Karl Marx

UNIT 2 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM*

Structure

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Concept of Dialectics
2.3 Laws of Dialectics
2.3.1 The Law of the Unity and Conflict of Opposites
2.3.2 The Law of Negation of the Negation
2.3.3 The Law of Transition of Quantity into Quality
2.4 Application of the Laws of Dialectical Materialism
2.4.1 Primitive-Communal Form of Society
2.4.2 Slave-Owning Society
2.4.3 Feudal Society
2.4.4 Capitalist Society
2.5 Social Change and Revolution
2.6 Let Us Sum Up
2.7 References
2.8 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

2.0 OBJECTIVES

After studying this Unit you should be able to:

• discuss the Marxian concepts of dialectics and social change;

• describe the laws of dialectics;
• show the application of the laws of dialectics to understand social change;
and
• outline Marx’s ideas on social change and revolution.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In the previous Unit, you learnt the fundamental conceptual and theoretical
structure of Marxian thought on the history of development of society. After
having read his specific contributions to the materialistic and scientific
interpretations of human history in terms of forces of production, relations of
production and modes of production one is required an understanding of his ideas
on dialectical materialism.

This Unit undertakes two major tasks: (i) to introduce the significant Marxian
concept of dialectics and change and (ii) to summarise the entire conceptual and
theoretical structure relating to dynamic and social change as envisaged by Karl

*
Adopted from IGNOU Course Material: Unit 9 of Sociological Thought (ESO 13) with modifications by
Nita Mathur

22
Marx. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 introduce the concept of dialectics and then discuss Dialectical
Materialism
the laws of dialectical materialism and social change in a theoretical perspective.
Section 2.4 deals with successive forms and modes of production and social
change with emphasis be on dialectical aspect of the historical course of
development of society. Section 2.5 deals briefly with Marx’s ideas on social
change and revolution.

2.2 THE CONCEPT OF DIALECTICS

The word ‘dialectics’ refers to a method of intellectual discussion by dialogue. It

is a term of logic. According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.),
it referred to the art of deputation by question and answer. Before Aristotle,
another Greek philosopher Plato (427-397 B.C.) developed this term in relation
with his doctrine of ideas. Even before Plato, yet another Greek philosopher
Socrates (470-390 B.C.) used this term to examine the presuppositions at the
back of all sciences. Until the end of the middle ages, this term remained a part of
logic. Carrying the same tradition of treating this term as reason, in modern
philosophy of Europe, the word was used by the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804) to discuss the impossibility of applying to objects of a non-
sensuous understanding the principles which are found to govern phenomena of
sense-experience.

There is one more strand in the meaning of the term dialectics. It is the idea of
dialectics as a process. This means the dialectics is a process of reason in
ascending and descending forms. In ascending form of dialectics, one is able to
demonstrate the existence of a higher reality, e.g., the forms of God. In
descending form of dialectics, one is able to explain the manifestation of a higher
reality in the phenomenal world of sense- experience.

In order to understand how Karl Marx made use of the term ‘dialectics’, we need
to remember that Marx evolved his concept of dialectical materialism on the
basis of his critique of the German philosopher Hegel’s theories of idealism.

Hegel combined the two strands of dialectic, i.e., the idea of dialectic as reason
and as process. In broad sense, he used the notion of dialectics as a logical
process and more narrowly he traced it as the generator or motor of the logical
process. Hegel maintained that God or the Absolute comes to self-knowledge
through human knowledge. In other words, the categories of human thought are
equal to objective forms of being and logic is at the same time the theory about
the nature of being. Further, Hegel proposed that dialectics can be conceived
more narrowly as grasping of opposites in their unity. Hegel saw it as a process
which brings out what is implicit. In this way, each development is a product of a
previous less developed phase. In a way new development is a fulfilment of the
previous state. Thus there is always a hidden tension between a form and its
process of becoming a new form. Hegel interpreted history as progress in the
consciousness of freedom.

23
Karl Marx Marx was initially influenced by Hegel’s philosophy but later on he criticised it
due to its idealist nature and propounded his own dialectical materialism. Marx
criticised Hegel for deducing the laws of dialectics from consciousness instead of
material existence. On this point Marx said that to get a scientifically sound
dialectical method one will have to totally invert the logic of Hegelian dialectics.
This is what Marx did in his dialectical materialism, where in contradistinction to
Hegel, he said it is the matter which is supreme and determinant of consciousness
and idea and not vice-versa.

