Foundations of Marxism [CFML: Chapter 3]

A. Dialectical Materialism

It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical development, as well as of thought itself. And indeed they can be reduced in the main to three:

The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.

— Friedrich Engels1

• The emergence of dialectical materialism from idealism.
• The three laws of dialectics.
• The role of contradiction in motion and change.

As established in the previous chapter, dialectical materialism arose, foremost, from the synthesis of scientific materialism with the pursuit of socio-economic progress. It is as such that dialectical materialism has been summarized as the most developed form of materialist philosophy.2

The materialist basis of dialectical materialism, in the sense of imbuing revolutionary philosophy with scientific empiricism, was developed by Marx and Engels, at least partially from the influential work of early economic thinkers, such as Locke and Ricardo, as well as more broad scientific thinkers, such as Darwin.3 Exemplified in its assertion that being precedes consciousness, materialism, as we have said, rejects all forms of idealism and metaphysics—of unsubstantiated belief—as, at best, secondary to the Real.4 In simpler terms, it asserts that thought and consciousness are the result of real-world material forces, not the other way around; meaning that real-world material forces must naturally come first and foremost over ideas and beliefs.

It is thus that humanity’s highest potential is not some magical pursuit of ascending to godhood, but rather, even greater, it is the developmental ascension of humanity towards our own material self; the creation of new life and new societies that fulfill the real needs of living people. As Marx declared, that mankind itself is the highest essence for mankind. That thoughts and beliefs, in this light, appear only useful to us insofar as they are able to help us physically achieve this better world; [t]heory is fulfilled in a people only insofar as it is the fulfilment of the needs of that people… It is not enough for thought to strive for realization, reality must itself strive towards thought.5

The progressive basis of dialectical materialism also arises from the primacy of material reality, and from our understanding of humanity’s place within it.6 This understanding emerges from the synthesis of Hegel’s dialectical idealism with the political progressivism of early Utopian Socialists.7 Specifically, that the development of human society itself unfolds dialectically, and that this unfolding trends towards the progress of the human species as a whole; that all efforts to subvert or postpone the progress of humanity, no matter how successful in the immediate term, will ultimately fail. For, so long as human civilization may be said to exist, it shall be fundamentally bound up within this dialectical motion. It is, in briefest terms, that the human experience arises, inevitably, to its final synthesis: Communism or extinction.8

In its unity, then, dialectical materialism comes to encompass the entirety of natural and social science. It arises, and finds its highest expression, as J.V. Stalin writes, as the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist Party … 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.9 It is from there, as we have said, that Marxism-Leninism emerges as the complete system of dialectical materialism.10

Referring to the subject as simply my dialectical method, Marx outlined the principle of dialectical materialism with full clarity, that [w]ith me… the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought.11 Later, Friedrich Engels synthesized the initial body of Marxism as known today, including the fundamental aspects of dialectical materialism, specifically in his work Dialectics of Nature (1883). However, it would be a mistake to believe that the corpus of Marxism is merely the domain of Marx and Engels; fellow revolutionary thinkers, such as Joseph Dietzgen, also utilized the terminology of materialism and dialectics throughout the same period.

The basic synthesis and codification of dialectical materialism as we know it today in Marxism-Leninism is derived, primarily, from two sources: V.I. Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-criticism (1908), and J.V. Stalin’s Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1938), which further synthesized dialectical materialism with the concept of historical materialism. These syntheses and codifications are of profound importance, as, despite elaboration on the readily-apparent thoughts and theories of Marx and Engels themselves, they do not, in their original formulations, use that specific terminology. That is, that in none of Marx and Engels’ major works will one find the terms dialectical materialism or historical materialism, although their thoughts in those works are precisely the foundations of those terms. Such terminology may then, essentially, be understood as signifiers that are used to coalesce and clearly delineate the developments of Marxist theory and praxis over the centuries. That is, that they provide a basic foundation for ideological clarity, and the opportunity to clearly identify delineations.

Further elaboration on dialectical motion was in turn provided by Mao Zedong in his works, particularly On Contradiction (1937) and Dialectical Materialism (1938), as well as others. Furthermore, crucial additions in the formulation and synthesis of dialectical materialism, including the popularization of the term itself, can be traced back over the years to figures such as Joseph Dietzgen, with whom Marx himself was well acquainted; Georgi Plekhanov, with whom V.I. Lenin had been co-editor of Iskra for a time before emerging as a leading figure in the competing Menshevik faction of the RSDLP; and even Karl Kautsky, who would become most famous for his recalcitrant revisionism. The foundations of the laws of dialectics, as recorded by Friedrich Engels through the works of G.W.F Hegel, may themselves be said to be derived, ultimately, from the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 400-500 BCE).

