Talk:Dialectical materialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Dialectical materialism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Old talk

I really wouldn't know whether the "example of the chicken's egg" is or is not an "oft-cited criticism of dialectical materialism," but I can say at least that this explanation of it doesn't make any sense to me:

One critique of dialectical materialism is the oft-cited example of a chicken's egg. The embryo (thesis) is oppessed by the shell (antithesis) and must overcome and destroy the shell to reach the next stage of being a chick (synthesis). The error here, according to Dr. Sang Hun Lee, lies in misunderstanding the purpose and role of the eggshell. While the embryo is unformed or weak, the shell remains tough and hard to protect it. When the embroyo has developed into a chick and is ready to enter the world, the shell becomes thin and brittle. If a chick were removed from the shell by an outside force, its ability to survive would be diminished.
This is analogous to parents who restrict their children when they are young and gradually give them more responsibility as they mature. Finally, the children move out on their own and take their place in society is fully-functioning adults. They needn't rebel or murder their parents at all.

Two problems with it: (1) the founder of the Unification Church is not what I would call a leading critic of socialist theories. If this is oft-cited (outside of the aforementioned church) we ought to be able to find a more credible source. (2) As a criticism, it doesn't make any sense. Does DM imply that children should rebel and murder their parents? The article doesn't say so. --LMS

Good points, my addition was hastily written. The chick in the egg example has been cited to me by in conversation by communists in Cambridge, Massachusetts -- I haven't seen it in print. Also, Dr. Lee is not the founder of the Unification Church -- perhaps you meant Rev. Moon. The former is certainly too obscure to be a "leading critic", of course, and Rev. Moon (while well known) is not generally considered a theoretical critic. I appear to have made a hash of this addition and have egg on my face to go with the hash! -- Ed Poor

Well, I assumed that the author of the "three main books of the Unification Church" (that's what our Sang Hun Lee article says) would have been the founder, but of course that was just an assumption. Now, don't get me wrong. Maybe it's true that there is a "chicken in the egg example" that is one main criticism of dialectical materialism. I honestly don't know (I haven't studied it enough). All I was saying is that I don't understand your explanation of the problem. --LMS

Thanks for the constructive criticism. I consider your advice "authoritative" as well as pertinent.

I revised Sang Hun Lee to remove even a hint that he wrote Divine Principle or played any leadership role in the Unification Church. The critique is reworded a bit, and moved under Sang Hun Lee as well, with only an "oppose" link from dialectical materialism. --Ed Poor

I am concerned that this entry presents the topic as an uncontroversial element of Marxist theory. There is extensive dispute between different marxian thinkers over Marx's commitment to "dialectical materialism" - a term only ever deployed by Engels. This includes profound issues of how far Marx believed "forms of thought" to be discrete entities (see, eg, Franz Jakubowski), and whether the method is held to be a sociological one (applying only in the context of human agency) or a universal one (applying to natural processes). The division is related to and implicated in the division between Stalinism and Trotskyism. So - Should I add the relevant qualifications to claims? --Adhib 11:05, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article is almost(?) atrocious as written. For one thing, dialectical-materialism is only "controvertial" because the bourgeoisie has designated it so. It's not some 'iffy' subject to be approached skeptically at arm's length. It is modern science, superior to bourgeois empiricism -- and it doesn't matter a whit what it's actually called, or who did or didn't recognize it as such, or by which monicker.
It's quite possible to recognize bourgeois objections to its validity without bending over backwards to give readers the definite impression that this is some dodgy subject best passed over.
And much of the commentary above/below/wherever is typical and clueless middle-class sniffery. "Marxian" my hairy aspect: dialectical-materialism is not in trial here -- threadbare bourgeois empirical logic is. Dialectical-materialism works.
Pazouzou 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Marx and Engels collaborated closely for over 35 years. For many years, they corresponded almost daily. I think a study of their works (and letters) shows that they were in close agreement on all major issues. They also stated this themselves on a number of occasions. To say that Marx did not hold to dialectical materialism is completely erroneous and cannot be backed up by evidence. In fact, it is ludicrous to so claim. Here are several quotes from M and E that shed some light on these issues. Note that one of Engels’ major works on DM, Anti-Duhring, was passed by Marx before publication and even partly written by him. The third quote also answers some of Jakubowski's claims about what Marx believed regarding base and superstructure.

"The ideal is nothing else than the material world, reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." –Marx, Capital, Vol. 1
"The greater part of the point of view developed here was founded and worked out by Marx, and only a small part of it by me. Its presentation has not been made without his knowledge. I have read the whole manuscript to him before publication and the tenth chapter of the section on Economics was written by Marx, and aside from some superficial observation was merely abridged by me. It was always our custom to assist each other reciprocally in our special fields." –Engels, Anti-Duhring
"My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life…. In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness…. Changes in the economic foundation lead…to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. Frederick Engels, with whom I maintained a constant exchange of ideas by correspondence…arrived by another road…at the same result as I." –Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

--Jose Ramos 15:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jose's fulsome language ('ludicrous') rather confirms my point, that this is a contentious area within Marxist theory, and its contentiousness should be at least *mentioned* within the article. The quotes Jose offers provide no clear basis for resisting my suggestion, particularly not on the distinction between historical materialism and dialectical materialism (dialectics as sociological method, v universal scientific method). Any other views? --Adhib

