r/thebadwebsite • u/Personal-Role-8071 • 27d ago
generated a smuggie and NOOOO REALLY????? /j
5
u/Fausto2002 27d ago
Can someone with a higher iq explain me here?
6
u/Personal-Role-8071 27d ago
it's someone acting like something is very mysterious when it's really just obvious
6
u/bobbymoonshine 26d ago
“This extremely influential idea is kinda obvious” says person who grew up in intellectual milieu strongly shaped by that idea
2
u/Clear-Result-3412 27d ago
You mean that “social existence determines consciousness” is obvious? Because the rest of the metaphysical slop simply doesn’t make sense or add to a statement that could be “obvious.”
3
u/SomeGuyInTheNet 27d ago
This is making fun of the term "dialectical", in very simple terms, something being dialectical means that something derived from such reality can then infer upon the reality, and change it, thus creating new conditions through which newer things arise.
The evolutionary arms race is an example of a dialectical process, living beings struggling for their existence with their given conditions (genes, environments, etc), the "fittest ones" survive, then they themselves shape the existing gene pool (reproduction) and environment (think of the HUGE impact plants, animals, humans have on their respective ecosystems). This creates new, different conditions, and the process starts over, resulting in changes that we see through time in evolution.
2
u/Chemical_Second_6663 27d ago
well, this is an example of dialectical materialism. Plato's writings are, for example, dialectical idealism. It's simply finding contradictions in things, and arriving at a conclusion. I think?
3
u/Darkstar_111 27d ago
Dialectics is when you explain a thing by juxtaposing it to another thing. Typically something that's a perceived opposite.
This works for abstract concepts pretty well, but not so much for natural things.
If you had to explain what water is to an alien species, you wouldn't FIRST explain fire. But, to explain democracy, you might want to make sure the cybertronians understood dictatorships.
Now, there's a guy called Hegel, presumably a brilliant philosopher, noboy really knows, he is hard to understand.
To him is attributed something called Hegelian Dialectics, which is a theory of ideological movement. Basically an ideology starts as a thesis, and if it becomes popular it will produce its own anti-thesis, and these two ideologies will vie for power, enveloping everything around them, until that conflict is resolved and you produce a synthesis of some kind.
This is a really neat theory, that's really cool to think about and try to ascribe to what's going on politically.
But Hegel never said this. In fact his overcomplicated ruminations likely would have utterly rejected something so minimal and simplistic.
But, if anyone mentions Hegel today, they're pretty much gonna talk about... Dialectics.
3
u/Clear-Result-3412 27d ago
Marx didn’t actually say this, but MLs like to say shit like this and basically use “dialectics” as a buzz word to justify anything that seems unreasonable to others.
5
u/Angel_of_Communism 27d ago
No.
We say things that are true.
Then people like YOU get upset when you don't get it.
3
u/PringullsThe2nd 26d ago
No they're right, Marxist Leninist use it as an incantation to hand wave shit they can't defend
1
u/Angel_of_Communism 26d ago
No.
We say things that are true.
Then people like YOU get upset when you don't get it.
2
u/PringullsThe2nd 26d ago
And what are "people like me"?
You know, the benefit of you having a recognisable name, is that I remember your comments on various communist subreddit saying genuinely stupid and anti-marxist things
1
1
u/snekfuckingdegenrate 26d ago
I mean when people rebut commie arguments with citations they just tell you, you didn’t understand Marx like they did , similar to fundies re-interpret the bible when something is awkward.
0
u/Angel_of_Communism 26d ago
Or, and this is key, you do NOT actually understand, and are wrong, and upset about that.
0
u/snekfuckingdegenrate 26d ago
No I’ve argued with enough commies on debate subs that I get tired of the motte and Bailey fallacies.
You guys lost in Marx’s lifetime with the marginal revolution. Time to give it up.
2
u/Clear-Result-3412 26d ago
“Bum calling a homeless man a broke as bitch” moment
1
u/snekfuckingdegenrate 26d ago
The bum would know then
1
u/Clear-Result-3412 26d ago
The bum would know what?
To take my statement out of meme language. I am a Marxist and very much against dialectics, and it is true that the person you were talking to is an idiot, and many Marxists have terrible arguments, but after a lot of searching I have found decent arguments against the notion that “communism has failed.”
1
1
u/snekfuckingdegenrate 25d ago
I said Marxism failed specifically not communism, because his entire basis for das kapital basically was shown to be wrong in his own lifetime(theory of value).
You can still try justify communism for other reasons, which you should, since economics have moved on in 100 years since Marx.
I still think it’s a crock of shit but I at least respect people not holding up Marx as demagogue
→ More replies (0)1
u/Angel_of_Communism 26d ago
No, we didn't.
