Dialectics - the Dialectical Method

There are two-parts that make up the whole system of dialectical materialism. The first part is the theoretical basis of dialectical materialism, which is materialism. The second part is the method of reasoning of dialectical materialism, which is dialectics. We will expand on materialism shortly, but for now it is sufficient to say that Marxists are materialists as opposed to idealists.

Dialectics gets its name from the word dialogue — as in to have a reasoned argument or discussion with someone in order to hash out your differences, or contradictions. There are contradictions in everything and everyone. We do not hold that there is “pure” anything; we recognize that everything has its good and its bad. Dialecticians differ here from metaphysicians who do hold that there are things in the world that are above us and unknowable; a “higher power” than us, so to speak.

But let us hear from Stalin, who paints a much more vibrant picture of this:
“Today we are demanding a democratic republic. Can we say that a democratic republic is good in all respects, or bad in all respects? No we cannot! Why? Because a democratic republic is good only in one respect: when it destroys the feudal system; but it is bad in another respect: when it strengthens the bourgeois system. Hence we say, in so far as the democratic republic destroys the feudal system it is good — and we fight for it; but in so far as it strengthens the bourgeois system it is bad — and we fight against it.” (see J. Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism?)

Clearly, things are not black and white. Something can possess good and bad at the same time. Of course, this really does make great logical sense. Marx and Engels, more than anyone else, knew that capitalism possessed good qualities, that is to say qualities that strengthen the proletariat, to it just as it possessed the bad. Following the logic that the world is forever in motion and all things are constantly changing in several ways, and, therefore, understanding that capitalism rose inevitably out of the contradictions of feudalism that could not be reconciled, we must understand that the irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism are what give rise to the proletariat — the working class — and inevitably one day the socialist revolution. These are undoubtedly good things for the world and for the oppressed that occupy it, but no divine or higher power created the conditions or contradictions necessary for socialism to be exacted into a science, the science of Marxism. Therefore, the good of capitalism is that it creates, better than any other system, the conditions necessary for a socialist revolution. But capitalism, like any other mode of production, can only see its contradictions resolved through the process of revolution into socialism, and even then contradictions remain that must be reconciled. Socialist contradictions are reconciled through the transition into the higher stage of Communism.

Reforms like a higher minimum wage are good in that they ease the burden on working people and make life a bit less stressful, however, they are bad in that they blunt the revolutionary edge of the working class. We fight for reform, but more importantly we fight for revolution. We can see the beauty in reform, for we are not blind, but we see a true masterpiece in revolution, one fit for the Louvre.

To recap: the world, and all things in it, are constantly in a state of motion, or change, through the process of dialectics; dialectics is the method of growth, the method of evolution and revolution, the science through which contradictions, or differences, are resolved. Capitalism gave rise to the specific contradictions necessary to bring about a proletarian, Socialist revolution. These conditions being that capitalism creates the proletariat by turning peasants into either petty-bourgeois or proletarians, a good thing as it grows the strength of the working class, while simultaneously pushing for the absolute bare minimum for the workers in their lot in life, a terribly oppressive thing as it creates massive inequality and concentrates power, money, and influence into so few people that they could be counted on one hand. It follows from this that capitalism is not permanent, neither is Socialism, but they are merely epochs in time on the road to Communism.

Materialism vs Idealism

One of the great questions of philosophy that has been pondered over for over two millennia is: Materialism vs. Idealism. Idealists hold that the idea takes priority over the material. In plain English, idealists hold that the development of consciousness, or life, presupposed the development of nature and society.

On the other hand, materialists hold that the material and ideal are bound together and inseparable in the development of nature and society. Nature and society are two wholes that both feature the material and the ideal, and they both need both of them in order to develop.

The mechanical way of thinking of the idealists is really quite harmful. To hold that the material side of reality develops only after the ideal side is unscientific. That goes without saying that it’s been proven wrong. “Non-living” nature existed long before the living did on planet Earth. Consciousness developed out of the “rudiments of sensation,” (see J. Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism?) the initial stimuli. Consciousness has always been a process of evolution. If consciousness wasn’t a process of evolution then humans would not have evolved to the form of consciousness specific to human beings. If consciousness wasn’t a process of evolution then humans would not have evolved past bipedal movement into developing languages, cultures, societies, and nations.

