>>11828034when i said it's not even a coherent theory, i didn't mean that it's incoherent. "dialectical materialism" does not technically exist. it has never been formally defined. we can only talk about "dialectical materialism" as a hypothesized entity, that many marxists, my self included, attempted to discover.
there is no theory. "internal contradiction","interpenetration of opposites", and so on. to this day those terms are not formally defined. different marxists authors will mean different things by those terms, and taken on their own, i can explain to you what an individual marxist thinks it is, but as soon as you start to consider them together, they begin to contradict each other. they do not cohere
some online marxists have attempted to define the hypothesized entity. unfortunately all attempts fail to pass this simple test: 1) define all the terms in plain english 2) do not contradict the classic dialectic materialists authors that you are supposedly agreeing with
naturally, they cannot do this. like little children, they read one article from stalin and one article from trotsky, and ask no questions. content to wallow in filth and vague intuitions
i was not content. i sought the purest form of dialectical calculus, the power to predict the future by seeing the laws of motion! i did not settle for the stale and tiresome truisms about change and time. from mao to stalin to trotsky to lenin to engels and dietzgen to feuerbach and lastly hegel and heraclitus. i have researched all of the putative dialectics. many similarities were found, but only general tropes. no coherent dialectics emerged. only fear and sadness
...what a beautiful promise it was. how i yearned to be a dialectical wizard, to understand all things in their totality and interconnected, intra-contradictory motion. i was willing to renounce formal logic and accept engels as my master, if only such a beautiful theory could exist. to this day i do not forgive hegel for his rape of logic
