Dialectical materialism

I'm not sure of the general consensus of this board on dialectical materialism, but back when 4/pol/ was still uncucked, I remember Cyril Smith and his writings on Marx Myths and Legends being cited several times by seemingly knowledgeable posters on that board. I got his book Marx at the Millennium and so far I've gotten through half of the book. He heavily criticized the concept of dialectical materialism as a creation of Plekhanov, popularized by Kautsky, Lenin, and later abused by the Soviet Union as a mean to justify all of its actions with obscure pseudo-Marxist nonsense.

Naturally as a somewhat superficial left communist, I took this to mean that leftcoms should oppose this concept as well, and with some limited interactions and discussions with leftcoms online, the general consensus seems to be that diamat is a false, non-Marxist concept that should not be adhered to. Here I'm guilty of not being a party member, but I think many here can sympathize with circumstances that prevent one from having direct contact with a leftcom party for discussions.

But I started reading a little more Bordiga, and he seems to mention diamat in a positive manner numerous times throughout his writings. Examples include right at the beginning of the Lyon Theses:

"The key doctrines of the communist party are founded on Marxism, which the struggle against opportunist deviations reinstated and set in place as the cornerstones of the 3rd International. These consist of: Dialectical Materialism as the method of conceiving of the world and human history; the fundamental doctrines contained in Marx’s Capital as method of interpretation of present-day capitalist economy; the programmatic formulations of The Communist Manifesto as the historical and political plan of emancipation of the world working class"

Another example is in The Historical Invariance of Marxism, where Bordiga explains that dialectical materialism doesn't deny that the erroneous theories of the past were necessary for their times, pretty clearly supporting it as a legitimate method of sorts.

"Despite the fact that it obviously recognized the formal contents of the bodies of doctrine of all the major historical eras to be erroneous, dialectical materialism does not thereby deny that they were necessary in their time, and much less does it imagine that their errors could have been avoided if sages or legislators had better ideas, and that this would have enabled them to notice their mistakes and rectify them. Every system possesses its explanation and its reason for existence in its cycle, and the most significant ones are those that have maintained themselves unaltered and retained their organic form over the course of very long struggles."

So should left communists accept Smith's critiques of diamat or Bordiga's application of it? Is diamat just wrongly abused by the Stalinists or is it an illegitimate concept as a whole?

Attached: 7r5.png (883x731, 43.61K)

benis

Fuck off with your blogposting.

The dialectic model is nothing more than a false dichotomy logical fallacy, and lacks any form of nuance or insight into how the actual world works.

...

Kill yourself commie faggot

Why not just kill yourself instead and cut the cost of worrying about you subverting our board in half?

Attached: 73e081a793fa0b66fab531cd3040bff3f85e2c14a92e6f3cbe5764ce78c8143a.jpg (700x535, 25.57K)

Absolute cancer.

And Marx was a brainlet. Read Spengler.

Hello fellow DACApede, nice try fitting in

Without diamat Marxism cannot exist.
See Marxism starts with the axiom that labor value theory works.
It doesn't in the real life, all the time same working hours cost drastically different when turned into goods.
Its unsolvable contradiction until you introduce diamat that can achieve any conclusion from any facts.
Without theory of labor value there is no ground for Marxism to stand and accuse capitalist for stealing of added value.

But interesting and obvious consequences. As Marxism is based on teh doublethink everything it does and achieves is hypocrisy and doublethink.

Attached: b55.jpg (625x685, 54.34K)

There are literal commie reading bolshiveks on this board

Attached: 1418149718059.jpg (225x225, 9.02K)

Holy shit, invest some thought instead of getting butthurt, niggers.

no this thread suks

and now thanks to people like you , we are becoming more 4/pol cucked by the day

We do with out even knowing it ;)

There is nothing wrong with reading Capital. It gives you understanding how enemy thinks and what is his goals.

The entire Marxist theory is in direct contradiction to hegals work where as gheist was more of an abstract of thought. Applying Hegelian dialect to material means like Marx did ultimately makes any sort of process of thought absurd. It's been proven wrong simply by The fact The prophesied communist revolution never happened. The only thing you should need to know Marx was a frock of shit was Hegals last words. "And he didn't understand me".

