Question for MarxBoy...Dialectical Materialism

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

Welcome to the board, Marxboy.

On briefly wandering about in the website you cited, I saw
a definition of dialectical materialism, which, if I understood correctly, is basically just the notion that only real physical phenomena, which can be empirically perceived,
really exist. Obviously this precludes religion and similar notions.

Could you tell us briefly how/why dialectical materialism is so vital to a Marxist worldview? Would it not be possible to subscribe to Communist or Socialist principles of economic organization, yet still be ‘idealist’ as defined in
your website?

Oops, is this a GD?–Sorry. If it is will the moderator move it, thanks.

[Liberal]

Just curious. Why, upon realizing your error, did you not abort your post and take it to GD yourself?

As to your topic, a reasonable defense of Marxism cannot be offered without a dehumanization of the individual. Thus, it is that abstract lifeless entity, society, that matters, and not the living breathing human one. Faith in God elevates the individual above The State, and is therefore anathema to any authoritarian economy.

[Olentzero]

Oooh, a fun question! Why you gotta ask just Marxboy, though? There are other Reds on the board, you know

Why is it so important to a Marxist worldview? Quite simply put, it’s because Marx himself developed it. Or, rather, he put the materialism in the dialectic.

The dialectic, at least as modern philosophers know it, was developed by GWF Hegel and basically says that contradiction is the motor of change. The existence, Hegel says, of a given concept logically entails the existence of its opposite (the ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’). The contradiction and conflict between the two forces change and progress into a new order of things (the ‘synthesis’).

Unfortunately, Hegel saw the dialectic as acting only through ideas, or more specifically, the Spirit of History. History didn’t have a plan or a goal, i.e. it wasn’t an outside, alien force influencing the development of humanity, but nevertheless it was an overarching Idea that made itself felt through historical development.

Marx, on the other hand, argued that the cause of conflict and change was firmly rooted in the real, physical world, in the development of society and the social situations in which people found themselves. There was no Spirit of History or God or even a Categorical Imperative, just men and women living and working within society. And since society, at least since the development of agriculture, has been based on real inequality, the contradictions inherent in such a setup would lead to further conflict and social change.

In short, no. You cannot be a Marxist and an idealist at the same time. Idealists think that merely arguing for change will bring it about as more people accept and understand the idea. Marxists think that change can only come about from physical action.

Long winded, I know. But there’s a lot of stuff to cover.

[Liberal]

In other words, society was Marx’s god, and his moral imperative was the destruction of individual differences. Funny how the politicians who carried out the Marxist revolutions ended up living and working in the palaces of those they conquered.

“Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka

[Olentzero]

sigh I really think javaman has a GQ here - a request for information from people he presumes have some knowledge of the subject. And I think this thread deserves to stay in GQ because of it.

Just because you, Libertarian, want to have another from-GD-to-Pit fest about differing political views doesn’t mean you get to drag someone else’s thread in that direction. You wanna offer your condensed, Reader’s Digest opinions, start a new thread in GD or the Pit and cut-and-paste to your heart’s content there.

Quit trying to derail other people’s threads.

[Liberal]

I believe he himself recognized it was mistakenly put here and invited the moderators to move it. As to starting and abandoning Pit threads, that is not my forte. At any rate, I’ll save the moderators any hassle and get outta here, but would like to leave at least a link to The Cato Institute and Free-Market where excellent papers can be found on the philosophies of Marxism for people interested in a view biased differently than yours.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
**Oooh, a fun question! Why you gotta ask just Marxboy, though? There are other Reds on the board, you know

**
Could be MarxBoy’s handle. It definitely invites those who are curious about such matters to take a look at his posts.

**

Why is it so important to a Marxist worldview? Quite simply put, it’s because Marx himself developed it. Or, rather, he put the materialism in the dialectic.

**
It sounds as if Marx superimposed the philosophy of materialism on his own concept of revolution. Clearly, the absence of religion may better promote the communist ideal,
but then one could conceivably go the opposite way and use
religious fanaticism to promote a “communist” economic revolt. IANA historian or philosopher, but to my mind it wasn’t essential to the idea of revolution. On the other hand, organized religion does represent an authority structure which in Marx’s time was probably far more significant than it is today, so perhaps he was himself being guided by the context in which he found himself.

**

The dialectic, at least as modern philosophers know it, was developed by GWF Hegel and basically says that contradiction is the motor of change. The existence, Hegel says, of a given concept logically entails the existence of its opposite (the ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’). The contradiction and conflict between the two forces change and progress into a new order of things (the ‘synthesis’).

Unfortunately, Hegel saw the dialectic as acting only through ideas, or more specifically, the Spirit of History. History didn’t have a plan or a goal, i.e. it wasn’t an outside, alien force influencing the development of humanity, but nevertheless it was an overarching Idea that made itself felt through historical development.

Marx, on the other hand, argued that the cause of conflict and change was firmly rooted in the real, physical world, in the development of society and the social situations in which people found themselves. There was no Spirit of History or God or even a Categorical Imperative, just men and women living and working within society.
(snip)

**
You know, I never thought about this aspect but it’s rather interesting now that you mention it. Whether or not you yearn for proletarian revolution or not, you have to admit that concrete physical actions are the basis of history. Physical action may be as relatively quiescent as writing, but it still implies that someone is doing something. No historian worth his/her salt would explain the American Revolution, for example, as an act of God.

In fact, the contrast betweem idealism and materialism in a historical context seems to roughly parallel that between evolution theory and creationism. The evolutionist, even if he/she professes to believe in a deity, considers that irrelevant to the process he is analyzing, and strictly limits his/her investigations to the empirical. The creationist conversly considers any physical evidence to be irrelevant and accidental, if not downright false.

