Monday, June 4, 2018

Stalin's Historical and Dialectical Materialism Explained for the 21st Century

 "Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Joseph Stalin

Part One: Application in the Early Twentieth Century

Dialectical and Historical Materialism

By Joseph Stalin, 1938 (This has been made available at

Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory, is materialistic.

Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history.

When describing their dialectical method, Marx and Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who formulated the main features of dialectics. This, however, does not mean that the dialectics of Marx and Engels is identical with the dialectics of Hegel. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from the Hegelian dialectics only its "rational kernel," casting aside its Hegelian idealistic shell, and developed dialectics further so as to lend it a modern scientific form.
  • "My dialectic method," says Marx, "is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, ... the process of thinking which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos (creator) 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." (Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Volume I of Capital.)
When describing their materialism, Marx and Engels usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored materialism to its rights. This, however, does not mean that the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with Feuerbach's materialism. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from Feuerbach's materialism its "inner kernel," developed it into a scientific-philosophical theory of materialism and cast aside its idealistic and religious-ethical encumbrances. We know that Feuerbach, although he was fundamentally a materialist, objected to the name materialism. Engels more than once declared that "in spite of" the materialist "foundation," Feuerbach "remained... bound by the traditional idealist fetters," and that "the real idealism of Feuerbach becomes evident as soon as we come to his philosophy of religion and ethics." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, pp. 652-54.)

Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature.

In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite of metaphysics.

1) Marxist Dialectical Method

The principal features of the Marxist dialectical method are as follows:

a) Nature Connected and Determined

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other.

The dialectical method therefore holds that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that, vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena.

b) Nature is a State of Continuous Motion and Change

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.

The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being.

The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.
  • "All nature," says Engels, "from the smallest thing to the biggest. from grains of sand to suns, from protista (the primary living cells – J. St.) to man, has its existence in eternal coming into being and going out of being, in a ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change (Ibid., p. 484.)
Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, "takes things and their perceptual images essentially in their interconnection, in their concatenation, in their movement, in their rise and disappearance." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV,' p. 23.)

c) Natural Quantitative Change Leads to Qualitative Change

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of development as a simple process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open' fundamental changes' to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:
  • "Nature," says Engels, "is the test of dialectics. and it must be said for modern natural science that it has furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials for this test, and has thus proved that in the last analysis nature's process is dialectical and not metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally uniform and constantly repeated circle. but passes through a real history. Here prime mention should be made of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical conception of nature by proving that the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years." (Ibid., p. 23.)
Describing dialectical development as a transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:
  • "In physics ... every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it. For example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises or falls, a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water is converted in one case into steam and in the other into ice.... A definite minimum current is required to make a platinum wire glow; every metal has its melting temperature; every liquid has a definite freezing point and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we are able with the means at our disposal to attain the required temperatures; finally, every gas has its critical point at which, by proper pressure and cooling, it can be converted into a liquid state.... What are known as the constants of physics (the point at which one state passes into another – J. St.) are in most cases nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement causes a qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 527-28.)
Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:
  • "Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies as the effect of changes of quantitative composition. his was already known to Hegel.... Take oxygen: if the molecule contains three atoms instead of the customary two, we get ozone, a body definitely distinct in odor and reaction from ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the different proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively different from all other bodies !" (Ibid., p. 528.)
Finally, criticizing Dühring, who scolded Hegel for all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient world to the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic matter to the kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new state, Engels says:
  • "This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure relations in which at certain definite nodal points, the purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap, for example, in the case of water which is heated or cooled, where boiling point and freezing point are the nodes at which – under normal pressure – the leap to a new aggregate state takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into quality." (Ibid., pp. 45-46.)
d) Contradictions Inherent in Nature

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.
  • "In its proper meaning," Lenin says, "dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 265.)
And further:
  • "Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, p. 301.)
Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist dialectical method.

It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.

If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.

The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system

The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.

Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.

It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.

Further, if the world is in a state of constant movement and development, if the dying away of the old and the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is clear that there can be no "immutable" social systems, no "eternal principles" of private property and exploitation, no "eternal ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.

Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.

Hence, we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.

In the eighties of the past century, in the period of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority of the population, whereas the individual peasants constituted the vast majority of the population. But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken; for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look forward, not backward.

Further, if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Hence, the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.

Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.

Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy of the "growing" of capitalism into socialism.

Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied to social life, to the history of society.

As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.

2) Marxist Philosophical Materialism
The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows:

a) Materialist

Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."
  • "The materialistic outlook on nature," says Engels, "means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, p. 651.)
Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 318.)

b) Objective Reality

Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is a product of matter which in its development has reached a high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot separate thought from matter without committing a grave error. Engels says:
  • "The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 329.)
And further:
  • "The material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality.... Our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter." (Ibid., p. 332.)
Concerning the question of matter and thought, Marx says:
  • "It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes." (Ibid., p. 302.)
Describing Marxist philosophical materialism, Lenin says:
  • "Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, pp. 266-67.)
And further:
  • "Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation.... Matter, nature, being, the physical-is primary, and spirit, consciousness, sensation, the psychical-is secondary." (Ibid., pp. 119-20.)
  • "The world picture is a picture of how matter moves and of how 'matter thinks.'" (Ibid., p. 288.)
  • "The brain is the organ of thought." (Ibid., p. 125.)
c) The World and Its Laws Are Knowable

Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full of "things-in-themselves" that can never be known to science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds 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, and that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things which are as yet not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of science and practice.

Criticizing the thesis of Kant and other idealists that the world is unknowable and that there are "things-in-themselves" which are unknowable, and defending the well-known materialist thesis that our knowledge is authentic knowledge, Engels writes:
  • "The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice, namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable 'thing-in-itself.' The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained such 'things-in-themselves' until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the 'thing-in-itself' became a thing for us, as, for instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow ill the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For 300 years the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis with a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand chances to one in its favor, but still always a hypothesis. But when Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when Galle really found this planet, the Copernican system was proved." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 330.)
Accusing Bogdanov, Bazarov, Yushkevich and the other followers of Mach of fideism (a reactionary theory, which prefers faith to science) and defending the well-known materialist thesis that our scientific knowledge of the laws of nature is authentic knowledge, and that the laws of science represent objective truth, Lenin says:
  • "Contemporary fideism does not at all reject science; all it rejects is the 'exaggerated claims' of science, to wit, its claim to objective truth. If objective truth exists (as the materialists think), if natural science, reflecting the outer world in human 'experience,' is alone capable of giving us objective truth, then all fideism is absolutely refuted." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, p. 102.)
Such, in brief, are the characteristic features of the Marxist philosophical materialism.

It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of philosophical materialism to the study of social life, of the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.

If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are laws of the development of nature, it follows, too, that the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental.

Hence, social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of "accidents", for the history of society becomes a development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society becomes a science.

Hence, the practical activity of the party of the proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of "outstanding individuals." not on the dictates of "reason," "universal morals," etc., but on the laws of development of society and on the study of these laws.

Further, if the world is knowable and our knowledge of the laws of development of nature is authentic knowledge, having the validity of objective truth, it follows that social life, the development of society, is also knowable, and that the data of science regarding the laws of development of society are authentic data having the validity of objective truths.

Hence, the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use of the laws of development of society for practical purposes.

Hence, the party of the proletariat should not guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws of development of society, and by practical deductions from these laws.

Hence, socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science.

Hence, the bond between science and practical activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.

Further, if nature, being, the material world, is primary, and consciousness, thought, is secondary, derivative; if the material world represents objective reality existing independently of the consciousness of men, while consciousness is a reflection of this objective reality, it follows that the material life of society, its being, is also primary, and its spiritual life secondary, derivative, and that the material life of society is an objective reality existing independently of the will of men, while the spiritual life of society is a reflection of this objective reality, a reflection of being.

Hence, the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.

Hence, if in different periods of the history of society different social ideas, theories, views and political institutions are to be observed; if under the slave system we encounter certain social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, under feudalism others, and under capitalism others still, this is not to be explained by the "nature", the "properties" of the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves but by the different conditions of the material life of society at different periods of social development.

Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories political views and political institutions of that society.

In this connection, Marx says:
  • "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness." (Marx Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 269.)
Hence, in order not to err in policy, in order not to find itself in the position of idle dreamers, the party of the proletariat must not base its activities on abstract "principles of human reason", but on the concrete conditions of the material life of society, as the determining force of social development; not on the good wishes of "great men," but on the real needs of development of the material life of society.

The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks, anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among other things to the fact that they did not recognize the primary role which the conditions of the material life of society play in the development of society, and, sinking to idealism, did not base their practical activities on the needs of the development of the material life of society, but, independently of and in spite of these needs, on "ideal plans" and "all-embracing projects", divorced from the real life of society.

The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lies in the fact that it does base its practical activity on the needs of the development of the material life of society and never divorces itself from the real life of society.

It does not follow from Marx's words, however, that social ideas, theories, political views and political institutions are of no significance in the life of society, that they do not reciprocally affect social being, the development of the material conditions of the life of society. We have been speaking so far of the origin of social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, of the way they arise, of the fact that the spiritual life of society is a reflection of the conditions of its material life. As regards the significance of social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, as regards their role in history, historical materialism, far from denying them, stresses the important role and significance of these factors in the life of society, in its history.

