Thrifty Car Rental
Anti-Dialectics For Dummies
It has come to my attention that this page is being liked to by the ALF, in which case I need to say up-front that I do not support, nor am I a member of, the ALF. No Marxist can be a nationalist.
Quick Links
Anyone using these links must remember that they will be skipping past supporting argument and evidence set out in earlier sections. [If your Firewall has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these and the other links here won't work!]
(1) Introduction [Please read first!]
(2) So, What Is Dialectical Materialism?
(b) Law One: Quantity And Quality
(c) Law Two: The Interpenetration Of Opposites
(d) Law Three: The Negation Of The Negation
(e) Formal Logic
(f) Is That It?
(a) Disaster Central
(4) Main Objections
(b) The Unity And Interpenetration Of Opposites
(c) The Negation Of The Negation
(5) Notes
(6) References
Abbreviations used at this site
This Essay is meant to be a very brief, simplified and down-to-earth introduction to a few of the more important arguments against classical Dialectical Materialism [DM] published at my site. It is aimed solely at those who find the Basic Introductory Essay either too difficult or too long. Hence, I have deliberately tried to keep everything exceedingly simple and concise, saying all I want to (here) in less than 7000 words.
Those requiring more detail and/or greater sophistication should consult the longer Essays I have published at the main site, or the much longer Summary Essays posted here.
Anyone who complains about the over-simplifications presented below should re-read the title: it's "Anti-dialectics For Dummies", not experts!
I largely confine my criticisms here to Engels's so-call 'three laws of dialectics', but no one should be under the illusion that these 'laws' capture the full complexity or sophistication of this theory. In many ways the opposite is the case.
However, and once again, this is meant to be a ground-level introduction to DM, not a research paper! In the main Essays at my site, I enter into the aforementioned complexities of dialectical thought in unprecedented detail -- as will soon become apparent to anyone who reads them -- presenting what I consider to be a definitive demolition of this entire world-view/method. Naturally, the truth or falsity of that self-assessment is up to others to decide.
As is the case with all of my Essays, nothing here should be read as an attack either on Historical Materialism [HM] -- a theory I fully accept --, or on revolutionary socialism. I remain committed to the self-emancipation of the working class as much now as I did when I first became a revolutionary nearly thirty years ago.
Please note, however, that in the first part of this Essay I am summarising DM (as I see it), not my own beliefs!
My counter arguments begin here.
Final thought: I have seen criticism on the Internet that I quote Rob Sewell as if I think he's an expert on this subject; I don't, but this is meant to be a very basic introduction, and he at least is very basic. In the main essays, I quote everyone from Lenin to Mao, Marx to Hegel, Engels to Trotsky, Spinoza to Plotinus...
Anyone new to Marxism soon encounters DM (or, in its more political form, "Materialist Dialectics" [MD]).1
But, what exactly is DM? First of all we are told that it's a materialist theory; as Rob Sewell explains:
Philosophical materialism is the outlook which explains that there is only one material world.... The universe...is not the creation of any supernatural being, is in the process of constant flux [i.e., change -- RL]. Human beings are a part of nature, and evolved from lower forms of life, whose origins sprung from a lifeless planet some 3.6 billion or so years ago. With the evolution of life, at a certain stage, came the development of animals with a nervous system, and eventually human beings with a large brain. With humans emerged human thought and consciousness. The human brain alone is capable of producing general ideas, i.e., thinking. Therefore matter...existed and still exists independently of the mind and human beings. Things existed long before any awareness of them arose or could have arisen on the part of living organisms.
...Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is the highest product of matter. Ideas are simply a reflection of the independent material world that surrounds us.... [Quoted from here.]
And yet, this theory is much more than this, for dialecticians also believe that the world is an integrated ("mediated") whole, a "Totality", with all its parts interconnected and interdependent. This Totality has developed over billions of years under the control of a series of laws discovered (in their modern form) by a leading German Philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1779-1831).
However Hegel was an Idealist, that is, he considered the material world to be dependent on an underlying non-material reality, a world of Ideas -- in fact, this hidden world was merely a form of the development of God's knowledge of 'Himself'. [How that works is best left to one side for now!]
