Editing Dialectical materialism

'''Dialectical materialism''' is a [[Philosophy|philosophical]] and [[Science|scientific]] worldview based on general principles derived from natural phenomena.<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Friedrich Engels]]|year=1883|title=Dialectics of nature|chapter=Notes and fragments|section=Dialectics|quote=Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature.}}</ref> It is a scientific methodology that studies objective reality, developed from the principles of [[dialectics]] and [[materialism]], and is one of the theoretical foundations of [[Marxism]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Vladimir Lenin]]|year=1913|title=[[Library:The three sources and three component parts of Marxism|The three sources and three component parts of Marxism]]|quote=But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel's system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides use with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx's dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their "new" reversions to old and decadent idealism.}}</ref> Dialectical materialism is also a development from [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]]'s dialectical principles, which were influential to Marx but ultimately deviated towards [[idealism]].<ref>{{Citation|author=[[Karl Marx]]|year=1873|title=[[Library:Capital,_vol._I#(1873)_Afterword_to_the_second_German_edition|Afterword to the second German edition of Capital, vol. I]]|quote=My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. [...] The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.}}</ref>

Although it was a method conceived by [[Marx]] and [[Engels]], the term ''dialectical materialism'' was never actually used by either, but appropriately summarizes their philosophical outlook. In the preface and second chapter of [[Library:Socialism: utopian and scientific|''Socialism: utopian and scientific'']], Engels calls it "modern materialism".

Per Wayne Au's [[Library:A Marxist Education Learning to Change the World|A Marxist Education]], a basic summary of dialectical materialism's elements:

* asserts that the material world exists outside of human consciousness of it, and human consciousness itself is within the realm of  the material world;
* sees everything as in constant motion;
* understands contradiction as the basis for all movement, development, and change;
* sees everything as related and connected, where even opposites make up a relational whole;
* rejects “either/or” and instead sees “and/both,” relationally;
* sees quantity and quality, and their transformation [[Dialectical materialism#Transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa|into each other]], as part of the process of development;
* asserts that there are negative (destructive) and positive (conservative) sides to any contradiction;
* holds that the resolution of a contradiction contains within it both the negation (destruction) of the original relationship and the negation of that negation, which is a new relationship (synthesis) at a different level of development;
* understands the new relationship created in the resolution of a contradiction as carrying aspects of the old relationship within it ([[sublation]]);
* sees the external conditions of a process as playing a strong, sometimes determining role in which internal contradiction is resolved;
* asserts that the development of a process happens in a spiral, not in a straight line.

== History ==
<blockquote>''For more information, see [[idealism]] and [[materialism]].''</blockquote>In [[Ancient Greece]], dialectics was the term describing the art of argumentation. It was considered that in the course of an argument, rich in fertile ideas, the opinions of the disputing parties underwent a change and that something new and of a higher nature resulted. In other words, when two people debated with each other, each bringing their own idea (let's say ideas A and B respectively), over the course of the debate, a new idea C would emerge that both would reasonably adopt: this new idea was made possible by the synthesis of A and B, and could not have come to be if person B had been silently thinking to themselves about their opinion. It only came to be from the "clashing" together of A and B. While very basic, the idea of the dialectical contradiction was there: two things opposed, when resolved, give rise to a third new thing.

The ancient Greeks also theorized about the philosophy of materialism but to them, materialism was a bit different from the Marxist conception and referred to the idea that everything was made of certain matter. Some Greek philosophers believed that everything was made of tiny particles invisible to the naked eye, and that the properties of these atoms decided the properties of the resulting object. For example, atoms of oil were big and smooth, and atoms of vinegar were very small and pointy. They were not entirely wrong (we later discovered atoms and reused their term, but the properties of actual atoms and what the Greeks thought atoms were are very different), but their meaning of materialism was not any more developed than that.

The Ancient Greeks were but one example, and idealism still permeated their culture. They theorized, for example, that since everything was made of matter, then the gods must live on Earth as well -- i.e., rather than completely dispel the idea of deities (which is idealism), they tried to fit them into their philosophy.

