Intro
If one was to ponder dialectical materialism from the dialectical materialist perspective,
one would have to take into consideration the thousands of years of thought preceding its
conception. It is poignant to consider that the seminal works of dialectical materialism were
written after their authors had amassed an impeccable expertise in the knowledge and wisdoms
of their forebears. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that if we are to educate ourselves
on dialectics, we are to be similarly educated in the ideas that eventually synthesized and
culminated in the ultimate concept of dialectical materialism.
The history of philosophy is something that many have attempted to classify and define,
from Herodotus to Hegel; however, is something that is discretely unidentifiable. When we
consider the concept of philosophy in itself, we come to the conclusion that philosophy is
reasonably expressed best as a verb, or, “to philosophize”. The meaning of this can be gleaned
from the word’s Greek origin, with ‘Phil-’ meaning ‘to love’ and ‘-ophy’ referring to wisdom or
knowledge. This is where many people become familiar with the concept coined by Aristotle,
who stated that a philosopher is a lover of wisdom. To philosophize is to pay homage to wisdom,
to honor it by screaming its name from the hilltops to all who can hear – of course in a typically
much more civilized manner. Man has been philosophizing, or as we have now discovered,
proverbially making love to wisdom, since he took a second to question himself. ‘Why am I
here?’ pondered the caveman, ‘Who am I?’ he further wondered. These questions would be but
the seed of a most precious and pampered plant, the tree of wisdom, that would grow from
these nominal questions, which would receive nominal answers.
In apologetics, or the refutation thereof, we often hear the concept of a “God of the
gaps”, or the usage of the ideal of god to explain away something science and objective
knowledge has yet to illuminate. This is where the question of god and its relation to philosophy
builds itself at its core. Did man make god, or did god make man? These questions would be
sweated over, cried over, and even bled for, until what Marx describes as the true “end of
philosophy.”
“German criticism has, right up to its latest efforts, never quitted the realm of philosophy.
Far from examining its general philosophic premises, the whole body of its inquiries has actually
sprung from the soil of a definite philosophical system, that of Hegel.”
- Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1845)
It had seemed to Marx, that the action of philosophy had ceased, it had come to a
resounding end, “caput mortuum”, to use Marx’s latin flourish. We see this end of philosophy
crystalize itself in many ways throughout society, mostly in the way that Marx most prominently
outlines. All of the philosophy of Marx’s time, continuing full force up to ours, can be drawn as
simply either a critique or a vague alteration of Hegel. It was through Hegel that the young
Marx’s eyes were opened to a new kind of logic that had superseded the old – dialectical logic.
The conception of dialectical logic stemmed principally from the dialogues of ancient Greece,
such as the famous Last Days of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Phaedo, etc). It had come from
a long, storied lineage of thought, continuing long after Socrates had drank the fabled hemlock,
and Plato had passed on. This concept of the relation of opposites would come to a frank
conclusion in works such as St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica, an excellent example of the genre
of the “summa”. A summa is a work that compares two things, and then attempts to synthesize
an answer from the discussion thereof. This can be seen as an early framework for what Hegel
would fully realize. Hegel realized that things are almost always defined through what they are
not, instead of what they are. Hegel realized that things are in a constant state of motion,
something the roots of which we can observe in eastern philosophy very early in human history.
Hegel united what had until his time been polarities. Hegel’s interpolation applied to reality
would influence the sciences, philosophy and theology first, then being applied to the
conception of history via Marx and Engels.
We find ourselves now in the timeline of Marx and Engels, two great minds who would
see the world differently, combining the materialism of Feuerbach and the idealism of Hegel into
a great synthesis, now known as dialectical materialism. It is often said that Marx set Hegel
“upright” by applying materialism to dialectics, allowing for the first time for objectivity to shine
through the great overcast of speculation. It was here that Marx made his greatest thesis and
contribution to philosophy – the execution of it.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to
change it.” - Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach (1845)
What Are Dialectics?
To summarize dialectics in a most succinct manner, we would have to boil it down to 3
fundamental points that Engels writes specifically here:
“The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa; The law of the
interpenetration of opposites; The law of the negation of the negation.”
- Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature (1883)
Now, we must address them point by point, explaining them in simple terms.
Quantity Into Quality
Almost anyone who has taken a high school level biology class will be familiar with the
basic idea of the theory of Charles Darwin. In a very simplistic sense, Darwin wrote that over
time, positive mutations that occur in a species will become dominant within the population,
through the increased survivability of the affected organism, and the population will thus evolve.