**
In short, no. You cannot be a Marxist and an idealist at the same time. Idealists think that merely arguing for change will bring it about as more people accept and understand the idea. Marxists think that change can only come about from physical action.

Long winded, I know. But there’s a lot of stuff to cover. **

Thanks for your discourse. It was very helpful.

[Necros]

If I can add my own request for clarification in here, do Marxists specifically reject, as you seem to be saying, the Hegelian dialectic of ideas? I can understand the rejection of a “Spirit of History,” but I guess I find it hard to understand how one could think that no change at all came through ideas, but only through physical action. Or rather, I understand that change is the direct result of physical action, until we develop telepathy, but ideas are often – not always – the original cause of conflict and change. Do I have clear what Marxists are saying here?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
**Oooh, a fun question! Why you gotta ask just Marxboy, though? There are other Reds on the board, you know

**
Could be MarxBoy’s handle. It definitely invites those who are curious about such matters to take a look at his posts.

**

Why is it so important to a Marxist worldview? Quite simply put, it’s because Marx himself developed it. Or, rather, he put the materialism in the dialectic.

**
It sounds as if Marx superimposed the philosophy of materialism on his own concept of revolution. Clearly, the absence of religion may better promote the communist ideal,
but then one could conceivably go the opposite way and use
religious fanaticism to promote a “communist” economic revolt. IANA historian or philosopher, but to my mind it wasn’t essential to the idea of revolution. On the other hand, organized religion does represent an authority structure which in Marx’s time was probably far more significant than it is today, so perhaps he was himself being guided by the context in which he found himself.

**

The dialectic, at least as modern philosophers know it, was developed by GWF Hegel and basically says that contradiction is the motor of change. The existence, Hegel says, of a given concept logically entails the existence of its opposite (the ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’). The contradiction and conflict between the two forces change and progress into a new order of things (the ‘synthesis’).

Unfortunately, Hegel saw the dialectic as acting only through ideas, or more specifically, the Spirit of History. History didn’t have a plan or a goal, i.e. it wasn’t an outside, alien force influencing the development of humanity, but nevertheless it was an overarching Idea that made itself felt through historical development.

Marx, on the other hand, argued that the cause of conflict and change was firmly rooted in the real, physical world, in the development of society and the social situations in which people found themselves. There was no Spirit of History or God or even a Categorical Imperative, just men and women living and working within society.
(snip)

**
You know, I never thought about this aspect but it’s rather interesting now that you mention it. Whether or not you yearn for proletarian revolution or not, you have to admit that concrete physical actions are the basis of history. Physical action may be as relatively quiescent as writing, but it still implies that someone is doing something. No historian worth his/her salt would explain the American Revolution, for example, as an act of God.

In fact, the contrast betweem idealism and materialism in a historical context seems to roughly parallel that between evolution theory and creationism. The evolutionist, even if he/she professes to believe in a deity, considers that irrelevant to the process he is analyzing, and strictly limits his/her investigations to the empirical. The creationist conversly considers any physical evidence to be irrelevant and accidental, if not downright false.

**
In short, no. You cannot be a Marxist and an idealist at the same time. Idealists think that merely arguing for change will bring it about as more people accept and understand the idea. Marxists think that change can only come about from physical action.

Long winded, I know. But there’s a lot of stuff to cover. **

Thanks for your discourse. It was very helpful.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Necros *
If I can add my own request for clarification in here, do Marxists specifically reject, as you seem to be saying, the Hegelian dialectic of ideas?

Well, my assertions were rather clumsily phrased. Even ideas and action have a dialectic between them. It could even be said that ideas and action are thesis and antithesis - one is a purely mental abstraction, the other entirely physical.

So. Where do ideas come from? The material world, of course. They spring from observation of what’s going on around us and necessarily influence our actions. Additionally, our actions have consequences, and understanding them changes our ideas. The two opposites constantly influence each other. So Marxists don’t think that ideas exist in and of themselves outside of the material world, nor are they the mainspring of change and progress. But they do have their role.

Originally posted by javaman
It sounds as if Marx superimposed the philosophy of materialism on his own concept of revolution.

Materialism was around before Marx became either philosophically or politically active. I’d say it even dates from the Greeks but I can’t back that up. Even so, Marx’ concept of revolution came about long after he started on the path of philosophical criticism. It didn’t spring full-formed, Minerva-like, from his head one morning.

On the other hand, organized religion does represent an authority structure which in Marx’s time was probably far more significant than it is today, so perhaps he was himself being guided by the context in which he found himself.

Exactly. The immediate followers of Hegel started out with criticism of religion - one of the more notable was Ludwig Feuerbach, who wrote The Essence of Christianity from which Marx took much inspiration. A lot of earlier peasant revolts, dating back to the early Middle Ages, did indeed take a religious theme to their demands for equality.

The evolutionist, even if he/she professes to believe in a deity, considers that irrelevant to the process he is analyzing, and strictly limits his/her investigations to the empirical.

More or less, yes. The only issue I have with this statement is that an evolutionist’s study is not solely empirical. Empiricism is basically forming conclusions based only on observation and experiment, without any regard whatsoever to theory. It’s much like saying “this is the way things are” based on your own personal experience. Not very thorough or rigid. I agree, however, with your parallel between idealism and materialism and the conflict between creationism and evolutionism.

Overall, to tie things up between both questions, the importance of theory cannot be understated. It could be said to be the synthesis of ideas and action - it’s a mental construct but formulated and influenced by actions taken in the real world. Successful theories, when applied, change the world, sometimes in almost miraculous ways.