There are different kinds of social ideas and theories. There are old ideas and theories which have outlived their day and which serve the interests of the moribund forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they hamper the development, the progress of society. Then there are new and advanced ideas and theories which serve the interests of the advanced forces of society. Their significance lies in the fact that they facilitate the development, the progress of society; and their significance is the greater the more accurately they reflect the needs of development of the material life of society.

New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of the material life of society has set new tasks before society. But once they have arisen they become a most potent force which facilitates the carrying out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, a force which facilitates the progress of society. It is precisely here that the tremendous organizing, mobilizing and transforming value of new ideas, new theories, new political views and new political institutions manifests itself. New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action. Arising out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, the new social ideas and theories force their way through, become the possession of the masses, mobilize and organize them against the moribund forces of society, and thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces, which hamper the development of the material life of society.

Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the development of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible.

In this connection, Marx says:
  • "Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." (Marx and Engels, Vol. I, p. 406.)
Hence, in order to be able to influence the conditions of material life of society and to accelerate their development and their improvement, the party of the proletariat must rely upon such a social theory, such a social idea as correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, and which is therefore capable of setting into motion broad masses of the people and of mobilizing them and organizing them into a great army of the proletarian party, prepared to smash the reactionary forces and to clear the way for the advanced forces of society.

The fall of the "Economists" and the Mensheviks was due, among other things, to the fact that they did not recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of advanced theory, of advanced ideas and, sinking to vulgar materialism, reduced the role of these factors almost to nothing, thus condemning the Party to passivity and inanition.

The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism is derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory which correctly reflects the needs of development of the material life of society, that it elevates theory to a proper level, and that it deems it its duty to utilize every ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power of this theory.

That is the answer historical materialism gives to the question of the relation between social being and social consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life and the development of the spiritual life of society.

3) Historical Materialism.

It now remains to elucidate the following question: What, from the viewpoint of historical materialism, is meant by the "conditions of material life of society" which in the final analysis determine the physiognomy of society, its ideas, views, political institutions, etc.?

What, after all, are these "conditions of material life of society," what are their distinguishing features?

There can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of society" includes, first of all, nature which surrounds society, geographical environment, which is one of the indispensable and constant conditions of material life of society and which, of course, influences the development of society. What role does geographical environment play in the development of society? Is geographical environment the chief force determining the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system of man, the transition from one system to another, or isn't it?

Historical materialism answers this question in the negative.

Geographical environment is unquestionably one of the constant and indispensable conditions of development of society and, of course, influences the development of society, accelerates or retards its development. But its influence is not the determining influence, inasmuch as the changes and development of society proceed at an incomparably faster rate than the changes and development of geographical environment. in the space of 3000 years three different social systems have been successively superseded in Europe: the primitive communal system, the slave system and the feudal system. In the eastern part of Europe, in the U.S.S.R., even four social systems have been superseded. Yet during this period geographical conditions in Europe have either not changed at all, or have changed so slightly that geography takes no note of them. And that is quite natural. Changes in geographical environment of any importance require millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple of thousand years are enough for even very important changes in the system of human society.

It follows from this that geographical environment cannot be the chief cause, the determining cause of social development; for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of tens of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years

Further, there can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of society" also includes growth of population, density of population of one degree or another; for people are an essential element of the conditions of material life of society, and without a definite minimum number of people there can be no material life of society. Is growth of population the chief force that determines the character of the social system of man, or isn't it?

Historical materialism answers this question too in the negative.

Of course, growth of population does influence the development of society, does facilitate or retard the development of society, but it cannot be the chief force of development of society, and its influence on the development of society cannot be the determining influence because, by itself, growth of population does not furnish the clue to the question why a given social system is replaced precisely by such and such a new system and not by another, why the primitive communal system is succeeded precisely by the slave system, the slave system by the feudal system, and the feudal system by the bourgeois system, and not by some other.

If growth of population were the determining force of social development, then a higher density of population would be bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type of social system. But we do not find this to be the case. The density of population in China is four times as great as in the U.S.A., yet the U.S.A. stands higher than China in the scale of social development; for in China a semi-feudal system still prevails, whereas the U.S.A. has long ago reached the highest stage of development of capitalism. The density of population in Belgium is I9 times as great as in the U.S.A., and 26 times as great as in the U.S.S.R. Yet the U.S.A. stands higher than Belgium in the scale of social development; and as for the U.S.S.R., Belgium lags a whole historical epoch behind this country, for in Belgium the capitalist system prevails, whereas the U.S.S.R. has already done away with capitalism and has set up a socialist system.

It follows from this that growth of population is not, and cannot be, the chief force of development of society, the force which determines the character of the social system, the physiognomy of society.

a) What Is the Chief Determinant Force?

What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another?

This force, historical materialism holds, is the method of procuring the means of life necessary for human existence, the mode of production of material values – food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc. – which are indispensable for the life and development of society.

In order to live, people must have food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these material values, people must produce them; and in order to produce them, people must have the instruments of production with which food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc., are produced, they must be able to produce these instruments and to use them.

The instruments of production wherewith material values are produced, the people who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain production experience and labor skill – all these elements jointly constitute the productive forces of society.

But the productive forces are only one aspect of production, only one aspect of the mode of production, an aspect that expresses the relation of men to the objects and forces of nature which they make use of for the production of material values. Another aspect of production, another aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men's relations of production. Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social production. In the production of material values men enter into mutual relations of one kind or another within production, into relations of production of one kind or another. These may be relations of co-operation and mutual help between people who are free from exploitation; they may be relations of domination and subordination; and, lastly, they may be transitional from one form of relations of production to another. But whatever the character of the relations of production may be, always and in every system they constitute just as essential an element of production as the productive forces of society.
  • "In production," Marx says, "men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." (Marx and Engels, Vol. V, p. 429.)
Consequently, production, the mode of production, embraces both the productive forces of society and men's relations of production, and is thus the embodiment of their unity in the process of production of material values.

b) The First Feature of Production

The first feature of production is that it never stays at one point for a long time and is always in a state of change and development, and that, furthermore, changes in the mode of production inevitably call forth changes in the whole social system, social ideas, political views and political institutions – they call forth a reconstruction of the whole social and political order. At different stages of development people make use of different modes of production, or, to put it more crudely, lead different manners of life. In the primitive commune there is one mode of production, under slavery there is another mode of production, under feudalism a third mode of production and so on. And, correspondingly, men's social system, the spiritual life of men, their views and political institutions also vary.

Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas and theories, its political views and institutions.

Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man's manner of life such is his manner of thought.

This means that the history of development of society is above all the history of the development of production, the history of the modes of production which succeed each other in the course of centuries, the history of the development of productive forces and of people's relations of production.

Hence, the history of social development is at the same time the history of the producers of material values themselves, the history of the laboring masses, who are the chief force in the process of production and who carry on the production of material values necessary for the existence of society.

Hence, if historical science is to be a real science, it can no longer reduce the history of social development to the actions of kings and generals, to the actions of "conquerors" and "subjugators" of states, but must above all devote itself to the history of the producers of material values, the history of the laboring masses, the history of peoples.

Hence, the clue to the study of the laws of history of society must not be sought in men's minds, in the views and ideas of society, but in the mode of production practiced by society in any given historical period; it must be sought in the economic life of society.

Hence, the prime task of historical science is to study and disclose the laws of production, the laws of development of the productive forces and of the relations of production, the laws of economic development of society.

Hence, if the party of the proletariat is to be a real party, it must above all acquire a knowledge of the laws of development of production, of the laws of economic development of society.

Hence, if it is not to err in policy, the party of the proletariat must both in drafting its program and in its practical activities proceed primarily from the laws of development of production from the laws of economic development of society.

c) The Second Feature of Production

The second feature of production is that its changes and development always begin with changes and development of the productive forces, and in the first place, with changes and development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of productions First the productive forces of society change and develop, and then, depending on these changes and in conformity with them, men's relations of production, their economic relations, change. This, however, does not mean that the relations of production do not influence the development of the productive forces and that the latter are not dependent on the former. While their development is dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations of production in their turn react upon the development of the productive forces, accelerating or retarding it. In this connection it should be noted that the relations of production cannot for too long a time lag behind and be in a state of contradiction to the growth of the productive forces, inasmuch as the productive forces can develop in full measure only when the relations of production correspond to the character, the state of the productive forces and allow full scope for their development. Therefore, however much the relations of production may lag behind the development of the productive forces, they must, sooner or later, come into correspondence with – and actually do come into correspondence with – the level of development of the productive forces, the character of the productive forces. Otherwise we would have a fundamental violation of the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production within the system of production, a disruption of production as a whole, a crisis of production, a destruction of productive forces.

An instance in which the relations of production do not correspond to the character of the productive forces, conflict with them, is the economic crises in capitalist countries, where private capitalist ownership of the means of production is in glaring incongruity with the social character of the process of production, with the character of the productive forces. This results in economic crises, which lead to the destruction of productive forces. Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the economic basis of social revolution, the purpose of which IS to destroy the existing relations of production and to create new relations of production corresponding to the character of the productive forces.

In contrast, an instance in which the relations of production completely correspond to the character of the productive forces is the socialist national economy of the U.S.S.R., where the social ownership of the means of production fully corresponds to the social character of the process of production, and where, because of this, economic crises and the destruction of productive forces are unknown.

