Marx 101: Key Concepts of Dialectical Materialism | Red Plateaus

In this video we introduce the core concepts of dialectical materialism: the interpenetration of opposites, transformation of quantity into quality and negation of negation, before seeing the role they play in understanding history in the next video.
Since the footnotes way excede the KZbin video description character limit, please find them here:
docs.google.com/document/d/1q...
To follow future episodes in this series, "Marx thoughts on History, Praxis and Social Change", see:
• Marx on History, Praxi...
Find our series "Marx on Human Development, Freedom, Alienation, and Socialism" here:
• Marx on Human Developm...
Consider supporting us on Patreon:
patreon.com/redplateaus
Join our Discord:
discord.io/redplateaus
Check out the podcast version:
anchor.fm/redplateaus
And follow us on Twitter :)
rplateaus

[@TheJayman213]

The visuals are too interesting to look at. I had trouble focusing.

[@shantanusingh5320]

Lol, same with me

[@RedPlateaus]

I'd say we're sorry, but we're not.

[@Spangfunk3000]

Close your eyes, and relax......

[@rizjonbridges544]

@@Spangfunk3000 I did exactly this and it cured my visual attention problem danm near instantly

[@ideologically_uncharged8069]

It's a ploy so that we'd read the transcript and footnotes to learn more

[@allypoum]

Really spot on as we've come to expect. Shared and loved - keep up the great work comrade.

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks, much appreciated!

[@ashtynstormes1734]

This video and the series it is apart of are so incredibly helpful. My country seems to be coming to a ‘boiling point’ so to speak and I feel now more than ever I need to be capable of both understanding and explaining these concepts. Thank you, comrade.

[@smooa1889]

2:54 why am i looking at charlie chaplin feeding a man some chicken lmfao

[@winstonwins1096]

Seems like an apt display of Capitalism to me. lol

[@RedPlateaus]

I mean, why not?

[@LuckyBlackCat]

I love the tree/canoe analogy. "Hi Google" lmao Great video as always, comrades.

[@LuckyBlackCat]

Small suggestion for future videos: consider adding a summary/review at the end. When explaining new concepts it can be helpful for learning retention. At least for slow people like me.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@LuckyBlackCat We've been working hard to make them as short as possible, but yeah we should probably do that. Do you think it's mostly a good idea for more conceptual ones like this, or that it would be better on all of them?

[@LuckyBlackCat]

​@@RedPlateaus Hmm, it depends, but I'd say do it for any video where you're teaching a lot of new information to the viewer. Another option is to add "chapters" to the video (you do this by writing time stamps in the video description), and then at the end of the video you can say something like: "In this video we learned the definitions of interpenetration of opposites, transformation of quantity into quality, and negation of negation. If you'd like to review any of these definitions, look in the video description for the time stamp that will take you to the part of the video where this concept is explained."

[@RedPlateaus]

@@LuckyBlackCat Thanks for the help, as always! We'll try to work that into future videos where it makes sense.

[@mornthunder3280]

It's so hard to focus while watching a man help another man use a whole chicken as a funnel for his drink

[@RedPlateaus]

It could be worse. Imagine trying to focus while a man tries to help you drink using a whole chicken as a funnel!

[@21irises]

Now I think I finally have a grasp on Dialectical Materialism. Thank you so much!

[@ShutItKyle]

"Tagging all viewers" Listen.

[@WhatsTherapy]

very helpful, thanks for your work

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks and you're very welcome!

[@CorsTymadorDofus]

I loved it, keep up the good work Atte : Rosita !

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks, we will!

[@user-vm6mw5xw7o]

this is such a great video! parts of theory make a lot more sense now. thank you so much comrade~

[@Spangfunk3000]

So do you have to read the whole of Hegel's 'Logic' to understand Das Kapital or not?

[@RedPlateaus]

I really hope not! Thankfully, today we have the work of people like Michael Heinrich and Bertell Ollman.

