Muhammad Mirza Khan True but he also does a live show with other leftist youtubers where there is obviously no script and he’s very articulate. Of course he stops way more than in a video like this but he’s just as fluent if not more so than the native English speakers on the show
A shame that he uses it to prop up dogmatic and hypocritical autocracy with a cheap Bill O'rielly or Tucker Carlson condescension rather than for either serious political commentary or productive work of any sort.
Hi Mr FinnishBolshevik, great video! Quick question, and sorry for my ignorance, how does Dialectical Materialism lead to Marx's ideas regarding the proletariat revolution?
+James Nakis the idea that class contradictions within society will lead to revolutionary change and a creation of a new society is based on dialectics
Hey there, I just stumbled upon your videos to gain some clarity on these concepts. Thanks for making them. The past couple of years I've been studying Eastern philosophy a lot (Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism etc.), and while I was watching this video it very much reminded me of the Taoist book Tao te Ching. The book is entirely about the dependency of opposites on each other to exist within the same system, and it also talks a fair bit about Change as an eternal force. Would it be a mistake to interpret the doctrine of Dialectical Materialism as an almost worker-friendly mystical understanding of the Universe?
It's rather the contrary. Dialectics is observed and re-observed daily by all sorts of people. Scientists too, read Reason in Revolt for loads of inconsciously dialectical science. This is because it is a universal law about how reality itself functions.
I would say dialectical materialism has a lot in common with these ideas, but is not an ideology or mystical force. It is a concrete, observable force. This is the difference between utopian and scientific socialism. This is the difference between Marxist materialism and fascist mysticism. You could argue that these Eastern philosophies are a rudimentary/spiritual understanding of scientific and materialist dialectics that are scratching the surface of these ideas
This video is perfect. Dialectical materialism is considered one of the hardest topics to understand in Marxism, this video is perfect. By the way do you have a video or anywhere I could search on the "Permanent Revolution" theory. I heard it's against Leninism. If that's the case Trotskyism can not exist alongside with Leninism. I.e: "Leninist - Trotskyist"
+The.Leftist thanks comrade. Here is a video I made some time ago about it. th-cam.com/video/8G6In1KbdaE/w-d-xo.html Its complex topic because people mean different things when they talk about "permanent revolution". Some of them mean that the revolution must be continuous until it reaches it's completion while some think its merely a position that opposes "Socialism in One Country". I also made a video in defense of Socialism in one country for RedscareTV. Here's the link if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/hCvyjA-7Dps/w-d-xo.html
It is also the least relevant but easiest for wealthy bougeois academics to make careers out of writing impenetrable essays about rather than actually examining what MARX HIMSELF WROTE about money being commodity, about the ideal relationship between worker and employer being one of simple trade (like two equals swapping cars etc) and about how this relationship has been soured etc.
It strikes me as odd to make an observation of atomic particles and then use that as some justification for a specific outlook on history. If we think of the atomic realm as a "lower" layer of material reality, and the layer we live in as another "higher" layer of that same reality, it does not follow that the higher layer will mirror what the lower layer is doing. It's like saying that, the fact that opposites attract in terms of subatomic particles is the same as when I fall in love with someone different to me. One realm does not translate into the other in such a literal way. Also, the distinctions used are arbitrary. A proton and a neutron exists as objectively discrete particles, the proletariat and the capitalist class are messy categorizations of people arrived at by a much more subjective process.
Social science can’t be as objective as a natural science like physics but that doesn’t mean nature stops functioning as nature just because the scale has changed. Yes, protons may be more objective but they are not completely so. Even a proton consists of quarks and all these particles are ultimately just made up of energy which is never static or completely defined. And actually classes can be quite clearly defined in some respects. Who owns the means of production, who doesn’t, these are the two classes. Of course that can get muddy with modern things like joint stock ownerships etc but it’s not as wishy washy as is often made out.
But classes are discrete, they have definitions that arise by their relationships to materialist conditions, also it depends on what you define discrete, like the Natural numbers are discrete, and as you said protons and neutrons are "discrete" but you can clearly understand that the word discrete although similar, it is not exactly the same in both cases. By the increased absence of strict formalism , discretion starts to "wither".
