Repeating something over and over isn’t going to make it true. Throughout this discussion, you’ve consistently avoided engaging with what I’ve said to you and kept misrepresenting what I said. I did not avoid anything here. I simply rejected your misrepresentation of what I said.

Wow, this is literally what I was saying a couple of comments ago. You have “engaged” so much with what has been said to you that you can’t even point out the flaws in my comments and can only attempt to reflect your own mistakes at me.

I do not use Fchtean dialectics in diamat, but you’re clearly going to keep repeating that

Well, I am only repeating that because you keep avoiding it. And you might say that you are not using Fichtean dialectics but there is a source that disproves you on that, your own post:

Dialectical Materialism describes the cyclical process of development where an initial thesis is countered by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that retains aspects of both but transcends them to a new level.

In case you didn’t make a quick search (which would be on character), from the very first paragraph on Fichte in Wikipedia:

Fichte was also the originator of thesis–antithesis–synthesis, an idea that is often erroneously attributed to Hegel.

Back to you, on your text linked at the top of this post:

Finally, the principle of the “negation of the negation” describes a spiral of development where a thesis is challenged by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that incorporates elements of both. (Chapter 8)

A mishmash of an attempt to explain Hegelian concepts using Fichtean logic, the fine work of a true muddler.

So even tough you might claim to not use Fichtean dialectics in diamat, your own writing proves otherwise, I wonder why that is.

There is no point trying to have a good faith discussion with such characters. Bye.

And there it is, the ultimate way of avoiding your mistakes, blaming others and turning away, no surprises here.

If there is anything out of this discussion that I hope has become clear to you, it is that if you are going to write a text on a matter that you don’t understand, only to stroke your own ego, be aware that there might be people out there that have actually studied it and will call you out on your mistakes.

Well, that is one way to attempt to avoid a question, but it’s definitely not subtle.

I don’t think it is necessary for me to add more to the “materialism” side of this discussion considering the amount of times I’ve pointed out your idealism or agnosticism in this thread, while also leaving a great source on the matter which was Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”.

But what I am asking you now is about Dialectics and if you could possibly give an example of a Marxist source that actually uses Fichtean dialectics, another example of sophistry was not necessary, it’s the other Greek word that you are lacking of.

Considering you continue to try to avoid a crucial part of this discussion, I will repeat the question once more: Why do you use Fichtean “thesis–antithesis–synthesis” in diamat?

Why do you use Fichtean dialectics in diamat? Why use contradictions as “thesis–antithesis–synthesis”? Where did you learn that? Have you found a Marxist author using it like I asked you to link me 3 months ago? Do you just replace Hegelian Dialectics or try to mesh both? If you claim that to you the abstraction of “third order” isn’t the conclusion what is the “synthesis” then?

The fact that you think the word salad you wrote corrected anything really says all I need to know. Simply regurgitating things you’ve read does not constitute genuine understanding of the subject you’re attempting to debate. You are utterly incapable in engaging with an argument you’re presented with in good faith and you use sophistry in lieu of argument. I’ve said all I have to say to you.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, so much so that it becomes very ironic that it came from you, so I will just give my last point, which was also my first one, but has been skillfully avoided so far.

Why do you use Fichtean dialectics in diamat? Why use contradictions as “thesis–antithesis–synthesis”? Where did you learn that? Have you found a Marxist author using it like I asked you to link me 3 months ago? Do you just replace Hegelian Dialectics or try to mesh both? If you claim that to you the abstraction of “third order” isn’t the conclusion what is the “synthesis” then?

I made this point literally on my first comment on this thread, and yet it has never been responded by you. Personally, I think that your muddle might be plenty enough for other matters, but in this one your separation from Marxist Dialectical Materialism is so crystal clear that avoiding it entirely was the only way to maintain your ownership of the truth, so you just looked away and pretended it wasn’t there.

So I will end my argumentation by bringing even more attention to what you have avoided the most: Why do you use Fichtean “thesis–antithesis–synthesis” in diamat?

Given that I grew up in USSR, this is the most hilarious thing I’ve been told in a while.

Well, that explains a lot actually. One could argue that growing up in after 60’s USSR, a person would be influenced by revisionist ideologies similar to those commonly associated with the infamous western “leftist”, one could also argue that the fact that a person who grew up there can’t differentiate between agnostic structuralism and dialectical materialism to be an example of a contradiction that played an important part in it’s downfall. But here I will do neither for that would only make things more complex, and the if current simpler discussion is already this muddled, nothing would be clear in a more complex one.

