times (like the book of Job)
>Unity of Opposites: Contradictory forces exist in a dialectical relationship, and their unity or struggle is what propels development.Mirrors Böhme’s alchemy and Buddhist philosophy
>Historical Materialism: Human history is shaped by material conditions, particularly the modes of production and class struggles.Which is part of what the book of Revelations describes, allegorically
>Material Conditions Determine Consciousness: People's ideas, values, and beliefs are shaped by the material conditions and relations of production they live under.Which is what Revelations describes, allegorically
>Totality: All parts of reality are interconnected, and no part can be understood in isolation; understanding the whole is key to understanding any part.Straight from Buddhist philosophy
>Transformation of Quantity into Quality: Small, gradual changes accumulate until a qualitative leap occurs, bringing about a new stage or phase of development.Straight from Buddhist philosophy
There is nothing new under the sun
>>2485301so you cant explain it yourself?
>short readsurely theres a summary then.
>>2485249>>2485315Nevermind I found it, read and weep MLoids
In general, the word "materialistic" serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge — for economic history is still as yet in its swaddling clothes! — constructed into a neat system as quickly as possible, and they then deem themselves something very tremendous. And after that a Barth can come along and attack the thing itself, which in his circle has indeed been degraded to a mere phrase.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm >>2485305>I will give you that, though dialectical materialism acts as if it were a clockwork machine with a divine will baked into it>clockwork machine>divine willno it doesn't. you're just asserting this. show me any prominent marxist-leninist upholding dialectical materialism actually saying something like this. neither marx nor lenin assert anything like this. nor did stalin or trotsky or mao. where are you getting this "divine will" shit?
>Straight form buddhist philosophy the observation that everything is in a constant state of change is in line with actual scientific observation of the universe. it's retarded to think otherwise. simply slapping the "this smacks of buddhism" button does n>>2485305
ot refute.
>Pretty much the whole relationship between Christ and anti-Christ,not really
>also note the role that archangel Samael plays and the role that Satan played before Christian times (like the book of Job)this has nothing to do with negation of the negation. saying "conflict between opposites are the source of change" is a much more general observation than asserting theological ideas like christ, anti-christ, satan, and so forth, which have a ton of additional baggage. you're just engaging in parallelomania. where you look at an abstract statement and assume it "sounds just like" schizo religious babble by deliberately looking for parallels and highlighting them while igorning the complete lack of supernatural assertions and so forth. there is nothing supernatural about negation of negation.
>Mirrors Böhme’s alchemy and Buddhist philosophy yeah if you remove all the, idk ACTUAL RELIGIOUS STUFF
>Which is what Revelations describes, allegorically >allegoricallyah yes, allegory, where you assert a religious text is "true" by pretending all the supernatural claims are "Merely symbolic." through this rhetoric you can make any secular statement into a religious statement and vice-versa
>There is nothing new under the sunok go live in a cave and read Ecclesiastes until you die while in the real world, new things happen all the time. you are talking to me on a device that would appear like "magic" to people living only 300 years ago
>>2485319>MLoidsoh, you're
that anon. #1 shadowboxing champion. #1 demolisher of strawmen
>>2485334>no it doesn't. you're just asserting this. show me any prominent marxist-leninist upholding dialectical materialism actually saying something like this. neither marx nor lenin assert anything like this. nor did stalin or trotsky or mao. where are you getting this "divine will" shit?
You are acting dumb, you know that I am not implying that they consciously claim anything to be such, but that dialectic materialism which is supposed to be the natural ‘scientific’ cause and effect in the word appears very much like a clockwork machine with divine will
>>2485305>If you want to take things ridiculously literally, but revelations is essentially a symbolic representation of a dialectic process "umm revelation is just like dialectical materialism dude. who cares about the actual crazy supernatural assertions it makes. If you subtract everything crazy it says you're left with basically dialectical materialism"
even if you subtract all the supernatural claims and it really is just a metaphor for being butthurt about Emperor nero it still is neither dialectical nor materialist but is instead metaphysical and idealist.