In parallel, starting around the age of Enlightenment (late 18th century Europe), science emerged as a field -- with its own rules and methods -- mostly led by nobles who had the time and means to do scientific experiments. These nobles were the first modern materialists, though they practiced a ''[[Metaphysics|metaphysical]]'' (meaning "beyond physics", physics being the Greek word for ''nature'') materialism as they did not possess the full knowledge necessary to understand dialectics.

Later on, the philosopher [[Hegel]] used ''dialectics'' to describe the progress of ideas (thoughts) through contradiction, the process of their development toward a supreme and absolute spirit.<ref>'''V. Adoratsky'''. ''Dialectical materialism'' ''- the theoretical foundation of Marxism-Leninism'', pg. 22-23</ref> Hegel's fundamental question was: where do ideas come from? How come this or that person had the idea to invent, say, the telephone? How come we didn't have the idea for it earlier? By answering this question, he brought dialectics to a fuller form as compared to the Ancient Greek dialectics, though Hegelian dialectics were idealist; that is, Hegel's answer to "where do ideas come from?" was simply: God gives us our ideas. In this case, God should not be understood as the literal Christian God, but more as a concept that attempts to answer the question.

However, Hegelian dialectics by themselves lack this answer: in the idealist conception of history, our ideas happen before our material conditions. That is, we get ideas in our head, and then act upon them and change material conditions. Hegel himself asserted an external transcendental Geist (or Spirit) on it's journey to Absolute Knowing through a dialectical process which was simultaneously materially conditioned in realization but transcendent in being. This however creates a rift, lying in the fact that the Geist, transcendental in being but materially conditioned in realization, there is no internal base rooted in what is to be transformed in the material realm, the material body thus does not carry the seeds of its own negation but is instead reconciled with an external and transcendental Geist making reconciliation impossible because of the rift in realms as the tools for building a material edifice are described as being above the very material edifice they seek to build.

Marxist philosophical materialism collapses this rift by rooting the contradiction of the material world in the material world itself. The Marxist and dialectical materialist conception in contrast posits the following,

Material reality is primary and exists regardless of the precence or abscence of human observation (however the human exists in tandem and within this material reality and can thus affect material conditions after being shaped by them)  -> This gives rise to the consciousness (a material phenomenon in the same realm of existence as all else) -> This consciousness is largely reflective of material conditions and subjected to bending by these conditions -> (Consider this step - LP) Through this dialectical process, emerges the articulate conscious understanding of material realities the particular is situated within (in the context of class struggle specifically, this is class consciousness) -> Due to this process, the consciousness (which was a material phenomenon and not a separate dualist entity) becomes a material force -> The material force then acts back on material conditions -> Material conditions transform because of this new variable -> A new material base (in the context of class struggle, a mode of production) arises -> Consciousness once again transforms to reflect the new material base and is conditioned by it -> Step - LP -> So and so forth.<blockquote>The old materialism set out from a conception of man as part of nature but, not bringing materialism as far as history, it could not understand man in all his peculiarities as a product of labour transforming both the external world and man himself. By virtue of that the ideal could not be understood as the result and active function of labour, of the sensuously objective activity of social man, as the image of the external world arising in the thinking body not in the form of the result of passive contemplation but as the product and form of active transformation of nature by the labour of generations succeeding one another in the course of historical development.<ref name=":0">{{Web citation|author=Evald Ilyenkov|newspaper=Marxists.org|title=DIALECTICAL LOGIC
Part Two – Problems of the Marxist-Leninist Theory of Dialectics
8: The Materialist Conception of Thought as the Subject Matter of Logic|date=1974|url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay8.htm|quote=The old materialism set out from a conception of man as part of nature but, not bringing materialism as far as history, it could not understand man in all his peculiarities as a product of labour transforming both the external world and man himself. By virtue of that the ideal could not be understood as the result and active function of labour, of the sensuously objective activity of social man, as the image of the external world arising in the thinking body not in the form of the result of passive contemplation but as the product and form of active transformation of nature by the labour of generations succeeding one another in the course of historical development......