Ruling elites and their ideologues have always seen the world this way; no less so Hegel.
Nevertheless, Hegel's theory was taken up by Marx and Engels, who, so legend has it, stripped away its mystical, idealist outer layer, and put its "rational core" to work in their account of history, the class struggle and social change. For them, the world of ideas was just a "reflection" of the material world in the minds of men and women, as Sewell notes.
Engels later re-formulated the basic, "rational core" of Hegel's theory -- now supposedly "put back on its feet" -- but applied to the whole universe, not just human history. This extended theory subsequently came to be known as "Dialectical Materialism" [DM].
In Engels's hands, and in those of later dialecticians, this theory taught that the development of nature and society is governed by a number of inter-related laws, listed below. [It needs adding that many Dialectical Marxists regard these laws as far too crude as they stand.]
Law One: Quantity And Quality [Q«Q]
Material change is not an accidental or superficial feature of the operation of nature. The qualitative aspects of things we see around us change in specific ways, according to precise laws -- or so dialecticians tell us.
The first law is the change of quantity into quality.
It's a common feature of our experience that systems and objects around us have different properties and qualities, and that these can change. So, things can alter from solid to liquid, hot to cold, red to blue, and so on. Some changes are superficial; for example, if you have your nails cut that does not really alter who you are in any significant way. Others are more profound; for instance, if a house burns down, that's a pretty fundamental change!
However, underlying such apparent diversity there are several unifying factors, which is where this law comes in. If matter or energy is fed into, or drained out of a system, at some point it will undergo a sudden, or "nodal", change. For instance, if you load straws onto the proverbial camel's back, at some point it will break. Slow change leads to sudden and significant change.
Here is Rob Sewell again, quoting Hegel:
"It has been said that there are no sudden leaps in nature, and it is a common notion that things have their origin through gradual increase or decrease," states Hegel. "But there is also such a thing as sudden transformation from quantity to quality. For example, water does not become gradually hard on cooling, becoming first pulpy and ultimately attaining a rigidity of ice, but turns hard at once. If temperature be lowered to a certain degree, the water is suddenly changed into ice, i.e., the quantity -- the number of degrees of temperature -- is transformed into quality, a change in the nature of the thing." (Logic §776)
This is the cornerstone of understanding change. Change or evolution does not take place gradually in a straight smooth line.... [Ibid]
Such change is important for dialecticians since they think it helps them account for the sudden nature of revolutions and the qualitative change between different social/economic systems -- like that between Capitalism and Socialism -- among other things.
The law of the change of quantity into quality is thus diametrically opposed to any principle that advocates a gradualist/reformist route to communism -- or, so we have been led to believe.
Law Two: The Unity And Interpenetration Of Opposites [UO]
This law is much more complicated, but the basic idea is that according to dialecticians, objects and processes in nature are always composed of paired "opposites". These pairs may be 'internal' to objects and processes: hence, we have positive and negative particles inside atoms, holding them together (as it were). Alternatively, they could be 'external'; so, we have positive and negative in electricity, the North and South poles of a magnet, male and female organisms, and so on. [Naturally, many of these are a mixture of internal and external factors.]
Now, these opposites are not accidentally linked, but in a very real sense depend on one another. For example, you couldn't have a magnetic North without a South. They inter-define and are determined by each other; hence the use of the word "interpenetrate". Dialecticians also confusingly call these opposites "contradictions" --, or, rather, they use this term to describe the dynamic relation between these opposites.
Nevertheless, "contradictions" are the universal motor of change in nature and society, according to dialecticians; the interplay between these contradictory opposites powers universal development.
Quoting Sewell once more:
"In brief", states Lenin, "dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…."
The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above-below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on. [Ibid]
Indeed, as Hegel argued:
[C]ontradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity. [Hegel (1999), p.439, §956.]
