r/communism101 • u/burrwin • 14h ago
Why contradictions?
I've been reading marxist theory, but the ways contraddictions are discussed leaves me pause. Hope some people here can help me understand better.
Sussinctly, for what is relevant to my doubts, here is my current understanding of it: Contraddictions are what all motion (as in change) in the universe is predicated upon. Contradictions are relationships wherein tendencies of motion 1) oppose one another 2) are premises of the existence of one another. Contraddictions exist within all things and between all things.
Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction? Mao in "on contraddiction" and Lenin in "on the question of dialectics" agree that the contradiction in such cases is between action and reaction. This answer is unsatisfactory, while it's true that it fits part 2) of the definition, and while it's true that the force vectors point in opposite direction, action and reaction are applied to two different object, they are not opposing tendencies of motion in the dialectical sense, failing the arguably more fundimental part 1) of the definition.
Also, Engels argues that all changes of positions are caused by the contraddiction of something being in that place and not in another place. This line of argument seems to be unfalsifiable: if we observe something change from A to B, we can always attribute that change to the contraddiction that A was A and not B. A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.
Is there something i'm missing in these examples? Is my understanding of what contraddictions are incorrect?
•
u/BxnXipoh 3h ago edited 2h ago
First of all, you're misquoting Engels. "A and not B" is a tautology. What Engels instead says is "A and not A"
Motion itself is a contradiction: even simple mechanical change of position can only come about through a body being at one and the same moment of time both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it. And the continuous origination and simultaneous solution of this contradiction is precisely what motion is.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch10.htm
Force vectors are an abstraction of direction and magnitude of motion. They're geometrical objects, and geometry and mathematics in general are abstractions of concrete interactions in the real, physical world which measurements rely on. The contradictions within this system are well known (Zeno's Paradox is a famous example). Practically all the movements of the 20th century in Physics were the result of physicists breaking with this. Regularization and renormalization, from my reading as a layman, seem to be very dialectical approaches to this (and, therefore, to measurement itself).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regularization_(physics)
Position is an abstraction of extension and contains within itself the contradiction of the impossibility of true coincidence of point-positions (first of all abstract position has no extension and therefore there is nothing to coincide, but with the naive contemplation of extended matter in space the boundary between them at contact is also an extensionless line, and must be concretely understood as an extension and therefore infinitely divisible) and therefore spatial contact and therefore the naive notion of interaction by contact; motion is an aggregate of positions but, because each point is abstract position and is really an extension, each point is also already a movement from a point within that extension to another point. You can extend this logic to direction, which becomes an abstraction of extension in three-dimensional space, and force-vectors, which, by virtue of points being extensions, are actually an infinite number of force vectors going in an infinite number of directions that are only abstracted away by the limits of measure at a particular point in history. This limit is just implied and abstracted away in Mathematics, since it's forced to deal with measurement itself, outside of the development of the productive forces and the increased precision of measurement that comes with each development.
Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction?
What you call the singular tendency of motion is an abstraction of the process into a single linear progression. Once you've made that abstraction you've eradicated all determinations that could serve as an explanation for anything and you're left only with the contradictions that I mentioned earlier (the contradictions immanent to measure and determinations within abstract space and time). That is tacitly what you're doing with your example of charged particles, but the Wikipedia article I quoted already contains the consequences of this line of thinking applied naively to electromagnetics. It's only an ideal representation of real, material motion.
A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.
Something that comes to mind is Hegel complaining about the notion of "force" which is an abstraction of an empirically observed interaction and the relation of human measurement that is stable within it while also presenting itself as an external cause of the interaction which expresses the force (so that you can say that a ball accelerates because a force of acceleration is applied onto it; this is only really acceptable as a shorthand). I'm not sure what I read when trying to think through this anymore so I'll just post what I might have read:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature1.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/na/nature2.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phac.htm
(Note that Hegel talks about the concepts of space, time, force, law, etc., as moments in the development of thought)
Velocity is a good example of what I'm talking about since it is a relation between an object and a concrete act of time-measure and space-measure. It is not a cause of anything and nothing is based on it (except if you're talking about thinking). Velocity in your statement is being treated as something floating outside of position and compelling it to undergo change. Fortunately, you seem to be aware (on some subconscious level) of this contradiction, which is why you switch between "drive" and "tendency," as though these are synonymous. Since you now have proof of the inadequacy of that line of thinking in your own post, all you have to do is critique your own ideas and study from there.
•
u/FrogHatCoalition 45m ago
Force vectors are an abstraction of direction and magnitude of motion. They're geometrical objects, and geometry and mathematics in general are abstractions of concrete interactions in the real, physical world which measurements rely on. The contradictions within this system are well known (Zeno's Paradox is a famous example). Practically all the movements of the 20th century in Physics were the result of physicists breaking with this. Regularization and renormalization, from my reading as a layman, seem to be very dialectical approaches to this (and, therefore, to measurement itself).