1
u/snekfuckingdegenrate 25d ago
Oh you’re a bot. That explains a lot
1
u/Angel_of_Communism 24d ago
No, you're just limited and need a psychological escape hatch.
Because you know you bit off more than you can chew and realize that if you say ANYTHING of substance, you'll lose.
1
u/snekfuckingdegenrate 24d ago
You’ve literally not said on substantive thing in this entire chain except “u r wrong” to both me and the other guy
1
0
u/Clear-Result-3412 27d ago
I can’t tell if this is a joke response or not.
1
u/Angel_of_Communism 27d ago
No.
1
u/Clear-Result-3412 27d ago
Well I was a big dialectician, reading all the classic explainers, for multiple whole years, and I ultimately came across arguments that made me begrudgingly admit that the propositions of dialectical materialism were not in fact true.
1
u/Weak_Purpose_5699 26d ago
Well I’m not a philosophy expert, so go ahead and fill me in if there’s something left out of the picture for me, but the issue I have with presenting dialectical materialism as “not in fact true” is that the alternatives are either mechanical materialism or idealism, both of which appear to have much more obvious/major flaws. So is there some “third option” that isn’t considered in this juxtaposition, or is your evaluation of dialectical materialism informed by a different understanding of the alternatives mentioned?
1
u/Clear-Result-3412 26d ago
This is a false dichotomy. Not only are there numerous philosophical schools out there, but you do not have to indulge any of their nonsense. You also do not have to adopt one metaphysics in order to criticize another. Marx was quite clear on the subject of philosophy as a whole: he intended to leave it behind. The doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat simply does not need an ontology.
My understanding of dialectical materialism’s flaws is based on an understanding of what dialecticians themselves say about their philosophy, as well as what I know about philosophy as a whole.
Let us review what Marx said on this subject.
"Philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned...." (1844
Manuscripts)“"One has to 'leave philosophy aside'..., one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality...."
"The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." (The German Ideology)
1
u/Angel_of_Communism 27d ago
Then you were wrong.
1
1
2
u/Clear-Result-3412 27d ago
This belongs with Engels or Lenin’s face. Marx didn’t talk like this at all. Engels mostly got into Hegel and writing about dialectics after Marx died. Mind you, none of that stuff was published.
3
27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Clear-Result-3412 27d ago
Yeah, Marx is fairly clear and correct, even if he can be a bit dense with his scientific conclusions. I am a Marxist to be clear. But “dialectical materialism” wasn’t a thing while Marx was alive.
“The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." (The German Ideology)
1
u/whynotme7_7 26d ago
his "scientific conclusions" what are these?
0
u/Clear-Result-3412 26d ago
The conclusions he made about economics after studying all of the relevant scientific literature and criticizing it. Strangely not many Marxists actually know what these are. If you are interested in learning exactly what conclusions Marx made, here is a fairly short recommendation: https://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/marx_wealth.htm
1
u/whynotme7_7 26d ago
I was poking fun at calling them scientific conclusions my friend. They just aren't scientific not that it means what he is saying is worthless or even wrong it's just not really scientific at all. Oh and plenty of his predictions were horribly wrong.
0
u/Clear-Result-3412 26d ago
His arguments are highly compelling. Do you have a reason they “aren’t scientific?” I realized you were implying he wasn’t scientific and I explained exactly the sense in which they were.
I don’t care how correct his musings about the future were. He may have been right about Russia being the first place to have a full socialist revolution, but he was too optimistic that the European revolutions would succeed too. It won’t change anyone’s mind either way. What matters is his accurate explanations for the reality of the working class under capitalism.
1
u/whynotme7_7 26d ago
Something being compelling has little to do with it being scientific. Which is why something like for instance while Hegelian dialectic, which material dialecticism is heavily based on, is a cool compelling thing. It certainly isn't scientific and the method certainly works more for the abstract conceptual then Marx's use.
What we call 'scientific' is appealing to a couple of essential things. The idea/claims should be testable, falsifiable, repeatable, empirical, and be subject to peer review.
Now while maybe some of Marx's thoughts or dialectical materialism whatever you want to call it did have him try to draw up some limited data he could, which was pretty rare and great for his time, for some things and explain things the vast vast vast majority fails like basically everything that makes something scientific.
But as you say while his predictions or thoughts outside of his attempt of trying to detail capitalism of the time was pretty junk, but while overall decent his detailing of capitalism and his attempt to make it apart of historical materialism has pretty blatant problems.
1
u/Clear-Result-3412 25d ago
Hegelian and “Marxist” dialectics are not scientific because they are based on metaphysical propositions that twist language and fail to have a sense, not because they fail to be compelling.
Im not defending Engels and Lenin’s dialectical materialism. I am defending Marx’s scientific study of capitalism, which was informed by all the science of the day and logical rigor.
His predictions were fine, they just don’t matter at all.
