Philosophy and Class Struggle.

“Dialego” 1975

Chapter 2.
What Is Dialectical Materialism?

In a previous article on “Philosophy and Class Struggle” it was argued that

dialectical materialism is the only logical and consistent philosophy for a
revolutionary today to hold. Understood concretely and applied creatively,
dialectical materialism has a crucial role to play in helping revolutionaries
formulate their strategy and tactics in such a way that they reflect the needs of
the situation and take all the relevant factors into account.

Those who stress materialism at the expense of dialectics in their political

practice will ignore the pressures for change steadily building up (witness the
dramatic street battles in the South African cities and townships since June
this year), while those who see only dialectics and neglect materialism,
inevitably overlook the concrete realities of the situation and the particular
stage of the struggle.

This is why a proper understanding of dialectical materialism is a necessary

part of our correct political practice; it furnishes the Communist Party and the
liberation movement with an essential weapon in the on-going struggle and is
a vital ingredient for success.

My basic objective in this article is to show that dialectics and materialism

— the two aspects of Marxist philosophy which give it its name — form the two
halves of a single whole. Just as a chemist mixes hydrogen and oxygen to form
water, so Marx and Engels reworked the theories of dialectics and materialism
which previous thinkers had developed, in order to create a revolutionary
philosophy of a new type. For the first time in history a materialist theory of
the universe was worked out which was thoroughly dialectical in character,
and a conception of dialectics developed that was squarely based on
materialism.

The result is a highly explosive revolutionary mix!

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 1 of 13
:
 To explain how this took place and why it was necessary, we must first of all
get to grips with

(i) Materialism Vs. Idealism: the Basic Question of Philosophy

It is sometimes thought that a “materialist” is a person who simply looks

after his own selfish interests whereas an “idealist” is one who is prepared to
sacrifice for a worthwhile cause. Yet, if this were so, it would be the
conservatives of this world who are the “materialists” and the revolutionaries
who are moved by “idealism"!

In fact, of course, “materialism” and “idealism” do not refer to vague moral

attitudes of this kind. They are terms used in philosophy to describe the only
two basic interpretations of the world which can be consistently held.

Everyone who studies the world around him has to find the origin of
things. What causes things to move, or to act or to behave in the way they do?
Are the forces spiritual in origin or are they produced by the material world?

Some years ago a Calvinist minister ascribed earth tremors in the western
Cape to the growing disquiet of the Almighty towards modern forms of music
and dress! Whereas a materialist seeks to explain the world of society and
nature according to the material conditions and processes at work, the idealist
believes that events take place because of the existence of spiritual forces or
“ideas”.

An idealist might argue that apartheid in South Africa has been brought
about by the “ill-will” or “evil intentions” of white people who don’t wish to
face up to reality. For a materialist, on the other hand, this “ill-will” or “evil
intention” still needs to be explained, and the real reason for apartheid is not
to be found in people’s heads but in their pockets, in that material system of
capitalist exploitation which makes apartheid highly profitable for financial
investors, factory owners and the giant farms. It is here that the roots of the
system lie.

We often talk about the way in which for example “anti-communist ideas”
weaken our movement by creating divisions in its ranks and this of course is

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 2 of 13
:
 true. But we must never forget that these anti-communist “ideas” don’t simply
fall from the skies: they reflect and arise out of the material interests of
monopoly capitalism and unless they are firmly rebuffed, they are likely to
make an impact on those whose stake in society, however small, makes them
vulnerable to anti-communist scare-mongering

Thus we can say that whereas idealism looks for an explanation of

the world in terms of the “ideas”, “intentions” or “will” of people,

materialism considers that the source of all events and actions is to be
found in material causes or, as they are sometimes called, “the laws of
nature.”

It is true that cruder forms of idealism ascribe things in the world to the
“will of God” whereas more subtle forms of idealism put the cause down to the
ideas which exist in the heads of individuals on earth, but in neither case do
idealists seek an explanation in material reality.

Whereas idealism believes that the ideas in people’s heads exist outside of
and independently of the world of matter, materialism contends that
people’s ideas, like all other aspects of their behaviour, are the product of
material causes and can only be properly understood when these causes
are discovered.