Yes. (Assuming a few things here since the above lacks a few specifix to give it full context) it is wrong to put forward the scientific method as being other than the dialectical-materialist method. And I do mean wrong. Completely. Only one interpretation is right here -- and I'm not buying the other one. Prove me wrong.
If by "universal" you are trying to imply that DM is something other than the bourgeois scientific method, which is 'accepted and universal' (like capitalism) -- unlike the 'fraud', DM -- then that would be wrong, like I assert. But it loox like you might mean the old pseudo-marxist academic dodge that "DiaMat" only applies in the mind and not out in the "real world".
The scientific method, as it is commonly interpreted, is historically a specific methodology employing bourgeois, empirical logic to discover facts about reality. Dialectical-materialism, OTOH, is a specific methodology employing dialectical logic to discover facts about that same reality. The error here is in conflating bourgeois empirical logic with the scientific method itself, and assuming that this is the sine qua non of science, period. As well, it is completely artificial --and logically and truly unacceptable -- to cherry-pick what we want to take from DM, and rather conveniently disregard the parts that bring us up against our political enemies... In fact, it's completely dishonest in every respect and totally hypocritical. And bad science, to boot.
And so that (typical) dodge of segregating DM into obscure academic disciplines proves exactly nothing here -- other than the inexorable pressure of bourgeois hegemony in all intellectual fields at present. And I put it to you that the marxist method of science is far superior to the bourgeois method of science, and constitutes a seamless, integrated whole in all human thought and practice.
Pazouzou 04:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


The original encyclopaedia entry confuses Hegel with Fichte; as far as I am aware, Hegel does not use the terms "thesis", "antithesis" and "synthesis" - at least not in any theoretically important sense. On this see Gustav Mueller 'The Hegel Legend of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis', in Hegel Myths and Legends, edited by Jon Stewart (Northwestern University Press, 1996), pp.301-305.

Also, since Hegel's theory was an openly mystical doctrine, derived from Hermetic/NeoPlatonic thinkers (like Plotinus, Iamblichus, Pseudo-Dionysius and Jacob Böhme), it sits very awkwardly with Marx's scientific outlook.

Although one comrade tries to implicate Marx in Engels's confused 'philosophy', there is in fact little to suggest that he agreed with Engels that there is a 'dialectic in nature'. The idea that Marx approved Anti-Dühring is largely based on Engels's own testimony that he 'read it to Marx'. Does anyone believe this? It would have taken days! Marx was very old and in rapid decline when Engels became fixated with this mystical doctrine; he would surely have drifted off more than once. On the other hand, if Marx had have been fit and able, why on earth didn't he read it for himself?

Doubters should read Terrell Carver's books: Marx And Engels (Humanities Press, 1983); Engels (Oxford University Press, 1981); and his article `The Engels-Marx Question', in M. Steger, and T. Carver, Engels After Marx (Manchester University Press, 1999).

Incidentally, all that chicken and egg stuff above just shows how crazy and mystical this theory is. No wonder few sentient beings, other than 'true believers', take it seriously.

I'll post some novel objections to dialectical (but not historical) materialism later.

LevD

UK

Edited 09/08/05

Hardly. Read Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science, a very valuable and important work, once one gets past the (largely initial but lenghty) Trotskyate nonesense, at least. All this conjecture about Engels' mysticism is overstated. El_C 12:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Reply to ELC: The book you mention (Reason in Revolt, or RIRE) is in fact worse than poor. It is full of serious mistakes and misconceptions about Formal Logic (FL), issues I have taken up with one of the authors. Here is a section of my thesis that deals with some of these:

"Unlike most dialecticians, Woods and Grant (the two authors of RIRE) at least reference a couple of introductory works on logic (i.e., those written many years ago by A. A. Luce, and Cohen and Nagel), but it is quite clear from what they say about logic they can't have understood much of what they read:

'Even the simplest judgement, as Hegel points out, contains a contradiction. 'Caesar is a man,' 'Fido is a dog,' 'the tree is green,' all state that the particular is the universal. Such sentences seem simple, but in fact are not. This is a closed book for formal logic, which remains determined to banish all contradictions not only from nature and society, but from thought and language itself. Propositional calculus sets out from exactly the same basic postulates as those worked out by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C., namely the law of identity, the law of (non-) contradiction, the law of excluded middle, to which is added the law of double negation. Instead of being written with normal letters, they are expressed in symbols, thus:

a) p = p

b) p = ~p

c) p V = ~p (sic)

d) ~(p ~ p) (sic)

All this looks very nice, but makes not the slightest difference to the content of the syllogism.' [Woods and Grant, RIRE, pp.97-98.]

However, translated, these symbols 'mean' the following:

a) p is equal to p

b) p is equal to not-p

c) p or equals not-p (sic)

d) not both p not-p (sic)

c) and d) are just gibberish. Clearly, these two comrades did not copy this prize example of syntactical confusion from a logic text written anywhere on this planet -- which could mean that they simply made it up. At any rate, this shows that they made no effort to understand much of what they constantly deride. [Witness the way that they have confused the Propositional Calculus with Aristotelian Syllogistic. The former was invented by the Stoics (and then largely forgotten until the middle of the 19th century); Aristotle knew nothing of it, as far as we know.]

Of course, the reference these authors make to contradictions allegedly implicit in simple predicative propositions is also based on a novel piece of grammar. 'Caesar is a man' (P1) does not say the particular is the universal, and can only be made to do so by imposing on it a grammatical theory that these two comrades failed to justify. And even if (P1) could be construed in this way, Woods and Grant failed to say why that would be a contradiction, as opposed to being a simple falsehood, or just plain unvarnished nonsense.

Other factual and interpretive mistakes these two make include the following:

(1) On page 97, they mention an unknown character (one 'George Boyle'), who they allege was one of the founding fathers of modern logic. Unless Woods and Grant know more about the 'secret history of logic' than anyone else, it looks like they have confused this fictional character with George Boole. A small mistake? You would think, but it is symptomatic of their sloppy approach to all matters logical, a characteristic they share with most dialecticians.