>>2485311>>2485335heres your paper:
(1)
>external relations is when things exist external to each other>internal relations is when… "processes", "infinity" and teleology (?)(2)
>abstraction is when things exist externally to other things by having separate existences(3)
>dialectical laws is when duality>things change when contradictions are overcome(4)
>critical inquiry(5)
>self-clarification(6)
>exposition(7)
>connecting theory and practice(8)
>start again at (1) >>2485344> appears very much like a clockwork machine with divine will>appearsto you maybe. since you keep on insisting on this interpreation but can't find the actual people who put these ideas forward saying such. but meanwhile the actual religious person who wrote revelation gets a pass because it's all "allegory"
see how you use your own subjective interpretation to turn religious statements into secular statements, and secular statements into religious statements, so that you can try and fit a square peg into a round hole and claim they belong together? this is a rhetorical sleight of hand.
>>2485349>mass tor baiter asserts that dialectical materialism is bullshitok so does this mean that
>Materialism: Reality is fundamentally material, and the material world exists independently of human consciousness.>Dialectics: Change occurs through contradictions within things, and these contradictions drive development. Everything is in a constant state of flux.>Contradiction: Internal contradictions (opposites) are the source of change. A thing or process contains opposing forces that create tension, leading to transformation.>Negation of the Negation: History and nature move forward through a process of negation—what was once established is overthrown, and the new negates the old, but incorporates aspects of it.>Unity of Opposites: Contradictory forces exist in a dialectical relationship, and their unity or struggle is what propels development.>Historical Materialism: Human history is shaped by material conditions, particularly the modes of production and class struggles.>Class Struggle: Society develops through the conflict between different classes with opposing interests, typically between the ruling class and the working class.>Material Conditions Determine Consciousness: People's ideas, values, and beliefs are shaped by the material conditions and relations of production they live under.>Totality: All parts of reality are interconnected, and no part can be understood in isolation; understanding the whole is key to understanding any part.>Transformation of Quantity into Quality: Small, gradual changes accumulate until a qualitative leap occurs, bringing about a new stage or phase of development.these statements are false?
does reality only exist in side your mind?
does change not occur due to struggle internal to the subject of the change?
do things not get overthrown?
do contradictory forces not exist in a relationship of mutual change?
is human history not shaped by material conditions, modes of production, and class struggles?
is reality not interconnected through physical laws and ripple effects?
do small quantitative changes not build up into large qualitative changes?
please if you disagree with all these observations, reveal to us how reality is metaphysical and idealist rather than dialectical and materialist. we are waiting.
>>2485361>does reality only exist in side your mind?It might as well be for you, since there is no objective ground for you to discern what is outside of your mind except for what other people say - which you perceive through your mind. You don’t perceive anything out of your mind, nobody does.
And I disagree that mind cannot influence matter, and I have irrefutable personal proof that it does in terms of what I have experienced so nothing you can argue will for logically will validate that point for me. From my perspective, I exist outside of that argument
>>2485357it is an extremely unprofound article.
lets go through the method:
>things dont just exist in contradiction to other things but also in contradiction to themselves. the critical mode of inquiry therefore is to see how things self-relate by processes of change. when things change, internal contradictions are overcome only to bring new antagonisms.why did the author waste 15 pages on this?
>>2485372>And I disagree that mind cannot influence matternowhere does dialectical materialism assert that "mind cannot influence matter."
Mind is simply a form of matter that is both influenced by and influences other forms of matter. Case in point, if you get brain damage, you behave differently (matter affecting mind), however, your brain commands your limbs to move by means of your nervous system (mind affecting matter). A mind can influence reality, but only within the constraints of the laws of physics, and only after a period of development where it first emerges in reality (a brain begins to form when a baby is in the womb, and that brain spends a long time developing in childhood and adolescence where it is quite heavily influenced by the things that came before it). So you are both a product of your environment, but your environment is also a product of you. That is a dialectical and material relationship. Very similar to base and superstructure.
>It might as well be for youNo. It doesn't. I openly assert that reality exists outside my mind and will continue to exist after idea. Metaphysical idealist solipsistic sophists on the other hand assert the opposite.
> since there is no objective ground for you to discern what is outside of your mind except for what other people sayi can observe things without people telling me. I can step outside and see how the weather is. what are you even saying right now?
