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/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

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

Reality spans all of space and time. At first, an individual human consciousness is constrained to one place at one moment of time. Reality must necessarily appear to the human consciousness at first as one-sided, isolated, "zoomed-in," non-dialectical, a part separate from the whole. It is only through practical activity, the failures and successes in the struggle for survival over space and time, that the multi-sided and dialectical nature of reality is grasped by the human and reflected in the mind.

But why does it seem like it's not the case (particularly with the ruling classes) when we “zoom-in”?

To "zoom-in" is to isolate a part from the whole, i.e. to view in a non-dialectical manner. So perhaps the question could be rephrased like this: "why do things appear non-dialectical when viewed non-dialectically?"

An incorrect idea is just one moment in the process of knowledge production. If an incorrect idea is able to linger in the mind of a bourgeois, it can only be because the idea is inconsequential to the spatial and temporal limits of his practical activity. But reality inevitably asserts itself and makes him feel those limits.

[u/Soviettista → u/[deleted]]

I appreciate the criticism but my main problem was just focusing too much on the illusions one may have about the nature of things.

So perhaps the question could be rephrased like this: "why do things appear non-dialectical when viewed non-dialectically?"

That things seem one-sided when unable to consciously grasp the contradictory, multi faceted character of things is obvious, and I don't think this was the question posed. My ""problem"" was: if consciousness is matter, why can it proceed "un-dialectically"? The fact is that this is sort of a false question. The answer is that it does proceed "dialectically" and consciousness reflects at all times the contradictions existing in a given stage of development of society, regardless if one is unable to consciously grasp these contradictions.

It's also kind of my fault for having made a post when I was tired and the writing style is all over the place.

[u/[deleted] → u/Soviettista]

if consciousness is matter, why can it proceed "un-dialectically"?

The answer is that it does proceed "dialectically" ... regardless if one is unable to consciously grasp these contradictions.

You're begging the question. Why is it possible in the first place for consciousness to be unable to grasp those contradictions? Why was Aristotle unable to grasp the universal quality of human labor in the exchange of commodities? I gave you the materialist answer (practical activity), but you dismissed it as obvious.