[@Spangfunk3000]

@@RedPlateaus I'd actually push the boat out there and suggest you can understand Marx by just reading Marx. That said, I haven't read much Heinrich but liked the Ollman book when I read it. I like Allen W Wood's book on Marx too.

[@RedPlateaus]

@@Spangfunk3000 I mean, most things are logically possible, the real question is how feasible it is, and given the complexity of Marx's ideas and the trickiness, especially to us, of his conceptual apparatus, I'd say it's very difficult to understand Marx's ideas really well without some good secondary literature. That goes even more so when we take into account the variety of misunderstandings and misrepresentations out there and that often shape how his texts are made sense of.

[@chayabat-tzvi1215]

@@RedPlateaus I was just about to ask you about Hegel's Logic.

[@j_razavi]

@@RedPlateaus Eeep, usually people who seem to know more about Marx than me say that Heinrich got the wrong idea in places. Of course, what matters is whether the ideas stand on their own, not whether they're what Marx meant, but you often find that you start off believing some simplification which seems sensible on the surface but contains a fatal flaw, and when someone points out Marx's view, you realise that it avoids the flaw. But I trust 'Anarcopac', who links to this channel---so does that mean Heinrich is reliable?

[@corbi6798]

Amazing work you two. I'm curious to whether we'll be exploring the relationship between Marx's dialectical materialism and empiricism/scientific method. I'm very interested in reconciling some sort of understanding here because I am quite confused. My only knowledge is that it seems Marx's theory affirms that the world we live in, knowledge, etc. is of a dynamic and interactive nature, but I struggle to see some epistemic coherence, probably because my mind is so wired to this pervasive positivist paradigm.

[@RedPlateaus]

We will touch a tiny bit on it in our next and third video on dialectical materialism. However, for much more detail I'd recommend Bertell Ollman's "Dance of the Dialectic".

[@ideologically_uncharged8069]

Mao's short essay from 1937 'On Practice' is a good introduction to this. Or the much shorter 1963 'Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?'

[@liambaillargeon3136]

Really helpful video! I think I understand dialectics a lot better now.

[@chagoriver7159]

this was beautiful. thanks.

[@haydenleelee5111]

knowledge is power. Thanks!

[@guapochico69]

Thanks man just subscribed!

[@surajchaudhary613]

Thank you RP, very cool!

[@RedPlateaus]

You're welcome!

[@javo11]

keep on the good work.

[@FeOfTheElement]

Super helpful thank you

[@refrencetofire]

very well put together and informative video comrade

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks a lot!

[@miztess8022]

thank u so much ! as a new leftist these videos help a lot while reading :)

[@kalistefo9376]

Oh hey, looks like Christmas came early.

[@ploploolpo1929]

Because you like the positive comments, they get higher than negative ones, it makes the comment section seem biased by glance. On the other hand it's easier to quickly distinguish the negative ones from positive ones. I say this because I'm also interested in criticism, and having the other side in the conversation in order to have a more complete view of all of this.

[@shace4765]

2:30 But that also means that to emanzipate workers, you have to abolish captialists AND workers

[@nanigov4725]

Hell yeah

[@DinoCism]

Is there a particular book/article that was used in the framing and examples given in this clip? I've watched a lot of videos try to explain this stuff but this one makes it much simpler and clearer than most explainer videos that use more words and often repeat themselves to the point of losing clarity. Without a basic understanding of dialectical materialism, everything in the Marxist perspective stands in foundationless quicksand and yet in the moments when the basic material relationship between existing phenomenon reveal themselves as obvious and intuitive in a way that connects it to all the abstract jumble of human superstructure in ways that brings a simplicity that is absent in Bourgeois explanations of Capitalism, because they must start first with the task of mystifying, then justifying the conclusions they were bound by their class material interests to defend from the outset. The most "adult" and respectable elite Neoliberal explanations only ever amount to "how they think their Capitalist ideology should work" while the intellectual infants on the Fascist right in lieu of even that level of an explanation just make up sub-comic book level

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks! And that's why we made it. I don't know of any very accessible book intros that we drew on, but Bertell Ollman's work, especially his 'Dance of the Dialectic', is the best we know of on this and largely (with a couple of minor exceptions) what we're trying to convey.

