Why do we, as Marxists, say that dialectical materialism is the only correct method to understand social and economic contradictions and their constant evolution? We say that Hegel developed the laws of dialectics as abstractions, as pure thoughts in our heads. Marx took Hegel’s method and developed it as it relates to the real material world, and in particular, as it applies to the contradictions between the classes under capitalism. Marx never claimed that the laws of dialectics apply primarily in the realms of economics and politics. He recognized its manifestation in other aspects of the lives of alienated people in Capital (Volume 3), and, primarily, in his early writings on alienation.
Most socialists think that one should use the dialectics to understand economic and political contradictions, but that it is not necessary to use the dialectical method in all other aspects of life. I will attempt to prove that this kind of thinking is disastrous and a mockery of Marx's method.
In daily life, of course, a person does not need to use dialectics consciously all of the time. For example, if I want to go to the store and buy bread, formal logic is sufficient to accomplish this task. Yet every single move, from thinking about going to the store to buy bread to arriving home with a loaf of bread, is accomplished only through complex dialectical interactions. To begin with, the thoughts themselves are not pure thoughts (using Hegelian terminology). The thought process consists of complex and often contradictory processes in the real world; it begins with the activity millions of neurons in the brain, starting at the cortex where consciousness operates. It also involves other parts of the brain, which monitor the processes of constant change in our brain. It is likely that after thinking about buying a loaf of bread, I will develop feelings that stand in contradiction to the “simple” action of buying bread (for example, the feeling and the thought that “I’d rather be on the beach or taking a walk in nature”) which stand in contradiction to what I need to do in order to eat.
This is likely to cause anxiety, because it reminds me of how stressed out my life is under capitalism, and that my daily life consists of constant errands and chores but not enough leisure time. If I do not have consciousness about alienation (which the majority does not have), then my anxiety will come from the unconscious part of the brain. I will not be aware of why I feel anxious. If I am a poor worker, I am likely to feel anxious because I am going to part with some of the little money that I have. So just the two seconds of thinking that “I need bread” brings about a very complex and contradictory process between an area in the cortex (the “rational” part of the brain) and many emotional areas of the brain, including areas that consist of unconscious feelings, which makes our body and brain go through constant changes. These include, of course, walking to the store, which also involves many complex interactions between the nervous system in the brain, our body, and our muscles.
All of the above can be fully understood if we consciously use dialectics. (The contradictory complexity of our brain and body is, by the way, one of the main reasons why science and doctors have such little understanding of how the nervous system works.) Then, of course, as we walk, our body remains on the ground only because we are heavy enough not to rise above the ground because of the laws of gravity. If we happen to take a walk in the middle of a Category 5 hurricane, we will end up rising up from the ground anyway. This will happen at a certain point when the wind reaches a certain speed against the weight of our body, which is kept on the ground by gravity. When the wind reaches a certain speed, we will be lifted off of the ground. This is the point at which quantity is transformed and leaps into quality.
While in daily life we do not need the dialectic for everything that we do, we need to be better equipped to use dialectics even in an embryonic form if we must walk during a hurricane. Without it, we could even lose our lives.
Dialectical materialism is not a philosophy that Marx and Engels made up. It is not a philosophy at all. It comes from the basic composition of matter and from its evolution everywhere at any time and in any place in the universe. Dialectics are the only laws that that can completely explain everything that is going on in the universe every single second. We need dialectics to fully explain the tiniest part of the universe (the atom) and the grand phenomena in the universe (the laws of relativity and gravity). The atom is the simplest and most important example, since it is the basic building block for everything. The atom contains within it the most basic laws of the dialectics: the unity and conflict of opposites and their constant interpenetration.
Lenin summarized the dialectics as follows:
“1. the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but
the Thing-in-itself).
2. the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
3. the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
4. the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5. the thing (phenomenon, etc.) as the sum and # unity of opposites.
6. the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
7. the union of analysis and synthesis—the break-down of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8. the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, process, etc.) is connected with every other.
9. not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
10. the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
11. the endless process of the deepening of man’s knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
12. from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal
dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
13. the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
14. the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
15. the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa ((15 and 16 are examples of 9)
In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.”
I will refer to some of the above laws in my comments to follow. They explain the atom very well. The electrons and nucleus of the atom (protons, neutrons), are a unity of opposites; the “negative” (electrons) cannot exist without the “positive” (protons, neutrons). This is similar to the basic structure of class society. The capitalists cannot exist without the working class, and vice-versa. The relationships between electrons and protons are what Lenin refer to as “the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc... not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].” All of this has been proven by quantum physics. For example, an electron can be in two places simultaneously at the same time that it circles the atom’s core. It is on one side of the atom's nucleus while it is on the other side at the same time. This fascinating contradiction is the basis for the design of many high technology machines.
