Both Hegel and Marx use the term "negation" when giving examples of 'dialectic thinking.' And example: According to Hegel 'ash' is the negation of (a) 'tree'. Which obviously is nonsense. Hegel's sentence is a so-called 'pseudo-sentence'. Objects cannot be negated, only statements can. Like "This is a tree" vs "this is not a tree". For further analysis see Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russel and Karl Popper. I recommend the essay 'The Nature of Philosophical Problems and their Roots in Science" in Karl Popper's book "Conjectures and Refutations".
There's contradiction in the sense that the integrity of the whole depends on the opposition of particulars, or, in other words; the existence of the particulars depends on their mutual distinctiveness. For example: a pot is made both by the clay vessel and the empty opening. The clay and the empty inside are mutually exclusive and you need both to have a pot: add more clay filling and you lose the empty inside which grants the pot usefulness and thus it ceases to be a pot; make it more empty by taking the clay away and you lose the pot into thin air. If you lose the whole (the pot) you also lose the particulars; if you lose the particular you also lose the whole; the opposing particulars defines the whole and the whole only exists together with its opposing particulars. The particulars oppose each other and yet they define each other; they are defined by their distinctiveness from each other and thus they necessarily co-exist into an integral whole. The contradiction is that particulars are necessarily opposed and necessarily inseparable.
A dozen T-34 tanks is not a practicable fighting force. But ten thousand T-34's is a war-winning force. Another instance of qualitative change arising from quantitative change. Or as Papa Steel himself put it, "Quantity has a quality all its own"
No it isn't. That's just more tanks. Each tank is still operating at the same level of quality. You just have a lot of them. And having a lot of them is only important in the comparison with other forces. Yes, having more forces is good - having a bigger population, that you don't have to worry as much when they die more than your enemy does. But the only qualitative change that's occurring IS the quantitative change.
@@AusSP He's speaking on how emergent property comes out of quantity, and that's what quality actually is. For example, when you see birds flying in formation in the sky. The group of birds has an entire set of properties and behaviors that a single bird does not.
@@TheBoglodite Emergence and quality are not interchangeable concepts. Stalin's implication was that his army was better than his enemy's because he had more dudes, and that this was good. Which is not incorrect, but largely ignores all of the negative effects of that approach. It is not, however, a good example of qualitative change emerging from quantitative change. A squad operating differently from a single soldier is an example of emergence. But a comparison between a large group of tanks and a very large group of tanks is not a strong example of emergence. Those tanks would never be deployed in a large blob. They would be subdivided and deployed in units. To bring it back to the flock of birds example, it's like saying that a massive swarm of birds sitting on a lake or coastline is an example of emergence - when it attempts to move, the massive swarm breaks off into smaller flocks. Emergence fails because they do not engage in new behaviors with their population increase, but fall back on large numbers of individual flocks engaging in old behaviors.
@@AusSP gotcha, I completely agree, but I was assuming that the dude you were replying to didn't actually just mean "a disorganized blob of tanks" since he's referring to military activity where tanks would of course be organized into formal units
Yeah, I agree. Sometimes I get so caught up in the "keep it concise" mindset that I make too many cuts to the content. I'm hoping to make case study videos that serve as an application and example of the ideas in this video.
Agreed. Also, the examples relating to math and physics help to get the general concept, but a real example applied to the social world would be far more useful and helpful for understanding the applicability of the concept.
I recently had a presentation about Marx's historical materialism and I used the example of video games for showing the quantitavie and qualitative changes to explain dielactics: with like 10 pixels they could do a pong game with 2 short line 1 long line and a ball, then as the material conditions got better they were able to use 8bit technology so games got complicated, then even more pixel led to 64bit where they were able to create 3d gameplays, so I think it showes very well how qualitative and quantitive changes shapes reality: more pixels means more complicated gameplay
This is a fantastic video, comrade. Dialectics is often a difficult subject for many to grapple and apply, especially coming from a background that is drenched in liberal ideology. I used to struggle to apprehend the basics of it. It makes me wish that this video was available back then, as I am yet to find a modern text that explains it better than this video. Keep up the good work, comrade.
How did liberal ideology prevent you from understanding dialectics? Due to the focus on different topics or due to some inherent logic of liberal ideology?
@@thomasjamison2050 liberal thinking has been contradictory historically, if u read even the first few chapters of liberalism: a counter history by Domenico you can see many such examples, apart from that the basis of Marxism is entirely different from liberalism, there is no concept of materialism in classical liberalism for example
@@judoexpert2057 One might just as well as point out the butchery of Stalin as an argument against materialism. As it is, the person who made the video pretty much presented Marxist materialism as idealism. But one should expect that from any for of intelligent discussion of the topic.
I'm really happy that you didn't include the very non-dialectical idea of the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" that some other Marxist content creators include in their videos. Very good stuff. Would love to see you write about Systems Theory and how it connects to Dialectical Materialism. They seem incredibly tightly linked, if not the very same thing in some cases.
Thank you so much. Even as a Marxist who has read a lot and been a Marxist for a long time, dialectics is the one thing I've always had trouble on. It was the main thing that I could never really figure out, but I really appreciate this video.
As a avid reader of Bookchin, this video really opens my eyes to the dialectical advancements made by the man. He didn’t agree with Marx on everything, but he definitely thought through dialectical ecology, or dialectical naturalism as he called it, in a dialectically Marxian manner.
i almost skipped on this video because i knew i already understood dialectics but im glad i didn’t because it became an opportunity for me to remember that there is always subtle aspects of any field of knowledge that can be forgotten and must be relearned so excellent video!!
Just came across this video and your channel, great content! I really struggled to grasp dialectics for some time, but found On Contradiction to be an extremely educational text.
thank you for making this video & dissecting such a complex subject so succintly!! (& thank you for making all the videos you make, really!) i don't think i would have ever grasped these concepts w/o your videos, or at the very least it would have taken me a long time to. your channel has helped open up new avenues of learning for me! :)
If the socdems and "democratic socialists" didn't mess us up then maybe we'd be able to get a message across and even create a major opposition to the capitalists
@@gnas1897 We would still have at least as many issues, as socialism is used as a negative buzzword. Only those SocDems that pretend to be DemSocs, like Sanders, have allowed actual headway in the U.S. to allow those terms being seen as more than "evil" to the average person. They have allowed the possibility of acceptance of socialist ideals because they have removed the innate negative connotations used within society. They may actually have helped a potential revolutionary change by increasing awareness that the vilification of these terms is all based on lies.
I understand what you're pointing at, but its important to note that contradiction is about the unity AND struggle of opposites - without naming this relationship we're prone to seeing the two aspects as ONLY opposing rather than also co-constitutive & codependent. For example, day & night do not merely oppose each other, they also depend on and co-create and define each other in unity
@@jaredloveless “Inversion” in the best word for the dialectic. It’s the opposite of truth but presented as an unstable half-truth that is irreconcilable with reality. When the inherent contradiction is revealed, another half-truth is adopted until it also expires. Hegel talked about it as if it were inevitable that contractions naturally arise and continue forever, but that only happens when you start with a half truth. Start with a true thesis “Homosexuality is an abomination to God.” Compare the anti-thesis “Homosexuality is not an abomination unto God.” and then join them together in the “synthesis”: “Homosexuality is [sometimes?] an abomination unto God.” This leads to the obvious question: “When is it okay?” So, then you start answering a question that should have never been asked in the first place. Homosexuality is an abomination unto God. No amount of antithesis changes that. At the advanced level, the dialectic is even less obvious but has the same effect. There are big words with a lot of hand waving. False premises are introduced in a way that leads to their assimilation by weaker minds. For example: Thesis: “Homosexuality is an abomination unto God”; Antithesis: “God isn’t real.” Synthesis: “Homosexuality is not an abomination unto God.” Astute observers will recognize that the stated antithesis is actually a non-sequitur. That’s not a true antithesis. Then the stated synthesis is simply inferred without saying it and the listener is fooled into believing falsehood. This is how the devil speaks. Read Genesis chapter 3: the devil does this to Eve. (Douay-Rheims). In so doing, you believe falsehoods that have no logical standing. This is how marxists move the needle into full-blown communism. You give them an inch and they take a mile. Once you concede a falsehood in dialectical discourse, the devil has you.
