Dialectics

Anal Water would go apeshit if he saw this.

He's talking about Dialectical Materialism, right? So later Marxist addition, but you still have to read The Phenomenology of Spirit to wholly grasp it.

Read the phenomenology of spirit, thesis + antithesis = Synthesis is the a big part of understanding Hegel. Watch this channel youtube.com/channel/UCEtxsMx4qsoitFwjBdLU_gA he has a lengthy series about Hegel, and a few lectures on more specific topics

Ok, but do you have any examples or excepts you can give? Because, if I am not misinformed, Hegel never uses these terms, nor does he actually think in these strictly formal terms.

youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8xaUVDt6I

The Milwaukee Minotaur warns against the thesis stuff. Are you sure we're watching the same videos and person?

Dialectical materialism is essentially trying to reconcile a 19th century materialist-scientific worldview with the old system of german critical idealism. In hegels method there is logical self development of ideas, however in the marxist version of dialectics other external assumptions are brought in, in addition to the internal logic - Engels goes over this in his book on feuerbach. These are either ad hoc assumptions or empirical observations (which is not exactly clear). TBH not even the most basic assumption of Marxism (that labor=value) is really supportable using purely hegelian dialectics because there is literally no way to derive the idea that labor is the source of all value from the sublation of use value and value. This has been pointed out by both economists and scholars of Hegel/dialectics. Marx "breaks" the dialectical method by bringing in outside information another example being the chapter on primitive accumulation.

There's no point for dialectics in Marxism. Literally nothing in Marxism actually requires a dialectical justification. The labor theory of value, historical materialism, etc dont actually require dialectics and actually in the case of the LTV it actually undermines it. The analytical marxists were right to discard dialectics but wrong to use neoclassical economics and game theory as the basis for their theories - instead today we have modern quantitative justifications for the LTV by Shaikh, Cockshott, etc using empirical data and econophysics, theres absolutely no need to use a quirky 19th century philosophy which was by an accident of history included in Marxism. The age of philosophy is over, this is the age of science.

So this is the theory thread now right?

If so, can someone explain Deleuze & Guattari's approach to Marxism? I know that they're Spinozists as heavily influenced by Bergson, so it seems to me that they reject dialectical materialism (at least as far as I understand it).

they don't mention marxism pretty much at all, I don't know know if they ever commented on it.

He's considered to be a Marxist though, to some degree, at the very least far left. I know Deleuze was to write a book titled The Greatness of Marx before he died. I've just always wondered how they fit into the left, considering that they're not materialists.

I don't know about Foucault, but Deleuze wasn't a Spinozist. Deleuze borrows from a lot of thinkers, and even writers in his works. The only thing you could really call him is a pluralist which should be evident as to why he fell out of Marxism.

Why? This sounds like economism.

Name fags really are retarded…

I don't know if this is true but I want it to be.

When we say you're being undialectic we mean that you aren't applying your conclusions based on material conditions; X + Y = Z

Jesus christ the amount of woke is too much.

I've said this before, but no one listens. Even anal waters has said it. Marxists need to ditch dialectical spookiness and embrace analytic logic.

Stop with this meme

Sure, why not, if you don't wish tobe anything beyond a left-Riccardian, and play around with different forms of capitalism, go for it.

But if you're interested in Marx, why not read something along these lines too:
-endnotes.org.uk/issues/2/en/endnotes-communisation-and-value-form-theory
- redtexts.org/html/rubin_1927_abstract_labour_value.html
- libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-fredy-perlman

Instead of getting caught up in meaningless debates about the LTV vs subjective theories, why not critically ask what it is about labour that makes it noteworthy, why it is connected to value and what this actually means for society, the dominant mode of production, and what it's negative implications are, instead of trying to prove banalities. It is true that dialectics are overblown and mystified, but this castration of the methodological richness marx offers us is also bogus. Just take into consideration how much of hegel's ideas and thoughts flowed into the CRITIQUE of the capitalist mode of production, which was proven by the 1960's already, to realize what you would loose with your childish separation of science and philosophy.

