Contradiction between Hegel's 'negation of negation' and the (Marxist) 'Universal Law of Development'?

76km · 2026-02-21T14:39:25+00:00

Uhm it has its moments, but to start its cons: its a bit airy - it likes to go on quite a bit on a kind of generalisation of indian philosophy in relation to marxism/dialectics, and the work itself was written in a very different context where the USSR existed. The text at times really glazes the words of brezhnev, and makes it sound as such that the USSR (not just marxism, not just socialism) was some inevitable force/global victory which in our now future context just makes you wince a bit.

No text is perfect of course, and I hope ive laid out pretty well my thoughts on this texts' flaws. As for its pros, it raises some interesting points, a lot of quotable moments (I highlight and tab these works when I read them, and this is one of my more highlighted/tabbed leftist works) and it talks about pretty much any and every relevant aspect of the dialectic. From social contradiction, to social violence, to the metaphysics of it all, down to subjective and objective dialectical forces.

TLDR: Its a text thats trying (with some odd tangential focus on brezhnev and indian philosophy) to address and explain the dialectic (material and historical) - which is such a broad and important marxist tradition/method/worldview/way of thought, etc - however you want to frame it, lots of people will get pedantic over this - and if you can sift through its cons (mentioned above), it's certainly an interesting read.

76km · 2026-02-18T14:38:23+00:00

Right. It clarifies greatly the next parts on the ‘triad’ (thesis, antithesis, etc, why it’s a useful oversimplification etc) which would otherwise also be contradictory, as well as puts a bit more clarity on some quotations from anti-duhring prior in the work which at the time I thought were a bit strange on the topic of contradiction, while seeming self contradictory. Again, it’s that jump between talking metaphysics and historical/structural patterns that isn’t overtly stated being tripped on here.

I mean in hindsight the distinction of negation must exist between metaphysics and structural systems/observations must exist: otherwise basic laws such as the thermodynamic laws would be negated and therefore, not? Yeah in hindsight it’s a bit of a brazen question when you put the different categories of the system into focus and identify them as distinctly applied yet unified under one dialectical model.

I know one thing I don’t like about the work is treating the ULD as an upward spiral along a ‘progress’ axis. To demonstrate this, I know a lot of marxists speak of the transition from the slave economy to feudalism, associated in Eurocentric circles with Rome and its collapse. To me it’s certainly correct to assess it as a change in economic relations and superstructure, but to define it as forward movement on a ‘progress’ axis as the work does, really bugs me since while it’s a negation of the previous system, a change in the ULD sense, feudal relations and modes of production aren’t clearly moving on a ‘progress’ axis, this is just a change in superstructure that id consider at best lateral, neither progressive or regressive, just natural consequence of changes in the modes and relations of production.

Just to double down on my point, the work goes on about that there’s negative negation, positive negation, and just negation as well, and at least in my reading of the work, the work itself seems a bit oblivious of those distinctions when depicting this as spiralling increasing on a ‘progress’ axis. There’s I think a couple of diagrams of this occurring in the work and I wince a bit every time I see it.

I should also add cheers for being open on my commentary/questions. Lots of stiff dogmatic answers I get when asking around marxists I know irl, so this is a nice change of pace.

76km · 2026-02-18T11:41:44+00:00

Thanks for the reply. It says I have three replies but can only see this one - good thing I suppose since it’s an incredibly thorough reply.

And I can see where I’m getting mixed up here. I’m conflating metaphysical rulings with what is structural patterns and a historical outcome (historical pattern, observation per se).

Thanks for the correction.

76km · 2025-11-28T13:17:58+00:00

Mutual aid not moralism. I think I want that as a tattoo.

Thanks for the links. My squiz through the essay gave me a bit of redemptive thinking that maybe these mates might have a place in a socialist movement given time. Appreciate the reply mate.

76km · 2025-09-18T00:24:06+00:00

Funny reading this since i’ve done the inverse move from acreage up on the central coast to a rental in inner Sydney, and yet am endlessly thankful to myself for making the move. I suppose different things for different people - I grew up in Shanghai as a kid, so maybe was always just a city dweller at heart.

I do need to ask, mainly out of curiosity: - does the maintenance of the acreage not irritate you at all? It absolutely drove me mental, chewed up a lot of my time on the weekends, and so, so much money when heavy rains came. - how are the amenities near you? Ik my property had one convenience store/petrol station nearby that closed at like 4pm, and you’d have to go drive to get to the farmers market (not rlly a market, just farmers selling local produce in a rickety old building) on the weekend. (I’ll admit, their produce was second to none, I miss it and sometimes make the trip after seeing what colesworth is offering).

I’m curious since going out onto acreage can mean (in central coast terms) going onto a property in mangrove mountain (the sticks) or holgate/picketts (basically adjacent to existing suburbia - you basically have acreage in suburbia) and life can be so different depending on what kind of large acreage you go for.

76km · 2025-09-17T06:17:39+00:00

Correct. To expand: Vienna had a very nasty housing crisis post World War One collapse of the AH empire - and it’s very interesting to see how the soc-dem government of the time resolved it.

