Similarities and Difference between Dialectical and Historical Materialism of Karl Marx Works

Historical background of Dialectics

Dialectics comes from the Greek word meaning to debate. There has been a crude form of dialectics in existence for thousands of years. In ancient times, there were philosophers who believed that the way to best arrive at the truth of a statement was by revealing the contradictions in the argument, that is, the opposing, competing ideas within the argument. The clash of opposite opinions was seen as the best way of getting to the truth. This was the ancient dialectical method.

The modern materialist dialectical method developed by Marx is much more definite and therefore, able to provide us with a much clearer understanding. Materialist dialectics goes beyond just seeking the truth of a statement, beyond just understanding that contradictions are present in statements, into understanding that contradictions exist throughout nature and the whole material world. The Marxist dialectical method has four basic features. First, all phenomena of nature (or simply put, all real things) are connected. Second, everything is in constant motion. Third, all phenomena are undergoing constant change. Fourth, the change and development of things is the result of the interaction of opposing forces or internal contradictions within everything. All this is in opposition to what is called metaphysics. Metaphysics sees the world and things in it as static, isolated, one-sided. It views any change there is as simply one of magnitude, a mere increase or increase in quantity on a set stage. Metaphysics is the common philosophy advanced by capitalist thinkers and is taught in U.S. schools. In general it is the type of world outlook the capitalist system tries to foist on us so we stay in the dark about what’s really going on.

Marxism is ‘dialectical’ in its approach, its method of studying natural phenomena, while its interpretation of those phenomena, its theory, is materialistic.

Marx’s dialectics holds that:

i) All things are interconnected, organically inter-linked and therefore dependent on one another. No natural phenomenon can be understood in isolation. Conversely, any and every phenomenon can be understood if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena.

ii) All things undergo continuous change, renewal and development. Something is always arising and developing, something always dying away. Therefore things must be viewed not as being fixed for all time, as being static and unchanging (as does metaphysics), but from the standpoint of their movement and change. Their coming into being and going out of being.

iii) Internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena in nature. They all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something developing and something dying away. This ‘struggle’ between opposite tendencies is the internal driving force behind the process of development. “Development is the struggle of opposites” (Lenin).

Concept of Historical Materialism

Materialism is the way of understanding or interpreting the world that sees the real, physical, or material things around us as what this planet is really made of. Many ancient philosophers used semi-materialist forms of understanding to explain the world. It wasn’t until Marx and Engels developed the dialectical method in connection with the materialist understanding though, that it became a scientific method of studying the development of humankind. In addition, it wasn’t until 1917, when the Russian people kicked out their king and corrupt nobility and set up a new form of society and economy, that the conscious application of dialectical materialism became the guiding principle of any country. (All societies develop by the laws of materialist dialectics, including capitalist countries. But the capitalists and their ideological flunkies – most economists, many college professors, etc. – either do not understand or purposely try to hide the dialectical materialist insight because this science, applied to our modern times, clearly and objectively points out the need for the end of capitalist rule and the beginning of socialism.) Since that time, many other people have gotten rid of their leeches and oppressors (phony presidents, dictators, kings). Progress has been made. The contradiction between capitalists and workers, however, has not been resolved. Neither has the contradiction between victims of imperialism and their imperialist oppressors. The accomplishments of liberation forces guided by dialectical materialism were steps in the struggle, but on a worldwide scale the capitalists still hold the dominant position. This also means that even past victories can be temporarily reversed – since 1990 many socialist and revolutionary movements and governments have suffered setbacks or have been thrown back to a capitalist dog-eat-dog system. It is up to us to build on past revolutionary accomplishments, to pick up those weapons, and carry the struggle forward.

Marxist philosophical materialism contends (contrary to ‘idealism’) that:

1) The world and all things in it are made up of matter. Interconnection of phenomena as outlined by dialectics are laws of development of that matter in motion. The material world develops in accordance with these laws and therefore stands in no need of a creator, (god or “universal spirit”) as idealist philosophy contends. That all things, to quote Engels once again, “…from the sun to a grain of rice, organic and inorganic, living and dead, in short all natural phenomena are different manifestations of matter in motion“

2) That the world really exists, independently and outside of our conception. That matter is primary – since it is the source of our thoughts, ideas and sensations. That these thoughts, ideas and sensations are secondary, derivative – since the bodily organ which thinks (the brain) is itself a complex formation of matter as indeed are the sense organs and the nervous system which feed the brain with information, allowing it to create a more or less accurate mental picture of the surrounding environment.

3) That the world and its laws are fully knowable. That our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth. That there are no ‘unknowable’ things in the world, but only things that are not yet known.

Marx stressed, however, that this does not reduce the importance of the conscious activity of men, of social ideas, theories, political views and institutions. These, in so far as they are correct (facilitate the development of society’s material needs), have a tremendous role in organising and mobilising the progressive classes to effect great changes in society. They do not, however, arise independently and of themselves, but precisely because of the new tasks set by the changing material conditions of society.

Karl Marx background and Most importantly Works

MARX was a German, though of Jewish origin. While his father was a Jew, his mother was Hungarian. He was from a middle class background, born on May 2nd, 1818, in Trier, Rhineland of Prussia which later became Germany.

Initially, he was sent to study law in the University of Bonn, Germany, but he always involved in unionism on campus which brought him into perpetual conflict with the University authorities. This led to his being moved to the University of Berlin, where he abandoned law to study English and Italian classes. 

At age 18, Marx became one of the leading young Hegelians in Berlin, a club or forum of students that believed in the philosophy of Hegel. He got married to his lover, Jenny, from an aristocratic background and had seven children, even though many of the children died as a result of malnutrition.

As a young Hegelian, the view of Marx about state, society and humans generally differs from his perception as an adult. 

That is why in Marxist philosophy, distinction were made about two variants of his philosophy, that is the young Marx of Hegelian character, and the adult Marx.

As a young Hegelian, Marx believed that state is where the dignity of humans can be attained and that the ultimate happiness of humans can be guaranteed by the state. In other words, without state and government, no human being can in all sincerity achieve happiness.

However, there were two major events that brought about drastic and dramatic change of orientation of Marx towards the state. 

1. The plight of the Moselle wine grower.
2. Anti-wood theft law by the Rhineland assembly.

1. In the Rhineland region, a law was passed by the state that placed an embargo on the importation of wine, in the name of encouraging local production.

The local peasants and wine growers soon got wealthy and caused an outrage between the elite who thought that the law was going to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.

The state then removed the law which convinced Marx that the state does not really have the masses at heart, only the bourgeoisie.

This made Marx to posit that state is a clog in the wheel of the happiness of the citizens and that if the people must be happy, the state must be removed.

The Central theme of Marxist and Leninist thoughts.

Central to the theory of Marxism and Leninism, is the advocacy of freedom and liberty for the working class people against the oppression, intimidation, harassment, exploitation and pauperisation of the commoners by those who controls the means of production and wield the instrument of state power for parochial and class interest, rather than the advancement of interest of the people. 

Although, there were other socialist writers before Marx, like Fabians, however, Marx became the focal point of discussion in the communist cycle because he was the first to undertake a scientific interrogation and analysis of societal evolution, bearing in mind the origin and nature of state and the stratification of class that led to eventual class struggle between two dominant forces in each succeeding epoch of human society. 

This led Marx to identify 5stages of human society namely, 

1. Communalism

2. Slavery

3. Feudalism

4. Capitalism

5. Communism, via socialism

To explain these five epochs, Marx adopted historical dialectical materialism to emphasize the point that historically, one cannot understand the present without falling back on history, and that in understanding the history, evidence indicates that human existence is determined by material wealth available to him or her which depicts the notion of materialism.

On materialism, he insisted that before man pursue politics, art, music, religion, love, he must first accomplish certain materialistic achievements which include shelter, clothing and food.

MARXIST Works, thoughts and teachings.

1. On freedom of the Press.

2. Critique of Hegels philosophy of rights.

3. Condition of the working class in England.

4. The poverty of philosophy

5. Wage, labor and capital *

6. The class struggle in France, 1848-1850

7. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte *

8. Contribution to critique of political economy.

9. Theories of surplus value.

10. Das kapital vol. 1, 2 and 3.

11. Communist manifesto 

Marxist scholars, who subscribed to Karl Marx work and ideology. 

-Frederick Engels
-V.I. Lenin
-Frantz Fanon
-Ernesto Cheguevara (Argentine socialist)
-Walter Rodney
-Claude Ake (his book, Political Economy of Africa)
-Andre-Gunder Frank
-Samir Amin
-Amilkar Cabran
-Samora Mashelle (First Mozambican president)
-Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana
-Mao Tsedung of China
-Rosa Luxemburg
-Lafargue
-Henry Futado Cadozo
-Kautsky

TOP 4 METHODS EMPLOYED BY PRESSURE GROUPS

Constitutional Means

One constitutional method available to pressure groups is that they could submit a petition to parliament concerning a particular legislation before it so as to influence the formulate and eventual passage of the bill in a manner that benefits their members. 

Lobbying

This is a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by the government. It includes all attempts to influence parliamentarians and other officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups. A pressure group may lobby government officials and policy makers to implement policies that benefit their members.

Strikes actions and boycotts

Pressure groups may resort to the use of strikes actions to force the hand of the government to listen to them. In Africa especially, the government understand only one language and that is if workers or citizens go on strike or use boycotts. This works very well in election years where the government of the day wishes to remain in power. 

Debates or seminars

Pressure groups could organize public debates to educate the public on particular issues of importance to them. The idea is that, with the issues well explained, the public can then sympathize with them and help put pressure to bear on the ruling government to listen to them

LIBERALISM AT THE 21ST CENTURY

Since  the  late  twentieth  century  a  series  of  political,  social  and  cultural  upheavals  has refashioned  the  world  in  which  we  live, creating  the impression  that  history  is  ‘speeding  up’. With hindsight, the two hundred  years from the  Fall of the Bastillein 1789 to the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, or, more briefly, the period from the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 to the terrorist  attacks on New York and  Washington on September  11, 2001, appear to have  been  characterized  by  continuity  and  relative  stability,  at least  by  comparison  with  the uncertainty,  even  shapelessness,  of  the  contemporary  world.  Marx's comment that ‘All that is solid melts into air’, made in 1848, has come to have an eerie but unmistakable relevance. For some, these developments mark the passing of the ‘age of ideologies’, implying that the major ideologies  are  now,  effectively,  disengaged  from  the  political  world they  once  interpreted  and helped to shape. Such arguments are the  major  ideological  traditions  are  having  to  adjust  to,  and  are  in  some  cases  are  being  redefined by, a series of new and often interlinked challenges. The most significant of these are the following: 

• The changing world order 

• Post modernity and ‘post-isms’ 

• Globalization 

World order has been significantly changed as a result of the end of the Cold War, brought about by  the  collapse  of  communism  in  the  eastern  European  revolutions  of  1989–91,  and,  more recently,  by  the  advent  of  global  terrorism .  The  ‘long’  Cold  War  –  or  what Hobsbawm  (1994)  referred  to  as  the  ‘short’  twentieth  century,  1914–91  –  was  marked  by  an ideological battle between capitalism and communism, which was significantly intensified by the emergence of the USA and the Soviet Union as rival super powers in the post-Second World War period.  The  ideological  ramifications  of  the  collapse  of  communism have  been  profound  and wide-ranging,  but  remain  the  subject  of  debate.  The  earliest  and  initially  most  influential interpretation  was  that  the  demise  of  communism  had  left  western-style  liberal  democracy, particularly  in  its  US  form, as  the  sole  viable  ideological  model  worldwide. This  view  was advanced  though  the  so-called ‘end  of  history’ thesis, Such developments  have  certainly  had  a  profound  effect  upon  socialism. Revolutionary socialism, especially in its Soviet-style, Marxist-Leninist guise, appears to be a spent force, both in the developing world and in post communist states. Democratic socialism has nevertheless also been affected; some argue that it has been fatally compromised. In particular, the failure of central planning has weakened faith even in more modest versions of ‘top-down’ state control, forcing democratic socialists to accept the market as the only reliable means of generating wealth. The ramifications of the end of the Cold War have not been confined to socialist ideology, however. For example, far from bringing about the victory of universal liberalism, the collapse of communism has resulted in the emergence of a range of ideological forces. Chief amongst these have been nationalism, particularly ethnic nationalism, which has displaced Marxism-Leninism as the leading ideology in many post-communist states, and religious fundamentalism, which, in its various forms, has had growing influence in the developing world. Moreover, even ideologies that were meant to profit from the ‘death of socialism’, notably liberalism and conservatism have been affected in sometimes odd ways. To some extent, the strength and coherence of liberalism and conservatism in the twentieth century had derived from the fact that they were defined in opposition to a socialist or communist ‘enemy’. For instance, the new right emerged in the late twentieth century to express general antipathy towards ‘creeping socialism’, and particular hostility towards Soviet communism. The collapse or retrenchment of their traditional enemy means that in the twenty-first century liberalism and conservatism are each becoming more shapeless and differentiated. September 11, 2001, the date of the devastating terrorist attacks on New York and Washington,

Has widely been interpreted as ‘the day the world changed’. However, it is less clear how it has changed and what its implications are, or might be, for the major ideologies. The advent of global terrorism has undoubtedly had major international and national consequences. 

Internationally, under the auspices of George W. Bush's ‘war on terror’, the USA has adopted an increasingly forward and, in some respects, unilateralist foreign policy. Examples of this include the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nevertheless, the ideological consequences of such actions are difficult to predict. On the one hand, if the ‘war on terror’ succeeds in constraining or destroying anti-western religious militancy and in toppling those who give it support, it may, in the long term, help to universalize liberal-democratic values and institutions. On the other hand, in line with Samuel Huntington's (1993) ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis, it may provoke a still more bitter anti-American and anti western backlash and further strengthen fundamentalist religion. At a national level, global terrorism has served to bolster the state generally and, in particular, to ground state authority more firmly in its capacity to protect citizens and maintain security. In The Shield of Achilles (2002), Philip Bobbitt thus argued that the state is essentially a ‘war making institution’. To the extent that the terrorist threat establishes the primacy of order and state security over a concern with civil liberties and individual rights it may be associated with a drift towards conservatism and the erosion of liberal sensibilities. 

The Mordern, Rise and Growth of Comteporary Liberalism:

It is really an uphill task to ascertain the origin of liberalism because an ideology cannot be created at a particular point of time. However, it’s quite safe to say that liberalism was born in England during the middle of seventeenth century. Here again the readers may be cautioned that the seeds of liberalism existed in British society even before that time.

Nevertheless, we can say that several factors and writings of a number of persons contributed to the origin of their political ideology:

(1) The collapse of feudalism is an important cause of the origin of liberalism. Let us explain it briefly. In the feudal period the feudal lords practically controlled the economy and politics along with the church and its fall opened the advent of capitalism and emergence of a middle class which aspired to have a positive role in politics. The capitalist class and the middle class did not want the dominant role of the church.

The capitalists supplied the finance for the management of state and the middle class supplied executives and administrators. Slowly but steadily these two classes captured the power of the state and wanted to impose restrictions upon the government. In this way there arose liberalism in embryonic form.

 (2) Two major events of the second half of the eighteenth century helped the emergence of liberalism. These two events are: Declaration of American Independence in 1776 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. Both these events furthered the progress of liberalism. American war of independence was not simply a war of the independence of a particular nation but a major war against colonialism which contained the seeds of liberalism. On the other hand, after the French Revolution, Declaration of Rights of Man heralded the collapse of autocratic rule in France and its wave spread to other parts of Europe and this accelerated the advent of liberalism.

(3) The writings (including philosophy) of some men were conspicuous in advancing the emergence of liberalism. Some of them may be stated briefly. John Gray says that Thomas Hobbes may be regarded as an exponent of liberalism. Hobbes’ (1588-1679) “Closeness to liberalism lies in part in his uncompromising individualism. It is found also in his egalitarian affirmation of the equal liberty of all men in the state of nature and his rejection of a purely hereditary title to political authority”. Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677) was also a precursor of liberalism. He was mainly concerned with natural rights, freedom, curtailment of political power, maintenance of peace and security.

Behind the birth of liberalism there was a very important role of John Locke (1632- 1704). Locke, by many, is regarded as the father of modern nationalism. His Two, Treatise of Government, A Letter Concerning Toleration are regarded by many as potential sources of liberalism. Gray says that Locke’s thought harbours a number of themes which confer a distinctive complexion on English liberalism that persists up to the time of John Stuart Mill. His theory of natural rights, right to property, concept of consent, constitutionalism, people’s right to dislodge a government for its future to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract are classic examples of liberal thought. The major ideas of liberalism enunciated by Locke were carried out by many who belonged to the latter part of the eighteenth century and early years of nineteenth century. To be brief Locke vigorously championed the central themes of liberalism. Tom Paine (1737-1809) was another figure whose thought symbolises the ideas and spirit of liberalism. Paine strongly advocated for natural rights and limited government which later on became the focus of liberal thought and philosophy. His limited government is nothing but minimal government or state which has been elaborated by Robert Nozick. J. S. Mill and several other political scientists thought that people’s liberty, rights and other interests could only be assumed through the constitutionalism, representative government and constitutional declaration of human rights.