(2) They assert (on page 97, again) that Wittgenstein (in the Tractatus) tried to develop a formal language for the propositions of science 'based on the old laws of identity, contradiction and excluded middle' when Wittgenstein in fact went to great pains to argue that identity was not needed in a perspicuous formal language:

'It is self-evident that identity is not a relation between objects.... Russell's definition of '=' is inadequate.... Roughly speaking, to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing at all.... The identity sign, therefore, is not an essential constituent of conceptual notation.... [I]n a correct conceptual notation pseudo-propositions like 'a = a', 'a = b.b = c **(*) a = c', '(x) x = x', '(x) x = a', etc. cannot even be written down.' [Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Routledge, 1972), pp.106-07; Propositions 5.5301, 5.5302, 5.5303, 5.533, 5.534.] {Added later: the space above (*) should contain the implication arrow. The formatting here does not suport its use.}

And, contrary to what these two comrades assert about Wittgenstein basing his logic on the 'law of (non-) contradiction' (etc), he declared:

'Tautology and contradiction are the limiting cases - indeed the disintegration - of the combination of signs.' [Ibid, p.71; Proposition 4.466d.]

Indeed, far from trying to base his formal system on the principles these two comrades say he does, Wittgenstein's fundamental idea was that the whole of logic derived from something he called the 'General Form of a Proposition':

'The description of the most general propositional form is the description of the one and only general primitive sign in logic.... The general form of a truth-function is [p, c, N(c)]. This is the general form of a proposition.' [Ibid, pp.95, 119; Propositions 5.472 and 6.]

In fact, chapter 4 of RIRE contains nearly as many errors as it does paragraphs...."

Moreover, Woods and Grant's interpretation of science reminds one of the approach adopted by Creationists: the only 'evidence' quoted is that which allegedly supports their view (and even then it is shoehorned into a dialectical boot it won't fit); negative evidence is just ignored.

As to Engels's mysticism, those who take their cue from that arch-mystic and hermetic thinker, Hegel, have simply labelled themselves as mystics. [I hope to publish more details on this topic at my web-site (which is still under construction).]

LevD 24-08-05. Re-edited 28-09-05.

Posted 25/08/05. Here are a few more problems with Woods and Grant's book:

As far as criticisms of the law of identity (LOI) are concerned, Hegel, Trotsky, Woods and Grant (and a host of other dialecticians) plainly attacked the wrong target: 'the principle of equality', not the LOI!

Here is another section from my thesis on this (the numbers in round brackets refer to notes listed at the end):

"In his debate with Burnham, Trotsky rehearsed an argument that was aimed at exposing what he took to be serious limitations in the LOI.(1) The motivation for Trotsky's analysis was his belief that Formal Logic (FL) deals only with static and lifeless concepts, rendering it incapable of grasping the dynamism of concrete reality. Remarkably, Trotsky nowhere attempted to substantiate these sweeping allegations; in fact there is no evidence that he consulted a single logic text written in the last 200 years (saving, of course, that written by Hegel). Clearly, he did not think that this disqualified him from passing an opinion on the subject.

Trotsky's argument went as follows:

'The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from the proposition that 'A' is equal to 'A'.... But in reality 'A' is not equal to 'A'. This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens - they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not the size or the form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar - a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is true (sic) - all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour etc. They are never equal to themselves....' [Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism (New Park Publications, 1971), p.63.]

There are many things wrong with this passage, but one puzzling fact is that it ignores other classical versions of the LOI, none of which Trotsky quotes.(2)

In fact, Trotsky's initial characterisation of the LOI is rather odd:

S1: A is equal to A.

But, as an accurate depiction of identity, S1 is not even close -- not least because it omits the word "identity" itself. Contrast S1 with the following far less inaccurate version of the same law:

S2: A is identical to A.

Why did Trotsky prefer S1 to S2? His use of "equal" in fact meant he was actually attacking the principle of equality, not the LOI --, which suggests that Trotsky's criticisms were misconceived from the start.

The ordinary use of words like "equal", "identical", and "same" is highly complex; it would be a mistake to think they all mean the same (no irony intended). However, because of his cavalier attitude to the vernacular, Trotsky ignored the seemingly limitless conceptual space that ordinary language creates for its users, a flexibility that allows them to make complex and intricate allusions to identity, equality, similarity, and difference with ease.

There are countless examples of the above distinctions in ordinary material language. For instance, we can say things like "the author of What is to be done? is identical to Lenin", whereas it would be odd to say "the author of What is to be done? is equal to Lenin". Indeed, we can even say that "the number of authors of What is to be done? is equal to one, but not "the number of authors of What is to be done? is identical to one".(3)

Moreover, some things can be equal and identical, or not, as the case may be. For example, the letter "t" can occur identically in first place in two different words (such as "Trotsky" and "teamster") even though neither letter nor word is equal or identical in size or shape. And, two letters, which are identically first in the alphabet (namely two "A"'s) can be non-identically positioned in two unequal words (such as "car" and "Arthur"). Indeed, careful optical examination will fail to show either that these two "T"'s are not identically positioned at the front of the first two quoted words, or that the two numerically different "A"'s are not identically the first letter of the alphabet. This sort of identity is clearly not sensitive to empirical test.(4)

Furthermore, one and the same bag of sugar could be self-identical and equal to itself in weight even while it is unequal in weight to a second seemingly identical bag (how this is possible is explained below). Moreover, two different bags of sugar could be equal in weight (even if only momentarily), as far as the most sensitive instruments could tell. And, two separate bags could both have their weights changing; in the first it could be falling while in the second it could be rising. At some point, therefore, their two weights will be momentarily identical. In addition, in two separate piles, bag A in pile one and bag B in pile two could be the heaviest in their respective heaps. In that case, each would be equally the heaviest in their respective piles while being non-identical in weight for all that. No doubt the reader can imagine other cases that Trotsky failed to consider. In fact, his analysis blurred clear distinctions like this, ones that are easily made in ordinary, material language and which are readily understood by most working-class children.