......All general images, however, without exception, neither sprang from universal schemas of the work of thought nor arose from an act of passive contemplation of nature unsullied by man, but took shape in the course of its practical, objective transformation by man, by society. They arose and functioned as forms of the social-man determination of the purposive will of the individual, i.e. as forms of real activity. General images, moreover, were crystallised in the body of spiritual culture quite unintentionally, and independently of the will and consciousness of individuals, although through their activities. In intuition they appeared precisely as the forms of things created by human activity, or as ‘stamps’ (‘imprints’) laid on natural, physical material by man’s activities, as forms of purposive will alienated in external substance.}}</ref> </blockquote>This undertanding is what fundamentally distinguishes materialist dialectics from Hegelian idealism, Laplacean pre-determinism and Spinoza's determinism. This dialectical mediation separates Marxist philosophical materialism from crude materialists who go with the simple matter -> mind circuit, and in doing so strip agency of individual actors within the wider law governed (but not determinate) system, in fact, the very reason this dialectical mediation is important to acknowledge is because of the unity of theory and method wherein not acknowledging this leads to stagnation because of notions of revolutionary fatalism, and thus inaction. 

This is in fact what [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] wrote on rejecting Spinoza, that history is essentially made of potential tendencies which arise from material conditions (say a revolutionary situation birthed from the inherent contradictions of class society), the realization of this potential tendency ultimately lies with actors within the system (of course the actors are not separate or merely observant within the system but rather within it and their tendency to act itself is materially conditioned towards materializing the potential tendency - understanding this is how dialectical materialism comes to reject both idealistic voluntarism and mechanical materialism).<blockquote>All general images, however, without exception, neither sprang from universal schemas of the work of thought nor arose from an act of passive contemplation of nature unsullied by man, but took shape in the course of its practical, objective transformation by man, by society. They arose and functioned as forms of the '''''social-man determination of the purposive will of the individual,''''' i.e. as forms of real activity. General images, moreover, were crystallised in the body of spiritual culture quite unintentionally, and independently of the will and consciousness of individuals, although through their activities. In intuition they appeared precisely as the forms of things created by human activity, or as ‘stamps’ (‘imprints’) laid on natural, physical material by man’s activities, as forms of purposive will alienated in external substance.<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>


Marx and Engels were first inspired by Hegel's works and ideas, but later developed a better understanding of reality and its progress and development by applying the dialectical logic to material reality, observing the historical development of society. They put dialectic back ''right-side up,'' by divorcing it from its idealist roots and correctly associating it with materialism. To the question of ''where do our ideas come from?'' Dialectical materialists reply: from the brain, as the result of a chemical interaction. But the content processed in these chemical interaction itself comes from our material conditions; the reality in which we live. Indeed, we know for example that the Ancient Greeks had experimented with steam machines. Yet they didn't use them for industrial production, and steam only gained traction in the industrial revolution when we found out about its power output. Idealists would say that the idea already existed in the time of the Ancient Greeks, but the fact that they ''did not use steam technology'' (and it was limited to a couple experiments) shows us material conditions are more important than having the right idea. Essentially, the possibilities of steam did not fit into the Greek mode of production, whose societies by and large relied on slave labor, and couldn't have developed the industry necessary to run steam machines.

It would be wrong, however, to say that dialectical materialism is ''only'' the logical progression of Hegelian dialectics, it is better described as the extraction and liberation of the rational kernel from the mystical shell. Dialectical materialism has its own rules, methods and roots that set it apart from Hegel's idealist dialectics. It could not have existed meaningfully earlier in time, as the material conditions and the dialectic was not sufficiently advanced for these ideas to take hold. This is an entirely dialectical observation, and a good example of what material dialectics are.

