Dialectical Materialism is the world view of all true communists, and the proclaimed world view of many would be communists. Dialectics, is, as Engels said, the science of inter connections.
Engels identifies three laws of dialectics: The Law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vive versa, the Law of the interpenetration of opposites, and the Law of the negation of the negation.
Without going into Hegel, I will explain each of the three here.
The transformation of quantity into quality is nothing other that recognising that there is no 'gradual' change from one state into another. At one point, all hitherto incremental changes become a strain on the existing organisation, 'the integument is burst asunder'.
Now, this is perhaps the most easily demonstrable of the laws:
We can see it simply in water: From 2*c to 1*c, the water cools, but is still liquid, from 1*c to 0*c, the same, but upon reaching -1*c the water cannot hold unto its liquid form: it freezes. Just as water, upon reaching 100*c can no longer maintain its liqiudity and expands, disolving into gas.
We can see it also in colours: Red is red, We have light red, we have dark red, and then we have the red to either side of the red in the direction of the other colours. But I will deal simply with dark red here: one can make dark red. We know this, whether we do it with paint, or we do it on a computer. But, at a certain stage, if the red is to be darkened any further it must cease to be red, it becomes black.
Int the real of human history, we also see it:
In evolution: I wil only state here that I side with the propononts of puctuated evolution, not because I need to explain gaps in the fossil record, but because, dialecticly it fits: after evolving in a given direction for long enough the old form becomes too much of a hinerance, and bigger mutations win the day.
Chemistry: Ozone and Oxygen, I need say nothing more to illustrate that one.
Engels says of this Law:
And an ammusing note by Engels in Anti-Duhring:
Engels identifies three laws of dialectics: The Law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vive versa, the Law of the interpenetration of opposites, and the Law of the negation of the negation.
Without going into Hegel, I will explain each of the three here.
The transformation of quantity into quality is nothing other that recognising that there is no 'gradual' change from one state into another. At one point, all hitherto incremental changes become a strain on the existing organisation, 'the integument is burst asunder'.
Now, this is perhaps the most easily demonstrable of the laws:
We can see it simply in water: From 2*c to 1*c, the water cools, but is still liquid, from 1*c to 0*c, the same, but upon reaching -1*c the water cannot hold unto its liquid form: it freezes. Just as water, upon reaching 100*c can no longer maintain its liqiudity and expands, disolving into gas.
We can see it also in colours: Red is red, We have light red, we have dark red, and then we have the red to either side of the red in the direction of the other colours. But I will deal simply with dark red here: one can make dark red. We know this, whether we do it with paint, or we do it on a computer. But, at a certain stage, if the red is to be darkened any further it must cease to be red, it becomes black.
Int the real of human history, we also see it:
Quote:
Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. The integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.
In evolution: I wil only state here that I side with the propononts of puctuated evolution, not because I need to explain gaps in the fossil record, but because, dialecticly it fits: after evolving in a given direction for long enough the old form becomes too much of a hinerance, and bigger mutations win the day.
Chemistry: Ozone and Oxygen, I need say nothing more to illustrate that one.
Engels says of this Law:
Quote:
For our purpose, we can express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion(so-called energy).
And an ammusing note by Engels in Anti-Duhring:
Quote:
In conclusion we shall call one more witness for the transformation of quantity into quality, namely -- Napoleon. He describes the combat between the French cavalry, who were bad riders but disciplined, and the Mamelukes, who were undoubtedly the best horsemen of their time for single combat, but lacked discipline, as follows:
"Two Mamelukes were undoubtedly more than a match for three Frenchmen; 100
Mamelukes were equal to 100 Frenchmen; 300 Frenchmen could generally beat 300
Mamelukes, and 1,000 Frenchmen invariably defeated 1,500 Mamelukes."
Just as with Marx a definite, though varying, minimum sum of exchange-values was necessary to make possible its transformation into capital, so with Napoleon a detachment of cavalry had to be of a definite minimum number in order to make it possible for the force of discipline, embodied in closed order and planned utilisation, to manifest itself and rise superior even to greater numbers of irregular cavalry, in spite of the latter being better mounted, more dexterous horsemen and fighters, and at least as brave as the former. But what does this prove as against Herr Dühring? Was not Napoleon miserably vanquished in his conflict with Europe? Did he not suffer defeat after defeat? And why? Solely in consequence of having introduced the confused, hazy Hegelian notion into cavalry tactics!
"Two Mamelukes were undoubtedly more than a match for three Frenchmen; 100
Mamelukes were equal to 100 Frenchmen; 300 Frenchmen could generally beat 300
Mamelukes, and 1,000 Frenchmen invariably defeated 1,500 Mamelukes."
Just as with Marx a definite, though varying, minimum sum of exchange-values was necessary to make possible its transformation into capital, so with Napoleon a detachment of cavalry had to be of a definite minimum number in order to make it possible for the force of discipline, embodied in closed order and planned utilisation, to manifest itself and rise superior even to greater numbers of irregular cavalry, in spite of the latter being better mounted, more dexterous horsemen and fighters, and at least as brave as the former. But what does this prove as against Herr Dühring? Was not Napoleon miserably vanquished in his conflict with Europe? Did he not suffer defeat after defeat? And why? Solely in consequence of having introduced the confused, hazy Hegelian notion into cavalry tactics!
All those here that claim to marxism, please take note of dialectics, otherwise you are nothing more than a wellwisher.