My god, what has happened to this place…

Why won't the leftcom pseudo-idealists leave this place?

You sound like Michael Heinrich who claims that Marx "wasn't interested in proving the LTV" and treat it as some economic appendix to back up his philosophy. This is bullshit - the LTV is a scientific theory, and as such, it is falsifiable. This doesn't necessarily contradict Marx's philosophical parts. Most of the time, the disregard for Marxian economics on the Leftcom side is caused by laziness.

Dunno.

Attached: IMG_0025.JPG (937x1024, 261.1K)

...

Seeing things as living processes that develop along a certain logic isn't that hard.

Attached: IMG_0946.PNG (621x702, 56.27K)

It's easy to say buzzwords user. Until you show what that means, you're just fronting like all other dialectical materialists.

Ok, so what's your actual argument? Preferably phrase your objection with references to the text behind the link you criticised.

And don't worry, I'm just popping by. Haven't been regularly using Zig Forums in over a year now. I've just bookmarked this thread, and will be responding to intellectualy honest responses.

I'm not familiar with Heinrich himself, but my position is roughly in the same category, be it with a few important differences.

Marx was not a philosopher (but a critic of philosophy, in the same way as he was a critic of religion, the political economy, and other human activities which self-enstrange people from each- and one-another, to mystify real social relations, etc.), so theories of value weren't used to "justify" some philosophy. This doesn't mean that he argues that labour time is uncorrelated to value - quite the contrary, as everyone knows. Value is the mean by which social labour is coordinated, which is a characteristical feature of societies within which the capitalist/bourgeois mode of production dominates.

…And sure, the labour theory of value, can be falsified or proved from an economic standpoint, and one can play around with it, however much one likes, this doesn't contradict anything I said.

Not in my experience… From what I know, it has more to do with the interpretation which I have outlined above. What is the point of "abolishing" capitalism if you just rebuild it in a different form? From my understanding, and I am willing to debate this, Marx has a far more substantial conception of overcoming "Capitalism". Dismissing the critique of "Marx as an economist" would be a real loss, I belive. And from all the theories and interpretations I have seen, the one I have just outlined seems the most reasonable and valuable, for actually understanding our day to day lives – which doesn't mean that I have no interest in understanding what is supposed to be wrong about it.

Please tell me where I implied anything along these lines. If anything, my dismissal of the LVT as a transhistorical law would speak of the opposite.

It's really nothing special, nor is it particularly hard to understand, if anything it's only a bit dense.

The message is basically that what we experimence in one day to day life, which goes beyond strictly material and biological categories (such as food, the need to sleep, the pleasure of having fun with friends, …) has historical roots, causes and influences, because of which it isn't universal throughout time (like wage-labour, religion, particular forms of consumption and "free time"). All of these things have in some background in the dominant mode of production (in our case a capitalist one), based on it's limits, potentials and needs (for example, in our case the question of profitability). Then again, these "material conditions" also change, because of the human/societal responses (see redtexts.org/html/perlman_1969_reproduction_daily_life.html), which makes them "ever changing". Really nothing extraordinary or enlightening, unless you phrase it like some Oriental mysticism about "everything is connected", "transformation of quality into quantity", "unity of opposites", etc. This "dialects", especially the what Engels coined the "Laws of Dialectics", can and should be dismissed (see redtexts.org/html/sauvage_2016_marxs_dialectical_method.html, as I've already linked above).

"Static abstractions floating throughout the void" is basically just idealism, as Marxists like to use the term, implying the opposite. Non changing universals, beyond human control or influence.

And by the way, this isn't necessarily connected to "dialectical materialism" or "historical materialism". All I have explained until now just presume a materialist (in the sociological sense) or "naturalist" understanding of history – something most people already do on some level to begin with! (see redtexts.org/html/smith_1999_marx_vs_historical_materialism.html for more details) There's no reason to mystify Marx, unless that is you want to prevent common people from understanding him. I just don't see a good reason to do this.