The real point here is that everything is in constant change, transition, and interpenetration with everything else. One atom relates in this way to the atom next to it. In this fundamental way, the planets relate to the sun. It is not an accident that the relative distance between the electrons and the core of the atom is the same as the relative distance between the planets and the sun. Our sun is rotating and is related in a similar (of course, not exactly the same) dialectic way to the core of our galaxy (the monstrous big black hole in the galaxy's center that can host millions of suns). Our galaxy and its local sisters galaxies are orbiting in a similar dialectical way around distant, more powerful galaxies millions of light years away from earth.
Thus, there is inter-connection, interpenetration and constant change happening every second in the universe, which is made of the same basic particles that are found on earth, atoms. If for some mysterious reason one of our local sister galaxies (which are millions of light years away) disappears one day (an extremely unlikely event), it will affect our Milky Way and the relationship among the stars within it, with unknown consequences for the earth’s climate and life on earth. Petty bourgeois scientists may not agree with the dialectics, but the best of them have to concede that dialectics explains well the way matter works. Every good scientist, whether consciously or unconsciously, needs to use some of the laws of dialectics.
What Does This Have to Do with Defeating Our Class Enemies?
Everything. Without the vanguard of the working class understanding and implementing dialectics in practice, we cannot defeat the bourgeoisie. My addition to this is that in order to overthrow capitalism, the members of a revolutionary party must transcend alienation—at least to some degree.
I will provide further explanation of this later (see page 4 of this article, added August 30, 2009); for now, we need to deal with much more basic questions. If matter in the universe can only behave dialectically, then this must also include all of the dynamics between the major classes as well as all social interactions among humans, including intimate emotional connections (or, unfortunately, in capitalist society, the lack of such relationships). These can only be explained by dialectics. Yet practically every person on our planet, including the great majority of leftists, either rejects dialectics or refers to it only as an abstraction, while miserably failing to implement it consciously in real life. “What is the big deal?” one may ask. “As long as the dialectic recognizes us and governs our social relationships, who cares?”
There is some validity to this line of inquiry. Many species of animals do not use the dialectic consciously and do just fine. For example, the lioness has dialectics built into her genes, and the rest of her survival skills come with her training as a cub. Yet when she hunts, every single move that she makes toward her prey can only fully be explained dialectically. Her brain must constantly “think,” evaluate and correctly resolve the “problems” and the material contradictions that separate her from her prey. She must have tall enough grass, and the wind must be blowing in the right direction. Every instruction that her brain gives her paws must be absolutely, correctly balanced, and for each small move she makes, many parts of her brain are “considering” all the immediate environmental factors: If her paws make too much noise, the prey will hear her and run away; if the lioness approaches too slowly, the prey has the chance to smell her, etc. As she gets close to the prey, she must observe its every subtle move, every movement of the prey's ears and nose. Without consideration of these factors, she can misjudge the critical timing of her pounce. This is the gradual development and then the final leap of the lioness. Here we see how gradual and complex moves are rife with contradictions every second. Finally, the quantity of considerations and observations is transformed into the final qualitative leap (after which quality is transformed into the quantity of food).
Basic dialectical laws apply to the hunting of the lioness as much as they apply to the necessary resolution of class society toward a classless society. First, there is the slow evolution of the contradictions of capitalism until they reach they point at which they become unbearable. Then, the revolution, the final leap of the lioness: quantity transforms quickly into a new quality. The lioness does not need to understand dialectics consciously in order to eat well. But the international working class will only eat well when its revolutionary leadership understands how to use dialectics. In fact, the leadership not only needs to understand the dialectic to overthrow capitalism; it also needs to master it in many areas of practice that will lead to the final revolutionary leap.
Humans think that they are much more advanced than animals. However, this comparison is very relative, and under the conditions of present-day decadent capitalism, the advances of the human race are being reversed very quickly. No species of animal would ever destroy the entire planet because of the greed of a few of its members. Yet this is exactly what capitalism and its social conditioning are threatening to do to the human race and the entire planet today.
Unlike other animals, humans have a choice. Primitive class societies, including those at their highest level, capitalism, repress and distort our human potential from the day we are born. Advances in technology are certainly enough to give us short working hours and flexibility, as well as a significant reduction in stress to the point at which we can learn the art of loving as well as develop our individual potential and talents. Yet throughout life, the small a minority which controls everything that makes us social human beings is making sure that we remain stupid; that the awful contradictions in capitalism that drive our destiny are integrated into our cognitive and emotional neurons in our brain; and that we become helpless, hopeless, cynical and negative, and/or “positive,” but clueless to the point of conforming to all the garbage of capitalist conditioning. Thus, we have no idea of how we think or feel; it all comes from the contradictions of capitalist pressure. Our only choices are either to conform and become part of the herd of our social milieu that dictates who we are, or to feel isolated, cast out and depressed. The latter response can lead to a variety of psychological and emotional disorders, and, in extreme cases, drive some people to commit suicide, since humans are very social animals.