Consequently, the productive forces are not only the most mobile and revolutionary element in production, but are also the determining element in the development of production.

Whatever are the productive forces such must be the relations of production.

While the state of the productive forces furnishes the answer to the question – with what instruments of production do men produce the material values they need? – the state of the relations of production furnishes the answer to another question – who owns the means of production (the land, forests, waters, mineral resources, raw materials, instruments of production, production premises, means of transportation and communication, etc.), who commands the means of production, whether the whole of society, or individual persons, groups, or classes which utilize them for the exploitation of other persons, groups or classes?

Here is a rough picture of the development of productive forces from ancient times to our day. The transition from crude stone tools to the bow and arrow, and the accompanying transition from the life of hunters to the domestication of animals and primitive pasturage; the transition from stone tools to metal tools (the iron axe, the wooden plow fitted with an iron coulter, etc.), with a corresponding transition to tillage and agriculture; a further improvement in metal tools for the working up of materials, the introduction of the blacksmith's bellows, the introduction of pottery, with a corresponding development of handicrafts, the separation of handicrafts from agriculture, the development of an independent handicraft industry and, subsequently, of manufacture; the transition from handicraft tools to machines and the transformation of handicraft and manufacture into machine industry; the transition to the machine system and the rise of modern large-scale machine industry – such is a general and far from complete picture of the development of the productive forces of society in the course of man's history. It will be clear that the development and improvement of the instruments of production was effected by men who were related to production, and not independently of men; and, consequently, the change and development of the instruments of production was accompanied by a change and development of men, as the most important element of the productive forces, by a change and development of their production experience, their labor skill, their ability to handle the instruments of production.

In conformity with the change and development of the productive forces of society in the course of history, men's relations of production, their economic relations also changed and developed.

Main types of Relations of Production

Five main types of relations of production are known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist.

The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that the means of production are socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the character of the productive forces of that period. Stone tools, and, later, the bow and arrow, precluded the possibility of men individually combating the forces of nature and beasts of prey. In order to gather the fruits of the forest, to catch fish, to build some sort of habitation, men were obliged to work in common if they did not want to die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to neighboring societies. Labor in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements of production which were at the same time means of defense against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes.

The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave-owner owns the means of production, he also owns the worker in production – the slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools at their command; instead of the wretched and primitive husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage nor tillage, there now appear pasturage tillage, handicrafts, and a division of labor between these branches of production. There appears the possibility of the exchange of products between individuals and between societies, of the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, the actual accumulation of the means of production in the hands of a minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority by a minority and the conversion of the majority into slaves. Here we no longer find the common and free labor of all members of society in the production process – here there prevails the forced labor of slaves, who are exploited by the non-laboring slave-owners. Here, therefore, there is no common ownership of the means of production or of the fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership. Here the slaveowner appears as the prime and principal property owner in the full sense of the term.

Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them – such is the picture of the slave system.

The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production – the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell. Alongside of feudal ownership there exists individual ownership by the peasant and the handicraftsman of his implements of production and his private enterprise based on his personal labor. Such relations of production in the main correspond to the state of the productive forces of that period. Further improvements in the smelting and working of iron; the spread of the iron plow and the loom; the further development of agriculture, horticulture, viniculture and dairying; the appearance of manufactories alongside of the handicraft workshops – such are the characteristic features of the state of the productive forces.

The new productive forces demand that the laborer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal lord therefore discards the slave, as a laborer who has no interest in work and is entirely without initiative, and prefers to deal with the serf, who has his own husbandry, implements of production, and a certain interest in work essential for the cultivation of the land and for the payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord.

Here private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery – it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.

The basis of the relations of production under the capitalist system is that the capitalist owns the means of production, but not the workers in production – the wage laborers, whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell because they are personally free, but who are deprived of means of production and) in order not to die of hunger, are obliged to sell their labor power to the capitalist and to bear the yoke of exploitation. Alongside of capitalist property in the means of production, we find, at first on a wide scale, private property of the peasants and handicraftsmen in the means of production, these peasants and handicraftsmen no longer being serfs, and their private property being based on personal labor. In place of the handicraft workshops and manufactories there appear huge mills and factories equipped with machinery. In place of the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery

The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer to deal with wage-workers, who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.

But having developed productive forces to a tremendous extent, capitalism has become enmeshed in contradictions which it is unable to solve. By producing larger and larger quantities of commodities, and reducing their prices, capitalism intensifies competition, ruins the mass of small and medium private owners, converts them into proletarians and reduces their purchasing power, with the result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the commodities produced. On the other hand, by expanding production and concentrating millions of workers in huge mills and factories, capitalism lends the process of production a social character and thus undermines its own foundation, inasmuch as the social character of the process of production demands the social ownership of the means of production; yet the means of production remain private capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social character of the process of production.

These irreconcilable contradictions between the character of the productive forces and the relations of production make themselves felt in periodical crises of over-production, when the capitalists, finding no effective demand for their goods owing to the ruin of the mass of the population which they themselves have brought about, are compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured goods, suspend production, and destroy productive forces at a time when millions of people are forced to suffer unemployment and starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but because there is an overproduction of goods.

This means that the capitalist relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction with them.

This means that capitalism is pregnant with revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by socialist ownership.

This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited.

The basis of the relations of production under the socialist system, which so far has been established only in the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of production. Here there are no longer exploiters and exploited. The goods produced are distributed according to labor performed, on the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Here the mutual relations of people in the process of production are marked by comradely cooperation and the socialist mutual assistance of workers who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of production fully correspond to the state of productive forces; for the social character of the process of production is reinforced by the social ownership of the means of production.

For this reason socialist production in the U.S.S.R. knows no periodical crises of over-production and their accompanying absurdities.

For this reason, the productive forces here develop at an accelerated pace; for the relations of production that correspond to them offer full scope for such development.

Such is the picture of the development of men's relations of production in the course of human history.

Such is the dependence of the development of the relations of production on the development of the productive forces of society, and primarily, on the development of the instruments of production, the dependence by virtue of which the changes and development of the productive forces sooner or later lead to corresponding changes and development of the relations of production.
  • "The use and fabrication of instruments of labor," says Marx, "although existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the human labor-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labor possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economical forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are made that enables us to distinguish different economical epochs. Instruments of labor not only supply a standard of the degree of development to which human labor has attained, but they are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labor is carried on." (Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1935, p. 121.)
And further:
  • "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." (Marx and Engels, Vol. V, p. 564.)
  • "There is a continual movement of growth in productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of formation in ideas; the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement." (Ibid., p. 364.)
Speaking of historical materialism as formulated in The Communist Manifesto, Engels says:
  • "Economic production and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; ... consequently (ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal ownership of land) all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social development; ... this struggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time for ever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression and class struggles...." (Engels' Preface to the German Edition of the Manifesto.)
d) The Third Feature of Production

The third feature of production is that the rise of new productive forces and of the relations of production corresponding to them does not take place separately from the old system, after the disappearance of the old system, but within the old system; it takes place not as a result of the deliberate and conscious activity of man, but spontaneously, unconsciously, independently of the will of man It takes place spontaneously and independently of the will of man for two reasons.

Firstly, because men are not free to choose one mode of production or another, because as every new generation enters life it finds productive forces and relations of production already existing as the result of the work of former generations, owing to which it is obliged at first to accept and adapt itself to everything it finds ready-made in the sphere of production in order to be able to produce material values.

Secondly, because, when improving one instrument of production or another, one clement of the productive forces or another, men do not realize, do not understand or stop to reflect what social results these improvements will lead to, but only think of their everyday interests, of lightening their labor and of securing some direct and tangible advantage for themselves.

When, gradually and gropingly, certain members of primitive communal society passed from the use of stone tools to the use of iron tools, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social results this innovation would lead to; they did not understand or realize that the change to metal tools meant a revolution in production, that it would in the long run lead to the slave system. They simply wanted to lighten their labor and secure an immediate and tangible advantage; their conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this everyday personal interest.

When, in the period of the feudal system, the young bourgeoisie of Europe began to erect, alongside of the small guild workshops, large manufactories, and thus advanced the productive forces of society, it, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social consequences this innovation would lead to; it did not realize or understand that this "small" innovation would lead to a regrouping of social forces which was to end in a revolution both against the power of kings, whose favors it so highly valued, and against the nobility, to whose ranks its foremost representatives not infrequently aspired. It simply wanted to lower the cost of producing goods, to throw larger quantities of goods on the markets of Asia and of recently discovered America, and to make bigger profits. Its conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this commonplace practical aim.

When the Russian capitalists, in conjunction with foreign capitalists, energetically implanted modern large-scale machine industry in Russia, while leaving tsardom intact and turning the peasants over to the tender mercies of the landlords, they, of course, did not know and did not stop to reflect what social consequences this extensive growth of productive forces would lead to; they did not realize or understand that this big leap in the realm of the productive forces of society would lead to a regrouping of social forces that would enable the proletariat to effect a union with the peasantry and to bring about a victorious socialist revolution. They simply wanted to expand industrial production to the limit, to gain control of the huge home market, to become monopolists, and to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the national economy.

Their conscious activity did not extend beyond their commonplace, strictly practical interests.

