Dialectical Logic - Dialectical Materialism - Marxist Philosophy of Nature

[Petros Agapetos]

The World Outlook Of the Marxist-Leninist Party

The Basic Laws of Dialectical Materialism

Law#1.The Law of Transformation of Quantitative to Qualitative Changes:
The universal laws of dialectics reveal the essential features of any developing phenomenon, no matter to what field or activity it may belong to.

Law#2.The Law of Unity and Conflict of Opposites:
Aspects in which changes move in opposite directions and which have opposite trends of functioning and development, are called “opposites”. The interaction between opposite counterparts constitutes a contradiction. Every phenomenon is characterized by certain opposites and contradictions.

Law#3.The Law of the Negation of the Negation:
Marx: “In no sphere can one undergo a development without negating one’s previous mode of existence.”

Dialectical Materialism’s approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory is materialistic. Hence, the process or method is Dialectical, and the Object of Study is Materialism! To interpret the matter, to know the nature of matter the dialectics is used. “The idea is the recognition of the contradictory mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature.” - Lenin.

[Petros Agapetos]

The Hegelian Dialectic - Introduction to Dialectical Logic

Thesis = an idea is affirmed, found contradictory,
Antithesis = which propels or negates the Thesis
Synthesis = and the tension between two being resolved by means of a synthesis;

Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis
Problem - Reaction - Solution
Abstract - Negative - Concrete

Thesis is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error and experience. Describing the activity of synthesis or overcoming the negative (sublation/aufhebung). Hegel often uses the term Aufhebung overcoming/ sublation to conceive of the working of the dialectic: The Abstract Dialectic. For Hegel, the concrete,, the synthesis,, the absolute must always pass though the phase of the negative in mediation. The term sublation indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea,thing, society, etc.. while moving beyond its limitations.

Example: In logic, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence:

I. Existence must be posited as Pure Being (Sein)
II. But pure being - upon examination - found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts)
III. When it is realized that what is coming into being is - at the same time - also returning to nothing.

Ex. - In life one's living is also one's dying. Both being/thesis and nothing (non-being) / antithesis are united as Becoming/synthesis.

I. Logic, the science of the Idea in and for Itself
II. The Philosophy of Nature: the science of the Idea in its otherness
III. The Philosophy of Mind: the science of the Idea come back to itself out of that otherness

The self-exposition of this unified consciousness, The Notion, follows a series of necessary, self-determined stages in an inherently logical dialectical progression. Its course is from the objective to the subjective sides/'"judgments"'.
The Objective side, its Being, the Notion as it is in itself [an sich], its reflection in nature: being found in anything inorganic such as water or a book = "The Doctrine of Being"

The Doctrine of Notion outlines the Subjective side of the Notion as Notion, or, the Notion is it is for itself [fur sich] i.e. self-consciousness.
Being, specifically - Pure Being - is the first step taken in the scientific development of Pure Knowing, which itself is the final state achieved in the historical self-manifestation of Geist /Spirit / Mind, as explained in detail in the Phenomenology of Spirit.

In point of form Logical doctrine has three sides:
(a) the Abstract side or that of understanding:
(b) the Dialectical, or that of negative reason:
(c) the Speculative, or that of positive reason.

These three sides do not make three part of logic, but are stages or "moments" in every logical entity , that is, of every notion and truth whatsoever. They may all be put under the first stage, that of understanding, and so kept isolated from each other; but this would give an inadequate conception of them. - The statement of the dividing lines and the characteristic aspects of logic is at this point no more than historical and anticipatory.

[Petros Agapetos]

The Law of Unity & Conflict of Opposites = [The 1st Law of Dialectical Materialism]

“Everything is & is not” in contradistinction to “The Law of Excluded Middle which states: “Either is or is not; not both, and not neither; but either one (#Thesis) or the other (#Antithesis)”: of the (Formal) Logical Absolutes; also called “The Laws of Thought”.
= Every ‘thing’ is in a constant state of flux (being / nothing) = and, at a more abstract level; somethingness[Thesis] vs. nothingness [Antithesis]. Every -‘thing’ ; i.e. noumenon (essence) vs. phenomenon (appearance of its essence in reality has its dialectical counterpart; Ex. – “This” (itself) vs. “that” (the “other” than itself): [A vs. Non_A].

The Hegelian Dialectic obeys the Triadic Structure of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis.
For Example: Let the development of nothing(ness) from being (somethingness) = Thesis. Then, Antithesis is its converse:

-Let: the process of passing from #being to#nothing := “ceasing to be” : =>Thesis_1
- Let: from #nothing to#being : = “coming to be” : => Antithesis_1:
Therefore:Synthesis_1= Synthesis of Thesis_1 and Antithesis_1 = becoming;

Contradictions in things can be expressed at three levels:
“Contradiction in Being”
“Contradiction in Essence”
“Contradiction in Notion”

Things can be thought of as the unity of Phenomenon (Appearance of Reality) and Noumenon (the thing-in-itself/essence);

Dialectics is the method of reasoning which aims to understand things concretely: in all their movement/constant change and interconnection with their opposite and contradictory sides in unity. Dialectics is opposed to the formal, metaphysical mode of thought of ordinary understanding which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes.