Law Three: The Negation Of The Negation [NON]
It's undeniable that objects and processes in nature and society do not last forever. Some things slowly crumble to dust, some fall apart rapidly, while still others develop, reproduce and grow. When objects, processes or social systems are destroyed, or cease to exist as such (etc.), dialecticians say they have been "negated"; but when they develop into something new (which outcome might be systematically connected to earlier stages of an object or process, preserving aspects of the old while introducing novelty), they then say that this "negated" form has also been "negated" into something new, something of a higher type, perhaps -- the "negation of the negation".
Rob Sewell again:
The law of the negation of the negation explains the repetition at a higher level of certain features and properties of the lower level and the apparent return of past features....
This whole process can be best pictured as a spiral, where the movement comes back to the position it started, but at a higher level. In other words, historical progress is achieved through a series of contradictions. Where the previous stage is negated, this does not represent its total elimination. It does not wipe out completely the stage that it supplants.
Engels gives a[n]...example from the insect world. "Butterflies, for example, spring from the egg through a negation of the egg, they pass through certain transformations until they reach sexual maturity, they pair and are in turn negated, dying as soon as the pairing process has been completed and the female has laid its numerous eggs." [Ibid]
Formal Logic [FL]
As far as we know, FL was invented in the West single-handedly by the Ancient Greek Philosopher, Aristotle (384-322BC). His was the first systematic attempt to study the principles underlying valid argument patterns.
Now, one of the oddest things about dialecticians is that to a greater or lesser extent every last one of them criticises FL, saying things like the following:
When dealing with drawn out processes or complicated events, formal logic becomes a totally inadequate way of thinking. This is particularly the case in dealing with movement, change and contradiction. Formal logic regards things as fixed and motionless. Of course, this is not to deny the everyday usefulness of formal logic, on the contrary, but we need to recognise it limits. [Ibid]
It's worth noting here that the vast majority of such criticisms are aimed at Aristotelian Logic [AFL]. However, AFL is now a wholly defunct system, having been replaced over 130 years ago by far more elaborate and sophisticated systems of Modern Logic (now confusingly called "Classical Logic"), and by something far more technical, Mathematical Logic.
Unfortunately, this makes much of what dialecticians have to say about logic as relevant as if they were criticising ancient theories of the heavens, such as Ptolemy's, while imagining they were still addressing modern Astronomy!
Of course there is much more to DM than this very brief summary would suggest. [For more details, read this.] However, if I go into greater detail, this Essay will exceed the 7000 word limit I have set myself!
So, What's The Problem?
Dialecticians tell us that truth is tested in practice.
From living perception to abstract thought, and from this to practice, -- such is the dialectical path of the cognition of truth, of the cognition of objective reality. [Lenin (1961), p.171. Emphases in the original.]
In that case, what does history reveal?
Unfortunately, Dialectical Marxism has not known much in the way of success. The 1917 revolution has been reversed, practically every single 'socialist' state has abandoned Marxism (indeed, the workers in those countries did not lift a finger to defend 'their state' -- compare that with the fierce fight for freedom mounted by ordinary workers, in the face of vicious repression, which we witnessed across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011). All four Internationals have gone down the pan, and few revolutionary parties these days can boast active membership rolls that rise much above the risible. To cap it all, billions of workers world-wide not only ignore DM, they have never even heard of it.
And yet, most dialecticians claim that DM/MD lies at the heart of revolutionary theory and practice, and represents the "world-view of the proletariat"! If so, why have none of them drawn the obvious conclusion -- history has refuted their theory?
If theory is indeed tested in practice, then either DM has never been used by revolutionaries (despite what they say), or it has been used and has thus been refuted.
The reasons for this are complex, and will not be entered into here in any detail. However, as I argue in Essay Nine Parts One and Two, this odd fact has much to do with the role dialectics plays in convincing revolutionaries that, despite appearances to the contrary, and in spite of all these set-backs and defeats, history is moving their way. If dialectics operates throughout the universe, not even the capitalist class can thwart it for long. It thus provides them with hope in a hopeless world, consolation in the face of unremitting failure.
[On this in general, see Essay Ten Part One.]
However, it's my contention that this theory is part of the reason why Dialectical Marxism is now almost synonymous with failure.
