You can read the text here.
You can post questions or share your thoughts at any time, even after we’ve moved on to a new text.
Suggest upcoming texts here.
Previous texts
- The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War
- How to Be a Good Communist
- The Wretched of the Earth (1, 2-3, 4, 5-)
- The Foundations of Leninism
- Decolonization is not a metaphor
- Marxism and the National Question
- China Has Billionaires
- Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism
- Wage Labour and Capital
- Value, Price and Profit
- On the shortcomings of party work […]
- Fighting Fascism: How to Struggle and How to Win
- Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
- What is to be done?
I think it is important to note that what you are getting at is very similar to what lead to Politzer’s limitation of his own method, the understanding that dialectical change happens externally as in “a result of the interaction of two systems, processes, etc…”
But as I demonstrated in my original comment: “in fact dialectical contradiction is the struggle between two stages of development (two identities, two categories, two moments, two possibilities, etc.) of a thing.” Dialectical change describes the movement between to moments within the same thing, which is why we call them internal contradictions in the first place, and why Politzer could not expand dialectics to the external force, leaving it just as “the result of a purely mechanical change”, the problem is not in the separation between Mechanical and Dialetical, because that problem is a consequence of the separation between external and internal factors.
So to answer your question I’d say that probably yes, it would make sense within Politzer’s logic to say that “changes in human society” based on things “outside human influence” and therefore “not just the internal processes within that society” are “not the result of autodynamic stages; it is the result of a purely mechanical change”, because as dialectics deals with the internal movement of things it is unable to deal with a force that is external to that process. Which is exactly the conclusion that Politzer reaches in the other examples that you and I have quoted.
But if we correctly apply Dialectical Materialism we understand that if a “change in human society” is occurring “based on availability of resources” it’s certainly has been caused by “the internal processes within that society” because those changes will only happen if there is an actual necessity within that society for those resources in the first place. As quick modern example, rare-earth elements were “discovered” over 200 years ago, and have existed in nature for much longer than that, but only in modern times have humans developed abilities for it, found a use for it and consequently have had a necessity for it. So only after that necessity, generated from its own internal process, appeared, that the availability of those resources caused changes in human society.
That’s not what I’m getting at. A society can be seen as a single system depending on the level of abstraction, but it’s composed of many other systems, which are themselves composed of other systems, until we reach fundamental forces and particles. The difference between an external contradiction and an internal one is just a matter of perspective.
Not really though, because dialectics only deals with internal contradictions. Claiming that the difference is subjective and leaving part of it externally is exactly the logic of agnosticism/subjective idealism.
Perhaps Hegelian dialectics only deals with internal contradictions, but not materialist dialectics. From On Contradiction:
The internal contradictions of a thing are the basis for change, but those contradictions are not unaffected by external forces. If a deer stomps on an egg and crushes it, the force applied to the egg triggers internal changes within the egg, but the external contradiction between the deer and the egg is still important; and if you view it as a part of the collective life on Earth rather than as two separate “things”, it’s an internal contradiction.
I didn’t call it “subjective”, I said that it’s based on level of abstraction. It depends on the point of reference, not personal opinion.
Honestly, I’m very confused by your comment, you made 3 claims in it and subsequently proceeded to undermine them:
You start with: “Perhaps Hegelian dialectics only deals with internal contradictions, but not materialist dialectics.” Therefore making both claims that: Hegelian Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics deal with contradictions differently and that at least one of those differences is the fact that the Materialist one also deals External contradictions.
But then show a quote from Mao saying quite the opposite:
Mao Zedong - On Contradiction
He is quite literally using the dialectical materialist concept of internal contradictions where they are the basis of the change and the external causes are the condition of those changes, you even understood that yourself: “The internal contradictions of a thing are the basis for change, but those contradictions are not unaffected by external forces”. But Mao also adds that at the same time the external causes are not able to change the contradictions in themselves or in their essence, saying “In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.”
