Summary:
This paper discusses the understanding and application of dialectics by the two theoretical schools of Marxism and Deleuzeism, as well as the resonance and collision between them. Through the comparison and analysis of the ideas of Marx and Deleuze, the different interpretations of dialectics and their status and role in the history of social thought are revealed. Marxism regards dialectics as the law of social and historical development, emphasizing the inevitability of class struggle and social change; Deleuzeism, on the other hand, regards dialectics as a way of thinking and methodology, which is used to analyze social micro-phenomena and explore the possibility of individual resistance.
I. Introduction
As an important ideological tool in philosophy, dialectics has profoundly influenced the process of human thinking and social change. In the two ideological systems of Marxism and Deleuzeism, dialectics plays a crucial role, but its understanding and application present completely different attitudes and trends.
Marxism regards dialectics as a key tool for the emancipation of mankind, as a critique of capitalist society, and as a theoretical cornerstone for the construction of a new socialist world. Deleuze, on the other hand, is critical of dialectics, believing that it restricts and restricts people more than emancipation and enlightenment, and advocates a different theoretical framework to reimagine the relationship between society and the individual.
II. Dialectics in Marxism
A. The Concept and Historical Origins of Dialectics
Dialectics in Marxism is derived from ancient Greek philosophy, especially Hegel's idea of dialectics. Hegel regarded dialectics as the fundamental law of the development of thought, and believed that the development of things is achieved through the process of opposition, struggle and unity. In Marx's view, dialectics is not only a philosophical method, but also a method of understanding and transforming the world.
Marxism combines dialectics with materialism, puts forward the concept of dialectics about the law of development of things, and holds that all things are interrelated, interacting, and transforming into each other. This concept of dialectics permeates all aspects of Marxism and has become the core of the Marxist theoretical system.
B. Marx's understanding and application of dialectics
Marx applied dialectics to the analysis and critique of capitalist society. He believed that the inherent contradictions and antagonisms of capitalist society were the driving force for its development, and that through the method of dialectics, the inherent contradictions and crises of capitalism could be revealed, thus providing a theoretical basis for the realization of socialism.
Marx particularly emphasized the historical materialist nature of dialectics, believing that the development of society is a historical process, and dialectics is the key tool for revealing this historical process. In Capital, he analyzed in detail the inherent contradictions and crises of the capitalist mode of production, pointed out the unsustainability of capitalism, and also proposed the path and method of realizing socialism.
C. The role and limitations of dialectics in Marxism
Dialectics has played an important role in Marxism, first of all, as a thinking tool to help people recognize and understand the laws of movement and development of society. Second, dialectics provides Marxism with a methodology, that is, through the revelation and analysis of social contradictions, it guides people to understand the essence of social reality and find ways to change society.
However, dialectics also has certain limitations in Marxism. First of all, Marx's understanding of dialectics was mainly limited to the economic field, and he did not deeply explore the laws of development in other fields. Second, Marxism's excessive absolutization of dialectics may sometimes lead to the rigidity and mechanization of theory, making it difficult to adapt to the complex changes in real society.
III. Deleuze's critique and reflection on dialectics
A. Deleuze's basic views on dialectics
As one of the representatives of postmodernist philosophy in the 20th century, Gilles Deleuze criticized and reflected on traditional dialectics. He believed that traditional dialectics had inherent problems and limitations, and therefore put forward his own unique philosophical viewpoint.
Difference and Complexity: Deleuze emphasizes the difference and complexity of things, arguing that the world is made up of a myriad of different factors, rather than a simple unity of opposites. He is concerned with the diversity and complexity within things, rather than simply binary opposition.
Non-linear and non-hierarchical: Deleuze opposes the linear and hierarchical thinking in traditional dialectics, and argues that the development of things is non-linear and non-hierarchical. He believes that the change and evolution of things are produced by the interaction of various complex factors, rather than a simple linear development or phased process.
Somaticity and Perceptuality: Deleuze introduced bodiness and perceptuality into his philosophical thinking, arguing that perception and bodily experience are important ways to understand the world. He focuses on the relationship between the body and the world, emphasizing the role of perception and sensibility, which is different from the rationalism of traditional dialectics.
B. Criticism and negation of Marx's dialectics
Deleuze criticized and denied Marx's dialectics, focusing on the following aspects:
Critique of Binary Opposites: Deleuze argues that the dualistic approach in traditional dialectics is too simplistic and mechanized to adequately capture the diversity and complexity within things. He believed that there was a richer relationship between things than a simple unity of opposites.
Critique of Historical Materialism: Deleuze criticized Marxist historical materialism for overemphasizing the idea that the economic base determines the superstructure, and ignoring the role of bodily perception and perceptual experience in social change.
The Mechanistic Nature of Dialectics: Deleuze criticized the mechanical and formalistic tendencies of traditional dialectics, arguing that they cannot adapt to the complexity and diversity of contemporary society and require a more flexible and open way of thinking.
C. The alternative theoretical framework of the Deleuze dialectic
Deleuze proposes a philosophical theoretical framework that is different from traditional dialectics, which mainly includes the following aspects:
Emphasis on Difference and Complexity: Deleuze emphasizes the difference and complexity within things, arguing that the world is composed of countless factors of difference, and that the movement and development of things need to be understood from multiple angles and levels.
Diversity and Fluidity of Thinking: Deleuze advocates a diversity and fluidity of thinking, not limited to the duality and hierarchical thinking of traditional dialectics, but focusing on diversity and change within things.
The Importance of the Body and Perceptuality: Deleuze introduced the bodily and perceptual into his philosophical reflections, arguing that perception and bodily experience are important ways to understand the world, as distinct from the rationalism of traditional dialectics.
