What is Dialectical Materialism? | Socialism 101 #8 ft. The Peace Report

Thank you for this series. I’ve considered myself a communist for a good while, but as a filthy casual, it’s good to always brush up and keep these ideas top of mind. Thanks!

Marxism is a horrific religion for people that can’t handle reality.

I’d love for a “Marxist “ to prove me wrong.

Communism is a feminine totalitarian ideology

Change my mind.
Marxism only works in a collective of ignorance


Please please please somebody with an above room temperature IQ prove me wrong

Ngl just sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo

concise and explained in a very understandable way. thank you!

This video is amazing! Everything clicked together when it said "I am, therefore I think"

dialectics is when you have an argument with someone - wikipedia

It seems modern Quantum Mechanics contradicts with Marx’s Dialectic Materialism.

Never thought I'd find marxist jacksepticeye

I'm mostly ignorant on the subject, so I could be speaking bs but, the leap from mathematical and physical contradictions into the social ones feels like an 'excuse' to justify the idea that revolution 'must happen', so far it feels cult-ish. And I consider myself progressive, I resonate with a bunch if marxist-leninist ideas, and I absolutely want revolution to happen. But still, it feels off.
Maybe when I read more I'll realize I am indeed, speaking bs. Just felt the need to vocalize this thought, maybe I'm not the only one, or the first.

Иосиф Виссарионович Джугашвили and 毛澤東 "fine gentlemen"?!? I'm sure you're mistaking! 😧

The big problem is that when you try to apply this, it doesn't get the advertised results. i.e It is incorrect.

I think dialectical materialism is oversimplification but this was a very educative and precious video, thank you.

Umm...your description of Idealism is drastically fallacious.

Socialism - the socio-economic application of Taoism (Yin & Yang - Dialectics)
Dialectics - the MLM take on Twin Flames.... 😆😏

@Marxism_Today , have you tried linking dialectical materialism with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - using Bohr Wave-Particle duality??

Gotta say, the science analogies are garbage. You can't reason from a pot of boiling water to historical changes any more than you can reason from lobsters pissing out their eyes to the idea that men should dominate women. Not only are there plenty of examples of gradual processes within the physical, material world, but there's no justification for going from one to the other. Perhaps it's intended as an explanatory tool, but that's not the way it sounded to me.

It may be core to Marxism, but it's trash.

This channel deserves a Lenin Peace prize🏆. Highly informative.

If Marx's delusions and logical errors were true, then Communism would be the only form of government now. The USSR would still exist, and the 100 million Chinese people murdered by Mao would not have been murdered. Only 5 communist countries still exist. Why is this? Marx created the pathological groundwork for Lenin to claim his dictatorship was required, which is the opposite of Rule BY the Proletariate. Lenin basically thought the prols were too stupid to run the state. Wealth and power are synonymous, and Lenin accumulated all power to himself. Like all other tyrants in history, making him a hypocrite. Plato's 3 parts of the soul are speculative and unprovable, Just like Dialectical Materialism. Marx's criticism of Capitalism might be partially right, but his treatment for the disease was to kill the patient. Which later communists decided: kill just about every human you can (aka genocide). Marx's 3 laws aren't laws, they are fanciful, unprovable beliefs. Marx fails completely to understand real human psychology, and that personal property has existed for all of human history. Communism is anti-human, and will disappear. Like all other flawed beliefs before it. Capitalism requires money to function. The first coin appeared 2700 years ago. Communism lasted barely 2 centuries. Materially, communism can be judged by its results: as a completely failed experiment in terror. Dialectic Materialism is understandable, if you torture logic until it screams.

This video is odd. It starts by explaining the differences between idealism and materialism, and then it starts giving a physics and chemistry lesson. But how does one leap into something like communism?

Jacksepticeye??

great job comrades! jesus is lord! there will be a sudden change soon. there won't be anything like a gradual change about it. and, it will be "revolutionary" i love learning about your philosophy. it is very interesting what makes you tick. please keep making these videos so i can keep learning. know true peace comrades! btw, if you read the book called "the cause of hitler's germany," it is interesting too.

stupid pseudoscience garbage, this is derived from a literal religion

Marxism or communism whatever you call it the idea is wrong. the Marxists must understand that human civilisation is outcome out of production and distribution of consumable articles. Though Marxism speaks of materialism it does not discuss about production and distribution of articles. And nobody understands the confusing ideas of dialects thesis and antithesis. now you can definitely ask a question what is the proof that human civilisation was developed out of production and distribution of consumable articles. there is sure proof. In paleolithic age men produced all articles with the help of inborn instinct and intuition. articles were mostly stone tools and some others. But inborn instinct could not help men to invent many articles. for ages men remained confined within few articles made with instinct and intuition and did not advance. even now some groups of people are primitive because they are solely dependent on congenital instinct. they cannot produce many articles and are remaining unchanged. only when men got the knowledge of number system that they earned the capability to produce many articles and they advanced materially. so definitely men got the knowledge of number system even when they were primitive and before advancement of civilisation. All features of civilisation like division of professions, idea of private property, administration, legal system appeared as a result of production of many articles. even countries were formed out of production of articles. so definitely human civilisation was the result of production and distribution. this idea is not discussed in Marxism. So Marxists and communist countries have no idea of production and distribution, the core activity of human civilisation. they do not know how to produce any articles. so the communist countries are lost and abolished.

