Fundamentals of Marx: Dialectics 

A dozen T-34 tanks is not a practicable fighting force. But ten thousand T-34's is a war-winning force. Another instance of qualitative change arising from quantitative change. Or as Papa Steel himself put it, "Quantity has a quality all its own"

I was confused for a while about "dialectical contradiction" - it just means "opposition", not logical contradiction

Good video but I feel more examples would’ve been helpful, otherwise it becomes too abstract

This is probably the best explanation of dialectics you can find outside of reading the classics

This is one of THE BEST explanations on dialectics there is.

This is a fantastic video, comrade. Dialectics is often a difficult subject for many to grapple and apply, especially coming from a background that is drenched in liberal ideology. I used to struggle to apprehend the basics of it. It makes me wish that this video was available back then, as I am yet to find a modern text that explains it better than this video. Keep up the good work, comrade.

I'm really happy that you didn't include the very non-dialectical idea of the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" that some other Marxist content creators include in their videos. Very good stuff. Would love to see you write about Systems Theory and how it connects to Dialectical Materialism. They seem incredibly tightly linked, if not the very same thing in some cases.

As a avid reader of Bookchin, this video really opens my eyes to the dialectical advancements made by the man. He didn’t agree with Marx on everything, but he definitely thought through dialectical ecology, or dialectical naturalism as he called it, in a dialectically Marxian manner.

This is probably the best video I've watched on dialectics. Thank you!

Just came across this video and your channel, great content! I really struggled to grasp dialectics for some time, but found On Contradiction to be an extremely educational text.

For me, substituting the word opposition for contradiction makes these ideas a bit easier to understand

Thanks for doing another video. They’re good because they’re not too fancy rather than in spite of this. Cheers

thank you for making this video & dissecting such a complex subject so succintly!! (& thank you for making all the videos you make, really!) i don't think i would have ever grasped these concepts w/o your videos, or at the very least it would have taken me a long time to. your channel has helped open up new avenues of learning for me! :)

Thank you so much. Even as a Marxist who has read a lot and been a Marxist for a long time, dialectics is the one thing I've always had trouble on. It was the main thing that I could never really figure out, but I really appreciate this video.

Brilliantly explained, look forward to the next entries in this series

i almost skipped on this video because i knew i already understood dialectics but im glad i didn’t because it became an opportunity for me to remember that there is always subtle aspects of any field of knowledge that can be forgotten and must be relearned so excellent video!!

I love this video. It is by far the best remedy I’ve come across for curing my insomnia.

Damn, your visual representations are worth of braingasm, you are one bright minded individual, I really thank you for this content

I just found this channel and think it's best interpretation of Marx on social media I've seen so far. That said, I have philosophical differences that would lead to a different framing of philosophical materialism and historic materialism. It doesn't come-across that Marx's version of philosophical materialism is consistent in general contexts, but philosophical materialism has evolved a lot since Marx. Marx's sociological models are consistent with other sociological models, but that connection isn't stressed in this presentation. The fact that Marx's models are consistent with those of systems-thinking, information theory, category theory, general argumentation, and others, is not articulated in this presentation, which leads to an insulated narrative. One could make a video that presents the connections between philosophical materialism and presently used sociological models. Category theory and systems-thinking are theories of relationships, and Marx's models can be translated to those systems as well. If you don't tie Marx to concepts that have been invented in the last 70 years, the interpretation will be insulated and dated...or so I fear. Another materialist model is from Lawrence Kohlberg. If you know Marx but not Kohlberg, you are missing 50 years of social science.

your videos are amazing

Well done. Thank you for making this video!

Excellent explanation. I learned this topic as a first year student and failed the oral exam. Now I appreciate why we were required to learn it 😊

Thank you for this! Very helpful for my theory of history grad seminar

Great explanation!!

Thank you so much for this, it’s amazing!

binging on all your vids. I’m a DBT therapist and wish this was the norm for mental healthcare

Communist and Socialist Leaders: *academic reasoning, scientific analysis* American President taking corporate payouts: durrr imperialism durrrrrrrr

If I may, although I am bringing up probably a problem that is explain more in depth later on. The core issue I have with his explanation of dialectics is that the examples given are at their core level, action and reaction for example is a phenomena that exists as a base part that has implications to the broader structure. While oppressor vs oppressed is based on the complexity of the greater whole of society, there is nuance to the greater structure that creates this. The two seem to be, at their core, fundamentally different.

great video, love this channel

Very useful and easy to understand.... Salutations comrade ✊

Ty for this channel. I love the plant example

This is basically complex systems before physicists solidified this as a field of study.