Accordingly, Marx says:
  • "In the social production of their life (that is. in the production of the material values necessary to the life of men – J. St.), men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p 269).
This, however, does not mean that changes in the relations of production, and the transition from old relations of production to new relations of production proceed smoothly, without conflicts, without upheavals. On the contrary such a transition usually takes place by means of the revolutionary overthrow of the old relations of production and the establishment of new relations of production. Up to a certain period the development of the productive forces and the changes in the realm of the relations of production proceed spontaneously independently of the will of men. But that is so only up to a certain moment, until the new and developing productive forces have reached a proper state of maturity After the new productive forces have matured, the existing relations of production and their upholders – the ruling classes – become that "insuperable" obstacle which can only be removed by the conscious action of the new classes, by the forcible acts of these classes, by revolution. Here there stands out in bold relief the tremendous role of new social ideas, of new political institutions, of a new political power, whose mission it is to abolish by force the old relations of production. Out of the conflict between the new productive forces and the old relations of production, out of the new economic demands of society, there arise new social ideas; the new ideas organize and mobilize the masses; the masses become welded into a new political army, create a new revolutionary power, and make use of it to abolish by force the old system of relations of production, and to firmly establish the new system. The spontaneous process of development yields place to the conscious actions of men, peaceful development to violent upheaval, evolution to revolution.
  • "The proletariat," says Marx, "during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production...." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1938, p. 52.)
And further:
  • "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." (Ibid., p. 50 )
  • "Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one." (Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1955, p. 603.)
Here is the formulation – a formulation of genius – of the essence of historical materialism given by Marx in 1859 in his historic Preface to his famous book, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
  • "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or – what is but a legal expression for the same thing – with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 269-70.)
Such is Marxist materialism as applied to social life, to the history of society.

Such are the principal features of dialectical and historical materialism.

Part Two: Application in the Early Twenty-First Century

A Basic Introduction to Dialectical and Historical Materialism 

By Jaan Laaman and Bill Dunne, 2nd Edition, 2008 (This has been made available at

What is Dialectical and Historical Materialism?

Dialectical and historical materialism is the most precise way of thinking about and understanding the real world: what goes on around us, why, how it began, where it might and should go. It is a tool for people to use in understanding how and why things happened and in planning how to create those future changes that we know are necessary. In short, it is the world outlook of revolutionary scientific (as opposed to daydreaming or wishful thinking) socialism. This tool of understanding was first developed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. They drew the logical parts, the real truths, from earlier philosophies of ancient dialectics and vulgar materialism into one whole that for the first time enabled people to understand the full workings of reality, including social life.

Breaking the terms of dialectical and historical materialism down, we will see that the way we examine how real things begin, develop, and end is dialectical, while the way we will understand this reality is from a materialist viewpoint. The historical part means that history, the story of humankind, is also scientifically understandable by dialectical materialism.

Why Should We Be Concerned About This Way of Thinking and Understanding What Goes On Around Us?

This is a very legitimate question, especially for us in poor inner-city communities, sweatshop workplaces, jail-like school rooms, or actual prison cells. The politicians, bosses, cops and a lot of other fools and clowns, all have some kind of game to sell us. Answering this question about how to understand and think about the world is not just another game. Nor is it simply an academic exercise to conduct in a classroom or in your head.

If we put our own fantasies and bad-mouth yard talk aside for a moment, we will have to admit we are in a pretty nasty situation, or at least close to it. We are all on the losing end, if not the actual bottom of this system: low-paying, no security, dead end jobs or no jobs at all; unfit, overpriced housing; poor or no medical care; schools that miseducate and often encourage conflict between groups of students. To enforce our subjugation to this social arrangement, the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (in 2008) reports that about 2.5 million people are locked up (over 1.6 million in prisons, 800,000 in jails and over 100,000 in juvenile facilities). Another five million-plus are on bail, probation, parole, or house arrest according to a recent Pew Center report. In all reality, very few of us can honestly say we have beaten the system. For working people and the rest of us in the communities, life is just making it week by week.

Most of us in prison are locked up for small-scale scams. Whether it is stealing, dealing or something else, it usually involves a few hundred or maybe a few thousand dollars. These scams are almost always at the expense of some other relatively poor person. They don’t hurt the system or its rich owners, whose far more destructive corporate crimes outdo our petty offenses. Others are locked up for victimless crimes – smoking grass, prostitution, etc. Still others are in captivity for crimes of anger, frustration, or despair. Some of us have been railroaded, some convicted for fighting against the government and system. Very few, if any of us, can say we have gotten a fair break or justice. Almost all of us come from a poor or working class background. In our communities, as in captivity, life is a long hustle.

Though we find ourselves on the bottom, many of us are by no means defeated or resigned, and we are always looking for ways to get relief, ways to bring about better conditions. Yet in many instances, when we finally rise up and show our concern and anger, we are only partially successful. All too often we are beaten back or sold out and this leads to further frustration and despair. There are, of course, many specific reasons for various non-successful strikes and movements. But a common and crucial problem is that we really do not know our enemy. We are not aware of how they got their power and control. Not power in the simple sense of say, the warden being appointed by the board of trustees or director of prisons – rather the more basic understanding of how the politicians, bankers and corporate heads own and control everything, including our lives. We don’t really know how they maintain this authority, nor where their primary weaknesses are. Likewise, we often have not studied and thought our own positions, both our weaknesses and lack of control and our strengths and sources of power, as well as the best methods of using these most effectively. In other words, if we enter a struggle with little or no idea of the future, we can only be successful by luck or chance. This is just as true in our daily battles with landlords, bosses, and guards as it is in times of actual military engagements. Dialectical and historical materialism can provide us and all oppressed people, the tools to understand how we have gotten to our sad condition and, more importantly, how we can change this.

The purpose of this pamphlet is not to lay out any specific strategy of struggle. Rather, the hope is that it will help some folks develop this particular and proven method of understanding. Dialectical and historical materialism is a tool- a tool to examine any situation that we may be confronted with. This paper seeks to introduce this tool. All the ideas in it are much more thoroughly explained and demonstrated in numerous books and pamphlets. The purpose of this booklet is to make the more detailed writings a little easier to understand, especially for those of us who have not had much contact with these ideas before. Hopefully, this pamphlet will motivate a desire to learn more about these powerful tools of emancipation.

It is then up to each of us individually and all of us together, to use and develop these weapons of understanding. Thus armed, we will be more successful in the many battles we have yet to engage with the enemy, before we as a people, can control our lives and determine what kind of country and world we want to build for ourselves and future generations.

Dialectical and Historical Materialism


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.

The first point of materialist dialectics is that all matter – everything that exists – is connected. Not only are, say, people and prisons and courts and cops related, but all life – water, fish, air, people, machines, countries, etc. – all things are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by each other. In order to understand any one thing, say prisons, we have to see all the related aspects. Laws, for example, who makes them? Who are they made to serve and protect? Courts: who are the judges? Are they from our backgrounds and communities, or are they rich and privileged? Cops: who do they arrest? Do they collar the petty burglar and pot smoker? Or do they even investigate the corporate executive who daily steals millions by price fixing and other schemes? And who does the system protect? Does it serve the bankers and corporate moguls or some poor person who calls in a complaint late at night in some ghetto neighborhood? Does that protection allow those banks and corporate elites to pay poverty wages in unsafe factories that pollute air, water and land in our communities?

Of course, not every connection between things is of equal importance. Deciding which are the most significant connections at any given time in the situation being studied is also important. Looking at things and their connections in a dialectical materialist way will help us do that. If we look only at one thing in a narrow increase and decrease way, we will not really see the underlying reasons why the thing in question is the way it is. This is part of the problem of not seeing who our real enemies are. By not understanding the connections between things, we often wind up fighting each other (white against Black and so on), instead of dealing with the real oppressor. We must always, then, view all related aspects from the beginning of any situation to determine what are the connections, which are most important, and how they affect each other.

The second point of materialist dialectics is that all matter, everything, is in motion. Things never stay the same. Instead, something is always arising and developing and something is always disintegrating and dying away. The only real constant is constant motion and change. This is true whether we are considering atoms, plants, people, or societies. All related aspects are always influencing one another and things are always developing and/or disintegrating, always in motion. This is probably pretty clear to us. But what is important is to be able to spot the new growing forces that are moving, even though they seem small and less important compared to the larger dominant power. That way we can help these new forces develop and move (or nip them in the bud before they bear bitter fruit). The longstanding dominant power of the Russian czars (kings), for example, was overthrown by seemingly much weaker forces, in 1917, as was the rule of the British monarchy here in the American colonies in 1776. In the first case, these forces were the Russian people led by their revolutionary Bolshevik party; in the second, the American colonists led by their radical, albeit bourgeois, leaders. The new forces that were able to accomplish these large tasks had been in existence, growing and developing, long before they were able to win their struggles – and having done so, give their people a much better life.

The third point of material dialectics is that this connection of things and how all matter is always moving (rising and falling away), has a certain definite method or process of movement from one level to a completely different level. This is described as the quantitative change or movement at some point leading to a qualitative change. This means that things don’t just repeat or go in circles. Because a thing is connected and influenced by many other things, it is moved step by step (quantitative change) up to a certain point, where the thing then rapidly and abruptly makes a complete change (qualitative change) in itself. Let us take an example of this in the world of nature by looking at water, which is made of oxygen and hydrogen. If we apply heat or cold to water, it changes degree by degree (quantitative change), until it reaches a certain point. There the water abruptly changes its form (qualitative change) to steam or ice. It makes a complete change.

