II HEGEL AND MARX’S VIEW ON HEGEL’S DIALECTICS:

Dialectical materialism is essentially characterized by the thesis that history is the product of class struggles and follows the general Hegelian principle of philosophy of history, that is the development of the thesis into its antithesis which is sublated by the Aufhebung ("synthesis"). The term Aufhebung was not used by Hegel to describe his dialectics[iii]. The Aufhebung conserves the thesis and the antithesis and transcends them both (Aufheben — this contradiction explains the difficulties of Hegel's thought).Hegel's dialectics aims to explain the development of human history. He considered that truth was the product of history and that it passed through various moments, including the moment of error; error and negativity are part of the development of truth. Hegel's idealism considered history a product of the Spirit (Geist or also Zeitgeist — the "Spirit of the Time"). By contrast, Marx's dialectical materialism considers history as a product of material class struggle in society. Thus, theory has its roots in the materiality of social existence.

The process of history, for Hegel, was marked by two types of causation:

(a) The individual spirit which desired happiness and provided energy, and

(b) The world spirit which strived for higher freedom, that came with the knowledge of the self. He emphatically believed that without each individual pursuing his own goal(s), whatever they might be, nothing was achieved in history. But to know whether these actions were in conformity with the dialectic of the universal, “the cunning of the reason” played its role by allowing passions to run their full course.[iv]

Marx considered himself to be armed with just the theory that would provide the impetus for the social change required to end such exploitation. This can be categorised as the second strand of Marxist thought: ‘ dialecticalmaterialism’[v] where Marx borrowed the concept of dialectical development of history from Hegel's thought.[vi] Hegel had proposed that every idea, especially if initially meritorious, would inevitably be taken too far by its supporters, by which time it would do more harm than good. When this happened, the idea would be met with an opposing one. The two would clash and a synthesis would emerge from the conflict, an entirely new idea which contained the essential truths of both opposing ideas. Marx used this line of thought to predict that a communist society would eventually result from historical development after the society had first passed through certain stages: primitive communal society, where there was no class differentiation because no substantial means of production had as yet been developed; the slave society, where there was ownership and a class divide separating the slaves and their masters; the feudal society with pronounced class distinction between the lord and his serfs; and finally the capitalist society where the conflict between the workers and the capitalists as described in the preceding paragraph would lead to a revolution whereby the workers overthrow the capitalists who have hitherto lorded over them, and establish a communist society where there would be no class distinction. This was Marx's Utopia where the economy would operate under his dictum, ‘…from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, and where the state with its coercive instruments would no longer be needed and would ‘wither away’.[vii]

Marx's theory was that equality was impossible to attain as long as people had different wealth and control over resources. Because different economic power resulted in different political power, ‘the supposed formal equality of the bourgeois democratic state (symbolised by everyone equally having a vote) does not amount to real equality.[viii] The equality he sought, was eventually to be found in a classless society, where there would no longer be ‘…striking social inequalities, of wealth and opportunity, of power and prestige, of freedom and self actualization, of fulfilment and happiness.’ All this to be replaced by a society of equals, where all share equally in the burdens and benefits of social life.’[ix]

Marx agreed with Hegel that there was a constant movement in the dialectical process, but emphasized the real rather than the ideal, the social rather than the intellectual, matter rather than the mind. For Marx, the key idea was not the history of philosophy, but the history of economic production and the social relations that accompanied it. He acknowledged Hegel’s great contribution, which was to recognize world history as a process, as constant motion, change, transformation and development, and to understand the internal connections between the movement and its development. From Hegel, he also learnt that the various angles of the developmental process could not be studied in isolation, but in their relations with one another and with the process as a whole. Hegel applied dialectics to the realm of ideas. However, Marx as a materialist believed that consciousness was determined by life, and not the other way round. Unlike the latent conservation and idealism of Hegelian philosophy, Marxism rejected the status quo-capitalism-as intolerable. Social circumstances constantly changed, with no social system forever. Capitalism arose under certain historical circumstances, which would disappear in due course of time. Thus Marx, like Hegel, continued to believe that dialectics was a powerful tool. It offered a law of social development, and in that sense, Marx’s social philosophy (like that of Hegel) was a philosophy of history. Both perceived social change as inevitable.[x]

III ENGEL’S LAWS OF DIALECTICS:

"Dialectics is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought."

