One of the many
reasons for the misinterpretation of Marx’s writings has its origins in the
misunderstanding of his method. His mode of investigation was entirely
dialectical. To many of his subsequent readers down the years this has made his
work relatively inaccessible. At the beginning of the 20th century
the analytical school of philosophy had almost entirely eclipsed the
dialectical tradition because of its association with the ubiquitous ‘scientific
method’. The dialectics of the so-called continental philosophical school were thus
confined to the analysis of the ‘humanities’ if they were used at all. When this analytical method was used to create
the separate disciplines of economics, politics, history and sociology etc.,
(something entirely alien to the holistic dialectical approach) its conclusions
were, unsurprisingly, very different from those of Marx. Sometimes this was due
to the ideological bias of the individuals involved but more usually it was
because the nature of the method defines the results. Some have thought that
the analytical method easily disposes itself to defending the status quo and so
is inadequate for use in radical and revolutionary discourse. It has been
conjectured that the empirical analytical approach is optimal for the study of
the natural sciences and that the dialectical method is superior in cultural
analysis. This article will attempt to dispel this illusory dualism and
liberate dialectics from its arcane and semi-mystical status and transform it
back into a common sense approach to understanding the world.
When many first attempt an understanding of
the dialectical method they can be intimidated by what seems to be an
investigation into an esoteric and alien intellectual tradition. But it can be a
surprising revelation that this was how they had thought of the world long
before reading a word of Marx or Hegel. The most obvious example of an ‘innate
dialectic’ is the ease with which some can associate and locate their lives
within the bigger political picture. The individual’s concerns, joys and
sufferings can be understood alongside the identical emotions of fellow beings
within, as is quickly discovered, not just a familial, local or even regional context
but that of the human condition itself. The self is understood within an
historical context that has inherited a social condition, a language and a set
of values (together with the very concepts used to understand it all) from
those who had gone before. Of course the dialectical philosophers had
systematized these universal experiences into a coherent methodology which has
accumulated, as all philosophical discourses do, a series of concepts and
phrases that can seem very remote from every day life. But at its heart it
seeks to find a language that can simulate and thus render understandable the
phenomena of the real world.
Language is an abstraction of utterance and
gesture. It seeks primarily to facilitate communication about the experience of
existence. It is important to always remember that thought uses ideas (abstract
representations of perception and experience) to create concepts (mental
reconstructions of relationships between ideas) and as such they attempt to
represent the objective world that we find ourselves within and are not those
things in themselves. Language is so seductive that once it becomes inducted
into thought itself it can be mistaken for that which it represents (idealism).
This is the Marxian version of the dialectical method which it uses in the
service of materialism rather than the idealism of Hegel (Marx famously
subverted the Hegalian method) but the philosophical technique is fundamentally
the same. The foremost discovery of any dialectical analysis is that any
abstract (idea and concept) is in the process of change. This reflects the fact
that all of the constituents of the world are becoming something other than
that which they appear to be at any given time. Everything has to be understood
in terms of what it once was, what it is now and what it will become. To study
anything in isolation from this dynamic is misleading and futile. This
continual change is due to not just external factors but also to its internal
structure. This is what dialecticians call internal relations. The method seeks
to comprehend four relationships between the elements within the idea
(phenomena under consideration): identity and difference, the interpenetration
of opposites, the transition from quantity to quality and the tension created
by internal contradictions. These processes are universal and so reflect the
whole within its parts but, as we shall see, the very distinction between
‘whole’ and ‘part’ quickly becomes philosophically redundant and is only
retained as an expository expedient.
Let’s use the humble apple as a subject for a
dialectical analysis. The colour, shape, taste and texture combine to define
‘an apple’. These qualities are in turn dependant on a process that has changed
the fruit and brought it to ripeness. In dialectical terms we see the development
of the apple in both its difference from other fruits as well as its connection
with them as part of the definition of being a fruit. We see in the ripening
the interpenetration of opposites in terms of sourness transforming into
sweetness. The development from a single cell to a combination of many as it
grows is an example of quantity becoming a quality and finally the continuation
of the processes of ripening, if the apple is left unpicked, will cause it to
rot and die and this represents an internal contradiction. The perspective or
vantage point from which the apple is perceived will also emphasize or diminish
aspects of this development. The owner of an apple orchard will see the apples
purely as having commercial value and will seek to maximize this by selective
breeding and pest control etc. The consumer and/or producer of the apple will
be purely interested in what it represents in terms of taste, price and wages.