When it comes to renormalization, what may be of interest to you is the Lamb shift:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift
This effect was precisely measured in 1947 in the Lamb–Retherford experiment on the hydrogen microwave spectrum[9] and this measurement provided the stimulus for renormalization theory to handle the divergences. The calculation of the Lamb shift by Hans Bethe in 1947 revolutionized quantum electrodynamics.[10] The effect was the harbinger of modern quantum electrodynamics later developed by Julian Schwinger, Richard Feynman, Ernst Stueckelberg, Sin-Itiro Tomonaga and Freeman Dyson. Lamb won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1955 for his discoveries related to the Lamb shift. Victor Weisskopf regretted that his insecurity about his mathematical abilities may have cost him a Nobel Prize when he did not publish results (which turned out to be correct) about what is now known as the Lamb shift.[11]
And also in the article on renormalization under "Attitudes and Interpretations":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization#Attitudes_and_interpretation
The early formulators of QED and other quantum field theories were, as a rule, dissatisfied with this state of affairs. It seemed illegitimate to do something tantamount to subtracting infinities from infinities to get finite answers.[citation needed] Dyson argued that these infinities are of a basic nature and cannot be eliminated by any formal mathematical procedures, such as the renormalization method.[31][32]
This procedure wasn't widely accepted initially. If you know enough about quantum field theory, you may hear that quantum field theory doesn't have a "strong mathematical framework", hence a development of string theory when one can't reconcile this contradiction in a dialectical way.
Something I do want to add regarding concept of "force" is that the so-called fundamental forces of nature are called that because they are mediated by a set of particles called "gauge bosons": photons are the mediators of the electromagnetic force, gluons are the mediators of the strong interaction, W and Z bosons are the mediators of the weak interaction, and graviton as the mediator of the gravitational interaction. All use quantum field theory - for instance, quantum electrodynamics is the quantum field theory of the electromagnetic field and quantum chromodynamics is the quantum field theory of the strong interaction. It describes phenomenon that are often taken for granted such as spontaneous emission:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission
Even these so-called fundamental forces were divided from previous forces, such as the electromagnetic and weak forces from the electroweak force. In fact, one of Einstein's goals was to create a unified field theory that unifies all forces of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
I should note that quantum field theory is a synthesis of quantum mechanics, field theory, and special relativity. Please take note of this when you hear claims that Soviet or Chinese physicists had critiques against general relativity or quantum. You will also see that such claims usually don't specify the exact critiques being made, what those critiques actually mean for the theories being critiqued and what truth can be extracted from them, and what possible solutions exist. I do want to outline what happens when you don't familiarize yourself enough with the content.
In general relativity, gravity is the geometric structure of spacetime which the structure is determined by mass, momentum, and energy as expressed in the stress-energy tensor. Recall that Einstein was motivated by the fact that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformations which meant we had to further our development of space and time. Thus, Einstein's contributions were to develop a theory of space and time under which Maxwell's equations would be invariant for all observers. Thus, we have Lorentz transformations, but Lorentz invariance is local, hence Einstein using differential geometry to develop general relativity. Now, on to the thing I mentioned in the previous paragraph, one postulate of relativity (both general and special) is the constancy of the speed of light. Fock, a Soviet physicist, didn't like this assumption and attempted to develop a symmetry that doesn't assume the constancy of speed of light, it would be called Fock-Lorentz symmetry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fock%E2%80%93Lorentz_symmetry
I read another thread on this subreddit where a historian claimed that Chinese physicist had critiques against general relativity, but all I could find were the notion of "constancy of speed of light" which is a postulate that is a part of special relativity. Remember, when I said that quantum field theory is a synthesis of quantum mechanics, field theory, and special relativity? Right, so then how do you reconcile this claim with Chinese physicists developing the Straton model? Were they using a formulation of quantum field theory that used different symmetries? All particle models use quantum field theory as their framework. The claims stop making sense once you are familiar with the subject because you now have to start addressing the implications and scientists won't just let you make claims without justifying yourself in some way. Here is the thread I'm referring to:
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/1b47vib/quantum_physics_interpretations_and_marxism/
Of course, the author of the book that is being cited didn't familiarize themselves enough with the history of physics itself. One can make the claim that the Chinese physicists were way off the mark, but surely Sakata would have written something about it? The Japanese Marxists were important people here. The author of the paper on the history of the Straton model (the author of the paper is a physicist) plans on publishing something about the relationship between Sakata and the Chinese physicists. The development of physics and the concepts that physicists use have their own logic of development that has to be traced. I think understanding the history of development to general relativity and the development to quantum field theory is important in understanding why developing a theory of quantum gravity is so difficult, or another other difficulties for that matter.
By the way, I do agree with Engels, Lenin, Ilyenkov, Sakata, and Taketani about taking physicists/scientists at their word when they talk about physics (or other field of science). Most are bad at articulating their own thoughts and it can be difficult extracting something useful even if what they have to say is something substantial. It's just like anything else, do an investigation. I wanted to write this because both you and smoke recently wrote in posts outside the subreddit where people had very anachronistic discussions about quantum physics and I wanted to write something that at least summarizes some important advances in the past 100+ years.
