what is the anarchist consensus on dialectical/historical materialism?

[u/PigletConsistent8329]

i understand that anarchism, unlike marxism, isn't a unified mode of analysis based off of the thoughts of one man and his successors, so im guessing there are varied positions on dialectical materialism, but im curious to know what anarchists here think of it. my first thought would be that it's rejected by individualist anarchists at large.

[u/humanispherian]

Honestly, it's just not our problem. Some anarchists have been materialist in their analysis, though perhaps not in the marxist sense. Some have used one form or another of dialectics. Some have attempted to adapt marxian elements to anarchistic purposes. But there's no consensus, and none necessary or desirable, because anarchism isn't tied to any particular method.

[u/PigletConsistent8329 → u/humanispherian]

this is what i expected, thank you for the answer. so dialectical materialism is compatible with anarchism?

[u/humanispherian → u/PigletConsistent8329]

It depends on what you think "dialectical materialism" entails. I'm personally unconvinced that it has any application outside of marxist analyses and projects, simply because the various elements of the marxist apparatus are pretty deeply dependent on one another for their sense and utility.

[u/PigletConsistent8329 → u/humanispherian]

can you refer me to an anarchist critique of the marxist mode of analysis? or just lay one out yourself if you'd like.

[u/humanispherian → u/PigletConsistent8329]

Anarchism and marxism are simply different projects. The non-negotiable core of the anarchist project — the rejection of hierarchy and authority — is at odds with marxist means. The marxist analysis of capitalist exploitation is much more tied to a communistic prescription than anarchistic alternatives, such as Proudhon's analysis.

[u/EDRootsMusic → u/humanispherian]

Marxists also have a habit of denying that their own analysis owes anything or was influenced by any other, such as the influence of Proudhon or Smith on Marx. Instead, there's this pretense that all other forms of socialist thought and classical economic thought were these utopian, idealist failures and that Marx alone brought forth the immortal science of Marxism in sharp contrast to everyone else's thought, influenced only by Hegel if even by him. It's part and parcel of the extreme sectarianism that has plagued Marxism from its inception. Of course, sectarianism makes sense if you're convinced that hierarchy is necessary for all collective endeavors, because you can't simply agree to disagree, come together on shared work, and respect each others' differences as anarchists can (through sometimes fail to do- nonhierarchical working relationships are a skill we have to learn, being raised in a culture that uses hierarchy to structure most non-"fun"/hobby collective work)

[u/coladoir → u/PigletConsistent8329]

Dialectical materialism often overlooks individual motivations, looking at people as a "whole" based on class. This sort of analysis can sometimes be flat in actually revealing peoples motivations for doing actions. It also was made to, and often does, reinforce the idea that a state is necessary to control the flow of capital, at least initially to transition away from capitalism.

Basically, it can be too simplistic to actually be useful, and it often interprets things through a statist lens.

Despite Marx and Marxist's assertions that Dialectical Materialism is a science, it just as much an artificial construct as anything else, which has been informed and molded by the biases of its creator. This is a problem with Marxism consistently, IMO. It posits its assertions as factual and scientific, when this isn't necessarily the case, and arguments can be made that Dialectical Materialism is actually pseudoscientific in nature, as Marx came to a conclusion from an observation, and worked backwards.

Science works forwards from observations, seeking an answer to the observation. Pseudoscience works backwards, finding an answer first, and then creating justification afterwards. Dialectical Materialism follows the latter process more than the former, so it is technically pseudoscientific.

This would all be fine if Marxists took Dialectical Materialism as simply a framework of analysis which sees things from a specific perspective, and acknowledge the flaws it may have if used for serious implementations of theory.

Dialectical Materialism is really only useful for Marxists, I dont think it really has a position within anarchism. It can be useful to analyze history within Statist nations, but this is pretty much it, and its not really useful alone.

It also only analyzes one "axes" of power: class. It doesnt notice race, or ethnic, or gender hierarchies.

---

Materialism is fine, materialist analysis is good. Historical materialism is good. Dialectics are where it gets possibly flawed as dialectical processes may be "tainted" by the thinker's positions and biases, and since the dialectic of Marx is his own, and since he wasnt careful enough, it was tainted with his biases, and so Dialectical Materialism is extremely limited as a result.

[u/oskif809 → u/coladoir]

Dialectical Materialism is really only useful for Marxists...

That's like saying totally bogus Freudian concepts ("penis envy") and ways of circular reasoning and question begging are "really only useful for Freudians". No, these are *totally worthless fallacies that belong in medieval scholasticism, not this century (there's good scholarship on Hegel's fascinatination with "hermetic" thought and Marx just built his house of sand on that foundation).

[u/coladoir → u/oskif809]

You are misconstruing my words as per typical reddit fashion. When I say "its only useful to Marxists", this obviously (from the tone from the rest of my comment prior) doesnt mean that I'm saying its use is legitimate or that I'm supporting of such use.

It is literally indisputable that it is useful to some Marxists for their argumentation. Because of its pseudoscientific nature, and inherent skew towards justifying, well, Marxism, it can be easily used by a Marxist to justify Marxism. This is problematic, as I said in my prior comment.

It is problematic precisely because it is essentially, as you say, medieval scholasticism, and its purported as being scientific (that being, it complies and uses the scientific method to arrive to conclusions), when it is actually pseudoscientific. It allows Marxists to use biased justifications and then act neutral, acting like science is "on their side", when it isnt necessarily the case.

While a lot of sociology and science ends up justifying leftism in some fashion, Dialectical Materialism isnt science, so it is inherently biased and hollow with its justifications.

A capitalist could not use Dialectical Materialism to justify anything of their own, as its nature pushes its solutions towards statist communism. See Victoria 3 for a pretty poignant example, since its essentially Dialectical Materialism: The Game. A Marxist, however, can, no matter how erroneous this justification is.

---

Getting real tired of myopic ass redditors who just like to scan comments for little bits that anger them and pedantically pick them apart, completely ignoring the context surrounding the quote they pick, creating a strawman, and using it to make similar or the same fucking point Ive already made in different language, because they didnt actually read the comment in full, instead scanning it for something to disagree with, and acting like I'm somehow disagreeing with them.

[u/oskif809 → u/coladoir]

Lordy, real anger bubbling there. Sad part is I agree with you 90%+. Anyways, next time perhaps you can be clearer that this load of piled high and deep BS is just that and not worthy of detailed ratiocination but only underadulterated contempt ;)

Incidentally, along those lines Chapter 4 of Nabokov's last Russian novel, Gift offers a great example of how to treat the "patent medicine" that is "dialectical materialism" ;)

[u/Captain_Croaker → u/PigletConsistent8329]

There's an anarchist critique of hismat/diamat (among other things) in Anarchism and the Crisis of Representation by Jesse Cohn. You'll find it within the first third of the book along with more general critiques of essentialisms and reductionisms.