this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
111 points (97.4% liked)
Memes
50959 readers
398 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why the Hegelian dialectic, and not the Materialist dialectic? Marx's advancements on Hegel are, to my knowledge, near universal in accrptance among dialecticians, as Hegel could never escape the trap of his Absolute Idealism. Hegel's insistance that everyone moves towards their own self-interest, and that this advances the universal Spirit, are wrong, but Marx's correction on the dialectic to return it to the economic base and Materialist outlook are what brought about Historical Materialism.
If you are speaking on the Marxist dialectic, then your critique doesn't follow outright, as Capitalism has changed into Imperialism, and Imperialism is what caused the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese, Korean, etc revolutions. Each of these new Socialist systems is still stamped with what came before it, as is consistent with Materialist dialectics, so this may already be what you're getting at, if I'm reading you correctly. Resolving contradictions is a historical process, not a mental one.
Thanks for the reply. I've seen you around before with good takes.
Honestly that was a thought I put in writing for the first time and took barely a moment to write with not much thought behind it. It was a mostly instinctual idea.
I'll try to rewrite it better.
Capitalism mutates through its contradictions—think of “ethical consumption” absorbing critiques of exploitation.
The dialectic doesn't lead to radical rupture as expected, but instead to ideological synthesis that maintains systemic continuity.
Instead
States and capitalist systems do change, post-2008 financial regulations, pandemic-related economic interventions, or global shifts like China's state-capitalist hybrid. Just in less revolutionary forms than Marx predicted. (I feel this claim could be disputed).
Contradictions produce systemic adaptation rather than rupture, challenging the revolutionary assumptions of some classical Marxist reading. (Perhaps this is more airtight, although still vague)
I'm trying to form an idea of how systems of power adapt to survive, often by co-opting critique.
Modern capitalism and state systems have evolved mechanisms that absorb and deflect dialectical contradictions, transforming potential crises into forms of stability. This raises the question of whether contemporary power systems have short-circuited dialectical transformation by preemptively synthesizing dissent.
I think this gets my point across better.
Also yes. Maybe historical materialism is a better framework to work with, my brain always says Hegelian dialectic even if my idea has nothing to do with the spirit.
Although I wanna consider other dialectic systems. I'm open to an Althusserian or psychoanalytic view. Maybe I could explore this with the lens of ideological jouissance.
Imperialism is also capitalism in a more conscious sense imposing itself. Its not a different system overtaking capitalism, it is still a capitalist system.
(This was just me thinking out loud, there maybe contradictions here but thanks for getting my brain juices flowing.)
I would argue that none of those systems are socialist but I honestly have no mental energy for that. Thats not smth I find worth arguing over.
I'm reading what I wrote and wanna add a few things.
I feel like I'm not clear about formal and structural transformation.
Capitalism has demonstrated a remarkable ability to reconfigure around contradiction. But I'll accept there may be thresholds which I think you were saying, just not in those cases or any significant case I can think of either.
I see the capitalist resistance as global.
I think I could relate this to Gramsci by using the idea of hegemony becoming common sense or capitalist realism. Maybe even Marcuse' one dimensional man.
Also the more lacanian idea of enjoyed failure.
(I'm again confused where to go from here lol)
Thanks! And gotcha. I think I follow what you're trying to say. Personally, I don't really agree that Capitalism's resiliance disproves dialectics. Imperialism is not distinct from Capitalism, as an example, it's Capitalism at its latest stages, when Capital must move outward or die. This exports the worst of contradictions to the Global South, but doesn't perpetuate Capitalism, it's a temporary stop-gap. Crisis still rocks the Capitalist system, concentration continues in fewer and fewer hands, and the proletariat continues to swell in ratio compared to the Bourgeoisie. As Imperialism is fought against, this brings the disparity back to the Imperial core (Burkina Faso kicking France out, for example).
The dialectic still moves forward in all of this. In all this time, there's still movement, there's still increasing disparity, there's still drive for revolution. Marx was wrong in that he thought revolution would come to the developed countries first, but Marxists like Lenin and Fanon analyzed why that didn't happen, and it was because Imperialism is that final delay. Dialectics continues to be at play, but the primary contradiction is Imperialism, not an individual nations' class struggle. Ie, Burkina Faso's number one contradiction is combatting Imperialism, not resolving internal class conflict, same with the US, where the proletariat largely wishes to continue Imperialism over changing the entire system.
I think, as far as countries like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc are concerned, they are examples of Marxist Socialism. You don't have to agree with that as a form of socialism you agree with, but I don't agree with rejecting Marxism as validly Socialist. I personally don't agree with Anarchism, as an example, but I acknowledge it as a form of Socialism as well, and that's good enough for left unity IMO. I say they follow Marxism, as all are examples of societies where the State is governed by the proletariat, and the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and thus the proletariat is in control of the government and economy.
Either way, to return, adaptation is a form of dialectics in action. Dialectics doesn't mean entire systems can only change into new entire systems, but that everything is in a constant stream of change, inwardly propelled. Systems like the welfare safety net don't resolve class contradictions, they delay revolution at the expense of, usually, lower super-profits from Imperialism.