destructor_rph

I had this question proposed to me recently, and thought I would give it my best shot. I would love any input you guys have on how I can refine this further, make it more clear, more accurate, more succinct, all that.

Also, this is specifically geared towards Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, and that understanding of dialectics, just to be clear. I'm not interested in the hyper-orthodox understanding of dialectical materialism.

I don't understand the ins and outs of gravity perfectly, but here goes.

Internal contradiction is what drives all things. This is true for gravity, as much as anything in the world. Gravity could then be analyzed in the framework of the contradictor forces within gravity. What would those forces be?

Well, Einstein's general relativity is probably the best place to start. I will outline the two contradictory forces below.

Again, I don't know a ton about the in's and out's of it, but the way I see it, there are two sets of contradictions at work in "gravity".

First, the contradiction of Mass and Spacetime Curvature. We have the force of attraction, where masses attract each other, but contradictory to that, we also have the resistance of compression, where the curvature of space resists this attraction.

Second, we have the contradiction of Inertia and Graviational Pull. Objects resist changes to their existing state of motion, but the force of attraction seeks to change the motion of objects

In the case of general relativity, I would say the first contradiction is the primary one, since that relationship is what defines the attraction between masses, and the resistances between each one. I would say the second contradiction is the secondary one, since it's still crucial for understanding how gravity works, but, it explains the result of gravitational attraction, rather than the fundamental cause of it.

In the case of the primary contradiction, I would say that the force of attraction is the primary aspect of the contradiction, over resistance to compression, since the attraction of mass to itself is the fundamental reason why spacetime is distorted in the first place. In the secondary contradiction, gravitational pull is of course, the primary aspect there.

Let me know what you think, and thank you.

Firstly, I will say I have read enough to understand that the the "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" stuff is nonsense peddled by Fichte, and isn't really relevant to Marxist studies (or even Hegel for that matter).

However, when I've discussed this very thing in various circles online, as an outspoken ML, there are some attitudes I've noticed that seem to indicate many "left coms" hold very different views and interpretations of dialectics and therefore dialectical materialism in comparison to MLs, and I'm very curious as to what this disagreement is?

Especially, what part of dialectics do they believe that MLs such as Stalin and Mao are misunderstanding or misconstruing? How does this tie into Marx and Hegel's proposition of the dialectic (idealism and materialism being the only obvious one with Hegel). I've been searching a bit lately and haven't been able to find anything incredibly solid in the literature, so I thought I would consult here.

Thanks!

I feel like i have a decent understanding of slavery in slave society like Roman times. I also feel like i understand mercantile/capitalist chattel slavery pretty well too. But, what did slavery look like under feudal times? Of course the socio-economic classes turned from slave/master to landlord/serf, but did slavery under feudalism look more like chattel slavery or roman slavery?

I am in higher level education in the public university system. I used to view academia as a source of hope in society, and perhaps a progressive institution in someways, or some kind of source of hope with their supposed focus on science and research. After some years here, this "image" I had of academia has been shattered.

What are your perceptions of academia and research institutions, as Marxists?