I Have A Question About The Dialectic of History According to Marxists

[Joij21]

So what makes them believe that Communism is the final form of economics?

They believe the whole thing began with Primitive Communism, yet the Dialectic demands that economic systems can't last forever due to inherent contradictions. These contradictions accumulate until the system is no longer sustainable and either collapses and is outmoded, or some underprivileged class revolts and impose their own unique system that replaces it. The cycle repeats until Civilization somehow arrives to Communism that is generally theorized to be brought about by revolution.

Therefore what makes them believe that Communism isn't some return to Primitive Communism were the cycle will simply repeat all over again? What physical and objective evidence is there that suggests that after the so called "Revolution" there won't be any more? What makes Communism the be all, end all economic system? If it is the be all, end all; then what makes Primitive Communism different whereby it isn't?

 

[amadeus]

I haven’t read about Marxian theories of history so I may be making factual errors, but I don’t know how it can be concluded that any sort of material outcomes can be necessarily predetermined so as to make some condition inevitable.

Given the physical limitations that currently exist I’m not sure how a moneyless, marketless global society of self-governing communes (regardless of scale) can effectively come about without running up against those limitations.

Not a Marxist, so maybe I shouldn’t be replying at all.

 

[Cutlass]

Anyone can make up their own religion. And once you've made up a religion, any outcome is possible.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Anyone can make up their own religion. And once you've made up a religion, any outcome is possible.

All Hail Brian The Cosmic Porcupine!

 

[Gori the Grey]

Mushy-headed idealism.

(Probably not the answer, or even the kind of answer, that you wanted)

 

[red_elk]

Therefore what makes them believe that Communism isn't some return to Primitive Communism were the cycle will simply repeat all over again?

Not a specialist in Marxist theory, but I believe I can answer that even basing on school education.
Primitive communism is not a Communist society at all, the only common thing between them is absense of social classes.
There is no reason to believe scientific progress and development of means of production will bring people back to the economy of hunter-gatherers, just like technological development won't bring people back to living in caves.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's just the same as any other ideology carried to far.

"This is the one true way".

Hmmmn. Take with a large dose of sodium chloride.

 

[Joij21]

Not a specialist in Marxist theory, but I believe I can answer that even basing on school education.
Primitive communism is not a Communist society at all, the only common thing between them is absense of social classes.
There is no reason to believe scientific progress and development of means of production will bring people back to the economy of hunter-gatherers, just like technological development won't bring people back to living in caves.

Ok, so Communism is differentiated from Primitive Communism by no longer being dependent on caves and herds of wild beasts. Communism is therefore defined as a classless society with industrial levels of technology and beyond.

However, how does this not stop say Robo-Slavery being it's successor? If Primitive Communism gave way to Slavery, what prevents Communism from giving way to some other albeit different economic system?

 

[Zardnaar]

Ok, so Communism is differentiated from Primitive Communism by no longer being dependent on caves and herds of wild beasts. Communism is therefore defined as a classless society with industrial levels of technology and beyond.

However, how does this not stop say Robo-Slavery being it's successor? If Primitive Communism gave way to Slavery, what prevents Communism from giving way to some other albeit different economic system?

Nothing. The ideology is flawed.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The soviets distinguished between primitive communism and scientific communism.

Although they were a little vague regarding the end state of communism there
view was that under a socialist direction science would define it in due course.

But it caused a bit of a problem when their scientists didn't quite agree with that.

e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov

 

[red_elk]

However, how does this not stop say Robo-Slavery being it's successor? If Primitive Communism gave way to Slavery, what prevents Communism from giving way to some other albeit different economic system?

Technically nothing, I think. This more advanced "Post-Communism" has to be described though, like in what way it's different from the Communism, what will be the reasons for transition, etc.

 

[Joij21]

Ah, so I guess the question I asked is like those adverts that say "doctors hate him for exposing this one thing". Sort of like how the question in particular just disproves Communism, since there are no guarantees that some post-communist society wouldn't arrive later. Therefore all that effort for a revolution just for it to be swept away by the Dialectic of History once the system becomes too full of contradictions.

I'm surprised conservatives don't use this question as a talking point to own the Marxists.

 

[Farm Boy]

What sort of conservative are you talking?

If you're talking to the sort that thinks children and their great-great-grandparents are essentially the same organism spread over time, that history will repeat itself as education is gained, lost, and refocuses -- saying "society is cyclical and repeats itself" is sort of like "water is wet." You either have people who buy the basic foundation, or that don't. And the ones who don't are wrong.

 

[red_elk]

Ah, so I guess the question I asked is like those adverts that say "doctors hate him for exposing this one thing". Sort of like how the question in particular just disproves Communism, since there are no guarantees that some post-communist society wouldn't arrive later. Therefore all that effort for a revolution just for it to be swept away by the Dialectic of History once the system becomes too full of contradictions.