It is, thus, all the more apparent the debt that modern Marxist-Leninists owe to these great past thinkers who, over the course of more than a century (or in the broader view, more than a millennia), have worked to provide us with deep clarity on the subject. Further, it is precisely with this collective understanding that Marxism-Leninism passes from beyond the horizon of mere philosophy, and into the realm of material and social science.

i. Quantitative and Qualitative

In Measure, to put it abstractly, Quality and Quantity are united. Being as such is the immediate self-identity of determinateness. This immediacy of determinateness has transcended itself. Quantity is Being which has returned upon itself in such a manner that it is simple self-identity as indifference to determinateness.
— G.W.F. Hegel 12

Engels’ identification of the law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa simultaneously demonstrates the Left Hegelian roots of Marxist thought, as well as its transcendence above purely Hegelian ideology.

For Hegel, Quality is the concrete determination of Being—it is the essential character through which a being is what it is, and through which it becomes distinct and determinate in relation to what it is not. For example, when one looks at a coffee table, its Quality is that of a table; it is not a chair, and it is not merely a collection of wood, paint, screws, etc. It is Qualitatively a table.

Quantity, by contrast, entails magnitude: amount, degree, intensity, and other secondary characteristics that may vary without immediately altering the essential character of a given being. Extending the example of the coffee table further, the Quantitative characteristics include its specific material, its color, its size, etc., and their specific relationality with one-another.

Quality and Quantity then co-arise in a dialectical relationship, with Quality in the primary position. Their relationship gives rise to a property that Hegelians call Measure—the meetingpoint (traditionally called a nodal point or nodal leap) at which gradual change in Quantity, or subtle shift in Quality, results in a transformation of the being itself.13

While Hegel was specifically concerned with the nature of Being from an idealist standpoint—examining how the Absolute Notion14 comes to know and sublate itself through the dialectical motion of Quality and Quantity—Marxism stands Hegel upright by grounding this motion in the material development of human society.15 Rather than an abstract self-thinking Idea, it is humanity itself that advances, dialectically, towards higher forms of collective life and flourishing within the bounds of material reality; through labor, production, and class struggle.16

This relationship between Quantity and Quality, as utilized within Marxism-Leninism, may be understood through Engels’ example in Anti-Dühring (1877):

We have already seen earlier, when discussing world schematism, that in connection with this Hegelian nodal line of measure relations—in which quantitative change suddenly passes at certain points into qualitative transformation…We gave there one of the best-known examples—that of the change of the aggregate states of water, which under normal atmospheric pressure changes at 0° C from the liquid into the solid state, and at 100°C from the liquid into the gaseous state, so that at both these turning-points the merely quantitative change of temperature brings about a qualitative change in the condition of the water.

In simplest terms, then, we may say that this is the law that change occurs first in the accumulation of small (quantitative) contradictions, until ultimately spilling over (or rupturing) into new (qualitative) forms.

Further revolutionary thinkers and movements have, in turn, all sought to apply this first law of dialectical materialism to their specific material realities:

• V.I. Lenin identified the quantitative accumulation of contradictions within Russian society and the emergent revolutionary movement, culminating in a new qualitative emergence: the Great October Revolution. Afterwards, to answer the question of post-war reconstruction and the development of socioeconomic forces, Lenin oversaw the implementation of the New Economic Policy, which sought moderate (qualitative) socioeconomic development in the near-term in order to achieve the long-term goal of developing Socialism. Lenin’s explicit goal was to manage socioeconomic development forwards so that it would culminate in a qualitative leap rather than a reversion back to capitalism17 18

• J.V. Stalin identified (with no small help from the guidance of V.I. Lenin) the necessity to pursue Socialism in One Country; the policy of developing the Soviet Union’s own internal (quantitative) socioeconomic forces within the broader context of seeking to shift the (qualitative) international situation towards revolution.19

• Mao Zedong identified the nascent revolutionary developments in China in similar fashion as (and guided by the works of) V.I. Lenin, while also specifically navigating the (quantitative) accumulation of contradictions within Chinese society that would ultimately find their highest (qualitative) expression in the rupture between renegade-fascist KMT and Communist forces; the unleashing of the New Democratic Revolution, and giving birth to the modern People’s Republic of China.20 Following the success of the Chinese revolution, a similar question of socioeconomic development likewise came to the fore, for which Mao ultimately arrived at the conclusion that:

  As for the completion of the task for the entire transition period, which consists of the basic accomplishment of the country’s industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts and capitalist industry and commerce, this cannot be done in three to five years, but will instead take a period of several five-year plans. On this question it is necessary to oppose both the idea of leaving things to the indefinite future and the idea of rushing things through.21

