Article from November Issue of Socialism and Liberation Magazine

Fundamentals of Marxism
What is dialectical materialism?

By Shawn Garcia

Since the beginning of recorded history, people have been striving to answer essential questions about nature and human society.

In earlier times, almost all events in nature were attributed to divine beings or a godlike force. The existing social order that governed the relations between people was explained as part of the same natural order. Things were as the gods or god wanted them to be. While this message may have been beneficial for the ruling classes whose clergy preached that the division between the haves and have-not was god’s will, mystical, impalpable concepts don’t shed any scientific light on human existence or why things actually happen.

Marxism is the science of revolutionary social, economic and political change. As with any science, the theory behind it—the formulas and calculations used to form scientific conclusions—is important to understand. Dialectical materialism is the theoretical foundation of Marxism.

“For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher,” Fredrick Engels wrote in “The End of Classical German Philosophy.”

Dialectical materialism as a methodology is the combination of dialectics and materialism. It shows that changes in society are not necessarily linear, that history moves forward in fits and starts. Understanding this term necessitates an examination of its component parts.

What is materialism?

Materialism argues that the actual reality of the surrounding world determines the way people think and what they believe. In contrast to religious and other “idealist” philosophies, Marx’s materialist conception of history asserted that: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Karl Marx, Introduction to “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” 1859).

Historical materialism is the philosophical opposite of idealism. It is directly opposed to idealism, the notion that material reality is created by what people (or god) believe or perceive in their minds. Marx also asserted that in all class societies—at least until the time of the revolution—the dominant ideas are the ideas of its ruling class. Racism, sexism, homophobia and national chauvinism are the ideas that the masses of people assimilate from the ruling class, which benefits from the promotion of those ideas.

We’ve all heard the basic idealist argument: society won’t change until people’s ideas change. On that line of thinking, activists need to do only educational work or teach in schools.

Materialism shows that the process of humanity’s social development is tied directly with the development of production and technology. Production is the expression of humanity’s ongoing relationship with the world. It is a manifestation of the never-ending battle for survival. Every living organism struggles to survive and thrive, whether simply defying cold weather, eluding predators, searching for food or working in a factory.

Of course, not everyone’s material reality is the same. For the working class, the struggle for basic needs occupies a greater part of life. For the capitalist class of owners, material reality consists of luxury gained by virtue of their social position within the exploitative capitalist economy.

This material reality, according to the materialist worldview, determines how people think about the world.

Materialists would reply to those activists who want to change people’s ideas: yes, we want to change people’s ideas. But the only way to do that is to change the material conditions—the way society is organized. In the process of engaging in revolutionary struggle, and eventually in building a new society, people’s ideas definitely will change.

The laws of change

Dialectical thought is merely the reflection of objective dialectics: laws governing the development of nature, the laws of uninterrupted change or, as Darwin discovered, the laws of evolution. According to this view, change occurs in the struggle between opposites. Nothing exists without opposition. When opposites confront each other, changes occur.

A central law in dialectics is the transformation of “quantity into quality”—that a change of the amount (quantity) will eventually bring about a material change in the whole make-up of something (quality).

One of the most practical examples of the transformation from quantity into quality can be seen in nature with water. A change in the temperature of water is a change in quantity. If the temperature gets colder, but still above freezing, the water stays in liquid form. As the temperature continues to drop, the water eventually will freeze. At that point, the water has changed to ice—from liquid to a solid state. The cause of the change is the drop in temperature; the change from liquid to solid is a qualitative change. In the other direction, when water heats and boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit it passes through a qualitative alteration and becomes steam.

In society, social change occurs in the conflict between opposing classes—in capitalist society, between the working class and the capitalist class. The conflict breaks out on a day-to-day basis—protests, strikes, pickets, etc. But when these protests come together in a united political movement against the capitalist class, a quantity of struggles can change to a qualitative change—a revolution.

The analysis incorporated in dialectics, combined with materialism, is the basis for the Marxist view of the world.

Dialectical materialism: a science of revolutionary change

Marxism is a living science, made of both theory and practice. Its theoretical underpinnings can be applied not only to history, but to current events to show Marxism’s continuing validity and relevance as a way of analyzing the world.

Both liberals and conservatives argue that people have to work within the capitalist system to try to salvage it. They don’t want people to destroy the system and make something new. Religion similarly argues that people are powerless to effect change because of divine power. But dialectical materialism shows that both notions are false.

