/lit/ - Literature

The categories are incredibly shallow and reductionist and not-true, it also completely ignores the vital role of history as experience
Furthermore, their analysis of Asia is laughable though later Marxists tried to improve on it
Lastly and most importantly, their teleology is a nonsense and relies on actively ignoring a lot of sources to maintain

>>16191505
moves in a spiral but there's only 2 points and it goes both ways, so basically the powers that be interact with the means of production, wow marx, very based

>>16191548
>history as experience
explain? I agree about with you about the teleological dimension in marxs's thought though - but i think his wishful thinking is unessential to the basic economic insight of dialectical materialism as displayed in OP's graph.

>>16191505
Obviously it's more complicated than the chart but the one criticism is that it never states the origin of the base or superstructure. Its a lot like chicken or the egg

>>16191505
>there doesn't seem to be even a singular moment of history that doesn't follow the laws of history as described by Marx and Engels

you must be a religious fanatic.

>>16191505
Can you make a prediction that would falsify his model? Some instance of the superstructure dominating the base or something?

>>16192752
Instances were this has been attempted invariably fail within a short period of time, for example the third reich.

>>16191505
Genetics don't give a flying fuck about dialectics whatsoever.

>>16191505
>Is it even possible to argue against dialectical materialism?
Yea it doesn't work.

>>16192759
Genetic expression is to a large extent determined by environment, i.e. material conditions. Try again.

>>16192758
I don't understand quite how the third reich is supposed to be a prediction about superstructure/base interaction, and it was moreover destroyed by outside elements making it not very useful as a case study. My question was what sort of prediction can we make that would theoretically falsify the model if we got a certain outcome.

>>16192777
>not knowing the basics of genetics
a shame those trips were wasted on a brainlet
educate yourself

>>16192777
No, I'm saying that they are indifferent to dialectical arguments. If it doesn't benefit them to believe in material conditions, they will seek an understanding that omits them. Same with believing in material conditions; you only see those conditions because your genes want to see them.

>>16191505
>doesn't seem to be even a singular moment of history that doesn't follow the laws of history as described by Marx and Engels.
Check out how historians busted their balls trying to explain African history with modes of production.

>>16191505
>history is reducible to material
No, if you have taken a World History course in highschool you would know better.

>>16191505
The reality is all such broad categories such as "dialectical materialism" are just memes that re-inforce whatever viewpoint one already holds a-priory. It's somewhat akin to religion in terms that it offers a viewpoint from which the world can be understood but it's not actually anything scientific or testable. Of course, Marxism has almost without failure influenced an unprecendented amount of chaos and death, so it is quite likely that as a thought system comes from Satan, especially so since it is a classic forgery of authentic religious experience ie it does what Satan always does in attempting to mimic God, it replaces a religious and uplifting lens through which one can view the world, the author of which is God himself, with a materialistic and destructive one which is directly in opposition to God.

>>16191505
>1. For the anthropo-Marxists, the economic instance is also present and determinant in primitive society, it is merely "hidden", "latent", whereas for us it is manifest. This difference is judged to be secondary, however; the analysis does not stop and passes without meeting any opposition onto its materialist discourse.

>2. For the anthropo-psychoanalysts, the agency of the unconscious is also present and determinant in primitive society; it is simply manifested, externalised, whereas for us it is "latent", "repressed". This difference remains inessential, however, and the analysis continues without disguising its discourse in terms of the unconscious.

BTFO.

>>16191505
>there doesn't seem to be even a singular mo-
nothing personal, kid

>>16191505
It's not possible to rationally argue against nonsense.

e

>>16191548
>teleology
strawman

>>16193586
meme 'counterexample'

>>16191774
Read Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger

>>16195341
The distinction between dialectic and teleological methodology is a fiction.

>>16191823
It would be stronger if that were the case. Marx and Engles identified the mode of production as the determinant in the last instance, so every attempt that they made to distance themselves from accusations of economic reductionism falls flat as a result.

>>16192777
The role of epigenetic modification is not only overstated in the argument that you're trying to make, but also largely reliant upon genetics in the first place.