Materialists in fact argue that man was neither created by God nor is his
origin a sheer mystery. He developed out of the world of nature through a long
process of evolution and his ideas are the product of the mental activity of his
brain, itself a highly developed and complex form of matter.

This does not mean that materialists are not concerned about people’s
ideas. On the contrary, materialists are the only people in the world who are
able to explain them properly. What materialism rejects are not ideas, or their
immense importance in influencing the course of events. Rather it is the
idealist theory of ideas which materialists challenge, because this treats ideas
as mystical forces that somehow exist independently of material reality.

It is true that many people generally look for the causes of events in
material rather than spiritual forces while retaining beliefs about the world of
the supernatural or some other “autonomous” realm of ideas. But this merely
means that they are not being philosophically consistent. The fact still

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 3 of 13
:
 remains that it is impossible to hold that matter is the product of mind (the
idealist position) while at one and the same time contending that mind is the
product of matter!

Materialism and idealism offer interpretations of the world which are

irreconcilable. Which of the “two great camps”, as Engels called them,[1] we
choose still constitutes today, as in the past, the basic question of philosophy.

But why should it matter? What political consequences are likely to follow if
we opt for one camp rather than the other?

To answer this question, we must turn to consider the question of

(ii) Materialism as a Rational and Democratic Outlook

If we ascribe, as the idealists do, events and actions to the will of God or to
the ideas which people carry around in their heads, everything which happens
is either a mystery or some kind of accidental “change of heart”. To argue that
events do not ultimately have material causes means of course, that they
cannot be scientifically examined or rationally understood.

This is why idealism is not only mystical but generally conservative and
elitist in character. To look for the source of movement in the world solely to
people’s “ideas” or the power of their “will” is to ignore the practical
experience of the mass of ordinary people as they go about their daily lives —
the real force which moulds our thought. Differences in outlook appear for the
idealist, not as particular reflections of a given set of material circumstances,
but as the product of mystical forces which nothing can change. Plato, the
ancient Greek idealist, believed that men viewed the world differently because
they had been “made” differently — he likened them to different metals like
brass, iron and gold — and these were “differences” which nothing could
change. The men of “gold” — a philosophical elite — were naturally intended
to rule over the cruder multitudes of brass and iron — the unfortunate many!
Is it surprising that Plato’s idealism has often found a sympathetic hearing
among apartheid’s supporters? Racist nonsense about the “genetic”
differences which are supposed to make some “races” more intelligent than
others is simply the logical product of the idealist’s search for “causes” which

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 4 of 13
:
 lie beyond our control, and cannot be rationally understood.

For materialists, people are the product of their material circumstances and
their “human nature”, their outlook on life and their general psychology
reflect the conditions under which they live and work. To change people you
must change their circumstances. If, as the materialist argues, we draw our
knowledge and character from our practical experience of the material world,
then not only is everyone able to learn from life and play their part in running
society (a democratic view which rejects the need for mystical “fuehrers” to
govern the “dumb” masses), but changing our material conditions of life can
rid society of poverty, crime, exploitation, war and all the other evils which
conservatives blame on “human nature”. Marx and Engels comment that if
man is shaped by environment, his environment must be made
human[2], and proceed to add that “the teaching of materialism” is “the
teaching of real humanism and the logical basis of communism”.[3]

For materialism is the only philosophy today which can rationally explain
the world of nature and society and thus enable people to control their own
lives and rid mankind of the injustices, inequalities and exploitation of
capitalism.

But how is such a philosophy of materialism to be developed? Before

materialism can serve as “the logical basis of communism”, it must solve the
problem which I now wish to consider, the problem of

(iii) Metaphysics and Mechanics in Earlier Materialism

In primitive communist or tribal societies, people generally explain

movements in nature and relationships in society according to “spiritual”
forces at work in the universe, but it is worth noting that the old legends and
customary practices contain many germs of materialism in the way that they
carefully mirror the features of objective reality.

It is however only when trade and advancing technology open up the world,
as it were, that science develops, demonstrating that what people had thought
of as “spirits” is simply the movement of matter in the universe which can be
studied and understood. This discovery led early philosophers in many parts

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 5 of 13
:
 of the world to assert that the universe was solely composed of hard, material
particles, out of which all forms of life, including human consciousness, were
constructed.

