this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
58 points (100.0% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2199 readers
104 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml
58
I wrote an intro to diamat from the perspective of thermodynamics (theunconductedchorus.com)
submitted 1 week ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is a culmination of a lot of ideas I've had over the years that constitute my world view and understanding of our reality.

Some key realizations I've had are that there are many parallels between concepts of energy gradients driving evolution of dynamic systems, emergence, and self-organization with the core concepts of Dialectical Materialism rooted in contradictions, transformation of quantity into quality, and the negation of the negation.

Dialectical Materialism describes the cyclical process of development where an initial thesis is countered by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that retains aspects of both but transcends them to a new level. This directly mirrors the idea of energy gradients driving systems towards higher levels of complexity and organization. In both cases, emergent properties arise from the interactions within the system driven by the selection pressures.

I see nature as having a fractal quality to it where environmental pressures to optimize space and energy use drive the emergence of similar patterns at different scales. I argue that our social structures are a direct extension of the physical reality and simply constitute a higher level of abstraction and organization that directly builds on the layers beneath.

If you're simply interested in a standalone introduction to dialectics can skip to chapter 8, which is largely self-contained. The preceding chapters build a foundation by illustrating how self-organization leads to the emergence of minds and social structures.

One of the goals I have here is to provide an introduction to diamat for people in STEM who may be coming from the liberal mainstream by demonstrating a clear connection between materialist understanding of physical reality and human societies.

Feedback and critique are both very welcome.

top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Giyuu@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This was just what I was looking for. As a former biology stemlord my first introduction to dialectics was through Paul Cockshotts YouTube videos that attempt at tying the two together, which really appealed to me. And eventually I was able to apply dialectics after a few years to my own thinking, which more or less in tandem with historical materialism rewired my brain I think at a fundamental level (or in other words it sublimated to a new model for looking at the world).

So I think you've got something pretty cool/important going on here that can help a lot of people cross the event horizon of historical materialism so they can reach real Marxism-Leninism that is rooted in these concepts. That is to say in a bottom up intuitive understanding where you can "feel" the direction of history pull*1. And like time and history, when you cross that event horizon in your brain, you cannot go backwards.

Good luck to you and your research.

*1. as opposed to the "top down" way...which is still good and a huge step can only take us so far and one can still abandon Marxism. How can we say it accurately (idk)? It's the ML or Marxist version of trying on politics like clothes? Whilst that's good and where basically all of us start because ML positions best explain the BS in capitalism domestically and abroad (and offer solutions), we want people to reach that event horizon of intuitively feeling Hmat because when it "clicks", the doors suddenly blow open, and you cannot go back.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 5 days ago

Thanks, it's great to see that the text resonates. My original goal was to write an intro that would be accessible to people in the mainstream, and particularly those who have STEM background. I intentionally try to avoid using any words like communism or Marxism so that people don't get triggered, and bury the political side of discussion all the way in chapter 8. My thinking is that if people get that far, and mostly agree with the argument I'm setting up, then at that point they're likely to entertain the political argument as well. It also becomes a holistic framework for understanding reality as opposed to simply being a political ideology.

And given that Marxism is a materialist philosophy, it seems to make sense to connect it to the physical world in a direct way. I find that we often end up getting stuck in silos in our particular fields, and new ideas often come out from connecting different fields of study together.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Always good to see someone using a field they are knowledgeable about to explain the Dialetical process imbued in everything, as Engels would say: "Nature is the test of Dialectics".

I do have something to nitpick though, I have seen it written before here or on Hex about the development being an thesis, anthesis, synthesis movement, and I have never truly understood it and always thought weird that none of the classical authors have ever used those words to describe Dialectics.

Seeing the resume of how you wrote your text, I think I have finally understood what people mean by those words, and in my understanding it's a mistaken view of Dialectics.

The Dialetical method sees the development of everything that exists by the progress of each things internal contradictions, which when the main aspect of the main contradiction changes from the older to the newer, the thing itself changes from being the previous main aspect to being the new one. Utilizing the same jargon, the "Thesis" itself becomes the "Anthesis" after enough qualitative changes. Which is also why it necessary carries some qualities of the old aspect and it also creates it's own "Anthesis" that will eventually take its place in the future.

I don't really know where this "synthesis" came from, but it feels to me like and idealistic view of the Dialetical method where something is born out of the method itself instead of being the process of already existing things.

I think this wouldn't cause that much difference in your text considering you are studying nature itself when using thermodynamics, but I would this can cause bigger problems when dealing with more abstract things like society or economy.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I go into this in detail in chapter 8, and explain it (hopefully) properly there. The blurb was just meant to draw the parallels between the two ideas.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Sorry for the way my comment is structured, it's already morning here and I did my best to try to get my point through, I haven't had the time to read the hole text yet, but I did read the 8º Chapter, and I must say that yes, the application of that mistaken dialectical method does lead to some problems when exposed to more abstract matters like society and economy.