2.3 LAWS OF DIALECTICS

Dialectical materialism evolved by Marx is diametrically opposite to Hegelian

dialectics. It seeks to explain everything in terms of contradictions of matter.
Dialectical materialism provides abstract laws for natural and social change.
Contrary to metaphysics, it believes that in Nature, things are interconnected,
interrelated and determined by each other. It considers Nature as an integral
whole. Dialectical materialism declares that the law of reality is the law of
change. There is constant transformation in inorganic nature and human world.
There is nothing eternally static. These transformations are not gradual but there
is a violent, revolutionary shift. Marx’s colleague Friedrich Engels put forward
the following three major laws of dialectical materialism.

2.3.1 The Law of the Unity and Conflict of Opposites

We have studied that everything changes, we have also learnt about the nature
and direction of change, but what remains to be seen is the cause behind change.
What leads to change? The law of the unity and conflict of opposites is the core
of dialectics. This law reveals the sources, the real causes of the eternal motion
and development of the material world.

It states that there are internal sides, tendencies, forces of an object or

phenomena, which are mutually exclusive but at the same time presuppose each
other. The inseparable interconnections of these opposite tendencies or
contradictions is responsible for the unity of opposites. This contradictoriness of
objects and phenomena of the world is of a general, universal nature. There is no
object or phenomenon in the world which could not be divided into opposites.
These opposites coexist and one is inconceivable without the other. However,
these opposites cannot coexist peacefully in one object: the contradictory,
mutually exclusive character of opposites necessarily causes a struggle between
them. The old and the new, the emergent and the obsolete must come into
conflict. Here it is important to note that the unity of opposites is a necessary
condition of the conflict, because it takes place only where opposite sides exist in
one object or phenomenon. It is the contradiction, the conflict of opposites that is
the main source of development of matter and consciousness. Development is the
struggle of these opposites. Here, more often than not one opposite or tendency
of the two tries to maintain the status quo and the other counterpart tries to
radically change the status quo. This conflict leads to a new situation, object,

24
phenomenon or stage or development, when the mature conditions come into Dialectical
Materialism
existence after several quantitative changes. This radical change is the qualitative
change. This is how one can find the logical interconnections between these three
laws of dialectical materialism.

It would be erroneous to ignore the role of external influences which may help or
hinder one form of movement or another. Nevertheless, each movement takes its
source from internal contradictions, so that the emergence of new contradictions
gives rise to a new form of movement, while their disappearance gives place to
another form of movement for which other contradictions are responsible. The
opposites can never become balanced completely. The unity, the equal effect of
opposites, is temporary and relative, whereas their conflict is eternal.

Both the laws of transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes and
that of negation of the negation may be regarded as particular instances of the
law of unity and conflict of opposites, which reveals the sources of all
development and change (see sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3).

This abstract law of the unity and conflict of opposites can be explained and
understood if applied to successive modes of production in the history of
development of society.

2.3.2 The Law of Negation of the Negation

The term ‘negation’ was introduced in philosophy by Hegel but with an idealist
meaning. Hegel believed that the negation was present in the development of the
idea, of thought. Marx criticised Hegel and gave a meterialistic interpretation of
negation. He showed that negation is an integral part of development of reality
itself. Marx wrote, “In no sphere can one undergo a development without
negating one’s previous mode of existence.”

Let us explain it. For example, the development of the earth’s crust has
undergone a number of geological eras, each new era, arising on the basis of the
preceding one, represents a certain negation of the old. In animal world also, each
new species of animal, arising on the basis of the old, at the same time represents
its negation. The history of society also consists of a chain of negations of the old
social order by the new: as Raymond Aron (1965) puts it, capitalism is the
negation of feudal society, and socialism would be the negation of capitalism i.e.
negation of negation. In the realm of knowledge and science also, each new
scientific theory negates the old theories, for example, Bohn’s theory of atom
negated Dalton’s molecular theory or Darwin’s theory negated earlier
speculations about human evolution.

Here one thing should be kept in mind. Negation is not something introduced into
an object or phenomenon from outside, but is the result of the object’s or
phenomenon’s own, internal development. Objects and phenomena develop on
the basis of their own inherent, internal contradictions: they themselves create the
conditions for their destruction, for the change into a new, higher quality.
25
Karl Marx Negation is the overcoming of the old through internal contradictions, a result of
self-development, self- movement of objects and phenomena. Thus, socialism
comes to take the place of capitalism because it resolves the internal
contradictions of the capitalist system.