Clearly, such long-term lack of success suggests that this theory might not be quite as sound as dialecticians would have us believe.
No surprise then: that's exactly what we find.
Quantity Into Quality [Q«Q]
Engels asserted the following:
...[T]he transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned. [Engels (1954), p.63. Bold emphasis alone added.]
As we have seen, such change is not smooth or gradual:
It will be understood without difficulty by anyone who is in the least capable of dialectical thinking...[that] quantitative changes, accumulating gradually, lead in the end to changes of quality, and that these changes of quality represent leaps, interruptions in gradualness…. That is how all Nature acts…. [Plekhanov (1956), pp.74-77, 88, 163. Bold emphasis alone added.]
But there are many things in nature that change smoothly (Bob Sewell's comment earlier hinted at this -- some things change from liquid to sold by congealing slowly first); think of melting metal, rock, glass, plastic, butter, resin, toffee and chocolate. Here, the change in quality from solid to liquid is not at all sudden. When heated, metals, for instance, gradually soften and become liquid; there is no sudden "leap" from solid to liquid here. Sure, some things do change 'nodally' (i.e., in "leaps"), but many do not. So, the 'nodal' aspect of this law is defective.
Unfortunately, this means that this law can't be used to argue that the transformation from capitalism to socialism must be 'nodal' (i.e., sudden), for we have as yet no idea whether or not this transformation will be one of these many exceptions. Plainly, we could only appeal to this law if it had no exceptions whatsoever.
This means that the whole point of adopting this law in the first place has now vanished.
[It's important to add that I certainly do not believe that the revolutionary transformation of society will be gradual, but then I don't accept this 'Law'.]
What about the 'quantity into quality' part? Undeniably, many material things change qualitatively, and they do so as a result of the addition or subtraction of matter and/or energy.
But, not all qualitative differences are caused this way. The order in which events take place can effect quality, too. For example, try crossing a busy main road first and looking second -- now try it the other way round. If you survive you might notice the difference! And anyone (not in protective clothing) who pours half a litre of water slowly into a litre of concentrated sulphuric acid will face a long and painful stay in hospital, whereas the reverse action is perfectly safe.
When confronted with examples like these, or those below,, DM-supporters generally respond in one of two ways: (1) They point out that Engels's' Law only applies to developing bodies and systems, which rules these counter-examples out. I deal with that reply here and here.
Or, (2) they just ignore them!
Now, it turns out that this Law is so vaguely worded that dialecticians can use it in whatever way they please. If the reader finds that difficult to believe then try the following experiments:
(A) Ask the very next dialectician you meet precisely how long a "nodal point" is supposed to last. You will receive no answer! But, if no one knows, then anything from a Geological Age to an instantaneous quantum leap could be "nodal"!
And, it really isn't good enough for dialecticians to dismiss this as mere "pedantry". Can you imagine a genuine scientist refusing to say how long a crucially important time period in her theory is supposed to last, and accusing you of "pedantry" for even thinking to ask?
(B) Next, enquire what a "quality" is supposed to be. If your respondent knows his/her theory, you might be told it's a property the change of which alters a process/object into something novel; a "new kind of thing". For example, in evolution numerous small variations in organisms accumulate until a new species (a new "kind of thing") arises.
But, more often than not, you will be fobbed off, or ignored.
However, the above 'definition' of "quality" was in fact borrowed from Aristotle, via Hegel.
Unfortunately, given this explanation of "quality" many of the examples DM-theorists themselves use to illustrate this 'law' fail.
For instance: the most hackneyed example they refer to is water turning to ice or steam, when cooled or heated. Given the above 'definition', this wouldn't be an example of 'qualitative change', since water (as ice, liquid or steam) is still water (i.e., H2O) -- no "new kind of thing" has emerged. Quantitative addition or subtraction of energy does not result in a qualitative change of the required sort; nothing substantially new has arisen. This substance stays H2O throughout. When heated, iron stays a iron as a liquid or as a solid.