  Much as V.I. Lenin had, and which the following generations of Chinese leadership would seek to continue developing.22

• Hồ Chí Minh identified very similar dynamics in Vietnam, formulating specific applications for the (quantitative) development of the League for Independence23 towards the (qualitative) emergence of the August Revolution, and then again in the War of Resistance, culminating in the liberation of the country, and the birth of the modern Socialist Republic of Vietnam.24 Although not living to see the fulfillment of the revolutionary mission, subsequent generations of Vietnamese leadership carried forward the vision of Uncle Hồ, and came to similar economic conclusions as well.25 26

In short, each revolutionary period, organization, and undertaking, is, fundamentally, according to the Marxist-Leninist outlook, a dialectical procession of Quantitative and Qualitative change.

It thus follows that this first law of dialectics may be grasped fundamentally, in Engels’ words, as the law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa.27

ii. The Unity of Opposites

Couples are things whole and things not whole, what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one.
— Heraclitus28

Engels’ second law of dialectics is the law of the interpenetration of opposites. That is, that contradictions arise, principally, from within a thing itself, and that the progression of quantitative into qualitative change occurs through the motion of internal negation;29 that the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it.30

All motion, Engels observes, consists in the interplay of attraction and repulsion. As regards nature itself, Engels continues*,* that:

[T]he law of the indestructibility and uncreatibility of motion takes the form that each movement of attraction in the universe must have as its complement an equivalent movement of repulsion and vice versa; or, as ancient philosophy—long before the natural scientific formulation of the law of conservation of force or energy—expressed it: the sum of all attractions in the universe is equal to the sum of all repulsions.31

Furthermore, such motion occurs in a (generally) progressive manner; as J.V. Stalin writes:

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, 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.32

The unity of opposites may then be understood as the inherent contradictions which are bound up within any given thing, giving rise to dialectical (generally progressive) motion. For example, one might imagine the accumulation of dust on the (initially clean) coffee table mentioned previously: the (qualitative) cleanliness of the coffee table stands in contradiction to its (quantitative) accumulation of dust, and therein exists a unity of opposites,33 which arises ultimately into a rupture: the table itself may no longer be said to be clean, but rather has become dusty.34

Despite its superficiality as an example,35 the motion of clean-to-dusty illustrates the deeper dialectical motion: the unity of opposites, which, from the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, underpins the entirety of the natural and human-shaped world.36 As regards the latter—the realm of human society—rather, the progressive nature of such motion is most pronounced, as per J.V. Stalin:

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.37

It is precisely here that we see the Marxist-Leninist conception of social progression, not as a metaphysical force arising from beyond the horizon or through divine intervention, but precisely from within the unity of opposites of the human species itself; in the contradiction between revolutionary progress (development forwards into higher forms) and conservative reaction (reversion backwards into lower forms).38

It is from here that V.I. Lenin observed, in his reading of Hegel, that Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects.39 Mao Zedong would in turn cite this observation in his own work, asserting that the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics.40 He elaborates not only Engels’ and Lenin’s observations, but, going a step further, asserts:

The interdependence of the contradictory aspects present in all things and the struggle between these aspects determine the life of all things and push their development forward. There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist.41

This understanding of the unity of opposites as universal is derived from both Engels and Lenin, who observed their presence in all aspects of natural science and human experience:

In mathematics: + and —. Differential and integral.
In mechanics: action and reaction.
In physics: positive and negative electricity.
In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms.
In social science: the class struggle.42

It thus follows that this second law of dialectics may be grasped fundamentally, in Engels’ words, as the law of the interpenetration of opposites; that the unity of opposites appears as the engine of natural and social motion.43

iii. Sublation

‘To sublate’ has a twofold meaning in the language: on the one hand it means to preserve, to maintain, and equally it also means to cause to cease, to put an end to. Even ’to preserve’ includes a negative elements, namely, that something is removed from its influences, in order to preserve it. Thus what is sublated is at the same time preserved; it has only lost its immediacy but is not on that account annihilated.
— G.W.F. Hegel 44

Engels’ third law of dialectics is the law of the negation of the negation. That is, of sublation. Where Quantity and Quality articulate the essential mechanics of transformation, and the Unity of Opposites expresses the internal source of dialectical motion, the Negation of the Negation may be grasped the material process of development by overcoming contradiction and arriving at a higher level of expression.45 It is thus understood as the rupture and resolution by which new forms emerge; not merely as inversions of their previous qualitative properties (e.g., not merely from clean to dusty), but as transformations that both abolish and preserve that which came before, into a new form.46