Most of what dialectical materialism is, comes directly from Hegel. Where Marx and Engels innovated was in two major ways: the relationship between quantity and quality, and the reorientation of the the primary mover being the material, rather than spiritual, or ideal realm which transcends or stands outside of the material.<ref>{{Citation|author=Humphrey McQueen |year=year of publication unknown|title=from Hegel's Logic to Lenin's Imperialism and beyond |pdf=https://www.surplusvalue.org.au/McQueen/marxism/Hegels%20Logic.pdf}}</ref>

== Importance of dialectics to marxist theory ==
Dialectics explain the rules of change, positing that things do not stay as they are forever (metaphysics). This is readily observable: people age, laws change, seeds grow into stems and fruit, borders get redrawn, etc. Where dialectics become important is that they explain how this change comes to be and, through the study of the [[contradiction]] and its surrounding laws, make us able to properly identify the driver of change. In studying the revolutionary conditions of a country, for example, we are able to draw upon its material conditions, the movements present, and, studying all of this dialectically, understand where they are positioned and how things will likely unfold. Since Marxism deals with objective reality, Marxists need the tools to observe and study this objective reality. In ''On Protracted Warfare'', Mao noted that:<blockquote>"Our war is not just any war, it is specifically a war between China and Japan fought in the Nineteen Thirties. '''Our enemy, Japan, is first of all a moribund imperialist power; she is already in her era of decline''' and is not only different from Britain at the time of the subjugation of India, when British capitalism was still in the era of its ascendency, but also different from what she herself was at the time of World War I twenty years ago. The present war was launched on the eve of the general collapse of world imperialism and, above all, of the fascist countries; that is the very reason the enemy has launched this adventurist war, which is in the nature of a last desperate struggle."<ref>{{Citation|author=Mao Zedong|year=1938|title=On protracted warfare|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:On_protracted_war|chapter=Refutation of the theory of national subjugation}}</ref></blockquote>By correctly studying the objective conditions of Japan at the time, he successfully argued against the "theorists of national subjugation" in China, who were urging China to surrender to Japan believing that they could never win a war against the empire.

Dialectical materialism is one of the three component parts of Marxism laid out by Lenin, along with the [[labor theory of value]] and the [[class struggle]].<ref>{{Citation|author=Vladimir Lenin|year=1913|title=The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Vladimir_Lenin/The_three_sources_and_three_component_parts_of_Marxism}}</ref>

The task of marxists and scientific socialists is to uncover the objective nature of the world through the study of contradictions. Contradictions are not a given, and they are not made apparent to humans. We must struggle with contradictions to uncover them and analyze them correctly, which explains why sometimes, something may seemingly look like it has no contradiction: but in actuality, it just means we haven't found it yet.

Furthermore, dialectical materialism is intertwined with science, as science also strives to uncover the objective nature of the world and in doing so, dispels idealist notions that come from our limited human senses. While science under capitalism is usually practiced metaphysically (taking fields in isolation, e.g. a zoologist studies animals as they are today, while the paleontologist studies the ancestors to these animals), science itself takes on all of its meaning when it is practiced dialectically, and since dialectics are a law of nature just as much as the laws of physics are, scientific fields will naturally tend towards dialectics at some point if they wish to come to the correct explanations. This is why marxists sometimes call dialectical materialism an "immortal science", as it is practiced scientifically (and in fact comes from science), and is immortal on virtue of always following with change and adapting to evolving material conditions.

== Laws of dialectics ==
Dialectics obey four broad laws that explain ''how'' things change.

=== Dialectical change ===

=== Transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa ===
Also called progress by leaps and bounds.

It should be understood that progress does not mean being progressive, but merely that ''things change;'' that something that once existed does not anymore, it has morphed into a new thing. Once a critical point is reached, change happens meaningfully. Feudalism for example was not deposed by reforms to the monarchy, but by decisive revolution headed by the [[bourgeoisie]]. Once a critical stage of the class struggle was reached (the bourgeoisie was sufficiently developed), qualitative change happened and the form of the state changed.

The same thing can be said about something as simple as water: when heated, water does not gradually make more steam the more it's heated. It will start off not making any steam, and then once it reaches a certain point, steam starts to come out of the boiling pot. This means something can stay still for years (such as a communist party not making any progress), and then suddenly make progress (such as the communist party suddenly seeing a surge in new members as the contradictions of capitalism worsen).

All change has a quantitative aspect, that is, an aspect of mere increase or decrease which does not alter the nature of that which changes. But quantitative change cannot go on indefinitely. At a certain point it leads to a qualitative change; and at that critical point, the qualitative change takes place relatively suddenly.

