Continuing from our discussion on materialism, we now turn our attention to dialectics. Engels said, “It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical development, as well as of thought itself.” In our study and application of philosophy, these general laws of dialectics allow us to delineate between two lines in all things.
Dialectics is the study of the development and contradiction of things; it is the study of the contradiction within a thing itself. Everything in the world develops according to its own dialectical nature, constantly moving, changing, and developing. Dialectics holds that the world is matter in motion.
The essence of materialist dialectics is to acknowledge that nature, human society, and our thoughts as people are united in two opposite sides, called the law of contradiction. Materialist dialectics, in contrast to metaphysics, holds that all things in the world are in a state of universal connection and mutual interaction; every phenomenon has its process of emergence, development, and demise. Examples of such dialectical relationships include things like construction and destruction, positive and negative numbers, action and reaction, the combination and separation of particles, etc.
The fundamental cause of development lies in the internal contradictions within things. Opposing aspects of contradictions are both unified and in struggle, and this unity and struggle drive the movement and change of things. Contradiction is the fundamental driving force behind the development of everything. Contradictions possess both universal aspects and particular aspects, as the particular conditions exists within the universal conditions, and vice versa . Where there are contradictions, there is struggle. The aspect of struggle in contradictions is absolute, while their unity is relative, and struggle is contained within unity. Due to the internal contradiction and struggle within things, they inevitably transform into their opposites and develop into something new. That is what we mean in dialectics when we say nothing is unchanging or static.
The dialectical view in philosophy is in contrast to the metaphysical view. Metaphysics denies this truth: of the unity and struggle of opposites, the transformation of contradictory things into one another under certain conditions, and their movement toward their opposites. Metaphysical materialism, a common philosophy among the bourgeoisie, holds that the material world is static. They believe that, particularly in the social realm, oppression is due to “natural” traits. To them, racism is due to supposed Black inferiority, misogyny is due to female inferiority, poverty is due the workers’ inferiority, and so on. These reactionary views are presented as “objective material reality” by metaphysical materialism.
Why take the dialectical view over the metaphysical view? If we wish to change the world, we must recognize, understand and apply the fundamental laws behind all change. The world is complex, and in everything there are multiple contradictions. All things have contradictions that drive their development, known as internal contradictions. This corresponds to external contradictions, by which a thing relates to other things. The external contradiction is secondary to the process of development of things, as everything is interconnected and this interconnection is the necessary condition for a thing’s development. External factors create conditions for the change, as internal factors create the change itself. For example, while the anti-war movement in the US and socialist China provided moral and material support to the Vietnamese people, it is their own armed struggle that fundamentally drove out US imperialism and liberated their country.
To determine what contradictions are relevant, we must be able to identify what is called the primary contradiction. The primary contradiction, also called the principal or main contradiction, is the contradiction that determines the development of the thing overall, including all its other contradictions. Failure to grasp the primary contradiction means one will be unable to grasp what is driving a thing’s change and development, and one will be unable to change it how they wish. Marxism has always struggled with revisionism (fake socialism that serves the ruling class) in identifying which contradiction is primary.
For example, in our society the primary contradiction is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. All other contradictions, such as those between the oppressed nations and the dominant US nation, or the contradiction between men and women, or the contradiction between the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, etc., will be determined by that primary contradiction. All work to build a revolutionary working-class movement is based around understanding this as the primary contradiction. Revisionists, on the other hand, might claim the primary contradiction is between men and women, between Black and white people, or between the Republican and Democratic Parties: such a view obscures the primary contradiction and drives the masses to defend the class enemy.
The primary contradiction and the secondary contradictions can transform into one another under different circumstances, and this calls upon revolutionaries-in-formation to grasp the primary contradiction and its change, raising new tasks and slogans in different stages of the revolutionary struggle.
At the same time, within any given contradiction, there is a primary aspect and a secondary aspect. The primary aspect is the aspect that plays a leading role, and a secondary aspect is the aspect that is being subjugated or dominated. Both aspects form a dialectical unity: they are both dependent on each other and transform into one another. For example, today the primary aspect in society is the bourgeoisie and the secondary aspect is the proletariat, since the capitalist class rules over the society. But when the proletariat rises up and overthrows the rule of the bourgeoisie, they will become the primary aspect.
