3 ms·

Ok so the answer to my question of where you got all that is: Zizek? You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. Marxism, as you said, i

by gtsop 2y ago

Ok so the answer to my question of where you got all that is: Zizek? You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. Marxism, as you said, is a wider context than diamat, but not a different one. As you said, dialectical meterialism is the philosophy, the world view, which informs the subsequent aspects of marxism, that is socialism/communism and all the political aspects around it. To say that marxism has a static view on anything IS to say that diamat has a static view on anything because diamat is the "algorithm" of marxism. > Under Marxism, if you were born as a a worker proletariat you remain a proletariat, everything else is structured around this overdetermination. Where did you get this? Zizek? It is a different thing to say that "chances are you will remain a proletariat" than to say "it is impossible to change class, therefore you will remain a proletariat". The fist is true, the latter is false.

trod1234 2y ago
> Zizek The nuances Yes, but the overall concept of overdetermination came from Marx/Engels, along with the observation of how its practiced, and others. > You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. ... There are many who are dyed-in-the-wool Marxists who would disagree with this quite strongly. The philosophy is based solely in the mind and world-view whereas the Marxist ideology is based in practice and causality. > To say that marxism has a static view on anything IS to say that diamat has a static view on anything, because diamat is the "algorithm" of marxism. Except this is circular, and neglects that its only one part of the algorithm of marxism, and not the whole part. The two are not the same thing. There are elements in Marxism that do not exist in diamat. Identity politics for example. > It is a different thing to say that "chances are you will remain a proletariat", than to say "its impossible to change class, therefor you will remain a proletariat". Yes it is different, but not in the way you seem to think. The first is a likelihood that seems to follow aristotle's logic, but doesn't apply under Marxism. Under such a system no truth can be determined in statements based in likelihoods and indirections, let alone consistently, and there must be a consistent truth based in causality. Althusser touches on this in his works. The latter statement is an absolute, with contradictions that cannot form causally, so could be called false, dependent, and based on the class identity of the person saying so or being addressed. It all comes down to class.

by gtsop 2y ago

trod1234 2y ago

> Zizek The nuances Yes, but the overall concept of overdetermination came from Marx/Engels, along with the observation of how its practiced, and others. > You are reading marxism through the distorting eye of a middleman. ... There are many who are dyed-in-the-wool Marxists who would disagree with this quite strongly. The philosophy is based solely in the mind and world-view whereas the Marxist ideology is based in practice and causality. > To say that marxism has a static view on anything IS to say that diamat has a static view on anything, because diamat is the "algorithm" of marxism. Except this is circular, and neglects that its only one part of the algorithm of marxism, and not the whole part. The two are not the same thing. There are elements in Marxism that do not exist in diamat. Identity politics for example. > It is a different thing to say that "chances are you will remain a proletariat", than to say "its impossible to change class, therefor you will remain a proletariat". Yes it is different, but not in the way you seem to think. The first is a likelihood that seems to follow aristotle's logic, but doesn't apply under Marxism. Under such a system no truth can be determined in statements based in likelihoods and indirections, let alone consistently, and there must be a consistent truth based in causality. Althusser touches on this in his works. The latter statement is an absolute, with contradictions that cannot form causally, so could be called false, dependent, and based on the class identity of the person saying so or being addressed. It all comes down to class.