The trees fruit exists to pass on its genetic code as widely and as efficiently
as nature will allow. These three perspectives may operate in parallel but can
obviously act against the interest of the other. In terms of what dialecticians
call an extension of generality we know that the apple is dependent on the tree
and that the tree is dependent on the sun and that much of life itself is
dependent on solar energy etc. In this way a thorough understanding of an apple
has the potential to give you an understanding of everything!
Obviously the mind cannot digest the universe
as a whole so we are forced to abstract it into component parts to intellectually
consume it at all; but this is always done with the aim of reconstructing the
phenomena as representing the whole. With this in mind we are free to choose a
point of view that we feel will be most revealing – rather than being
restricted in our perspective by ideological conditioning. Marx was always
aware that he had to explain his method and conclusions within a
non-dialectical intellectual context. Hopefully it is apparent from this brief
introduction that the dialectical method has come a long way since its
rhetorical origins of ‘thesis, antithesis and synthesis’. It has been said that
trying to comprehend the world without the aid of dialectics is like trying to
board a moving train whilst blindfolded. So take off your blindfold and join us
on a dialectical quest as we use the method to investigate the past, present
and the future.
Of all of the dialectical tools available
Marx considered the investigation of ‘internal contradictions’ to be the most
productive when studying history. Unlike most historians Marx analyses history
backwards – he seeks out the elements in the past that are preconditions for
the present. This is because, as already stated, every concept of the present
is rooted in the past and possesses potential for the future. The money in your
purse (present) has its origins in the development of an exchange economy
(past) and as such is extremely unlikely to remain in your purse for long
(future). The preconditions for the development of capitalism were both
economic and political – Marx was never purely an economic determinist as he is
so often portrayed. One of the necessary preconditions for capitalism was the
economic power of the merchants, capitalist farmers and financiers whose wealth
enabled them to replace the feudal lords as the ruling class which in turn
accelerated the economic exploitation of coal and iron that instigated the
subsequent industrial revolution. In other words the merchant adventurers,
pirates and slavers who flourished under monarchical rule (Elizabeth I &
James I) were the very people who would help overthrow it; late feudalism had
nurtured the elements of its own destruction (internal contradiction). Industrial
technology facilitated social production which produced one of the famous
instances of ‘the negation of the negation’ (when change seems to end up where
it starts) because it severed the link between producer and owner (an earlier
form of property) and substituted it with the ownership of the producer’s
labour power as well as his product (property as capital) – one form of private
property had replaced another.
What, then, can be seen as the preconditions
for the future within capitalism? If we look for the most obvious example of an
internal contradiction in the contemporary world one stands out above all
others, possibly the greatest in all of human history, and it is the individual (or state) ownership of the
products of social production. That
the majority are only allowed to produce for the profit of a tiny minority is
as economically irrational in the 21st century as was the political
power and wealth of the aristocracy in 17th century England. The political
recognition of this fact by the majority (the working class) necessitates its
end. Dialectically we can then look back from this future to the present to
seek out the preconditions for socialism within capitalism. We have achieved
the necessary level of production and what we need is revolutionary socialist
consciousness which from the vantage point we have from the future necessitates
the rejection of any reform or political compromise with capitalism. Of course
we speak of the future in terms of the probabilities offered by the present but
this is no crystal ball gazing because, as has been said, we all do so when we
conceive of anything whether we are conscious of doing so or not. A pile of
bricks is never just ‘a pile of bricks’; we interpret it either as the remnants
of a building or as the potential for a building; a baby is not just a baby but
is hopefully the result of joy and a potential adult. Dialectics can help you
understand the probable quality and value of either – a Taj Mahul or an Adolph
Hitler.
Given what has been outlined here it becomes
obvious why dialectical materialism is feared and derided by those who would
have us believe that capitalism represents the best of all possible worlds. The
fear is instinctive because few ever really attempt to understand it. As Marx
said: the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class – a world where everything
is frozen in time (we were just as violent and greedy in the past as we are now
and the future will be no different) and where the only possible form of
knowledge illustrates dead matter imprisoned in its present form and devoid of
any inner dynamic that will change it (bourgeois economics and pseudo science).
Marx chose the vantage point of the working class because he understood that
only they can create fundamental progress. History chooses a class to exhibit
the potential for change; all it has to do is recognize the power that human
development has given it. The theory of internal relations (dialectics) stands
as the primary theory of praxis that can tell us when and how human agency can
bring about a revolutionary political transition. Dialectics are fun!