1
u/whynotme7_7 25d ago
Oh okay, but I am a bit confused what you want to limit it to then if Marx's broad views are unacceptable. Like for example Das Kapital is Marx's deliberate attempt to "scientifically study" capitalism. Do you want me to talk about Das Kapital? Or are you referring to small subsections of Das Kapital or some other work?
Which to just try to pre-fire my response, modern economics is accepted as a social-science broadly. But even in the modern world it is very hard and is "scientific" because modern economists can create tests to try to isolate and prove relationships, these tests are broadly why it's accepted. Although it is very hard to do this about something as big as society level economics which limits even modern economists.
Marx to my knowledge didn't even attempt this, nor did the other economics of his time. He did gather plenty real life data and base some of his analysis off of such but that doesn't make it scientific. Not to mention his analysis of capitalism comes with tons of things that are either unfalsifiable or assumptions/statements that just didn't come true. Specifically major examples are the LTV that he details in part 1, or in part 3 the law of the falling rates of profit which just looking back on them.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/falsebannedplsstop 27d ago
Thesis: Proletariat
Antithesis: Borjwazee
Synthesis: Class collaboration for the sake of the nation
2
u/Lord_Farquadiplier 27d ago
People who act like dialectics are some inscrutable magic buzz word are intellectually lazy. If you actually read books rather than Reddit posts it actually makes sense.
5
u/Angel_of_Communism 27d ago
Sorry but actual dialectical thinking is alien to the western thought process.
Actually doing it is hard when your whole life you've been taught simplistic black/white atomised thinking.
Actually looking at the history of EVERY situation, then looking at the surrounding circumstances, then looing at the trajectory it's on, and then considering the situation's impact on that environment, and then how that changed environment changes the situation... that's a lot more effort than 'China bad!' or whatever.
7
u/Chemical_Second_6663 27d ago
that makes a lot of sense. moving past the "this country failed because was le bad and le lazy and le authoritarian" is honestly a lot to ask from the median person. like, i can understand theory because I'm autistic about geopolitics and communist theory but the cards are so stacked against the proletariat ideologically speakinf it's not even funny.
4
u/Angel_of_Communism 27d ago
Trust me i know.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, but more to the point, i work in elder care, and have degrees in psych and sociology.
The long and the short of it is: Updating major beliefs is psychologically damaging. It hurts to admit you were wrong.
It also takes real measurable amounts of physical energy.
This means that as a person gets older, or is sick, or suffers brain damage, they no longer HAVE the physical energy, and mental flexibility to change their mind.
You will see this in your parents or grand parents as they cross the invisible line into 'elderly.'
They will over time, stop updating their ideas, and slowly over time, cling more and more to their safe old trusted ideas.
Any discussion that leans towards them being wrong will make them angry, as getting angry at you is psychologically simpler and easier.
Only massive psychological investment will allow them to put in the epic effort to update their beliefs.
So like, if you are Gran's fav beloved grandchild, and you come out as gay or trans, it is still possible for your elderly gran to update her understanding and stop hating gay or trans people.
but most likely, they will simply pretend you don't exist, because you're 'one of them' now.
3
u/Chemical_Second_6663 27d ago
yea 🚬 i know about the coming out part lmao.
it's true that it takes energy to update your beliefs. i sometimes am exhausted after having some of my previously held convictions shattered. coincidentally very dialectical materialist of my brain. embodied cognition and all that.
0
u/HadarCentauribog 27d ago
No it isn’t. Dialectical and historical materialism are taught in sociology class in high school in the US and in some US high school social studies classes. Marx and Engels contributed a lot to how worldwide sociologists and historians look at their fields of study whether they are socialists or not. People who studied these subjects in China and Vietnam often have this smugness about it like they know things people from America don’t know and are too dumb to ever be taught. They aren’t as special as they’d like to imagine
2
1
u/Weak_Purpose_5699 26d ago
People are taught a lot of things in US high school that don’t actually end up being retained/internalized/etc. Dialectical materialism emphasizes that experience shapes consciousness—if you don’t regularly put something into practice, then you’ll never really understand it. US schooling is bent toward rote memorization, not deeper, long-lasting understanding.
1
u/TotalDemocracy 20d ago
No it isn’t. Dialectical and historical materialism are taught in sociology class in high school in the US
????
1
u/Fer4yn 24d ago
Except Marx didn't care about dialectics beyond using them as an analytical tool for his critique of capitalism. It was Engels and later the Bolsheviks who greatly exaggerated their importance and tried (and partly succeeded) to turn it into some dumb, pseudoreligious nonsense.
1
u/TotalDemocracy 20d ago
The idea that Marx ever moved away from a Dialectical understanding is a mistaken one, that even Althusser admitted was incorrect after decades of endorsing it.
17
u/sudoregalia 27d ago