Dialectical Materialism

The philosophical basis of Socialism is dialectical materialism, so called because its view of phenomena, its way of studying and understanding them, its method of apprehending them, is dialectical, whereas its method of interpreting them and internalizing them, is materialistic.

Dialectical materialism is created by the fusing together of two major concepts of philosophy; dialectics and materialism. To understand it, therefore, it is critical that one grasps the idea behind these two concepts.

Dialectics is a way of looking at things based on analysing their features within them; what characterises their existence and their development. A tree, a book, a human being, a cow and anything else that exists in nature has some features which give it the state of its existence and which determine their development. Looking at them closely and critically, one would realise that there exists some contradictory forces within them, features and characteristics that act opposite of each other, that keep them at the state of existence that they are in. It is these forces, further, that determine their development. But before going any deeper, it is important to get the historical origin of this concept.

Dialectics comes from the Greek word ‘dialego’, meaning debate. During their times, the Greeks believed that the best way to arrive at a solution was to critically examine an issue, disclosing its contradictions in order to overcome them. It is this method of solving issues that was later developed and applied to the view of all phenomena of nature. Philosophers began to view everything in nature, from trees to rocks to birds, using this concept.

Let’s take the simplest unit of matter, the atom, as an example. Within the atom, there exists electrons, neutrons and protons. The protons, found in the nucleus of the atom, are positively charged, whereas the electrons are negatively charged. The fact that a single unit of matter contains two opposing forces, positive charge and negative charge, is a contradiction. Without the protons, there is no atom, and without the electrons, there is no atom. With this, it follows that the atom exists through the existence of these opposite forces and their unity.

Applying the same way of thinking to other areas, the result is the same. In Mathematics, for example, addition and subtraction are two key concepts which both make possible the existence of Mathematics as a discipline. The same can be said of integration and differentiation. The forces of action and reaction are two examples of opposing forces in the field of mechanics. In physics, positive and negative electricity are contradictory concepts that are fundamental. The combination and dissociation of atoms in Chemistry is another example. In social science, the class struggle between the owners of the means of production; the ruling class, and the workers; the rest of the people, is clearly evident, and is a basic characteristic of our society.

Further, in the development of phenomena of nature, one would discover that changes occur to something after a series of attempts to change it. A perfect example would be the change of water from a liquid state to a gaseous state. The change from liquid to gas does not take place abruptly; it is the result of increase in temperature over a period of time at fixed pressure. At room temperature and pressure, water is in liquid form. The state remains up to the point at which water boils. It then remains at the same temperature as it boils, and further increase in temperature causes the bonds between its molecules to break as it changes to gaseous form. The increase in temperature had initially caused only an increase in volume; there was thus a quantitative change in water as a liquid. However, past its boiling point, it changed its quality and entered into a different state of matter; gas.

The same can be said and observed across all forms of phenomena in nature; that slow and progressive quantitative changes persist for a while, after which sudden and abrupt qualitative changes occur; voila, evolution to revolution.

Viewing the development of ideas, norms and values over the years, or, to put it more accurately, the development of the universally acceptable forms of thought that today encompass most of humanity, it would be clear that their formation and advancement takes place through debate which leads to the gradual acceptance of the said ideas. If one makes a proposition as regards our way of thinking in whatever field, one should expect an opposing view; it is the interaction of these two camps that thereby produces a more refined and advanced proposition that we thereby accept. Thus, the newly accepted thought replaces the old, as do new ways of life which, through interaction and advancement over the years, or even centuries, replace the old ways of life. It is the negation of the negation. Economic modes of production, more importantly, replace preceding ones, in accordance with the tasks that face society at any given point in time and in correspondence with the forces of production at any epoch.

Unlike metaphysics, therefore, the above laws of dialectics give a vivid description and explanation of whatever exists in the universe in a practical and sensible manner. We can clearly grasp that nature as it is consists of phenomena that are connected to each other and serve as an integral whole, and that development occurs through the struggle and interaction of the internal contradictions within phenomena.

Materialism holds that matter is the primary form of our existence. In short, nature exists as we see it. It is a logical and simple way to look at reality, given its basis on the direct material existence of our species and of everything that exists in the universe.

In direct contradistinction from idealism, philosophical materialism, rightfully, maintains that matter; nature; being, is an objective reality that exists outside and independent of our will, and that our thoughts are secondary, since they originate from a physical organ of the body, the brain.

The primary difference between idealism and materialism is the latter’s view of the reality of nature as the primary source of existence and the former’s view of the spiritual world as the determinant of all phenomena in the universe. Idealism places nature under the control of an ‘idea’. According to idealists, the spiritual world brought forth the physical world; the known from the unknown. According to idealists, therefore, the mind; our thoughts, are primary, and the world; matter; nature; being; secondary, and that the latter is influenced and controlled by the former. 

Looking at nature objectively, it would be easy to grasp the primacy of all that is physical. Through our unending efforts in the natural sciences, we are daily being able to explain phenomena, and we are getting the ability to authoritatively make conclusions that nature behaves according to the laws of science, which we can prove by experiment. Conclusively, we hold that the universe as it is is fully knowable, and that we can explain the origin and nature of all phenomena. What we cannot, further, are not unknowable, but that we shall be able to disclose them through the efforts of science and practice.