Of fundamental importance to this process of sublation, and the motion of dialectical change, is that it is oriented, generally, towards ascension. That is, that dialectical motion naturally tends from lower to higher forms.47 It is from this process, over time, that progress is achieved, with the progressive development of material (namely, productive) forces, generally, further giving rise to the higher progressive development of the social.48

Referring back to our example of the dusty coffee table once more, sublation may be seen precisely in that shift which arises between the table being clean, so to speak, and being dusty: the quantitative accumulation of one force (dust) at once overcomes that of the other (cleanliness), rendering the essence of the object somehow changed, yet also preserved. What at once had been a clean coffee table now appears as a dusty coffee table, yet bound up within this new form remains the contradiction of clean and dusty, only heightened and developed through the accumulation of quantity over time. Bound up within this new emergence, then, is not only the old contradiction of clean and dusty, but also new contradictions. Clean and dusty are fundamentally superficial, or non-antagonistic, to the essence of the table itself; an incredibly clean or especially dusty table is still, in essence, a table. Dust, however, makes a preferable home for certain insect species that, increasing in quantity, will begin to destroy the table. It is here that the contradiction reaches its highest form, and enters into the realm of antagonism (a threat to the essence of the thing itself): the passage of table into scrapwood.49

It is thus that sublation may be understood in three parts:

• Negation: the moment that the quantitative accumulation of forces contrary to the present state of a given subject arises to such a point as to create a rupture or qualitative shift in the character of that thing.50

• Preservation (or transformation): that the qualitative shift which occurs in that thing necessarily changes its character or essence, yet still retains some essential elements or determinations of its previous form.51

• Elevation (or progression): that the thing which had undergone some change now lives on in a new form, and begins the process anew.52

Furthermore, Mao Zedong elaborates on the relationship between internal and external forces, and their respective influences in this dialectical process:

It is evident that purely external causes can only give rise to mechanical motion, that is, to changes in scale or quantity, but cannot explain why things differ qualitatively in thousands of ways and why one thing changes into another. As a matter of fact, even mechanical motion under external force occurs through the internal contradictoriness of things… [dialectical materialism] holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis.53

It thus follows that this third law of dialectics may be grasped fundamentally, in Engels’ words, as the law of the negation of the negation.

B. Historical Materialism

According to the Materialist Conception of History, the factor which is in the last instance decisive in history is the production and reproduction of actual life. More than this neither Marx nor myself ever claimed… The economic situation is the base, but the different parts of the structure [ … ] exercises also its influence on the development of the historical struggles and in cases determines their form. It is under the mutual influence of all these factors that, rejecting the infinitesimal number of accidental occurrences (that is, things and happenings whose intimate sense is so far removed and of so little probability that we can consider them non-existent, and can ignore them), that the economical movement is ultimately carried out.

— Friedrich Engels54

• The materialist conception of history: economic base and ideological superstructure.
• The Marxist theory of knowledge.
• The state as an instrument of class rule.
• Revolution as the resolution of class contradictions.

In the previous chapter, we described historical materialism as arising from the application of dialectical materialism to the subject of human history and society. It is as such that historical materialism has been described as the highest expression of progressive historiography, which, taken with dialectical materialism, forms the foundation of, and finds highest expression in, the Marxist-Leninist worldview.55

As with dialectical materialism, the term historical materialism does not appear, as such, within the works of Marx and Engels. Rather, the specific term historical materialism arose with the second generation of Marxists following after Marx and Engels, generally associated with the Second International (1889-1916).56 This second generation of Marxists established the basis of historical materialism from what Marx and Engels generally referred to as the materialist conception of history, but had not treated as a discrete thought-system in their works.57

It is likewise from these thinkers, namely Plekhanov, that we receive the formulation of dialectical materialism as the highest expression of historical materialism58 ; therefore, approaching from the other side, we may understand historical materialism most briefly as the application of dialectical materialism to the question of human history and society. This formulation, in less dogmatic terms, would later be reiterated by Lenin,59 synthesized into Marxism-Leninism by Stalin,60 and, from there, further elaborated upon by Marxist thinkers up to the present.61

With this understanding, we may grasp a number of fundamental principles of historical materialism.

i. Materialism

The discovery of the materialist conception of history, or more correctly, the consistent continuation and extension of materialism into the domain of social phenomena, removed the two chief shortcomings in earlier historical theories. In the first place, the latter at best examined only the ideological motives in the historical activities of human beings, without investigating the origins of those motives, or ascertaining the objective laws governing the development of the system of social relations, or seeing the roots of these relations in the degree of development reached by material production; in the second place, the earlier theories did not embrace the activities of the masses of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the first time to study with scientific accuracy the social conditions of the life of the masses, and the changes in those conditions.