@@ochem123 Also you chose a falsehood based on an unreal thing for truth.And you think a text written by dozens of bigots 2000 years ago is worth considering.
I just found this channel and think it's best interpretation of Marx on social media I've seen so far. That said, I have philosophical differences that would lead to a different framing of philosophical materialism and historic materialism. It doesn't come-across that Marx's version of philosophical materialism is consistent in general contexts, but philosophical materialism has evolved a lot since Marx. Marx's sociological models are consistent with other sociological models, but that connection isn't stressed in this presentation. The fact that Marx's models are consistent with those of systems-thinking, information theory, category theory, general argumentation, and others, is not articulated in this presentation, which leads to an insulated narrative. One could make a video that presents the connections between philosophical materialism and presently used sociological models. Category theory and systems-thinking are theories of relationships, and Marx's models can be translated to those systems as well. If you don't tie Marx to concepts that have been invented in the last 70 years, the interpretation will be insulated and dated...or so I fear. Another materialist model is from Lawrence Kohlberg. If you know Marx but not Kohlberg, you are missing 50 years of social science.
I know concluding that "everything is connected, man" is probably reductive to the nuance of the theory, but I'm a dumb and gay boy, so... It's all connected, man!
The problem with the math derivative-integral example is that they do in fact exist without the other. The derivative of the function f at x (in the Frechet sense, if it exists) is defined to be the linear transformation A such that the norm ||f(x+h) - f(x) - Ah|| is little-oh of h (denoted o(h)). The Riemann integral (if it exists) is defined to be the infimum of the upper Riemann sums (equivalently the supremum of lower Riemann sums) (another integral, that of Lebesgue, is defined in a similar manner, but also doesn't make use of derivatives). A better analogy in math is the topological idea of a hole in a space. The only way to define one is dialectically: by pointing to the material "surrounding" the hole in order to describe and classify it.
If I may, although I am bringing up probably a problem that is explain more in depth later on. The core issue I have with his explanation of dialectics is that the examples given are at their core level, action and reaction for example is a phenomena that exists as a base part that has implications to the broader structure. While oppressor vs oppressed is based on the complexity of the greater whole of society, there is nuance to the greater structure that creates this. The two seem to be, at their core, fundamentally different.
idk why you cited Stalin and Mao when you could easily have just cited Engels since he said almost verbatim what those other 2 said, down to talking about differentials and integrals. The only thing is that differentials and integrals weren't seen as contradictions, they were seen as results of the negation, and the negation of the negation.
@Cameron Thiele separate things. Stalin and Mao are way different type of rulers. All Hitler did for example, was write a book full of nonsensical racist megalomaniac thoughts, Mao and Stalin theorized about social changes using German philosophy. Is like saying "don't study Heidegger, he was a Nazi" but in a inverterd way.
@@Richallmight2 Stalin and Mao had shit theory, that's the thing. Reading Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" or Mao's "On Contradiction" is enough to show that they were dumb fucks.
I understand i should just read source material to get a better understanding, but as a newbie to a lot of this type of thinking about the world it came across as "the missle knows where it is because it knows where it isn't" type talking and became difficult to relate what you are talking about to the real world due to a lack of context and examples. If anyone has suggestions to get a better understanding of dialectics i would appreciate it (:
Nice video decently explained, tiny nitpick, i know this example was given by Mao, but technically speaking integrals and differentials are not contradictions, in the sense that you can one without the other, have a integrable function that is not differentiable (eg. Weirstrass Function), add to the the fact that they are (generally) not opposites, although they do complement each other, but as far as i am aware, that does not constitute a contradiction. Very good ilustration of the abstract concept of contradictions thougt!
Yes, a fine introduction, a few more videos on dialectics please. Mao's New Democracy is based on the principles you outlined, is being practiced in China today, and has a lot in common with the cycle of qualitativequantitative social research.
Another simple example: (0) is one thing ((0)1) zero is a singular nothing if it is a singular nothing then it is one thing ((0)1), but now that I look at the final expression it looks as if I have actually have 2 things: 0 and 1. So, (((0)1)2). Good, now can you see how many thing we have now with the last set? If your answer is 3 then you are correct: 0, 1, 2 the latter are 3 elements. And on like that. A summary of the process may also be understood as: affirmation, negation of the first term, then negation of that which negated the first term.
I wonder if anyone has ever written a simulation of any phenomenon based on the more vague aspects of dialectics. I can see that the more concrete aspects are actually quite pervasive in programming, the redux architecture or category theory being primary examples.
tell yr a interested thing:when i was a child ,i'v always ask myself ,WHAT (the differene of the quantitative and qualitative).BUT NOW.,i finally find the truth.@The Marxist Project. THANK YOU!
I love these weight lifting bars, how at hegel it starts in the sky, AKA god and at Marx it starts at earth, AKA Material, or the ground. Another way of saying it, would be, that Hegel is Abgehoben, while Marx bleibt am boden.
Dialectic ~ dialect~ dia [two] lect [speech/lecture] ~ that an identical phenomenon can be referred to by a multitude of symbols, hence regional language dialects Relative ~ relate ~ rei [thing] - lat [lateral] a definition of the phenomenon by means of adjacency, hence a cousin is a family relative. The convention includes notions of how two people speaking the same language could have a completely different perspective on economic activity, based on the fact that one grew up in a mansion, the other a slum. Each location reinforcing their predispositions, resulting in crisis of 'dialectic relativity'.
Fun fact: the entire reason Marx invented dialectical materialism is because Bruno Bauer dialecticly proved Jews could never be free-citizens in a modern State because doing so would involve the negation/abandonment of their Judaism. The more you know.
6:04 The proletariat and bourgeoisie do not switch places in socialism, as this would only change the form of class divide. The bourgeoisie must become members of the proletariat for the class struggle to end.
Good, I want to add Hegelian dialectics wasn't the first philosophy to view nature as a connected, dynamic and contradictory, just the first Western philosophy to do so. Taoism most notably and it's idea of Yin/Yang is surprisingly analogous to dialectical thought and Taoism is much older.
Hey, great video. The last part regarding negation-of-the-negation and Althusser is not quite clear. Please make another video on Althusser, and how his theory was different from the orthodox theories.
Are there other introductory texts on Marxist philosophy you would recommend? I'm a complete beginner so I only read Mao's "On Contradiction" because azureScapegoat recommended it, then I came here to see if I understood it correctly. I have a few problems understanding it, sorry for the wall of text: First, the entire essay hinges on his idea of the "Universality of Contradiction," that "contradiction exists in the process of development of all things..." He states this without evidence, so I don't know if this is an axiom I'm supposed to just accept, or if there's any rational argument to support it. I feel that this essay fails to rationally support that claim (I explain later) although I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about this. Next, the examples Mao uses (+ and - numbers, integral and differential, action and reaction, class struggle) seemed at first to be a good illustration of the concept, until I read further down where he says we need to find the "principal aspect" of a contradiction; he states "Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary." But what is the "principal" aspect of the contradiction of + and - numbers? Of integrals and derivatives? Of combination and dissociation of atoms? I understand that each aspect can only exist with the other aspect, each one defines the other. But the idea that one aspect of a contradiction is somehow "principal" over the other doesn't make any sense. When I buy something at the store, I'm giving away money which can be seen as a negative number, but simultaneously the cashier receives the same amount of money as a positive number, so how is one of those aspects "principal" over the other? In some chemical reactions atoms bond to each other, and in other reactions they dissociate, so how is one of those aspects "principal" over the other? I have the same criticism about most of his examples. I can only see how his "principal aspect" ideas makes sense in the context of a class struggle, or the struggle of China against imperialism. Mao wants China to triumph over imperialism, and he wants the proletariat to triumph over the bourgeoisie, so it seems that he's trying to use the concept of contradictions to justify his political goals, trying to make it sound like there is some universal truth behind what he is doing. I have the same issue with his idea of "antagonism" in contradictions. The usual meaning of the word "antagonism" goes beyond a simple contradiction; it implies dislike or hostility. Again, none of his examples (+ and - numbers, action and reaction, etc) make any sense here. The idea that numbers or chemical reactions can be "antagonistic" to each other sounds ridiculous. Inanimate objects cannot dislike each other. Mao says "with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic." So some contradictions are not antagonistic by nature, while others are? Then he seems to agree with my point, but if he really believed that, then why place antagonistic contradictions in the same category as non-antagonistic ones? Are they not different concepts? Again, the class struggle makes perfect sense here, but none of his other examples make sense. So once again it seems that the antagonism between social classes is the real reason Mao wrote this essay in the first place, in order to further his political goals. He says "social revolution is not only entirely necessary but also entirely practicable" (trying to justify a revolution in China) and calls this a "scientific truth" however he does not cite any scientific literature other than Marx. I find his statement towards the end, that "if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them, there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism" to be concerning. This no longer sounds like a philosophical essay, but instead a political call to action and a warning to his opponents. If particular examples of contradictions are so different from each other that his ideas about principal aspects, antagonisms, etc. don't actually apply to all of his own examples, then I don't believe that they all belong in the same category. His use of the word "contradiction" is confusing, most people use that word to mean a logical contradiction or impossibility, not any pair of things that oppose one another (although I don't know if that's because he used a more precise term in Chinese that has no good English translation). If the purpose of this essay was simply to make the common-sense claim that lots of things oppose each other in nature and science, then this essay would have been one tenth the length, it would not have mentioned the communist party of China or any specific people in it, and it would have cited more scientific literature, not just Marx and Lenin. But if the purpose is to convince the reader that we need a socialist revolution, then I believe it would be easier to understand if he just titled the essay "On Class Antagonism" and deleted all the unsubstantiated fluff about "Universality."