The Appearance of The Reality of the “thing” is also called “The Phenomenon” = [Phenomenal Nature] = Appearance in Reality;
The Reality of the “thing” = the “thing in-itself” is called “The Noumenon”, or [Noumenal Nature] = Its Reality. According to Ordinary Understanding of the Thing; There is no difference between the appearance of a thing and its essence, but for dialectics, the form and content of something can be quite contradictory: (Noumenon =/ = Phenomenon); For Dialectics, things can be contradictory not just in appearance, but in essence (phenomenon vs. noumenon, respectively). Example, A parliamentary democracy is a democracy in form (notion/concept), but a dictatorship in content (essence/noumenon).

[Petros Agapetos]

Dialectical Materialism is a way of understanding reality; whether thoughts, emotions, or the material world. Simply stated, this methodology is the combination of Dialectics and Materialism. The materialist dialectic is the theoretical foundation of Marxism (while being communist is the practice of Marxism).

"It is an eternal cycle in which matter moves, a cycle that certainly only completes its orbit in periods of time for which our terrestrial year is no adequate measure, a cycle in which the time of highest development, the time of organic life and still more that of the life of being conscious of nature and of themselves, is just as narrowly restricted as the space in which life and self-consciousness come into operation. A cycle in which every finite mode of existence of matter, whether it be sun or nebular vapour, single animal or genus of animals, chemical combination or dissociation, is equally transient, and wherein nothing is eternal but eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws according to which it moves and changes.

Fredrick Engels - Dialectics of Nature
-- "Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, or motion without matter, nor can there be."

-- "Change of form of motion is always a process that takes place between at least two bodies, of which one loses a definite quantity of motion of one quality (e.g. heat), while the other gains a corresponding quantity of motion of another quality (mechanical motion, electricity, chemical decomposition).

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics (dialectical thought), is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature."

[Petros Agapetos]

But dialectical materialism insists on the approximate relative character of every scientific theory of the structure of matter and its properties; it insists on the absence of absolute boundaries in nature, on the transformation of moving matter from one state into another, that from our point of view [may be] apparently irreconcilable with it, and so forth.

Vladimir Lenin - Materialism and Empirio-criticism

With each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science, materialism has to change its form; and after history was also subjected to materialistic treatment, a new avenue of development has opened here, too. [Ch. 2, The End of Classical German Philosophy]

"For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher."

Fredrick Engels - "The End of Classical German Philosophy"

[Petros Agapetos]

Dialectics is the method of reasoning which aims to understand things concretely in all their movement, change and interconnection, with their opposite and contradictory sides in unity.

Dialectics is opposed to the formal, metaphysical mode of thought of ordinary understanding which begins with a fixed definition of a thing according to its various attributes. For example formal thought would explain: ‘a fish is something with no legs which lives in the water’.

Darwin however, considered fish dialectically: some of the animals living in the water were not fish, and some of the fish had legs, but it was the genesis of all the animals as part of a whole interconnected process which explained the nature of a fish: they came from something and are evolving into something else.

Darwin went behind the appearance of fish to get to their essence. For ordinary understanding there is no difference between the appearance of a thing and its essence, but for dialectics the form and content of something can be quite contradictory – parliamentary democracy being the prime example: democracy in form, but dictatorship in content!

And for dialectics, things can be contradictory not just in appearance, but in essence. For formal thinking, light must be either a wave or a particle; but the truth turned out to be dialectical – light is both wave and particle. (See the principle of excluded middle: Either A or not A, )
not both, not neither).

We are aware of countless ways of understanding the world; each of which makes the claim to be the absolute truth, which leads us to think that, after all, “It’s all relative!”. For dialectics the truth is the whole picture, of which each view is a more or less one-sided, partial aspect.

At times, people complain in frustration that they lack the Means to achieve their Ends, or alternatively, that they can justify their corrupt methods of work by the lofty aims they pursue. For dialectics, Means and Ends are a unity of opposites and in the final analysis, there can be no contradiction between means and ends – when the objective is rightly understood, "the material conditions [means] for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation" (Marx, Preface of Contribution to a Political Economy)

Formal thinking often has trouble understanding the causes of events – something has to be a cause and something else the effect – and people are surprised when they irrigate land and 20 years later – due to salination of the land, silting of the waterways, etc – they have a desert! Dialectics on the other hand understands that cause and effect are just one and another side of a whole network of relations such as we have in an ecosystem, and one thing cannot be changed without changing the whole system.