IV. A Re-examination of Dialectics
A. The relationship between dialectics and the free nature of man
In revisiting dialectics, we inevitably need to explore the relationship between dialectics and the free nature of man. As a philosophical methodology, one of the fundamental purposes of dialectics is to emancipate people's minds and practices so that they can give full play to the free nature of individuals.
Marx emphasized that the free nature of human beings is constrained by social and economic structures, and that dialectics provides a theoretical framework to help people recognize such constraints and find ways to transcend them. By revealing the inherent contradictions and laws of development of things, dialectics leads people to realize that social change and individual liberation are interrelated. In the process of social change, the free nature of the individual has been more fully brought into play and realized, and the free development of the individual has in turn promoted the progress and change of society.
B. The Concept and Connotation of the Dialectic of Freedom
The dialectic of freedom, as a rethinking of traditional dialectics, emphasizes the importance of freedom and emancipation. It not only pays attention to the internal contradictions and development laws of things, but also emphasizes the subjectivity and freedom of the individual.
The dialectic of freedom is first and foremost an emancipatory way of thinking. It rejects the simple binary model of the unity of opposites, and instead focuses more on the diversity and complexity within things. By transcending opposites, the dialectic of freedom enables people to understand more comprehensively the nature of things and the laws of motion, and thus gain greater freedom of knowledge.
Second, the dialectic of freedom emphasizes the free development of the individual. It believes that the free nature of the individual is innate, and should not be bound by external constraints. Therefore, the dialectic of freedom focuses on the role and status of the individual in social change, and advocates that the individual should give full play to his own subjectivity and creativity and realize his own values and ideals under the premise of respecting others.
C. The role of dialectics in social change and individual freedom
Dialectics plays an important role in social change and the realization of individual freedom. First of all, dialectics leads people to recognize social injustice and inequality by revealing the inherent contradictions and laws of development of things, thus stimulating people's needs and desires for social change.
Second, dialectics emphasizes the free nature and creativity of the individual, making people aware that as members of society, they have the responsibility and obligation to participate in the process of social change. The free development of the individual is not only the liberation of oneself, but also a contribution to society as a whole.
V. The dialogue between Marxism and Deleuzeism
A. Commonalities and differences between Marxism and Deleuzeism
Both Marxism and Deleuzeism are important theoretical schools of thought about modern society and the capitalist system, and they have both commonalities and some differences.
Joint Points:
Critique of Capitalism: Both Marxism and Deleuzeism are critical of the exploitation, oppression, and injustice of the capitalist system, and are committed to finding alternatives.
Focus on social change: Both focus on social change and progress, trying to explore the laws of social development and possible reform paths to achieve a more just and equal society.
Emphasis on individual emancipation: Both Marxism and Deleuzeism emphasize the freedom and emancipation of the individual, believing that man should be free from external constraints and achieve his or her own all-round development.
Divergence:
On the role of political revolution: Marxism emphasizes the importance of class struggle and political revolution, believing that socialism can be achieved by overthrowing bourgeois rule. Deleuzeism, on the other hand, focuses more on micro-level political practice, advocating the transformation of society through individual resistance and resistance.
Attitude towards power: Marxism is more inclined to see power as an instrument of class struggle, advocating the seizure of power through the political organization of the working class. Deleuzeism, on the other hand, emphasizes the micro-operation and influence of power, believing that power should be dispersed and diffused to avoid abuse and centralization.
Stance on ideology: Marxism usually has a clear ideological stance that emphasizes the inevitability of class struggle and historical progress. Deleuzeism, on the other hand, places more emphasis on pluralism and diversity, believing that ideologies should be fluid and changing.
B. Dialectics in Marxism vs. Deleuzeism
Marxism:
Marxism regards dialectics as a law of social and historical development, and believes that the development of society is promoted through contradictions and conflicts within things. Dialectics is used in Marxism to guide the analysis of social reality and change, emphasizing the inevitability of class struggle and social change.
Deleuzeism:
Deleuzeism sees dialectics as a way of thinking and a methodology that emphasizes the complexity and diversity within things. Dialectics is used in Deleuzeism to analyze microscopic phenomena such as power, identity, and the body, emphasizing the resistance of the individual and the possibility of rebellion.
C. Possible pathways to dialogue and integration
Although there are certain differences between Marxism and Deleuzeism, there is also the possibility of borrowing from each other and merging with each other.
Dialogue and exchange: Marxists and Deleuzeists can engage in in-depth dialogue and exchange to explore the strengths and limitations of each other's theories, thereby deepening their understanding of real-world issues.
Borrowing and Integration: Marxism can borrow from Deleuze's ideas on the micro-analysis of power to enrich its own understanding of social change; Deleuzeism, on the other hand, can draw on Marxist theories of class struggle and social change to improve its own understanding of social problems.
Joint Exploration: Marxism and Deleuzeism can work together to explore new theoretical paths and social practices, such as cooperation in areas such as democracy, social justice, and environmental protection, to jointly promote social change and progress.
VI. Conclusion
This paper discusses the understanding and application of dialectics by two important theoretical schools, Marxism and Deleuzeism, and points out the resonance and collision between them. Marxism regards dialectics as the law of social and historical development, emphasizing the inevitability of class struggle and social change; Deleuzeism, on the other hand, regards dialectics as a way of thinking and methodology, which is used to analyze social micro-phenomena and explore the possibility of individual resistance. There are certain differences in the treatment of power, political revolution and ideology, but they also share a common interest in social change and individual liberation.
Author: Lu Xilin
Bibliography:
Bhaskar, R. (1989). Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. Verso Books.
Althusser, L. (2001). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press.
Disclaimer: All articles (including graphics, papers, audio and video, etc.) under my account can be reprinted or quoted at will after 72 hours from the date of publication, without informing me. If you need to request a manuscript, please contact [email protected]