Very useful information ❤

Great video!!

Now this is quality content , thanks tovarish !

Can the dialectical process also occur in the ideal or solely in the material?

This is super helpful thank you for making it

These videos are really good... Does anyone know who this is put out by?

Thank you and solidarity comrade

Hey, great video. The last part regarding negation-of-the-negation and Althusser is not quite clear. Please make another video on Althusser, and how his theory was different from the orthodox theories.

is there a dumbed down version of this?

great video! Do you have sources ?

I wonder if anyone has ever written a simulation of any phenomenon based on the more vague aspects of dialectics. I can see that the more concrete aspects are actually quite pervasive in programming, the redux architecture or category theory being primary examples.

good work

BTW , DID someone read a book called ?, (Engels,maybe?)

Yes, a fine introduction, a few more videos on dialectics please. Mao's New Democracy is based on the principles you outlined, is being practiced in China today, and has a lot in common with the cycle of qualitativequantitative social research.

I understand i should just read source material to get a better understanding, but as a newbie to a lot of this type of thinking about the world it came across as "the missle knows where it is because it knows where it isn't" type talking and became difficult to relate what you are talking about to the real world due to a lack of context and examples. If anyone has suggestions to get a better understanding of dialectics i would appreciate it (:

I think this video is much better once you understand what the dialectic is for Marx and Hegel.

Another simple example: (0) is one thing ((0)1) zero is a singular nothing if it is a singular nothing then it is one thing ((0)1), but now that I look at the final expression it looks as if I have actually have 2 things: 0 and 1. So, (((0)1)2). Good, now can you see how many thing we have now with the last set? If your answer is 3 then you are correct: 0, 1, 2 the latter are 3 elements. And on like that. A summary of the process may also be understood as: affirmation, negation of the first term, then negation of that which negated the first term.

This video stood out to me from the whole playlist…

Comrade you are doing a good job. Red salute

I want to understand more of the philosophy part of Marxism what should I read?

I know concluding that "everything is connected, man" is probably reductive to the nuance of the theory, but I'm a dumb and gay boy, so... It's all connected, man!

Good video.

Well done.

What do you think about 999?

Your exposition is noteworthy; similar to a book that excelled in its field. "The Joy of Less: A Minimalist Living Guide" by Matthew Cove

Can you make a video on the examples of dialectics in modern world events?

Let me risk a materialist example with Newton. An object is inert unless acted upon a force (affirmation), negation = some object at "x" velocity hits it, negation of negation the inert object will move by the force of the impact, and (an extra) the object that impacted the first (affirming itself) will be negated by an equal and opposite reaction (force) in the inert object so its course will also change.

Can you do a video on dialectics of science

Fantastic.

Which book do you recommend for this part?

Nice video decently explained, tiny nitpick, i know this example was given by Mao, but technically speaking integrals and differentials are not contradictions, in the sense that you can one without the other, have a integrable function that is not differentiable (eg. Weirstrass Function), add to the the fact that they are (generally) not opposites, although they do complement each other, but as far as i am aware, that does not constitute a contradiction. Very good ilustration of the abstract concept of contradictions thougt!

I love these weight lifting bars, how at hegel it starts in the sky, AKA god and at Marx it starts at earth, AKA Material, or the ground. Another way of saying it, would be, that Hegel is Abgehoben, while Marx bleibt am boden.