Faced with this, dialecticians might be tempted to relax the definition of "quality", so that in solid, liquid or gaseous form, the substances can be said to exhibit different qualities.
Unfortunately, this would rescue the above example but sink the theory. If we relax "quality" so that it applies to any qualitative difference, then we would have to include the relational properties of bodies (that is, those properties objects have in relation to other objects), such as size or hardness. In that case, we could easily have qualitative change with no extra matter or energy added to the system.
For instance, consider three animals in a row: a mouse, a pony, and an elephant. In relation to the mouse, the pony is big, but in relation to the elephant it is small. Here there is change in quality, but no matter or energy has been added or subtracted.
[When confronted with this counter-example, DM-fans object that this is ridiculous. Indeed, it is, but it's a direct result of relaxing the definition of "quality". I have responded to such critics here, here, and here.]
Finally, there are substances studied in Chemistry called isomers. These are molecules with exactly the same atoms, but their geometrical orientation is different, which lends to each their different properties. So, once more we have a change in quality caused by a change in geometry, but with the addition of no new matter or energy -- contradicting Engels:1a
...[Q]ualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned. [Engels (1954), p.63. Bold emphasis alone added.]
Hence, at best, this 'Law' is merely a quaint rule of thumb (a bit like: "A stitch in time saves nine"), which seems to work sometimes (since it is left tantalisingly vague). At worst, it's like a stopped clock: totally useless, even if twice a day it tells the 'right time'.
Engels's First 'Law' is thus of no use in developing revolutionary theory, and so it has no role to play in helping change society.
The Unity And Interpenetration Of Opposites [UO]
This is perhaps the most important of these laws, for it encapsulates the principle of change, as well as that of temporary stability.
Unfortunately, dialecticians have up until now been entirely unclear whether things (1) Change because of a "struggle" between their "internal opposites", (2) Change into these "opposites", or whether they (3) Create these "opposites" when they change.
Here is Lenin:
[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….
The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….
The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…. [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58. Emphases in the original.]
And here is Plekhanov:
And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…. [Plekhanov (1956), p.77. Bold emphases alone added.]
And here is Mao:
Why is it that "...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another"? [Mao is here quoting Lenin -- RL.] Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....
In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....
All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute. [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Bold emphases added.]
[Plenty more quotations all saying the same sort of thing can be found here.]
Notice: (1) All change is the result of a "struggle of opposites"; and (2) All objects change into those "opposites".
But, this leaves change a complete mystery.
To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is composed of two 'internal' opposites (or opposite tendencies), O* and O**, and that it changes as a result.2
However, the DM-classics tell us that O* changes into O**. But, O* can't change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* couldn't change, for there would be no opposite to "struggle" with in order to bring that about!
And it's no good propelling O** into the future so that it becomes what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already in existence to make that happen!
Of course, this is all quite apart from the fact that many things just do not change into their opposites (or even because of them). When was the last time you saw a male cat turn into a female cat? Or even a male cell (gamete) transform into a female cell? Your left hand into your right? An electron into a proton? Or even a material object into an immaterial object?
And are we really supposed to believe that every single proletarian (as individuals or as a class) will turn into a Capitalist (and/or vice versa)? Did the medieval peasantry turn into the aristocracy (and/or vice versa)?
But, if everything changes into its opposite, as we were told they do by the DM-classics, then such things would happen all the time.
Naturally, this doesn't mean that change can't happen, only that DM can't account for it.
Alternatively: if DM were true, change would be impossible!
Thus the second 'Law' is completely useless, too.
The Negation Of The Negation [NON]
This 'Law' is just an extension to, and elaboration of the previous 'Law'; in that case, the NON suffers from all the latter's weaknesses, and is just as useless.
However, the example Rob Sewell retailed earlier is rather unfortunate in itself:
Engels gives a[n]...example from the insect world. "Butterflies, for example, spring from the egg through a negation of the egg, they pass through certain transformations until they reach sexual maturity, they pair and are in turn negated, dying as soon as the pairing process has been completed and the female has laid its numerous eggs." [Here]
In fact, butterflies and moths go through the following stages:
Adult→egg→pupa→chrysalis→adult→...