Our conditioning begins at home within the backward structure of the nuclear family. It continues with our mis-education in schools and colleges. By the time we become “adults,” we are completely ready for a daily engagement with compulsive internet activities and the bombardment of TV’s portrayals of “life.” We absorb the messages of the media through which the ruling class conditions us with its ideas and feelings—all of which have to be safe for capitalism. Ultimately, the great majority of personal relationships are a reflection of capitalistic conditioning. What emerges is what Marcuse called “one-sided man,” or what Marx called the alienated person. The alienated person does not reflect in his or her thinking the real contradictions in the material world, but the values and conditioning of capitalist society: the distortion of the real contradictions that the person experiences and their bourgeois flatness (to use Marcuse again). The reason why people have such deep-seated apathy is because an alienated person must suppress most of what he or she really feels about the decadent society around them, and because he or she must rationalize his or her existence in this society. This is why it is so difficult to understand dialectics in the living world. The so-called Marxists who remain as alienated as the average person cannot use the dialectic in Marxist theory and practice, which shows that they only understand it as an abstraction.
The Marxist Left, Alienation and Dialectics
Many Marxists, including very well-known names such as Plekhanov and Bukharin, and practically everyone who has written good books about dialectics, such as modern “Marxists” like George Novak and Ernest Mandel, fail miserably when it comes to shifting from the abstract explanation of dialectics to its implementation in practice. This does not mean, of course, that young Marxists should not study these books, some of which are excellent. But the question remains: Why does one need to transcend alienation in order to understand dialectics? My whole life experience has shown me that it is impossible to really comprehend the dialectic unless one consciously attempts to transcend alienation. By this I mean transcending deep emotional conditioning, to become at least partially successful at the task of becoming a humanistic person not only in words. Such transcending is essential for one to develop the capacity to be an objective person toward oneself and the external world. This must be accomplished with the development of the capacity to love. (I don't mean here illusionary romantic bourgeois love.) For more information on this topic, see the main chapters of my book, Alienation in the Post Cold War Era (written in 1999, and available on this website). See also Eric Fromm, The Art of Loving, a book that many have read but which very few people fully understand.
Because of the intense pressure under current decadent capitalism to conform to the system intellectually and emotionally, transcending alienation is the most difficult task a human being can undertake. There are no formulas for it. It is essentially struggling throughout life to develop emotional strength with “softness” for love and compassion, combined with the ability to reflect in your mind as closely as possible the real contradictory external world as it evolves independently of your fears, hopes and anxieties—your subjectivity. The emotional part means relating to others with love and objectivity. “Others” means the people and comrades closest to you, including and perhaps most importantly, yourself. Thus in order to understand dialectics, you need to have it in your flesh and bones; it must be deep in your emotional and cognitive comprehension of the world, freed as much as possible from alienation.
You must fully develop your understanding of how the world crisis of capitalism influences people objectively outside of your subjective needs and fears; your ability to read people’s essence and contradictions far deeper than their superficial expressions and the facades through which they express themselves; and your ability to test your analysis of the capitalist crisis and how it affects workers through subjective practice in the class struggle. Ultimately, you need to give your subjective experience in the class struggle an objective meaning without expurgating or minimizing your subjective experience. Understanding and applying dialectics is about getting as close as possible to the eternally changing, objective world and life.
A chapter in my book Alienation in the Post Cold War Era is devoted to the reasons why the left fails so miserably to do the above:
“What do we mean by a bourgeois psychological make-up that dominate the life of the organization? Most people who are attracted to a progressive or a socialist organization do not change their psychological alienated character after they adopt socialist ideas or become ‘Marxists.’ In their emotional world and their way of thinking they do not really break with the functioning and general ideology of this society. This is true in particular in times when there are no signs of revolutions or social change. For many individuals emotional considerations are mixed up extensively with the ideology of the organization or the party. Underneath the exterior of ‘revolutionary’ or ‘socialist’ ideology lies the real social/psychological structure of the group and the people involved with the group. The social/psychological structure in these groups is not very different than the social/psychological structure in the rest of society. Most of the top leaders in the parties, who never dealt with their own alienation and humanity, act like bourgeois politicians. They are driven by the passion for power triggered by the impotency of their ego (like Clinton, for example), and their failure to be a compassionate loving person. They enjoy the domination and manipulation of other people, and they use the theory of socialism and Marxism in a demagogic and manipulative fashion, that is, to make the members of the group dependent on them. In the hands of such leaders, socialism and Marxism have little to do with scientific objective thinking and practice. Such socialism and Marxism are rather manipulated and used in a demagogic way by the leaders to defeat their opponents and to wrest control of the movement.