You continue to put words in my mouth while ignoring what I’m actually saying. (…) Except I did not claim the other way around anywhere. What I said is that internal contradictions are influenced by external factors.

What you actually said:

many of the contradictions within USSR were a result of the fact that USSR was under siege by the capitalist world.

I am sorry that you dislike the taste of the words in your mouth, but you cannot blame me for they being there, if anything you are trying after the fact to change what you put there in the first place. But it doesn’t matter if you try now to claim that “many of the contradictions within USSR were a result of the fact that USSR was under siege by the capitalist world.” means the same as " the very real internal deficiencies within communist systems were exacerbated by unrelenting external attacks", the inverted philosophical logic in changing “the external affecting the contradictions” to “the external resulting in the contradictions” makes the difference between yours and Parentis philosophical standpoint pretty clear.

If anything I am the one who could be complaining about words being put in others mouths, for the only thing you could claim that I have been ignoring so far is your continuous attempt to pin on me an argument that the external doesn’t influence the internal contradictions, something I’ve never said in any comment, since it would’ve been unmaterialistic of me. The only thing that I am ignoring are your attempts of putting words in my mouth, which I shall continue to do so.

As a matter of fact this discussion started with me saying that your (structuralistic) separation between the contradictions and their solutions, leaving the latter to an out of the system third order, due to the misuse of (Fichtean) dialectics was a mistake, which I’m still claiming, except that now I can name more clearly and correctly the source of your mistakes, for as a dialectical materialist I try to study and correct my mistakes about what I’m saying rather than just trying to create the truth.

For a dialectical materialist abstractions are only part of the process of the understanding in our minds, not the conclusion of the process in reality, so if anyone can be blamed for creating a separation that doesn’t exist it is only the agnostic of us.

Maybe you should spend a bit of time to actually understand what dialectical materialism is instead of writing pseudo intellectual comments.

Considering that throughout this discussion I have already mentioned multiple times sources of Marxists writers on my points and your mistakes, while all you’ve brought so far is a misquoted Parenti quote (which I corrected) and your self-given ownership of the truth, I don’t think I need to say who is being pseudo something and should spend more time reading rather than writing.

As an example, many of the contradictions within USSR were a result of the fact that USSR was under siege by the capitalist world. The phenomenon Parenti refers to as siege communism.

At first I was shocked of reading this, on a ML instance of all places, to take Parenti’s siege socialism and attempt to make it as the result of some kind of struturalistc analysis feels unbelievable, but considering that our discussion has been around the fact that you’d rather use an agnostic analysis over a materialistic one, and that you don’t follow Hegelian dialectics and therefore the term “contradiction” means whatever you want, it’s then possible to see how one could claim such absurdities.

Let’s then actually quote the man himself:

One reason siege socialism could not make the transition to consumer socialism is that the state of siege was never lifted. As noted in the previous chapter, the very real internal deficiencies within communist systems were exacerbated by unrelenting external attacks and threats from the Western powers. (Blackshirts and Reds, p.74)

Parenti literally wrote that the external influences exacerbated the internal contradictions already present within the system, because he was using dialectical materialism and therefore saw first the existence of internal contradictions and then those being affected by the external influences, not the other way around as you claimed.

I need to say, having never had a discussion with a western “leftist” before, even though I somewhat knew what to expect, it is still impressive seeing it first hand how one can believe to make no mistakes and their arguments don’t require any proof since they personally own the truth, thinking that repeated enough times anything they say will become real.

Leaving that aside, this recent discussion has left me with a question which I look forward to the answer. If you can dismiss dialectical materialism so easily in favor of a struturalistic analysis, and don’t care about Hegelian dialectics, why were you writing about diamat in the first place?

Sorry to bother you again with this conversation after 3 months have passed, but this sentence has come back to me a couple of times during this period due to how poorly it was dealt with by me, and just how it crucial it was to our discussion, so I will now attempt to correct that.

Structuralism differs form Marxism in that it tries to take Marxist advancements on sociology and understanding of the structures of society while refuting the knowability of the internal contradictions within said society, therefore negating the existence of the internal contradiction that lead to capitalism’s demise. They claim that the problems of capitalist society are consequences of poor implementation of the system, and consequently believe that with just a change in policies and general politics the problems can be fixed, therefore it is the philosophy which gives birth to reformists.

