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.