Although theories like this were a great advance, the materialist outlook
which they expressed was incomplete and inconsistent. Early Greek
philosophers, for example, saw changes in the world as the result of shifting
combinations of “atoms”, but these ‘["]bricks of the universe” were themselves
immutable. This static feature of their theory Marxists call “metaphysical”
because these basic material elements in the universe were thought of as
something “above” change and hence to all intents and purposes, “divine”.

This problem was also evident in the materialist outlook of the great 17th
and 18th century thinkers in Western Europe. Although they were able to deal
many crippling blows to the mystical and hierarchical concepts held under
feudalism (the “divine right” of kings, for example), the leading science of
their time was mechanics and we call them mechanical materialists because
they treated nature and society as if it were some giant machine. This helped
them to understand how things “worked” but was unable to explain their
origins and how they had developed. It was simply assumed that some god-
like force had set the world in motion, and it had never basically changed
since!

Yet change was precisely that feature of the universe which it was more and
more difficult to ignore. The rise of capitalism graphically demonstrated this.
As Marx and Engels wrote,

constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all

social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the
bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones[4]

and this made a great impact on the natural sciences. As Engels has noted,
the discovery of the cell, the transformation of energy and the theory of
evolution named after Darwin[5 ]showed that movement in the material
world was not merely machine-like, but embraced many different forms of
matter-in-motion, encompassing heat and light, electric and magnetic
tension, chemical combination, life and finally human consciousness. All the
new sciences pointed to the importance of development and change. It was no

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 6 of 13
:
 longer necessary to bring in some metaphysical force from outside to explain
why new elements were continually arising and old ones passing away.

The time had come to bring materialist philosophy into contact with

(iv) The Theory of Dialectics.

It is one thing for natural scientists to increasingly use concepts of change

and development in their scientific work, quite another for these ideas to be
worked out systematically as a general world-outlook so that they can be
consciously used to help us understand all areas of reality, including of course
developments in society. This is why Marx and Engels turned to the work of a
great idealist philosopher, Hegel, who had developed the theory of dialectics
as an overall philosophy.

This theory of dialectics can best be understood in opposition to what we

have called “metaphysics” and the main features of the theory can be
formulated as follows:

Whereas metaphysics sees the world as a complex of things, dialectics

examines these elements as part of an interconnected whole in which
everything is related to and determined-by everything else.

Thus for example: a dialectical approach does not simply observe that
Africans in South Africa are oppressed by the pass laws, work for starvation
wages, farm the worst land, live in terrible housing’ conditions etc. Each of
these elements is related to the other and can only be properly understood as
part and parcel of the whole system of apartheid which links them together.

Whereas metaphysics sees the world statically, looking simply at things

as they are, dialectics is concerned with things in motion, as a process,
ceaselessly coming into being and passing away.

Thus for example: it is not enough just to see how apartheid “works” today.
We must understand how it developed, how the people lived before
apartheid, the great struggles they fought against those who came to steal
their land and destroy their institutions, how apartheid was developed as a
response to an awakening African national consciousness, etc. Understanding

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 7 of 13
:
 how apartheid arose is essential to an understanding of how we can get rid of
it, for the world is continually changing, and a dialectical approach highlights
the fluidity of every situation.

Whereas metaphysics regards change as an accidental occurrence,

brought on by some chance event from outside, dialectics sees change
as a natural and necessary force which comes from within.

Thus for example: the mounting tide of anger and protest against
oppression in South Africa which has so dramatically hit the headlines over
recent months is not, as the Justice Minister seems to think, stirred up by
outside agitators who have managed to accidentally escape the security
police and their numerous spies. It is an inevitable development that springs
from within, as a necessary part of that struggle which has taken many
different forms and reached many different peaks, ever since the racist
oppression began. Like all change, ii can only be properly understood as the
necessary outcome of a developing situation: it is not merely some dramatic
explosion which accidentally “happened”. It is true that outside conditions
may “spark” off events so that they take place at one particular time rather
than another: but these external circumstances “condition” the event,
whereas the real cause of its development comes from within.