The way that structuralism achieves that separation from Marxist conclusions is by following the agnostic logic of compromising materialism with idealism, in its specific case, it is Marxist sociology with fichtean subjective idealism, it turns Fichte “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” into reality-ideas-structures.

Out of the top of wikipedia’s page on structuralism: "Structuralism is “The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations.”. (Things are unknowable but their interrelations are knowable, classic agnostic muddle.)

Out of the top of wikipedia’s page on Post-structuralism: “Structuralism proposes that human culture can be understood by means of a structure that is modeled on language. As a result, there is concrete reality on the one hand, abstract ideas about reality on the other hand, and a “third order” that mediates between the two.” (reality-ideas-structures.)

Looking back in our discussion, you said “I’m not sure there’s much value separating external and internal conditions though as both ultimately feed into the system.”, but to study a thing with Dialectical Materialism it is a necessary step to separate from its current context in order to discover its internal contradictions, which is why in his texts Marx himself does so many abstractions, to allow him to understand the internal movements of things.

The condition that materialism demands of every theory, that it must be put to the test of reality, does not mean that one shouldn’t use abstractions when creating said theory, in fact it is quite the opposite if we look at Marxism.

Looking even further into our discussion, we can see that it went through this contradiction where I was attempting to simplify things in order to make more apparent the differences between philosophies, mentioning eggs, water, etc., while you kept complicating matters by bringing more complex and bigger things, such as society, environment, etc., making the discussion less clear and hiding misunderstandings behind big words.

While it did annoy me at the time, which lead to my last comment, I can now understand that it wasn’t personal, it is of philosophical necessity that agnosticism muddles things, for when the matter being dealt with is clear and simple, the separation that it tries to create between knowable and unknowable loses all reasoning, which is why we can’t just discuss over an egg hatching into a chicken, we must to consider how the “chicken will proceed to eat food, produce waste, and so on. It’s part of the environment, and it has a direct effect on the environment.” and therefore we can only comprehend it as a structure and not its specific parts, as Lenin would say, pure muddle.

Having explained all this, it would be incoherent of me to leave the same books recommendations as I did last time, considering we can now see that the divergence comes before we get to dialectics, it is between materialism and agnosticism, I will then recommend a single book on the matter, Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”. Even though it was written before Structuralism was a thing, it goes on such great detail on the differences between the logic of materialism and agnosticism in general (and idealism as well) that it provides the best method of understanding what separates those fields of philosophy.

May this help you to comprehend the differences between philosophies and the necessity that materialism has of objective knowledge and it’s complete compromise with the truth, Good Luck comrade.

Good answer, comrade 🫡

It is always important to remember to think current situations in a materialistic way, and not fall for the idealistic lie that propaganda alone is able to “brainwash” or “control” people.

Thanks, that’s what I was looking for, crazy that I’ve never heard of it or of the author.

Thanks for the recommendations. I actually started searching for a critique after seeing how many of those philosophers call themselves Marxists or post, all the while covering with the most idealistic BS the advances that Marx brought to Philosophy and Sociology.

Personally, I don’t see the point of going in circles in this discussion, so I’ll just add my two last notes:

First, I want to again make very clear that my entire point since the first comment has been around the misuse of Fichte’s “thesis–antithesis–synthesis” in the place of Hegel’s study of “the inner life and self-movement”, and the consequences of this. I do want to add the if you know a Marxist author that uses the Fichtean method in a book, please send a link to me, for I would definitely need to read it.

Speaking of books, lastly I want to recommend the books that I read that deal with the dialectical method as I’ve been describing: F. Engels - “Socialism Utopian and Scientific”; F. Engels - “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy”; J. Stalin - “Dialectical and Historical Materialism”; M. Cornforth - “Materialism and the Dialectical Method”; Mao - “Five Essays on Philosophy”; V. Adoratsky - “The Theoretical Foundation of Marxism-Leninism”; V.I. Lenin - “Karl Marx”; G. Plekhanov - “Materialismus Militans”; G. Plekhanov “In Defense of Materialism”.

Hopefully you will find within yourself to read, and maybe reread, those books so that the methodological mistake you’ve been making so far may be a thing of the past, good luck on this process comrade.