This same process of change is true for all things. Take a society for instance. As methods of industry change, as inventions are made, as people create their necessities of life in new ways and learn new things, and as numerous other factors change, sooner or later the institutions, including governmental structures, have to change. The power has to be moved from the hands of one class of people to another. The new ruling class will then begin building new institutions and methods of running society (new political, social and economic structures).

The American colonists mentioned above, for example, were at first loyal subjects of England. But as this country developed and shipping and farming grew and commerce and manufacturing developed, the colonial government’s system of taxation and regulation became obsolete to the point of actually holding back further industrial and commercial development and growth in the colonies. Since English rule did not allow the qualitative change the expansion demanded, some of the American colonial elite and some of the American public, began to organize to get rid of the old order. After a period of peaceful attempts to secure the needed changes, the Revolutionary War took place and, after the successful completion of this war against imperialism, a new system of government was established. This new system allowed a much greater degree of independence for the development of economic and social life.

This new system was essentially a capitalist and slave owning regime in which a minority elite of property, plantation and business owning white males, whose power was based on control of resources and commerce, freed itself from the restrictions of feudal privileges administered by the English monarchy. Though a qualitative change from what had preceded it, that change was not as great a qualitative step as that made by the Bolsheviks in overthrowing the Russian monarchy, also mentioned above. In the American Revolution, the genocide practiced against the Native population was not reversed, Black slavery was not abolished, the conditions of indentured servitude were not improved, many poor white men remained disenfranchised, and women of all colors and classes could not vote and had even fewer rights than their men. A new ruling class replaced the old, new contradictions emerged and the seeds were sown for the next great qualitative change, toward which we are working today. The system established 200 years ago was far from perfect and loaded with contradictions. Although significant progress has been made in increasing popular freedom, today the system is still not working adequately for anyone except a small class of super-rich, powerful owners and controllers (the capitalist class or bourgeoisie, as it is also called). This is a direct example of how societies change and move, and how at one point a new group or class springs forth from the ashes of the old system to take over and begin a new one.

The fourth point, though last, is the most important one in order to understand and use materialist dialectics. Number four states that besides all the outside influences on a thing (and let us remember we are talking about everything that exists), the thing in question has internal contradictions. Everything has two opposing aspects (internal contradictions) and each set of these opposite aspects forms a contradiction. When we speak of a thing we are really talking about a set of opposites that struggle with each other, yet coexist and combine to form the thing itself. There is no up without down, no cold without hot, no victory without defeat, no capitalist class without a working class, etc. When a ball is thrown in the air two contradictory forces are at work simultaneously – the force propelling the ball upward and the force of gravity. While gravity is weaker, the ball goes up. When gravity becomes stronger the ball changes direction and comes down. Likewise, in modern society we have two main classes, the capitalist class or bourgeoisie and the working class or proletariat. Although the two classes have different interests, they coexist together and form one society. As long as the capitalists hold the upper hand in the society, they can dictate the rules to a great degree and will do so to their own advantage. While we, the working class, are kept in the secondary or weaker position, we are in constant struggle with the capitalists. But when the working class turns this around, when we assume the dominant position of the contradiction, when we become the class in control of our society, we will have the greater say, we will dictate how and why the society will develop and grow. In other words, the seeds of the new are present even in the old, when the old is still powerful.

This last point, then, says that there is a constant movement, constant struggle, between the two opposing aspects of the thing in question and this conflict of the internal contradictions is the most important single force that leads the thing to change. Or, to put it briefly, there is an internal contradiction in every single thing and this, more than all else, causes its motion and development. External forces are also important, but dialectics understands that external causes are the condition of change, while internal causes are the basis of change. For example, a chicken sitting on an egg will lead to a baby chick, while the same chicken can sit on a rock forever and hatch nothing – the internal contradictions are the most important factor in the development and motion of not just the egg, but all things.

Similarly, dialectics shows us that while the capitalist system and government might seem powerful, the less visible realities of life, ideas and general conditions of work and existence carried around in the hearts, minds, and lives of the people the government is oppressing, are actually the more powerful force. We see glimpses of it now and then, during the middle of an uprising, on a solid picket line, at a rally, or even when a group of oppressed people sit together and discuss how to get our from under the injustice. Thus, we see that the people’s consciousness is a force that has not yet come fully into its time; nonetheless it is what will eventually take over the old system. Of course, this does not happen without a lot of pain and struggle and, especially, it will not happen until we, the people who are the victims of injustice, begin consciously pushing and fighting for change.

This, then, is an introductory definition of dialectics, a method that teaches us how to observe and analyze the movement of contradictions in things in the real world and, on the basis of such analysis, to find ways to resolve the contradictions and thus bring about a new thing or situation.

Put another way, dialectics is the scientific method of understanding how things are and how they change. Dialectics recognizes: 1.) that all things are connected; 2.) that all things are in motion (developing or dying away); 3.) that quantitative changes (changes in size or amount) are step by step changes that lead to qualitative changes (changes in substance or type) which come about swiftly or abruptly (and in the case of society, violently and abruptly), transforming the old into a new thing or situation and 4.) that the primary basis of all change and movement is the internal contradiction that exists in all things.

So when we face a problem, we should look at its internal make-up to determine the various aspects of the contradiction, examine its connections to other things, determine what the progressive new aspects of the situation are and how these are affected by both the internal contradiction and external things. Then, finally and most importantly, we determine how our own actions on the problem will speed up these new progressive aspects to the point that a qualitative change, or a change that brings the new force to the dominant position, can be made.


The historical part of dialectical and historical materialism means that we can study the history of humankind with this same tool of materialist dialectics. History then becomes understandable not as a series of accidents or mistakes or mythical occurrences, but as the development of social and material forces that are connected, in motion, and changing internally and externally, resulting in a struggle that changes their form. Therefore, we can see that there is no so-called “eternal” principle of history, except change itself, and every system must be seen in its own conditions, time and place. Struggle and change builds up the pressure of internal contradiction until complete transformation suddenly occurs. Nonsense like the so-called “inherent right” of capitalist private property thus makes about as much sense as the so-called “divine right” to rule over everyone that ancient (and some present) kings used to claim. Dialectical understanding allows us to sweep aside all arguments that there are unchangeable situations like the subjugation of peasants to nobility in feudal times or workers to capitalists in modern times.


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.

Materialism has three essential features and stands squarely opposed to the assertions of philosophical idealism, which is the general world outlook that the capitalists (and other reactionaries) push. First, materialism teaches that the world by its very nature is made of matter. Everything comes into being on the basis of material, that is real, causes in accordance with the laws of motion and matter. Second, materialism states that matter is primary and thought is secondary and derived from the material world. Matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind and everything mental is actually a result of our material world. Third, materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable. While many things remain to be discovered, there is no such thing as things beyond or above the laws that govern all real change and development.

Examining the three basic features of materialism more closely, we see that materialism’s first understanding is that the world (and all countries in the world and all things in each country) is the way it is, because of the concrete material conditions that actually exist. These real conditions develop in accordance with the laws of dialectics. More specifically, this means that the common people and the tools they have at any given time in any given country, the corresponding industry and farming they conduct with these tools, and the types of relations that exist between producers and consumers (that is, who owns and controls the tools and products) determine the material conditions of that society. These material conditions determine what type of society exists. Furthermore, what type of industry and agriculture there is will primarily determine what type of social and political institutions (government, schools, courts, and so on) will exist. Rulers and religious forces and many other factors have an effect on the society, for they are among the contradictory aspects of the whole. Nevertheless, the actual material level of development of the society is the primary basis for what type of social and political institutions it will have.

Societies, then, develop the type of social and governmental apparatus that, generally speaking, correspond to their economic level of development and which are intended to meet the needs of the people. But the needs that are met are mainly those of the ruling class, the group in the dominant position of the contradiction in the society. As this country presently demonstrates, the government does not often meet the real needs of the majority of people. This is because we are still operating under the economic principle (capitalism) and government structure that dates back over 200 years. Regardless of how good or honest the elected officials might be, they can never meet all of the people’s needs because the social, economic and governmental institutions themselves are inadequate for the job. In other words, we are still being ruled by old methods, methods that serve the interests of capitalist business and trade. We as a people are not owners of capitalist trade or business in any real sense – in fact we are its victims – and we are ready for a new stage in society. We are told the system is democratic, but what vote do we have where we work, rent, buy? It’s either the boss’, landlord’s, baker’s way or the highway. We are ready to make the qualitative step from the old to the new because social and economic structures no longer meet the real needs of the people – the structures are holding back needed growth and development. It is time for a new arrangement of things.

The second feature of materialism states that matter is primary and thought is secondary because it is based on and derived from matter. There are two parts to this. First the brain, our organ for thinking, is made of matter and works by metabolizing matter; without the brain there is no thought. Second and more significantly, people’s consciousness at any given time is primarily determined by the existing economic and social level of development at that time. It is not people’s minds that determine how they live and think. Instead, it is the physical conditions, what they see and experience around them from their first moments of life until they die, that play the main role in determining how they think. This does not mean that we are robots or that we don’t have free thought, but we can only see and think about things that have some relation to our lives.

