The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Dialectical materialism is a way of understanding reality; whether thoughts, emotions, or the material world. It is a scientific methodology developed from the principles of [[dialectics]] and [[materialism]], and is one of theoretical foundation of Marxism (the other two are the labour theory of value and the class struggle or more generally the theory of the state)<ref>Lenin, ''The three sources and three components of Marxism''. Read here : https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm</ref>. | |||
Although it was a method conceived by [[Marx]] and [[Engels]], the term ''dialectical materialism'' was never actually used by either, but appropriately summarizes their philosophical outlook. | |||
Although it was a method conceived by [[Marx]] and [[Engels]], the term ''dialectical materialism'' was never actually used by either, but appropriately summarizes their philosophical outlook | |||
== History == | == History == | ||
Line 28: | Line 10: | ||
The Ancient Greeks were but one example, and idealism still permeated their cultures. They theorized, for example, that since everything is made of matter, then the gods must live on Earth somewhere -- rather than completely dispelling the ideas of gods (which is idealism), they tried to fit them into their philosophy. | The Ancient Greeks were but one example, and idealism still permeated their cultures. They theorized, for example, that since everything is made of matter, then the gods must live on Earth somewhere -- rather than completely dispelling the ideas of gods (which is idealism), they tried to fit them into their philosophy. | ||
Starting around the Enlightenment (late 18th century Europe), science emerged as a field -- with its rules and methods -- mostly led by nobles who had the time and means to do scientific experiments. These nobles were the first materialists, so-called '' | Starting around the Enlightenment (late 18th century Europe), science emerged as a field -- with its rules and methods -- mostly led by nobles who had the time and means to do scientific experiments. These nobles were the first materialists, so-called ''metaphysical'' (physics on physics) as they did not yet possess the full knowledge necessary to understand dialectics, as they were just starting out on scientific experiments in a world still dominated by idealism and feudalism. | ||
Later on, philosopher [[Hegel]] used ''dialectics'' to describe the progress of ideas ( | Later on, philosopher [[Hegel]] used ''dialectics'' to describe the progress of ideas (thought) through contradiction, the process of its development toward a supreme and absolute spirit.<ref>'''V. Adoratsky'''. ''Dialectical materialism'' ''– the theoretical foundation of Marxism-Leninism'', pg. 22-23</ref> Hegel's fundamental question was: where do our ideas come from? How come this or that person had the idea to invent, say, the telephone? How come we didn't have the idea for it earlier? His answer was God, though in that case "God" is more of a concept that means "we may never know". | ||
[[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] were first inspired by Hegel's works and ideas, but later developed a better understanding of reality and its progress and development by applying the dialectical logic to material reality, observing the historical development of society. They put dialectic back ''right-side up,'' by divorcing it from its idealist roots and correctly associating it with materialism. To the question of ''where do our ideas come from?'' Dialectical materialists reply: from the brain, as the result of a chemical interaction. But moreover from our material conditions | [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] were first inspired by Hegel's works and ideas, but later developed a better understanding of reality and its progress and development by applying the dialectical logic to material reality, observing the historical development of society. They put dialectic back ''right-side up,'' by divorcing it from its idealist roots and correctly associating it with materialism. To the question of ''where do our ideas come from?'' Dialectical materialists reply: from the brain, as the result of a chemical interaction. But moreover, from our material conditions, the reality in which we live. Indeed, we know for example that the Ancient Greeks had experimented with steam machines. Yet they didn't use them for production, and steam only gained traction in the industrial revolution when we found out about its power output. Idealists would say that the idea already existed in the time of the Ancient Greeks, but the fact that they ''did not use steam technology'' (and it was limited to a couple experiments) shows us material conditions are more important than having the right idea. Essentially, the possibilities of steam did not fit into the Greek mode of production, whose societies by and large relied on slave labour. | ||
It would be | It would be reductive to say that dialectical materialism is ''only'' the logical progression of Hegelian dialectics. Dialectical materialism has its own rules, methods and roots that set it apart from Hegel's. It could not have existed meaningfully earlier in time, as the material conditions and the dialectic was not sufficiently advanced for these ideas to take hold. This is an entirely dialectical observation, and a good example of what material dialectics are. | ||
== Laws of dialectics == | == Laws of dialectics == | ||
Line 42: | Line 23: | ||
All change has a quantitative aspect, that is, an aspect of mere increase or decrease which does not alter the nature of that which changes. But quantitative change, increase or decrease, cannot go on indefinitely. At a certain point it always leads to a qualitative change; and at that critical point, the qualitative change takes place relatively suddenly. | All change has a quantitative aspect, that is, an aspect of mere increase or decrease which does not alter the nature of that which changes. But quantitative change, increase or decrease, cannot go on indefinitely. At a certain point it always leads to a qualitative change; and at that critical point, the qualitative change takes place relatively suddenly. | ||
A classical example of this is water. If water is being heated, it does not go on getting hotter and hotter indefinitely; at a certain critical temperature, it begins to turn into steam, undergoing a qualitative change from liquid to gas. Another example is a | A classical example of this is water. If water is being heated, it does not go on getting hotter and hotter indefinitely; at a certain critical temperature, it begins to turn into steam, undergoing a qualitative change from liquid to gas. Another example is a cord used to lift a weight, which may have a greater and greater load attached to it, but no cord can lift a load indefinitely great: at a certain point, the cord is bound to break. | ||
