Dialectical Materialism

Рет қаралды 35,458

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 72

@ivanc.6064 4 жыл бұрын

Thank u for the effort to post i will probabliy summarie this soon. # Intro 1 1. 0:00 - intro - black and white footage 2. 0:30 - intro - (Harpal) with Lenin quote 3. 3:07 - intro - (Ranjeet) Coincidental hypothesis 4. 4:47 - intro - sources and structure of presentation # Intro 2 5. 6:27 - intro - Main components 6. 7:08 - intro - materialism history 7. 8:25 - intro - idealism description 8. 10:05 - intro - materlism description 9. 11:05 - intro - marxist dialectics description # Materlism 10. 12:47 - Mat. (Materialism) - Idealism - religion/solopsism and even agnostisism 11. 15:22 - Mat. - Idealism - Bishop Barkley quote/hypothesis 12. 16:22 - Mat. - Idealism - Neurological argument # Dialectics 13. 20:02 - Dia. (Dialectics) - Intro 14. 22:03 - Dia. - Marxist dialectics/transpiration 15. 23:40 - Dia. - Dynamics of natural systems # Dialectical Materialism 16. 26:41 - Dia. Mat. - Physics 17. 32:00 - Dia. Mat. - More Physics

@raggledaggle721 6 жыл бұрын

"It [materialist dialectics] holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. 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

@HoorizonSniping 6 жыл бұрын

Can't get Walter white explaining chemistry as "the study of change" out of my head haha. Such an obvious phenomena, this is the best video I've seen on this topic, excellently explained with many very good examples from different aspects. Brilliant

@marxist-leninisttheory8023 9 жыл бұрын

really good summary of this highly important topic

@ProlTV 9 жыл бұрын

+Marxist-Leninist Theory THanks comrade - please share it

@alexg6464 8 жыл бұрын

Hey! I realize this video is over half a year old, but would it be possible to give the videos better audio quality in the future?

@venceremosallende422 5 жыл бұрын

Marxist-Leninist Theory Do you run the similar named blog? Iike it

@someesingh2827 5 жыл бұрын

Hi FinBol

@DialecticalMaterialismRocks 3 жыл бұрын

But it seems they do not talk about qualitative changes. Only quantitative

@RussiaGoodFantastic 7 жыл бұрын

44:30 if i would have had such a periodic table during my school years..

@ivanc.6064 Жыл бұрын

It's true that idealism is a philosophical position that emphasizes the role of mental processes and ideas in shaping our understanding of the world. Idealists argue that the material world is a product of human consciousness and that the objects and phenomena we observe are dependent on our perceptions and interpretations of them. From this perspective, the material world is seen as a construction or projection of the mind, and the things we experience are considered to be non-material entities that are shaped by our thoughts and ideas. While idealism offers a rich and nuanced view of reality, it is important to recognize that it is just one perspective among many and that it has its own limitations and biases. Materialism, on the other hand, is a philosophical position that emphasizes the role of matter and physical processes in shaping reality. Materialists argue that the material world is the fundamental building block of the universe and that all other phenomena, including consciousness, thought, and culture, are derivative of matter. Both idealism and materialism offer valuable insights into the nature of reality, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. It is possible to appreciate the non-material aspects of the world while also recognizing the importance of material phenomena, and to recognize that both mental and physical processes play a role in shaping our experience of the world.

@raggledaggle721 6 жыл бұрын

Is it possible to make a video about the essential differences and the development between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks? I'm so interested, because I think there's relevance for their struggles even today...

@ivanc.6064 7 жыл бұрын

Thank u for the effort to post i will probabliy summarie this soon. 1. 24:00 - is a good part

@judas0l7 6 жыл бұрын

"Through the knowing of experience."

@dogeyes7261 5 жыл бұрын

As an American Communist I’m glad you didn’t blame guns for mass shootings. I live in the rural Deep South, where there are more guns than people, and we have low instances of gun crime and especially mass shootings. Violence is caused by alienation. Guns are a factor for sure, but they aren’t evil magical objects compelling us to do crime. In fact, you’re more likely to be killed by a cop, in general, than a petty criminal or spree killer with an “assault rifle.” But our ruling class greatly prefers technocratic solutions to problems that increase police power relative to us, like building walls and prohibition, than to implementing costly social reforms. “Placebo policies” instead of effective policies. You’d be surprised how many moderate and conservative workers down here have a keen, instinctual understanding of political power posed by our liberal firearms laws. They grasp the State question better than most moderate and progressive liberals, who hypocritically use patriarchal insults about the size of people’s manhoods rather than come to an understanding with the bulk of blue collar workers who are a part of what they disparage as “gun culture.” Liberals will quickly, almost boastfully, mock any talk of revolution by claiming all it takes is a drone strike to stop it. But if liberals understood how to talk to their own class, they’d be communists. Same for conservatives too, of course.

@AmparoGusen 9 жыл бұрын

Very good exposed, very convincing explanations. Very needed, important post. Thanks, comrades!

@ProlTV 9 жыл бұрын

Thanks comrade. Please share, like, subscribe.

@Psypomp 7 жыл бұрын

Those 66 minutes flew by... totally engrossing.