Trotsky thus created serious problems for himself by erecting bold philosophical theses on such flimsy foundations: a mis-defined word, a few "thought experiments", and an extremely limited range of examples drawn from the vernacular.(5)

However, this change of subject (from "identity" to "equality") allowed Trotsky to make what turn out to be largely irrelevant claims about things like bags of sugar. Because this segue now involves items that can be measured (as opposed to be


Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

It looks like most of this page has been wiped!

I will try to reconstruct my comments at least from my own archives. I saved some of this page earlier today: here it is:

"You're using the usual bourgeois attack dog angle here: trying to browbeat the opposition into submission with a flurry of, uh, erudition."

I am a Marxist, so this comment is irrelevant.

And, by 'erudition' it is clear that you really mean that I try to defend my ideas with evidence and argument, which you are not used to seeing deployed against this mystical 'theory', so you just moan.

If you do not like this, that is your problem.

And I am aware of why Hegel tried to con humanity with obscure words (he was a mystic):

"Hegel was trying to develop a new terminology to better fit the dynamix of his thought system."

But I claim: 1) we do not need this new jargon; ordinary language can handle change far better than the terminally obscure words Hegel invented to fix something that was not broken; and 2) none of his new terms make any sense.

So, even if we needed new terms, Hegel's would be the last ones we'd turn to.

"It is not his fault that subsequent bourgeois thought has chosen to more-or-less studiously ignore what many hoped was a dead branch and a deadend of philosophy -- rather than the right fork in the road it has always been."

Ignored in many cases for reasons 1) and 2) above; but there are others.

And rightly so.

"I don't pretend to be expert in "logic", sadly -- I have been too tied-up fighting the police state all these years to do the research I'd always intended -- but I also reject pretty much everything you have said above, as logik is all about reality -- and a logik which cannot be demonstrated in reality is anything but."

I agree. From the above, it is clear that you do indeed know nothing about logic, but still you pontificate about it. What next? Your collected thoughts on brain surgery?

"Don't think you are going to win anything here by trotting out some "credentialist", "argument-by-authority" dodge. You've got some killer argument? Fine. Let's walk thru it."

What the h*ll does that mean? Where do I trot out an argument from authority?

"You're not the first one to want to entrap me in the tarpit of their online worldview opus. My attitude to this type of challenge has always been: you quote from your own oeuvre, as circumstances diktate, so that we become familiar with how your own work differs from that of the 'masters'; and we will work in from there. If you are sincere -- and not too much the crank -- then we should very likely get to the nub of the matter soon enuff."

I cannot do that here (I have already posted far too much); that is one reason why I set up my site.

If you want to read my Essays, fine. If not, I am not going to loose much sleep over that fact.

So, contrary to what you think, I do not give a toss whether you visit my site.

Stay ignorant for all I care.

However, long experience 'debating' with you dialectical mystics has taught me that you (plural) do not debate, you invent stuff, distract attention, bluster. moan and categorise people (as 'bourgeois', when in this case I am not, I am a working class woman) so that you can ignore their arguments.

In fact, just as you (singular) have done here.

But, you need to stop making ignorant claims about me, ones that are not supported by anything I have said here or at my site.

Finally, earlier in this thread, you made this untrue statement:

"Dialectical-materialism works."

Unfortunately, Marxism is the most unsuccessful major political theory in human history (I wish it were otherwise). So, history has refuted Dialectical Materialism. It does not work, and never has, and practice has proven that to be the case.

Historical Materialism on the other hand does, but it has been rendered impotent by this Hermetic accretion.

[And no wonder, dialectics was invented by a ruling-class theorist -- Hegel.]

And for once, just once, can one of you dialectical mystics put together a half-way decent argument? I have yet to encounter one from you lot (in over 20 years of waiting). Has Hegel's 'Logic' nuked your reasoning powers?

I suspect so.

Rosa Lichtenstein 25/09/06

Pazouzou responds:


Look: on this Talk page of the Wikipedia article on 'Dialectical materialism' it is not for the dialekticians to be having to prove anything to a challenge to the very validity of the subject. It's rather up to the challenger: you. We can either do this the fun, easy way; or we can do this the hard, un-fun way. Or, more likely, not at all.
Understand that I am going to approach this "dialog" how I want to approach it. You are not going to stampede me or browbeat me here (I speak only for myself). Adapt to this method, please -- or we are only going to talk past each other, if we talk at all. It won't be so hard, if you are sincere.
You have stated a number of times that you feel dialektix is at the root of the failure of marxism. I consider this a preposterous claim -- and a proof that you are not really a marxist in an ideological/etc. sense. Besides that, the fact that you can claim to be a marxist -- and yet have thrown the dialectical baby out with the political bathwater -- is all the further proof I require for that claim.
I put to you the exact opposite: that it is precisely the failure of marxists to use dialektix in their struggle -- their essentially dropping it for mechanistic, formalistic, vulgar stalinist "DiaMat" -- which has directly led to this failure.
Which one of us is right here? We both cannot be.
And what do you actually think the relation of Hegel to Marx and Engels and Lenin and Trotsky and marxism is, anyway? This article is most certainly not about proving Hegel 100% right. It is Marx who set things 100% 'right side up'. So first perhaps we have to make clear what relation Hegel actually does bear to marxist scientific socialism.
Pazouzou 00:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rosa replies again;

Paz:

"It's rather up to the challenger: you."

Done it; see above and in vastly more detail at my site.

"You are not going to stampede me or browbeat me here (I speak only for myself)."

Well, you are the one who blundered into this discussion, comrade, perhaps thinking I was an easy target (when I am not; the fact that you canot produce a single argument against me suggests that you are, as I suspected, way out of your depth).

So, if anything the opposite of this comment of yours is true.