These features of the theory of dialectics form the basis for a number of
general laws of dialectical development which Hegel was able to work out.
Marxists consider these general laws to be of great importance for they
elaborate upon and help to clarify the features of dialectical theory as noted
above.

We turn therefore to briefly examine

(v) The Laws of Dialectical Development

Engels considered that these laws can be reduced in the main to three :[6]

(a) The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 8 of 13
:
 This law expresses the fact that change in nature and society does not
simply involve a slow and continuous increase or decrease in the growth of
things. At a certain point, new qualities emerge as a sharp “break” with the
past or “leap” into the future occurs. Bourgeois thinkers often say that “there
is nothing new under the sun” as though all we can do is to arrange different
hands from the same old pack of cards! Marxists disagree. Just as in nature
gradually decreasing or increasing the temperature of water (a change in
quantity) causes it to turn into something quite different, ice or steam (a
change which is qualitative), so in life generally, gradual changes of degree
which do not affect the essence of a thing reach a point when the thing itself
changes its character and a new entity emerges.

Thus in South Africa for example, for a long period of time the old tribal
systems slowly disintegrated as the people were forced to leave their homes
and work down the mines, on the farms and in the factories, until a “leap”
occurred and a new identity was born. People now saw themselves not merely
as Tswanas, Zulus, Xhosas, etc. but as Africans, a qualitative change in the
people’s outlook. This made it possible on the one hand to form the ANC as a
national political organisation and for the ANC, once formed, to fight for the
development of a national consciousness among wider and wider sections of
the people. This qualitative change in the people’s outlook giving them a new
sense of identity did not simply take place “overnight": it had been building up
gradually, bit by bit, for many years before. But changes in degree do not take
place for ever: a point is reached when they become changes in kind and
something new is created.

But what causes this change to build up in this way? This aspect is focussed
upon in

(b) The law of the unity and struggle of opposites.

We have already noted that change arises from within things as a necessary
part of their development. The elements which make up an object in nature or
in society are at once connected with one another and at the same time, in a
state of constant struggle or, as we often say, “contradiction”. Everything
therefore constitutes a “unity of opposites”. Capitalists for example, cannot

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 9 of 13
:
 exist without exploiting wage workers, while these workers cannot survive
without selling their labour power to a capitalist. They are at once “united” —
for each depends upon the other — but as the class struggle shows, they are
also “opposites”, for this unity is manifest through an ongoing struggle.

This is an important law of dialectics because it helps to identify the reason

why everything in the world must continue to develop. Of course, not all
“struggling opposites” or contradictions should be looked at in the same way
and Marxists generally distinguish between antagonistic contradictions,
when a struggle cannot be resolved without victory for one side and defeat for
the other, and non-antagonistic contradictions, when differences are resolved
in a way which leaves all the constituent elements intact. Thus, whereas under
capitalism, the contradiction between worker and capitalist is an antagonistic
one, under socialism, contradictions remain but with the gradual
disappearance of classes, antagonism dies out.

At all times, in other words, the unity and struggle of opposites continues,
for without the operation of this law in nature and society, no real change
could take place at all.

But what is the relationship between the old and the new as change occurs?
This is demonstrated by

(c) The law of the negation of the negation.

Negation in dialectics, as Engels has pointed out, does not mean simply
saying no, or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any
way one likes.[7]

“Negation” involves the movement of something from an old stage to a new

and higher stage, so that the elements of the old are carried forward and
reworked into the new. Just as capitalism “negated” feudalism by using the
former serfs and craftsmen in its new labour force, so socialism “negates”
capitalism by building upon its social production and advanced technology.
When we speak therefore of the “negation of the negation” we do not merely
mean that something has changed twice over. We mean that there has been a
spiral development upwards, carrying the past into the future, remaking it in

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 10 of 13
:
 the process.