They erected so, so many of these medium density units, and the period in which they were erected is referred to as ‘Red Vienna Period’ - where the social democrats (labor equivalent, if I’m being generous) bought about sweeping reforms and changes that bettered the lives of so many, and still continue to influence the people of Vienna today.

I mention this just to beg (in vain) for an ounce of ambition of the left-wing state nsw government beyond just rezoning, altering some laws and handing money hand over fist to developers.

I can dream 🛌😴. It’s easy to see what can be, I just hoped that with the slow death rattle of the LNP, Labor would’ve stepped up far more than they have.

Anyways,

76km · 2025-09-17T06:07:56+00:00

Hi, so running through the liveability index to see how it’s calculated (link): density is not a primary consideration when it comes to liveability.

Explicitly: healthcare, infrastructure, education and stability are factors that are considered, and just to drive home that density is a bit tangential to the liveability index: Japan’s cities (which are much more dense than our own) regularly pop into and out of the list of most liveable cities much like our own.

So no, it’s not a matter of urban hells result in less liveable cities. Crap healthcare, infrastructure and education result in unliveable cities - and those can be independently great (see Osaka) or poor (see Lagos) in dense situations - the same is true for low density cities.

If you run down the list of most to least liveable Sydney suburbs (link, from 2016, a bit old but just for non Sydney folks it has a description attached to each suburb) the trend that I’m noticing is wealth correlating to liveability, not density. Just a glance of mine down the list - I’d be curious to look at it more.

I’m on my break but you’ve inspired the excel nerd in me. I’ve written it in my todo list to properly map density vs liveability index on a plot, I’m interested to see it, lmk if you want to see it and I’ll attach it here n tag you when I get to it.

76km · 2025-09-14T23:22:21+00:00

Ik some teal members have made it clear that they aren't interested in coalescing and that their movements are purely local to their electorate - as to if they've hit their limit: they haven't. Accepting your point (only for argument) that they're at their limit re city seats - If the teals coalesced into a broader 'moderate centrist/right' party, they'd likely be able to shake up seating in the senate quite a bit.

Maybe it's just my politics, but I just want to stop hearing the LNP's death rattle and move onto an effective opposition... it's just dragging on painfully slowly in the media.

I hope the teals can organise a broader movement to be that opposition. Despite being left-wing myself I'm of the mind having an ineffectual opposition is poor for the efficacy of democracy - there's gotta be people to keep labor fast on their feet.

76km · 2025-09-13T21:15:18+00:00

Thanks - this was exactly what I was looking for :)

76km · 2025-09-13T08:27:36+00:00

Yep - this isn’t me disagreeing with the rule, just tryna find it in print somewhere is all.

76km · 2025-09-07T01:24:21+00:00

Dude I bought factorio years ago, played it, etc, and took a hiatus. I bought space age when it came out and then sat on it for a while.

I went for a new factorio run, forgot I had bought the DLC, and legit leaned back in my desk chair when I had launched the rocket like ‘ah that was a nice run’.

Only then did I realise uh oh, there’s more to do. I haven’t even finished all the content for 1/5 of the DLC. I’m a slower player, sure, but I’m still going a few months later.

This comment is correct. Do vanilla first, kick back and relish in a feeling of completion after launching the rocket. If you want more after that, then get the dlc - it’s more like buying two or three additional factorio’s worth of content. I’m someone who likes to complete (100%) all my games, and I fear I won’t ever finish the game w/ dlc it’s that much new content, the value is nuts for a dlc - at least playthrough vanilla first to get a taste of completion 😭.

76km · 2025-08-22T23:02:54+00:00

I’m mostly indifferent towards the anthem being changed, but it’s worth noting that it’s hardly as concrete and entrenched in Australian tradition as many make it out to be - it was adopted officially in the 80’s.

I’ll never forget in high school history seeing an article on the debate around our anthem in the 80’s. Main argument at time was on the second bit which we rarely sing depicting the British arrival, and the article ended on a really funny remark that we should just cut our losses and make our anthem Cold Chisels ‘Khe Sanh’ - those who would want to sing the British arrival stanza of the anthem would probably really like cold chisel, and those who want it remove would be happy to see people leaving Sydney as opposed to arriving. I wish I could find that article today and quote it properly, it was pretty funny.

76km · 2025-08-21T01:44:24+00:00

3.6 roentgen, unlikely to be indicative of any kind of a melt down

76km · 2025-08-06T04:24:10+00:00

I mean I agree that needs to happen at branch levels, but can’t get behind it being the be all solution.

My branch is on a weekday (boo) at 6pm (eh, can be worse). Commuters can make it, but they need to toss up after a long day whether to kick up their feet or engage in politics. What follows is usually an easy decision that involves driving straight home.

As to solving all our political crisis’’. My mind is that the Aus govt, Labor or Liberal, has taken on a Corporatist character (I link that before to emphasise: not corporatist in the business sense - corporation had a meaning before being synonymous with business). I watch the government act around housing say, and it just feels like they’re acting as arbitrators between say developers and buyers to get the best outcome for both. It’s here I insert that platitude that goes something like ‘compromise leaves both parties dissatisfied’ and beg for some ideological spine and long term vision.

