MLG Conference Paper Proposal: Movement Without the Dialectic: Abolishing the Present State of Things

Even if capitalism has been dialectical, it is becoming less so as exhibited by the collapse of civil society, the emergence of immaterial labor, and the growing indistinguishability between surplus labor and other labor.

If communism is the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, as argued by Marx and Engels in The German Ideology;  and if Hegel’s dialectic of contradiction only generates false movement through negativity and mediation, as claimed by Deleuze in Difference and Repetition, then this paper seeks to re-pose dialectical problems in non-dialectical ways by developing an alternative conceptual terrain that actualizes real movement.

Looking to step completely outside the shadow of Hegel, the paper proposes concrete alternatives to often-criticized features of dialectical thought, namely its conceptions of time, negativity, mediation, totality and its hylomorphism by drawing on a crowd of non-dialectical philosophers employed by Deleuze and Guattari.  The paper leans heavily on Henri Bergson, Friedrich Nietzsche, Baruch Spinoza, Bernhard Riemann, and Gilbert Simondon to suggest a model of immanent causality against the backdrop of Althusser.

What is at stake are not only problematics that maintain the footing of Marxism as a critique of political economy but also the potential to produce movement in an age where the modern dialectic “has been replaced by a play of degrees and intensities, of hybridity and artificiality” (Hardt and Negri, Empire, 189).

4 thoughts on “MLG Conference Paper Proposal: Movement Without the Dialectic: Abolishing the Present State of Things

  1. The philosophy of “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” was the first scientific explanation, that clearly explained how scientific understanding can explain how and why social change took place in the past and is taking place in the present, and what social change will look like in the future.
    The fact that our capitalist society is fearful of a scientific method that can scientifically prove that Capitalism has within its social structure, irreconcilable contradictions that will eventually be the cause that will create the effect that will topple the system of capitalism and replace the system of capitalism with the system of Socialism.
    The fact that this scientific discovery is being swept under the rug by the powers that be, is evidence that the system of capitalism is fearful of the public getting a scientific understanding of how and why societies change.
    To believe that Capitalism will be a positive force in the world and will not change with the passage of time from what it was, to what it is, and to what it will become in the near and distant future is incredible stupidity.
    Those that ignorantly believe that all social change is the result of subversive activity that changes that what is already perfect to that what is imperfect, is a rationalization by those that fear and hate that, what is unfamiliar.
    This is why the Right Wing hate and fear merchants, go crazy when they are confronted with the possibility of a future that will challenge what exists in the present and what existed in the past.
    The crap in their pants Right Wingers, and the stuck in the past Libertarians, should grow up and face the changes that will certainly occur in the future

  2. Not despicable

    It’s been my observation that the Right represents the avant garde of the fear merchants. Dialectics is a metaphysical branch of philosophy deeply intertwining our culture. Science, on the other hand, despite the dialectical bent of many scientists, is a standardised (or ritualised) method of exploration. Even in biology, the movement of feet, while they alternate when walking, represent a mutually engaged dance and not a friction-generating struggle. Sometimes there is hopping, and both feet move simultaneously parallel. An alternating gate does not represent movement at cross-purpose. In jazz, a syncopated rhythm does not produce dissonance. Movement is first and foremost transgression. It is not transcendence or synthesis. See Wittgenstein for clues to the engagement of language games.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s