— V.I. Lenin62

Throughout this and earlier chapters we have spoken at length regarding materialism, and its fundamental orienting force in the world-view of Marxism-Leninism. Here, too, materialism appears as first principle in the development of historical materialism. Foremost, for Marx and Engels themselves, historical materialism originates more simply as the materialist conception of history. While still used, generally, as synonyms, this early conception (precisely in its own self-description) had yet to take on the full elaboration that would come in the ensuing centuries from its first utterance.

As established in the previous chapter, historical materialism identifies the material realities of the natural world and humankind’s struggles within it as the source of all motion in human society.63 That is, in its most specific sense, that history is the product of collective human experience, bound up within the material forces of the natural world. That humanity itself is the collective subject of history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past…64 In this context, it is the understanding that, from individual to collective, the life, thought, and experience—being—of the human subject is shaped, first and foremost, by the material forces within which it finds itself; that material life determines social being.65

In its immediate sense, this materialist orientation dispels the fog of metaphysics and idealism by asserting, with full clarity, that no individual or society may be said to exist or act in any form which is not bound up within materiality. This assertion extends not only to the conditions and development of economic life, but, even further, to the very psychological schema through which one understands and interprets the world around them.66

The materialist conception of history thus begins, from this first principle, as the understanding of history as the dialectical development of human species-being, bound up within materiality. That our first ancestors sought, first, to secure the means of their own survival, and then to develop those means towards self-fulfilment; the development of complex tools by which to shape nature, as well as (most likely simultaneously) the birth of recognizable languages by which to communicate—giving rise to the birth of both science and culture.67 Into the present, hundreds of thousands of years later, this same fundamental motion remains, largely unchanged, but essentially evolved; incomplete and unresolved, but more pronounced and more developed. This non-linear and uneven procession, especially arising since the dawn of class society, for Marx, is history, and is pointed in a very specific direction::

This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man… Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.

The entire movement of history, just as its actual act of genesis—the birth act of its empirical existence—is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming.68

It may be understood, then, that the materialist conception of history, as a discrete concept, is itself ontologically materialist; understanding material reality as the first cause for all being.69 Further, and equally fundamentally, then, is the development of the Marxist theory of knowledge, which posits that, as Mao Zedong described, [a]ll genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.70 In other words, it is the understanding that human knowledge is itself a dialectical, historical, and materialist process of motion: thought, action, and new thought, followed by new action, and onwards, until such time as the material source of that thought or action is itself fundamentally transformed and arises anew.71

ii. Base & Superstructure

[Materialist historians] study deeper, and they find that the sequence of ideas is not arbitrary or haphazard, but determined by law; that to every distinct economic epoch of humanity distinct forms of religion, morals and law correspond, which one finds in all climates and among all races, and that, wherever the corresponding changes allow of investigation the change in the economic conditions precedes, and the alteration in the ideas of men only slowly follows, that therefore the latter is to be declared through the former and not the contrary.

— Karl Kautsky72

In understanding that being is shaped by materiality, it is necessary to then pursue an understanding of which aspects of materiality may be said to take pride of place in the shaping of human social-being. That is, that if our position, bound up within the natural world, determines our being, then in which particular aspects and in what particular forms does that influence arise.

As established above, the historical materialist view places the birth of human social-being as such at some point within the mists of prehistory, arising from the development of complex tools, language, and the capacity for higher-order thought; for it was at that point at which humanity came not only to live and die by the forces of nature, but, rather, for the first times, to collectively shape and change them to suit our own social needs. For Marx, the distinction between humans and animals soon follows, through production:

[Humans] themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subsistence [humans] are indirectly producing their actual material life.73

That is, that humanity’s glacial crawl into early forms of production formed the point of rupture for the human species as we know ourselves; the qualitative shift into human species-being as distinct from “lower” life-forms. This achievement, in and of itself, did not appear from nowhere, but rather was shaped and predicated by the gradual development of the human species over some unknown millions of years; a ceaseless, uneven, and non-linear struggle for continuous improvement and survival in the primordial ooze of pre-history. This first act of higher order, complex production, for Marx, likewise marks the birth of humankind’s social-being.

What Marx describes in the above passage, in the form of the birth of production, is elaborated once more as the economic base of human society: the mode of production. Simultaneously, the overarching social outflow of these relations: the superstructure.74

Base: The Mode of Production

The economic base of society, or mode of production, may be precisely understood as itself being comprised of two fundamental aspects: the productive forces and the relations of production.

