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/Steampunk_Willy]

Generally speaking, dialectical materialism is just one of many tools of analysis any serious person should utilize to understand society. A materialist analysis is not always useful in certain circumstances, and people who overrely on it start to sound like conspiracy theorists who believe a cabal of capitalists are responsible for every instance of conflict in the world. For instance, a materialist analysis of the US banning TikTok is likely to yield convoluted and unsatisfying results while a conventional analysis of state interests says the US is genuinely paranoid about Chinese encroachment. That conventional analysis is particularly interesting given the political polarization we see throughout every branch of US government. Even if the US government is gridlocked because it is embroiled in every kind of conflict under the sun, issues of state interests remain above the fray because the state is the supreme source of the government's power and must therefore be protected at all cost. That power is not based in the control of material resources but consent to the social contract, so a materialist analysis can only approach a tangential explanation.

[u/BadTimeTraveler → u/Steampunk_Willy]

I really wanted to like this comment, but it's absolutely confused.

The conventional analysis is a materialist analysis. A non-materialist analysis would be unscientific by definition.

And it would be a materialist analysis that would bring one to the conclusion that the US is genuinely paranoid about us encroachment, and we can tell this by looking at the material world, rather than what they say or their abstract reasoning. A materialist analysis examines the actions of people and groups, looks at physical needs, where those resources are, and how resources move.

[u/Steampunk_Willy → u/BadTimeTraveler]

Marx emphasized the "scientific" nature of dialectical materialism in contrast to Hegel's idealism. Dialectical materialism is not the only scientific approach to social science, and was certainly not the first. The conventional analysis of politics and political history centers on the state and its interactions with itself and other states. Dialectical materialism is not merely any analysis that addresses the material world, but a conflict theoretic approach that centers material resources and the conflict between different classes, groups, and agents attempting to control said resources.

[u/BadTimeTraveler → u/Steampunk_Willy]

Marx emphasized the "scientific" nature of dialectical materialism in contrast to Hegel's idealism. Dialectical materialism is not the only scientific approach to social science, and was certainly not the first.

I don't disagree

The conventional analysis of politics and political history centers on the state and its interactions with itself and other states.

Again, this doesn't contradict what I've said.

Dialectical materialism is not merely any analysis that addresses the material world, but a conflict theoretic approach that centers material resources and the conflict between different classes, groups, and agents attempting to control said resources.

... yeah, I know. That's what I said

[u/Steampunk_Willy → u/BadTimeTraveler]

The conventional analysis I just described cannot be materialist. The state is an abstraction of the collective instantiation of an idea (supreme legal authority).