Mao also correctly applies the Hegelian concept of the dialectical interaction between the content and its form, and the process of “self-sublation” within a thing that I noted in my first comment and that Engels used in his explanation of the negation of the negation, which not only demonstrates similarities between how Hegelian Dialectics and Marxist Dialectics see contradictions but also shows that there even more similarities between methods, it is truly no coincidence that Engels said:
F. Engels - Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy
Lastly you said claimed: "I didn’t call it “subjective” but followed with: “it’s based on level of abstraction. It depends on the point of reference”. Which means that when a subject is analyzing an object, the difference between external and internal contradictions is given by the abstraction made by the subject themselves, and not by the object in itself, meaning that it is not defined by the object but by the subject, or in a word, it’s subjective. So what you basically said was that you didn’t call it “subjective”, you just said that it is subjective.
So you understand the concept: “and if you view it as a part of the collective life on Earth rather than as two separate “things”, it’s an internal contradiction.” You understand that change comes through the struggle between opposites, but then deny the unity between them and say that their correlation “it’s based on level of abstraction. It depends on the point of reference.” Completely missing the concept of unity of opposites, and consequently falling into agnosticism/subjective idealism.
V. Lenin - On the Question of Dialectics,
What is becoming clear to me is that this a problem revolving more around the term itself than a lack of of understanding of the logic. Dialectical contradiction has a meaning that goes beyond mere opposition, and reaches the “identity of opposites”, that’s why it is such a central term in Materialist Dialectics and precisely why I started my original comment defining this term as it is and how it came to be (as it should be with the Dialectical Materialist method), but you denied that definition without proper consideration, and consequently had no alternative but to lose the objectiveness of Dialectics and fall into agnosticism/subjective idealism.
No, I said that perhaps Hegelian dialectics only deals with internal contradictions. I did say that materialist dialectics deal with external contradictions as well, and this is confirmed by the quote; you claim that it isn’t, but your own comment disproves that:
In other words, internal contradictions are primary and external contradictions are secondary. Being secondary is not the same thing as being irrelevant or ignored.
If you want to categorize any kind of observation as “subjective”, sure. Objective reality exists but we can’t observe it objectively. If you choose to analyze a society as a whole, you’re going to use that society as a point of reference, not a single person and not the entire solar system.
I haven’t denied the unity of opposites at any point in this thread. Your original comment made a “correction” based on the incorrect assumption that I believed only external contradictions were relevant, which I addressed in my reply. And you keep saying that I’m an idealist, but now you also claim that I’m just misusing terms? If you just want to argue about semantics, fine, but I’d appreciate if you’d stop misrepresenting what I say.
This is clearly not going anywhere, so I will not reply further.
I didn’t make that “correction”, because I didn’t make that assumption, what I was assuming, and still am, is that you are trying use “contradiction” as simple opposition, or even just a mere factor, leading you to see “external contradictions” when that in itself is an philosophical absurdity. If you understand the identity of opposites how are you going to claim that they can be about things external to one another?
If we follow your example that there is a contradiction between a deer and an egg, and follow the logic of unity of opposites with that contradiction, we would arrive at the conclusion that an egg can become a deer, or that the deer can become an egg. Which is only made worse by being “just a matter of perspective.” Which would mean that if look hard enough we could find contradictions between anything and therefore claim that everything can become anything. Unless you actually believe in those absurdities, you have been mistaking the use of “contradiction”, precisely because you are forgetting that it means the “unity of opposites” and not just mere opposition, or just a relevant factor.
V. Lenin - On the Question of Dialectics
Lenin is very clear in describing the metaphysical “conception of motion” as “lifeless, pale and dry” because “its source, its motive” is “made external—God, subject, etc.” Which is exactly what happens if the source of the motion are “not just the internal processes” as you claim.
The contradictions are what guides the “content” internally, the “sources of the motion”, while external factors are what determine its “form” as it appears in reality, the “conditions of change”. It is because the source of the motion is internal that he denominates it “self-movement”.
You are also looking at this metaphysically and therefore also arriving at more mistakes, but this is actually a fresh example of the unity of opposites: It is a consequence of the misuse of terms that you are falling into Subjective idealism/agnosticism, it is your misunderstanding of contradictions that is “self-sublating” into defining the process of change as subjective, consequently leading you to subjective idealism/agnosticism. You are seeing them as two different things, but in fact they are one and the same, they are part of the same dialectical movement, two moments within the same thing, they are all part of the essence of your logic.
V. Lenin - On the Question of Dialectics
This is a clear misuse of the terms metaphysics, agnosticism, subjective, idealism, etc. You are trying to invalidate his arguments by just using a strawman argument.
First of all, the objective does not deny the subjective, nor vice-versa. If you never studied physics and can’t comprehend the atoms it doesn’t mean the atoms don’t exist. At the same time, before the discovery of the atom, one could only understand matter through other models, which could only apprehend reality in another idealized form. Even with our current technological development, all our models of reality are in fact idealized, but by being idealized, it does not mean that reality isn’t in motion and exists independently of our ideas of it.
And what Grain Eater said before makes total sense. Atoms are composed of particles, which are in contradiction to one another. But atoms interact together forming molecules, and molecules form more complex matter such as ore, proteins, cells and the like.
However each system has its own dynamics. Subatomic particles interact with each other. Atoms interact with each other, both inside and outside of molecules. Molecules interact with each other, and cells interact with each other. However when cells interact, this has an effect in the interaction between molecules, which then have an effect on how atoms interact internally, and consequently; and this has an effect on how subatomic particles interact with each other.
When we use dialectics to comprehend internal contradictions it does not mean that external contradictions ceased to exist. However we approach a problem using dialectics it does not mean we are immediately understanding the objective reality. On the contrary, the contradictions we are analyzing are particular to that system, and more specifically, are limited by our own subjective apprehension of that system, including our past knowledge, our experiences. To deny your own subjectivity is itself a form of idealism.
Edit: argument by citation is in itself a fallacy. People cite Lenin, Mao, Marx, Trotsky, Althusser etc to claim someone is being a idealist, as if there was one true dialectics. They don’t stop to reflect that this is how Hegel itself apprehended dialectics, as if the ideas existed a priori, before reality. When you try to comprehend dialectical materialism, you need to understand that dialectics itself is in motion.
It is very interesting tactic to start your comment saying that I’m “using a strawman argument” and then proceed into an attempt to invalidate my arguments by attacking the notion that the subjective denies the objective, or vice-versa. I’ve never said such a thing and not only that, but the quote I made from Lenin in my last comment claims the opposite.
V. Lenin - On the Question of Dialectics
What I’ve actually been claiming since the beginning of this discussion is that our subjective knowledge does reach the objective, even if imperfectly, it contains part of it, so the difference between a Dialectical internal contradiction and a common external one isn’t “is just a matter of perspective”, it isn’t subjective, it is objective, because the internal contradiction belongs to the thing-in-itself, not to our perception of it. Our knowledge of them is “limited by our own subjective apprehension of that system” but they still exist beyond it and beyond us as well, which is why they are objective, as you said: “If you never studied physics and can’t comprehend the atoms it doesn’t mean the atoms don’t exist”
V. Lenin - Philosophical Notebook
Also by being a part of the object in itself, the search and understanding of those internal contradictions gets us closer to the truth that is the thing-in-itself. Even if our subjective will never fully reach it, and as such will always have something new to learn about it, saying that the difference between internal and external “is based on level of abstraction” is completely missing the point of the difference between subjective and objective knowledge and only running away from the search for “objective, absolute, eternal truths”. And that’s why it falls into subjective idealism/agnosticism.
On your Edit:
Now that’s just absurd. I show the quotes to give the material basis from where I arrived at my logic, to show that it didn’t just pop into my head as I was in the shower, it is based on my understanding of these texts by these classic authors, while also giving the opportunity to anyone reading to reach their own understanding of those texts and giving a reference to whoever wants to dive deeper into the matter being discussed.
The leap in logic in that only because I am showing the basis for my reasoning I therefore hold these basis as dogmas is as baseless as it is absurd.