Dialectical negation, therefore, consists of the fact that something of a stage

which is negated is lost, something becomes part of the new, negating stages
(although in a modified form), and something entirely new is added. Thus,
recognition of continuity, the connection of the new and the old in development
is a feature of the Marxist understanding of negation. But we must bear in mind
that the new never takes over the old completely, as it is. It takes from the old
only certain elements or aspects. This too, it does not absorb mechanically, but
assimilates and transforms them in conformity with its own nature.

For example, after throwing off the colonial yoke, in India we started building a
new nation. In this process, we tried to do away with all the vestiges of
oppression and the institutions that blocked national development. However, we
did retain the educational, legal and bureaucratic structures along with the
modern infrastructure of transportation and telecommunication.

Due to these reasons, the succession of developmental stages is progressive.

Although no stage is ever completely repeated, some features of earlier stages
necessarily recur, although in a different form, at later stages. In this way, the old
is destroyed and the new arises. This is only one of the stages of development,
not to end, because development does not stop here. Anything new does not
remain new forever. While developing, it prepares the prerequisites for the rise of
something newer and more progressive.

When these prerequisites and conditions ripen, negation again occurs. This is a
negation of the negation, that is the negation of that which itself previously
overcame the old: this is replacement of the new by something newer. The result
of this second negation is again negated, overcome, and so on till infinity.
Development thus appears as a countless number of successive negations, as an
endless replacement or overcoming of old by the new.

2.3.3 The Law of Transition of Quantity into Quality

In nature, everything is in a state of continuous movement and change. Certain

things are arising or coming into existence whereas certain things are developing,
and/or decaying and certain things are dying or going out of existence at a given
time. This means a state of continuous flux. As said earlier, Marx believed that
law of reality is the law of change. Now the question arises regarding the nature
of change. What kind of change is this? This law responds to this particular
question. According to this law, process of change is not simple or gradual but it
is a product of quantitative advances which result in abstract qualitative changes
at a particular moment when mature conditions are present. There is never
repetition of occurrences. This change is always from lower to higher, simpler
to complex, homogeneous to heterogeneous levels of reality.
26
Let us elaborate this point of quantitative and qualitative changes. The Dialectical
Materialism
appearance or the birth of the new and the death or disappearance of the old can
be considered as qualitative changes, philosophically as well as logically.
Whereas all other changes, whereby different parts or aspects of an object
become rearranged increase or diminish (while the object retains its identity)
could be considered as quantitative changes. To explain and simplify it further,
one could say that the qualitative changes may be of two forms: (i) something did
not exist, but now it does, and (ii) something existed but now it does not.
Quantitative changes, on the other hand, are infinitely diverse, e.g., larger-
smaller, more/ less, more often more seldom, faster-slower, warmer-colder,
lighter-heavier, worse-better, poorer-richer, and so on.

In fact these quantitative changes occur continuously in every object of Nature

and they reach to a limit determined by the nature of each process, after which a
leap inevitably occurs. The limit beyond which continuous change is interrupted
is described as measure philosophy. This leap is the qualitative change. To give a
concrete example, Indian national movement for freedom was continuing for
more than a century leading to continuous quantitative changes and when it
reached its limit there was a leap at the midnight stroke of the clock on
15th August 1947. India was a free country. Independence from colonialism was
the qualitative change. Similarly, the process of ageing in human being does not
stop even for a fraction of a second. We keep getting older or in other words we
keep undergoing quantitative changes and when we reach the limit prescribed by
nature, we meet the qualitative change i.e. death. This example could also be
applied to birth of an infant. Quantitative changes keep going on during gestation
period right from the day of conception but the qualitative change occurs when
the baby breaths air in this world i.e. when it is born.

Hence the dialectical level or law of transition from quantity to quality and vice-
versa is that continuous quantitative changes, upon attaining measure, cause
abrupt qualitative changes, which in their turn determine the character of the
further continuous quantitative changes.

From this law, we move on the other very significant law of dialectical
materialism known as the law of negation of the negation.

Check Your Progress 1

1) Name the laws of the dialectical materialism.

..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
27
Karl Marx 2) Define quantitative change.
.........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
3) Define qualitative change.
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................

2.4 APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

The principles or laws of dialectical materialism hold good for nature, world and
society alike. When these laws are applied to the history of society they take the
shape of historical materialism. (We have already studied in the previous Unit
that human society according to Marx has gone through four major modes of
production viz., Asiatic, Ancient, Feudal and Capitalist. Finally these successive
forms of society would reach the stage of communism, as per the predictions of
Marxian theory.)

