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.

Extremely good answer comrade 🫡

I’ve have already given this advice IRL before, and considering no one has commented anything similar, I think it applies here as well:

If you’re looking for a introduction to communism and Marxism, you should read the manifesto, it’s cut and dry, short and direct to the point it’s trying to pass, it’s literally made to be understandable by everyone.

But if you want more than that and are looking to actually understand and study Marxism, which I believe is the point of a book club, then you should definitely start reading about the Marxist world outlook, dialetical materialism, most of the mistakes and misunderstandings of leftist both here and IRL come from skipping this crucial step.

So if you are having trouble with the main texts, if you can understand diamat every book of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc., you read afterward will much easier to comprehend. On that note, to me, the best 3 texts about their philosophy are: Mao’s “On Contradiction”; Engels’ “Socialism Utopian and Scientific”; and M. Cornforth’s “Materialism and the Dialetical Method”, which I’d recommend then to be read in this order, and if after that you still want more, Cornforth’s last book ends with further recommendations.

So basically, if you are having trouble understanding Marxism you should start from the very beginning and understand their method before jumping straight to the more famous and much more dense books.