It's not odd. It's completely nonsensical and the vast majority of Hegelians hold views that conflict with 20th century science. That's something that Marxists today really should reckon with.
Dialectical materialism is the scientific philosophy behind Marxism. The chemistry bit was just an example but it also applies to social life. According to dialectics there is always contradiction and motion. Somebody who thinks the world is material, ever changing and full of contradictory forces is going to apply very different kinds of policies then somebody who thinks the world is mainly spiritual, static and in harmony.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Neutrons and protons are not at all opposites. Sorry, Mao was wrong. Protons and electrons are considered to have opposite charge because they attract the other and repel one another in equal measure. That's all. The "opposite forces" you speak of here are literally defined as being mutually attracted. There is no contradiction - now, if you wanted to invoke nuclear forces in allowing stable atomic nuclei and wax poetic about their big-picture political significance, I'd love to hear it, truly. Instead you choose to usurp the scientific authority of concepts you have no knowledge of to give the appearance of a truly material foundation to your politics when those concepts absolutely do no such thing. In the sciences we learn to smell bullshit like this, and to any half-trained ear, your fraudulent analogies fall flatter and harder than any New-age charlatan's. Shame on you, truly. I already knew you were a dogmatic intellectual sellout, but I didn't know until now that you were this caliber of liar.
There is no connection. The concepts invoked which have any truth are bent beyond utility, but most of them are flat wrong. His invokation of "opposite forces" is a flat wrong, sickening abuse of his listeners' scientific ignorance.
@@neilhillis9858 Although what Mao said was wrong, you didn't understand what he was trying to say. He didn't say neutrons and protons are opposites but in the nucleus their anti-particle counterparts exist. I assume he didn't know what quarks were in the 1960s. Anyway, with all your whining about scientific mumbling, you fail see what was point of talking about of this section of the video. Unity of opposites, by your own response did you not state that electrons which have a negative charge and proton which have a positive charge. You do realize that's the contradiction they are talking about that they both have opposite charges yet due to electrostatic attraction they are attracted to each other.....gasp... a unity of opposites! It's a contradiction because they are precisely opposites to one another. We are using the term contradiction as "The act of opposition". Using electrostatic attraction of forces we know that these opposites of charge produce a force in the same direction allowing the unity of opposites. Anyway, their attempt was to use a example to demonstrate based on their limited knowledge. It's essentially the similar type of example of as the slave master and slave dialectic.
Hello, Comrades, If you are a regular viewer of the lovely content of the Finnish Bolshevik, then one may presume you to be an avid communist. It is for precisely this reason that I invite all who read these words to the Movement of the Peoples' Unity, an organisation of revolutionary theory and movement. Though numerous similar movements exist, we differ in our consistent maintenance of a solemn and sincere atmosphere, for that is where radical thought can truly progress. Thus, if you seek revolutionary discussion, leftist strategic advancement, and the ultimate victory of socialism, then enter the Movement of the Peoples' Unity: discord.gg/VhqeMZQ In Fervent Aspiration, The Movement of the Peoples' Unity
Good video comrade. I think you neglected something about the unity of opposites though. One aspect is as you said, the opposites cannot exist without each other, such as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. But another aspect is the transformation of one opposite into the other. Like under certain conditions, the subordinated class becoming the subordinating class, or war transforming into peace as Mao said. It could be good to talk about. You mentioned you'd make another video with other details but I couldn't find it.
I understand these key points but I found the examples really bad. 1. In hard science this concept is usually referred to as equilibrium: chemical, physical, etc. For the law of contradiction the example I would give would be Enthalpy vs Enthropy rather than electrons vs protons. Because they are forces that are, to put it in Marxist terms, in direct 'contradiction' and cause reactions when they 'synthesize'. 2. For the second law, the term used in hard science is Emergence. So you can easily refer to examples of that instead of alkanes, because in your example it's true qualitative change occurs when you increase the number of atoms in the element, but this change realise on many other factors and not just the increase in the number of atoms. A better example could be found by googling Emergence. 3. The last one can be applied to many things but I don't thing it should be regarded as a universal rule. The last two rules were used to explain how different systems of matter or energy work but this one is just one way a cycle of one matter or energy could manifest itself. It's not about harmonious systems.