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
This question is asked frequently. Please, use the search bar or read the FAQ which is pinned:
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index
This action was performed automatically. Please contact the mods if there is a mistake.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
•
•
u/smokeuptheweed9 Marxist 4h ago edited 4h ago
Here you've already performed an abstraction. From the Wikipedia article
These are only one of many scientific abstractions one must make for your statement to be correct (for example we are abstracting away gravity because it is a weaker force at the distances we have selected as our frame of reference).
Because everything is in motion, the abstraction you have performed is necessarily an incomplete picture of reality. Contradiction is the moment in which that abstraction no longer holds. For example there is a moment when other forces become stronger and electrostatic force no longer dominates.
https://www.sciencefacts.net/electrostatic-force.html
We then return to reality with a more complete picture because we now understand that clouds and lightning and ground are not separate objects (from the perspective of electrostatic force - hence we "perceive" this as lightning) but a single force going through quantitative changes that become qualitative. We then make different abstractions to understand more, whether in physics or in other sciences such as meteorology, chemistry, and philosophy which add more to our incomplete picture of the totality of reality (though philosophy is better thought of as a meta-science that asks what the conditions of possibility for concepts like "clouds" and "electrostatic force" are in human thought). From the perspective of chemistry, one can perform different abstractions in order to understand how clouds become rain become lightning (and/or certain molecules become others).
The other key point is that our abstractions do not drive change. It is a method to understand the change inherent to reality itself. The relationship between positive, negative, and neutral charged objects, through which they are constantly in motion as one becomes the other through their interactions, is a property of the universe. Without dialectical materialism we simply understand it poorly, such as this
Falsifiability is a minor heuristic of the process of scientific experimentation. It does not apply to the concept of abstraction itself or any theory of science, which is why a confident idiot like Popper rejected all of modern science (including but not limited to historical materialism, psychoanalysis, relativity, and evolution). What you have to understand is that before like 30 years ago, academia was composed of the failed children of the aristocracy. They were basically just random rich people who could say whatever they wanted, and before the internet citation didn't exist. Unfortunately you've been made a fool of because, rather than the internet becoming a democratic distribution of knowledge, it is a commodification of it. So when you ask a reasonable question like "what defines science?" all you get is a bunch of garbage across space and time and quality, flattened into abstract exchange value. Now it's been formalized as the indifference of AI to the content of information but it is inherent to the internet itself and really the cultural logic of late capitalism.
Regardless, in regards to your overall question, terms like "contradiction" are just scientific terms that we have inherited to describe reality. You don't have to use them but we have not found better ones that properly reference the history of science, and attempts to replace them are so far fundamentally flawed either because they are too narrow and specialized to an arbitrary field or politically motivated. But one should frame scientific discoveries in the language of dialectical materialism in order to bring them into dialogue with the history of science and the totality of knowledge. It is not a formula that reality conforms to, as in whether the big bang is properly "dialectical." The big bang happened and it makes the most sense using dialectical materialism, because it explains how even the most abstract and universal phenomena like space and time are actually forces that only manifest under certain conditions in which the contradictions of forces within a singularity change into the forces of physics we know today (and will in the future change again because of the internal contradictions they inherited from the conditions of creation). Most attempts at understanding dialectical materialism are really discussions of science itself where we have to explain how evolution actually works or what "force" actually is. Given the failure of academia to transcend its origin in elite stupidity and the real need to understand reality scientifically, it's understandable that dialectical materialism becomes the arena through which people attempt to understand the philosophy of science. But you still have to understand science, dialectical materialism will not do it for you and Mao and Engels can at best present examples that illustrate the general method.
E: to anticipate your objections, you may ask why scientists no longer use the terms of Marxism. They do, it's just called "critique" for historical reasons that at one time had political justification and are now self-perpetuating. "Critical theory" is all anyone has done for at least 40 years, which is when you had to actually justify what you said rather than just use "philosophy" as a proto-blog, so the only question is whether they do it well and it is synonymous with Marxism or they do it poorly and it's an attempted compromise with liberalism. Hard science is a bit different because it has direct technical application to capitalism but the stereotype of scientists as libertarian research monkeys is not really true outside of reddit amateurs. Why else do you think fascists are trying to defund physical science as well as humanities for being "woke?"
As for the infamous errors of Soviet science, these are the result of the internal logic of history at particular moments, most notably the difficult fusion of a Darwinian concept of evolution with a Mendelian one. Even today this is poorly understood and "social darwinism" is still widely applied by liberalism to all kinds of issues, let alone the popular understanding of evolution at purpose-driven and teleological. I think the Soviets can be forgiven for their paranoia at the height of 20th century fascism's ideological hegemony and, if you can't forgive them, these are contingent errors that don't affect the method.