Whether understanding the current situation, the mass movement, the work of a single organization or a person, we must distinguish between the primary aspect and the secondary aspect, understand the essence of the thing in question and the trends towards its development.
While the contradiction and struggle of things are universal and absolute, the contradictions can manifest in different forms. Socially or historically, contradictions can mainly be divided into two forms: antagonistic contradictions and non-antagonistic contradictions.
Antagonistic contradictions can only resolved with external conflicts. For example, the contradiction between the interest of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is antagonistic. Non-antagonistic contradictions are those that can be resolved without external conflicts. For example, contradictions among the masses can be non-antagonistic; however, if they are not handled correctly, they can become antagonistic contradictions.
Finally, something that decides the essence of the entire process of development of a thing is called the fundamental contradiction. The fundamental contradiction determines the development and existence of all other contradictions in a given thing. If the fundamental contradiction of a thing is not resolved, its development will not come to an end. The fundamental contradiction of a thing gradually sharpens in its development, which changes how other contradictions manifest and leads to the different stages of the process of development. For example, the history of the United States can be divided into stages, each with their own primary and secondary contradictions; however, the fundamental contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie not only remained the same, but grows more and more sharper everyday.
Understanding contradictions does not come from abstract study divorced from practice. Practice is how we understand and act. There are many “study groups” around the country which push for study of Marxist texts before any organizing can take place. Revolutionaries-in-formation cannot sit idly by and simply “analyze” contradictions from afar, but rather must participate in their development to shape them. The ruling class, through metaphysical materialism, pushes that society can never be changed and that there is no point in trying. They hold that capitalism is the final stage of history, and no progress can be made further. We know this not to be true, but it cannot be done in practice without actually engaging in the contradictions at hand. This is why the capitalist universities push a study-primary worldview so heavily; they know that revolutionary ideas are much easier to co-opt when they remain confined to printing presses and blogs rather than put into practice in the factories and on the streets.
How do revolutionaries-in-formation accomplish planning out such practice ? Analysis and synthesis. Analysis is the evaluation of things as they are, quantitatively and qualitatively. To evaluate the real situation as it exists is analysis, and this often will require breaking down a thing into its components. From there, synthesis means transformation. As Mao put it, it is “one thing eating another, big fish eating little fish.” In war, one army “eats up” another by means of annihilating the other’s troops, taking their supplies, and imprisoning the survivors. One army is broken down and the components are used to build up another.
For yet another example, when we eat food, our bodies eat it up bite by bite. Through digestion by chewing, stomach acid, and intestinal fermentation, the food is broken down into its molecules like proteins, fats, and sugars. These molecules are absorbed by the intestines and used to build new molecules in the body. This way, when we eat we analyze by evaluating our options and choosing the thing that will actually provide us nutrition. We don’t eat dirt, or rocks, or metals, but we do eat grains, fruits, vegetables, tubers, bugs, reptiles, fish, mammals, and so on. This is analysis, and by eating things that provide us with nutrition we then synthesize them into building up our bodies.
In our political work, we must dedicate ourselves to analysis and synthesis. We cannot simply “understand” things and do nothing about it. Revolutionaries-in-formation must plan and carry out synthesis. Political power is principal, and to seize it requires building up a militant working-class movement in our country. This cannot confine itself to building up petty “alternatives,” but rather must understand that in the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, that the antagonism inherent to this contradiction will only grow as time goes on. The proletariat must “eat up” the bourgeoisie by liquidating its rule and building up its own.
In the course of building up a revolutionary working-class movement, there will be many contradictions to deal with at many different levels. From internationally, to nationally, to regionally, to locally, to organizationally, there will be a primary contradiction and a central task to accomplish. It is not easy to balance all of these, but as always this will require the ability of true revolutionary leaders-in-formation to relate the more general and abstract contradictions and tasks to the particular moment and situation. Even launching and running a basic campaign requires this determination.
Ultimately, an understanding of dialectics, when paired with a materialist outlook will allow the working class to have its philosophy, an essential part of its ideology, and through this the class will be able to wage revolution.
For further study we suggest:
- Mao Zedong, On Contradiction.
- Mao Zedong, Talk on Questions of Philosophy.
- Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring, Chapters 12 & 13.
- Friedrich Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Chapters 1 & 2.