Under these psychological features of the leaders genuine objective dialogue that leads to the narrowing of differences and to unity against capitalism is impossible. What happens is that the demagogic and manipulative leaders take advantage of the members’ emotional insecurities, that is, the need to be loyal to the herd and not lose touch with it. Such members are encouraged to view other socialists and progressive people who do not share the precise ideology of their group with deep hostility; thus, the emotional security of the members is shackled to the security of their specific herd. With such infantile mentality, political meetings and mobilizations against the common capitalist enemy often become bickering sessions where the egos of the parties involved is more important than a genuine dialogue to achieve clarity and unity in action. This may be the case even when the parties and groups agree on the basic ideas.
Under such conditions, the members of such parties and organizations always mix the justified anger against the system with the security of the herd, which is provided by such parties or organizations. Most members of these groups do not create a clear boundary between the political line of the group and their emotional needs that accompany a dependency on the group. Thus their emotional needs determine their adherence to the line even when it becomes irrational. The group uses such emotional dependency and channel the anger against the system toward a specific ideology and actions; they become beliefs and actions which the members have not arrived necessarily through independent and objective reasoning. Thus, the people in such organizations and parties are internally weak, insecure, and unable to relate to each other in a loving humanistic way. The bottom line is that the internal psychological life in such groups is not different than the life in other groups in bourgeois society. The social relationships within the socialist and the progressive movement is based most of the time on the establishment of cliques, friction, suspicion, bickering, subjective liking and disliking, and alienated hostility between people — all which booster the ability of the main enemy to penetrate and manipulate the movement." (Alienation in the Post Cold War Era, Chapter 12, How the Alienating Features of the Socialist/Progressive Movement Contribute to Its Failure)
All left and socialist groups are indeed not any different from pro-capitalist groups in their functioning and internal relationships. The rank-and-file follows the leadership for emotional security, for the security of belonging to the herd. When significant differences arise, all rich and serious dialogue is blocked. The leaders with inflated egos will trash or crush the opposition, and the majority will follow them because emotionally they are infantile and need the security of the pack. The relationships within the dysfunctional nuclear family persist in most spheres of life, including the political. This will not change until at least a minority struggles to transcend their deep alienation. Only when this minority becomes established in the leadership of the revolutionary socialist movement will the socialist revolution become possible. Only then will we have enough people who are not only capable of citing the dialectics, but also capable of using it in practice, in particular at the most critical moments, when the danger of making critical mistakes is high. At present, I am afraid that I can count the number of people who understand and are capable of fully implementing dialectics in life and politics with the fingers of my hands.
I will give here two examples from history that may shake up some “orthodox” Leninists and Trotskyists. Was Lenin correct to suggest Stalin for the central committee in 1913? And why didn’t Lenin take up the struggle against Stalin until he was too ill to defeat Stalin? I have no doubt that Lenin’s decision to incorporate Stalin into the Bolshevik leadership had nothing to do with Stalin’s talents as a political leader, a theoretician or a great dialectician. It had much more to do with Stalin’s excellent organizational talents which the Bolshevik Party needed (see Trotsky’s book Stalin). Lenin knew of Stalin’s weaknesses: his personal ruthlessness and cunning, maneuvering behind people’s backs, etc. It was not necessary to be brilliant to see that Stalin was driven by power-gains, and that he lacked any capacity for objectivity (see Stalin). It was a pragmatic decision on Lenin’s part; he hoped that Stalin could learn and change. It is not fair to blame Lenin, since in those days political agreement with the program was much more important than how rotten and alienated was the comrade in question. We know now that political agreement by itself does not mean much. Mussolini was a socialist and it did not take much for him to become a fascist.
The left has not really learned much from Lenin’s mistake. Many “Trotskyist” organizations had or have at the top little Stalin-type personalities, for example, Gerry Healy and Jim Robinson. One may argue that ignoring Stalin’s personality and maneuverings for ten years while he was establishing his power brought about the degeneration of the 1917 Revolution. This is not so. However, I believe that there is still a huge lesson to be learned here. When building a revolutionary party with a humanistic and anti-alienating approach in the selection of leadership, we must recognize and expel the Stalins, the Healys and the Robertsons the minute that we recognize their characters and before they move into leadership positions. If the leadership is humanistic and the comrades can see sooner than later what makes an individual tick, it should not be too difficult to recognize such rotten elements. If the comrades are not quite certain, then they should prevent these types from assuming power and show who they really are: cunning, manipulative individuals with ambitions for power.
I am not saying that if Stalin had not been allowed to take a leadership position, the bureaucratic caste would not have come to power and caused the degeneration of the 1917 Revolution. In his book The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky outlines brilliantly the objective conditions that caused the rise of Stalinism. Stalin only personalized a whole layer of privileged bureaucrats that reflected the contradictions and isolation of the revolution.
[Click Next Page to continue.]