Marx was a philosopher, a scientific economist and also pioneered social studies. The fact that he saw himself as a critique of those subject doesn't change that he was, since pretty much all philosophers since Ancient Greece start off from a perspective of critique of someone else.

Again, this sounds to me that you fall in the same category as Heinrich (someone you'd love), treating the LTV and the majority of Marx's dry economic work (which is the majority of his magnum opus, mind you) as some Ricardian holdover whereas his dialectics and theories about alienation are the true essence of Marx, from which perspective he should be read. By taking the economic edge out of Marx, you sound similar like the bourgeois academic bureaucrats who outsourced Marx from the economics department to the social science and fucking gender studies department - I don't mean that his dialectics and theories of alienation are not important, however, they can be understood rather shortly (and philosophized about endlessly), and there is nothing in the development of Marx as a writer that indicates that this was the core of his work over time or that he wasn't a scientific economist.

Amongst Leftcoms (if you don't identify as a Leftcom, I'm sorry, but let's just go with that word because everybody knows what it means), there is this mentality to condemn everything that even slightly tries to map out economic laws in a socialist society as "Stalinist managerialism", when there is, in fact, not an indication that Marx just wanted to crash the plane with no survivors and were appalled by any attempt to formulate economic laws in a socialist mode of production. When Marx wrote his stuff, especially his critiques of Utopian Socialism, he was talking about capitalism as it hasn't fully developed yet. Many aspects of capitalism were completely novel at that time, whereas we know not only live in an unimaginable more developed capitalism, we also have the experience of a hundred years of attempts of building socialism, which puts us in a different situation than Marx was in. Even if we take early writings, like the Communist Manifesto or Engel's "Principles of Communism" it seems to me that Marx and Engels would both be banned from r/leftcommunusm as they advocated for increased nationalization, central banking and the state slowly outcompeting private industry. You are not "rebuilding capitalism" when you design a system that operates under completely different laws. It's true that Marx's makes a fundemental critique of the framework of economics, such as he criticizes premises like "production must occur" but he questions them because they are direct results of economic theory.

Many of the so-called "new readings of Marx" start off by making correct assumption regarding Marx's critique of philosophy and social relations but then they… kinda just drop the ball there. They neither go into hard-hitting economics or hard-hitting philosophy, they open up a can of worms, pose interesting questions, but leave the reader alone to do whatever with it. It seems to me - and I might be wrong - that Wertkritik and similar stuff is an attempt dislodge Marx so much from falsifiable science that it is impossible to debunk Marx, every bourgeois critique can be repelled by obfuscating Marx, claiming that "he wasn't interested if X results in Y", and the such, and I think it's unnecessary, because all the predictions the LTV makes, are completely defensible and verifiable.

If you really want to point out how Engel's dialectics are different from Marx, you should recommend first pdf related (this doesn't make Engel's dialectics wrong, they are just different from Marx's because they were two different human beings) - and not link a blogpost from a guy who had a mental breakdown on Twitter, deleted all his stuff and became a full Marxist-Leninist.

However, Marxist dialectics haven't aged as well as his economic theory, the Soviets have made the last significant improvements of those in the mid-70s (second pdf related).

Am I going to get a response?

The critical difference being that Marx critiques philosophy as such, not just the thoughts of a predecessor. He is in terpretation same way not a philosopher, as Nietsche and Freud aren't. At most, some kind of a post-hegelian meta-philospher. The important fact is that he is not setting up his own Ontology, Epistemology, Philosophy of Mind and Nature, etc. in some fashion like the second international often liked to depict him.

