I'm a big fan of Georges Politzer's Elementary Principles of Philosophy for a clear and straightforward introduction to Dialectical Materialism. It isn't a short read, but it's clear and readable, even for those unfamilair with Marxism. I also wrote a mini-intro here, a few days ago.
It isn’t a short read
I'm convinced that this is why Americans don't know
I'd say the reason Dialectical Materialism isn't as common is due to the unique class conditions of the US Empire as a decaying Settler-colonial Empire. This is gradually increasing class consciousness as the Empire decays, though, and along with it people turn more to theory and more readily grasp Marxism.
this is an excellent intro as well https://dashthered.medium.com/marxism-for-normal-people-dialectical-materialism-deb5034685a4
Thanks, I'll give it a read later!
More like historical materialism, which builds on dialectical materialism.
How would you define dialectics?
Dialectics is a very old element of philosophy surrounding, at its simplest, the notion of two conflicting subjects resolving their contradictions into a higher, third subject. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Marxism uses Dialectics, specifically Materialist Dialectics, as the basic framework of analysis. Marx didn't invent dialectics, though, and neither did Hegel, the philosopher Marx built off of. Dialectics was common even in Plato's time, as much of philosophy was presented as a debate, a dialogue, a dialectic between two opposing points of view. Dialectics isn't exclusively western, either, though Marx was educated on Western dialectics and thus is most relevant in our case here.
The practical aspects come from insistence on the unity of opposites, such as bourgeois and proletarian, feudal lord and serf, but could just as easily be the seed negating itself into the tree, into the apple, into the seed of the next tree, not quite the same as the external conditions are never the same. It also analyzes subjects as they can only exist in the context of their surroundings, and as subjects come into being and un-being. Contradiction, in Dialectics, becomes the source of motion and change, and is inwardly driven.
There's also the concept of the negation of the negation. This process is a spiral, not a circle, each new concept further introduces and resolves with its own contradictions.
I wrote more about the subject here, though I really recommend Georges Politzer's Elementary Principles of Philosophy for a clear and straightforward introduction to Dialectical Materialism.
Using words to encourage materialism?
Materialism is a way to interpret the world. Words is what we use to communicate.
Man I'm just guessing based off what was in the meme I've never heard of materialism outside of the offshoot of being materialistic and dialectic relating to language
From my comment a few days ago:
Dialectical Materialism is both Dialectical and Materialist, hence the name. Materialism puts matter as primary, not ideas as distinct from material reality. An Idealist would, for example, say that ideas are generated independently, and it is through ideas that humans shape the world around them. Materialists assert that it is actually material conditions which create ideas, so the ideas of, say, a king are going to be different from those of a serf given their different experiences.
Hegel was an Idealist dialectician. For him, the advancement of humanity was in the “Spirit,” greater or lesser developed societies coincided with differences in development of this grand and universal Spirit. It is through every human acting in their own interests that the Spirit is advanced, people are pulled by their interests and pushed by their passions, and the fulfillment of this Spirit is what drives the course of history. This is dialectical in that contradictions inevitably resolve and sublimate thier premises into new concepts, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
Marx was not satisfied with this. Whenever Hegel returned to economics, he became closer to the truth; human history is driven by economic development, not by some grand “Spirit” that humanity is advancing. Marx accepted the Dialectics advanced by Hegel, but on Materialist grounds. This shows, for example, in the theory of Class Struggle, where all forms of production beyond tribal societies have been driven by conflicting classes that each advance their own interests.
The practicality in Dialectical Materialism is that it analyzes concepts in motion, as well as as they appear and disappear. Feudalism could not have lasted forever, as accumulation grew, new classes, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, emerged from Feudalism and overtook it. There are no “pure” or “static” systems, everything exists in motion and in context. This is why Marxists say history progresses in spirals, as contradictions play out, there is a quantiative change, so each time this mutually reinforcing antagonistic relationship plays out, it builds up until a large amount of quantitative additions leads to a qualitative change, ie accumulation beget money as Capital, which beget production of Surplus Value, which beget Surplus Value transformed into more Capital, which beget the rise of Capitalism, accelerated by the invention of the Steam Engine, itself a product of all that came before it and laid the foundations for all that came after.
Marxism sees history as a course of endless spirals, it’s a cycle of circles that repeats itself but does so with increasingly changing inputs. As Capitalism continues, disparity rises, the bourgeoisie shrinks in number relative to the proletariat, and the Proletariat becomes further advanced in political thought and more aware of this obscene disparity. This Class Struggle sharpens until it results in Revolution. Marx advanced Socialism not by trying to create a perfect idea in his head and create it in reality like Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, etc, but by learning and mastering the laws of development so that Humanity can apply the laws of Social Science and Political Economy in its own interests just like Humanity does with Biology for Medical use, or Chemistry for materials sciences, or Physics for Engineering.
Got it. Like Rattatouie Rat said, "change is nature, dad."
Pretty much! Now I kinda want to see a Marxist analysis of Rattatouie, haha.
Oh to have text to speech in a Lemmy app but I'll try to remember to come back to this seems like a decent write up
No worries! Let me know if you have any questions when you get around to it.
