The LW survey says about 1 in 4 of us is a communist
No, it doesn’t. In the last LW survey, 0.7% of respondents identified as communists. Perhaps you’re talking about the 30% that identified as “socialist”? But “socialism” in the survey was defined as support for a highly redistributive, socially permissive political regime, like they have in Scandinavian countries. That doesn’t imply allegiance to Marxist doctrine, or knowledge of it.
As for the idea of “dialectic”, Marx got it from Hegel, and a full understanding of Hegel—if it is possible at all—is not something that can be effectively communicated in a comment or short internet article, I think (this might help, but probably not). As a rough approximation, though, the dialectical method is basically just systems thinking.
It’s presented as an alternative to the analytical method, which involves breaking a system down into parts and attempting to understand each part individually. The idea governing analytical thinking (says the proponent of dialectic) is that the intrinsic nature of the parts can be understood prior to figuring out how they fit together to form the whole.
Dialectical thinking, on the other hand, is based on the idea that the concrete nature of the parts cannot be understood without understanding the role they play in the whole, the relationships between them. So the analytic project, which focuses first on understanding parts considered individually, is doomed to failure, because it ignores the extent to which the overall context is essential for our understanding of the nature of the parts.
“Dialectical materialism” in Marxist thought is basically just an application of this dialectical thinking to economics. One could approach economics analytically by first, say, constructing a model of individual economic agents, and then trying to figure out what happens when these agents interact under certain conditions. The proponent of the dialectical method (like Marx) would, however, insist that this is mistaken. Human nature and human needs cannot be understood in isolation. They are a product of the socio-economic context, just as the socio-economic context is itself a product of human nature and needs, and the individual elements and overall context are constantly changing in response to one another. So to truly understand the dynamics of the economy, you need to approach it from a systems perspective. You need to start by understanding the historical dynamics of the interactions and relationships between elements of the system and how that effects the evolution of the natures of those elements, rather than starting with a static model of the individual elements and only then moving to an analysis of their interactions. The natures of individual elements are constituted by their participation in the system, and they change as the system evolves, so you shouldn’t treat those individual natures as logically prior to the system.
So that’s a quick and clumsy attempt at explicating what the dialectic method is all about. As for whether the method is useful: There is something right about the idea that focusing purely on the analytical method can lead to mistakes, but a complete repudiation of this very useful pattern of reasoning also seems to be a mistake. It seems to me that the dialectical method (and systems thinking in general) should be regarded as a useful complement (and often corrective) to analytical thinking, but not as a wholesale replacement.
Right, my mistake about the mistaken communism statistic; you’re correct that I confused the two in my memory.
And that was a very thorough explanation; thank you. It seems to match what I could glean from my searches, but it was nice having it in one place and in more straight-forward terminology. So thank you.
But “socialism” in the survey was defined as support for a highly redistributive, socially permissive political regime, like they have in Scandinavian countries.
One of the many reasons why no one can have a sensible political discussion—everyone is using words differently.
Generally I see socialism defined as the government control of the means of production. Redistribution is government control of the output of production.
Anyone got a better ism to term being in favor of a liberal redistributionist welfare state?
Anyone got a better ism to term being in favor of a liberal redistributionist welfare state?
Social democracy or liberal socialism, maybe, although some potential for confusion remains as “liberal socialism” retains the s-word, and social democracy shades continuously into democratic socialism.
“Dialectical materialism” in Marxist thought is basically just an application of this dialectical thinking to economics. One could approach economics analytically by first, say, constructing a model of individual economic agents, and then trying to figure out what happens when these agents interact under certain conditions. The proponent of the dialectical method (like Marx) would, however, insist that this is mistaken.
The example of Marx’s economics book, Das Kapital, seems worth telling (as I remember it, having read it years before). There are three volumes: in volume 1, he sketches a basic picture of how everything fits together. (Here the ‘labor theory of value’ shows up, which is the claim that “if you turn A into B with an hour of labor, and the price difference between B and A is less than what an hour of labor is worth, this is an unsustainable practice that will only exist transiently.”) In volume 2, he fleshes out the picture. (We can extend our example by pointing out that material also has costs that are determined by the other things that material could be used for, and so we should expect unprofitable uses of materials to be transient.) In volume 3, he finally has a working model. (Now we could also include capital- unprofitable use of machinery should also be transient.)
This makes sense as an explanatory model in that it’s very difficult to talk about the economy from scratch. It’s much easier to build a toy model of the economy, and then once you have basic reference points for every individual piece and their interactions we can make it more and more complex until it approximates reality closely enough to use.
