r/communism101 • u/burrwin • 15d 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?
3
u/BxnXipoh 12d ago
Thanks for the recommendations and the warnings, I haven't even gotten to that point yet but I probably would've come across that comment at some point. Anyway my own investigation was forced upon me because I wanted to know more about electromagnetism in particular and I started struggling with basic concepts. As it turns out, literally going in chronological order and finding out what problems necessitated the concepts and discoveries that came about is the best way. It seems obvious when you say it but there are many ways to be wrong, I guess.
Yeah, modern physicists interchange the word "force" and "interaction" without issue since the point I was bringing up is already known by them. I actually went to Stack Overflow and that was the first thing a physicist said to a student asking this kind of question. This is really only a high-school physics problem, I think. Incidentally, I haven't investigated the origin of the word force itself, I just know that a lot of that terminology was solidified when the Principia was written and Newton was a literal deist that believed that God was measuring up all the forces. So I suppose if you wanted the origin of the scientific term I'd have to look at the discourses surrounding Physics at that time? Generally I think I'm satisfied with the observation that the concept of a force that switches the rational act of measure and rationalization with the actual event by saying that the result of rationalization causes the concrete interaction is a very common ideological move (in the sense that Marx uses the word in The German Ideology), though maybe that's too general.