@manatee2500 6 жыл бұрын

Psypomp 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@1292liam 5 жыл бұрын

they must be being ironic lol@@manatee2500

@robheusd 8 жыл бұрын

For a start about the scientific theory of the Big Bang - which was not covered in this presentation - let me explain some of it, without going into much detail. Firstly, some 100 years ago Einstein developed a new theory of gravity which replaced Newtons theory of gravity. In the Newtonian universe the source of gravity was unknown, only it's effects were known and mathematically expressed in the gravitational expression of Newton (F = G x m1 x m2 / d²) i.e. the force two bodies exert to each other is expressed as the product of the two masses multiplied by a universal gravity constant and divided by the distance between the two masses squared. The theory of Einstein is a theory about space and time and is firstly derived by acknowledging the fact (as was experimentally tested) that the speed of light is constant, independend of the relative velocity of the observer. This means that notions as time and space itself are different for observers which are in different inertial frames which are in motion relative to each other. This is special relativity which does not take gravity into the equations. Bringing gravity in, it is then considered that an accelerating rest frame is equivalent in all aspects with a frame that is stationary in a field of gravity. Working that out mathematically gives you general relativity (GR). GR could then explain the peculiar motion of Mercury around the sun (a precession motion) which Newtonian gravity theory could not explain. In the theory of GR space time itself then must have properties (curvature), and the curvature of spacetime - caused by material objects that have mass - is the cause for the way masses behave gravitationally near other masses. This is something of importance for for example GPS satelites, which must accomodate for these effects (both SR and GR) to give the right results. Working this out on the cosmological scale, Einstein was confronted with a problem: he had to arbitrary add a term to the equation to prevent the universe from collapsing into itself, because all the masses would attract each other, and the universe at that time was thought to be static (only motion of stars around galaxy centers, and galaxies relative to each other, and planets around stars, etc., but the cosmos at a whole was thought of being static). This turned out to be wrong. Friedman had worked out other solutions to the EInstein equations, which showed that the universe must either collapse into itself, or expand. A belgian priest worked out the initial idea that the universe must have expanded from an initial state (a 'cosmic egg') and expanded since then. Only some years later Hubble experimentally found that far away galaxies were receding from each other (redshift - distance relation) and which confirmed the picture of an expanding universe. Mathematically speaking this would mean that the universe would have started out in a singularity with infinite density, which is clearly impossible. Although this naive picture is clearly wrong and since long rejected by modern science, popular representations of the BB theory have popularized the idea of the Big Bang as meaning the start of time,space and matter, which is an untennable position. So something must be clearly wrong. A theory which predicts infinite results for measurents must be erroneous. But compare this to Newtons theory of gravity. In the model of Newton, masses are thought of as point masses. So if two masses would collide with each other and have zero distance, also in Newtons theory an infinite force would result. In practice we never see that happen. There are two reasons for that: masses are not points but take up space, and secondly masses exists as atoms which have negatively charged electrons which repell each other. Similarly in the cosmological model, very near to the fictional singularity, one needs to accomodate for the existence of other forces, which are the nuclear and electric forces, and which are described in Quantum Theory. However, despite serious efforts, there was no theory of both GR ánd QM (a theory of quantum gravity) combined. Work which was done in the late 70-ies in the former sovjet union (Starobinsky and others) tried to circumvent this by using methods of quantum corrections to GR, to get a model for the early universe, thus taking into account that at short length scales, QM effects play a role, and in fact this theory can be seen as a predecessor of a theory now known as inflation. Stories say that this work was not known in the west at that time, and that Alan Guth on his own had a brllliant insigth about a roughly similar theory not long after the work of Starobinsky had already been published. The general idea was that some unknown field in a vacuum with a lot of energy was excerting a negative pressure and hence would have the effect of a repulsive gravitational force, which then means that the space itself expands in a very rapid (exponential) way. The field goes to it's minimum, and the field decays. During the expansion of a small patch of space, the energy density stays the same. This would result in an increase of energy. However, this energy must come from somewhere. The gravitational field itself is the source for that energy, so energy is conserved, and the energy potential of the gravitational field becomes negative. For this to understand: compare an electric field. If you bring electric charges to one another for creating an electric field, you have to do work because same charged particles will repell each other. Gravitational force of masses however is attractive, so bringing masses together creates energy. So this theory does not defy conservation laws, although the repulsive gravitational effect causing space to expand is of course a bit peculiar. Inflationary theory (after years of development by Guth and Andrei Linde, a former soviet scientist) has the beauty that it can explain a lot of things that the Big Bang model could not explain. This includes: the "flatness" (in the euclidian sense) of the universe, the homogeneity (different parts of the universe far away which could not have been in thermal contact with each other, have the same temperature, and the right amount of inhomogeneities to explain galaxy formation at the time scale of the universe. An important variable in the Big Bang theory is the mass/energy density of the universe. If too low, the universe would expand and dilute without structure formation. If too high, the universe would collapse into itself. It is with current observation established that the critical density is very near to one (meaning: "flat" space) which means that it must have been almost exactly 1 near the beginning (at the end of inflation and the begin of the normal expansion of the universe in the big bang model) of the universe. Inflation explains this because this drives that value during exponential expansion to 1. The matter contents (all the baryonic particles that form stars, planets and galaxies) were created from the energy that was released after the inflationary period, as both matter and anti-matter. Most of that annihilated back again into photons (light) but due to symmetry breaking a tiny fraction of that did manage to stay (why this is the case is not very simple to explain and is skipped here). Only after the universe cooled down enough and electrons were re-united with the nuclea, atoms formed, and light could freely move. The remnants of that light, which is the thermal spectrum of the early universe at around 400.000 years after inflation, is visible as 3K radiation of the cosmic microwave background radiation. There is a very good match between the theory of inflation, which predicts the shape of that spectrum, and the data that comes from satellites that detect that spectrum. Both GR and inflation predict gravitational waves. Some observations indicate that this is the case, but further exploration is necessary. What is good about inflationary theory is that it is strictly a scientific theory with a great match between predictions and observations, and that it does no require one to think of the Big Bang as having started with a singularity or from nothing. Many other possible models of the early universe (including some of the inflationary models of which there are a lot) have been ruled out based on precission data currently available. A peculiarity of inflation worth mentioning is that even while inflation only lasts a tiny fraction of time due to the decay of the field, the decay is in such a fashion (like radioactive decay) that not all of the field decays at once, a tiny fracion always stays. The not decaying part of space however expands so rapidly that in effect more space inflates as decays, which makes inflation eternal into the future. Every patch of space in which the field decays effectively forms a new universe.