"You have stated a number of times that you feel dialektix is at the root of the failure of marxism. I consider this a preposterous claim -- and a proof that you are not really a marxist in an ideological/etc. sense. Besides that, the fact that you can claim to be a marxist -- and yet have thrown the dialectical baby out with the political bathwater -- is all the further proof I require for that claim."

No, if you read what I actually say, instead of inventing again (as I noted earlier, you mystics are good at invention), you will see that I specifically say that this 'theory'is part of the reason why Marxism is an abject failure.

And I could say the same of you, that you are not a Marxist, since, contrary to Marxism, you stick to dogma. But, I would not be so uncomradely.

I merely hoist you mystics on your own petard: if truth is tested in practice, practice has refuted dialectics.

You can avoid that conclusion in one of two ways: reject the dogma that truth is tested in practice, or claim that Marxism is a ringing success.

Which false exit will you choose I wonder?

But you have a reply:

"I put to you the exact opposite: that it is precisely the failure of marxists to use dialektix in their struggle -- their essentially dropping it for mechanistic, formalistic, vulgar stalinist "DiaMat" -- which has directly led to this failure."

And yet, Stalinism is the one area of 'Marxism' that can claim some sort of success. Other wings of Marxism are far less successful, or are a downright disaster area.

So your 'explanation' means that dialectics as applied by these other nameless Marxists -- if that is what you mean -- has disproved this 'theory' even more!

On the other hand, if you meant that dialectics has never been tried out, I agree. since you cannot put into practice a nonsensical theory.

So, either history has refuted dialectics or it is unworkable.

I can live with either result, or both.

"Which one of us is right here? We both cannot be."

I note your capitulation to the 'either-or' of common sense here.

The dread 'Law of Excluded Middle'!

So, you reject Hegel too?

Good! Progress at last.

"And what do you actually think the relation of Hegel to Marx and Engels and Lenin and Trotsky and marxism is, anyway? This article is most certainly not about proving Hegel 100% right. It is Marx who set things 100% 'right side up'. So first perhaps we have to make clear what relation Hegel actually does bear to marxist scientific socialism."

If you are really interested you can find the answer at my site; if you are not, then not.

You decide.

Rosa Lichtenstein 26/09/06.

http://www.anti-dialectics.org/

No, I think you've made it pretty clear you're not a reasonable opponent. I was hoping for someone who isn't stuck in full-throttle attack mode at every moment. Debating you would be thankless -- however enlightening; but at least I know more about your type of demoralizing influence: and how to go about countering it.
As for whoever wiped what we were writing on this Talk page: if they're so plugged-into the Wikipedia stalinist bureaucracy that they feel they have the right to peremptorily flush our postings down the Memory Hole, they could just have easily archived this stuff properly, however that is done here. Pretty ham-handed IMO.
And this article still stinx.
Pazouzou 09:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pazouzou, I have responded to this latest post of yours in your personal area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pazouzou

Rosa L 29/09/06


Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Rosa L wrote:

Ok, thanks for the warning; if anyone wants to discuss this with me, try doing so here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?s=c0164f0997e99a3ffe6623877d0b84db&showforum=23

For my part, I will refrain from debating this topic here.

Rosa Lichtenstein

May I suggest that somebody clean up the main article to make it more accessible, less esoteric?

No encyclopedia or other general, descriptive work should send the reader scurrying to so many supporting links (see hegel, etc.) without a coccise, straightforward definition.

Personally I have come to the conclusion it simply doesn't exist. I see a bunch of extremely complex, gnostic statements using the longest possible words. It's recursive. DM is marxism. -Todd in kirkland

Ruffwiki added this comment:

The author states: Dialectical materialism is essentially characterized by the belief that history is the product of class struggle and obeys the general Hegelian principle of philosophy of history, that is the development of the thesis into its antithesis which is sublated by the "Aufhebung" (~ synthesis, a word that Hegel didn't like to use) — which conserves the thesis and the antithesis while at the same time abolishing it (Aufheben — this contradiction explains the difficulties of Hegel's thought). [1]

I think the author is struggling to use the English language correctly - and failing in his or her attempts. Here’s one example of the author’s incorrect use of the language, concerning: the development of the thesis into its antithesis.

To understand the situation correctly requires a somewhat different approach. The conflict between the thesis and its antithesis is resolved (in one way or another) by synthesis. For example, a boat pushes down on the water due to gravity (the weight of the boat). The water resists the downward motion by pushing up on the boat (again, a function of gravity acting upon the water). The synthesis - the resolution - is obtained at the point where the weight of the displaced water equals the weight of the boat - this results in a specific level of the boat in the water, which is, on the average, maintained. (The sea is usually in motion, the contents of the boat may shift somewhat; the result is a series over time of small changes in the boat’s level that average out to zero - unless the boat swamps or is grounded.)

Another example, which results in destruction of either the thesis or its antithesis, is a burning log. Over time, the fire will either consume the log, transforming its material into other materials, other forms - or the log will resist burning and at some point in time the fire will “burn out” (disappear). The synthesis is thus either a burned log (and the fire disappears) or a scorched log (and, again, the fire disappears). Of course, in the latter case, the log partially or wholly maintains its “integrity” - its form and materials.

As one sees by these two examples, the process is not development of the thesis into its antithesis. Rather, the process is better explained by the struggle between a thesis and its antithesis and the subsequent development of these into a synthesis. I.e., synthesis is the result of a struggle between a thesis and its antithesis over time. In this struggle between opposites, the result is a synthesis that represents either a balance between opposing forces or the destruction of one and the “victory” of the other. In the latter case, the “victory” of the fire over the log has the side effect of removing the fire from existence. Hmmm, I wonder what parallels can be drawn in human history.