The same applies to the political economy, which Debord discribes as which "[…] takes shape, as the dominant science and the science of domination". Marx doesn't want to remanage societey based on labour time, where everyone gets "the full fruit of their labour", like some Proudhonist or a bourgeois socialist. What a horrible Idea that would be, especially if one would at the same time have any interest in decreasing the human component in the labour process. Children, the sick, weak and the elderly would suffer like in some libertarian wet-dream.

Main point: He has no positive philosopical system (dialectical materialism, historical materialism, marxist economics, "Marxism" as a form of communism, …) which he sets up as an alternative to existing ideas, and hopes that the proletariat will buy into.

1. I've looked him up, and as far as I see he's from the "wertkritik" school (which you could have mentioned, means a lot more than just one guy), which I am somewhat critical of, while at the same time not being a expert on their work. I'll just assume that your accurately describing their ideas.
2.I am by no means rejecting Marx's critique of the political economy, it is crucial, just like his critique of ideologies, "utopian socialists" (for lack of a better term) and philosophy. Taking just one of these as important, would be wrong. For example, understanding the role of labour, the need to reduce it, it's connections to our everyday lifes, on a micro and macro level is important and helpful, but Marx isn't necessary for any of this, this has all already been pointed out. Marx's significance comes in with connecting just these different internal critiques, from a materialist perspective.

I hope to have shown that this perspective isn't ignoring "economic" issues, it just shows a lesser interest in committing the same mistakes as orthodox reading have done, to belive that "das Kapital" is thus a manual to manage an economy. Any system based on labour mediated by value, will fall for all the empirically probable tendencies you are so enthusiastical about.

And a second point: Marx shouldn't be placed in either the economics department or the social science department. Any time this is done, you add a veil of bourgeois assumptions, premises and goals which necessary distort anything worthwile, for reasons I have already elaborated.

Main point: the issues of species being, alienation, commodity fetishism, etc. have usually been emphasized more because these were historically the topics tradition interpretations glossed over or left out completely, for whatever reasons.

1. I find the most interest in the so-called "left communist" currents or schools, but I wouldn't call myself a "leftcom" as if that were some "ideology" comparable to Trotskyism or anarcho-feminism.
2. Was you discribe is basically just strict anti-utopianism, by my understanding of it, following the famous quote: "Communism is for us not a state of affairswhich is to be  established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence", which I speculate that you want me to bring up. Communism, I argue, can currently only be understood negatively, as the negation of capitalism and class society, and ONLY will recive a positive meaning (which doesn't necessary mean anything) in revolutionary times. Any preconciving and hoping that things will go the way one expects it to, has a too high chance of failing, especially the more concrete it gets. The only authentic theories can arise for a self-acting proletariat (with or without connections to a party, I am undecided on), and not from the study room of a militant.

And of course, wanting to preconceive the economic laws, would imply that we wouldn't have gone beyond the relm of the political economy, ie. bourgeois society. Socialism is not to have laws beyond human control, produced by human activity.

I am quoting all of this in one part since I see the main problem here. Let me use this except from Dauve to exemplify my point:
What you call "increased nationalization, central banking and the state slowly outcompeting private industry", isn't socialist, but egalitarian capitalism, which socialist understandably saw as preferable to the brute everyday-capitalism of the 1840's. Advocating for this now, wouldn't make any sense, since any state enterprise that outcompetes private capital, doesn't change a thing. States can just as well assume the role of capitalists, to differing degrees of efficient (Marx and his contemporaries may have been too enthusiastical about the power of the state and the ability to wield it). Now it is the time to use exactly this developed basis, not to just "replace" the capitalists (again, but nevermind).

I really don't know what to say about this. What would you be expecting, taking into consideration what I have already clarified.

Again, I am not denying it, I just insist on going on beyond that. These proofs, have no redical content in themselves, and the predictions aren't deterministic either (maybe you could go into more detail what you mean with this, I am mainly thinking of the tendency of the rate of profits to fall). It seems to me that your main goal is to argue with neoclassical economists and popper'ians, on their own terms, and to respond to their meaningless critiques, when one goes beyond a surface-level engagment with Marx.