I would say that with such completely abstract concepts of plus and minus, it is difficult or even impossible to determine the principal. If we accept the principal aspect as the one that goes the furthest in characterizing the nature of the contradiction, we can see it more readily in more tangible situations though. As you alluded to in the grocery example, the principal may differ from your vantage point internal to the situation. Sometimes the principal is obvious and sometimes it is slight. Take the exploiter and exploited contradiction though. In this case, I would say the exploiter is the principal; the exploiter benefits from the imbalance of power. It is capable of dramatically reshaping the nature of the relationship, if it pleases. These are just my thoughts. I'm not speaking as an expert here.
Also, your understanding about "contradiction" and "antagonism" is just incorrect. Contradiction has nothing to do with logical inconsistency. It is a broader term than that. And antagonism does not imply "dislike" of something. Again, it is a much broader term. They both have uses in many arenas. Your assumptions about them are likely just due to unfamiliarity with them in a broader arena.
One more thing: It's also not just that "a lot of things oppose each other in nature." It's that contradiction is fundamental to their existence. You can't have addition without subtraction. You can't have force without an equal and opposite force. You can't have an exploiter without exploited. The contradiction is inextricable from the understanding, or even the existence of that thing. Marx, Mao, and Lenin are extending this concept to the social realm to help understand historical development and class struggle.
You are on to something 🙃 This is all derivative of Plato's realm of the ideal. Which Aristotle plainly stated, has no reality for the senses and must therefore be rejected. You could call it Mysticism, Gnosticism, or Alchemy (as Hegel did). It is all speculative. Interestingly, none of these guys understood cultural Anthropology the way it is understood today. Marx claimed, our original condition was egalitarianism. There are very few examples of this amongst primitive cultures. Most have a separation of responsibilities and tribal conflicts, unless they live in isolation. There is no ideal society. There is no Utopia.
To understand dialectic you need to study Science of Logic by Hegel. He is idealist, but marxists can interpert his logic as materialistic. It is hard to understand at the beginning, it need to be studied for several times, but it is compendium, the shortest path to dialectics.
Let me risk a materialist example with Newton. An object is inert unless acted upon a force (affirmation), negation = some object at "x" velocity hits it, negation of negation the inert object will move by the force of the impact, and (an extra) the object that impacted the first (affirming itself) will be negated by an equal and opposite reaction (force) in the inert object so its course will also change.
I believe that 'dialectics' is a singular noun, despite what Merrriam-Webster says. The Latin form of the Greek term, like 'natura'/ 'physics'', looked like a plural but was treated as a singular noun. Dialectica, from διαλεκτική. Note: You say elsewhere, "dialectics was...." and "dialectics includes...." and "dialectics transforms....". Your explanation of Dialectics is an excellent one. I never knew that Máo Zédōng wrote a book on Dialectics; thanks! It's available here in English: tinyurl.com/zmroflo
@Jeffrey Long You can't believe how many times I''ve refrained from making a grammatical comment, fearing to be branded a "grammar Nazi". Something that's rampant on the social media now is the use of the preterite (simple past) for the past participle, in such phrases as, "I have saw" and "they have went". I often ask people who use 'u'/'U' for 'you' whether they're Dutch, because that's how "you" is written in Nederlands (Dutch); and that's just laziness (saving two letters!).
Interestingly, material dialectics overlaps with basic Buddhist concepts of emptiness and interdepedence (emergent phenomenon), impermanence, the relative and the absolute, and the pedagogical use of contradictions to inquire into greater truths. Perhaps Marx was influenced by Buddihism? Apparent quote from Marx, "I have become myself a sort of walking stick, running up and down the whole day, and keeping my mind in that state of nothingness which Buddhism considers the climax of human bliss."
I've been talking about this stuff for a while now i didnt know that it had a name the only difference about what I was talking about is that there's a third part that exists
The third thing is what exists in a state of limbo in-between the 2 sides like at the end marx was material and the other guy was thought the 3rd thing would be existing on both extremes at the same time
I also had this idea cemented into my brain after taking shrooms and realizing that the material was God and thought was Satan and I only thought that bc they're opposite of each other and one shows complete order and the other shows complete chaos
Helen Keller described the profound, multifaceted existential change in her entire concept of the world and her own self awareness brought about by finally having words for things. She said her world was at first simply an amorphous cloud of experience, desire, repulsion, instinct and reaction. Learning that there were words with which to label and modularize the world suddenly caused crystalized forms to emerge from the fog. Ive had a sense of what dialectics describe for quite a while now. A rough understanding of somewhat analogous scientific concepts has been the best I could do (emergence theory, for example). Slowly beginning to understand dialectical materialism is causing shapes to emerge from the fog for me. Its honestly a little unnerving seeing your worldview change before your eyes. Ive been an anarchist for 2 decades, but only payed real attention to theory for the last 8 or 10 years (once I got clean and sober). Im a pretty big fan of democratic confederalism at the moment but I can imagine myself drifting toward some sort of modern communism as I learn. I do feel like a lot of it is a bit outdated but the concepts can be adequately translated to the 21st century. This is all obviously a process so who knows where I'll be in a couple years but acceptance of the ethical validity or necessity of hard institutional authority is a big hurdle for me.
If I'm understand this correctly, dialectics somewhat like not having one sided arguments -kinda. I haven't learned much yet, but at the moment, I think it's something like using opinions from different views to find out the truth. with this understanding of dialectics, I almost agree with it. I don't agree with using *opinions* to find the *truth.* I think that we should use opinions from different views to find a compromise or and understanding of each other, rather than be stubborn or one sided. I think that finding truth through opinions is pointless and inefficient, unless it is a "truth" built from opinions. Truths built from opinions are rare and often reside in the mind. They are not material things, they are thoughts.
I'll probably learn more about this later, I've currently found another idea that is similar to what I think. This idea is very similar to what I think. So I'll learn about Nietzche first, then I'll look into this more.
The tranformation between quantitative and qualitative is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. The example assumes that the only thing that's heppening in the plant is a quantitative process, but that's clearly not the case because something is innitating the change that's not taken into account by merely counting cells. What is considered quntifiable is just what the observer elects to count. The same can be done after it sprouts; one can continue counting cells, or even time. The observer doesn't necessarily know what's most meaningful about any given process. I don't think it can't be said that something goes from a fundementally quantitative state to a fundementally qualitative state. Not to say there isn't something there, because I do beleive there are inflection points, like in the plant or phase transition examples you give. This principle can also be seen in star formation or in the weak nuclear force. Another place I see an inflection point is with people. We have evolved instincts how to manage families and small groups, but not sociaties. I beleive there is an inflection point where our intutions break down. I think the idea from each's need to each's ability is a nice intuitive sentiment that we evolved, but I am skeptical that it can scale based on the principle that you laid out in this video.