chris lowe... it is why marx is evaluated in east asia as an extraordinary perfect materialist... marx clarified the reality of materialism in the social aspects of life to arrive to communism governance, where there is no suffrage... every religion has same goal... to go to paradise where there is no suffrage... the problem according to marx is that imperialism is cultivating capitalism... imperialism by capitalism is stopping the advance of human societies by hideous exploitations of human labors and oppressions of every human inherent capability... that when every little capability join together, to stop imperialism (in today, monopolists oligarchists monarchists), then there is communism devoid of capitalistic money devoid of any class devoid of any state( when there are no borders)... then... there is no suffrage... according to lenin, religion who dont firstly understand marx-lenin before being ambitious of flying or jumping to paradise is in danger of getting OPPRESSED by imperialism... any religion, can get a free ride to paradise by marx-lenin socialism/communism solidarity governance...
tfb, the comments in this lecture are way intelligent questions... comments in this lecture supersede the stage of basic understanding... comments need to understand all marx-lenin socialist/communist countries so they see how the process of marx-lenin socialism is applied according to each country situations and circumstances... to focus on the factors that made socialism advance and how the socialist countries is being stopped by imperialism to advance to communism... then understanding of the essence of this lecture could be gradually cleared... myself, i need to review again this lecture, the comments, and what i shared...
So are each of these points - negation of the negation etc. - a more specific embodiment of the dialectic process proposed by Marx? Specifically, is quantity to quality (and vice versa) the same as thesis, is unity of opposites the same as crisis/antithesis, and is the negation of the negation the same as synthesis? Or is it entirely separate from what Marx proposed?
messy categorizations... as said in one comment... very true... example is the proletarians and the bourgeosies... very true... society classes in 18th century has diversified to various classes as a result of the advance of industrialization that created petty bourgeosie and semi- feudalists... at any rate, to cut short, in leni time up to present ti,e, capitalism has become the biggest source of sustenance of a nation and produced many many middle-middle class... that cause discontentment of the upper bourgeosie... that result to upper bourgeosie capitalists merging into monopolism into corporations... upper capitalists are themselves victims to monopolists oligarchs corporations...
vivek choudhary you're welcome. Im studying this topic myself at this moment, but, unfortunately, I study it usng 'by Russians for Russians' resources, so I cannot even provide any valuable liks for non-russian speakers.
Hi Finn (allow me to call you like Finn the human cause I don't know your name and he is awesome). :D From what I gathered about the double negation, this could be represented as a spiral, an upwards spiral that is. Given the examples and their optimistic tone, it appears dialectics implies history has a direction which is consistent with entropy though. I'm still trying to understand this philosophy, or more accurately its utility, but doesn't it strike you that this cyclical view of science is very specific to certain cases and can hardly be generalized? I have a hard time thinking of good examples to which apply this view. If a semantic perspective on the universe was sound, it would take no effort to see it everywhere either intuitively or through a simple method that I can apply each time. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Your method and knowledge are impressive, also we have similar logic, but it seems to me that you never address the fundamental question which is "why not do without it?". You seem hung up on it and it makes me think you are maybe a tiny bit dogmatic. No offence though, I'm basically your biggest fan and agree with you on nearly everything :D
But how do you even measure quality?? Quality is subjective, the tendency in Marxist theory to make objective claims with being about to provide why such things are axiomatic, so why does ML theory assume these starting assumptions are objective inherently?