The mode of production encompasses the totality of the economic life of a given people: what, why, and how they produce, and towards what ends. It is, fundamentally, a conception of political economy.75 The Marxist-Leninist worldview places this sphere in the first position in the dialectical motion of human society, but this is not to be taken to mean that it is the sole determiner thereof.76

Nevertheless, this overarching mode of production, as such, may be viewed as a key indicator in the progress of human history, and in turn may be understood in historical terms as developing through epochs and eras.77 More specifically, Marx and Engels identified the general historical progression of human societal epochs through the development of the mode of production as:

1. Primitive Communism
   Wherein the dominant mode of production is that of hunting-and-gathering
   Example: Cavemen, nomads, etc.

2. Slave Society
   Wherein the dominant mode of production is that of slave production and early agriculture
   Example: Sparta, Athens, Rome, etc.

3. Feudalism
   Wherein the dominant mode of production is that of serfdom and later agriculture
   Example: Europe in the 13th century.

4. Capitalism
   Wherein the dominant mode of production is that of industrialized wage labor
   Example: America in the 20th century.

5. Socialism (“Lower Communism”)
   Wherein the dominant mode of production is that of socialised industrial labor
   Example: USSR in the 20th century.

6. Communism (“Higher Communism”)
   Wherein the dominant mode of production is that of totally communal, collectivized labor
   Example: TBD.78

Likewise, within each of these epochs arises a number of eras (or stages), corresponding to the general development of the mode of production and dialectical progression of a society within each epoch.79

Of utmost fundamental importance to the Marxist worldview is the emergence of class relations in each epoch, and their development within the context of each constituent era or period, thereby existing, dialectically, in relation to the dominant mode of production.80

With this in mind, we may now turn to the two specific component parts of the mode of production, and their relation to the development of historical epochs:

1. Productive Forces
   Also referred to as the forces of production, encompasses the means of labor, the objects of labor, and the human labor power utilized for transforming nature to produce the material means of life in a given society.81

2. Means of Labor, or Means of Production, encompasses the tools, machines, infrastructure, etc., that are utilized in the production process.82

   Of particular relevance in the epoch of capitalist production is that these means of production are entirely (or primarily) owned by a singular class, who, despite their ownership, do not directly utilize them, and rather employ others to do so on their behalf: capitalists.83

3. Objects of Labor encompasses the raw materials, land, etc., that are acted upon by human labor in order to produce the means of life; the food, housing, tools, and other items that are necessary for survival.84

   Of particular relevance, in the epoch of capitalist production, is that these objects of labor are likewise generally owned by the capitalist class, and the means of life take on, more and more, the form of commodities. This capitalist class domination and orientation towards commodity production thus appears as the defining characteristic of the capitalist mode of production.85

4. Human Labor Power encompasses the human skills, knowledge, and physical effort necessary for the work of production.

   For Marx, socially necessary labor takes on an especially important place in commodity production; that is, the necessary effort that a worker must commit to in order to stay alive. Under the capitalist mode of production, this labor is a miniscule part of the actual productive process, with the remainder, surplus labor, generating profit for the capitalist.86

5. Relations of Production
   Also referred to as productive relations, this encompasses the social and property relations that members of any given society must enter into throughout the process of production:87

6. Social Relations refer generally to the interpersonal (that is, person-to-person), relations within a given society, that is to say, the interactions and relations in and among friendships, families, colleagues, classmates, etc.88

   For Marx, social relations focused especially (but not exclusively) on the relationships between those who own the means of production (in our epoch, capitalists), and those who do not (workers).89

7. Property Relations refer generally to the socially-established relationships regarding the ownership and control of the means of production.90

   For Marxist-Leninists, these are not merely legal or formal relations, but rather go even further, and are expressions of deeper class structures, thus determining who owns, who works, and who appropriates the surplus of labor.91

Thus, we may grasp the root of the mode of production as the dialectical totality of productive forces and relations of production, mediated through the passage of time, the relative level of overall development, and the class relations bound up therein.92

While interpreted in different manners at different periods, and developed in different directions over the centuries, it is here to be noted that, per the Marxist-Leninist worldview, it is the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production which most acutely agitates the overarching society towards rupture—crisis and revolution—upturning the Base and re-emerging anew.93

Superstructure: The Mode of Social-Being

The superstructure of society, or mode of social-being, may be precisely understood as itself being comprised of a number of aspects: the State (as an entity), jurisprudence, politics, ideology, education, and culture.94

The mode of social-being encompasses the totality of the social life of a given people; what they think of themselves, why, how, and towards what purpose. It is, fundamentally, a conception of philosophy.95 The Marxist-Leninist worldview places this sphere in the second position in the dialectical motion of human society, but this is not to be taken to mean that it is wholly subservient to the Base described above.96