I don't really care who wrote it (I agree that he messed up), I just found it personally to be a good introductory level text to show the problems with the common understanding of "dialectics", which is why I copied the text, so that it can still be read (with it's imperfections). Just like I mirrored and kept on maintaining his reading list: sub.god.jp/~xat/rl.html. The main point is that this undermines dialectical materialism and co. since one of it's assumptions was that Marx and Engels were "Siamese Twins", as some like to make fun of it.

I've skimmed over it, and from what I've seen it doesn't really contradict anything I've argued, since he too denies historical materialism and dialectical materialism, insisting instead on the materialist interpretation of history. Basically in line with what many other marxist humanists and left communist groups were also formulating around that time in reaction to the newly published and translated texts.

I am sorry it takes me time to respond, since I am a bit busy, but don't worry, I will always try to unless the thread dies.

There are two cardinal sins to overstate it slightly.
To be unmaterialistic, that is to put model over reality.

And to be undialectical (in the materialist sense), that is to put particular over whole, to deny continuous change and to deny that processes have a history. But all that implies being unmaterialistic.

bump

"Undialectical" is a buzzword with no substance.

Kys

First google sophistry. Then google Argot.

Am I going to get a response?

Dialectics is a cult.

bump because i want tankanon to respond

Bump because I want Anal Water to come back and get BTFO'd.

This isn't entirely true though, while marx does argue against something as absurd as "everyone getting the full fruit of their labour", he absolutely does talk about labour time playing a role in the allocation of consumer goods and services in a communist society (at least initially). What he is against is abstract labour time regulating production itself, as that is the basis of capitalism.

I'll never understand why so many communisation types are so willfully dishonest when it comes to this point. Why not just come right out and say you disagree with Marx on this particular matter?

hump

“When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. This primitive, naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.
But this conception, correctly as it expresses the general character of the picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of which this picture is made up, and so long as we do not understand these, we have not a clear idea of the whole picture. In order to understand these details we must detach them from their natural or historical connection and examine each one separately, its nature, special causes, effects, etc. This is, primarily, the task of natural science and historical research: branches of science which the Greeks of classical times on very good grounds, relegated to a subordinate position, because they had first of all to collect the material. The beginnings of the exact natural sciences were first worked out by the Greeks of the Alexandrian period, [25] and later on, in the Middle Ages, by the Arabs. Real natural science dates from the second half of the fifteenth century, and thence onward it has advanced with constantly increasing rapidity. The analysis of nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms — these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of nature that have been made during the last four hundred years. But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constants, not as essentially variables, in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the preceding centuries.
To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. "His communication is 'yea, yea; nay, nay'; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." [Matthew 5:37. — Ed.] For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another, cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis one to the other.
At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and even necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees."
(cont.)

Attached: Friedrich_Engels_portrait_(cropped).jpg (563x845, 365.67K)

"For everyday purposes we know and can say, e.g., whether an animal is alive or not. But, upon closer inquiry, we find that this is, in many cases, a very complex question, as the jurists know very well. They have cudgelled their brains in vain to discover a rational limit beyond which the killing of the child in its mother's womb is murder. It is just as impossible to determine absolutely the moment of death, for physiology proves that death is not an instantaneous momentary phenomenon, but a very protracted process.
In like manner, every organic being is every moment the same and not the same, every moment it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other atoms of matter, so that every organic being is always itself, and yet something other than itself.
Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.
None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin, and ending. Such processes as those mentioned above are, therefore, so many corroborations of its own method of procedure.

Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasing daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, nature works dialectically and not metaphysically. But the naturalists who have learned to think dialectically are few and far between, and this conflict of the results of discovery with preconceived modes of thinking explains the endless confusion now reigning in theoretical natural science, the despair of teachers as well as learners, of authors and readers alike.