We know this concept by the idea of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”. The same
principle essentially applies to dialectics, in the sense that through a large quantitative shift, the
quality of an object will eventually change.
“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the
world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up
all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at
the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” - Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1854)
This process can take hundreds, possibly thousands of years to complete. Starting on a
most basic level as organisms adapt to their environment. An example could be the creation of
an eye in nature, which starts out initially as a cluster of photosensitive cells, which eventually
adapt further and further to their conditions, solidifying with the creation of an eye. Where this
can be observed occurring in the natural world today would be in the iguana genus, which
possess a grouping of photosensitive cells on the tops of their heads, allowing them to detect
predators through fluctuations in the light where their normal eyes cannot see. Over time,
should the environment dictate it and the proper mutations occur, this has the possibility of
becoming a third eye, providing further evidence for the mountain that exists proving the
changes in quality that occur through quantity.
Negation of Negation
This law of dialectics is a bit more difficult to grapple with, as it provides much more
vague terms to start with. We can directly observe the interpenetration of opposites through
usage of historical materialism, where we can observe the contradiction in class society –
between bourgeois and proletariat. If one wants a more naturalistic explanation, we can draw
upon that of Hegel, specifically relating to a fruiting plant.
“The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the
former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be
explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in
place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as
being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature
makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not
contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of
all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole.” - Georg Hegel, Phenomenology of Mind (1807)
This quote is a beautiful, albeit complicated explanation of the concept of the
interpenetration of opposites. When two conflicting processes come together, the nominal being
the “thesis” (as addressed by Hegel) and the antagonizing being the “antithesis”, they
synthesize, creating a new object borne of its two predecessors. Hegel’s example of the fruit
can be further elaborated upon by discussion of the process of decay for the fruit, and what that
will mean for the intended purpose of the fruit.
The fruit of the tree will eventually weigh so heavy upon the branch that it at once snaps
off and loses its connection to the initial life force that sustained it. The fruit, now lifeless, will
potentially be picked up by a bird and eaten, the flesh of the fruit being processed by the bird’s
digestive system, while the seed of the fruit is disposed of, leading to a dispersal of the seed in
a new locale, thereby proliferating the genetics of that particular tree. As we notice from the very
beginning of this example, the contradiction between the weight and the branch is what caused
the fruit to fall, leading to either its decay or its consumption. Both of these forces are further
contradictions within nature as the fruit has contradicted its lifeforce, the tree, through its
separation from it, leading to a new stage in the existence of the fruit. Through all of these
interconnected things, the seed will eventually, if still viable, lead to the growth of a new tree,
thereby executing the process of nature and reproduction.
In a Marxist sense, one could view the negation of the negation as the contradiction
between socialist society and capitalist society, in which one, socialist society, supersedes the
other post-conflict, or after synthesis. The variables used in this instance are the proletariat and
bourgeoisie, accounting for both of their roles and interests within the class conflict.
Interpenetration of Opposites
The interpenetration of opposites is essentially a fancy way of saying that opposites
attract and are eventually united. As opposed to the more formal Aristotalian logic, which states
that contradiction is not inherent to all things, Hegel, and later Marx and Engels, use this
particular function of dialectics extensively in political economy, where we can observe
phenomena such as the falling rate of profit, a prime example of this particular facet. The falling
rate of profit essentially occurs when capitalist industry grows, amassing a greater number of
workers, thereby increasing exploitation, while a stagnation in the rate of surplus-value
extraction, or profit, simultaneously occurs. This occurs through the requirement of superfluous
innovation in the means of production, which is a natural aspect of market competition. When
the rate of profit falls, so does its opposite, that being wages, which are relatively measured
when compared to the prices of commodities.
“They stand in inverse proportion to each other. The share of (profit) increases in the
same proportion in which the share of labor (wages) falls, and vice versa. Profit rises in the
same degree in which wages fall; it falls in the same degree in which wages rise.”
- Karl Marx, Wage, Labor & Capital (1847)
An important aspect to remember, as reminded to us by Engels’ chapter on Negation of
Negation in Anti-Duhring, is that there is indeed a kernel of truth within all things. This is
important to the nature of dialectical materialism, which refuses to reject any philosophy, instead
acting as the culmination thereof.
