Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:

This is literally gibberish.

Click to expand...

Although rigously trained in the Hegelian dialectic, the young Ph.D. Karl Marx disagreed with Hegel's definition of the actual forces with which the dialectic operated. For Hegel, it was ideas! For Marx, it was economic relationships to the methods of production. For a comparison of these two approaches, see Comparison of Hegel's and Marx's view of the dialectical situation.
In the first diagram on this page, please note how Marx had changed the thesis from an idea to a group which shares a similar relationship to the methods of production. In this illustration the "thesis" is the feudal lords; who in order to maintain themselves have to "call into existence" their very opposite, the serfs and peasants.

The struggle between thesis and antithesis thus becomes primarily an economic struggle, and both are destroyed in the process, and a new synthesis comes into existence.

Please note that Marx has thus turned the elements of the dialectic into economically defined "classes." This materialistic orientation has given risen to the correct name for Marx's approach; Dialectical Materialism.

Click to expand...

Lots of socialists have written books on socialism and what it means. There's no such thing as "the book." That's retarded.

Click to expand...

And putting the means of production into the hands of a tiny group of political elites is not that. In fact, it's the opposite of that.

Click to expand...

Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a higher form of human society - socialism.

The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding broadly to philosophy, social history and economics -Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics.These are the famous "Three component parts of Marxism" of which Lenin wrote.

Click to expand...

What is dialectical materialism?
Since the beginning of recorded history, people have been striving to answer essential questions about nature and human society.

In earlier times, almost all events in nature were attributed to divine beings or a godlike force. The existing social order that governed the relations between people was explained as part of the same natural order. Things were as the gods or god wanted them to be. While this message may have been beneficial for the ruling classes whose clergy preached that the division between the haves and have-nots was god's will, mystical and impalpable concepts don't shed any scientific light on human existence or why things actually happen.

Marxism is the science of revolutionary social, economic and political change. As with any science, the theory behind it-the formulas and calculations used to form scientific conclusions-is important to understand. Dialectical materialism is the theoretical foundation of Marxism.

"For [dialectical philosophy] nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher," Fredrick Engels wrote in "The End of Classical German Philosophy."

Dialectical materialism as a methodology is the combination of dialectics and materialism. It shows that changes in society are not necessarily linear; that history moves forward in fits and starts. Understanding this term necessitates an examination of its component parts.

What is materialism?

Materialism argues that the actual reality of the surrounding world determines the way people think and what they believe. In contrast to religious and other "idealist" philosophies, Marx's materialist conception of history asserted, "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." (Karl Marx, Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," 1859)

Historical materialism is the philosophical opposite of idealism. It is directly opposed to idealism, the notion that material reality is created by what people believe or perceive in their minds. Marx also asserted that in all class societies the dominant ideas are the ideas of its ruling class. Racism, sexism, homophobia and national chauvinism are the ideas that the masses of people assimilate from the ruling class, which benefits from the promotion of those ideas.

We've all heard the basic idealist argument: society won't change until people's ideas change. On that line of thinking, activists need to do only educational work or teach in schools.

Materialism shows that the process of humanity's social development is tied directly with the development of production and technology. Production is the expression of humanity's ongoing relationship with the world. It is a manifestation of the never-ending battle for survival. Every living organism struggles to survive and thrive, whether simply defying cold weather, eluding predators, searching for food or working in a factory.

Of course, not everyone's material reality is the same. For the working class, the struggle for basic needs occupies a greater part of life. For the capitalist class of owners, material reality consists of luxury gained by virtue of their social position within the exploitative capitalist economy.

This material reality, according to the materialist worldview, determines how people think about the world.

Materialists would reply to those activists who want to change people's ideas: yes, we want to change people's ideas. But the only way to do that is to change the material conditions-the way society is organized. In the process of engaging in revolutionary struggle, and eventually in building a new society, people's ideas definitely will change.

The laws of change

Dialectical thought is merely the reflection of objective dialectics: laws governing the development of nature, the laws of uninterrupted change or, as Darwin discovered, the laws of evolution. According to this view, change occurs in the struggle between opposites. Nothing exists without opposition. When opposites confront each other, changes occur.