An exact representation of the universe, of its evolution, of the development of mankind, and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men, can therefore only be obtained by the methods of dialectics with its constant regard to the innumerable actions and reactions of life and death, of progressive or retrogressive changes. And in this spirit the new German philosophy has worked. Kant began his career by resolving the stable solar system of Newton and its eternal duration, after the famous initial impulse had once been given, into the result of a historic process, the formation of the sun and all the planets out of a rotating nebulous mass. From this he at the same time drew the conclusion that, given this origin of the solar system, its future death followed of necessity. His theory half a century later was established mathematically by Laplace, and half a century after that the spectroscope proved the existence in space of such incandescent masses of gas in various stages of condensation."
t. Engels

Attached: marx engels lenin.png (738x600, 61.79K)

Don't worry, 99% percent of the people here don't understand dialectics, otherwise they wouldn't shit on post-structuralism

lmao

It's not about ignoring this, but understanding that a communist revolution in the 1870's and a revolution in the 2000's couldn't "just happen" the same way. Setting aside technological issues regarding warfare, which are not to be forgotten, capital and our culture of commodities are far more omnipresent, but also far more advanced that they have ever been before, on average at least. There is no necessity (or possibility) to take over this development and smoothly sail towards communism, whith all it's baggage safely contained. These things that seem so natural (to us) and omnipresent, the "axioms" so to speak of our mode of production have to be challenged more directly now than ever, and this simply isn't done by falsely arguing for outdated strategies, made for a different age and society.

The worst thing about this conception, maybe even mystification, of "dialectics" to some eternal law of change and harmony isn't necessarily that it is always wrong, but that it's presented as something radical and a game changing alternative viewpoint, when it really isn't. The way people in this thread have talked about this, it really doesn't go beyond basic physics using calculus. It has already been common since the 16th/17th century to question the old scholastical, aristotlean perspective (which ML textbooks for some reason call "metaphysical", as if a worldview based on principles like "unity of opposites" weren't metaphysics), and unless I am mixing something up, Locke, one of the founding fathers of liberalism even goes into this issue, talking about the fact that there's always a gradient between two states (or something like that) – so what Locke an adherent of the eternal science of Marxism-Lenninism-Maoism-+ or is all of this nothing more than common sense? I'd guess the latter.

Can you faggots actually abstract and explain what you read, or do you expect from the other person to read your mind?Why should I trust your judgement if you cannot express an opinion on what is happening in a book or a video?

/thread

oh the positivism
oh the vulgar dialectics
oh why is the name dietzgen not mentioned not even once
oh my oh my

Attached: Das1jcmX4AAuLoK.jpg (902x887, 66.77K)

This right here makes you come across as incredibly disingenuous. Why the fuck would you want sloppy attempts to paraphrase these ideas when you could get them directly from the thinkers themselves if you weren't just here fishing for BTFOs?

Did you read the quote you linked? Engels himself admits that materialist dialectics is, at the end of the day, merely a refinement of a philosophical tradition that started all the way back with the Greeks.

Maoist dialectics = ying-yang shit

I know that references are made to Heraclitus and similar philosophers, but that basically proves my point, since these are precisely these "unity of opposites" arguments being present as the underdog philosophical revelation they are trying champion against the dominant "metaphysical view" of our age - when in reality isn't much more complicated or fascinating of a question than "dude, what if WE are all just in a matrix".

Read I-L-Y-E-N-K-O-V

Soviet DiaMat is HINDU.
youtu.be/QC2MHsd-jq4?t=1h31m3s

Attached: GETOUT.jpg (215x217, 14.51K)

What is the difference between marxist dialectics and pragmatist dialectics from Peirce?

Attached: PeirceStandingFistOnHip.png (737x1768, 989.94K)

Except this is the case, what Engels describes really is the greater ideological and philisophical paradigm of our time, hense the desire to get people to think dialectically.

And if you have been asked multiple times to be more dialectical, you're probably guilty of that yourself.