Nevertheless, this overarching mode of social-being, as such, may be viewed as a key indicator in the progress of human history, and in turn may be understood in historical terms as (generally, dialectically) accompanying the development of the mode of production; i.e., generally, but not precisely, through the epochs and eras of history.97

In each aspect, the superstructure of any given society is a mediating factor in that society’s economic and class structure in any given period.98

1. The State, as an entity, is formed by, and serves as, an instrument of power for the ruling class. It is precisely for this reason that the movement of class struggle rises and falls squarely on the matter of State power; its development, seizure, destruction, etc.99

2. The courts of law, education, and parliamentary politics, likewise, function as avenues for the “respectable” reproduction of the ideology of the ruling class of that society; the dominating worldview by which the class dictatorship, in whatever form, justifies and maintains its social domination.100

3. Culture and entertainment, as well, appear, most acutely, as the arena of self-searching, self-relation, self-reflection, and social-preservation of the masses of society; it is for this reason especially that culture and entertainment are the focus of great concern by the ruling class, and, in each society, contains a considerable mass-revolutionary potential as the primary domain of the social life of the oppressed; the emergence of revolutionary culture.101

Thus, taken in their totality, these facets of superstructure cumulatively form the structural logic of any given society;102 shaped by, and in turn shaping once again, the mode of production. It thus follows, necessarily, that any motion towards overturning the Base of a given society shall likewise be bound up within the sublation of the superstructure itself.103

iii. Laws of Historical Development

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

— K. Marx & F. Engels104

As we have said, the materialist conception of history asserts that history itself is not a random sequence of events; nor is it merely the outcome of individual actors. Rather, it can and must be understood scientifically. As such, it contains trends and patterns, generally understandable as laws and theories, which govern its motion.

The Theory of Dialectical Materialism

The first and foremost of these is the theory of dialectical materialism. As discussed previously, this is the point from which historical materialism begins as the application of dialectical materialism to the question of human history and society. As established, when discussing historical materialism within the context of real-world material conditions, we are drawn, primarily, but not exclusively, to the mode of production.

We will not belabor the point again here.105 Rather, it will suffice merely to briefly reiterate the centrality of dialectical materialism as such. It is worthy of explicit clarification, if not fully grasped above, that dialectical materialism is the foundation for historical materialism, as it allows us to ascertain the laws of historical development. Likewise, it is because of this importance, that, in the general Marxist-Leninist canon, the two theories, together, form one inseparable whole of dialectical and historical materialism. That is, that their unity constitutes the living core of the Marxist-Leninist worldview.

The Law of Class Struggle

Just as every society is primarily concerned with answering the question of producing and reproducing its means of life (thus forming the mode of production), so too and in the same stroke, that society forms the basis of its class relations.

As previously discussed, Marx observes, the basis of class relations, since the dawn of human civilization, is the birth of private property, and thus the formation, delineation, and domination of class relations, springing forth on the basis of one’s relations to the means of production. This relationship, being fundamentally social in nature, in turn shapes the arising structure of society (its superstructure) as a whole, before finally turning, and in the next stage being shaped again by it in turn. Thus is, as we have already established, the general, overarching dialectical motion of human society. The story, however, does not end there, for each turn itself produces and gives rise to yet more forms anew.

Just as the emergent force in a centrifuge draws the denser material outwards, thus resulting in the less-dense material being pushed inwards as it is displaced, so too the dialectical motion of society, anchored in the mode of production, ultimately draws the higher class downwards, and the lower class upwards. Herein lies the motion of class struggle in human society, which may be understood, most critically, as the motor of history.

The delineation of higher and lower classes is not merely a distinction of moral philosophy or theological mysticism, but rather, most immediately, from the distinction between productive relations; that certain segments of society retain greater (or complete) control of the means of production, and are thus, fundamentally, drawn into contradiction with those who retain the lesser (or nonexistent) control. Generally understood through Marx and Engels as exploiters and exploited, the former retains and reproduces its existence through ownership and control, the latter is placed in a state of unbearable antagonism, which, without mediation, gives way at once, as we have said, to rupture—crisis and revolution—upturning the Base and re-emerging anew.

For Marxism-Leninism, this law of class struggle, together with the theory of dialectical materialism, forms the overarching law of historical development.

The Law of Revolution, or Historical Transformation

Just as dialectical motion finds new heights in the sublation of its subject, that through the rupture of contradictions it is both abolished and reborn, taking on new forms, so too does the dialectical motion of class struggle find its highest ultimate expression in its own revolutionary rebirth; in the turning of the wheel of Base and Superstructure, of exploiter and exploited, of old and new, and the bursting forth of a qualitatively changed mode of production.

