Jump to content

Talk:Dialectical materialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition

[edit]

Reading this article from the top it is not until the third or fourth paragraph that we see anything resembling a definition. The introduction should include a rudimentary definition that is clearer than the current "Dialectic Materialism is the merging of Dialectic and Materialism." Not being an expert on the subject I leave this in another’s more capable hands.--70.29.20.201 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Please tell me what the hell Dialectical Materialism is, up front. Eunsung (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I third this. Few things are too complex to explain in a sentence. Surely, something approaching a clear definition has arisen in the many decades through which these ideas have been discussed, taught, pondered. (This note was originally unsigned by mistake, later signed as follows: --Dankelley (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Fourthed. Who wrote that, anyway? I mean, sure, sometimes I'll gloss over what was said and have to reread a portion of a text, but the introduction here is just devoid of any information a layman would want. Plumbmeter (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. The introduction seems to refer entirely to natural processes, with no reference at all to social processes, politics or history Clivemacd (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on that, the opening paragraph uses so many words but has no real meaning. Even if the definition cant be agreed on by scholars, just say that and present a couple of different most commonly held views. It's as if the author was trying to fill a word count rather than actually explain the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.69.218 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact impossible to define this 'theory'; scratch any randomly-chosen Dialectical Marxist and they will each give you a different, but no less vague and confused non-definition. Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and re-read the first paragraph and I still have no idea what it is trying to communicate. Can someone with the requisite knowledge of the subject matter and with skill in communicating re-write the opening paragraph in a way that makes sense to the general public, please? --Gerntrash (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very first statement of this article, "Dialectical materialism is a strand of Marxism developed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels," is false. In fact, in the classic text, "Socialism: Past and Future[1]" by one of the foremost authorities on socialism, Michael Harrington, we find this:

"The justification for all this brutality [in Stalin's Soviet Union] and one-man rule was a scientistic reading of Marxism that had some warrant in some of Engels' more careless formulations but violated the repeated defense of democracy and self-emancipation of both Marx and Engels. Marxism, in Stalin's version, was a system that explained both nature and society by means of "dialectical materialism" (a phrase never used by either Marx or Engels but popularized by the first Russian Marxist, Georgi Plekhanov). Thus, Stalin, as the supreme Marxist automatically was the infallible interpreter of the objective interest of the workers and the peasants, and if those classes perversely refused to recognize what was good for them, he had the right to impose it upon them."

Thus, "dialectic materialism" is more a Stalinist concept popularized by Plekhanov, but, obviously, as Harrington points out in the quote above, would have been anathema to both Marx and Engels, and is a distorted concept of their ideas. Thus, the first sentence in this article should be reworked so as to avoid the misattribution to Marxist philosophy and should be written correctly so that it isCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). much more closely ascribed to Stalinist principles.

A better way to write this is first sentence would be "'Dialectical materialism' is a Stalinist construction of an incorrect reading of Marx that permitted autocratic rule of the Soviet Union.

References

  1. ^ Harrington, Michael (1981, 2011). Socialism: Past and Future. New York: Arcade. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-61145-335-5. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Image is completely wrong

[edit]

Any brief engagement with the literature shows that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model is not how dialectics works. I recommend premier dialectical critic Fredric Jameson's Marxism and Form or Valences of the Dialectic. Meeeeeeerzfu (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meeeeeeerzfu please point to what do you mean specifically. In the interim I have reverted your edit to the stable version. Best! VV 19:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this article already specifically notes Marx's disavowal of the model ("Marx rejected the language of 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis'"), it seems a bit strange to plaster it on the top of the page in image form. Given that dialectical materialism is a Marxist philosophy, we ought to represent it accurately and impartially in regards to Marx's elaboration of it. Best-- Meeeeeeerzfu (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article

[edit]

I suggest that we split the article and move much of the "Contributions of X person" stuff to somewhere like "Marxists' views on dialectical materialism". As noted many times above, this article doesn't explain anything even for the knowledgeable reader, yet alone the uninitiated. Egezort (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, I suggest framing the lede in a way that explains what dialectical materialism posits in terms of the materialism vs idealism debate. While mostly not wrong, this lede doesn't tell anything about this. Boguslavsky's book about dialectical materialism has very easy to grasp and intuitive explanations of these.
I want to start working on this article to salvage it, but it's in such bad shape that it'll be very hard. Egezort (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fang Lizhi

[edit]

This paragraph (last paragraph in "As a heuristic in science..." should either be deleted or supported by text that shows how it relates to dialectical materialism. Currently it has nothing to do with the article's topic! Hewer7 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could start with taking the briefest of glances at the cited source, which makes the connection crystal clear to those not already familiar with Fang. Look, I permit that it's a bit obscure at the moment, but to say it "has nothing to do with the article topic" is just to say that you are underinformed about Chinese society during the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
I'm about to take a look now, but I almost guarantee it's so oblique at present because someone ran through here before and tendentiously carved out a lacuna for a preceding block of text that was particularly embarrassing for them some way or another. Remsense 🌈 论 13:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I knew it: original addition and the deliberately obtuse lying liar, pants on fire.
@Hewer7, this is why it often doesn't pay to immediately delete content that seems disturbed or out of place. The text has wonderful mysteries in its revision history to share. Remsense 🌈 论 13:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Hewer7 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article should link to the article on Dialectic somewhere in the lead or first section (§ The term).

I don't know where exactly, but somewhere, gosh dangit. Because the word is rather obscure to most readers today, I think, and altho if one follows enough links (or rather the right one(s)) from this article they can find it ("Hegelian dialectic" in § Historical background does link to the article, albeit only a section thereof).

Without such a link or explanation, people might easily come away believing (especially from the lead text) that "dialectic" is a word & meaning that only refers to dialectic materialism, or that Marxists invented the concept and only they use or have ever used it.

I know people on here often get ""touchy"" about there being ""too many"" links in articles, so I will leave the task of locating a suitable place to mention the meaning of the word "dialectic" and/or link to its article to Someone Else. Peace! ✌ ~2026-53300-9 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dialectical_materialism&oldid=1334747576"