I'm surprised conservatives don't use this question as a talking point to own the Marxists.

I doubt you can disprove Marxist theory with one "gotcha" question. But if you want to argue against it, learning the theory would be a necessary first step.
There are known cases when people who try to disprove scientific theory as nonsense, begin studying it and become convinced supporters of that theory.

 

[aelf]

Ah, so I guess the question I asked is like those adverts that say "doctors hate him for exposing this one thing". Sort of like how the question in particular just disproves Communism, since there are no guarantees that some post-communist society wouldn't arrive later. Therefore all that effort for a revolution just for it to be swept away by the Dialectic of History once the system becomes too full of contradictions.

I'm surprised conservatives don't use this question as a talking point to own the Marxists.

Don't many capitalists believe that capitalism is the final form of economic organisation? Since someone mentioned religion, asking this question as a gotcha is kind of like a Christian challenging a Buddhist about how they know that their god exists.

 

[Joij21]

I doubt you can disprove Marxist theory with one "gotcha" question. But if you want to argue against it, learning the theory would be a necessary first step.

I know enough about it to understand the Dialectic of History, which according to Marx is a thing.

Nevertheless why call me ignorant and refuse to defend the Dialectic? Or do you not fully understand Marxism?

Don't many capitalists believe that capitalism is the final form of economic organisation?

Are you engaging in what-aboutism? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Since someone mentioned religion, asking this question as a gotcha is kind of like a Christian challenging a Buddhist about how they know that their god exists.

Not really because Marxists actually believe in the Dialectic, unless they are revisionists. And from what I understand, revisionists have some kind of pariah status among Marxist circles.

 

[red_elk]

Nevertheless why call me ignorant and refuse to defend the Dialectic? Or do you not fully understand Marxism?

I most certainly do not fully understand Marxism as I mentioned in my first message. Only basics of it.
People who fully understand it would be scholars who spent years studying the theory, wrote articles and dissertations, etc.
Do you believe your level is enough to disprove or "own" people like them?

 

[aelf]

Not really because Marxists actually believe in the Dialectic, unless they are revisionists. And from what I understand, revisionists have some kind of pariah status among Marxist circles.

Non-sequitur. You deny that plenty of people think capitalism is the final form of economic organisation?

And there is no need for Marxists to believe that communism will never be replaced. If you ask most capitalists, they have no inkling how society might change, so expecting Marxists to predict what the future will look like beyond communism is expecting more of others that of yourself.

 

[Angst]

Ok, so Communism is differentiated from Primitive Communism by no longer being dependent on caves and herds of wild beasts. Communism is therefore defined as a classless society with industrial levels of technology and beyond.

However, how does this not stop say Robo-Slavery being it's successor? If Primitive Communism gave way to Slavery, what prevents Communism from giving way to some other albeit different economic system?

Generally, Marx believed in communism because it lacked the internal contradictions of earlier systems.

It's important to understand that Marx's envisioning of the economy was very different than how it was implemented in later societies. No, this is not an "it works it just haven't been tried yet" argument, there's a difference between explaining Marx and being apologetic for Lenin. It's just that his idea of a communist economy is very particular, and is framed in a way that material use according to need is what drives the economy. How this is supposed to be achieved is fascinating, and hard to wrap your head around. It's been a while since I read it myself, so I don't know it well.

Primitive communism is different than late communism because its material conditions are fundamentally different. They didn't have factories, and before agriculture, no real food surplus to allow proper specialization in the workforce. Also, the material conditions of agriculture very much lent itself to concentration of power among the elite, and statebuilding has often been described as connected to this, warfare, and the rise of slavery. This is according to change in material conditions and resources. Communism isn't the same as pre-agricultural societies because in communism, we're supposed to have a food surplus, specialized workers, and complex societies, but without class and profit incentive to enforce contradictory distribution of resources. There's a reason people call it materialist history.

...

Most of the "lol it doesn't work" comments in this thread are quite unhelpful. If I want to understand an influential book, "it shouldn't be influential" is a bad answer. It's helpful to understand what you're talking about, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[Joij21]

Non-sequitur. You deny that plenty of people think capitalism is the final form of economic organisation?

It's not a non-sequiter. You claimed the question was unfair, as though telling a Buddhist must prove their religion by proving their god exists (which is unfair by the way, since Buddhists don't believe in any deity). However the question I asked is totally fair when being told to a Communist because their ideology presupposes the validity and existence that the Dialectic of History is fact.

As for Capitalists insisting that capitalism is the final form of economics, I don't disagree with you. Then again Capitalists don't have any singular codex by which to explain how capitalism and previous economic systems came about. Communists on the other hand do, it's called The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Therefore it would make more sense that Communists defend their position as to why communism is the final form, but not Capitalists as to why capitalism is, because Capitalists' ideology is not based on a singular codified theory where communism is.