[@Spangfunk3000]

BTW do you think dialectics is describing how concepts, or the real world, develops?

[@RedPlateaus]

That depends a lot on what you mean by 'dialectics', so I don't think I have a good general answer for you on that. I can say though, that e.g. Marx does use his process ontology and concepts of e.g. contradiction to make sense of things in the real world, not just of our ideas about them.

[@iniyanramasami1274]

Nice work comrades if captions were available it would be more easy to understand.

[@RedPlateaus]

I'll get those in as soon as I can and ping you. Until then I hope the script in the description helps!

[@RedPlateaus]

Let us know if it's any better for you now, or at least once processing is done :)

[@SurelyYewJest]

This is the kind of subject matter Americans are NEVER exposed to in grade school or high school. All we were - and I'm certain still are - ever taught was Communism=Bad/evil because governments take your property and boo-hiss Soviet Russia. Nobody south of a university level philosophy class even approaches an explanation of Marx's concept, and this is regardless of whether or not a person agrees or disagrees with his and his cohorts' premises. The bourgeoisie vs. proletariat conflict is the only aspect we are ever told about, and when it DOES come up it's always couched as stupid because obviously having money and property is defacto good and evidentiary of true freedom, whereas as a system where wealth is more evenly distributed - not even at socialism yet - is defacto immoral and unethical because see above.

[@daniel-zh4qc]

Great work... Pretty high level discussion in this format... Dialectical thinking is the biggest thing the left is missing rn... Most commentators i come across are stuck in positivism and static descriptivism.... Once we can start thinking dialectically the leninist moment can follow....

[@tomw6926]

Really good clear explanation, this one is definitely going on the list of useful links to tag when someone tries to invoke dialectics inappropriately

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks!

[@markmccowen8390]

Do you see dialectics as a methodology or a heuristic?

[@RedPlateaus]

I always get stuck on saying that this depends on what exactly you mean by 'dialectics' and 'methodology' here, since people can mean very different things by each, so depends on that I guess.

[@dinonugget109]

i tried to join the discord... it didn't work :(

[@RedPlateaus]

Hi! Try this one! discord.gg/Cg32bts7Nw

[@zeroclout6306]

I love your videos and your voice is fine to listen to but the volume is so incredibly low.

[@RedPlateaus]

Thanks for the feedback! I thought KZbin normalised that kind of thing, but I'll try to find a LUFS analyser for the next one, probably need to tweak compression makeup gain or something.

[@pashico7082]

What Charlie Chaplin movie is that???

[@KodierungHerz]

Oh you beautiful bastards

[@esmeralda8836]

First! Haha

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

Nerd

[@cunjoz]

Hold on. According to you, and I guess Marx, the capitalists want to milk the ploretariat, and the ploretariat want to emancipate themselves. That doesn't seem to me as a contradiction of capitalism or of anything for that matter - it just seems as opposing interests. A contradiction would be if the capitalists wanted to enslave the working class and emancipate them at the same time. If you say that it is a contradiction because capitalists and workers are parts of one whole which is capitalism and therein lies contradiction, well then you could make any 2 opposing relations to be parts of one whole and just say that it's a contradiction - you could make shit up as you go. You could make the revolution contradictory because it has those who lead it and those who oppose it. Hell, you could make ANY societal and/or economic system because you could find groups of people who wish to perpetuate it and those who wish to abolish it. Moreover, if communism were inevitable, why put any effort into it?