While I have not been told to "think dialectically", I would like to know what you practically understand by this… wierd phase. How do I dialectically buy my groceries? How do I dialectically go to sleep? How do I dialectically watch a movie?

Because abstraction of an idea and being able to rephrase something without ruining it is the basis of understanding. If you cannot do that you are just a fucking parrot, and you do not understand your own beliefs.

Video highlights:

These people are hated on this board for a reason.

You have to accept that the idea that there is an objective purpose to life, even if it universal nukes, is mystical.
Pretty established in the Engels quotes.
Don't remember that being saisld. Something about how the movement of motion is itself not explainable in material terms. Something about the super natural being required bit not specifically god.
Brains and paranormal experiences
What
No one said anything like that.

Pretty boring compared to the Posadas reading.

Engels didn't believe in circular time and neither do Marxists.

It just means understanding things as living processes interconnected to the world around them rather than static abstractions floating through the void.

I've done that in this thread, multiple times already.

But that doesn't matter to you, you aren't here to discuss the merit of dialectics, you're just fishing for BTFOs.

Read the Ilyenkov paper linked. It's right there. Why you want defend Engels is strange considering he was a tool with philosophy compared to Marx. O one said Marxists believe this since Marxists wouldn't know their metaphysics from their anus if you asked them.

Engels doesn't believe in circular time, he argues it's something akin to a spiral.

Marxism does away with the need for metaphysics.

of its attributes can ever be lost, and, therefore, also, that with the same
iron necessity that it will exterminate its highest creation, the thinking
mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it (Engels 1974 [1883]: 335).

That looks very cyclic to me user.

fuck me. imagine being 18-21 so you can take these threads seriously

you're all fucking pseuds. i guarantee no one here has actually read from start to finish das kapital or a single hegel text

Funny thing is, anal water has done both of those.

Marx’s proof that labour is the substance of value takes place in the beginning of Capital prior to the value form dialectic. It’s not the conclusion of the value form dialectic either. Marx defs uses dialectics in Capital though… the entire structure is supposed to be immanent critique and he understood it that way.

Anal Water has not read a single Hegel text front to back and has only read the first volume of Capital. See: his goodreads which he reguarily updates when he finally finishes a book.

Marx’s definition of abstract labour time is not equivalent to value form, abstract labour time would exist in communism because abstract labour is labour considered physiologically.

He teaches Hegel to normies tho.

It’s because he’s a pseud who doesn’t engage with any secondary literature and tells people to just “read the Logic bro and think about it it’s super easy” when there are large swaths of the Logic people who’ve studied Hegel their whole life don’t understand (my friend in Academia said this was the section on calculus).

Don't take any advice from AnalW. He reads Hegel and Marx but his politics are "Vote Democrat" and PLEASE take my guns

Link to his goodreads plz. I wish to know what crazy insanities he's reading lately in his Posadist turn.

LOL no

goodreads.com/user/show/57217101-antonio-wolf

What value is to to read a book you do not really know? You can read the entire philosophical works of Hegel in rapid succession and with commentary while learning nothing in the process. AW may not finish any of the Hegel books he has started, but he grasps an amount that is not just a quantity more than what people in general read, but qualitatively more than anyone who just reads with a commentary to get through with a work can claim.

Sounds like Richard Wolffe.

Lol Hi AW.

Does anyone have the archives of anal water getting BTFOd?

Unless you put this phrase into your own words, and what this practically means, one just can't pinpoint what this means. I can think of multiple interpretations, but they are all more absurd than the others.

If you want to focus on one example, please explain "dialectically" how water condensates, or how the discovery of energy quantums doesn't contradict the "everything flows" dogma.

Science of Logic is one of the hardest books ever written. It's like laughing at a college freshman for not mastering PhD-tier calculus.

Then you're retarded.

Ooooookaaay

Just ask Anal Water if he has read secondary lit. Doesn't he pal around with Sadler?

They don't

Attached: althusser pepe.jpg (267x377, 25.05K)