@silverthered I wish conservatives would bother to learn about Marxism from Marxists, instead of just, marx bad, Stalin Ukraine, Mao famine, North Korea, vuvuzela
It might be useful to create a few videos disabusing people on the internet of some of the many current popular misconceptions about Marxism. Though I'm fine with your more meaty videos like this one.
Everything in the physical world has two poles. Protons and electrons. Plus and minus. North and south. If only material is considered apart from spiritual things then all things can be understood by dialectic mechanisms.
I love the connections of dialectics to Taoism! Many of these concepts are already intuitive to me because I've became acquainted to them by Taoist wisdom years ago xD
1 version of dialectic has 2 parts, called thesis & antithesis Another version of dialectic has 3 parts--- 3rd part is called synthesis, where as result of contradiction part of thesis & part of antithesis combine, other part of thesis & antithesis disappear, & new innovation part appears. All.these changes belong to new synthesis part.
A few years ago I tried to design a housing cooperative and was frustrated by advice to set up different tiers or levels based on income or some other fee structure but I felt that implementing a class system in a project ostensibly designed to provide housing would only exacerbate existing contradictions.
Would an example of dialectics in programming be something like "compilation" and "decompilation"? Or like "function" and "invocation"? There may be many examples. "Consumer" (like a subscriber) and "producer" (like a publisher).
@@lukedavis6711 yes. Understanding reality is a matter of using language (socially constructed) to express perspective (subjective). Some people enjoy poetry. I enjoy philosophy. I'm just saying... There is a proper way to use the tool.
@@bgiv2010 I'm saying there is no proper way. Kant, Hegel, and Marx were winging it on the notion of dialectic. Infact on the problem of infinite regress in material dialect Marx, in the economic and philosophic manuscripts, told his reader if you dont ask the question it isnt a problem. Dialect isn't precise like the laws of boolean algebra or graph theory; its purposely vague which makes it seem like it's really deep when it isnt even superficial.
@@lukedavis6711 "the proper way, as described by Hegel". I'm not looking for an objective truth. It's like I'm asking how to play tic-tac-toe and you're telling me there are no rules. If there are no rules, then fine? I'll just have to read the source. Good day.
@@bgiv2010 it's like he pretends hes playing tic tac toe but that the reason you cant figure out the rules to his game is bc hes so much smarter than you
No. Not a ying and yang, it's not metaphysical. Ying and yang are about harmony. There is one principle in dialectics about the unity of opposite, but it's about the way elements of situation, or contradictions, are not in harmony and produce new situations. It's too long for me to explain in the comments. If you read this for about 10 minutes you'll get it... read this: www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Actually Lao Tzu was one of the first founders of dialectics. I remember reading this in a note in which Engels discusses how Heraclitus was the first dialectician, but the note correcting it was in fact Lao Tzu. Taoism, as a natural philosophy, is dialectical, like the Hegelian. It is a sort of pantheism which embraces the interconnection of all things, but also embraces idealism and mysticism.
I'm curious how any one particular contradiction is identified as the "principal contradiction", and whether such an identification is not itself an undialectical construct. I've seen too many arguments around feminism , racism, imperialism get shut down because some big brain marxist says "ah but THAT is not the principal contradiction so we should not waste time struggling around it"
There is a very good video from the youtuber noncompete, it's title is which is worse, capitalism or racism. Or at least along those lines. Give a pretty good breakdown of the base/superstructure idea. It definitely helped me understand it. None of this is to say that those should be ignored though.
cant everything just be boiled down to the fundamental forces of physics and then you dont have any qualitative changes. Like i wouldn't say the seed is any different from the plant other than just being further down the line in time
The part about the seed is not trying to explain the physics of how the seed sprouts. Yes physical phenomena can be boiled down to fundamental forces of physics. But what the example is illustrating is not the specifics of those fundamental forces in the specific case of seeds work but the relationship over time and how change occurs. Change occurs quantitatively and then this opens the possibility of change quantitatively. It's not trying to explain the fundamental physics of plants it's using them as a metaphor for change more generally. First a quantity might change, like the number of poor, out of work men in a society that is economically unstable or the power which an oppressed minority has within it. Then this quantitative change in the structure of who makes up that society will result in a qualitative change: say a war, a civil war or a revolution. The seed is qualitatively different because it is further down the line in time and because it has grown to the point where it can no longer physically continue to exist as a seed. It has been quantitatively been set down a path that will lead to it qualitatively becoming a different thing ie. a sprout. It is qualitatively no longer possible at that point of gestation for it to remain a seed.
You can have qualitative change without quantitative. For example, a pile of bricks; you rearrange them and you get a house. Same quantity, different quality.
I'm not sure I want to dispute the first part of your comment, but, in regards to your example, I think that it's not quite accurate to identify the pile of bricks and the house as existing within the same system. That pile of bricks does not necessarily function solely as the means of building the house. You could say that the quantitative change occurs when you begin to arrange the bricks into a meaningful structure. At first you place one brick, then two, and so on. By adding bricks to the structure you are quantitatively altering it, but you do not achieve the quality change until the quantitative process has been completed.
I didnt understand a single thing. The example with boiling water was somewhat strange. What do you the quality of water changes when it becomes steam. It is still H20. I dont get it without examples. Please give me 6 examples to explain the theory and how the theory explains the examples. I understand better with multiple examples that are very different. Thnak you in advance
I was confused for a while about "dialectical contradiction" - it just means "opposition", not logical contradiction
Or interdependent opposing 'tension'
It's just a pseudo-intellectual way of saying "an opposite".
Both Hegel and Marx use the term "negation" when giving examples of 'dialectic thinking.' And example: According to Hegel 'ash' is the negation of (a) 'tree'. Which obviously is nonsense. Hegel's sentence is a so-called 'pseudo-sentence'. Objects cannot be negated, only statements can. Like "This is a tree" vs "this is not a tree". For further analysis see Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russel and Karl Popper. I recommend the essay 'The Nature of Philosophical Problems and their Roots in Science" in Karl Popper's book "Conjectures and Refutations".
There's contradiction in the sense that the integrity of the whole depends on the opposition of particulars, or, in other words; the existence of the particulars depends on their mutual distinctiveness. For example: a pot is made both by the clay vessel and the empty opening. The clay and the empty inside are mutually exclusive and you need both to have a pot: add more clay filling and you lose the empty inside which grants the pot usefulness and thus it ceases to be a pot; make it more empty by taking the clay away and you lose the pot into thin air. If you lose the whole (the pot) you also lose the particulars; if you lose the particular you also lose the whole; the opposing particulars defines the whole and the whole only exists together with its opposing particulars. The particulars oppose each other and yet they define each other; they are defined by their distinctiveness from each other and thus they necessarily co-exist into an integral whole. The contradiction is that particulars are necessarily opposed and necessarily inseparable.
@@marsgloriousIt’s an inversion of the truth
A dozen T-34 tanks is not a practicable fighting force. But ten thousand T-34's is a war-winning force. Another instance of qualitative change arising from quantitative change. Or as Papa Steel himself put it, "Quantity has a quality all its own"
No it isn't. That's just more tanks. Each tank is still operating at the same level of quality. You just have a lot of them. And having a lot of them is only important in the comparison with other forces.
Yes, having more forces is good - having a bigger population, that you don't have to worry as much when they die more than your enemy does. But the only qualitative change that's occurring IS the quantitative change.
@@AusSP He's speaking on how emergent property comes out of quantity, and that's what quality actually is. For example, when you see birds flying in formation in the sky. The group of birds has an entire set of properties and behaviors that a single bird does not.
@@TheBoglodite Emergence and quality are not interchangeable concepts.
Stalin's implication was that his army was better than his enemy's because he had more dudes, and that this was good. Which is not incorrect, but largely ignores all of the negative effects of that approach. It is not, however, a good example of qualitative change emerging from quantitative change.
A squad operating differently from a single soldier is an example of emergence. But a comparison between a large group of tanks and a very large group of tanks is not a strong example of emergence. Those tanks would never be deployed in a large blob. They would be subdivided and deployed in units.