>>16195387
I have - Heidegger's "historicality" lends itself extremely well to being interpreted on the basis of dialectical materialism no? Marcuse wrote some early works on this subject, collected in the volume "heideggerian marxism". Also heidegger himself wrote in the letter on humanism something like "the marxian theory of history is the best one yet thought".

>>16192758
the third reich didn't "fail" it was killed

>>16191505
>Is it even possible to argue against dialectical materialism? No matter how hard I look, there doesn't seem to be even a singular moment of history that doesn't follow the laws of history as described by Marx and Engels.

Dialectical materialism is a claim that all reality is ordered dialectically and is therefore idealism.

Historical materialism is a claim that all man's social relations, and possibly man himself, are ordered dialectically, and is thus demonstrable.

Don't misuse these terms.

>>16193324
material has a fairly specific meaning in Marxism as the "concrete productive relations between people." Wage labour is material. Fox News' content is ideology.

>>16195395
>surdeterminancy is determinancy
Go kill your wife again, Althusser.

>>16195351
It debunks dialectical materialism

>>16195727
Non-class society voluntary significant constructions don't debunk historical materialism.

Dialectical materialism debunks itself because there are no "subjects" outside of human relations.

>>16191505
>dialectical
Not really
>materialism
Sure. Just another step, a thesis or an antithesis. Phenomenology is it's counter, and the synthesis will be a true AI.

>>16191505
The base for society are your people. You can have all the tools, all the riches and ressources but if your population consists of complete retards, it won't amount for shit (see Africa)

>>16195797
>there are no "subjects" outside of human relations
Gobleki is a perfect example of this

>>16196049
I assume you're agreeing with me, mate, because if you're not then you're citing shite down your own throat.

As I assume you claim, Gobleki is an example of the possibility of human relations for large scale endeavour without class. Aboriginal song lines are another example, or burn culture. Or the fish traps.

Now Kropotkin's argument about social surplus' negative effects in mutual aid is cogent; but, none of this posit that electrons interact dialectically. Only that subjects in culture do. Not some "ideal independent culture," but humans engaged in subsistence are dialectical. Thus: historical materialism.

>>16191505
The Russian Revolution was a serious breakage of the system.
They went straight from Feudalism to Communism, no intermediary Capitalism.

Anyway, read False Necessity by Unger to see why dialectical materialism is fucking stupid.

>>16196049
>>16196085
Gobekli Tepe.
Not Gobleki. That sounds like a Pollack's last name

>>16196085
Gobekli is a simple and concrete example of superstructurally mediated representation of material relations prior to their (retroactive) existence.

>>16196117
Yeah this was the data set I was riffing off mate. Complex post-class interactions are possible, as pre-class complex interactions indicate. Sure, it might be garbage in 3/4th of the rooms of the city.

As past.

It's a shitty model that barely explains 19th century Germany, and fails at that.
>a secret cabal ruling the world is creating literally everything that isn't Marxist Revolution in order to prevent you from doing Marxist Revolution
lmfao

>>16192814
REminder to the expert geneticist that Capitalism is dysgenic. Genes don't search perfection, but reproduction. A savana lion, is more "perfect" than a domesticated labrador, but guess which one, between the savana lion, and the labrador, has a better chance for survival, and population growth?
Our primitive tribe ancestors, had way better quality DNA.
Idiocracy was a documentary.

>>16195727
Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, you cannot prove what exactly happened at Gobekli Tepe. I have a personal explanation, but /lit is not the place to write about it.

>>16196684
They're both evolved for their environment. They're both "just as evolved".

>>16196139
Not true if the material condition changed. E.G: hyper abundance of food, somehow, allowing the new superstructure. Also, a foreign influence would negate your thinking.

>>16191505
It neglects race

>>16192777
That's epigenetics, dumbo.

>>16192815
Genes don't want. They only and exclusively code for proteins. Back to school, fool.

>>16196732
>They're both evolved for their environment. They're both "just as evolved".
That's flattering for Capitalism. Peak human condition. Peak adaptation.

>>16196874
No, fat Armenians are not perfectly evolved from Capitalism (actually Liberalism). That would be something like the Han, or Jews.