Dialectical Materialism : Understanding The Laws of Dialectics

The Laws of Dialectics: Understanding Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism, developed by Marx, provides abstract laws for explaining natural and social change. It is opposed to Hegelian dialectics and emphasizes the interconnectedness and interrelation of things in nature. Dialectical materialism recognizes that everything is in a constant state of transformation and that change occurs through revolutionary shifts rather than gradual progression. Friedrich Engels outlined three major laws of dialectical materialism: the Law of the Unity and Conflict of Opposites, the Law of Negation of the Negation, and the Law of Transition of Quantity into Quality.

The Law of the Unity and Conflict of Opposites

This law reveals that objects and phenomena in the material world have internal sides, tendencies, and forces that are mutually exclusive but also dependent on each other. The unity of opposites arises from the inseparable interconnections of these contradictory elements. However, these opposites cannot coexist peacefully, and their conflicting nature leads to struggle and change. The conflict between old and new, emergent and obsolete, gives rise to new situations, objects, phenomena, or stages of development. This conflict is the main source of development and change in matter and consciousness.

The Law of Negation of the Negation

The notion of negation was introduced by Hegel, but Marx provided a materialistic interpretation. Negation is an integral part of the development of reality itself. It occurs as a result of the object’s or phenomenon’s internal contradictions. Objects and phenomena develop based on their own inherent contradictions, creating the conditions for their own destruction and the emergence of new, higher qualities. Social development, for example, consists of a chain of negations of the old social order by the new. Each new stage negates the previous one while incorporating certain elements or aspects from it.

The Law of Transition of Quantity into Quality

This law explains that change in nature is not gradual but occurs through quantitative advances that lead to qualitative changes when mature conditions are present. Qualitative changes represent the birth or disappearance of something, while quantitative changes involve rearrangements or variations of different aspects while maintaining the object’s identity. Continuous quantitative changes reach a limit determined by the nature of the process, beyond which a leap or qualitative change inevitably occurs. These qualitative changes are from lower to higher, simpler to complex, and homogeneous to heterogeneous levels of reality.

These laws can be applied to various aspects of life and development. For instance, the Indian national movement for freedom underwent continuous quantitative changes over a century until it reached its limit, resulting in the qualitative change of independence from colonialism. Similarly, the process of aging in human beings involves continuous quantitative changes until it reaches the limit prescribed by nature, leading to the qualitative change of death. The birth of an infant is another example, with continuous quantitative changes during gestation until the qualitative change of birth occurs.

Application of the Laws of Dialectical Materialism

The laws of dialectical materialism, which hold good for nature, the world, and society, can also be applied to the history of society in the form of historical materialism. According to Marx, human society has gone through four major modes of production: Asiatic, Ancient, Feudal, and Capitalist. These successive forms of society are predicted to eventually reach the stage of communism. In this section, we will explore how the laws of dialectical materialism are applied to understand the successive forms and modes of production and the resulting social change.

Primitive-Communal Form of Society

The primitive-communal form of society was the first, simplest, and lowest form of mode of production. During this period, there were quantitative changes in terms of the laws of dialectical materialism, such as the appearance of improved and new implements and the development of skills. The relations of production were based on cooperation and mutual help due to communal ownership of the means of production. However, as productivity grew, the communal structure started breaking into families, leading to the emergence of private property and the transition into the ancient mode of production. This transition was a qualitative change resulting from the contradiction between communal relations of production and the potential forms of exploiting classes.

Slave-Owning Society

In slave-owning society, the primitive equality gave way to social inequality and the emergence of slave-owning classes and slaves. The forces of production underwent further quantitative changes. The relations of production were based on the slave-owner’s absolute ownership of both the means of production and the slaves themselves and their produce. However, the contradictions between slave-owners and slaves led to a qualitative change, the negation of slave-owning society, and the transition into feudal society. The conflict of opposites, the slave-owners and slaves, culminated in violent slave revolts, ultimately effecting the negation.

Feudal Society

Feudal society marked a qualitatively fundamental difference in the relations of production compared to the previous slave-owning society. The forces of production saw rapid quantitative changes, with the tapping of inanimate sources of energy such as water and wind. The feudal lords oppressed and exploited their serfs, but towns began to emerge, and trade, commerce, and manufacture flourished. The conflict of opposites within the feudal system, particularly between landless serfs and feudal lords, reached its maturity. This led to the decline of the feudal system and its negation by the capitalist system.

Capitalist Society

Based on private capitalist ownership, the capitalist relations of production facilitated tremendous growth of the productive forces. However, the contradiction between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation became significant. Many millions of workers were concentrated at large plants and took part in social production, while the fruits of their labor were appropriated by a small group of owners. This contradiction gave rise to economic crises and unemployment and caused fierce class battles between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The working class’s struggle would eventually lead to a socialist revolution, which would abolish capitalist production relations and usher in the communist socio-economic formation.

Communism

The communist socio-economic formation, which goes through the phases of socialism and communism, does away with private ownership of the means of production and establishes public ownership. In socialism, the proletariat jointly owns the means of production and distributes the produce according to the needs of the people. This stage is characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Eventually, the state apparatus will be abolished, leading to a stateless society in communism. Under communism, there will still be contradictions, such as the contradiction between human beings and nature, but the level of technology will be higher, and nature will be exploited more efficiently.