I do note now that this mistake comes from attempting to use the dialectical method created by Hegel in the same way that the ancient Greeks used to find better answer through a dialogue between opposing parties, which is where "Thesis", "Antithesis" and "Synthesis" are used correctly.

But Hegel's Dialectics is not about two opposing sides culminating in a third one through conversation, but about the better and more developed side, in his idealistic view the big "idea", and the lesser and flawed side, the reality, struggling and ever changing attempting to reach the former.

Marx then comes and turns it on his feet, as Engels would say, and adapts Hegelian dialectics to the real and material world, consequently changing the cause of development from the contradiction between the idea and the existing, to the internal contradictions present in every existing thing.

Now what this change in method causes can be exemplified in your brothers and bikes problem: Using Diamat for them to be in there would need to be a process which puts them in opposite sides, in this case, "who is the fastest?", in this process they are in contradiction trying to overtake each other, now one brother has a better bike and consequently becomes the main aspect of the contradiction and therefore "the fastest", but given time the other brother can struggle in an attempt to improve and surpass the other brother, if he is successful in his struggle, if his struggles were enough, he can then surpass his brother as the main aspect and therefore become the fastest.

What were the differences between methods: 1º: the brothers are not contradictory as a whole with each other, but in a specific process. 2º: No dialogue is necessary, the problem and the changes come from the facts themselves(not saying dialogue doesn't help). 3º: the resolution to the contradiction do the process is in the process itself, there isn't necessarily a need for a third party to come and resolve the contradiction. 4º: Struggles are not a negative thing, but the necessary action to bring forth change. 5º: The unity of opposites means that their place in the process is interchangeable, when one becomes the faster the other becomes the slower and vice-versa.

These differences become very important when analyzing more complex situations because the entire Marxist theory is on the bases that the answer the two main contradictions of capitalism, being the private property of the means of production and the socialized production, and the organization of factories and the anarchy of production, lie in themselves, meaning the socialization of the means of production and planned production. And that those changes will only happen when the newer revolutionary class takes the place of the older reactionary class as the leaders of society.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I very much agree with all the 5 points you've made. My perspective on the dialectic process comes from the physics side of things. The way I look at this is that any dynamic system be it physical or social, has energy gradients or pressures within it. These pressures create instability within the system that drives its evolution. This is the lens I view contradictions through. So, within the rules of capitalist system we have contradictions that stem from private ownership of production, and these create social tensions that must resolve in some way. Then the system transitions to a new state that will have its own set of rules that guide its evolution and its own contradictions, and this cyclical process continues on indefinitely.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think I understand your point of view, your are viewing contradictions as creators of pressures that lead to a instability in the system which must be solved in a way that is in tune with both sides of the contradiction.

But what dialectical method gives us is that those pressures are not necessarily created by the contradictions, they can and, even more when dealing with nature, normally are external, what lies within the contradictory process itself is the answer to those pressures, meaning that one side must triumph over the other for this contradiction to be "solved".

So basically you are looking for the cause of the "problem" within the system but the answer outside it, when with diamat the cause is always a combination of external and internal conditions, but the solution lies within the system itself.

There is an easy example of this in thermodynamics itself, which is as much as my knowledge on the matter will allow me, that is boiling water: The water has its on internal contradiction between its liquid and gaseous state, when we as a external force apply heat to liquid water we create a rapid change in it forcing it to become, after enough heat is used, gaseous.

So in this case the cause of the change was mostly external, but the result is to be expect within the internal contradiction, as Mao would say: "In a suitable temperature, an egg becomes a chicken, but in no circumstances can a rock become a chicken".

Also I should have done this earlier, but all the points I made in these comments come from F. Engels' "Socialism Utopian and Scientific" and "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy", and sometimes with the help of M. Cornforth's "Materialism and the Dialectical Method".

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

To clarify a bit, I don't see the pressures as being products of contradictions, but rather being synonymous with them. My view is that pressures are a result of energy gradients. Any system that has an energy gradient present within it will try to find its way to a ground state due to the laws of thermodynamics. My argument is that thermodynamics is ultimately the engine behind all physical processes, and our social dynamics is a level of abstraction that is an extension of the physical world.

I'm not sure there's much value separating external and internal conditions though as both ultimately feed into the system. Complex systems often have recursive properties to them where operation of the system itself changes the environment and that feeds back into the operation of the system.

And I should read up on Feuerbach and Cornforth a bit more. I'm familiar with them, but haven't really studied their work in detail. 😅

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I thought our discussion had already run its course, but only now it came to me just how crucial to the understanding of Dialectical Materialism is seeing the value of separating external influence and internal conditions. In my other comment I said it allows for easier study, but that is very far from being complete, it actually is the pivotal abstraction when studying something with Diamat.