But it also has the huge pitfall that you could, say, stop reading one volume in, and think that the labor theory of value implies that only labor adds value to anything.
I’ve found thinking about theories in terms of ‘thesis,’ ‘antithesis,’ and ‘synthesis’ to be useful because concepts are many-dimensional, and so ‘antithesis’ does not mean opposite instead of just a ‘challenger,’ and so a synthesis is often more of a course correction than a complete turnaround.
As for the idea of “dialectic”, Marx got it from Hegel, and a full understanding of Hegel—if it is possible at all—is not something that can be effectively communicated in a comment or short internet article, I think.
As a rough approximation, though, the dialectical method is basically just systems thinking.
I’ve never understood what that is either, even though I work with “systems biologists”. I don’t see a distinction drawn between “systems biology” and just “biology”.
“Dialectical materialism” in Marxist thought is basically just an application of this dialectical thinking to economics. One could approach economics analytically by first, say, constructing a model of individual economic agents, and then trying to figure out what happens when these agents interact under certain conditions.
That is, microfoundations for macroeconomics. This appears to be a disputed idea in macroeconomics, some arguing that microfoundations are essential, others that they are impossible.
The natures of individual elements are constituted by their participation in the system, and they change as the system evolves, so you shouldn’t treat those individual natures as logically prior to the system.
When I try to translate this into concrete terms, I start imagining chemists arguing that you can’t understand molecules in terms of atoms, because atoms can change their ionisation state when they combine into molecules.
When I try to translate this into concrete terms, I start imagining chemists arguing that you can’t understand molecules in terms of atoms, because atoms can change their ionisation state when they combine into molecules.
Well, suppose that someone claimed that a carbon atom is defined as possessing six electrons, always ….
Interesting. That’s pretty much orthogonal to what I heard as what dialectic is about: that when two systems—ideas, political, social, scientific—come into conflict, each expose some weaknesses of the other, and then both end up being replaced with a synthesis.
(Obviously, that’s even more abbreviated than what you wrote)
That isn’t actually orthogonal. Hegel’s whole thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing is his conception of how the analytical method fails. When you analyze a system’s parts without regard for holistic context you often run into apparent contradictions. One piece of sound analysis seems to suggest one thing about the nature of what you’re studying, while another piece of sound analysis suggests the exact opposite.
The problem, acciording to Hegel, is the process of analysis itself—trying to understand the nature of the parts prior to an understanding of how the parts fit together in, and are influenced by, the whole. What seemed to be a contradiction might often be resolved by realizing that the parts you’re studying don’t have fixed independent natures, that their behavior and properties are dependent on external factors. Factors that you are led to ignore by the analytical method, which encourages you to abstract a system away from its context in order to understand it. This process of abstraction is what leads to the appearance of contradiction, and assimilating the varying context into one’s understanding dissolves the contradiction and leads to synthesis.
No, it doesn’t. In the last LW survey, 0.7% of respondents identified as communists. Perhaps you’re talking about the 30% that identified as “socialist”? But “socialism” in the survey was defined as support for a highly redistributive, socially permissive political regime, like they have in Scandinavian countries. That doesn’t imply allegiance to Marxist doctrine, or knowledge of it.
As for the idea of “dialectic”, Marx got it from Hegel, and a full understanding of Hegel—if it is possible at all—is not something that can be effectively communicated in a comment or short internet article, I think (this might help, but probably not). As a rough approximation, though, the dialectical method is basically just systems thinking.
It’s presented as an alternative to the analytical method, which involves breaking a system down into parts and attempting to understand each part individually. The idea governing analytical thinking (says the proponent of dialectic) is that the intrinsic nature of the parts can be understood prior to figuring out how they fit together to form the whole.
Dialectical thinking, on the other hand, is based on the idea that the concrete nature of the parts cannot be understood without understanding the role they play in the whole, the relationships between them. So the analytic project, which focuses first on understanding parts considered individually, is doomed to failure, because it ignores the extent to which the overall context is essential for our understanding of the nature of the parts.
“Dialectical materialism” in Marxist thought is basically just an application of this dialectical thinking to economics. One could approach economics analytically by first, say, constructing a model of individual economic agents, and then trying to figure out what happens when these agents interact under certain conditions. The proponent of the dialectical method (like Marx) would, however, insist that this is mistaken. Human nature and human needs cannot be understood in isolation. They are a product of the socio-economic context, just as the socio-economic context is itself a product of human nature and needs, and the individual elements and overall context are constantly changing in response to one another. So to truly understand the dynamics of the economy, you need to approach it from a systems perspective. You need to start by understanding the historical dynamics of the interactions and relationships between elements of the system and how that effects the evolution of the natures of those elements, rather than starting with a static model of the individual elements and only then moving to an analysis of their interactions. The natures of individual elements are constituted by their participation in the system, and they change as the system evolves, so you shouldn’t treat those individual natures as logically prior to the system.