But once qualitative change has happened, we necessarily go back to quantitative change needing to happen before more qualitative change can take place. When the bourgeoisie took power from the feudal system and established capitalism (the qualitative change), they necessarily had to develop a proletariat so that they would have people to employ as workers. Over a century, rural communities were uprooted and urged into cities and factories to be proletarianized, breaking from their old feudal ways; quantitatively, an increase of the number of proletarians happened. This quantitative increase reinforces the proletariat as a class, creating qualitative change in the formation of communist parties and the dissemination of marxist theory.

=== Unity and struggle of opposites ===
Everything exists only in relation to an opposite or contrary thing. The two opposites are therefore united by the interdependence on the existence of the other, yet also struggle against each other. This is also known as a [[contradiction]].

As [[Mao]] explained in ''On Contradiction'', there is a contradiction when two ''things'' are fundamentally opposed, but one cannot exist without the other. In this case a ''thing'' can be anything: ideas, concepts, commodities, fields of science, tangible items...

An example is the contradiction between theory and praxis. Theory can only exist in relation to practice with the real world (praxis), and praxis cannot exist without practicing theory. Theory without practice leads to [[metaphysics]] and unreliable ideas; praxis without theory leads to vulgar [[empiricism]] and ineffective action and therefore, theory and praxis are in contradiction as they struggle to adjust to reflect each other.

Once a contradiction is resolved, the resulting outcome necessarily finds a contradiction of its own. The resolution of contradictions is the engine of change, and what makes dialectical materialism what it is: a scientific theory that explains change and objective reality.

==== Negation of the negation ====
When a contradiction is resolved, it is negated. But this negation makes a new contradiction emerge, which will itself be negated eventually in order to be solved. Consider Element A which exists in contradiction to element B; The resolution of this contradiction creates element C, and element C exists in contradiction to either element D or element B. For example, the feudal nobility (A) historically existed in contradiction to the bourgeoisie (B). As the bourgeoisie reinforced their power through employing, and thus creating, a proletariat workforce (C), it negated the nobility. Now the contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and proletariat: by strengthening its power, the bourgeoisie is creating its own gravediggers, i.e. its negation.

Since a contradiction needs two components to exist and creates a third component that previously did not exist when it is resolved, that third component will find its own contradiction, i.e. its diametrical opposite. For example, a seed contains within it the contradiction to become a plant: it has the potential to bloom, but does not exist as a plant while it exists in seed form. When the contradiction is resolved, the seed starts to sprout. This creates a (young) plant, which is the negation to the seed. The negation to the sprout is the mature plant that starts to bear flowers: the negation of the negation.

The plant cannot exist without the seed, and the seed can't exist without at least the potential to become a plant (otherwise it wouldn't be a seed; it would look like one, but it would not be a seed). This makes it a contradiction.

==== Distinction from dualism ====

Dialectical materialism is distinct from [[dualism]]. Dualism frames the world as a pair of mutually negating forces -- that of idea and matter, consciousness and being -- and that correspondingly, phenomena also fall into two categories: the ideal and the material, which negate each other, and contend against each other, so that the development of nature and society is a constant struggle between ideal and material phenomena. Dialectical materialism views these opposed forces as distinct parts of the whole substance. Like the two sides of a coin.<ref>{{Citation|author=Joseph Stalin|year=1907|title=Anarchism Or Socialism?|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Anarchism_or_socialism%3F|chapter=Chapter II The Materialist Theory|chapter-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Anarchism_or_socialism%3F#The_materialist_theory|city=Moscow|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House|mia=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm}}</ref>

