you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

My point is that systems theory is dialectical materialism. Marx didn't invent dialectical materialism. Legalists during the Zhou dynasty were already using dialectical materialism. It's the main reason why the state of Qin was able to steamroll the other Chinese polities and unify China despite starting out as an incredibly weak state because their main ideological competitors were a bunch of Confucians, Daoists, and Mohists, none of which espouse a dialectical and materialist framework (with the Mohists being neither dialectical or materialist).

Of course, their version of dialectical materialism is cruder than what Marx came up with. Systems theory is just the latest iteration of dialectical materialism. So why call Marx a dialectical materialist instead of retroactively calling him a systems theorist? Well, it goes back to what I said earlier about systems theory being an exercise in branding from anticommunist Western scientists. If anything, systems theory should be rebranded as dialectical materialism. Systems engineering should be renamed to dialectical engineering and so on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Legalists during the Zhou dynasty were already using dialectical materialism

    Can you elaborate on the dialectic part of that? I'm not arguing against materialism as a way of describing and therefore changing the universe, I'm arguing against dialectics being relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 22 hours ago

    They were influenced by Daoists. Daoists espoused an everchanging world with contradictions which resolved themselves only to give birth to even more contradictions. This is in contrasts to Mohists and Confucians which espoused a world that does not change. Confucians believed in destiny that is ordained by Heaven while Mohists believed in destiny that is ordained by a sky god also confusingly called Heaven. Mohists, despite being neither dialectical nor materialist, at least advocated for an egalitarian society while Confucians advocated for a society where everyone knew their place within the social hierarchy.

    The consequence of Confucians being undialectical is that most of their works constantly orient themselves based on the reported actions of the sage kings of Yu and Xie. Do X because Yu also did X. Don't do Y because Xie didn't do Y. Meanwhile, Legalist works stress the sovereign has to constantly adapt their actions based on the informed observations of their ministers (and methods to make sure ministers actually report what's going on which mostly amounted to ruthless punishment). This is not the case of Confucians not being materialist especially since one branch of Confucians was headed by a full blown atheist. It's this atheist Confucian who taught two students who then go on to take the dialectical aspects of Daoism to develop Legalism.

  • source
  • parent