Which is the negation of which here? And which is the NON?
And what about organisms that reproduce by splitting, such as amoebae and bacteria? In any such division, which half is the negation and which the NON? What about vegetative (asexual) reproduction in general, where there are no opposites (i.e., no gametes)?
Consider, too, the thoroughly reactionary life form Myxomycota (The Slime Mould, although its precise classification has recently been changed!), which belongs neither to the plant nor the animal kingdom, but to the Protoctista. Its life-cycle is complex, and involves the following stages: a giant amoebal form, followed by a slug-like existence, which morphs into a fungal-like fruiting body, which then releases spores.
Now, it might be that this organism is so primitive that it does not 'understand' dialectics, and has thus not quite figured out which of these four stages is the 'negation', and which the NON, let alone what 'sublates' what -- especially since the first phase of its life-cycle involves a protracted union of cells, a 'dialectical tautology' if you will!
["Sublate" is a Hegelian term employed by dialecticians; it roughly means to "negate and to transcend". It emphasises the creative/preservative, not so much the destructive aspects of 'dialectical' negation and change.]
There are in fact many other examples of thoroughly revisionist organisms and processes in the natural world, which means, because of this, that nature is reassuringly non-dialectical.
Unfortunately, as noted above, DM-fans totally ignore these 'awkward' cases -- just like the Creationists who turn a blind eye both to the inconsistencies in the Bible and to the many examples of lack of design in there are in the universe.
Finally, with respect to the former USSR (as it was in 1917): if the NON is progressive, why did it let history down badly and allow the revolution to decay, and then go into reverse?
Is modern-day Russia really 'the negation of the negation of the negation' of Tsarist Russia?
On the contrary, do we not here have the complete negation of Hegel and Engels?
Formal Logic [FL]
As we saw, dialecticians like to say things like the following:
Formal logic regards things as fixed and motionless. [Rob Sewell.]
Formal categories, putting things in labelled boxes, will always be an inadequate way of looking at change and development…because a static definition cannot cope with the way in which a new content emerges from old conditions. [Rees (1998), p.59.]
However, when asked to provide any evidence to support such bold assertions, DM-fans go rather quiet, or they become evasive, once more.
And it's not hard to see why: they are entirely bogus. They weren't true of AFL, and they are even less true of MFL.
[AFL = Aristotelian Formal Logic; MFL = Modern Formal Logic.]
Now, FL is a highly technical discipline, so I will say no more about it in this Essay. [I have said more here, however.]
Nevertheless, I will add that those who advance a theory that cannot itself account for change (i.e., dialecticians -- we saw that earlier) are in no position to make wild allegations about FL, especially if they have yet to produce any evidence that FL is handicapped in the way they allege.
Marx famously claimed:
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. [The German Ideology, quoted from here. Bold emphases added.]
Now, as is easy to show, Hegel (the Idealist originator of dialectics) lifted many of his doctrines from earlier mystics and ruling-class hacks. These ideas have appeared in the philosophical theories of boss-class thinkers from ancient times until today. In that case, the only conclusion possible is that dialectics must be part of the ruling ideas Marx was speaking about, whether he himself thought so or not.
This conclusion is not at all easy for Dialectical Marxists to accept for it seems to implicate the founders of our movement in the deliberate importation of alien-class ideas into Marxism.
To be sure, dialecticians say they have removed the Idealist and mystical elements of Hegel's dialectic (or, rather, they tell us they've put Hegel's ideas back "on their feet", thus preserving their "rational core"), but since it's plain that the remaining husk has been imposed on nature (not read from it) in sound idealist fashion, that claim is entirely bogus. As George Novack (inadvertently) pointed out:
A consistent materialism cannot proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason, intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source. Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in practice.... [Novack (1965), p.17. Bold emphasis added.]
[Some might be tempted to argue that DM is based on evidence. That idea is batted out of the park in Essays Two to Thirteen at my site -- but especially here.]
The founders of our movement weren't workers; they
came from classes that educated their children in religion, the classics and
philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there lies a hidden
world, accessible to thought
alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.