== Examples ==

=== An apple ===
An apple is not set in stone. It will not remain an apple forever. Before being an apple, the fruit was a flower, and before that a bud on a branch. As we can see, change has happened to the apple and will continue to happen. The apple will ripen, and later will fall off the tree and then start rotting, feeding more life. The ''process'' goes on forever even if, at some point, anyone looking at the apple will say "this isn't an apple anymore, it's just mush". The apple itself has stopped existing, but it was just one stage of an ongoing process and the process itself still exists. Incidentally, this is what metaphysical materialists don't understand. They will study the apple as it is an apple, not seeing the whole process. One branch of science will study the apple, and another will study the flower that later becomes the apple.<ref>{{Citation|author=Georges Politzer|year=1946|title=Elementary principles of philosophy|title-url=https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Elementary_principles_of_philosophy|publisher=International Publishers}}</ref>

=== Class struggle ===
There is a very apparent contradiction in the [[class struggle]]. The bourgeoisie is fundamentally opposed to the proletariat -- as the former wants to extract more value from their employees, while the latter wants to retain more value from their employer. Yet one class cannot exist without the other: if the bourgeoisie did not have the proletariat to exploit, then they would change into another class over time. For a concrete example, we can look at the end of feudalism. The Bourgeoisie revolted against the old regime of the nobles and feudal masters and eventually took power (such as in France). Before that point, the bourgeoisie existed side-by-side with the nobles and both competed for the supremacy of their class (as in class society, there is always an exploiting class and exploitative class). Yet the proletariat did not exist side-by-side with the serves. There were free cities, in which guilds operated and they employed workers by the day or week, but this is different from the proletariat (as seen in ''Principles of Communism''). It was only after the feudal order was abolished, with the bourgeoisie taking over the state, that the proletariat developed itself. Thus the contradiction mutated, and the class struggle moved from the nobles and serves to the bourgeoisie and proletariat. 

To exemplify another rule of dialectics, we also see that quantitative change leads to qualitative change. Essentially, as more people became either bourgeoisie or manufacture workers (the ancestor of the proletariat), their numbers grew -- quantitative change. When their numbers grew enough and it was impossible for them to develop as a class any longer, and they had a chance of seizing state power, they did -- and if it was successful, then this quantitative change led to qualitative change. 

== Misconceptions ==

=== Dialectics only apply to political science ===
Some believe that dialectics and dialectical materialism only apply to political science, or even more specifically to Marxism alone and are just one way of seeing the world out of many competing but equally valid frameworks.

Dialectical materialism is the most advanced way to study and understand the world as of yet because it follows scientific principles, is derived from natural phenomena, and simply is the most able framework to explain the objective nature of the world (in terms of correct analyses and predictions). It is not specifically Marxist either and can be used by anyone. Dialectical materialism is a framework to study the world, and works as a "base" to act upon.

Dialectics, because they exist in the world, apply to everything that surrounds us and are not limited to any field of science or domain of use. Dialectics happen in every material phenomena, "material" meaning anything that exists in the material (natural) world. Since we know only the material world exists (the one we live in), everything that exists is by definition material and logically subject to dialectics.

=== Dialectics are too difficult to understand and not needed to organize ===
There is an effort in bourgeois academia to make philosophy remain the language of a few elites. Words can be daunting at first glance, and effort is spent to keep these words vague, difficult to understand, [[Mysticism|mystical]], and requiring years of study to even grasp their meaning.

Philosophy can be and is proletarian, it shouldn't belong solely to the bourgeoisie. It is not necessary to read Hegel to understand dialectics: what matters is understanding dialectics, and after that reading Hegel if one wishes. This requires revolutionaries to work towards demystifying philosophy and teach it in a proletarian manner, so that all workers may understand it. It was for this reason that when teaching philosophy, Georges Politzer didn't spend time walking the student through all idealist philosophers and their differences: he started directly at Berkeley, who had synthesized idealism in its most advanced form. When teaching dialectics, he used everyday examples of material phenomena that all of us have observed before.

Dialectics form the basis to an objective understanding of the world, which includes [[class society]] and the class struggle. Without the proper application of dialectics to analyze one's current material conditions in society, it is impossible to apply [[praxis]] effectively.

== See also ==

* [[Marxism]]
* [[Marxism-Leninism]]
* [[Quotes:Dialectical materialism]]

== Further Reading ==
[[Library:Elementary principles of philosophy|Elementary principles of philosophy]] by [[Georges Politzer]]

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Dialectical materialism]]