5 star post

Attached: Blank _1cb2d7b77432473971274da065a0a87d.png (294x200, 29.35K)

I've never understood commies logic. They read large amounts of books and form laws and explanations that fly in the face of observable experimentation. The ability of the human mind to fill in gaps and twist logic to support a failed hypothesis is amazing. OP is tantamount to inspecting a brick. He is stating that the brick cannot burn as the rest of the house is engulfed in flames.

There's nothing more childish than reducing all of history down to two camps of: 'People who have stuff I want' and 'me and everyone else I assume are also mad at the first group'.

Attached: 1367317092196.png (354x367, 254.56K)

the jewish mind*

I am firmly convinced that jews do not understand causality in the way Whites do.

your worldview has no explanatory power and is shit because of that.

My main point in posting this was to point out that not many discussions have been had about this subject (the legitimacy of dialectical materialism). To be clear, nowhere do I imply that having a majority opinion on something makes that opinion more legitimate. If that was the case I wouldn't be a left communist posting on here. Since many of your points seem to be falsely attacking the idea of labor value and devolving to meta-discussions rather than discussing the actual question, I'll ignore these points and focus on the question that I originally asked, which is whether Smith's critique of diamat is legitimate or not, and whether this undermines parts of Bordiga's ideas.

Duh. Jewish numerology and Kabbala. All the senior kikes are fucking insane due to their deprived and hallucinatory secret texts. Try living a normal life while worshipping a mystical number cube and drug addled prophecies. Rabbis and their like have a severe form of schizophrenia called having drank the kool aid of jew mysticism. The lower level ones are just plain confused and amoral sociopaths imo.

My point is that discarding diamat means discarding Marxism as whole. Marxists can't accept critique of diamat.

...

Since I was asking about Cyril Smith's critique of diamat, I was mainly referring to what he considered the root of diamat, which was Plekhanov's conception of it. Smith considered Plekhanov's diamat to be an attempt to fight the "subjective revolutionary" tendencies of the narodniks, and its foundation was meant as an objective materialism that over-emphasizes determinism and de-emphasizes subjective actions. Here in the chapter How the “Marxists” Buried Marx, Smith discusses dialectical materialism and Plekhanov:

"The Stalinist movement has ensured that the phrase ‘dialectical materialism’ is widely associated with Karl Marx. It had been used earlier, but not in Marx’s lifetime. In the preface to his 1908 book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin declared: ‘Marx and Engels scores of times termed their philosophical views dialectical materialism.’ He was so sure about this, that he felt no need to give any references."

"In fact, there is not one! Marx never employed the phrase in any of his writings. The term ‘dialectical materialism’ was introduced in 1891 by Plekhanov, in an article in Kautsky’s Neue Zeit. He thought wrongly, I believe – that he was merely adapting it from Engels’s usage in Anti-Duhring and Ludwig Feuerbach. This was not just a matter of terminology. He was intent on combating the tendency of the populists (narodniki) to put subjective revolutionary will at the foundation of their idea of the Russian Revolution. In its place, Plekhanov installed a materialism which left no room for will at all and this is what he foisted on to Marx. Many years later (1920), Lenin wrote: ‘Bolshevism arose in 1903 on a very firm foundation of Marxist theory.’ Alas, it did nothing of the kind."

From my understanding, Smith traced the roots of diamat to this idea of materialism formulated by Plekhanov, but I find it somewhat dumbfounding as a common problem that many MLs seem to have is the over-emphasis of subjective action, not the de-emphasis of it as Smith suggests is the problem. Either way I think the main point of this passage was to show that Leninism and the various tendencies surrounding it accepted dialectical materialism, a concept that Smith believes to be a false reading of Anti-Duhring, and that diamat is in fact not a legitimate concept.

See and that boiled down your thoughts faster than you could. Nice effortpost though regardless. Just remember that there are more retards here nowadays.

Youre a fucking dumb cunt. Stop reading books about marxism, read Hitler, Rockwell, Pierce, Goebbels etc.