Dialectical materialism part 2 of 2: The Dialectic
- The Random Leftist
- Oct 20, 2019
- 4 min read
In the previous part of this series, we discussed the materialist half of Dialectical materialism. Today we will discuss the other key element of the Dialectical materialism the Dialectic.
A dialectic is a philosophical form of reasoning that has existed since the time of Ancient Greece and gained its popularity through being part of the philosophies of the likes of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. According to Aristotle, the dialect was invented by the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea, who himself lived from 495 BC to 430 BC. This makes the idea over two thousand years old. As to be expected, the ideology would go through countless alterations and changes. The version of the Dialectic, which influenced the philosophies of Karl Marx, was the one espoused by George Wilhelm Hegel. As a disclaimer, many of the ideas and views developed by Hegel are rather complicated and more than large enough to have a series of articles dedicated to them. So this part will involve a lot of oversimplifying.
In a dialectic, there are three stages of development. First, there is a thesis which is what is established. Second the antithesis, something that negates and contradicts the thesis. In others, something that opposes the establishment. Those two forces conflict with each other until a synthesis forms — a new establishment. However, there will always be some remnant of the previous thesis. Leading to the process to repeat as something arises to oppose the new establishment, thus leading to a repetition of the process.
Here is a historical example of the dialect. In 1917 Russia was fighting in the first world and under the Autocratic rule of the Tsar. This set up was the thesis. During this period, the populace of Russian increasingly opposed the Tsar’s control and continued involvement. Along with this, the Duma (Russia’s parliament) wished to have more influence in the government and applied to the masses promising to fulfill their demands. Tensions would increase until the people revolted, and the Tsar abdicated and concede power to the Duma. However, Russia remained involved in the war, and there was still a lot of inequality in the country. This caused a growth in support for the Bolsheviks, who promised to both leave the war and end inequality.
Along with this, some of the generals wished to restore the monarchy. All these tensioned boiled over in the Kornilov Putsch, where military commander-in-chief Lavr Kornilov attempted to over through the parliamentary government. However, instead of the synthesis being that Kornilov successfully overthrowing the government or the government stopped Kornilov. It ended in the government reluctantly conceding power to the Bolsheviks. So the thesis was the government fighting amongst itself, and the antithesis was the Bolsheviks trying to seize power. With the synthesis being that the Bolsheviks succeeded in their initial goal? However, after taking control, the Bolsheviks faced rebellion all over their country led by the generals who wished to restore the Tsar. Thus the process repeated. So, in other words, a thesis is a starting point or status quo, the antithesis is a mechanism of change, and the synthesis is the progress caused by the two colliding.
Now that we’ve provided the definitions of materialism and the Dialectic It’s time to talk about how Karl Marx merges the two ideas. The way Marx combined the concepts of the Dialectic with materialism was by stating that all things are the product of the material conditions that surround them and that the way those things progressed and evolved is through the dialectical process. This view is in stark contrast to Hegel’s view, for he was an idealist, while Marx was a materialist. So, where Hegel viewed the primary forces behind the process of the Dialectic being how individuals perceived the world around them, Marx thought the real force behind the dialectic process were the material conditions that surround individuals.
To quote Marx himself: “ My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea', he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.”
To conclude this series, here is a quote from Vladimir Lenin regarding Dialectical materialism: “ A development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis ("the negation of the negation"), a development, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; "breaks in continuity"; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; the interdependence and the closest and indissoluble connection between all aspects of any phenomenon (history constantly revealing ever new aspects), a connection that provides a uniform, and universal process of motion, one that follows definite laws – these are some of the features of dialectics as a doctrine of development that is richer than the conventional one.”
Citations:
Comments