[edit] Philosophy of praxis

My understanding is that Gramsci made up his lingo to sneak his commie ravings past the fascist prison censors, and that "philosophy of praxis" was simply a euphemism for dialectical materialism. I got all excited to read his critique of dialectical materialism, but alas... Bobanny 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dialectical materialism" and Joseph Dietzgen

I notice that Karl Kautsky's Frederick Engels, His Life, His Work and His Writings, written in 1887 has "The first appearance of this new dialectical materialism was in a work entitled ..." [1]

I would be curious about any references to Joseph Dietzgen. I'm not disputing it - for my own part I suspect that the term simply arose from on going discussions around Engels' and Kautsky's work in London, although Dietzgen was in New York I think, in or around 1887 as a short hand term, and Kautsky and Dietzgen had it almost all together. Nevertheless, the marxists.org site gives Kautsky as the originator.

Maybe some reference to Kautsky's use could go in here?

Marx, however, never used the term of "dialectical materialism" itself, which was probably invented in 1887 by Joseph Dietzgen, a socialist tanner who corresponded with Marx. Casual mention of the term is also found in Kautsky's Frederick Engels, His Life, His Work and His Writings, written in 1887. Andysoh 01:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Article Kinda Sucks

Here is Dialectical-Materialism per the Columbia encyclopedia, as an example. Someone should really consider revising the Wikipedia article, or perhaps I might:

Dialectical Materialism- Official philosophy of Communism, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, as elaborated by G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. In theory dialectical materialism is meant to provide both a general world view and a specific method for the investigation of scientific problems. The basic tenets are that everything is material and that change takes place through “the struggle of opposites.” Because everything contains different elements that are in opposition, “self-movement” automatically occurs; the conflict of opposing forces leads to growth, change, and development, according to definite laws. Communist scientists were expected to fit their investigations into this pattern, and official approval of scientific theories in the USSR was determined to some extent by their conformity to dialectical materialism (see Lysenko, Trofim Denisovich). Use of these principles in history and sociology is sometimes called historical materialism. Under these doctrines the social, political, and intellectual life of society reflect only the economic structure, since human beings create the forms of social life solely in response to economic needs. Men are divided into classes by their relations to the means of production—land and capital. The class that controls the means of production inevitably exploits the other classes in society; it is this class struggle that produces the dynamic of history and is the source of progress toward a final uniformity. Historical materialism is deterministic; that is, it prescribes that history inevitably follows certain laws and that individuals have little or no influence on its development. Central to historical materialism is the belief that change takes place through the meeting of two opposing forces (thesis and antithesis); their opposition is resolved by combination produced by a higher force (synthesis). Historical materialism has had many advocates outside the Communist world. 1 See G. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism (1958, repr. 1973); A. Spirkin, Dialectical Materialism (1983); I. Yurkovets, Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism (1984). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.245.74 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

But this entry from the Columbia encyclopedia is in its most important aspects essentially wrong. To judge this, one only needs to read what Engels wrote on the subject. Cf for instance
"According to the materialist conception of history the determining element in history is ultimately the production and reproduction in real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted.
"If therefore somebody twists this into the statement that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase." (Frederick Engels: From a Letter To Joseph Bloch, London, September 21, 1890. )


But the Columbia encyclopedia says (as quoted above) "Under these doctrines the social, political, and intellectual life of society reflect only the economic structure, since human beings create the forms of social life solely in response to economic needs."
The essential point that Engels was making was that one cannot say "solely" in response to economic needs. This reduces Marxism to crude determinism, which is a serious error.
In other words, the Columbia encyclopedia, according to one of the two founders of the theory, Friedrich Engels, is guilty of "a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase." It is far too crude to represent the idea of a dialectical interplay between living forces.
Once the Columbia encyclopedia gets started, furthermore, it continues in this vein, leaving one to wonder what exactly Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky saw in struggling at all against exploitation (the last of whom struggled against the rise of Stalinism, and the great perversion of Marxism that this bureaucratic caste promulgated), since "individuals have little or no influence on [capitalist] development".
The last thing one would want to suggest is that the Columbia encyclopedia is misinformed, although one must grant that it represents a point of view which is well favoured by the opponents of Marxism. It would be better to say that the point of view of the Columbia encyclopedia is that of dialectical materialism as taught particularly in the USA at the present time, rather than to suggest that it is related to the historical ideas of Marx and Engels, or Lenin and Trotsky.
And of course, the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" representation is properly criticised both in the wikipedia article (see footnote) and in the discussions here.
Andysoh 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't actually explain what it actually is, in simple terms. --Liface 05:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a very difficult thing to explain. I don't know if it could be done more simply. Grant | Talk 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between over-simplifying a complex concept and explaining it in simple terms, to set the audience on a path of discovery about the topic. It is relatively easy for any decent teacher to explain any concept, however abstract and complex, in simple terms. Only an ass would over-simplify. And asses are not good teachers.

In regard to dialectical materialism, the only real reason it does not work (in my own opinion, only, of course) is that it has never existed. People (again, only in my opinion) are inherently self-disciplined and even altruistic in matters of simple survival. It is only institutions that are heartless. For instance, very few actual living breathing people would refuse food to a starving child, even if a person has only one slice of an apple or one bite of a burger to share. A government, however, will casually dump a million tons of oranges into the sea while millions of children starve to death. A government (even a dictator) is a ruler, not a person. And the ruler wants his/her/its ideology to rule.

Therefore, it is in matters of ideology that people turn violent. Ideas are not debatable, in a sense. Ideas are absolute. You can eat half an apple or one grain of rice from a pot, but you cannot, in any real sense, present or accept "half" or "one grain" of an idea. An idea either is or it isn't. When a "ruler" tries to impose his/her/its ideology on people, the people rebel and "kill" the ruler. I think that people like to be allowed to think as they please even if they can't live as they think. Rulers, such as Marx, who try to tell people how they have been thinking or how they should think, are rejected through a "revolutionary" process -- a process that revolves ideas until they hit the exit chamber. The only way for an idea at the exit chamber to "return" is to walk in with other ideas that are, as yet, untested. The new version of the idea then keeps revolving until it hits the exit chamber again, and so on.

