The Science of Socialism: Dialectical Materialism Explained!

[@MarxistMomentum]

Thank you for your amazing work, and for spreading the brilliancy of Dialectical Materialism!

[@TheLeftLibrary]

Thank you! It’s a foundation for other deeper videos on the topic in the future!

[@surretrett]

The brilliance that led to at least 100 million deaths.

[@TheLeftLibrary]

@@surretrett debunked like decades ago? Haha

[@ThoughtfulVoyager]

​@@surretrett Can you give me evidence?

[@DerekSpeareDSD]

better sound quality is appreciated. This is a good into to dialectics.

[@TheLeftLibrary]

Yeah that was the aim! Can build on the topic from this! Thank you!

[@parriefamily]

The main graphic of your KZbin title card has a misspelling. "Socialsm" instead of "Socialism".

[@TheLeftLibrary]

Nice catch dude!

[@HaveYouTriedGuillotines]

Dialectical materialism incorporates a large number of faulty assumptions in order to sort everything into a neat dichotomy that doesn't really exist. Not really a fan of it, because of this. Capital and labor, for instance, is not in opposition, as labor in and of itself is a form of capital. A truly materialist understanding of the world understands that people, including the people who make up what we would call a "labor pool," are in themselves a material resource. All forms of work, from those held by the rich and powerful all the way down to the lowly janitor, are thus a form of capital, which is to say a quantity of something with real value, because it can either be traded or put into use to directly produce an outcome. Thus a conflict of capital and labor does not occur, but rather a conflict between different types of labor, because the labor (or just the people doing it) is either being over or under valued. This creates inefficiencies in the system that manifest in the real world as things like famine, poverty and just in general, inequality or inequity. This in turn can actually bring the whole system to a grinding halt, as seen during the great depression. Take this thinking to its logical conclusion and eventually you realize that the entirety of human economics is just one giant thermodynamic system, which needs to be kept in balance... And the real problem with capitalism is that it fails to set valid goals for what that thermodynamic system should be doing to maintain itself better, due to a failure to realize that the material output of the system goes into the _very human components that keep the system running,_ either as workers or consumers. Dialectical Materialism also fails to properly separate ideology from real world consequence when setting up its desired dichotomy. As the above point suggests, the ideology of capitalism is often very internally consistent, and its this very consistency that creates both contradictions between PEOPLE (competition), and also crashes under capitalism: Capitalist ideology treats both economic and social conflict, as well as as regular market instability, as a natural phenomenon that should not be disturbed, believing the default balance of nature to be the best state the market can be in. In essence, Capitalists treat Darwin the same way that the religious treat God. As this unquestionable thing that can't be denied or resisted, rather than simply the causal, material reality we both exist in and contribute towards with our actions. It is thus through consistency between ideology and behavior, which is to say a dogmatic adherence to non-interference, that instability that would otherwise be prevented is allowed to occur, and incredibly disruptive and destructive amounts of competition is encouraged and even rewarded. What capitalists fail to realize is that those bloody revolutions they complain about are similarly just a natural part of an unregulated market: If there's one thing Dialectical Materialism is both correct about and in agreement with capitalism on, it's that regular boom bust cycles are part of the natural state of the market. Neither side realizes this agreement is happening, but it absolutely is. Capitalists fail to realize that communist revolution is just another bust at the end of a naturally forming, society wide market bubble, while socialists fail to realize that their glorious revolution is more or less a natural part of an unregulated market, and as a result fail to ever actually escape the original momentum of capitalism, becoming a part of the very problem they sought to overcome. In short, what I'm trying to say is that the market is absolute. It is inescapable material reality. Socialists fail by thinking they can escape it, capitalists fail by foolishly worshiping its natural state, and ultimately it is as defined by harmony as much as it is contradiction, and that harmony and contradiction can be both good or bad depending on circumstance. Dialectical materialism is not the silver bullet socialists are looking for, and everyone should probably be seeking another more fundamental and less contrived theory.