A central law in dialectics is the transformation of "quantity into quality"-that a change of the amount (quantity) will eventually bring about a material change in the whole make-up of something (quality).

One of the most practical examples of the transformation from quantity into quality can be seen in nature with water. A change in the temperature of water is a change in quantity. If the temperature gets colder, but is still above freezing, the water stays in liquid form. As the temperature continues to drop, the water eventually will freeze. At that point, the water has changed to ice-from liquid to a solid state. The cause of the change is the drop in temperature; the change from liquid to solid is a qualitative change. In the other direction, when water heats and boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit it passes through a qualitative alteration and becomes steam.

In society, social change occurs in the conflict between opposing classes-in capitalist society, between the working class and the capitalist class. The conflict breaks out on a day-to-day basis-protests, strikes, pickets and so forth. But when these protests come together in a united political movement against the capitalist class, a quantity of struggles can bring about a qualitative change-a revolution.

The analysis incorporated in dialectics, combined with materialism, is the basis for the Marxist view of the world.

Dialectical materialism: a science of revolutionary change

Marxism is a living science, made of both theory and practice. Its theoretical underpinnings can be applied not only to history but also to current events to show Marxism's continuing validity and relevance as a way of analyzing the world.

Both liberals and conservatives argue that people have to work within the capitalist system to try to salvage it. They don't want to destroy the system and make something new.

Religion similarly argues that people are not the main force for change. It attributes change to a divine power, offering hope for change in an afterlife. But dialectical materialism shows that both notions are false.

Marxists understand that the material conditions in the United States, as elsewhere, shape political consciousness. And yet political consciousness is not mechanically and statically determined. As the contradictions in capitalist society grow quantitatively, large numbers of people are compelled to fight back. The catastrophic war in Iraq and the "natural" catastrophes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for instance, compel people to go into the streets and struggle for change. When this happens, revolutionary organizations can help shape a new consciousness that breaks with the rotten, racist and corrupt ideology of the capitalists.

We strive to point out that it is material contradictions that exist under capitalism that lead to the dialectical resolution of these contradictions. The capitalists themselves create the conditions necessary for the socialist revolution that will bring about better social conditions for people here and all over the world.

Click to expand...

The core of socialist-Marxist thinking is its methodology, dialectical materialism.But the term was not systematically analysed by Marx or Engels. One has to synthesise its meaning from thousands of pages of their collected works.

Click to expand...

My argument relies on workers having control over the means of production being necessary for any sane classification of socialism. That's it.

Click to expand...

I've already given examples of it happening. It happened by NOT having a step where economic power was turned over to some tiny group of political elites. It's that fucking simple.

Click to expand...

They weren't crushed by the spanish right, ya fuckin' retard. They were crushed by people who called themselves communists.

Click to expand...

The US (like the USSR) is state-capitalist.

Click to expand...

The Soviet Union became the first country to adopt a planned economy, whereby production and distribution of goods were centralized and directed by the government. The Soviet Union became the first country to adopt a planned economy, whereby production and distribution of goods were centralized and directed by the government.The first Bolshevik experience with a command economy was the policy ofWar Communism, which involved nationalization of industry, centralized distribution of output, coercive requisition of agricultural production, and attempts to eliminate the circulation of money, as well as private enterprises and free trade.As it had suffered a severe economic collapse caused by the war, in 1921, Lenin replaced War Communism with the New Economic Policy (NEP), legalizing free trade and private ownership of smaller businesses. The economy quickly recovered.[73]

Click to expand...

Right, and that claim is fucking retarded. One set of ideas deals with the way capitalism works and the other deals with what is to be done about it. Those are two very different questions. Marx used a dialectic method as an approach, but it's not a "body of thought." It's a methodology.

Click to expand...

No, they're not, retard. Sorry but you don't get to just flatly assert this while yelling "marxist dialectic!" over and over. You don't know what the words you are using actually mean.

Click to expand...

Then maybe you should try using some, dipshit.

Click to expand...