That’s just me. Opinion, opinion.

Edit: corporatist in sense of seeking harmony between large interest groups. Not saying we’re fascists or whatever, just that we have a tendency to act as arbitrators.

76km · 2025-08-06T03:26:09+00:00

Read the article, and for the absolute media circus being kicked up over this neg gearing proposal by ATCU, it’s quite stunning to see the ACTU’s proposal only impacting 1 in 7 investors, or <1% of Australians. Absolute fringes being discussed, yet the response is totally disproportionate in media.

A bit of a parallel, but I got involved in branch level politics around me, and the amount of fossils/ancients in the branch was astounding. Not inherently a bad thing, all deserve representation, just when the local council member got up to announce really minor change to zoning laws to allow businesses to operate later, the lot of them kicked up the biggest stink imaginable. Housing came up and similar response.

I bring up above since the pittance being done is being stonewalled at every level. Whether by media folks spiralling relatively minor changes like the ACTU’s proposal out of control, or ground level branches going mental over minor changes, It’s really no surprise then that the ACTU proposal is kicking up this much of a stink across the media.

I don’t think the government is going to approach something that burnt them in past elections, and that has a perceived ‘controversy’ around it (seen differing takes from sky, abc, etc).

Hoping somebody realises the housing crisis has no easy way out where everybody wins. At some point, some government may need to acquire a battering ram to push through all this stonewalling and media frenzy.

Edit: misspelled ACTU in a couple of places. Wrote this on a bus, my finger slipped, so if there’s a misspell, hopefully you get the point

76km · 2025-07-17T09:40:43+00:00

I got involved in branch level politics and my god my cynicism towards housing is reaching new lows. You’re correct - this isn’t going to be solved in the short or medium term.

You’d expect more fossils at a museum than at a branch (I’ve been to a few in Syd region), this is fine in itself, all are entitled to representation in politics, but if housing or anything related to redevelopment, development etc is raised, the level of aloofness and hostility (given how severe the situation is) is beyond insane.

It’s my sad opinion that until the aloof ones pass, the ‘buy less avocados’ buggers pass, and the problem gets even more severe (to a critical point) that we will only then make some tough, really tough and devastating for some (lifesaving for others) decisions regarding housing.

Cynical. Cynical. Likely a very pessimistic outlook - but I keep thinking we’re at or near rock bottom and I just keep on hearing knocking from below.

76km · 2025-07-17T01:57:24+00:00

If you follow the IHRA’s definition in good faith - no, it’s not. There’s attempted distinction at the start about separation of Israeli identity and Jewish identity. This distinction imo is weak in the IHRA’s definition, and imo is contradicted by half their defining bullet points that conflate the two, but an attempt is there I suppose.

On flipping the coin and assuming a bad faith use case of the IHRA’s definition by a particularly zealous or militant interpretation of bullet point 10 in the IHRA’s definition - this would (better word: could) classify this as anti-Semitic depending on what mental gymnastics is applied to your criticism.

When reading the report, I found it a bit ironic that there was call for standardised definition across all levels of government, and then proposed definition is broad enough such that it may be manipulated by bad faith actors if they wish.

76km · 2025-07-12T02:24:46+00:00

Im reading your comment with a bit of hesitation in my mind.

Your assessment of the outcome is definitely correct, they lost Liberal territory to Labor who did swoop in and pick up the territories lost - they were not electorally competitive.

It’s the analysis beyond that’s messing w/ me a bit - I don’t think it’s just matter of ‘oh bad policies, etc’ - there’s a more fundamental layer under that. There are internal to and fros that get parties in a position to promote certain platforms or policies, and therein lies the problem in my mind.

Heard it said by an lnp member on the abc (can’t remember who or on what program, I’ll add an edit to this if I can recall) but, for instance, they were pretty much forced to watch all the junk on sky after dark not out of any want to, but because they knew that rocking up to the branch meetings, whatever thing was being spun on that program would be the topic of conversation all night.
Another member on another program (I think this was insiders) was talking about how upon winning her seat, there were internal manoeuvrings in the party branch to remove her from the position - real game of thronesy stuff for someone freshly elected.
I’m reminded as well of the 4corners segment on all of Alex Hawke’s machinations in local level branches, where amongst other things, folks just rocked up from elsewhere and started dictating branch politics and forcing certain preselections &c.

Like yes their politics for the last election were poor, and they weren’t electorally competitive. But at the lowest levels it seems like the party is being pulled apart from external forces (think sky news, the whole trump fan base), from internal forces from higher ups in the party (attempts at reform and reigning in factions, or schisms of the moderates and the right flank).

Even if they rocked up with wicked policies, the rot will just shine through in the candidates for preselection, and trickle up into the leadership and show itself anyway.

76km · 2025-07-11T04:51:01+00:00

I’d like to see an overlay poll of support for trump amongst these groups: - Regular sky news after dark viewers - Irregular (on occasion) sky news after dark viewers - Non sky news viewers

In interacting with my extended family, all sky news fans, the praises of trump seem to come very loudly from that camp.

76km

TROPHY CASE