Actually it’s the other way around, the framework is given by the contradictions and therefore internally, while the pressures that affect them are usually external, the combination of both is what leads the system’s evolution.

I think I understand pretty clearly what you mean, and it’s slightly incorrect, the contradictions are the “tracks” that guide the evolution caused by other forces, and as such the shape of those contradictions is given internally, but the actual “location” within those “tracks” is given mostly externally.

Hence the example from Mao about the egg and the rock, the internal contradictions from the egg are what allow it to become a chicken in the correct temperature (the external influence that leads to that contradiction), but regardless of what you do externally to it, a rock that doesn’t have that internal contradiction will never be able to become a chicken.

I wanted to add a classic example of Marxist contradiction, and thought it would be good to use the contradiction between socialized production and private property of the means of production, that contradiction by itself doesn’t do anything, only when inserted in the capitalistic mode of production that it will cause so that the production as whole creates poor resource distribution, inequality, crisis, etc., so to try and fix the production as a whole we could fix this one contradiction by struggling to change the private property to socialized property. We would then find that although there were improvements, there are still problems (other contradictions) within the system.

So we can see that the answer to solving the internal contradictions within a system lies inside those contradictions themselves, even with those contradictions being only a part of the whole system and the solution of one not leading to the solution of the whole system.

Well, there are philosophies that study things focusing on its context and interconnection with other structures, that’s French Structuralism.

It’s only Dialetical Materialism that requires the investigation of the internal contradictions inherent in everything.

I thought our discussion had already run its course, but only now it came to me just how crucial to the understanding of Dialectical Materialism is seeing the value of separating external influence and internal conditions. In my other comment I said it allows for easier study, but that is very far from being complete, it actually is the pivotal abstraction when studying something with Diamat.

Dialectal Materialism gives internally, through its contradictions, the “possibilities” a thing can be. But only after affected by external influences that it actually becomes one of these “possibilities”. To go back to the Egg example, the egg holds within himself, through its contradictions, the possibilities of hatching, breaking, rotting, etc… But which one will the egg actually become depends now of the external conditions.

I also have to add that throughout our discussion it might have lost its focus, but I see the root of the problem being in what is wrote in my very first comment, of trying to use Hegelian Dialectics in the same way as ancient Greek Dialectics, they may share some terminology, but their movement is entirely different.

In short in Greek Dialectics A vs B leads to a C with characteristics of A and B; in Dialectical Materialism A vs B already have characteristics of each (that’s why they are contradictory) and they lead to B, with the newer one necessarily (given time) triumphing over the former.

I wouldn’t say that changing the contradictions from creators to synonymous with pressures improves the system a lot, I also have to say that there is always value in separating external and internal conditions as they become easier to study as such and greater understanding is always valuable.

And although I don’t have the necessary knowledge in thermodynamics to expand on your argument around it, it does fell to me eerie similar to what the material mechanists did centuries ago when they tried to understand the world through the laws of mechanical physics.

You can get a better understanding of thermodynamics by using Dialectical Materialism to study it, but trying to understand diamat by trying to fit in it laws of any branch of physics can lead to grave mistakes.

And I do recommend those books, they go in with way more detail and knowledge about what we are discussing here.

I think I understand your point of view, your are viewing contradictions as creators of pressures that lead to a instability in the system which must be solved in a way that is in tune with both sides of the contradiction.

But what dialectical method gives us is that those pressures are not necessarily created by the contradictions, they can and, even more when dealing with nature, normally are external, what lies within the contradictory process itself is the answer to those pressures, meaning that one side must triumph over the other for this contradiction to be “solved”.

So basically you are looking for the cause of the “problem” within the system but the answer outside it, when with diamat the cause is always a combination of external and internal conditions, but the solution lies within the system itself.

There is an easy example of this in thermodynamics itself, which is as much as my knowledge on the matter will allow me, that is boiling water: The water has its on internal contradiction between its liquid and gaseous state, when we as a external force apply heat to liquid water we create a rapid change in it forcing it to become, after enough heat is used, gaseous.

So in this case the cause of the change was mostly external, but the result is to be expect within the internal contradiction, as Mao would say: “In a suitable temperature, an egg becomes a chicken, but in no circumstances can a rock become a chicken”.

Also I should have done this earlier, but all the points I made in these comments come from F. Engels’ “Socialism Utopian and Scientific” and “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy”, and sometimes with the help of M. Cornforth’s “Materialism and the Dialectical Method”.