In philosophy Quality means the same as 'type' or 'kind'. Two puddles of water can be different quantities but liquid and solid are different qualities. Ice is qualitatively different type of water than liquid water.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 human subjective knowledge cannot objectively evaluate objectivity. This is where I have to agree with a more postmodern subjectivity, the measurement and the description of the process of observation, all of it is subjectivity and culturally determined by our inference. Truth is only political and subjective
@@caydenmarlowedefusco6798 is it subjective whether the Earth is flat, whether 2+2=4 or whether humans evolved over millions of years? No, those are all objective truths that we have discovered. We can never get to perfect absolute truth, but we can get closer and closer to objective truth. Objective truth means something which corresponds to the real world. Subjective means something which is only in your own mind. We interpret things differently as subjective humans but its completely ridiculous to say everything is subjective and we supposedly can't discover any objective truths. The whole history of science demonstrates objective truth, and without objective truth science would be impossible.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 to a creationist yes, evolution would be a subjective take. This is why "post truth" is becoming relevant. Objective truth can only be agreed upon through the implementation of force and will to overcoming opposing truths
To a fascist the JQ is an objective material truth. Their subjective inference shapes their worldview and what worldview becomes truth is dependent only on power relations and those willing to use violence to dominate and destroy another's truth. Truth is will
People often ask me; "Bill, what exactly is this ''Dialectical Materialism' that you often talk about.* Well, here is a brief but clear exposition of the basic tenets. *Nobody has ever actually asked me this.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding everything, couldn't one be an idealist and still accept dialectical materialism. I don't see how whether or not the universe is material or mental constructed affects how materials, or what we perceive as materials affect society and the evolution of human society. Especially if you get into Kants Trancedental idealism and start talking about phenomena
Technically you maybe could believe the world of phenomena or material reality emerges from a spiritual source but there is no science to back that up and materialism is the ideology of science.
I don't think it's totally safe to say there is zero science behind idealism. Quantum Mechanics in no way proves it, but there is some support, I guess we'll just have to wait and see as our physics knowledge increases over time
That was qaulity video, thanks for sharing! However There's good critiques to Bohmian Mechanics as well though, anyways I honestly think it's best to take an agnostic approach to it, we simply don't know, and we'll have to wait for further advancements in Physics before we can really know
for mao spearheading china self-sufficiency by countrysides agriculture thru marx-lenin socialism/communism and country-defense by the unity of the spirit of the peasantry and bourgeosie workers... for stalin spearheading soviet self-sufficiency by countrysides agriculture thru marx-lenin socialism and advance military weapons for a strong disciplined military force... to AVERT western imperialists... by marx-lenin socialism/communism, soviet russia and china are fates intertwined... soviet russia cant survive alone without china... china cant survive alone without soviet russia... proton-neutron... oil and water dont mix, but dont dissolve each other...
Quantum mechanics absolutely destroys Materialism and proves Idealism, more specifically the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. You need to look it up.
Its for the purpose of simplicity, giving examples. Marx spent years studying German Philosophy and then came up with his own critique of Hegel, and then from there moved on to applying it to real life, to show how his Dialectical Materialist philosophy can be applied. same with Engels,Stalin, Lenin and Mao etc.
I still can't get over the fact that TheFinnishBolshevik speaks a more sophisticated English than born English speakers.
He has a script in his hand while he speaks on the microphone. It is not that difficult to figure out.
Muhammad Mirza Khan True but he also does a live show with other leftist youtubers where there is obviously no script and he’s very articulate. Of course he stops way more than in a video like this but he’s just as fluent if not more so than the native English speakers on the show
A shame that he uses it to prop up dogmatic and hypocritical autocracy with a cheap Bill O'rielly or Tucker Carlson condescension rather than for either serious political commentary or productive work of any sort.
@@muhammadmirzakhan89 Have you ever heard native Engish speakers? Most Americans can't be that articulated.
@@chrislowe8746 More fluent than a native English speaker? Lol
Excellent video. Ended up with 4 and a quarter pages of notes from this :)
+Mclelland “mclj10” J Same
Go to real school or university you parasite.
Bet they were shitty notes
I take notes in my dreams bro
Yes same *_*
Dang, your videos are just awesome! You explain difficult concepts in a way that’s accessible. Thanks for your labor comrade 🛠
this is the best video on DiaMat on TH-cam hands down
I don’t think any other theory has clicked so much with me. I get now why they call Marxism a science
Hi Mr FinnishBolshevik, great video!
Quick question, and sorry for my ignorance, how does Dialectical Materialism lead to Marx's ideas regarding the proletariat revolution?
+James Nakis the idea that class contradictions within society will lead to revolutionary change and a creation of a new society is based on dialectics
Hey there, I just stumbled upon your videos to gain some clarity on these concepts. Thanks for making them.
