There might be a list someone made somewhere but I don’t think that’s how most people use dialectics.
Usually it’s clear what the internal conflict is in something. In the US there are the conflict between workers and owners, but in electoral politics/government many would say that the conflict is actually between one side of the capitalists and another (there isn’t a worker party in government in the US).
Anything where there is a tradeoff to be made and where human groups are involved will probably get called a “contradiction” or a “dialectic” by a Marxist at some point. Maoists tend to use the terms much more broadly, even describing the process of water boiling as a dialectic/contradiction. Next time you see a a hierarchy or a power structure or something, think about whether there are two sides competing over a limited resource. That’s a dialectic way of thinking. If you assume that the most important things controlling that conflict are physical, you’re a dialectical materialist.
Next time you see a a hierarchy or a power structure or something, think about whether there are two sides competing over a limited resource
I think that’s a good first step for someone getting started with dialectics, but the term is broad and applies more broadly than only to class society or revolutionary praxis. Maoists are not the only ones who say that water boiling is a dialectic, but they would be correct (my experience with maoists is that they just talk about committing violence a lot)
Dialectics are a natural phenomena that happens around us, if very abstractly (it’s not literally a force or power like a watermill would be, but it exists as a process). If dialectics didn’t exist elsewhere than in marxism, then it wouldn’t be a helpful tool to us, because it wouldn’t allow us to find out the objective nature of the world. The objective nature of class society is that there emerges an exploitative class and an exploited class, and either cannot exist without the other.
We need to dig out this objective nature to engage in effective praxis. As Marx said, philosophers have only interpreted the world: the point is to change it. Dialectics is currently as close as we can get to the objective nature of the world, and we need materialism for that because we need to be clear that only the material world exist and is worth effecting change in, not the metaphysical (supernatural) world. Probably in a few hundred years or so we’ll either evolve dialectics or replace them with a new, more objective and correct model. I can’t know, but this is as good as it gets for us at this point in time.
This is also why dialectics can’t be disproved, otherwise it would be too easy for opponents of marxism to say that dialectics is just communist nonsense. Dialectics is derived from natural phenomena and is observable. The seed for example contains the potential to become a plant, and the contradiction between the seed and plant is resolved when the seed sprouts. It has gone through dialectical change: there was a seed, now there’s a sprout.
You don’t necessarily have to use dialectics outside of revolutionary praxis (though I think it helps one become familiar with the framework); you can focus dialectics on your revolutionary work. But it still exists and is still happening whether we are there to witness it or not.
In your earlier example, all of the professionals that are asked about fencing the yard are essentially all superseded by dialectics. The economist points out a contradiction (and I think this is what you were conveying?), but it’s incomplete. When we get to the true contradiction, the dialectical one, we can tell the tenant why they actually can’t fence their yard.
I would also like to correct, if you’ll allow me, the misconception that materialism is the idea that everything is made of matter. I think this is not necessarily wrong to grasp the concept, but can quickly lead into vulgar materialism deviation. Materialism is the philosophical outlook that only the material world exists, and everything is the result of material interaction. Ideas exist and don’t solely belong to idealists. This can be demonstrated very quickly by simply thinking about something, or finding a solution to a problem. If ideas were not material, then materialism would simply be wrong or an incomplete model because I don’t think anyone can disprove ideas exist when they need to have the idea to disprove them in the first place.
We can say that ideas are the result of material interaction (through brain cells interacting, which is a meat organ), but I still think this is veering into vulgar territory. It leads some people to start rejecting LGBT identities because “gender doesn’t materially exist”.
I take a very tautological approach: if something exists, then it’s material. Ghosts don’t exist, they’re metaphysical (the Greek word that means the exact same thing as the Latin supernatural). God doesn’t exist, he’s metaphysical. Religion exists and this is easily demonstrated, but the God that religions believe in is not materially demonstrated or tested. LGBT identities exist in the material world as well.
Speaking of religion this is another deviation that vulgar materialism leads one to (that I’m not saying you’re doing, just to be very careful about not falling into it for the readers!) – their model would mean that nothing abstract can exist, and so dialectics can’t exist, because dialectics are not made of matter. Dialectics describe the process of matter (among other things), but isn’t made of matter itself.
The thing is dialectics are literally endless, contradictions create other contradictions both in the thing itself and in other things as well. Everything is connected through that process, and that’s why it can feel daunting.
@Rextreff@lemmygrad.ml this is also why there can’t be an exhaustive list of contradictions. We can certainly give dozens of examples but there are billions of contradictions current and past, and there will be billions more. Contradictions, when resolved, make change happen and other contradictions emerge. This is how things move forward in the world, how the seed become a sprout, how the student becomes a teacher, how water boils, how classes emerge and get overthrown, how industrialization happens, how capitalism becomes imperialism, how Marx emerged, how there came to be marxists, how marxists organize.