Are there other introductory texts on Marxist philosophy you would recommend? I'm a complete beginner so I only read Mao's "On Contradiction" because azureScapegoat recommended it, then I came here to see if I understood it correctly. I have a few problems understanding it, sorry for the wall of text: First, the entire essay hinges on his idea of the "Universality of Contradiction," that "contradiction exists in the process of development of all things..." He states this without evidence, so I don't know if this is an axiom I'm supposed to just accept, or if there's any rational argument to support it. I feel that this essay fails to rationally support that claim (I explain later) although I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about this. Next, the examples Mao uses (+ and - numbers, integral and differential, action and reaction, class struggle) seemed at first to be a good illustration of the concept, until I read further down where he says we need to find the "principal aspect" of a contradiction; he states "Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary." But what is the "principal" aspect of the contradiction of + and - numbers? Of integrals and derivatives? Of combination and dissociation of atoms? I understand that each aspect can only exist with the other aspect, each one defines the other. But the idea that one aspect of a contradiction is somehow "principal" over the other doesn't make any sense. When I buy something at the store, I'm giving away money which can be seen as a negative number, but simultaneously the cashier receives the same amount of money as a positive number, so how is one of those aspects "principal" over the other? In some chemical reactions atoms bond to each other, and in other reactions they dissociate, so how is one of those aspects "principal" over the other? I have the same criticism about most of his examples. I can only see how his "principal aspect" ideas makes sense in the context of a class struggle, or the struggle of China against imperialism. Mao wants China to triumph over imperialism, and he wants the proletariat to triumph over the bourgeoisie, so it seems that he's trying to use the concept of contradictions to justify his political goals, trying to make it sound like there is some universal truth behind what he is doing. I have the same issue with his idea of "antagonism" in contradictions. The usual meaning of the word "antagonism" goes beyond a simple contradiction; it implies dislike or hostility. Again, none of his examples (+ and - numbers, action and reaction, etc) make any sense here. The idea that numbers or chemical reactions can be "antagonistic" to each other sounds ridiculous. Inanimate objects cannot dislike each other. Mao says "with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic." So some contradictions are not antagonistic by nature, while others are? Then he seems to agree with my point, but if he really believed that, then why place antagonistic contradictions in the same category as non-antagonistic ones? Are they not different concepts? Again, the class struggle makes perfect sense here, but none of his other examples make sense. So once again it seems that the antagonism between social classes is the real reason Mao wrote this essay in the first place, in order to further his political goals. He says "social revolution is not only entirely necessary but also entirely practicable" (trying to justify a revolution in China) and calls this a "scientific truth" however he does not cite any scientific literature other than Marx. I find his statement towards the end, that "if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them, there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism" to be concerning. This no longer sounds like a philosophical essay, but instead a political call to action and a warning to his opponents. If particular examples of contradictions are so different from each other that his ideas about principal aspects, antagonisms, etc. don't actually apply to all of his own examples, then I don't believe that they all belong in the same category. His use of the word "contradiction" is confusing, most people use that word to mean a logical contradiction or impossibility, not any pair of things that oppose one another (although I don't know if that's because he used a more precise term in Chinese that has no good English translation). If the purpose of this essay was simply to make the common-sense claim that lots of things oppose each other in nature and science, then this essay would have been one tenth the length, it would not have mentioned the communist party of China or any specific people in it, and it would have cited more scientific literature, not just Marx and Lenin. But if the purpose is to convince the reader that we need a socialist revolution, then I believe it would be easier to understand if he just titled the essay "On Class Antagonism" and deleted all the unsubstantiated fluff about "Universality."

dropping bombs thank you!

It might be useful to create a few videos disabusing people on the internet of some of the many current popular misconceptions about Marxism. Though I'm fine with your more meaty videos like this one.

A few years ago I tried to design a housing cooperative and was frustrated by advice to set up different tiers or levels based on income or some other fee structure but I felt that implementing a class system in a project ostensibly designed to provide housing would only exacerbate existing contradictions.

Subscribed

idk why you cited Stalin and Mao when you could easily have just cited Engels since he said almost verbatim what those other 2 said, down to talking about differentials and integrals. The only thing is that differentials and integrals weren't seen as contradictions, they were seen as results of the negation, and the negation of the negation.

Thank you

Dialectic ~ dialect~ dia [two] lect [speech/lecture] ~ that an identical phenomenon can be referred to by a multitude of symbols, hence regional language dialects Relative ~ relate ~ rei [thing] - lat [lateral] a definition of the phenomenon by means of adjacency, hence a cousin is a family relative. The convention includes notions of how two people speaking the same language could have a completely different perspective on economic activity, based on the fact that one grew up in a mansion, the other a slum. Each location reinforcing their predispositions, resulting in crisis of 'dialectic relativity'.

The tranformation between quantitative and qualitative is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. The example assumes that the only thing that's heppening in the plant is a quantitative process, but that's clearly not the case because something is innitating the change that's not taken into account by merely counting cells. What is considered quntifiable is just what the observer elects to count. The same can be done after it sprouts; one can continue counting cells, or even time. The observer doesn't necessarily know what's most meaningful about any given process. I don't think it can't be said that something goes from a fundementally quantitative state to a fundementally qualitative state. Not to say there isn't something there, because I do beleive there are inflection points, like in the plant or phase transition examples you give. This principle can also be seen in star formation or in the weak nuclear force. Another place I see an inflection point is with people. We have evolved instincts how to manage families and small groups, but not sociaties. I beleive there is an inflection point where our intutions break down. I think the idea from each's need to each's ability is a nice intuitive sentiment that we evolved, but I am skeptical that it can scale based on the principle that you laid out in this video.

oh this is gold

Hegel used dialectics before Marx... he is also is the first to use contradictions in logic (before Marx)

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 12:11

Thanks.it is presented in a simple, mind catchings way though the subject matter is complex one.