The relationship between classes in capitalist society is, as we discussed, an example of
the relationship of the negation of the negation, and the unity of opposites, with the former being
the ultimate outcome of the latter. When we consider both the proletariat and bourgeoisie, they
stand as having objectively opposite class interests, with one seeking to exploit the other in both
cases. This is something that isn’t created by external conflict, but is already contained within
the inherent properties of both philosophical objects. The new socialist society can only be born
of the old capitalist society, such is historical materialism in its application to all ascribed stages,
from primitive communism to late stage communism. Neither of these two forces can act, or be
described within a vacuum, as they are atomistically composed of the same material of the
other, and are acted upon by forces both internal and external to the nature of the conflict.
Materialism
The materialism of Marx, while technically being most similar to the materialism of
Feuerbach, is realistically the culmination of materialist thought leading up to Feuerbach as well.
Since the epicurean atomists, mankind had been interpreting the world through a material lens
since before Christ walked the earth. Further foundations to the materialist way of things were
elaborated by Roman thinkers such as Leucretius, who, inspired by the ancient atomists,
proposed a thoroughly material universe. Marx critiques Feuerbach in his Theses on
Feuerbach, point 1, where he discusses how the materialism prior to himself required idealism
to essentially function (being yet another unity of opposites!), due to its mechanistic nature.
Mechanism in materialism is a trend that was first outlined by Marx, and later by Lenin, which
specifically views the world from a stagnated point of view, or one that is lacking all the “missing
pieces” that inherently exist within dialectics. To Marx, materialism couldn’t have existed without
the dialectic, and similarly, the dialectic could not exist without materialism.
“The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that
the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation,
but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to
materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not
know real, sensuous activity as such.”
- Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach (1845)
To break materialism down to its most basic components, we have to discuss the
primacy of materialism. This proverbial chicken and egg situation has existed in philosophy
since Thales of Miletus first proposed his version of a philosophical monism, essentially being
materialistic in nature, stating that the whole world was made out of water. As mentioned, this
trend was picked up again by Epicurus, after being neglected by many of the post-Socratic
philosophers. Epicurus essentially stated, whilst not denying the existence of a god, that gods
essentially neglect human beings, and that the world is made up of tiny particles, later qualified
by science to be atoms. This is where the term “atomist” originates from.
Now, materialism is not liking shiny things, or being prone to material vices. Materialism
is the belief and statement that material is primary, or the concept of “matter over mind”.
Materialism views the world from the perspective of an objective reality, as opposed to the
solipsistic mindsets of the prior cartesians and kantians. Materialism tells us that our senses,
and potentially now extra-sensory methods of analysis, are our best tools of looking at and
understanding the world around us, as opposed to relying upon other, non-material fields, such
as theology to answer this question of philosophy for us.
Marx and Engels were both men of science, men who kept up to date with the latest
scientific currents and studies of their time. An example of their willingness to accept scientific
principles as they manifested themselves would be in their application of darwinian evolution to
philosophy, as mentioned prior. Engels also wrote a previously cited manuscript, known as the
Dialectics of Nature, which was an attempt to broadly apply the dialectic as a natural
phenomena, and to explain how dialectical materialism was the greatest sublation of the
previously existing scientific method. Lenin would later further this in his text Materialism and
Empiro-Criticism, a defense against idealist currents that were becoming popular at the time,
namely empiricism.
Given half of the equation of dialectical materialism is materialism, how should one go
about proving materialism to be correct? Materialism can be proven through a process of
philosophical interpolation, in which we use deduction to discern whether ideas are prime or not.
“Let us take, for example, a bus that passes at the moment when we are crossing the
street. We are accompanied by an idealist with whom we are arguing about whether things have
an objective or a subjective reality, and whether it is true that our ideas create things. It is quite
certain that if we do not want to get run over, we will both be very careful. Thus, in practice, the
idealist is obliged to recognize the existence of the bus. For him, practically speaking, there is
no difference between an objective bus and a subjective bus. This is so true that practice easily
proves that, in life, idealists are materialists.” - Georges Politzer, Elementary Principles of Philosophy
As highlighted in the example, the natural state of assumption is that the world is
material and that it materially affects us. While materialism prevails in its interpretation of the
world, in both philosophy and the hard sciences, idealism flounders, eventually degenerating
into a hard solipsism, which is philosophically untenable at best.
Conclusion
Now that we have discussed both the dialectic and materialism, the concepts are to at
once be united in the harmony that we proposed at the beginning of the article. Dialectical
materialism is not just a philosophy unto itself, it is a method, one that supplants almost all other
methods of reasoning in its capability to discern the reality of the situation. From its application
in the class struggle, to our capability of understanding natural phenomena through it, its
application is theoretically boundless.
Maoism For The Masses 
Leave a comment