Getting the basics is pretty easy.  Understanding the details and the connections to formal logic is harder.  Confusion results.  Some people even think dialectics is in conflict with formal logic.  That is not true.  Formal logic in dielectrics is a subset where system change becomes differential change in a way like algebra becomes part of calculus.

I know the study of dialectics is worth doing, it affects the way a person thinks and in a way that better adjusts me to reality.  Read a little of the theory and you feel a bit restless in a good way.

The concept of the 'negation of the negation' is slippery like the Stoic claim that "the obstacle becomes the way".  That concept was hard for me to get at first.  Now it is automatic for me to consider how adversity can be used to advantage.  To do other is foolish.


Things are always changing and if compassion is to spread, the class struggle can never end.  A study of Dialectical Materialism makes this obvious.

I am a Groucho Marxist.    His dialectics are impeccable.


Re

We know you are a grouch, that's for sure. 


And here is another Marxist, one who can be smart.  Without being an ass.

The setting is Edwardian England.

As for those who rode with Harlow in the last coach, most of them, as has been already intimated, were men of similar character to himself. The greater number of them fairly good workmen and—unlike the boozers in Crass's coach—not yet quite heartbroken, but still continuing the hopeless struggle against poverty. These differed from Nimrod's lot inasmuch as they were not content. They were always complaining of their wretched circumstances, and found a certain kind of pleasure in listening to the tirades of the Socialists against the existing social conditions, and professing their concurrence with many of the sentiments expressed, and a desire to bring about a better state of affairs.

Most of them appeared to be quite sane, being able to converse intelligently on any ordinary subject without discovering any symptoms of mental disorder, and it was not until the topic of Parliamentary elections was mentioned that evidence of their insanity was forthcoming. It then almost invariably appeared that they were subject to the most extraordinary hallucinations and extravagant delusions, the commonest being that the best thing that the working people could do to bring about an improvement in their condition, was to continue to elect their Liberal and Tory employers to make laws for and to rule over them! At such times, if anyone ventured to point out to them that that was what they had been doing all their lives, and referred them to the manifold evidences that met them wherever they turned their eyes of its folly and futility, they were generally immediately seized with a paroxysm of the most furious mania, and were with difficulty prevented from savagely assaulting those who differed from them.

They were usually found in a similar condition of maniacal excitement for some time preceding and during a Parliamentary election, but afterwards they usually manifested that modification of insanity which is called melancholia. In fact they alternated between these two forms of the disease. During elections, the highest state of exalted mania; and at ordinary times—presumably as a result of reading about the proceedings in Parliament of the persons whom they had elected—in a state of melancholic depression, in their case an instance of hope deferred making the heart sick.

This condition occasionally proved to be the stage of transition into yet another modification of the disease—that known as dipsomania, the phase exhibited by Bill Bates and the Semi-drunk.

Yet another form of insanity was that shown by the Socialists. Like most of their fellow passengers in the last coach, the majority of these individuals appeared to be of perfectly sound mind. Upon entering into conversation with them one found that they reasoned correctly and even brilliantly. They had divided their favourite subject into three parts. First; an exact definition of the condition known as Poverty. Secondly; a knowledge of the causes of Poverty; and thirdly, a rational plan for the cure of Poverty. Those who were opposed to them always failed to refute their arguments, and feared, and nearly always refused, to meet them in fair fight—in open debate—preferring to use the cowardly and despicable weapons of slander and misrepresentation. The fact that these Socialists never encountered their opponents except to defeat them, was a powerful testimony to the accuracy of their reasonings and the correctness of their conclusions—and yet they were undoubtedly mad. One might converse with them for an indefinite time on the three divisions of their subject without eliciting any proofs of insanity, but directly one inquired what means they proposed to employ in order to bring about the adoption of their plan, they replied that they hoped to do so by reasoning with the others!

Wrong

QuoteKohei Saito's degrowth rewrite of Marxist theory is not only incorrect — if taken seriously, it would lead to political disaster for both the socialist left and the environmental movement.Kohei Saito's degrowth rewrite of Marxist theory is not only incorrect — if taken seriously, it would lead to political disaster for both the socialist left and the environmental movement.

Kohei Saito's "Start From Scratch" Degrowth Communism

People have it tough, we need better arrangements.  There should be no argument about that, but there is.  The modern world of easy living has scrambled brains causing many to like where they are far too much.  Resulting in a bullshit article and excessive comfort with existing arrangements.

The world is in overshoot and to reduce the human footprint as it must be, it must be easier for people to get by.  Free health care, perhaps a basic income.  A social safety net that eliminates the need for dog eat dog living.  Dog eat dog living currently represents our social relations.  Such social relations cannot deal with overshoot.

Quoteworkers in rich countries are participants in the "imperial mode of living"

The failure of socialists to unite against imperialism at the start of WWI made this clear.  Nationalism came first.  Then as now, the triumph of ownership seeks to destroy all culture.  Now as then, either socialism triumphs or desolation, depopulation and a vast cemetery lies before us.  The truth is ugly, and it hurts, but it is the truth.

What is Dialectical Materialism?

