![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The trouble with dialectics
Jul. 29th, 2006 11:56 pmKarl Marx and other philosophers of dialectical materialism believe that on the grand scale, history is about the next overarching politiconomic paradigm replacing the last, over and over. This simple analysis leads Marxists to ignore the fall of the Soviet Union as a temporary blip, and to look to Latin America as the staging area for the next battle between the two great systems of capitalism and socialism. It could also explain the rise of Islamic extremism as a last gasp of the previous paradigm, theocratic dictatorship, and in some sense that might be accurate.
But dialectics leaves out many details in formulating this simplistic model for the large-scale dynamics of immensely complex human societies. For instance, despite their frequent use of the word "materialism," Marxists often neglect the issue of resources such as oil, which Venezuela and many Muslim nations have in abundance, and food and water, which are a constant source of concern in the desert regions of the Middle East.
In general, too, it seems overly fatalistic to presume that history must be so linear and predictable. The Soviet and Maoist command economies have inflicted huge amounts of ecological devastation on their countries, so is socialism (even democratic socialism) really as good an idea as "ecosocialists" would claim? If not, Marx would claim that we'll just have to sit tight and hope to survive until the next paradigm comes along. But why not take the long view, and try to invent a different road?
I'd be the first to admit that it won't be easy. Marxist analysis is seductive because it lets us give in to the admittedly nearly-unstoppable inertia of our vast civilization. But the limits of our global environment form a hard barrier, what one might call a large rock in the path ahead, and like it or not, humanity is probably going to ricochet off that rock and careen away in a direction the Marxists would never have predicted. If we try, perhaps we can reshape that rock so that a) the collision doesn't hurt as badly as it otherwise would, and b) we end up on a course of our choosing. Again, not an easy task, but then again, we're humans. We have something like two million years of experience with shaping rock. We just have to decide what shape we want and then chisel away like mad, taking the problem one doable chip at a time.
But dialectics leaves out many details in formulating this simplistic model for the large-scale dynamics of immensely complex human societies. For instance, despite their frequent use of the word "materialism," Marxists often neglect the issue of resources such as oil, which Venezuela and many Muslim nations have in abundance, and food and water, which are a constant source of concern in the desert regions of the Middle East.
In general, too, it seems overly fatalistic to presume that history must be so linear and predictable. The Soviet and Maoist command economies have inflicted huge amounts of ecological devastation on their countries, so is socialism (even democratic socialism) really as good an idea as "ecosocialists" would claim? If not, Marx would claim that we'll just have to sit tight and hope to survive until the next paradigm comes along. But why not take the long view, and try to invent a different road?
I'd be the first to admit that it won't be easy. Marxist analysis is seductive because it lets us give in to the admittedly nearly-unstoppable inertia of our vast civilization. But the limits of our global environment form a hard barrier, what one might call a large rock in the path ahead, and like it or not, humanity is probably going to ricochet off that rock and careen away in a direction the Marxists would never have predicted. If we try, perhaps we can reshape that rock so that a) the collision doesn't hurt as badly as it otherwise would, and b) we end up on a course of our choosing. Again, not an easy task, but then again, we're humans. We have something like two million years of experience with shaping rock. We just have to decide what shape we want and then chisel away like mad, taking the problem one doable chip at a time.
