• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 个月前

    Marx’s version is still way too focused on Kegelian dialectics. You can glance that fact by noticing the “dialectical” part of dialectical materialism.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 个月前

      It retains the dialectical aspect and rejects the idealist. Why do you say it is “too” focused on Hegelian Dialectics? Which parts of Dialectics that Marx took from Hegel retain Hegel’s idealist flaws? What ought Marx have continued to leave behind?

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 个月前

        Marx didn’t have system theory back then. We have systems theory now. Why use an outdated form of sociological analysis?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 个月前

          That’s Dialectical Materialism in another name. Dialectical Materialism chiefly states that everything is connected and cannot be taken in a vacuum without looking at its past, trajectory, and relations.

          I ask again, what specifically is wrong with Marxian Dialectical Materialism? Am I under a mistaken assumption on what you are specifically referring to by saying Systems Theory is “superior?”

          Put another way, what does Systems Theory add that is incompatible with Dialectical Materialism?

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 个月前

            Put another way, what does Systems Theory add that is incompatible with Dialectical Materialism?

            One example: Marx had the notion that mankind lives in a cruel world which needs to be conquered. Dialectical materialism ignores the natural framework we live in. It doesn’t take ecosystems and climate change into account. That’s a reason why Bookchin expanded on it with what he called “dialectical naturalism”.

            But marxists rarely if ever read Bookchin, in my experience.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 个月前

              How exactly does Dialectical Materialism ignore the natural framework we live in, when the basis of Dialectical Materialism is that everything is connected and constantly changing? Climate Change and Ecosystems are perfect examples of Dialectical Materialism.

              I fail to see your point.

              • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 个月前

                You’re overgeneralizing dialectical materialism.

                Dialectidal implies that there are two opposing forces which contradict each other. That’s a subset of system theory.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 个月前

                  I know saying “read theory!” is a terrible way of engaging, but reading Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy might genuinely help your understanding of Dialectical Materialism, even if you ultimately discard it. Page 93 on is particularly handy in this case, but the whole work is great.

                  Essentially, you are correct that dialectics implies contradiction and opposition, but that’s only a subset of the broader framework of Dialectical Materialism. Mainly, you’re ignoring what happens to Materialism when combined with Dialectics. Everything must be seen as connected and transitional, nothing is the same as it was.