Dialectal Materialism gives internally, through its contradictions, the "possibilities" a thing can be. But only after affected by external influences that it actually becomes one of these "possibilities". To go back to the Egg example, the egg holds within himself, through its contradictions, the possibilities of hatching, breaking, rotting, etc.. But which one will the egg actually become depends now of the external conditions.

I also have to add that throughout our discussion it might have lost its focus, but I see the root of the problem being in what is wrote in my very first comment, of trying to use Hegelian Dialectics in the same way as ancient Greek Dialectics, they may share some terminology, but their movement is entirely different.

In short in Greek Dialectics A vs B leads to a C with characteristics of A and B; in Dialectical Materialism A vs B already have characteristics of each (that's why they are contradictory) and they lead to B, with the newer one necessarily (given time) triumphing over the former.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Right, but what I'm saying is that complex systems shape their environment. For example, a society transforms the land around it by cutting down forests, creating fields for agriculture, and so on. This in turn affects the way a society functions internally. An egg hatches into a chicken, and a chicken will proceed to eat food, produce waste, and so on. It's part of the environment, and it has a direct effect on the environment. Hence, why I'm warning of the danger of rigidly separating the system from its context.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, there are philosophies that study things focusing on its context and interconnection with other structures, that's French Structuralism.

It's only Dialetical Materialism that requires the investigation of the internal contradictions inherent in everything.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't see how these two concepts are at odds with each other. Contradictions deal with forces within a dynamic system that guide its evolution over time, but both internal and external forces contribute to shaping the contradictions. As I said earlier, there is a recursive quality at play in any complex system.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think I understand pretty clearly what you mean, and it's slightly incorrect, the contradictions are the "tracks" that guide the evolution caused by other forces, and as such the shape of those contradictions is given internally, but the actual "location" within those "tracks" is given mostly externally.

Hence the example from Mao about the egg and the rock, the internal contradictions from the egg are what allow it to become a chicken in the correct temperature (the external influence that leads to that contradiction), but regardless of what you do externally to it, a rock that doesn't have that internal contradiction will never be able to become a chicken.

I wanted to add a classic example of Marxist contradiction, and thought it would be good to use the contradiction between socialized production and private property of the means of production, that contradiction by itself doesn't do anything, only when inserted in the capitalistic mode of production that it will cause so that the production as whole creates poor resource distribution, inequality, crisis, etc., so to try and fix the production as a whole we could fix this one contradiction by struggling to change the private property to socialized property. We would then find that although there were improvements, there are still problems (other contradictions) within the system.

So we can see that the answer to solving the internal contradictions within a system lies inside those contradictions themselves, even with those contradictions being only a part of the whole system and the solution of one not leading to the solution of the whole system.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think I see what you mean here. You're talking about the system of rules set up by a society as being the external framework that the internal selection pressures stem from. The overarching framework is the overarching context that guides the evolution of the system as a whole. I definitely agree with that, and that is the argument I'm trying to make in the book as well.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Actually it's the other way around, the framework is given by the contradictions and therefore internally, while the pressures that affect them are usually external, the combination of both is what leads the system's evolution.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The framework itself acts as the source of the pressures and contradictions however. For example, capitalist system of relations is a framework that rewards particular types of behaviors, and this creates selection pressures within society. The contradictions arise as a product of the system operating within its framework of rules that society agrees upon. Things like exploitation of the workers by the capital owning class create stresses within society that end up needing to be resolved.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Personally, I don't see the point of going in circles in this discussion, so I'll just add my two last notes:

First, I want to again make very clear that my entire point since the first comment has been around the misuse of Fichte's "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" in the place of Hegel's study of "the inner life and self-movement", and the consequences of this. I do want to add the if you know a Marxist author that uses the Fichtean method in a book, please send a link to me, for I would definitely need to read it.

Speaking of books, lastly I want to recommend the books that I read that deal with the dialectical method as I've been describing: F. Engels - "Socialism Utopian and Scientific"; F. Engels - "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy"; J. Stalin - "Dialectical and Historical Materialism"; M. Cornforth - "Materialism and the Dialectical Method"; Mao - "Five Essays on Philosophy"; V. Adoratsky - "The Theoretical Foundation of Marxism-Leninism"; V.I. Lenin - "Karl Marx"; G. Plekhanov - "Materialismus Militans"; G. Plekhanov "In Defense of Materialism".

Hopefully you will find within yourself to read, and maybe reread, those books so that the methodological mistake you've been making so far may be a thing of the past, good luck on this process comrade.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Thanks, I'll definitely brush up on my reading, and do a bit more thinking. Cheers.