Marxists understand that the material conditions in the United States, as elsewhere, shape political consciousness. And yet political consciousness is not mechanically and statically determined. As the contradictions in capitalist society grow quantitatively, large numbers of people are compelled to fight back. The catastrophic war in Iraq and the “natural” catastrophes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for instance, compel people to go into the streets and struggle for change. When this happens, revolutionary organizations can help shape a new consciousness that breaks with the rotten, racist and corrupt ideology of the capitalists.

We strive to point out that it is material contradictions that exist under capitalism that lead to the dialectical resolution of these contradictions. The capitalists themselves create the conditions necessary for the socialist revolution that will bring about better social conditions for people here and all over the world.

I have discussed that wretched intellectual fraud known as "dialectics" at interminable length...and hope very much that I may avoid it unless some new arguments are offered on its behalf.

This seems unlikely. Among Leninists, "dialectics" has the approximate status of transubstantiation...a "miracle beyond human understanding".

Particularly irritating are the clumsy efforts of the "dialecticians" to cloak themselves in shreds and tatters of "scientific" costuming. They are, in fact, no more "scientific" than astrologers!

If you wish to plunge into the muck and see for yourself, here are the links...

On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts

Disputing Dialectics

Dizzy with "Dialectics"

"Dialectical" Drivel

Here are some more good links:

A Few Words On Dialectics. Two Revolutions Lenin

The ABC of Materialist Dialectics Trotsky

On Dialectics Engels

Dialectics of Nature Engels

Dialectics Engels

Dialectical and Historical Materialism Stalin

Dialectics of Abstract & Concrete in Marx’s Capital Ilyenkov

Dialectical Logic Ilyenkov

Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism Ilyenkov

The manner in which dialectics have been used has been without doubt abusive and offensive. The notion that a human being with the merest trickle of historical understanding has the authority to make serious and wild conjecture about the future is one of the most harmful to social science.

Yet without dialectical logic on what does Marxism stand? In any class society we see a relatioship that is inconsistant and inadequate. Each element depends on the other for definition, is unified and yet is in opposition (we cannot understand dark without light, nor can we conceive of a working class without the bourgeoisie). It is the realisation, the consciousness of the inconsistancy in a social relatioship that causes its resestablishment. It is the process of becoming that makes this real. If one is to deny these tenets, how is a Marxist approach to proceed? If there is no inherent, moving inconsistancy, how does the Marxist not only explain historical change, but also posit the existence of a material absolute, in which antagonism is eliminated?

Empirical observation of material reality, of course. That's what the word science means!

Typical "dialectical" mysticism. We observe the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie based on their conflicting material interests.

We can see that no compromise in the long run is possible.

Historical change is based fundamentally on changes in the means of production...and those changes result from the fact that humans are inherently innovative in their "struggle with nature" to make a living.

Changes in the means of production change consciousness. Our "mental picture" of "what is possible" in the real world changes as our understanding of the real world grows more accurate.

To inject "dialectics" into this process simply generates endless confusion...and temporarily pumps up the reputation of intellectual con-men like Hegel and his contemporary heirs.

Marx and Engels did not realize that their best insights into human history did not need "dialectics"...it was an accidental "fifth-wheel" resulting from Marx's German education at a time when Hegel enjoyed far more intellectual esteem than he deserved.

Surely we have now advanced far enough to scrape away from Marxism the irrelevant encrustations of 19th century romanticist philosophy.

Hegel himself was a reactionary windbag...and his methodology shows it.

This book, available online for free, is probably the best case for dialectical materialism out there.

Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science

There is a difference between philosophy in the process of reasoning itself, and the old roles philosophy used to fulfill, which have been replaced by science.

The attempt to pretend that there is no philosophy in science has left us with a mess. Again, the big bang, gradualist evolution, space-time singularities, the big crunch, the copenhagen interpretation, all are examples of what happens when a rational approach to the process of reasoning is ignored.

Philosophical empiricism and formal logic have their roles, but often cannot be relied upon when we venture beyond the abstract perfect models. Reality is contradictory by nature, and this contradiction is an essential feature of change, rather than an exception to the perfect models many think describe reality.

I too have noticed the massivly uneessecary hard-on all the communists have for dialectial materialism.

Actually i should say the word itself. I see it as basically an overpumped version of the scientific method.

It's interesting and may even be significant that this thread was moved to the Philosophy forum.

Properly speaking, it's really where it belongs...for what is "dialectics" but a footnote to the history of philosophy?