So that’s a quick and clumsy attempt at explicating what the dialectic method is all about. As for whether the method is useful: There is something right about the idea that focusing purely on the analytical method can lead to mistakes, but a complete repudiation of this very useful pattern of reasoning also seems to be a mistake. It seems to me that the dialectical method (and systems thinking in general) should be regarded as a useful complement (and often corrective) to analytical thinking, but not as a wholesale replacement.
Right, my mistake about the mistaken communism statistic; you’re correct that I confused the two in my memory.
And that was a very thorough explanation; thank you. It seems to match what I could glean from my searches, but it was nice having it in one place and in more straight-forward terminology. So thank you.
One of the many reasons why no one can have a sensible political discussion—everyone is using words differently.
Generally I see socialism defined as the government control of the means of production. Redistribution is government control of the output of production.
Anyone got a better ism to term being in favor of a liberal redistributionist welfare state?
Social democracy or liberal socialism, maybe, although some potential for confusion remains as “liberal socialism” retains the s-word, and social democracy shades continuously into democratic socialism.
The example of Marx’s economics book, Das Kapital, seems worth telling (as I remember it, having read it years before). There are three volumes: in volume 1, he sketches a basic picture of how everything fits together. (Here the ‘labor theory of value’ shows up, which is the claim that “if you turn A into B with an hour of labor, and the price difference between B and A is less than what an hour of labor is worth, this is an unsustainable practice that will only exist transiently.”) In volume 2, he fleshes out the picture. (We can extend our example by pointing out that material also has costs that are determined by the other things that material could be used for, and so we should expect unprofitable uses of materials to be transient.) In volume 3, he finally has a working model. (Now we could also include capital- unprofitable use of machinery should also be transient.)
This makes sense as an explanatory model in that it’s very difficult to talk about the economy from scratch. It’s much easier to build a toy model of the economy, and then once you have basic reference points for every individual piece and their interactions we can make it more and more complex until it approximates reality closely enough to use.
But it also has the huge pitfall that you could, say, stop reading one volume in, and think that the labor theory of value implies that only labor adds value to anything.
I’ve found thinking about theories in terms of ‘thesis,’ ‘antithesis,’ and ‘synthesis’ to be useful because concepts are many-dimensional, and so ‘antithesis’ does not mean opposite instead of just a ‘challenger,’ and so a synthesis is often more of a course correction than a complete turnaround.
I think David Stove did a pretty good job. :)
I’ve never understood what that is either, even though I work with “systems biologists”. I don’t see a distinction drawn between “systems biology” and just “biology”.
That is, microfoundations for macroeconomics. This appears to be a disputed idea in macroeconomics, some arguing that microfoundations are essential, others that they are impossible.
When I try to translate this into concrete terms, I start imagining chemists arguing that you can’t understand molecules in terms of atoms, because atoms can change their ionisation state when they combine into molecules.
Well, suppose that someone claimed that a carbon atom is defined as possessing six electrons, always ….
Interesting. That’s pretty much orthogonal to what I heard as what dialectic is about: that when two systems—ideas, political, social, scientific—come into conflict, each expose some weaknesses of the other, and then both end up being replaced with a synthesis.
(Obviously, that’s even more abbreviated than what you wrote)
That isn’t actually orthogonal. Hegel’s whole thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing is his conception of how the analytical method fails. When you analyze a system’s parts without regard for holistic context you often run into apparent contradictions. One piece of sound analysis seems to suggest one thing about the nature of what you’re studying, while another piece of sound analysis suggests the exact opposite.
The problem, acciording to Hegel, is the process of analysis itself—trying to understand the nature of the parts prior to an understanding of how the parts fit together in, and are influenced by, the whole. What seemed to be a contradiction might often be resolved by realizing that the parts you’re studying don’t have fixed independent natures, that their behavior and properties are dependent on external factors. Factors that you are led to ignore by the analytical method, which encourages you to abstract a system away from its context in order to understand it. This process of abstraction is what leads to the appearance of contradiction, and assimilating the varying context into one’s understanding dissolves the contradiction and leads to synthesis.
Thanks, that clears up the connection!