I get the impression you assume that dialectical materialism and the Soviet Union, or some such so-called socialist regime, is dialectical materialism in practice. This would perhaps explain why you refer to Marx as a "ruler", although I'm sure that was a slip of the keyboard (since he never was). But your connection of dialectical materialism and the Soviet Union, however wrong it may be, is understandable since the Soviet Union's leaders said they followed dialectical materialism, and Stalin wrote a book on it -- but remember that if we took people at their word and ignored their deeds we would be fools.
Marxism, guided by dialectical materialism, gives a very useful explanation of why governments prefer to dump food rather than give it away, whatever they may claim, but it is widely known anyway - it keeps the price of food up, and this is what "capitalism" is all about, and that's why people die every second of every day through under nourishment.
I think when you say ideas are not debatable, you mean, not that they are not debatable, since ideas are always being debated, but that some people approach them from a Yes / No, right or wrong way, (and shout you down if they don't agree). Fox News gives perfect examples of this way of thinking every day.
This is where materialism comes in. If people starve, people want to know why. Then they re-assess the 'capitalism is good, marxism is bad' "right or wrong" approach, read what Marx wrote, find out about other Marxists, and realise that, like most living ideas, within the tradition of 'dialectical materialism' there are opposites: trends which represent a dead end, and trends which still offer a genuine alternative to the "free market" system where the dumping of food is just one example of how, in practice, to use your words: "it has never really existed." Andysoh 20:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosa Lichtenstein

I am not quite sure who this person is and who publishes her work, but I can scarcely find anything on her besides her own resource page. Which believes me to blieve the addition of her in this is nothing more than self-promotion by the author in particular themselves. This lowers the quality of this article to let any random Blogger have their criticisms added to this. Dialectical Materialism is a serioues philolosophical school and method attached to Marxism, and there is lot of commentary on the subject without resorting to unpublished internet articles.

Therefore I have deleted mention of her or her site on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riot Fred (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not add the reference to my site to the Wiki article (as a quick reference to the history section would have revealed), but I object to it being removed in view of the fact that my site contains the most comprehensive demolition (by far) of this 'theory' ever to have been written by a Marxist.

Hence, it was rightly mentioned in the relevant section, and should be restored.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just undid the delete of the reference to Rosa Lichtenstein's website. Contrary to Riot Fred's assertions, I am not Rosa. I also find the argument that a reference should not be included because it is to a website, rather than to a print publication to be patently absurd. JimFarm (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Riot Fred that the sight appears like a random blog and should be removed. Questioning81 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean 'random blog'? It's not even a blog!

In fact, my site contains the most detailed and comprehensive demolition of this 'theory' ever written by a Marxist -- i.e., me.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a blog but a homepage, which doesn't bother me, but after skipping through it for thirty minutes I don't think it belongs in the paragraph, for 'Marxist criticism of DM' your name appears out of place next to Gramsci and Mao. Questioning81 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, my name is out of place next to those two mystics.

Er..., well, it would be, but my name is not even next to theirs!

'Skipping through' what, though?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

By next to I meant in the same paragraph as. If your site was only listed in the Selected Readings section I would still think it was out of place, but in the Criticisms section it looks much worse.
I flipped through a couple of your essays but this isn't the place to argue over them.Questioning81 (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, nip over to RevLeft, where you can debate this with me to your heart's content.

However, I wonder what you'd think if I merely 'flipped' through a few chapters of Marx or Mao's work, and then thought I had understood either or both of them?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2008 (Utc)

I have once again removed the site. Whether or not YOU think its the "most comprehensive demolitionof the theory" doesn't give it any entitlement to be added as an authority on the question. This would rather be different if there was a published book by yourself on the subject, but rather you have a website...any Joe Smoo can have that.

Further I have no interest in debating you on the matter. Wikipedia is a source for information, whether or not your work has any relevance is based on really whether anyone thinks it merits it.

--Riot Fred (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Riot Fred's arguments are no more convincing now than they were the first time around. His main objection seems to be that my cite was to a website rather than to a published book. Well, I have some advice for RF, go check out a university library and take a look at some recent scholarly journals. You should easily be able to find more than a few which feature articles that include URLs of websites in the footnotes. Lots of academics place their writings on the web, and other academics when writing articles for learned journals will provide URLs of those webpages in their references. Also, in case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is itself a website. There is no need for us here to be more Catholic than the pope here. However, if you should come across a more comprehensive demolition of diamat than Rosa's website, please feel free to provide a cite. Therefore, without much further ado, I will undo the deletion of my reference to Rosa's website.

JimFarm (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW for those who would like to read a short synopsis of Rosa Lichtenstein's work, she had an article outlining her critique of dialectical materialism in the September 13, 2007 issue of The Weekly Worker.

JimFarm (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Academics put their stuff online is not in question, the question is whether or not Rosa Lichenstein warrants merit of mention on this article as a genuine critique of Dialectical Materialism as a Marxist philosopher. I have no understanding that Rosa is such in the sense she has no published works besides said article you have pointed me too (which on its own account, still doesn't warrant mention in that weekly left-wing papers have little subscription and few readership in between.

Just lets put this in context...here we are mentioning in "Marxist criticism" Mao Zedong (leader of the Communist Party of China from the 30s-1976), has a world wide movement based on his thought; we are mentioning Louis Althusser who was a member of the French Communist Party and was one of the foremost philosophers in France, contributed to the structuralist trend, and has influenced current philosophers such as Alain Badiou, Etienne Balibar, Jaques Ranciere and Slavoj Zizek.