If I'm understand this correctly, dialectics somewhat like not having one sided arguments -kinda. I haven't learned much yet, but at the moment, I think it's something like using opinions from different views to find out the truth. with this understanding of dialectics, I almost agree with it. I don't agree with using *opinions* to find the *truth.* I think that we should use opinions from different views to find a compromise or and understanding of each other, rather than be stubborn or one sided. I think that finding truth through opinions is pointless and inefficient, unless it is a "truth" built from opinions. Truths built from opinions are rare and often reside in the mind. They are not material things, they are thoughts.

6:04 The proletariat and bourgeoisie do not switch places in socialism, as this would only change the form of class divide. The bourgeoisie must become members of the proletariat for the class struggle to end.

The problem with the math derivative-integral example is that they do in fact exist without the other. The derivative of the function f at x (in the Frechet sense, if it exists) is defined to be the linear transformation A such that the norm ||f(x+h) - f(x) - Ah|| is little-oh of h (denoted o(h)). The Riemann integral (if it exists) is defined to be the infimum of the upper Riemann sums (equivalently the supremum of lower Riemann sums) (another integral, that of Lebesgue, is defined in a similar manner, but also doesn't make use of derivatives). A better analogy in math is the topological idea of a hole in a space. The only way to define one is dialectically: by pointing to the material "surrounding" the hole in order to describe and classify it.

I believe that 'dialectics' is a singular noun, despite what Merrriam-Webster says. The Latin form of the Greek term, like 'natura'/ 'physics'', looked like a plural but was treated as a singular noun. Dialectica, from διαλεκτική. Note: You say elsewhere, "dialectics was...." and "dialectics includes...." and "dialectics transforms....". Your explanation of Dialectics is an excellent one. I never knew that Máo Zédōng wrote a book on Dialectics; thanks! It's available here in English: tinyurl.com/zmroflo

tell yr a interested thing:when i was a child ,i'v always ask myself ,WHAT (the differene of the quantitative and qualitative).BUT NOW.,i finally find the truth.@The Marxist Project. THANK YOU!

I've been talking about this stuff for a while now i didnt know that it had a name the only difference about what I was talking about is that there's a third part that exists

Ive been studing the yin yang theory. someone tell me if i am wrong, but i think the are similarity in both subjects.

Thoughts on some people saying dialectics are only a philosophical justification

Good, I want to add Hegelian dialectics wasn't the first philosophy to view nature as a connected, dynamic and contradictory, just the first Western philosophy to do so. Taoism most notably and it's idea of Yin/Yang is surprisingly analogous to dialectical thought and Taoism is much older.

Would an example of dialectics in programming be something like "compilation" and "decompilation"? Or like "function" and "invocation"? There may be many examples. "Consumer" (like a subscriber) and "producer" (like a publisher).

Can i get that instrumental for a fee maybe in your video?

Interestingly, material dialectics overlaps with basic Buddhist concepts of emptiness and interdepedence (emergent phenomenon), impermanence, the relative and the absolute, and the pedagogical use of contradictions to inquire into greater truths. Perhaps Marx was influenced by Buddihism? Apparent quote from Marx, "I have become myself a sort of walking stick, running up and down the whole day, and keeping my mind in that state of nothingness which Buddhism considers the climax of human bliss."

Fun fact: the entire reason Marx invented dialectical materialism is because Bruno Bauer dialecticly proved Jews could never be free-citizens in a modern State because doing so would involve the negation/abandonment of their Judaism. The more you know.

To understand dialectic you need to study Science of Logic by Hegel. He is idealist, but marxists can interpert his logic as materialistic. It is hard to understand at the beginning, it need to be studied for several times, but it is compendium, the shortest path to dialectics.

Commenting to help the everything

Tho I’m chemistry I would propose concept of equilibrium, as it describes future relationships of matter through its current state… 3:13

first video in this series where i've wanted to punch my computer screen

This is way too complex for conservatives. Need to simplify it.

Was there something wrong with the scientific method?

i just realized that MARX and ENGELS ARE THE REAL EXAMPLES OF DIALECTICS.

cant everything just be boiled down to the fundamental forces of physics and then you dont have any qualitative changes. Like i wouldn't say the seed is any different from the plant other than just being further down the line in time

i gave it a try, but man this video made me so glad I studied science instead of philosophy

Isn't this what Materialism is? Or what is the difference between dialectics and materialism?