Therefore, it is actually counterintuitive and an impediment to progress and the development of consciousness to regard the ideal as having taken priority over the material. Idealism borrows its logic from religion. “Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it does not exist!” True, there are plenty of things that undoubtedly “exist” that humans cannot see. Atoms are the smallest units of matter, of material. They exist because they make up everything that is made of matter, that takes up mass, but we cannot see an individual atom because it is too small. But no one, except a fool, would challenge the work of John Dalton and those that came after him and developed upon his atomic theory. In 1955 it was made possible through the invention of the field ion microscope for scientists to visualize the atom, but visualizing and seeing with the eye are not the same! But I hold that everything that has so-called existence, even that which cannot be seen, must be sensible in some other form; we must be able to smell, hear, taste, feel, or touch. We cannot see the atom, but we feel atoms all around us all day long. Everything we touch is made up of atoms, yet, what we are touching is a whole product of matter made up of several atoms rather than an individual atom. Do we need to be able to sense an individual atom for it to hold true that atoms can be sensed in general? Of course not! There is no need to separate the individual from the whole in order to sense the existence of something.

But let us relate this back to Socialism and what it means exactly. As Socialists, no matter how much it is spewed, we are not dogmatists nor are we static. We see and recognize that there are good and bad to all things — the good is that which is helpful to the working class, and indeed to all oppressed peoples, the bad is that which is harmful to them. It would be the biggest mistake a revolutionary could make to simply think that reading the theory and applying it word for word is enough to bring about revolution. No, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh, etc. all understood that Marxism is not a dogma, it is a science, and like any other science it must be adapted to the specific conditions of the time. There is a very fine line here between reformism and revolutionism. The best examples of this are Lenin and Stalin who applied the science of Marxism to their specific conditions, completely unique to Russia. We take the lessons of October and study them diligently, but we also must see that the conditions are vastly different. We must build a Socialism that has never been built before.

We are not reformists, we do not, nor will we ever, retreat to reforming capitalism, “humanizing” it. Revolution is the only solution to capitalism. But we must build a revolution and a Socialism that is fit to take on the greatest powers the world has ever seen. Do not think for a second that we can blindly apply the theory; everything we do must be specific to our circumstances and the present situation, whatever it may be. Don’t dwell on this. We are in the infancy of a movement seeking to make the world better for all; that is a cause worth fighting for and worth struggling for.

What we are getting at is the importance and necessity of not falling into dogmatism. It’s easy to point out the contradictions in other people and things, but not so easy to point the finger at oneself. Everyone and everything has contradictions that must be resolved. Our contradiction is that the theory makes everything so clear, so plain to the eye, but it breeds dogmatism. Our contradiction is so fascinating: leftists (Marxists, Anarchists, Socialists, Communists) all want to better the material conditions of the world by moving past capitalism, but we cannot agree on the most basic principles; we cannot form a coherent, strong, united left to collectively muster our forces and bring about the ultimate destruction of capitalism. This dogmatism, whether you see it or don’t, is incredibly harmful to us; it’s quite literally doing the work of the bourgeoisie for them.

Why? Why are we debating about Stalin who has been dead since 1953 — nearly forty years before the dissolution of the USSR? What good is that doing for the working class today? Why have we become such doctrinaires and when did we become so afraid of being doers? The past matters, history matters. We learn from it, we study it, we see the mistakes committed before us so as to not make them once more. We are not doing the work necessary to build a united left. Obviously, we are all so hardheaded as to put the interests of whatever ideology we subscribe to above the realities for working people. That needs to change now. I do not mean we need to abandon our principles, I would never suggest that, but we do need to build a united left in the face of a capitalist class that is incredibly united when it comes to keeping the working class in their cage and unleashing the forces of capitalism all over the world.

The future will be won by those who can put petty differences aside in the face of the strongest enemy the world has ever seen.

All glory to the revolution! All glory to the revolutionaries!

Comrade Drew