And Lichentstein's work fits how? Sorry, I am not trying to be too "catholic;" however the reality of the matter is this is a subcategory within both Philosophy and Marxist Tradition. Two subjects of importance, and there is indeed a need for relative perspective. If you want to document polemics within the English Communist party that you have mentioned, so be it, but that has little relevance, alongside Rosa's work, with the current philosophical discourse and the international communist movements.--Riot Fred (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like we have a devout disciple of that mass murder, Mao, trying to stop anyone knowing about my comprehensive demolition of his pet 'theory' -- one that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

We will need to take this to mediation, I think.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive

This article repeats twice in the introduction that MArx did not use the term. I would think this should be removed as it is repetitive, and I'm removing it for that reason. Perhaps if it was lower in the article it could be said again. --fanturmandos 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriateness of providing a link to Rosa Lichtenstein's website under the section for Marxist criticisms of dialectical materialism

[edit] Appropriate

  • The only rule I can think of making this appropriate is: Ignore all rules. In this case I'd like to invoke this rule. For people interested in cogently presented fundamental criticism of dialectical materialism, this link gives access to a valuable resource. While Rosa Lichtenstein's notability does not equal that of Gramsci or Althusser, her writings on the subject are equally thought-provoking. For readers not interested in such criticism, providing the link is a negligeable distraction.  --Lambiam 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not appropriate

  • I applaud rosa's commitment to her criticism of dialectical materialism. I think the work should published as it is thought provoking and thorough. However, until such time as the work is published by a third party, her own website can not be viewed as a reliable resource. Her work has not undergone peer review, it has not been published, and she is not yet considered an expert on the topic by any independent institution. I believe the merit of the work deserves mention, but not on wikipedia, due to the standards of current wikipedia guidelines. I currently feel referencing her essays and homepage would be inappropriate and her criticism should not be represented(Yet).--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's perfectly legitimate to name a contemporary theorist in the same paragraph as more famous but less recent theorists. What, in my opinion, is not legitimate is the way that previous versions of the article have promoted what appears to be an individual's personal website above and beyond what is actually necessary to provide interested readers with access to that individual's views. I think Rosa should be briefly mentioned in the article, I think her criticisms of dialectical materialism should be summarized in a NPOV fashion, and I think her website should be listed in the 'external links' section at the bottom of the article. I don't think there's any need to put a link to Rosa's website in the body of the article or claim (presumably paraphrasing content on the website) that dialectical materialism "isn't coherent anyway." If Rosa is a noteworthy theorist (and I'm assuming she is) then there ought to be something more specific we can say about her critique of dialectical materialism. Full disclosure: an ancestor I've never met has the last name of Liechtenstein. Invisible Flying Mangoes (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments and discussion

Above we find the criterion: a "reliable resource". We do not use this resource as a source for statements here, so from that angle there is no need for it to be a reliable source. We also do not claim or suggest that in general the pronouncements found in this resource are reliable. WP:EL states that one should avoid linking to a site that does not provide a unique resource. I believe this site does provide a unique resource. Does it necessarily need to be reliable? Not according to WP:EL: "Links to be considered ... 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I also think the source is quite knowledgeable about the subject.  --Lambiam 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to 'Dialectics For Kids' on the main page, for goodness sake. That joke of a site gets a mention (and no one complains), but mine is edited out!

And, which works of Marx and Engels were 'peer reviewed'?

Did anyone dare to 'peer review' Stalin or Mao?

And has anyone 'peer reviewed' 'Dialectics for Kids'?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your expertise? Why are you an expert?--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sparky:

What is your expertise? Why are you an expert?

What made Marx an expert in economics, history or politics? Or Engels in anything at all? Or Lenin? Or Trotsky? Or Stalin? Or Mao?

[But, your question is itself out of place in Marxism -- we are not, I hope, academic elitists.]

I have degrees in Philosophy and Mathematics, and my PhD was on Wittgenstein.

Read my work -- it speaks for itself.

[I am also a full-time worker, and a trade union rep (unpaid).]

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that another 'comrade' fearful of my ideas and of the scientific development of Marxism has removed the link to my site again.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosa,

Serpent-A removed the link to your site. Lambiam has restored it under the External Links section of the article.

JimFarm (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I think introduction should consist of less jargon (synthesis of philosophical dialectics and materialism. -EXPLAIN) and more explanation. Don't endeavor to complicate and already complex concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.102.101 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can second that, the intro needs to at a high school level. It's currently college level. The article can be complex but the intro needs to be summed up as easily as possible.--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really agree. This is not a kindergarten concept and should not be dumbed down just to seem more accessible. Bpmitche (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
right, so we should leave the language and introduction at an elitist level, a level that requires the highest standard of education so only philosophy majors can understand it. Everyone else will just have to remain ignorant, for the crime of being ignorant in the first place!--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of history category

Dialectical materialism is not a theory of history, as Popper pointed out, because it is not falsifiable.--Arado (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One does not necessarily have to agree with Popper's pronouncement of the unfalsifiability of dialectical materialism. And even if one does, one need not agree that falsifiability is a prerequisite for achieving theoryhood, even in the scientific sense. See, e.g., Kitcher's criticism of Popper summarized at Theory#Criterion for scientific status. Then, the word 'theory' does not necessarily mean "scientific theory". It can also mean a way of looking at things, a system of concepts, principles, and methods for analyzing things. To be a theory of history, something should be able (in principle) to explain why nation states emerged when they did where they did, but such an explanation will in some sense always be unfalsifiable, since we cannot make a copy of the universe in which we recreate the medieval world with controlled changes to rerun the experiment under the altered conditions. A strict Popperian might therefore argue that the category Theories of history ought to be and remain empty.  --Lambiam 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)