Thus, the universe in general and the world in particular ceases being the product of a ‘wonderful idea’, a ‘magnificent creation’, a scripted fairy tale, nor a predetermined narrative, but, rightfully, is viewed as material, behaving according to the laws of nature.

In applying the logical deductions from dialectics and philosophical materialism, the social life of the society can be scientifically explained, and the study of the nature and development of the society therefore becomes a science.

In viewing the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites, one would observe the presence of two antagonistic classes in the present society, struggling for control of the economic means of production as well as the means of ruling the state. This struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, if carried to its logical conclusion, will lead to the advancement of the world in general and the species in particular. The victory of the working peoples of the world will lead to harmony between the forces of production and the process of production itself, and thus, historical ascent of humanity into the era of self-actualization.

The current capitalist mode of production, viewed historically, was the product of the struggle against the former feudal mode of production, in which the monarchs and their nobility controlled the means of production as well as the state apparatus. Having established manufactories and progressed technologically, it was only logical for the society to embrace a system that corresponds with the nature of economic production that had emerged. Hence, an acute struggle against the hitherto existing incumbents had to be waged, and alas, the victory of the bourgeoisie. The onset of the bourgeois era, however, did not mean the permanence of it, for it saw with its entry the emergence of the proletariat; a class of people whose sole means of livelihood is their labour power; who only find a living as long as they find work, and who only find work as long as their labour increases capital. It is this class of workers that wage the struggle against the capitalist class.

Thus, since the world and phenomena are always in constant change and development, one must not view society as it is, but must always look for the emergent characteristics; for the new among the old. It is on this basis that the working class movement, and the party of the proletariat in particular, pegs its policy and activity.

In viewing the law of the passage from quantitative change to qualitative change, it would be clear that revolutions are indeed a basic feature of the society, happening from time to time in accordance with the conditions that face society. These conditions, rightfully, take time to mature, and are the embodiment of a gradual build-up of both the revolutionary potential of the society and the worsening conditions of existence. As water takes time to reach boiling point, so does the society in building its anger and its eventual resolve to do away with the old establishment.

‘How does the Kenyan public put up with the endless looting and corruption on a daily basis? How does the world watch as exploitation and oppression occurs in this and that country?’, the observers wonder! Water is heating up, my dear friends. We’re approaching the boiling point; the old society will be torn asunder, voila!-the expropriators will be expropriated!

In viewing the law of the negation of the negation, it would be clearly observed that economic and political systems have been created in succession to one another; the hitherto existing one being replaced by another which is in turn replaced by another. The capitalist system replaced the feudal system, which replaced the slave system, which replaced the communal system.

Further, in examining the origin and nature of capitalist private property, one cannot overlook its negation of individual private property. Capitalism permitted the accumulation of wealth and property into the hands of a minority of the population, creating on the other hand a vast majority of labourers with absolutely no property at all. In simple terms, the people have become alienated from their own property. The struggle against the bourgeoisie involves primarily the struggle against capitalist private property, which the workers seek to socialize. Alas, the negation of the negation.

The fundamental importance of viewing the world materialistically, as opposed to idealistically, lies in the fact that it enables the people to have a correct analysis of their ability and their responsibility in determining the direction of the society. The placing of the phenomena of nature under the custody of a ‘universal idea’, or an altruistic being, or to fate, divorces the actions of people from the doers of those actions. It incorrectly concludes that ‘whatever will be, will be’, and that human beings, or any species in nature, have no power to alter the course of history, and  that things will remain as they are. One cannot but unmask the hidden hand of the conservatives of the old society in this way of thinking, who are anxious to convince the people of their inability to change the society, and who are desperate to discourage any kind of effort to take the society forward.

The fundamental problem with the present capitalist mode of production, as with the previous modes of production preceding it, is its disconnection with the laws of science that the society develops according to, and the idealist outlook which clouds its system. Idealist thinking translates into the daily lives of the people grasped by the bondage of capital. The capitalist theorists and their philosophers emphasise the role of the charitable being who brings goodies from above, infusing the notion that change or anything good and meaningful occurs not because of the collective action of the people, but because of the heroic acts of particular individuals. Is it any wonder then that politicians the world over are able to get into office through promising goodies to the electorate?

The same kind of world view, further, reduces the study of history into the study of individuals and individual actors, emphasising that occurrences take place because of them, and that past events occur as an agglomeration of ‘accidents’ and isolated occurrences here and there. Contrary to idealism, therefore, materialism holds that whatever occurrences that take place in the society do so because certain socio-economic factors permit, and that the masses are really the drivers of history, with leaders only serving as catalysts.

In holding that matter is what is primary, and that ideas are secondary; in holding that feelings, sensations, and imaginations are produced by a physical organ of the body, materialism maintains that the material being of the society is primary, and that the spiritual life of the society, its political system, its cultures, norms and the like, are secondary. More precisely, it is the economic mode of production that influences the social and political structure of the society. Whatever is the society’s manner of finding its means of livelihood, therein arises its state apparatus, its police, its judiciary, its culture, its education system, its religion and the like.

The study of the phenomena of nature, and the application of these deductions to the study of the society, reinforces the fact that the study of the development of the society is indeed a science, and that society behaves according to regular laws which can be proven. It is on this scientific basis, therefore, that socialism is pegged.

Hence, socialism ceases being a simple dream for the welfare of humanity and becomes a science.

It is on this basis, therefore, that the programme of the revolutionary party of the proletariat arises.