Here we shall see how the laws of dialectical materialism are applied to
understand the successive forms and modes of production and hence social
change.

2.4.1 Primitive-Communal Form of Society

This was the first, the simplest and the lowest form of mode of production.
During the period of this form of mode of production, appearance of improved
and also new implements, such as bows and arrows and learning to make a fire
were examples of quantitative changes in terms of the laws of dialectical
materialism. Even beginning of cultivation and herding were examples of similar
type of changes. The extremely low level relations of production were based on
cooperation and mutual help due to common, communal ownership of means
of production. These relations were conditioned by the fact that people with
their primitive tools could only collectively withstand the mighty forces of
nature.

Even in primitive society the productive forces developed steadily. The tools
were improved and skills were gradually accumulated. The most significant
development was the transition to metal tools. With the growth of productivity
the communal structure of society started breaking into families. Private property

28
arose and the family started becoming the owner of the means of production. Dialectical
Materialism
Here the contradiction between the communal relations of production and the
potential forms of exploiting classes led to the qualitative change i.e. transition
into ancient mode of production. There was conflict of opposites within the
system which led to the negation of primitive-communal system. Consequently, a
new stage of slavery appeared. The slavery system can be described as the
negation of primitive communal system.

2.4.2 Slave-Owning Society

In this form of society the primitive equality gave way to social inequality and
emergence of slave-owning classes and slaves. The forces of production
underwent further quantitative changes. In the slave-owning society, the relations
of production were based on the slave-owner’s absolute ownership of both the
means of production and the slaves themselves and their produce.

In this society, there existed the contradictions between slave-owners and slaves.
When the mature conditions were reached the struggle of these contradictions led
to the qualitative change i.e. the negation of slave-owning society by way of its
transition into feudal society. The conflict of the opposites i.e. the slave-owners
and slave culminated into violent slave revolts ultimately effecting the negation.
We can say that the feudal system stands as an example of negation of negation.
It means that feudal society can be seen as an example of negation of slave-
owning society which itself is a negation of primitive-communal society.

2.4.3 Feudal Society

Slavery system was the first stage where relations of production were based on
domination and exploitation by the slave-owner class of the slave class. This was
the stage, where the relations of production saw qualitatively fundamental
differences compared to previous stage. In feudal stage, the forces of production
saw rapid quantitative change where for the first time inanimate sources of
energy such as water and wind were tapped. The development of these
productive forces was facilitated by the feudal relations of production. The feudal
lords oppressed and exploited their serfs. However, towns began to emerge at this
time. Trade, commerce and manufacture began to flourish. Many serfs ran away
from the feudal estates to pursue a trade in the growing towns. The conflict of
opposites within the feudal system namely, that of landless serfs against feudal
lords, reached its maturity. The feudal system declined and its negation was the
capitalist system.

2.4.4 Capitalist Society

Based on private capitalist ownership the capitalist relations of production

facilitated tremendous growth of the productive forces. With this growth of
productive forces, capitalist relations of production ceased to correspond to
forces of production in feudal system. The most significant contradiction of the
capitalist mode of production is the contradiction between the social character of
29
Karl Marx production and the private capitalist form of appropriation. Production in
capitalist society bears a strikingly pronounced social character. Many millions of
workers are concentrated at large plants and take part in social production, while
the fruits of their labour are appropriated by a small group of owners of the
means of production. This is the basic economic contradiction of capitalism. This
contradiction or conflict of opposites gives rise to economic crisis and
unemployment, causes fierce class battles between the bourgeoisie (the
capitalists) and the proletariat (the working class), in other words, quantitative
changes. The working class would help bring about a socialist revolution. This
revolution would, according to Marx abolish the capitalist production relations
and usher in the new qualitative change i.e. the communist socio-economic
formation.

The new communist socio-economic formation, as we have seen earlier, passes in

its development through two phases, socialism and communism. Socialism does
away with private ownership of the means of production. It establishes public
ownership of means of production. In such a society the proletariat will jointly
own means of production and distribute the produce according to the needs of
people. This is the stage of dictatorship of proletariat, which will later on also, do
away with the state apparatus leading to a stateless society. This stage of the
stateless society will be possible in communism, where the dialectic finally
unfolds itself, ushering in a social system which would be free of any
contradictions within classes. According to the laws of dialectics contradictions
will remain as this is the basis of development. Under communism there will be
contradiction between Human Being and Nature, as in Primitive-Communism.
The basic difference now is that the level of technology will be higher and Nature
will be exploited more efficiently. Thus we see how the three laws of dialectics
operate in Marx’s interpretation of the history of society.