The application of the laws of dialectical materialism to the history of society allows for an understanding of the successive forms and modes of production and the resulting social change. From the primitive-communal form of society to the capitalist society and eventually communism, these laws help explain the contradictions, conflicts, and negations that have shaped human society. While contradictions will remain in communism, the goal is to create a social system that is free from contradictions within classes.

Marx and Engels’ Scheme of History: Phases of Revolution

Marx and Engels believed that historical change is driven by conflicts between old institutions and new productive forces. They outlined their scheme of history, stating that there is a succession of historical phases based on modes of production. Transition from one phase to the next is seen as a state of revolution. They later studied the English, French, and American revolutions, naming them bourgeois revolutions. This hypothesis has provided a perspective to understand social changes in Europe and America.

Communism as a Vision for the Future

Marx viewed communism as a sequel to capitalism, where all class divisions would be eliminated and a fresh start with moral and social transformation could occur. However, this vision has not come true, and communism has not had a global influence. Despite this, Marx’s ideas have influenced the growth of capitalism, which is now incorporating socialist ideas and acquiring a more human face.

Marx’s Concept of Socialist Revolution

Marx explained bourgeois revolution as the defeat of the aristocracy at the end of a long period of capitalist growth. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie is just the first phase of the revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism. In the socialistic phase of revolution, there would still be classes, occupational division of labor, and a market economy. It is only in the higher phase of revolution, communism, that goods would be distributed according to each person’s needs.

Intensification of Class Antagonism in Capitalism

Marx believed that class antagonism in capitalism would intensify because the new forces of production do not align with the relations of production. The bourgeoisie would benefit greatly from mass production, while the proletariat would continue to suffer from poverty and misery. This growing inequality would lead to heightened class consciousness and the maturation of conditions for socialist revolution.

The Qualitative Difference in the Transition to Socialism

Marx believed that the transition from capitalism to socialism would be a qualitative difference in the mode of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned and controlled by a small group of capitalists, while the majority of the population, the proletariat, must sell their labor power to survive. In socialism, the means of production would be collectively owned and controlled by the working class, and the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their work” would be implemented.

This transition would involve a radical transformation of the economic, political, and social systems. The capitalist class would be overthrown, and the working class would establish its own political power, leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship would be a transitional stage where the working class uses its political power to suppress the remnants of the old capitalist class and establish the conditions for the eventual withering away of the state and the establishment of communism.

The Role of Class Struggle in the Transition

Marx believed that class struggle is the driving force behind historical change, and the transition to socialism would be no exception. The working class, as the most revolutionary and oppressed class under capitalism, would lead the struggle for socialism. Through organized class struggle, including strikes, protests, and eventually revolution, the working class would overthrow the capitalist class and seize control of the means of production.

However, Marx also recognized that the ruling class would not relinquish their power without a fight. The bourgeoisie would use all means at their disposal, including repression, propaganda, and counter-revolutionary violence, to maintain their dominance. The transition to socialism would therefore be a period of intense class struggle, with the working class fighting to defend and advance their interests against the resistance of the capitalist class.

The Role of the Proletariat in Socialist Construction

Once the working class has seized political power and established the dictatorship of the proletariat, they would then begin the process of socialist construction. This would involve the reorganization of society along socialist principles, including the collective ownership of the means of production, the planned allocation of resources, and the abolition of exploitation and inequality.

The working class, as the majority and the most revolutionary class, would play a central role in this process. They would be responsible for the management and administration of the economy, the implementation of socialist policies, and the transformation of social relations. Through their collective efforts, the working class would build a new society based on solidarity, cooperation, and equality.

The Withering Away of the State and the Establishment of Communism

As socialist construction progresses and the material conditions for communism are established, Marx believed that the state would gradually wither away. The state, which is a product of class society and exists to enforce the interests of the ruling class, would no longer be necessary in a classless society.

With the abolition of class distinctions and the establishment of a society based on the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs,” the need for a state to mediate conflicts and enforce social order would disappear. Instead, society would be governed by the principle of self-governance and voluntary cooperation.

This stateless society, known as communism, would be characterized by the free development of each individual, the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, and the fulfillment of human needs and desires. It would represent the highest stage of human social development, where the full potential of humanity can be realized.

Critiques and Interpretations of Marx’s Theory

Marx’s theory of socialist revolution and the transition to communism has been the subject of much debate and interpretation. Critics argue that Marx’s predictions of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and the establishment of socialism have not come to pass. They point to the continued existence of capitalism and the failure of socialist experiments in the 20th century as evidence of the limitations of Marx’s theory.

Others argue that Marx’s theory is still relevant and provides a valuable framework for understanding and analyzing capitalist society. They argue that Marx’s predictions were not meant to be deterministic or set in stone, but rather as a guide for understanding the underlying contradictions and dynamics of capitalism. They point to the ongoing class struggle and the growing discontent with capitalism as evidence that Marx’s ideas are still relevant today.

Ultimately, the interpretation and application of Marx’s theory of socialist revolution and the transition to communism continue to be subjects of debate and discussion. While Marx’s predictions may not have been realized in the exact form he envisioned, his ideas have had a profound impact on the development of socialist and communist movements and continue to shape political and economic discourse to this day.