andrewfm said: I don’t understand why dialectical materialists think that contradiction inheres in reality. They never give an argument for it, just assertions with some sloppy examples.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Yeah, as far as contradiction being an eternal quality of reality, I’m unsure. But, in historically situating the contradictions of capitalism, I think Marcuse gets it quite right. Using One-Dimensional Man as a reply, the unification of interests—one-dimensionality—under technologically advanced capitalism hides the embedded contradictions (a society of immense wealth, yet immense poverty; peace through war; a technological apparatus which precludes the free development of individuals) of the post-war American capitalist real under its rationalizations. These contradictions, for example, inhere themselves is the consumerism of that culture—pushing forward a model of overconsumption which simultaneously treating many underclass individuals like slaves—and in technology—by shaping usage, in production, along Taylorist principles and shifting power toward management, and in consumption, toward consumer entrance into ever-greater markets of consumption while promoting falsified and narcissistic needs. Marcuse still argues that resistance requires critical self-reflection, so it’s not as though contradiction are simply absorbed.
If you were looking for more concrete examples, David Noble’s Forces of Production and Andrew Feenberg’s Questioning Technology both do a good job of showing, and theorizing, how contradictions and intent become embedded within capitalisms artifacts.
So, yeah, historically speaking I think there are plenty of examples of dialectical Marxists showing how contradictions become embedded in reality. However, if by inhere you were pointing more to the, sort of, eternal nature of contradictions, I’m, again, unclear on that.
concerned, what about this for basic: something and nothing. I’m no philosopher,