- 24 Apr 2017 14:17
#14799824
I read this section from Bertell Ollman at the conclusion of an introduction to dialectics.
And what it made me wonder is what other people's thoughts/perspective was on how one evaluates something to be truly significant in it's implications on a path to some revolutionary end.
I suppose the implicit point of Bertell's part would be to truly think through things dialectically which I have the impression requires systemic detail for it to be truly dialectics.
But other than that, is there anything that you can draw from that helps you properly weigh how significant some event of thing could be. Because Bertell's comments make me think that one should caution ones self with how likely things are to swell up into something that is capable of challenging capitalism in a significant manner. As history would seem to point to how effective the response has been in many cases of dealing with such tendencies so that they lose their revolutionary fervor.
What are some things that you perhaps notice are mistakes common to one who projects too much optimism on the cracks of capitalist economy.
It is clear that Marx could not have arrived at his understanding of capitalism without dialectics, nor will we be able to develop this understanding further without a firm grasp of this same method. No treatment of dialectics however brief, therefore, can be considered complete without a warning against some of the more common errors and distortions associated with this way of thinking. For example, if non-dialectical thinkers often miss the forest for the trees, dialectical thinkers just as often do the opposite, that is, play down or even ignore the parts, the details, in deference to making generalizations about the whole. But the capitalist system can only be grasped through an investigation of its specific parts in their interconnection. Dialectical thinkers also have a tendency to move too quickly to the bottom line, to push the germ of a development to its finished form. In general, this error results from not giving enough attention to the complex mediations, both in space and over time, that make up the joints of any social problem.
There is also a related tendency to overestimate the speed of change, along with a corresponding tendency to underestimate all that is holding it back. Thus, relatively minor cracks on the surface of capitalist reality are too easily mistaken for gaping chasms on the verge of becoming earthquakes. If non-dialectical thinking leads people to be surprised whenever a major change occurs, because they aren't looking for it and don't expect it, because it isn't an internal part of how they conceive of the world at this moment, dialectical thinking—for just the opposite reasons—can lead people to be surprised when the expected upheaval takes so long in coming. In organizing reality for purposes of grasping change, relative stability does not always get the attention that it deserves. These are all weaknesses inherent in the very strengths of dialectical method. Ever present as temptations, they offer an easier way, a quick fix, and have to be carefully guarded against.
And what it made me wonder is what other people's thoughts/perspective was on how one evaluates something to be truly significant in it's implications on a path to some revolutionary end.
I suppose the implicit point of Bertell's part would be to truly think through things dialectically which I have the impression requires systemic detail for it to be truly dialectics.
But other than that, is there anything that you can draw from that helps you properly weigh how significant some event of thing could be. Because Bertell's comments make me think that one should caution ones self with how likely things are to swell up into something that is capable of challenging capitalism in a significant manner. As history would seem to point to how effective the response has been in many cases of dealing with such tendencies so that they lose their revolutionary fervor.
What are some things that you perhaps notice are mistakes common to one who projects too much optimism on the cracks of capitalist economy.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
-For Ethical Politics