Engels

Based upon the laws of motion, dialectics enables us to see things in their connection. Our bodies and our thoughts are continually changing. From conception to death there is never a moment when our physical development is still. Neither are our thoughts and mental growth. We are always evolving our ideas.But how specifically do dialectics apply in relation to a study of society? What are the general laws of dialectical materialism beyond the primary idea that everything changes? If dialectics is the theoretical tool-kit of Marxists, what do the tools look like and how do they assist us in challenging capitalism and changing society?

Marx and Engels elaborated three broad and interconnected laws of dialectics, each of which is continually at work and give us the insight into how society develops and what theoretical and practical tasks confront us as revolutionaries seeking to build the forces to overthrow capitalism.

IV THE LAW OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY:

Just as a scientist is familiar with the concept of things altering their quality at certain quantitative points (water into steam at boiling point), so too an observation of the evolution of class societies illustrates the same law.

Society does not develop in a slow, evolutionary manner. The friction between the classes can and does create episodic periods of sharpened struggle leading to political and social crises, wars and revolutions. For a whole period the class struggle may appear to be at a low-ebb, low levels of industrial action, and apparent disinterest in political struggle, etc.Marxists however view events in an all-sided manner. On the surface there can be apparent stability, but a quantitative build-up of frustration and antagonism towards capitalism can break out suddenly, creating entirely new conditions for struggle and catching the bosses and their New Labour echoes completely by surprise. This law is vulgarly recognised by even some bourgeois philosophers who, usually after the event, refer sadly to "the straw that broke the camel’s back."

A society in economic, political and social crisis where the bureaucratic caste has become absolutely incapable of further playing any progressive role cannot stay in absolute stasis. A point was being rapidly reached where either the working class would have to overthrow the incubus of bureaucracy and carry through a political revolution, or there would occur a social counter-revolution leading to the restoration of capitalism.

V THE INTERPENETRATION OF OPPOSITES:

Trotsky illustrated this law in his analysis of the forces which made the Russian Revolution in 1917 and he said "In order to realise the Soviet State, there was required a drawing together and mutual penetration of two factors belonging to completely different economic species; a peasant war – that is, a movement characteristic of the dawn of bourgeois development – and a proletarian insurrection, the movement signalling its decline. That is the essence of 1917".

This "combined and uneven development" illustrates the complex manner in which societies develop. Application of the law of interpenetrating opposites is crucial in our clarification of the stage at which capitalism has reached its future direction and our responses.

VI THE NEGATION OF THE NEGATION:

Engels described this concept as "an extremely general, and for this very reasonextremely far-reaching and important, law of development of nature, historyand thought", the negation of the negation deals with development through contradictions which appear to annul, or negate a previous fact, theory, or form of existence, only to later become negated in its turn.

Capitalism’s economic cycle illustrates this law. Great wealth is created in the boom, only to become partially destroyed by episodic crises of over-production. These in turn create afresh the conditions for new booms, which assimilate and build upon previously acquired methods of production, before once again coming into contact and being partially negated by the limits of the market economy.

Everything, which exists, does so out of necessity. But everything perishes, only to be transformed into something else. Thus what is ‘necessary’ in one time and place becomes ‘unnecessary’ in another. Everything creates its opposite, which is destined to overcome and negate it.The first human societies were classless societies based on the co-operation of the tribe. These were negated by the emergence of class societies basing themselves upon the developing material levels of wealth. Modern private ownership of the means of production and the nation state, which are the basic features of class society and originally marked a great step forward, now serve only to fetter and undermine the productive forces and threaten all the previous gains of human development.

The material basis exists now to replace the bosses’ system with socialism, the embryo of which is already contained in class society, but can never be realised until the working class negates capitalism.

VII MATERIALISTIC VIEW OF HISTORY:

The materialistic view of history is the application of the Communist dialectic and materialism to history and social problems.A central idea of Marxism is that history follows progressive development through successive stages. This progress leads to an improvement in people's lives through the development of new technologies (improved forces of production). The driving force behind this dialectical process[xi]between the past and the future is social struggle, particularly class struggle. Progress, rather than aiming at vague ideals (Hegel's erroneous view), is driven by material facts the mode of production, whether feudal, agrarian, capitalist, or socialist.