Those who wish to argue over the merits of this footnote -- and perhaps even elevate it to the main body of the text -- are free to do so here without bothering people who have more important things to concern themselves with.

Enjoy!

I think redstar is pissed off at the fact that he couldn't understand/grasp what dialectics really is.

Being the defeatist that he is he just threw it all away.

Either way, despite his convincing argument, debate is not worth it.

I moved it here because dialectical materialism is a philosophy, not a political theory

I would be interested in what response you would have to the book I linked however, which makes an argument for a conscious, materialist philosophy in our approach to the world, particularly science.

Exactly how do these things represent a "problem" for science? As far as I know, work is proceeding on these things using conventional logic.

And what has dialectics to offer that conventional logic can't?

Philosophical empiricism and formal logic have formed part of the backbone of science for the past 300 years. That computer you're using is a product of science, not dialectics. I think science is way ahead of dialectics in the sense of actually achieving something worthwhile and not simply providing a voluminous supply of hot air for obfuscationists.

According to Redstar, Marxism is merely:

Marxism is not merely an empirical science - it is a theory to change the world. Marxists do not study society while detached from society - Marxists intervene in society. As Marx writes in the Thesis on Fuerbach, in his criticism of the materialism of his time, men must prove the truth. Theory and practice are bound together in dialectical unity. If we believe that Marxism is the truth, then we Marxists must prove the truth. This is the true scientific method: science that is not proved through practical experimentation and intervention is merely speculation. Marxism without social intervention can only be a mere academic hobby, a fancy, a leisure pursuit.

And what do you think science does if not change the world? have you been living in a cave the past three centuries?

Exactly.

Every one of those is the result of an idealist approach to the world. Not a single one is a rational development in science. Singularities posit that time and space simply "don't exist" in certain areas of the universe, that in these areas in fact, all laws of science and reason cease to exist.

What is this based on? Nothing. Mathematical models and speculation. It is not established by observation or experiment, but rather the few observations done surrounding it (which almost entirely contradict this idea) are forced into the preconceived mathematical model. If reality disproves your perfect model, move the goalposts and say "oh, then this must mean there's something we haven't taken into account". Rather than saying "oh, then this must mean the mathematical model is flawed".

The big bang and the big crunch come out of the same metaphysical method, it is simply an attempt to sneak back the creation and armagaddon. Matter is not "created out of nothing". Neither is energy, particularly not the massive amount required for this explosion. Hence, rather than dump this theory, these metaphysicians decide there must be "cold dark matter" in the universe, aka, matter that cannot be seen, felt, measured, or proven in anyway. It just conveniently accounts for the 90% of matter that is missing to make their calculations correct. Asked what proves it, they answer the big bang. Asked what proves the big bang, they answer cold dark matter.

Gradualist evolution is a load of crock. It is the perfect example of formal logic. Darwin's mistake lay in this same method. He took a look at the fossil record, and noting that it did not support a purely gradual evolution, concluded that the record was incomplete. Well, the reality is that gradualist evolution just doesn't stand up to evidence. Life began with a bang, not a slow growth, new species were often formed with bangs, with periods of catastrophic extinctions intertwining with explosions of new life. The evidence points to punctuated equilibrea. Things gradually build up until they reach a breaking point, and then tumble into a new equilibrium on a higher level. Evolution leads to revolution, which leads to a new stage of evolution. That is dialectics.

The copenhagen interpretation is the worst of the lot, it basically argues that the indeterminancy theory means that causality itself is called into question. That any "appearance" of causality is simply a convenient lie. It is basically solipsism with a scientific degree. I can only know that I exist and all that crap. Idealism has invaded science because science refuses to adopt a consciously materialist philosophy. Hence, science begins to reflect the decay in capitalist society, and all the intellectual filth floating about in it.

Conventional logic can't deal with change or contradiction. Conventional logic is useful, but has limits. Once you begin to deal with complex phenomena, conventional logic breaks down. The best minds amongst chaos theorists credit the dialectical method that was taught in the USSR for the soviet advancements in chaos and complexity theory. The USSR began work on those fields 10 to 20 years before any work was being done in the west.

Despite the shitty way it was taught under the bureaucrats, scientists still made great advances based on that philosophy.

Dialectical materialism as a philosophy looks at things as processes, rather than individual components. It takes a complete look at the subject, rather than looking at it as a perfect snap shot in time. To understand the development of language, society, consciousness amongst humans, you can't just look at linguistics, sociology, and psychology. You have to look at history, anthropology, biology. It is only that approach that brings us to the logical conclusion, that labour led to consciousness, cooperation (society), language, etc...