The past couple of years I've been studying Eastern philosophy a lot (Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism etc.), and while I was watching this video it very much reminded me of the Taoist book Tao te Ching. The book is entirely about the dependency of opposites on each other to exist within the same system, and it also talks a fair bit about Change as an eternal force.
Would it be a mistake to interpret the doctrine of Dialectical Materialism as an almost worker-friendly mystical understanding of the Universe?
It's rather the contrary. Dialectics is observed and re-observed daily by all sorts of people. Scientists too, read Reason in Revolt for loads of inconsciously dialectical science. This is because it is a universal law about how reality itself functions.
Read Heraclitus.
I would say dialectical materialism has a lot in common with these ideas, but is not an ideology or mystical force. It is a concrete, observable force. This is the difference between utopian and scientific socialism. This is the difference between Marxist materialism and fascist mysticism. You could argue that these Eastern philosophies are a rudimentary/spiritual understanding of scientific and materialist dialectics that are scratching the surface of these ideas
Excellent video!
This video is perfect. Dialectical materialism is considered one of the hardest topics to understand in Marxism, this video is perfect.
By the way do you have a video or anywhere I could search on the "Permanent Revolution" theory. I heard it's against Leninism. If that's the case Trotskyism can not exist alongside with Leninism. I.e: "Leninist - Trotskyist"
+The.Leftist thanks comrade. Here is a video I made some time ago about it.
th-cam.com/video/8G6In1KbdaE/w-d-xo.html
Its complex topic because people mean different things when they talk about "permanent revolution". Some of them mean that the revolution must be continuous until it reaches it's completion while some think its merely a position that opposes "Socialism in One Country".
I also made a video in defense of Socialism in one country for RedscareTV. Here's the link if you're interested:
th-cam.com/video/hCvyjA-7Dps/w-d-xo.html
Thank you!
You should read Maoism or Trotskyism too. Just Google it
It is also the least relevant but easiest for wealthy bougeois academics to make careers out of writing impenetrable essays about rather than actually examining what MARX HIMSELF WROTE about money being commodity, about the ideal relationship between worker and employer being one of simple trade (like two equals swapping cars etc) and about how this relationship has been soured etc.
Could u plz make a video about,super structure and social formation
This video was very helpful for me thanks a lot
Well done. We need more of this now.
magnificent h... the material world is how weaker human beings would be BALANCE to stronger human beings...
It strikes me as odd to make an observation of atomic particles and then use that as some justification for a specific outlook on history. If we think of the atomic realm as a "lower" layer of material reality, and the layer we live in as another "higher" layer of that same reality, it does not follow that the higher layer will mirror what the lower layer is doing. It's like saying that, the fact that opposites attract in terms of subatomic particles is the same as when I fall in love with someone different to me. One realm does not translate into the other in such a literal way.
Also, the distinctions used are arbitrary. A proton and a neutron exists as objectively discrete particles, the proletariat and the capitalist class are messy categorizations of people arrived at by a much more subjective process.
Social science can’t be as objective as a natural science like physics but that doesn’t mean nature stops functioning as nature just because the scale has changed. Yes, protons may be more objective but they are not completely so. Even a proton consists of quarks and all these particles are ultimately just made up of energy which is never static or completely defined.
And actually classes can be quite clearly defined in some respects. Who owns the means of production, who doesn’t, these are the two classes. Of course that can get muddy with modern things like joint stock ownerships etc but it’s not as wishy washy as is often made out.
But classes are discrete, they have definitions that arise by their relationships to materialist conditions, also it depends on what you define discrete, like the Natural numbers are discrete, and as you said protons and neutrons are "discrete" but you can clearly understand that the word discrete although similar, it is not exactly the same in both cases. By the increased absence of strict formalism , discretion starts to "wither".
It's not odd. It's completely nonsensical and the vast majority of Hegelians hold views that conflict with 20th century science. That's something that Marxists today really should reckon with.
I been trying to understand this thesis, what's the interconnection between social political issues and chemistry in this case?
