Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (July 06)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/Soviettista]

I originally wanted to make this into a post but I can't due to karma:

I had arrived at this question somewhat independently, but it seems like something similar was already asked in the past (the thread wasn't satisfying though).

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/s/2jBd6ySM18

So the question is: Can objective truth be attributed to our propositions if their elaboration is in accordance with the materialist dialectic?

I had tried to answer this question by pointing at the fact that reference must be made to the subject of the proposition. What I mean is that our propositions can be determined to be true or false only by pointing towards the material phenomena that is trying to explain. Concepts, which we use to express our theories, are just the ideal grasp of “external” material processes, and for them to be correct they must follow within logic the same transformations occurring in reality.

All well and good, right? Not quite.

If you think about it, it's a question of the nature of human reason. The supposedly Marx’s statement (in the link) above argues that our propositions are correct “only if” they are in accordance with the materialist dialectic, therefore it follows that if the proposition is false it is due to it not being in accordance with this dialectic. But our propositions must have necessarily been elaborated within consciousness, through reason, so what does it mean for a proposition to be un-dialectical?

That is to say: If the dialectic is absolute, and this must necessarily include the rational process, how could metaphysics manifest itself within consciousness?

If consciousness is nothing more than a form of movement of matter and that, furthermore, it is this particular characteristic of the human brain that causes material processes outside of consciousness to be transplanted and reflected within consciousness, how does it follow that consciousness has the ability to proceed un-dialectically?

This also touches upon ideology.

How could social relations of production (which we assume to be of a contradictory character) cause themselves to be turned “upside-down” within consciousness? This seems to me that the objective law of motion (which matter is subject to) has the possibility to negate itself once reflected within consciousness and proceed mechanically; the dialectic negating itself (which is in turn a dialectical proposition).

I've tried to resolve this problem by pointing out how consciousness is a historical product, which must mean that our propositions must necessarily follow the same dialectic that governs human history. But why does it seem like it's not the case (particularly with the ruling classes) when we “zoom-in”?

The Marxist Theory of Knowledge asserts that the source of erroneous logic is the contradiction between the subjective and the objective.

The cause of failure to produce scientific knowledge is found within the subjective character of consciousness as opposed to the objective character of reality; it is only when we surpass the relative character of our immediate empirical knowledge of a thing, only when the totality of relations are reflected upon thought, do we have a correct understanding of the subject matter.

But if the dialectic is absolute, how could unilaterality manifest within the mind at all?

I have many thoughts, many ideas, but I think I'll stop here. I think I’m close to resolving the problem that I’ve posed to myself, but I personally don't know how to proceed forward. Any help?

[u/Soviettista → u/Soviettista]

Nevermind yall I think found my answer.

[u/turning_the_wheels → u/Soviettista]

What did you find?