To bring it back to the flock of birds example, it's like saying that a massive swarm of birds sitting on a lake or coastline is an example of emergence - when it attempts to move, the massive swarm breaks off into smaller flocks. Emergence fails because they do not engage in new behaviors with their population increase, but fall back on large numbers of individual flocks engaging in old behaviors.
@@AusSP gotcha, I completely agree, but I was assuming that the dude you were replying to didn't actually just mean "a disorganized blob of tanks" since he's referring to military activity where tanks would of course be organized into formal units
@@AusSP😊
Good video but I feel more examples would’ve been helpful, otherwise it becomes too abstract
Yeah, I agree. Sometimes I get so caught up in the "keep it concise" mindset that I make too many cuts to the content. I'm hoping to make case study videos that serve as an application and example of the ideas in this video.
same here, but the water & sapling examples were rlly helpful!
Agreed. Also, the examples relating to math and physics help to get the general concept, but a real example applied to the social world would be far more useful and helpful for understanding the applicability of the concept.
I recently had a presentation about Marx's historical materialism and I used the example of video games for showing the quantitavie and qualitative changes to explain dielactics: with like 10 pixels they could do a pong game with 2 short line 1 long line and a ball, then as the material conditions got better they were able to use 8bit technology so games got complicated, then even more pixel led to 64bit where they were able to create 3d gameplays, so I think it showes very well how qualitative and quantitive changes shapes reality: more pixels means more complicated gameplay
@@hat_maker Same with me. Boiling water and sapling example is perfect but the rest is kinda abstract
This is a fantastic video, comrade. Dialectics is often a difficult subject for many to grapple and apply, especially coming from a background that is drenched in liberal ideology. I used to struggle to apprehend the basics of it. It makes me wish that this video was available back then, as I am yet to find a modern text that explains it better than this video. Keep up the good work, comrade.
How did liberal ideology prevent you from understanding dialectics? Due to the focus on different topics or due to some inherent logic of liberal ideology?
@@FipsMusik I am more than puzzled as to how one could exclude Marxism from liberal thinking.
@@thomasjamison2050 liberal thinking has been contradictory historically, if u read even the first few chapters of liberalism: a counter history by Domenico you can see many such examples, apart from that the basis of Marxism is entirely different from liberalism, there is no concept of materialism in classical liberalism for example
@@judoexpert2057 One might just as well as point out the butchery of Stalin as an argument against materialism. As it is, the person who made the video pretty much presented Marxist materialism as idealism. But one should expect that from any for of intelligent discussion of the topic.
@@judoexpert2057 Bullshit. You need to do some more reading.
I'm really happy that you didn't include the very non-dialectical idea of the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" that some other Marxist content creators include in their videos. Very good stuff. Would love to see you write about Systems Theory and how it connects to Dialectical Materialism. They seem incredibly tightly linked, if not the very same thing in some cases.
Yes! My background is in systems theory and learning about dialectics felt like the same exact thing. Also, Alfred North Whitehead's process ontology.
This is probably the best explanation of dialectics you can find outside of reading the classics
Which specific classic titles are best for explanations of dialectics?
This is one of THE BEST explanations on dialectics there is.
Thanks for doing another video. They’re good because they’re not too fancy rather than in spite of this. Cheers
Thank you so much. Even as a Marxist who has read a lot and been a Marxist for a long time, dialectics is the one thing I've always had trouble on. It was the main thing that I could never really figure out, but I really appreciate this video.
As a avid reader of Bookchin, this video really opens my eyes to the dialectical advancements made by the man. He didn’t agree with Marx on everything, but he definitely thought through dialectical ecology, or dialectical naturalism as he called it, in a dialectically Marxian manner.
i almost skipped on this video because i knew i already understood dialectics but im glad i didn’t because it became an opportunity for me to remember that there is always subtle aspects of any field of knowledge that can be forgotten and must be relearned so excellent video!!
Damn, your visual representations are worth of braingasm, you are one bright minded individual, I really thank you for this content
This is probably the best video I've watched on dialectics. Thank you!
Just came across this video and your channel, great content! I really struggled to grasp dialectics for some time, but found On Contradiction to be an extremely educational text.
thank you for making this video & dissecting such a complex subject so succintly!! (& thank you for making all the videos you make, really!) i don't think i would have ever grasped these concepts w/o your videos, or at the very least it would have taken me a long time to. your channel has helped open up new avenues of learning for me! :)
Communist and Socialist Leaders: *academic reasoning, scientific analysis*
American President taking corporate payouts: durrr imperialism durrrrrrrr
If the socdems and "democratic socialists" didn't mess us up then maybe we'd be able to get a message across and even create a major opposition to the capitalists
Communists and Socialist Leaders are the epitome of /r/iamverysmart
@@runbychews134 sounds like a cope
@@gnas1897 We would still have at least as many issues, as socialism is used as a negative buzzword. Only those SocDems that pretend to be DemSocs, like Sanders, have allowed actual headway in the U.S. to allow those terms being seen as more than "evil" to the average person. They have allowed the possibility of acceptance of socialist ideals because they have removed the innate negative connotations used within society. They may actually have helped a potential revolutionary change by increasing awareness that the vilification of these terms is all based on lies.
You leftist people literally voted for Brandon lol xDDD stop complaining
your videos are amazing
For me, substituting the word opposition for contradiction makes these ideas a bit easier to understand
I understand what you're pointing at, but its important to note that contradiction is about the unity AND struggle of opposites - without naming this relationship we're prone to seeing the two aspects as ONLY opposing rather than also co-constitutive & codependent. For example, day & night do not merely oppose each other, they also depend on and co-create and define each other in unity
It’s an inversion of the truth
@@ochem123 what is?
@@jaredloveless “Inversion” in the best word for the dialectic. It’s the opposite of truth but presented as an unstable half-truth that is irreconcilable with reality. When the inherent contradiction is revealed, another half-truth is adopted until it also expires. Hegel talked about it as if it were inevitable that contractions naturally arise and continue forever, but that only happens when you start with a half truth. Start with a true thesis “Homosexuality is an abomination to God.” Compare the anti-thesis “Homosexuality is not an abomination unto God.” and then join them together in the “synthesis”: “Homosexuality is [sometimes?] an abomination unto God.” This leads to the obvious question: “When is it okay?” So, then you start answering a question that should have never been asked in the first place. Homosexuality is an abomination unto God. No amount of antithesis changes that. At the advanced level, the dialectic is even less obvious but has the same effect. There are big words with a lot of hand waving. False premises are introduced in a way that leads to their assimilation by weaker minds. For example: Thesis: “Homosexuality is an abomination unto God”; Antithesis: “God isn’t real.” Synthesis: “Homosexuality is not an abomination unto God.” Astute observers will recognize that the stated antithesis is actually a non-sequitur. That’s not a true antithesis. Then the stated synthesis is simply inferred without saying it and the listener is fooled into believing falsehood. This is how the devil speaks. Read Genesis chapter 3: the devil does this to Eve. (Douay-Rheims). In so doing, you believe falsehoods that have no logical standing. This is how marxists move the needle into full-blown communism. You give them an inch and they take a mile. Once you concede a falsehood in dialectical discourse, the devil has you.
@@ochem123 Also you chose a falsehood based on an unreal thing for truth.And you think a text written by dozens of bigots 2000 years ago is worth considering.
I just found this channel and think it's best interpretation of Marx on social media I've seen so far.
That said, I have philosophical differences that would lead to a different framing of philosophical materialism and historic materialism.
It doesn't come-across that Marx's version of philosophical materialism is consistent in general contexts, but philosophical materialism has evolved a lot since Marx.
Marx's sociological models are consistent with other sociological models, but that connection isn't stressed in this presentation.
The fact that Marx's models are consistent with those of systems-thinking, information theory, category theory, general argumentation, and others, is not articulated in this presentation, which leads to an insulated narrative.
One could make a video that presents the connections between philosophical materialism and presently used sociological models.
Category theory and systems-thinking are theories of relationships, and Marx's models can be translated to those systems as well.
If you don't tie Marx to concepts that have been invented in the last 70 years, the interpretation will be insulated and dated...or so I fear.
Another materialist model is from Lawrence Kohlberg. If you know Marx but not Kohlberg, you are missing 50 years of social science.
