This is probably ~80% correct and not worth reading. It is an offline open source mixtral 8×7b running on my hardware at home.

Jake: Someone on Lemmy posted,

People who have studied and have applied Dialectical Materialism to resolve problems in your life/locality, could you share your experiences? 

(Removed the rest but gave ai whole post and message)

I have no clue what they are talking about but I would like to understand this. What is dialectal materialism? Explain it to me from the ground up and intuitively please.

Dors: Dialectical Materialism is a philosophical framework that was developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It’s a way of understanding and analyzing the world around us, particularly in the context of social, economic, and political change.

At its core, Dialectical Materialism is based on the idea that everything in the world is in a constant state of change and development, driven by the interaction of opposing forces or contradictions. For example, in a capitalist economy, there’s a constant struggle between the interests of the capitalists (who own the means of production) and the workers (who sell their labor power). This struggle, or contradiction, drives the development of the economy and society as a whole.

The process of change and development in Dialectical Materialism is often described as a “dialectic,” which involves three stages:

1. Thesis: This is the initial state of affairs, or the status quo.
2. Antithesis: This is the opposing force or contradiction that challenges the thesis.
3. Synthesis: This is the new state of affairs that emerges from the interaction of the thesis and antithesis.

For example, in the context of a labor strike, the thesis might be the existing working conditions, the antithesis might be the workers’ demands for better conditions, and the synthesis might be a new agreement between the workers and management that improves the working conditions.

Dialectical Materialism is often used as a tool for analyzing and resolving problems because it provides a framework for understanding the underlying dynamics of a situation, including the contradictions and opposing forces that are driving change. By identifying these factors, it becomes possible to develop strategies for resolving conflicts and bringing about positive change.

As for online sources, I would recommend starting with the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, such as “The Communist Manifesto” and “Capital.” You might also find it helpful to explore the writings of more recent Marxist theorists, such as David Harvey and Ellen Meiksins Wood.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Jake: I’ve always thought of the pre world war 2 era as oversimplified binary nonsense ideas. This seems to fall in line with that. Does this address my argument that the only place where binary simplicity exists is in idealist fantasies?

Dors: Dialectical Materialism does not oversimplify complex situations, but rather provides a framework for understanding the underlying dynamics and contradictions that drive change and development. It acknowledges that the world is not simply black and white, but rather a complex interplay of opposing forces and contradictions.

In fact, Dialectical Materialism is often criticized for being too complex and difficult to understand, as it involves a deep and nuanced understanding of history, economics, and politics.

So, while it’s true that some people may oversimplify complex situations, Dialectical Materialism itself does not fall into this trap. Instead, it provides a powerful tool for analyzing and resolving problems by understanding the underlying dynamics of a situation.

As for your argument about binary simplicity and idealist fantasies, it’s important to recognize that Dialectical Materialism is not an idealist philosophy. It is based on the material world and the real-world contradictions and opposing forces that drive change and development.

I hope this helps clarify things for you! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Jake: I’m not sure if I’m understanding this correctly. The nature of opposing forces is a distillation of a complex system into two parts of opposition. Nothing is that binary in simplicity. The workers didn’t all decide to strike one day, and all workers do not feel equal. All sides and conflicts are more nuanced than just opposing forces. This seems oversimplified.

Dors: You’re right that the world is often more complex than a simple binary opposition. However, Dialectical Materialism is not about reducing complex situations to a simple binary. Instead, it’s about understanding the underlying dynamics and contradictions that drive change and development.

In the context of a labor strike, for example, it’s true that not all workers may have decided to strike at the same time, and not all workers may have the same feelings or motivations. However, the strike can still be understood as a response to a contradiction or opposing force in the system, such as the exploitation of workers by capitalists.

Dialectical Materialism recognizes that there are often many different factors and contradictions at play in any given situation. The key is to identify the most important and influential of these factors, and to understand how they interact and influence each other.

So, while it’s true that some situations may be more complex than a simple binary opposition, Dialectical Materialism provides a framework for analyzing and understanding these complexities in a more nuanced and sophisticated way.

I hope this helps clarify things for you! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Jake: I’m at a level of abstraction that is not aligned with you yet dear. By your logic thus far regarding the strike, I interject; what happens if a fire accidentally breaks out in the factory during the strike. Was the Dialectical Materialism analysis still correct or relevant? Do the striking workers help put out the fire? Does the capitalist join in the effort to save the factory from ruin?

Dors: In the scenario you described, the outbreak of a fire in the factory during a strike would introduce a new factor or contradiction into the situation. This would require a re-evaluation of the dynamics at play and the strategies being employed by the various parties involved.

From the perspective of Dialectical Materialism, the key would be to understand how this new factor interacts with the existing contradictions and opposing forces in the system. For example, the fire could potentially create a new common interest between the striking workers and the capitalist, as both would have a stake in saving the factory from ruin.

In this situation, the striking workers might choose to put aside their differences with the capitalist temporarily in order to work together to put out the fire. Alternatively, they might use the opportunity to negotiate for better working conditions or other concessions from the capitalist in exchange for their help.

The important point is that Dialectical Materialism provides a framework for understanding how different factors and contradictions interact and influence each other, and for developing strategies for resolving conflicts and bringing about positive change.

I hope this helps clarify things for you! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Jake: So you are essentially saying that Dialectical Materialism is unable to coexist with entropy of a changing world? It can only address issues from moments past but not the present or changing future?

Dors: Dialectical Materialism is not unable to coexist with the changing world or address issues in the present or future. In fact, it is specifically designed to help us understand and analyze the dynamics of change and development in the world around us.

The key is to recognize that Dialectical Materialism is a method of analysis, not a set of fixed or immutable truths. It provides a framework for understanding the underlying dynamics and contradictions that drive change and development, but it does not dictate specific outcomes or solutions.

So, while it’s true that the specific details of a situation may change over time, the fundamental principles of Dialectical Materialism can still be applied to analyze and understand these changes.

I hope this helps clarify things for you! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Jake: I understand you so far. Thank you. The next issue I see is that Dialectical Materialism appears to be a framework for stating the obvious, with no real value.

Dors: It’s true that some people may view Dialectical Materialism as simply stating the obvious. However, I would argue that the real value of this framework lies in its ability to help us understand and analyze the underlying dynamics and contradictions that drive change and development in the world around us.

By providing a structured and systematic way of thinking about complex situations, Dialectical Materialism can help us identify the most important and influential factors at play, and develop strategies for resolving conflicts and bringing about positive change.

In this way, Dialectical Materialism can provide real value in helping us navigate the challenges and uncertainties of the modern world.

I hope this helps clarify things for you! Let me know if you have any further questions.

If there is anything incorrect in Dors’ responses please let me know.