Dialectical materialism is the scientific philosophy behind Marxism. The chemistry bit was just an example but it also applies to social life. According to dialectics there is always contradiction and motion. Somebody who thinks the world is material, ever changing and full of contradictory forces is going to apply very different kinds of policies then somebody who thinks the world is mainly spiritual, static and in harmony.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Neutrons and protons are not at all opposites. Sorry, Mao was wrong.
Protons and electrons are considered to have opposite charge because they attract the other and repel one another in equal measure. That's all. The "opposite forces" you speak of here are literally defined as being mutually attracted. There is no contradiction - now, if you wanted to invoke nuclear forces in allowing stable atomic nuclei and wax poetic about their big-picture political significance, I'd love to hear it, truly. Instead you choose to usurp the scientific authority of concepts you have no knowledge of to give the appearance of a truly material foundation to your politics when those concepts absolutely do no such thing. In the sciences we learn to smell bullshit like this, and to any half-trained ear, your fraudulent analogies fall flatter and harder than any New-age charlatan's.
Shame on you, truly. I already knew you were a dogmatic intellectual sellout, but I didn't know until now that you were this caliber of liar.
There is no connection. The concepts invoked which have any truth are bent beyond utility, but most of them are flat wrong. His invokation of "opposite forces" is a flat wrong, sickening abuse of his listeners' scientific ignorance.
@@neilhillis9858 Although what Mao said was wrong, you didn't understand what he was trying to say. He didn't say neutrons and protons are opposites but in the nucleus their anti-particle counterparts exist. I assume he didn't know what quarks were in the 1960s. Anyway, with all your whining about scientific mumbling, you fail see what was point of talking about of this section of the video. Unity of opposites, by your own response did you not state that electrons which have a negative charge and proton which have a positive charge. You do realize that's the contradiction they are talking about that they both have opposite charges yet due to electrostatic attraction they are attracted to each other.....gasp... a unity of opposites! It's a contradiction because they are precisely opposites to one another. We are using the term contradiction as "The act of opposition". Using electrostatic attraction of forces we know that these opposites of charge produce a force in the same direction allowing the unity of opposites.
Anyway, their attempt was to use a example to demonstrate based on their limited knowledge. It's essentially the similar type of example of as the slave master and slave dialectic.
Hello, Comrades,
If you are a regular viewer of the lovely content of the Finnish Bolshevik, then one may presume you to be an avid communist. It is for precisely this reason that I invite all who read these words to the Movement of the Peoples' Unity, an organisation of revolutionary theory and movement. Though numerous similar movements exist, we differ in our consistent maintenance of a solemn and sincere atmosphere, for that is where radical thought can truly progress. Thus, if you seek revolutionary discussion, leftist strategic advancement, and the ultimate victory of socialism, then enter the Movement of the Peoples' Unity:
discord.gg/VhqeMZQ
In Fervent Aspiration,
The Movement of the Peoples' Unity
After I click the link it says that the invitation is not valid.
Good video comrade. I think you neglected something about the unity of opposites though. One aspect is as you said, the opposites cannot exist without each other, such as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. But another aspect is the transformation of one opposite into the other. Like under certain conditions, the subordinated class becoming the subordinating class, or war transforming into peace as Mao said. It could be good to talk about. You mentioned you'd make another video with other details but I couldn't find it.
Grey Gray I haven't made it yet. Sorta got lost in all the stuff to read while researching for the video...
I think you should put time stamps in your videos, so it's easier for people to navigate through your video
Wonderful videos !
well done
I understand these key points but I found the examples really bad.
1. In hard science this concept is usually referred to as equilibrium: chemical, physical, etc.
For the law of contradiction the example I would give would be Enthalpy vs Enthropy rather than electrons vs protons. Because they are forces that are, to put it in Marxist terms, in direct 'contradiction' and cause reactions when they 'synthesize'.
2. For the second law, the term used in hard science is Emergence. So you can easily refer to examples of that instead of alkanes, because in your example it's true qualitative change occurs when you increase the number of atoms in the element, but this change realise on many other factors and not just the increase in the number of atoms. A better example could be found by googling Emergence.
3. The last one can be applied to many things but I don't thing it should be regarded as a universal rule. The last two rules were used to explain how different systems of matter or energy work but this one is just one way a cycle of one matter or energy could manifest itself. It's not about harmonious systems.