> You don’t perceive anything out of your mind, nobody does.my perceptions are limited by my brain which is an interface but my brain is still embedded in a reality. I have a kid for example. I observed through ultrasounds my child forming in the wound. This has happened millions of times before. It is more reasonable to assert that this is how it happens then to assert that this is all simply a simulation or hallucination.
>>2485379>All this has been said in the Kabbalah anyway alreadywith additional religious superstitious magical garbage perhaps
>it is an extremely unprofound article.why does it need to be "profound?"
>>2485388>because apparently marx was a genius that is supposed to change your lifewho is saying this right now besides you?
>>2485384>marx said that abstractions are immaterialwhere and so what?
>>2485397>Which you perceive through your five senses, which you perceive via mindyes, and?
>>2485398>Absolutely not, it’s completely objectiveso you assert
>>2485402>abstractions are immaterialhere is where i disagree. abstraction is a material process of the brain (a biological computer) interpreting and simplifying a highly complex aspect reality by reducing it to a model that can be managed more easily. this material process of abstraction is why we have language.
>so marx wasnt a genius?I don't think the concept of "genius" has much utility and is mostly subjective twaddle.
>The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition.are you smith anon? the value of a commodity is just a statistic of production cost. it is the socially necessary labor time required to produce them.
>>2485404>the idea of communism is where alienation is completely overcome.first you say "contradiction" now you say "alienation" but still you don't cite a source. If marx anywhere claims that "contradiction" will permanently come to an end under communism then he is wrong in that instance. the broad strokes of dialectical materialism are correct even though marx can be wrong about some things. dialectical materialism is not simply "agreeing with everything marx and engels ever said." because not even marx and engels were immune to changing their mind.
>>2485415Oops, I meant to say for this
The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao
>>2485432what did i ignore?
that is the crux of your entire worldview. its pathetic.
>>2485344>stuff does stuff<DIVINE WILL, WOWThis is why I don't respect esotericism, it just teaches you to be an excessively wordy vibes schizo hiding behind scholasticism, while jumping to conclusions and arguing in circles based on vague feels
saging for basically astrology bullshit
>>2485442Oh, so you dehumanise people who disagree with you creating a boogeyman with a unified conspiracy out of them just like anti-semetic conspiracy theories do. Well, I am not just a 20 something year old with my own views apparently, according to you I am a priest of the Catholic Church who is promoting occultism, magic, and Buddhist ideas?
Don’t you realise that those vulnerable people who have been ‘tricked’ into following literally anything but atheism are now essentially part of the same conspiracy blob boogeyman in your head with an agenda, who must all be murdered in the gulag, according to your logic?
>>2485466no. he didn't say "abstractions are immaterial" he said
>The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition.and
> If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight.but even ignoring his (at times not very useful) tendency to use poetic and imprecise language (something engels thankfully does way less than marx), let's examine something
Just because an abstraction ignores certain things in order to focus on other things, doesn't make abstraction "immaterial" it means abstraction
ignores certain aspects of the material.
It's like a black box function. you only care about the input and output and ignore the inner workings. the value of abstraction isn't that material reality doesn't exist, it's that you ignore the aspects of material reality you don't currently need to care about. When i put my key in my car and turn it on, i don't need to care how the engine works. i only need to care that the car starts running and i can start driving. that is the value of abstraction. things are often abstracted through use of interfaces. money for example is an abstraction that makes exchange far easier. language is an abstraction that makes communication far easier. mathematics is an abstraction that makes calculation far easier. but these abstractions are actual physical processes that still take place inside a material reality, bounded by the laws of physics.
when marx says
>The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition.i suspet he is being semi-poetic but frankly i don't care because you can be a dialectical materialist without agreeing with 100% of what marx ever said.
>>2485469what does "immaterial" mean to you? sure in a sense, a picture of an apple is not an apple, but it is still a physical object that exists in material reality. just because something can represent something else which isn't physically present in the immediate vicinity doesn't mean that the representation is in and of itself "immaterial."
please come up with a definition of "immaterial"
>>2485489you can be a dialectical materialist without agreeing with marx 100% of the time. why is this hard for you to understand?
>>2485485still waiting for you to define "immaterial"
Unique IPs: 17