I love this video. It is by far the best remedy I’ve come across for curing my insomnia.
This is basically complex systems before physicists solidified this as a field of study.
Yeah this is the conclusion I came to, starting from systems theory and then coming to Marxism later.
Brilliantly explained, look forward to the next entries in this series
binging on all your vids. I’m a DBT therapist and wish this was the norm for mental healthcare
Thank you for this! Very helpful for my theory of history grad seminar
I know concluding that "everything is connected, man" is probably reductive to the nuance of the theory, but I'm a dumb and gay boy, so...
It's all connected, man!
Well given that that's a huge part of materialist dialectics, I wouldnt even say it's reductive!
@@themarxistproject oh, haha. Well good to know lol
Dirk Gently? Is that you?
@@JLPicard1648 Ah, a fellow man of taste I see
@@themarxistproject ❤❤❤
The problem with the math derivative-integral example is that they do in fact exist without the other. The derivative of the function f at x (in the Frechet sense, if it exists) is defined to be the linear transformation A such that the norm ||f(x+h) - f(x) - Ah|| is little-oh of h (denoted o(h)). The Riemann integral (if it exists) is defined to be the infimum of the upper Riemann sums (equivalently the supremum of lower Riemann sums) (another integral, that of Lebesgue, is defined in a similar manner, but also doesn't make use of derivatives). A better analogy in math is the topological idea of a hole in a space. The only way to define one is dialectically: by pointing to the material "surrounding" the hole in order to describe and classify it.
If I may, although I am bringing up probably a problem that is explain more in depth later on. The core issue I have with his explanation of dialectics is that the examples given are at their core level, action and reaction for example is a phenomena that exists as a base part that has implications to the broader structure. While oppressor vs oppressed is based on the complexity of the greater whole of society, there is nuance to the greater structure that creates this. The two seem to be, at their core, fundamentally different.
Great explanation!!
Very useful information ❤
idk why you cited Stalin and Mao when you could easily have just cited Engels since he said almost verbatim what those other 2 said, down to talking about differentials and integrals. The only thing is that differentials and integrals weren't seen as contradictions, they were seen as results of the negation, and the negation of the negation.
@Cameron Thiele separate things. Stalin and Mao are way different type of rulers. All Hitler did for example, was write a book full of nonsensical racist megalomaniac thoughts, Mao and Stalin theorized about social changes using German philosophy. Is like saying "don't study Heidegger, he was a Nazi" but in a inverterd way.
@@Richallmight2 Stalin and Mao had shit theory, that's the thing. Reading Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" or Mao's "On Contradiction" is enough to show that they were dumb fucks.
@Cameron Thiele "genocidal maniacs", please study history too, not just philosophy
@@DiogoFerreira I don't agree, they basically do the same thing as marx but with diffrent perspectives thus reinforcing the legitimacy of him..
@Cameron Thiele These are not genocidial maniacs,, please use critical thinking...
I understand i should just read source material to get a better understanding, but as a newbie to a lot of this type of thinking about the world it came across as "the missle knows where it is because it knows where it isn't" type talking and became difficult to relate what you are talking about to the real world due to a lack of context and examples. If anyone has suggestions to get a better understanding of dialectics i would appreciate it (:
Nice video decently explained, tiny nitpick, i know this example was given by Mao, but technically speaking integrals and differentials are not contradictions, in the sense that you can one without the other, have a integrable function that is not differentiable (eg. Weirstrass Function), add to the the fact that they are (generally) not opposites, although they do complement each other, but as far as i am aware, that does not constitute a contradiction. Very good ilustration of the abstract concept of contradictions thougt!
Yes, maybe a better example could be intuitionism (math is discovered) or axiomatism (math is created).
Well done. Thank you for making this video!
BTW , DID someone read a book called ?, (Engels,maybe?)
Yes, a fine introduction, a few more videos on dialectics please.
Mao's New Democracy is based on the principles you outlined, is being practiced in China today, and has a lot in common with the cycle of qualitativequantitative social research.
Another simple example: (0) is one thing ((0)1) zero is a singular nothing if it is a singular nothing then it is one thing ((0)1), but now that I look at the final expression it looks as if I have actually have 2 things: 0 and 1. So, (((0)1)2). Good, now can you see how many thing we have now with the last set? If your answer is 3 then you are correct: 0, 1, 2 the latter are 3 elements. And on like that.
A summary of the process may also be understood as: affirmation, negation of the first term, then negation of that which negated the first term.
Thank you so much for this, it’s amazing!
I wonder if anyone has ever written a simulation of any phenomenon based on the more vague aspects of dialectics. I can see that the more concrete aspects are actually quite pervasive in programming, the redux architecture or category theory being primary examples.
tell yr a interested thing:when i was a child ,i'v always ask myself ,WHAT (the differene of the quantitative and qualitative).BUT NOW.,i finally find the truth.@The Marxist Project. THANK YOU!
WELL. YOU know, it just a little bit "TOUGH" for me...
Thank you and solidarity comrade
I love these weight lifting bars, how at hegel it starts in the sky, AKA god and at Marx it starts at earth, AKA Material, or the ground.
Another way of saying it, would be, that Hegel is Abgehoben, while Marx bleibt am boden.
Dialectic ~ dialect~ dia [two] lect [speech/lecture] ~ that an identical phenomenon can be referred to by a multitude of symbols, hence regional language dialects
Relative ~ relate ~ rei [thing] - lat [lateral] a definition of the phenomenon by means of adjacency, hence a cousin is a family relative.
The convention includes notions of how two people speaking the same language could have a completely different perspective on economic activity,
based on the fact that one grew up in a mansion, the other a slum. Each location reinforcing their predispositions, resulting in crisis of 'dialectic relativity'.
Fun fact: the entire reason Marx invented dialectical materialism is because Bruno Bauer dialecticly proved Jews could never be free-citizens in a modern State because doing so would involve the negation/abandonment of their Judaism. The more you know.
Your exposition is noteworthy; similar to a book that excelled in its field. "The Joy of Less: A Minimalist Living Guide" by Matthew Cove
I think this video is much better once you understand what the dialectic is for Marx and Hegel.
6:04
The proletariat and bourgeoisie do not switch places in socialism, as this would only change the form of class divide. The bourgeoisie must become members of the proletariat for the class struggle to end.
good work
Hegel used dialectics before Marx... he is also is the first to use contradictions in logic (before Marx)
Good, I want to add Hegelian dialectics wasn't the first philosophy to view nature as a connected, dynamic and contradictory, just the first Western philosophy to do so. Taoism most notably and it's idea of Yin/Yang is surprisingly analogous to dialectical thought and Taoism is much older.
Hey, great video. The last part regarding negation-of-the-negation and Althusser is not quite clear. Please make another video on Althusser, and how his theory was different from the orthodox theories.
Comrade you are doing a good job. Red salute
Are there other introductory texts on Marxist philosophy you would recommend? I'm a complete beginner so I only read Mao's "On Contradiction" because azureScapegoat recommended it, then I came here to see if I understood it correctly. I have a few problems understanding it, sorry for the wall of text:
First, the entire essay hinges on his idea of the "Universality of Contradiction," that "contradiction exists in the process of development of all things..." He states this without evidence, so I don't know if this is an axiom I'm supposed to just accept, or if there's any rational argument to support it. I feel that this essay fails to rationally support that claim (I explain later) although I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about this.
Next, the examples Mao uses (+ and - numbers, integral and differential, action and reaction, class struggle) seemed at first to be a good illustration of the concept, until I read further down where he says we need to find the "principal aspect" of a contradiction; he states "Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary." But what is the "principal" aspect of the contradiction of + and - numbers? Of integrals and derivatives? Of combination and dissociation of atoms? I understand that each aspect can only exist with the other aspect, each one defines the other. But the idea that one aspect of a contradiction is somehow "principal" over the other doesn't make any sense.
When I buy something at the store, I'm giving away money which can be seen as a negative number, but simultaneously the cashier receives the same amount of money as a positive number, so how is one of those aspects "principal" over the other? In some chemical reactions atoms bond to each other, and in other reactions they dissociate, so how is one of those aspects "principal" over the other?