How can you use this practically? I hear a lot of axioms, but is there evidence for this being able to predict the future reliably?
Check out Bukharin's Historical Materialism. Talks about exactly this question in the introduction.
The establishment of socialist states
Great video!
chris lowe... it is why marx is evaluated in east asia as an extraordinary perfect materialist... marx clarified the reality of materialism in the social aspects of life to arrive to communism governance, where there is no suffrage... every religion has same goal... to go to paradise where there is no suffrage... the problem according to marx is that imperialism is cultivating capitalism... imperialism by capitalism is stopping the advance of human societies by hideous exploitations of human labors and oppressions of every human inherent capability... that when every little capability join together, to stop imperialism (in today, monopolists oligarchists monarchists), then there is communism devoid of capitalistic money devoid of any class devoid of any state( when there are no borders)... then... there is no suffrage... according to lenin, religion who dont firstly understand marx-lenin before being ambitious of flying or jumping to paradise is in danger of getting OPPRESSED by imperialism... any religion, can get a free ride to paradise by marx-lenin socialism/communism solidarity governance...
tfb, the comments in this lecture are way intelligent questions... comments in this lecture supersede the stage of basic understanding... comments need to understand all marx-lenin socialist/communist countries so they see how the process of marx-lenin socialism is applied according to each country situations and circumstances... to focus on the factors that made socialism advance and how the socialist countries is being stopped by imperialism to advance to communism... then understanding of the essence of this lecture could be gradually cleared... myself, i need to review again this lecture, the comments, and what i shared...
this feels kinda quaint. like ancient greeks' physical theories
Excellent video comrade. Any thoughts on Bookchins Dialectical Naturalism?
Eat shit
So are each of these points - negation of the negation etc. - a more specific embodiment of the dialectic process proposed by Marx? Specifically, is quantity to quality (and vice versa) the same as thesis, is unity of opposites the same as crisis/antithesis, and is the negation of the negation the same as synthesis? Or is it entirely separate from what Marx proposed?
messy categorizations... as said in one comment... very true... example is the proletarians and the bourgeosies... very true... society classes in 18th century has diversified to various classes as a result of the advance of industrialization that created petty bourgeosie and semi- feudalists... at any rate, to cut short, in leni time up to present ti,e, capitalism has become the biggest source of sustenance of a nation and produced many many middle-middle class... that cause discontentment of the upper bourgeosie... that result to upper bourgeosie capitalists merging into monopolism into corporations... upper capitalists are themselves victims to monopolists oligarchs corporations...
Dialectical Materialism - Hegel
Historical Materialism - Marx
Is the above combination is correct ?
vivek choudhary nope. Hegel developed idealistic dalectics. Marx ad Engels converted it into a dialectical materialism.
Андрей Назариков thank you so much
vivek choudhary you're welcome. Im studying this topic myself at this moment, but, unfortunately, I study it usng 'by Russians for Russians' resources, so I cannot even provide any valuable liks for non-russian speakers.
Андрей Назариков sorry , i din get your last line of above reply
vivek choudhary sorry. English is obviously not my native language, so nevermid.
Hi Finn (allow me to call you like Finn the human cause I don't know your name and he is awesome). :D
From what I gathered about the double negation, this could be represented as a spiral, an upwards spiral that is. Given the examples and their optimistic tone, it appears dialectics implies history has a direction which is consistent with entropy though. I'm still trying to understand this philosophy, or more accurately its utility, but doesn't it strike you that this cyclical view of science is very specific to certain cases and can hardly be generalized? I have a hard time thinking of good examples to which apply this view. If a semantic perspective on the universe was sound, it would take no effort to see it everywhere either intuitively or through a simple method that I can apply each time. This doesn't seem to be the case here.
Your method and knowledge are impressive, also we have similar logic, but it seems to me that you never address the fundamental question which is "why not do without it?". You seem hung up on it and it makes me think you are maybe a tiny bit dogmatic. No offence though, I'm basically your biggest fan and agree with you on nearly everything :D
But how do you even measure quality?? Quality is subjective, the tendency in Marxist theory to make objective claims with being about to provide why such things are axiomatic, so why does ML theory assume these starting assumptions are objective inherently?