then when dialectic became dialectical materialism it lost its philosophical essence, its movement between materialism and idealism. The perception of the world is divided when many people cannot understand that the perception of the world is subjective, logically we can put that subjectivity in the first place, because until there is no perception, there is no world (subjectively). Therefore, we cannot understand subjective (idealistic) worldviews - religions.

Great video and thanks for resources I dropped right into them :)

Great video explaining a difficult concept! I'm fairly new to dialectics, and in turn dialectical materialism, but I have a question (please don't be rude if I get something wrong or use the wrong terminology, I'm genuinely asking):

If we as a society manage to achieve Communism through the use of Hegelian dialectics, what's stopping our society from falling back to Capitalism using the same means? Would/should democracy as we know it be forbidden, or would it not be necessary? If democracy gave us capitalism, should it still be allowed for the sake of "freedom", even if people's ignorance gives us less freedom through reinstating a primarily capitalist control of society?

Let's say we live in a communist society, would people accidentally (or deliberately) use dialectics to convince others to go back to the old ways in order to please a select few, i.e. creating the private sector? Would a totalitarian dictatorship be required to uphold the communist status quo, defending it from the people who may want to destroy the people's well-being for the sake of a select few's profit and gain?

Take care, comrades.

Great video camarada!

Communism is slavery. In order to make all property community owned property, there would have to be a faction or group that controls the government and has coercive power. This group would have to be able to use force against others. This assumes there is a benevolent group that exists out there somewhere. History shows us no such group exists. It is the billionaire class that supports and finances communism around the world not the poor. Thus a Marxist Revolution is financed by people like JP Morgan and the Rockefellers who stated competition was sin. These billionaires wanted state capitalism not free market capitalism.

Im communist❤❤

Excellent video, very clear and well laid out

the theory is more understandable lol

Excellent video, well made, informative, delivered with passion, passion without hubris. Wonderful! You give an old Red like me...hope! Solidarity, Comrades :)

Christina Dixon present

Wrong from the beginning. The philosophical underpinning of Marxism is religion. Marxism is a secular religion. Why else would it's champions be so wrong so often? It's only a bit more bloodthirsty than most religions, so score one for religion.

This might be the fifth time I’ve come back to this video to fully understand DIAMAT. The more I learn about socialism and communism and Deprogram my brain, the more and more this video makes sense.

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not trying to construct a hypothetical social system
They were just products of their era and politicians..Stop navel gazing and Marxist gibberish

It really doesn't matter what it means as dialectical materialism is a meaningless dead end. Marx is so esoteric that a life studying his writings will do no more then to obfuscate your understanding of his ideas..., you will come out with what you came in with. What is true is Marx/Engels focused on the necessary environment for these societies to spring organically from unleashed human potential, powered by the release of surplus labor..., in other words..., after the revolution, you're on your own. For Mao, Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Pol Pot, that is their "Oh, Shit" moment. All this dialectical materialism doesn't initiate an organic egalitarian system, it all just winds up as an authoritarian dystopian blunder.

Whenever socialism has become dominant over capitalism, feudalism has remained. Engels explains this when he writes of an "equal obligation to work." He calls for "establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." The conscripts in these armies are best referred to as "serfs."

Some of us who have watched socialism supersede feudalism and capitalism wonder about a dialectic between foolishness and wisdom.

What will communism transform to?

Marxism 101. The rantings of an unwashed parasitic socialist grifter. That somehow is confused with genius by people who should know better.

Still don't get it

Love the video

Not quite right!
Marx established what is called as "Materialist Idealism".
Marxism does not understand, in fact, material dinamics. Material dinamics, on an ontological realistic stance, does not need human intervention (by definition).

As soon as Marxists need human intervention to restore materialist dinamics, it becomes materialist idealism. (By ontological definition)

So... Marxism is not realistic, but idealistic.

Liberalism is, so on and so far, the most approximate philosophy on what we can call as materialist realism.

I need to read much more because i have not completely and fully understood it, but this is so so beginner friendly! the topic themselves seem so big but you guys gave such a great starting point! thank you so much!!

Re watching the video helps a lot

Someone trying to convince me of the strength of their political argument sitting in front of a flag on which are the faces of some of the most heinous mass murderers in human history has an uphill task - in the same way way that going up Everest without oxygen is uphill. Why not go the whole way and add Hitler and Pol Pot?