The things we think about come from outside as information. What we think and decide to do about them comes from inside as our analysis and our plans. If the information is bad or our analysis is wrong, we are like the chicken trying to hatch a rock; no matter how good our thinking is, we will never hatch correct conclusions.

An example of this principle of the material determining the mental would be that whenever the industrial countries have run across a previously unknown tribe or people, say in some remote rain forest, these people have without exception been found to have completely different customs and ways of life and to see their whole existence differently than we do. More subtle but still obvious differences can even be seen between and even within nations and regions closer to the mainstream. This is not because people’s bodies or brains are different (we are all human beings), but because they confront a different set of material circumstances and thus have a different type of economic system (a way of making and distributing the necessities of life), upon which their social system and consciousness are based. We have a different system, and this is what leads us to think, feel, and act differently. It is not any particular teacher, religious leader, or politician that determines how a society thinks, although leaders and religions do play a moving ahead or holding back role at given times. Instead, it is mainly the concrete material conditions of that society at that time in history that determine, overall, how people think and live and how they see themselves and the world. It is people’s social being that determines their social consciousness.

The third feature of materialism is that it recognizes that all things are fully knowable and understandable, if not now, then at some future stage of development. Contrary to capitalist idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and its laws and holds that the world is full of so-called “things in themselves” that can never be known to science, materialists show that the world and its laws are fully knowable; that knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, its real knowledge having the validity of objective truth. Further, there aren’t any things above being known in the real world. There certainly are things which are still unknown, but these will be discovered and made known by the efforts of science. This idealist song and dance about not knowing things is an old story. Hundreds of years ago they used to argue that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that eclipses of the sun and moon were caused by gods and so on. Today, even little children know these things are not true. In the same way, what we have yet to discover is not something magical, rather something that our children will have the task of making known.

There is a final factor to consider about materialism. What is the single most important thing that decides what material level a given society is on at a certain time? What more than anything else determines what type of economy a country has and therefore, what type of government and social system it has? Economic system or economy are words for how a country produces all its goods (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) and services (transportation, communications, energy, etc.), how these things are owned and controlled, and how they are divided and distributed among the people.

There are many factors that go into determining what material conditions exist in a society at any given time. Population is one. If a land does not have a minimum population level then there can be no society. But if we compare the population of, say the U.S. and India, we see that India has many more people, but not nearly the material level or living. If we took other examples, we would see the same: that population alone does not determine what material level a society has.

Geography is important. Land changes, rivers move, mountains rise up and wear away, but this happens very slowly in physical nature. Human societies evolve amid these changes, drawing upon the land and its resources. Looking at the U.S., for example, we see that about 400 years ago some European colonists came here, built homes and a society for themselves that grew and developed. About 230 years ago, they fought a violent independence war (Revolutionary War) and brought about great changes in their society. One hundred years later, the democratic revolution moved qualitatively forward, again through a violent struggle (Civil War), through which Black people won legal rights (on paper at least). This also gave federalism and industrial development full control of the economy and government. Previously, slave-owning agrarian landlords shared political and economic power with the industrial and financial capitalists. For the next hundred years, labor and civil rights struggles raged, gaining labor and political rights for broad sections of the people, including women. Yet in all those 400 years, the geography of the land has not changed in any great sense, except for human-made changes like cities and environmental damage. Hence, we have to say that geography alone, because it changes so slowly, is not the most important factor either.

The single most important factor in determining what material level a society is the means of production. The means of production is a term that describes the instruments and resources that are used to create the goods that a society needs and wants. The means of production primarily refers to the machines and tools, but it also includes natural resources and land.

Closely associated to the means of production are the forces of production, which simply means the workers and their knowledge of how to make things. Connected to this and also important are the relations of production. This term describes the relationship between the workers and machines they use to produce goods and who owns the means of production and the goods produced by them. The relations of production answers the question of who owns the products produced by the workers (the forces of production), using the machines/tools (the means of production). There are only three general categories of relations of production: cooperative, exploitative and a combination of the partly cooperative, partly exploitative.

If workers collectively own their own factory and their own means of production, then they would also own what they produced. This would be cooperative relations of production.

If a capitalist corporation boss owns the factory, the workers would not own anything they produced. This is exploitative relations of production. Here the workers get so many dollars for each hour of their labor. If the workers are prisoners, prisoners labor gets so many pennies an hour. In a slave owning society, the slave labor would get nothing at all for his/her work.

In a factory where the workers were partial owners, but there was also partial corporate ownership, this would be an example of a combination of cooperative and exploitative relations of production.

Materialist Outline Overview of Human Societal Development

Having some understanding of dialectical and historical materialism, we can now look at human history and see how and why, in a very general way, the large scale changes have occurred. The world has seen four main societal-productive systems so far and some countries are beginning the fifth level. These stages were primitive communalism, slave holding, feudal, capitalist, and now we are moving towards socialism. We will briefly and very generally cover these stages and spot some of the main factors that led the development from one stage to the next higher one. We will point out the key struggles or contradictions, that through their resolution led to human advancement.

Primitive Communalism

First we see primitive communalism, where people used stone, wood, bone and crude hand-made tools (the means of production were primitive). There was no developed agriculture because people did not have the tools or know-how at the time. Frequently, they had no need to develop them as nature fulfilled their needs. The people lived together in small wandering groups, spending almost all of their time on just surviving. They shared their wealth communally. They didn’t do this because they were any smarter or loved each other any more than at any later age; they did it because working together, hunting and gathering plant food together was the only way they could survive. Labor worked in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, such as it was, and to the sharing of the fruits of the work. The idea of private ownership of the means of production, except perhaps for personal ownership of certain weapons, did not yet exist. Tribes grew up over the years and they shared their common goods. While there may have been occasional fighting between different tribes; basically, the people lived and shared equally among themselves. There was no exploitation, classes or class struggle.

Primitive communalism was by far, the longest-lasting system that existed everywhere on Earth. When human beings first emerged on this planet, we lived and survived in primitive communal families, clans and tribes, sharing and working together for thousands and tens of thousands of years.

Slave Owning

Next we see the slave owning system. It must be noted though, that the whole world did not develop all at once. Some areas moved ahead while others remained at the lower level because of the particular conditions and situations in each area. We can still see parts of the world today where feudal type (peasant and landowner) relations exist, but most of the world is capitalist with some areas having other types of relations.

As primitive communal groups learned how to better use their environments, some became less nomadic. This helped bring about the beginning of agriculture (the deliberate cultivation of crops and domestic animals). This also led to more permanent settlements, since it was less necessary to follow and hunt wild animals. This in turn led to the development of new technology. People began to use metals, copper, bronze and later iron, to make better tools and weapons (the means of production took a qualitative leap forward). More settled lives also allowed the accumulation of more material possessions than could be readily carried by nomads.

With the development of better tools/weapons, more could be produced and the communal societies began to develop a surplus of goods, that is, not everyone has to work full time for the group to survive. This surplus could either be divided equally among all or it could go to a few who then didn’t have to work. At first, the communal system remained, but then some people developed better weapons and knowledge of agriculture. The surplus that these advances provided was kept by individuals and we begin to see the concept of private property develop. Since certain people developed these new tools, weapons, and methods (especially of farming) before others, they saw that more could be farmed and produced if more people could be put to work. Their superior weapons enabled them to conquer less developed peoples, enslave them, and bring them back to their lands to work. So the slave system came into existence.

We see that an advancement in the means of production enabled private property to develop, which led to the emergence of classes, the slave owners and the slaves. Thus, class society was born. While it was a brutal system and most people suffered, the world as a whole reached a higher material level in the sense that more was produced. As a result, the struggle for a better standard of living became more a social struggle than one of constant struggle for survival and nature. The slave owning period is marked by intense class struggle and warfare between the slaves and the slave owners.


The next stage is the feudal system. Here a small landowning elite, usually called the nobility or aristocracy, as well as church officials, derived most of the benefits of the society. This feudal ruling class had enormous power over the people. The vast majority of people were peasant farmers or serfs, who were legally tied to the land they worked (they could not leave the land without permission of the nobles who owned the land). The serfs, however, had some rights. For example, while they still could be bought and sold as part of the land, they could not be killed arbitrarily. They also owned their own tools and animals, and were allowed to keep a portion of the crops they grew on the landlord’s land. The aristocracy needed the labor of the serfs to extract the wealth from the land and maintain the infrastructure on which the nobles’ power was based, and so had to grant these concessions to the peasants.

This system developed through further improvement of the means to production. Iron and steel were produced and high grade weapons and tools like swords and plows and other farm implements were made. This meant that more could be farmed faster and better. A slave, however, gets the same amount of food and rest and remains a slave whether he works fast or slow and therefore has no incentive to produce more, even with better tools. But if a person can see some gain in his/her work, like the possibility of keeping part of the product, he or she will work more. This gave landowners incentive to discard the slave as a less productive laborer in favor of the serf, who had his or her own tools, animals, and a greater interest in his or her work. Landowners also did not have a big investment in serfs that would be lost if the serf died or ran away. These factors, as well as more and more slave revolts and the breakdown of the old slave-owning empires, led the system to change – led to the development of feudalism.