Historical materialism [xii] implies abandoning“metaphysics” of an inevitable “human nature”[xiii] For Marxists, social reality is malleable. Thus, Marxist law is the command of the state during the capitalist and socialist eras (late modernity), but law would disappear as anarchic communism becomes established in the future and the state withers away to be replaced by civil society (the end of history). With this foundation, we can analyze the legal regimes constructed by this antinomian thought aimed to aid the transition from capitalist imperialism toward communism.

The dialectic states that development occurs through the unity and struggle of opposing factors based on internal contradiction. As the application of this "Law of Contradiction" to history, the materialistic view of history asserts that human history is the history of struggle between the ruling class and the ruled class.

The dialectic states that development is not a constant growth process but a process which is interrupted by a sudden shift from quantitative change to qualitative change.[xiv]According to the materialistic view of history in the application of this law, class struggles at first have begun as economic struggle. The sphere of this struggle is extended gradually up to a point when radical and violent political struggle, that is, revolution, comes about suddenly. At this time, the relationship between the ruling and the ruled is reversed and the ruled class gains the victory, bringing about a new society.

As the application of the "Law of Negation of Negation," the dialectic asserts that history started from a primitive communal society which was a classless society; after this classless society was negated, class society developed through three stages (slave, feudal, capitalist), and ultimately the class society itself will be negated to return to the higher stages of classless society, that is, Communist society.[xv]

As the application of materialism, materialistic view of history asserts that, as man's spirit is a product of matter, so various forms of ideologies in the society are products of the production relations, which are the foundation of society. Accordingly, the superstructure shares the identical destiny with the foundation that is, the development and extinction of various ideological forms follow the development and extinction of production relations.

Marx, in his analysis of history, mentioned the important role of ideology in perpetuating false consciousness among people, and demarcated the stages which were necessary for reaching the goal of Communism. In that sense, both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat were performing their historically destined roles. In spite of the deterministic interpretation of history, the individual had to play a very important role within the historical limits of his time, and actively hasten the process.[xvi]

VIII CRITIQUE:

Communists use the dialectic and materialism to explain historical development, providing us with the vision that Communist society, the ideal society for which mankind has been longing, is sure to come about in the future. But, the Communist countries, which were established in accordance with their theory, have turned out to be far worse than their capitalist counterparts, as Communist bloc peoples suffer from inequality, restricted freedom, and gross neglect of human rights. The reason for their disparity is that the Communist philosophy, dialectical materialism, which they apply to historical development, is false. The materialistic view of history, as well as other theories of Communism, is a deceptive theory which professional revolutionists have used to deceive people in order to take over the political power. The best way to explain the development of history accurately is to learn the Unification view of history.[xvii]

IX CONCLUSION:

In the realm of science, explicitly or implicitly, the dialectical method continues to vindicate itself as a vital tool for progress. Apparently unrelated scientific disciplines have come to share visions and methodologies reflecting the real connectedness of our living universe.

Even the idealist philosopher Kant, writing before the time of Marx and Engels and who believed in a supreme being, was forced by experience to arrive unconsciously at a dialectical position. He argued that if the earth was something that had come into being, then its present geological, geographical and climatic states, its plants and animals too, must be something that had come into being. If this was the case, then earth must have had a history not only of co-existence in space but also a succession in time.

This theory deals with rapid and sudden speciation and mass extinction of species, in the same way as Darwin spoke of the struggle for existence of individual varieties within a single species.Marx was a revolutionary with a belief in the philosophy of praxis. Implicit in his belief was an underlying assumption of a law operating all the time which led to Engel’s formulation of dialectics of nature. This alteration changed the very essence of Marx’s method of arriving at a conclusion from a particular event or a happening, to a general theory of framework determining even the small happenings.

Marx had a very powerful moral content inhis analysis and asserted that progress was not merely inevitable, but would usher in a perfect society free of alienation exploitation and deprivation. His materialistic conception of history emphasized the practical side of human activity, rather than speculative thought as the moving force of history. In the famous funeral speech, Engel’s claimed that Marx made two major discoveries- the law of development of human history and the law of capitalist development.

X REFERENCES: