Materialism is a philosophy where ultimately everything is matter and energy. I don’t know how you can think otherwise.
Conciousness can exist in a materialist worldview so long as it’s a phenomenon of matter and energy.
Why have different views? Because there are different, equally valid ways of modelling the same thing. But some are more useful than others. You even highlight this in your next few sentences.
The reason it’s bad for propaganda is because no lay person understands what the fuck any of us are talking about when we use this philosophical language and quote long dead men from the 1800s.
You also do not understand what materialist dialectics are. You have a very idealist form of them. But that’s fine. It’s not worth arguing about. The idea that correct thought is needed for correct action is anti-marxist.
I think materialism involves matter, but it does not mean we can reduce everything to simply matter. That’s like saying emotions are just “the product of chemical and hormonal imbalances in our brains”, which is ultimately reductionist because these emotions are a method of expression. You put “consciousness” as an example of idealism even though marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, and that a consciousness is material thing. Also, do you think a consciousness is a form of materialism or idealism? Because you do not seem to argue either or in this paragraph.
If it is true that an economist, an cyberneticist, and a marxist have equally valid (supposedly) ways of viewing the world, why there exists such a division? Why do economists follow Neoclassical/Keynesian economics while Marxists still follow (and succeed) the classical economists by upholding the Labour Theory of Value? It is clear that there exists different interpretations, and these different interpretations lead to different conclusions because of different premises and methods.
In the context of marxism, where we fold out materialistic dialectics for lay people to understand, sure, I can understand dumbing down terminology to the layperson so that they can fulfill a better understanding of dialectics. This does not mean we must scrap the entire term all together. Also you did not put any counterpoints to what I said. The meanings of words under Marxism do not correlate with the common meaning, or even meanings under other fields of the natural sciences.
If it is not worth arguing about my interpretation of diamat, then why bring it up to begin with? What is supposedly the issue with my dialectics? What am I being an idealist for? A consciousness existing that is material? That ideas while intangible can also be material given the right circumstances (i.e. Science and Marxism). If you don’t think it’s worth discussing then don’t bring it up.
Lastly, correct thought is needed for correct action isn’t anti-Marxist. Without any revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. If it is true that correct thought isn’t needed for correct action, why do we have theory? Why do we need to impose cultural revolutions under socialism? Why do we care about Marxism, at all? It’s clear that this “correct” thought while not being overall correct, it is the most correct. And that is what Marxism currently is. It is the most correct form of the social (and likely natural) sciences, because it does not disregard the political economy, and thus makes more accurate predictions as a result.
Materialism is a philosophy where ultimately everything is matter and energy. I don’t know how you can think otherwise.
Conciousness can exist in a materialist worldview so long as it’s a phenomenon of matter and energy.
Why have different views? Because there are different, equally valid ways of modelling the same thing. But some are more useful than others. You even highlight this in your next few sentences.
The reason it’s bad for propaganda is because no lay person understands what the fuck any of us are talking about when we use this philosophical language and quote long dead men from the 1800s.
You also do not understand what materialist dialectics are. You have a very idealist form of them. But that’s fine. It’s not worth arguing about. The idea that correct thought is needed for correct action is anti-marxist.
I think materialism involves matter, but it does not mean we can reduce everything to simply matter. That’s like saying emotions are just “the product of chemical and hormonal imbalances in our brains”, which is ultimately reductionist because these emotions are a method of expression. You put “consciousness” as an example of idealism even though marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, and that a consciousness is material thing. Also, do you think a consciousness is a form of materialism or idealism? Because you do not seem to argue either or in this paragraph.
If it is true that an economist, an cyberneticist, and a marxist have equally valid (supposedly) ways of viewing the world, why there exists such a division? Why do economists follow Neoclassical/Keynesian economics while Marxists still follow (and succeed) the classical economists by upholding the Labour Theory of Value? It is clear that there exists different interpretations, and these different interpretations lead to different conclusions because of different premises and methods.
In the context of marxism, where we fold out materialistic dialectics for lay people to understand, sure, I can understand dumbing down terminology to the layperson so that they can fulfill a better understanding of dialectics. This does not mean we must scrap the entire term all together. Also you did not put any counterpoints to what I said. The meanings of words under Marxism do not correlate with the common meaning, or even meanings under other fields of the natural sciences.
If it is not worth arguing about my interpretation of diamat, then why bring it up to begin with? What is supposedly the issue with my dialectics? What am I being an idealist for? A consciousness existing that is material? That ideas while intangible can also be material given the right circumstances (i.e. Science and Marxism). If you don’t think it’s worth discussing then don’t bring it up.
Lastly, correct thought is needed for correct action isn’t anti-Marxist. Without any revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. If it is true that correct thought isn’t needed for correct action, why do we have theory? Why do we need to impose cultural revolutions under socialism? Why do we care about Marxism, at all? It’s clear that this “correct” thought while not being overall correct, it is the most correct. And that is what Marxism currently is. It is the most correct form of the social (and likely natural) sciences, because it does not disregard the political economy, and thus makes more accurate predictions as a result.