[@JW-my2hl]

You have some good points. I'm not an expert in this stuff by any means, but it might be helpful to know that Marx's critique of Capitalism was not a moral critique, but more trying to understand the mechanics of it. He doesn't mean contradiction in the way that nowadays we might call someone out for being contradictory/ hypocritical ( a moral critique), but just that there are forces within a capitalist society that work toward different interests. If you can imagine, Darwin's writings were blowing the minds of thinkers from this time. A cheetah and a gazelle's speed are so neck and neck only because their respective biological interests are at odds with each other, and this tension is precisely what is driving their development through history. It's in this way that Marx might've totally agreed with your second paragraph (besides maybe the "make shit up as you go" part). Capitalism is not unique in containing contradictory forces, and actually these forces are always present and are precisely what drive historical development. Any revolution surely would not exist in a vacuum outside of these forces. As for your last part about the inevitability of Communism, good point! Starting to get into the realm of determinism. It reminds me of William James' point: If you believe there's no freedom of the will, why bother presenting an argument? Marx must've believed in the will of the proletariat

[@cunjoz]

​@@JW-my2hl "there are forces within a capitalist society that work toward different interests. " that's what I mean. as I said, one could call a revolutionary society contradictory because there are revolutionary forces and counter-revolutionary forces. when I said you can make shit up as you go, I meant: " you could name any example and say that it's contradictory in this vague sense". "Capitalism is not unique in containing contradictory forces" yeah, i know and i'm complaining about marxists talking about those as if they're unique to capitalism (whatever they mean by that term - they always act as if it's self-evident what they mean by it and as if it's understood what values are laden upon it and as if values exist apart from the subjective act of evaluation) and as if they've come upon some great discovery. i mean, plowing the soil destroys some of it in order to get fruit from it - are we then gonna talk about contradictions of agriculture? about how it enabled humans to flourish in some ways yet resulted in birthing new diseases? how about the contradictions of immediate return hunter gathering? a life of relative leisure, but also of great danger? life is just like that - ambivalent. that's nothing to be astonished at. if anything is inevitable than the freedom of the will that is perceived is illusory. to freely will something and to inevitably arrive at willing something are two mutually exclusive positions. now, you attempt can redefine the term "free" to massage the two into a non-contradiction.

[@delroku]

But i don't wanna be dialectical I want to threaten people with power tools

[@RedPlateaus]

Maybe you can find a way to do both?

[@enochlambert1217]

Nothing here makes the case for dialectics being a distinct method of Marx's. At most it seems like extra, even extraneous, gloss on his substantive doctrines. To the extent that it tries to capture the dynamical, mutually conditioning forces of reality, that has been superseded by sciences that actually do that today (already in physics and biology and even some nascent social science then; much more so today). To the extent that it *substantively* relies on Hegelian notions of "totalities" to make sense of dynamics and mutual conditioning, it is nothing more than a bit of retrograde metaphysics that, in retrospect, obviously hampers the scientific aspirations of Marx and (some) Marxists.

[@RedPlateaus]

It's not clear what you're trying to object to here that's actually in the video. If it's we don't discuss Marx's processual and relational ontology, then we discuss that in another video that precedes this one (here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGe3iqynmqdjgs0) and there we also point out, explicitly and early on, that these basic ideas aren't unique to Marx. In this video, we don't claim to be presenting any 'distinct method of Marx's'. Those who do think there's a distinct Marxist method (like Lukacs) are not referring these basic concepts, but rather to something more specific. If you're interested in those ideas, I'd recommend reading his classic 'History and Class Consciousness'. Finally, it's not clear how a concept of totalities is 'retrograde metaphysics' either. Can you explain what you mean by 'totalities' and 'retrograde metaphysics', as well as why you think the latter applies to the former?

[@proletradutores2614]

Why do you say gender is binary in your video?

[@RedPlateaus]

We don’t say that gender is binary. We’re referring to the ‘gender binary’ in the sense of a social construct that exists under current patriarchal society, that classifies all people into two and only two categories, and that we think should be abolished.