I have the same criticism about most of his examples. I can only see how his "principal aspect" ideas makes sense in the context of a class struggle, or the struggle of China against imperialism. Mao wants China to triumph over imperialism, and he wants the proletariat to triumph over the bourgeoisie, so it seems that he's trying to use the concept of contradictions to justify his political goals, trying to make it sound like there is some universal truth behind what he is doing.
I have the same issue with his idea of "antagonism" in contradictions. The usual meaning of the word "antagonism" goes beyond a simple contradiction; it implies dislike or hostility. Again, none of his examples (+ and - numbers, action and reaction, etc) make any sense here. The idea that numbers or chemical reactions can be "antagonistic" to each other sounds ridiculous. Inanimate objects cannot dislike each other. Mao says "with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic." So some contradictions are not antagonistic by nature, while others are? Then he seems to agree with my point, but if he really believed that, then why place antagonistic contradictions in the same category as non-antagonistic ones? Are they not different concepts?
Again, the class struggle makes perfect sense here, but none of his other examples make sense. So once again it seems that the antagonism between social classes is the real reason Mao wrote this essay in the first place, in order to further his political goals. He says "social revolution is not only entirely necessary but also entirely practicable" (trying to justify a revolution in China) and calls this a "scientific truth" however he does not cite any scientific literature other than Marx. I find his statement towards the end, that "if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them, there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism" to be concerning. This no longer sounds like a philosophical essay, but instead a political call to action and a warning to his opponents.
If particular examples of contradictions are so different from each other that his ideas about principal aspects, antagonisms, etc. don't actually apply to all of his own examples, then I don't believe that they all belong in the same category. His use of the word "contradiction" is confusing, most people use that word to mean a logical contradiction or impossibility, not any pair of things that oppose one another (although I don't know if that's because he used a more precise term in Chinese that has no good English translation).
If the purpose of this essay was simply to make the common-sense claim that lots of things oppose each other in nature and science, then this essay would have been one tenth the length, it would not have mentioned the communist party of China or any specific people in it, and it would have cited more scientific literature, not just Marx and Lenin.
But if the purpose is to convince the reader that we need a socialist revolution, then I believe it would be easier to understand if he just titled the essay "On Class Antagonism" and deleted all the unsubstantiated fluff about "Universality."
I would say that with such completely abstract concepts of plus and minus, it is difficult or even impossible to determine the principal. If we accept the principal aspect as the one that goes the furthest in characterizing the nature of the contradiction, we can see it more readily in more tangible situations though. As you alluded to in the grocery example, the principal may differ from your vantage point internal to the situation. Sometimes the principal is obvious and sometimes it is slight.
Take the exploiter and exploited contradiction though. In this case, I would say the exploiter is the principal; the exploiter benefits from the imbalance of power. It is capable of dramatically reshaping the nature of the relationship, if it pleases.
These are just my thoughts. I'm not speaking as an expert here.
Also, your understanding about "contradiction" and "antagonism" is just incorrect. Contradiction has nothing to do with logical inconsistency. It is a broader term than that. And antagonism does not imply "dislike" of something. Again, it is a much broader term. They both have uses in many arenas. Your assumptions about them are likely just due to unfamiliarity with them in a broader arena.
One more thing: It's also not just that "a lot of things oppose each other in nature." It's that contradiction is fundamental to their existence. You can't have addition without subtraction. You can't have force without an equal and opposite force. You can't have an exploiter without exploited. The contradiction is inextricable from the understanding, or even the existence of that thing. Marx, Mao, and Lenin are extending this concept to the social realm to help understand historical development and class struggle.
You are on to something 🙃 This is all derivative of Plato's realm of the ideal. Which Aristotle plainly stated, has no reality for the senses and must therefore be rejected. You could call it Mysticism, Gnosticism, or Alchemy (as Hegel did). It is all speculative. Interestingly, none of these guys understood cultural Anthropology the way it is understood today. Marx claimed, our original condition was egalitarianism. There are very few examples of this amongst primitive cultures. Most have a separation of responsibilities and tribal conflicts, unless they live in isolation.
There is no ideal society.
There is no Utopia.
@@SteveSpears-Kuhlah can you elaborate on the anthropological mistakes of these thinkers ?
Ty for this channel. I love the plant example
To understand dialectic you need to study Science of Logic by Hegel. He is idealist, but marxists can interpert his logic as materialistic. It is hard to understand at the beginning, it need to be studied for several times, but it is compendium, the shortest path to dialectics.
great video, love this channel
Isn't this what Materialism is? Or what is the difference between dialectics and materialism?
simply, dialectics is a method of cognizance, but materialism is a method of interpretation
Well done.
Let me risk a materialist example with Newton. An object is inert unless acted upon a force (affirmation), negation = some object at "x" velocity hits it, negation of negation the inert object will move by the force of the impact, and (an extra) the object that impacted the first (affirming itself) will be negated by an equal and opposite reaction (force) in the inert object so its course will also change.
is there a dumbed down version of this?
This is super helpful thank you for making it
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 12:11
Tho I’m chemistry I would propose concept of equilibrium, as it describes future relationships of matter through its current state… 3:13
I believe that 'dialectics' is a singular noun, despite what Merrriam-Webster says. The Latin form of the Greek term, like 'natura'/ 'physics'', looked like a plural but was treated as a singular noun. Dialectica, from διαλεκτική. Note: You say elsewhere, "dialectics was...." and "dialectics includes...." and "dialectics transforms....". Your explanation of Dialectics is an excellent one. I never knew that Máo Zédōng wrote a book on Dialectics; thanks! It's available here in English: tinyurl.com/zmroflo
@Jeffrey Long You can't believe how many times I''ve refrained from making a grammatical comment, fearing to be branded a "grammar Nazi". Something that's rampant on the social media now is the use of the preterite (simple past) for the past participle, in such phrases as, "I have saw" and "they have went". I often ask people who use 'u'/'U' for 'you' whether they're Dutch, because that's how "you" is written in Nederlands (Dutch); and that's just laziness (saving two letters!).
Now this is quality content , thanks tovarish !
i just realized that MARX and ENGELS ARE THE REAL EXAMPLES OF DIALECTICS.
Can you make a video on the examples of dialectics in modern world events?
Thank you
Interestingly, material dialectics overlaps with basic Buddhist concepts of emptiness and interdepedence (emergent phenomenon), impermanence, the relative and the absolute, and the pedagogical use of contradictions to inquire into greater truths. Perhaps Marx was influenced by Buddihism? Apparent quote from Marx, "I have become myself a sort of walking stick, running up and down the whole day, and keeping my mind in that state of nothingness which Buddhism considers the climax of human bliss."
I've been talking about this stuff for a while now i didnt know that it had a name the only difference about what I was talking about is that there's a third part that exists
The third thing is what exists in a state of limbo in-between the 2 sides like at the end marx was material and the other guy was thought the 3rd thing would be existing on both extremes at the same time
I also had this idea cemented into my brain after taking shrooms and realizing that the material was God and thought was Satan and I only thought that bc they're opposite of each other and one shows complete order and the other shows complete chaos
Helen Keller described the profound, multifaceted existential change in her entire concept of the world and her own self awareness brought about by finally having words for things. She said her world was at first simply an amorphous cloud of experience, desire, repulsion, instinct and reaction. Learning that there were words with which to label and modularize the world suddenly caused crystalized forms to emerge from the fog.
Ive had a sense of what dialectics describe for quite a while now. A rough understanding of somewhat analogous scientific concepts has been the best I could do (emergence theory, for example).
Slowly beginning to understand dialectical materialism is causing shapes to emerge from the fog for me. Its honestly a little unnerving seeing your worldview change before your eyes.
Ive been an anarchist for 2 decades, but only payed real attention to theory for the last 8 or 10 years (once I got clean and sober). Im a pretty big fan of democratic confederalism at the moment but I can imagine myself drifting toward some sort of modern communism as I learn. I do feel like a lot of it is a bit outdated but the concepts can be adequately translated to the 21st century.
This is all obviously a process so who knows where I'll be in a couple years but acceptance of the ethical validity or necessity of hard institutional authority is a big hurdle for me.
i gave it a try, but man this video made me so glad I studied science instead of philosophy
If I'm understand this correctly, dialectics somewhat like not having one sided arguments -kinda.