This bursting-forth, this revolution, is neither accidental nor optional; rather, once again, just as centrifugal force, if accelerated to extreme speeds beyond operational limits results in the total decay of the sample rather than the separation of its components, so too, Marx and Engels assert, the dialectical motion of class struggle finds its ultimate expression in either the revolutionary reordering of society, or, by the uncontrolled acceleration of antagonistic contradiction, in the common ruin of all. Either the re-birth of the society anew, or the self-destruction of that society completely. That is, as we have said, towards the final synthesis of Communism or extinction.

However, by the same token, this is not to mean that revolutionary ruptures appear, as it were, from the void. Rather, such ruptures arise from the meeting-point of two fundamental forces: the inevitable force of crisis of the mode of production as it reaches its historical endpoint (the point from which it may no longer develop on its own without evolving or rupturing into a new form), and the organized, mass force of the rising classes.

The Theory of Vanguardism

In the Springtime of Nations, the years 1848 and 1849, revolutionary forces raged throughout Europe: the feudal mode of production had reached its crisis-point. And yet, in spite of their protestations, their ire, and their cannonfire, many of the revolutions indeed failed to take hold. Yet still, all the more, again in 1871, the armed forces of the Paris Commune, for all their bravery and might, were torn asunder by the guns of the reactionaries. Why?

This question, as well as its implications, would mark not only the first split in the Communist International (between Marx and Bakunin; Marxism and Anarchism), but, all the more, would continue to shape and reshape the thinking of generations to come. For Marx and Engels, the answer was clear enough: the failure of the Communards lay principally in two factors: the first being their lack of organization, and the second being their lack of a mass basis of support among the exploited classes. Although rejected on its face by Bakunin and his followers as authoritarianism, this initial observation would go on to be developed by other Marxists over the years, and would find its highest expression in the works of V.I. Lenin: Vanguardism.

According to the theory of vanguardism, or more simply, vanguardism, class struggle alone, as a spontaneous popular force, will not sufficiently give rise to the revolutionary reordering of society in the majority of cases. Rather, through the organization of a mass-oriented Communist Party, which derives its existence as the independent revolutionary force of the united oppressed classes, developing through the methodology of Democratic Centralism,106 and organizing along a strategy of establishing class consciousness through struggle and building dual power, the revolutionary reordering of society may be brought about at that precise moment when revolutionary potential reaches its pinnacle.

It may thus be said, generally, that the organized Communist Party, in whatever form it may take, is the living organization, and highest expression, of the Marxist-Leninist worldview. According to this theory, it is almost (but not entirely) impossible to successfully establish a modern revolutionary movement without an organized, strong, independent, and mass-oriented Communist Party.

The Law of Uneven Development

While dialectical motion generally gives rise to new motion, and the birth of new forms, such developments are, as we have said, at all times conditioned (or mediated) by the material realities within which they are bound up. As a result, the development of any given force, or forces, may take on a markedly uneven character.

Immediately, uneven development appears in the lack of uniformity in the development of the mode of production between different societies. Through the materialist lens, we understand that such differences are the result of the material conditions within which those societies are situated, and never a result of the social character of the people themselves; that is, that there is no such thing as an (inherently) inferior civilization. There are, rather, merely variations in productive development, arising from variable material conditions, which in turn likewise results in variations of the social character within and between those societies.

In the second position, this uneven development presents itself in the emergence of the forwardmost members of the oppressed classes: those individuals who, although situated among the oppressed masses, are pre-emptively oriented towards the revolutionary position. That is, most acutely, those who recognize motion of class struggle, and the inevitability of the impending rupture before it arrives. Such figures, generally, form a vital component of pre-revolutionary mass organization.

Finally, for the revolutionary, this uneven development, in both senses which we have here discussed, presents the opportunity for developing revolutionary potential through targeting (whether for organizational or disruption purposes) areas of under-development of the ruling class.

This principle, likewise, helps us to understand why Socialist revolutions first succeeded in those countries which were deemed least likely to successfully foster them: Russia, China, Vietnam, Laos, and so on: uneven development itself gave rise to revolution. It was, rather, the Orthodox interpretation of Marxism, at the time, that revolutions would first occur in the developed countries: Britain, France, Germany, and America. All the more, it also explains why the world revolution did not occur, as it were, all at once, which remains a core belief of the Trotskyist orientation.107

Thus, in closing, it may be said that the laws of historical development provide empirical guidance, but do not provide dogmatic guarantees. Rather, we may assert, cumulatively, that the future depends on:

1. The level of productive development,
2. The maturity of class contradictions, and
3. The strength and clarity of revolutionary organization against the power of oppression.

See: Ch. X

For further elaboration on political economy, see: Ch. VI