Sorry for the way my comment is structured, it’s already morning here and I did my best to try to get my point through, I haven’t had the time to read the hole text yet, but I did read the 8º Chapter, and I must say that yes, the application of that mistaken dialectical method does lead to some problems when exposed to more abstract matters like society and economy.

I do note now that this mistake comes from attempting to use the dialectical method created by Hegel in the same way that the ancient Greeks used to find better answer through a dialogue between opposing parties, which is where “Thesis”, “Antithesis” and “Synthesis” are used correctly.

But Hegel’s Dialectics is not about two opposing sides culminating in a third one through conversation, but about the better and more developed side, in his idealistic view the big “idea”, and the lesser and flawed side, the reality, struggling and ever changing attempting to reach the former.

Marx then comes and turns it on his feet, as Engels would say, and adapts Hegelian dialectics to the real and material world, consequently changing the cause of development from the contradiction between the idea and the existing, to the internal contradictions present in every existing thing.

Now what this change in method causes can be exemplified in your brothers and bikes problem: Using Diamat for them to be in there would need to be a process which puts them in opposite sides, in this case, “who is the fastest?”, in this process they are in contradiction trying to overtake each other, now one brother has a better bike and consequently becomes the main aspect of the contradiction and therefore “the fastest”, but given time the other brother can struggle in an attempt to improve and surpass the other brother, if he is successful in his struggle, if his struggles were enough, he can then surpass his brother as the main aspect and therefore become the fastest.

What were the differences between methods: 1º: the brothers are not contradictory as a whole with each other, but in a specific process. 2º: No dialogue is necessary, the problem and the changes come from the facts themselves(not saying dialogue doesn’t help). 3º: the resolution to the contradiction do the process is in the process itself, there isn’t necessarily a need for a third party to come and resolve the contradiction. 4º: Struggles are not a negative thing, but the necessary action to bring forth change. 5º: The unity of opposites means that their place in the process is interchangeable, when one becomes the faster the other becomes the slower and vice-versa.

These differences become very important when analyzing more complex situations because the entire Marxist theory is on the bases that the answer the two main contradictions of capitalism, being the private property of the means of production and the socialized production, and the organization of factories and the anarchy of production, lie in themselves, meaning the socialization of the means of production and planned production. And that those changes will only happen when the newer revolutionary class takes the place of the older reactionary class as the leaders of society.

Always good to see someone using a field they are knowledgeable about to explain the Dialetical process imbued in everything, as Engels would say: “Nature is the test of Dialectics”.

I do have something to nitpick though, I have seen it written before here or on Hex about the development being an thesis, anthesis, synthesis movement, and I have never truly understood it and always thought weird that none of the classical authors have ever used those words to describe Dialectics.

Seeing the resume of how you wrote your text, I think I have finally understood what people mean by those words, and in my understanding it’s a mistaken view of Dialectics.

The Dialetical method sees the development of everything that exists by the progress of each things internal contradictions, which when the main aspect of the main contradiction changes from the older to the newer, the thing itself changes from being the previous main aspect to being the new one. Utilizing the same jargon, the “Thesis” itself becomes the “Anthesis” after enough qualitative changes. Which is also why it necessary carries some qualities of the old aspect and it also creates it’s own “Anthesis” that will eventually take its place in the future.

I don’t really know where this “synthesis” came from, but it feels to me like and idealistic view of the Dialetical method where something is born out of the method itself instead of being the process of already existing things.

I think this wouldn’t cause that much difference in your text considering you are studying nature itself when using thermodynamics, but I would this can cause bigger problems when dealing with more abstract things like society or economy.

I’m a bit of an indies person, so recently I’ve finished “Session: Skate Sim”, a game that really impressed me with the depth of its movement and how rewarding it feels to progress it. I’ve also just finished “Lonely Mountains Downhill”, that even though it doesn’t have advanced mechanics, more than makes up for it on the discovery factor by allowing you to forge your own path to finish the tracks.

Right now I’ve just started “Furi” that seems to be half 2D shooter half beat-em-up where there are only boss fights, all in great combination with the psychedelic graphics and electronic soundtrack. I’ve also started to play “Disco Elysium” as I’ve seen multiple people here and in hexbear recommending it, but just some hours in I can tell it’s going to take a long time to finish it.