One Answer

  1. This is such a cool philosophical ontological and gnosselogical concept. Historically, it has been characterized as either Marxist or post-Hegelian.�

    The main postulate to which it can be reduced is that the material determines the ideal.

    A distinctive feature of diamat is that when considering a dialectical bundle, it invariably reveals the main (deterministic) – material — and the secondary (determinable) — ideal.
    To be a little more specific: politics and economics. The economy is the basis that determines its superstructure — politics.�

    Like any dialectic, this gnosseological concept clarifies that not everything is *so simple*. That one and the same thing in one dialectical contradiction is secondary (deterministic), but in another contradiction it will already be leading (deterministic).

    Other theses of diamat:
    – the objective factor belongs to the material category, and the subjective factor belongs to the ideal category.
    – by entering into a dialectical contradiction, things simultaneously show their mutual exclusivity and unity;
    – proceeding from the previous one, such contradictions are called dialectically identity and dialectical contradiction. Both phrases mean the same
    thing– – movement can be quantitative and qualitative;
    contradiction is the source of qualitative movement
    a qualitative leap is a consequence of the accumulation of certain quantitative changes, as a result of which the thing (parts of which came into conflict) acquires new properties, and new contradictions that again lead to qualitative development–
    – this chain of movement is also called thesis-antithesis-synthesis;
    – contradictions may have an open (antagonistic) character, or they may have a hidden (non-antagonistic) character.

    If I open all these theses, it will turn out to be a completely unreadable sheet, so I limited myself to their notation.

    All that I have identified as Italian is philosophical categories. It is worth lurking what they mean in a philosophical context, otherwise there is a high risk of misunderstanding the text.

    If you need/want to understand in detail what it is and why, then I advise you to read Marx-Engels proper (the same Anti-During), you can Mao (On contradiction) or even [do not be afraid of the brand] Stalin (On historical and dialectical materialism).

Leave a Reply