Formal logic is also based on the law of identity, which again, cannot accept change. A is not always A in the world of particle physics. Things aren't just either random or determined. They can be both. Looking at all the particles in a cloud of gas, you cannot predict with any accuracy the location of any of the specific particles. They can be described as being random. But look at the generality, the cloud itself, and you find you can predict with a significant degree of accuracy its location and movement. Formal logic cannot deal with this idea of deterministic chaos. Deterministic chaos, and the tendency of matter to self-organize out of chaos into ever more complex arrangements (a very clear tendency), is where life comes from. If formal logic cannot deal with life properly, it clearly has failure points.

Formal logic takes its axioms as universally true, and apriori true. In otherwords, it defies its own laws when it comes to those very laws. The axioms and catagories of formal logic are meant to be independent of material reality, the idea comes first. This is the fundamental flaw of formal logic, as a useful philosophy draws its categories from the real world.

This is a false dichotomy. Science is not in competition with dialectics. Dialectics is a philosophy. It is a method of reasoning and interpretation. Formal logic simply fails when it comes to complex processes. It is mechanistic, and a relic of the past. It has now clearly begun to lead to absolutely false conclusions. It is also as a result of formal logic that the sciences have become so artificially divided, though chaos and complexity have shown a potential rebellion against that formalistic approach.

In this very response, you seem to be denying that philosophy plays a role in science, and yet you confirm it by referring to formal logic. It seems you are equating the two, and that's quite unfortunate, as well as ignorant. Science is not formal logic, formal logic is not science. Formal logic is a method of interpretation used in science, as is dialectical materialism in many of the examples I have shown. This confusion is caused by the problem I mentioned earlier, scientists have so attempted to distance themselves from philosophy that they have simply absorbed the philosophy of the day as opposed to having a conscious and developed materialist philosophy. Without such a conscious philosophy, it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate between what you arrive at through science, and your approach to those results and to the research itself, which is heavily influenced by your philosophy.

Good grief, you dialecticians sure know how to fill up pages.

If you mean quantum singularities, then their existance has not yet been confirmed.

Mathematical models are inherently flawed and any mathematician worth their salt knows that and takes it into account.

This is a misrepresentation of Big Bang theory and Dark Matter. How can you possibly claim that Big Bang theory and the as yet undetermined fate of the universe are attempts to sneak Christian theology through the back door? Haven't you heard of a little thing called Intelligent Design?
Matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed post Big Bang, this is true. However, conditions before the Big Bang could well have been very different.
Dark Matter is an explanation for the anomalous rotation rates of galaxies - Dark matter can be measured because it still has mass.
It is merely a possible explanation for some discrepencies and not a vital underpinning of Big Bang theory.
What proves the Big Bang is not cold dark matter but universal expansion confirmed by astronomical observations.

And how did scientists reach this explaination of punctuated equilibrium? Using normal science, of course. If you wanted to prove that evolution is "dialectical" then what exactly is the point if normal science describes it adequately enough?

So much bluster, so little substance. Once you care to point out the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation then I will be listening.
Also, take note that such things only apply on the quantum level and only have philosophical ramifications if you happen to be smaller than an electron.

I wonder if those chaos theorists do any mathematics? You see, mathematics is pretty much pure distilled logic.

And chaos theory has produced what exactly?

Normal logic can do the same. Just strip away all the occlusive dialectical bullshit and voila! there you have it!

Again, all I see is conventional logic with the label "dialectics" slapped onto it.

Science knows that the real world is not always rigid and unyielding. This should be obvious.

What can dialectics possibly add to this?:

You haven't actually shown that this is so. Science as used in a non-dialectical way deals fine with complex processes. There is no deep philosophical crisis in science as far as I can see, science is doing just fine without dialectical mysticism.

It seems my prediction was true. Dialectics is a load of hot air!

The work at http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp uses modern science to confirm dialectics. Your anti-dialectical claims are baseless, and they more than likely come from not understanding what dialectics is.

But it isn't. This becomes clear if you look at any of the massive mistakes that are being made today.

Quote:

What can dialectics possibly add to this?: Quote: The scientific method

Nothing, you are once again ignorantly equating science with its philosophy. The scientific method is fine, but defining the question, gathering information and forming a hypothesis, as well as interpretation are all influenced by philosophy.