I haven't learned much yet, but at the moment, I think it's something like using opinions from different views to find out the truth.
with this understanding of dialectics, I almost agree with it. I don't agree with using *opinions* to find the *truth.*
I think that we should use opinions from different views to find a compromise or and understanding of each other, rather than be stubborn or one sided.
I think that finding truth through opinions is pointless and inefficient, unless it is a "truth" built from opinions. Truths built from opinions are rare and often reside in the mind. They are not material things, they are thoughts.
I'll probably learn more about this later, I've currently found another idea that is similar to what I think. This idea is very similar to what I think. So I'll learn about Nietzche first, then I'll look into this more.
Workers of the world unite!
The tranformation between quantitative and qualitative is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. The example assumes that the only thing that's heppening in the plant is a quantitative process, but that's clearly not the case because something is innitating the change that's not taken into account by merely counting cells. What is considered quntifiable is just what the observer elects to count. The same can be done after it sprouts; one can continue counting cells, or even time. The observer doesn't necessarily know what's most meaningful about any given process. I don't think it can't be said that something goes from a fundementally quantitative state to a fundementally qualitative state.
Not to say there isn't something there, because I do beleive there are inflection points, like in the plant or phase transition examples you give. This principle can also be seen in star formation or in the weak nuclear force. Another place I see an inflection point is with people. We have evolved instincts how to manage families and small groups, but not sociaties. I beleive there is an inflection point where our intutions break down. I think the idea from each's need to each's ability is a nice intuitive sentiment that we evolved, but I am skeptical that it can scale based on the principle that you laid out in this video.
This is way too complex for conservatives. Need to simplify it.
i dont get it ether its ok
@@novinceinhosic3531 well im a pasent so thank you comrade i will read ir
It isn't really meant for conservatives
@@silverthered why not what do you haw agients conservecocks reding thory its ok for libtars to read it so why not them
@silverthered I wish conservatives would bother to learn about Marxism from Marxists, instead of just, marx bad, Stalin Ukraine, Mao famine, North Korea, vuvuzela
v well explained
Great video!
It might be useful to create a few videos disabusing people on the internet of some of the many current popular misconceptions about Marxism.
Though I'm fine with your more meaty videos like this one.
Everything in the physical world has two poles. Protons and electrons. Plus and minus. North and south. If only material is considered apart from spiritual things then all things can be understood by dialectic mechanisms.
The world is more than just two.
Thanks.it is presented in a simple, mind catchings way though the subject matter is complex one.
Great video!!
Good video.
I love the connections of dialectics to Taoism! Many of these concepts are already intuitive to me because I've became acquainted to them by Taoist wisdom years ago xD
However. as.some.people.say, that
Daoist dialectic has 2 parts, thesis &anti
European Greek German French other Chinese
dialectic has 3 parts
1 version of dialectic has 2 parts, called
thesis & antithesis
Another version of dialectic has 3 parts---
3rd part is called synthesis, where as result of contradiction
part of thesis & part of antithesis combine, other part of
thesis & antithesis disappear, & new innovation
part appears. All.these changes belong to
new synthesis part.
A few years ago I tried to design a housing cooperative and was frustrated by advice to set up different tiers or levels based on income or some other fee structure but I felt that implementing a class system in a project ostensibly designed to provide housing would only exacerbate existing contradictions.
Can the dialectical process also occur in the ideal or solely in the material?
this was way to abstract for me. i needed more examples like the seed - sapling -tree. at a certain point the words didn't make sense anymore.
Commenting to help the everything
Would an example of dialectics in programming be something like "compilation" and "decompilation"? Or like "function" and "invocation"? There may be many examples. "Consumer" (like a subscriber) and "producer" (like a publisher).
It's all made up sophistry based on alchemy, remember hegel was n alchemist, so take your pick🤷🏼♂️
@@lukedavis6711 yes. Understanding reality is a matter of using language (socially constructed) to express perspective (subjective). Some people enjoy poetry. I enjoy philosophy. I'm just saying... There is a proper way to use the tool.
@@bgiv2010 I'm saying there is no proper way. Kant, Hegel, and Marx were winging it on the notion of dialectic. Infact on the problem of infinite regress in material dialect Marx, in the economic and philosophic manuscripts, told his reader if you dont ask the question it isnt a problem. Dialect isn't precise like the laws of boolean algebra or graph theory; its purposely vague which makes it seem like it's really deep when it isnt even superficial.
@@lukedavis6711 "the proper way, as described by Hegel". I'm not looking for an objective truth. It's like I'm asking how to play tic-tac-toe and you're telling me there are no rules. If there are no rules, then fine? I'll just have to read the source. Good day.
@@bgiv2010 it's like he pretends hes playing tic tac toe but that the reason you cant figure out the rules to his game is bc hes so much smarter than you
So basically is like a ying-yang? One cannot exists without the other?
No. Not a ying and yang, it's not metaphysical. Ying and yang are about harmony. There is one principle in dialectics about the unity of opposite, but it's about the way elements of situation, or contradictions, are not in harmony and produce new situations.
It's too long for me to explain in the comments. If you read this for about 10 minutes you'll get it... read this: www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Actually Lao Tzu was one of the first founders of dialectics. I remember reading this in a note in which Engels discusses how Heraclitus was the first dialectician, but the note correcting it was in fact Lao Tzu.
Taoism, as a natural philosophy, is dialectical, like the Hegelian. It is a sort of pantheism which embraces the interconnection of all things, but also embraces idealism and mysticism.
These videos are really good... Does anyone know who this is put out by?
Subscribed
great video! Do you have sources ?
first video in this series where i've wanted to punch my computer screen
I'm curious how any one particular contradiction is identified as the "principal contradiction", and whether such an identification is not itself an undialectical construct. I've seen too many arguments around feminism , racism, imperialism get shut down because some big brain marxist says "ah but THAT is not the principal contradiction so we should not waste time struggling around it"
There is a very good video from the youtuber noncompete, it's title is which is worse, capitalism or racism. Or at least along those lines. Give a pretty good breakdown of the base/superstructure idea. It definitely helped me understand it.
None of this is to say that those should be ignored though.
Can you do a video on dialectics of science
cant everything just be boiled down to the fundamental forces of physics and then you dont have any qualitative changes. Like i wouldn't say the seed is any different from the plant other than just being further down the line in time
The part about the seed is not trying to explain the physics of how the seed sprouts. Yes physical phenomena can be boiled down to fundamental forces of physics. But what the example is illustrating is not the specifics of those fundamental forces in the specific case of seeds work but the relationship over time and how change occurs. Change occurs quantitatively and then this opens the possibility of change quantitatively. It's not trying to explain the fundamental physics of plants it's using them as a metaphor for change more generally. First a quantity might change, like the number of poor, out of work men in a society that is economically unstable or the power which an oppressed minority has within it. Then this quantitative change in the structure of who makes up that society will result in a qualitative change: say a war, a civil war or a revolution.
The seed is qualitatively different because it is further down the line in time and because it has grown to the point where it can no longer physically continue to exist as a seed. It has been quantitatively been set down a path that will lead to it qualitatively becoming a different thing ie. a sprout. It is qualitatively no longer possible at that point of gestation for it to remain a seed.
You can have qualitative change without quantitative. For example, a pile of bricks; you rearrange them and you get a house. Same quantity, different quality.
I'm not sure I want to dispute the first part of your comment, but, in regards to your example, I think that it's not quite accurate to identify the pile of bricks and the house as existing within the same system. That pile of bricks does not necessarily function solely as the means of building the house. You could say that the quantitative change occurs when you begin to arrange the bricks into a meaningful structure. At first you place one brick, then two, and so on. By adding bricks to the structure you are quantitatively altering it, but you do not achieve the quality change until the quantitative process has been completed.
Was there something wrong with the scientific method?
Fantastic.
Can i get that instrumental for a fee maybe in your video?
I didnt understand a single thing. The example with boiling water was somewhat strange. What do you the quality of water changes when it becomes steam. It is still H20. I dont get it without examples. Please give me 6 examples to explain the theory and how the theory explains the examples. I understand better with multiple examples that are very different.
Thnak you in advance