There might be a list someone made somewhere but I don’t think that’s how most people use dialectics.
Usually it’s clear what the internal conflict is in something. In the US there are the conflict between workers and owners, but in electoral politics/government many would say that the conflict is actually between one side of the capitalists and another (there isn’t a worker party in government in the US).
Anything where there is a tradeoff to be made and where human groups are involved will probably get called a “contradiction” or a “dialectic” by a Marxist at some point. Maoists tend to use the terms much more broadly, even describing the process of water boiling as a dialectic/contradiction. Next time you see a a hierarchy or a power structure or something, think about whether there are two sides competing over a limited resource. That’s a dialectic way of thinking. If you assume that the most important things controlling that conflict are physical, you’re a dialectical materialist.
I think that’s a good first step for someone getting started with dialectics, but the term is broad and applies more broadly than only to class society or revolutionary praxis. Maoists are not the only ones who say that water boiling is a dialectic, but they would be correct (my experience with maoists is that they just talk about committing violence a lot)
Dialectics are a natural phenomena that happens around us, if very abstractly (it’s not literally a force or power like a watermill would be, but it exists as a process). If dialectics didn’t exist elsewhere than in marxism, then it wouldn’t be a helpful tool to us, because it wouldn’t allow us to find out the objective nature of the world. The objective nature of class society is that there emerges an exploitative class and an exploited class, and either cannot exist without the other.
We need to dig out this objective nature to engage in effective praxis. As Marx said, philosophers have only interpreted the world: the point is to change it. Dialectics is currently as close as we can get to the objective nature of the world, and we need materialism for that because we need to be clear that only the material world exist and is worth effecting change in, not the metaphysical (supernatural) world. Probably in a few hundred years or so we’ll either evolve dialectics or replace them with a new, more objective and correct model. I can’t know, but this is as good as it gets for us at this point in time.
This is also why dialectics can’t be disproved, otherwise it would be too easy for opponents of marxism to say that dialectics is just communist nonsense. Dialectics is derived from natural phenomena and is observable. The seed for example contains the potential to become a plant, and the contradiction between the seed and plant is resolved when the seed sprouts. It has gone through dialectical change: there was a seed, now there’s a sprout.
You don’t necessarily have to use dialectics outside of revolutionary praxis (though I think it helps one become familiar with the framework); you can focus dialectics on your revolutionary work. But it still exists and is still happening whether we are there to witness it or not.
In your earlier example, all of the professionals that are asked about fencing the yard are essentially all superseded by dialectics. The economist points out a contradiction (and I think this is what you were conveying?), but it’s incomplete. When we get to the true contradiction, the dialectical one, we can tell the tenant why they actually can’t fence their yard.
I would also like to correct, if you’ll allow me, the misconception that materialism is the idea that everything is made of matter. I think this is not necessarily wrong to grasp the concept, but can quickly lead into vulgar materialism deviation. Materialism is the philosophical outlook that only the material world exists, and everything is the result of material interaction. Ideas exist and don’t solely belong to idealists. This can be demonstrated very quickly by simply thinking about something, or finding a solution to a problem. If ideas were not material, then materialism would simply be wrong or an incomplete model because I don’t think anyone can disprove ideas exist when they need to have the idea to disprove them in the first place.
We can say that ideas are the result of material interaction (through brain cells interacting, which is a meat organ), but I still think this is veering into vulgar territory. It leads some people to start rejecting LGBT identities because “gender doesn’t materially exist”.
I take a very tautological approach: if something exists, then it’s material. Ghosts don’t exist, they’re metaphysical (the Greek word that means the exact same thing as the Latin supernatural). God doesn’t exist, he’s metaphysical. Religion exists and this is easily demonstrated, but the God that religions believe in is not materially demonstrated or tested. LGBT identities exist in the material world as well.
Speaking of religion this is another deviation that vulgar materialism leads one to (that I’m not saying you’re doing, just to be very careful about not falling into it for the readers!) – their model would mean that nothing abstract can exist, and so dialectics can’t exist, because dialectics are not made of matter. Dialectics describe the process of matter (among other things), but isn’t made of matter itself.
The thing is dialectics are literally endless, contradictions create other contradictions both in the thing itself and in other things as well. Everything is connected through that process, and that’s why it can feel daunting.
@Rextreff@lemmygrad.ml this is also why there can’t be an exhaustive list of contradictions. We can certainly give dozens of examples but there are billions of contradictions current and past, and there will be billions more. Contradictions, when resolved, make change happen and other contradictions emerge. This is how things move forward in the world, how the seed become a sprout, how the student becomes a teacher, how water boils, how classes emerge and get overthrown, how industrialization happens, how capitalism becomes imperialism, how Marx emerged, how there came to be marxists, how marxists organize.