To put it briefly, it is the philosophy of Marxism—the worldview that animates how we understand and know the world. It is composed of two main parts: an ontology and an epistemology. In this essay, I will cover what the ontology of dialectical materialism is.
The Ontology of Dialectical Materialism

The ontology of dialectical materialism refers to the objective claims the worldview makes about the world—in other words, the way in which Marxism thinks the world objectively operates. The ontology of dialectical materialism is what Frederick Engels, the co-developer of Marxism along with Marx, called objective dialectics.

Ontologically, dialectical materialism holds that:

Everything is in a constant state of flux, of change, propelled by internal contradictions.  Everything is interconnected to everything around it.  Everything exists in ever-evolving totalities or wholes.

This basic framework was already present in the work of Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher, and in the 19th century in the work of G.W.F. Hegel, who said that there was no proposition of Heraclitus that he did not include in his logic. It composes the most basic—and in that sense, abstract—propositions that the dialectical worldview makes about the world.

With Hegel, and later with Marx and Engels, the notion that the world is in constant flux is concretized, meaning it is more determinate and refined—it develops. This is done through the understanding of what Engels called the laws of the dialectics, which for Hegel were simply various moments in the development of the concept in his logic.
The Three Laws of Dialectics

1. The Law of Universal Contradiction (Unity and Struggle of Opposites)

For Lenin, the most fundamental of these laws was the law of universal contradiction, also called the law of the unity and struggle of opposites.

For dialectical materialism, contradictions are not—as they are in traditional Aristotelian logic—a sign of falsity, of the "way of opinion" (as Parmenides would have said). Instead, contradictions are the locus of the tension present in heterogeneous objects and the processes they are embedded in.

Everything in nature, society, and thought contains a multiplicity of forces within it—a unity of opposites whose tension shapes the development of the entity or whole that it is a part of.

For example:

Capitalism contains within it two classes with antagonistic interests: the workers and the capitalists.

The development of the struggle between these two great classes constitutes one of the basic contradictions driving the development of the form of life as a whole.

Both of these classes, while engaged in a ruthless struggle, are nonetheless united within the same system and are not only interdependent but mutually constitutive.

It is through the relationship to the worker that the capitalist is a capitalist.

It is through the relationship with the capitalist that the worker becomes the modern proletariat.

Dialectical materialism, as you should already be able to see, is fundamentally a relational and dynamic form of thinking, matching the interconnected and processual character of the world itself.

2. The Negation of the Negation

This might sound like unnecessary jargon, but it captures a very important insight into how change occurs—one that was already present in the philosophy of Aristotle.

The law of the negation of the negation holds that:

Through the process of an entity or totality's development, it eventually confronts—through the very unfolding of the contradictions—the need to negate itself.

Part of itself is canceled out so that another part can be transformed into something new.

This law is another way of speaking about sublation (the English term for the German word Aufhebung). This refers to a process whereby:

In the development of an entity, something is simultaneously elevated and sustained into that which it is becoming.

Meanwhile, something else is fizzled out (what Hegel called ceasing to be).

To speak of sublation is to speak of being as becoming, as coming and ceasing to be. It is to understand that the very notion of change—this universal ontological reality—contains within it its opposite: the fact that for something to change, on a very immediate level, something must also stay the same (and the opposite is also true).

3. The Transition of Quantity to Quality (and Vice Versa)

This law refers to a way of thinking about the great leaps that occur throughout nature, society, and thinking when the development of a thing reaches what is called a nodal point.

For example:

In nature, if the temperature of water drops from 40°F to 32°F, at this nodal point of 32°F, there is a qualitative leap in the form the water takes—it transitions from a liquid to a solid.

Here, quantitative accumulation (degrees dropped) at a certain nodal point produces a qualitative leap into something new.

In modern political philosophy (from John Locke onward), it is understood that if you accumulate oppression on a people, at a certain nodal point, they will explode and overthrow the forces dominating them.

Again, quantitative accumulation (oppression) at a certain nodal point produces a qualitative leap—a new situation with its own process of quantitative accumulation based on the new arrangement of forces and contradictions.

Conclusion:

The basic principles of the ontology of dialectical materialism—as well as its three basic laws—are precisely just that: the most basic (and therefore abstract) components of the worldview. Nonetheless, they force us to remember that whenever we study anything, we should:

Be wary of isolating things from each other.

Avoid considering things as static.

Never assume that within them, there is no multiplicity of forces at work.

Sure, there is a place for abstract thinking rooted in traditional logic (e.g., basic computer science, which is based in binary traditional logic). But this is not the sort of thinking that provides meaningful or comprehensive knowledge when it operates alone—it merely gives us atoms of information that must later be incorporated into a more dialectical analysis to become meaningful.

With this, I conclude this very basic sketch of the ontology at the foundation of dialectical materialism. In a later discussion, we will cover:

The epistemology (or method) of dialectical materialism.

How Mao refined the understanding of contradictions with his development of the particularities of contradiction.

If you would like to support more of our work at the Midwest Marx Institute (the largest Marxist think tank in the country), consider:

You can also support us by following us on social media and sharing our content. If you'd like to follow my work personally, here are some places you can find me.

If you'd like to support an organization that is not just teaching Marxism but also waging the class struggle, consider joining the American Communist Party at ACPUSA and signing up for our theoretical journal (which I am the chief editor of) at RedAmerica.ACP.