With feudalism’s new methods and tools, people were able to produce ever more things beyond food and to do that better and faster. Handicrafts and later, artisan manufacture (not to be confused with industrial production which did not develop until capitalism), grew and developed. Towns and cities arose to accommodate this new type and level of commerce. Some serfs ran away from the nobles to learn various trade skills in outlying districts, which expanded development more. Some nobles set certain peasants up in castle shops to produce the various goods needed by the nobles’ estates. Craft guilds arose and kept and expanded the knowledge and techniques of various handicrafts; children were apprenticed to craftsmen so they could learn trades. Specialization emerged. Along with this development was the growth of towns and cities as centers of manufacturing and trade. Urban centers grew up where the raw materials were gathered, the products were made and sold, and where transportation was good (crossroads, river forks, seaports). As a result, a wider system of commercialism, sometimes called mercantilism, grew.

As the variety and availability of products grew and their prices declined, demand for them by people in different areas increased. Middlemen arose to bring buyers and sellers together. These were the traders, merchants and bankers who filled the needs of economic growth and development in ways a primarily land-based nobility could not. Society began to see people who were not members of the noble class but whose families had, over many years, accumulated more money than many nobles. (The rich non-nobles were often called burghers in Europe, and from this word we get bourgeois or capitalist.) Yet the noble class, along with religious authorities, remained in control of the government, which, though increasingly national, was still mostly local.

These were the seeds of the new system, capitalism. It was developing while the feudal system was still strong. The strength of the feudal system is what sharpened the contradiction between the then ruling class of land-owning nobles and the new mercantile class, the peasant class, and the emerging body of workers not employed as farmers. The rise of new tools and procedures of manufacture, agriculture and commerce also raised new contradictions and struggles grew as the needs of the nobility and the inefficiency of the feudal system inhibited progress. This system was also marked by the subjugation of the majority of the people by the minority noble class. The basis of the nobles’ class power was that they owned the land, which was the major means of production for the majority of people. This gave them material power, when the wealth derived from the land dwarfed all other sources of wealth.

Feudalism was marked by two main types of struggle: first, the class warfare of the serfs against the nobility and, later, the conflict between the growing capitalist forces of bankers, merchants, traders, and manufacturers against the ruling nobility class also. The serfs struggled because they wanted freedoms and their own land, and the bankers, etc., because they based their power on money, trade and production, not on land-owning and agriculture. The feudal system with its constant wars, irrational property relations, and other costs of maintaining an aristocracy impeded the qualitative change that would allow the societies to grow and develop through new forms of economic and social activity. In this situation, the nobility was one aspect of the contradiction; peasants, workers and the bourgeoisie was the other aspect.


This leads us to the fourth stage, capitalism and its most recent and usual political system, capitalist democracy. We must bear in mind, though, that when they need to protect their political and economic power, the capitalists think nothing about changing from capitalist democracy to out-and-out fascist dictatorship. Nazi Germany was an example of this, as were the CIA and capitalist overthrows of the popular democratic governments of Iran, Guatemala, and Indonesia and their replacements with repressive dictatorships. Moreover, the degree of democracy within capitalist countries varies. Israel, for example, allows virtually no democracy for, and acts as a dictatorship towards, the Palestinians under its control. Saudi Arabia has a puppet legislature and disenfranchises women, no one votes for the King, etc. While democracy is the label that capitalists use for their system, this does not mean all people have real equal rights or opportunities.

It actually means democracy for the capitalists and “obey” the rules for the working class. In fact, capitalist democracy only allows a small amount of political democracy: the right to pick between a few candidates selected by the ruling class. Social and economic democracy are conveniently omitted from the capitalist definition. People don’t get to vote at all on the things that are currently most important to them, such as job issues or property relations.

As we saw, many merchants and traders had become rich in the later part of the feudal era. But since they were not born to the “right” parents, they were a force without any real political power. These early capitalists controlled the towns and cities, but only so many people could be employed as craftsmen and shippers, etc. The cities stayed small and the real political power remained in the hands of the landowning nobility. Then came the industrial revolution, the invention of the steam engine and the invention of large-scale machinery. In other words, a large qualitative leap occurred in the means of production.

The invention of machinery ended the handicraftsmen method of production and brought in the rise of factories and the corresponding mass movement of the people from the countryside to the cities to work these new mills. This drastic change in the means of production led to new contradictions and struggles politically and socially. Two notable political struggles were the American revolution against the English king and colonial system led by the young capitalist class of America, and the French revolution of 1789, led by the French capitalist class against the king, nobility, and state church.

The new struggles and contradictions that came with the ending of feudalism and the rise of capitalism led to significant social changes for the common people too. Under feudalism, the peasants had certain rights, but they were still legally tied to the land. The new capitalist ruling class had no need to own the people or to make them live on their land because they were not primarily land owners, they were factory and business owners. The feudal noble class had a certain responsibility to the peasant. In the case of a very bad harvest, the landowners would have to open their storehouses (just a little of course) to keep the serfs alive so they could produce for the nobles again the next year. The capitalists, however, only needed the workers to labor in the mill. If business was bad (as it always is every several years in the cycles of capitalism), they would not want any responsibility to feed and clothe the workers. The capitalist class did not need or want a peasant class. They needed a working class, a group of workers not tied to the land, who lived in the shadow of the mill and who were so-called “free” to sell their labor power to the capitalists, whenever the capitalists needed it. The rest of the time the workers were “free” to starve. As we know, the working class became a reality and soon grew into the largest class in industrialized countries.

Another major reason for the peasants freeing themselves was that in order to overthrow the nobility, the capitalist class (being a minority itself) had to ally itself with the peasants, who of course did most of the actual fighting and dying. After overthrowing the feudal system and liberating themselves from the nobles and serfdom, the common people would not let themselves be re-enslaved in the same manner by the capitalists. So, the capitalists did it a different way, one that gave them more power than any noble.

The qualitative advance in the means of production not only led to political change – the government power was taken from the landowning nobility class by the capitalist class – but also great social change. The new productive forces required that the workers be better educated and more skilled than the peasants had been, so they could understand and operate the machinery in the factories. This meant that some education was begun for working people. Also, in order to just have enough workers available to labor in the mills, cities grew up around the factories and most people became urban dwellers. Common people gained legal and political rights (though we all know that even today these rights exist a lot more on paper than in our real lives). Life today is vastly different than in the feudal era, and it is all a product of this rise of the machine age.

While the industrial system of capitalism freed the common people from one type of bondage, it created a new type, wage slavery. In the earlier stages of capitalism, the conditions of exploitation of working people were savage. Sixteen hour work days, child labor including six and seven year-olds, starvation wages, dangerous working conditions, severe repression any time the workers sought to improve their conditions; all this and more. Yet just as the common people fought against slavery and serfdom, they fought against the capitalists and their government system. Through immense suffering and struggle, the working class has been able to improve its conditions of life and work, up to and including actually overthrowing the capitalist overlords in some areas. Unfortunately, various failures have allowed the capitalists to reconquer large areas of the territory from which they were once evicted. This demonstrates the protracted nature of our struggle.

The capitalists developed the new means of production and brought the world the machine age. We must keep in mind though, that when we say the capitalists developed industrial production, we mean they were the force pushing the ideas and setting up the plants. It was the working class who actually sweated and worked to build the factories and who then worked in the plants and produced the goods. Just as the feudal nobility class and its subordinate craftsman class became useless with the development of machinery, so, too, the world is now at the stage where the capitalists are worse than useless, they are a drag on further social progress. Today all production is done socially (many people work together to produce the commodities), yet the instruments of production are owned privately and therefore, the products become the private property of the factory owners. This is often expressed as the contradiction between social production and private appropriation. Put in blunt terms, laborers work and produce everything, while the owners do little to nothing, but get to keep most of the benefits of our work. On top of this, they turn around and try to convince us that they are doing us a favor by giving us a job, by letting us work our lives away to make them rich! Plus they get to make the decisions about what is produced, meaning much of our productive capacity is wasted on military madness to defend bourgeois power and produce luxury goods no one but a minority elite can afford, instead of affordable housing, food, education, healthcare, transportation; social goods for all.

Just like the nobles were against change to capitalism, the capitalists are vehemently against the change to socialism. Since they control the vast majority of the governmental, public, and private institutions (media, schools, courts, etc.), they use them to try to make up explanations and theories to try to convince the working people that socialism is no good for anyone and that we should continue to accept their rule over us. If need be (and we see this every time a union goes on strike and throws up a strong picket or when prisoners rebel or a community protests), they will use force to try to stay in power. Still, even with all their courts, cops, and miseducation, the tide of history is against them and sooner or later the capitalist class must be moved aside so a new age can begin.

We see then that the capitalist system is marked by several contradictions, the key ones being: the contradiction between social production and private appropriation; the struggle between major capitalists, especially those in different countries, each trying to cut the others’ throats and, if necessary, dragging working people into wars to do so; the struggle between large monopoly capitalists and smaller capitalists who continually get eaten up by the larger ones; and, finally but most importantly, the continuous and irreconcilable class struggle between the decadent capitalist class, who are trying to hang on to their power even thought the huge majority of people suffer, and the ever-growing strength of the working class, which is moving to bring a new and better system and age. It is this last contradiction, the struggle between the working class or proletariat and the capitalist class or bourgeoisie, which is based on the concrete reality that capitalism is not meeting the needs of working people, that is the propelling force which will bring about the next qualitative social change to socialism.


