Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by CheFlegel, Mar 6, 2011.
Dialectic Materialism, The Proven Social Theory Through History
In the same way a Thesis and a Antithesis combine in conflict to create a Synthesis, the Ruling Class and the Lesser Class combine in conflict to create the ideal world.
You know this isn't really as far off as some of the other stuff you've posted, but Marx never really discussed dialectal materialism... Stalin invented that little ditty....
What you're chart is describing is really the materialist conception of history, not so much Diamat.... But based off Marx and headlining it under the right terms, you've pretty much nailed it...
Is this the same republic that was supposed to start in NZ?
You realize this is Historical fact and philosophy right?
The same way a Thesis and Antithesis combine in a clash to form a Synthesis, The Ruling Class and Oppressed Class combine in a clash.
Historical fact would be a false statement. Historical materialism by itself is already seen as much more philosophy than science, and trying to shoehorn dialectics in as well is doing nothing to help the case. I am always annoyed with historical materialism because people that use it categorize historical epochs under broad and economically-oriented headings. The fact is that a lot, probably most, of what happens in history cannot be explained by the sweeping and macroeconomic analysis that historical materialism provides. So what do its proponents do? They either shrink down the principles and apply them to the individuals that caused an event or they simply state that this event could have been predicted all along due to the underlying class struggle and a change in the economic base. Well when historical materialism claims to be able to categorize everything in history, as most of its proponents claim, it loses all credibility.
Another problem I have with historical materialism is that the predictions it makes virtually never come true (and I'm pretty sure that those that do are by simple luck). Despite its claims that economic crises lead to (ideally socialist) revolutions in industrialized nations, we have seen this occur once in history. Once. And it didn't establish a socialist government, it caused nations to consider social welfare, sure, but that's not what Marx's historical materialism predicted. From Revisionism: Marx to Mao, "It is the irony of history that there has not been any economic crisis accompanied with a revolution in industrialized countries since 1848."
Another claim made by historical materialism that has proven obviously false is that industrialized nations would be the first to experience socialist revolutions. Great Britain, Germany, France, and the US have never experienced these revolutions that Marx claimed would be at the head of the pack; and in fact not even the significant change to the social superstructure has occurred, either in the legal or social sphere. So it seems like the whole idea that you can develop a theory of societal behavior which explains history should be tossed out. People are unfathomably unique and not bound by ridiculous theories that get way more wrong than they could ever hope to guess right.
lol A Communist World Republic in the future? I saw who posted and after I saw decided there was no point in reading on.
Oh the joy when I noticed Fuck The Police on your signature.
lol historical fact. It's a political theory...one that happens to agree with your own opinions. Just because something attempts to explain how history went down doesn't make it actual history.
Socialist World Republic*
FUCK THA POLICE
I hate the idiotic, repressive laws they uphold. Plus, in US law, they don't even have to protect you if it would put them in danger.
Really... What laws might those be?
Namely, turning our citizens into criminals for drugs, prostitution, etc. What you do with your own life is your choice. The police's job should be keeping you safe, stopping people from being robbed or attacked.
The police meerly do the dirty work of what laws the people vote in.
Yup... The role of the police is to uphold the laws of the land and ensure the security of your persons and property. If you're pissed off about individual freedoms be pissed off at your legislature who criminalized the things you want to do
And be pissed off when people get the shit kicked of them by the police, like Rodney King and hundreds of other people. Round where I live police are notoriously violent and they rarely help. They will stop you when you walk down road "causing a disruption". Yet they choose to not follow up a robbery at knife point because of a lack of evidence... when there were traffic cameras that would have inevitably spot them walking further on down the street. That is personal experience and with the influence of NWA I decided to put into my signiture.
Separate names with a comma.