[@JordanJ1263]

I don’t feel like reading all of this but Marxism does recognize labor-power as a commodity. It criticizes the fact that this commodification turns people themselves into commodities, and this there is a contradiction between capital (as a commodifier, demanding that people turn themselves into objects/machines for the creation of more value) and labor (people who have human needs and want to develop personalities, rather than be objectified). This contradiction is evident in the class struggle, as labor is constantly seeking respite from this commodification.

[@HaveYouTriedGuillotines]

@@JordanJ1263 People *are* commodities. It's just a simple fact of nature that everything has a physical, objective value. Refusing to accept that is where Marxism itself derails from modernism, and plows into post-modernism. Specifically, it's where it joins capitalism in post-modernism, since capitalism makes the same mistake in a more general sense. People as a resource is a reality. It's not something that can be changed, just like how property and ownership are emergent phenomenon from unavoidable human behavior, and cannot abolished. Humans are objects. Our universe is objective. Marxism fails in practice because it fights irrational, unwinnable battles like this. This is not the hill to die on. The fight to be had is not whether human value is quantifiable, but rather what that quantity is, and whether that quantity is to be a target of, or source for, other capital. Like it or not, it probably needs to be both, contextually.

[@HaveYouTriedGuillotines]

@@JordanJ1263 Also, if you don't feel like reading a post, you should not respond to it.

[@tamaztokhadze418]

Dude, it is not serious to call Marx's dialectical materialism scientific in 2024. It is not scientific under any plausible interpretation of "scientific". Marx was a great intellectual, but we do not need to have a cult of personality around him, Engels, and other Marxists. Science is not a cult. You should learn from other sources and authors, and search for more up-to-date information and approaches which are more empirically adequate and formally precise.

[@TheLeftLibrary]

Yes it can serve scientifically when you’re analysing society. You cannot predict anything involving people with certainty like behaviouralism currently attempts to do, DM offers a way of accurately perceiving the future changes in society through the current set of contradictions weighing on it (as imposed by history), illuminating possible future paths of development and allowing you to navigate in the direction the society desires. Economics is considered a ‘science’ without question yet economic laws are not scientific laws because they’re conditional and subject only to the current [capitalist] economic system? BA & MA Political economy so there may be more “up to date approaches” but this stuff is still essential political theory sorry

[@jlwdeuce8536]

Marx was so smart he was always in debt and couldn’t keep his kids alive because he kept ending up in the poor house.

[@tamaztokhadze418]

​@@TheLeftLibrary Thanks for your reply. There are a couple of things you are getting wrong in your reply. Starting from the last. Marx's view of society and history is, of course, an essential part of political theory and political philosophy curriculums, together with other classical and more contemporary approaches and ideologies (like liberalism and utilitarianism, conservatism, and some other related stuff). But you are not simply presenting Marx's view here; you very confidently and categorically claim that Marx's theory serves as a unified scientific approach to understanding change in society and nature; and you even say that DM is a science of everything. That is not serious. You are citing Leninin and referring to Stalin (which is funny in itself, but it is also sad) but can you cite one contemporary reputable social scientist, economist, or a contemporary reputable philosopher of science who claims what you claim -- that we have this great, correct unified theory of change (i.e., DM)? Science does not have such cult figures as some people see Marx. Regarding your brief comment about Economics: You can check some textbooks and articles on the philosophy of social sciences if you are really interested in that. Based on your video, I am confident that you have not studied in any appropriate detail this and related topics. Also, saying that you have BA and MA in political economy, does not mean anything. Almost anyone can get a one-year or even two-year MA degree on such topics. If you are really interested in these things, not from a partisan perspective, then you should study them as a scholar, and not as a committed believer.

[@luigienjoyer]

AI generated thumbnail, never cook again.

[@thefeof6161]

For an independent video maker ai generated image is a very cost effictive manner of getting 70% good thumbnsil for 5% of the cost, speacially for such a small chanel

[@TheLeftLibrary]

@@thefeof6161 hahah thank you so much - I try to make them myself when I can!! Sometimes they’re just better!

[@luigienjoyer]

Response to reply got deleted or smth, but my point was that AI generated thumbnails will drive people away from your vids.

[@thefeof6161]

@@TheLeftLibrary keep up the great work man!

[@TheLeftLibrary]

@@thefeof6161 cheers dude!!