[–] Comrade_Improving@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wouldn't say that changing the contradictions from creators to synonymous with pressures improves the system a lot, I also have to say that there is always value in separating external and internal conditions as they become easier to study as such and greater understanding is always valuable.

And although I don't have the necessary knowledge in thermodynamics to expand on your argument around it, it does fell to me eerie similar to what the material mechanists did centuries ago when they tried to understand the world through the laws of mechanical physics.

You can get a better understanding of thermodynamics by using Dialectical Materialism to study it, but trying to understand diamat by trying to fit in it laws of any branch of physics can lead to grave mistakes.

And I do recommend those books, they go in with way more detail and knowledge about what we are discussing here.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

The boundaries we create between internal and external are necessarily artificial constructs in our mind. They're useful for partitioning the world into categories we can manipulate in our heads, but it's important to keep in mind that the reality is a continuum.

The way I look at diamat is that it's a framework for understanding social evolution, but the world itself is ultimately a material thing and society itself is a product of material conditions. The whole book is basically me building the case for how I arrived at my current understanding of the world.

I'll definitely check the books out though.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

awesome ill give it a read after christmas sheananigans are done

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago

fantastic, let me know what you think if you get through it :)

[–] pancake@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Believe it or not, I've always wanted to read on this specifically, so thank you! So far it's looking great, I'll go on reading it after I'm done with the holiday tasks :)

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Awesome, glad to hear this hits the spot. :)

[–] grym@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is exactly what I want to see more of.

Speaking of patterns and emergence, I believe this is a case of convergent evolution. I'm seeing many things I've thought about, wrote about, tried to figure out, and I know many others are the same, I am not original.

I'm bookmarking this and will read it in full when I've got time.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago

For sure, I think convergent evolution is a direct result of self-organization where similar patterns tend to emerge in response to environmental pressures.

[–] FreudianCafe@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yog, i'd like to congratulate you for doing this work. Had a similar conversarion with my partner a few days ago. Ill read your work when i get home from christmas, but the resume you put here looks interesting and points in the right direction. Also, id like to suggest that you look at the work of Ernst Götsch, who develops a new form of agriculture. Maybe his work will give you further research material to strenghten your thesis, just be aware that he uses a vocabulary thats not "familiar" to dialetical materialism. Anyway, congrats and thanks for your work, ill try to give feedback asap after reading

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Thanks, and will definitely check out Götsch to see if I can incorporate any of his ideas into this.

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Added to my "to read" list! Love it when Marxism gets applied to other concepts we know a fair bit about and how it fits in with that, it's the funkier side of Marxism that is the most interesting. Thanks for posting!

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It will be awesome to have this in an audible format to listen while commuting to work!

So far after reading some parts, it is great! Thanks Yogthos!

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

and just found this today, gonna see if I can get it to work https://github.com/DrewThomasson/ebook2audiobook

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago

Thank you Yogthos!!

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Thanks, glad to hear you're enjoying it, and I wonder if it might be possible to use one the AI based text to speech tools to do a narration of it. I haven't really looked too hard at what's available, but I've seen some demos that produce really good results.

[–] redline@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

faint hope of comprehending the physics elements of this for me im afraid, but its great to see you some of your own work hit the paper so to say

ill give it a whirl at some point though and great name for the blog

i wonder if you could eventually write on why stem background indiduals are often so politically aggressive without even the slightest self-reflection, or understanding of what they are talking about in the social sphere (if you find the time)

it has really been hitting a nerve for me recently. even short interactions along these lines unlock an almost existential white hot anger in me. there's some personal baggage there ill admit, but i am also genuinely curious on the perspective of someone who seems to have some insight in both areas (insofar as they are seperable in liberal thought)

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't go too deep into the whole physics business, so hopefully the general ideas are still accessible.

Regarding people in stem often being highly opinionated, I find most people don't realize that their knowledge and problem solving skills are largely domain specific. They learn to solve problems in a particular context, and they immediately assume their skills are directly transferable to other contexts. People tend to forget that every domain has a lot of inherent complexity that takes years of training to master. The whole techbro culture is a perfect example of that. These people assume that complex social problems must have really simple technical solutions because they're used to solving technical problems. And in their view the only reason these problems haven't been solved is cause everyone else just dumb. So, it's largely a combination of ego and lack of broader perspective.

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're 100% correct, any engineer, scientist, etc tends to gravitate towards their own mythology as someone uniquely intelligent broadly, and not as someone who has highly trained in one specific department. The practice of cultivation and training makes other areas easier to grasp, but does not imbue any special knowledge without doing said training. That leads to incorrect solutions like tech nerds constantly trying to reinvent trains but with crypto or whatever other flavor of the month, instead of using good public transit.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Exactly, it's also the reason you see people often dismiss physical labor as unskilled jobs etc. They simply don't have the appreciation for the skills involved in that sort of work.