Check Your Progress 2

1) Name the four modes of production.

(a) ……………………….. (b) ………………………..
(c) ……………………….. (d) ………………………..

2) Class antagonism reaches its climax and it leads to which of the following
formations?
(a) Revolution (b) Slavery
(c) Bourgeoisie (d) Proletariat

3) What is the main contradiction of capitalist mode of production?

.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
30
 Dialectical
2.5 SOCIAL CHANGE AND REVOLUTION Materialism

Let us now discuss the ideas of Marx on social change and revolution. In the
German Ideology (1845-46), both Marx and Engels outlined their scheme of
history. Here, the main idea was that based on a mode of production there was a
succession of historical phases. Change from one phase to the next was viewed
by them as a state of revolution brought about by conflicts between old
institutions and new productive forces. It was only later on that both Marx and
Engels devoted more time and studied English, French and American
revolutions. They named them as bourgeois revolutions. Marx’s hypothesis of
bourgeois revolution as given us a perspective to look at social changes in Europe
and America. But more than this, it has stimulated further research by scholars on
this subject. Secondly, Marx spoke of another kind of revolution. It pertained to
communism. Marx viewed communism as a sequel to capitalism. Communism,
according to Marx, would wipe out all class divisions and therefore would allow
for a fresh start with moral and social transformation. This was the vision both
Marx and Engels carried in their minds for future society.

Marx’s concept of socialist revolution presupposes an era of shift from capitalism

to socialism. He explained bourgeois revolution as a defeat of the aristocracy.
This defeat came at the end of a long period of growth of capitalism. The
overthrow of the bourgeoisie is, on the other hand, only the first phase of the
revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism. According to Marx the
socialistic phase of revolution would not be without classes, occupational
division of labour and market economy etc. It is only in the higher phase of
revolution there would be distribution of goods to each according to his needs.
This would be the phase of communism. Thus, change to communism was
perceived by Marx as a series of steps to completely revolutionise the entire
mode of production.

In fact, Marx conceived intensification of class antagonism in capitalism, because

the new forces of production do not correspond to the relations of production.
There will be increasing gap between the levels of distribution of gains between
the two classes. This shall leave the have-nots extremely alienated and conscious
of their class interests. The new forces of production in capitalism are capable of
mass production and will dump heaps of prosperity at the feet of bourgeoisie
without helping the lot of proletariat, who would continue to suffer from misery
and poverty. This shall accentuate the class consciousness and hasten the
maturation of the conditions for socialist revolution. The socialist revolution
according to Marx would be qualitatively different from all the revolutions of the
past as it would for the first time, after the beginning of history of inequality and
exploitation, usher in a stage of classless society with a hope for all members of
society.

31
Karl Marx
2.6 LET US SUM UP

In this concluding unit of the block, we studied Marx’s most philosophically

profound contribution of dialectics and social change. There was an introduction
to the concept of dialectics followed by the fundamental laws of dialectics and
change. This was followed by a discussion of the application of the laws of
dialectical materialism in the successive modes of production and consequent
social change in society. In this unit, we have therefore studied these successive
forms of mode of production in the context of dialectical principles of Karl Marx.
Finally, we discussed Marx’s views on revolution and social change.

2.7 REFERENCES

Indira Gandhi National Open University Course Material. (2005). Sociological

Thought (ESO 13), New Delhi: IGNOU.

Marx, Karl and Engels, F. (Manuscript of 1845-46) (1937). The German

Ideology, Historicsch Kritische Gesamtausgabe.

2.8 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS

Check Your Progress 1

1) It is the Marxian theory that seeks to explain everything in terms of change,

which is caused due to constant contradiction of mutually opposite forces
found in matter.
2) Law of transition of quantity to quality; law of negation of negation; law of
unity and conflict of opposites.
3) Minor or major changes in any object whereby the object does not loose its
identity.
4) Appearance of new or disappearance of old is a qualitative change.

Check Your Progress 2

1) (a) Asiatic mode of production

(b) Ancient mode of production
(c) Feudal mode of production
(d) Capitalist mode of production.

2) (a)

3) The main contradiction of the capitalist mode of production is the

contradiction between the social character of production and the private
capitalist form of appropriation.

32