The question is, do we want an idealist philosophy which attempts to eliminate contradictions and dismisses them as "outliers", or one that sees those contradictions as an essential part of the whole, and looks at what role they play in that process?

Once again, you are either ignorant, or purposefuly attacking strawmen. It's convenient for you of course to frame it as "science vs. dialectics", but it's an immature approach. Once again, formal logic applied to science led to gradualist evolution. It has now been proven that in fact, the process was dialectical, and Gould himself credits Engels for having known that so long ago.

I have shown you many examples of why science needs a consciously materialist, as well as dialectical philosophy. I have shown you the errors that have been made as a result of not having one. I have shown you the results of an environment where there was one. The only thing I can conclude is that you aren't interested in anything but proving how "post-hegelian" you are.

Read the link I provided, it doesn't leave room for your deliberate misrepresentations.

I did, the copenhagen interpretation seeks to deny the existance of causality, as well as that of an objective universe, based on the "indeterminancy" theory.

A good article on the copenhagen superstition crap is here:

http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-c...hagen130705.htm

And I didn't address chaos above, I don't think. Yes, chaos theorists use math, but it is the kind of math where the square root of negative one and infinite numbers are absolutely necessary for common operations. Not very beautiful math, very contradictory math in fact. This is happening across the board in mathematics, the beautiful, abstract shapes of geometry are being torn down by the developments in topology.

But that's not the point, this is not a debate over whether or not to use math. It's about how to use it, same as how to use science. Chaos begins with an understanding of contradiction. Order and disorder interweave in nature, and that is the basis of the new chaos science.

Possibly true...everyone who professes to support "dialectics" always claims that it has some mysterious "inner truth" that escapes the grasp of mere mortals like myself.

Unfortunately, their claimed "mastery" of this "inner truth" doesn't seem to help them much in the real world.

On the contrary, they "blunder along" just like the rest of us...seeking truth about objective reality through empirical investigation.

Unless, of course, they choose to regard the real world as irrelevant to their philosophical priorities. It's an "occupational hazard" when one begins to take theological questions seriously.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanguard1917@ Marxism is not merely an empirical science - it is a theory to change the world.

Of course it is...but so is the entire scientific project.

Scientists may not be aware of this in the course of their own labors. But real science does change the world.

When you understand how "nature" works, then it becomes possible to change it to suit human preferences.

And make no mistake about it, human societies are just as much a part of nature as atoms or galaxies.

We've had close to a century for all the Leninist "masters of the dialectic" to show us what their "better way of thinking" can produce in the way of real change.

Results: 0.0000

Meanwhile, look at what science has achieved over the same period of time. Consider how human life has changed since 1917.

Quote:

Che y Marijuana

Except, of course, that it does so in the real world every minute of every day.

Your dissatisfaction with many of the "standard models" that are widely accepted by contemporary scientists may, someday, be justified by further developments.

But those new models in science will necessarily involve large amounts of empirical research...a project in which "dialectics" will play no role at all.

The people who, for example, actually figure out "why the big bang theory is wrong" will have never heard of "dialectics". Instead, they will point to problems with the mathematical models that "big bang" proponents can't "fix". They will discover observable phenomena that make it impossible for any version of "big bang" theory to be true.

To be sure, much of "cutting edge" science these days consists of mathematical speculation. Why are scientists predisposed to favor such "speculations"?

It has nothing to do with philosophical idealism. Quite the contrary!

The history of science contains a remarkable number of examples where such "speculations" turned out to be true as soon as our instruments had developed enough to test those "speculations" against the real world.

The math said "something should exist" even though there was no empirical evidence to support that particular something's existence.

Once we knew "where to look" and had some hypothetical idea of "what to look for" and, most of all, the instruments that might actually find it, then...we found it!

Right where the mathematical "speculation" said it would be!

It's kind of ironic, when you stop and think about it. All the alleged powers to comprehend reality that the supporters of "dialectics" claim...well, those "powers" do exist.

In the realm of mathematics!

Both "dialectics" and mathematics can be used to make predictions about the future behavior of real world phenomena.

The "dialecticians" (after Marx and Engels) have all been spectacular failures.

The "math geeks"...well, they've posted some rather impressive successes.

Indeed, I think there's a strong probability that the "next Marx" will be a "math geek".

He or possibly she will "re-cast" Marxist theory in rigorous mathematical terms based on equally rigorous empirical data.

And perhaps by then we will have heard the last of all "dialectical" babbling.

At least we can hope so!