Socialism is the latest (fifth) main stage of human society that some countries are already beginning. It is the level of development where the contradiction between social production and private appropriation is resolved by making the appropriation social also. This means the major industries, mines, farms, railways, or in other words, all the major means of production, are under the control of the working class. This is easily accomplished by socializing these enterprises (socialized is where the people, community, or state owns them). Under socialism, the state or government in turn is truly controlled by the working people; they not only vote once every couple of years for government officials, but also have more direct and real control of the day-to-day operation of the workplace.

For example, if you worked in a factory, you and your co-workers would be making most of the decisions on the work, conditions, etc., as well as having a real voice, along with all the working class, in deciding national and other large issues as well. This is really only logical because it is the working people that actually make all the goods that the country needs. Therefore, they should be the ones who collectively own the means of production and the goods they produce, and decide how to allocate those goods as well.

As it now stands, all production is done for only one purpose, profit. The capitalists are not concerned with whether the commodities and services they have produced are useful or not as long as they can be sold. In fact, a huge portion of U.S. production today is war production. In the summer of 2008, the Iraq war is costing U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month. This comes out to $5000 a second! In addition it is costing taxpayers another $40 billion per month for the rest of the military industrial complex expenses. This serves no purpose but high taxes and death for us and obscene profits for the military industrial complex. For the capitalists, war production is a highly profitable business, and when war involving U.S. troops breaks out they rarely send their sons or daughters to die. Meanwhile, people in this country today, let alone in the rest of the world, are going hungry, live in rotten housing, cannot afford decent medical care, have to send their children to old, overcrowded schools, etc. What has happened is that now, when our country has reached a point where poverty and suffering could be wiped out, the capitalist refuse to do it, because it is not profitable. The capitalist class has outlived all its usefulness and is standing squarely in the way of necessary progress. This is not just because they are all greedy nasty individuals (although most, no doubt, are), but because the only way the capitalist system can operate is on private property and profit, and these are thus protected as inherent, constitutional rights that may not be legally challenged. Therefore, the solution requires more than a matter of putting a so-called “nice guy” into office, because even a “good guy” has to act within the limits of the system.

While we are reaching the level of production where all the goods needed could be produced and made available to working people, we find ourselves plagued with inflation, recessions, depressions, severe cutbacks, and declining living standards. Why? Again, because the capitalist class is only after profit. They not only don’t produce what is needed, they actually destroy crops while people are hungry, produce business jets and even more senseless cars and gadgets while many people still do not have refrigerators or running hot water, or even a home to live in. Under socialism, goods and services are produced not because someone can make a fast buck, but because they are needed and wanted by the people. Capitalism always had and will have cycles of recession, depression and so-called good times. Although in the 1950s and 60s a lot of talk was smeared around the U.S. about how this problem of capitalism had been resolved, today as banks are failing and homes are being foreclosed, we all understand that it is as ready as ever to fall into a full-blown depression. Socialist countries never have depressions because they do not operate on a market economy. Instead, they have a planned and thought-out economy that is designed to meet people’s needs. During the great depression of the 1930s, the only major country that was not laying people off was the Soviet Union, which had a socialist economy then.

Socialism resolves many other contradictions that present day capitalism imposes on us. By overthrowing the capitalists’ political control and setting up a working class democracy, it is possible to establish a socially owned means of production. Having resolved these work relations contradictions, we could begin building not only a more materially plentiful life, but an emotionally and socially satisfying and ecologically sustainable one, as well. Under capitalism the idea is that you gain at someone else’s expense. Such a basis for society quite naturally leads to an overall hostility, distrust and negativity amongst the people. Socialism is instead based on the principle that mutual cooperation leads to advancement. It is not hard to see how, in a socialist system, society would grown increasingly harmonious and people truly, regardless of race, sex, or any other features, would have the greatest possible freedom to develop their full human potential.

Looking ahead, we can see we are reaching a point in this country where most hard manual labor could be performed by machines. The capitalists will never move to this stage because it will mean cutting their own throats. Instead, they focus on automating good jobs for which workers must be paid well and leaving low-pay hard labor for the workers.

Unskilled workers, who do most of the dirty, dangerous, boring work, tend to be cheaper than the machines that would replace them. They are also plentiful and easily replaced, which makes it difficult for them to make demands on the bosses. Skilled workers, whose jobs tend to be more interesting and satisfying, must be paid more because their knowledge is in short supply. Also they can make demands on the bosses because they are not so easily replaced. You can’t go to the Home Depot parking lot and pick up a van load of diesel mechanics. In order to understand this more fully, we must examine a certain aspect of work and capitalist production.

Karl Marx, 190 years ago, discovered that under a money system (A capitalist system, that is, although money is used for a while when a country is transforming to socialism; goods and services are allocated by other means once it becomes fully socialist, so money becomes useless and disappears.), all goods and services that are made to be sold (commodities) only get value once some worker has put his or her labor on them. By value we mean exchange value or money value, not use value. Anything that is useful has use value, air for example, but only commodities that are made to be sold have exchange value or just value. That might sound strange, so let us take an example. Let us say we think there is gold buried in the yard in its raw mineral ore state. This gold has no value as long as it is lying underground. Now a capitalist comes along and hires a worker to dig up the raw gold ore. Let’s say the worker digs up 100 pounds of gold ore in eight hours of work. Now the capitalist has 100 pounds of gold ore, which we’ll say is worth $1000. The capitalist pays the worker $100 for his/her day’s work, leaving the capitalist $900 extra value (for simplicity sake we will call this all profit, but some of it is other than that), and now the gold itself has a value of $1000. The capitalist now hires a gold smelter who in eight hours, we’ll say, melts the ore down into a gold brick, which we’ll say is worth $2000. The capitalist pays the smelter $200 in wages, smelting being more skilled labor than digging, leaving the capitalist with a $2000 gold bar that cost him or her $300 to acquire. (The workers actually produced it.) Now the capitalist finds a goldsmith who he hires to turn the gold bar into many gold rings. He pays the goldsmith $500 for his word. The capitalist then sells the rings for $4000, their exchange value. The workers whose labor brought the gold from zero value to its full $4000 value got $800, and the capitalist got the remaining $3200. This is just a simplified example, but the rule is that commodities get their value when a worker puts his/her labor and time into changing some material into a commodity.

Under developed commodity production, when commodities are exchanged through the medium of money, their values are expressed with a definite sum of money. The value of the commodity is expressed in terms of money. Exchange value becomes the price of the commodity. This is a simple look at what Marx called THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE.

Returning to the idea that most jobs, especially the worst ones, could be automated, we see that the capitalists cannot move to this stage because if only human labor power increases value and thus makes profit, then they need human labor power. This does not mean that people won’t keep losing their jobs in the U.S. because of automation, since automation increases the capitalists’ rate of profit. If the capitalist has one laborer and one machine doing the work which ten workers without machines did before, then of course, he/she has to pay less wages and saves money or increases profit, but it does not mean that the capitalists will take that total step. Only socialism, not governed by profit, could and will move to a stage where backbreaking labor is less needed, because this would be to the benefit of working people.

Finally and generally, socialism as a social-productive system is the first time since primitive communalism that society is run and controlled by the majority of people (the working class). The people who work and produce would also be the people who own and decide what should be done, when, how and why. The working class as opposed to the capitalist class would be the class in power, and it is always true that whoever controls the economy also controls the government. The working class as a whole would determine how society would live and grow, by setting up and using truly democratic methods and institutions. Then the schools, medical services, recreational facilities, and all other social institutions would be open and available for the people to use. There would be no one to deny us these or other things if we as a class were running the country. Socialism is the logical and necessary next stage of society and human development on this planet – anything else would be going backwards.

This is just a short outline of socialism. How any specific socialist society would look would be up to the people of that country to determine. Part of this determination is how industrially and materially developed the country was to begin with. Cultural, historical, and environmental factors will also influence the faces of socialism. Therefore, it is not only likely, but most assuredly true that different countries will have unique aspects to their socialist democracies.


This, then, is a basic look at dialectical and historical materialism and, very briefly and generally, a materialist breakdown of the stages of human society’s development, including a peek at how socialism will be in our country. This is not a reading of fortune cookies, astrology charts, or any other metaphysical hocus-pocus. It is a concrete evaluation of concrete realities using the powerful tools of dialectical materialist understandings of the real world. These tools, and the insights we gain using them, enable us to move forward with foresight and planning. This is only an introduction; so many points were left out and most aspects were only covered briefly and generally, and therefore, somewhat mechanically. It is hoped and urged that at least two additional short books be read, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, by J. Stalin and On Contradiction, by Mao Zedong. Both are available at political bookstores and both provide a much richer understanding of this powerful tool that we need if we want to struggle more effectively.

Even with only this basic understanding, we can see that the world is moving forward and that the day of the common people, the working class, is approaching. As in all other stages though, we must realize that conditions develop and groundwork is laid while the majority of people are still not aware of their full scope. But when a certain point is reached, we begin to see and understand (if we don’t purposely shut our eyes) the full nature of our enemy, as well as our own power and duty. Thus begins the last stage of the old. The people whose day has come must then step forward and make that complete qualitative leap ahead. This is not easy, and it never has been; but all we really have to lose is are our chains – the chains that confine us to a life of wage slavery in a system of discrimination and injustice, the chains that hold us in prison cells in capitalist dungeons, the chains that allow us only frustrated half lives as the oppressed class in a capitalist nightmare. The New Day Is Ours To Build!