@venceremosallende422 5 жыл бұрын

58:02 "dialectical mysterialist" 😉 A very good presentation comrade

@qclod 9 жыл бұрын

Excellent explanation.

@ProlTV 9 жыл бұрын

Thanks comrade. Please share, like, subscribe.

@AtlantaBill 7 жыл бұрын

Lenin said that Engels, unlike Marx, had an insufficient grasp of Dialectical Materialism. Ancient Greek methodology employed the dialectics of argument. Hegel taught that nature itself participates in a dialogue that is similar to the human argumentative dialogue in this only: that it moves to a higher thesis (not a simple synthesis) in which thesis and antithesis are resolved, and he referred to that as the dialectics of nature. Hegel used the triad "thesis - antithesis - synthesis" on only one known occasion, when he criticized Fichte for using it, calling it "too schematic". The concept that thesis and antithesis are destroyed in the Aufhebung (transformation onto a new level) to produce a fundamentally new thesis is critical to understanding the methodology. An example is that not only will the capitalist class be destroyed as a class on achieving the communist society, but also the working class-- because its existence is dependent on its economic relationship to its class antagonist.

@ProlTV 7 жыл бұрын

+Atlanta Bill Thanks. you should consider getting these books: 1. on the popular lies spread about the USSR: www.proletarianonline.org/product-page/lies-about-the-soviet-union 2. on Lenin Trotsky and Stalin: www.proletarianonline.org/product-page/trotskyism-or-leninism 3 on the collapse of the USSR: www.proletarianonline.org/product-page/perestroika-the-complete-collapse-of-revisionism 4. On the Labour party: www.proletarianonline.org/product-page/social-democracy-the-enemy-within

@ungusjr9391 5 жыл бұрын

@@ProlTV those links don't work anymore, am really interested in that first book, help?

@NeoRipshaft 4 жыл бұрын

This is one of the more interesting and well put together pieces on dialectical materialism I've found so far - if you've not tried to amplify its visibility through r/Breadtube yet I strongly suggest you do - it deserves more views.

@ivanc.6064 2 жыл бұрын

Can we see a spirit? Scriptures talk to us about spirits and we tend to give them credit for influencing the lives of man but what do they actually look like? When assessing sociaty its difficult to ignore them wether they are real or simply superstition lots of people seem to believe they are there, and so when we asses society what exactly can we make of them? Assessing society is an act of analysis like any other except of course we are dealing with humans as our subject. So what are spirits? Let see if we can notice some qualities of spirits. They guide the fates of man (whether by haunting us or by giving us wisdom such as the spirit of God). Well now if we look at society can we see what guides the fates of man? One thing that pops in my mind is material objects. Material objects have a undeniable influence on us wether it's books and documents handed down to us or more invisible social constructs like laws and social norms or even very tangible things like food and housing. These things are observable and so I'm happy to conclude to myself at least that spirits might just be material objects. So next time you you're feeling guided by some unseen hand or spirit know that the spirit that's guides you is possibly more visible than you think and could be hiding in plain sight.

@zandewilson 7 жыл бұрын

Good stuff. He reminds me of Chris Martin!

@ivanc.6064 5 жыл бұрын

are Harpal Brar and Ranjeet Brar related?

@aaron4wilkins 3 жыл бұрын

We aren't taught that in the US schools

@robheusd 8 жыл бұрын

It's a pitty that there is not much literature available that explains dialectical-materialsm in terms of the current scientific knowledge which since the time of Marx and Engels have evolved tremendously, as for example in the field of physics (special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang theory and inflationary cosmology), biology (DNA, genetics), computers, etc. etc.