These are different aspect of Dialectics, and there are many others, because dialectics is the method of thinking in which concepts are flexible and mobile, constrained only by the imperative of comprehending the movement of the object itself, however contradictory, however transient.

History: Dialectics has its origins in ancient society, both among the Chinese and the Greeks, where thinkers sought to understand Nature as a whole, and saw that everything is fluid, constantly changing, coming into being and passing away. It was only when the piecemeal method of observing Nature in bits and pieces, practiced in Western thinking in the 17th and 18th century, had accumulated enough positive knowledge for the interconnections, the transitions, the genesis of things to become comprehensible, that conditions became ripe for modern dialectics to make its appearance. It was Hegel who was able to sum up this picture of universal interconnection and mutability of things in a system of Logic which is the foundation of what we today call Dialectics.

As Engels put it:
“The whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process – i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development.” [Socialism: Utopian & Scientific]

[Petros Agapetos]

For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher."

[Petros Agapetos]

The dialectic method has a simple rhythm ; to dance to it takes no great skill.

No one but Hegel could think of consciousness as portrayed in the Phenomenology as a relatively concrete object. But more concrete examples of the dialectic are available in Hegel's later works.

In the Philosophy of History, ,one immense dialectical movement dominates world history from the Greek world to the present. Greece was a society based on customary morality, a harmonious society in which citizens identified themselves with the community and had no thought of acting in opposition to it. = #Thesis.

The next stage is for this thesis to show itself to be inadequate or inconsistent. In the case of the community of ancient Greece, this inadequacy is revealed through the questioning of Socrates.The Greeks could not do without independent thought, but the independent thinker is the deadly foe f customary morality = Contradiction arises, which negates thesis into #Antithesis. The harmony of the Greek community has been lost in the reformation/renaissance yet preserved and overcome at the same time or "sublated" in synthesis. But freedom is triumphant. This is the second stage of the dialectical movement. It is the opposite or negation of the first stage and hence in known as #Antithesis.

The second stage then also shows itself to be inadequate. Freedom taken by itself, turn out to be too abstract and barren to serve as the basis for a society. Put into practice, the principle of absolute freedom turns into Terror of the French Revolution. We can then see that both that both customary harmony and abstract freedom of the individual are one-sided. They must be brought together, unified in a manner that results in a third and more adequate stage , the Synthesis.

[Petros Agapetos]

The first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, [is that humans] must be in a position to live in order to be able to "make history". But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life.

Karl Marx - German Ideology: History: Fundamental Conditions

[Petros Agapetos]

The Politico-Economic Philosophy of Marxism

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature's productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman's will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.

The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1), the personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, [as described above] 2), the subject of that work, and 3), its instruments.

In the labour-process, therefore, man's activity, with the help of the instruments of labour, effects an alteration, designed from the commencement, in the material worked upon. The process disappears in the product, the latter is a use-value, Nature's material adapted by a change of form to the wants of man. Labour has incorporated itself with its subject: the former is materialised, the latter transformed. That which in the labourer appeared as movement, now appears in the product as a fixed quality without motion. The blacksmith forges and the product is a forging.

If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour.

Labour uses up its material factors, its subject and its instruments, consumes them, and is therefore a process of consumption. Such productive consumption is distinguished from individual consumption by this, that the latter uses up products, as means of subsistence for the living individual; the former, as means whereby alone, labour, the labour-power of the living individual, is enabled to act. The product, therefore, of individual consumption, is the consumer himself; the result of productive consumption, is a product distinct from the consumer.

In so far then, as its instruments and subjects are themselves products, labour consumes products in order to create products, or in other words, consumes one set of products by turning them into means of production for another set.

The labour-process, turned into the process by which the capitalist consumes labour-power, exhibits two characteristic phenomena. First, the labourer works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labour belongs; the capitalist taking good care that the work is done in a proper manner, and that the means of production are used with intelligence, so that there is no unnecessary waste of raw material, and no wear and tear of the implements beyond what is necessarily caused by the work.

Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the labourer, its immediate producer. Suppose that a capitalist pays for a day's labour-power at its value; then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him, just as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a horse that he has hired for the day. To the purchaser of a commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. By the purchase of labour-power, the capitalist incorporates labour, as a living ferment, with the lifeless constituents of the product. From his point of view, the labour-process is nothing more than the consumption of the commodity purchased, i. e., of labour-power; but this consumption cannot be effected except by supplying the labour-power with the means of production. The labour-process is a process between things that the capitalist has purchased, things that have become his property. The product of this process belongs, therefore, to him, just as much as does the wine which is the product of a process of fermentation completed in his cellar.

Karl Marx - Capital: The Labour-Process And The Process Of Producing Surplus-Value