This way of seeing things was invented by ruling-class ideologues. They did so because if you belong to, benefit from
or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and
exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.
The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time,
but it's not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation
(among other things).
Another way is to win over the majority (or, at least, a significant
proportion of "opinion
formers", bureaucrats, judges, bishops, generals, intellectuals,
philosophers, editors, teachers, administrators, etc.) to the view that the
present order either, (1) Works for their benefit, (2) Defends 'civilised
values', (3) Is ordained of the 'gods', or is (4) 'Natural' and thus cannot be
fought against, reformed or negotiated with.
Hence, a world-view that helps rationalise one or more of the above is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the
same old way. While the content of this wing of ruling-class ideology may have changed with
each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same
for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth (about this 'hidden world' underlying
appearances) is ascertainable from thought alone, and therefore
can be imposed on reality dogmatically and
aprioristically.
["Aprioristically" means that these ideas can be
inferred in advance of any evidence. A genuine a priori idea might be the
following: despite the fact that you will never have experienced this, and never
will, you know
that ten billion marbles added to twenty billion marbles will amount to thirty billion
marbles (although, I prefer to call this the application of a rule). A bogus
a priori idea would involve, for example, an attempt to prove the existence
of 'god' from
'his/her/its' definition. Another would be an attempt to show that
everything is governed by 'contradictions', based on a similar
'linguistic argument' (as
Hegel
attempted), and nothing more.]
So, the non-worker founders of our movement -- who had been educated from
an early age to believe there was just such a hidden world lying behind appearances,
and which governed everything -- when they became revolutionaries looked for 'logical' principles in
that abstract world that told them that change was inevitable, and was part of the
cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of that
ruling-class mystic, Hegel. Hence, the dialectical classicists latched onto this
theory and were happy to
impose it on the world (upside down or the "right way up"),
since, to them, because of their socialisation and education, it seemed quite natural to do this.
After all,
that's what 'genuine' philosophy is -- or, so they had been socialised to
conclude.
Of course, if the facts end up contradicting DM/MD, they can safely be ignored, since this hidden world not only "contradicts" appearances (so we are told), it's more real than anything genuinely material.
And that is why DM-fans bury their heads in the sand, and ignore anything and everything that contradicts their theory: their faith lies in this hidden world.
And that's not surprising, either, since this idea was pinched from a Christian mystic.
Finally, these comrades imported this alien theory into Marxism unwittingly. They knew no better; their petty-bourgeois being determined their petty-bourgeois consciousness.
But, as should seem obvious from the long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism, this importation has to be reversed.
Otherwise, comrades, we can look forward to another 150 years of glorious failure...
1. For the purposes of this Essay, I will ignore the difference between DM and MD. Much of what I have to say here applies to both anyway.
1a. Again, it could be objected that the isomers example isn't relevant to Engels's Law since there is no development here.
In fact, Engels himself appeals to isomers to illustrate his Law, so anyone wishing to defend him can hardly complain if they are used against him. [On that, see here.]
2. I have avoided calling these opposites A* and A**, since we would have three items here, A, A* and A**, complicating things unnecessarily. Of course, such intricacies will be introduced and taken to their logical conclusion in other Essays posted at the main site. [For example, here.]
Engels, F. (1954), Dialectics Of Nature (Progress Publishers).
Hegel, G. (1999), Science Of Logic (Humanity Books).
Lenin, V. (1961), Philosophical Notebooks, Collected Works Volume 38 (Progress Publishers).
Mao Tse-Tung (1961a), Selected Works Of Mao Tse-Tung, Volume One (Foreign Languages Press).
--------, (1961b), 'On Contradiction', in Mao (1961a), pp.311-47.
Novack, G. (1965), The Origins Of Materialism (Pathfinder Press).
Plekhanov, G. (1956), The Development Of The Monist View Of History (Progress Publishers).
Rees, J. (1998), The Algebra Of Revolution (Routledge).
Word Count: 6,550
Latest Update: 19/01/12
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2012
Hits since 20/07/07: