Thumbnail is Marx’s manuscript for The German Ideology. Summary below is a compilation of my notes I wrote when reading Materialism and the Dialectical Method by Maurice Cornforth, along with general knowledge from reading various Marxist authors.
Often times, Marxists use the term “material conditions,” and “dialectics.” What does this mean? Why do Marxists care so much about material conditions? The answer is that Marxists seek materialist explanations for observed processes as opposed to idealist, and do so dialectically, as opposed to metaphysically. In other words, Marxists apply dialectical analysis to find materialist explanations for phenomena. Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the proletariat as a class, and serves as the most vital ideological tool for overthrowing capitalism.
In order to understand dialectical materialism, we need to understand its component parts, materialism and dialectics, and their historical predecessors, idealism and metaphysics.
Idealism

Idealism is, in short, to put ideas prior to matter. Idealism has been used by feudal lords to justify their position above the serfs, forming the ideological basis for feudalism. The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:
-
Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual
-
Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)
-
Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, “above,” or “beyond,” or “behind” what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.
Early Materialism

Common idealist arguments are appealing to a supernatural “human nature,” or “good vs. evil” explanations for processes. Materialism arose over time, as people grew to understand the world more deeply, and especially as a tool to overthrow the feudal aristocracy that justified its existence via the church. In other words, materialism rose to help the bourgeoisie. The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:
-
Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.
-
Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.
-
Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.
Shortcomings of Metaphysical Materialism

The type of materialism that overthrew the feudal lords was still underdeveloped, and metaphysical. The bourgeoisie needed an explanation for why the feudal lords were illegitimate, but still needed to support their own static, permanent rule. This was called mechanistic materialism, for the bourgeois scientists saw the world as a grand machine repeating simple motions forever. Mechanistic materialism, therefore, makes certain dogmatic assumptions:
-
That the world consists of permanent and stable things or particles, with definite, fixed properties;
-
That the particles of matter are by nature inert and no change ever happens except by the action of some external cause;
-
That all motion, all change can be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the separate particles of matter;
-
That each particle has its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and that the relationships between separate things are merely external relationships.
Moving from Metaphysics to Dialectics

This, of course, has proven false. History did not end with the dissolution of the USSR, despite what modern mechanistic materialists claim. Mechanistic materialism relies on metaphysics, seeing everything as a static abstraction, devoid of its context. It has no explanation for how new qualities emerge, and ultimately fell to idealism to explain the “first mover,” ie “God.” Dialectical materialism holds instead:
-
The world is not a complex of things but of processes;
-
That matter is inseperable from motion;
-
That the motion of matter comprehends an infinite diversity of forms which arise one from another and pass into one another;
-
That things exist not as separate individual units but in essential relation and interconnection.
Dialectical Materialism

This became remarkable for the proletariat, as it sees nothing as static, and therefore marks the eventual downfall of the bourgeoisie. Putting it all together, we get the following:
- Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.
In other words, when analyzing events and contextualizing them, we must always viee them as a struggle between the rising and the falling, the old and the new, for example the concentration of capital in markets and the rise in socialize labor.

- Dialectical materialism considers that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of matter, so that there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter. Motion does not have to be impressed upon matter by some outside force, but above all it is necessary to look for the inner impulses of development, the self-motion, inherent in all processes.
In other words, all movement is a result of contradiction. Your foot presses on the Earth, and the Earth presses back on you.

- Dialectical materialism understands the motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe, from mere changes of place right to thinking. It recognizes, therefore, the infinite diversity of the forms of motion of matter from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.
In other words, dialectical materialism recognizes that development exists as a change of quantity into quality. Addition or subtraction gives way to qualitative change. A balloon is filled with air, until at a given point it pops due to pressure buildup. Water goes from liquid to gas at its boiling point, and back into liquid when cooling down to said point.

- Dialectical materialism considers that, in the manifold processes taking place in the universe, things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection.
In other words, everything is connected, and must be analyzed in context to truly understand it. A worker isn’t just an individual, but instead part of a social class of many workers. Wages are not something invented brand new every time, but instead are set by societal standards, controlled by the ruling capitalist class.

Conclusion
Karl Marx created dialectical materialism by turning Hegel’s idealist dialectic into a materialist one. Then, he applied it to the progression of society, creating historical materialism. By analyzing social structures and progress as a dialectical process based in materialism, we can learn from history and analyze where it’s going. This is scientific socialism in progress. Human thought is shaped by our social experience, forming class consciousness and ideology. How we produce and distribute determines our ways of thinking.
If you keep these in mind, you can do your own dialectical materialist analysis. Always seek explanations based on the material, not the ideal, and always do so by contextualizing the processes, analyzing their contradictions, the unity and struggle of opposing tendencies. Quantitative changes lead to qualitative development, and progresses as a result of the conflict or struggle of opposite tendencies. There’s much more to dialectical materialism, but this should help serve as a simple overview!


I’ve read Theses on Feuerbach, I’m not sure exactly how I missed its core essence. I explained that dialectical materialism is a tool for understanding the world and its processes, unless you mean matter shaping thought. If the latter, I added a short bit on that.
I’m sure you have, I’m being glib. Most people miss it.
Dialectical Materialism needs to explicitly center human contemplation, experience, time, and effort. For example, this is what Lenin understood that Plekhanov did not. Fortunately, we have the benefit of Marx’s own notes describing exactly how to negate all forms of idealism. Without it, we can’t connect abstraction to concrete specifics in a principled, coherent and scientific way, and “morbid symptoms appear.”
Anyway I’m insufferable when it comes to this point. Again, no disrespect, you cover all the high points quite well without referring to Engels, except for this one
Not well-read on communism, why is Lenin often cited in marxist discussion; wasn’t he a terrible person who created fascist rule?
Lenin was a Marxist, and he advanced Marxism into the era of imperialism, using this advancement to establish socialism.
Only if you’re a horseshoe theorist. Previously:
I’m familiar with the horseshoe theory. I am not against being far-left.
But from my [limited] understanding of the figure, he did a u-turn on his policies the minute he came to power, and became the thing he was supposed to destroy [fascism, dictatorship] instead of actually applying communism/socialism the way it was intended (i.e. to liberate the working class from the social elites and restore the means of production back to them).
CMIIW.
Please don’t get your politics from Star wars
Your understanding of Lenin comes from the last eighty years of anticommunist propaganda.
Lenin is not associated with fascism in good faith. I have heard some people describe the Bolshevik revolutionary government as fascist, but I dont believe they have a very good definition of fascist. In those cases, fascism means something kind of like authoritarian. Was Lenin an authoritarian? Ive looked in to this quite a bit, and even though I think such criticisms dont actually stick to Lenin very well, there were a few things that happened in 1921 that were imo harmful to international socialism. Those were, the banning of factions, attack on Kronstadt (carried out by Trotsky), and the New Economic Policy. After that point, I believe Russian socialist experiment was essentially over, it had turned into something else. This was not purely the fault of Lenin, who was doing his best to navigate an impossible situation made worse by bloody civil war against the government. Other communists will disagree with me on this point, but this is what ive learned.
However, Lenin was a revolutionary leader. He helped organize the revolution for decades leading up to the Oct 1917 revolution, led the Bolsheviks through numerous difficulties, including the years of severe repression, exile of himself and many of the leaders, opportunism from the Menshevik faction, opportunism from ultraleft factions, and the crucial months before the revolution.
When considering if Lenin was actually a fascist, consider this: fascists will always make war. Lenin and the Bolsheviks on the other hand, in carrying out the revolution, actually ended WW1. The revolution itself was practically bloodless. What wasnt bloodless, was the civil war, initiated by the Russian monarchists, and helped by numerous invaders, like France and the USA. Still. The Bolsheviks fought a political battle, and won. But the cost was incredibly high. Russia had been the most backward country in Europe, and now, the scant industry Russia had built up over the last 100 years got completely destroyed. Without places to work, there was no working class to defend the revolution. Lenin was dead by 1925, and suffered from severe health problems for years. The fact is Lenin didn’t have time to be a tyrant.
I have criticisms of him but he was the proof of concept for revolutionary Marxism. He was a fierce defender of Marx’s dialectical materialist method, and used it to understand the past, interpret the present, and make plans of action to organize the workers to seize control of industry. The workers had their own revolution in February 1917, but were already about to hand control of the government to the capitalists. The workers defeated the monarchy but was about to empower a new ruling class, whose plan would have been to allow a guy named Kornilov to declare vicious repression and martial law, and restore the king to a constitutional monarchy. And King Nick was a stupid, vicious tyrant. On the other hand, only the Bolsheviks could have possibly carried out and defended the workers revolution.
We study Lenin because we are revolutionaries for worker revolution, and he was the first person to use Marxist struggle to educate the workers, not only to overthrow the tsar, but also seize state power for the workers. He was a brilliant political scientist and theorist. The people who call him tyrannical and fascist tend to be very closely aligned with capitalism in one way or another. He faced impossible conditions at every step, but with a clear understanding of facts afforded to him by Marxism, helped forge a way forward, and set an example for how to overthrow capitalist power and keep the capitalists from seizing state power
Yeah, authoritarian… no thanks.
Besides war, fascism is known for it’s crackdown on opposing thought. Banning of factions like you said, is one red flag. He created a single-party state.
Then there’s the suppression of opposition along with massacres in the Red Terror. Then you have the ‘‘war communism’’ he instated from 1918-1921:
And this guy is lauded as an anti-imperialist figure?
What’s the opposite/absence of “authoritarianism”?
Fair enough!