There is a very important component to take into account here, and that is the rule of autodynamism. Change in dialectics comes from internal forces; if change has happened through external forces, then it is not dialectics. For example if you put an apple into the juicer, then the solid apple has transformed into a liquid. While that is change, it is not internal change: you have applied mechanical force to the apple. | There is a very important component to take into account here, and that is the rule of autodynamism. Change in dialectics comes from internal forces; if change has happened through external forces, then it is not dialectics. For example if you put an apple into the juicer, then the solid apple has transformed into a liquid. While that is change, it is not internal change: you have applied mechanical force to the apple. | ||
Line 52: | Line 33: | ||
Examples include the contradiction between theory and praxis. Theory can only exist in relation to practice with the real world (praxis), and praxis cannot exist without practicing theory. Theory without practice leads to [[metaphysics]] and unreliable ideas; praxis without theory leads to vulgar [[empiricism]] and ineffective action and therefore, theory and praxis are in contradiction as they struggle to adjust to reflect each other. | Examples include the contradiction between theory and praxis. Theory can only exist in relation to practice with the real world (praxis), and praxis cannot exist without practicing theory. Theory without practice leads to [[metaphysics]] and unreliable ideas; praxis without theory leads to vulgar [[empiricism]] and ineffective action and therefore, theory and praxis are in contradiction as they struggle to adjust to reflect each other. | ||
=== Negation of the negation === | === Negation of the negation === | ||
=== Progress by leaps === | === Progress by leaps === | ||
Progress happens by leaps. It should be understood that progress does not mean being progressive, but merely that ''things change;'' that something that once existed does not anymore. Once a critical point is reached, then change happens meaningfully. We see for example that feudalism was not | Progress happens by leaps. It should be understood that progress does not mean being progressive, but merely that ''things change;'' that something that once existed does not anymore. Once a critical point is reached, then change happens meaningfully. We see for example that feudalism was not deposes by reforms in parliament or to the monarchy, but by revolution headed by bourgeois and capitalists. The same thing can be said about water: when heated, water does not gradually make more steam the more it's heated. It will start off not making any steam, and then once it reaches a certain point, steam starts. This means something can stay still for years (such as a communist party not making any progress), and then suddenly make progress (such as the communist party suddenly seeing a surge in new members as the contradictions of capitalism worsen). | ||
== Examples == | == Examples == | ||
=== An apple === | === An apple === | ||
An apple is not set in stone. It will not remain an apple forever. Before being an apple, the fruit was a flower, and before that a bud on a branch. As we can see, change has happened to the apple and will continue to happen. The apple will ripen, and later will fall off the tree and then start rotting, feeding more life. The ''process'' goes on forever even if, at some point, anyone looking at the apple will say "this isn't an apple anymore, it's just mush". The apple itself has stopped existing, but it was just one stage of an ongoing process and the process itself still exists. Incidentally, this is what metaphysical materialists don't understand. They will study the apple as it is an apple, not seeing the whole process. One branch of science will study the apple, and another will study the flower that later becomes the apple. | An apple is not set in stone. It will not remain an apple forever. Before being an apple, the fruit was a flower, and before that a bud on a branch. As we can see, change has happened to the apple and will continue to happen. The apple will ripen, and later will fall off the tree and then start rotting, feeding more life. The ''process'' goes on forever even if, at some point, anyone looking at the apple will say "this isn't an apple anymore, it's just mush". The apple itself has stopped existing, but it was just one stage of an ongoing process and the process itself still exists. Incidentally, this is what metaphysical materialists don't understand. They will study the apple as it is an apple, not seeing the whole process. One branch of science will study the apple, and another will study the flower that later becomes the apple. | ||
=== Class struggle === | === Class struggle === | ||
There is a very apparent contradiction in the class struggle. The bourgeoisie is fundamentally opposed to the proletariat -- as the former wants to extract more value from their employees, while the latter wants to retain more value from their employer. Yet one class cannot exist without the other: if the bourgeoisie did not have the proletariat to exploit, then they would change into another class over time. For a concrete example, we can look at the end of feudalism. The Bourgeoisie revolted against the old | There is a very apparent contradiction in the class struggle. The bourgeoisie is fundamentally opposed to the proletariat -- as the former wants to extract more value from their employees, while the latter wants to retain more value from their employer. Yet one class cannot exist without the other: if the bourgeoisie did not have the proletariat to exploit, then they would change into another class over time. For a concrete example, we can look at the end of feudalism. The Bourgeoisie revolted against the old régime of the nobles and feudal masters and eventually took power (such as in France). They did this because the feudal system was incompatible with their class, and effectively kept them on a tight leash. | ||
To exemplify another rule of dialectics, we also see that | |||
== References == | |||
<references /> | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
* [[Marxism]] | * [[Marxism]] | ||
* [[Marxism- | * [[Marxism-leninism]] | ||
== Further Reading == | == Further Reading == | ||
[ | [http://www.readmarxeveryday.org/epop/contents.html Elementary Principles of Philosophy] by Georges Politzer | ||