In philosophy Quality means the same as 'type' or 'kind'. Two puddles of water can be different quantities but liquid and solid are different qualities. Ice is qualitatively different type of water than liquid water.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 human subjective knowledge cannot objectively evaluate objectivity. This is where I have to agree with a more postmodern subjectivity, the measurement and the description of the process of observation, all of it is subjectivity and culturally determined by our inference. Truth is only political and subjective
@@caydenmarlowedefusco6798 is it subjective whether the Earth is flat, whether 2+2=4 or whether humans evolved over millions of years? No, those are all objective truths that we have discovered. We can never get to perfect absolute truth, but we can get closer and closer to objective truth. Objective truth means something which corresponds to the real world. Subjective means something which is only in your own mind. We interpret things differently as subjective humans but its completely ridiculous to say everything is subjective and we supposedly can't discover any objective truths. The whole history of science demonstrates objective truth, and without objective truth science would be impossible.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 to a creationist yes, evolution would be a subjective take. This is why "post truth" is becoming relevant. Objective truth can only be agreed upon through the implementation of force and will to overcoming opposing truths
To a fascist the JQ is an objective material truth. Their subjective inference shapes their worldview and what worldview becomes truth is dependent only on power relations and those willing to use violence to dominate and destroy another's truth. Truth is will
Mao skipped a few physics classes
Ginger Stalin I was shocked when I realized that he replaced electrons with neutrons
People often ask me; "Bill, what exactly is this ''Dialectical Materialism' that you often talk about.* Well, here is a brief but clear exposition of the basic tenets. *Nobody has ever actually asked me this.
luciano... quantitative to qualitative...
marx theory is god help those who help themselves...
Critics of the followers of Marx do not have to read word one of Marx.
Most human beings can see their own flaws in people who are members of Cults.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding everything, couldn't one be an idealist and still accept dialectical materialism. I don't see how whether or not the universe is material or mental constructed affects how materials, or what we perceive as materials affect society and the evolution of human society. Especially if you get into Kants Trancedental idealism and start talking about phenomena
Technically you maybe could believe the world of phenomena or material reality emerges from a spiritual source but there is no science to back that up and materialism is the ideology of science.
I don't think it's totally safe to say there is zero science behind idealism. Quantum Mechanics in no way proves it, but there is some support, I guess we'll just have to wait and see as our physics knowledge increases over time
You should watch this. The notion that quantum mechanics can lend supoort to idealism is a false one th-cam.com/video/cOe-7GH83Us/w-d-xo.html
That was qaulity video, thanks for sharing! However There's good critiques to Bohmian Mechanics as well though, anyways I honestly think it's best to take an agnostic approach to it, we simply don't know, and we'll have to wait for further advancements in Physics before we can really know
th-cam.com/video/pn2hoU4jaQQ/w-d-xo.html
for mao spearheading china self-sufficiency by countrysides agriculture thru marx-lenin socialism/communism and country-defense by the unity of the spirit of the peasantry and bourgeosie workers... for stalin spearheading soviet self-sufficiency by countrysides agriculture thru marx-lenin socialism and advance military weapons for a strong disciplined military force... to AVERT western imperialists... by marx-lenin socialism/communism, soviet russia and china are fates intertwined... soviet russia cant survive alone without china... china cant survive alone without soviet russia... proton-neutron... oil and water dont mix, but dont dissolve each other...
i just wrote a cool paper
this i think is the revolution of pen and paper... when pen gets mightier than tge sword... got to go somewhere... i do the review later...
Quantum mechanics absolutely destroys Materialism and proves Idealism, more specifically the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. You need to look it up.
Quantum mechanics absolutely doesn't prove idealism th-cam.com/video/cOe-7GH83Us/w-d-xo.html&index=9
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/materialism-and-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser-experiments/
what was that ramble about chemistry, seems they were desperate to sound smart and taken seriously
Its for the purpose of simplicity, giving examples. Marx spent years studying German Philosophy and then came up with his own critique of Hegel, and then from there moved on to applying it to real life, to show how his Dialectical Materialist philosophy can be applied. same with Engels,Stalin, Lenin and Mao etc.