Negation therefore has a negative side which conservatives ignore when

they think that there is no real “break” in development, so that, for example,
they forget that the African worker who has spent years of his life living and
working in the cities, struggling with his comrades for more money, better
conditions and the right to belong to a trade union, is a very different sort of
person from his grandfather or grandmother who lived in a tribal community
farming the land in the period before colonialism. Ironically white
supremacists are often acutely conscious of the force of this “negation” when
they argue that Africans are supposedly too “primitive” to understand the
complexities of trade unionism and would therefore use their trade unions as
political weapons in the struggle against apartheid! But if negation has a
negative side, it also has a positive side, which anarchists and ultra-leftists
ignore when they fail to see that revolutionaries must build upon the
traditions of the past, carrying over what is healthy and democratic and
discarding what is backward and reactionary. This is clearly a crucial task for
African revolutionaries to undertake.

Hence the law of the negation of the negation helps us to understand

change both as a break with the past and yet at the same time, a development
from it Having looked briefly at the three general laws of dialectical
development, we are now in a position to consider my final point relating to

(vi) Dialectics and Materialism: the Marxist Synthesis

Just as earlier materialism was weakened, as we have seen, by metaphysical

and mechanical ideas, so the theory of dialectics and its laws of development
as conceived by Hegel suffered from one insoluble problem. Hegel was an
idealist and hence treats dialectics as movement in the realm of ideas or as
Hegel conceived it, the development of a “World Spirit”. Contrary to his
theory of dialectics which looks at the world as a process of infinite
development, the Hegelian “World Spirit” was assumed to have a “beginning”
(the reason for which no one could explain) and “an end” (which quite
arbitrarily had come to rest with the creation of the capitalist system!). It is
not too difficult for Marxists to see that the earlier materialists were not

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 11 of 13
:
 completely materialist and the earlier dialectical thinkers were not
consistently dialectical, because in both cases, the uncritical acceptance of a
system of exploitation and the division of society into classes made these
philosophers unable and unwilling to see everything, including “human
nature” and private property, class privilege and social inequality, subject to
the necessary forces of change.

Marx and Engels were able to bring dialectics and materialism into a
fruitful synthesis because they were the first thinkers in history to base their
philosophy on the revolutionary needs and aspirations of the working class,
the only class in history which has absolutely nothing to lose from change.
This is why other sections of society, the peasants, shop-keepers,
intelligentsia, small traders and housewives, who will also benefit from
revolution need to ally themselves with the working class and its Communist
Party and follow the philosophy of the working class, dialectical materialism.

As early as 1845, Marx and Engels commented that

the standpoint of the old materialism is “civil” (or bourgeois) society; the
standpoint of the new is human (or communist) society . . .[8]

for the “new” materialism is dialectical materialism and dialectical

materialism is the only philosophy which, in guiding us in the long and
difficult struggle to win a national democracy, build socialism and enter into
the epoch of communism, will always welcome change.

Notes

1. “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy”, Marx,

Engels, selected Works, (Lawrence and Wishart, 1968), p.604. This is an
invaluable piece to read for anyone seeking to learn more about the development
of Marxist philosophical thought.

2. “The Holy Family”, in Collected Works 4, (Lawrence and Wishart, 1975),

p.131.

3. Ibid.

4. “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, Selected Works, op. cit., p. 38. In Africa

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 12 of 13
:
 the effect of these expanding waves of capitalist production was traumatic. As one
writer recalls, “the 15th century hurled at us the economic and adventurous
restlessness of Europe, and subsequently the mania called the ‘Scramble for
Africa’ shuddered the sub-continent. The sheer physical impact of the assault was
enough to stagger the edifice of tribalism. I can almost see my infinitely great-
grandfather, leaping to his feet on a rock and gaping at a sailing ship seeking
harbour — all his patriarchal dignity forgotten, as he exclaims, ‘Hau!’ “ — Can
Temba, “The Bottom of the Bottle,” Africa South in Exile 1961, p. 53.

5. Engels expands upon these points m his introduction to the Dialectics of

Nature and in his chapters on philosophy in Anti-Duhring.

6. Dialectics of Nature, (Lawrence and Wishart, 1964), p.63.

7. Cited in The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, (Progress

Publishers, Moscow, 1974), p.153.

8. “Theses on Feuerbach”, reprinted as an appendix to The German Ideology,

(Lawrence and Wishart, 1965), p.653.

Table of Contents | Marxism in Africa

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/dialego/philosophy/ch02.htm 20/05/24, 11 48 PM
Page 13 of 13
: